Taoist Texts

damn, why it had to be me? anyway, how come the Egyptians did not have the yin yang theory. 

 the idea that existence and change can be described by the interaction of two mutually dependent principles of that which initiates (yang) and that which responds (yin) is a very powerful and useful way of thinking.  

It is. except it is the other way around.

 

 Meet more teachers. 

While I am in agreement with your position and there are plenty of Daoists who emphasize the unity of Buddhist and Daoist goals as mentioned, I have also seen the same claim of the superiority of neidan in other sources (such as Robinet's Taoism: Growth of a Religion) due to the fact that Daoists cultivate both xing and ming whereas it was claimed that Buddhists only cultivate xing.

well, if you would like to supply quotes we can look at it closer

 

 

Furthermore I have also seen the claim by Daoists that they are trying to recapture what Chan achieved up til the Sixth Patriarch, implying that there was some sort of degeneration or confusion of Chan and that it was Quanzhen/neidan that was reviving it.

 

probably by WuLu, not QZ

What about what was written in Eskildsen's book?

 

 

It appears that the Quanzhen School and the larger internal alchemical movement maintained that it was by his or her mastery of the body and its energy that an accomplished internal alchemist could be deemed superior to his or her Buddhist counterpart after his or her liberation from the body. The liberated Radiant Spirit was deemed capable at will of assuming a clearly visible form with solid, corporeal properties. The liberated Buddhist adept, on the other hand, was said to become nothing more than a yin spirit incapable of appearing before mortal eyes or exhibiting corporeal traits.

 

 

[this is a wrong conclusion, as shown by the later excerpt where the criticism extends to the practitioners of both schools who practice wrongly]

 

 

This belief is clearly reflected in a legend about Lü Yan, recorded in Chunyang dijun shenhua miaotong ji. There we are told of an alleged occasion where Lü Yan and the spirit of a prominent, deceased Buddhist monk visited a home where a vegetarian feast was being held. Lü Yan was fed immediately by the hosts but had to ask for another serving for the Buddhist spirit, whom the hosts were unable to see. Lü Yan ended up eating both servings himself, since the Buddhist spirit was incapable of eating his (he could only suck on air).

 

 

[《純陽帝君神化妙通紀》 this is more of a friendly ribbing than a basis for generalizing about the superiority of Taoism. Note that the two spirits are friends]

 

 

This concept also is discussed in Dadan zhizhi. In one passage, “Qiu Chuji” alludes to methods of active imagination allegedly used or endorsed by prominent immortal brethren for bringing about the final liberation of the Radiant Spirit from the body: 

“This method is called “refining the body to merge with the Tao, abandoning the shell to ascend to immortality.” This method has no [specific] time [for carrying it out]. Clearly it has five methods. Master Haichan (Liu Cao) [used the method of ] the crane rising to the gate of heaven. Amid stillness (trance), he made his Real Nature—in the manner of a crane rising to the gate of heaven—exit outward. Naturally, he got to have a body outside the body. Patriarch Wang [Zhe (?)], the Twelfth Realized Man of the Western Mountain, said, “In the manner of a blooming tree, exit amid stillness. In the manner of a blooming tree, gaze back without error. Your Original Nature will have already come out, and naturally you will divide your form outside your body.” The Yellow Emperor exited in the manner of a fiery dragon.  Amid stillness he transformed into a fiery dragon and jumped up, and naturally he had a body outside the body. This is called the “pure and clear Dharma Body.” The two Realized Men, Zhong[li] Quan and Lü Yan, used the red tower to exit. Amid stillness, they climbed the three-storied red tower stage by stage. After climbing to the top, they leaped, and naturally abandoned their shells.”

 

[this is not relevant to the alleged superiority of Taoism]

 

This passage is followed by some commentary (anonymous): 

“What is described above is “the Exercise of Refining the Spirit and Merging with the Tao, Abandoning the Shell, and Ascending to Immortality,” which arrives at self-so-ness. As for Buddhist monks who enter into samadhi and die while seated in meditation, and Taoists who enter into stillness and thus send out yin spirits, these [spirits that they let out] are [nothing but] ghosts of pure vacuity and are not pure yang immortals. They are distantly faint with no appearance and in the end have no place to go to.Why do people who study [the way to immortality] make these mistakes? They especially do not understand that pure yang qi is born after the essence is refined and made into an elixir. After you refine the qi and complete the Spirit, the Realized Numinous Divine Immortal transcends the ordinary and enters into sacredness. You abandon your shell and ascend to immortality, and this is called “transcending and escaping.” This is the method of divine immortals that has not changed for a hundred million years!”

 

[Note that the incorrect practice of the both faith’s is criticized, not Buddhism per se.]

 

 

Shortly later on in the text, “Qiu Chuji” himself says: 

“Generally speaking, if you have a body, you will have suffering. If you have no home, you will have no attachments. In the past and present [wise men] all say that arduous effort arrives at non-action. How can [one who has arrived at non-action through arduous effort] bear to love his body and not leave it? Thus he abandons his shell and ascends to immortality by coming out from the top of his head. Refining his Spirit, he transcends ordinariness and becomes an immortal. People of the world do not like to cultivate and refine but only want to abandon their shells and thereby complete the way of immortality. How mistaken they are! With their bodies in a dark room, they sit still, eliminate their thoughts, and forget ideas without allowing outer surroundings to enter and inner surroundings to exit. They are like withered trees, and their hearts are like dead ashes (completely devoid of emotion or thought). Their spirit consciousness protects the One inside, and their minds are not distracted. Amidst their samadhi, they let out their spirits which are but yin souls. Dark and without appearance, they are not pure yang immortals.”

 

 

[Note the mix of the Buddhist and Taoist terminology]

 

 

The essential point is that no matter how thoroughly one has mastered mental methods of trance, one can only produce a feeble yin spirit if one has not trained the body and its qi—this in fact is a mistake that Taoists as well as Buddhists tend to make. Thus anxious as one may be to leave the body and this dusty world, one must not do so hastily, before both body and mind have been sufficiently trained. The full freedom and power of the immortal Spirit cannot be recovered without the proper care and training of the body.

 

 

[here Eskildsen admits that there is no superiority of Taoism, just a criticism of the mistakes made by the both faiths]

 

/Stephen Eskildsen "The Teachings and Practices of the Early Quanzhen Taoist Masters"/

To each their own I suppose, I am a fan for the most part though I do have my own disagreements.

 

 

What about what was written in Eskildsen's book?

He simplifies and generalises too much. I will address it in a separate post since it is a big quote.

 

It certainly seems Daoists have mostly upheld the unity of the three teachings idea. In Cleary's Vitality Energy and Spirit anthology there is even a Daoist master who says that the goals of Chan and alchemy are the same.

All of them said that;)

 

That said the Daoists must have certainly felt there was something special about neidan and their own praxis to set it apart from Buddhism, or else why didn't they just become Buddhists? Furthermore why were there Buddhist converts to Quanzhen? Just a matter of affinity or a real difference?

 

All good questions with the same answer: you see , in the abrahamic paradigm you convert to a faith because nothing depends on you personally and everything depends on the church you belong to.

 

In the eastern paradigm, everything depends on your personal effort and nothing on the church, if only for the reason that there is no church. And from that follows that you convert to a teacher. If you meet a buddhist that impresse you - you convert to buddhism, if you meet a taoist that impresses you - you convert to taoism. The taoist converts are those who happened to meet a taoist teacher, thats all.

 

On the Buddhist side, the most common attack I see is on the notion of the Dao, which they claim is an eternalistic notion akin to the Brahman they criticize, and on the concept of xianhood which they portray as similar to devas and hence still stuck in samsara. Two different hierarchies of teachings created by two different Buddhists (Zongmi and Kukai) both portray Daoism as inferior to even the most elementary forms of Buddhism, which in turn in their view are inferior to Mahayana, Huayan, Chan, and Shingon.

Oh well, they did not really mean that, or if they did we will not take it seriously;)

 

In any case, I guess my point is its easy to say they are the same and that syncreticism is good and 

depends what is meant by syncretism. a syncretism of what? a new age, pop syncretism is not that good.

 

 

that to each his own, etc. 

 defo;)

 

 

but can anyone actually put forward decisive arguments in favor of one or the other?

I can, but you see decisiveness is in the eye of the beholder. the listener is the decider.

 

 

It seems the Buddhists are more willing to do so than Daoists.

The politicking ones sure. The modern and pre-modern buddhism is about politicking and marketing. They will do anything;).

Well it seems to me that, barring a few comments, the thread has mostly been conciliatory and in favor of religious pluralism, which as an admirer of the Traditionalist school (Guenon, Evola, etc.) 

A Fantasist shool;) i would say

And reaffirming the same point from the website "LiteratiTradition":

That website is a good primer but not much more than that.

 

Most Taoist and Buddhist scholars argue that Inner Alchemy was thoroughly influenced by Buddhist thought, namely the Buddhist intellectual speculations, such as “being” and “non-being.” It is, in fact, completely Taoist reaction to Buddhism, while the nature of Buddhist awakening differs from that of the Taoist. The great Chinese Buddhist Adept Daoan 道安 (314-385) wrote: “The Buddhist teaching sees the emptiness of life, thus abandoning the body to liberate all sentient beings. The Taoist teaching sees the body as the ultimate, thus cultivating food and medicine for longevity.” (Daoan, T.52, 2103: 39a8.)

I would say it is an attack not an impartial judgement.

 

 

Therefore, Inner Alchemy is a technique of enlightenment, not much a doctrine but a practice achieved by exercising the techniques of longevity. Taoist inner alchemists make it very clear that their ideas are different from the notions of Chan/Zen Buddhists.

No, thats definitely wrong. What the taoists object to are the wrong ideas about buddhism, not the buddhism ideas.

 

According to Taoist inner alchemists, Chan/Zen Buddhists only dwell on xing 性, or the original nature in its pristine purity, which they wish to attain in an intuitive and immediate vision. They neglect ming 命, or fate, life, which represent the resistance of corporality and gravity within human beings. Only when xing and ming are combined, they join in the “non-action which is the action.” According the Classics of Inner Alchemy, Robinet describes, without ming, xing will forever be stuck in inactive emptiness; without xing, ming will never attain perfect non-action. (Robinet, 323)

This is mostly fringe Wulupai attack on Buddhism, not the mainstream POV. The latter was always the unity with buddhism. Again, even when there is a criticism of Buddhists methods from the genuine Taoists, it is directed at the wrong methods not on Chan per se or in general.

For a while now I feel my body hot. Sometimes very hot. I sweat a lot due to this heat. When I meditate I can feel the pulse in my whole body. Its a nice sensation and quite good feeling... the whole body pulsating with every heart beat.

 

I am wondering... am I on the right path? I haven't been going to any teacher yet.

 

Any comments, experiences are welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zou_huo_ru_mo_(medicine)

 

http://www.qigongtherapy.com/qigongdeviation.html

 

http://daoistkungfu.com/academy/147.html

Thank you - that article is nonsense.

another brick in the wall

 

http://www.aish.com/h/pes/t/f/British-Museum--Evidence-of-Israelite-Slavery-in-Egypt.html

De is a tricky one - I felt I had a good understanding of it, but it left. 

Looked at various explanations, but they were a bit scattered!

 

子曰：“由！知德者鲜矣。”     The Master said, "You, those who know virtue are few."

 

 

 

 

 

What would you guys say De is?

 

De is virtue.

 

 But then labels and words and explanations won't matter

 

it seems that Then Is Now. already.

 

  In other words, De is Dao actualized.   

 

Is not everything Dao actualized?

 

De is your True Self. It is non-different from Dao.

 

thats just substituting one unknown with 2. ok 3.

It is still the best available. All the others are based on it. Almost all the others are fantasies.

317-319 AD, May 23 CT. 9.16.3 – Emp. Constantine I.

 

Magicians and such who use their art against the minds of men are guilty and shall be punished; however, to use this art for good, to seek favorable weather during harvest for example, is allowable under the law.

 

[from my current translation job;)]

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

Is it true that improper practice of kundalini yoga may result in severe psychosis and death?

Yes but that is overly dramatic and unlikely, since it takes effort to drive oneself crazy;) most people just dabble in this. A mild to mid level discomfort is a sure thing though.

 

Do we know how to avoid such issues?

No, unfortunately you guys do not know how.

Unfortunately Thomas Cleary gives no source information for his translation of Spiritual Alchemy for Women.  All I could find is that it is an anonymous 1899 text on Taoist yoga and meditation dedicated to (and probably written by a disciple of) the outstanding woman Taoist master Cao Zhenjie.  

 

Active members here who might be able to help are Dawei and Taoist Texts. 

Hey Yueya

 

I copied the text to here 

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/40780-female-alchemy-from-chen-ying-ning/

 

Also thanks for Komjathy's  guidelines, have not seen them before, quite  chuckle-worthy;)

Did he - which G-d was that?

The One That Shall Not Be N-d

Art thou the anti-christ which was foretold of yore?

His name is Lois, not Art, mister!

With all due respect Taoist Texts, in regard to this:

Hi Donald;)

This reading of the characters looks like it comes from a commentary tradition, and if so I am sure  that all of us here would benefit from knowing more about that tradition and why it should be taken as so authoritative 

 

Absolutely, happy to oblige. The most authoritative (or most primary)source from which the phrase  實無 (shi-wu , being-non-being) was appropriated by the Taoist literature is

 

The Diamond Sūtra (Sanskrit:Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) is a Mahāyāna (Buddhist)sūtra from the Prajñāpāramitā, or "Perfection of Wisdom" genre, and emphasizes the practice of non-abiding and non-attachment. The Diamond sutra is one of the most influential Mahayana sutras in East Asia, and is a key object of devotion and study in Zen Buddhism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra

 

 

 

A paralel text is here.

 

http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141&Itemid=57

 

Unfortunately, that key phrase is also translated incorrectly there.

 

as to make any translation that doesn't observe it a "very incorrect translation".  This would seem to include the three online translations still available of the four that you quote without acknowledgement from Wikipedia.  The four sites in order give:

 

I did some other poking around also, none of which seemed to justify your usage based simply on the characters, which is why I am asking about its possible origin from some commentary tradition.

I know;).

You see, right of the bat, when the ppl tried to translate it they fell into the naif trap of transl. the 'shi-wu' as 'actually no'

 

E.g: 

 

10. Transformation to a Buddha World

 

 

The Buddha said to Subhuti,

- “What do you think? When the Tathagata studied under Dipankara Buddha, did he receive any Dharma?”

-“No, World Honored One, when the Tathagata studied under Dipankara Buddha, he did not (actually) receive any Dharma.” 

 

佛告

-須菩提•於意云何•如來昔在然燈佛所•於法有所得不•

- 不也•世尊•如來在然燈佛所•於法實無所得•

 

 

Which is of course wrong and is debunked by a subsequent explanation of what the shi-wu really stands for: 

 

14. A Mind Without Attachments

 

Subhuti, the Truth (Dharma) that the Tathagata has attained is neither real nor unreal.

 

 

須菩提•如來所得法•此法無實無虛•

 

 

Turns out it is a contraction of 'being which is non-being', a key idea of Buddhism which (actually together with the rest of 'em, lol) was lost on translators, resulting in nonsensical 'there is no attainment' etc.

 

 

Or to summarize what happened to the ill fated phrase 實無所得 habitually mistranslated as 'there is no attainment':

 

correctly, it means 'the attainment is our self-realisation as not  being nor not non-being', which is coded as 實無 shi-wu.

 ... too much philosophical elaboration is really what they want to evade.

How much is too much? But that is not the point.

 

The point is that translating 實無所得 as " we accomplish nothing" is to miss what the text says completely. It is a very incorrect translation.

 

Because 實無所得 means 'gaining the being and non-being'.

 

It is a Buddhist formula, which is explained as

 

 

「如來所得於是中無實無虛」"Buddha's achievment is not in being and not in non-being"

 

or 如來實無說法 'Explanation of buddhism is in being and non-being'.

Yes.

 

to translate 實無所得 as " we accomplish nothing" is a bit too naif. 

 

Here, 實無 is a contraction of a Buddhist  formula 「如來所得於是中無實無虛」or 如來實無說法.

Jing of Tranquility , another important piece of Taoism  ,

 

Yes it is quite interesting, thanks for translation

 

seems never be translated into English ( If I am  wrong, please tell me ) before .

It was but nothing beats personal effort, so good job.

 

The Qingjing jing has been translated into English by Balfour (1894:70-73), Legge (1891 2:247-54), and Kohn (1993:24-29). Wong(1992) translated the Shuijingzi (水精子) commentary.

 

• "The Classic of Purity and Stillness". Lapis Lazuli Texts. English translation.
• The Wonderful Scripture on the Constant Purity and Tranquility - An English Translation of 清靜經
• Canon of Purity and Tranquility Reconstruction of the musical setting of Qingjing Jing published in 1592
• Free translation made by Five Immortals Temple in China

 

 

 

　　觀空亦空，空無所空。所空既無，無無亦無。無無既無，湛然常寂。寂無所寂，欲豈能生。欲既不生，即是真靜。真常應物，真常得性。常應常靜，常清靜矣！

 

　　如此清靜，漸入真道。既入真道，名爲得道。雖名得道，實無所得。爲化眾生，名爲得道。能悟之者，可傳聖道。

 

And I hope that my pointing out a suggestive quote from the Confucian, Mecius:

 

盡心上: 孟子曰 「形色天性也惟聖人然後可以踐形。」

 

Mencius said, 'The bodily organs with their functions belong to our Heaven-conferred nature. But a man must be a sage before he can satisfy the design of his bodily organization.(Jin Xin I:38 Mencus 7A1:38 at the Chinese Text Project, James Legge translator)

 

Will add more to contemplate, without creating confusion.

Legge did not quite understand the phrase

 

'The body is also from Heaven; but one must become a sage inwardly first ,  in order for his sage-hood to  exhibit in his external appearance after that'

So in short, what are your thoughts and/or experiences on the relationship between Daoism and Western esoteric traditions?

Depends on what exactly in the west. There is congruence between neidan and western alchemy, some Christianity as well; everything else, in particular the modern western occultism - no.

Morning Walker;)

First of all on your kind request.

Out of respect to you personally i will meet it half-way.

First, today, one of those guys offered me to start a discussion with their teacher directly - i thanked and declined.

Second, i will place my answer to your last post not here, but in my little sandbox, where barely anyone will see it, lest it annoys someone here.

Third, i promise not to engage these folks, unless they attack other schools again, as is their wont.

You of course are very welcome to continue our pleasant chat in my PPF or here, as you see fit.

Thanks, man;)