Taoism have karmic laws like Buddhism?

[Marblehead]

Stumbled?  We were dancing.

[Aeran]

Through the practice we seek the cessation of rebirth as it is described by Buddhists (Middle Length Discourses among other texts) or the immortality of of the "ego" as described by Taoists in The Secret of the Golden Flower. 

 

 

I'm no expert, but I don't think the part of the individual which becomes an immortal in Taoist nei dan is the same part of the individual which would be described as the "ego."

 

Not to mention that there are a myriad of other spiritual traditions with their own views of life, death, what happens afterwards and what influences that.

[Gerard]

If you deepen your practice, start cleansing internal organs (mind), opening meridians (low centers, yin, legs, earthly soul-liver-gallbladder/ego/lust/desire/craving; high centers - liver, gallbladder/ yang head, heavenly planes and nirvana chamber and finally return to the Source of all planes of existence and Samsara itself as the egg one cracks after attaining enligthenment) you only see the following things:

 

1. Wisdom

 

2. Morality

 

3. Karma and rebirth as a result of lifetimes of craving, lust, desire and delusion for a new form, plane of existence or searching for unfulfilled desires.

 

4. Yin and yang and its mutual interaction (five elements, sinxiang and bagua).

 

5. Morality

 

6. Compassion

 

7. Helping, giving to others without expecting anything in return.

 

8. Simplicity and mindfulness in whatever practice you do (moving is better than still for clearing deep mind blockages, the ones deeply carved in our consciousness...the LIVER! as the major culprit since this organ/aspect of the mind is the bridge between Heaven-Yang and Earth-Yin and the underworld (animal and planes below human, you travel between roots and branches each lifetime, the HEART acquiring a bit of wisdom each time as well as the LIVER generates positive HEART-FIRE, negative LIVER fire as a result of ego-driven lust and desire that if destructive (causing suffering to others) will send you straight to higher degrees of suffering (bad human rebirth...call yourself lucky; animal; ghost; preta, hell planes...a place to avoid at all costs...I have been down there twice in meditation and I returned with tears in my eyes as a result of what I saw, very bad. ).

 

What would this philosophy or religion be called? (The rest is ego-added fluff).

 

No names, universal principles/metaphysical laws one must follow to avoid damage: drink scotch with ice and surely you'll ruin both liver and kidney elements; meditate in the Sahara desert under the blistering summer sun and you'll soon know how destructive can extreme yang be (and Antarctica the other way around).

Edited August 7, 2015 by Gerard

[topaz]

Hi Topaz,

 

However, as someone else has mentioned, one would be hard pressed to support any concept of reincarnation or immortality based on the Tao Te Ching or the Chuang Tzu.

The concept is supported in The Secret of the Golden Flower, and the term used in that text for the entity that lives on after the body dies is ego, though I think what we call it is not important. 

[Apech]

The concept is supported in The Secret of the Golden Flower, and the term used in that text for the entity that lives on after the body dies is ego, though I think what we call it is not important. 

 

 

Yes.  Now you have to decide whether those Daoists were corrupted by Buddhism or if actually they realised that the idea was compatible with Daoism as they understood it.

[Marblehead]

The concept is supported in The Secret of the Golden Flower, and the term used in that text for the entity that lives on after the body dies is ego, though I think what we call it is not important. 

Yeah, good try.

 

The text of The Secret of the Golden Flower was falsely attributed to Lü Dongbin of the late Tang dynasty. It is now known to have originated hundreds of years later, and was first published in the early Qing dynasty, circa 1668-1692.  Wikipedia

 

That is to say that Religious Taoism was already saturated with Buddhist philosophy and religion for about 1800 years. 

 

But all that happened after the death of Lao Tzu (if such a person ever lived) and Chuang Tzu.

 

And I have already stated that most Religious Taoists are both Buddhists and Taoists.  Therefore it is understandable that there would be Buddhist concepts in "The Secret of the Golden Flower.

[Marblehead]

Yes.  Now you have to decide whether those Daoists were corrupted by Buddhism or if actually they realised that the idea was compatible with Daoism as they understood it.

But don't decide until after you read my post that follows Apech's.

[Apech]

Yeah, good try.

 

The text of The Secret of the Golden Flower was falsely attributed to Lü Dongbin of the late Tang dynasty. It is now known to have originated hundreds of years later, and was first published in the early Qing dynasty, circa 1668-1692.  Wikipedia

 

That is to say that Religious Taoism was already saturated with Buddhist philosophy and religion for about 1800 years. 

 

But all that happened after the death of Lao Tzu (if such a person ever lived) and Chuang Tzu.

 

And I have already stated that most Religious Taoists are both Buddhists and Taoists.  Therefore it is understandable that there would be Buddhist concepts in "The Secret of the Golden Flower.

 

 

Ha!  Told what they would say ... those ur-texters.

[Michael Sternbach]

Karma in Buddhism is based on the concept of good and evil, which is a dualistic concept. It is my understanding that true Daoism doesn't bother with dualism but completely transcends it. As does Zen, which is a kind of Buddhism influenced by Daoism.

 

As far as immortality is concerned, the idea of attaining it on the spiritual (if not physical) plane is part of Alchemical Daoism, if course, and it's hinted at in the Dao de jing (i.e. chapter 50). It seems to tie in with the creation of the Diamond Body as an indestructible vehicle for the soul in Vajrayana Buddhism.

 

The same process is referred to as the building of the temple if Salomon in Western esoteric tradition, which shows that it is not a culturally bound concept.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Apech]

Karma in Buddhism is based on the concept of good and evil, which is a dualistic concept. It is my understanding that true Daoism doesn't bother with dualism but completely transcends it. As does Zen, which is a kind of Buddhism influenced by Daoism.

 

Noooooo!  Karma in Buddhism or indeed in sanskrit generally means 'action'.  What we normally call 'karma' is about action and result.  It has nothing to do with good or evil but simply that actions cause results which reflect the action.  So violence breeds more violence for instance, or kind acts precipitate more kind acts.  It's a rule of thumb to guide behaviour.  God and evil come from Theistic dualist religions such as Christianity.

 

 

 

As far as immortality is concerned, the idea of attaining it on the spiritual (if not physical) plane is part of Alchemical Daoism, if course, and it's hinted at in the Dao de jing (i.e. chapter 50). It seems to tie in with the creation of the Diamond Body as an indestructible vehicle for the soul in Vajrayana Buddhism.

 

In Internal Alchemy it is immortality pure and simple and not spiritual as opposed to physical.  In Vajrayana there is no 'soul'.

 

The same process is referred to as the building of the temple if Salomon in Western esoteric tradition, which shows that it is not a culturally bound concept.

Forgive me but you are jumping from system to system without actually understanding any of them.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Apech

[Michael Sternbach]

Apech, regarding your reply to me (I cannot use the automatized quoting method due to your unusual manner of commenting ):

 

Noooooo!  Karma in Buddhism or indeed in sanskrit generally means 'action'.  What we normally call 'karma' is about action and result.  It has nothing to do with good or evil but simply that actions cause results which reflect the action.  So violence breeds more violence for instance, or kind acts precipitate more kind acts.  It's a rule of thumb to guide behaviour.  God and evil come from Theistic dualist religions such as Christianity.

 

I assume that the Karma concept in the earliest Sanskrit texts did mean something different from its later interpretation in popular Buddhism. However, in the latter, it becomes akin to the dualist Christian notion of reward and punishment for good/bad deeds in an afterlife - except that the "afterlife" may or may not be another physical existence.

 

In Internal Alchemy it is immortality pure and simple and not spiritual as opposed to physical.

 

In fact, Internal Alchemy differentiates between even more kinds of immortality than those two. This text explains them well:

 

http://www.all-dao.com/immortality-achievements.html

 

In Vajrayana there is no 'soul'.

 

I guess, for greater clarity I should have written "individuality" instead of "soul". However, my statement was based on my unified perspective on various metaphysical systems that sometimes transcends alleged exclusivities.

 

Forgive me but you are jumping from system to system without actually understanding any of them.

 

The direct source for my identification of the Diamond Body with the Temple of Salomon in Occidental tradition is the great occultist Dane Rudhyar. I will look up the reference on request.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Apech]

Apech, regarding your reply to me (I cannot use the automatized quoting method due to your unusual manner of commenting ):

 

 

I assume that the Karma concept in the earliest Sanskrit texts did mean something different from its later interpretation in popular Buddhism. However, in the latter, it becomes akin to the dualist Christian notion of reward and punishment for good/bad deeds in an afterlife - except that the "afterlife" may or may not be another physical existence.

 

 

In fact, Internal Alchemy differentiates between even more kinds of immortality than those two. This text explains them well:

 

http://www.all-dao.com/immortality-achievements.html

 

 

I guess, for greater clarity I should have written "individuality" instead of "soul". However, my statement was based on my unified perspective on various metaphysical systems that sometimes transcends alleged exclusivities.

 

 

The direct source for my identification of the Diamond Body with the Temple of Salomon in Occidental tradition is the great occultist Dane Rudhyar. I will look up the reference on request.

 

 

Ok I'll try to structure my reply differently.

 

1 ) Karma

 

The origin of the term is in the teachings of the Vedas and actually refers to ritual actions in association with the Vedic rituals such as the Agni Fire Sacrifice where the Brahmin priest (usually) performs the rite in order to achieve a result - such as victory in war or a good harvest etc.  So we have the main concept of action with a desired result.  The Brahmin priest had to be ritually pure in order for this rite to work.  In the Upanishads this idea was further developed into saying one's acts need to be supported with a kind social ethic - correct behaviour to be effective.  the Buddha took this already familiar concept (for those he was teaching) and turned it around to say not only all your acts have results but also your intent also has results.  In doing so he ethicalized the idea of karma.  He said, to paraphrase that everything you do, say and think (intend) has karmic results.  the reason this is important is because it gives you cause for mindfulness in all aspects of your life.  As the defined Buddhist goal is to be happy and free of suffering - he recommended that you cultivate your conduct by avoiding those things which run counter to those goals.  For this reason he developed precepts like not killing, stealing, lying and so on as a rule of thumb to guide behaviour - this is of the nature of skilful means in teaching and not absolute truth.  Nowhere in Buddhism does it talk about Good versus Evil dualism as you asserted in your original post.  

 

2 ) ... yes physical immortality is part of Internal Alchemy

 

3 )  I don't know the work of the occultist to which you refer.

[Michael Sternbach]

Ok I'll try to structure my reply differently.

 

1 ) Karma

 

The origin of the term is in the teachings of the Vedas and actually refers to ritual actions in association with the Vedic rituals such as the Agni Fire Sacrifice where the Brahmin priest (usually) performs the rite in order to achieve a result - such as victory in war or a good harvest etc.  So we have the main concept of action with a desired result.  The Brahmin priest had to be ritually pure in order for this rite to work.  In the Upanishads this idea was further developed into saying one's acts need to be supported with a kind social ethic - correct behaviour to be effective.  the Buddha took this already familiar concept (for those he was teaching) and turned it around to say not only all your acts have results but also your intent also has results.  In doing so he ethicalized the idea of karma.  He said, to paraphrase that everything you do, say and think (intend) has karmic results.  the reason this is important is because it gives you cause for mindfulness in all aspects of your life.  As the defined Buddhist goal is to be happy and free of suffering - he recommended that you cultivate your conduct by avoiding those things which run counter to those goals.  For this reason he developed precepts like not killing, stealing, lying and so on as a rule of thumb to guide behaviour - this is of the nature of skilful means in teaching and not absolute truth.  Nowhere in Buddhism does it talk about Good versus Evil dualism as you asserted in your original post.

 

Okay, maybe Buddha's original teaching was somehow more nuanced, but what it boils to at least in the view of average Buddhists (some of which I happened to talk to), and actually in keeping with what you said above, is this:

 

GOOD intentions, words, deeds = good karmic results

BAD intentions, words, deeds = bad karmic results

 

"Bad" referring to lying, stealing, killing... Hello, Ten Commandments? I don’t see any difference to the Abrahamic religions, in principle.

 

2 ) ... yes physical immortality is part of Internal Alchemy

 

Thanks for admitting.

 

3 )  I don't know the work of the occultist to which you refer.

 

That's alright - he didn't know you either.

[Apech]

Okay, maybe Buddha's original teaching was somehow more nuanced, but what it boils to at least in the view of average Buddhists (some of which I happened to talk to), and actually in keeping with what you said above, is this: GOOD intentions, words, deeds = good karmic results BAD intentions, words, deeds = bad karmic results "Bad" referring to lying, stealing, killing... Hello, Ten Commandments? I don’t see any difference to the Abrahamic religions, in principle.   Thanks for admitting.   That's alright - he didn't know you either.

 

sigh

[dust]

Okay, maybe Buddha's original teaching was somehow more nuanced, but what it boils to at least in the view of average Buddhists (some of which I happened to talk to), and actually in keeping with what you said above, is this: GOOD intentions, words, deeds = good karmic results BAD intentions, words, deeds = bad karmic results

 

I might compare Buddhism with Christianity (or most other teachings/religions/systems). The average modern Buddhist applies 'original' Buddhist wisdom in life as much as the average modern Christian follows the actual teachings of Christ. In other words, almost not at all.

 

Growing up in Protestant and Catholic schools, and knowing a fair amount of what's in the NT, it has always bothered me when people claim to be Christian whilst very blatantly ignoring, and even opposing, almost everything Jesus taught. Living in China, and knowing something of Gautama Buddha's teachings, it started to bother me in a similar way when I would watch Chinese people going to temple to pray, asking Buddha for blessings and riches but knowing nothing of actual Buddhist theory.

 

So.. a person can call himself a Christian, or Buddhist, or anything else, but it's my experience that, worldwide, very few people have any true understanding of their claimed practice. One does not have to identify as a Christian or Buddhist to see this (in fact, it probably helps to be on the outside looking in to see it).

Edited August 8, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Wu Ming Jen]

Taoist seem to realize their own immortality while alive. Taoist also seem not to speculate about death if you want to know the end go back to the beginning.

 

Re birth seems unlikely because the mind of self dies, the body does not live forever even though one is immortal. 

 

Who knows what shape if any our spirit will take after death and it doesn't matter if we are a true whole person right now.

 

Karma is just cosmic law at work. Our world of heaven and earth holds all the answers by mere observation. Water sinks, fire rises it is not  mental concepts of how things are developed by sages.

[Apech]

I might compare Buddhism with Christianity (or most other teachings/religions/systems). The average modern Buddhist applies 'original' Buddhist wisdom in life as much as the average modern Christian follows the actual teachings of Christ. In other words, almost not at all.

 

Growing up in Protestant and Catholic schools, and knowing a fair amount of what's in the NT, it has always bothered me when people claim to be Christian whilst very blatantly ignoring, and even opposing, almost everything Jesus taught. Living in China, and knowing something of Gautama Buddha's teachings, it started to bother me in a similar way when I would watch Chinese people going to temple to pray, asking Buddha for blessings and riches but knowing nothing of actual Buddhist theory.

 

So.. a person can call himself a Christian, or Buddhist, or anything else, but it's my experience that, worldwide, very few people have any true understanding of their claimed practice. One does not have to identify as a Christian or Buddhist to see this (in fact, it probably helps to be on the outside looking in to see it).

 

Possibly true but the question was about Buddhism and Taoism and not about what the average Buddhist or Taoist does.  After all you don't judge Christian mysticism on the basis of what is taught in Sunday School.

[Songtsan]

But there seems to be a reset between lives of sorts, the 'original face' state, which we seem to begin with. It seems that it is our parents which set the potential tendencies (genetics/environment/nurture). Hard to say...even the Buddha said 'dont think on such things as 'was I before, will I be again,' etc. The Tao also says don't think/try to know. In the end, it appears that one should simply seek the best tendencies irregardless.

[Marblehead]

 

So.. a person can call himself a Christian, or Buddhist, or anything else, but it's my experience that, worldwide, very few people have any true understanding of their claimed practice. One does not have to identify as a Christian or Buddhist to see this (in fact, it probably helps to be on the outside looking in to see it).

That's why being an Atheist is much safer.  We don't have to know anything.

[Apech]

That's why being an Atheist is much safer.  We don't have to know anything.

 

 

You are certainly living up to that

[dust]

Possibly true but the question was about Buddhism and Taoism and not about what the average Buddhist or Taoist does.  After all you don't judge Christian mysticism on the basis of what is taught in Sunday School.

 

I was responding to Michael's post about the modern view of karma, and was simply offering a comparison to illustrate why one might claim that the average Buddhist does not necessarily understand concepts such as karma any better than anyone else.

 

When it comes to Daoism, there is no (edit: universally accepted) central teacher like Gautama or Christ, so people can make it whatever they want it to be within certain, very loose, boundaries.

Edited August 8, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Michael Sternbach]

sigh

 

<shrug>

 

I might compare Buddhism with Christianity (or most other teachings/religions/systems). The average modern Buddhist applies 'original' Buddhist wisdom in life as much as the average modern Christian follows the actual teachings of Christ. In other words, almost not at all.

 

Growing up in Protestant and Catholic schools, and knowing a fair amount of what's in the NT, it has always bothered me when people claim to be Christian whilst very blatantly ignoring, and even opposing, almost everything Jesus taught. Living in China, and knowing something of Gautama Buddha's teachings, it started to bother me in a similar way when I would watch Chinese people going to temple to pray, asking Buddha for blessings and riches but knowing nothing of actual Buddhist theory.

 

So.. a person can call himself a Christian, or Buddhist, or anything else, but it's my experience that, worldwide, very few people have any true understanding of their claimed practice. One does not have to identify as a Christian or Buddhist to see this (in fact, it probably helps to be on the outside looking in to see it).

 

Right. Western Buddhists may actually in some cases be more devoted than Eastern ones, because they are Buddhists by choice, not by inheritance. Some Asian high level teachers are well aware of the significant role the West seems to play nowadays in the preservation of the core teachings not only of Buddhism, but also of other traditional systems.

 

Possibly true but the question was about Buddhism and Taoism and not about what the average Buddhist or Taoist does.  After all you don't judge Christian mysticism on the basis of what is taught in Sunday School.

 

I was responding to Michael's post about the modern view of karma, and was simply offering a comparison to illustrate why one might claim that the average Buddhist does not necessarily understand concepts such as karma any better than anyone else.

 

But actually, the discussion took off from Apech's statement:

 

God and evil come from Theistic dualist religions such as Christianity.

 

(I suppose he meant "Good and evil"?) I maintain that this dualism can also be found in Buddhism. I granted that it may rather be a feature of popular Buddhism, but certainly it's not limited to Theistic religions. Notwithstanding this, nobody has been able to explain to me convincingly so far how even the Buddhist core teaching are fundamentally different in this regard from the Christian doctrine.

 

When it comes to Daoism, there is no (edit: universally accepted) central teacher like Gautama or Christ, so people can make it whatever they want it to be within certain, very loose, boundaries.

 

However, at least Lao Tzu seems to be universally recognized.

[Daeluin]

However, at least Lao Tzu seems to be universally recognized.

 

Just for perspective... lots of important points relative to this conversation in this excerpt.

 

Ni Hua Ching's after-commentary on hexagram 45, Tsui, Congregation / Gathering the Essence (lake over earth), from The Book of Changes and the Unchanging Truth:

 

 

No Idolization

 

 

Among the undeveloped, "idolization" is used most of the time to assemble people. However, in cultivation of spiritual growth, "idolization" can be an obstacle if it is incorrectly applied. the following article gives instruction and guidance as to its influence in spiritual matters.

 

Confucianism is my garment,

Buddhism is my cane, and

Taoism is my sandal."

 

This "Three-in-one" spiritual movement was the actual response of a vast number of Chinese people in the Tang Dynasty (628-906 A.D.) to the rise of Buddhism which became prosperous because of the support of the royal court. Thus Buddhism became the third important element in Chinese cultural life. Most Chinese scholars accepted this new cultural condition by considering Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism as the three legs of a cauldron. In ancient Chinese symbology, the Cauldron represents unification; thus, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism became the harmonizing force in the lives of the Chinese people. Therefore, my family's work of cultural integration only involved the awakening of the Chinese people.

 

Our real cultural foundation was the Book of Changes which expresses the principles of balance, symmetry, evenness, equality, and harmony. Sometimes this book was considered mystical because its principles are expressed with signs instead of words. Many scholars have been perplexed by the signs of the book's ancient metaphoric but concise language. The key point in helping on study the I Ching (Book of Changes) is to maintain balance in all situations involving change. With such eminent guidance for life and culture, it is not unusual that Chinese scholars would adopt an attitude of harmonization amid the cultural conflicts of their time.

 

Under the high principles of the I Ching, these three schools functioned mainly as different educational sources for the majority of Chinese people. Though each appeared to be independent of the other, through generations each actually absorbed the other. In our present generation, a careful scholar would have no difficulty discovering that present-day Confucianism absorbed Taoism. Taoism also absorbed Confucianism. Buddhism also combined with religious Taoism.

 

Hermetic Taoism unavoidably responded to the new situation by adopting a principle of "balanced cultivation", which meant keeping conceptual training on a level with spiritual training. After the Tang Dynasty, some ancient leaders from the Taoist tradition actually became the practical leaders of this new spiritual integration, with achievements that have been recorded throughout history.

 

My father was in his late years when I was born. Thus, when I was in my teens and began to know and understand things, my father had already achieved spiritual maturity and could enjoy his high achievement. I greatly benefited by the broad background he provided me.

 

The three lines which begin this chapter were an inspiration to me. I wrote them on a piece of paper and put them on the wall of my study. The words happened to be heard by one of my father's serious friends who was most appreciative of them. This man shared the words with all his friends because they actually expressed the harmonizing attitude of Chinese people: they adopted Confucianism as their social and family mode; they adopted Buddhism as their emotional support; and they practiced Taoism in their practical life.

 

On one occasion, I met my father's highly developed friend. He remarked: "I heard you wrote,

 

'Confucianism is my garment,

Buddhism is my cane, and

Taoism is my sandal.'

 

"At your age, how much can you know about Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism? Now, you must tell me. If your answer does not meet with my satisfaction, I will not let you go home. I shall keep you here in my study to finish reading my long years' collection of good books."

 

My answer was: "You asked about my garment; please ask the tailor. You asked about my cane; please ask the cane-maker. And you asked about my sandal; please ask the shoe-maker."

 

He seemed surprised and pleased. After a moment he exclaimed: "Your answer is unbelievable! If it were from the mouth of an aged master, it would be very meaningful, but it came from a young boy like you. However hard it is to believe, I am convinced. A father tiger never gives birth to a dog son."

 

He then asked his family to come into the living room to meet me. Now I could leave with a light heart. However, this matter was not yet over. He later repeated our dialogue to his good friends. With bewilderment and skepticism this group of friends met to discuss the matter, and wishing to discovery the truth about me, invited me to their meeting. I sat quietly among all these elders of my father's spiritual kingdom.

 

While everybody was leisurely sipping their tea, the chair elder said to me: "We heard of Mr. Lin's profound experience with you. He told us about your conversation and gave you a high evaluation for spiritual achievement. We have hoped for someone in our younger generation to be able to do something for the world. But this is not something that can be expected of a particular person if it is without the real approval of the Divine Realm. Spirituality has its own unmistaken standard of what is true and what is not true. Now we would like to see for ourselves how you can present the tradition in front of us, since you say:

 

'Confucianism is your garment,

Buddhism is your cane, and

Taoism is your sandal.'

 

We are not concerned with you much you have read about Confucianism of Buddhism, or even how much you know about Taoism. What we would like to know is that if 'Confucianism is the garment, Buddhism is the cane, and Taoism is the sandal,' then who is the user? Now tell us, who is the true one who dresses himself in the garment, holds the cane, and wears the sandal? This is all we need to know. It is a rule that you not hesitate in answering the question."

 

"The awakened Chinese people," was my answer.

 

Everybody seemed quite satisfied. But the examination continued: "What do you mean, 'the awakened Chinese people'?"

 

"Six thousand years ago there were no teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and also probably not of Taoism. Furthermore, those people did not know themselves as Chinese people who had differences from other people. Such people as they, are the ones who truly use and enjoy all of these teachings. Clothing should be made to fit the people; people should not be made to fit the clothing."

 

Their level of interest seemed to be increasing; thus, the questioning continued.

 

"Why do you specify the 'awakened' Chinese people and not all the people of China and the rest of the world?"

 

"This is the level the 'awakened' Chinese people and not all the people of China have reached. When all the people of the world reach this same level, freedom from religious and philosophical conflicts can be realized and the harmonization of the human spirit can be reached."

 

"What is your contribution to your comment: 'Six thousand years ago, there were no teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, nor were there written words of Taoism. They did not know they were Chinese people who had differences from other people. Such people as those are the ones who truly use and enjoy all of these teachings. Clothing should be made to fit the people; people should not be made to fit the clothing.' ?"

 

"I have not claimed originality for this point of view. Rebellious people also use these words. But what they say has no true spiritual value. My spiritual value was obtained from serious cultivation; thus I do not speak out of rebellious ignorance. From spiritual achievement I am able to reach the truth. I value the healthy spiritual education that the past human race developed. I deny anything which can be an obstruction in reaching the truth."

 

"Wait a moment," one of them exclaimed, "this is the point we really need to know. Now what is the truth you have reached and from what books were you inspired? Quickly, tell us!"

 

In this room was a table on which were many different important books and translations of world religions. At this moment, I was inspired and stacked all the books into one pile as a stool, and sat on them. Someone then passed me one copy of Lao Tzu and one copy of Chuang Tzu, and said: "Take these also, to make you sit higher." When I refused, he demanded the reason.

 

I answered: "I know what is beneath me, and what is not beneath me."

 

"that is an evasive answer. What is your real answer?" he further demanded.

 

"In response to your demand, I can see you are worried that I idolize these books as being my innermost precious spiritual treasure. I would ask that you recognize that I have not idolized anything. I earnestly give recognition to Lao Tzu, the source of my spiritual nursing, and to Chuang Tzu, who postulated that even the intimate Truth - Tao, the great true Oneness - cannot be idolized. Thus, allow me not to be an ungrateful student and friend."

 

One of the elders then slowly explained the following to me: "This point is the most important heritage of our spiritual family. Though it is already clear to you, it is absolutely necessary that it be made explicit. It must never become confused or mixed up. The spiritual practice of some traditions of the world is to deny the idolization of anything. But as a consequence, one consciously or unconsciously begins to idolize oneself instead. This is a practice of shallowness and rigidity and is a spiritual dead end. Some spiritual traditions deny all nameable things, yet affirm 'oneself' or the 'self'; thus, they have reached nowhere. The one who follows the true path knows that everything in the universe is already oneself. There is nothing that can be denied without 'self' nor is there anything that can be affirmed as 'self.' If everything is denied, then the 'self' is affirmed. If the 'self' is denied, then who is the one making the denial? None of them has reached the breakthrough of the two-sided spiritual practice of yin and yang. In other words they have not reached spiritual unity.

 

"In our spiritual family ("family" means the followers of the true path), when we deny the idolization of anything, our purpose is not to affirm 'self', but to present the wholeness of Tao, which is already an integration of everything including the 'self'. This is the reason Tao is indefinable. Total harmony and spiritual unity can be achieved when idolization of all things is removed. This is not accomplished with a negative spirit, as in other traditions, but is achieved by following a balanced and harmonized path which leads to Tao. Tao is the integrity, the wholeness, of the origin.  Thus we do not accept any name for the unspoiled naturalness of the great reality of the oneness. As you know, this is how your father guided all of us."

 

Finally, they seemed to have reached an understanding that they need not trouble me with further questions. Spiritually I had almost reached their level. Then, the atmosphere of the meeting changed again. Another elder asked: "We feel satisfied with the growth of your positive spirit. On a practical level, it can be interpreted as: no life should be sacrificed, nor wars fought for religious reasons or conceptual conflicts. To illustrate, the common people of China eat swine; however, the Chinese Islams do not. There were two villages in the western region of China. One village raised and ate swine, while the Islamic village did not. This incident was enough to cause a great battle between the two villages.

 

"This is a simple example of exaggerating a 'principle' and then using it as justification for conflict. Another example of this principle from history was the Crusades. What did people who participated in those persecutions accomplish except exaltation of religious prejudice?"

 

Another elder then said: "The real problem is not the pervasion of religious prejudice - it is the darkness of people's minds. Thus, they find excuses to fight over religious teachings. There is no way to correct this, except with the spiritual development of the entire world. Achieved people know the 'true mind' and do not fall prey to idolization of religious leaders or doctrines.

 

"When one holds tightly to a concept, clarity is lost. If clarity is lost, the situation can never be rightfully handled. Having a 'leader' is no longer a good concept because emotions have now become the 'ruler.' Even if a good idea is presented, by idolizing it - putting it into a rigid mold - its connection with the original truthfulness is lost and much harm can undoubtedly be caused.

 

"For example, in one of our big cities, there was a young girl who considered marrying a boy with a completely different culture and religion than hers. Her parents were opposed to this on the principle that marriage alone would be difficult for two young people, and to bridge two entirely different worlds of cultural and religious upbringing would be an impossible task. They especially considered this relationship to be a bad match because of strong attachments to their own religion, and felt that such a marriage could dilute the religious beliefs of the next generation. The boy and girl were idealistically in love and believed they could transcend the cultural differences and meet on common ground. The influence of the discouraging parents on both sides however, strongly affected the couple and eventually the young lovers killed themselves.

 

"Another example is one's love for a nation. Such a situation is similar to one's idealistic love for a child, in that emotions dominate; thus, one's ability to be clear and right-minded is lost. The issue of politics is similar to the issue of emotions in that both are the real reasons behind the actions which affect most people."

 

After further discussion, the eldest member made his stately conclusion and directed it towards me: "It will not be very far in the future when darkness will over-power this part of the world. You are the one who will be able to provide the light. If our material possessions and anything else can be preserved, and if you need them, they will all be at your command. We also realize this could be our wishful thinking; however, this is the way for us to express our concern and support in awakening the entire world toward spiritual maturity without creating conflicts by idolizing spiritual images or human authorities. When people are not truly spiritually developed, power can make them mad. Power can be useful in helping to accomplish great virtuous merits when entrusted to the hands of virtuous world leaders."

 

When he finished his talk, he asked me to read the following chapter of Lao Tzu, and said, "After reading this, you may go."

 

This is what I read:

 

"When people of the world live in accordance with

  the Way of universal harmonization,

horses are used for agricultural purposes.

When people of the world do not live in accordance

  with the Way of universal harmonization,

then horses, and even pregnant mares are driven

  to the battlefield and bred there.

There is no greater calamity for a nation, as well

  as for an individual, than not to find one's own

  sufficiency through peaceful measures.

There is no greater mistake for a nation, as well

  as for an individual, than to be covetous of

  more and more goods of another, and thus

  become involved in contention."

 

(Chapter 46 of the Tao Teh Ching)

[dust]

But actually, the discussion took off from Apech's statement:

 

 

 

... nobody has been able to explain to me convincingly so far how even the Buddhist core teaching are fundamentally different in this regard from the Christian doctrine.

 

I think Jesus was a Buddhist.

 

 

However, at least Lao Tzu seems to be universally recognized.

 

As a major teacher, yes, but not the teacher. I mean, some idolize him, relying only on the TTC, but others seem to ignore Laozi (and Zhuangzi) almost completely. It is often claimed that Taoism existed prior to Laozi, and that it has developed beyond anything he may have said. On the other hand, to call oneself a Buddhist or a Christian, surely one must adhere to the specific teachings of the Buddha or Christ (as far as we can ascertain what they were) as these traditions are founded upon what they first taught?

[Apech]

...

 

 

As a major teacher, yes, but not the teacher. I mean, some idolize him, relying only on the TTC, but others seem to ignore Laozi (and Zhuangzi) almost completely. It is often claimed that Taoism existed prior to Laozi, and that it has developed beyond anything he may have said. On the other hand, to call oneself a Buddhist or a Christian, surely one must adhere to the specific teachings of the Buddha or Christ (as far as we can ascertain what they were) as these traditions are founded upon what they first taught?

 

It is by no means certain that there actually was a single person called Laozi - but I tend to think there was.  I think Taomeow in a recent post said that the original Daoist text is the Yi Jing - which is of course much older and also the inspiration for many Chinese views including Confucianism.

 

I think also that there are shades of difference between Christianity and Buddhism in terms of the key importance of the founder.  In Christianity it is absolutely essential because the main teaching is the example of the life of Christ as the Son of God - if it could be proved there was no such historical person then it would be quite difficult for Christianity - obviously some underlying values could be maintained but the whole position would be substantially undermined.

 

For Buddhism its not quite the same as you could argue that the Dharma is the correct path even if there had been no historical Buddha.  Clearly it would make a huge difference but not in the same way.

 

Was Jesus a Buddhist?  Maybe.  Why do you think he was?