Why I gravitated to Taoism (over other traditions)

[Agape]

I just reposted this here from my intro as I wasn't sure how many ppl look on the intros section.

 

I have studied the main eastern religions Hinduism and Buddhism in particular before setting my sights on Taoism. I was heavily into Buddhism during my degree doing alot of comparisons in my essays of it with Existential philosophy.

 

After a while, though, I grew quite a violent aversion towards these Indian traditions as at their CORE they seemed to be DENYING life and fundamentally wanted to transcend it all. I found this way morbid and depressing and drew me into spurts of heavy nihilism. Although the life of social conditioning I would agree is 'unsatisfactory' it does not lead me to conclude that ALL of life is unsatisfactory, I see that as a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So I ended up having a sort of 'hatred' for these ascetic traditions and a vehemence towards anyone trying to 'persuade' me of their merits. My intially violent reaction has somewhat subdued now however my reasons for the reaction still stand.

 

I then found or rather looked back upon Taoism and realised it appeared to be the perfect mix of what I was looking for. This doctrine/set of ideas did not seem to be denying or condemning this life, seeing it as fundamnetally flawed to be 'attached to', but, rather, to be embraced and celebrated not as 'lesser' but as the correct 'way' if taken in the proper spirit of the Tao (and not of the average socially conditioned TV idolising slob). This is very much my kind of thing.

 

I see it as stupid to want to 'caste off' this life completely as the Buddhists seem to want to do in their first 'noble truth' of 'life is suffering'. To me, then, if I thought this to be the case, the easiest way out of this suffering, as Camus has quiried, would be to kill myself and be done with it (leaving the karmic issues aside), this too would bring me back to the eternal in two shakes of a lamb's tail, or, rather, two swings of the noose.

 

I feel Taoism, at least for me, to be the true 'middle way'. I have no desire to totally 'do away' with my ego, however living without some form of spirituality is and has been torture for me. I don't think I need to totally blast my ego into extinction in order to experience the spiritual, but, rather, cultivate a more modest amount in tune with my embracing of 'worldly pleasures'.

 

I feel the materialism of the West is one extreme yet the asceticism of the East (in Buddhism and Hinduism) is another, neither are satisfactory for myself to achieve a acceptable state of being; Taoism seems to agree and thus I heartily jived with it.

 

I am still sketchy on alot of this and I'm sure I will have made some overgenerisations of the respective traditions mentioned although it cannot be denied that each respective tradition has a more predominant focus than another and so it is to Taoism that I now turn as my main guiding philosophy.

 

I hope others on here can help me to mature my thoughts and expand my knowledge on the issues raised here and many more.

 

I will finish with a quote I found the other day on Taoist meditation:

 

'In Taoism, meditation doesn't have anything in common with yoga practice. There are no postures (asanas), nor inner concentration or fusional feelings. In this respect, Alan Watts wrote:

 

Contemplative Taoists will be happily to sit with yogis and Zennists for as long as is reasonable and comfortable, but when nature tells us that we are 'pushing the river' we will get up and do something else, or even go to sleep. (From Tao: The Watercourse Way).

 

Basically, Taoist meditation is more like a sort of wisdom achieved by close observation of the things and phenomena in the world surrounding us. Such wisdom should help us go alongside with things and not against them, and is surely related to the wu-wei (nondoing) concept.'

 

 

Ciao.

[Mak_Tin_Si]

This is another example of YUEN FUN (fate) as explained in previous post. Different people need different things, and that means you cannot say which religion is better. Just that Taoist suits you more and you do have passion in the trianing, which is very good! Good Luck in your way to taoism!

[Agape]

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes, I agree, it's relative. Nothing is 'better' objectively, but, rather, better for me/you/whoever.

 

I dunno though, if a guy was putting his hand in a fire and saying 'ouch'! showing obvious signs of pain, yet he didn't learn not to do it each time, can we not say it is 'better' for him not to put the hand in the flame?

 

Surely there are some things we can approximate (emphasis on approximate taking into the consideration of the subjectivity of human experience) as being universally better than others for a similar human entity as ourselves. Maybe we ourselves can think anything can be better for the person but the distinction lies in whether we try and impose that upon them? I would like to get the distinction clearer myself on this one as it has alot of implications.

[dragonfire]

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes, I agree, it's relative. Nothing is 'better' objectively, but, rather, better for me/you/whoever.

 

I dunno though, if a guy was putting his hand in a fire and saying 'ouch'! showing obvious signs of pain, yet he didn't learn not to do it each time, can we not say it is 'better' for him not to put the hand in the flame?

 

Surely there are some things we can approximate (emphasis on approximate taking into the consideration of the subjectivity of human experience) as being universally better than others for a similar human entity as ourselves. Maybe we ourselves can think anything can be better for the person but the distinction lies in whether we try and impose that upon them? I would like to get the distinction clearer myself on this one as it has alot of implications.

 

I was like you. I've studied them all. I take bits and pieces form every religion and I make my own. Isn't this how religion is created. Now my way is the way to go. My clan is the clan to be in. My lineage is the way its supposed to be. Blah blah blah. A bunch of crap.

 

Personally, I would differentiate between learning the TAO, the way of nature, vs. TAOISM which could mean no different then any other religion, requiring you to do certain things. This is no different than any other cults. If you have study them all, you will know they all have an underlying backbone. Everything else around it is just another tool.

 

You are a buddha. You just don't know yet.

[Agape]

Yup.

 

I think it's good to see what they are all about to see which best jives with you, however, I don't think chopping and changing all the time is a good long term thing as you end up jack of all trades master of none. I have done this with other disciplines before where, rather than put the work in to one specific practice I instead jump around from one to the other looking for the magic fix.

 

Still, once you have a certain level of knowledge and realise they are all saying the same thing- finger pointing at the moon; I think you can then focus on getting to the moon rather than each particular finger?

[Mak_Tin_Si]

To the above -

 

Yes, you cannot really learn anything by jumping around schools and find bits and pieces of all. This method is very foolish and a waste of time. You can ask ANY kungfu masters or people who are good at kungfu about this too. If you try to look at video, books, vcd, dvd, and then go to kungfu shows, online search, jump around schools to learn all bits and pieces. What you end up with in 10years is just rubbish. Instead of going here and there, stay in one good master's hand, learn his essesnce, you will gain really ALOT in 10yrs. There are just so many hidden knowledges, methods and even ways to practise.

 

In Chi in Nature's lineage, stage 1, we call the student "moon sung" meaning a student at the door.

 

This is because to learn anything in chinese culture like taoism, kungfu, medic etc,. You must first enrolled into the school, like "going inside through the door". So when you go in the door, you become a moon sung.

 

After you go in, then you can have the choice to go inside more or find any rooms you like to study etc,. If you just stare outside into the house, what can you see?

 

--

 

The saying "you are a buddha, you just didn't know" is used wrong in this case. This saying is to say that we are all connected to the pre-heaven stage and energy, which we do not know because this ability is quickly deteriated when you are are born as a baby. Then now, it is all closed up. So to be able to find and activate this ability again, to re-connect to the pre-heaven stage, you must first KNOW WHAT TO DO to reconnect and find your own buddha energy. Or so called pre-heaven energy. This in taoism is not a thing that is open to public. It is a highly confidential secret method. How you an outsider can get this?

 

The first thing you find when you can get this stage is that you can see and communicate with other dimensions. Which will proof to yourself that there ARE buddha and god in the other dimension. Also there are ghosts and spirits in another dimension. You can see through the world without the limit of dimension and communicate with them. That is call blended in nature. Connected to the pre-heaven stage. Can you do that? If not then you are not a buddha yet and not really know about this yet.

 

This thing cannot be learn by yourself, you must know that you are not those who have devoted their whole life 24/7 to trianing, so there is no way you can get it yourself. This is done by a serious practise, with methods taught from your masters, for a long period of time.

 

 

Mak Tin Si

[markern]

I can very much relate to your thoughts with regards to asceticism and doing away with the ego. However I think that the way budhism has been presented to you is wrong and that it indeed is the middle path (although not the only middle path). One does not realy do away with the ego in budhism, one puts it in its place and that is the same as in taoism and yoga and basicly all the other traditions. However, many people have misunderstood this or talks about it in ways that makes one take it in a too ascetic and extreem form. You should read Jack Kornfield a path with Hart, and the Heart of Wisdom - budhist psychology for the west (also by Kornfield) Those books will clear up the common misunderstandings about budhism and a lot of the problems you have incountered in spiritual life.

 

 

Contemplative Taoists will be happily to sit with yogis and Zennists for as long as is reasonable and comfortable, but when nature tells us that we are 'pushing the river' we will get up and do something else, or even go to sleep. (From Tao: The Watercourse Way).

 

Altough I know this is the true Taoist way of thinking it seems to me that it is often not the way people practice. Mantak Chia for example keeps talking about how one dosen`t strain or force within taosim while his system is one of the most fire and yang based I have ever come across. Almost never does he realy just let things happen. I find it funny that while taoist always talk about letting things happen naturaly taoist alchemy often is a form of chi engeneering which through very technical and "unnatural", at least not very spontainious meditations, achieve the same things other traditions (or other taoists) do through just sitting (Zen and many taoist emptiness meditations) or insight (Vipassana). Whereas the pearl in many traditions (like sufism) tends to show up by itself, in many forms of taoism one makes it conciously. This is not a criticism of taoism per se. I like taoism. I just find the contrast between procalimed philosophy and actual practice to be very large amongst the more fire based schools of taoism. It just annoys me to read about how other schools of practice supposedly so often are unnatural and forceful when it is often the other way around. I experience the basic process of the fusion meditations many times during Vipassana or just during the day in stead of through the extreemly technical fusion meditations. It is a spontanious process which often happens when you are mindful and so happens naturally and spontainiously in many traditions while it is forced in the fusion practices. Same thing goes for opening the orbit. It opens by itself if you are mindful. I am not saying there is anything wrong with opening the orbit in an active way or doing the fusion meditations. I actualy consider doing fusion at some point because I think there is benefit in doing it intensly for a while in stead of just bit by bit in the spontanious way. However, I just think that if your style of practice is based on planned micromanagment of chi one should not call other paths unatural and forced when clearly it is the other way arround. There is actualy more chi engeneering and micromanagment of chi in taoism than I have seen in any other tradition.

[forestofsouls]

I don't think Buddhism is life denying. If anything, it is life affirming. Mindfulness practice is based on a close observation of things as they are--- in this sense, meditation is a series of scientific experiments in which the meditator looks at what one experiences. One can then match experience against the so-called truths of Buddhism: impermanence, dissatisfaction, and no-self. Over time, these truths begin to take root, not based on belief but through repeated experiential verification. In a sense, one aims straight for the truth of experience, no matter whether it is supposedly "good" or "bad" at any given time. It is just as important to maintain awareness while violently ill as when relaxed on the cushion.

 

I wonder if your view on Buddhism hasn't been informed primarily by "academic" Buddhism.

 

If you are interested in this type of practical Buddhism, I would recommend checking out some of the following teachers, all of who have extensive free writings on line: Daniel Ingram, Shinzen Young, Bhante G, and Ajahn Brahm.

 

 

 

I just reposted this here from my intro as I wasn't sure how many ppl look on the intros section.

 

I have studied the main eastern religions Hinduism and Buddhism in particular before setting my sights on Taoism. I was heavily into Buddhism during my degree doing alot of comparisons in my essays of it with Existential philosophy.

 

After a while, though, I grew quite a violent aversion towards these Indian traditions as at their CORE they seemed to be DENYING life and fundamentally wanted to transcend it all. I found this way morbid and depressing and drew me into spurts of heavy nihilism. Although the life of social conditioning I would agree is 'unsatisfactory' it does not lead me to conclude that ALL of life is unsatisfactory, I see that as a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So I ended up having a sort of 'hatred' for these ascetic traditions and a vehemence towards anyone trying to 'persuade' me of their merits. My intially violent reaction has somewhat subdued now however my reasons for the reaction still stand.

 

 

[Agape]

You make some interesting points. In these replies I too am seeing there seems to be alot of 'micromanagement' involved in the Taoist practice.

 

I am not sure, however, that this is any contradiction to going with the way of things. I think micromanagment is fine, and in line with the Tao in right circumstances. I think it's about wu wei. Like you could be acting, but if you are acting in line with the Tao then it isn't like action, you aren't going against the grain of the principles of the Tao. For instance in the Buddhist ascetic practices my main qualms with them are not that they have complex doctrines to follow, but rather where their focus lies. An extreme example would be of a Hindu yogi who buried himself alive for so many days and during which had his arm eaten away by ants. I would not call this 'the middle way' simply because he is negating the body when there is no need to do that. One could achieve the same spiritual goals with less suffering, but he has negated the body so presumably doesn't care. That certainly isn't my path though.

 

I don't think it is that relevant if one or two authors have tried to point up one way of looking at buddhism. The issue remains that their main focus (and I have studied it quite extensively for several years so it isn't a quick superficial perusal which I have given it, I do not claim to be an authority by any means and will still give you references a look for an alternate perspective) is on gloomy or pessimistic interpretations of the world. Rather, to correct myself, my interpretation I took from the many sources I read on Buddhism was the same interpretation. I looked at many sources at always left with a gloomy and hopeless feeling in the pit of my stomach. Someone else wanting to support them can obviously dig through the scriptures and interpret them to the contrary, it does not change the fact that overall they continually take a certain perspective over another. This, again, is just what I took from them. One exception in this case does not prove the rule. Like if a man had been a real bastard all his life killing people slaughtering them for fun, and one day he picked up a flower and put it in his pocket. If at trial the defender of this man picks this ONE instance of picking up the flower as an attempt to portray him as a good man who loved nature would that be fair? Is that representative of his overall character?

 

Anyway I don't think it's that useful to get bogged down in this as, again, it's just the finger pointing at the moon. I don't doubt that every school, every religion, all of them, as Joseph Campbell points out, are pointing at the same thing, it's just we confuse the map for the territory and squabble about who has the best map.

[markern]

You make some interesting points. In these replies I too am seeing there seems to be alot of 'micromanagement' involved in the Taoist practice.

 

I am not sure, however, that this is any contradiction to going with the way of things. I think micromanagment is fine, and in line with the Tao in right circumstances. I think it's about wu wei. Like you could be acting, but if you are acting in line with the Tao then it isn't like action, you aren't going against the grain of the principles of the Tao. For instance in the Buddhist ascetic practices my main qualms with them are not that they have complex doctrines to follow, but rather where their focus lies. An extreme example would be of a Hindu yogi who buried himself alive for so many days and during which had his arm eaten away by ants. I would not call this 'the middle way' simply because he is negating the body when there is no need to do that. One could achieve the same spiritual goals with less suffering, but he has negated the body so presumably doesn't care. That certainly isn't my path though.

 

I don't think it is that relevant if one or two authors have tried to point up one way of looking at buddhism. The issue remains that their main focus (and I have studied it quite extensively for several years so it isn't a quick superficial perusal which I have given it, I do not claim to be an authority by any means and will still give you references a look for an alternate perspective) is on gloomy or pessimistic interpretations of the world. Rather, to correct myself, my interpretation I took from the many sources I read on Buddhism was the same interpretation. I looked at many sources at always left with a gloomy and hopeless feeling in the pit of my stomach. Someone else wanting to support them can obviously dig through the scriptures and interpret them to the contrary, it does not change the fact that overall they continually take a certain perspective over another. This, again, is just what I took from them. One exception in this case does not prove the rule. Like if a man had been a real bastard all his life killing people slaughtering them for fun, and one day he picked up a flower and put it in his pocket. If at trial the defender of this man picks this ONE instance of picking up the flower as an attempt to portray him as a good man who loved nature would that be fair? Is that representative of his overall character?

 

Anyway I don't think it's that useful to get bogged down in this as, again, it's just the finger pointing at the moon. I don't doubt that every school, every religion, all of them, as Joseph Campbell points out, are pointing at the same thing, it's just we confuse the map for the territory and squabble about who has the best map.

 

 

I agree with you that budhist and hindu writings easily gives you a more gloomy and ascetic feeling. I have struggled a bit with that myself. Taoism seems to deal better with this in it`s writings. However, Kornfields book about budhist psychology clears up a lot of the confusion with regards to budhism. Hinduism/yoga does have some paths that are of the extreemly ascetic life denying type that the budha tried and rejected. I dislike these a lot. However, it also for the most part is a middle path. Kashmiri Shaivism especialy. Iyengars book light on life takes a fairly similar stand.

 

I agree that as long as you "micromanage" chi correctly it is not unnatural. However, There are some problems with it. For one there are a bunch of different maps on how to micromanage in the different traditions and also within particular traditions. Some yogic maps contradict each other and some taoist maps contradict each other. Since enlightenment does happen through emptiness or insight meditation alone, such methods in one sense outperforms the aproaches that try to make a map out of the awakening process and control the chi in ways that modulate the process of awakening. The methods that makes it happen spontaniously presumably achieves some of the alchemical process better because it does not realie on maps with small faults but a natural process. However, the engenering aproaches do achieve the same goal, and quite often achieves at least part of the process faster. In other words. Even though there has to be at least some "faults" with some of the maps since they are different, they are good in the overal sense and the small "faults" cannot be that important. The more "natural" spontanious" aproaches aren`t without fault either. Without more active energetic work they will often leave out certain energetic developments that while not being essential are highly beneficial. They can also lead to energetic imbalances that could easily be managed with more actice techniques. For example, the founder of Rinzai Zen had huge problems with energetic overload in the head and sought out many masters without getting workable advice until a taoist hermit showed him how to pull the energy down into the dan tien via the microcosmic. My opinion is that any system based on a fairly good map of chi management is excellent as long as it is combined with some sort of emptiness meditation to digest the actively directed work and smooth out the minor failings of the map. Mantak chias system for example work a lot better if you combine it with enough emptiness meditation. I also think that doing pure emptiness meditation without any knowledge of energetic work what so ever is just plain dumb. It is sometimes so easy to correct imbalances arising in such meditations with active techniques and there are just so much good stuff you get in addititon from the more actice techniques that adding a few is the only meaningful thing to do.

 

At aypsite.org they have extreemly simple highly effective yogic techniques and a very life afirming yogic philosophy.

 

The Diamond aproach by H. Aalmas has a masterfull way of combining the everyday psychological stuff we deal with with the aproach of enlightement.

 

Just wanted to pass on two of the most life affirming and positive while still genuinly spiritual and effective aproaches I have found.

[Agape]

Thanks for the comments.

 

I loled while reading this 'For example, the founder of Rinzai Zen had huge problems with energetic overload in the head and sought out many masters without getting workable advice until a taoist hermit showed him how to pull the energy down into the dan tien via the microcosmic.'

 

I just picture a monk walking around to anyone he can find with his head ready to blow!

[Birch]

Hello!

 

Whatever or whichever dogma you're most interested in should still be taken with a grain (or several tonnes;-)) of salt. I'm assuming you went for something that grabbed you more than other stuff did. As the old saying goes "Look before you leap" and good luck with it all.

 

I like "taoism" better than other things I've come across. That doesn't mean much to an agnostic (yes I did switch from atheism;-))

 

if you're craving spirituality it may just be that sensuality is what you really need!

 

Happy New Year!

 

 

Kate

[dragonfire]

Thanks for the comments.

 

I loled while reading this 'For example, the founder of Rinzai Zen had huge problems with energetic overload in the head and sought out many masters without getting workable advice until a taoist hermit showed him how to pull the energy down into the dan tien via the microcosmic.'

 

I just picture a monk walking around to anyone he can find with his head ready to blow!

 

Don't believe people who tell you that you can't learn from books. Thats BS. Read everything,

read them all. You'll find what you are looking for. Its all out there! True masters will

not ask for money. I guarantee you. Enlightened people know why they are here

and trust me, money is not one of them. Once they are in union with the source, why do they

need to bother with earthy desires. If you are eager to learn the way, you'll attract

positive people who want to help you awake. Its meant to be.

[Squatting Monkey]

Hey dragonfire, you speak very wise words. That's exactly how I feel.

The Tao can not be owned, bought or sold.

[forestofsouls]

This is actually the story of Hakuin Ekaku. The founder of Rinzai is Linji Yixuan almost a thousand years before. Rinzai is the Japanese translation of Linji.

 

 

Thanks for the comments.

 

I loled while reading this 'For example, the founder of Rinzai Zen had huge problems with energetic overload in the head and sought out many masters without getting workable advice until a taoist hermit showed him how to pull the energy down into the dan tien via the microcosmic.'

 

I just picture a monk walking around to anyone he can find with his head ready to blow!