Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Brian]

...

[Stigweard]

But, Buddhas view is the viewless view. The idea of a constant eternal is a fixed view. So, I don't have a fixed view, I have a view empty of self and self support, thus dynamic. That is the point. It's neither eternalist, nor is it nihilistic. It's the middle way.

But isn't dependent origination both constant and eternal? Haven't you said that dependent origination extends behind us to the beginningless beginning and will extend beyond us to the endless end? That makes it both constant and eternal right?

 

However you try and wiggle out of it, and I know you will, this makes dependent origination a fixed view.

 

And if Buddha's view is the viewless view, why the hell are you so attached to it?

 

[dwai]

But isn't dependent origination both constant and eternal? Haven't you said that dependent origination extends behind us to the beginningless beginning and will extend beyond us to the endless end? That makes it both constant and eternal right?

 

However you try and wiggle out of it, and I know you will, this makes dependent origination a fixed view.

 

And if Buddha's view is the viewless view, why the hell are you so attached to it?

 

 

hear hear

[C T]

But isn't dependent origination both constant and eternal? Haven't you said that dependent origination extends behind us to the beginningless beginning and will extend beyond us to the endless end? That makes it both constant and eternal right?

 

This appears so only when mind arises as a result of mundane contemplation, as means to convey a picture or an idea of some proportion or value. To lend palpability perhaps. To know the taste of saltiness, we need not drink the whole ocean - all that is required is to taste a grain of salt, as the saying goes.

 

With mind at rest, where is the need to fathom such unfathomable imaginations? Only in discussions and debates are such ideas used as a way to narrow the ambiguity of description... for example, someone could describe the world as round, and is then asked by someone else (who already has an idea of what roundness is) to describe how round is that round... and from this very simple conveyance of an idea, things could lead to much unnecessary complexities.

 

Tis much better to let the mind stay home. A galavanting mind can be good at times, but very so often, the diversity of the 10,000 things, which comprises ideas, views, opinions and all phenomena for that matter, arises because of this unsettledness of mind.

[Vajrahridaya]

Just because you define it like that don't mean it ain't fixed.

 

I don't define it like that, the Buddha did and it's really just dependent origination and emptiness, no fixed view. To see it as fixed is to miss the point. I debate against fixed views, Eternalistic views which most spiritual traditions are defined by. So sure, It's a view that's fixed on freedom from the proliferation of views. Just like when one permanently understands impermanence, the realization is permanent regarding impermanence.

 

Read this map and weep Yankee.

 

 

British Empire ^^^^^

 

Yes, quite the show of how Pompous the Brit's are! Their pomposity knows no bounds!! It proliferates it's view of superiority and totalitarianism everywhere and squashes or tries to use eugenics against what it deems as inferior racial traits.

 

Edited November 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

But isn't dependent origination both constant and eternal? Haven't you said that dependent origination extends behind us to the beginningless beginning and will extend beyond us to the endless end? That makes it both constant and eternal right?

 

However you try and wiggle out of it, and I know you will, this makes dependent origination a fixed view.

 

And if Buddha's view is the viewless view, why the hell are you so attached to it?

 

 

Since dependently originated phenomena, which is absolutely everything, is empty of inherent existence, it actually never arises from the perspective of no absolute basis, so there is no one to have a view, to be attached to a view and there is nothing to be viewed... really.

 

It's really just all relative. If your view of the Tao is simply as a process of mutually dependent phenomena, then we don't have a disagreement. But as soon as you say it's a basis, a supreme source outside of phenomena, then we have a disagreement because you are proliferating an Eternalistic view, as if something can be transcendent of things and be it's own basis, or self exist without cause? Only then do we have something to debate about. Apech say's no, but sometimes it seems that you say yes as well as Lau Tzu, but the way Apech defines what Lau Tzu says... it makes more sense to me from the Buddhist perspective and thus I don't have a debate with Apech's view. Except when he say's I have a fixed view. I don't. It's you and many others here who get all defensive when their view is challenged and I don't use disparaging words when I get started, I just say in so many words that "This view is a fixed view and will not lead to liberation from unconscious rebirth and psychological suffering."

 

Then all of a sudden, people jump out of the woodwork saying, "Oh, you have no compassion, or your view is fixed, or how can existence work without an eternal, self existing and transcendent basis... you must be an idiot for thinking that it can." So on and so forth.

 

Just like you... you get a little personal in your rebuttal instead of just sticking to the debating of views. You get personal, because you are attached to your view as a Self of all and there is no other real reason.

 

Relatively speaking though, yes... dependently originated phenomena of dynamically shifting types persists eternally. So, we are not talking of an Eternal absolute, but rather an eternal flow of relativity. Buddhism does not posit an absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth, and that's the absolute truth.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Hey, I'm English and not at all pompous.

Why do you have this outdated notion of us as:

 

1. Drinking tea out of fine china with our little finger raised.

2. Commuting to work wearing a bowler hat, swinging an umbrella and reading the Financial Times.

3. All living in a place called London where we ride around on red buses past Big Ben all day. :lol:

 

:lol: Don't forget loosing to India with your own sport of Cricket! A country you once dominated violently considering them savages who knew no better, kicked you out through non-violent opposition.

[Vajrahridaya]

hi everyone,

thanks for all the great responses. I found this from an article on dayan wild goose qigong and thought it would be beneficial to this thread. heres the site if anyone wants it, its a very good article on qigong, specifically dayan qigong, My link

 

Daoism also stresses actively living 'De' (virtue, integrity, morality) to attain cultivation of the Way, and 'Wu Wei', translates as "Non-action', meaning effortless doing, just as water seeks its lowest level and takes on the shape of the receptacle it fills. The concept is not to dominate, or compete, but to find harmony. Ultimately, Daoism is simply showing us how to follow nature, to be be moral, and to return to Nothing.

 

From Buddhism comes 'mindfulness', sincerity, compassion and perfecting the character. It concentrates more on the mind and heart. The goal is to attain Perfect, Complete Enlightenment, the perfect state of mind, free from craving, anger, ignorance, arrogance, and doubt; the very afflictions that lead to the endless cycle of rebirth and suffering - birth, sickness, old age and death. Buddha taught the Ten Good Conducts - Physical - No killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct; Verbal - no lying, no abusive language, no bearing tales, and no seductive words; and Mental - no greed, no anger, and no ignorance. Buddhism teaches being respectful to parents, teachers and elders, and compassion with wisdom. Compassion is the antidote to hatred and aversion, wisdom counters ignorance, and non-attachment overcomes clinging and greed. Buddhism recognises that the mind is responsible for everything, and our destiny can be changed through good deeds.

 

Daoism and Buddhism, though coming from different sources with different approaches, are not incompatible or conflicting. As Daoism uses Yin and Yang to explain constant cyclic change, Buddhism discusses Impermanence - everything created to exist will expire - to help accept things the way they are, thereby avoiding delusion and finding peace. Buddhism teaches about 'Emptiness', and Daoism 'Nothing'. Daoism stresses balance, while Buddhism emphasises The Middle Way. By embracing the philosophies that lie behind the forms and methods the experience of practice becomes deepened, and will ultimately lead you to a higher level of health and spiritual attainment.

 

A little over-simplified, but good. I think other than Bon that Taoism is the most eye to eye with Buddhism.

 

p.s. Oh nice! I get a negative for agreeing with someone. Ok... I looove haters!! My enemies teach me patience and forbearance.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

This appears so only when mind arises as a result of mundane contemplation, as means to convey a picture or an idea of some proportion or value. To lend palpability perhaps. To know the taste of saltiness, we need not drink the whole ocean - all that is required is to taste a grain of salt, as the saying goes.

 

With mind at rest, where is the need to fathom such unfathomable imaginations? Only in discussions and debates are such ideas used as a way to narrow the ambiguity of description... for example, someone could describe the world as round, and is then asked by someone else (who already has an idea of what roundness is) to describe how round is that round... and from this very simple conveyance of an idea, things could lead to much unnecessary complexities.

 

Tis much better to let the mind stay home. A galavanting mind can be good at times, but very so often, the diversity of the 10,000 things, which comprises ideas, views, opinions and all phenomena for that matter, arises because of this unsettledness of mind.

 

Thank you...

 

p.s. Wow... another negative for really liking a post by a fellow Buddhist?

Edited November 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

 

 

Yes, quite the show of how Pompous the Brit's are! Their pomposity knows no bounds!! It proliferates it's view of superiority and totalitarianism everywhere and squashes or tries to use eugenics against what it deems as inferior racial traits.

 

 

Ahhh spreading and perpetuating a superior view ... now who does that remind me of? Oh no! Oh goodness! You're not a secret Brit are you?

[Vajrahridaya]

Ahhh spreading and perpetuating a superior view ... now who does that remind me of? Oh no! Oh goodness! You're not a secret Brit are you?

 

HAHA!! Touche! Why yes dear watson... I am partially a Brit by ancestry as well as a Buddhist who is a student of a lineage of Buddhas who come from the original Buddha who did indeed debate that d.o./e is indeed a superior view that liberates one from fixed views.

 

P.s. I'm not saying that other views are not valid and true in their own sense, but they all have their results that are different from Buddhahood. So, if you don't wish to be a Buddha, than indeed, whatever view that is not in line with Buddhahood would be your absolute truth because it will lead to a goal other than Buddhahood as per your desire, thus is true and absolute within that particular paradigm of relativity. Thus, dependent origination at work once again. The fruit that arises from a plant is dependent upon the type of seed is planted.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

This appears so only when mind arises as a result of mundane contemplation, as means to convey a picture or an idea of some proportion or value. To lend palpability perhaps. To know the taste of saltiness, we need not drink the whole ocean - all that is required is to taste a grain of salt, as the saying goes.

 

With mind at rest, where is the need to fathom such unfathomable imaginations? Only in discussions and debates are such ideas used as a way to narrow the ambiguity of description... for example, someone could describe the world as round, and is then asked by someone else (who already has an idea of what roundness is) to describe how round is that round... and from this very simple conveyance of an idea, things could lead to much unnecessary complexities.

 

Tis much better to let the mind stay home. A galavanting mind can be good at times, but very so often, the diversity of the 10,000 things, which comprises ideas, views, opinions and all phenomena for that matter, arises because of this unsettledness of mind.

Oh pischtog and poppycock!!

 

Yes or no? Is all phenomena in the universe influenced by dependent origination?

 

A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is a constant in the universe.

 

Yes or no? Does dependent origination extend infinitely before and after this point in time?

 

A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is eternal.

 

The only rational answer then is that dependent origination is an eternal constant. I thought you Buddhists didn't indulge in ambiguous speech.

 

It's you and many others here who get all defensive when their view is challenged and I don't use disparaging words when I get started, I just say in so many words that "This view is a fixed view and will not lead to liberation from unconscious rebirth and psychological suffering."

 

Then all of a sudden, people jump out of the woodwork saying, "Oh, you have no compassion, or your view is fixed, or how can existence work without an eternal, self existing and transcendent basis... you must be an idiot for thinking that it can." So on and so forth.

 

Just like you... you get a little personal in your rebuttal instead of just sticking to the debating of views. You get personal, because you are attached to your view as a Self of all and there is no other real reason.

And you honestly don't see the hypocrisy in your words here do you?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh pischtog and poppycock!!

 

Yes or no? Is all phenomena in the universe influenced by dependent origination?

 

No, all phenomena arise dependently, including the idea of an ultimate arises dependently, thus, Dependent origination is not a primordial source, otherwise it would not be empty of self existence. You're having a hard time getting the subtlety here.

 

A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is a constant in the universe.

 

Yes or no? Does dependent origination extend infinitely before and after this point in time?

 

Only the fact that phenomena arise dependently since beginningless time does eternity have relative relevancy here, but not ultimately.

 

A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is eternal.

 

The only rational answer then is that dependent origination is an eternal constant. I thought you Buddhists didn't indulge in ambiguous speech.

 

You are trying to say that dependent origination is an ultimate truth, but because the insight of dependent origination reveals emptiness, it as well cannot be truly established, except relatively, thus it as well is an empty dharma without self reference. Dependent Origination is not a transcendent thing, it is the way the process of the cosmos happens since beginningless time, but is not an ultimate source of things.

 

And you honestly don't see the hypocrisy in your words here do you?

 

 

No, you are honestly not understanding the implications of the Buddhas teaching. It is not a trick of words, it is an experiential emptying of face value facts, thus it is self liberating instead of self defining.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

It's really just all relative. If your view of the Tao is simply as a process of mutually dependent phenomena, then we don't have a disagreement. But as soon as you say it's a basis, a supreme source outside of phenomena, then we have a disagreement because you are proliferating an Eternalistic view, as if something can be transcendent of things and be it's own basis, or self exist without cause? Only then do we have something to debate about. Apech say's no, but sometimes it seems that you say yes as well as Lau Tzu, but the way Apech defines what Lau Tzu says... it makes more sense to me from the Buddhist perspective and thus I don't have a debate with Apech's view. Except when he say's I have a fixed view. I don't. It's you and many others here who get all defensive when their view is challenged and I don't use disparaging words when I get started, I just say in so many words that "This view is a fixed view and will not lead to liberation from unconscious rebirth and psychological suffering."

 

 

 

You make it sound like I have developed my own separate view. Here is a quote from Wang Bi the famous Taoist scholar:

 

The way things come into existence and efficacy (gong) comes about is that things arise from the formless (wuxing) and efficacy emanates from the nameless (wuming). The formless and the nameless (the Dao) is the progenitor of the myriad things. It is neither warm nor cool and makes neither the note gong or the note shang [i.e. is not subject to the sense of touch or that of hearing]. You might listen for it, but it is impossible to get a sense of its sound; you might look for it, but it is impossible to get a sense of its appearance; you might try to understand what it is like, but it is impossible to get it in terms of understanding or you might taste it, but it is impossible to get it in terms of flavour. Thus try to conceive of it as a thing, and it will turn out to be amorphous and complete; try to capture it as an image, and it will be utterly formless, try to hear it as a tonality, and it will greet you as an inaudible sound; try to experience it as a flavour, and it will have an indistinguishable taste. Thus it is capable of serving as the progenitor and master of things in all their different categories, of covering and permeating everything in Heaven and Earth, so that nothing is allowed to escape the warp of its weave. If it were warm, it could not be cold; if it were the note gong, it could not be the note shang. If it had form, it would necessarily possess the means of being distinguished from other things; if it made a sound, it would necessarily belong somewhere among other sounds.

 

Now it would be easy to focus on the idea of the Tao as 'progenitor and master' to suggest that the Tao is an eternal substance or thing beyond all other things. However Wang Bi specifically says that it is not a thing and has none of the qualities of things. In other words none of the ways of distinguishing things can be applied to the Tao.

 

Wang Bi later says that the two attributes which the Tao exhibits in relation to the myriad things, that is as an origin and a mother, arise together. That is as soon as you have an origin you have a mother also and they both arise from mystery. It is not saying there is something called Tao (mystery) and then you an origin and then you have a mother. It is saying that when addressing the 10,000 things and asking where they come from, how do they arise, you say they come from nothingness, you make an origin and as soon as you name the origin you also have the mother (to which they return).

 

Its very late, I woke up with insomnia, I have eaten some Fruit and Fiber Bran Flakes and I'm going back to bed ... this is the best I can do for now.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Stigweard]

No, all phenomena arise dependently, including the idea of an ultimate arises dependently, thus, Dependent origination is not a primordial source, otherwise it would not be empty of self existence. You're having a hard time getting the subtlety here.

 

OK let's use your words then ... "dependently originated phenomena is absolutely everything" ... therefore dependent origination is the one constant of absolutely everything ... therefore dependent origination is a constant.

 

We could also say that emptiness, due to dependent origination, is a constant.

 

Only the fact that phenomena arise dependently since beginningless time does eternity have relative relevancy here, but not ultimately.

Regardless, phenomena has arisen dependently for an eternity before now and, if dependent origination is a constant, then it will continue for an eternity. Thus, relative or not, dependent origination is eternal.

 

You are trying to say that dependent origination is an ultimate truth, but because the insight of dependent origination reveals emptiness, it as well cannot be truly established, except relatively, thus it as well is an empty dharma without self reference. Dependent Origination is not a transcendent thing, it is the way the process of the cosmos happens since beginningless time, but is not an ultimate source of things.

OK go with me on this one because I see a glimmer of hope.

 

All phenomena is dependently originated right? Which could lead the mind needing attachments to cling to dependent origination as an ultimate truth, that D.O. is the source of life. But because of the insight of dependent origination it is in itself empty of substance right?

 

So could we perhaps say, and please excuse the simplicity of what I am saying:

 

Humans are dependently originated from nature, i.e. the biology of the planet Earth?

 

And could we say that the planet Earth is dependently originated from Universal nature?

 

And could we say that Universal nature manifests through the process of dependent origination?

 

OK I need your words here ... please humor me with this ... what does dependent origination depend on?

 

If I said, "Dependent origination depends on the way of dependent origination". How, in 20 words or less (imagine you are writing someone a quick line of poetry), would you correct or better articulate that statement?

 

[ralis]

 

OK let's use your words then ... "dependently originated phenomena is absolutely everything" ... therefore dependent origination is the one constant of absolutely everything ... therefore dependent origination is a constant.

 

We could also say that emptiness, due to dependent origination, is a constant.

 

 

Regardless, phenomena has arisen dependently for an eternity before now and, if dependent origination is a constant, then it will continue for an eternity. Thus, relative or not, dependent origination is eternal.

 

 

OK go with me on this one because I see a glimmer of hope.

 

All phenomena is dependently originated right? Which could lead the mind needing attachments to cling to dependent origination as an ultimate truth, that D.O. is the source of life. But because of the insight of dependent origination it is in itself empty of substance right?

 

So could we perhaps say, and please excuse the simplicity of what I am saying:

 

Humans are dependently originated from nature, i.e. the biology of the planet Earth?

 

And could we say that the planet Earth is dependently originated from Universal nature?

 

And could we say that Universal nature manifests through the process of dependent origination?

 

OK I need your words here ... please humor me with this ... what does dependent origination depend on?

 

If I said, "Dependent origination depends on the way of dependent origination". How would you correct that statement?

 

 

 

It is obvious you have analyzed this correctly and put the entire argument in proper perspective. Clearly, the Buddhist apologist's have not. Excellent!

[3bob]

Simple Jack is not so simple...

[C T]

Oh pischtog and poppycock!!

 

Yes or no? Is all phenomena in the universe influenced by dependent origination?

 

A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is a constant in the universe.

 

Yes or no? Does dependent origination extend infinitely before and after this point in time?

 

A: Yes ... therefore dependent origination is eternal.

 

The only rational answer then is that dependent origination is an eternal constant. I thought you Buddhists didn't indulge in ambiguous speech.

 

Yes, in my understanding, all phenomena is influenced by Interdependent Origination, as you say, but alas, you and I can never fully grasp the process of its influence, because in order to exhaustively grasp it, the mind cannot be engaged. Ambiguity arises in dependence on mind's engagement. It cannot be otherwise. The moment thoughts arise, limitations arise - you are well aware of this, Stig, because you have alluded to (in the Warriors' thread) how thoughts are always already happening in the past, which is pretty exact.

 

This is one way of looking at Interdependent Origination:

 

The Buddha said we create the world with our thoughts.

 

When thoughts arise, manifestations are sensed.

 

The sensing of manifestations give birth to wonder.

 

Wonder creates desire.

 

Desire creates self.

 

Self creates ideas.

 

Ideas create analyses.

 

Analyses create assertions.

 

Assertions create concepts.

 

Concepts create dualistic views.

 

Dualistic views create clinging and aversion.

 

Clinging and aversion creates suffering.

 

Suffering creates needs.

 

Needs create thoughts.

 

And thoughts create the world.

 

(This cycle is ever-present as potential. The idea is that it happens uni-directionally, and does not require any ground, except the mind. Since mind is ever empty and cognizant at the same time, it can be said that mind is both the beginning and the ending of this cycle. It can manifest, and it will, when thoughts arise. Conversely, it can cease, the very instant thoughts cease. The more refined the meditation/cultivation of seeing the gaps in thoughts, and resting therein, the more the cycle shrinks, until such time when the gaps become more prevalent and lasting, whereby ultimately the cycle ceases, and returns to a single point to the middle of the individual's mandala. Due to the irrevocability of the law of I.O., even when one 'attains' to this single point, there is no assurance there that its the ultimate attainment, for at any moment, there could be a stirring of the subtlest thoughts, and just like ripples in a pool, the whole cycle potentially begins again, from being faintly perceptible to grossly perceptible. This is why mindfulness training is advocated in Buddhism - it lets the trainee experience, thru deep seeing, how this dependently originated cycle is occurring in each moment. If the mind is trained, the moment the stirrings are observed, the observer quickly checks himself or herself, and return to the non-distracting point. Gradually, this observation can become habitual, which, by then, hopefully the need to consciously return the mind to non-distraction can be let go of. When non-distraction becomes unshakeable, the cycle will finally disintegrate, and one is said to have attained liberation from the cycle of birth and death. This is the Buddhist version of ultimate enlightenment. By this time, of course, where is the need to ponder and expound endlessly on the finer points of which tradition is better or worse? Everything returns to nothing, and from nothing, everything arises. Try to grasp this, and at that very instant, the world of phenomena appears vividly before the senses.)

 

This is the reason why Buddha refuses to assert or negate any views. To quote His words: "Men are accustomed to state 'Is' or 'Is not', but for him who perceives wisely and according to the truth how all things are brought about in the world, for such a person there is no 'Is not...'. And for him who perceives wisely and in truth how all things in the world perish, for him there is no 'Is...'. Everything 'Is...', is one of the extremes; Nothing 'Is...", is the other extreme. I teach, between the two, the truth of Interdependent Originations."

 

Go explore, and experience for yourselves, He implored. Find out if what has been taught can be accepted. If not, just chuck it away. Just do not waste all your time debating on forums (nah, He did not say this!! Sometimes i do wish He decreed it though... )

Edited November 11, 2010 by CowTao

[Marblehead]

Its very late, I woke up with insomnia, I have eaten some Fruit and Fiber Bran Flakes and I'm going back to bed ... this is the best I can do for now.

 

That is very nice and very close to my understanding. (I always include Chi in that discussion as it eliminates the need to describe a function of Tao.)

[majc]

hi everyone,

thanks for all the great responses. I found this from an article on dayan wild goose qigong and thought it would be beneficial to this thread. My link

 

Daoism also stresses actively living 'De' (virtue, integrity, morality) to attain cultivation of the Way...

Institutions built around the idea of forcing 'De' into existence stress this. The Tao does not.

 

 

...and 'Wu Wei', translates as "Non-action', meaning effortless doing...

'Wu Wei' translates better as non-forcing - or, if you like, non-preconception-based-manufacturing-of-action - the result of which is an appearance of effortless doing.

 

 

... The concept is not to dominate, or compete, but to find harmony.

That's not the concept at all. The method (not concept) exemplified in Lao Tzu's writing of the Tao Te Ching is that of leaving behind, or letting go, any and all concepts which arise - of which "not dominating and not competing" is of course one.

 

The result of this (what some might see as naive) trusting unto one's own basic nature - i.e. the Tao* - is, theoretically, harmony.

*if it must be labeled.

[goldisheavy]

Yes, in my understanding, all phenomena is influenced by Interdependent Origination, as you say, but alas, you and I can never fully grasp the process of its influence, because in order to exhaustively grasp it, the mind cannot be engaged. Ambiguity arises in dependence on mind's engagement. It cannot be otherwise. The moment thoughts arise, limitations arise

 

This is the most insane and logically incoherent statement I've ever read from you CowTao. Seriously. I am disappointed.

 

Aspiring after the levels of realization and liberation means deviating from bodhi,
Aspiring to obtain happiness is the great suffering,
Aspiring to attain the state beyond thought is another thought:
If you understand this, do not seek anything else!

--Princess Gomadevi

 

Or this translation:

 

Hoping for bhumis and liberation postpones enlightenment;
Hoping to attain bliss is great suffering;
Hoping for nonthought is itself a thought:
When you realize this, give up seeking.

Edited November 11, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

The result of this (what some might see as naive) trusting unto one's own basic nature - i.e. the Tao* - is, theoretically, harmony.

*if it must be labeled.

 

Harmony is very important in my life. Not just theorerical harmony but 'real' harmony, the moderation of yang with yin and yin with yang. (I don't speak to balance too often as I believe balance is attained only when full in the condition of wu wei, which few of us really ever are.)

[Marblehead]

Aspiring to obtain happiness is the great suffering,

 

Well, I think this is one concept where Buddhism and Taoism are in agreement.

[majc]

Harmony is very important in my life. Not just theorerical harmony but 'real' harmony, the moderation of yang with yin and yin with yang. (I don't speak to balance too often as I believe balance is attained only when full in the condition of wu wei, which few of us really ever are.)

Awesome, then keep going!

 

And I agree with you about 'balance'. To quote my own blog: "I think balancing would be better - including the crucial sense of an always moving and changing interaction."