Why Daoism over Buddhism

[Taomeow]

This seems so obvious, and yet at the same time it is kind of hard for a human being to comprehend; that something could have "no beginning". Saying "it has no beginning" is to say "it never began" which is to say "it doesn't exist" -- but this is our language tricking us. Nothing more.

 

This is why I suggest that the question "What came first?" is meaningless, and yields meaningless answers.

 

This doesn't necessarily mean that "the Big Bang" doesn't happen, though, at 'the beginning' of each cycle...right?

 

"When General Relativity was first quantized (becoming a theory of quantum gravity) in the 1960’s by John Wheeler, the result predicted a static state of the Universe, that is – no change, i.e. timelessness. This particular solution to the quantization of General Relativity is known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The result seemed to be paradoxical – because how can the Universe be static and unchanging – when our every experience is of change. Like the seeming axiom, ‘the only thing that stays the same is change’."

http://resonance.is/change-for-a-paradigm-new-experiment-shows-how-time-may-emerge-from-quantum-entanglement/

 

Sounds remarkably like the taoist paradoxical paradigm of tao-in-stillness (Wuji, Xian Tian) being/becoming tao-in-motion (Taiji, Hou Tian) -- something the human mind tries to interpret as sequential while the mind of tao (shared by the holy sages) perceives as both cyclical and simultaneous, counterintuitively enough. This is something a human mind does indeed find hard to fathom, but systemically, to the whole human being, the handle on this is available for grasping. The state in which this is grasped is not a "state of mind" -- it is something else... just like tao is not a state of mind, it's something else. One can describe various aspects of "how" this is possible but not really define it. (Tipping a hat to Mr. Laozi. ) But a lack of definition does not equal a lack of existence... fortunately for us all.

 

Oh, and a big bang happens in the trigram of Spring, the third one, every time the unchanging tao feels like changing. Taoist classics refer to this eternally recurring beginning as "a clap of thunder and a bolt of lightning." This is where, when, and how Water produces Fire -- spontaneously. Water is uncreated. Fire is uncreated. Fire gets bored, decides to get created. Big bang. Only in Spring, mind you. The cosmic spring of the taoist cosmic process of cosmic seasons. A seasonal event, big bang is. Nothing more.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Taomeow

[Daeluin]

When I read this it reminded me of taoist cosmology:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-paradoxes-that-threaten-to-tear-modern-cosmology-apart-d334a7fcfdb6

[Kongming]

Well, I certainly have enjoyed the answers and discussion so far, no matter how much it has diverged from the original question.

 

That said, it seems to me most of the answers have been humble, conciliatory, kind, or something along the lines of "Daoism just fits for me" or "I found Daoism first" or "Don't worry about paths or traditions, but truth." That's fine, but does anyone have an answer with a little more bite or conviction for their chosen path? Again, I am not interested in putting down either tradition as I have a great fondness for both, but it would be interesting to hear an answer which states why they think Daoism is the supreme path, or how they believe Daoism or neidan is the most advanced, or why Daoism beats out Buddhism in their opinion.

 

One thing I've seen Daoists say is that they cultivate both inner nature/xing (性) and life-destiny/ming (命), i.e. Daoists integrate health practices, dietetics, qi cultivation, neigong, etc. along with meditation and inner observation, whereas the Buddhists (typically) neglect the former. In conjunction with this I've heard Daoists say, to repeat what I mentioned earlier, that Buddhists can only project a yin soul. To quote from Stephen Eskildsen's "The Teachings and Practices of the Early Quanzhen Daoist Masters":

 

 

 

 

What is described above is “the Exercise of Refining the Spirit and

Merging with the Tao, Abandoning the Shell, and Ascending to

Immortality,” which arrives at self-so-ness. As for Buddhist monks

who enter into samadhi and die while seated in meditation, and

Taoists who enter into stillness and thus send out yin spirits, these

[spirits that they let out] are [nothing but] ghosts of pure vacuity and

are not pure yang immortals. They are distantly faint with no appearance

and in the end have no place to go to.Why do people who study

[the way to immortality] make these mistakes? They especially do not

understand that pure yang qi is born after the essence is refined and

made into an elixir. After you refine the qi and complete the Spirit,

the Realized Numinous Divine Immortal transcends the ordinary and

enters into sacredness. You abandon your shell and ascend to immortality,

and this is called “transcending and escaping.” This is the method of divine immortals that has not changed for a hundred

million years!

Shortly later on in the text, “Qiu Chuji” himself says:

Generally speaking, if you have a body, you will have suffering. If you

have no home, you will have no attachments. In the past and present

[wise men] all say that arduous effort arrives at non-action. How

can [one who has arrived at non-action through arduous effort] bear

to love his body and not leave it? Thus he abandons his shell and

ascends to immortality by coming out from the top of his head.

Refining his Spirit, he transcends ordinariness and becomes an

immortal. People of the world do not like to cultivate and refine but

only want to abandon their shells and thereby complete the way of

immortality. How mistaken they are! With their bodies in a dark

room, they sit still, eliminate their thoughts, and forget ideas without

allowing outer surroundings to enter and inner surroundings to

exit. They are like withered trees, and their hearts are like dead

ashes (completely devoid of emotion or thought). Their spiritconsciousness

protects the One inside, and their minds are not

distracted. Amidst their samadhi, they let out their spirits which are

but yin souls. Dark and without appearance, they are not pure yang

immortals.

The essential point is that no matter how thoroughly one has mastered

mental methods of trance, one can only produce a feeble yin spirit if one has

not trained the body and its qi—this in fact is a mistake that Taoists as well

as Buddhists tend to make.

 

Thoughts on polemics like these?

[opendao]

 

but it would be interesting to hear an answer which states why they think Daoism is the supreme path, or how they believe Daoism or neidan is the most advanced, or why Daoism beats out Buddhism in their opinion.

 

One thing I've seen Daoists say is that they cultivate both inner nature/xing (性) and life-destiny/ming (命), i.e. Daoists integrate health practices, dietetics, qi cultivation, neigong, etc. along with meditation and inner observation, whereas the Buddhists (typically) neglect the former. In conjunction with this I've heard Daoists say, to repeat what I mentioned earlier, that Buddhists can only project a yin soul. To quote from Stephen Eskildsen's "The Teachings and Practices of the Early Quanzhen Daoist Masters":

 

Thoughts on polemics like these?

 

Early Chan had all methods to work with Ming and to achieve Yang Shen. After 6th patriarch Hui Neng such methods were mostly lost. So the speech is not about any "supremacy" of Daoism over Buddhism, but about the fact that some Daoist schools were able to preserve the complete methods.

[Apech]

Vedic system is based on Brahman - the expanding one. The universe is called brahmanda or the expanding egg. It expands and collapses cyclically, thereby the material universe rising from and collapsing back into the Brahman. It is not based on fire or sun although both have places of significance in the Vedic perspective, as does water.

The Vedic creation hymn - the nasadiya Sukta essentially says that there was undifferentiated water essence (wuji) from where the substantial and insubstantial came forth and from the interaction of the two rose the material universe. A very clear correspondence with the daoist perspective.

 

 

Students of the Chopra Center are aware of the importance of Agni as a primary principle in Vedic knowledge. This begins with the centrality of the digestive fire in Ayurveda. It extends to the fire of prana and to the fire of meditation, which are the basis of higher Yoga practices.

 

Agni in the broader sense is a cosmic power of light, perception and transformation, extending to the light of consciousness itself. Agni is not merely fire as a material or physical principle but as the light of all existence, with the entire universe itself existing as the cosmic fire.

 

In Ayurvedic treatment and Yoga practices, Agni relates to light, heat, purification and detoxification. It is the application of heat in some form or another that purifies, ripens, cooks and transforms. Higher Agnis are needed to develop a higher awareness.

 

http://www.chopra.com/teacher/dec13/dharma

 

You are probably right about the significance of water, in fact I could point to many ancient systems where water is the primary substance of reality. However the point I was making was that Buddhism is not a fire worshiping system as suggested by TM ... in fact Nirvana means extinguishing fire, the burnt out fire. This is in contrast to the primary rite of the ancient Vedic system of the fire ceremony where consciousness is seen as a consuming fire.

[Astral Monk]

_ _

___

_ _

___

_ _

___

 

... if you get my meaning.

formation of yang and yin...fire rises, water sinks...in the middle--the fusion of taiji...then they pass and separate.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

I was drawn to zen first, because of ninjas ;p

 

A lot of Buddhism speaks my language, esp. the paramitas. However, I am attracted to the freedom inherent in what I perceive as the Daoist path.

 

I think if you want to aim at the beyond, Buddhism is magnificent. If you want to aim at this life, Daoism is the way to go.

 

8)

[Michael Sternbach]

I was drawn to zen first, because of ninjas ;p

 

A lot of Buddhism speaks my language, esp. the paramitas. However, I am attracted to the freedom inherent in what I perceive as the Daoist path.

 

I think if you want to aim at the beyond, Buddhism is magnificent. If you want to aim at this life, Daoism is the way to go.

 

8)

 

This is true i.e. for Tibetan Buddhism but not for Zen which is solely interested in the Here and Now and doesn't concern itself with liberation from physical existence. In this regard, it is quite close to Daoism - which is one of its roots.

 

According to John Blofeld, it's quite common in China that individuals have their personal mixture of Daoism and Buddhism. In Japan, it's typically a mixture of Buddhism and Shintoism.

 

Likewise, I draw my inspiration from many different systems. I am not interested in adapting myself to any system thought out by others. My interest lies in what I already have inside myself, wherever I find it mirrored.

 

When once asked about my practice by a Tibetan Buddhist, I answered that I have my own individual practice. He said, that way I would take too many lifetimes in order to reach liberation from incarnation. I replied that I'm not in a hurry.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[soaring crane]

Depends who you ask the writers of the Taiyishengshui would disagree, I think

 

But I wasn't really referring to cosmology.. I set no store by any cosmology, Taoist or other... I'm fairly sure that "What came first?" is a meaningless question, and returns meaningless answers.

 

I was just talking about the taijitu as a good abstract representation of general Taoist thought.

 

There is no element that 'should' be venerated above any other as being 'more like Tao'. Chapter 8 of Laozi tells us that water is close to the Tao in certain aspects of its behaviour. It doesn't say "worship water".

 

To suggest that water 'wins' over all, or that the Sun 'wins' over all, is missing the point.

 

No argument from me, I know the models. I like it

 

What I meant with "before" was that the potential for change exists already in the Wuji. That potential is the Wuxing. The standard way to explain it is that, for example, in the creation cycle, after Yang achieves its apex (Fire) it begins to sink and this sinking brings forth Metal. As it continues to sink, it eventually bottoms out, and this settling down brings forth water. Then it has nowhere else to go but up, and this rising is called Wood. Then it reaches its apex again, and that gestates Fire...

 

But the potential states of existence aka the 5E are already there. If there were no potential for motion, there'd be no motion, and it's their relationship to one another that sets it all in motion. And they all have a special relationship to the others. The Yin and Yang are revealed in the relationships between the states/potentials/elements. Yang Fire/Yin Fire, depending on the situation/relationship being oobserved, etc.

 

A purely yin/yang model results in stasis, Wuji, because there's no impetus for them to interact. And then they, and everything else, cease to "exist". And even if yin and yang could become dynamic without the wuxing, which they can't, it would be a linear back and forth. That's why I wrote it in shorthand as "wuxing comes before yin/yang".

 

edit: just want to add that it's the yin/yang dynamic that then reveals the wuxing potentialities, and that's what the standard diagram is showing.

 

Without the wuxing, a tree would be a tree trunk, with no limbs, no branches, no leaves, no buds, no bees, no birds .... Kinda dull. And that's why I wrote "that would be this" as a response to your statement that yin yang represents everything. It does, of course, but it's not the full picture. Or, well, yes, there's plenty of room for many, many perspectives, this is just mine.

 

Hope that makes sense :-)

 

Anyway, to bring it full circle, I like this kind of Daoism, because it's concerned with the nature of that which is alive, now. And I want to live, now. And I want to realise the full potential of what I am, now. The only thing I strive to become is more of what I already am.

 

Buddhist discussions, in my view of them, inevitably lead toward a kind of disatisfaction with what we have at hand, and a longing for a greener pasture. I know there are many, many schools of Buddhism and when taken as a whole, they encompass pretty much everything. But the simplicity and the logic, the pragmatism, of the Daoist model attracted me early on and I'm happy with it :-)

[dust]

Gotcha. (And sorry to have been so dismissive..I do have that tendency.)

 

 

Anyway, to bring it full circle, I like this kind of Daoism, because it's concerned with the nature of that which is alive, now.And I want to live, now. And I want to realise the full potential of what I am, now. The only thing I strive to become is more of what I already am.

 

Yes exactly!

[soaring crane]

Gotcha. (And sorry to have been so dismissive..I do have that tendency.)

 

no, no, not alll, I was dismissive. I was pressed for time and just kind of wrote a placeholder text for later. I tend to do that, lol. And then I often neglect to return to my earlier comment, and come off as, I dunno, rude or something.

[Marblehead]

So many things I would like to say in response to some of the recent posts but they would all be off-topic so I will just quote Dusty:

 

"So, to get back on topic, this is why I like (my version of) Taoism. Very simple: Tao gave rise to all. This happens forever. Done. Now I can get back to singing songs and climbing trees"

Edited January 25, 2015 by Marblehead

[dust]

Well we'd better find another place to say these things eh

[Apech]

What I liked about this thread was the lack (up to a certain point) of the antagonism Taoist vs. Buddhist that you some times get on here. people gravitate to the system which helps them or calls out to them most. that's it really.

[dwai]

You are probably right about the significance of water, in fact I could point to many ancient systems where water is the primary substance of reality. However the point I was making was that Buddhism is not a fire worshiping system as suggested by TM ... in fact Nirvana means extinguishing fire, the burnt out fire. This is in contrast to the primary rite of the ancient Vedic system of the fire ceremony where consciousness is seen as a consuming fire.

I couldn't find your post on the Chopra center (though I noticed you had quoted it in this post of yours I'm replying to). Like I said, Fire and the Sun are not insignificant in the Vedic framework, but the role of Brahman is foremost.

 

With the Vedas, there are 4 sections - the Samhitas, The Brahmanas, The Aranyakas and the Upanishads. Consider them to be the four elements that make up the Vedas. The Samhitas and Aranyakas deal with mantras and Ritual aspects , the Brahmanas contain commentaries and the Upanishads make up the contemplative and philosophical aspects of the Vedas.

 

Through them all, Brahman is the common theme and eventually the primary focus, culminating in the Upanishads.

 

The reason I pointed out to Taomeow that her Fire vs Water analogy isn't quite accurate is because of that - neither the Hindu/Vedic nor the Shramana/Buddhist systems are really "fire-worship based", even though the Buddhists did borrow a lot of the ritual aspects of the Vedic systems..

 

Water is paid supreme importance in the Vedic literature - where Sarasvati - the primary river and deity of the Rg Veda is referred to as "ambe tamey, nadi tamey" (The Supreme Mother, the Supreme River).

 

Ayurveda recommends a balance of the five elements (Tattva) therein - Fire, Air, Ether, Earth and Water. The framework of Gunas, Rajas, Tamas and Sattva and doshas - Vata, Pitta and Kapha are all aspects of the Sankhya system, which is different from the Vedic/Vedantic system. It is easy to mix them up.

[Apech]

I couldn't find your post on the Chopra center (though I noticed you had quoted it in this post of yours I'm replying to). Like I said, Fire and the Sun are not insignificant in the Vedic framework, but the role of Brahman is foremost.

 

With the Vedas, there are 4 sections - the Samhitas, The Brahmanas, The Aranyakas and the Upanishads. Consider them to be the four elements that make up the Vedas. The Samhitas and Aranyakas deal with mantras and Ritual aspects , the Brahmanas contain commentaries and the Upanishads make up the contemplative and philosophical aspects of the Vedas.

 

Through them all, Brahman is the common theme and eventually the primary focus, culminating in the Upanishads.

 

The reason I pointed out to Taomeow that her Fire vs Water analogy isn't quite accurate is because of that - neither the Hindu/Vedic nor the Shramana/Buddhist systems are really "fire-worship based", even though the Buddhists did borrow a lot of the ritual aspects of the Vedic systems..

 

Water is paid supreme importance in the Vedic literature - where Sarasvati - the primary river and deity of the Rg Veda is referred to as "ambe tamey, nadi tamey" (The Supreme Mother, the Supreme River).

 

Ayurveda recommends a balance of the five elements (Tattva) therein - Fire, Air, Ether, Earth and Water. The framework of Gunas, Rajas, Tamas and Sattva and doshas - Vata, Pitta and Kapha are all aspects of the Sankhya system, which is different from the Vedic/Vedantic system. It is easy to mix them up.

 

I've been reading a lot of academics (mostly Gombrich) on early Buddhism and the Vedic Period so that's where I was coming from. They focus a lot on the fire ceremonies of the Rg Veda and how the Buddha drew on the Vedic imagery in his teachings. (Need to point out that it is understood that early Vedic does not equal modern Hindu). Probably need another thread to discuss the ins and outs of this. Would be nice to have a discussion which does not involve antagonism and 'superiority' one over the other as I hold Vedanta, Buddhism and Taoism all in the highest regard.

[Astral Monk]

Another thing.

 

Daoism to me seems like the most natural and organic spirituality of humankind. Other forms of religion, including Buddhism, have a character of being top-down authoritarian moral impositions from some super beings that have arrived to 'teach' us a lesson.

 

Despite the humble roots of Buddhism, the Buddha has become the central leading figure, and although he is not whoreshipped like Jesus et al, the effect is similar.

 

Daoism doesn't have the same preoccupation with leading authority figures. Sure there's Lao Tse, but it is pretty standard that the wisdom of the Dao De Ching is an accumulated wisdom, probably developed by many masters.

 

Buddhism and other religions are centered around single-event enlightenments, from which divine information, teaching, and guidance flows. Either a god speaks to someone and tells em how it is, or they have a special moment where they realize how it is, and then their teaching flows out of that.

 

And though Buddhism is called the middle path, Daoism seems to strive to attain the middle--balance between extremes, or harmony with the ever-changing flow of polarities.

 

Coming from a western philosophy background Buddhism has its intellectual appeal. Daoism however seems to indicate a path that incorporates the whole body and its own special knowledge, which is quite a different perspective than western philosophy has hitherto embodied. Which is why internal arts like qigong and tai chi et al seem to offer a more wholistic path.

 

A person caught a glimpse of some Buddha beads I wear on my wrist and asked me if I was Buddhist. Lol, I get that sometimes, and I want to give some snarky philosophical remark. I like Buddhism and incorporate elements of it into my practice (esp mantras), but I can't call myself 'Buddhist' in any sense, or 'Daoist' either. What are we all, in the end? Are we one thing or another? Or are we just people doing people things? Lol, I usually just say 'no, not in a formal sense' and they rarely follow up to clarify what that means. It's interesting how external trappings can be used to identify beliefs and encourage a whole range of concepts to arise.

 

I think many average Chinese, for example, are somewhere in between Buddhism and Daosim, getting and believing in snippets from both as they have become incorporated into existing cultural norms.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

Agree.

 

In the end we all adopt a mixture that is right for us and our path. Some people's paths take them right into formal traditions, and others move through the fringes and forests and waterfalls of spirituality. I think it is in the Lotus Sutra that Buddha says the Buddha Eye sees and knows all those persons, with the suggestion that all those paths can be valid and fruitful.

 

8)

 

This is true i.e. for Tibetan Buddhism but not for Zen which is solely interested in the Here and Now and doesn't concern itself with liberation from physical existence. In this regard, it is quite close to Daoism - which is one of its roots.

 

According to John Blofeld, it's quite common in China that individuals have their personal mixture of Daoism and Buddhism. In Japan, it's typically a mixture of Buddhism and Shintoism.

 

Likewise, I draw my inspiration from many different systems. I am not interested in adapting myself to any system thought out by others. My interest lies in what I already have inside myself, wherever I find it mirrored.

 

When once asked about my practice by a Tibetan Buddhist, I answered that I have my own individual practice. He said, that way I would take too many lifetimes in order to reach liberation from incarnation. I replied that I'm not in a hurry.

[The Name]

I prefer Zen buddhism to Daoism simply because Daoism is very esoteric and requires a proper (thorough) understanding of chinese culture especially chinese religion in order to penetrate the esoteric stuff. Also, as I see it, the whole philosophy of alchemical self-transformation is basically the essential east-asian transcendental experience hidden behind a complex curtain of symbolism, etc- thus it can be accesed more directly through other teachings such as authentic "old-school" Chan/Zen.

Edited January 25, 2015 by The Name

[3bob]

That is a possibility I won't deny. But cycles are required for this to be so. For that to happen the universe must one day stop expanding and begin contracting.

 

Right now there are no indications that this is going to happen.

 

But then, it must have happened in the past if there was a Singularity that went "Bang".

 

Right now there are also endless, right under our noses and in our face patterned indications of this happening if one sees and makes a correlative translation in terms of spring, summer, fall and winter...

[Wayfarer]

To the OP

 

For me, it is not really Taoism or Buddhism but Tao and Buddha - the 'ism' makes things unnatural and Buddhism in my experience is too much about doing, wanting to be compassionate or a better this or that. Tao is nature. It is the wildness of my natural self. Simple, vacant, gentle, at ease. Buddha is the natural state of realising the nature of what we are. All comes back to what is right before us. The 'isms' make life more complicated but fulfil our sense of need. When in truth, our need is to let go and be natural.

[Marblehead]

Right now there are also endless, right under our noses and in our face patterned indications of this happening if one sees and makes a correlative translation in terms of spring, summer, fall and winter...

Now 3bob, you know that I, the Materialist, cannot do that. Hehehe.

 

But it would be nice if you are right.

[beyonder]

"Do you wish to free yourself of mental and emotional knots and become one with the Tao? If so, there are two paths available to you. The first is the path of acceptance. Affirm everyone and everything. Freely extend your goodwill and virtue in every direction, regardless of circumstances. Embrace all things as part of the Harmonious Oneness, and then you will begin to perceive it. The second path is that of denial. Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth. Peel all the veils away, and you will arrive at the Oneness. Though these paths are entirely different, they will deliver you to the same place: spontaneous awareness of the Great Oneness. Once you arrive there, remember: it isn't necessary to struggle to maintain
unity with it. All you have to do is participate in it."

-"Hua Hu Ching", chapter 48, Walker translation

Edited January 25, 2015 by beyonder

[Marblehead]

And let us all remember that the Hua Hu Ching is a rewriting of the TTC from a Buddhist perspective.

 

There are a number of concepts in the above quote that are not stated in the TTC. In fact, some are contradictory.

 

However, if it helps someone to better understand themself then I suppose it is good.

[beyonder]

^ Yeah, I never understood why that's supposed to be an issue. People also generally accept that later chapters in the Zhuangzi where composed by different authors. In any case, I think it can stand on it's own merits as a daoist text, regardless of author.

Edited January 25, 2015 by beyonder