Kongming

Veering off topic a bit but figured I'd share while its on my mind, but really the "immanent transcendence" that I've been mentioning is the philosophical or sacred quality behind Chinese 山水画 or shan shui painting. The world (the colored or defined parts) emerges out of the void (the Dao) which also remains present, interfused with, and contains the world, represented by the white or empty parts of the painting:

You're ignoring where the Liezi states: The Unborn can give birth to the born, the Unchanging can change the changing. Therefore that which gives birth to things is unborn, that which changes things is unchanging. That which is born and changing is the world, which is another facet (or rather the function or power of) of the Dao but not its Absolute aspect, whereas the latter is that which is unborn and unchanging. A rough metaphor would be the sun and sunlight...they are one, but the sun in and of itself (the Dao as Absolute) is what emits the light (the Dao as being, change, the world, etc.) Again change itself is the result of the interaction of yin and yang. Yin and yang's polarization is "the Two" and their interaction is "the Three." The Dao precedes the One, let alone the Two or Three, and thus precedes change. First he refers to it as another dimension, referencing transcendence. Then he speaks of "crossing the barrier" by attaining that which has "no beginning and no ending", a reference to eternity. He then states that there is no point in that "other dimension" which can differentiate "no beginning" and "no ending" due to the fact that there is "no time gap and no space gap", referencing the timeless and spaceless qualities of transcendence. Did you miss the part where I stated that the unchanging Absolute contains the world of change and thus is not separate from it? That how we perceive reality, whether we are mere men or immortals, is based on our ontological state and wisdom, with the relative state being that of mortals and the Absolute state that of immortals? This is what is being discussed in what I quoted earlier: As Fabrizio Pregadio comments, the alchemist rises through the hierarchy of the constituents of being by accelerating the rhythms of Nature. Bringing time to its end, or tracing it back to its beginning, is equivalent. In either case time is transcended, and the alchemist gains access to timelessness, or “immortality.” (Pregadio, 2 Doctrines) One becomes what Zhuangzi calls a zhenren 真人 or True Man. Also did you miss where I stated the immortal brings transcendence within immanence, being within the temporal world while having his inner nature being rooted in timelessness? That isn't an escape to some other world. Here's Julius Evola discussing this point from his "Path of the Cinnabar": "It is only in my later commentary on the text that I clearly emphasized how Taoism is defined by a kind of 'immanent transcendence': by the direct presence of non-being (in its positive sense of supra-ontological essentiality) within being, of the infinitely remote (the 'Sky') in what is close, and of what is beyond nature within nature. Only then did I clearly point out that Taoism is equally remote from both pantheistic immanence and transcendence, as it is founded on the direct sort of experience which underlies the specific existential structure of primeval humanity." Similarly from Hans-Georg Moeller's "Daoism Explained" (brackets mine): The timeless Daoist sage does not take anything away from the authenticity of the temporal. Unlike [most] Western conceptions of eternity, which tend to devaluate all that is merely temporal, the Daoist concept of timelessness affirms the realm of temporality and of passing time. Just as the sage affirms both life and death, the sage also affirms the course of time. While he is without presence, without beginning and end, he still always "goes in accord with the course of things." He is the nonpresence that always accompanies the sequence of presence. While the Daoist sage is timeless within time, he is well aware of change. Eva Wong from her "Harmonizing Yin and Yang": Taoist alchemy is also concerned with spiritual transformation. This transformation involves changing the body and mind from a mundane state to one that mirrors the timeless and permanent reality of the Tao.

I don't try to ignore that bit or I would have left it out of the quotation altogether. The "ever present and in motion" bit is about Dao in activity, the Dao as the world process, whereas the "standing alone and unchanging" bit is about the Dao in its Absolute aspect, as the source and ground of all reality, which is what I've been discussing. Changes themselves are the result of the interaction of yin and yang, and yet the polarization into yin and yang is "the Two" of the cosmogony we've been referencing. In other words the Dao as Absolute is prior to change. Did you ignore the Liezi which is even more straightforward? He's saying that there is no difference between "no beginning and no ending" because there is no time gap, namely no temporal process at all, no change. He is referencing the state of the 仙 "xian", to be immortal, namely to attain eternity which is not endless change alone but that which is unchanging and timeless. Interestingly another connotation and translation of 仙 "xian" is "transcendent"....what have they transcended exactly that makes them immortal? Time and change, which is why they are like the Dao in its Absolute aspect, namely unborn and unchanging. Yet similarly to the Dao, the immortal can also "enter" and participate in temporality while having his inner state remain rooted in transcendent timelessness. This is called bringing transcendence into immanence, or immanent transcendence.

That which is timeless is beyond change and hence unchanging. Thus: The Daodejing 25: Something mysteriously formed, Born before heaven and earth. In the silence and the void, Standing alone and unchanging, Ever present and in motion. From the Liezi, wherein the Dao in its Absolute aspect is what is being referred to as "Unborn" and "Unchanging": "There are the born and the Unborn, the changing and the Unchanging. The Unborn can give birth to the born , the Unchanging can change the changing. The born cannot escape birth, the changing cannot escape change; therefore birth and change are the norm. Things for which birth and change are the norm are at all times being born and changing. They simply follow the alternations of the Yin and Yang and the four seasons. The Unborn is by our side yet alone, The Unchanging goes forth and returns. Going forth and returning, its successions are endless; By our side and alone, its Way is boundless. Therefore that which gives birth to things is unborn, that which changes things is unchanging.'" From: http://www.corespirit.com/neidan-traditional-meditative-practice/ While Alchemy creates the production of a specific substance of elixir through the chemical process in a laboratory setting, the Inner Alchemy pursues an inner elixir, or an internal “substance of qi” through controlling mind, breath, and body posture in the human body in order to prolong life, thus, man can transcend time and space. As Fabrizio Pregadio comments, the alchemist rises through the hierarchy of the constituents of being by accelerating the rhythms of Nature. Bringing time to its end, or tracing it back to its beginning, is equivalent. In either case time is transcended, and the alchemist gains access to timelessness, or “immortality.” (Pregadio, 2 Doctrines) One becomes what Zhuangzi calls a zhenren 真人 or True Man. The process of emanation is based on Laozi’s cosmogony: “Tao gives birth to one. One gives birth to two. Two gives birth to three. Three gives birth to ten thousand things.” In alchemical terms, Tao is xu 虛, or the void, the void emanates shen 神, or spirit, the spirit emanates qi, the qi emanates jing 精, or essence, the essence emanates xing 形, or body, the body emanates ren 人, or human. In order to gain longevity, or to access to timelessness, inner alchemist has to rise through the hierarchy of the constituents of being by reversing the rhythms of Nature, tracking time to its beginning. Thus, alchemical process aims at bringing three to two, two to one, and one to void. When one returns to the void of Tao, the ultimate enlightenment is attained. Daoist Dong Yang mentioning timeless immortality:

You're talking about something different than me. I am stating that the cosmogony of DDJ 43 isn't entirely a temporal process...the Dao (that which births the One) as timeless origin is eternally present in each succession of moments at the level of the relative world of time and change. Thus in a higher sense there is an identity between the different levels, or in Mahayana terminology "samsara is nirvana." How reality is perceived is based on our own ontological status and wisdom. Thus a regular human experiences the world from the relative perspective, the sage or immortal or "zhenren" from the Absolute perspective, namely unity with the Dao. This isn't a denial of time, but rather stating that time is "contained' in the timeless which is metaphysically prior to it. This indeed is true, but that is because often the term "the Dao" means both the Absolute and its function, or the Dao as origin/source/ and the Dao as the world. When I've been talking about the Dao in its Absolute aspect, I've been taking about the first sense of the term. This ultimate aspect of the Dao is equated with 无 "wu" or non-being in much of Daoist discourse, especially since the time of Wang Bi.

Yes, this essentially what I was referencing in an earlier post about Buddha wishing to avoid speculation and to focus on attaining nirvana. That silence on the issue and wish to avoid conceptual constructions seems later to have given rise to actual denials of a source or origin to the world, denial of anything similar to the Atman, a wish to contrast Buddhism to various Hindu traditions, etc. Obviously this thread is about Daoism and Buddhism's differences and in this area Daoism is different than Buddhism because not only is a cosmogony rooted in an Absolute proposed, this very cosmogony has remained vital to Daoist understandings of the spiritual path, namely via man's personal reversal of the cosmogonic process to attain the Dao, hence the neidan theory of refining jing to qi to shen to Dao, the alchemical vision of the reversal of the cosmogonic process mentioned. These are indeed the general trends but of course there are many exceptions in Western tradition, whether among Plotinus and the Neoplatonists (many works highlight the near equivalence of much of Neoplatonism to Vedantic conceptions) and those later Christians that derive from that tradition (Dionysius, Eriugena, Eckhart, Nicholas Cusanus, Boehme, etc.), and among various Hermeticists, alchemists, Kabbalists, etc. A problem also has to do with terminology and what words refer to. Non-being in Daoism is a translation of 无 "wu" meaning "without" and being a translation of 有 "you" or "having." The non-being of the Dao in its ultimate aspect doesn't mean it is a nihilistic nothingness or absence but rather that it is metaphysically prior to and higher than the world of being, which is the world that eventually differentiates into objects and things. As far as I understand it, being in much of pre-Christian Western discourse is that which contrasts with becoming, the world of change. Thus this sense of being is more closely approaching the Daoist conception of non-being. Of course with Christianity and the personalization of the Divine things became more confused, which is why you have figures like Eckhart putting forth the notion of the "Gottheit" or "Godhead" which is empty and prior to the highest being, namely the triune God, much in the same way Brahman is prior to Ishvara. Qi is the Dao, but that's due to the Dao being the All, nothing can possibly not be "part of" or outside the Dao. This is why I kept stating Dao in its Absolute aspect, which could at best be said to be qi in potential prior to manifestation. Of course this emanation or manifestation isn't a temporal process, as though there was once the Dao alone and then out of it physically sprang a mass of qi in creation. That said it most certainly was understood that the empty Dao is what "birthed" the One, equated with primordial qi. From Giradot's "Myth and Meaning in Early Taoism": From "Taoism" edited by Zhongjian Mou describing the Tang Dynasty Daoist Cheng Xuanying's thought on the topic:

Well all three traditions traditionally accepted the existence of divinities/gods and other non-human entities (celestial bodhisattvas and Buddhas in Buddhism, immortals/perfected in Daoism.) In the Sangarava Sutta the Buddha answers the question about gods quite frankly and directly: "When this was said, the brahmin student Sangarava said to the Blessed One: “Master Gotama’s striving was unfaltering, Master Gotama’s striving was that of a true man, as it should be for an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One. But how is it, Master Gotama, are there gods?” “It is known to me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods.” Though you are correct that the Dao (as well as Brahman) is not a personal God but rather an impersonal Absolute. It is "ziran" which in this case doesn't mean "nature" or "natural" in the English sense of the word but rather "self-so", spontaneous, uncaused, without origin, etc.

Well Buddhists also share the Vedic (and really Indo-European) tradition of cycles of creation and destruction as far as I am aware. Samsara would encompass all previous and all future universes and is thought to be beginingless and endless as noted. The difference is Daoism and Hinduism propose that this level of reality, the relative world of space-time and becoming, is an emanation of the supreme level of reality, the Dao or Brahman in its Absolute aspect. Earliest Buddhism tended to be silent on this topic since they believed it was speculative or could lead to speculation and hence not conducive to liberation. Whether this means a total denial of an Absolute equivalent to Brahman or the Dao as many Buddhists, both in Theravada and in Mahayana especially Madhyamika, hold or whether the Buddha was essentially saying, "Obtain enlightenment and liberation and find out yourself" is debatable, but it seems mainstream Indo-Tibetan and SE Asian Buddhist scholasticism historically was in favor the former view. DDJ 43 is about the development of the world as I've been explaining. The Dao, timeless, absolutely simple and empty non-being which contains infinity in potential "births" the One, which is the hundun, the primordial chaos of qi prior to its division into yin-yang (the Two.) In other words the world or universe in an undifferentiated state is the One...the world was we know it, of change, multiplicity, and relativity, is the result of yin and yang's interaction (the Three birthing ten thousand things.) As to cyclical time, Daoists held to the idea that water or fire would overcome the world before it was created anew. Later with the development of Shangqing and Lingbao traditions specific theories relating to cycles of time much like the Hindu "yugas" were explained. Here's a citation from Brill's Daoism Handbook:

This is correct, though the difference seems to be that Buddhism states samsara is beginingless and endless but either denies or refuses to comment on the source or origin of this cyclical universe whereas Daoism states that the source and ground of the world of change is the Dao. The equivalent to the Dao in much of Hinduism is Brahman, but many Buddhists deny that there is anything similar to Brahman in Buddhism. Though the universe that always has been and always will be which takes different forms over time is the One (undifferentiated qi or hundun chaos), which polarizes into Two (yin-yang), which meet together (the Three), which produces the "ten thousand things" or myriad phenomena. The Dao, in its ultimate and Absolute aspect, is metaphysically prior to or above this in timeless purity and empty non-being (wu) and its function is to spontaneously "give birth to" or emanate the One. In other words, the Dao isn't limited to our universe or the state of becoming (samsara) but rather simultaneously transcends and encompasses this level of reality.

Well let's take a step away from mathematics and the nature of yin-yang, etc. and just contemplate the following line of inquiry: Does the Dao, the Absolute, encompass all of reality, both space-time and that which transcends space-time? We know it was prior to heaven and earth, prior to the emanation of qi, prior to the polarization of yin-yang, etc. yet also always present. Zhuangzi notes that it's also in grass, rocks, feces, and urine...in other words a more shocking way of saying it is all things. So all is the Dao and adepts have striven to attain unity with the Dao. You also have concepts like "guarding the One" and sayings like, "Know the One and the myriad affairs are done." In other words, all of reality is of one substance or emanates from one Absolute, namely the Dao. Thus Daoism is monistic....whether it is monistic in the same way of Plotinus or Vedanta is a different topic. How so? Daoism starts with the Dao spontaneously emanating reality. Earliest Buddhism didn't mention emanation and ignored metaphysical or ontological questions in favor of epistemological issues, placing the root of samsara with ignorance and from that ignorance the chain of interdependent origination. Later Buddhist theories dealing with Sunyata also don't seem to propose a process of emanation, indeed they often deny creation at all and state that the world is a misconstruction based entirely in thought.

Monism is the idea that all is one principle or substance ultimately. The Dao is the All. Panentheism states that the Divine both encompasses all of space-time--the universe or world as we know it--but also is the transcendent and timeless source of that universe. The Dao gives birth to the One, the One being the primordial chaos or hundun of qi not yet polarized into yin-yang, and in verse 25 of the DDJ it is stated: "There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth." In other words the Dao, in its Absolute aspect, is prior to creation and prior to the universe (if not temporally/horizontally then metaphysically/vertically), namely transcendent. Given the above, it's no wonder scholars like Komjathy have this to say: "From a classical and foundational Daoist perspective, the Dao has four primary characteristics: (1) the Source of everything; (2) an unnamable mystery; (3) an all-pervading sacred presence (qi); and (4) the universe as transformative process (“Nature”). That is, the primary Daoist theology is monistic (there is one impersonal Reality), panentheistic (the sacred is both in and beyond the physical world), and panenhenic (Nature itself is sacred). The secondary Daoist theology is at once animistic (there are spirits in nature) and polytheistic (there are multiple gods)." As to Plato, I was mostly speaking about Plotinus and his successors. The mystical theology of certain Christian mystics and Sufis like Ibn Arabi is mostly grounded on a Neoplatonic framework. Thus Toshihiko Izutsu's work highlighting the striking similarities between Daoism and Ibn Arabi also applies to Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism also has been commented to be strikingly similar to Brahmanism, especially that of the Upanishads. Here's an interesting article comparing the Dao to Brahman: http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp252_dao_brahman.pdf

It's true enough that they are polytheistic but they all deal with an absolute principle which in Daoism or most forms of Hinduism is monistic/panentheistic (Dao, Brahman, Parashiva, etc.) while most forms of Christianity are a bit more dualistic since many theologians were at pains to distinguish God from His Creation, though the Eastern Orthodox idea of God's energies infusing creation and many Western Christian mystics/Neoplatonists approach a more panentheistic perspective. I believe East Asian Buddhism, as per the Awakening of the Faith or the Chan/Zen notion of "One Mind" or Mahavariocana in Shingon/Mikkyo, is by and large monistic though some contest this. Yogacara some have tried to paint as idealistic monism whereas others against contest this. There seems to be a large controversy within Buddhism regarding affirming an Absolute or any substance as per certain viewpoints relating to the doctrines of "anatta" and "sunyata." In any case, I suppose the difference here is that Daoism has a clear cut doctrine of a monistic/panentheistic Absolute that emanates creation which is of the substance of qi and thus puts forth the notion of the microcosm mirroring the macrocosm, whereas in much of Buddhism this isn't the case or at least not a center of focus.

Well they do have many similarities especially after interacting with and influencing each other in the Chinese world for nearly two millennia. The problem is it seems that sometimes people treat them as though they were essentially the same, with Daoism perhaps being the Chinese Buddhism with qi and monks/priests with hair. Of course the reality is there are doctrinal and philosophical differences between the two, which is why I wanted to start the thread to explore these differences. Though on pantheism: pantheism is the perspective that the world of space-time, the universe we are familiar with, is equivalent to the Divine. This fails to take into perspective that which transcends space and time, such as the Dao in its Absolute aspect. Thus Daoism would be better be described as panentheism. As far as I understand it, most Buddhists deny that Buddhism is panentheism, pantheism, monism, etc. though personally I believe Buddhism is monistic, especially Chan and other forms of East Asian Buddhism, but I am a minority in this view from what I can tell.

Another possible difference seems to be on the nature of or actualization of liberation and the underlying cause behind not being liberated. In Buddhism the cause of our transmigration through samsara is ignorance and the cause of our liberation is enlightenment, variously termed bodhi (such as in anutarra samyak sambodhi) or jnana/prajna. Thus it is a matter of realization or awakening, a matter of supra-conceptual and liberating knowledge or wisdom that sets us free in Buddhism. Within Daoism there certainly are equivalents to this idea and especially with influence of Buddhism, but from what I understand Daoism doesn't understand our origin in becoming or transmigration through time as being rooted in ignorance but rather that all life is a natural and spontaneous emanation of the Dao, hence where the Daodejing says heaven and earth treat creatures like straw dogs. In other words, an impersonal principle doesn't have any partiality toward creatures and so our presence here isn't the result of a punishment or error such as in the Christian conception of the Fall of Man nor is it necessarily rooted in ignorance as in Buddhism. In the Daoist and especially alchemical view, since life is the result of a spontaneous and natural emanation from the Absolute, it naturally "follows the course" to death, the dispersal of the hun/po or yang/yin souls, and change of state, i.e. becoming again in another life form. Thus immortality or the attainment of the Dao is a matter of reversing the course and returning....in neidan this is the famous process of refining jing to qi to shen to Dao but other Daoist movements may have envisioned this process in a different manner. In sum, the root of becoming is ignorance in Buddhism, a natural and spontaneous process of emanation in Daoism. Liberation is entirely seen as a matter of wisdom or awakening in Buddhism, a transformation or return (usually involving energetic components) in Daoism. Perhaps it is the case that to attain the Dao at the end of that process is also equivalent to awakening in that we "realize" the Dao, but it seems the understanding of the nature or process of the matter is a bit different. Buddhist conceptions are here more in line with Vedanta or other systems where it is a matter of knowing or awakening, whereas Daoism seems more in line with the Christian notion of theosis and/or other Hermetic/alchemical systems where it is a matter of refining our substance to achieve an ontological change of state, i.e. transforming lead into gold. It may well be the case that the "gold" is always there and there is no real change at the depths, but there is nonetheless a process of unveiling via refinement, namely praxis.

Well that may be the case I am not sure, Pythagoreanism isn't an area I've studied much. I only referenced the work to give an example of how philosophy in the ancient world wasn't merely an entirely cerebral system of thought but rather a way of life geared toward wisdom, ideally true or transformative wisdom, i.e. gnosis.

It's both. The split of philosophy versus religion is a fairly modern and Western construction on the whole. In the ancient world philosophy was by and large a way of life, a means to an end, namely wisdom. An interesting work on this topic is Algis Uzdavinys' Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth: From Ancient Egypt to Neoplatonism. Every religious tradition also has its own guiding philosophy and philosophers. In the vast majority of cases historically philosophy wasn't divorced or entirely separated from various cults, rites, priesthoods, and so on. This also applies to Daoism. Daoism from the get go has had religious aims, namely the attainment of or union with the Dao, which is the production of sages, zhenren 真人 or "true/realized/perfected men", and/or xian 仙 or "immortals/transcendents." Even earliest or so-called "philosophical Daoism" wasn't some standalone philosophy of figures like Laozi or Zhuangzi but rather represented the thought of various schools and lineages. An important point here is that what Laozi and Zhuangzi are describing are the sages or true men. The point is to become a sage yourself by attaining union with the Dao, not merely to emulate the sages (which certainly is helpful but isn't the end goal.) Thus to treat the contents of Laozi or Zhuangzi as a mere philosophy divorced from that aim or a way to live well in the secular world is to miss the point. Daoism on the whole has a strong relationship with deities, heavens, the nature and destiny of the spirit/soul, mysticism/esotericism, magic, its own priesthood, rites, etc. and thus most certainly is a religion. Yet, reiterating the above, this doesn't mean it also isn't a philosophy.

What exactly is the relationship between the Dao, Qi, and the Mind (xin 心)? Various Daoists have spoken of the "Daoxin" or the "Dao Mind" or have variations on the Chan-like phrase of "The Dao is the Mind and the Mind is the Dao." Yet Daoist cosmology has the empty Dao giving birth to or producing the One, typically seen as primordial undifferentiated qi prior to polarization into yin-yang. According to traditional Daoist teachings, where does Mind fit into this schema? Does qi, the spiritual-material substance of the universe, possess or subsist in Mind? From what I understand there is a connection between the purified or tranquil mind and qi, but what about on the macrocosmic or Absolute level? Furthermore, where does shen 神 or spirit, particularly the yangshen, fit in relation to the Dao, qi, and Mind?

Two further questions arise: 1) What is the relation, if any, between specifically Daoist/religious/spiritual neigong and the ming 命 aspect of neidan? Are they unrelated, cross over, etc.? I am not sure where he got it but Damo Mitchell puts forward a categorization wherein qigong is more outer and houtian/postheaven, neigong is a more advanced and inward methodology that has both houtian and xiatian or preheaven work, and neidan is the most advanced/inward and entirely works with preheaven jing/qi/shen. Is this accurate? 2) What is the methodology of the Secret of the Golden Flower, namely "turning the light around", and does it bear any relation or interrelation with neigong?

Indeed, but there is still the transformation of realization or actualization to occur or else we'd all be immortals, Buddhas, and sages. Whatever the case, as mentioned I do believe from the Absolute perspective the differences between traditions or sects are of little to no importance, but for one on the path I don't think they are entirely unimportant. Buddhism as far as I know emphasizes "right view" (though it is debated what the exact nature of right view is....some say it is Nagarjuna's sunyata but that postdates earliest Buddhism) as essential to success on the path.

Let me put it this way: I believe in the various authentic traditions throughout history that there were men enlightened and transformed through their system leading to timelessness or immortality. I believe the potential for this exists in any authentic path since all are seeking the one and only Absolute Truth. That said I believe the discrepancies and differing opinions between various sects are not unimportant and can inform us of the validity of a particular doctrine or sect. For example, if I encountered a tradition that didn't take in account transcendence or denied that men can transform themselves ontologically, I would think less of it even if it may have produced sages in spite of that. Thus core differences that might prop up between certain Buddhists and Daoists, such as whether there is an ontological Absolute or something similar to the Atman or whether there is a continuity for a particular life form rather than just being a succession of moments, whether the body is a microcosm or an illusion, etc. are not without importance. Even if they lead to the same end theoretically, uncovering these differences can help determine if a particular path is workable or right for you. No I have not, what were these Buddhist wars? Dzogchen followers of a Madhyamika stripe vs. Zennists?

Well I certainly don't disagree that authentic traditions would have less differences the further they go up due to the fact that ultimately they are all trying to describe, intuit, and lead us toward the one Truth or the one reality. That said just as there is a difference between believing in a personal God who acts in history and who will judge at the end of time whether beings will face eternal salvation or eternal hell and the Buddhist conception of reality, so also there are differences between Daoism and Buddhism to be discerned or else they'd be the same entity. No doubt they are more closely related to each other than either are to something like Islam for example. In Buddhist discourse, both historically (such as in Zongmi's hierarchy of traditions or Kukai's Ten Levels of Mind or the debates between Buddhists and Hindus or Daoists) and today (such as those threads I linked earlier) there seems to be a concern in proving that non-Buddhist traditions cannot lead to the end of suffering....essentially stating that a Daoist who has attained the Dao or a Hindu yogi who unites with Brahman are still bound to samsara (I disagree but that's not relevant here.) Thus I think many Buddhists would not agree with the Perennial Philosophy or sharing the same view or end goal as Daoists.

When I said Buddha was seen as a reformer I meant in his relation to the preexisting Brahamanism or Vedic tradition as a spiritual doctrine rather than toward society. Some are of the opinion that the Buddha was in stark opposition to the Brahmins and the Vedic tradition, others are of the opinion that he was attempting to return to a more authentic Vedic or Indo-Aryan spirituality against what he saw as corruption and confusion on the part of the Brahmins who he believed to be relying too heavily on ritual and speculation and lacking direct experiential insight. I am more inclined to the latter perspective but if it is indeed the case that the Buddha denied all validity to the Vedas and really denied the Atman-Brahman of Upanishadic thought then Buddhism can be viewed as a break from the Vedic tradition and thus something new, which I believe is the perspectives many religious Buddhists hold.

Two further points I thought of while mulling over the topic earlier: --While there is some Buddhist association with the martial arts and warfare, whether Shaolin, the Sohei, or the association of Zen with the samurai, on the whole it seems Daoism has a much greater association with the martial arts. Furthermore while both generally emphasize nonviolence and Buddhism historically hasn't operated as the pacifism that many now envision it as, Daoism is certainly less so. We have verse 33 from the Daodejing for example (Star translation): Even the finest warrior is defeated when he goes against natural law By his own hand he is doomed and all creatures are likely to despise him One who knows Tao never turns from life’s calling When at home he honours the side of rest When at war he honours the side of action Peace and tranquility are what he holds most dear so he does not obtain weapons But when their use is unavoidable he employs them with fortitude and zeal Do not flaunt your excellence Do not rejoice over victory With the loss of others weep with sorrow and grief After winning a battle, do not celebrate, observe the rites of a funeral One who is bound to action, proud of victory, and delights in the misfortune of others will never gain a thing from this world below Heaven --Daoism is less based on a particular founder figure or establishing a particular orthodoxy (though there were doctrines or practices or sects deemed heretical or Waidao 外道 ) than Buddhism, which has always been splintering into various directions due to a wish to establish orthodox doctrines and thus also has placed a greater emphasis on debate and argumentation than the Daoists which is why they often trounced the latter in imperial debates historically. While Laozi is sometimes seen as the founder of Daoism or the Heavenly Masters the start of Daoism, I personally agree with those who see Daoism as a continuation of the primordial Chinese tradition, or at least its more esoteric/mystical/hermetic side (incidentally the view of many traditional Daoists who connected the tradition to figures like the Yellow Emperor) and thus is older than Buddhism which is often seen either as a reformation of, break from, or opposition to the Vedic tradition.

Agreed. By and large I am a Perennialist of the Guenonian or Evolian stripe, but personally I diverge a bit in that I do believe certain systems of praxis and ways of viewing the world are superior or more potent than others and that certain philosophical formulations may more accurately reflect objective Truth than others and that these differences are important despite converging at peak of non-conceptual gnosis. From what I've read this is a bit of a controversial area. Some have posited that Yogacara is essentially a form of idealistic monism in disagreement with Madhyamika while others deny this is the case. Perhaps someone more educated on the topic than I might be able to chime in here. Though on the whole it seems to me that East Asian Buddhism has more tendencies that put it into alignment with, say, Vedanta, Daoism, or Plotinus, whereas Theravada, Indian Mahayana, and Tibetan Buddhism (aside from certain Shentongpas like Dolpopa and those influenced by him) seem to diverge. My point wasn't so much surrounding whether aesthetics existed or not but whether aesthetics were seen as a spiritual tool or reflection of Truth. In Kukai and in certain Zen formulations and thus much of Japanese Buddhism this is the case, but I am unsure if Theravada or more general Mahayana saw music for example as a means of spiritual transformation. In any case, to point out some further perhaps less philosophically based differences: --Buddhism historically has been a much more missionary-based and universal religion. Now this isn't to say Daoism is a purely ethnic religion as some claim since I think this is mostly the result of historical circumstance and Daoism's failure to take root among non-Han Chinese people. That said the first organized Daoist movements (Way of Five Pecks of Rice/Heavenly Masters) initially sought to convert the Ba-Shu people and Daoist missionaries were sent to early medieval Korea with some limited success, etc. --On the whole I think Daoism is less prone to the "ours is the one true way" perspective than Buddhism and it was more of Daoist influence which contributed to the "unity of the three teachings" than Buddhism which generally stressed its superiority to other traditions, whether Hinduism or Daoism. We can see this perspective in older threads from this forum here and in turn these threads may prove useful for further investigation into the goal of this thread: https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/10193-buddhism-transcends-the-tao/ https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/16163-taoism-vs-buddhism/ (Though as a forewarning from my own knowledge it seems there is a lot of misrepresentation of Daoism in these threads by the users Vajrahridaya and Xabir in their portrayal of Daoism as not being an ontological Absolute or ground of reality and linking Daoism solely to the Lao-Zhuang material, but that aside interesting discussions.) --Daoism generally seems to have viewed the gods/deities or other celestial beings as being extremely subtle or pure qi that in some way is closer to the source of emanation or the Dao than that of humans or lower creatures. Thus the gods or deities do have some objective reality to them. Buddhism on the other hand seems to view the deities as aspects of our own Mind and uses them in a tantric sense of visualization to see their ultimate emptiness. While "other power" is a concept in Buddhism, it seems that deities or other power is more important in Daoism than Buddhism overall.

Daoism and Buddhism are perhaps the two most popular traditions discussed here and historically there has been a lot of mutual influence between the two in the East Asian sphere. After the Song it seems many Daoists and Buddhists held to the unity of the three teaching and that they might lead to the same end, though certain figures contest that. All that said, there must be differences between the two traditions on a philosophical or theological level or else they would just be the same. So for the sake of clarifying these differences, I propose a thread where people may put forth their insights into this matter as it is one that continues to interest me on a personal level. To begin with some major ones: --Daoism proposes an ontological Absolute, the Dao, which is the source and ground of all of reality. From what I understand many Buddhists, particularly Theravadins and Madhyamikas deny this to be the case in Buddhism --Daoism is an emanationist cosmology. The Dao spontaneously emanates the One, the Two, the Three, and then the ten thousand things. Buddhism, aside from certain East Asian formulations such as those found in the Awakening of Faith, doesn't propose an emanationist cosmology as far as I understand it --Daoism generally believes in a reality akin to the Atman of Hinduism, or in other words they believe in a transcendent, timeless, changeless principle in man whereas typically Buddhism denies any higher Self that transcends the skandhas. This is discussed in Eskilden's book on Quanzhen: However, as Hachiya has astutely observed, Wang Zhe did not abide by the thoroughgoing negation and non-assertion of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Fond as he was of borrowing Buddhist language to preach detachment from this provisional, fleeting world of samsara, Wang Zhe ardently believed in the eternal, universal Real Nature/Radiant Spirit that is the ground and wellspring of consciousness (spirit [shen], Nature [xing]), and vitality (qi, Life [ming]) within all living beings. This to him was not “empty” (lacking inherent existence); it was fully Real (zhen). --Continuing from the last thought, the Daoist notion of emptiness (Wu) is that of an empty Absolute that produces reality, whereas the Buddhist emptiness (sunyata, kong) is a quality of phenomena --Daoism deals with qi, qimai, yin/yang, and the five elements. Buddhism generally didn't place much emphasis on the energetic structures of the body (chakras, prana, etc.) until later Buddhist tantra which arguably arose under the influence of Daoist alchemy and Saivism. Daoism historically typically saw greater value in the body than Buddhism since the body is also qi and thus connected to the Dao whereas for Buddhism the body is non-self, suffering, and the result of illusion. As a result Daoism also has a greater focus on bodily health than Buddhism generally, which isn't to say it is neglected in Buddhism but rather that it is has been a major focus of Daoism. --Daoism professes that the universe is a condensed form of spiritual energy or qi which emanates from the Dao and thus there is a certain reality to the objective, phenomenal or physical universe. Buddhism generally subscribes the illusion doctrine or maya, stating the universe is ultimately empty and only exists conventionally via linguistic or conceptual designation --Daoism is more associated with the Hermetic doctrine of "as above so below" or the micocosm/macrocosm split than Buddhism generally (aside from later Buddhist tantra.) The doctrine of ganying or sympathetic resonance is thus generally more associated with Daoism than Buddhism --From my general observation it seems that aesthetics as means of self-cultivation, particularly with music such as the guqin or painting or calligraphy, is more favored by Daoism than Buddhism, especially early Buddhism which has precepts against listening to music entirely. Of course Chan Buddhism and tantric Buddhism have different takes on this, but on the whole it seems Buddhism doesn't place as much value on aesthetics as a spiritual tool as Daoism Please feel free to correct any of these starting points and add some of your own so we can help to further clarify what the real differences between Daoism and Buddhism are.