Taoism Vs Buddhism

[goldisheavy]

Aspiring to obtain happiness is the great suffering,

 

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

 

I find many parallels and agreements between Buddhism and Taoism, but I also appreciate their uniqueness. I like Chuang Tzu on his own terms, and not as some Buddhist-lite or some shit like that. At the same time I like many vajrayana practitioners on their own terms and not as Daoists-lite. I am also completely happy to accept Dzogchen on their own terms and not as continuation of Buddhism. I always find it hilariously funny when Dzogchen people try to establish their Buddhist cred and bona fides prior to speaking. Who cares? What if Dzogchen has nothing to do with Buddhism? Does that make it worse or less valid? Not in my eyes. But a lot of people cling to lineage way too much and they believe teachings are worthless unless they can trace themselves back to Buddha Gotama or back to Lao Tzu or back to Fu Hsi or whatever.

[Marblehead]

To quote my own blog: "I think balancing would be better - including the crucial sense of an always moving and changing interaction."

 

Yes, absolutely! I discussed this with someone once and we were almost to the point of suggesting that if we ever achieve total balance we are dead.

 

I agree, balancing is a far better word because in reality it is on ever-ongoing process as you beautifully pointed out.

[Marblehead]

I find many parallels and agreements between Buddhism and Taoism, ...

 

Excellent observation!

 

I think that whenever we compare/contrast one against another we have a conscious or perhaps only a subconscious desire to present one to be better than another. That is why I feel that it is important to consider each thing, each thought, based on its own merits and not according to another thing's or thought's criteria.

 

I have many times supported those who hold to the Christian religion even though I would never recommend it to anyone. Hehehe.

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

I appreciate the attempt, but it sounds like Tao is still being likened to a transcendent of things. A primordial ground of being. It still sounds as if Wang Bi is caught up in one, other or all of the formless states of Samadhi, including the Samadhi of emptiness. Thus the insight of dependent origination, noted as the 9th jhana beyond the formless and nothingness or infinite samadhis, thereby transcending any sense of fixation.

 

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).

 

Sounds like Trika Shaivism. Still not the insight of dependent origination. But, very deep and blissful, also leading to expanding virtue.

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.

 

It is nice of you... thank you! It's just, I've seen this type of consideration before within the paradigm of the 36 tattvas in Trika Shaivism, which I studied and practiced for many years.

 

Thanks though. I do appreciate your insights.

 

Please sleep well!! Voices and spirits sometimes keep me up... all night!! I'm not talking about my own inner voice either... wha, wha, whaaaaa!

[Apech]

I appreciate the attempt, but it sounds like Tao is still being likened to a transcendent of things. A primordial ground of being. It still sounds as if Wang Bi is caught up in one, other or all of the formless states of Samadhi, including the Samadhi of emptiness. Thus the insight of dependent origination, noted as the 9th jhana beyond the formless and nothingness or infinite samadhis, thereby transcending any sense of fixation.

 

I kind of knew you would say this and I don't mind really. I've read the whole of Wang Bi commentary on Lao Tzu Book and I do not think that he has fallen into the trap that you mention. I think he was inspired by direct realization of Tao and this was his expression of it.

 

Sounds like Trika Shaivism. Still not the insight of dependent origination. But, very deep and blissful, also leading to expanding virtue.

 

It is nice of you... thank you! It's just, I've seen this type of consideration before within the paradigm of the 36 tattvas in Trika Shaivism, which I studied and practiced for many years.

 

 

Don't know anything about Shaivism but it may be similar for all I know.

 

The issue is that most systems of thought begin with a positive statement about what is and not an analysis of what isn't.

[3bob]

Words said to be quoted from the Buddha:

 

"I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying.""

 

Frankly, if the teaching above is accepted as truly Buddhist, then it refutes certain schools that claim the name Buddhist since their teachings are counter to this. No offence meant but obviously various types of Buddhists do not agree among themselves concerning all doctrines; similar to what happens with most or all spiritual teachings of any kind on this planet... thus imo any kind of vehicle must be let go of at some point.

 

Om

Edited November 11, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

I appreciate the attempt, but it sounds like Tao is still being likened to a transcendent of things.

 

Hi Vaj.,

 

Do I need to get a chisel and hammer and etch this into your brain? Tao is not a thing. Tao is not a thing! Tao is the Way. The Way of a Taoist and the Way of the universe.

 

Tao is used as a noun only to include all things of the universe.

 

Line 1, Chapter 1, Tao Te Ching, Lin Yutang translation:

 

The Tao that can be told of is not the Absolute Tao;

 

"All things of the universe" include everything before the beginning (of this universe) and everything after the end (of this universe). It is not a thing in and of itself. The Tao that can be spoken (the noun usage) is not the eternal Tao. What we speak of is the Way, the Manifest; we cannot speak of the Mystery - that is why it is called the Mystery.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Marblehead

[3bob]

Hi Vaj.,

 

Do I need to get a chisel and hammer and etch this into your brain? Tao is not a thing. Tao is not a thing! Tao is the Way. The Way of a Taoist and the Way of the universe.

 

Tao is used as a noun only to include all things of the universe.

 

Line 1, Chapter 1, Tao Te Ching, Lin Yutang translation:

 

The Tao the can be told of is not the Absolute Tao;

 

"All things of the universe" include everything before the beginning (of this universe) and everything after the end (of this universe). It is not a thing in and of itself. The Tao that can be spoken (the noun usage) is not the eternal Tao. What we speak of is the Way, the Manifest; we cannot speak of the Mystery - that is why it is called the Mystery.

 

Excerpts from TTC chapter 25 that imo allude to the Mystery:

 

"And yet It contains within Itself a core of Vitality.

The core of vitality is very real,

It contains within Itself an unfailing Sincerity...

How do I know the ways of all things at the Beginning?

By what is within me".

 

Om

Edited November 11, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

Excerpts from TTC chapter 25 that imo allude to the Mystery:

 

"And yet It contains within Itself a core of Vitality.

The core of vitality is very real,

It contains within Itself an unfailing Sincerity...

How do I know the ways of all things at the Beginning?

By what is within me".

 

Om

 

Yes. Perfect example. The last line is important. This is, IMO, intuitive understanding. It cannot be proven with words.

 

I try hard to keep my Taoist beliefs consistent with scientific fact. In my mind, Mystery (the noun) is what science is calling "dark matter" just as Chi is "dark energy".

 

Current understanding is that the known (observable) universe consists of only 4.6% of the entire universe. Dark matter is 23% and the remainder is dark energy.

 

Therefore, what we can speak of is only 4.6%. Just goes to show you how much we really "know".

Edited November 11, 2010 by Marblehead

[Apech]

 

 

I try hard to keep my Taoist beliefs consistent with scientific fact. In my mind, Mystery (the noun) is what science is calling "dark matter" just as Chi is "dark energy".

 

Current understanding is that the known (observable) universe consists of only 4.6% of the entire universe. Dark matter is 23% and the remainder is dark energy.

 

Therefore, what we can speak of is only 4.6%. Just goes to show you how much we really "know".

 

I think its also worth pointing out that scientists don't really have a clue what dark matter and dark energy are. It is just that the numbers don't add up when they try to look at the observable universe i.e. normal matter and light/electromagnetic radiation.

 

But I completely agree with working on consistency with scientific fact. What the scientists do know they have proved empirically and cannot be ignored. Otherwise we become head in the clouds mystics and its easy to attack whatever we might say about reality.

[C T]

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.

I do not see where the controversy is. Both hope and gain arises in dependence on the nature of grasping and averting thoughts. Grasping and aversion logically requires the birth of self. When there is a birth of a self, there must also be a death of a self. When there is no birth of a self, logically, there is no death of a self.

 

One does not hope to achieve or attain non-thought. The idea is not to stir or compound the thoughts as they arise and subside, or to put it another way, be watchful not to add unnecessary layers onto them, as they come and go. It is the tendency to cling or chase after pleasant arisings and reject unpleasant arisings that the notion of suffering is born in oneself. The nature of delusion is such. Thoughts in themselves are simply neutral displays within the expanse of the nature of mind. If there is no clinging and no averting, the self does not arise. There is still actions, but no actor... still thoughts, but no thinker. Without a self, seeking and hopes have no meaning. Only as traces of the self diminish does giving up hopes and aspirations find completeness.

[C T]

Words said to be quoted from the Buddha:

 

"I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying.""

 

Frankly, if the teaching above is accepted as truly Buddhist, then it refutes certain schools that claim the name Buddhist since their teachings are counter to this. No offence meant but obviously various types of Buddhists do not agree among themselves concerning all doctrines; similar to what happens with most or all spiritual teachings of any kind on this planet... thus imo any kind of vehicle must be let go of at some point.

 

Om

Its not that there is disagreement. The basic premise of Buddhism will always remain true, no matter what.

 

The appearance of disagreement stems from the different levels of individual realizations (or lack of), thats all. Those who attain fully really have no more need to say or do anything, least of all to while away the time here!

[Marblehead]

I think its also worth pointing out that scientists don't really have a clue what dark matter and dark energy are. It is just that the numbers don't add up when they try to look at the observable universe i.e. normal matter and light/electromagnetic radiation.

 

I didn't want to mention that because I have in the past and some scientist comes along and and corrects me. Hehehe. Yeah, they have ideas, theories, that they are working on to enable them to, if not observe at least measure, both dark matter and dark energy.

 

But I completely agree with working on consistency with scientific fact. What the scientists do know they have proved empirically and cannot be ignored. Otherwise we become head in the clouds mystics and its easy to attack whatever we might say about reality.

 

Yep. We can make all the assumptions we want but you know what they say about that word "assume". Better, I think, to accept reality as it is rather than have a bunch of illusions and delusions and be disappointed all the time because things didn't go the way we wanted them to go.

[Marblehead]

Those who attain fully really have no more need to say or do anything, least of all to while away the time here!

 

You have no idea how tempted I am to comment to this but I will hold my tongue else I will be taking the chance of presenting myself as a hypocrite. Hehehe.

 

"Those who know do not speak."

[goldisheavy]

The idea is not to stir or compound the thoughts as they arise and subside, or to put it another way, be watchful not to add unnecessary layers onto them, as they come and go.

 

This kind of fixed attitude is an obscuration.

 

It is the tendency to cling or chase after pleasant arisings and reject unpleasant arisings that the notion of suffering is born in oneself.

 

Any fixation creates suffering, including neutral fixation.

 

The nature of delusion is such. Thoughts in themselves are simply neutral displays within the expanse of the nature of mind.

 

Strictly speaking nothing can be thought of as "in and of itself" since nothing has an authentic established self. There is no such thing as "thought in and of itself."

 

If there is no clinging and no averting, the self does not arise.

 

The self doesn't arise no matter what. Even if you cling it doesn't arise. Clinging is empty and no amount of clinging causes the self to arise. In Buddhism this is axiomatic.

 

There is still actions, but no actor... still thoughts, but no thinker.

 

Not exactly. There are no actions in the sense that actions cannot be delineated reliably and authentically. All thoughts are equivalent to no-thought since thoughts cannot be delineated reliably and authentically.

 

Without a self, seeking and hopes have no meaning. Only as traces of the self diminish does giving up hopes and aspirations find completeness.

 

If you have any kind of self, it can never diminish by definition. If something diminishes, it isn't self. On the other hand, if you have no self, you can't lose yourself, ever. But yourself is not the same thing as self. Yourself is a colloquial term and self is a technical one. Self doesn't exist. But you exist. You are not a self but you are yourself and not someone else.

[dwai]

 

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, in 20 words or less (imagine you are writing someone a quick line of poetry), would you correct or better articulate that statement?

 

 

 

I'm getting intense flashbacks of past "discussions" right here on TTB...

 

DO is simply a tool to show that phenomena are empty of self-nature and self-existence. The two components of any dependent origination are the "object" and the "subject"

 

Dig a little deeper and then we find that this "subject" exists...despite of objects not existing (ie no thoughts in meditation but subject still remains). This subject is pure consciousness (objectless).

 

Those who latch onto DO and fixate on it as the "end-all be-all" are just deluding themselves, imho. This (delusion) stems from half-baked understanding of Buddhist teachings as well as theravada dogma.

Edited November 11, 2010 by dwai

[forestofclarity]

Emptiness and dependent origination are not things, so how can they be constant? In fact, dependent origination and emptiness are really just concepts that we add onto our experience. The trouble is when we divorce them from their context and take them to be things in themselves.

 

I think it is wrong to try to apply concepts such as self or no-self to the Tao. The Tao is both included in the world of concepts, but also beyond it. Applying these concepts to the Tao strikes me as trying to capture the ocean in a bowl.

 

[snip]

 

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

 

[snip]

 

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?

 

Edited November 11, 2010 by forestofemptiness

[forestofclarity]

While I may agree with some of the statements, you seem to be confusing the path with the goal. One doesn't go from many fixations to no fixations overnight. Many Buddhist practices have evolved based on wholesome fixations, such as fixations on dharma practice. When one is fixed on the whole world, then becomes fixed on a part of it, there is a great deal of liberation. This is just like if you went from drinking a six pack a day to one beer a day--- you're making progress. To paraphrase Chinul, just because the sun is out doesn't mean all the snow is melted.

 

If I wanted to play games, I could say that the attitude that fixed attitudes are an obscuration is itself a fixed attitude and an obscuration.

 

This kind of fixed attitude is an obscuration.

 

 

 

Any fixation creates suffering, including neutral fixation.

[Marblehead]

If I wanted to play games, I could say that the attitude that fixed attitudes are an obscuration is itself a fixed attitude and an obscuration.

 

Indeed. Please don't do that. We might end up with Absolute Nothingness then all of us would disappear. Pooof!

[3bob]

Its not that there is disagreement. The basic premise of Buddhism will always remain true, no matter what.

 

The appearance of disagreement stems from the different levels of individual realizations (or lack of), thats all. Those who attain fully really have no more need to say or do anything, least of all to while away the time here!

 

The four-fold negation is a basic and key premise commonly accepted to be from the Buddha and imo it refutes certain forms of Buddhism that have come up with all sorts of teachings counter to it.

 

Also, what you say implies that the Buddha had no more need to say or do anything...(after enlightenment) yet He spoke and taught of the four-fold negation - a fact which can't be glossed over or made moot, for if it could then any "basic premise" of Buddhism could be, including whatever you allude to.

 

Om

[3bob]

Anyway, forcing from either party is missing the mark.

 

"...If you do not strive with others, You will be free from blame". from the TTC, Chapter 8)

 

Om

Edited November 11, 2010 by 3bob

[dwai]

[Stigweard]

DO is simply a tool to show that phenomena are empty of self-nature and self-existence. The two components of any dependent origination are the "object" and the "subject"

 

Dig a little deeper and then we find that this "subject" exists...despite of objects not existing (ie no thoughts in meditation but subject still remains). This subject is pure consciousness (objectless).

 

Those who latch onto DO and fixate on it as the "end-all be-all" are just deluding themselves, imho. This (delusion) stems from half-baked understanding of Buddhist teachings as well as theravada dogma.

Emptiness and dependent origination are not things, so how can they be constant? In fact, dependent origination and emptiness are really just concepts that we add onto our experience. The trouble is when we divorce them from their context and take them to be things in themselves.

 

I think it is wrong to try to apply concepts such as self or no-self to the Tao. The Tao is both included in the world of concepts, but also beyond it. Applying these concepts to the Tao strikes me as trying to capture the ocean in a bowl.

 

Yes, yes ... I know what you are saying ... truly

 

Trust me I am not trying to "latch on" to anything, this is just an attempt for clarity. Call it Stigweard's silly little game if you want to

 

So for you Buddhists, could you please fill in the blank:

 

Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth.

The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe.

The Universe is dependently originated from _______________________.

 

[Marblehead]

The Universe is dependently originated from ________T_A_O_____________.

 

Sorry. I will be more mindful in the future.

 

[adept]

Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth.

The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe.

The Universe is dependently originated from _______________________.

 

 

I'm not a Buddhist but I would say 'previous universe'