Dalai Lama lost his Tao?

[Avinash]

Namaskar Vajradhara,

and thank you for that very informative post,

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Nalanda, the Seat of Mahayana Buddhism in the university setting in North Eastern India... [] here's where it is: 62 kms from Bodhgaya and 90 kms south of Patna

So very near West-Bengal (perhaps even in a Bengali speaking area?).

[Vapour]

Just to get some historically verified part of the topic. Chan is a chinese translation of sanskrit word "dhyana" meaning meditation. It is related to the word "dhyana" to the extent that the word "meditation" in english has the same meaning as "dhyana". However, the chinese word Chan doesn't trace linguistic root to dhyana just as the english word "meditation" doesn't trace it's word to chinese word "chan".

As of words "tantric" and "tao", only common linguistic element is that in english, both start with t. But tao could be written as dao or dou or other pronounciation depending on what dialect or conversion form one use. Pronounciation means very little in chinese writing. In japanese, chinese chan is pronounced as Zen instead of Chan, for example. Moreover, the word "dao/tao" does not originage from meditation practice. The word simply mean "way/path" and commonly used in chinese conversation for that purpose. So to claim the linguistic origin of tao to a sanskrit word "tantric" is rather absurd.

Obviously, claiming the origin of *practice* is something else. It may be the case that Indian scriptures might state the origin of tantric practice to 10000 years ago, though I tend to think that writing indicate yogic practice rather than tantric practice. But as far as I know there are no menion of daoism in ancient sanskrit writing. So the idea that daoism trace it's origin to tantric practice doesn't even have justification in indian literature. Of course, if you can show me any sanskrit writing to contradict this, I will be very interested.

And lastly, is it important that tantric practicing have seniority over daoism? As far as I know of daoism writing, they don't seem to bother with a such matter. And I have a suspicion that that is the case in sanskrit writing.

As of Dalai Lama and Tibetan independence, as far as I know, 17 point agreement which Dalai Lama's delegate signed with Chinese (under duress some might say) is not so much different from what Tibet temples/government signed with previous Chinese or Mongolian dyansties, that is making Tibet part of China or Mongolia in exchange of autonomy. I do believe that official position of Dalai Lama is to seek autonomy not independence. So it is sort of "I don't really care about what my country/region/realm is called as long as you leave me alone". That sounds very Daoism to me. The fact that Chinese side violated autonomy part of agreement is obviously something even Daoist would be bothered about.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vapour,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Vapour

.

As of Dalai Lama and Tibetan independence, as far as I know, 17 point agreement which Dalai Lama's delegate signed with Chinese (under duress some might say) is not so much different from what Tibet temples/government signed with previous Chinese or Mongolian dyansties, that is making Tibet part of China or Mongolia in exchange of autonomy. I do believe that official position of Dalai Lama is to seek autonomy not independence. So it is sort of "I don't really care about what my country/region/realm is called as long as you leave me alone". That sounds very Daoism to me. The fact that Chinese side violated autonomy part of agreement is obviously something even Daoist would be bothered about.

you are correct. Tibet does not desire independence, they desire autonomy to practice their religion without persecution. they have no problem letting China handle the foreign affairs and defense of the land.

there is a lot of commonality between Taoism and Vajaryana Buddhism..

[Avinash]

Namaskar Vapour,

Originally Posted by Vapour

However, the chinese word Chan doesn't trace linguistic root to dhyana just as the english word "meditation" doesn't trace it's word to chinese word "chan".

So to claim the linguistic origin of tao to a sanskrit word "tantric" is rather absurd.

And lastly, is it important that tantric practicing have seniority over daoism? As far as I know of daoism writing, they don't seem to bother with a such matter. And I have a suspicion that that is the case in sanskrit writing.

The Sanskrit roots of tao, chan and zen were discussed earlier in this thread.

For me personally it is important that the major spiritual practices in this world have common roots. I enjoy to see how cultures have been connected through the ages just as I enjoy to see how species are connected through evolutionary kinship.

[Vapour]

I just google "Shrii Shrii Anandamurti". Hey, Ananda Marga. We have a AM society in our university. I usually hang around with Buddhist society though. LoL. Few girls are quite pretty. Pitty about no-sex thingy though.

[Quesocoatl]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Don't you all think the Dalai Lama and those still clinging to the idea of Tibet are 'going against the Tao.'
One of the things Buddhism is supposed to be all about is renunciation.
Sure, there are still problems with the way Tibetans are treated, but surely it would be in the Tibetans best interests if they simply flowed with the change, but just kept their religious ideas underground?

With all due respect I find the way the Dalai Lama has gone about this whole issue as contrary to Taoist thought and that he could learn a lot from it.

Your thoughts?

Tibetan's or Tibetans'?