Why Daoism over Buddhism

[dawei]

There is more to it than that for instance anyone care to translate the following into Taoism (?):

 

"Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again:

But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life".

 

 

Or also...

 

Luke 17: 20-21

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’[d] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

 

Laozi 22: "Embrace the One".

 

 

For those who like the biblical equivalent... I would be remiss if I did not point out that the older LZ text differs:

 

Received version: The Sage Embraces the One to become the model to the world.

 

(this is not well understood but ONE here is Tai Yi and model is the cosmograph as the center of the universe)

 

MWD version: The Sage Holds to the One to become Shepherd to the world.

[Brian]

Even better.

[Marblehead]

sounds like, "or how to beat around the bush" which is still related to a why...

Wait till you grow up and get married. Then you'll understand.

[Unlearner]

There is more to it than that for instance anyone care to translate the following into Taoism (?):

 

"Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again:

But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life".

 

Are we speaking of the BIble or are we speaking of religions? The text may have veiled meaning, I agree, I do not discount many of the teachings of religions. I'm speaking of the concept of theism expressly, in that we are regarding the existence of a creator god(s) which exists superior to mortal beings.

[3bob]

Are we speaking of the BIble or are we speaking of religions? The text may have veiled meaning, I agree, I do not discount many of the teachings of religions. I'm speaking of the concept of theism expressly, in that we are regarding the existence of a creator god(s) which exists superior to mortal beings.

 

same problem since the "expressly" conceptual meaning is also or still veiled in most cases...

[3bob]

Wait till you grow up and get married. Then you'll understand.

 

Do you mean and from another angle that I will come to know "how" much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? I also know that it took Bill Murray several trys to get past ground hog day but that blind groundhog finally found his acorn...

Edited February 4, 2015 by 3bob

[Daeluin]

There is more to it than that for instance anyone care to translate the following into Taoism (?):

 

"Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again:

But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life".

 

Perhaps the water here stands for that which temporarily may be consumed to alleviate one's thirst. Some masters and healers will help one by sharing original qi with them, and then showing them how to create it on their own by returning within, and connecting to their source, which is the source of all.

 

Or also...Luke 17: 20-2120 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’[d] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

 

The kingdom of god is tao.

 

Well, sure, there is always more. But sometimes we don't need more. To know when one has enough.

 

Is 25,995 posts enough? I've noticed you like getting in the last word. I think it's cute.

 

MH, Have you ever wondered why Tao needed "more" or perhaps manifested "more" - as in "the 10,000"?

(or why would a perfectly content Tao complete in itself get involved in such?)

 

The tao simply is. Why does it need something? The tao is before there were yin or yang. It has no location, and being the root of all exists within all, everywhere, nowhere. Once there was creation, is that still tao, even though it contains tao? How can you know?

 

I actually don't spend a lot of time wondering "Why?"

 

I did. And after a while every answer started pointing back to the center of things.

 

I find that hard to believe MH, for to be human is in part a wondering of why, and the TTC is full of trying to explain and or understand some of the "whys" ... for instance why bother with study, practice or participation in jack shit, why "return", etc.. times 10,000

 

Why is a type of questing, a type of seeking. We recognize that we are divided from our true selves, and we keep searching for it externally, even as it awaits within. This is simply how creation works. Procreation too - we think we've found it in another, and then there's a third. Why not?

 

Do you mean and from another angle that I will come to know "how" much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

 

Because it can. Why else?

 

Return to yourself. All the answers are there. When the divided harmonize they start to feel empty, because what is real is more subtle than what can be felt.

 

The center of all things are connected. The center of me is connected to the center of the earth, the center of you, the center of society, the center of this cosmos, the center of that chair and slice of pizza. If we look for things externally, we see external manifestations of those things, which inform us of how their centers move and interact externally, but we cannot truly perceive their centers from an external perspective. Ultimately we can only connect to our own center, and the deeper we are able to connect to it, we find that we are also connecting deeper into oneness with the centers of all that exists around us as well.

 

Zhuangzi speaks extensively on this in chapter 2. Ultimately external seeking and questing is limitless; more answers may always be created. It is easy to get lost in the sea of knowledge, but do we have time for that? Returning to one's center is enabled by acceptance and trust. The more we seek externally the more we are declaring that we do not accept, do not trust. The more we judge or react, the more we take our wholeness and divide it up, only claiming part of it.

 

So ultimately questions lead us away. Acceptance returns us within, and unwinds division.

[Daeluin]

All paths lead to one.

All roads lead home.

[Brian]

All roads lead to Rome?

[dust]

 

Not self-lobotomization but recognizing the limitations, boundaries and proper role of the intellect.

 

One of my favorite Einstein quotes is:

 

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

 

I agree.

 

A life-long criticism of me from others has been that I think too much. For quite a while now, the better part of my free time has been spent teaching myself not to think so much. Just run, just jump. It's wonderfully freeing.

 

So I wasn't suggesting, like so many do, that we should all rely purely on science and smarts to be happy.

 

But it's important to me -- knowing that the specific language of a text or translation, and the ideas contained within a book, can be incredibly influential and potentially damaging -- to study any text fairly precisely before believing and putting into practice everything it has to say.

 

And when you speak of people focusing intellectually rather than experientially on whatever Taoist or Buddhist texts... well, I also wonder how people would discuss them on an internet forum without the use of intellect.

[Brian]

I generally don't bother to discuss them. Not with any great seriousness, certainly. It would sound pretentious to say I have moved beyond them but in a very meaningful sense that is the case -- I think many here have, including some who still debate the texts out of habit.

[Michael Sternbach]

But it's important to me -- knowing that the specific language of a text or translation, and the ideas contained within a book, can be incredibly influential and potentially damaging -- to study any text fairly precisely before believing and putting into practice everything it has to say.

 

Well, I would say, it doesn't matter if your interpretation is right or wrong as long as it's right for you.

 

And when you speak of people focusing intellectually rather than experientially on whatever Taoist or Buddhist texts... well, I also wonder how people would discuss them on an internet forum without the use of intellect.

 

They do that all the time though. LOL

[dust]

Fair points

[Cookie Monster]

.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Ocean Form

[Marblehead]

Are we speaking of the BIble or are we speaking of religions? The text may have veiled meaning, I agree, I do not discount many of the teachings of religions. I'm speaking of the concept of theism expressly, in that we are regarding the existence of a creator god(s) which exists superior to mortal beings.

Really? I never would have picked up on that had you not mentioned it. Hehehe.

 

Yes, there is much wisdom that can be found within religions.

 

But let us remember that we are supposed to be talking about the two non-theistic belief systems: Taoism and Buddhism.

[Marblehead]

Is 25,995 posts enough? I've noticed you like getting in the last word. I think it's cute.

You are not the first person to notice both these facts.

 

I speak when I have something to say. I have lots to say about Taoism.

 

Remember that I am a professional soldier (yes, even after retirement) and the sergeant generally has the only word. AT least I am allowing for words from others.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead said: I actually don't spend a lot of time wondering "Why?"

I did. And after a while every answer started pointing back to the center of things.

That's interesting. Maybe that was always a given for me?

[Marblehead]

All paths lead to one.

I have a hard time accepting this.

 

All roads lead home.

But this? Absolutely. Especially if we consider that home is where the heart is.

[Marblehead]

All roads lead to Rome?

You brought back a memory for me.

 

The first time I went to visit Rome, driving my own car, it was so easy to find Rome because there were signs everywhere pointing the way. But after the visit and time to continue the visit I could not find any signs pointing the way to anywhere outside of Rome.

 

I finally had to use my Boy Scout navigation system: Time of day and movement of the sun, establish East and go from there. It worked fine.

[Marblehead]

 

And when you speak of people focusing intellectually rather than experientially on whatever Taoist or Buddhist texts... well, I also wonder how people would discuss them on an internet forum without the use of intellect.

Yep. We can't communicate without the use of words and mental concepts.

 

And remember, Chuang Tzu told us that once we understand the concepts we can forget the words. (That is because if we understand the concepts the words will come spontaneously whenever we need express our understanding of the concepts.)

[Marblehead]

I like both. Started out with daoism, I see more and more the beauty of buddhism and find that some buddhist practices are very useful.

 

I view paradigms as structures, so I ask myself the question "what structure, if I adopt it, will take care of me?"

People, obviously, freak out on their path at times, you never know what things lie in your unconscious ready to blow up.

I actually agree with you here even though I am in no way a Buddhist.

 

Buddhism offers structure; organization. I have always had those in my life.

[3bob]

words might come spontaneously or not, regardless of understanding since some people don't speak much if they have never developed the verbal ability or knack for doing so. (same idea with writing)

 

Btw, I'd say words and concepts (can often be) rather limited in what they can convey, while the whole enchilada is not.

 

(edit)

Edited February 4, 2015 by 3bob

[Michael Sternbach]

You are not the first person to notice both these facts.

 

I speak when I have something to say. I have lots to say about Taoism.

 

Remember that I am a professional soldier (yes, even after retirement) and the sergeant generally has the only word.

You mean, other than "Sir, yessir!!!"

 

AT least I am allowing for words from others.

Right; we should appreciate that at least you don't close by saying: "Space cadets, am I making myself clear???!!!"

 

[Marblehead]

words might come spontaneously or not, regardless of understanding since some people don't speak much if they have never developed the verbal ability or knack for doing so. (same idea with writing)

 

Btw, I'd say words and concepts are rather limited in what they can convey, while the whole enchilada is not.

True. I did generalize, didn't I?

[Marblehead]

You mean, other than "Sir, yessir!!!"

 

 

Right; we should appreciate that at least you don't close by saying: "Space cadets, am I making myself clear???!!!"

 

 

You've got it.

 

I will continue a conversation as long as it is a topic I care to speak to and there is at least one other person to speak with. I rarely leave a thread until there is nothing more to be said or in order to avoid a conflict.