Buddhism and Taoism

[Juustopallo]

Buddhism is based on idea of suffering. Every Buddhist wants to liberate everyone from suffering and bring peace to the planet. That is a great goal but to me it begins with kind of negative attitude towards life. Life seems to be unpleasing somehow and it must be changed.

 

Vinegar tasters was painted to describe this kind of mind state. Buddha and Confucius express bitter faces tasting the vinegar while Laozi smiles. To Laozi, life is good in its natural state. Taoist is encouraged to live life fully, enjoy and learn from it.

 

This is a division that can be made. Some zen schools have more of taoist-like attitude towards life stressing that buddha nature is one's original nature. In some radical cases have been said that it doesn't matter what we do, we'll always reflect our original buddha nature. But the general buddhist way is very strict with guidelines. For example sensory pleasure is not encouraged since it too creates suffering. I have never been able to see the connection. If I do things I enjoy, positive emotions will follow. If I'm not attached to these states of mind, what's the problem with enjoying every day things which of course include sensory pleasures, arts, nature, people, food...? Why should I be so neurotic about my positive emotions going away when the moment passes?

 

I've studied Buddhism for some time now. I've come to realize that the teachings really work. Daily meditation and keeping mindful about following the eightfold path really has brought me a lot of understanding about myself. But the theory of Taoism seems easier for me to approach. It's much more pleasing to hear what is good to do in life instead of hearing what we shouldn't do. Kind of positive psychology.

 

To me Taoism says "go wander and enjoy the journey! Forget about the destination" and Buddhism says "don't wander, follow the path and keep the goal in mind". I've seen Buddhism work. Does Daoism work? Laozi clearly was an enlightened being. Besides him, I don't know any Taoists (if we even count him as one hah) so it's hard for me to say anything. I'd like to hear some comparision between practicing Buddhism and Taoism. If someone has experience on bith, it would be fascinating to hear your story and experiences!

[C T]

Anyone who lets go of grasping, in the true sense, is a 'Buddhist'. Essentially, thats the gist of it. 

 

Whats the point of comparing. The superior path is the one that leads the practitioner to complete exhaustion of grasping and aversion, so that the state of being, when happy, can be wholly happy, and when not happy, is not too affected emotionally. If Taoism or Hinduism or Christianity, or Ba'hai, or Jainism, or Sufism, or any other path can offer that, by all means, go for it. As a Buddhist, if i can see someone flourishing in their chosen path, it will fill me with delight. 

 

Greed, jealousy, envy, hatred, anger, and ignorance... these negative emotional states do not recognise creed, colour nor spiritual leanings. We all have to put in the work to neutralise the barbs and the stings resulting from being affected due to certain habits we have developed; by this work, if done correctly, it should then cut the causes at the root and completely remove future repetitions of effects. If Taoism or any path can offer a map towards emotional freedom from these dark arisings, i don't see any reason not to pursue its teaching. 

 

 

 

*late edit for typo

Edited September 21, 2015 by C T

[Michael Sternbach]

Dear OP,

 

No doubt, there is much truth to what you are saying.

 

However, some of the Buddhist temples I visited in Japan are among the "happiest" places that I have ever been to.

 

[doc benway]

I'll add a few comments for discussion, I've had some experience with Daoist cultivation and Bön Buddist practice. 

 

Buddhism is based on idea of suffering.

In my view, Buddhism is based on the idea of liberating ourselves (and others) from suffering.

The emphasis is our choice.

 

Every Buddhist wants to liberate everyone from suffering and bring peace to the planet.

Not every Buddhist, just those who practice the Mahayana approach.

Others focus on personal liberation, more akin to Daoism in that regard.

 

That is a great goal but to me it begins with kind of negative attitude towards life. Life seems to be unpleasing somehow and it must be changed.

To me it actually begins with a very positive attitude towards life - life is innately and inherently perfect.

It is our conditioned mind that causes the problems we face in life.

That is the highest view - Dzogchen.

If yours is like that already, stop there... no need to look any further.

If yours is not, welcome... perhaps we can help you.

 

Vinegar tasters was painted to describe this kind of mind state. Buddha and Confucius express bitter faces tasting the vinegar while Laozi smiles. To Laozi, life is good in its natural state. Taoist is encouraged to live life fully, enjoy and learn from it.

Daoist training can be quite severe and austere. Monastic Daoism can be every bit as restrictive as monastic Buddhism.

I think that you are comparing monastic Buddhism with the Western philosophical adaptation of Daoism stripped of its religious context. 

 

This is a division that can be made. Some zen schools have more of taoist-like attitude towards life stressing that buddha nature is one's original nature. In some radical cases have been said that it doesn't matter what we do, we'll always reflect our original buddha nature.

Buddhism, in general, teaches that our original nature is and has always been Buddha-nature.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what we do simply because most of us are living in a deluded state, not acting fully from that original nature. If we are abiding in that nature, everything we do will be spontaneously pure and perfect. Otherwise, our choices do matter. Daoism teaches the same - it is only the sage who is expressing his original nature, the rest of us are confused and deluded and need to change, hence the teachings of the Laozi, Zhuangzi, Liezi, and so on... 

So much of the Daoist canon is not translated that we have a very limited understanding.

 

 

But the general buddhist way is very strict with guidelines. For example sensory pleasure is not encouraged since it too creates suffering. I have never been able to see the connection. If I do things I enjoy, positive emotions will follow. If I'm not attached to these states of mind, what's the problem with enjoying every day things which of course include sensory pleasures, arts, nature, people, food...? Why should I be so neurotic

about my positive emotions going away when the moment passes?

The key here is whether or not you are attached to those positive experiences. If you (or any Buddhist) can genuinely say that are completely unattached then there is no need to avoid these activities and indulgences. The problem only arises if there is attachment. And there is always attachment at some level until we are quite advanced in our practice. Positive emotion is wonderful but if it is dependent on conditions then it is transient. When we base our happiness on transient conditions, we are ultimately unfulfilled and that happiness cannot last. 

 

I've studied Buddhism for some time now. I've come to realize that the teachings really work. Daily meditation and keeping mindful about following the eightfold path really has brought me a lot of understanding about myself. But the theory of Taoism seems easier for me to approach. It's much more pleasing to hear what is good to do in life instead of hearing what we shouldn't do. Kind of positive psychology.

The key here is that your Buddhist practice has been effective and you are attracted to Daoist theory.

Try putting your ideas of Daoist theory into practice and see if it works for you.

If it does, that's what you need at this point on your path.

For me, Daoist methods helped me achieve some very profound insight into who and what I am.

The Buddhist approach, however, has done a much better job of putting those insights into context and giving me tools I needed to make positive changes in my life, work, and relationships.

 

 

To me Taoism says "go wander and enjoy the journey! Forget about the destination" and Buddhism says "don't wander, follow the path and keep the goal in mind". I've seen Buddhism work. Does Daoism work? Laozi clearly was an enlightened being. Besides him, I don't know any Taoists (if we even count him as one hah) so it's hard for me to say anything. I'd like to hear some comparision between practicing Buddhism and Taoism. If someone has experience on bith, it would be fascinating to hear your story and experiences!

I would have to disagree here...

There are many types of Daoist practitioners. Those that actually practice Daoist methods of cultivation and transformation are very goal oriented - quite comparable to tantric (Vajrayana) Buddhism. Those practicing religious Daoist methods are quite comparable to the more shamanic methods found in the Bön Buddhist tradition and others. In Bön, these are referred to as causal vehicles, meaning subject to causes and conditions. 

 

Daoism and Buddhism both teach us to wander and enjoy the journey. The tradition of wandering and seclusion is very similar in both. Some of the core principles in Dzogchen (Buddhism) are non-doing, non-effort, non-meditation, and non-attainment. Focusing on a goal is a fundamental error and yet it is important to follow certain guidelines for this to be possible. This is exactly the same in Daoism. While wandering and enjoying oneself, one must keep strictly to the guidelines of practicing Wu Wei (non-doing, non-interference), De (integrity, virtue, "right action"), and Pu (simplicity, equanimity, without preconception or illusion). Otherwise, we may be wandering minstrels but we cannot claim to be a sage.

 

I think it is easy for us to be too distracted by what appears to be negativity in Buddhism. Part of this is because the sutric methods are generally practiced first by most beginners and are all about renunciation of our flaws and misdeeds. In fact, Buddhism is about cultivating our true nature which gives rise to pure, unconditional joy, love, compassion, and equanimity. When we genuinely manifest these qualities we naturally share them with others. We do this not by focusing on the negative but by letting the negative fall away to reveal our primordial purity and perfection.

 

We can choose to emphasize the negative and, in doing so, we are simply proving the original thesis that we are suffering. We have the choice to emphasize the positive as well and perhaps this is seen more readily in Vajrayana and Dzogchen practices, which are focused on unveiling the positive in our lives; as opposed to the sutric practices which are focused more on getting rid of the negative. 

 

Along those lines, I think it is easy for us to mistakenly think that Daoism is all about having fun, doing whatever we feel like doing, and not worrying about our choices and behavior. While that is a common interpretation here in the West, truly following a Daoist is path is a bit more rigorous. Living a life of non-interference, integrity, and simplicity is not all fun and games, and often not as easy as it sounds. 

 

At the end of the day, we can focus on the differences between Buddhism and Daoism or the similarities.

I think its instructive to be aware of both.

We can support either position quite effectively.

Both are magnificent paths, very rich and rewarding.

For me, what matters as much or more than which path is the quality of instruction, the credibility of teachings (lineage), and the aptitude of the student.

 

Sorry for such a long post and thanks for listening.

[Juustopallo]

Wow! Beautiful replies! Thank you!

 

The latter writer stressed that my views on Taoism aren't as deep as what is needed for benefitting from it. I have to agree on that one. Many westerners read eastern philosophy for fun. As stories that ma

[Juustopallo]

Maybe can offer some good ideas. Practice is different. After reading TTC, Lieh Tzu and Chuang Tzu, one would wish to start to live like the enlightened hermits he read about. Those classics give great tools for thinking. The practice must be developed by oneself and this is the trap where I have fallen. Wishing to find more to read, not practicing, waiting for something to happen.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Well Steve made some great points.

 

On guidelines - if we look at the 5 precepts, they're presented as things people choose for the benefits they bring. Just following rules because someone has made them misses the intended spirit. Also, they have both negative and positive aspects. For example: 'Abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, kind, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.'

 

On 'suffering': this is a common but bit misleading translation of 'dukkha', which is really something deeper. It's more like a sort of tension caused by our grasping to experiences, rules, views and especially to our sense of self, based in ignorance. To be free of this grasping and ignorance is to be free of dukkha and experience life in a much more fresh, open way. Buddhism doesn't deny that positive things exist, and in fact virtue, samadhi and wisdom can all bring different joyful flavours.

[Juustopallo]

Do you have any personal experiences on practicing Taoism? Do you find it to be uneffective compared to Buddhism? How can one practice Taoism? Through gigong and visualisation-based meditation?

 

Social mind - Tao mind, small mind - big mind. Goals are alike with Zen. Realisation on nature of reality...

[Marblehead]

 How can one practice Taoism?

Just living according to one's personal nature is a pretty good way.  (But first you need forget all the crap that has been stuffed into your mind and question everything.)

[forestofclarity]

There are many Taoist practices, just as there are many Buddhist practices. There are rituals, qigong, neigong, martial arts, mediation, and many other things. Taoism is wonderful, but I have found it exceedingly difficult to find a good teacher.

 

I don't think one can say any practices are ineffective. One can say that a practice didn't work for oneself. For me, Buddhism works better, but that has more to do with me and my stuff than with Taoism. 

 

Do you have any personal experiences on practicing Taoism? Do you find it to be uneffective compared to Buddhism? How can one practice Taoism? Through gigong and visualisation-based meditation?

Social mind - Tao mind, small mind - big mind. Goals are alike with Zen. Realisation on nature of reality...

[Wayfarer]

To the OP,

 

Depends on what you mean by Buddhism and Taoism as they have both strayed pretty much from their early ways.  Suffering does not mean that we feel bad about things, we could be happy with our new car and in a sense that is suffering - probably not a good word to choose for what is meant, which is, if you place your happiness in something, you will also feel sad when another situation does or does not work - this is because your True-Nature has not been realised (I don't mean you personally).  Taoism also points to True-Nature.

 

On a practical level - I ran a Buddhist group for around five years and a Taoist one for around two (until I moved abroad); I moved from the Buddhist one because it felt that my particular tradition (which was Zen) was becoming more like a therapy session - meetings would start like "so how are you today" and lots of people were attracted to it because they had problems and suffering - so I would call this Therapy Buddhism - which is helpful for people but is not to me about Buddha.

 

I don't think Taoism will ever take off in the West other than through Qigong and Tai Chi practices - it has become the Health Therapy and less so the TTC or Chuang Tsu.  The methods are an undoing an unmethod and are rather simple but effective...I found the people I taught in many cases didn't trust their simplicity and wanted something to 'do'.

 

Depends whether you are a doer or not as to which you would like best.

[Geof Nanto]

@ Wayfarer. 

 

I liked reading your comments in that you speak with the clarity of experience, however I see nothing wrong with the notion of Daoism and Buddhism as therapy. Indeed, Carl Jung described the world's religions as the great therapeutic systems of the world. And the traditional Daoist methods of improving basic health are fundamental to the whole body approach of Daoism. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Yueya

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Improving basic physical health is a necessary part of Daoism and improving basic mental health is a necessary part of Buddhism.

 

However, when

[...]Carl Jung described the world's religions as the great therapeutic systems of the world.[...]

I think we need to ask 'therapeutic of what, with what priorities?'

 

Because this:

[...]it felt that [it] was becoming more like a therapy session - meetings would start like "so how are you today" and lots of people were attracted to it because they had problems and suffering [in the mundane sense] - so I would call this Therapy Buddhism - which is helpful for people but is not to me about Buddha.[...]

doesn't sound to me like what the Buddha intended.

 

Buddhism notes that there are different kinds of problems people have and thus different levels of goal to aim for. If someone is psychologically vulnerable, of course it's fine for them to work on mindfulness merely in the watered-down way therapists teach it, as a method to smooth life's edges. If metta helps them feel better, fantastic. It is wonderful to tone down the excessive anger and fear and stress and so on and cultivate love and courage and calm.

 

But this is not what higher levels of shamatha and vipassana are about. This is not what awakening is about. It's a problem when grown adults can't forget the way they feel about this or that issue for long enough to seriously stay with the breath as a means to cultivate samadhi. If someone thinks they're practising vipassana but really they're massaging their feelings rather than observing how they arise and cease, they can waste whole retreats spinning in the content of their stories rather than gaining insight into the nature of experience.

 

Gaining the insight which flows into awakening requires a shift of focus from what an experience refers to (seeing a lamp) or feels like (seeing a lamp - neutral) to the fundamental qualities of experience itself (seeing - impermanent, dukkha, anatta; -> neutral feeling - impermanent, dukkha, anatta). Therapy has its place but doesn't go so far because it inherently works on the level of story.

 

Hardcore Dharma is largely a reaction against precisely this.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Michael Sternbach]

On a practical level - I ran a Buddhist group for around five years and a Taoist one for around two (until I moved abroad); I moved from the Buddhist one because it felt that my particular tradition (which was Zen) was becoming more like a therapy session - meetings would start like "so how are you today" and lots of people were attracted to it because they had problems and suffering - so I would call this Therapy Buddhism - which is helpful for people but is not to me about Buddha.

 

I really don't know where you would draw the line.

 

I thought of different ways to reply to you, and I may come back to one or the other later. But what my thoughts boil down to is beautifully expressed in this illustration I "coincidentally" found at the right moment:

 

Edited September 25, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I really don't know where you would draw the line.[...]

I would say that if someone knows how to make the switch from attending to their lives to attending to the fundamental nature of experience and vice versa as needed, they will do fine. The issue is if someone makes it all about story, and all about massaging their feelings, and never allows themselves to really refine samadhi or really investigate phenomena.

 

Of course it's better to virtuously absorb yourself in story than to have nothing to say besides 'this is impermanent' - that's also extreme. Awakening lies between the two.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[leth]

First of all i have to say that suffering is not a perfect translation of Dukkha and seeing it as equivalent with the english word suffering is problematic in understanding Dukkha and the four noble truths which are rather central concepts of buddhism.

 

Dukkha is not an easy word to translate, but we may use words such as suffering or misery as well as stress, difficulties, unease and dissatisfaction. And in general in Buddhism the view of life is not pessimistic, it is not a view that life is inherently filled with suffering. The four noble truths are more about the acknowledgement of our negative emotions and to understand where they come from, so that we can better understand ourselves and develop ourself to the affect of not having to suffer anymore.

 

This has alredy been explained to some extent in the thread but i wanted to point it out in my post because it is important to understand.

 

And in general i don't think buddhism has a negative view of life, instead it has a positive view of life. It explain all negativities as something we have constructed ourself, something which is not inherently natural if you so will. And it show us a path to overcome this. There are many ways to interprete the vinegar tasters in this regard, one is that buddha was a realist and simply described the taste of vinegar, another one is that the comparison is in favor of daoism and disregards buddhist teachings. It's a complex allegory if we start to analyse it.

 

Daoism is not a tradition that lacks a goal or that is not focused on practices to attain "enlightenment", to attain ziran takes a lot of hard work for a very long time with much determination.

 

In these regards i find Buddhism and Daoism very similar, even some of the practices are very similar, but there are of course differences both philosophically and in the practices and views of those practices.

 

Does it work? Well as you said there are enligthened daoists and there are enlightened buddhist so it seems both path works, but does on really know whether it works before one has walked the path oneself?

 

 

As for the discussion about therapy that arose in this thread, i have to ask what is therapy? Is not self-development similar to thearpy in a self? And is guidance towards enlightenement somewhat similar to therapy? And can not these models of understanding of the psyche be used for therapeutic reasons aswell as self-development? TCM is more or less therapy mostly based on daoist ideas, and there is a lot of research into buddhist psychology as a form of therapy in the west. So where does on draw the line between therapy and self-development? I guess my view is that it's all on the same scale, buddhism and daoism both can take you from severe depression to enlightenment with their methods of development of the psyche.

[Marblehead]

 'this is impermanent'

Funny.  I too am impermanent.  But I'm damn sure going to live while I'm alive.  Where's my woman?

 

Oh, never mind.  I don't need one any more.

[Aaron]

I don't know as much about Taoism as some of the people in this thread, but what I can say is that I don't see wandering as a requirement for Taoism, but rather being in harmony with where you are and allowing yourself to go where you go. I think of the line, "home is where the heart is", except we also examine the condition of the "heart". 

 

The other difference is that Buddhism focuses on duality, whereas Taoism focuses on how we interact with the world around us and not so much on duality, in fact Taoism assumes if we are doing what we're supposed to that we will understand the nature of things in the process (and hence the duality of all things). 

 

In my opinion, if you want to shake up your beliefs a bit, check out Vedanta, now that stuff will blow your mind!

 

Aaron

[doc benway]

As for the discussion about therapy that arose in this thread, i have to ask what is therapy? Is not self-development similar to thearpy in a self? And is guidance towards enlightenement somewhat similar to therapy? And can not these models of understanding of the psyche be used for therapeutic reasons aswell as self-development? TCM is more or less therapy mostly based on daoist ideas, and there is a lot of research into buddhist psychology as a form of therapy in the west. So where does on draw the line between therapy and self-development? I guess my view is that it's all on the same scale, buddhism and daoism both can take you from severe depression to enlightenment with their methods of development of the psyche.

Anthony Demello speaks about the conflict between acting as a therapist and a spiritual guide as he had experience with both.

As a therapist he was often motivated to ease the person's pain and suffering whereas as a spiritual guide he recognized the need for many people to experience very profound levels of pain in order to break through ignorance to achieve spiritual transformation.

 

I agree with you that both can take us in a similar direction although it's very hard to make generalizations given the vast differences in therapeutic approaches in particular. In particular, many therapeutic methods can get us bogged down in intellectual and analytical approaches to our problems whereas spiritual methods, in general, recognize that this is not the answer. I've had some personal experience with therapy and, fortunately, encountered a therapist who specialized in ACT, a method rooted in mindfulness and acceptance methods, which integrated perfectly with my spiritual work. 

[leth]

I agree with you that both can take us in a similar direction although it's very hard to make generalizations given the vast differences in therapeutic approaches in particular. In particular, many therapeutic methods can get us bogged down in intellectual and analytical approaches to our problems whereas spiritual methods, in general, recognize that this is not the answer. I've had some personal experience with therapy and, fortunately, encountered a therapist who specialized in ACT, a method rooted in mindfulness and acceptance methods, which integrated perfectly with my spiritual work. 

 

 

I think that both the need for intellectual/analytical processes and scepticism towards such processes belongs in both fieldds. For spiritual development we need intellectual and analytical processes, and for therapeutic processes we need scepticism of the intellect. In fact i think that the intellect and the scepsis of the intellect is one of the most important combinations to have in life in general. In a sense it is rekated to the combination of scepticism and openeness which is also think is very important in life in general. And in a sense i agree that there is a therapeutic work tends to lean towards one end and spiritual work tends to lean towards the other, but i have to say i prefere both when they are similar to eachother.

[noonespecial]

Buddhism is based on idea of suffering. Every Buddhist wants to liberate everyone from suffering and bring peace to the planet. That is a great goal but to me it begins with kind of negative attitude towards life. Life seems to be unpleasing somehow and it must be changed.

 

 

Well... IMO it's the attachement to impermanence that causes suffering - all that must be changed is one's internal persepctive. I'm 'happier' than 90% of the people I know, always smiling and cracking jokes and yet I have become almost completely non-polarized and stoic, and it is from this equilibrium of emptiness that true, i want nothing from you, compassion, and empathy for all of creation emerges and this state leaves no option but living in the absolute present however shitty it might be. By the way I am not Buddhist, but reached this state through hermeticism but I still have a long way to go.

[doc benway]

Well... IMO it's the attachement to impermanence that causes suffering - all that must be changed is one's internal persepctive. I'm 'happier' than 90% of the people I know, always smiling and cracking jokes and yet I have become almost completely non-polarized and stoic, and it is from this equilibrium of emptiness that true, i want nothing from you, compassion, and empathy for all of creation emerges and this state leaves no option but living in the absolute present however shitty it might be. By the way I am not Buddhist, but reached this state through hermeticism but I still have a long way to go.

I suspect you meant to say attachment to [the delusion of] permanence.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  Life gets complicated some times.

[Fate]

Had a novice Zen priest explain the first precept as "Aversion to Change" which I like quite a bit deal more than "life is suffering" because the latter seems very contrary to Daoist thought and the former is quite in line with it.

 

I've stopped trying to draw lines between the two schools, I think the advice of work with what's closest to you is probably sound. I gravitated more toward Daoism because the DDJ sort of fell into my lap when I was younger, it wasn't something I sought out, so I figured there's a connection going on there.

 

From what I've seen and has been mentioned Daoist methods emphasize Physical+Energy body cultivation whereas the majority of Buddhist schools I've seen are purely working on the mind/spirit level. Tibetan and other esoteric schools undoubtedly get into Energy body stuff as well.

[JDN]

nice thrread

 

I was doing a standing meditation moving energy around in the Lesser Energy Circulation.  I had previously finished 5 peace movements and 2 tai chi forms.

 

It came to me that executing forms and the various QiGong exercises is a discipline intended to gain control of the physical universe (forms of essential elements) through which we experience the world.  Executing exercises such as the Lesser Heavenly Circulation which is truly a mind exercise to move energy and not physically moving the energy (as in effecting the movement by a physical act), is a discipline to gain control of the non-physical universe.  Get control of your body/physical and mind/energy non physical in this fashion and you are equipped to gain liberation, which despite the multitude of confusing metaphors, is escaping the body into immortality.  It sounds similar to the Tibetan Rainbow Body wherein liberation/liberation is achieved into eternity.  Internal Alchemy is all the ritualized exercises to accomplish these masteries.

 

Put this way it explains a lot about how and why different disciplines can be so culturally different and yet focus to the same end.

 

The Sufi twirls, the Hindu meditates, the Shaman practices his rituals.  But at the end, they are all exercises to train the intent to master the physical world of form and the non physical world of energy.

 

Nothing I said invalidates any particular practice, they all should work,,,,,,  but it describes a common thread that makes the Yaomani indian's world work as effectively as the Harvard scientist's.

 

thoughts?