differences Buddhism - Taoism

[topaz]

I have felt that the two were more similar than different, but lately I am seeing very great differences. 

 

I think that the goal of the two religions in meditation is the same. The Taoists in the Secret of the Golden Flower, say that the ego can remain after the body dies. 

 

I think, although I am not sure, that Taoism like Buddhism believes in ending the cycle of rebirths. 

 

This would have to be implicit in the Golden Flower otherwise the ego, as the Taoists call it, would simply be reincarnated, which I do not believe is implied in the SGF. 

 

But I am feeling that the darma or dhamma of Buddhism is a stricter and more explicitly laid out program. 

 

I do not read in Buddhism of the channels, e.g., the Governor, Imperial, or Central channels that have such prominence in Taoism. 

 

The Buddhists speak of anatta, non-self, when they describe the sensifacient phenomena of the body.  In other words, these are merely material phenomena and not indicative of a "self."  

 

But one unanswered question I have is that the pattern and combinations of these material sense events are unique to one person.  Therefore when we say Mr. X is prone to headaches while Ms, Y is not, the aggregate of sense events one person has would seem to define a "self". 

 

I have not cracked the idea of non-self, either that the world has no self or that the body has no self. 

 

This seems like a contradiction of the Taoists and maybe the Tibetan Buddhists both of whom hold that there is some sort of consciousness or "ego" that separates from the physical body and that can be reincarnated or not.  Theravada ideas on non-self may contradict Tibetan ones. 

 

But if there were no self, soul, ego or conscious entity of some sort, then it would be impossible to escape the cycle of rebirth because there would be nothing that was escaping it. 

 

Whether I should regard myself as a self or not is a mystery to me. Any clarification would be appreciated. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by topaz

[C T]

“A wave in the sea, seen in one way, seems to have a distinct identity, an end and a beginning, a birth and a death. Seen in another way, the wave doesn’t really exist, but is just the behavior of water, “empty” of any separate identity, but “full” of water. So when you really think about the wave, you come to realize that it is something that has been made temporarily possible by wind and water, and is dependent on a set of constantly changing circumstances. You also realize that every wave is related to every other wave.”  ~ Sogyal Rinpoche

 

http://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/

[Apech]

Some Taoist texts are very Buddhist influenced.  Some Buddhism is very Taoist influenced.  I think it is a tribute to both 'ways' that they managed to be to this degree symbiotic.  Others on here do not agree.  If you search you will find many threads on this kind of subject.

 

The idea of non-self is really Anatman ... no Atman which means something like an eternal self or essence.  The existence of the Atman was a teaching of the Vedic religion and the Buddha was critiquing it by saying it is not necessary to cling to the idea of an eternal you in order to become realised.  In fact the opposite.  But he was not saying there is no self in the ordinary everyday sense ... he was saying if you look at the ultimate nature of things there is no totally independent, autonomous and unchanging nature.  Interestingly most ancient religions held that an individual was composed of several entities which come to together during life and separate at death (hun and po in Taoism).  In a way this is saying that what you experience as 'you' is actually an interaction of several things (eg. mind/ body and so on).  So what the Buddha was saying was not actually that controversial.

 

In Vedic religion the Atman reincarnates in new bodies again and again until it reaches perfection and joins with the Brahman.  In Tibetan Buddhism the conscious principle is passed on, like a candle lit from another candle, so each incarnation is different but yet in the same stream so to speak.  The end of this is Buddhahood where the mind realises its own nature, so there is no self to extinguish just mind.

[JinlianPai]

The buddhist would go to hell to save lost souls if need be.

 

The taoist would think im connected to everything to help you I will up my own personal vibration and use the power of nondoing to do everything.

[lifeforce]

Daoism has nothing to do with the 'channels'. That is Traditional Chinese medicine and the myriad of practice's associated with it.

Edited May 29, 2015 by lifeforce

[Marblehead]

Yes, there are a lot of similarities between Taoism and Buddhism.  But there are significant differences.  The differences are what will determine if we will embrace Buddhism or Taoism.

[Stosh]

One beautifully argues over nothing , the other peacefully does nothing

So I guess they have nothing in common

Edited May 29, 2015 by Stosh

[LAOLONG]

Taoist fart in the open air,while Buddhist smell the farts of other Buddhists.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Yeah, anatta really confuses people. It's difficult to understand because it completely opposes the average person's view of their identity, which the average person considers the blatantly obvious fact of things.

 

So a person is a bunch of mental and physical processes, none of which is permanent or owns and controls the others. Instead of 'me thinking' just 'thoughts occur', instead of 'me doing' just 'actions'.

 

Every bundle of these processes is a unique set, but to call any of it 'self' is to say that there is something permanent which owns and controls the rest, which is set apart from other things. There isn't, it's all impermanent things which influence each other.

 

There isn't some central hub 'me' which is a changeless observer unaffected by what it observes. To say 'I am the observer' or 'the one choosing this' is like saying 'I am the itch above this body's left eyebrow' - these are all just processes. In a house, which brick is the true essence of the house? Can you have the house without the bricks? Are any of the bricks 'house'?

 

Reincarnation in Vedic traditions is the same water being poured into a new cup. Rebirth in Buddhism is like an ember from a burnt out fire being used to start a new fire. That ember will soon become ash, so between the new fire and the old everything is new. But there is a causal continuity, you can see how the new fire is a continuation of the old.

 

Even while alive - mental processes arise and vanish at an incredible rate, every cell changes. So how could I be the exact same 'me' as I was even five minutes ago?!

 

What escapes rebirth? The question itself assumes a view of 'self', there isn't a self which escapes. Rather, the ember of the last fire isn't used to start a new one, and goes cool. What exactly does this mean, what is nirvana? Good question, but one even the Buddha was fairly vague about.

 

You may find this helpful, there are some posts on anatta and other stuff, which you could compare to Taoism to understand the similarities and differences better.

[3bob]

I also suggest reading the Chandogya Upanishad for a better idea of what the Vedic teachings are pointing to regarding Self...  

 

A secret is that the Self knows the Self - without doubts or abstract convolutions and mental gymnastics.

 

Good fortune to you

[soaring crane]

Taomeow wrote a pretty extensive reply to my question on this subject in her interview. See question #2:

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/35367-taomeow-ttb-interview/

[Apech]

Buddhist Influence on Early Taoism: A Survey of Scriptural Evidence

Erik Zürcher

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4528195?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

 

 

... sorry can't cut and paste from here ... but article is worth reading and short extract attached as pic is interesting.

Buddhist influence on Taoism.tiff

Edited May 29, 2015 by Apech

[noonespecial]

Some Taoist texts are very Buddhist influenced.  Some Buddhism is very Taoist influenced.  I think it is a tribute to both 'ways' that they managed to be to this degree symbiotic.  Others on here do not agree.  If you search you will find many threads on this kind of subject.

 

The idea of non-self is really Anatman ... no Atman which means something like an eternal self or essence.  The existence of the Atman was a teaching of the Vedic religion and the Buddha was critiquing it by saying it is not necessary to cling to the idea of an eternal you in order to become realised.  In fact the opposite.  But he was not saying there is no self in the ordinary everyday sense ... he was saying if you look at the ultimate nature of things there is no totally independent, autonomous and unchanging nature.  Interestingly most ancient religions held that an individual was composed of several entities which come to together during life and separate at death (hun and po in Taoism).  In a way this is saying that what you experience as 'you' is actually an interaction of several things (eg. mind/ body and so on).  So what the Buddha was saying was not actually that controversial.

 

In Vedic religion the Atman reincarnates in new bodies again and again until it reaches perfection and joins with the Brahman.  In Tibetan Buddhism the conscious principle is passed on, like a candle lit from another candle, so each incarnation is different but yet in the same stream so to speak.  The end of this is Buddhahood where the mind realises its own nature, so there is no self to extinguish just mind.

 

Thanks for the succint post, so the Buddha was not dismissing the possibility of an unmoved changeless mover, but saying 'it does not matter' in regards to realization?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Thanks for the succint post, so the Buddha was not dismissing the possibility of an unmoved changeless mover, but saying 'it does not matter' in regards to realization?

He defined 'the All' in his teaching as 'what is touched, etc, and cognised'. In other words, he was only interested in experience, physical and mental, not metaphysical thinking about it. Questions like 'are there real objective things out there or not' would be dismissed as pointless speculation, for example, because such thinking strays from the reality of simple 'experience happens'.

 

Where this fits onto anatta is that the Buddha was not proposing clinging to the idea 'there is no self' as yet another idea about identity. It's just a pointer opposing holding views of self. He was saying we should take a look at experience, and see that nowhere in this is a place on which to hang any sense of identity whatsoever. And just let that clear seeing be, without wrapping another conceptual view around it.

 

If there is something truly changeless which cannot be experienced as changeless, it doesn't matter because all experience would still be impermanent.

[noonespecial]

He defined 'the All' in his teaching as 'what is touched, etc, and cognised'. In other words, he was only interested in experience, physical and mental, not metaphysical thinking about it.

 

Theres seems to be ample space for metaphysical specualtion in the dhammapada alone, gods, heaven, hells and rebirths, etc.

[Apech]

Thanks for the succint post, so the Buddha was not dismissing the possibility of an unmoved changeless mover, but saying 'it does not matter' in regards to realization?

 

 

"he was saying if you look at the ultimate nature of things there is no totally independent, autonomous and unchanging nature." 

 

... quoting myself

[Apech]

The Buddhist view is quite difficult to get right, whether you are talking about dependent origination or Nagarjuna's sunyata.  I think one of the reasons for this is that it is not founded on the 'usual' question(s).  The usual philosophical question(s) are ontological - what really exists? and epistemological - how do we know what exists?.

 

All the Vedic philosophies like Samkhya, Yoga philosophy, Vedanta (e.g. Advaita) do address these questions exactly ... with slightly different but similar answers.  To put it very, very simply you exist (as a self = observer) and it (reality) exists as substance or spirit = brahman for instance.  And there is a 'how do you know this? answer as well.  This is by most people very satisfactory since it answers the burning questions of the day.  Who or what am I? what is God? and so on.  So its very easy to transition from say Christianity to Advaita Vedanta by equating Atman = immortal soul and brahman = God as all being, bliss and awareness.

 

The Buddha when he started to teach did not begin from there.  he was interested in liberating people, so he started from 'what's it like to exist?' answer being 'dukkha'.  It sucks.  Why does it suck?  Is there a way for it not to suck? How do I get from here to there?  Four noble truths.

 

As part of the last noble truth there is right view.  This can be taken as understanding the cause of suffering, or dependent origination or understanding emptiness - depending on what type of Buddhism you are talking about.  None of these give the nice answers that Vedanta provide.  Nagarjuna would say of any posited ultimately real that it neither exists or doesn't exist (as well as both or neither).  To make it even more confusing all Buddhists to date (except modern secular Buddhists) have accepted a world view which included heavens, hells, gods, demons, devas, ghosts and so on.  In fact most Buddhists propitiate local deities and spirits.

 

The Buddha might even accept that there is a being who identifies himself as the ultimate creator ... but would say he is not worthy of worship because he would not lead to liberation but to further suffering (after a long time).

 

Taoism traditionally had no idea of an ultimately irreducible self like the Atman ... and so there was some confusion when the translators into Chinese got to work.  Added to this the school of Buddhism that made headway in China the Yogacara taught about Buddha-nature which is easily misunderstood as being like the Atman.  there is a well read paper by Park called 'How Buddhism made its way to China and acquired a soul' which many people misquote as saying Buddhism somehow morphed into a soul religion.  This is not really true but I am sure there were periods when it seemed this way.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Apech

[noonespecial]

"he was saying if you look at the ultimate nature of things there is no totally independent, autonomous and unchanging nature." 

 

... quoting myself

 

The nature of beingness is constant inter-related flux? Excuse my ignorance, def jumped in on this one to learn.

[Apech]

The nature of beingness is constant inter-related flux? Excuse my ignorance, def jumped in on this one to learn.

 

 

That's a nice formulation.  Regard it as provisional (I would suggest).  Test it to destruction as see if it stands up for you.  If it does keep it, if it doesn't throw it away.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Theres seems to be ample space for metaphysical specualtion in the dhammapada alone, gods, heaven, hells and rebirths, etc.

The traditional view is that these things can be experienced, that someone not ready to be interested in awakening may seek to avoid hells and become a deva in heavens as a provisional goal, but that awakening is superior to any form of rebirth.

 

Personally I'm just doing the stuff that leads to being a more decent, developed and awakened person. Other people can and do spend their lives debating the above.

[noonespecial]

The traditional view is that these things can be experienced, that someone not ready to be interested in awakening may seek to avoid hells and become a deva in heavens as a provisional goal, but that awakening is superior to any form of rebirth.

 

Personally I'm just doing the stuff that leads to being a more decent, developed and awakened person. Other people can and do spend their lives debating the above.

 

I like that, I'm very much at a similar place. Thank you.

[3bob]

any speculation or attempted definitions on Sanatana Dharma (aka Hinduism) are also more or less "provisional" and or "neti, neti".

 

Btw, Taoism points to an unchanging "core"/ "Mystery" many times in the T.T.C., thus and per written teaching one could say it is far different from most of Buddhism or at least the way we often hear Buddhism being talked about...