Kongming

I agree. Sadly there is a large contingent of modern Buddhists who are strongly against what I am talking about and it seems like some more ancient Buddhists felt the same way (take the violent oppression of Dolpopa and the Jonangs historically in Tibet.) You can see this phenomena on some of the modern Buddhist forums anytime the topic of "anatta" or an ultimate reality like Brahman comes up in discussion. Here's an example of it occurring here on this forum: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/16163-taoism-vs-buddhism/ That said I of course believe there is much more positive to Buddhism than negative or else I wouldn't be interested in it!

I think this may be part of it. I generally agree with Daoist doctrines, but there is the issue of how open or closed it may be as mentioned. Not only that, there is a bit of confusion in this regard because while I am interested in Daoism and the Daoist path, unlike many Westerners I've seen who have become interested in Eastern religions, I have no desire to become Chinese or lose my own identity as a Westerner. So the issue becomes how to balance my own identity and connection to my historical traditions and follow what essentially has been an ethnic Chinese religion for most of history. Ultimately transcending all identities and limited notions of self and uniting with the Dao is the goal, but at the same time I feel deracination or uprooted-ness is one of the ills of the modern world and don't want to succumb to it myself. What I want is transcendence, transformation, awakening, enlightenment, gnosis, etc. The question becomes how can I most realistically achieve this in this life? I disagree. I believe that the notion of anatta is nihilistic and much of Madhyamika, especially Prasangika Madhyamika, is nihilistic despite the fact that the teachers of these doctrines state "this isn't nihilism and if you think it is you haven't understood it." I am one of those heretics (like Perez-Remon and George Grimm) who believes that the Buddha actually didn't deny the atman in the Pali since he always used anatta as an adjective in relation to the skandhas and never once claimed, "Disciples, verily there is no atman." So the imputation of that teaching and the constant antagonism to the Vedic/Upanishadic notion of an Atman in Buddhism I see as an error, and a nihilistic one at that. Thankfully much of East Asian Buddhism and the Jonangpas resolved these issues with their focuses on Tathagatagarbha, Buddha-Nature, the Nirvana Sutra, the notion of One Mind in Zen, etc.

Well it depends on what you mean. I believe the logical conclusion of materialism, especially modern scientific materialism which is the primary worldview of most of the modern West, is nihilism. In other words, the idea that there is only the physical, that consciousness is a product of matter, that upon the death of the physical organism everything ends, that there is no spiritual reality, etc. Another extremely prominent view in the modern West which goes hand in hand with materialism is relativism, especially the idea that there is no objective meaning to life, only relative meaning which individuals are free to impart to life as they choose. Again, no real true meaning to life and hence nihilism. Whether everyone who holds these beliefs have fully understood their import and become nihilists is another issue. Perhaps many of them feel intuitively there is a meaning to life and live as though there is one, but in spite of the fact that their own philosophical or ideological framework negates that. I also agree that the modern East is in the same position, though depending on where (say India) it may not be as extreme as the West yet. I believe that these phenomena reflect the fact that we are in an advanced stage of the Kali Yuga or Dharma Ending Age, and so this is to be expected. I wrote what I did based upon the unfortunate nature of the transmission of Eastern wisdom into the West since it is often the case that these Eastern traditions are interpreted or integrated in what I see as a rotten framework, namely that of materialism, relativism, secularism, humanism, etc. Hence what results is distorted versions of Eastern traditions, like Stephen Batchelor's atheistic-materialist Buddhism or a Daoism that is merely about being the Dude from the Big Lebowski rather than profound spiritual doctrines meant to transform oneself. Furthermore, as my thread's original purpose describes, the introduction of this Eastern wisdom under such conditions also does nothing to illuminate what the West already possessed as it well could potentially.

Bumping this thread this some relevant material I mulled over a few weeks back. Some similarities I've noticed thus far in my studies between Daoism and Celtic pagan traditions: --Both hold to a doctrine of immortality, which I imagine is fairly common in religious discourse in any case but worth mentioning --Arguably both hold to a doctrine of transmigration. The later Daoists under the influence of Buddhism most certainly adopted transmigration doctrines, but even early Daoism has the concept of "bianhua" and the changing of forms in the life cycle. --Both are generally monistic in their outlook and hold to the presence of transcendence within immanence. In Celtic pagan traditions the "Otherworld", conceived here as a timeless, eternal dimension was believed to be present within the mundane world, much in the same way that the Dao is present everywhere. --Both held to doctrines of cyclical time and a fall from a past Golden Age --Both saw the number three as sacred and divided reality into three realms (Heaven, Man, Earth for Daoism and Sky, Earth, Sea for the Celts.) --Both placed importance on the human head as a sacred center (the Niwan center in Daoist esoteric anatomies, the head cult of the ancient Celts.) --Both viewed various power places in nature as sacred spots, particularly mountains (and hills in the case of the Celts) and lakes. Furthermore as per shan shui and many Daoist motifs, mists/clouds were symbols of the numinous and this is also the case with the ancient Celts (usually mists precede an Otherworld journey or encounter.) --Both held notions of immortal or sacred islands (Penglai, Avalon, Tir na Nog, etc.) --Like many traditional cultures and religious traditions, both the Daoists and Celts placed emphasis on cosmological attunement, especially with cycles like the seasons --Both employed the taijitu symbol

I often find myself attracted by Buddhism, as mentioned, but simultaneously averse. For example, I have a respect for the ancient Vedic tradition and Hinduism generally...Buddhism tends to deny the former in most cases and is often antagonistic to the latter. I personally find the "anatta" doctrine of Buddhism to be nonsensical at best and nihilistic at worst. The five skandhas are all that there are, they exhaust reality, and yet they are suffering and impermanent. Chan/Zen and much of East Asian Buddhism seems to resolve this issue with their focus on Mind/Buddha-Nature/Tathagatagarbha at least, but it doesn't stop a lot of confusion from arising (say with the whole Critical Buddhism in Japan.) Daoism, especially Quanzhen, doesn't have this issue as stated here in Eskildsen's book on Quanzhen: I also dislike a certain Buddhist triumphalism or arrogance in regards to other paths I often see, especially since I generally agree with the propositions of the so-called Traditionalist School. In other words, only Buddhism is the right way and will lead to true enlightenment and everything else is inferior...this triumphalist attitude is especially pronounced in Tibetan Buddhism and Dzogchen. Contrast this with most Daoist writings which, especially after the Song Dynasty, fully embraced the "san jiao" theory and claimed that the three religions were after and guiding their adherents to the same goal. That said I believe one of the advantages of Buddhism is that its literature, from the start, has been clear cut: it's about enlightenment and liberation. I personally believe that Daoism from earliest times was also a mystical/esoteric doctrine aimed toward transcendence and the production of sages/immortals/true men, but a greater vagueness in the early texts has lead to a sort of "Dude-ism" or "go with the flow" Daoism rather than a doctrine of transformation. Perhaps this is more of a Western Daoist phenomena, but it could spell trouble and confusion. That said, Buddhism is subject to plenty of distortions as well (Buddhism as secular liberalism plus meditation, Buddhism as atheistic humanism, etc.) As to superior or inferior, I like Daoism's generally conciliatory attitude as mentioned, but I suppose seeing some more arguments in favor of Daoist praxis or doctrines would help some in being lead to Daoism. One primary example I can think of is some of the arguments neidan practitioners had in favor of their system over Buddhism, wherein the latter would only become yin ghosts rather than pure yang immortals due to only cultivating xing rather than both xing and ming. I suppose in most regards I am more Daoist in outlook and more attracted to Daoism. It inspires me more generally. That said, the fact that Buddhism has been an international religion is more favorable for a potential convert like me, whereas as mentioned in a previous post Daoism has been primarily an ethnic religion for most of its history, aside from some Koreans and Sichuan minorities. I've heard from some people that even in modern Daoism some of the Chinese masters are unwilling to share the true methods with foreigners. This thread touches on the issue a bit: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/26139-the-most-influential-taoist-figure-in-last-century-chen-ying-ning/page-2 I've seen this mentioned elsewhere as well. I suppose I wouldn't want to be a perpetual outsider in my converted religious tradition is all. Though I am a firm believer in "where there is a will there is a way" so I wouldn't let something like that stop me, but something to keep in mind I suppose.

I prefer Dolpopa's take on these issues, which I know isn't the most popular position. Here's a quote I've seen floating around on the internet by him that agrees with my sentiment:

Thanks, I may have to purchase the DVD if the practices are as good as I hear.

I created the thread mainly because I find myself bouncing back and forth between the two. I know one might answer that one can theoretically be both, but I feel in the end a certain tradition, path, and form of praxis should be committed to. Hence I was hoping to find some decisive arguments or positions for why people preferred Daoism over Buddhism. Regarding Buddhism, my attraction is primarily East Asian esoteric Buddhism (Shingon, Mikkyo, Shugendo, Hanmi/Tangmi, etc.) or in other words mantra/dharani practice, along with Chan's insights and an interest in the Avatamsaka Sutra and Huayan philosophy. My main qualm with Buddhism is dealing with what I feel is a strong nihilistic element that permeates Buddhism, namely denial of any eternal Absolute reality by some Buddhists, though this problem is lessened in East Asian Buddhism which puts Tathagatagarbha Buddhism at the forefront. Another problem with Buddhism for me is that while I am non-violent, I can't force myself to not admire heroes, warriors, martial artists, etc. or adopt the fashionable pacifism of modern Buddhism. On Daoism, for the most part I quite like everything I've encountered and am especially interested in neidan, neigong, and general Daoist mysticism (say what may be left of Maoshan/Shangqing practices and of course the Lao-Zhuang material), but my main fear is how "closed" Daoism might be since it has primarily been an ethnic religion throughout history and I am a Western foreigner. To alleviate that I have been learning Mandarin and hopefully when I go abroad I will be able to find my path. Anyone else in a similar situation or was in a similar situation and if so how did you resolve it?

Aside from attending a seminar or purchasing a book/DVD, any resources for this practice available online, either in video or descriptive form?

I've gradually lost my two best friends due in part to my devotion to cultivation, but also just the fact that we've become different men. We've been great friends, more like brothers, since we were 12 years old, but by the age of 18 the seeds of our divergence began to become clear. My friends became interested in drinking, clubbing, partying, and had no intellectual or spiritual interests, whereas I wasn't interested in the former and had many of the latter. Surprisingly despite our differences we remained friends until about a year or so ago and now we no longer see each other and rarely speak. At first this distressed me only because I was used to seeing them often and had been such good friends for so long, but now I more or less am content being alone. As to family, for the most part no one in my family understands me. My mother is supportive to a degree but probably thinks I am strange, whereas my father is a skeptic-atheist and really an anti-religious person and so mutual understanding between us in this area is nonexistent. My other family members either are unaware of my interests and focus on cultivation or else uninterested. So yes, the spiritual path can be a lonely one which isn't surprising given that we are in Kali Yuga/the Dharma Ending Age. That said I've never had qualms being a loner and never actually feel lonely or in need of company, so this isn't a problem for me. That said it would be nice if there were other people who "get" you, but I suppose online comradery is sufficient.

Thanks for the replies. So besides specifically Buddhist forms of qigong, how does qigong fit into the context of the Buddhist path or as means of spiritual cultivation? In a specifically Chinese or East Asian Buddhist sphere is there a long history or history at all of qigong being used for those purposes? Would Daoist or otherwise non-Buddhist forms qigong fit into a Buddhist cultivation regimen?

Does anyone here think there is any benefit to the combined study and/or practice of Western esoteric and occult traditions and Daoism? Is there anyone here who does just that? If so what has been your experience in this area? I have very limited knowledge of the Western esoteric traditions but have always had a slight fascination with the topic. From what I know, the Western esoteric tradition is often couched in or based on Christian and Kabbalistic terms/foundations, and thus this may a conflict with Daoism which works from a different perspective. Though it seems to me that Hermeticism with its notion of "as above so below" and Western alchemy might have some parallels to Daoism and hence be compatible. I also know very little about the figure of Aleister Crowley or his system of Thelema, but I do know that he praised Daoism highly. So in short, what are your thoughts and/or experiences on the relationship between Daoism and Western esoteric traditions?

Speaking of qi/chi, I was going to ask, does anyone know if there is an equivalent to qi (or prana, etc.) in the Western esoteric tradition?

Again, coming from an area of very limited knowledge on Western esotericism, how does Hermetic Qabalah fit in relation to Daoism? I know I've heard comparisons between Ein Sof and the Dao before, but is there anything else which really fits?

This article seems to have some good information relevant to the topic: http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeVI/Dao.htm In particular this bit I found useful: On the topic of neidan, for those who have studied both neidan and Western alchemy, how comparable are the two in their goals, methodologies, etc.?

In Thomas Cleary's anthology of Daoist teachings under the title Vitality, Energy, and Spirit, there is a work attributed to Lu Dongbin (the name of which escapes me at the moment) but in that work the same truth is expressed in this way:

Yes, but I am talking about from the perspective of Daoism, why is there a huge gamut practices (from self-discipline to ethics to dietetics to seated meditation to daoyin/neigong to visualization to ritual to magic to neidan, etc.) and why is there the ideal of the sage, the zhenren, or the immortal? That these elements exist and were central to Daoism tells us that Daoism believed that through cultivation and refinement man could transcend that which is "merely human" and become a celestial immortal, a perfected person, etc. that is united with the Dao. Now, that this is possible and requires effort tells us that automatically becoming an immortal or uniting with the Dao wasn't a given and that there is a qualitative difference between the sage/zhenren and the normal person tells us we all don't have the same end. Furthermore, the Daoist ideal of transcending death and immortality also tells us that death isn't just a nihilistic eternal sleep or else the former wouldn't be possible. Hence we can conclude that there is post-mortem survival in some form (which doesn't necessarily entail the individual person, the little "I" or ego surviving) and that it neither included everyone uniting with the Dao automatically nor some Abrahamic model of eternal heaven for some and eternal hell for others. I ask, aside from the scenario described in the first post of mine in this thread, what else is there?

My point is less about lifestyle (such as hermit vs. being in society) so much as the difference between the zhenren 真人 or "true man" "perfected man", the sage, the immortal, etc. and the ordinary man. Now, at the Absolute level it may be said that they are the same, but at the relative level there is certainly a difference. For example, the Daodejing 15 says of the former: The masters of this ancient path are mysterious and profound Their inner states baffle all inquiry Their depths go beyond all knowing Zhuangzi says of them: There must first be a True Man before there can be true knowledge. What do I mean by a True Man? The True Man of ancient times did not rebel against want, did not grow proud in plenty, and did not plan his affairs. A man like this could commit an error and not regret it, could meet with success and not make a show. A man like this could climb the high places and not be frightened, could enter the water and not get wet, could enter the fire and not get burned. His knowledge was able to climb all the way up to the Way like this. Other early Daoist material states that their minds are so perfectly calm and unmoving that if a mountain were to crumble in front of them they wouldn't lose their composure in the least. The Huainanzi states of these perfected men: Life and death make no difference to him; that is why he is called supremely spiritual (shen, divine). The one who is called the True Man (chen-jen) is naturally one with Tao; he has as if not having; he is full as if empty; he dwells in unity without knowing duality, governs his inner person and ignores the external. He clearly knows Grand Simplicity (t'ai-su); and without ado, he returns to the uncarved block(p'u); he incorporates the Root, embraces the divine, and frolics between heaven and earth. Radiant, he roams beyond the dust and impurities, and goes hither and yon in aimless wandering. Immense and vast! Without learning, he knows; without looking, he sees; without acting, he achieves; without any effort, he discerns. He responds impulsively, he moves when solicited; without willing, he goes as a light shines or like a [lightning] flash. Having the Tao for himself, he waits and conforms. Embracing the Root of Great Purity (T'ai-ch'ing), there is nothing which delights or disturbs him. Vast and grand, he is empty; pure and quiet, he is without thought or worry. Burning marshes would not warm him; the freezing Yellow or Han rivers would not cool him; a formidable thunderclap striking a mountain would not frighten him; a formidable wind obscuring the sun would not trouble him. In short, there is a qualitative difference between the sage and the ordinary man, indeed an ontological difference. The question is, does this true or perfected man have the exact same end as the ordinary man? It seems unlikely. If that were the case, why should one aim to become a zhenren when all one has to do is wait a very short time before death comes and one can also unite with the Dao and become immortal? Hence why I personally believe my first post in this thread to be the best way of looking at the issue.

Read the citation I posted in my first post on this thread. This is one way of viewing how early Daoism viewed transmigration or metamorphosis, and incidentally the exegesis given in that citation is how many of the Daoists who accept transmigration also read the early material. Immortality, i.e. timelessness and the attainment of the Dao, was the goal of early and all Daoism, but that doesn't mean that everyone united with the Dao and became an immortal after death. No, I used morality as one example among others (such as those who actual pursued Daoist practices and way of life vs. those who didn't) to show how there is a qualitative difference in different people and therefore not everyone will have the same postmortem situation. If such were the case, why bother with anything (certainly not Daoist discipline, praxis, or asceticism) since we are all assured of the same end? Might as well embrace the YOLO lifestyle and do whatever you want since uniting with the Dao after death is guaranteed.

It's also been a Daoist thing among a wide array of Daoists throughout history and is the viewpoint of Quanzhen Daoists, the primary living form of Daoism in China today. If everyone returns to the Dao when they die, what is the point of any effort toward the Dao such as all the various practices Daoists have engaged in throughout history? Why do the early Daoist texts speak of attaining or realizing the Dao (dedao 得道)? If everyone returns to the Dao regardless of how they lived their life, doesn't that in turn mean that there is no ultimate qualitative difference in how one lives ones life and that a murderer, rapist, buffoon, who is addicted to desires will have the same end as the sage?

Of course, words fall short of being able to describe that which precedes all words and conceptual categories. Words such as nondual are, like the famous Chan saying, "fingers pointing to the moon" and will not allow one to directly apprehend anything, or as the DDJ has it "The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao, The name that can be named is not the eternal Name." That said, certain words are more suitable than others in attempting to describe the indescribable, and nondual fits better than duality since, again, the Dao at the Absolute level is the source of all things and prior to differentiation.

How would one traditionally become a master of the Yijing? I am sure to become a master would be no easy task, but what would be involved? For example, I am sure part of mastering the Yijing would be to memorize the hexagrams and their relations, meanings, etc. so when one casts (coins, yarrow stalks, etc.) one wouldn't have to reference the text to understand the outcome, being able to just look at the hexagrams and know, especially through the training of one's intuition. This of course is mastering the divinatory aspect of the Yijing, but what about the metaphysical, spiritual, or magical/occult aspects of the Yijing? What would mastery of these areas involve? Does anyone have any good book recommendations on these topics? Thanks in advance.

So what would be a practical first step? Memorizing the bagua and the 64 hexagrams? Also, for one working within a Daoist framework and pursuing Daoist goals, which would be the best way to approach the Yijing? Alfred Huang in the work previously mentioned in the thread states that the School of Symbol and Number is the "Daoist" school of the Yijing and if that's the case I imagine that would be worth focusing on, but what about the Yijing's relationship to neidan?

Thanks, I've had this one on my wishlist for a while now but haven't gotten around to purchasing it. Since I found it for cheap I recently purchased Alfred Huang's The Numerology of the I Ching but have not read it yet so cannot comment on the content. It's a shame that English sources of some of the more esoteric or in depth looks at the Yijing are scarce and often expensive. I was anticipating this response, just surprised it was soon soon haha.

The Daodejing is the source of the view of the Dao preceding the One, which produced the Two, etc. I am pretty sure the sources for wu and pu also are to be found in the DDJ, Zhuangzi, Huainanzi, etc. And while I can't recall exactly which texts and masters I've read state it, I know I've read the Dao described as nondual in my readings in the past; I'll have to see if I can find where.