How does hinduism and taoism relate?

[The Genuine Article]

i ws wondering how does hinduism and taoism relate?

[Cameron]

Interesting question.

 

I would be interested in hearing other's views on this as well.

[Long Yun]

Well, I'm no expert so I could be mistaken, nor do I claim to have the answer to this, but I'd say that at least in my view any religion that has a god(s) is essentially doing the same thing. They believe that beings (deva, gods, whatever) in other realms of existence (heaven, hell, whatever) are exerting power over them in one way or another.

 

This may be true, but one of the points of the Buddha was recognizing that there may be gods but that their influence doesn't matter since only you can truly free yourself from suffering "by your own action." I see Buddhism and practical Taoism as going hand in hand, and I also see the process of cultivation as making "your own effort" and freeing yourself.

 

Formal Taoism is a different story though... And I like to steer clear of this subject.

 

But I do think an interesting parallel exists between Taoism and Classical Hinduism which I haven't brought up yet. And that's the Hindu concept of Bramhan. Where as the gods are all separate entities, Bramhan is the collective whole of the universe that encompasses all the gods and all existence(waaaaaay summarized here; it has more complexity than I make it out to have). Sounds alot like the Tao to me...

 

So in short, I view gods (Hindu, Pagan, whatever) as beings which, despite their influence, are still just a part of the underlying reality of existence. By knowing this underlying reality, we are able to exist at a higher spiritual level than "ordinary" beings (humans, animals, gods, etc) understand, which is more important than just following one of these fellow beings [ie devoting yourself to the service of god(s)]. We are all part of this universe, and I think that the idea of oneness is a critical piece to all religions.

 

Anything ring true for anybody? Feel free to point out anything you don't agree with and I'll happily listen.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Wu-Liu

[mewtwo]

In my mind at least Hinduism shares some words with Buddhism, like dharma and karma. And Buddhism and Taoism are close so, Hinduism relates to Taoism.

[Unconditioned]

I think there are many similarities between the two but I'd like to chime in on one part of Hinduism that seems to push some people away from approaching it, specifically the use of deities. They can be used as a path and as symbols of different aspects of the material and non-material. I personally have a 'gripe' with a dogma due to some unpleasant past experiences but can see how it might work.

 

The dieties can be used as a path in and of themselves in any religion/tradition. The path of complete surrender/devotion can generate an intense energy as well as removing 'you' from the equation - by surrendering EVERYTHING through your deepest core, you are left with just the essence in it's purest form and then can realize that there is no difference between you and the deity.

 

Also, they are used as symbols or pointers. For example, the dancing Shiva symbolizes the ever present movement of life. This is very similar to the classic Yin-Yang symbol in Taoism. Shiva beats the drum that keeps the rhythm of life going.

 

There are other ideas such as the Atman, the personal, purest aspect of your Self. Once you've realized what you are, then the aim is to merge with Brahman which is the universal Self, which would be the same as the Tao.

 

The Hindi systems vary in technique but I believe the aim is the same. It has a physical (hatha yoga) and metaphysical aspect (raja yoga) similar to Taoist meditation and physical practices.

 

It's another approach to liberation, enlightenment, unconditioning, whatever word you'd like. There are a lot of similarities actually just a lot of different naming conventions. Wikipedia has a lot of good info (look up yoga).

 

Just my personal observations, I am by no means an expert on the subject!

[fiveelementtao]

i ws wondering how does hinduism and taoism relate?

(My limited understanding based on my limited experience)

I encourage study of these terms in both traditions and compare...

 

Yin/Yang - Shakti/Shiva

 

Lower Dan Tien, Chi - Brahma (creative principle) procreation and creativity

Middle Dan Tien, Hsi - Vishnu (preservation Principle) emotional seat/Seat of the Soul

Upper Dan Tien, Shen - Shiva (Evolutionary Principle) Merging of Yin/Yang

 

in my experience, Hinduism is more focused on psychological transformation.

 

In my experience with tantric (not sexual) mysticism and Shang Ch'ing Taoist energy practices, there is a huge energy difference and at higher levels, (IMHO) one should not mix taoist with hindu energy practices.

[Creation]

There really isn't any such thing as "Hinduism" per say. The range of beliefs and practices is contains something similar to just about every other religion in the world. Monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, non-theism; ritual, mysticism, analytical philosophy; physical and mental cultivation disciplines; religion for the masses, religion for the very dedicated; etc. etc.

 

The common thread is association with some aspect of the Vedic religion of 3000+ years ago, passed down through tradition and the written Vedas. In most if not all manifestations, there is some conception of the true self (atman), karma and reincarnation, higher spiritual beings (devas), law or duty (dharma), the absolute (brahman), and union with the absolute (yoga),. But like I said, the range of views about these things and related practices are just about as varied as you will see anywhere. Actually, the common threads are more cultural than anything else. I think one scholar one said something like "Hinduism is inseparable from Indian culture."

 

This school is perhaps the most similar to Taoism, when stripped of all the cultural baggage that comes with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Yoga

[RongzomFan]

I've heard that taoism developed directly from Samkhya philosphy

Edited January 28, 2009 by alwayson

[Lightbringer]

A quick note before I get to my main point:

 

Raja Yoga is the incorporation of all forms of yoga into basically "Super Yoga". It's just intended to be as efficient at awakening one's awareness and union with God as can be. Thus it incorporates hatha yoga (the poses, or asanas I believe they're called), as well as other forms which each separate out into yoga pertaining to breath, mantras, meditation and maybe another that I can't remember. So yoga at your health club is just hatha yoga, but go to a Kundalini Yoga class and you'll be enjoying Raja Yoga (which has various styles as well these days). There are many forms of yoga though, practically infinite since doing anything with total attention and dedication will bring you closer to God. You could do sweeping-your-floor yoga or archery yoga! (aka Zen Archery)

 

Now, there has been a lot of talk about the gods of Hinduism and how they might relate to Taoism, but what most people don't realize is that Hinduism isn't polytheistic. Sure some people think so, but some people think red and gold and Buddha's belly are lucky and that religion is some ticket to fortune and happiness if you jump through a few hoops. Hindus are subject to the same tendencies to look for the spiritual quick fix (ultimately to solve their worldly problems, not the root spiritual ones) so they have developed all their rituals and diverse beliefs. After all, if one person wants money and another wants sex and both turn to the gods for help, there will be disagreement about the priorities of the gods based on simple desire for the gods to have the same priorities as oneself. Naturally, two such concepts of God(s) do not agree and so schisms result. Seeing past all this, the root of Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism and other religions all become clearly related.

 

So back to my original point, there is only one Hindu god, all other "deities" are merely aspects of a greater entity which is not some separate entity from the universe, but is the universe (perhaps consciousness would be a better word?). As someone mentioned, the Gods are useful as symbols because people originally must have wondered "How can I find union with God? What does the Godly Potter or Fisherman or Blacksmith (or Accountant? ) look like?" So archetypal deities were created to give specifics, and guidance for people who all wanted to get to the same place but needed different directions to get there. I think the Taoist relationship has become clear now so I'll stop. It's getting late anyways

[Apech]

As I understand it, and I am not a scholar of Hinduism so forgive any mistakes, what we understand today as Hinduism is formed from the Aryan Vedic religion (Brahma, Vishnu and so on) which was introduced into the sub-continent from the North around 1000 BC. The vedas being a set of ritual texts, most notably the Rig Veda which set out the way in which the ceremonies celebrating the gods were to be practiced. These were supplemented by commentaries which interpreted the nature of reality and divinity and added to the original texts. This religion is hierarchical and the brahmins are the priest caste. They became the rulers through invasion. However before they arrived there was already an indigenous religion which can still be seen more in Southern India and is more focused on nature and fertility and from this the various Bakhti (love) religions emerged such as Ganesha and Krishna.

 

Within the vedic philosophy various strands emerged from metaphysics to science and one such strand was yogic thought e.g. Patanjali which is based on mystical union with the divine (Ishvara or Shiva). Also connected is the non-dualistic philosophy of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta which basically says that reality is universal consciousness (Brahma) and the 'self' or Atman is 'not different to' Brahma - hence the possibility of union. There is some debate as to how much Shankara was influenced by the Mahayana Buddhist Madhyamaka or how much it was the other way round. But you can see similarities between Advaita and Zhentong (Buddha-nature schools).

 

Obviously there are clear lines of connection historically from Buddhism to China, along the silk route by the Bodhidharma and so on. And it could be argued that Buddhism is a kind of reform Hinduism but the problem with this idea as a link between Chinese thought and Hindu thought is that the Lord Buddha specifically stated that while the gods (e.g Indra) exist, they are earth bound powers and should not be the objects of refuge. The aspiration to a god-like state which any union with a deity implies is seen by Buddhism as a dangerous step which will ultimately be followed by a fall from grace to the lowest states of existence (because of the vestiges of pride which would be attached).

 

Taoism seems to me, and I bow to true scholars for correction on this, to have arisen independently in China as a separate strand of 'religious' thought and not in connection with influence from outside. The reason it was able to fuse or merge with Buddhism or at least live comfortably side by side with it is, at least in part because of the 'impersonal' way in which the ultimate is seen (the Dao, the dharmakaya). This is very different to saying that god is a person and that person is the ultimate. This is of course what Judaism, Christianity and Islam also try to say as well. So if we are to take the Raja Yoga type view that all gods are really one god then we have the same view, that of monotheism.

 

 

The problem with monotheism is that it is a kind of concealed duality. If God is a supreme being and yet evil and suffering exist them how can an absolute good encompass evil and suffering? INn fact the Advaita Vedanta is an attempt at a solution to this problem.

 

Having said all this, you could argue that none of this matters really. That any differences are just based on limited understanding. That we have to speak in relative terms of god or not-god because we don't really understand the ultimate which is inexpressible anyway. If the Absolute is ineffable then anything we say about it is only a way of talking and cannot be properly communicated. All we do is end up arguing about approaches. There is no doubt in my mind that an enlightened yogi, a bodhisattva and a Taoist master would have no conflicts between them.

[Yoda]

There is no doubt in my mind that an enlightened yogi, a bodhisattva and a Taoist master would have no conflicts between them.

 

The relationship between the current Dalai Lama and the late Karmapa was interesting along these lines: they got along great personally and would work together professionally but the Karmapa reviled the Dalai Lama's actual teachings and urged his students not to read his books (in no uncertain terms... he rose from his deathbed like a lion and seriously chewed out a teacher who admitted to using the Dalai Lama's textbooks. When she tearfully explained that there were no corresponding Kagyu books in English he immediately apologized for his behaviour and said it was good to teach from the DL's books.) And I believe that the DL was instrumental in finding the identity of the new Karmapa.

[Apech]

The relationship between the current Dalai Lama and the late Karmapa was interesting along these lines: they got along great personally and would work together professionally but the Karmapa reviled the Dalai Lama's actual teachings and urged his students not to read his books (in no uncertain terms... he rose from his deathbed like a lion and seriously chewed out a teacher who admitted to using the Dalai Lama's textbooks. When she tearfully explained that there were no corresponding Kagyu books in English he immediately apologized for his behaviour and said it was good to teach from the DL's books.) And I believe that the DL was instrumental in finding the identity of the new Karmapa.

 

 

Ah well - if I had to choose I'd go for Karmapa - nice though he is, the DL is a political figure.

[Unconditioned]

The problem with monotheism is that it is a kind of concealed duality. If God is a supreme being and yet evil and suffering exist them how can an absolute good encompass evil and suffering? INn fact the Advaita Vedanta is an attempt at a solution to this problem.

 

I'm not sure if the idea of Braman is the same as a 'god figure' as seen in most Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim traditions. The idea of Brahman is a universal 'everything' (as portrayed through Advaita Vedanta via non-duelism).

 

Now, on the other hand, all the tradition and ritualism could definitely create a religious idea of Brahman being an object which it obviously cannot be if it represents everything (everything can't have a 'something else' by definition).

 

I just have a personal impression that Brahman is not seen as the same as monotheism as in western religion but at the subject-object level there is no difference, they're all just concepts/labels.

 

Hope that made sense I'm not debating here, just adding my 2c

 

The relationship between the current Dalai Lama and the late Karmapa was interesting along these lines: they got along great personally and would work together professionally but the Karmapa reviled the Dalai Lama's actual teachings and urged his students not to read his books (in no uncertain terms... he rose from his deathbed like a lion and seriously chewed out a teacher who admitted to using the Dalai Lama's textbooks. When she tearfully explained that there were no corresponding Kagyu books in English he immediately apologized for his behaviour and said it was good to teach from the DL's books.) And I believe that the DL was instrumental in finding the identity of the new Karmapa.

 

I believe that both leaders have the students' best interests in mind. If the student finds something contradictory in the other schools teaching with what they're learning then this can cause confusion and potentially turn the student off to both schools. Also, if there are certain alchemical processes / changes taking place in the student it may not be best to flip flop between schools.

[RongzomFan]

There are some misconceptions of hinduism in this thread.

 

Hopefully this will clear those up

 

 

http://www.siddha.com.my/religionoftheagamas/

Edited January 28, 2009 by alwayson

[Creation]

There are some misconceptions of hinduism in this thread.

 

Hopefully this will clear those up

http://www.siddha.com.my/religionoftheagamas/

 

I have begun to read this.

 

I know Tamil speaking Hindus and this whole Agamas vs. Vedas has never come up in our religion discussions. This is a very polemic piece, giving the impression of exaggerating the A vs. V issue to get the point across. Of course, I do not know if how authoritative its author is. Of course, all that I have studied and all the practicing Hindus that I know could be completely wrong...

 

It is clear that Vedic Brahminism became quite corrupt, a like a club whose notions of self importance lead to self-preservation by rejecting anything that made them feel threatened (Westerners certainly have this in their religious history as well). It is also clear enough that modern Hinduism has little to do with the four Vedas, but throwing out the Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc. as extraneous and inferior as well?

 

I can't give an authoritative POV on this issue, just trying to help out based on my limited understanding.

[RongzomFan]

I am Indian (state of Andra) , raised Hindu, and I agree with that Ebook

Edited January 28, 2009 by alwayson

[dwai]

i ws wondering how does hinduism and taoism relate?

 

The existent is one, the wise ones call it by different names.

 

Tao = Brahman

 

Sat (existent) = Yang

 

Asat (non-existent) = Yin

 

 

The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao = Nirguna Brahman

 

Taoism is Hinduism, specifically Advaita Vedanta. There is no difference. While Advaita deals with the stage of union of Tao and Te (Brahman and Atman), while Yoga (Sankhya school of the 6 classical schools of darsana (or seeing) within the "Hindu" philosophical traditions) and Tantra deal with the transformational aspects of the Internal Alchemy.

 

To practice Tao using Hindu way -- Start with Yoga, go to Tantra as your undergraduate and graduate study and then do your post-graduate in Advaita.

 

Hinduism has been much dissected, vivisected, maligned, elevated by different people who looked at it with different lenses. It is very difficult to engage with some of the "statements" I've been reading on this thread. The seeker will find what he/she seeks in the Tao.

 

The profane will find profanity, the pure will find purity. Tao doesn't qualify...Tao simply is. Brahman doesn't qualify, Brahman simply is.

 

To learn more, take some time to read this old article of mine --

 

Nasadiya -- The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

Edited January 30, 2009 by dwai

[Trunk]

i ws wondering how does hinduism and taoism relate?

uh.... they both have curves and dots?

[Long Yun]

The existent is one, the wise ones call it by different names.

 

Tao = Brahman

 

Sat (existent) = Yang

 

Asat (non-existent) = Yin

The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao = Nirguna Brahman

 

Taoism is Hinduism, specifically Advaita Vedanta. There is no difference. While Advaita deals with the stage of union of Tao and Te (Brahman and Atman), while Yoga (Sankhya school of the 6 classical schools of darsana (or seeing) within the "Hindu" philosophical traditions) and Tantra deal with the transformational aspects of the Internal Alchemy.

 

To practice Tao using Hindu way -- Start with Yoga, go to Tantra as your undergraduate and graduate study and then do your post-graduate in Advaita.

 

Hinduism has been much dissected, vivisected, maligned, elevated by different people who looked at it with different lenses. It is very difficult to engage with some of the "statements" I've been reading on this thread. The seeker will find what he/she seeks in the Tao.

 

The profane will find profanity, the pure will find purity. Tao doesn't qualify...Tao simply is. Brahman doesn't qualify, Brahman simply is.

 

To learn more, take some time to read this old article of mine --

 

Nasadiya -- The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

I've also noticed this similarity. And what Shankara was saying totally makes sense to me. We may believe in personal deities, and those deities may even help us on our spiritual path. But ultimately, it's up to the individual to go beyond this with one's own efforts. I think there is a similar message in Buddhism: deity beings may exist in heaven realms, but they ultimately can't help you. You have to help yourself.

[Bruce]

Interesting discussion! I like the way the original question was posed: how do they relate, rather than what's the difference. That's how I've approached my study of Taoism and Hinduism in relation to Buddhism: how are they similar. The scholars and secular religionists can find all the differences. I'm more interested in the message, and to me there's a very similar thread, if you look beyond the semantics. When I read the Tao Te Ching, I always feel as if I could be reading an ancient Ch'an master. In fact, the message seems to be more clearly expressed in the Tao. My impression of the old yogis in India is that they weren't wrapping themselves up in the religion of Hinduism. They were just practicing. I believe it's the same case with the old sages of Buddhism and Taoism. They just practiced and lived what they practiced. To me, that's a very similar thread.