Why Daoism over Buddhism

[RigdzinTrinley]

may the blessings of dzogchen not enter this discussion

[Gerard]

Dont dwell in conflict my friends. Let go of positions

 

 

It won't change, they need to realise by themselves. Same goes with the unawakened, not matter how you try to convince them that this life is only a tiny speck in your spiritual journey...THEY NEED TO REALISE BY THEMSELVES.

 

[roger]

Ultimately transcending all identities and limited notions of self and uniting with the Dao is the goal,

 

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

 

I have the same desire.

 

And while I haven't fully experienced it, I have definitely had moments of clarity and transcendence, and those moments are when I really feel truly at peace, when I feel OKAY about everything.

 

It seems to me that having faith that "all is well," and that everything, including YOURSELF, really is OKAY, is basically the goal. For me this is what gives me peace and serenity. When I'm having faith- in the Dao, in myself, in the goodness of life.

 

Of course, formal practices such as qi gong and meditation can help to induce these feelings of utter well-being, and also the moment-to-moment acceptance of oneself.

[Old River]

It seems to me that having faith that "all is well," and that everything, including YOURSELF, really is OKAY, is basically the goal. For me this is what gives me peace and serenity. When I'm having faith- in the Dao, in myself, in the goodness of life.

 

 

       Simply trust:

Do not the petals flutter down,

       Just like that?

 

                                 ~ Issa

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Apech]

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.

 

 

Padmasambhava (although the first) is part of the mahasiddhi transmission from India to Tibet in the Indian medieval period (roughly 600 - 1300 AD.) By the end of this period Buddhism had ceased to exist in India itself.  So the only Buddhism in India today is that which has been reintroduced in the modern era from Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and so on.

 

The reasons for Buddhism's decline are probably largely socio-political in that as an institution it failed to maintain the sponsorship of the ruling elites who were either Islamic or 'Hindu'.  This period being quite chaotic and warlike it lacked the stable foundations which could maintain monks and monasteries and the rulers preferred more 'aggressive' religious ideas built round those with 'truth' smiting their enemies.

 

But the tantric Buddhism practiced by Guru Rinpoche and others uses the symbolism of chakras (realms), mandalas of deities (like royal courts) and spiritual kingship - even weaponry such as thunderbolt vajras and swords as well as figures such as chakravatins or world rulers which are all drawn from the cultural features of this period.

 

Back on topic:

 

It would be hard to separate the Buddhism and Daoism practiced by the Doaist schools such as Complete Reality and so on which practice NeiDan.  Buddhism is highly flexible and adaptive because fundamentally it relies on very profound principles rather than attachment to cultural norms and ritual. (I know you can point to countless cases where this has gone wrong but essentially it still remains true).  Daoism is vastly profound and subtle.  It takes numerous forms without losing it's nature.  

 

Buddhism and Daoism arose in different environments and conditions and so have differences.  But the degree to which they are compatible is a tribute to both.  Compare the religions of the book - more similar to each other but in a constant state of conflict.

[Old River]

I do think especially westerners are so conditioned to make a fetish of ideological purity which we've inherited from a culture rooted in the Christian religion, where syncretism traditionally was strongly condemned as a heresy.  China, Japan, and other far eastern countries don't get hung up on this, but allow a free exchange of ideas and beliefs -- whatever works best in a given moment.  Ideological consistency is the least of their concerns.  There's a lesson to be learned here. 

 

The western fetish of a single, totalizing system comes from centuries of a predominantly Christian culture insisting that we be systematic and consistent in spirituality-- and in everything else too, with mixed results to say the least.  Philosophically, its roots are in Plato and the Greek philosophical tradition, which Christianity co-opted for its own purposes (as the so-called "handmaiden of theology").  The same totalizing tendency of the west has arisen out of almost every other religious, philosophical, social, and political doctrine, Marxism being the other obvious historical example.  

 

Syncretic flexibility which made Chan Buddhism possible by intermingling with Daoist ideas and attitudes, and in practice there really were no pure, "orthodox" Daoists, Buddhists, or Confucianists, etc.  Likewise in Japan, even today, a single family might have a Christian baptism, a Shinto wedding, and a Buddhist funeral -- common attitudes this must have drove those Jesuits missionaries up the wall!  These doctrines are distinct from one another, but it is no big deal to switch from one set of beliefs to another in a particular given moment:

 

Popular, or folk, religious practice in China today has elements as old as the ancestral rites of the Shang and Zhou dynasties and, dating from the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE), is marked by a propensity for syncretism–the combining of different forms of belief or practice. A good example is the construction of temple altars. It’s not uncommon to find Buddhist and Confucian figures in a Daoist temple. Nor is it extraordinary to see a selfprofessed Buddhist offer incense at a Daoist temple to a historical figure known for his Confucian virtues.

For most people in China, there is no problem with mixing religious practices. Unlike some other cultures, where religious syncretism and even tolerance are viewed with skepticism or condemnation, the Chinese have always had the ability to select the religious practices and teachings that work best for them at the moment. If a certain deity doesn’t answer a supplicant’s petition, then it’s on to the next temple and deity. In general religious pluralism simply adds to the many options from which the Chinese can choose on their journey toward a harmonious life.

 

[from here: http://asiasociety.org/chinese-religions-and-philosophies - emphasis mine]

 

 

We would likely do better to adopt similar attitudes rather than carrying over the (often violent) ideological intolerance that we've inherited from the west via the "religions of the Book."  "This religion is superior than that religion" is a foreign superimposition placed upon Daoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.  For the vast majority of the Chinese throughout history, this would be a bizarre position to hold, as this amusing cross-cultural encounter illustrates:

 

http://www.newreligion.eu/2013/03/chinese-religion-and-syncretism.html

Edited May 1, 2016 by Old River

[Apech]

@Old River

 

You make excellent points.  I think also what dogs the religions of the book is that if you are a monotheist - then the natural extension of this is to think in terms of 'one truth', 'one way' and so on.  I like the Buddhist analysis which suggest the variation in teachings reflects the variations in the audience.  

[doc benway]

@Old River

 

You make excellent points.  I think also what dogs the religions of the book is that if you are a monotheist - then the natural extension of this is to think in terms of 'one truth', 'one way' and so on.  I like the Buddhist analysis which suggest the variation in teachings reflects the variations in the audience.  

 

Excellent point which circles back to the Madhyamika - Yogacara dispute. 

[Kongming]

I do think especially westerners are so conditioned to make a fetish of ideological purity which we've inherited from a culture rooted in the Christian religion, where syncretism traditionally was strongly condemned as a heresy.  China, Japan, and other far eastern countries don't get hung up on this, but allow a free exchange of ideas and beliefs -- whatever works best in a given moment.  Ideological consistency is the least of their concerns.  There's a lesson to be learned here. 

 

The western fetish of a single, totalizing system comes from centuries of a predominantly Christian culture insisting that we be systematic and consistent in spirituality-- and in everything else too, with mixed results to say the least.  Philosophically, its roots are in Plato and the Greek philosophical tradition, which Christianity co-opted for its own purposes (as the so-called "handmaiden of theology").  The same totalizing tendency of the west has arisen out of almost every other religious, philosophical, social, and political doctrine, Marxism being the other obvious historical example.  

 

Syncretic flexibility which made Chan Buddhism possible by intermingling with Daoist ideas and attitudes, and in practice there really were no pure, "orthodox" Daoists, Buddhists, or Confucianists, etc.  Likewise in Japan, even today, a single family might have a Christian baptism, a Shinto wedding, and a Buddhist funeral -- common attitudes this must have drove those Jesuits missionaries up the wall!  These doctrines are distinct from one another, but it is no big deal to switch from one set of beliefs to another in a particular given moment:

 

Well I certainly agree with this and am favorable to such an approach as well, though I imagine for certain mentalities a totalizing approach could also have its benefits if it could lead such a one toward Truth or transformation.

 

I suppose the problem doesn't come down to a need to pick a particular tradition in a monotheist sense but rather on the issue of praxis, especially at the highest levels. For example, someone engaged in the advanced stages of neidan training shouldn't stop and start mixing in some Chan gong'an study or start doing Kundalini yoga. In the realm of praxis therefore one would have to be committed to a particular system, a particular way of life, etc. This is where finding one's particular path, in an Eastern context, would come in. This of course doesn't mean one would need to cease appreciating or learning from other traditions.

 

That said, while the trends in the East certainly have been as you described there also have been Buddhists and Daoists who were anti-Daoist and anti-Buddhist respectively, who engaged in debates with each other, who were against syncreticism, and even sometimes would engage in violence or destructive actions toward each other (say the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution of the Tang or the burning of the Daoist cannon by the Mongols at the instigation of the Buddhists.)

[Old River]

That said, while the trends in the East certainly have been as you described there also have been Buddhists and Daoists who were anti-Daoist and anti-Buddhist respectively, who engaged in debates with each other, who were against syncreticism, and even sometimes would engage in violence or destructive actions toward each other (say the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution of the Tang or the burning of the Daoist cannon by the Mongols at the instigation of the Buddhists.)

 

--which is what happens when any religion mixes with politics and therefore "power."  It's practically axiomatic.  And it is always to the detriment of the religion (as well as the people as a whole).  In this way, religion becomes nothing more than an excuse for political power.  When Jesus was purported to say, "My kingdom is not of this world [kosmos]" he meant his "kingdom" did not operate on the same principles of political violence which Pilate represented-- he wasn't referring to an otherworldly realm, but the principle of love (agape) rather than mere "worldly" violence and force.  

 

In this sense, I often think Christianity officially died the day Constantine made it the state religion.  It was only after Constantine that the Christian persecution of pagans began and the infighting intensified-- now they had "power" to persecute.  In those kinds of situations, there are political, not religious, motivations -- or worse, the two become dishonestly conflated with one another.  "Power" and the enticements of "power" (note those quotation marks) have a way of turning even the best of people into the worst.  Jesus' "kingdom" ended up becoming very much "of this world" after all. 

 

 

I think also what dogs the religions of the book is that if you are a monotheist - then the natural extension of this is to think in terms of 'one truth', 'one way' and so on.    

 

Apech, yes...  E.M. Cioran made some similar observations on the differences polytheism and monotheism (which is much more than a mere quantitative difference) and the psychology behind monotheistic fervor:

 

"For a man to whom freedom and vertigo are equivalent, a faith, wherever it comes from, even if it were antireligious, is a salutary shackle, a desired, a dreamed-of chain whose function will be to constrain curiosity and fever, to suspend the anguish of the indefinite.  When this faith triumphs and establishes itself, what immediately results from it is a reduction of the number of problems which we must raise, as well as an almost tragic diminution of choices.  The burden of choice is taken from us; options are made for us." [The New Gods]

 

No wonder certain political leaders try to harness fundamentalists to gain support for bigoted policies -- but there has been no similar attempts with, say, Unitarian Universalists, Hicksite Quakers or Episcopalians-- there's no traction for a politician to get hold of.  

[Slim]

I do think especially westerners are so conditioned to make a fetish of ideological purity which we've inherited from a culture rooted in the Christian religion, where syncretism traditionally was strongly condemned as a heresy.  China, Japan, and other far eastern countries don't get hung up on this, but allow a free exchange of ideas and beliefs -- whatever works best in a given moment.  Ideological consistency is the least of their concerns.  There's a lesson to be learned here. 

 

The western fetish of a single, totalizing system comes from centuries of a predominantly Christian culture insisting that we be systematic and consistent in spirituality-- and in everything else too, with mixed results to say the least.  Philosophically, its roots are in Plato and the Greek philosophical tradition, which Christianity co-opted for its own purposes (as the so-called "handmaiden of theology").  The same totalizing tendency of the west has arisen out of almost every other religious, philosophical, social, and political doctrine, Marxism being the other obvious historical example.  

 

Syncretic flexibility which made Chan Buddhism possible by intermingling with Daoist ideas and attitudes, and in practice there really were no pure, "orthodox" Daoists, Buddhists, or Confucianists, etc.  Likewise in Japan, even today, a single family might have a Christian baptism, a Shinto wedding, and a Buddhist funeral -- common attitudes this must have drove those Jesuits missionaries up the wall!  These doctrines are distinct from one another, but it is no big deal to switch from one set of beliefs to another in a particular given moment:

 

 

[from here: http://asiasociety.org/chinese-religions-and-philosophies - emphasis mine]

 

 

We would likely do better to adopt similar attitudes rather than carrying over the (often violent) ideological intolerance that we've inherited from the west via the "religions of the Book."  "This religion is superior than that religion" is a foreign superimposition placed upon Daoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.  For the vast majority of the Chinese throughout history, this would be a bizarre position to hold, as this amusing cross-cultural encounter illustrates:

 

http://www.newreligion.eu/2013/03/chinese-religion-and-syncretism.html

 

Yes. 

[RiverSnake]

Edited May 1, 2016 by OldChi

[roger]

I do think especially westerners are so conditioned to make a fetish of ideological purity which we've inherited from a culture rooted in the Christian religion, where syncretism traditionally was strongly condemned as a heresy.  China, Japan, and other far eastern countries don't get hung up on this, but allow a free exchange of ideas and beliefs -- whatever works best in a given moment.  Ideological consistency is the least of their concerns.  There's a lesson to be learned here. 

 

The western fetish of a single, totalizing system comes from centuries of a predominantly Christian culture insisting that we be systematic and consistent in spirituality-- and in everything else too, with mixed results to say the least.  Philosophically, its roots are in Plato and the Greek philosophical tradition, which Christianity co-opted for its own purposes (as the so-called "handmaiden of theology").  The same totalizing tendency of the west has arisen out of almost every other religious, philosophical, social, and political doctrine, Marxism being the other obvious historical example.  

 

Syncretic flexibility which made Chan Buddhism possible by intermingling with Daoist ideas and attitudes, and in practice there really were no pure, "orthodox" Daoists, Buddhists, or Confucianists, etc.  Likewise in Japan, even today, a single family might have a Christian baptism, a Shinto wedding, and a Buddhist funeral -- common attitudes this must have drove those Jesuits missionaries up the wall!  These doctrines are distinct from one another, but it is no big deal to switch from one set of beliefs to another in a particular given moment:

 

 

[from here: http://asiasociety.org/chinese-religions-and-philosophies - emphasis mine]

 

 

We would likely do better to adopt similar attitudes rather than carrying over the (often violent) ideological intolerance that we've inherited from the west via the "religions of the Book."  "This religion is superior than that religion" is a foreign superimposition placed upon Daoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.  For the vast majority of the Chinese throughout history, this would be a bizarre position to hold, as this amusing cross-cultural encounter illustrates:

 

http://www.newreligion.eu/2013/03/chinese-religion-and-syncretism.html

 

 

 

@Old River

 

You make excellent points.  I think also what dogs the religions of the book is that if you are a monotheist - then the natural extension of this is to think in terms of 'one truth', 'one way' and so on.  I like the Buddhist analysis which suggest the variation in teachings reflects the variations in the audience.  

 

 

 

Interfaith, interspirituality, is the way of the future in my opinion, and is possibly the only solution to interreligious conflict, including terrorism.

 

 

Perhaps it's okay for people to think their path or religion is the ONLY acceptable way- I think that's not necessarily dangerous.

 

 

What's dangerous is when killing and even genocide become part of the problem.

 

 

I'm currently editing this, and I want to add that thinking and proclaiming that your religion is the only correct religion probably IS dangerous.

 

 

It largely fuels terrorism, and also creates suffering for those who disagree.

 

 

In the end, it may be far more dangerous than we realize to proclaim your way is the only way.

Edited May 2, 2016 by roger

[doc benway]

Interfaith, interspirituality, is the way of the future in my opinion, and is possibly the only solution to interreligious conflict, including terrorism.

 

 

Perhaps it's okay for people to think their path or religion is the ONLY acceptable way- I think that's not necessarily dangerous.

 

 

What's dangerous is when killing and even genocide become part of the problem.

 

 

I'm currently editing this, and I want to add that thinking and proclaiming that your religion is the only correct religion probably IS dangerous.

 

 

It largely fuels terrorism, and also creates suffering for those who disagree.

 

 

In the end, it may be far more dangerous than we realize to proclaim your way is the only way.

 

I find it so easy to neutralize this problem.

It simply requires that when we proclaim something to be a certain way, the best way, or the only way, we add two words - "for me."

Even then, convincing ourselves that something is the best or only way, even "for me", is limiting and equates to self-programming. 

An open mind is a beautiful thing. 

[Mudfoot]

So it ends up with just the notion of "this is what I do because I happened to learn it", in opposition to what everybody else is doing.

[Kongming]

Well it seems to me that, barring a few comments, the thread has mostly been conciliatory and in favor of religious pluralism, which as an admirer of the Traditionalist school (Guenon, Evola, etc.) I would certainly agree with. That said, here are some of the arguments I mentioned earlier for those interested:

 

From Stephen Eskilden's "The Teachings and Practices of the Early Quanzhen Taoist Masters":

 

 

 

It appears that the Quanzhen School and the larger internal alchemical

movement maintained that it was by his or her mastery of the body and its

energy that an accomplished internal alchemist could be deemed superior to

his or her Buddhist counterpart after his or her liberation from the body. The

liberated Radiant Spirit was deemed capable at will of assuming a clearly

visible form with solid, corporeal properties. The liberated Buddhist adept, on

the other hand, was said to become nothing more than a yin spirit incapable

of appearing before mortal eyes or exhibiting corporeal traits.This belief is

clearly reflected in a legend about Lü Yan, recorded in Chunyang dijun shenhua

miaotong ji. There we are told of an alleged occasion where Lü Yan and the

spirit of a prominent, deceased Buddhist monk visited a home where a vegetarian

feast was being held. Lü Yan was fed immediately by the hosts but had

to ask for another serving for the Buddhist spirit, whom the hosts were unable

to see. Lü Yan ended up eating both servings himself, since the Buddhist spirit

was incapable of eating his (he could only suck on air).

 

This concept also is discussed in Dadan zhizhi. In one passage, “Qiu

Chuji” alludes to methods of active imagination allegedly used or endorsed by

prominent immortal brethren for bringing about the final liberation of the

Radiant Spirit from the body:

 

This method is called “refining the body to merge with the Tao, abandoning

the shell to ascend to immortality.” This method has no [specific]

time [for carrying it out]. Clearly it has five methods. Master

Haichan (Liu Cao) [used the method of ] the crane rising to the gate

of heaven. Amid stillness (trance), he made his Real Nature—in the

manner of a crane rising to the gate of heaven—exit outward. Naturally,

he got to have a body outside the body. Patriarch Wang [Zhe

(?)], the Twelfth Realized Man of the Western Mountain, said, “In

the manner of a blooming tree, exit amid stillness. In the manner of

a blooming tree, gaze back without error. Your Original Nature will

have already come out, and naturally you will divide your form outside

your body.” The Yellow Emperor exited in the manner of a fiery

dragon.

 

Amid stillness he transformed into a fiery dragon and jumped

up, and naturally he had a body outside the body. This is called

the “pure and clear Dharma Body.” The two Realized Men,

Zhong[li] Quan and Lü Yan, used the red tower to exit. Amid stillness,

they climbed the three-storied red tower stage by stage. After

climbing to the top, they leaped, and naturally abandoned their

shells.

 

This passage is followed by some commentary (anonymous):

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Realized Numinous Divine Immortal transcends the ordinary and

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

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

million years!

 

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

 

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

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

[wise men] all say that arduous effort arrives at non-action.119 How

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

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

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

Refining his Spirit, he transcends ordinariness and becomes an

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

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

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

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

allowing outer surroundings to enter and inner surroundings to

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

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

protects the One inside, and their minds are not

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

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

immortals.

 

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

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

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

as Buddhists tend to make. Thus anxious as one may be to leave the body and

this dusty world, one must not do so hastily, before both body and mind have

been sufficiently trained. The full freedom and power of the immortal Spirit

cannot be recovered without the proper care and training of the body. 

 

 

 

 

 

And reaffirming the same point from the website "LiteratiTradition":

 

Most Taoist and Buddhist scholars argue that Inner Alchemy was thoroughly influenced by Buddhist thought, namely the Buddhist intellectual speculations, such as “being” and “non-being.” It is, in fact, completely Taoist reaction to Buddhism, while the nature of Buddhist awakening differs from that of the Taoist. The great Chinese Buddhist Adept Daoan 道安 (314-385) wrote: “The Buddhist teaching sees the emptiness of life, thus abandoning the body to liberate all sentient beings. The Taoist teaching sees the body as the ultimate, thus cultivating food and medicine for longevity.” (Daoan, T.52, 2103: 39a8.) Ultimately, Buddhism aims at absolute spiritual awakening, but Taoism pursues awakening through longevity.

 

Therefore, Inner Alchemy is a technique of enlightenment, not much a doctrine but a practice achieved by exercising the techniques of longevity. Taoist inner alchemists make it very clear that their ideas are different from the notions of Chan/Zen Buddhists. According to Taoist inner alchemists, Chan/Zen Buddhists only dwell on xing 性, or the original nature in its pristine purity, which they wish to attain in an intuitive and immediate vision. They neglect ming 命, or fate, life, which represent the resistance of corporality and gravity within human beings. Only when xing and ming are combined, they join in the “non-action which is the action.” According the Classics of Inner Alchemy, Robinet describes, without ming, xing will forever be stuck in inactive emptiness; without xing, ming will never attain perfect non-action. (Robinet, 323)

[Apech]

....

 

And reaffirming the same point from the website "LiteratiTradition":

 

Most Taoist and Buddhist scholars argue that Inner Alchemy was thoroughly influenced by Buddhist thought, namely the Buddhist intellectual speculations, such as “being” and “non-being.” It is, in fact, completely Taoist reaction to Buddhism, while the nature of Buddhist awakening differs from that of the Taoist. The great Chinese Buddhist Adept Daoan 道安 (314-385) wrote: “The Buddhist teaching sees the emptiness of life, thus abandoning the body to liberate all sentient beings. The Taoist teaching sees the body as the ultimate, thus cultivating food and medicine for longevity.” (Daoan, T.52, 2103: 39a8.) Ultimately, Buddhism aims at absolute spiritual awakening, but Taoism pursues awakening through longevity.

 

Therefore, Inner Alchemy is a technique of enlightenment, not much a doctrine but a practice achieved by exercising the techniques of longevity. Taoist inner alchemists make it very clear that their ideas are different from the notions of Chan/Zen Buddhists. According to Taoist inner alchemists, Chan/Zen Buddhists only dwell on xing 性, or the original nature in its pristine purity, which they wish to attain in an intuitive and immediate vision. They neglect ming 命, or fate, life, which represent the resistance of corporality and gravity within human beings. Only when xing and ming are combined, they join in the “non-action which is the action.” According the Classics of Inner Alchemy, Robinet describes, without ming, xing will forever be stuck in inactive emptiness; without xing, ming will never attain perfect non-action. (Robinet, 323)

 

I'm not at an academic level to question what is quoted but my understanding is slightly different.

 

I understood that Wang Bi's Xuanxue school of mysterious or abstruse origin with its interpretation of Lao Tse placing emphasis on the origin of being in non-being paved the way for the easy integration of the Buddhist idea of sunyata (emptiness) into Chinese thought.  And so the compatibility rests not so much in Buddhist influence as such but more on the subtlety of Chinese philosophical thought.  The emergence then of Nei Dan is the result of a shift in thinking and praxis through the application of Yi Jing principles (i.e. Yinyang Wuxing theory) to cosmology, coupled with Daoist thought on the nature of the Dao and the body and thirdly the practices of Wei Dan alchemy - and most importantly using the terminology of the same as a language to express internal processes.  As exemplified by the Cantong qi.

 

Because this is the basis for Nei Dan then the goal of the practice naturally reflects the origin of the ideas.  Particularly the elixir/medicine which gives at first health/longevity and finally immortality (whether physical or not).

 

Buddhism of course comes from a completely different culture - that of India.  And the Buddha although having a unique perspective did preserve the general idea that existence is a wheel which we wont to get off.  So the typical  buddhist monk is hardly going to spend his time trying to preserve his ephemeral existence when there is no such goal presented to him linked to liberation.   This would not be true though of tantric Buddhism which actually sees the body as a kind of vehicle for energy and thus a cause for liberation in itself. 

 

The crucial point is the last one about Xing and Ming.  And I think it is a correct observation that many schools of Buddhism  more or less exclusively cultivate Xing.  However again if you look at vajrayana this is not the case - where settling in mere emptiness is not encourage and seen as an attachment to emptiness.  The goal being seen as the union of emptiness and appearance, or emptiness and luminosity and even the union of prana and citta.  And also you have ideas like the vajra-body and rainbow body.

 

The point is that most criticisms (like the one of forming yin spirits) may be valid when applied to certain schools and even more so certain practitioners.  But in the end its often comparing apples with pears and reaching convenient conclusions which inevitably suit whoever is telling the story.

[Taoist Texts]

Well it seems to me that, barring a few comments, the thread has mostly been conciliatory and in favor of religious pluralism, which as an admirer of the Traditionalist school (Guenon, Evola, etc.) 

A Fantasist shool;) i would say

And reaffirming the same point from the website "LiteratiTradition":

That website is a good primer but not much more than that.

 

Most Taoist and Buddhist scholars argue that Inner Alchemy was thoroughly influenced by Buddhist thought, namely the Buddhist intellectual speculations, such as “being” and “non-being.” It is, in fact, completely Taoist reaction to Buddhism, while the nature of Buddhist awakening differs from that of the Taoist. The great Chinese Buddhist Adept Daoan 道安 (314-385) wrote: “The Buddhist teaching sees the emptiness of life, thus abandoning the body to liberate all sentient beings. The Taoist teaching sees the body as the ultimate, thus cultivating food and medicine for longevity.” (Daoan, T.52, 2103: 39a8.)

I would say it is an attack not an impartial judgement.

 

 

Therefore, Inner Alchemy is a technique of enlightenment, not much a doctrine but a practice achieved by exercising the techniques of longevity. Taoist inner alchemists make it very clear that their ideas are different from the notions of Chan/Zen Buddhists.

No, thats definitely wrong. What the taoists object to are the wrong ideas about buddhism, not the buddhism ideas.

 

According to Taoist inner alchemists, Chan/Zen Buddhists only dwell on xing 性, or the original nature in its pristine purity, which they wish to attain in an intuitive and immediate vision. They neglect ming 命, or fate, life, which represent the resistance of corporality and gravity within human beings. Only when xing and ming are combined, they join in the “non-action which is the action.” According the Classics of Inner Alchemy, Robinet describes, without ming, xing will forever be stuck in inactive emptiness; without xing, ming will never attain perfect non-action. (Robinet, 323)

This is mostly fringe Wulupai attack on Buddhism, not the mainstream POV. The latter was always the unity with buddhism. Again, even when there is a criticism of Buddhists methods from the genuine Taoists, it is directed at the wrong methods not on Chan per se or in general.

[Kongming]

A Fantasist shool;) i would say

 

To each their own I suppose, I am a fan for the most part though I do have my own disagreements.

 

That website is a good primer but not much more than that.

I would say it is an attack not an impartial judgement.

 

No, thats definitely wrong. What the taoists object to are the wrong ideas about buddhism, not the buddhism ideas.

This is mostly fringe Wulupai attack on Buddhism, not the mainstream POV. The latter was always the unity with buddhism. Again, even when there is a criticism of Buddhists methods from the genuine Taoists, it is directed at the wrong methods not on Chan per se or in general.

 

What about what was written in Eskildsen's book?

 

It certainly seems Daoists have mostly upheld the unity of the three teachings idea. In Cleary's Vitality Energy and Spirit anthology there is even a Daoist master who says that the goals of Chan and alchemy are the same.

 

That said the Daoists must have certainly felt there was something special about neidan and their own praxis to set it apart from Buddhism, or else why didn't they just become Buddhists? Furthermore why were there Buddhist converts to Quanzhen? Just a matter of affinity or a real difference?

 

On the Buddhist side, the most common attack I see is on the notion of the Dao, which they claim is an eternalistic notion akin to the Brahman they criticize, and on the concept of xianhood which they portray as similar to devas and hence still stuck in samsara. Two different hierarchies of teachings created by two different Buddhists (Zongmi and Kukai) both portray Daoism as inferior to even the most elementary forms of Buddhism, which in turn in their view are inferior to Mahayana, Huayan, Chan, and Shingon.

 

In any case, I guess my point is its easy to say they are the same and that syncreticism is good and that to each his own, etc. but can anyone actually put forward decisive arguments in favor of one or the other? It seems the Buddhists are more willing to do so than Daoists.

[Taoist Texts]

To each their own I suppose, I am a fan for the most part though I do have my own disagreements.

 

 

What about what was written in Eskildsen's book?

He simplifies and generalises too much. I will address it in a separate post since it is a big quote.

 

It certainly seems Daoists have mostly upheld the unity of the three teachings idea. In Cleary's Vitality Energy and Spirit anthology there is even a Daoist master who says that the goals of Chan and alchemy are the same.

All of them said that;)

 

That said the Daoists must have certainly felt there was something special about neidan and their own praxis to set it apart from Buddhism, or else why didn't they just become Buddhists? Furthermore why were there Buddhist converts to Quanzhen? Just a matter of affinity or a real difference?

 

All good questions with the same answer: you see , in the abrahamic paradigm you convert to a faith because nothing depends on you personally and everything depends on the church you belong to.

 

In the eastern paradigm, everything depends on your personal effort and nothing on the church, if only for the reason that there is no church. And from that follows that you convert to a teacher. If you meet a buddhist that impresse you - you convert to buddhism, if you meet a taoist that impresses you - you convert to taoism. The taoist converts are those who happened to meet a taoist teacher, thats all.

 

On the Buddhist side, the most common attack I see is on the notion of the Dao, which they claim is an eternalistic notion akin to the Brahman they criticize, and on the concept of xianhood which they portray as similar to devas and hence still stuck in samsara. Two different hierarchies of teachings created by two different Buddhists (Zongmi and Kukai) both portray Daoism as inferior to even the most elementary forms of Buddhism, which in turn in their view are inferior to Mahayana, Huayan, Chan, and Shingon.

Oh well, they did not really mean that, or if they did we will not take it seriously;)

 

In any case, I guess my point is its easy to say they are the same and that syncreticism is good and 

depends what is meant by syncretism. a syncretism of what? a new age, pop syncretism is not that good.

 

 

that to each his own, etc. 

 defo;)

 

 

but can anyone actually put forward decisive arguments in favor of one or the other?

I can, but you see decisiveness is in the eye of the beholder. the listener is the decider.

 

 

It seems the Buddhists are more willing to do so than Daoists.

The politicking ones sure. The modern and pre-modern buddhism is about politicking and marketing. They will do anything;).

Edited May 3, 2016 by Taoist Texts

[Taoist Texts]

What about what was written in Eskildsen's book?

 

 

It appears that the Quanzhen School and the larger internal alchemical movement maintained that it was by his or her mastery of the body and its energy that an accomplished internal alchemist could be deemed superior to his or her Buddhist counterpart after his or her liberation from the body. The liberated Radiant Spirit was deemed capable at will of assuming a clearly visible form with solid, corporeal properties. The liberated Buddhist adept, on the other hand, was said to become nothing more than a yin spirit incapable of appearing before mortal eyes or exhibiting corporeal traits.

 

 

[this is a wrong conclusion, as shown by the later excerpt where the criticism extends to the practitioners of both schools who practice wrongly]

 

 

This belief is clearly reflected in a legend about Lü Yan, recorded in Chunyang dijun shenhua miaotong ji. There we are told of an alleged occasion where Lü Yan and the spirit of a prominent, deceased Buddhist monk visited a home where a vegetarian feast was being held. Lü Yan was fed immediately by the hosts but had to ask for another serving for the Buddhist spirit, whom the hosts were unable to see. Lü Yan ended up eating both servings himself, since the Buddhist spirit was incapable of eating his (he could only suck on air).

 

 

[《純陽帝君神化妙通紀》 this is more of a friendly ribbing than a basis for generalizing about the superiority of Taoism. Note that the two spirits are friends]

 

 

This concept also is discussed in Dadan zhizhi. In one passage, “Qiu Chuji” alludes to methods of active imagination allegedly used or endorsed by prominent immortal brethren for bringing about the final liberation of the Radiant Spirit from the body: 

“This method is called “refining the body to merge with the Tao, abandoning the shell to ascend to immortality.” This method has no [specific] time [for carrying it out]. Clearly it has five methods. Master Haichan (Liu Cao) [used the method of ] the crane rising to the gate of heaven. Amid stillness (trance), he made his Real Nature—in the manner of a crane rising to the gate of heaven—exit outward. Naturally, he got to have a body outside the body. Patriarch Wang [Zhe (?)], the Twelfth Realized Man of the Western Mountain, said, “In the manner of a blooming tree, exit amid stillness. In the manner of a blooming tree, gaze back without error. Your Original Nature will have already come out, and naturally you will divide your form outside your body.” The Yellow Emperor exited in the manner of a fiery dragon.  Amid stillness he transformed into a fiery dragon and jumped up, and naturally he had a body outside the body. This is called the “pure and clear Dharma Body.” The two Realized Men, Zhong[li] Quan and Lü Yan, used the red tower to exit. Amid stillness, they climbed the three-storied red tower stage by stage. After climbing to the top, they leaped, and naturally abandoned their shells.”

 

[this is not relevant to the alleged superiority of Taoism]

 

This passage is followed by some commentary (anonymous): 

“What is described above is “the Exercise of Refining the Spirit and Merging with the Tao, Abandoning the Shell, and Ascending to Immortality,” which arrives at self-so-ness. As for Buddhist monks who enter into samadhi and die while seated in meditation, and Taoists who enter into stillness and thus send out yin spirits, these [spirits that they let out] are [nothing but] ghosts of pure vacuity and are not pure yang immortals. They are distantly faint with no appearance and in the end have no place to go to.Why do people who study [the way to immortality] make these mistakes? They especially do not understand that pure yang qi is born after the essence is refined and made into an elixir. After you refine the qi and complete the Spirit, the Realized Numinous Divine Immortal transcends the ordinary and enters into sacredness. You abandon your shell and ascend to immortality, and this is called “transcending and escaping.” This is the method of divine immortals that has not changed for a hundred million years!”

 

[Note that the incorrect practice of the both faith’s is criticized, not Buddhism per se.]

 

 

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

“Generally speaking, if you have a body, you will have suffering. If you have no home, you will have no attachments. In the past and present [wise men] all say that arduous effort arrives at non-action. How can [one who has arrived at non-action through arduous effort] bear to love his body and not leave it? Thus he abandons his shell and ascends to immortality by coming out from the top of his head. Refining his Spirit, he transcends ordinariness and becomes an immortal. People of the world do not like to cultivate and refine but only want to abandon their shells and thereby complete the way of immortality. How mistaken they are! With their bodies in a dark room, they sit still, eliminate their thoughts, and forget ideas without allowing outer surroundings to enter and inner surroundings to exit. They are like withered trees, and their hearts are like dead ashes (completely devoid of emotion or thought). Their spirit consciousness protects the One inside, and their minds are not distracted. Amidst their samadhi, they let out their spirits which are but yin souls. Dark and without appearance, they are not pure yang immortals.”

 

 

[Note the mix of the Buddhist and Taoist terminology]

 

 

The essential point is that no matter how thoroughly one has mastered mental methods of trance, one can only produce a feeble yin spirit if one has not trained the body and its qi—this in fact is a mistake that Taoists as well as Buddhists tend to make. Thus anxious as one may be to leave the body and this dusty world, one must not do so hastily, before both body and mind have been sufficiently trained. The full freedom and power of the immortal Spirit cannot be recovered without the proper care and training of the body.

 

 

[here Eskildsen admits that there is no superiority of Taoism, just a criticism of the mistakes made by the both faiths]

 

/Stephen Eskildsen "The Teachings and Practices of the Early Quanzhen Taoist Masters"/

[RigdzinTrinley]

Taoists are way more chill.

 

NO NO NO!!!! Buddhist are way more CHILLLLL!!!!! - damnit I just defeated my own purpose

 

ALAS! its all suffering

[RigdzinTrinley]

To each their own I suppose, I am a fan for the most part though I do have my own disagreements.

 

 

 

What about what was written in Eskildsen's book?

 

It certainly seems Daoists have mostly upheld the unity of the three teachings idea. In Cleary's Vitality Energy and Spirit anthology there is even a Daoist master who says that the goals of Chan and alchemy are the same.

 

That said the Daoists must have certainly felt there was something special about neidan and their own praxis to set it apart from Buddhism, or else why didn't they just become Buddhists? Furthermore why were there Buddhist converts to Quanzhen? Just a matter of affinity or a real difference?

 

On the Buddhist side, the most common attack I see is on the notion of the Dao, which they claim is an eternalistic notion akin to the Brahman they criticize, and on the concept of xianhood which they portray as similar to devas and hence still stuck in samsara. Two different hierarchies of teachings created by two different Buddhists (Zongmi and Kukai) both portray Daoism as inferior to even the most elementary forms of Buddhism, which in turn in their view are inferior to Mahayana, Huayan, Chan, and Shingon.

 

In any case, I guess my point is its easy to say they are the same and that syncreticism is good and that to each his own, etc. but can anyone actually put forward decisive arguments in favor of one or the other? It seems the Buddhists are more willing to do so than Daoists.

 

generally speaking I would say this is the blessing of coming from a country where they love to debate metaphysics...

 

which in turn produced some very highly sophisticated philosophy in many different schools of indian thought. Many contemporary masters say we can be very thankful that there was all this debating between the spiritual paths happening - based on that we have many incredibly rich traditions

 

now some people like that - some don't

 

and don't forget the siddha lineages of india - sufis, shivaites, shaktas and buddhists

[Kongming]

[here Eskildsen admits that there is no superiority of Taoism, just a criticism of the mistakes made by the both faiths]

 

While I am in agreement with your position and there are plenty of Daoists who emphasize the unity of Buddhist and Daoist goals as mentioned, I have also seen the same claim of the superiority of neidan in other sources (such as Robinet's Taoism: Growth of a Religion) due to the fact that Daoists cultivate both xing and ming whereas it was claimed that Buddhists only cultivate xing.

 

Furthermore I have also seen the claim by Daoists that they are trying to recapture what Chan achieved up til the Sixth Patriarch, implying that there was some sort of degeneration or confusion of Chan and that it was Quanzhen/neidan that was reviving it.

 

So it seems there must have been some basis to the idea that at least some of the Daoists believed their methods and system was superior.