Buddhist and Taoist energy cultivation differences

[konchog uma]

This is the nonsense I was responding to:

 

"@alwayson Jolan Chang writes that within Tibetan vajrayana, the physical practices of highest yoga tantra, like semen retention, internal orgasm for men, etc, were called "the chinese practices". He was a daoist of course, and everyone seems to like to write about how right their tradition is, but nonetheless, its possible that vajrayana incorporated elements of daoism and chinese thought."

 

thats nice alwayson. you're welcome to disagree with jolan chang, i would expect no less from you.

 

but you were going on about the roots of vajrayana, as i quoted in the last post. this post you quote here has nothing to do with the roots of vajrayana. So i'm not sure how to respond except to let you know that i have no interest in arguing with you, which pretty much rules out all conversation with you.

 

if youre going to pick a bone with every little thing outside your box, at least be consistent and make sense. thanks.

[RongzomFan]

this post you quote here has nothing to do with the roots of vajrayana.

 

[konchog uma]

 

maybe youre confusing it with a post about the roots of buddhism. if you read it again, you'll see that it has nothing to say about the roots of vajrayana. I mentioned that jolan chang reports in The Tao of Love and Sex that the physical sexual practices were called the chinese practices in tibet, which might mean that vajrayana incorporated some chinese wisdom in the course of its history. Neither I, nor Chang, made any claims about the origins of vajrayana.

 

I understand that you are a purist and think that vajrayana, or buddhism, is the root of daoism, but to me it is not inconceivable that the two have different origins, and that they cross pollinated during the course of their history. I wouldn't dream of talking to you about the origins of vajrayana, i am sure i would be wrong lol... it all came from the dharmakaya and samboghakaya anyway so its not like you know the origins of it either lol

 

anyway moving on

Edited February 16, 2013 by konchog uma

[Tibetan_Ice]

This scholar uses the word "plagiarism"

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=2HS1DOZ35EgC&pg=PA280&dq=Taoism+copy+of+buddhism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=THYeUay1BLOt0AH2o4DoDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Taoism%20copy%20of%20buddhism&f=false

 

Alwaysoff,

I'm so glad we have practices and results to rely on instead of scholars.

 

You seem to think that the fact that writings are found in a book give the writings some kind of credence or absolute truth.

 

The way I see it, what someone writes in a book is maybe 40% accurate. So mostly it is a bunch of shit. Good for building bricks. You must have quite a brick house built by now.

 

Then, the next "scholar" comes along, quotes and references that book (which is 40% accurate), and builds another pile of shit.

 

That's what scholars do.

 

Not having lived in the times or having been submerged in the culture, scholars try to crystalize their erroneous beliefs and mind-based constructions into something worthy of notice. But mostly it's all crap.

 

Thank God we have practices to learn, try and experience. Experience derived from the results of practice is the best teacher. You can pursue your penchant for the ultimate elitist teachings which, chances are, are 40% accurate and what will you gain? You will have grown your conceptual mind to be elephantiacle menace that it seems to be and lost your valuable time.

 

Consider this:

 

Gyalwang Je says: Unlike the discursive meditation of pandits, this is contemplative, introspective, discursive meditation. Cut off conceptual superimpositions from within.

 

- The discursive meditations of pandits are broad-ranging and they are not the contemplative, introspective, discursive meditation taught in this text. Pandits' meditations require years of studying Madhyamaka, Prajnaparamita, epistemology, and logic. That is not bad, but due to the uncertain duration of our lives, we may not wish to spend our lives in that way. If one follows that scholarly training over the course of years without subduing one's own mind, that learning may simply give rise to greater pride. And, as self-importance arises, the door to liberation closes.

 

Karma Chagme. A Spacious Path to Freedom: Practical Instructions on the Union of Mahamudra and Atiyoga (Kindle Locations 1143-1146). Kindle Edition.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[Gerard]

.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Gerard

[RongzomFan]

Buddhism is a lot more straightforward: tackle the mind directly instead of manipulating mind-constructs, i.e. body, energy, essence, etc.

 

 

Manipulating the body is the whole point of Vajrayana.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Manipulating the body is the whole point of Vajrayana.

 

Gross oversimplification.

 

 

THE INNER YOGAS There are three distinctive arenas of Vajrayana practice: (1) the visualization of oneself as the yidam and the practice of the various sadhanas, discussed in the chapter 10; (2) the practice of the inner yogas, which work with the subtle body, to be examined in this chapter; and (3) “formless” meditation, in which one rests directly in the nature of mind, to be explored in chapters 12 and 13. These three types of practice may be correlated with the two basic phases of Vajrayana meditation, utpattikrama, the development stage, and sampannakrama, the completion stage. While yidam practice is particularly associated with utpattikrama, the development stage, the other two phases of Vajrayana practice are associated with sampannakrama, the completion stage: the inner yogas are known as sampannakrama with signs—that is, with some subtle form—and the “formless practice” of resting directly in the nature of mind is known as sampannakrama without signs.

Ray, Reginald A. (2012-12-18). Secret of the Vajra World: The Tantric Buddhism of Tibet (Kindle Locations 3468-3475). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

 

[RongzomFan]

Its funny how you constantly cite books, I read a decade ago.

[raimonio]

Someone said that Buddhism goes top to bottom and Daoism vise versa, this has been my experience. I'm a head-oriented person and Buddhist meditation makes my brain go hyperactive, while Daoist practice get me rooted. This is why I feel that Daoist practices are better for me, Buddhism causes imbalances. I think everyone should try what works best for them and go with that, but there are clear differences in approach within all schools and religions.

 

I also think that Daoism is almost completely based on dealing with energies, while in Buddhism that is evident in only certain schools and with certain techniques. Like in Buddhism you have alot of visualization, concentrating on images, mindfulness, concentrating on feelings like loving kindness, mantras etc. At the highest level it seems to be all the same. I read Thomas Cleary's "Vitality, Energy and Spirit", there you have many accounts of Daoist masters who also happened to be Buddhist masters and from what I gathered, it seemed like achieving immortality was basicly the same as enlightenment. But even when it comes to enlightenment, the Daoist masters are looking it from the point of view of energy. They say that the practitioners "energy merges with the cosmos", while Buddhist say "Your conciousness becomes one with the one" or "You let go of your ego". These are very different ways of looking at the same thing. In many cases, it seems like the Buddhists are completely oblivious to the world of energy and the Daoist have forgotten that there is also something else.

 

Many routes to the same destination indeed.

[adept]

I don't see any problem with combining the two.

A Buddhist mindfulness meditation practice (anapana/vipassana), coupled with a physical qigong/IMA routine, makes for a pretty potent cultivation method IMHO.

[Shagrath]

I don't see any problem with combining the two.

A Buddhist mindfulness meditation practice (anapana/vipassana), coupled with a physical qigong/IMA routine, makes for a pretty potent cultivation method IMHO.

 

 

OFC! Every path leads toward same goal. Why not combine different methods that suit you the most

[RongzomFan]

I don't see any problem with combining the two.

A Buddhist mindfulness meditation practice (anapana/vipassana), coupled with a physical qigong/IMA routine, makes for a pretty potent cultivation method IMHO.

 

It might be easier to get transmission for qiqong, but....

 

do you consider the physical routines of qiqong superior to the physical routines of Vajrayana?

Edited February 17, 2013 by alwayson

[adept]

I don't have any experience with Vajrayana so it would be unfair for me to comment on whether one method is superior to another.

[Maddie]

This might be a simplistic generalization but is it the tendency of Taoism to cultivate the body first and then the mind (or the mind follows), and is it the tendency of Buddhism to cultivate the mind first and then the body? Are there advantages and disadvantages to each approach?

[RongzomFan]

Vajrayana is all about the body. The mind is just vayu.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

This might be a simplistic generalization but is it the tendency of Taoism to cultivate the body first and then the mind (or the mind follows), and is it the tendency of Buddhism to cultivate the mind first and then the body? Are there advantages and disadvantages to each approach?

In general, I think you're right.

 

The advantage of focusing on the body first is that once you've cleaned up your chi to a reasonable extent, your mental work will go much faster. The disadvantages are greater risk of kundalini issues, and getting obsessed with chi. Having perfect chi is not nirvana. It's just a helpful foundation, which would happen along the way anyway to someone working hard on virtue, shamatha and vipassana.

 

The advantage of focusing on the mind first is you don't get sidetracked, and when you do start on chi there will be little left to do. However it is hard - taking this route all the way would involve great(er) discipline and (more) years in intensive retreat.

 

I advise combining them. However, keep the emphasis on mind (virtue, shamatha, vipassana). About one minute on the body to ten minutes on the mind has served me well so far.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Seeker of the Self

[ChiDragon]

This might be a simplistic generalization but is it the tendency of Taoism to cultivate the body first and then the mind (or the mind follows), and is it the tendency of Buddhism to cultivate the mind first and then the body? Are there advantages and disadvantages to each approach?

 

I believe, in Taoism, the mind, body and breathing are cultivated at the same time. For example, Chi Kung.

Edited May 7, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Maddie]

In general, I think you're right.

 

The advantage of focusing on the body first is that once you've cleaned up your chi to a reasonable extent, your mental work will go much faster. The disadvantages are greater risk of kundalini issues, and getting obsessed with chi. Having perfect chi is not nirvana. It's just a helpful foundation, which would happen along the way anyway to someone working hard on virtue, shamatha and vipassana.

 

The advantage of focusing on the mind first is you don't get sidetracked, and when you do start on chi there will be little left to do. However it is hard - taking this route all the way would involve great(er) discipline and (more) years in intensive retreat.

 

I advise combining them. However, keep the emphasis on mind (virtue, shamatha, vipassana). About one minute on the body to ten minutes on the mind has served me well so far.

 

I suppose also that in the same way that the Buddha would not answer any two people the same depending on their individual needs, I'd reckon that the percentages (body to mind cultivation) also would vary depending on each individual cultivators state?

Edited May 7, 2013 by dmattwads

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Yeah. Though I would still suggest a primary focus on the mind, with chi as an auxiliary to help things along.

[RiverSnake]

My understanding is that the neigong I practice has Buddhist and Taoist roots. Such things are not black and white. The culture a practice or technique it emerges from often colors the surface of the methodology.

 

My 2 cents, Peace

[Mudfoot]

My understanding is that the neigong I practice has Buddhist and Taoist roots. Such things are not black and white. The culture a practice or technique it emerges from often colors the surface of the methodology.

My 2 cents, Peace

 

Quite common.

[Songtsan]

I like differences2!

[id05245]

I've been looking for something like this for a while and here is my question: I practice vipassana, I started learning about the microcosmic orbit and qi and taoism before that. Should vipassana be used along with the microcosmic orbit?