Buddhism v. Taoism

[forestofsouls]

Something I've been thinking about lately, whether Buddhism and Taoism are complementary, or incompatible.

I should warn everyone that this post is somewhat devil's advocate, and written so. I am neither Buddhist or Taoist in the official sense, and take heavily from both. I am also painting with a very broad brush here.

 

Some say that highest aspirations in Taoism is to achieve immortality, to become one the xians. To do so, one takes in energies from the world and refines them.

 

Some say that the highest aspirations in Buddhism is to liberate oneself, and all sentient being. The aim of Buddhist practice is to lose oneself and let go, let go, let go.

 

Taoists often hide their practices, in secret, and teach only the worthy. I know of a taoist monk who had a high level of energy, and could analyze and prescribe solutions to many ailments, moral and physical. When asked if he could perform readings in the West, he said that we didn't deserve it.

 

Many Buddhist give their teachings freely, often with no or minimal charge, or on dana, as much as the student values the teaching. Many Buddhists are outwardly friendly and accepting.

 

I wonder, if fundamentally, Buddhism and Taoism are fundamentally incompatible. Is Taoism about the becoming a god, and Buddhism about losing the self? Is Taoism selfish and Buddhism open? Do Taoists take more than they give, do Buddhists give more than they take?

 

Just some ideas floating around.

Edited January 10, 2007 by forestofsouls

[mYTHmAKER]

 

wonder, if fundamentally, Buddhism and Taoism are fundamentally incompatible. Is Taoism about the becoming a god, and Buddhism about losing the self? Is Taoism selfish and Buddhism open? Do Taoists take more than they give, do Buddhists give more than they take?

 

Just some ideas floating around.

 

One cannot become aware of being god without losing the self.

We are god and there's nothing we can do to change that.

Intellectually they may be somewhat different.

Do the work on yourself which is beyond words.

 

So as not to offend those who are offendable this is not a lecture and you all probably know

more about this than I do

[Taomeow]

Well, taoism is huge, and not uniform... so some schools and sects have incorporated Buddhism (which has been historically missionary-promoted rather aggressively), while others have made a point of preserving the original tradition intact. An example of taoist sects that have incorporated quite a bit of Buddhism here and there are the Central Orthodox School, Celestial Teachers, and Complete Reality. An example of schools incompatible with it would be most sects of Way of Power Magical taoism, most sects of Divinational taoism (both celestial Tzu-weu Tu-su and land feng shui), and of course the original proto-taoist shamanic tradition and the beginning of it all with Fu Xi and his divine mathematical revelations that form the basis of scientific taoism...

these can't possibly have anything in common with Buddhism.

[Palmer]

 

Some say that highest aspirations in Taoism is to achieve immortality, to become one the xians. To do so, one takes in energies from the world and refines them.

 

 

I know very little when it comes to Taoism but this being the case I was under the impression that any desire to achieve immortality or longevity would be for a greater purpose that may change from individual to individual. In my opinion this greater purpose would through enlightenment need to be aligned with the Tao and therefore also ultimately be a selfless existence/endeavor?

Edited January 10, 2007 by Palmer

[Trunk]

Something I've been thinking about lately, whether Buddhism and Taoism are complementary, or incompatible.

Short answer here.

[Cameron]

I don't really care if it's called Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity,Islam, Zen, Tantra, Dharma, Adveita etc etc as long as it is a path to realizing truth. I am currently of the opinion truth isn't something that can be negotiated. It is what is.

 

Conceptually, I see the different paths as methods or aids to help experience this. Of course, there are some people that still think the spiritual path may lead to completely different destinations. I don't really buy that anymore. If there is oneness and truth then there is oneness and truth and the rest are concepts that help you get through the day or make the ride more enjoyable.

 

Of course, I could be wrong too. Maybe there are many different heavens and dimensions where followers of different paths go. But as far as awakening goes I like to think it is the same experience(perhaps experienced differently by the individual but inherently the same dropping of the ego) just viewed through the filter of different language and cultures.

 

Basically, what Bill Bodri asserts in his work. The spiritual path and stages are the same just use different explanations.

 

But Ime open to here others views too.

[Taomeow]

I don't really care if it's called Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity,Islam, Zen, Tantra, Dharma, Adveita etc etc as long as it is a path to realizing truth. I am currently of the opinion truth isn't something that can be negotiated. It is what is.

 

I think where and how one looks for it is not unlike this old joke about a midnight drunk crawling on his hands and knees in a pool of light under a lamppost. "What are you doing?" a passer-by asks. "Dammit... I dropped a twenty-dollar bill in that alley over there..." "But why are you looking for it here if you dropped it over there?" "You crazy?! Can't you see how dark it is over there? How can I look for it if where I can't see?!.."

 

I happen to think Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, all those light-centered (i.e. yang/male-centered) belief systems can only take one to a very different place from where we have really "dropped" the truth... Gotta go to a dark place, to a yin place... "know the light but choose the dark"(Laozi)... and that's where taoism fits the bill.

 

By the way, the non-discriminating approach also has a name. It is called New Age. It is different from traditional modalities in that its nonspecific belief system boils down to "whatever suits MY current purposes." Free style, so to speak. But not so free as to not have acquired a label of its own!

[Cameron]

Interesting. I think Taoists explain things very, very well and have to admit I prefer there way of explaining over the other paths mentioned. Actually Taoists just describe what is better than anyone else I think. The way they have mapped everything out so thoroughly. But that doesn't mean it works well for everyone so different paths serve a purpouse. I like the direct pointing of Zen also.

 

I mean, the way the questioned is asked you might as well ask "If Lao Tse and Buddha ever met how would they get along?". Or for that matter Lao Tse and Jesus. Or Buddha and Mohammed or whatever. Too bad we can't ever get a Satsang or Dharma dialogues between the spiritual giants of the different traditions. That would really have cleared things up!

[forestofsouls]

I mean, the way the questioned is asked you might as well ask "If Lao Tse and Buddha ever met how would they get along?". Or for that matter Lao Tse and Jesus. Or Buddha and Mohammed or whatever. Too bad we can't ever get a Satsang or Dharma dialogues between the spiritual giants of the different traditions. That would really have cleared things up!

 

The question isn't whether Lao Tsu and Buddha would get along. Let me elaborate a little further, and perhaps more specifically.

 

I believe that Buddhism and Taoism have similar roots: self-observation. In this sense, Buddhism and Taoism share a common source, i.e. the world.

 

What I have found in Taoism and not Buddhism are techniques based on fulfilling desires: health, longevity, personal power (in internal martial arts). What I've found in Buddhism and not Taoism are techniques based on the notion that all desires are the roots of suffering.

 

Adopting a Taoist worldview, my "self" is a smaller system of energy within a larger system of energy. When I practice Tai Chi, I aim at connecting with the larger system, increasing the energy in this smaller system, and refining it. The energy flow would be universe to me. Specifically, I do exercises that increase my energy flow in my body and then I try to store it all in my lower dan tien area.

 

In Buddhism, it seems that this distinction between the two systems is false. Buddhism tells me, there is only the larger system. My Buddhist meditation is about letting go. It seems to me that it is about eradaticating the borders between the systems.

 

The reason I do both is simple: I use Taoist practices for health and Buddhist practices to change the nature of my mind. Yet if one worldview is about maintaing and increasing the smaller system, and the other is about eradicating its distinction. Is this a tension?

[rex]

The reason I do both is simple: I use Taoist practices for health and Buddhist practices to change the nature of my mind. Yet if one worldview is about maintaing and increasing the smaller system, and the other is about eradicating its distinction. Is this a tension?

 

Depending on the Buddhist tradition and how the body is viewed there's no tension. In the tantric traditions body, mind and energy are seen as inseparable so it's perfectly legitimate to do practices that maintain and refine the precious base for spiritual practice.

[Pero]

...Buddhist practices to change the nature of my mind.

 

Hmmm, sorry, but I don`t think this is right. You may change your mind with Buddhist practice, but not NATURE of mind...

And Buddhists have practices for long life, wealth etc.. as well. But they are not the goal, they are used if needed. Goal is total realization.

[Cameron]

I don't see any problem unless you make it one. I think we can simutaneously see ourselves as smaller systems within larger ones and also see they are all part of one system.

 

Ime not sure which school of Taoism your studying. Some Taoist schools sound almost identical to Buddhist schools to me while others might put more emphasis on the 'esoteric' aspects. But there are Buddhist schools that follow a more esoteric model also. Really need to identify which 'brand' of Taoism. My teachers basically mix traditions. Taoism, Buddhism, Advieta, Native Indian Spirituality, New Age, Tantra. I think that's basically what most people here are doing also for the most part.

[Ian]

I know very litle about the origins of either, but I do have a couple of thoughts.

 

One : a few thousand years ago life may have been quite tough, and it may have been necessary to use certain practices simply to help stay alive long enough to make a decent fist of meditation. And that some of these practices might have since been seen as part of the process, rather than a means to it.

 

(obviously some overlap: clear tubes, health body, steady mind etc etc)

 

Also, certain martial practices, again, may have been useful in terms of staying alive, and getting a profession, i.e. bodyguard etc which allowed /included some cultivation. Again, a means rather than an end.

 

As I say, just thoughts. Nothing I want to argue about.

[DentyDao]

I'm not sure you can really compare the two. Buddhism is a very 'fixed' path with clear definitive teachings that don't really change and evolve. Taoism is the opposite. It has thousands of variants, schools and lineages each with their own ideas and practices; some effective, some not so effective. A perfect illustration of his is the fact that many Taoist traditions incorporated Buddhism, but no Buddhist lineage has ever adopted the teachings of Lao Tzu for example.

 

Of course, Taoists in their various lineages held many of the tenets of Buddhism before Buddhist history. They even had the concept of becoming a Buddha before the historical Buddha came onto the scene. If you're going to compare the two, then I think you need to say which line of the Dao you are comparing to Buddhism.

 

Anyway, I'm gland we have both.

Edited January 10, 2007 by seandenty

[mYTHmAKER]

In Buddhism, it seems that this distinction between the two systems is false. Buddhism tells me, there is only the larger system. My Buddhist meditation is about letting go. It seems to me that it is about eradaticating the borders between the systems.

 

The reason I do both is simple: I use Taoist practices for health and Buddhist practices to change the nature of my mind. Yet if one worldview is about maintaing and increasing the smaller system, and the other is about eradicating its distinction. Is this a tension?

 

Tai Chi is all about letting go

and it does change the nature of your mind.

[mbanu]

Buddhism and Taoism are two solutions to roughly the same problem. They share common ground when it comes to outlining what's going on, but diverge when it comes to the question of what to do about it. If the problem were described as a hurricane, Buddhists would head for the periphery, Taoists would head for the eye.

 

Immortality practices are not really Taoism, they are simply a popular part of Taoist culture that illustrate understanding of certain principles. I liken it to the difference between Judaism and Jewish culture, if that makes sense. The goal of Taoism is not immortality, it's grasping Te and through it Wu Wei. Immortality practices are just something fun in the meantime.

[Pero]

and it does change the nature of your mind.

 

Hmmm, emptiness = nature of mind.... You`re changing emptiness???

Mind is what can be changed, and actually changes all the time... Nature of mind doesn`t change...

[mYTHmAKER]

Hmmm, emptiness = nature of mind.... You`re changing emptiness???

Mind is what can be changed, and actually changes all the time... Nature of mind doesn`t change...

 

Emptiness is the nature of the Buddha mind

certainly not mine.

So meditation, tai chi changes the nature of our everyday mind.

[Pero]

Emptiness is the nature of the Buddha mind

certainly not mine.

So meditation, tai chi changes the nature of our everyday mind.

 

 

I can`t believe I was actually able to write a post yesterday (I mean today) hehehe.

Anyway, emptiness is the nature of all minds, not just Buddha mind (actually emptiness is the nature of all things I think). The difference is, Buddha is realized, has "awakened mind", we (I assume) do not. If nature of mind would be changing, what would there be to realize? Your own (regular) mind, which is constantly changing, different thoughts, emotions?? What kind of a realization is that? Of course I`m not saying that changing (movement) isn`t a part of us, emptiness isn`t all there is.

Hmmm, "So meditation, tai chi changes the nature of our everyday mind.". Well, I agree with that (with what I assume it means, or should mean), but that`s different than saying "change the nature of mind".

And, we are all Buddhas (so have Buddha mind).

Edited January 11, 2007 by Pero

[Cameron]

In a sense you can say it's changing but also say it never changes. Sort of like ice and water. Maybe the enlightened mind is more like water. Totally open to all. No self or intention, free flowing to beneifit life however it can. While every day mind is like ice. Stuck in a certain place, seemingly in a solid state. You can say ice realizes it's potential to be water or 'changes' into water.

 

I prefer to say ice just melts to water. So in spiritual practice 'I try' to melt or dissolve all my illusions, ideas, opinions, beliefs and see the ice of ego is also free flowing water. And even if it freezes into ice again it's ok because I know it can also melt into water again. Different states but same essential nature or substance.

 

The question for me still remains even if there is ego is there any reality to it? The enlightened person would say no, there is no reality to ego. So from that perspective nothing changes since the identity of a seperate self that was beleived in doesn't really exist anyway outside of mental mis identification or ignorance.

 

But you could probably even still say that's a change in awareness if you prefered, even though it feels more like recognition to me.

[forestofsouls]

I can`t believe I was actually able to write a post yesterday (I mean today) hehehe.

Anyway, emptiness is the nature of all minds, not just Buddha mind (actually emptiness is the nature of all things I think). The difference is, Buddha is realized, has "awakened mind", we (I assume) do not. If nature of mind would be changing, what would there be to realize? Your own (regular) mind, which is constantly changing, different thoughts, emotions?? What kind of a realization is that? Of course I`m not saying that changing (movement) isn`t a part of us, emptiness isn`t all there is.

Hmmm, "So meditation, tai chi changes the nature of our everyday mind.". Well, I agree with that (with what I assume it means, or should mean), but that`s different than saying "change the nature of mind".

And, we are all Buddhas (so have Buddha mind).

 

What I was referring to was the inner mental make-up of the mind, not necessarily its fundamental essence. Specifically, I've noticed that while people can make progress with developing the ability to harness and channel energy, they still suffer from anger, pride, etc. It is as though the "ego" is being enhanced instead of diminished.

 

Personally, when you say emptiness is the nature of all minds, this makes sense to me verbally, and intellectually, but not experientially, not within in the depths of my being.

[mYTHmAKER]

Tai Chi is all about letting go

and it does change the nature of your mind.

 

To clarify: Tai chi changes the way you think about things - life in general-

Your attitude and actions change. Your body and self receive direct experience

of the tao.

You are no longer the same. (Yes part of you is the same and you have changed)

Buddha mind, no mind, egoless, are all words of seperateness, thoughts, philosophy.

[sanbaowellness]

This one makes me smile. Either is what one makes it. The term "vs" implies confrontation. At the top of the Nei Jing Tu you have Bodhidharma and Lao Zi, representing Zen Buddhism and Daoism. They also represent the fundamental unity of different spiritual paths leading to the same goal. At the highest levels there is no conflict. A Wudang master once said to me, "Can you see yourself without a mirror?"

 

Not a question to be answered as much as constantly observed and applied to life, etc. ... or not.

-D

[Cameron]

Nice! I think this is an excellent response. Ken Cohen says the same thing and he incorporates both Buddhist stuff and Taoist stuff very well. Obviously, the Taoists have there strengths and the Buddhists have there strengths. Why should there be any conflict in combining the two?