Why Daoism over Buddhism

[Jetsun]

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

 

I don't think many of them had any power or control over what happened to them during that time.

[dust]

Precisely

[C T]

Maybe the persecution actually played a part in making known and advertising these masters' reputations. Without the force of conflict, most of them would have just faded into obscurity with time, since the nature of these ancient masters (the real ones) is to (usually) conduct themselves without much aplomb.

 

I suppose the underhanded tactics of the regime at that time, using family, friends and students as bait, would force many of them (the hidden masters) to come out of seclusion and take whatever action they could to resist the persecutory wave, or simply to exchange themselves for the freedom of those who were imprisoned and used as bait.

[dust]

the nature of these ancient masters (the real ones) is to (usually) conduct themselves without much aplomb.

 

Well, I would have thought this was so, yes. One reason I can't abide famous "masters" is that, to me, a true master doesn't go around shouting about it.

 

The other thing I was getting at, though, is:

 

 

天地尚不能久，而況於人乎 ... 同於失者，失亦樂得之

 

If heaven and Earth cannot make things eternal, how is it possible for man?

...

When you are at one with loss, the loss is experienced willingly.

 

(LZ23)

[Kongming]

Is it really the case that most Daoist masters and lineages perished under Mao? I ask because I am genuinely interested in Quanzhen Dao (and related currents) and am currently learning Mandarin with hopes to find some masters and possibly seek out ordination someday.

 

If that doesn't work out, I was hoping to look into some of the Shingon re-transmissions into the Chinese speaking world and/or whatever Chinese tantrayana (Tangmi, etc.) survived.

[C T]

Well, I would have thought this was so, yes. One reason I can't abide famous "masters" is that, to me, a true master doesn't go around shouting about it.

I guess in those days, and to some extent, even now, authentic masters are usually pretty inaccessible because they tend to stay in the shadows, so to speak. This accords with Taoist principles right to the bone. But circumstances went against them, and sadly many of these masters perished with a lot of 'good music' prematurely lost upon their demise.

[opendao]

Is it really the case that most Daoist masters and lineages perished under Mao? I ask because I am genuinely interested in Quanzhen Dao (and related currents) and am currently learning Mandarin with hopes to find some masters and possibly seek out ordination someday.

 

Don't worry, the lineages are still there, in mainland China. For example, our lineage (Yu Xian Pai, Ma Danyang's branch of Quanzhen Dao) has survived the worst time in a temple hidden in mountains (no roads etc). Lay schools (southern) were not really affected by Mao as well.

[Taomeow]

As for Taoism, it is as prone to persecution and religious fundamentalism as other religions (including Buddhism). How many Buddhist books and images were burned by Emperor Wuzong?

 

I have never heard of any taoist rulers burning any Buddhists though -- as for the emperor who supposedly disliked them enough to burn their books, I'd never heard of this either -- Chinese history is way long, and taoists persecuting anyone do not occupy any place of any significance in it, so this was a first for me, thank you. So, I asked, over an excellent Szechuan dinner, a friend who went to the best school in Taiwan and knows Chinese history by heart, what this is all about. He told me, oh, nothing really. Every Chinese emperor officially subscribed to this or that religion, a few took their official religious designation to heart, but most of them just marked the box on the questionnaire, if you catch my drift. So, this one, technically "taoist" because of family circumstances, was never a proponent, practitioner, much less an ideologist of taoism.

 

So what he did with Buddhist books had nothing whatsoever to do with taoism. It had everything to do with taxes and land ownership (Buddhists were land grabbers, and built hundreds of thousands of temples and monasteries so as not to pay taxes since they were enjoying an exemption, while enslaving and exploiting the peasants living on those lands. Emperors didn't much commiserate with the peasants but they started resenting, after a while, the fact that the leaders of Buddhist monasteries were getting wealthy without contributing to the communal piggy bank or to the sovereign himself. So the only chance taoism got to lift up its head was when an emperor put two and two together and offered it some support.)

 

So, no go with taoists persecuting Buddhists or anyone else to install their own religion... didn't happen. As opposed to, just as one example, the conquest of Tibet by Buddhists -- who specifically exterminated most of its native Bon practitioners (nearly all of them at first, relenting a bit later) and not just their books and practices. They were, incidentally, so efficient at that for close to one thousand years that the only copy of the Tibetan classic of medicine that is the counterpart of The Yellow Emperor's classic and might be the foundation of a medical system bigger and arguably better than even TCM, miraculously survives in Russia -- and was translated into Russian but is not available in English and has been unavailable to the Chinese for centuries either. That's just one minor illustration of the extent of Buddhist dislike of non-buddhist systems and their efficiency at undoing them whenever there's an opportunity to undo them. You can't really find a taoist counterpart, 'cause it never happened.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[Marblehead]

If heaven and Earth cannot make things eternal, how is it possible for man?

...

When you are at one with loss, the loss is experienced willingly.

 

(LZ23)

These two concepts, although very important, are most times overlooked during discussions of Taoism. Because of denial? I don't know.

[Marblehead]

To the best of my recall of Chinese history, the T'ang dynasty was the only dynasty that recognized Taoism as the State religion. And it was during this period that China was most liberal about "outsiders". There actually was "freedom of religion" during this time. Remains of a Jewish synagogue have been found that date to this period. And it has been stated that anyone could become a Chinese citizen simply by acknowledging that the Emperor was the supreme ruler of China (that would be, above all gods).

 

It was also during this period that the fine arts flourished in China, especially painting and poetry.

[dust]

These two concepts, although very important, are most times overlooked during discussions of Taoism. Because of denial? I don't know.

 

Yes, I think this is fundamental to any "true" understanding of the Way of Things.

I guess nobody wants to accept loss, so many won't even consider the idea of accepting loss.. ignoring the fact that to have a beginning is to have an end.

[Apech]

Real shame the antagonism continues. I've been enjoying rereading Wang Liping's bio again and found this paragraph today:

 

 

The explanations of the Grand Master were crystal clear to Wang Liping; he made no remarks and asked no explanations. The principles of Buddhism and Taoism concur; with his own practice Wang Liping had already proved these principles simply, clearly, and penetratingly. Now he knew Buddhist doctrine as well as Taoist doctrine. Once he listened openly and heard clearly, there was no use saying any more; the essential thing in study is practical application.

 

p. 175 “Opening the Dragon Gate”

 

I think that just about sums it up for me.

[Marblehead]

Real shame the antagonism continues. I've been enjoying rereading Wang Liping's bio again and found this paragraph today:

 

I think that just about sums it up for me.

Any wonder why it was so easy for the Taoists who wanted to make Taoism a religion to adopt Buddhist concepts into Philosophical Taoism?

[Apech]

Any wonder why it was so easy for the Taoists who wanted to make Taoism a religion to adopt Buddhist concepts into Philosophical Taoism?

 

I was under the impression that it was the concepts of philosophical Taoism with which the Chinese were familiar which made the assimilation of Buddhism easy.

 

... just in case you thought I made that up ...

 

 

 

First, after Wang Bi, some Chinese literati began to distinguish “philosophical” Daoism (daojia) from “religious” Daoism (daojiao), a distinction that was reinforced by the geographical relocation of the tianshi movement and elite attempts to devalue it as a legitimate extension of classical Daoist thought. This distinction has persisted throughout the history of Chinese thought, but it is an unfortunate one, and moreover one without any basis in the historical practice of Daoist communities (Kirkland, 2). In constructing his interpretive framework, Wang avoided sectarian Daoism and did not take seriously the philosophical roots of tianshi thought. He made no serious attempt to consider how Daoism was practiced before the Han. Thus, Wang’s typology of Daoism laid the groundwork for what is arguably not only the most influential, but also the most systematically misleading, way of thinking about the development of Chinese philosophy.

 

Second, Wang’s commentary on the Daodejing was crucial for the process by which the Mahayana Buddhist dharma (doctrine, teaching) began to gain a foothold in China. The most obvious example of Wang’s influence can be seen in the way the Mahayana notion of emptiness was assimilated into Chinese thought. According to Wang, the Daodejing (ch. 40) asserts that being comes from nonbeing, and that nonbeing is the ultimate substance of being. As we have seen, he exploited the Daodejing’s analogies for emptiness, reading their meaning in terms of xuanxue. As Buddhist texts such as the Prajnaparamita (Transcendental Wisdom) Sutra were translated, clear connections were made between its teaching that all forms are empty and Wang’s reading of the dao. So, it became widely believed, or at least widely proclaimed, by early Chinese Buddhists that Laozi and Buddha had both taught the need for a return to non-being. Wang’s commentarial work played a strategic role in making this interpretation more convincing.

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/wangbi/#H4

Edited January 27, 2015 by Apech

[soaring crane]

I was under the impression that it was the concepts of philosophical Taoism with which the Chinese were familiar which made the assimilation of Buddhism easy.

 

... just in case you thought I made that up ...

 

I don't quite follow your reasoning here, Apech. Wang Bi (a strict Confucianist, I believe) had a tremendous influence on the modern interpretation of "Daoist thought". It wasn't the Daosim itself that so easily assimilated Buddhist spirituality but the direct effect Wang's philosophy and teachings that created the bridge between the two. He put the round DDJ peg onto the square Buddhist hole (or vice-versa). I think the history of Daoism can be legitimately be divided to pre- and post- Wang Bi.

 

But I guess you're right that there must have been something afoot in China that made the assimilation possible, with or without Wang Bi.

[Apech]

I don't quite follow your reasoning here, Apech. Wang Bi (a strict Confucianist, I believe) had a tremendous influence on the modern interpretation of "Daoist thought". It wasn't the Daosim itself that so easily assimilated Buddhist spirituality but the direct effect Wang's philosophy and teachings that created the bridge between the two. He put the round DDJ peg onto the square Buddhist hole (or vice-versa). I think the history of Daoism can be legitimately be divided to pre- and post- Wang Bi.

 

But I guess you're right that there must have been something afoot in China that made the assimilation possible, with or without Wang Bi.

 

Wang Bi (Wang Pi), styled Fusi, is regarded as one of the most important interpreters of the classical Chinese texts known as the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching) and the Yijing (I Ching). He lived and worked during the period after the collapse of the Han dynasty in 220 C.E., an era in which elite interest began to shift away from Confucianism toward Daoism.

 

quote from the same site. ... so no he was not a pure confucian and indeed according to the site he is responsible for the idea of 'philosophical Daoism'.

[3bob]

Taoism has T.T.C. Chapter 25 which Buddhism tends to or sounds like it refutes via this or that doctrine- but does it really?

 

25.
THERE was Something undefined and yet complete in
itself,
Born before Heaven-and-Earth.

Silent and boundless,
Standing alone without change,
Yet pervading all without fail,
It may be regarded as the Mother of the world.
I do not know its name;
I style it "Tao";
And, in the absence of a better word, call it
"The Great."

To be great is to go on,
To go on is to be far,
To be far is to return.

Hence, "Tao is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
King is great."
Thus, the king is one of the great four in the Universe.

Man follows the ways of the Earth.
The Earth follows the ways of Heaven,
Heaven follows the ways of Tao,
Tao follows its own ways.

Edited January 28, 2015 by 3bob

[dawei]

To the best of my recall of Chinese history, the T'ang dynasty was the only dynasty that recognized Taoism as the State religion.

 

Oh please... we have a serious problem in historical understanding

[dawei]

Wang Bi (Wang Pi), styled Fusi, is regarded as one of the most important interpreters of the classical Chinese texts known as the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching) and the Yijing (I Ching). He lived and worked during the period after the collapse of the Han dynasty in 220 C.E., an era in which elite interest began to shift away from Confucianism toward Daoism.

 

quote from the same site. ... so no he was not a pure confucian and indeed according to the site he is responsible for the idea of 'philosophical Daoism'.

 

He died at 23 !

 

He was incredibly insightful (and a prodigy) but his version has been shown to not agree completely with his notes... which means the distributed version is not so purely his.

 

He was confucian... in the sense that a those who consolidated philosophies had a base philosophy...

[Apech]

He died at 23 !

 

He was incredibly insightful (and a prodigy) but his version has been shown to not agree completely with his notes... which means the distributed version is not so purely his.

 

He was confucian... in the sense that a those who consolidated philosophies had a base philosophy...

 

 

He was also a neo-Daoist ... and as you point out he died very young ... in that short life he achieved greatness ... think what he would have done had he lived ... and I imagine his ideas would have developed and matured too.

[Apech]

Taoism has T.T.C. Chapter 25 which Buddhism tends to or sounds like it refutes via this or that doctrine- but does it really?

 

25.

THERE was Something undefined and yet complete in

itself,

Born before Heaven-and-Earth.

Silent and boundless,

Standing alone without change,

Yet pervading all without fail,

It may be regarded as the Mother of the world.

I do not know its name;

I style it "Tao";

And, in the absence of a better word, call it

"The Great."

To be great is to go on,

To go on is to be far,

To be far is to return.

Hence, "Tao is great,

Heaven is great,

Earth is great,

King is great."

Thus, the king is one of the great four in the Universe.

Man follows the ways of the Earth.

The Earth follows the ways of Heaven,

Heaven follows the ways of Tao,

Tao follows its own ways.

 

Good quote!

 

I think Buddhism would not see things this way ... it might 'refute' if you were attached to or clinging on to the 'mother' as a conceptualisation. But as I said above somewhere just because Buddhism and Taoism have different views does not actually make them refute each other. Compare, contrast, synthesise and so on by all means ... but I think the idea that a Buddhist can wander up to a Taoist and say you are wrong, or visa versa is a non starter, and a kind of immature way of thinking. I'm sticking with Wang Liping on this one

[Taomeow]

Real shame the antagonism continues. I've been enjoying rereading Wang Liping's bio again and found this paragraph today:

 

 

 

I think that just about sums it up for me.

 

Consider this. Neither Buddhism nor Taoism are indigenous to the West, so people here embracing one or the other or both are new to the game, while in China they had many centuries to bring things closer to some common denominator for mass acceptance or for individual acceptance (there are individuals who do NOT accept both in China, make no mistake -- there's staunch taoists and staunch Buddhists, not just the "it's all our cultural melting pot" yea sayers.) I've read (in Lin Yutang's translations) accounts of vitriolic criticism of Buddhism by Chinese Taoists. I've read -- no wait, I'll have to quote this -- something about Buddhism that's a soliloquy of a Buddhist nun in a popular Chinese drama, "The White Fur-Coat":

 

A young nun am I, sixteen years of age;

My head is shaven in my young maidenhood.

 

For my father, he loves the Buddhist sutras,

And my mother, she loves the Buddhist priests.

 

Morning and night, morning and night,

I burn incense and I pray. For I

Was born a sickly child, full of ills.

So they decided to send me here

Into this monastery.

 

Amitabha! Amitabha!

Unceasingly I pray.

Oh, tired am I of the humming of the drums and the tinkling of the bells;

Tired am I of the droning of the prayers and the crooning of the priors;

The chatter and the clatter of unintelligible charms,

The clamour and the clangour of interminable chants,

The mumbling and the murmuring of monotonous psalms.

Panjnaparmita, Mayura-sutra, Saddharamapundarika --

Oh, how I hate them all!

 

 

And so on, it's nearly three pages long (and reportedly first-class poetry in Chinese) and pretty unambiguous...

 

So, do not lament the discord. Taoism and Buddhism are not the same, and resenting those who notice is not productive. What's that with obligatory all-inclusive surrender of one's discernment faculties anyway? Political correctness has to know its place methinks. Surely, a teacher of a taoist school that was influenced by Buddhism won't say anything to antagonize his Buddhism-influenced flock -- he is not into antagonizing anyone for that matter, he has wonderful things to say about Westerners, e.g. -- but the paragraph you cite shows him as "remaining silent" in response to Buddhist teachings. The interpretation of this silence, by his students who wrote the biography, is THEIR interpretation. I spoke to him though...

[3bob]

Good quote!

 

I think Buddhism would not see things this way ... it might 'refute' if you were attached to or clinging on to the 'mother' as a conceptualisation. But as I said above somewhere just because Buddhism and Taoism have different views does not actually make them refute each other. Compare, contrast, synthesise and so on by all means ... but I think the idea that a Buddhist can wander up to a Taoist and say you are wrong, or visa versa is a non starter, and a kind of immature way of thinking. I'm sticking with Wang Liping on this one

 

Well if we consider that the historic Buddha in well recognized Buddhist doctrine openly refuted so and so, for such and such then I don't see how you can deny acts of or the meaning of refuting going on, regardless of condescending sounding like ideas that one may be "attached" in some way thus being fair game for -along with implied justification for being refuted. (was the historic Buddha then immature per your definition?)

Edited January 28, 2015 by 3bob

[3bob]

apparently "remaining silent" can be a dozen different things...(so to speak or maybe I should be silent )

Edited January 28, 2015 by 3bob

[Taomeow]

We have a proverb: "word is silver, silence is gold."