Kongming

June 27, 2017

13 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Excellent response and I see nothing to disagree with.

However, your first paragraph is why I have been avoiding the word/concept "Dao" as much as possible and use the word/concept "Tzujan" instead. I don't ever want to be caught personifying Dao. I feel that would be an error.

Buddhism doesn't have this problem. Hindu has many gods and the followers have no problem with that.

Well all three traditions traditionally accepted the existence of divinities/gods and other non-human entities (celestial bodhisattvas and Buddhas in Buddhism, immortals/perfected in Daoism.) In the Sangarava Sutta the Buddha answers the question about gods quite frankly and directly:

"When this was said, the brahmin student Sangarava said to the Blessed One: “Master Gotama’s striving was unfaltering, Master Gotama’s striving was that of a true man, as it should be for an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One. But how is it, Master Gotama, are there gods?” “It is known to me to be the case, Bharadvaja, that there are gods.”

Though you are correct that the Dao (as well as Brahman) is not a personal God but rather an impersonal Absolute. It is "ziran" which in this case doesn't mean "nature" or "natural" in the English sense of the word but rather "self-so", spontaneous, uncaused, without origin, etc.

June 26, 2017

44 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Which Buddhist sources state this? I recall reading somewhere that Buddhism assumes the universe to have existed and to continue to exist forever, and nothing needs to be in a hurry... Reminiscent of Fred Hoyle's cosmological Steady-State theory, BTW.

Well Buddhists also share the Vedic (and really Indo-European) tradition of cycles of creation and destruction as far as I am aware. Samsara would encompass all previous and all future universes and is thought to be beginingless and endless as noted. The difference is Daoism and Hinduism propose that this level of reality, the relative world of space-time and becoming, is an emanation of the supreme level of reality, the Dao or Brahman in its Absolute aspect.

Earliest Buddhism tended to be silent on this topic since they believed it was speculative or could lead to speculation and hence not conducive to liberation. Whether this means a total denial of an Absolute equivalent to Brahman or the Dao as many Buddhists, both in Theravada and in Mahayana especially Madhyamika, hold or whether the Buddha was essentially saying, "Obtain enlightenment and liberation and find out yourself" is debatable, but it seems mainstream Indo-Tibetan and SE Asian Buddhist scholasticism historically was in favor the former view.

Quote

I don't remember having heard of a clear cut Daoist view on the development of the universe, even though some passages in the DDJ seem to suggest Creation having a "before" and "after". A cyclic view would seem to be most in line with Daoism's general outlook on things, however.

Once again, sources that help clarify this would be appreciated, if anybody here knows any.

DDJ 43 is about the development of the world as I've been explaining. The Dao, timeless, absolutely simple and empty non-being which contains infinity in potential "births" the One, which is the hundun, the primordial chaos of qi prior to its division into yin-yang (the Two.) In other words the world or universe in an undifferentiated state is the One...the world was we know it, of change, multiplicity, and relativity, is the result of yin and yang's interaction (the Three birthing ten thousand things.)

As to cyclical time, Daoists held to the idea that water or fire would overcome the world before it was created anew. Later with the development of Shangqing and Lingbao traditions specific theories relating to cycles of time much like the Hindu "yugas" were explained. Here's a citation from Brill's Daoism Handbook:

June 26, 2017

54 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I can go only so far with this before I start talking out my butt.

It is my understanding that Buddhism suggests no beginning of the universe but rather cycles of universes.

In Daoism, all that is, is, always has been, and always will be. The universe simply takes different forms over time. (Think unmanifested energy.)

This is correct, though the difference seems to be that Buddhism states samsara is beginingless and endless but either denies or refuses to comment on the source or origin of this cyclical universe whereas Daoism states that the source and ground of the world of change is the Dao. The equivalent to the Dao in much of Hinduism is Brahman, but many Buddhists deny that there is anything similar to Brahman in Buddhism.

Though the universe that always has been and always will be which takes different forms over time is the One (undifferentiated qi or hundun chaos), which polarizes into Two (yin-yang), which meet together (the Three), which produces the "ten thousand things" or myriad phenomena. The Dao, in its ultimate and Absolute aspect, is metaphysically prior to or above this in timeless purity and empty non-being (wu) and its function is to spontaneously "give birth to" or emanate the One. In other words, the Dao isn't limited to our universe or the state of becoming (samsara) but rather simultaneously transcends and encompasses this level of reality.

June 26, 2017

22 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Now you say Taoism is Monism, blah blah.

Well let's take a step away from mathematics and the nature of yin-yang, etc. and just contemplate the following line of inquiry: Does the Dao, the Absolute, encompass all of reality, both space-time and that which transcends space-time? We know it was prior to heaven and earth, prior to the emanation of qi, prior to the polarization of yin-yang, etc. yet also always present. Zhuangzi notes that it's also in grass, rocks, feces, and urine...in other words a more shocking way of saying it is all things. So all is the Dao and adepts have striven to attain unity with the Dao. You also have concepts like "guarding the One" and sayings like, "Know the One and the myriad affairs are done."

In other words, all of reality is of one substance or emanates from one Absolute, namely the Dao. Thus Daoism is monistic....whether it is monistic in the same way of Plotinus or Vedanta is a different topic.

12 hours ago, Marblehead said:

And actually, Buddhism and Daoism do not differ much in regards t the concept of "beginnings".

How so? Daoism starts with the Dao spontaneously emanating reality. Earliest Buddhism didn't mention emanation and ignored metaphysical or ontological questions in favor of epistemological issues, placing the root of samsara with ignorance and from that ignorance the chain of interdependent origination. Later Buddhist theories dealing with Sunyata also don't seem to propose a process of emanation, indeed they often deny creation at all and state that the world is a misconstruction based entirely in thought.

June 25, 2017

14 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So you speak of concepts - and you use dualistic language. So something is one as in monism or two as in dualism or one as in beyond space/time - Buddhism based on neither this nor that, neither not one nor not-one, etc.

It's all left brain dominant discussion. For example you state "many" Christian mystics/NeoPlatonists had a "panentheistic" view - but this is not Platonic philosophy since the math of Plato is "materialistic idealism."

If math is materialistic - then the philosophy will be materialistic. I agree that individual mystics had experiences but to try to fit their experiences into a Platonic philosophy to me is totally wrong. There is a great worship of Plato that I completely disagree with as this view of Plato as some panentheistic is not accurate.

Monism is the idea that all is one principle or substance ultimately. The Dao is the All. Panentheism states that the Divine both encompasses all of space-time--the universe or world as we know it--but also is the transcendent and timeless source of that universe. The Dao gives birth to the One, the One being the primordial chaos or hundun of qi not yet polarized into yin-yang, and in verse 25 of the DDJ it is stated: "There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth." In other words the Dao, in its Absolute aspect, is prior to creation and prior to the universe (if not temporally/horizontally then metaphysically/vertically), namely transcendent.

Given the above, it's no wonder scholars like Komjathy have this to say:

"From a classical and foundational Daoist perspective, the Dao has four primary characteristics: (1) the Source of everything; (2) an unnamable mystery; (3) an all-pervading sacred presence (qi); and (4) the universe as transformative process (“Nature”). That is, the primary Daoist theology is monistic (there is one impersonal Reality), panentheistic (the sacred is both in and beyond the physical world), and panenhenic (Nature itself is sacred). The secondary Daoist theology is at once animistic (there are spirits in nature) and polytheistic (there are multiple gods)."

As to Plato, I was mostly speaking about Plotinus and his successors. The mystical theology of certain Christian mystics and Sufis like Ibn Arabi is mostly grounded on a Neoplatonic framework. Thus Toshihiko Izutsu's work highlighting the striking similarities between Daoism and Ibn Arabi also applies to Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism also has been commented to be strikingly similar to Brahmanism, especially that of the Upanishads. Here's an interesting article comparing the Dao to Brahman:

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp252_dao_brahman.pdf

June 24, 2017

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Whereas I am a minority in maintaining that Buddhism (as well as Christianity etc) is essentially polytheistic (whether you talk about gods or bodhisattvas, angels, etc is of no consequence, in my view).

It's true enough that they are polytheistic but they all deal with an absolute principle which in Daoism or most forms of Hinduism is monistic/panentheistic (Dao, Brahman, Parashiva, etc.) while most forms of Christianity are a bit more dualistic since many theologians were at pains to distinguish God from His Creation, though the Eastern Orthodox idea of God's energies infusing creation and many Western Christian mystics/Neoplatonists approach a more panentheistic perspective.

I believe East Asian Buddhism, as per the Awakening of the Faith or the Chan/Zen notion of "One Mind" or Mahavariocana in Shingon/Mikkyo, is by and large monistic though some contest this. Yogacara some have tried to paint as idealistic monism whereas others against contest this. There seems to be a large controversy within Buddhism regarding affirming an Absolute or any substance as per certain viewpoints relating to the doctrines of "anatta" and "sunyata."

In any case, I suppose the difference here is that Daoism has a clear cut doctrine of a monistic/panentheistic Absolute that emanates creation which is of the substance of qi and thus puts forth the notion of the microcosm mirroring the macrocosm, whereas in much of Buddhism this isn't the case or at least not a center of focus.

June 24, 2017

8 hours ago, roger said:

What about their similarities?

Some basic, obvious ones would be:

- pantheism

- emphasis on meditative practices

- compassion

I know this is very simple, but simplicity is a key concept in Daoism.

Well they do have many similarities especially after interacting with and influencing each other in the Chinese world for nearly two millennia. The problem is it seems that sometimes people treat them as though they were essentially the same, with Daoism perhaps being the Chinese Buddhism with qi and monks/priests with hair. Of course the reality is there are doctrinal and philosophical differences between the two, which is why I wanted to start the thread to explore these differences.

Though on pantheism: pantheism is the perspective that the world of space-time, the universe we are familiar with, is equivalent to the Divine. This fails to take into perspective that which transcends space and time, such as the Dao in its Absolute aspect. Thus Daoism would be better be described as panentheism.

As far as I understand it, most Buddhists deny that Buddhism is panentheism, pantheism, monism, etc. though personally I believe Buddhism is monistic, especially Chan and other forms of East Asian Buddhism, but I am a minority in this view from what I can tell.

June 23, 2017

Another possible difference seems to be on the nature of or actualization of liberation and the underlying cause behind not being liberated. In Buddhism the cause of our transmigration through samsara is ignorance and the cause of our liberation is enlightenment, variously termed bodhi (such as in anutarra samyak sambodhi) or jnana/prajna. Thus it is a matter of realization or awakening, a matter of supra-conceptual and liberating knowledge or wisdom that sets us free in Buddhism.

Within Daoism there certainly are equivalents to this idea and especially with influence of Buddhism, but from what I understand Daoism doesn't understand our origin in becoming or transmigration through time as being rooted in ignorance but rather that all life is a natural and spontaneous emanation of the Dao, hence where the Daodejing says heaven and earth treat creatures like straw dogs. In other words, an impersonal principle doesn't have any partiality toward creatures and so our presence here isn't the result of a punishment or error such as in the Christian conception of the Fall of Man nor is it necessarily rooted in ignorance as in Buddhism.

In the Daoist and especially alchemical view, since life is the result of a spontaneous and natural emanation from the Absolute, it naturally "follows the course" to death, the dispersal of the hun/po or yang/yin souls, and change of state, i.e. becoming again in another life form. Thus immortality or the attainment of the Dao is a matter of reversing the course and returning....in neidan this is the famous process of refining jing to qi to shen to Dao but other Daoist movements may have envisioned this process in a different manner.

In sum, the root of becoming is ignorance in Buddhism, a natural and spontaneous process of emanation in Daoism. Liberation is entirely seen as a matter of wisdom or awakening in Buddhism, a transformation or return (usually involving energetic components) in Daoism. Perhaps it is the case that to attain the Dao at the end of that process is also equivalent to awakening in that we "realize" the Dao, but it seems the understanding of the nature or process of the matter is a bit different.

Buddhist conceptions are here more in line with Vedanta or other systems where it is a matter of knowing or awakening, whereas Daoism seems more in line with the Christian notion of theosis and/or other Hermetic/alchemical systems where it is a matter of refining our substance to achieve an ontological change of state, i.e. transforming lead into gold. It may well be the case that the "gold" is always there and there is no real change at the depths, but there is nonetheless a process of unveiling via refinement, namely praxis.

June 21, 2017

7 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth: From Ancient Egypt to Neoplatonism

I read this book - it's online - he has a "rationalist" bias view of Logos that is incorrect.

So it's a NeoPlatonic biased book without a real understanding of Pythagorean philosophy.

Well that may be the case I am not sure, Pythagoreanism isn't an area I've studied much. I only referenced the work to give an example of how philosophy in the ancient world wasn't merely an entirely cerebral system of thought but rather a way of life geared toward wisdom, ideally true or transformative wisdom, i.e. gnosis.

June 20, 2017

It's both.

The split of philosophy versus religion is a fairly modern and Western construction on the whole. In the ancient world philosophy was by and large a way of life, a means to an end, namely wisdom. An interesting work on this topic is Algis Uzdavinys' Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth: From Ancient Egypt to Neoplatonism.

Every religious tradition also has its own guiding philosophy and philosophers. In the vast majority of cases historically philosophy wasn't divorced or entirely separated from various cults, rites, priesthoods, and so on.

This also applies to Daoism. Daoism from the get go has had religious aims, namely the attainment of or union with the Dao, which is the production of sages, zhenren 真人 or "true/realized/perfected men", and/or xian 仙 or "immortals/transcendents."

Even earliest or so-called "philosophical Daoism" wasn't some standalone philosophy of figures like Laozi or Zhuangzi but rather represented the thought of various schools and lineages. An important point here is that what Laozi and Zhuangzi are describing are the sages or true men. The point is to become a sage yourself by attaining union with the Dao, not merely to emulate the sages (which certainly is helpful but isn't the end goal.) Thus to treat the contents of Laozi or Zhuangzi as a mere philosophy divorced from that aim or a way to live well in the secular world is to miss the point.

Daoism on the whole has a strong relationship with deities, heavens, the nature and destiny of the spirit/soul, mysticism/esotericism, magic, its own priesthood, rites, etc. and thus most certainly is a religion. Yet, reiterating the above, this doesn't mean it also isn't a philosophy.

June 17, 2017

Two further questions arise:

1) What is the relation, if any, between specifically Daoist/religious/spiritual neigong and the ming 命 aspect of neidan? Are they unrelated, cross over, etc.? I am not sure where he got it but Damo Mitchell puts forward a categorization wherein qigong is more outer and houtian/postheaven, neigong is a more advanced and inward methodology that has both houtian and xiatian or preheaven work, and neidan is the most advanced/inward and entirely works with preheaven jing/qi/shen. Is this accurate?

2) What is the methodology of the Secret of the Golden Flower, namely "turning the light around", and does it bear any relation or interrelation with neigong?

June 15, 2017

12 hours ago, 3bob said:

multiple beings are not transformed to a private and separate timelessness , (although an exceptionally long god like life is possible) for there is only one timeless being-ness that becomes unveiled and is already existing beyond normal existence, without any transformation needed to make it !

Indeed, but there is still the transformation of realization or actualization to occur or else we'd all be immortals, Buddhas, and sages.

Whatever the case, as mentioned I do believe from the Absolute perspective the differences between traditions or sects are of little to no importance, but for one on the path I don't think they are entirely unimportant. Buddhism as far as I know emphasizes "right view" (though it is debated what the exact nature of right view is....some say it is Nagarjuna's sunyata but that postdates earliest Buddhism) as essential to success on the path.

June 14, 2017

Of the various methods that fall under the various headings of qigong, daoyin, neigong or other related terms which are those most explicitly associated with Daoist religious or spiritual aims historically and today? We know that qigong is sometimes lumped into categories such as medical, martial, and religious, some associated with Daoism and some with Buddhism, etc.

So to your knowledge which are the most important neigong practices associated with Daoist internal cultivation and religious aims? Which if any have a connection to traditional Daoist meditation and/or neidan?

June 14, 2017

3 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Superficially speaking, yes.

But Buddhists also believe that the conclusions drawn at the end of a cycle will be the foundations of what is going to happen in the next one.

And the concept of eternity can be interpreted too if we assume that the discarnate entity potentially experiences a state of timelessness. From which it will in most cases return to another space-time existence, however, as recognized by Hinduism, Buddhism, and esoteric Christianity.

Let me put it this way: I believe in the various authentic traditions throughout history that there were men enlightened and transformed through their system leading to timelessness or immortality. I believe the potential for this exists in any authentic path since all are seeking the one and only Absolute Truth. That said I believe the discrepancies and differing opinions between various sects are not unimportant and can inform us of the validity of a particular doctrine or sect.

For example, if I encountered a tradition that didn't take in account transcendence or denied that men can transform themselves ontologically, I would think less of it even if it may have produced sages in spite of that.

Thus core differences that might prop up between certain Buddhists and Daoists, such as whether there is an ontological Absolute or something similar to the Atman or whether there is a continuity for a particular life form rather than just being a succession of moments, whether the body is a microcosm or an illusion, etc. are not without importance. Even if they lead to the same end theoretically, uncovering these differences can help determine if a particular path is workable or right for you.

3 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Many Buddhists don't even agree on the same views or end goals among themselves. Haven't you heard of the legendary 'Buddhist wars' on TDB?

No I have not, what were these Buddhist wars? Dzogchen followers of a Madhyamika stripe vs. Zennists?

June 14, 2017

Well I certainly don't disagree that authentic traditions would have less differences the further they go up due to the fact that ultimately they are all trying to describe, intuit, and lead us toward the one Truth or the one reality.

That said just as there is a difference between believing in a personal God who acts in history and who will judge at the end of time whether beings will face eternal salvation or eternal hell and the Buddhist conception of reality, so also there are differences between Daoism and Buddhism to be discerned or else they'd be the same entity. No doubt they are more closely related to each other than either are to something like Islam for example.

In Buddhist discourse, both historically (such as in Zongmi's hierarchy of traditions or Kukai's Ten Levels of Mind or the debates between Buddhists and Hindus or Daoists) and today (such as those threads I linked earlier) there seems to be a concern in proving that non-Buddhist traditions cannot lead to the end of suffering....essentially stating that a Daoist who has attained the Dao or a Hindu yogi who unites with Brahman are still bound to samsara (I disagree but that's not relevant here.) Thus I think many Buddhists would not agree with the Perennial Philosophy or sharing the same view or end goal as Daoists.

June 13, 2017

41 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Since each person has to reinterpret expounded principles of any tradition to apply those teachings to themselves, traditions have an inherent flexibility. Regardless of what one pictures a tradition to be , one should decide if their adherence is going to be to the tradition or to what they feel the tradition imparts to them.

If Buddha was moved to embrace compassion, in particular,

as a vehicle for the rectification of social ills, one might call him a reformer,, but its not like the Vedic tradition did not consider this as but one path with validity. Nor should this particular emphasis be dismissed as but one more hair on a dog.

When I said Buddha was seen as a reformer I meant in his relation to the preexisting Brahamanism or Vedic tradition as a spiritual doctrine rather than toward society. Some are of the opinion that the Buddha was in stark opposition to the Brahmins and the Vedic tradition, others are of the opinion that he was attempting to return to a more authentic Vedic or Indo-Aryan spirituality against what he saw as corruption and confusion on the part of the Brahmins who he believed to be relying too heavily on ritual and speculation and lacking direct experiential insight.

I am more inclined to the latter perspective but if it is indeed the case that the Buddha denied all validity to the Vedas and really denied the Atman-Brahman of Upanishadic thought then Buddhism can be viewed as a break from the Vedic tradition and thus something new, which I believe is the perspectives many religious Buddhists hold.

June 13, 2017

Two further points I thought of while mulling over the topic earlier:

--While there is some Buddhist association with the martial arts and warfare, whether Shaolin, the Sohei, or the association of Zen with the samurai, on the whole it seems Daoism has a much greater association with the martial arts. Furthermore while both generally emphasize nonviolence and Buddhism historically hasn't operated as the pacifism that many now envision it as, Daoism is certainly less so. We have verse 33 from the Daodejing for example (Star translation):

Even the finest warrior is defeated when he goes against natural law

By his own hand he is doomed and all creatures are likely to despise him

One who knows Tao never turns from life’s calling

When at home he honours the side of rest

When at war he honours the side of action

Peace and tranquility are what he holds most dear so he does not obtain weapons

But when their use is unavoidable he employs them with fortitude and zeal

Do not flaunt your excellence

Do not rejoice over victory

With the loss of others weep with sorrow and grief

After winning a battle, do not celebrate, observe the rites of a funeral

One who is bound to action, proud of victory, and delights in the misfortune of others will never gain a thing from this world below Heaven

--Daoism is less based on a particular founder figure or establishing a particular orthodoxy (though there were doctrines or practices or sects deemed heretical or Waidao 外道 ) than Buddhism, which has always been splintering into various directions due to a wish to establish orthodox doctrines and thus also has placed a greater emphasis on debate and argumentation than the Daoists which is why they often trounced the latter in imperial debates historically. While Laozi is sometimes seen as the founder of Daoism or the Heavenly Masters the start of Daoism, I personally agree with those who see Daoism as a continuation of the primordial Chinese tradition, or at least its more esoteric/mystical/hermetic side (incidentally the view of many traditional Daoists who connected the tradition to figures like the Yellow Emperor) and thus is older than Buddhism which is often seen either as a reformation of, break from, or opposition to the Vedic tradition.

June 13, 2017

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

My comments will be written from personal philosophical position, which is rather synthetical than analytical. In fact, I propose that all major spiritual teachings are divinely inspired and true (in essence). They are but different expressions of what is sometimes called the Perennial Philosophy, a universal metaphysical wisdom at the core of every religion.

Like in the parable of the blind men who described an elephant very differently, depending on whether they palpated the animal's legs, ears, tail, or trunk, the assumptions of various systems do sometimes seem at odds with each other.

Agreed. By and large I am a Perennialist of the Guenonian or Evolian stripe, but personally I diverge a bit in that I do believe certain systems of praxis and ways of viewing the world are superior or more potent than others and that certain philosophical formulations may more accurately reflect objective Truth than others and that these differences are important despite converging at peak of non-conceptual gnosis.

Quote

However, the Yogachara school recognizes the Alayavijnana ('indissoluble consciousness', sometimes also referred to as 'seed consciousness') as the ultimate basis of the apparent individual. This is conceptually close not only to the Dao, but also to the World Soul of Platonism and Hermeticism, as well as to Jung's Collective Unconscious.

From what I've read this is a bit of a controversial area. Some have posited that Yogacara is essentially a form of idealistic monism in disagreement with Madhyamika while others deny this is the case. Perhaps someone more educated on the topic than I might be able to chime in here.

Though on the whole it seems to me that East Asian Buddhism has more tendencies that put it into alignment with, say, Vedanta, Daoism, or Plotinus, whereas Theravada, Indian Mahayana, and Tibetan Buddhism (aside from certain Shentongpas like Dolpopa and those influenced by him) seem to diverge.

Quote

That may well be true for original Buddhism. But later forms (e.g. as encountered in Japan) are just replete with artistic expressions. So I am not sure if a lack of aesthetics should still be regarded as characteristic of Buddhism today.

My point wasn't so much surrounding whether aesthetics existed or not but whether aesthetics were seen as a spiritual tool or reflection of Truth. In Kukai and in certain Zen formulations and thus much of Japanese Buddhism this is the case, but I am unsure if Theravada or more general Mahayana saw music for example as a means of spiritual transformation.

In any case, to point out some further perhaps less philosophically based differences:

--Buddhism historically has been a much more missionary-based and universal religion. Now this isn't to say Daoism is a purely ethnic religion as some claim since I think this is mostly the result of historical circumstance and Daoism's failure to take root among non-Han Chinese people. That said the first organized Daoist movements (Way of Five Pecks of Rice/Heavenly Masters) initially sought to convert the Ba-Shu people and Daoist missionaries were sent to early medieval Korea with some limited success, etc.

--On the whole I think Daoism is less prone to the "ours is the one true way" perspective than Buddhism and it was more of Daoist influence which contributed to the "unity of the three teachings" than Buddhism which generally stressed its superiority to other traditions, whether Hinduism or Daoism. We can see this perspective in older threads from this forum here and in turn these threads may prove useful for further investigation into the goal of this thread:

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/10193-buddhism-transcends-the-tao/

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/16163-taoism-vs-buddhism/

(Though as a forewarning from my own knowledge it seems there is a lot of misrepresentation of Daoism in these threads by the users Vajrahridaya and Xabir in their portrayal of Daoism as not being an ontological Absolute or ground of reality and linking Daoism solely to the Lao-Zhuang material, but that aside interesting discussions.)

--Daoism generally seems to have viewed the gods/deities or other celestial beings as being extremely subtle or pure qi that in some way is closer to the source of emanation or the Dao than that of humans or lower creatures. Thus the gods or deities do have some objective reality to them. Buddhism on the other hand seems to view the deities as aspects of our own Mind and uses them in a tantric sense of visualization to see their ultimate emptiness. While "other power" is a concept in Buddhism, it seems that deities or other power is more important in Daoism than Buddhism overall.

June 13, 2017

Daoism and Buddhism are perhaps the two most popular traditions discussed here and historically there has been a lot of mutual influence between the two in the East Asian sphere. After the Song it seems many Daoists and Buddhists held to the unity of the three teaching and that they might lead to the same end, though certain figures contest that.

All that said, there must be differences between the two traditions on a philosophical or theological level or else they would just be the same. So for the sake of clarifying these differences, I propose a thread where people may put forth their insights into this matter as it is one that continues to interest me on a personal level.

To begin with some major ones:

--Daoism proposes an ontological Absolute, the Dao, which is the source and ground of all of reality. From what I understand many Buddhists, particularly Theravadins and Madhyamikas deny this to be the case in Buddhism

--Daoism is an emanationist cosmology. The Dao spontaneously emanates the One, the Two, the Three, and then the ten thousand things. Buddhism, aside from certain East Asian formulations such as those found in the Awakening of Faith, doesn't propose an emanationist cosmology as far as I understand it

--Daoism generally believes in a reality akin to the Atman of Hinduism, or in other words they believe in a transcendent, timeless, changeless principle in man whereas typically Buddhism denies any higher Self that transcends the skandhas. This is discussed in Eskilden's book on Quanzhen:

However, as Hachiya has astutely observed, Wang Zhe did not abide by the thoroughgoing negation and non-assertion of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Fond as he was of borrowing Buddhist language to preach detachment from this provisional, fleeting world of samsara, Wang Zhe ardently believed in the eternal, universal Real Nature/Radiant Spirit that is the ground and wellspring of consciousness (spirit [shen], Nature [xing]), and vitality (qi, Life [ming]) within all living beings. This to him was not “empty” (lacking inherent existence); it was fully Real (zhen).

--Continuing from the last thought, the Daoist notion of emptiness (Wu) is that of an empty Absolute that produces reality, whereas the Buddhist emptiness (sunyata, kong) is a quality of phenomena

--Daoism deals with qi, qimai, yin/yang, and the five elements. Buddhism generally didn't place much emphasis on the energetic structures of the body (chakras, prana, etc.) until later Buddhist tantra which arguably arose under the influence of Daoist alchemy and Saivism. Daoism historically typically saw greater value in the body than Buddhism since the body is also qi and thus connected to the Dao whereas for Buddhism the body is non-self, suffering, and the result of illusion. As a result Daoism also has a greater focus on bodily health than Buddhism generally, which isn't to say it is neglected in Buddhism but rather that it is has been a major focus of Daoism.

--Daoism professes that the universe is a condensed form of spiritual energy or qi which emanates from the Dao and thus there is a certain reality to the objective, phenomenal or physical universe. Buddhism generally subscribes the illusion doctrine or maya, stating the universe is ultimately empty and only exists conventionally via linguistic or conceptual designation

--Daoism is more associated with the Hermetic doctrine of "as above so below" or the micocosm/macrocosm split than Buddhism generally (aside from later Buddhist tantra.) The doctrine of ganying or sympathetic resonance is thus generally more associated with Daoism than Buddhism

--From my general observation it seems that aesthetics as means of self-cultivation, particularly with music such as the guqin or painting or calligraphy, is more favored by Daoism than Buddhism, especially early Buddhism which has precepts against listening to music entirely. Of course Chan Buddhism and tantric Buddhism have different takes on this, but on the whole it seems Buddhism doesn't place as much value on aesthetics as a spiritual tool as Daoism

Please feel free to correct any of these starting points and add some of your own so we can help to further clarify what the real differences between Daoism and Buddhism are.

June 13, 2017