Why Daoism over Buddhism

[Apech]

Consider this. Neither Buddhism nor Taoism are indigenous to the West, so people here embracing one or the other or both are new to the game, while in China they had many centuries to bring things closer to some common denominator for mass acceptance or for individual acceptance (there are individuals who do NOT accept both in China, make no mistake -- there's staunch taoists and staunch Buddhists, not just the "it's all our cultural melting pot" yea sayers.) I've read (in Lin Yutang's translations) accounts of vitriolic criticism of Buddhism by Chinese Taoists. I've read -- no wait, I'll have to quote this -- something about Buddhism that's a soliloquy of a Buddhist nun in a popular Chinese drama, "The White Fur-Coat":

 

A young nun am I, sixteen years of age;

My head is shaven in my young maidenhood.

 

For my father, he loves the Buddhist sutras,

And my mother, she loves the Buddhist priests.

 

Morning and night, morning and night,

I burn incense and I pray. For I

Was born a sickly child, full of ills.

So they decided to send me here

Into this monastery.

 

Amitabha! Amitabha!

Unceasingly I pray.

Oh, tired am I of the humming of the drums and the tinkling of the bells;

Tired am I of the droning of the prayers and the crooning of the priors;

The chatter and the clatter of unintelligible charms,

The clamour and the clangour of interminable chants,

The mumbling and the murmuring of monotonous psalms.

Panjnaparmita, Mayura-sutra, Saddharamapundarika --

Oh, how I hate them all!

 

 

And so on, it's nearly three pages long (and reportedly first-class poetry in Chinese) and pretty unambiguous...

 

So, do not lament the discord. Taoism and Buddhism are not the same, and resenting those who notice is not productive. What's that with obligatory all-inclusive surrender of one's discernment faculties anyway? Political correctness has to know its place methinks. Surely, a teacher of a taoist school that was influenced by Buddhism won't say anything to antagonize his Buddhism-influenced flock -- he is not into antagonizing anyone for that matter, he has wonderful things to say about Westerners, e.g. -- but the paragraph you cite shows him as "remaining silent" in response to Buddhist teachings. The interpretation of this silence, by his students who wrote the biography, is THEIR interpretation. I spoke to him though...

 

I didn't say or imply that they were the same. Things don't have to be the same to be assimilable. My very point.

 

But this is turning into one of the usual non-productive TB threads so I am bowing out.

[Apech]

Well if we consider that the historic Buddha in well recognized Buddhist doctrine openly refuted so and so, for such and such then I don't see how you can deny acts of or the meaning of refuting going on, regardless of condescending sounding like ideas that one may be "attached" in some way thus being fair game for -along with implied justification for being refuted. (was the historic Buddha then immature per your definition?)

 

sophistry ... I'm done with this.

[3bob]

silence ranges from utter crushing to joyous freeing, so knows the soul

[3bob]

if you are done what are you waiting for?

[soaring crane]

Wang Bi (Wang Pi), styled Fusi, is regarded as one of the most important interpreters of the classical Chinese texts known as the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching) and the Yijing (I Ching). He lived and worked during the period after the collapse of the Han dynasty in 220 C.E., an era in which elite interest began to shift away from Confucianism toward Daoism.

 

quote from the same site. ... so no he was not a pure confucian and indeed according to the site he is responsible for the idea of 'philosophical Daoism'.

 

ahh, well, I hadn't actually clicked any links. What I know about Wang Bi I know from my Richard John Lynn translation of his Yijing commentaries, and probably from the occassional wiki article or whatnot. Court intelligensia of his era were all Confucian, it was pretty much prerequisite to the court postings. And Wang Bi, as I understand it, didn't hold Master Lao in terribly high esteem. Not when compared to Confucius, anyway.

 

As a Confucian, Wang Bi would be a very strict dualist. A place for everything and everything in its place, that kind of paradigm. The father is Yang and the family is Yin, the same applying to Heaven and Earth, the Ruler and his Subjects, no exceptions and no chance to change positions. Not unlike our departed friend "TaoMaster", in fact.

 

WB was a prodigy, the Mozart of the academics, and like Mozart, he was born into that life. His father held some kind of post in the government. But WB was removed from office, tossed out by the competition (were they jealous?) and died of an infection a year later. Where he would have headed with his huge intellect, nobody can say.

 

His writings were very influential in the "neo Daoist" movement, but the Laozi wasn't his main focus or interest. That would be the Yijing. He probably only commented on the DDJ because it was a standard work of the time which everyone of his station was required to learn and debate. I'll read the bio in my book and see if I find any interesting nuggets :-)

[Marblehead]

Oh please... we have a serious problem in historical understanding

Not according to Conrad Schirokauer in his "A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations", views I have seen supported by other historians as well.

[Marblehead]

apparently "remaining silent" can be a dozen different things...(so to speak or maybe I should be silent )

Hehehe. I opt for that sometimes. (Silence, that is.)

Edited January 28, 2015 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

silence ranges from utter crushing to joyous freeing, so knows the soul

BTW The last entry in the "Father and Son" thread speaks of that "Emptiness" concept you enjoy speaking of.

[3bob]

MH, You must have me mixed up with someone else? I never get off with enjoyment in use of the term "emptiness". I have used the term Mystery a lot if that is what you mean? (with Mystery to me being much less of a problematic or heavy handed term compared to the word emptiness which can lead to all sorts of negative connotations - more so with the "western" oriented mind)

Edited January 28, 2015 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

MH, You must have me mixed up with someone else? I never get off with enjoyment in use of the term "emptiness". I have used the term Mystery a lot if that is what you mean? (with Mystery to me being much less of a problematic or heavy handed term compared to the word emptiness which can lead to all sorts of negative connotations - more so with the "western" oriented mind)

Oh well. Just an example of short term memory loss with aging, I guess.

 

The association between the two philosophies regarding emptiness is still interesting.

[3bob]

"...Compare, contrast, synthesize and so on by all means..." By Apech

 

I take that as a noble sentiment that hopefully could be practiced and realized as much as possible or as doable... and I think for such to happen we would would have to often break with many of the authorities or powers that be, and at times not be afraid to play a free speech, devils like advocate one day for this and the next day for that, thus showing a sort of non-attachment for either although or even though it might get hairy when taken as disrespect. Then again and as a mind blowing double-take it has been brought up once in awhile that everything that such an such a master said - they then later implied that it was all more or less a lie for the sake of cryptic truth! Also or not un-like the idea of the master thinking to destroy all the "Blue Cliff Records" at one point because of problems such as I'm trying to allude to...

(hehe?)

Edited January 28, 2015 by 3bob

[3bob]

Oh well. Just an example of short term memory loss with aging, I guess.

 

The association between the two philosophies regarding emptiness is still interesting.

 

I know you have gone the rounds many a times along such or related lines. And a lot of blood has been spilled by various parties along such lines. (while I think you have practiced letting bygones be bygones quite well or often better than many of us)

[Marblehead]

Thanks 3bob. I do try very hard to not let any of my conversations become personal.

 

And yes, "emptiness" is a concept that is important to me from a Taoist perspective. I feel that the mostly misunderstood Buddhist view that many present is the beginning of the road toward nihilism and I won't be a part of any such discussion.

[mostly_empty]

To return to the question: why Daoism?

 

I come to Daoism to learn, not because I know. It would be entirely fair to say that all of my opinions about Buddhism and Daoism are, sadly, misinformed or misleading. This is because I have learned just a little, and practiced not enough. I appreciate the philosophical advantages of one set of metaphors over another, but would rather not argue on this basis! If one hasn't practiced enough ... metaphors are just that. Since both systems are rather large umbrellas, it is easy to lose the way while listening to those who have more conviction. And I would hope that adherents of either camp have conviction, as it is maybe easier to practice something that is believed and trusted.

 

So I choose to follow my interests and curiosity. Daoist texts and teachers have been kind enough to provide some orientation and direction. I would hardly claim to be a Daoist on this basis! I am not religious, just lost. And if someone is kind enough to point out the Way? It would surely be a pity not to at least try to follow the directions given.

 

I have certainly learned something from Buddhists as well. However when people tell me that they are all the same in the end, I am really not so sure. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam form a triad- there is a sense in which each is unbalanced on its own. Daoism sticks with people and so can be complete in itself. I will certainly have to learn quite a bit more before the "theory" that there is some underlying equivalence has any expression in my knowledge....

 

Cheers,

Edited January 29, 2015 by mostly_empty

[Marblehead]

And I would hope that adherents of either camp have conviction, as it is maybe easier to practice something that is believed and trusted.

And BoY!, do I have convictions!

[Apech]

[3bob]

If you become a human, would you need want to become a muslim, sikh, hindu or christian?

 

if you become a human woman would you need want to become a human man - in many or most cases I'd say no, but you would still dress up in something in many or most cases...

Edited January 29, 2015 by 3bob

[Taomeow]

l

Edited January 30, 2015 by Taomeow

[Marblehead]

l

Is that like "I am."

[Taomeow]

Is that like "I am."

no. that was a lower case L.

[Kongming]

With all that said, is it the case that Daoism (specifically neidan/Quanzhen but also in general) aims for the same end state or goal as Buddhism (namely Chan, but also in general) does in your opinion?

 

In other words, when reading Chan masters like Huineng, Huangbo, Linji, or texts like the Xinxin Ming and Song of Enlightenment, how much of this material is applicable to Daoism as well?

[dawei]

IMO, it is similar to buying a car... the reasons for driving a particular car could be a novel describing reasons and our every past event leading up to it and thus weaving a web which predicts it... but in the end: It is the car we drive because it is the car we drive... and as all cars go: They simply get us to places we want to go.

 

Next car (next life)... what are you or I going to drive?

[C T]

Interesting to note that Taoism seems to be on the wane in Malaysia. In 2000, 2.6% of the population said they followed Taoism (and Confucianism) - in 2010, it dwindled down to 1.3%. Comparatively, Buddhism had 19.2% in '00, and 19.8% in 2010. Apparently the younger generation of Malaysian Chinese no longer find Taoism meaningful, nor Theravadin Buddhism, preferring the Mahayana path more.

[Unlearner]

Without having read through all 11 pages of this conversation (though I did read some and found many quite insightful), I'll share my experience as well.

 

First, I have the heart of a scientist, through and through. That said, I'm not a die-hard "Science is God, Science is everything, All hail science!" kind of guy, I just find it to be an interesting method to exploring the universe. And truthfully, that is what I love most is progressing my understanding. However...

 

I suppose I'll start by saying I was raised Catholic, but I was always quite interested in studying the sciences. Ironically enough, having attended private Catholic school for 13 years, in my final year of high school I took a class called Social Justice and World Religions. Still one of the best classes I've ever taken, with a great teacher, too. I had heard about Buddhism before (though not much), but it was definitely my first exposure to Daoism. TTC and the Dhammapada weren't even required reading, but upon hearing my teacher read the first chapter of TTC, I was quite enthralled by such a completely different way of looking at philosophy. I found copies of the previously mentioned texts and read them through. I wasn't immediately converted or anything, but I was certainly interested.

 

College came, and I slowly lost interest in keeping up with Catholicism. Too many contradictions. Too much bureaucracy. But overall I just couldn't stay behind the concept of God anymore. It didn't seem right. I will say that I do appreciate many of the values I learned from my years as a devout Catholic, but that was all. Eventually I didn't even call myself theistic, let alone Christian.

 

Fast forward a few years, I decide to leave college (like an idiot) and join the military (like an idiot). Funnily enough, during my three months at basic, the only personal items we were allowed were up to two books, and they had to be religious. Well, I certainly wasn't taking a Bible (I'd read it enough times anyway), so I toted along with me my copy of TTC (I don't know where my copy of the Dhammapada went). While I had lost much of the interest I had of philosophy in college, reading through the TTC I realized how much of it I already agreed with. Not even having to stretch, I could read a chapter and relate to it almost entirely, as if I had thought that way the entire time. I probably read through it 3 or 4 times during basic, so when I got out and was free to expand my philosophical library, I knew I had to learn more.

 

I read more and more about Daoism, and while I didn't really click with some of the traditional Daoist rituals and such, I really enjoyed studying the philosophical aspects of it (yup, yet another philosophical Daoist). I particularly enjoyed The Tao of Physics, because it reinforced a lot of those gut feelings I had about my scientific nature matching up with the insights of the TTC. I call this my period of "unlearning" (hence the name), as I really had to deconstruct a lot of what I thought I understood.

 

I'll skip the rest, most of it's just more study and insights I've had. At the moment, I'm kind of on the fence with Daoism and Buddhism. I will say though that what intrigues me the most about the philosophy of both of these (excluding some details, so there's no need to nitpick) is that much of these systems can be built from nothing. Christianity and other religions rely so heavily on their texts that, if you take away those texts, there's hardly anything you can build from. Daoism, on the other hand, builds directly from nature and reality itself. There are so many (what I will call) undeniable aspects to Daoist philosophy simply due to its simplicity. Buddhism is similar. I see these as two aspects of a whole, where one focuses on the relationship between me and nature (or Dao), while the other focuses on the relationship between me and my 'self' (if I can even call it that).

 

I still consider myself a man of science, and I will more than likely continue pursuing that route in my career. However, there is still that which lies beyond/beneath what we can learn from science, and I feel that continuing my philosophical studies of Daoism and Buddhism may one day lead me to where I'm trying to go. Call it a gut feeling. I may feel a bit nihilistic at times, but I think I've ultimately rejected that in favor of the Dao and the Buddha nature. I think much of what I am interested in can be considered epistemological, finding the roots of our knowledge and wisdom, or even how we gain knowledge, or what knowledge even is, or if we can even really "know" something at all.

 

To be honest, the limits of knowledge I encountered through my study of epistemology almost made me lose my interest in science entirely. There are still times when I flip-flop between science, Daoism, Buddhism, and other philosophies. Ultimately, though I will likely continue my paradoxical process of learning and unlearning until I might one day find something I'm content with. Like a rock. And then I will sit on it and probably meditate.

[3bob]

"The Living" indeed...

 

By Thomas Merton

 

In the Beginning of Beginnings was Void of Void, the Nameless.

And in the Nameless was the One, without body, without form.

This One, this Being in whom all find power to exist –
Is the Living.
From the Living, comes the Formless, the Undivided.
From the act of this Formless, come the Existents, each according
To its inner principle. This is Form. Here body embraces and cherishes spirit.
The two work together as one, blending and manifesting their Characters. And this is Nature.

 

But he who obeys Nature returns through Form and Formless to the Living.
And in the Living
Joins the unbegun Beginning.
The joining is Sameness. The sameness is Void. The Void is infinite.
The bird opens its beak and sings its note
And then the beak comes together again in Silence.
So Nature and the Living meet together in Void.
Like the closing of the bird’s beak
After its song.
Heaven and earth come together in the Unbegun,
And all is foolishness, all is unknown, all is like
The lights of an idiot, all is without mind!
To obey is to close the beak and fall into Unbeginning.