Why Daoism over Buddhism

[RigdzinTrinley]

something that is natural no? There will always be beings grasping at their path as superior to other paths, if you ask me what is the best path I would say: well dzogchen of course - is the best path for me.

 

now back in the day you have to remember that there was a lot of political agenda around as well - if daoism looses favour of sponsors, or also if buddhism looses the favour of sponsors then well, the lineages might die out, so sometimes you got to be polemic

 

these days I think our collective conciousness is high enough that we do not need to go there so much, it is more based on personal choice and karmic propensity then who has the better arguments, can fly higher in the sky or shoot more laser-beams out of their eyes

 

whhaaaaat ever

 

still of course people like to be polemic and cut the vast sky of dharma into little pieces, let them do as they please - I personally can't find time to join the fun for too long

Edited May 3, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

edited this into shunyata as I felt it will be misunderstood anyway

Edited May 3, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

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.

I'm not sure I buy this argument.

What is claimed that Daoists cultivate that Buddhists do not, specifically?

[Kongming]

I'm not sure I buy this argument.

What is claimed that Daoists cultivate that Buddhists do not, specifically?

 

Ming 命 apparently. Here's an article by Pregadio on ming:

 

http://www.healingtaousa.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode2&articleid=192

 

From what I've seen, ming seems to correspond to the inner energetics found in tantra for example, but as we know tantra is a late Buddhist development (arguably with Shaivite origins rather than Buddhist origins as per Alexis Sanderson) and the high tantra in Buddhism (dealing with chakras, prana, etc.) seems mostly confined to Tibetan Buddhism and hence in a Chinese context Daoism may have been what fulfilled this role.

[doc benway]

The Bön and Tibetan Buddhists certainly cultivate ming.

There are multiple examples - tummo, tsa lung trul khor, 9 Breathings, and multiple tantric methods.

These methods seem to predate Buddhism in Tibet.

Perhaps they were adopted by the Buddhists from the Bön in Tibet.

That may explain why they are not seen elsewhere in Buddhist practice (if indeed that's the case).

[C T]

The Bön and Tibetan Buddhists certainly cultivate ming.

There are multiple examples - tummo, tsa lung trul khor, 9 Breathings, and multiple tantric methods.

These methods seem to predate Buddhism in Tibet.

Perhaps they were adopted by the Buddhists from the Bön in Tibet.

That may explain why they are not seen elsewhere in Buddhist practice (if indeed that's the case)

Didn't Bodhidharma introduce internal and external cultivation to the Shaolin monks? It is said after he left the temple, a very important qigong manual was discovered. 

 

(further reading from wiki for anyone interested)

[Taoist Texts]

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.

well, if you would like to supply quotes we can look at it closer

 

 

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.

 

probably by WuLu, not QZ

[Walker]

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 is not an accurate statement.

 

1. Buddhism is founded on the belief that a life lived in ignorance will invariably be full of suffering.

 

2. Ignorance of what? We can look to the Three Dharma Seals for an easy answer. The Three Dharma Seals are the most fundamental standard which any teaching must adhere to in order for it to be considered in accordance with Buddhism.

 

a. Dharma Seal 1: All phenomena are transient; they are subject to change. We will suffer if we wish for conditions, objects, and sensations to remain permanent, which they cannot.

 

b. Dharma Seal 2: Non-self, or no self-nature; this means that nothing exists "independently from its own side." It does not mean "there is no you." It means that nobody/nothing exists except as a result of conditions. It is very easy for us to forget this fact, and as a result we often suffer.

 

c. Dharma Seal 3: Nirvana/cessation; cessation is not the obliteration of one's being or some such. It is the extinction of the habit of looking upon all phenomena with the ignorance of a mind that has not grasped the first two Dharma Seals. If one achieves this, then one's illusions are seen for what they are, and the suffering that comes from misapprehending reality stops. 

 

Secondly, you say, "life is... an experience which should be escaped in order to achieve liberation." Also, this is wrong. In fact, the Buddhist teaching is that the distinction between life and death is ultimately an illusion. Contemplating the implications of the first two Dharma Seals will explain to you why.

 

The Buddhist does not attempt to escape life. The Buddhist learns to recognize that even birth and death are mere concepts, and in the end, untenable ones.

 

One usually sees an increasing propensity for joy and vivaciousness in those who are a good distance along the path way of internalizing and realizing these teachings.

 

Links:

 

http://www.english.fgs2.ca/?q=three-dharma-seals

 

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals.htm

 

http://www.lionsroar.com/the-practice-of-looking-deeply/

 

- 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

 

While it is true that this mistaken conclusion is drawn for a period of time by many people who identify as Buddhists, it is still a mistake. Because this mistake is easy to make, one finds teachers throughout history and the present day reminding people not to fall into this trap.

 

If you read more broadly in Buddhism and make a point of seeking out more teachers, invariably you will realize that your conception of the teachings doesn't reflect what is taught by all teachers.

 

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?

 

This is a complex issue which in some ways relates to the teaching, expounded in the Diamond Sutra and elsewhere, that the most beneficial thing one can do for other beings is to exist in a state of awareness of one's ultimate nature; "deeds," being both impermanent as well as always ultimately double-edged swords, are not as important in Buddhism.

 

Even so, be that as it may, there is a long history in Buddhism of both monastics and lay practitioners who actively made great contributions to society. That tradition continues to this day.

 

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.

 

Every single country on earth suffers from these problems, and always has. Adopting a national religion never guarantees that even a single citizen of a country will understand and embody its teachings. If we are to compare Daoism to Buddhism, then I can guarantee you that to this very day one will find very evil people who seek assistance from Daoist masters and profess a fondness for the Dao teachings. Ditto for Buddhism, and every other religion. I think your point is moot.

 

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.

 

This is a false belief that does not reflect the teachings of Buddhism. Even if you heard it from a Buddhist or many Buddhists, that doesn't mean they understood what they were talking about. I ask, which sutra says what you believe? Why did the Buddha take lay disciples? How was it that Milarepa's master was a married householder, as (if I recall correctly) was his teacher before him?

 

Here we are these amazing beings, eternal souls manifest by will into this finite body of flesh and blood to transform the very fabric of existence, just waiting to explode source from our very core and shake and vibrate every being in our proximity like a blast wave of cosmic godhood, changing minds, influencing lives and impacting humanity through the power of our imagination and multidimensional consciousness - but, hey... lets avoid this, it's just full of suffering. Instead, lets symbolically shave our heads in discard of the very thing we came here to experience, put some robes on, and live the rest of our lives in a small barren room, reciting texts, chanting and taking care of our own preconceived ideas of life.

 

What you describe is only one of many ways to live life as a Buddhist. Furthermore, the inner experiences of two different monks living in similar barren rooms chanting the same texts might be entirely different, depending on their levels of realization. Don't get caught up on appearances.

 

Furthermore, many Buddhists recite texts precisely to "influence lives and impact humanity through the power of imagination and multidimensional consciousness."

 

Yet further, the Buddhist path is one of seeing through preconceived ideas of life.

[Walker]

Right speech, right view, right intention, right action, right this right that...

"Right" is just one of many translations used in speaking about the Eightfold Path. A translation that I prefer is "expedient," as in, it is more expedient to behave in such and such way if it is one's goal to live in a way that will facilitate your efforts to understand reality; one lives this way in order to minimize the likelihood of creating obstacles. Nothing is writ in stone. Even the Buddha is said to have killed a man when he was in a past life close to his incarnation as Shakyamuni.

 

Very many rules... the more rules you have, the more ritualised a discipline becomes. The more ritualised it becomes, the easier it is to miss the mark and deviate entirely into religious territories and there is a HUGE difference between Spiritualists, Philosophers and Religionists within the major traditions.

I cannot speak about monastic discipline, as I am not a monk. But for laypeople, the rules are not understood as being there for their own sake. They are there to facilitate one's path of accumulating wisdom and "merit" in this lifetime, and the next. "Merit" means planting seeds that will yield favorable circumstances in the future, which is best done by treating other beings with as much kindness as possible. Circumstances are favorable if one lives in an environment where one can encounter teachings that accurately reflect the nature of reality and enjoy the luxury of being able to study them and put them into practice.

 

If there is so much right... then whatever else must be wrong...

 

Right right, wrong wrong. Entry level teachings indeed warn us against doing wrong, and encourage us to do right. This is for the reasons I just stated above--to help people with low levels of wisdom from digging themselves into holes within which it will be difficult to practice Dharma.

 

As one progresses, one very quickly finds Buddhism is just as unconcerned with defining right and wrong as Daoism is.

 

The Heart Sutra is a very short text, the study and contemplation of which will show you where you are mistaken.

 

Taoism, does not see things this way. Right and Wrong, are Yin and Yang, and part of nature. Every situation is relative.

 

As with Buddhism.

 

Here's what's unpalatable to me about the foundation of Buddhism.... Shakyamuni, was a prince. He lived a lavish life and saw nothing but the best of what the world had to offer. He had the nicest house, the nicest food, the nicest drinks, the nicest girls and the nicest most pimped out elephants you can think of in leu of cars. We can thank his over protective dad for all that. By all standards, this man was biased as they come. He was more biased than Donald Trumps toupe. Anyone who only sees one side of the coin in a realm of duality, and does so for 29 solid years before he begins to perceive nature as it is, is indisputably BIASED to the ways of the world.

 

He was nearly 30 when he left the palace for the first time. In other words, he was a grown ass man with some pretty solid ideas already formed about his subjective understanding of reality, and that sort of idiosyncratic psycho-emotional complex is not really the sort of slate you can just wipe clean with some cheap windex. As I'm sure you all know by now, it can take hard work and a long time to polish that stone clean again.

 

OF COURSE, when he leaves the palace on his chariot and is faced with the reality of sickness, aging and death, the rosy pink glasses are blown right off his face and he concludes that all life has to offer is suffering. Nothing surprising here...

 

These questions are worth contemplating, but ultimately I don't think you can draw conclusions from this psychoanalysis. But if you really do find these questions important, then a Buddhist would recommend that you seek out many teachers and put these questions to them. Buddhist teachers generally welcome questions, even/especially tough ones.

 

But I ask you the members, who of us here who has lived every year of their life in the midst of society and experienced life unabridged, lived every pain, every loss, every fight for survival, overcome every triumph, suffered every humiliation and stood up to face your fears, can tell me that life is not also full of love, of compassion, of wisdom, of understanding, of joy, of laughter, of boundless curiosity and unmeasurable creativity, of music, of dance, of ecstasy and orgasmic pleasure.

Buddhism does not deny these things, at all.

 

I think that you might benefit from reading some of Thich Nhat Hahn's works, such as Old Path White Clouds, which is his take on the Buddha's life story, as well as Your True Home, which contains hundreds of short excerpts from his writings, the brunt of which fly in the face of your conclusions, and instead demonstrate a Buddhism full of life and love, and very much geared towards the layperson. Another book you might want to read is What Makes You Not a Buddhist, by Dzongsar Khyentse. Finally, John Blofeld's recollections in Wheel of Life: Autobiography of a Western Buddhist include conversations with some of his teachers where they taught him in a way which is not what you imagine Buddhism to be. He was encouraged by one teacher to go out and continue living his life, which included even a bit of whoring and opium smoking (which he brought to his teacher's attention), and simply--I paraphrase from memory--"remember the suffering alongside the pleasure."

 

The above are popular titles, should be easy to get from the library (though you might need to use inter-library loan) if the PDFs don't work.

 

Who here who was not deprived of his right to live freely, can concur with Buddha and affirm that life is but a suffering so torturous that even within its pain there can be found no constant to lighten it's burden, and that our greatest aid in this mechanism of experience to lessen our karmic ache is the microscopic glimmer of relief presented in the pause between our constant migration from the foul end of one misery to the better end of another - granted to us as a reward for our resilience and our choice to be here. So detestable, repulsive and frightening is it, that from the heights of the suffering it induces and our comprehension of it, we can actually give birth to compassion towards others, so that we can climax in the joining and recognition of their own suffering in a petulant concert of universally orchestrated mutual existential self pity.

 

Have you ever contemplated the psychological repercussions of clay moulding your view of life around the ideology that for the duration of our natural physical lives we are inescapably subjected, even imprisoned by and immersed into this three dimensional world whose entire volume resembles a thick ectoplasmic goo of inescapable suffering? What sort of mindset does that create? Is it a positive view? Is it a negative view? Is it a neutral view? I will let you contemplate it.

They would be contemplating an idea that is Effilang's, not Buddhism's.

 

I myself would argue that it is most certainly a negative one.

Alright.. now why does all this REALLY matter when it comes to energetic and spiritual cultivation?

 

In my experience, EVERY, SINGLE belief formed and held and fed through ritual and habit WITHIN the acquired consciousness (mind) of the individual, contributes to manifesting a collective consensus consciousness. Something that is the product of like minded ideas and emotions which cohese together to create a particular vibration of energetic potential. When enough of these self-created energetic potentials pool, they have the power to integrate themselves into union and actually manifest as an experienceable reality to which we can tune into like the frequency dial on a radio. These dimensions can turn into, for the lack of better phraseology, an energetic abode or landing zone for those minds whom subscribe to the respective thought pattern. Depending on the quality and purity of the ideas, these can leapfrog and propel certain aspects of our consciousness into the non-energetic dimension after and even before the death of the physical body. How pure and clear these ideas are will determine how deep they can penetrate into the depth of the Tao to establish a locale for the foundation and preservation of the collective belief.

 

That is why, the MIND is the limit, but it is also our primary tool.

It is like a tuning fork. Put two together and strike only one and they will both begin to resonate at the same frequency. Be careful, what sound is being sung around you, does it open your mind, does it close it, or does it form it into a specific shape? - And most importantly how far can we take form into the formless realm? Can it enter at all? Think about it. You mind must be formless. It is like a formless key that enters a formless gate, nothing else shall pass.

 

I won't speculate about how accurate your ideas about existence are or are not, and instead suggest that my hunch is if you devoted some good years to studying Buddhism--both textually and, importantly, by seeking out many teachers other than the ones you know--then you may be surprised to find that you not only don't disagree with what you find, but that some of your ideas quite likely came from Buddhism in the first place!

 

This is very important, because it means that the NATURE of thought and the NATURE of the founding views of any religion directly correlate with the frequency to which the mind of the practitioner is attuned and then fixed; and the respective vibration will directly channel them into the non-physical reality to which they have affiliated and bound their consciousness to; and we will ultimately become that reality.

Perhaps, perhaps not. These are big words.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Walker

[Walker]

 

 

So my question is this, based on Buddhas biased view of life, through which he derived the theory of suffering and which he used as the foundational basis for the construction of what later became Buddhism - HOW deep, or if you prefer, how HIGH will locking your mind to that frequency and vibration of thought help you penetrate into the ultimate nature of reality, which is, well.. unbiased, non dual and non polar? Do you think it can take you all the way? It is an important question to consider and perhaps one of the reasons for which there have been long discussions about the merits of Buddhism as a complete practice as opposed to a spring board into higher practice.

 

Again, you've locked your mind into an incredibly limited, narrow, and stifling (mis)interpretation of Buddhism. Again: the Heart Sutra is a very short text that lays your ideas to rest in short order. But it alone isn't enough. You need much more study.

 

 

 

Earlier I spoke about civilisation and I want to touch on it again, because as a Spiritual Taoist, I believe very strongly in our value as human beings and our ability to contribute to developing civilisation, improving living conditions and helping humanity evolve spiritually, but also socially, ethically, technologically, as humanitarians and as philanthropists.

 

Because of the remarkable influence religion has on the people of the world, it AUTOMATICALLY, becomes responsible for the effect it has on humanity. It's just like having a twitter account. If you have 5 followers, it's not a big deal, you can fart around and not care much about what you say, but if you have 5 million followers, you're painting with a much broader and heavier brush, and the strokes you make, whether you post pictures, videos, or textual tweets, will impact and influence all those individuals on a personal level - and you now become something much more; a powerful idea, a dream, an aspiration; and when you have such power, you must recognize that and decide on how you will change the world. Will it be for the better or for the worse?

 

I measure and valuate anything by what it does to help people and advance humanity - and religion does not fall short of this judgement. So, when I look at Buddhism, I ask myself - how did the Buddha help civilisation develop as a direct result of his ideas? How did he balance worldly life with spiritual life? Maybe I am uninformed, but I cannot find many ways in which he contributed to that.

 

 

About eleven years ago, when I was still a violent, thieving, bullying, dishonest, selfish, and profoundly unhappy young man, I began to study in earnest Buddhism, which I had been introduced to in prior years in a variety of different circumstances.

 

Within a very short period of time, most of my habits changed, drastically. 

 

As the years went on, subtler, more deep-lurking habits also changed, drastically.

 

Now I am a very different young man.

 

Many, many, many other people in many, many, many places have experienced very similar effects during the last 2,500 years, thanks be to Shakyamuni's insights.

 

I ask you: if one cannot transform the violent, thieving, bullying, dishonest, selfish, and profoundly unhappy in this world...

 

... then where is the civilization you speak of?

 

 

 

I once asked a zealous Buddhist practitioner the very same question, and he said Buddha taught his disciples how to wipe after doing a number 2 and brush their teeth. Till this day I don't know if he was being sarcastic or he actually meant it, perhaps someone can clarify this.

 

 

He was being serious. It is a common type of answer, which means to tell you that Buddhism is very down to earth, and that the practitioner learns to live in a state of awake awareness ("enlightening being," to borrow a term from Deci Belle) the here and now. The Compass of Zen is basically a long explanation of what this kind of answer means; it's a very readable, fun, and engaging book, though to be sure its author was human and did his fair share of erring.

 

 

The attitude which these teachers instil in their students directly influenced their perception of life and directly changed the way in which they behaved, because of this I think Jesus did a FAR better job as a spiritual leader compared to Buddha, because despite both having talked about compassion, Jesus's ideology was founded on love. It was a positive message, which encouraged a positive view of life and not a negative one - and maybe it's just coincidence, who knows, but the majority of countries who adopted Christianity as a primary religion, have been very active in social reform, political growth, technological innovation, most of their countries have solid infrastructure and Christians are generally very pro-active get it done sort of people. The attitude towards life is a positive one, not a negative one. Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass, you tell me?

 

I think you are.

 

Have you seen Twelve Years a Slave, full of poignant scenes of Christians thumping their Bibles in order to justify slavery and even using Christianity to control slaves? That was a widespread historical fact. One finds plenty of murderous, loveless Christians... plenty! Plenty!

 

I am not criticizing Christ. I am saying that your yardstick stands up to no scrutiny at all.

 

 

 

If we try to interpret all this from a Taiji perspective, I would say that Buddhas way is very Yin and leads to a passive and negative attitude towards physical life. There is no embracing of worldly life, no Yang.

 

 

Read the books above. Then read more. Meet more teachers. Visit more countries. Watch the episode of Extreme Pilgrim when Peter Owen-Jones stays at a secluded Shaolin temple, far in the mountains, away from the tourist trap--a temple where the lifestyle is the opposite of what you imagine here.

 

 

 

 

 

It is only when the two merge together in harmony that can we pierce into truth.

 

 

Buddhists recognized this long ago.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Walker

[Walker]

Taoism on the other hand, in particular the Spiritual Taoists who were just sages and hermits and existed way before the formation of Religious Taoism have a very different view of life. Physical existence to a Taoist, well... it just is. There is no prejudice or bias. We don't think it's negative or positive. It is what you make it. Buddha decided to make it a negative thing and because of this in my opinion transformed his teaching into a mild form of spiritual extremism. Taoists on the other hand have always sought harmony.

 

The physical experience was to be merged with the spiritual to bring about complete unification of Yin and Yang and reveal the fundamental non-polar nature of Wuji.

 

Ancient Taoists hermits didn't start in the royal palace, although some of them climbed quite high on the social ladder. They were in nature and in life from the get go. They observed it in all its true colours, the good with the bad. Health and Sickness, Youth and Old Age, Birth and Death. To them this was the natural cycle of nature. They understood that all things were this way and they adopted the fundamental concept of Yin and Yang that govern the waxing and wanning of all happenings in the Tao. They recognized duality and pierced into Wuji to unravel the ultimate truth. They did this not by going to spiritual extremes, out of shock or fear of some sudden realisation, but by becoming one with the nature that was all around them since birth, and by following the balance of nature, they learned to attain levels of supernatural vigour, perception and wisdom.

 

So the fundamental difference here between the two is that while Taoism begins from a neutral point and directly focuses on harmonizing Yin and Yang (Taiji) to revert to Wuji, Buddhism is biased through a negative mind construct from the start, which directly impacts the level of possible realisation, because Sakyamunis mind was already formed in one direction, while the mind of the Taoist sage was in the centre.

I will leave aside all of the above speculation about the lifestyles and psychological states of Daoists of thousands of years ago and Siddharta Gautama, and merely ask the following: if Shakyamuni started his practice with "bias," do you really think that any Daoist did not?

 

Do you know anybody out there without bias? Does anybody embark on any path without bias? Are you, dear "spiritual Daoists," not also possessed of plenty of this stuff?

 

My point is, even if your conclusions about Shakyamuni's mental state pre-cultivation are 100% correct, to conclude that you know what happened to him after that is arbitrary. Nobody is without their "baggage." Your certitude that Buddhism fails to deal with it is built on a very poor foundation, namely, a lack of a well-rounded understanding of Buddhism.

 

It might sound like a insignificant difference, but when you appreciate the importance and influence of mind in spiritual work, you will understand how big a contribution in makes to what is attainable.

Well, I'll let you go from temple to temple telling the Buddhists about the importance of mind

 

When we look at Taoism and civilisation... well... I don't even know where to begin.

Because Taoism encouraged living life, experiencing life, understanding, investigating nature and investigating ones self; this attitude lead to a plethora of technological innovations which revolutionised Chinese civilisation, things such as herbology, accupuncture, herding, massage, qigong, taiji and countless others. All these were invented in an effort to make life easier and more enjoyable. They were methods to prolong life not to escape it and they helped to increase the positive experience of life and advance humanity and civilisation.

Buddhists have made contributions in all of these fields, both in China and in other countries.

 

Furthermore, Spiritual Taoism has no dogmas. There are no rules to follow, no books to read, no right way or wrong way. No paths. Taoism is the way of no way. The path of no path. Even Laozi said Tao Ke Tao Feichang Tao (The Tao That Can Be Explained Is Not The True Tao). Even so, millions have flocked to do just the opposite of that, and take his writings to be the be it all of Taoism.

Buddhism leads one to a place beyond dogma as well.

 

You might find this interesting: there is a Taiwanese Buddhist monk called Konghai who was a Chinese medicine doctor before becoming a monk. He has a looonnnnnnngggggggg lecture series on the Daodejing that he made before he was a monk, but released afterwards, with a foreword recorded in his robes.

 

Over the course of many hours, he makes the argument that Laozi and Shakyamuni's ultimate teaching is the same, except that Laozi speaks only about the state of enlightenment, whereas the Buddha's sometimes spoke about this, and sometimes laid out teachings for people who weren't yet capable of understanding these teachings.

 

Perhaps you have mostly been exposed to the latter of Buddhism's contents. There is much more than what you have seen, it seems.

 

Please don't forget that, many of the teachings we follow today were authored thousands of years ago to cater to the people of the time, their minds, their wisdom, their culture and their level of civilisation. Do not look to the old books blindly. Those guys are long dead. Take what is useful, discard what is useless, add what is specifically your own. Bruce Lee said something like that. THAT, is the only way to advance civilisation, and not by becoming clones of a wisdom designed to open the minds of humans several thousand years ago. Although many of these wisdoms are valid today. I urge you to open your mind and develop your own wisdom through the exploration of life, just like the masters of yore. Do not lock yourself within the diapazon of their own wisdom such as they shared it with us through writing. Take it and go beyond even! There is no limit. This is the difference between being a follower and being a Spiritual Taoist.

 

Always remember that every moment of our existence every breath we breathe, every action we take whether good or bad are all part of the Tao and contribute to our inevitable evolution. We bare the consequences of all our actions and when it comes to life we grab the bull by the horns.

 

As Taoists, we can eat what we like and have sex, start a family and contribute fully to society with our skills. We can run a successful business, deal with money, build corporations and help advance civilisation. There are no rules, only actions and consequences. The world is our oyster.

 

MOST importantly, we do not encourage anyone to run from or escape worldly life and society.

Neither does the path of Bodhisattavahood. But, my battery is nearly gone, so I write no more...

 

Instead we combine and merge the physical with the spiritual. Harmony is the most direct path to non-duality. If you lean too far to one side or the other.. the momentum will keep the wheel of Samsara spinning. The key is what vibration you tune your mind to.

 

There is no escape from existence, this is part of it.

Believe me, you chose to be here. You WANT to be here. Find out why!

 

Do you think that after you attain immortality you can come down to earth and save everyone on the planet with your godly powers? haha. That's not how it works. Taiji has laws and rules, Wuji also has laws and rules. The Taiji dimension is the playground of souls. The university of life. This is training day.

 

Let me tell you what you'll do when that day comes for you. You'll choose to do the one thing you won't believe, and that is reincarnate again by entering Taiji through a natural birth so you can help other people awaken to their original nature. Not as a god, not as spirit, but again as this body of flesh.

 

Don't underestimate your value. We all have worth. Some of you are already realised immortals and the soul in your current body is simply a projection of your non-physical self which is already dwelling in the emptiness of the Tao, and you are guiding countless beings through your wisdom in different galaxies in different bodies all simultaneously. What, you never thought you might already be an immortal and the soul in this body is just an extension from your realised body residing in emptiness? Well.. mind blown. Trust me when I said this. There is no limit to your wonder.

 

If people like Buddha and Jesus Christ who gave and dedicated their lives to saving and liberating mankind then ascended and became gods and immortals. Then why didn't they just come back in an instant and awaken everyone with their powers in one go? Because there are laws... and some laws, even immortals can't break lest they be punished. So do not think lightly of yourself. You are a miracle of divine power here to manifest the truth of the ultimate reality in the hearts of others. Start with a spark and turn it into the fire of spiritual transformation : )

 

Maybe later, maybe no need

Edited May 4, 2016 by Walker

[Taoist Texts]

 

 Meet more teachers. 

[forestofclarity]

The question is whether one can separate Xing and Ming. I don't think so--- cultivating one inevitably has an impact on the other. I might argue that the mind --- and everything else--- is really energy, so really all practice is energetics. 

 

There is also Buddhist forms of qigong--- they often focus on opening and letting go rather than gathering and transforming, at least in my limited experience. 

 

Ming 命 apparently. Here's an article by Pregadio on ming:

 

http://www.healingtaousa.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode2&articleid=192

 

From what I've seen, ming seems to correspond to the inner energetics found in tantra for example, but as we know tantra is a late Buddhist development (arguably with Shaivite origins rather than Buddhist origins as per Alexis Sanderson) and the high tantra in Buddhism (dealing with chakras, prana, etc.) seems mostly confined to Tibetan Buddhism and hence in a Chinese context Daoism may have been what fulfilled this role.

[CelibacySeeker]

Get the ming method and then practice buddhism, it's much better. Taoist xing is watered down chan or just not really good methods, but if you have ming method then you will be successful buddhist. 

Edited May 14, 2016 by CelibacySeeker

[taichiwhitey]

As a philosopher I was drawn to taoism. As a martial artist I train shoalin arts as well as tai chi which was a system organized by a taoist monk. In martial arts each system has a different strategy. For instance buddhist breathing is normal abdominal breathing and taoist breathing is reverse abdominal breathing. These two strategies each work to help cultivate chi, but in my experience taoist breathing works faster. It seems to me that all religion is really striving to unite man with the infinite. Taoism seems to do this without the need of a man like god. Many pantheons have been created with god being made in the image of the men of that religions day. Buddha was a indian prince, and raised a hindu so he spoke in those terms. Jesus was a jew and so he spoke in those terms. Lao tau was neither and spoke without religious affiliation. Each master seems to have created a following where people look to someone for help understanding life. This for me seems counterproductive. For me I use the experiences of those masters and look inside myself to understand life. 

[9thousandthings]

 

Was just reading up on this - the word is, the robot is based around a comic that the monk at this temple wrote.  The first book being called "Troubles Are Self-Made".  An English version may be in the works....would love to see the comic series (in any version)!

 

Reminds me of that often quoted line from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: 

 

"The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of the mountain, or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha - which is to demean oneself.”

 

 

I'm pretty certain I've run into other robot monks in sci-fi over the years too....

 

Cool share, thanks!

 

Edit: sorry to digress, my comments don't really have anything to add to the thread - I myself align more along the daoist lines, though I'm constantly inspired by Buddhist (especially zen) ideas and art.

Edited May 16, 2016 by 9thousandthings

[Kongming]

While I don't agree with the sentiment entirely, it is interesting that Chan/Zen has been stated by some figures to be Daoism in Buddhist drag, or in other words that Chan's origins and spirit are more Daoist inspired, perhaps directly springing from a Zhuangzi-style tradition, than inspired by the scholasticism of Madhyamika or Yogacara that was prominent in Indian Buddhism. Ray Grigg's "The Tao of Zen" explores this a bit, though I think the notion is a bit too simplistic and ignores that Chan did in fact study sutras, chant mantras and dharanis, etc. historically. So for those who are particularly attracted to Zen, it is interesting that it may be a Daoicized Buddhism that draws your interest.

 

It's also interesting that various scholars (such as Needham, David Gordon White, etc.) have compared Daoism, especially the alchemical aspects, with tantra, going so far as to say that the tantric department of Chinese Buddhism was Daoism and that the Daoists carried on the tantric spirit after the collapse of the institutionalized Zhenyan school due to the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution. As mentioned earlier in the thread, tantra itself seems to ultimately have been of Shaivite origin (see Alexis Sanderson) and we can see quite a different spirit and emphasis between early Pali Buddhism and its heir Theravada and late Siddha-derived Vajrayana.

 

I suppose what I am getting at is that the two forms of Buddhism that Daoism resembles the most, namely Chan and tantra, are also the forms of Buddhism which have been affected by a non-Buddhist spirit or inspiration to the greatest degree, namely influence by early Daoism and Shaivite tantra/yoga respectively. Couple this with the fact that many Buddhists, especially Madhyamika, deny all ontology and the notion of an eternal spirit or an eternal Absolute reality (such as Brahman), and it seems that there is indeed substantial differences between Daoism and Buddhism that are perhaps worth investigation.

 

Perhaps at the apex, the perspective of the Buddha and the Daoist immortal, we can speak of a unity of the traditions, but at the relative level I don't think its as simple as saying they are the same and it is just a matter of which teacher you connect with. Just to take two examples:

 

--Qi, qimai, yinyang, wuxing, the use of and inspiration of the Yijing, alchemical praxis and symbolism, neigong, etc. are all more associated with Daoism than Buddhism, though Chinese Buddhists of course may make use of them as well.

 

--Daoism has an emanationist cosmogony and sees the world as congealed out of higher energies of the Dao (qi.) Buddhism generally doesn't deal with an emanationist cosmogony and sees the world as an illusion-like production of the coming together of the 5 skandhas.

 

Just some thoughts I'v had on the topic I figured worth sharing for the sake of discussion.

[Creation]

Ming 命 apparently. Here's an article by Pregadio on ming:

 

http://www.healingtaousa.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode2&articleid=192

 

From what I've seen, ming seems to correspond to the inner energetics found in tantra for example, but as we know tantra is a late Buddhist development (arguably with Shaivite origins rather than Buddhist origins as per Alexis Sanderson) and the high tantra in Buddhism (dealing with chakras, prana, etc.) seems mostly confined to Tibetan Buddhism and hence in a Chinese context Daoism may have been what fulfilled this role.

Thanks for that article.

 

Here are a few thoughts on the ideas you mention. 

 

First of all, about the gulf between Pali Buddhism and the Vajrayana of the Siddhas: When seen as an incremental transformation over centuries it does not seem seem so shocking: Early Buddhism -> Abhidharma Buddhism -> Early Mahayana (three vehicles, prajnaparamita) -> Late Mahayana (one vehicle, tathagatagarbha) -> Early Tantra (deity yoga as the fast path to Buddhahood) -> Late Tantra (chakra-bindu work, violent/sexual iconography).  Sanderson only proves Shaiva influence on late Buddhist tantra.  The jump from late Mahayana to early tantra is actually not all that big and arguably completely internal to Buddhism.  And early tantra, which was did not have explicit mention of chakra-nadi-bindu is what was taught in China anyway.

 

Another point I would like to make is that even though detailed descriptions of energy work as we understand it are not in the written record until the late tantric phase of Indian Buddhism, I think it is quite inappropriate to say Buddhist energy work = chakra-nadi-bindu methods of late Budhhist tantra.  I'm guessing this comes from academics who don't know that much about energy work.  Because it is inconceivable that people going into deep dhyana states using the breath, as taught by the historical Buddha, did not have a great deal of energy body development.  Here is a particularly extreme example: both Indian and Chinese internal alchemy traditions prize the breathless state as a landmark of one's level of development: where the physical breath ceases and the body is breathing prana/qi directly.  But the in the Pali Canon the Buddha specifically characterized the fourth dhyana by the absence of breathing, centuries before there was any record of internal alchemy traditions. 

 

The way I have come to think about it is that something analogous to "dual cultivation of xing and ming" is actually present in Buddhism:  in early Buddhism it is dual cultivation of shamatha and vipashyana (shamatha leading to the aforementioned fourth dhyana, vipashyana to knowing the true nature of things), in Mahayana this is expanded to the perfection of wisdom and the other five or nine perfections (which result in the attainment of the dharmakaya and rupakaya respectively) and in late tantra the creation and completion stages or illusory body and clear light yogas (which again work together to cultivate dhamakaya and rupakaya).  Hopefully my parenthetical remarks make it clear why I am making this analogy. 

 

However, in Chan the two types of practice are not emphasized, and this became the dominant mode of practice in China after the 10th(?) century, so it makes sense that Daoists would say "Chan doesn't have both"

Edited May 18, 2016 by Creation

[Kongming]

First of all, about the gulf between Pali Buddhism and the Vajrayana of the Siddhas: When seen as an incremental transformation over centuries it does not seem seem so shocking: Early Buddhism -> Abhidharma Buddhism -> Early Mahayana (three vehicles, prajnaparamita) -> Late Mahayana (one vehicle, tathagatagarbha) -> Early Tantra (deity yoga as the fast path to Buddhahood) -> Late Tantra (chakra-bindu work, violent/sexual iconography).  Sanderson only proves Shaiva influence on late Buddhist tantra.  The jump from late Mahayana to early tantra is actually not all that big and arguably completely internal to Buddhism.  And early tantra, which was did not have explicit mention of chakra-nadi-bindu is what was taught in China anyway.

 

One could see it as an internal development to Buddhism, yes, but Buddhism influenced by its wider surroundings and cultural arena, namely Vedic/Brahmanic/Hindu/Shaivite India. Not too long ago I was reading a work on Shingon Buddhism (I believe it may have been Yamasaki's) and he noted that early Buddhism didn't make much use of the mantra or mudra, both of which antecede Buddhism and were more prominent in Hinduism, and that the idea of attaining siddhi or supernormal power, while present in earliest Buddhism, also wasn't emphasized to the degree it was in tantra, which matches in this case the Hindu yoga school. In other words, much of the core of tantra has greater origins in the Hindu world than that of earliest Buddhism (actually there have been many scholars which see much of Mahayana itself as a "Hindu-ization" of Buddhism, partly due to simple religious exchange and also as a means for Buddhism to continue to compete with the revitalization of Hinduism during the Gupta and afterward.)

 

As to the rest of your post, I can't say I am in disagreement and you may very well be right about the energetic aspect to earliest Buddhism.

[dust]

Perhaps it was just a peculiarity of sorts, though the many Taoist temples i have had the good fortune to visit were not exactly 'do as you please' places.

 

Hehe. At Baiyunguan (White Cloud Temple), the one Daoist temple I visited, about ten years ago, a German friend and I talked with a priest. I knew nothing of Daoism at the time, and likely had no intelligent questions to ask.

 

He told us about going to Oktoberfest, we talked about beer, and we got his buddy to take a photo of us.

 

I have no idea what his daily life is/was like, but heading off to Europe for a month to drink beer... well, I suppose that coloured my ideas about what it is to be Daoist...

Edited May 18, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Maddie]

On 4/30/2016 at 1:41 AM, RigdzinTrinley said:

 

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?

 

It has begun to occur to me that perhaps my feelings for Buddhism have cooled a little bit recently because I think it may have given me somewhat of a negative attitude as it does seem somewhat nihilistic me. It seems like a lot of nothing nothing nothing which I don't think is actually correct but I think that's the version of it that I had been taught by a lot of the western theravada teachers especially this one monk that's on YouTube a lot that always looks like he's chronically depressed.

[Maddie]

A few questions I have in regards to Taoism in relation to Buddhism. 

 

One thing at the time that really attracted me to Buddhism was the emphasis on kindness and compassion. Is this emphasized to the same level in Taoism? 

 

Most of the Theravada teachers I listened to seemed to be of the opinion that Taoism places too much emphasis on the cultivation of the physical body, whereas in Buddhism the body is mostly ignored and the focus is on the mind. What would be the Taoist reply to this?

[Sketch]

It's simply that you can't progress past a certain point as a person without compassion. 

 

My understanding is to develop the person, not just the body, or the mind, or the spirit.

 

One system, 

A fractal extension of the outer system.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Sketch

[Maddie]

18 minutes ago, Sketch said:

It's simply that you can't progress past a certain point as a person without compassion. 

 

My understanding is to develop the person, not just the body, or the mind, or the spirit.

 

One system, 

A fractal extension of the outer system.

 

Yes kindness and compassion are extremely important to me. 

[Oneironaut]

On 1/21/2021 at 11:09 AM, dmattwads said:

A few questions I have in regards to Taoism in relation to Buddhism. 

 

One thing at the time that really attracted me to Buddhism was the emphasis on kindness and compassion. Is this emphasized to the same level in Taoism? 

 

Most of the Theravada teachers I listened to seemed to be of the opinion that Taoism places too much emphasis on the cultivation of the physical body, whereas in Buddhism the body is mostly ignored and the focus is on the mind. What would be the Taoist reply to this?

 

From my limited perspective I found Taoists cultivate kindness and compassion through inner smile practices instead of Metta. I have found the inner smile practice through the zen school I briefly attended and they emphasize smiling through the middle energy center. Other zen traditions may emphasize different things. We even had a sitting small heavenly circuit practice. 

 

The Zen schools are (in my opinion) far more balanced than the elder schools that neglect the physical body. From the zen schools I have learned that the body is an important vehicle and it greatly effects our mental states (A well cultivated mind can also lead to physical well being). According to my zen teachers robust health and a well cultivated physical body is a huge asset for Buddhist meditation practice. It would be wise to take care of it. Theravadins are probably the last people to take advice from when it comes to physical health. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Oneironaut