Buddhist or Taoist

[forestofclarity]

[zazaza]

I want to disqualify myself from the competition because i don't know loads of scriptures,

and i'm a bit too tired to think too much .

 

By the looks of things you have mixed up the fingers... that's sneaky!

All i can tell from those texts is that all the fingers are pointing at the same moon...

 

Good night friends.

[3bob]

Pardon me - a side note and subject, although in a way not unrelated, if you will - ?

 

Why did schools of Buddhism ever come into existence? In my view largely because of certain permutations that took place in schools of Hinduism as related to certain forces - which brought about corruption of many of its teachings; thus the historic Buddha went in search of what much of Hinduism had permutated away from. Which in no way means that Hinduism in essence (for example as alluded to in the Upanisads) is corrupt.

[mewtwo]

Mabye it is just me but i dont see any rift on this forum.

[Marblehead]

Hi Forest,

 

I really don't see a "rift". What is happening is very natural. There are members here who hold to very different belief systems. We each will support our own belief system. Sometimes we get a little too emotional about our posts and responses to others' posts.

 

But I think it is all good as long as our disagreements do not devolve into personal assults.

 

I actually think it is good that this forum allows for discussions of all the various belief systems. I think it helps the readers to question and evaluate where they are along their journey.

 

Sure, there will be harsh words at times. This will always happen especially when religions are discussed. But in fact, this only shows that we are not well established in our belief system and it offers opportunity for some to make needed changes in their belief system.

 

Peace & Love!

[Goddodin]

[soaring crane]

I'd say the first one sounds more Buddhist, the other three are too vague and could go either way. The highest "goal" for ancient "Daoists" was physical immortality, that's how they came up with all the longevity practices and medicines. It's also why they were so ready to incorporate ideas from other cultures, keep what worked (and didn't kill them), discard what didn't work. Afaik, they got the idea of experimenting with Mercury from Middle Eastern (Persian?) experiments.

 

I think one of the problems is that "Daoism" is a murky subject (on the internet) and not nearly as well-defined as Buddhism, one of the four world religions. Finding someone who can speak straight from a purely Daoist standpoint (which involves a heck of a lot more than quoting the Laozi and ruminating on what it means for us today) is difficult, even if it's a Taiwanese Priest. The roots of Daoism go back to pre-history, and have nothing to do with Buddhist thought or philosophy, except for the broad "Asian" Weltanschauung embedded in the minds of the practitioners. But so much of the spiritual side of Buddhism got incorporated over the centuries, that they do look a lot alike in that regard.

[Marblehead]

I think one of the problems is that "Daoism" is a murky subject (on the internet) and not nearly as well-defined as Buddhism, one of the four world religions. Finding someone who can speak straight from a purely Daoist standpoint (which involves a heck of a lot more than quoting the Laozi and ruminating on what it means for us today) is difficult, even if it's a Taiwanese Priest. The roots of Daoism go back to pre-history, and have nothing to do with Buddhist thought or philosophy, except for the broad "Asian" Weltanschauung embedded in the minds of the practitioners. But so much of the spiritual side of Buddhism got incorporated over the centuries, that they do look a lot alike in that regard.

 

Good point. I think that this is true because Taoist Philosophy had no dogma and therefore it is really very difficult, or maybe even impossible, to define. It is something that must be individually experienced and each individual experience will be different.

 

Peace & Love!

[Encephalon]

The Taoist vs Buddhist rift that has unfolded in here over the past few months (years?) seems to have dissipated substantially. I think it's important when doing 'compare and contrast' work between the two to first acknowlege that these two, plus Confucianism, form a trinity of Chinese philosophical thought, so there will be plenty of overlap.

 

Being a pragmatist/humanist/agnostic critical thinking junkie, I find Taoism indespensible for bodymind cultivation, and Buddhism for mental, intellectual, and ethical hygiene. Exploiting Taoism for the end purpose of merely becoming a more efficient killing machine, without cultivating the ethics of wisdom and compassion is repugnant and antithetical to the spirit of Asian thought, which champions the unity of all life. There are plenty of examples of this in here, unfortunately. Even the ego is capable of harnessing spirituality for its own narrow agenda.

Buddhism without Taoism - Mind without body work - requires superhuman feats of mental will. Better to begin with the body, and the mind will follow.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Blasto

[Taomeow]

Mabye it is just me but i dont see any rift on this forum.

Ha, I don't even see any rift in my soul. Among other things it did, a rain forest shamanic practice reconciled me with Buddha and Jesus. I'm not kidding.

 

I wonder if there's a buddhist or Christian who could reciprocate, telling me that Buddha or Jesus specifically went to the trouble of reconciling them with shamanism.

 

Would make my day.

[doc benway]

[Sarnyn]

I think that all though I feel that the motivation for this thread was very good, It is very easy to cherry pick quotes from any religious system that sound like any other religious system. However, as a student of orthodox belief of many different religions, a person will invariably come to the understanding that there are very real differences and practices, traditions, and beliefs contained in them.

 

So if the goal of the thread is to say that the traditions are the same, I think that is slightly miss placed.

 

Just as all livings beings are fundamentally alike, yet each unique and important, the same is true of our understanding, and paths in the world.

 

Maybe I am stating the obvious, and I hate to bring a voice of contention into a worthwhile thread, a thread meant to promote solidarity and mutual respect, but I think we would be better served acknowledging the distinctions and differences of the various paths, and holding them all as good medicine, for difference ailments.

 

You wouldn't prescribe the same medicine to all patients, you wouldn't prescribe the same laws to all countries, your wouldn't prescribe the same materials to all buildings, and just the same, I don't think you would prescribe the same path to all those walking.

 

Here we choose what to take according to our need, and no one is better at accessing that need than we are ourselves.

 

 

with meta

Edited December 24, 2009 by Sarnyn

[ralis]

I thought this was discussed ad infinitum this summer.

 

 

ralis

[Encephalon]

I think that all though I feel that the motivation for this thread was very good, It is very easy to cherry pick quotes from any religious system that sound like any other religious system. However, as a student of orthodox belief of many different religions, a person will invariably come to the understanding that there are very real differences and practices, traditions, and beliefs contained in them.

 

So if the goal of the thread is to say that the traditions are the same, I think that is slightly miss placed.

 

Just as all livings beings are fundamentally alike, yet each unique and important, the same is true of our understanding, and paths in the world.

 

Maybe I am stating the obvious, and I hate to bring a voice of contention into a worthwhile thread, a thread meant to promote solidarity and mutual respect, but I think we would be better served acknowledging the distinctions and differences of the various paths, and holding them all as good medicine, for difference ailments.

 

You wouldn't prescribe the same medicine to all patients, you wouldn't prescribe the same laws to all countries, your wouldn't prescribe the same materials to all buildings, and just the same, I don't think you would prescribe the same path to all those walking.

 

Here we choose what to take according to our need, and no one is better at accessing that need than we are ourselves.

with meta

 

but I think we would be better served acknowledging the distinctions and differences of the various paths, and holding them all as good medicine, for difference ailments.

 

I respectfully disagree, and it's only on the matter of emphasis. I think we are better served, in this contentious age, by acknowledging that the similarities between spiritual paths are vastly greater than the differences that are popularly (and politically) supposed. Joseph Campbell made this clearer than perhaps any other 20th century mind. So few us get to the point where the differences slough off like dead skin that they remain more significant in the popular mind.

[Marblehead]

Maybe I am stating the obvious, ...

 

Yes, what you said is obvious to me but it was a worth-while post none-the-less.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

But then I agree with Balsto as well.

 

Note the differences but emphasize the similarities.

 

Peace & Love!

[forestofclarity]

I see only one person has arisen to the spirit of the challenge.

 

Steve F, I will say you got at least one right. Answers still to come.

 

I respectfully disagree, and it's only on the matter of emphasis. I think we are better served, in this contentious age, by acknowledging that the similarities between spiritual paths are vastly greater than the differences that are popularly (and politically) supposed. Joseph Campbell made this clearer than perhaps any other 20th century mind. So few us get to the point where the differences slough off like dead skin that they remain more significant in the popular mind.

 

 

Well said.

 

The differences tend to lie on the exterior. I notice that the further I go in, the more similar it is. This goes not only with religions, but also with people. On the surface, we look very different. Internally, there is more similarity. At our cores, beyond the swirls of thoughts, emotions, and bodily manifestations, we are identical.

[Sarnyn]

but I think we would be better served acknowledging the distinctions and differences of the various paths, and holding them all as good medicine, for difference ailments.

 

I respectfully disagree, and it's only on the matter of emphasis. I think we are better served, in this contentious age, by acknowledging that the similarities between spiritual paths are vastly greater than the differences that are popularly (and politically) supposed. Joseph Campbell made this clearer than perhaps any other 20th century mind. So few us get to the point where the differences slough off like dead skin that they remain more significant in the popular mind.

 

I think you are very right , that the emphasis is crucial. I think that the truth lies in the emphasis. I think that if you emphasize the similarities, as did Campbell, then the systems will appear very similar. However if you emphasize the differences, then they will appear oceans apart.

 

The mind creates both the similarity and the disparity, according to its discriminating tendency.

 

So with that awareness, is there a way to throw a wrench into that whole process, by saying that whether they are similar, or different is irrelevant? Each thing then, according to its own merit? In other words, why is it important that we see them as similar? Why does it matter if they are different? It seems only to matter because of our attachment.

 

also respectfully,

with metta

Edited December 24, 2009 by Sarnyn

[forestofclarity]

I am going to give the answers now. If you don't want to know, skip the middle part of this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Abbott Jen, a Taoist, from the Road to Heaven

2. Stonehouse, a Buddhist, from the Zen Works of Stonehouse, trans. Red Pine

3. Uncle Jung, a Taoist, from the Secret and Sublime, by John Blofeld

4. Yu Men, a Buddhist, from the Golden Age of Zen, by J. Wu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Merry Christmas!

[Encephalon]

I think you are very right , that the emphasis is crucial. I think that the truth lies in the emphasis. I think that if you emphasize the similarities, as did Campbell, then the systems will appear very similar. However if you emphasize the differences, then they will appear oceans apart.

 

The mind creates both the similarity and the disparity, according to its discriminating tendency.

 

So with that awareness, is there a way to throw a wrench into that whole process, by saying that whether they are similar, or different is irrelevant? Each thing then, according to its own merit? In other words, why is it important that we see them as similar? Why does it matter if they are different? It seems only to matter because of our attachment.

 

also respectfully,

with metta

 

And, it matters because of politics, as Campbell and others have said. "My god is better than your god...blah blah blah..."

[Pero]

Similarity does not equal sameness. It's pretty simple. If you want to achieve Buddhahood practice Buddhism. If you want to become an immortal practice Taoism. If you want to go to heaven and worship God forever practice Christianity. etc etc etc.

 

 

Taoist Philosophy had no dogma

 

And you know this how exactly?

[Marblehead]

 

And you know this how exactly?

 

From within.

 

Yes, I know. That didn't explain it. But it is the best answer I can give. And this is based on my understanding that I have free will and the freedom to choose.

 

Philosophical Taoism does not tell anyone that they must do such and such in any aspect of their life. It does, however suggest that if you do such and such it is likely that this and that will be the results.

 

Of course, my understanding is a result of reading many translations of the TTC and Chuang Tzu. Nowhere in either have I found anything properly presented that I could even begin to think it was some form of dogma. If fact, Chuang Tzu spoke very strongly against the Confucian dogma of his time.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sarnyn]

And, it matters because of politics, as Campbell and others have said. "My god is better than your god...blah blah blah..."

 

Of course you are right once again friend. It does indeed matter from a political point of view.

 

But I wonder if here among friends and students of the Dharma and Tao, where we are discussing the tenants, and walking these paths, Is it the time for politicking?

 

 

I don't know. Perhaps even my objection is a kind of politicking. I wish there were a way to not be doing that. Maybe it would have been better to not say anything at all

 

with metta,

 

sarnyn

[3bob]

[Marblehead]

Good to see that you are think Bob.

 

I won't respond at the moment and hopefully Steve will see this and expand on what he said.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited December 26, 2009 by Marblehead

[forestofclarity]