Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Stigweard]

Same here.

 

 

 

Here's how I see it. I've studied a bit of both Buddhism and Taoism, and have some amount of spiritual practice which is neither specifically Taoist nor specifically Buddhist.

 

Taoism is much less formal than Buddhism. Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) is mostly a series of damn good questions, or statements that are meant to provoke questions. There is also plenty of humor in Chuang Tzu, whereas Buddhists seem to lack humor. So while Buddhists always smile, they are also always serious. Taoists seem to laugh a lot and they are much less serious and less constipated than Buddhists. It's not uncommon to find two Buddhists splitting infinite hairs over some doctrinal point, whereas you likely won't find Taoists engaged in such behavior.

 

Buddhism is more useful than Taoism to someone who has a lot of questions and who wants answers instead of counter-questions. Buddhism is more down to earth than Taoism in the sense that Buddhist practices are easy to explain and anyone can practice them. Taoist practices can be a bitch to explain and are somewhat elitist. It makes sense because Buddhism stresses compassion. So accessibility and digestibility are important values in Buddhist teachings, but Taoists are equally happy if no one understands what they say and thus, they are less compassionate and more snobbish than Buddhists. I love Chuang Tzu, but I fear Chuang Tzu is impenetrable for most people. Even when I re-read Chuang Tzu, I get a different understanding from it every time. On the other hand, Buddhist sutras have simple and down to earth explanations that even children can understand. This is because Buddhist compassion leads to skill in means.

 

I love both flavors and I am moved by and learn from them both. I think Taism and Buddhism are like apples and oranges, they are both part of a balanced diet.

 

As for qi gong, Buddhists do not emphasize energy practice because Buddhist believe that energy is essentially a trick of consciousness, empty, and not worth trying to micromanage. Thus even when Buddhist engage in energy-like practices, their point of focus is emptiness rather than energy accumulation. Buddhists don't believe things can be accumulated. Trying to accumulate energy is like trying to accumulate rainbows or like trying to accumulate rabbit horns, from a Buddhist perspective. Taoists tend to take a more substantialist view of energy and to them it makes more sense to try to refine and to accumulate energy, although I must say, this isn't consistent with what the founders like Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have said. So in a sense, Taoists ignore what their founders have said (especially alchemists who do things that downright contradict the spirit of Chuang Tzu) while Buddhists tend to listen to Buddha pretty faithfully in comparison.

 

Still, I find alchemy interesting anyway. Substantial or not is important for the sake of ultimate understanding, but in day to day experience alchemy can yield results even given a mind that's chained by subtle substantialist ignorance. And to most people results matter.

Sometimes you make the most succinct and personable posts. Thank you

[Stigweard]

To the original poster. If you want to know one vital thing that makes Buddhism and Taoism different, it's the fact that Taoism subscribes to one eternal source of all existence that is the primal essence of all things, beyond explanation and thought. Buddhism does not.

And this comment proves without a shadow of a doubt that you belligerently choose to ignore everything anyone ever says to you, making any inter-faith discussion with you an almost pointless exercise.

[Pero]

So not all Buddhists believe the same thing about this, it seems. And what it really comes down to is that it's a difference in belief...because experientially, is there really a difference between the two opinions?

 

Scotty, sorry it's not clear to me, but which two opinions are you reffering to?

[Apech]

And this comment proves without a shadow of a doubt that you belligerently choose to ignore everything anyone ever says to you, making any inter-faith discussion with you an almost pointless exercise.

 

Stig,

 

I think you are being a little harsh there. We have had this discussion before of course. But it is true that many Taoist refer to the Tao as a source or origin and this would seem from a Madhyamika point of view to be a distinguishing feature of Taoism making it non-Buddhist. That is not to say that this would be an obstacle to common practice or indeed empathy.

 

Wang Bi says something (I would have to look this up if you want) along the lines that Tao as origin and Tao as mother (of the ten thousand things) arise together. In other words although the Tao is formless in itself (if you like) when viewed from a relative viewpoint i.e. a person looking for an origin ... it looks like a source and also a sustainer of all that is.

 

Some of these problems come from the fact that when you read across from different systems then a confusion of terms can arise. It is better (in my view) to think Buddhist and think Taoist separately if you see what I mean. On more extreme example there is nothing stopping a Taoist and a Christian mystic sitting down and reaching common ground and respect - even though the idea of a personal god would still be there.

[Marblehead]

What source?

 

I don't know but it truely exists. You just have to accept it.

[The Way Is Virtue]

What source?

I understand that this is just a concept of convenience for the purposes of communicating an idea in a dualistic world. Whether one happens to think in terms of a source, nothingness, the void, tao, God, and whether one prefers to view everything as illusion or impermanence or otherwise, these are all just concepts of convenience for the purposes of trying to communicate an idea in this dualistic world. Lao Tzu wrote that the tao that can be spoken of is not the real tao, but at the same time he still did his best to convey his ideas using the limitations of dualistic language. In Buddhism there is the concept of a finger pointing at the moon to convey the idea that what is really being conveyed can only be 'pointed to' or 'hinted at', so one should not get stuck focusing on the finger. Although the Buddha was able to pass on the mind dharma to Mahakasyapa by merely holding up a flower to him (the first 'kung an' or 'koan'), the Buddha also related other dharma through the use of dualistic language. Whether one prefers to think in terms of nothingness, illusion, the void, etc., I would think that it is understood these are all dualistic concepts and are aspects of the finger, not the moon which various respected teachers tell us can only ever be understood through direct experience and which cannot ever be understood or conveyed through words, concepts, and rational thought.

Edited November 7, 2010 by The Way Is Virtue

[Marblehead]

I hope this thread does not digress into nit-picking stupidity. It has been a very productive discussion so far.

 

Peace & Love to Y'all!!!

[Apech]

I hope this thread does not digress into nit-picking stupidity. It has been a very productive discussion so far.

 

Peace & Love to Y'all!!!

 

I second that! I have a strong feeling of deja vu though.

[Birch]

I don't think it will digress unless we stop at the "before experience" point. Which IMO (and small experience) is interesting in and of itself. If you go to practice with "buddhist right view" what you experience is (IMO and, well experience) different from a "viewless view".

 

If you go to practice with an alchemical view, a 5E perspective an anything, then it will also be different.

 

I think alchemy is good for people such as myself who have not quite let their nails off the edge.

[Marblehead]

I second that! I have a strong feeling of deja vu though.

 

But we can change the future through our actions of the moment.

 

I don't think it will digress

 

Thanks for the confidence and positive thoughts.

[Aetherous]

Scotty, sorry it's not clear to me, but which two opinions are you reffering to?

 

Believing in an eternal source, versus believing that there isn't one.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

There is no primordial source in Buddhism, there is only beginningless flow of interdependence.

 

 

Ahhhh.

 

"Source" vs. "beginningless flow of interdependence"

 

Can argue for both, no absolute proof of either. Taoism or Buddhism.

 

Heads or Tails?

[Pero]

Believing in an eternal source, versus believing that there isn't one.

 

Ahh... After a little thinking it seems too complicated for me to indulge in a discussion on this haha. I will say though that from the quote you provided I didn't deduct that he is talking about an eternal source. Though I suppose it depends on what exactly someone means with an "eternal source".

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Ahh... After a little thinking it seems too complicated for me to indulge in a discussion on this haha. I will say though that from the quote you provided I didn't deduct that he is talking about an eternal source. Though I suppose it depends on what exactly someone means with an "eternal source".

Ground of Being,

[Vajrahridaya]

I strongly disagree with this view. The Tao is not really the source, but it is the way of things, so to speak. The Tao is the experiential ground of things, but it's not some kind of substance and Chuang Tzu makes it pretty clear because the Tao is neither being nor non-being. The idea of the Tao is more of a teaching device, to get the person to think about the common pattern or the common reality behind the 10,000 things.

 

 

I think you're projecting Buddhist influenced thinking onto it. As a stand alone tradition, it's definitely monist. Like I said, individuals can do what they want but as far as the texts say, it's clearly originally a monist view. Everything is one eternal, beyond being and non-being. It's the same way Hindus describe Brahman and this view leads to a particular experience of re-absorption, thus not liberation according to Buddhadharma. But, you have Buddhist influence, so... you'll probably have an entirely different inner experience than if you were completely influenced by Taoist views.

 

To quote...

 

1

The tao that can be told

is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named

is not the eternal Name.

 

The unnamable is the eternally real.

Naming is the origin

of all particular things.

 

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.

Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

 

Yet mystery and manifestations

arise from the same source.

This source is called darkness.

 

Darkness within darkness.

The gateway to all understanding.

 

4

The Tao is like a well:

used but never used up.

It is like the eternal void:

filled with infinite possibilities.

 

It is hidden but always present.

I don't know who gave birth to it.

It is older than God.

 

 

5

The Tao doesn't take sides;

it gives birth to both good and evil.

The Master doesn't take sides;

she welcomes both saints and sinners.

 

The Tao is like a bellows:

it is empty yet infinitely capable.

The more you use it, the more it produces;

the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

 

Hold on to the center.

 

6

The Tao is called the Great Mother:

empty yet inexhaustible,

it gives birth to infinite worlds.

 

It is always present within you.

You can use it any way you want.

7

The Tao is infinite, eternal.

Why is it eternal?

It was never born;

thus it can never die.

Why is it infinite?

It has no desires for itself;

thus it is present for all beings.

 

 

Yes, there are so many translations out there. But all the translations of the Tao De Ching leave it beautifully Monist, thus more compatible with Hinduism, rather than Buddhism.

 

It's a beautiful path and has it's virtues. It's just not as exhaustive of a philosophy as Buddhism in my opinion. I also like Chuang Tzu better and I enjoy using the I-Ching. But, I myself as well project Buddhist resonances all over everything I read from Taoism making it more like an extension of Buddhism for me.

 

Everyone is welcome to their experience and opinion. I just don't agree with the idea that they are fundamentally teaching the same view of the "how" and the "why" thus the practice methods will lead to different goals in the end due to difference in view. There are plenty of Buddhist masters that have talked about this in beautiful ways. There is not just one mountain, there are many mountains and each one has a different view at the summit. Even in Buddhism, there are different liberation's.

[Vajrahridaya]

I was just reading The Dark Red Amulet today, and at the beginning of Chapter 7 it says the following:

 

The essence element (thigle) is the source of great bliss, which is beyond the ordinary sensations of bliss. The ultimate state of the essence element is the great bliss-emptiness of primordial wisdom. It is not subject to change, so we cannot say it is permanent or impermanent. This is why it is called "the great permanence". The siddha king Indrabhuti said, "Great bliss is not impermanent," which implies that it is permanent. But this permanence goes beyond relative permanence and impermanence. The higher teachings use the Sanskrit prefix maha or the Tibetan suffix chenpo, which means "great," to symbolize what is beyond duality.

 

So not all Buddhists believe the same thing about this, it seems. And what it really comes down to is that it's a difference in belief...because experientially, is there really a difference between the two opinions?

 

This is talking about wisdom, or insight into the nature of things as interdependent and empty of inherent substance as being the source of the experience of great bliss. Because all things are equally empty and have always been and will always be, this wisdom or insight is beyond change, coming and going, but that is not the same as saying it's the ground of all being. Basically all forms of Buddhism agree on this except for a very few fringe groups. Talking about the source of yogic bliss and talking about a singular overarching source of all things that self exists is different.

[Vajrahridaya]

"So not all Buddhists believe the same thing about this, it seems. And what it really comes down to is that it's a difference in belief...because experientially, is there really a difference between the two opinions?"

 

Nope

 

Actually yes, a monist bliss absorption into an overarching transcendent is a different experience from the bliss of insight into emptiness/dependent origination. It's very subtle, but since I've experienced both, I know based on direct experience. As well, plenty of Buddhist yogis talk about this in Vajrayana. There are many different types of bliss available to yogis of all different sorts dependent upon view and method.

[Vajrahridaya]

Agreed, maybe the word source was a wrong way to put it. Sourceless source would be a better way of describing it.

I tend to agree with GIH in that the Tao is just the flow of life, the constant change and not a fixed point where everything comes from and returns to. Dependent co-arising under a different name.

There can be harmony between the two traditions I think. Lets look to the similarities and not the differences.

 

Do No Harm

 

I think for the most part Taoism is a mixed bag with no definitive source of teaching, so one can indeed be Taoist and have this view. Though it really does appear that the Tao De Ching is ascribing to a monistic and transcendent source that all beings arise and return to.

 

I do think this is one of the beautiful aspects of Taoism though which makes it more easily integrated with any point of spiritual reference for any individual. Buddhism on the other hand has very definitive points of view and the Buddha went into exhaustive explanation into how one should view his teaching in order to realize what he realized. As far as the ultimate view goes, the Buddha is the one and only first and last source of Buddhist teaching and he taught for 40 years, and he set out to create and new and individual religion that was different from all else on planet Earth at the time.

 

All other forms of Buddhism have to reference his main body of teaching for authenticity. Taoism doesn't really have to do this.

 

The Taoist teachers are famously vague and not nearly as talkative.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

And this comment proves without a shadow of a doubt that you belligerently choose to ignore everything anyone ever says to you, making any inter-faith discussion with you an almost pointless exercise.

 

Oh I listen. Taoism is a mixed bag and I do think many views that individuals have of certain Taoist texts can be integrated very well with Buddhism. But, the Tao De Ching... one of the main and foremost texts of Taoism I don't think can.

 

You've admitted yourself to being a monist. Holding an eternalistic and realist view of the Tao. Which is fine. I just don't agree with this view. I more agree with GIH and Adepts view of the Tao... as merely a flow of interdependence. But, I don't think that the Tao De Ching agrees with me.

[Pero]

Ground of Being,

 

What?

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't know but it truely exists. You just have to accept it.

 

A Buddha sees right through it and reveals that this formless whole is really just made up of repressed parts waiting and quivering for their chance to get out and express themselves. So the Buddha saw through this oneness and revealed an endless many-ness, though as well... this many-ness of interconnected things are each and equally empty of inherent existence, so Buddhist non-dual insight subscribes neither to one singular wholeness nor many-ness.

 

This is also my own experience, having experienced the oneness many times through meditation, then having experienced Buddhist insight of emptiness going deeper into the illusion of oneness. I do not accept it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Stig,

 

I think you are being a little harsh there. We have had this discussion before of course. But it is true that many Taoist refer to the Tao as a source or origin and this would seem from a Madhyamika point of view to be a distinguishing feature of Taoism making it non-Buddhist. That is not to say that this would be an obstacle to common practice or indeed empathy.

 

Wang Bi says something (I would have to look this up if you want) along the lines that Tao as origin and Tao as mother (of the ten thousand things) arise together. In other words although the Tao is formless in itself (if you like) when viewed from a relative viewpoint i.e. a person looking for an origin ... it looks like a source and also a sustainer of all that is.

 

Some of these problems come from the fact that when you read across from different systems then a confusion of terms can arise. It is better (in my view) to think Buddhist and think Taoist separately if you see what I mean. On more extreme example there is nothing stopping a Taoist and a Christian mystic sitting down and reaching common ground and respect - even though the idea of a personal god would still be there.

 

I do agree. We can all agree that we are connected and that Compassion needs to be the ground of all action. No matter what your religion or spiritual or philosophical tradition is.

[Vajrahridaya]

I understand that this is just a concept of convenience for the purposes of communicating an idea in a dualistic world. Whether one happens to think in terms of a source, nothingness, the void, tao, God, and whether one prefers to view everything as illusion or impermanence or otherwise, these are all just concepts of convenience for the purposes of trying to communicate an idea in this dualistic world. Lao Tzu wrote that the tao that can be spoken of is not the real tao, but at the same time he still did his best to convey his ideas using the limitations of dualistic language. In Buddhism there is the concept of a finger pointing at the moon to convey the idea that what is really being conveyed can only be 'pointed to' or 'hinted at', so one should not get stuck focusing on the finger. Although the Buddha was able to pass on the mind dharma to Mahakasyapa by merely holding up a flower to him (the first 'kung an' or 'koan'), the Buddha also related other dharma through the use of dualistic language. Whether one prefers to think in terms of nothingness, illusion, the void, etc., I would think that it is understood these are all dualistic concepts and are aspects of the finger, not the moon which various respected teachers tell us can only ever be understood through direct experience and which cannot ever be understood or conveyed through words, concepts, and rational thought.

 

This is all great. But I don't agree that this is in line with what the buddha taught. Emptiness does not mean nothingness in Buddhism, it means interdependent origination, which is different from independent origination and the idea or experience of an ineffable "source" of all, no matter how transcendent, beyond concept, rational thought, words, etc., is not in line with the Buddhas teaching. It is in line with Hindu teaching as well as some peoples view of the Taoist teaching.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't think it will digress unless we stop at the "before experience" point. Which IMO (and small experience) is interesting in and of itself. If you go to practice with "buddhist right view" what you experience is (IMO and, well experience) different from a "viewless view".

Actually the Buddhist view is a viewless view. The view that all things come from one transcendent non-thing is considered a view according to Buddhist right view/viewless view.

 

 

I think alchemy is good for people such as myself who have not quite let their nails off the edge.

 

Ok.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ahhhh.

 

"Source" vs. "beginningless flow of interdependence"

 

Can argue for both, no absolute proof of either. Taoism or Buddhism.

 

Heads or Tails?

 

Generally speaking, yes, there is no empirical scientific proof for either.