Why Daoism over Buddhism

[opendao]

With all that said, is it the case that Daoism (specifically neidan/Quanzhen but also in general) aims for the same end state or goal as Buddhism (namely Chan, but also in general) does in your opinion?

 

In other words, when reading Chan masters like Huineng, Huangbo, Linji, or texts like the Xinxin Ming and Song of Enlightenment, how much of this material is applicable to Daoism as well?

 

if you want to read Quanzhen texts, then to know Buddhist views is very helpful. It works also for Wu-Liu Pai texts, that go even further and explain Buddhist ideas from Daoist point of view. So the material is applicable, goals are similar, but there are TONS of details and subtle differences. All this is worth to research.

[Rara]

Some cool answers! I will have to read the rest when I have time.

 

For me, Tao(ism) came to me. The word "Tao" kept popping up in front of me and as I explored, getting TTC at first, I realised how this was just me. I didn't have to force myself into a belief.. this book just told it like it is!

 

Similarly to others, I have found zero teachers or guides where I live, and also realise that within tradition, there are various lineages so I haven't pursued traditional practice. I have just taken some exercises that appear to be of use to me.

 

After a complete family meltdown, I had to find a place to take refuge in. The Buddhists were there for me and I learnt so much from Buddha's teachings that my Taoist texts were never designed to do. So I love and thank Buddha and Buddhists for their help, without their guidence, I would still be in a state.

 

All is one, but I merely speak of Tao because it encompases this all...this one. I could never say one practice is better than the other because they all lead to the same place, if you follow correctly. In Taoism, that is the Tao, in Buddhism, the path to enlightenment. Same difference.

[Jetsun]

With all that said, is it the case that Daoism (specifically neidan/Quanzhen but also in general) aims for the same end state or goal as Buddhism (namely Chan, but also in general) does in your opinion?

 

In other words, when reading Chan masters like Huineng, Huangbo, Linji, or texts like the Xinxin Ming and Song of Enlightenment, how much of this material is applicable to Daoism as well?

 

Different lineages go after different things. Some Taoist lineages pursue trying to preserve some sense of individual identity after death by creating a subtle body or preserving some individualised consciousness in the soul or astral bodies, which can then remain in other dimensions after death, so in that sense a separate individual immortality is aimed at, (even though those sorts of bodies have to perish in the end so they aren't really immortal they just last a really long time).

 

Some Buddhist lineages also create bodies such as light bodies, but getting to the heart of it that sort of pursuit would still be regarded as limited by Buddhists because essentially you are trying to preserve an element of separate ego, so the sense of identity even in those subtle bodies and realms can be awakened out of and transcended into a place of greater freedom. So it can be considered that being at one with existence is the place of true immortality because as long as anything exists you exist, yet it is not an individual immortality it is shared with everything, which is why the ego doesn't like it.

 

Whether true Taoism is about individual preservation or individual immortality or it is about transcending all individualism i'm not sure. Chan masters come out on the transcending individual side but not all Taoist paths do.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Jetsun

[Daeluin]

Jetsun said:

 

Whether true Taoism is about individual preservation or individual immortality or it is about transcending all individualism i'm not sure. Chan masters come out on the transcending individual side but not all Taoist paths do.

 

 

That might be an important point.

 

Many are drawn to taoist beliefs / principles because of their simplicity. Yet this simplicity provides something for the ego to grasp.

 

To fully accomplish connection to the tao one must get over one's self.

 

What one thinks one is or knows will only get in the way of harmonizing polarity within and without.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Daeluin

[Daeluin]

"True taoism"

 

What's that mean exactly?

 

This term creates polarity and I don't think it serves a clear purpose.

 

The meaning that comes to me is related to the tao itself - the root of existence. To return to tao we return to the root of existence. To allow oneself to focus elsewhere is a side-path, and it is very easy to get drawn into side-paths.

 

When people use this term "true taoism" I think they are referring to this, but I am not sure.

[dust]

Christianity and other religions rely so heavily on their texts that, if you take away those texts, there's hardly anything you can build from. Daoism, on the other hand, builds directly from nature and reality itself. There are so many (what I will call) undeniable aspects to Daoist philosophy simply due to its simplicity.

 

Mm, yes.. good. I like. Builds directly from reality itself.

 

This is why I would not call it a religion, and why I no longer tend to compare it with any theistic religions. A religion requires blind faith, ritual, and obedience. Learning what Laozi and Zhuangzi et al have to teach us, as learning all that science has to teach us, requires only a faith in oneself.

[Kongming]

Different lineages go after different things. Some Taoist lineages pursue trying to preserve some sense of individual identity after death by creating a subtle body or preserving some individualised consciousness in the soul or astral bodies, which can then remain in other dimensions after death, so in that sense a separate individual immortality is aimed at, (even though those sorts of bodies have to perish in the end so they aren't really immortal they just last a really long time).

 

Some Buddhist lineages also create bodies such as light bodies, but getting to the heart of it that sort of pursuit would still be regarded as limited by Buddhists because essentially you are trying to preserve an element of separate ego, so the sense of identity even in those subtle bodies and realms can be awakened out of and transcended into a place of greater freedom. So it can be considered that being at one with existence is the place of true immortality because as long as anything exists you exist, yet it is not an individual immortality it is shared with everything, which is why the ego doesn't like it.

 

Whether true Taoism is about individual preservation or individual immortality or it is about transcending all individualism i'm not sure. Chan masters come out on the transcending individual side but not all Taoist paths do.

 

This is something I've been contemplating myself lately. It appears that, as you say, Daoists associated with neidan and Quanzhen wish to create some sort of subtle body that will survive death, and it seems highly individualized. This does seem quite a bit different than Chan's intuiting of our primordial original nature or "Pure Mind", Buddha Nature, the Absolute, etc.

 

Then again, I am still not sure if the neidan ideals are different or not. They claim an association with Chan for starters. Second, you often hear them speak of our "primordial nature" or "original nature" much in the same manner. Figures like Liu Yiming and others even go so far as to quote Bodhidharma in a manner by saying "xin (mind, heart-mind, etc.) is the Dao and the Dao is the xin." Then there's the whole famous idea of transmuting jing to qi to shen and then to emptiness--the final stage being described as emptiness sounds quite a bit different than some highly individualized or egoic subtle body. Thomas Cleary's book Vitality, Energy, and Spirit contains this excerpt from a text attributed to Lu Dongbin:

 

"Whenever I see those whom the vulgar call devotees of the Tao, I find that all of them seek to be taken in by spirits and immortals, or they seek lasting life and preservation of wealth by the practice of material alchemy or sexual yoga. When it comes to the great Tao of true eternity, pure and open, tranquil and dispassionate, there are few who are interested in it."

 

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of neidan and its goals can elucidate these points and possible differences further.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Kongming

[Marblehead]

"all practices lead to the same place"

 

Do they? How would one know ?

 

"True taoism"

 

What's that mean exactly?

So many questions!

 

So few answers!

[Marblehead]

 

When people use this term "true taoism" I think they are referring to this, but I am not sure.

I can't recall ever using that term. Yes, I do use "Philosophical Taoism" but that is more of a statement that I am not a Religious Taoist.

[opendao]

This is something I've been contemplating myself lately. It appears that, as you say, Daoists associated with neidan and Quanzhen wish to create some sort of subtle body that will survive death, and it seems highly individualized. This does seem quite a bit different than Chan's intuiting of our primordial original nature or "Pure Mind", Buddha Nature, the Absolute, etc.

 

it's the same, but it's hard to grasp... "Body out of the body" is a "pure mind". Just different points of view.

Xing = Yin Shen ("primordial original nature")

Xing + Ming = Yang Shen ("immortal body")

 

So Dao is about how to activate the Buddha Nature. Also think about daotai vs tathagatagarbha, to see how the same idea has changed through time depending on practical results. Xing is possible to understand from books or by mind. But for Ming students need an enlightened teacher. That's why Ming part has disappeared from many Daoist and Buddhist lineages.

 

Then again, I am still not sure if the neidan ideals are different or not. They claim an association with Chan for starters. Second, you often hear them speak of our "primordial nature" or "original nature" much in the same manner. Figures like Liu Yiming and others even go so far as to quote Bodhidharma in a manner by saying "xin (mind, heart-mind, etc.) is the Dao and the Dao is the xin." Then there's the whole famous idea of transmuting jing to qi to shen and then to emptiness--the final stage being described as emptiness sounds quite a bit different than some highly individualized or egoic subtle body. Thomas Cleary's book Vitality, Energy, and Spirit contains this excerpt from a text attributed to Lu Dongbin:

 

"Whenever I see those whom the vulgar call devotees of the Tao, I find that all of them seek to be taken in by spirits and immortals, or they seek lasting life and preservation of wealth by the practice of material alchemy or sexual yoga. When it comes to the great Tao of true eternity, pure and open, tranquil and dispassionate, there are few who are interested in it."

 

and you've already proved that

[Saoshun]

it's the same, but it's hard to grasp... "Body out of the body" is a "pure mind". Just different points of view.

Xing = Yin Shen ("primordial original nature")

Xing + Ming = Yang Shen ("immortal body")

 

So Dao is about how to activate the Buddha Nature. Also think about daotai vs tathagatagarbha, to see how the same idea has changed through time depending on practical results. Xing is possible to understand from books or by mind. But for Ming students need an enlightened teacher. That's why Ming part has disappeared from many Daoist and Buddhist lineages.

 

 

and you've already proved that

 

 

As a buddhist (as a someone interested in teachings of buddha from various schools) I agree. Even ming practices in buddhism which they are out there they are not really dual cultivation practices in the true sense. They can give better health and deepen realization and some superpowers like yantra yoga or trul khor, but I don't think so it's high level of ming can be achieved for yang shen.

[thetaoiseasy]

This is a misunderstanding. The Yang Subtle body has nothing to preserving the self. In fact -- by definition -- the Yang subtle body is internal proof that one has shed the various components of self.

 

These are the traditional steps of cultivation:

 

1) refine one's gross desires and emotions to physical energy (Jing)

2) refine one's mental confusion and conception to harmonious energy (Chi)

3) refine one's greed and sense of self to spiritual energy (Shen)

4) converge all three highly refined substances -- jing, chi, shen -- to unite with the Emptiness, forming the Subtle Yang Body.

 

When desires, emotions, mental confusion, and the sense of self are refined to become the highest essence of life, what is left? What is left is merely the function of Tao, in which form and no-form express the same truth.

[Marblehead]

What is left is merely the function of Tao, in which form and no-form express the same truth.

And there's a lot of freakin' energy there too!

[soaring crane]

I can't recall ever using that term. Yes, I do use "Philosophical Taoism" but that is more of a statement that I am not a Religious Taoist.

 

Peel away everything that I'm not, and what remains, is what I am. haha :-)

[Apech]

Peel away everything that I'm not, and what remains, is what I am. haha :-)

 

You're a banana !?!

[Marblehead]

MH mentioned energy.

Yeah, but you know I'm not going to go into specifics.

[Brian]

<snip>

Christianity and other religions rely so heavily on their texts that, if you take away those texts, there's hardly anything you can build from. Daoism, on the other hand, builds directly from nature and reality itself.

<snip>

 

I feel almost obligated to point out that we seem to have quite a few members here who are completely consumed by and wrapped up in the canons of Taoism or Buddhism, for whom these are not experiential but intellectual.

 

On the flip-side, I've met a number of Christians over the years who practice their religion rather than just studying it.

 

I think this depends more on the person and the teacher than it does on the system.

[Unlearner]

I feel almost obligated to point out that we seem to have quite a few members here who are completely consumed by and wrapped up in the canons of Taoism or Buddhism, for whom these are not experiential but intellectual.

 

On the flip-side, I've met a number of Christians over the years who practice their religion rather than just studying it.

 

I think this depends more on the person and the teacher than it does on the system.

 

Fair enough. I suppose I just don't have as much experience with seeing in other systems as I do in theistic religions.

 

Though I wonder if most Christians would be open-minded enough to accept a person who follows the teachings of Jesus without believing that he was God. Some might, but most don't. Rather, I feel like most people feel like that belief is the most important part, instead of how they actually live their lives.

 

Perhaps it is also like this with many people in Daoism and Buddhism as well, and I simply haven't met enough of them to discover this.

 

And this is the part where someone tells me and I cover my ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Edited February 1, 2015 by Unlearner

[Daeluin]

Rather, I feel like most people feel like that belief is the most important part, instead of how they actually live their lives.

 

I think you've hit upon something key here. I think many use their belief and absolute faith in whatever their religion says to connect them to the openhearted feeling of spirituality. Whatever else they do in their lives, it doesn't matter, as long as they come back to reconnect their faith to the institutionalization of spirituality. I feel most do this to deal with the fear of facing themselves. It is much easier to be accountable to someone else than to one's self.

 

Funny though, the thing I connected to most in Christianity was that god was everywhere, including inside of ourselves. Rather than connect my belief and faith to something external, I think it most important to return my faith and belief to my true heart, the one under all that ego stuff, the one that is connected to one-ness with everything around me. The more I accept and trust where it leads, and listen carefully inside and outside, the more I am able to maintain and deepen this connection to spirituality. Within I feel radiant and compassionate. Without I am in synchronous relation with my environment. What more does one need?

[Marblehead]

What more does one need?

Some money?

[Bubbles]

I feel almost obligated to point out that we seem to have quite a few members here who are completely consumed by and wrapped up in the canons of Taoism or Buddhism, for whom these are not experiential but intellectual.

 

On the flip-side, I've met a number of Christians over the years who practice their religion rather than just studying it.

 

I think this depends more on the person and the teacher than it does on the system.

Exactly. Thanks for that.

[Daeluin]

Some money?

 

Nah, overrated.

[dust]

I feel almost obligated to point out that we seem to have quite a few members here who are completely consumed by and wrapped up in the canons of Taoism or Buddhism, for whom these are not experiential but intellectual.

 

Can you separate your experiences from your intellect?

 

Everything humans do is intellectual.

 

Or is working toward 'enlightenment' nothing but a process of self-lobotomization?

[Marblehead]

 

Or is working toward 'enlightenment' nothing but a process of self-lobotomization?

Hehehe. I can't begin to tell you how much I like that!!!

[dust]

 

disclaimer: of course, I understand what Brian means, and I'm sure I and many others probably do over-analyze many things..