Why Daoism over Buddhism

[roger]

Kongming,

 

When I look closely at your words, I perceive that you possibly WOULD LIKE to be Daoist, but that you feel hesitant, and maybe even want "permission," so to speak, to do so.

 

People sometimes don't feel entirely free to follow their heart, do as they please, or otherwise do what is right for them.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that I think you WANT to be Daoist, but that you're waiting until you feel more free to make that decision.

 

Of course, it's very possible that I'm mistaken, only you know.

 

I remember many years ago, I couldn't decide between J. Krishnamurti and Paramhansa Yogananda. I remember agonizing over which of the two of them was "right" and which path to follow. I eventually realized that both were valid, although I tend to look at things and hold beliefs more similar to Yogananda than to Krishnamurti.

 

The Dao De Ching emphasizes simplicity. Often Buddhist teachings can seem somewhat complex. I side with Daoism in this matter, although I'm sure many Buddhists would disagree with me that Buddhism is complex.

 

Simplicity is a wonderful way to solve problems and to make choices. People usually get too complicated with their problem solving.

 

So my question is, considering what I just said about simplicity, which path would you like to follow? What do you WANT? Is my observation that you'd prefer Daoism correct?

[RigdzinTrinley]

I created the thread mainly because I find myself bouncing back and forth between the two. I know one might answer that one can theoretically be both, but I feel in the end a certain tradition, path, and form of praxis should be committed to. Hence I was hoping to find some decisive arguments or positions for why people preferred Daoism over Buddhism.

 

Regarding Buddhism, my attraction is primarily East Asian esoteric Buddhism (Shingon, Mikkyo, Shugendo, Hanmi/Tangmi, etc.) or in other words mantra/dharani practice, along with Chan's insights and an interest in the Avatamsaka Sutra and Huayan philosophy. My main qualm with Buddhism is dealing with what I feel is a strong nihilistic element that permeates Buddhism, namely denial of any eternal Absolute reality by some Buddhists, though this problem is lessened in East Asian Buddhism which puts Tathagatagarbha Buddhism at the forefront. Another problem with Buddhism for me is that while I am non-violent, I can't force myself to not admire heroes, warriors, martial artists, etc. or adopt the fashionable pacifism of modern Buddhism.

 

On Daoism, for the most part I quite like everything I've encountered and am especially interested in neidan, neigong, and general Daoist mysticism (say what may be left of Maoshan/Shangqing practices and of course the Lao-Zhuang material), but my main fear is how "closed" Daoism might be since it has primarily been an ethnic religion throughout history and I am a Western foreigner. To alleviate that I have been learning Mandarin and hopefully when I go abroad I will be able to find my path.

 

Anyone else in a similar situation or was in a similar situation and if so how did you resolve it?

 

I would just like to add that there is no nihilistic element in buddhism, if you get the teachings on emptiness correctly it is one of the most profound teachings on the suchness of reality - and it does not fall into any conceptual extremes such as non-existence or "eternal" existence etc. - it is utterly beyond conetpual elaboration

 

On first look one might think - buddha thought nihilism or some eternal substance, but there is nothing more confused then a thought like that...

 

buddha was surely beyond tradition and conventional terminology, so why would he teach "this" or "that" as his final enlightened intend?

[RigdzinTrinley]

I also saw that you feel there is a certain attitude within the tantric teachings, but you have to understand that yes one can find such an attitude in certain circles and books - but you can't take it out of context of the treatises that proclaim dzogchen as the "apex" approach the highest most profound path to enlightenement... it has a specific context and no lineage holder of these teachings will run around and talk like this out of context, if they do then just regard them as the frog in the well that never saw the vast ocean.... most probably they have no real clue about the skylike nature of mind, that is easy to see as they are very much busy with trying to cut the vast sky of true dharma into little pieces...

 

I am pretty sure there is a lot of daoist scriptures that proclaim the dao and the methods of this path as a superior path (see the painitng of lao tsu, buddha and the other dude..... - where the only happy guy seems to be lao tsu )

 

you know I posted before about the "rime" outlook - not to fall into extremes, judging traditions based on this or that aspect

 

this will just wear one out I feel - thats not the point of either buddha dharma or daoism no?

Edited April 30, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Michael Sternbach]

My outlook is characterized by the Jungian concept of individualization as the goal of any spiritual path. It is further influenced by my experience as an astrologer, which shows me that every individual is different and has different requirements. I believe and observe that there is no "one size fits all" in spirituality! So I advise people to tailor a system to their own needs, not to tailor themselves to any system. To illustrate, I can say that I am a Daoist, Buddhist, Hermeticist, Kabbalist, as well as a couple of other "-ists", yet I am myself - and ever aspiring to become more so.

[Kongming]

Kongming,

 

When I look closely at your words, I perceive that you possibly WOULD LIKE to be Daoist, but that you feel hesitant, and maybe even want "permission," so to speak, to do so.

 

People sometimes don't feel entirely free to follow their heart, do as they please, or otherwise do what is right for them.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that I think you WANT to be Daoist, but that you're waiting until you feel more free to make that decision.

 

Of course, it's very possible that I'm mistaken, only you know.

 

I think this may be part of it. I generally agree with Daoist doctrines, but there is the issue of how open or closed it may be as mentioned. Not only that, there is a bit of confusion in this regard because while I am interested in Daoism and the Daoist path, unlike many Westerners I've seen who have become interested in Eastern religions, I have no desire to become Chinese or lose my own identity as a Westerner. So the issue becomes how to balance my own identity and connection to my historical traditions and follow what essentially has been an ethnic Chinese religion for most of history. Ultimately transcending all identities and limited notions of self and uniting with the Dao is the goal, but at the same time I feel deracination or uprooted-ness is one of the ills of the modern world and don't want to succumb to it myself.

 

 

So my question is, considering what I just said about simplicity, which path would you like to follow? What do you WANT? Is my observation that you'd prefer Daoism correct?

 

What I want is transcendence, transformation, awakening, enlightenment, gnosis, etc. The question becomes how can I most realistically achieve this in this life?

 

 

I would just like to add that there is no nihilistic element in buddhism, if you get the teachings on emptiness correctly it is one of the most profound teachings on the suchness of reality - and it does not fall into any conceptual extremes such as non-existence or "eternal" existence etc. - it is utterly beyond conetpual elaboration On first look one might think - buddha thought nihilism or some eternal substance, but there is nothing more confused then a thought like that... buddha was surely beyond tradition and conventional terminology, so why would he teach "this" or "that" as his final enlightened intend?

 

I disagree. I believe that the notion of anatta is nihilistic and much of Madhyamika, especially Prasangika Madhyamika, is nihilistic despite the fact that the teachers of these doctrines state "this isn't nihilism and if you think it is you haven't understood it." I am one of those heretics (like Perez-Remon and George Grimm) who believes that the Buddha actually didn't deny the atman in the Pali since he always used anatta as an adjective in relation to the skandhas and never once claimed, "Disciples, verily there is no atman." So the imputation of that teaching and the constant antagonism to the Vedic/Upanishadic notion of an Atman in Buddhism I see as an error, and a nihilistic one at that. Thankfully much of East Asian Buddhism and the Jonangpas resolved these issues with their focuses on Tathagatagarbha, Buddha-Nature, the Nirvana Sutra, the notion of One Mind in Zen, etc.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Lets Debate!!!

 

no just kidding, 84.000 doors to the dharma brotherr 84.000 doors

[Kongming]

Lets Debate!!! no just kidding, 84.000 doors to the dharma brotherr 84.000 doors

 

I agree. Sadly there is a large contingent of modern Buddhists who are strongly against what I am talking about and it seems like some more ancient Buddhists felt the same way (take the violent oppression of Dolpopa and the Jonangs historically in Tibet.) You can see this phenomena on some of the modern Buddhist forums anytime the topic of "anatta" or an ultimate reality like Brahman comes up in discussion. Here's an example of it occurring here on this forum:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/16163-taoism-vs-buddhism/

 

That said I of course believe there is much more positive to Buddhism than negative or else I wouldn't be interested in it!

Edited April 30, 2016 by Kongming

[Apech]

This is an interesting topic and I think there is often a lot of confusion about picking one over the other, but I believe that this difficulty of choice results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the root differences inherent in both ways of life; because once you comprehend it, you will see how clearly contrary both are to one another - and the choice would always be simple to make, but this is how it is; when we are unclear about something; it is difficult to make a choice. Is it no so?

 

The simple answer in my opinion is this: 

 

Buddhism is founded on the belief that life is suffering and altogether an experience which should be escaped in order to achieve liberation.

 

- This concept nurtures and supports the development of an attitude in practitioners which, while not entirely nihilistic, doesn't create any architecture to encourage one to live life to its fullest. Rather, one becomes perpetually impregnated by the idea of being born into a world which can never offer anything more than sickness, pain, old age, death and good old suffering #funtimes #whybother #whereistheexit

 

Why is this such a problem? - Because it programs practitioners into becoming passive contributors to society. After all, why would you bother with developing society when by definition the universal law of samsara is the suffering of impermanence. Better to dedicate as much time as I can to getting the hell out of here, right?

 

With the exception of Zen Buddhism in countries like Japan, which is very strongly influenced by Taoism, almost every major country of early adopters of Buddhism, which have it as it's primary religion, suffers from some form of poverty, underdeveloped civilisation, sub-standard social infrastructure and unacceptable forms of inequality.

 

To really understand and experience Buddhism, you have to become a monk or a nun - and that demands that you abandon society and minimize your contribution to the human race. As far as I am concerned, that is existential suicide and a disservice to your higher self.

 

....

 

(I snipped your post cos it's quite long)

 

While you have a point about dukkha/suffering colouring attitudes - this way of seeing it is almost completely at odds with the teachings of the Buddha himself.  Yes he concluded that there is always something unsatisfactory about our experience of existence he was not negative about life in the sense that may have crept in later.  In fact the group in society which were his biggest followers and to whom his massage proved attractive was the emerging rich middle classes of agricultural producers, merchants and professional classes.  He had a very positive attitude to wealth which he attributed to past good deeds, he even gave advice on personal and business financial management.  A third of his path is about conduct (ethics, morals) and he pointed out the business advantages of being an ethical person - and how this actually opens doors and improves personal standing and so on.

 

He did formulate the life of the monk as being the best for liberation.  But this again was a pragmatic response to the onerous life of a householder in late Vedic India.  He came up with a way to liberate them from their 24/7 commitment to family, ritual and the wider society - giving them time to study and meditate.  Like most of his teachings this a skillfull means for providing the people he was teaching their best chance of making it.

 

He wasn't an ascetic - he rejected that way.  He was not negative about life - or about people.  In fact the very opposite. In the centuries after the Buddha society did not decline into otherworldism - in fact great empires grew out of the changing social environment and Buddhism spread via the silk route traders far and wide.  It was only later when various factors such as the emergence of Islam and the growing militant Hindu response that Buddhism lost its influence over Indian culture and slowly declined until it disappeared completely.  

[Old River]

The early western understanding of Buddhism (ala Schopenhauer) gets Buddhism entirely wrong because the western metaphysical use of words like "nothing" or "emptiness," etc. mean something entirely different from the Buddhist usage.  Sadly, this Schopenhauerian misunderstanding still gets stuck in people's minds.  Bottom line: Schopenhauer had his own agenda and appropriated Buddhism for his own nihilistic purposes. 

 

In actual Buddhism, it is the belief in absolute reification (i.e. the belief in independent, essentialized beings, including the ego) which it calls delusional, a distortion of reality.  This delusion is one of the ways through which suffering arises.  

 

Put crudely, Buddhism questions not the existence of things (existing vs. no-existing), but rather the nature of the existence of things as independent, self-subsisting entities.  That is what Buddhism denies in anatman.  Everything is impermanent.  Every thing.

 

In the Middle Way, being (essentialism) and non-being (metaphysical nihilism) are both extremes inextricably tied together which are to be avoided.  To conflate this with metaphysical nihilism is based on an inability to recognize Buddhism's Middle Way doctrine.  "Emptiness" and "dependent co-origination" are really two ways of saying the same thing.  

 

It is easy to misunderstand and to mischaracterize Buddhism as "nihilistic" because of its rather complex doctrines.  For some, these doctrines are helpful tools to aid in awakening.  Whatever works best-- and sometimes experimenting with different approaches is helpful.  The point isn't what is right or what is wrong (these are mere verbal matters in the end, tools), but what works best toward your own awakening.  

 

Ages ago in music school, my major "instrument" was voice.  I took a fancy to the oboe at one point and took oboe lessons at the university.  Getting the embouchure right, just to get a single tone!-- was almost impossible for me.  I dropped it after one semester.  I stuck with singing, what came to me more naturally.  I still love the way the oboe sounds though-- I just don't play it. 

[Kongming]

The early western understanding of Buddhism (ala Schopenhauer) gets Buddhism entirely wrong because the western metaphysical use of words like "nothing" or "emptiness," etc. mean something entirely different from the Buddhist usage.  Sadly, this Schopenhauerian misunderstanding still gets stuck in people's minds.  Bottom line: Schopenhauer had his own agenda and appropriated Buddhism for his own nihilistic purposes. 

 

In actual Buddhism, it is the belief in absolute reification (i.e. the belief in independent, essentialized beings, including the ego) which it calls delusional, a distortion of reality.  This delusion is one of the ways through which suffering arises.  

 

Put crudely, Buddhism questions not the existence of things (existing vs. no-existing), but rather the nature of the existence of things as independent, self-subsisting entities.  That is what Buddhism denies in anatman.  Everything is impermanent.  Every thing.

 

In the Middle Way, being (essentialism) and non-being (metaphysical nihilism) are both extremes inextricably tied together which are to be avoided.  To conflate this with metaphysical nihilism is based on an inability to recognize Buddhism's Middle Way doctrine.  "Emptiness" and "dependent co-origination" are really two ways of saying the same thing.  

 

I understand what you are saying here and I still disagree. This disagreement of course isn't merely a Western or Schopenhauerian issue, the Vedantins, Shaivites, and other Hindu philosophers lodged the same claim of nihilism against Buddhism (particularly Madhyamika) in various debates on the issue.

 

From what I've seen, many Buddhists state that the skandhas exhaust reality and claim there is nothing (such as the Hindu Atman-Brahman) which transcends the skandhas. The skandhas in turn are impermanent and suffering. Nirvana is the cessation of ignorance and the further cause for the arising of karma and the skandhas. So we are logically left with all being impermanent suffering and with its cessation (since there is nothing beyond), nothing at all. This is nihilism. 

 

Furthermore dependent origination is discussing the conditioned realm of phenomena, but does it take into account that which is unconditioned, transcendent, and therefore not dependently originated? Some Buddhists account for this (like Dolpopa) but many state there is no such thing, i.e. a denial of a transcendent, timeless, changeless, and hence eternal Absolute like Brahman. It is this positioning which I see as nihilistic and disagree with.

 

It is easy to misunderstand and to mischaracterize Buddhism as "nihilistic" because of its rather complex doctrines.  For some, these doctrines are helpful tools to aid in awakening.  Whatever works best-- and sometimes experimenting with different approaches is helpful.  The point isn't what is right or what is wrong (these are mere verbal matters in the end, tools), but what works best toward your own awakening.  

 

That's the only utility I can see for Madhyamika, as a via negativa methodology for realizing the impermanence and lack of self in all conditioned entities in order to awaken to that which is not impermanent, namely the timeless and eternal Absolute (Brahman, etc.) Most Buddhists categorically deny that this is what Madhyamika is or its intention from what I've seen however.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Kongming

[Old River]

Furthermore dependent origination is discussing the conditioned realm of phenomena, but does it take into account that which is unconditioned, transcendent, and therefore not dependently originated? Some Buddhists account for this (like Dolpopa) but many state there is no such thing, i.e. a denial of a transcendent, timeless, changeless, and hence eternal Absolute like Brahman. It is this positioning which I see as nihilistic and disagree with.

 

What is difficult to recognize is that Mahayana Buddhism points to is not a thing at all, but beyond all verbal conceptualization (ironically, it does take a lot of words to get there though!).  Just because you can't name "it" doesn't mean it is therefore a "no thing" as opposed to a "some thing."  The Middle Way plays a central role in Nagarjuna's thought in which both essentialism ("some thing") and nihilism ("no thing") are rejected, seen as the trap of dualistic thinking.  

 

Where other traditions might still feel the need to actually posit an Absolute reality, Mahayana Buddhism just stops talking (this becomes more apparent in Buddhism's further migration eastward).  This doesn't mean x is right and y is wrong, or that y is right and x is wrong.  It's just a particular method -- it works better for some than for others.  Many apophatic traditions do often have "disclaimers" that even words applied to the Divine or whatever are really just tenuous labels for what ultimately lies beyond all language and conceptualization.  The denial of an eternal Absolute is the denial of conceptualization and points toward the embracing of a trusting silence. 

 

It's a mistake to equate that silence with mere nihilism-- this error says more about our (perhaps misguided) need to tie language to reality in some singular absolute sense.  Nonduality is not quite the same thing as monism.  We keep grasping and grabbing with our words, we are unable to trust in our own experience of reality, whatever that might be.  But silence has its place too-- sometimes I feel we are too addicted to words (including Nagarjuna-- heck, including myself!). 

 

I think part of the problem is the vast access we now have to Buddhist texts for anyone to read without the guidance of a good teacher and a well-grounded community of practitioners.  Such a context I feel is necessary.  Going on the texts alone is bound to lead to misunderstanding-- Buddhism is no sola scriptura religion, and cannot be comprehended divorced from step-by-step, day-by-day practice.  The ease of availability of Buddhist texts and doctrines enables anyone to jump into the deep end of the pool without a practicing community, and this can easily lead to misunderstanding.

 

At any rate, the vast majority of Mahayana Buddhists I have known personally (eastern and western, monastics and laypersons) and whom I have read and known about certainly don't behave according to a nihilist ideology-- rather, they have been some of the most compassionate people I've ever known in life.  They must be doing something right, I would imagine.  So I say good on them! --even if that isn't my particular path, or I'm unable to see what they see.  I think that's a healthier and more charitable attitude to have, or I just turn into another blind man arguing about an elephant's ear or tail or trunk. 

[Kongming]

What is difficult to recognize is that Mahayana Buddhism points to is not a thing at all, but beyond all verbal conceptualization (ironically, it does take a lot of words to get there though!).  Just because you can't name "it" doesn't mean it is therefore a "no thing" as opposed to a "some thing."  The Middle Way plays a central role in Nagarjuna's thought in which both essentialism ("some thing") and nihilism ("no thing") are rejected, seen as the trap of dualistic thinking.  

 

Where other traditions might still feel the need to actually posit an Absolute reality, Mahayana Buddhism just stops talking (this becomes more apparent in Buddhism's further migration eastward).  This doesn't mean x is right and y is wrong, or that y is right and x is wrong.  It's just a particular method -- it works better for some than for others.  Many apophatic traditions do often have "disclaimers" that even words applied to the Divine or whatever are really just tenuous labels for what ultimately lies beyond all language and conceptualization.  The denial of an eternal Absolute is the denial of conceptualization and points toward the embracing of a trusting silence. 

 

It's a mistake to equate that silence with mere nihilism-- this error says more about our (perhaps misguided) need to tie language to reality in some singular absolute sense.  Nonduality is not quite the same thing as monism.  We keep grasping and grabbing with our words, we are unable to trust in our own experience of reality, whatever that might be.  But silence has its place too-- sometimes I feel we are too addicted to words (including Nagarjuna-- heck, including myself!). 

 

I can certainly agree with this and find such an approach useful myself. Maybe I've just been encountering the wrong crowd of Buddhists because beyond a mistrust of the use of language or dualistic thinking, there seems to be a certain strand of Buddhism that wishes to actually deny that there is an Absolute and also deny that Madhyamika's function is one of silence in order to transcend conceptualization in order to intuit the truth. Take for example articles like this:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

 

 

I think part of the problem is the vast access we now have to Buddhist texts for anyone to read without the guidance of a good teacher and a well-grounded community of practitioners.  Such a context I feel is necessary.  Going on the texts alone is bound to lead to misunderstanding-- Buddhism is no sola scriptura religion, and cannot be comprehended divorced from step-by-step, day-by-day practice.  The ease of availability of Buddhist texts and doctrines enables anyone to jump into the deep end of the pool without a practicing community, and this can easily lead to misunderstanding.

 

Though sometimes the reverse could be true. For example, there is no actual categorical denial of the the atman in the Pali and anatta is consistently used as an adjective as I noted earlier. Yet certain Theravadin dogmas regarding the atman make their students read the texts in a predetermined way which might serve to obfuscate the truth on the matter, depending on your perspective. Similarly in Mahayana the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and especially the Nirvana Sutra openly speak of the atman and the Absolute, yet certain sects of teachers state that these teachings are provisional or mere upaya in order to put forth the more typical Madhyamika denial of any essences or Absolutes.

 

Perhaps ultimately it isn't nihilism, but I suppose what I find incompatible to my nature or strange is doctrines which are so close to nihilism that they can easily be mistaken as such and require warnings to inform people that it isn't as such.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Kongming

[doc benway]

My perception and understanding differs from yours, Kongming, and I'll point out those differences below...

 

From what I've seen, many Buddhists state that the skandhas exhaust reality

... not reality but our perception and reification of appearances... which we mistakenly take for reality

 

and claim there is nothing (such as the Hindu Atman-Brahman) which transcends the skandhas.

... it is not so much that there "is nothing" which transcends the skandhas but rather, the foundation upon which the skandhas rest is empty (meaning without an independent, self-subsisting entity, as Old River so eloquently put it). It is not nothing - that is a wrong view. "It" is described in terms of the characteristics of space, clarity, and warmth. The characteristics of space are things like unchanging, indestructible, unborn, unformed, unceasing, unbounded, without center, and so forth. The characteristics of clarity are things such as presence, awareness, now-ness, knowing, and light. The characteristics or descriptions of warmth include bliss, loving-kindness, oneness, non-dual, allowing, openness, spacious, and connected. All of this transcends the skandhas and yet none of this can be shown to have inherent independence when subjected to Madhyamika reasoning, which is a tool, not ultimate reality (and empty in and of itself).

 

 

The skandhas in turn are impermanent and suffering. Nirvana is the cessation of ignorance and the further cause for the arising of karma and the skandhas. So we are logically left with all being impermanent suffering and with its cessation (since there is nothing beyond), nothing at all. This is nihilism. 

This is where you go astray. It is not "nothing at all." Both samsara and nirvana are ultimately seen as being of one taste, one nature. That nature is empty of inherent independence, however, and is of the nature of space with characteristics of presence and warmth as described above. Nirvana and samsara are not independent and are not other than this very moment. They are also dependently originated.

 

 

Furthermore dependent origination is discussing the conditioned realm of phenomena, but does it take into account that which is unconditioned, transcendent, and therefore not dependently originated?

Yes, even this is considered to be empty, thus dependently originated. Here we do get into a sticky wicket and it requires quite a bit of Buddhist education and sophistication to see that even that which is eternal, unborn, and unchanging is empty. This is a characteristic of space which is not equivalent to nothingness as it is inseparable with clarity and warmth - the lively presence of this very moment that has the infinite potential to manifest all things. 

 

 

Some Buddhists account for this (like Dolpopa) but many state there is no such thing, i.e. a denial of a transcendent, timeless, changeless, and hence eternal Absolute like Brahman. It is this positioning which I see as nihilistic and disagree with.

From the perspective of the Madhyamika view (well, I should probably say from my understanding - I'm certainly no authority), those who deny the characteristics of transcendence, timelessness, and changeless are mistaken. They lapse into the error of nihilism. These are simply characteristics of space. Conversely, those who conclude that these characteristics imply a self-subsisting entity are equally mistaken. They lapse into the error of eternalism. They gratuitously posit an independent "something" that possesses those characteristics. 

 

These are just my unscholarly and unsophisticated attempts to show my understanding of the middle view. One easy way to avoid this nihilistic misunderstanding is to do the following. Any time one thinks of the word empty in the context of Buddhism, don't think of nothingness. Think of empty referring to space and that space being alive with presence and the warmth that can give rise to the infinite manifestations we experience here and now in this very moment. 

 

I'll take the liberty of borrowing CT's beautiful post from Hui Neng:

 

Do not sit with a mind fixed on emptiness.
 

If you do, you will fall into a dead kind of emptiness.
 

Emptiness includes the sun, moon, stars and planets,
The great earth, mountains and rivers,
All trees and grasses,
Bad people and good people,
Bad things and good things,
Heaven and hell;
They are all in the midst of emptiness.

 

~ Hui Neng ~

 

 

That's the only utility I can see for Madhyamika, as a via negativa methodology for realizing the impermanence and lack of self in all conditioned entities in order to awaken to that which is not impermanent, namely the timeless and eternal Absolute (Brahman, etc.) Most Buddhists categorically deny that this is what Madhyamika is or its intention from what I've seen however.

This is exactly the purpose of Madhyamika, however, that method of reasoning must also be applied to the "timeless and eternal Absolute" and can easily be done so through evoking the characteristics of space and the inseparable nature of space, clarity, and warmth. If we apply Madhyamika reasoning to everything BUT the very foundation of everything itself, then we are selectively applying the rules and that's never a good idea. 

[Old River]

Perhaps ultimately it isn't nihilism, but I suppose what I find incompatible to my nature or strange is doctrines which are so close to nihilism that they can easily be mistaken as such and require warnings to inform people that it isn't as such.

 

I can relate to this somewhat.  For all my own verbiage, I know I'm heavily intuitive in my comprehension of things (I often make sense of situations in a way doesn't involve an explicit logical argumentation --I tend to verbalize things after the fact rather than beforehand).  Even when I was practicing Buddhism, I took the more intuitive route of Chan/Zen.  

 

Regarding that Awakening to Reality link -- the irony is that some hardcore nondualists end up getting caught in the same trap of merely positing itself against other traditions.  What good is "this" vs. "that" if it only creates more "this" vs. "that"?  It just multiplies more "this" and "that" to hopelessly cling to-- the very attitude that causes suffering!  Laypeople digging into these complex doctrines is a rather modern phenomenon, and I'm not sure it's helpful -- for either Buddhists or non-Buddhists.  In this respect, it isn't too unlike the "mystery religions" in which only the initiated were gradually introduced to new doctrines and practices.  To lay it all out was to "profane the mysteries."  The practitioner has to be ready for these things, and that's where a teacher becomes necessary.   

 

I used to frequent nondual forums and blogs (including that one incidentally) but I find them hopelessly mired in too much argumentation, and quibbling over semantics.  Too much verbal discussion (especially online!) on nonduality I think is a mistake-- nothing does the job better than a good old fashioned flesh-and-blood sangha, something the internet (or a book) can't replace.  

Edited April 30, 2016 by Old River

[Kongming]

... it is not so much that there "is nothing" which transcends the skandhas but rather, the foundation upon which the skandhas rest is empty (meaning without an independent, self-subsisting entity, as Old River so eloquently put it). It is not nothing - that is a wrong view. "It" is described in terms of the characteristics of space, clarity, and warmth. The characteristics of space are things like unchanging, indestructible, unborn, unformed, unceasing, unbounded, without center, and so forth. The characteristics of clarity are things such as presence, awareness, now-ness, knowing, and light. The characteristics or descriptions of warmth include bliss, loving-kindness, oneness, non-dual, allowing, openness, spacious, and connected. All of this transcends the skandhas and yet none of this can be shown to have inherent independence when subjected to Madhyamika reasoning, which is a tool, not ultimate reality (and empty in and of itself).

 

This is where you go astray. It is not "nothing at all." Both samsara and nirvana are ultimately seen as being of one taste, one nature. That nature is empty of inherent independence, however, and is of the nature of space with characteristics of presence and warmth as described above. Nirvana and samsara are not independent and are not other than this very moment. They are also dependently originated.

 

Most of what you described here, aside from your last sentences in both paragraphs, sounds like it could be Brahman (or other formulations of same, such as the Dao or the Neoplatonic One) and yet supposedly Buddhism denies the Brahman. So what is it that it denies?

 

It seems to me to be dependent means to be unfree. Dependent origination is what applies to phenomena, namely to be dependent on causes and conditions and on other phenomena. If the Absolute is dependent, doesn't that in turn mean it is subject to causes and conditions? This treats the Absolute as though it is a "thing" among other things, whereas in reality it is supposed to transcend all things or be the source or ground of all reality.

 

From the perspective of the Madhyamika view (well, I should probably say from my understanding - I'm certainly no authority), those who deny the characteristics of transcendence, timelessness, and changeless are mistaken. They lapse into the error of nihilism. These are simply characteristics of space. Conversely, those who conclude that these characteristics imply a self-subsisting entity are equally mistaken. They lapse into the error of eternalism. They gratuitously posit an independent "something" that possesses those characteristics.

 

This is something else which confuses me in Buddhism. If something is impermanent (say the Absolute), then it will end and hence is nihilism. Yet if something is timeless and transcendent, it is unchanging. That which is timeless and unchanging is eternal by definition. In other words, something either has an end or it doesn't...what possible alternative is there?

 

I guess there are different dharma doors for different people, but to me it seems that other similar systems (say Vedanta, Neoplatonism, Daoism, Kashmir Shaivism) are clearer, more logical, and more coherent than much of Buddhism and don't have the negative quality of being subject to nihilistic misinterpretations (if Madhyamika and Theravadin "anatta" doctrines are indeed not truly nihilism, which is a contentious issue.)

Edited April 30, 2016 by Kongming

[dwai]

Most of what you described here, aside from your last sentences in both paragraphs, sounds like it could be Brahman (or other formulations of same, such as the Dao or the Neoplatonic One) and yet supposedly Buddhism denies the Brahman. So what is it that it denies?

 

It seems to me to be dependent means to be unfree. Dependent origination is what applies to phenomena, namely to be dependent on causes and conditions and on other phenomena. If the Absolute is dependent, doesn't that in turn mean it is subject to causes and conditions? This treats the Absolute as though it is a "thing" among other things, whereas in reality it is supposed to transcend all things or be the source or ground of all reality.

 

 

This is something else which confuses me in Buddhism. If something is impermanent (say the Absolute), then it will end and hence is nihilism. Yet if something is timeless and transcendent, it is unchanging. That which is timeless and unchanging is eternal by definition. In other words, something either has an end or it doesn't...what possible alternative is there?

 

I guess there are different dharma doors for different people, but to me it seems that other similar systems (say Vedanta, Neoplatonism, Daoism, Kashmir Shaivism) are clearer, more logical, and more coherent than much of Buddhism and don't have the negative quality of being subject to nihilistic misinterpretations (if Madhyamika and Theravadin "anatta" doctrines are indeed not truly nihilism, which is a contentious issue.)

What purported Buddhists believe in internet boards should not be taken to be Buddhism. Just because one practices Buddhism doesn't mean they are Buddhas (yet). So they will tend to interpret the Buddha's teachings through their personal lenses.

 

Your posts remind me a time in the TDB history as the buddhabum wars

 

There really is not need to even accept the Buddhism vs Daoism (or any other ism) idea for that matter. But that isn't Apparent until one day it is. Till then we need the duality of this or that.

 

The Buddha's teaching is really very simple. Suffering is caused by attachment to pleasure or fear of suffering. When one drops the attachment, they are free. To do that, one has to let go of the false personalities we identify with. That is anatta. When we let go of the anatta, we can see what truly exists. Initially, to some, it might seem like there is nothing independently existent, because in an expanded state, truly a void, nothing exists. Or in a in between to expanded and contracted, there is the state of everythingness - see oneself in everything. As that contracts further, it becomes all the anatta that we let go of previously. That is who most are walking around as...the ego self, the jiva.

 

That then begs the question, who is it that is expanding (becoming nothing) or contracting (from everything becoming one thing)?

 

That is simultaneously expanded and contracted. That begs the question - how csn something be both nothing and something at the same time? That is not possible if there is time. So time is non existent.

 

How can one thing be both empty and full? That means there is no space.

 

Therefore that no thing, must be free of space and time. Therefore it is eternal. As it is self aware, it is consciousness. Because it does not have any attachments, it is full of bliss.

 

That is nirvana. And we can be that always. Because we have never "Not been" it!

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[dwai]

Wait! What about alaya vijnana and pratityasamuptpada ?

In between the empty and everything state, it becomes apparent that all existence is dependently arising (as that contracts), like the fabled jeweled net of Indra. How it "is" is truly difficult to articulate. When one experiences it, it becomes evident that the description of it is indeed a ghost of a ghost of the reality, millions of times over.

 

That interconnected jeweled net of dependently co-rising everything is also part of that no thing which is everything. So when seen from that after-the-fact intellectual position that there are infinitely interconnected streams is consciousness. But they are like waves of an ocean. Did the ocean make the Waves or the waves make the ocean?

[Kongming]

Taoism superior to Buddhism?

It seems to me to be rather the other way around.

Buddhist Dzogchen practice creates highest level Buddhas up to this day,

people transforming their physical material body including their raw elements into a subtle rainbow body of pure light energy.

Taoist practice doesn't.

 

So what about all non-Dzogchen Buddhist forms? What about all non-Tibetan Buddhist traditions? Are they up to par?

[dwai]

Dont dwell in conflict my friends. Let go of positions

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[dwai]

And yet, each will go through the same process...

[doc benway]

Most of what you described here, aside from your last sentences in both paragraphs, sounds like it could be Brahman (or other formulations of same, such as the Dao or the Neoplatonic One) and yet supposedly Buddhism denies the Brahman. So what is it that it denies?

Yes, there is a great deal of agreement. It is simply that if you follow the reduction reasoning of Madhyamika to its natural conclusion, the Brahman is seen to be free of discrete, independent "is-ness." I am not educated enough to walk you through that but what it denies is exactly that which you propose to be a thing. The same paradox is inherent in Daoism which describes Wuji, Taiji, and the 10,000 things. For me this is equivalent to the Buddhist concept of emptiness. 

 

 

It seems to me to be dependent means to be unfree.

I would say dependent connotes related or connected as opposed to unfree. When you say free, what do you mean by something that is free? I think you are pointing to something that is independent. Something established from its own side.

 

Dependent origination is what applies to phenomena, namely to be dependent on causes and conditions and on other phenomena. If the Absolute is dependent, doesn't that in turn mean it is subject to causes and conditions? This treats the Absolute as though it is a "thing" among other things, whereas in reality it is supposed to transcend all things or be the source or ground of all reality.

The Absolute, as you refer to it, is a phenomenon. It does not appear as separate from the "you" that apprehends it. 

It is dependent on the "you" or the "I". From my perspective it is you, literally and figuratively, who are treating the Absolute as a thing - other than you. If it is not other than you, then it is I and the point is that I cannot be established as existing independently. Not sure if I'm being clear, or even correct. Take everything I say with a grain of salt. 

 

This is something else which confuses me in Buddhism. If something is impermanent (say the Absolute), then it will end and hence is nihilism. Yet if something is timeless and transcendent, it is unchanging. That which is timeless and unchanging is eternal by definition. In other words, something either has an end or it doesn't...what possible alternative is there?

The four negations - it cannot be said to exist, to not exist, to both exist and not exist, to neither exist nor not exist. Each of these assertions leads to error. Yes, it is confusing! Although if you have a solid foundation in Madhyamika logic, it comes about as a natural conclusion.

 

 

I guess there are different dharma doors for different people, but to me it seems that other similar systems (say Vedanta, Neoplatonism, Daoism, Kashmir Shaivism) are clearer, more logical, and more coherent than much of Buddhism and don't have the negative quality of being subject to nihilistic misinterpretations (if Madhyamika and Theravadin "anatta" doctrines are indeed not truly nihilism, which is a contentious issue.)

Yes, different strokes for different folks. While these other traditions don't have a strong potential for nihilistic misinterpretation, from the perspective of a skillful Madhyamika they suffer from eternalistic misinterpretations. Pick your poison, perhaps. 

 

Rigdzin Trinley is walking through arguments from Mipham Rinpoche's Beacon of Certainty - arguably a pinnacle of Madhyamika reasoning from the Dzogchen perspective. He is much more educated than I am and I invite you to follow that thread if you're so inclined. 

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Kongming]

I would say dependent connotes related or connected as opposed to unfree. When you say free, what do you mean by something that is free? I think you are pointing to something that is independent. Something established from its own side.

 

Yes, to be independent is to be free from all conditioning. If you are dependent on causes, conditions, or other phenomena, you are not independent. To my eyes, independence is freedom and a mark of the ultimate, whereas it is conditioned phenomena which lack these qualities and hence are impermanent, unsatisfactory, etc.

 

 

The Absolute, as you refer to it, is a phenomenon. It does not appear as separate from the "you" that apprehends it. 

It is dependent on the "you" or the "I". From my perspective it is you, literally and figuratively, who are treating the Absolute as a thing - other than you. If it is not other than you, then it is I and the point is that I cannot be established as existing independently. Not sure if I'm being clear, or even correct. Take everything I say with a grain of salt. 

 

In my view the Absolute is the noumenon rather than a phenomena among many. It is the source or ground of all reality and prior to (metaphysically not temporally) the differentiation of things. It is also "you" or "I", hence the whole Tat Tvam Asi of Hindu schools, another proposition I hear Buddhism denies.

 

One could put it in a different way: There is one Absolute reality which can be perceived in different ways, namely the relative and ignorant perspective (sentient being) or that of the Absolute perspective (enlightened, Buddha.) To experience or "be" the timeless, eternal, unchanging, unconditioned, nondual, etc. aspect is the latter. That's how I see the matter at least.

 

 

Dzogchen is a way today still preserved in tibetan Buddhism and Bön.

Therefore, these traditions contain the highest wisdom teachings.

 

 

Padmasambhava did come from India.

I don't know if Dzogchen today still is preserved in indian Buddhism.

 

 

No my question is in regards to the fact that you say Dzogchen is the highest and can create rainbow bodies. Yet Dzogchen is only but one tradition within Tibetan Buddhism, which in turn is but one form of Buddhism among many others. The question is whether all those others (Chan/Zen, Shingon, Pure Land, Theravada, etc.) can create the rainbow body and hence are superior to Daoism as you state?

 

In any case, Daniel Reid here doesn't seem to think of Daoism as any bit inferior to Dzogchen:

 

http://danreid.org/daniel-reid-articles-practice-makes-perfect-dzogchen-chuanchen.asp