Why Daoism over Buddhism

[3bob]

MH,

...oh of course you can since you and anyone else can see spring, summer, fall, and summer right before and with the use of their material eyses... nature reflects Tao -with such being as palin as day.

Edited January 26, 2015 by 3bob

[Wayfarer]

The HHC is an example of how complicated we make something that is simple: it says about becoming one with the Tao and arriving at oneness, all you have to do is participate in it - what utter misunderstood complete shit!

 

If it is oneness, and you must participate in it to arrive at it, then what are you, something that stands outside the oneness? So to become one with something through participation implies you are not already that one...this is buddhism through and through...never mistake this crap for a taoist scripture.

 

You are the one. Whether you participate or not, or think you have not yet arrived..)Ou are already it...there is nothing to be done to make you more it. That is like a child saying what must I do to be a child.

 

You are not 'you' you are the tao appearing as you. Those who realise this are buddha. Whoever wrote the hhc knew nothing of it. Look instead to the stillness of nature and the stillness within; it is the same...verse 16 of ttc says all anyone needs to know; the rest is superficial.

 

Good luck!

[Gerard]

One word:

 

Practical.

 

However, it's not a matter of following one or the other or both, but realising about universal principles and also understanding the subtle but enormous influences of yin&yang and their qualities (five elements) in your energetic system. Religious and organised Buddhism ignores this, unfortunately.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Gerard

[Bearded Dragon]

It's all the same in the end. How could it not be?

[Marblehead]

^ 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.

The only reason I make it an issue is that some have used it to say that Lao Tzu said such and such where what was quoted was mostly from the Buddhist tradition, a tradition that came to China "after" Lao Tzu died (or wandered off into the desert).

 

Yes, there are some good teachings in there. I have never argued that point. I argue the misrepresentation of the TTC.

 

I agree with you regarding Chuang Tzu. It is generally accepted that he wrote only the "Inner Chapters" and others wrote all the others.

 

The difference between the two is that the other chapters of the Chuang Tzu stayed true to the concepts of Taoism as expressed by Lao Tzu. The Hua Hu Ching does not.

[Marblehead]

MH,

...oh of course you can since you and anyone else can see spring, summer, fall, and summer right before and with the use of their material eyses... nature reflects Tao -with such being as palin as day.

I think we have gotten confused as to who is talking to who and who is responding to what.

 

Yes, there are cycles within the year. There are cycles with a 24 hour day. Cycles can be observed everywhere in the universe.

 

This is why "cycles" is an important concept in my Taoist understandings.

 

Reversions is also an important concept. This can be observed throughout the universe. And this allow me to be able to accept the Big Bang Theory and all its ramifications.

 

I think that we don't have a disagreement but rather a misunderstanding.

[Marblehead]

Good luck!

I love it when you use logic!

[Marblehead]

It's all the same in the end. How could it not be?

Hehehe. That's bottom line, isn't it?

[soaring crane]

It's all the same in the end. How could it not be?

 

That reflects my thoughts in my first post where I said I like mud between my toes and will day be mud between someone else's toes :-)

[dwai]

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.

Indeed. Why not start a thread in the Hindu section?

The Vedic fire ceremonies are continued to this day in Hindu rituals. But like I mentioned, the fire ceremonies (yajnas) were not purely external. The Early Vedic period focussed a lot of Rta, the Natural Order of the Universe - "The Way" of the Universe. This Rta becomes Dharma eventually. So in essence, Rta and Dharma are more or less one and the same. The Fire ceremonies were around establishing balance, both internal as well as external.

[Daeluin]

learning comes from a lineage

application comes from within

though what is learned may have its own provenance

how one applies it is unique to one's own path

[Daeluin]

The HHC is an example of how complicated we make something that is simple: it says about becoming one with the Tao and arriving at oneness, all you have to do is participate in it - what utter misunderstood complete shit! If it is oneness, and you must participate in it to arrive at it, then what are you, something that stands outside the oneness? So to become one with something through participation implies you are not already that one...this is buddhism through and through...never mistake this crap for a taoist scripture. You are the one. Whether you participate or not, or think you have not yet arrived..)Ou are already it...there is nothing to be done to make you more it. That is like a child saying what must I do to be a child. You are not 'you' you are the tao appearing as you. Those who realise this are buddha. Whoever wrote the hhc knew nothing of it. Look instead to the stillness of nature and the stillness within; it is the same...verse 16 of ttc says all anyone needs to know; the rest is superficial. Good luck!

 

We already participate by leaking our wholeness out everywhere. To arrive at oneness we reclaim our wholeness through either acceptance or denial, until we are full again. When we are full there is no room to buffer ourselves from that which is not ourselves - we must face all with equanimity to maintain our wholeness. Discerning things is fine but when we judge them we give some of our wholeness to them. I accept your judgements as gifts and return them to you.

[Daeluin]

See also: http://thetaobums.com/topic/36094-gift-of-insults/

[beyonder]

The HHC is an example of how complicated we make something that is simple: it says about becoming one with the Tao and arriving at oneness, all you have to do is participate in it - what utter misunderstood complete shit! If it is oneness, and you must participate in it to arrive at it, then what are you, something that stands outside the oneness? So to become one with something through participation implies you are not already that one...this is buddhism through and through...never mistake this crap for a taoist scripture. You are the one. Whether you participate or not, or think you have not yet arrived..)Ou are already it...there is nothing to be done to make you more it. That is like a child saying what must I do to be a child. You are not 'you' you are the tao appearing as you. Those who realise this are buddha. Whoever wrote the hhc knew nothing of it. Look instead to the stillness of nature and the stillness within; it is the same...verse 16 of ttc says all anyone needs to know; the rest is superficial. Good luck!

Hexagram 4 of the "I Ching" comes to mind. Believe what you will.

[beyonder]

The only reason I make it an issue is that some have used it to say that Lao Tzu said such and such where what was quoted was mostly from the Buddhist tradition, a tradition that came to China "after" Lao Tzu died (or wandered off into the desert).

For all we know, it might have been Yin Xi of the mountainpass who wrote the "Daodejing". This is irrelevant to the contents though (And yes, I'm aware of Sima Qian).

 

Yes, there are some good teachings in there. I have never argued that point. I argue the misrepresentation of the TTC.

Not a point I've ever made, so you're not arguing against me.

 

I agree with you regarding Chuang Tzu. It is generally accepted that he wrote only the "Inner Chapters" and others wrote all the others.

 

The difference between the two is that the other chapters of the Chuang Tzu stayed true to the concepts of Taoism as expressed by Lao Tzu. The Hua Hu Ching does not.

I don't really care if it helps me understand the Way better. Edited January 26, 2015 by beyonder

[Marblehead]

I don't really care if it helps me understand the Way better.

You have left me without the need for further comment.

[beyonder]

You have left me without the need for further comment.

"Intentionality can't keep it at a distance, non-intentionality can't bring it closer. Only he who understands it through silence and gives shape to it through his own being understands the Way."

-Liezi (Augustus, Amsterdam, 2008), p. 132

Edited January 26, 2015 by beyonder

[Jetsun]

In terms of wisdom traditions to help you live a better life and give you philosophical things for the mind to study both Taoism and Buddhism are rich and have tons of helpful stuff, but in my experience and searching Buddhism has a lot more alive,vibrant living lineages still active in the world today, and to get to the real heart of the matter very few get anywhere without the support of living lineages.

 

Chairman Mao did a pretty thorough job of destroying as many of the masters as possible, so what is left? only a handful of what I would describe as genuine Taoist lineages, most of the rest is just confusion, fragments and people trying to make money out of the fragments. Perhaps there are some masters who escaped China to places like Taiwan or Hong Kong but I don't know of them myself.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Jetsun

[Daeluin]

There are as many ways as there are parts of the divided whole.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Daeluin

[Apech]

There are as many ways as there are parts of the divided whole.

 

A continuum has no parts.

 

 

 

THE CONTINUUM

Spacial extension, motion, and time are often thought of as continua—as wholes made up of a series of smaller parts. Aristotle develops a subtle analysis of the nature of such continuous quantities. Two entities are continuous, he says, when there is only a single common boundary between them. On the basis of thisdefinition, he seeks to show that a continuum cannot be composed of indivisible atoms. A line, for example, cannot be composed of points that lack magnitude. Since a point has no parts, it cannot have a boundary distinct from itself; two points, therefore, cannot be either adjacent or continuous. Between any two points on a continuous line there will always be other points on the same line.

Aristotle

 

 

[Wayfarer]

Hi Beyonder,

 

Yes, we are the whole, leaking wholeness into the whole - where it there difference?

[Daeluin]

The answer that arises for me relates to the principle of creation. It is easy for cycles to continue endlessly. And within these cycling layers, new layers unfold. Like a door opening into a room, and a door within that room opening into another room inside the same room, endlessly. Like conversation descending into tangent upon tangent, without reaching conclusion. Like the expanding universe.

 

While creation is a beautiful phenomenon, when and how is this expansion addressed?

 

As individuals operating in our own polarity of inside and outside, we may choose to return what is within back through all of these doors, to return closer to and perhaps one day beyond the origin. Contracting the universe a little. To do this we inwardly balance what has polarized until we are centered within and without, and to maintain it we externally yield to the unique flow of our own path without resistance, like water. Zhuangzi calls this walking two roads. Once the final polarity of inside and outside has been dissolved, and the physical and spiritual substances are no more, we have returned. At least that is my awkward perception.

 

Some texts label this as celestial immortality. Zhuangzi says: As for the sage, he may admit that something exists beyond the six limits of the known world, but he does not further discuss it.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Daeluin

[doc benway]

Taoism is the supreme ultimate science of the energies of the world.

 

Wonderful expression!

 

Similarly, for me at least, Buddhism is the supreme ultimate science of the human mind and heart.

 

And if we practice either method we eventually see that all of the energies of the world are inseparable from the human mind and heart.

Consequently, both avenues are valid and comprehensive.

 

 

 

 

To be in this world and maintain ignorance of how it works is like having been imprisoned at an infinite library, with nothing whatsoever to do except read, and never having bothered to learn to read.

 

If you exchange world for mind above, it fits nicely with the Buddhist line as well...

[Wayfarer]

also I just want to ask one other thing - not of the person who said this especially as this seems to be said and thought of a lot - why do we need to follow a lineage to learn?

 

Someone had to start it somewhere....and this began by observing nature...what was right before their eyes....this is all I chose to do; to not listen to others, to not read books, to not be told....but to see with my own eyes...and it is there, ever-present, everywhere.

 

Ok, I'll be silent again now

[dust]

Chairman Mao did a pretty thorough job of destroying as many of the masters as possible, so what is left? only a handful of what I would describe as genuine Taoist lineages, most of the rest is just confusion, fragments and people trying to make money out of the fragments.

 

So, if a Taoist master allows his or her lineage to be destroyed, are they successful or unsuccessful?

 

 

大巧若拙 Great skill seems clumsy,

大成若詘 Great success seems to yield,

大植若屈 Great straightness seems bent