Difference between Taoism and Buddhism?

[BaguaKicksAss]

Here is my first question in the NOOB question series .

 

Yes I really am curious. Also yes I am new enough to such things to still not be quite sure.

 

Also what is the difference in each compared with the standard folk religion or practice?

 

What is the difference of them to shamanistic practices? I know most say that the shamanistic ones allow the entity to take over, but I mean aside from that, which other differences? (But also, doesn't one allow Buddha to take over, but in a different and more peaceful sort of way?)

 

I mean aside from different Deities... what are the main differences? Especially on a practical people practicing them, level.

 

Also, how are these not religion? (I have always been told they are not religion; I'm having trouble seeing the differences. Keep in mind I was never raised religious though)

 

I should already know this I'm sure, but somehow it confuses me.

 

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. This was the discussion that caused me to become a member of this board.

 

Philosophically, there are some differences but there are more concepts in common than most people would admit to.

 

As to religion, there is even more in common because Religious Taoism has both Taoism and Buddhism at its roots.

 

I have zero knowledge of any Buddhist shamanism. I doubt there is a comparison. But yes, Taoism has roots in shamanism (although they are not a part of my belief system).

[Seeker of Wisdom]

*The shamanism question - I'm not familiar enough with shamanism to comment on it properly, but regarding the idea of 'allowing Buddha to take over' - so far as I am aware there's nothing in Buddhism about channelling/invoking Buddhas. Remember, they are not gods and do not have the ability to make us enlightened.

 

Rather devotional practices, particularly stuff with yidams, is based on the rationale of modelling yourself on that figure in order to help you recognise their traits within yourself. Whether that figure even exists is irrelevant from my POV. It isn't actually about worship or allowing another entity access to your mind (although some people do seem to see and receive teachings from Buddhas along the way). 'The Buddha you bow to is yourself'. If you read the Platform Sutra, Hui-neng gives an interesting interpretation of taking refuge in the Three Jewels along those lines.

 

*On Buddhism and Taoism not being religion, I would argue that the systems themselves are religions, but they are religions that practitioners can USE rather than religions that practitioners must BELONG TO. Alan Wallace describes Buddhist perspectives as working hypotheses - and these are meant to be tested and ultimately left behind when their purpose has been achieved.

 

*As for the differences between Buddhism and Taoism... I know less about Taoism than Buddhism so my comments will be flawed, but here's some thoughts:

 

1) It depends on the form of Buddhism. Zen is very similar to Taoism, others are more different in approach. I have a mix of Therevada, Zen, Vajrayana and goodies beyond Buddhism right now, which means that some of the time I'm basically practising Taoism and other times I'm being far more analytical.

 

2) So Buddhism is often much more analytical - not necessarily in terms of intellectual reasoning, but definitely in close examination of experience, with the practice of vipassanna/vipashyana.

 

Therevada especially uses probing into intricate details of processes like perception and so forth to discover their impermanence, dukkha and not-self nature. Breaking everything down into the smallest parts and how they interact, for example as outlined in the satipatthana sutta.

 

3) The ideas of dukkha and emptiness are also really key to Buddhism and not emphasised in the same way in Taoism. I'm aware there is an idea of void in Taoism, but when I've seen that discussed it seems people are talking about a 'thing', unlike the Buddhist concept of everything lacking substantial existence. I use the word 'Tao' as more a verb than a noun for the same reason. The idea of not-self isn't explicitly described in Taoism as far as I know, while it is a cornerstone of Buddhism.

 

4) Taoism, like Zen and Vajrayana, seems to focus on transcending dualistic concepts by releasing into Tao, so that wu wei flows. But even Zen and Dzogchen have methods for actively developing specific mental qualities with linear progression, which Taoism doesn't tend to favour.

 

As stated above, some forms of Buddhism are more analytical. Therevada and non-Zen Mahayana works by replacing a false concept with a correct one, which then dissolves by itself as it is no longer needed. Hence 'form is void' (destroying the ideas of substantialism and nihilism) is followed by 'void is form' (the idea of emptiness is now another object of attachment, so gets released). This vipashyana practice is also combined with shamatha.

 

5) Most forms of Buddhism have little direct focus on issues of chi, and when they do look at the body it tends to be to remember death, or consider the body parts to recognise that the body is dukkha and not-self. Taoism and Vajrayana actively deal with chi to facilitate faster unfolding of the mind.

[idiot_stimpy]

I have zero knowledge of any Buddhist shamanism. I doubt there is a comparison. But yes, Taoism has roots in shamanism (although they are not a part of my belief system).

 

Bon Buddhists have roots in shamanism from what I have read from Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche.

[Simple_Jack]

Also, how are these not religion? (I have always been told they are not religion; I'm having trouble seeing the differences. Keep in mind I was never raised religious though)

 

Rajiv Malhotra on Dharma:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/dharma-religion_b_875314.html

 

"...Dharma has the Sanskrit root dhri, which means "that which upholds" or "that without which nothing can stand" or "that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe." Dharma encompasses the natural, innate behavior of things, duty, law, ethics, virtue, etc...But dharma is not limited to a particular creed or specific form of worship...Dharma is also often translated as "law," but to become a law, a set of rules has to be present which must: (i) be promulgated and decreed by an authority that enjoys political sovereignty over a given territory, (ii) be obligatory, (iii) be interpreted, adjudicated and enforced by courts, and (iv) carry penalties when it is breached. No such description of dharma is found within the traditions...The reduction of dharma to concepts such as religion and law has harmful consequences: it places the study of dharma in Western frameworks, moving it away from the authority of its own exemplars. Moreover, it creates the false impression that dharma is similar to Christian ecclesiastical law-making and the related struggles for state power."

[GrandmasterP]

" According to one Taoist legend, after Lao-Tzu joined the immortals, he was reborn as Shakyamuni."

 

( Bill Porter {Red Pine} in ' Road to Heaven. Encounters with Chinese Hermits', page 63.)

Edited June 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP