Why Daoism over Buddhism

[Marblehead]

 Is Daoism better? I don't know, but it's been a nice walk for me so far.

Mostly depends on the individual's needs, I suppose.

 

But then, if one became a Religious Taoist they would have both, wouldn't they?

[Basil]

I think some would and others wouldn't. Do believe being a Daoist implies both?

[Marblehead]

I think some would and others wouldn't.

Agreed.

 

Do believe being a Daoist implies both?

Most, but not all, Religious Daoists hold to Buddhism as the religious/spiritual aspect of their belief system.  So for these, yes, they would be both Buddhists and Taoists.

[Apech]

Agreed.

 

Most, but not all, Religious Daoists hold to Buddhism as the religious/spiritual aspect of their belief system.  So for these, yes, they would be both Buddhists and Taoists.

 

 

Are you sure about this?  It is my understanding that in the Song, Tang, Ming periods (etc.) most people signed up to the threefold system of Daoism, the Ru and Buddhism. - because they were seen as complementary.

[shanlung]

I personally love the wisdom found in both, particularly in Chan Buddhism on Buddhism's side.  

 

I went around trying to explain what Taoism is to folks who do not know what the hell that is but knowing at least the existence of Zen Buddhism (although I suspect they do not really know Zen Buddhism either ) that Taoism is the Zen of Zen Buddhism.

 

I am relieved that they did not ask me what Zen Buddhism was all about.

 

And if they did, I got to tell them go Google for that, not that I felt Google or any other thing or humanoids can tell them what I know I am not capable of telling.

 

An Idiot on Taoism, and of Zen Buddhism for that matter.

[Marblehead]

Are you sure about this? 

I'm not sure of anything.  Just my understanding.  I was wrong once, a long time ago.

[Apech]

I'm not sure of anything.  Just my understanding.  I was wrong once, a long time ago.

 

How do we ever know if we are wrong without knowing rightness ... in which case we are right not wrong.

[Marblehead]

How do we ever know if we are wrong without knowing rightness ... in which case we are right not wrong.

Well, that one time was when I thought I was wrong but I ended up being right.

 

Ah!  The duality of it all.

[Aeran]

I wouldn't call myself Daoist or Buddhist, my knowledge of Daoism is on a beginners level, and my knowledge of Buddhism below even that, but I found Daoism appealing because of it's focus on the natural world (which is where I personally find the divine most fully expressed) on balance and equilibrium, on enjoying life and living it wholly instead of rejecting the world around us as an illusion to be escaped, and it's very scientific approach to spiritual matters.

 

Buddhism by contrast feels like a "race to the finish line." Yes, spiritual evolution is important, but we're here in the physical world for a reason and we might as well allow ourselves to enjoy it to a reasonable degree. I also find Buddhism rather morbid, with the constant focus on death, suffering and nothingness.

 

I'm sure I'm massively misinterpreting both philosophies on at least some of those points, but they're my personal impressions gained from my research and experience. I also don't have anything personal against Buddhism - I know a lot of people find it very beneficial and gain deep meaning and insight from it, but it's just not for me.

[Marblehead]

 

I'm sure I'm massively misinterpreting both philosophies ...

But they are your understandings at this point in time.  These too will change.  Bottom line, individual needs will dictate the path we travel.

[Daeluin]

I've read that taoism starts with water, Buddhism starts with fire. And I appreciate how in taoism water is deferred to as the base which supports and balances the extreme of fire. Without balancing heaven AND earth completely, can one truly transcend spiritual immortality and return to tao? I wonder how Buddhism accomplishes this.

 

Edit - I don't intend to suggest that Buddhism does not work with "water." I don't know. But really I don't need to do anything more than follow where lead and learn the lessons I am brought before. Knowledge is endless, right and wrong are traps.

 

Stumbled over this in Eva Wong's Holding Yin, Embracing Yang, Treatise on the Mysterious Orifice (xuanweilun):

 

 

 

9

Original Nature and Life

 

What is original nature? [xing] What is life? [ming] Original nature is the source of all things, and life (energy) is an integral part of the body. Without life, original nature cannot be nourished, and without original nature, life will lose its spirit. Original nature is the ruler of life, and life is the carrier of original nature. Many people today mistakenly classify spiritual practices into those that cultivate original nature and those that cultivate life, believing that these two paths are mutually exclusive. This is because they don't understand that spirit and life both originate from the Tao, the being and nonbeing are complements of each other, and that substance and nothingness cocreate each other.

 

Original nature [xing] is spirit [shen], and life [ming] is generative and vital energy [jing and qi]. Original nature is the Limitless (wuji), and life is the Great Ultimate (taiji). Each cannot exist without the other. Some say that Buddhists cultivate only original nature and Taoists cultivate only life. They are wrong, because they don't know that the Buddhist teachings of dissolving the self and eradicating desire are equivalent to the Taoist practice of holding on to the Mother and valuing the emptiness of the Great Beginning.

 

If you don't understand original nature, you won't be able to understand life. On the other hand, if you don't cultivate life, you won't be able to recover original nature. If you are able to prevent original nature from falling into oblivion, you will recover life. If you can hold on to the Mother and return to simplicity, you will nourish original nature. The cultivation of original nature is the key to entering the gate of life. This is what the wondrous method of focusing the spirit and merging with the true reality is all about.

[Daeluin]

Weird.... I just answered a post I made almost exactly half a year ago. Funny how that works. There are secrets hidden in this.

[Mudfoot]

If we skip the fine theories, what are the major differences in actual practice between daoist and chinese buddhist tradition? In my shaolin practice this is hard to see, history names many shaolin masters getting input from daoists.

Someone here might have studied the subject?

[Marblehead]

I think you are pretty much in line with the little I know of it.  When Buddhism arrived in China it was readily accepted by many.

[Aaron]

If you like both, follow both. If you don't like either, well there's always needle point. 

[Old River]

To answer a 1+ year old OP as as briefly (!) as I can:

I've played on both sides of the fence.  I first came to Daoism (as a philosophy) via the Dao De Jing in the mid-1990s, and somewhere along the line picked up a few things on the periphery of Ch'an/Zen Buddhism.  In my own experience, when I was younger, the Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi interested me greatly, but meditation wasn't something I was ready for I suppose.  So I found no way of integrating the Daoism in any meaningful way.  There were a variety of other detours I took all along the way for years.  

Many years later (around 2010) I practiced Ch'an/Zen Buddhism (Soto Zen and Vietnamese Thien).  Ch'an especially appealed to me precisely because of its close relationship to Daoism, so no surprise there.  Prior to this time, I really didn't know a great deal about Buddhism except certain misconceptions which I finally saw through (the nihilistic misconception via Schopenhauer, and then the antinomian streak with the Beats).  

So I practiced Buddhism for about three years, involved with a local Vietnamese monastery for about a year and got saw Thich Nhat Hanh speak at a retreat in 2013.  In my experience with Buddhism, I had a greater appreciation for meditation and ritual.  All this seemed much more *concrete* to me -- I don't regret a single minute of that time in my life.  

But after 2014, I stopped practicing in any formal sense, and felt the need to start over with everything in my life.  2014 was a disastrous year for me for a number of reasons.  So, after reading a vast array of philosophy and religion for over 20 years, I began streamlining those things that are essential to me and re-prioritizing all of it in a way that works best for myself.  I suppose there is some degree of pragmatism in my approach.  I do not consider myself a "Daoist" per se, but someone with a strong sympathy for the Dao De Jing and the Zhuangzi.  But I see Daoism with different eyes now-- and it speaks more deeply to me than it did before-- it exemplifies for me a life of simplicity.

Looking back on my time with Buddhism, there was a complexity to Buddhism that made perfect sense to me, but at the same time I found it all very tiresome: the four this, the eight that, the three this, the five that.  I understood the significance of it all, but I was tired of all this counting! lol  I do not mean to disparage Buddhism, which I still respect greatly-- I am only speaking of my own relationship with it.  I simply found it was no longer my cup of tea.  I am certainly grateful for what I was taught by the monastics, teachers, and fellow students.  There are varieties of Daoism and Buddhism (and other ways of life) which are best suited to help one flourish in life (to put it as broadly as possible).

As I have simplified my life over the years more and more, I feel lighter somehow.  Oh, I certainly do still delve into philosophical questions, but its more on my own terms now, and my own experience (often, though not always, tending toward philosophical quietism in a roundabout way).  I feel I've been going through a slow transformation (a new stage in life perhaps, partly brought on by age as well I'm sure) into a way of life that is more appreciative of my solitude, walks in nature, meditation but really "just sitting" without the Zen Buddhist framework-- just dropping a lot more internal baggage and feeling more at home with myself and the world.  I'm not too interested in consistency anymore -- when it comes to the things that are most meaningful, life isn't always consistent anyway, like old Walt said:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
 

[sillybearhappyhoneyeater]

I specifically like Daoism because it is less well organized than Buddhism and thus is open to more ideas and possibilities.

Because of the Dharma, all Buddhism is tinged by a certain type of benevolent sadness.  this type of benevolent sadness is a good thing, because it teaches people to second guess their first response to lash out at others when they are under pressure, and is the root of compassion, but can also be a hindrance, especially in the west, where many people look to Buddhism as an escape route from catholicism, or worse yet, go to Buddhism to die.

 

Daoism is a very dynamic idea, and it isn't easy to pin down as one thing.  If you want to make it a philosophy, it can be that, but it is also a religion. It could a philosophy and religion, but it is also a method of self cultivation.  Daoism doesn't only work on the mind and original nature like Buddhism does, but it also works on cultivating life, and tremendous joy and happiness.

 

Actually, to be fair, I love Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, and even though most of my practice revolves around Quanzhen Daoism and Nei Dan, I also spend a lot of time reading and studying Confucian and Buddhist works in order to understand their relationship with Daoism and Chinese spiritual ideas 

[Gerard]

The Chinese use the Tao, Buddha and Confucius for a reason. All are good. Tao to heal and keep you grounded, Buddhist path for making sure you aren't too grounded (haha) and the Confucian model of society is brilliant.

 

Use all of them for a rounded practice.

[RigdzinTrinley]

It seems to me that Daoism and Buddhism are the two traditions that many people feel an attraction to, and furthermore it is known that the two, especially in the Chinese sphere, interacted, cross-pollinated, and influenced each other in various ways. I am interested in both Daoism and Buddhism (namely Chan Buddhism and East Asian esoteric Buddhism, i.e. Tangmi, Shingon, etc.) and plan on continuing to study both throughout my life. That said, it seems to me that, especially at the levels of higher practice or if one were planning to someday receive ordination, there should be an area which one focuses on more and considers their primary "path" or tradition as it were.

 

What I'd like to know is, why do you follow Daoism over Buddhism, or if you aren't formally following one yet, why do you like Daoism better than Buddhism? Are there aspects of Daoism you feel are superior or practices that are more advanced than Buddhism (specifically neidan vs the various Buddhist practices for instance)? What aspects of emphases of Daoism do you think are sufficiently different from Buddhism that one should follow a Daoist path rather than a Buddhist one?

 

Note: I am not trying to get anyone to put either tradition down. However, if one becomes a Daoist, one likely would do so because they believe it is the path that will get them to where they want to go, that it is either superior or better suited for them. I'd like to investigate these areas more.

 

Please share whatever you'd like.

 

dear you,

 

as you can see with my name I joined the tibetan cult

 

also I didn't read the other posts except the OP, out of lazyness - also I need to say I have zero experience with daoism, I have experience with Hindu Tantra and Buddhist Tantra and a little bit of western psycho therapy models.

 

So it makes no sense to compare buddhism and daoism for me - what I would like to share is a concept you find in the "rime" movement of tibetan buddhism (ri me - short for "ri su ma chad pa" that means in short not to fall into any extreme or partiality)

 

the rime movement is connected with great enlightened masters of different buddhist lineages within tibet - but in exile this idea of unbiased impartiality is becoming much more all inclusive. F.e.: H.H. the Dalai Lama is seen as a rime - master, and his idea of rime or impartiality is very vast and includes all traditions

 

in short in the this no-tradition tradition what the old masters said is: based on the karma, charackter, aspriation and faculties of the disciples all these different views and practices and lineages emerged in tibet - and one should not be mistaken about the fact that all of them are the enlightened activity of the buddha

 

so that idea expanded and now H.H. f.e.: teaches the unity of many spiritual paths - because all true spiritual paths are there to benefit sentient beings, they are based on love and compassion

 

in that light it makes no much sense to be biased towrds one or the other tradition - but just to follow ones own karma, aspirations, charackter etc. and the path will self-manifest

 

now one other important aspect of the rime movement is that the masters where mainly lineage holders of one particular lineage - like the nyigma lineage or kagyud lineage, they would master this system, and then move on to embrace other systems and lineages

 

it is very important they said to be steadfast in one lineage before you move to other lineages and traditions - because otherwise you never make it beyond step one

 

never a master of one thing but a professional dabbler of 40

 

so impartiality doesn't mean coca cola buddhism or coca cola daoism, it means you "hold the lineage" one lineage - and then you start exploring other lineages and traditions - otherwise many brain knots will make your inner system sick

 

did that help the discussion or did I just repeat what anyway was said before? I don't know?

[C T]

I was always under the impression that there are more rituals in Taoism than Buddhism, and this i concluded having been brought up in a family where one side practiced one and the other, other. 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. In contrast, i think there's less emphasis on disciplinary codes in Buddhism, generally speaking, from what i have observed growing up in SE Asia. Sure, there were always a certain sombre strictness present, but in Buddhist surrounds, there's also that underlying kindness which kind of neutralises that, whereas this is not immediately evident when i ventured within the abodes that profess to practice the Tao. 

[Michael Sternbach]

I haven't met any Taoists in real life (as far as I know). But I know what you're saying. Just by the quality of the writings and representatives of the traditions, a lot of Taoist lineages seem similar to Catholicism. And Buddhism, despite having structure and doctrines that are similar to Catholicism, feels like it is more like how I would imagine Taoism.

 

...Maybe I'm the only one who'll understand what I just wrote....

It seems like people who are custodians to traditions that have strong ties to accomplished teachers and leaders are different from Buddhism which (by a number of its teachings) tends to foster more room for individual variation. The Taoism of different lineages and the Taoism of popular culture are not the same.

 

True, but this doesn't mean that the Daoism of the lineages is the more legit one than the "layman's". Traditions tend to get crystalized. Daoism by its very nature is formless. Whether one is a Daoist or not cannot be a matter of form.

[Kongming]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[WisteriaWinds]

Buddhism has great praxis, but lousy doxis. Daoism simply admits the impossibility of a sound doxis.

[effilang]

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

 

The simple answer in my opinion is this: 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

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

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.

 

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

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

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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 : )

Edited April 27, 2016 by effilang

[Kongming]

I often find myself attracted by Buddhism, as mentioned, but simultaneously averse. For example, I have a respect for the ancient Vedic tradition and Hinduism generally...Buddhism tends to deny the former in most cases and is often antagonistic to the latter.

 

I personally find the "anatta" doctrine of Buddhism to be nonsensical at best and nihilistic at worst. The five skandhas are all that there are, they exhaust reality, and yet they are suffering and impermanent. Chan/Zen and much of East Asian Buddhism seems to resolve this issue with their focus on Mind/Buddha-Nature/Tathagatagarbha at least, but it doesn't stop a lot of confusion from arising (say with the whole Critical Buddhism in Japan.) Daoism, especially Quanzhen, doesn't have this issue as stated here in Eskildsen's book on Quanzhen:

 

 

 

However, as Hachiya has astutely observed, Wang Zhe did not abide by the thoroughgoing negation and non-assertion of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Fond as he was of borrowing Buddhist language to preach detachment from this provisional, fleeting world of samsara, Wang Zhe ardently believed in the eternal, universal Real Nature/Radiant Spirit that is the ground and wellspring of consciousness (spirit [shen], Nature [xing]), and vitality (qi, Life [ming]) within all living beings. This to him was not “empty” (lacking inherent existence); it was fully Real (zhen).

 

I also dislike a certain Buddhist triumphalism or arrogance in regards to other paths I often see, especially since I generally agree with the propositions of the so-called Traditionalist School. In other words, only Buddhism is the right way and will lead to true enlightenment and everything else is inferior...this triumphalist attitude is especially pronounced in Tibetan Buddhism and Dzogchen. Contrast this with most Daoist writings which, especially after the Song Dynasty, fully embraced the "san jiao" theory and claimed that the three religions were after and guiding their adherents to the same goal.

 

That said I believe one of the advantages of Buddhism is that its literature, from the start, has been clear cut: it's about enlightenment and liberation. I personally believe that Daoism from earliest times was also a mystical/esoteric doctrine aimed toward transcendence and the production of sages/immortals/true men, but a greater vagueness in the early texts has lead to a sort of "Dude-ism" or "go with the flow" Daoism rather than a doctrine of transformation. Perhaps this is more of a Western Daoist phenomena, but it could spell trouble and confusion. That said, Buddhism is subject to plenty of distortions as well (Buddhism as secular liberalism plus meditation, Buddhism as atheistic humanism, etc.)

 

As to superior or inferior, I like Daoism's generally conciliatory attitude as mentioned, but I suppose seeing some more arguments in favor of Daoist praxis or doctrines would help some in being lead to Daoism. One primary example I can think of is some of the arguments neidan practitioners had in favor of their system over Buddhism, wherein the latter would only become yin ghosts rather than pure yang immortals due to only cultivating xing rather than both xing and ming.

 

I suppose in most regards I am more Daoist in outlook and more attracted to Daoism. It inspires me more generally. That said, the fact that Buddhism has been an international religion is more favorable for a potential convert like me, whereas as mentioned in a previous post Daoism has been primarily an ethnic religion for most of its history, aside from some Koreans and Sichuan minorities. I've heard from some people that even in modern Daoism some of the Chinese masters are unwilling to share the true methods with foreigners. This thread touches on the issue a bit:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/26139-the-most-influential-taoist-figure-in-last-century-chen-ying-ning/page-2

 

I've seen this mentioned elsewhere as well. I suppose I wouldn't want to be a perpetual outsider in my converted religious tradition is all. Though I am a firm believer in "where there is a will there is a way" so I wouldn't let something like that stop me, but something to keep in mind I suppose.