Kongming

I apologize for saying it but I think Daoist neidan practices without a teacher are not worth the time.

Particularly if your goal is "to see the path to the end, to become a 真人 and/or 天仙 and attain the Dao."

Expend the time, money, and effort to get personal instruction, books and experimentation are not the way to do it.

No need to apologize, I agree with your sentiment.  I certainly hope to find a teacher and plan on going abroad for that purpose in the near future, but in the meantime was hoping to not let the time go to waste and do what I can to get started, even if it is not starting with neidan proper but just preparation for neidan, hence this thread.

You see right off the bat, there is something missing. What is it that you look to achieve eventually? You have to start at the end and think your way to the beginning. If you are unclear about the end it means you will start in the wrong direction.

Well, it may be a bit lofty, but honestly my ultimate goal is to see the path to the end, to become a 真人 and/or 天仙 and attain the Dao. I suppose more short term goals on the path would be to attain self-mastery and a completely virtuous life.

A student of mine went to Liu Yi-ming's monastery to talk with the keeper monk and the latter thought him 2 exercises: recital of DDJ and sitting up to 3 hours visualizing breath in the body.

I read Zhang Boduan giving an instruction of visualizing a golden ball of energy at the lower dantian while sitting in meditation. Is this what your student was taught or something similar?

When you done with Eskildsen you will find all you need here

 

http://home.sandiego.edu/~komjathy/Homepage_of_Louis_Komjathy/Publications.html

How about the material in Wang Liping's Ling Bao Tong Zhi Neng Nei Gong Shu? Is this a legit source and worth working from?

First of all, about the gulf between Pali Buddhism and the Vajrayana of the Siddhas: When seen as an incremental transformation over centuries it does not seem seem so shocking: Early Buddhism -> Abhidharma Buddhism -> Early Mahayana (three vehicles, prajnaparamita) -> Late Mahayana (one vehicle, tathagatagarbha) -> Early Tantra (deity yoga as the fast path to Buddhahood) -> Late Tantra (chakra-bindu work, violent/sexual iconography).  Sanderson only proves Shaiva influence on late Buddhist tantra.  The jump from late Mahayana to early tantra is actually not all that big and arguably completely internal to Buddhism.  And early tantra, which was did not have explicit mention of chakra-nadi-bindu is what was taught in China anyway.

One could see it as an internal development to Buddhism, yes, but Buddhism influenced by its wider surroundings and cultural arena, namely Vedic/Brahmanic/Hindu/Shaivite India. Not too long ago I was reading a work on Shingon Buddhism (I believe it may have been Yamasaki's) and he noted that early Buddhism didn't make much use of the mantra or mudra, both of which antecede Buddhism and were more prominent in Hinduism, and that the idea of attaining siddhi or supernormal power, while present in earliest Buddhism, also wasn't emphasized to the degree it was in tantra, which matches in this case the Hindu yoga school. In other words, much of the core of tantra has greater origins in the Hindu world than that of earliest Buddhism (actually there have been many scholars which see much of Mahayana itself as a "Hindu-ization" of Buddhism, partly due to simple religious exchange and also as a means for Buddhism to continue to compete with the revitalization of Hinduism during the Gupta and afterward.)

As to the rest of your post, I can't say I am in disagreement and you may very well be right about the energetic aspect to earliest Buddhism.

Thanks, I've read both of these works before, perhaps its time I re-read them. These do indeed give a broad overview of the matter, but what I am looking for is some insight into how things work today. Say I went to China, joined the Quanzhen order, and found a teacher, what would I be doing? I hear that an initial part of Daoist training is learning to chant along with the liturgy, but since I cannot currently participate in the liturgical tradition, I was wondering what perhaps some of the first steps would be? Ethical rectification, fixing ones diet, etc. are all part of general discipline, but what of initial practices? Zuowang and some sort of neigong perhaps?

BTW Eskilden's other book (Daoism, Meditation, and the Wonders of Serenity) looks interesting, I'm currently waiting for a paperback and/or cheaper edition though.

So for those of us interested in Quanzhen/Longmen/Neidan Daoism, what is it that we can do to get started without being formally part of a lineage or having a teacher? I imagine general efforts like cultivating virtue, self-discipline, dispassion, reading Daoist texts, etc. can be done on one's own, but how about some practices?

Any form of meditation recommended for beginners? Does neigong/qigong factor into a Quanzhen/Longmen regimen? Any basic or preparatory actions to take in relation to neidan? Any good sources to learn more on the practical elements?

While I don't agree with the sentiment entirely, it is interesting that Chan/Zen has been stated by some figures to be Daoism in Buddhist drag, or in other words that Chan's origins and spirit are more Daoist inspired, perhaps directly springing from a Zhuangzi-style tradition, than inspired by the scholasticism of Madhyamika or Yogacara that was prominent in Indian Buddhism. Ray Grigg's "The Tao of Zen" explores this a bit, though I think the notion is a bit too simplistic and ignores that Chan did in fact study sutras, chant mantras and dharanis, etc. historically. So for those who are particularly attracted to Zen, it is interesting that it may be a Daoicized Buddhism that draws your interest.

It's also interesting that various scholars (such as Needham, David Gordon White, etc.) have compared Daoism, especially the alchemical aspects, with tantra, going so far as to say that the tantric department of Chinese Buddhism was Daoism and that the Daoists carried on the tantric spirit after the collapse of the institutionalized Zhenyan school due to the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution. As mentioned earlier in the thread, tantra itself seems to ultimately have been of Shaivite origin (see Alexis Sanderson) and we can see quite a different spirit and emphasis between early Pali Buddhism and its heir Theravada and late Siddha-derived Vajrayana.

I suppose what I am getting at is that the two forms of Buddhism that Daoism resembles the most, namely Chan and tantra, are also the forms of Buddhism which have been affected by a non-Buddhist spirit or inspiration to the greatest degree, namely influence by early Daoism and Shaivite tantra/yoga respectively. Couple this with the fact that many Buddhists, especially Madhyamika, deny all ontology and the notion of an eternal spirit or an eternal Absolute reality (such as Brahman), and it seems that there is indeed substantial differences between Daoism and Buddhism that are perhaps worth investigation.

Perhaps at the apex, the perspective of the Buddha and the Daoist immortal, we can speak of a unity of the traditions, but at the relative level I don't think its as simple as saying they are the same and it is just a matter of which teacher you connect with. Just to take two examples:

--Qi, qimai, yinyang, wuxing, the use of and inspiration of the Yijing, alchemical praxis and symbolism, neigong, etc. are all more associated with Daoism than Buddhism, though Chinese Buddhists of course may make use of them as well.

--Daoism has an emanationist cosmogony and sees the world as congealed out of higher energies of the Dao (qi.) Buddhism generally doesn't deal with an emanationist cosmogony and sees the world as an illusion-like production of the coming together of the 5 skandhas.

Just some thoughts I'v had on the topic I figured worth sharing for the sake of discussion.

So which is it, a medical qigong or a sort of alchemical training, or at least conducive to and supportive of alchemical training?

Furthermore can it be combined with other forms of qigong if done at a different time of the day? For example, my current daily qigong/neigong exercises are zhan zhuang thrice daily, Damo Mitchell's "Jiben Qigong" and Wuxing qigong twice a day, and finally I do Feng Zhiqiang's Hunyuan qigong in the evening. Would Spring Forest Qigong be in conflict with any of these?

I'm not sure I buy this argument.

What is claimed that Daoists cultivate that Buddhists do not, specifically?

Ming 命 apparently. Here's an article by Pregadio on ming:

http://www.healingtaousa.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode2&articleid=192

From what I've seen, ming seems to correspond to the inner energetics found in tantra for example, but as we know tantra is a late Buddhist development (arguably with Shaivite origins rather than Buddhist origins as per Alexis Sanderson) and the high tantra in Buddhism (dealing with chakras, prana, etc.) seems mostly confined to Tibetan Buddhism and hence in a Chinese context Daoism may have been what fulfilled this role.

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

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.

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.

So it seems there must have been some basis to the idea that at least some of the Daoists believed their methods and system was superior.

A Fantasist shool;) i would say

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

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

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

 

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

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.

What about what was written in Eskildsen's book?

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.

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?

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.

In any case, I guess my point is its easy to say they are the same and that syncreticism is good and that to each his own, etc. but can anyone actually put forward decisive arguments in favor of one or the other? It seems the Buddhists are more willing to do so than Daoists.

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.) I would certainly agree with. That said, here are some of the arguments I mentioned earlier for those interested:

From Stephen Eskilden's "The Teachings and Practices of the Early Quanzhen Taoist Masters":

 

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 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).

 

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 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!

 

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.119 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 spiritconsciousness

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.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

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

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.) Ultimately, Buddhism aims at absolute spiritual awakening, but Taoism pursues awakening through longevity.

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. 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)

Fear and guilt are far worse than "not ideal"; they can easily turn one's earthly life into hell. (Bear in mind that I am talking from the perspective of a professional therapist here.) They are not even that effective in preventing negative behaviour, as strong instinctive desires will often win  over guilt-induced objections - plus the believer will now be living in fear of eternal damnation. Paranoia, neurosis, psychosis - they are all in one way or another related to the psychological conflict between what are basically natural desires and the prohibitions of the Super-ego that reflect the standard of whatever society/culture the individual lives in.

 

For that matter, the deceased person may indeed be experiencing tantalizing states for awhile, as a confrontation with the formerly unconscious contents of their psyche seems to be part of what follows after physical death. So better choose your beliefs carefully - you will tend to encounter them, whether you are on this plane of existence or another.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny that an ethic frame of reference is generally a necessity and can actually be quite constructive, as long as it's not overly rigid. But there is the catch, a rigid religion will always declare some perfectly natural things (like masturbation and sex before marriage, but also taking interest in other religions etc) as "sinful", and warn of dire consequences in the after-life.

Well it is clear that you are talking about Christianity and perhaps Catholicism specifically. While not my ideal and while negative states of guilt and fear can arise from the system, I will have to overall agree to disagree insofar as I admire traditional Catholicism (especially medievalism) and find it infinitely superior to modern secular humanism. While I cannot agree on the notion of an eternal hell, I believe that hell states are real and that by committing some of the actions Catholics would call mortal sin may lead one to hell, or at least rebirth as an animal or a poor human life as per Indian doctrines.

One must also wonder why in the modern West, which has largely discarded its traditional Christian morality and way of life and engages in the actions formerly prohibited by Christianity, that depression, anxiety, and mental illness run so rampant. I am sure a variety of causes could be pointed to, but overall I don't think what the West has replaced Christianity with (secular humanism, atheism, scientific materialism, relativism, etc.) has been a liberation so much as a greater bondage.

I am not sure about Guenon's view, but Evola called modern science "knowledge of what is not worth knowing." Rejecting the modern scientific world view altogether while relying on its fruits would be hypocrisy indeed.

From what I understand Evola's view on science is that it is an inferior sort of knowledge since it doesn't do anything in regards to man's existential situation--even as the master of atomic weapons man is just as fragile as he'd be without it, indeed if the modern techno-industrial society were to ever collapse he would find himself much worse off to face the trials of nature than the primitives of Papua New Guinea or the Amazon. Furthermore the scientific worldview has largely manage to desacralize nature for modern man and alienate him further from his spiritual nature.

Thus a true strength, a true superiority, and true wisdom hasn't arisen from science, only a superficial material power and knowledge which, while temporally and relatively quite useful, on the ultimate level it carries no use and has even weakened man. Contrast this with the notion of the liberated man, the yogi, the mahasiddha, the Daoist "zhenren", etc. which were the ideals of traditional civilizations.

However, as the "absolute" spiritual goal that one progresses towards may be (in) Infinity, it can never actually be attained. Therefore, all the truths accepted by an entity on its eternal way there can only be relatively valid.

I personally am a believer in a final attainment. If one manages to reach transcendence, there is no time. Where there is no time, there is no change. How then can one speak of improvement or progress any further since such possibilities can only occur where there is time and change?

I do think especially westerners are so conditioned to make a fetish of ideological purity which we've inherited from a culture rooted in the Christian religion, where syncretism traditionally was strongly condemned as a heresy.  China, Japan, and other far eastern countries don't get hung up on this, but allow a free exchange of ideas and beliefs -- whatever works best in a given moment.  Ideological consistency is the least of their concerns.  There's a lesson to be learned here. 

 

The western fetish of a single, totalizing system comes from centuries of a predominantly Christian culture insisting that we be systematic and consistent in spirituality-- and in everything else too, with mixed results to say the least.  Philosophically, its roots are in Plato and the Greek philosophical tradition, which Christianity co-opted for its own purposes (as the so-called "handmaiden of theology").  The same totalizing tendency of the west has arisen out of almost every other religious, philosophical, social, and political doctrine, Marxism being the other obvious historical example.  

 

Syncretic flexibility which made Chan Buddhism possible by intermingling with Daoist ideas and attitudes, and in practice there really were no pure, "orthodox" Daoists, Buddhists, or Confucianists, etc.  Likewise in Japan, even today, a single family might have a Christian baptism, a Shinto wedding, and a Buddhist funeral -- common attitudes this must have drove those Jesuits missionaries up the wall!  These doctrines are distinct from one another, but it is no big deal to switch from one set of beliefs to another in a particular given moment:

Well I certainly agree with this and am favorable to such an approach as well, though I imagine for certain mentalities a totalizing approach could also have its benefits if it could lead such a one toward Truth or transformation.

I suppose the problem doesn't come down to a need to pick a particular tradition in a monotheist sense but rather on the issue of praxis, especially at the highest levels. For example, someone engaged in the advanced stages of neidan training shouldn't stop and start mixing in some Chan gong'an study or start doing Kundalini yoga. In the realm of praxis therefore one would have to be committed to a particular system, a particular way of life, etc. This is where finding one's particular path, in an Eastern context, would come in. This of course doesn't mean one would need to cease appreciating or learning from other traditions.

That said, while the trends in the East certainly have been as you described there also have been Buddhists and Daoists who were anti-Daoist and anti-Buddhist respectively, who engaged in debates with each other, who were against syncreticism, and even sometimes would engage in violence or destructive actions toward each other (say the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution of the Tang or the burning of the Daoist cannon by the Mongols at the instigation of the Buddhists.)

I agree with this. It is understandable though, if we consider that the established religions have always been misusing the concept of there being consequences of our actions after our physical life for enforcing their particular moral codex by inducing fear and guilt. For individuals not ready transcend the dualistic view, the only way to liberate themselves was to renounce the belief in a post mortem existence altogether. Transcendence of the belief in good and evil can basically be found in most metaphysical systems, but it is generally a result of rather advanced initiations. Not least, it was also considered that the average human being needs a moralistic frame of reference, and there is some truth to that.

Well while fear and guilt certainly aren't ideal, if we truly believe that there are consequences for how we live our lives that extend beyond the grave as traditional civilizations and cultures most certainly did, then I imagine when weighted against each other the negative psychological states of fear and guilt aren't as negative as possibly entering hell states, animality, etc. after death. It's also a fact that most men will not and cannot become sages, and so since transcending all dualities is hard to come by for most, I suppose having an ethical or moral framework would in turn be the best medicine for most.

Other representatives of this view of history were Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler. I thorougly tested this perspective in my younger days and concluded that, although it is not completely wrong, in its extreme form it is far too dualistic and limiting. Modernity has its own brilliance, and great potential for a more spiritual future! Not all of the modern developments in science, technology, philosophy, politics etc are bad. But if you want to throw modernity out the window in toto, that's fair enough. Please make sure that you include the computer that enables you to communicate your views over the Internet.

I am also a fan of Evola, though I haven't read much Spengler. That said you should know that Guenon, Evola, etc. weren't necessarily Luddites and that rejecting the spiritual premises of modernity need not also include a rejection of possible technological benefits of modernity.

Though I do have a bit of a streak of Luddism in me, mainly in regards to industrial waste, pollution, the ugliness of modern cities, and my personal dislike of automobiles and how they've made the environment ugly (asphalt roads everywhere), destroyed natural habitats, and make the world a noisy place. Not a total primitivist in other words but a bit of a deep ecologist at heart.

What gives meaning to your life indeed originates beyond the boundaries of the conscious mind, in the depths of the psyche. It is often being translated to the conscious mind by the imagination, actually.

I of course agree that many things can give meaning to a person's life and that such a meaning may be different for different people. That said what I am talking about is objective meaning, as in why are we here and share this same human condition, what is the goal of this life, etc.. A true relativist has to conclude there is none, whereas I contend that objectively it is to spiritually progress, which of course includes various subsets (like experiencing beauty, etc.)

The notion that the individual 'self' is an illusion, that the self does not end at the brain, or the skin, but essentially extends to the entire universe, is entirely compatible with a material belief system. The notion that we are all part of the One is, if anything, strengthened by modern science. Existence is change -- "annihilation" need not enter in to it.

A material belief system doesn't account for the transcendent dimension, namely that which is beyond space-time, the latter of course being the measurable, material universe known to science. The Dao (or Brahman or the Neoplatonic One or God for example), while encompassing this material dimension, also extends timelessly beyond it.

In any case, the most prominent viewpoint I encounter by modern materialists is that consciousness is a product of our brain and that with death the result is the destruction of consciousness, and that it does not transform or go elsewhere. In other words, there is no postmortem consequences to how we live our lives or our actions and that all that awaits us at the end is an eternal dirt nap. This is nihilism and is the only logical consequence to materialism.

I know you intend this topic for discussion of similarities between sacred places and other themes in ancient Eastern and Western traditions, but I see no reason to throw modernity out of the window.

Well I personally do throw modernity out the window since it is the most advanced stage of what Hindus call Kali Yuga, Buddhists call the Dharma Ending Age, Hesiod called the Age of Iron, and some Daoists referred to as the Shanghuang or Highest Sovereign. This notion is also present in the Norse concept of Ragnarok. In other words all of them held the notion of a spiritual and moral decline of humanity and their descriptions of this pretty accurately reflect the modern world.

A modern figure who touches on these points in detail who I highly recommend is Rene Guenon. 

The chosen path is to progress spiritually. If you say it is the meaning of your life, it is the meaning of your life -- a meaning that you have chosen. A sage surely realizes that there is a choice.

There is a choice in how one lives ones life, but not to meaning. The choice is between success and failure, progress and regress, making use of or wasting ones life. In all cases the meaning of life is to progress spiritually.

Again, if meaning is merely an individual choice then it is really pure imagination, something that can be fancifully imparted by anyone for any purpose. In other words, it means that life has no real meaning.

I would say dependent connotes related or connected as opposed to unfree. When you say free, what do you mean by something that is free? I think you are pointing to something that is independent. Something established from its own side.

Yes, to be independent is to be free from all conditioning. If you are dependent on causes, conditions, or other phenomena, you are not independent. To my eyes, independence is freedom and a mark of the ultimate, whereas it is conditioned phenomena which lack these qualities and hence are impermanent, unsatisfactory, etc.

The Absolute, as you refer to it, is a phenomenon. It does not appear as separate from the "you" that apprehends it. 

It is dependent on the "you" or the "I". From my perspective it is you, literally and figuratively, who are treating the Absolute as a thing - other than you. If it is not other than you, then it is I and the point is that I cannot be established as existing independently. Not sure if I'm being clear, or even correct. Take everything I say with a grain of salt. 

In my view the Absolute is the noumenon rather than a phenomena among many. It is the source or ground of all reality and prior to (metaphysically not temporally) the differentiation of things. It is also "you" or "I", hence the whole Tat Tvam Asi of Hindu schools, another proposition I hear Buddhism denies.

One could put it in a different way: There is one Absolute reality which can be perceived in different ways, namely the relative and ignorant perspective (sentient being) or that of the Absolute perspective (enlightened, Buddha.) To experience or "be" the timeless, eternal, unchanging, unconditioned, nondual, etc. aspect is the latter. That's how I see the matter at least.

Dzogchen is a way today still preserved in tibetan Buddhism and Bön.

Therefore, these traditions contain the highest wisdom teachings.

 

 

Padmasambhava did come from India.

I don't know if Dzogchen today still is preserved in indian Buddhism.

No my question is in regards to the fact that you say Dzogchen is the highest and can create rainbow bodies. Yet Dzogchen is only but one tradition within Tibetan Buddhism, which in turn is but one form of Buddhism among many others. The question is whether all those others (Chan/Zen, Shingon, Pure Land, Theravada, etc.) can create the rainbow body and hence are superior to Daoism as you state?

In any case, Daniel Reid here doesn't seem to think of Daoism as any bit inferior to Dzogchen:

http://danreid.org/daniel-reid-articles-practice-makes-perfect-dzogchen-chuanchen.asp

 

OK, I can agree that a lot of people think this way, but I'd still stop short of calling it nihilism. Why not existentialism? We've realized that God is not there, that there is no purpose or meaning, but we try to rise above it and find our own...?

Nihilism encompasses a variety of notions, such as the idea that "nothing is" but also the idea that with our deaths there is complete annihilation. That's a logical consequence of scientific materialism.

As to relative meanings to life, since anyone can make up anything as the meaning of life, what it of course means is that there is no meaning to life. This is also a form of nihilism, sometimes called existential nihilism.

In any case, the Dao is essentially an impersonal "God" or Absolute and has descriptively similar equivalents in the Christian tradition (such as that of Pseudo-Dionysius.)

 

Either way, does there need to be a belief in the 'meaning of life' or similar notion for one to practice or interpret Buddhism or Daoism? Do all of the Eastern religions/philosophies say "The meaning of life is ... " ?

Yes, the meaning of life is to progress spiritually, to become a Buddha or a Daoist sage/zhenren or immortal.

Taoism superior to Buddhism?

It seems to me to be rather the other way around.

Buddhist Dzogchen practice creates highest level Buddhas up to this day,

people transforming their physical material body including their raw elements into a subtle rainbow body of pure light energy.

Taoist practice doesn't.

So what about all non-Dzogchen Buddhist forms? What about all non-Tibetan Buddhist traditions? Are they up to par?

... it is not so much that there "is nothing" which transcends the skandhas but rather, the foundation upon which the skandhas rest is empty (meaning without an independent, self-subsisting entity, as Old River so eloquently put it). It is not nothing - that is a wrong view. "It" is described in terms of the characteristics of space, clarity, and warmth. The characteristics of space are things like unchanging, indestructible, unborn, unformed, unceasing, unbounded, without center, and so forth. The characteristics of clarity are things such as presence, awareness, now-ness, knowing, and light. The characteristics or descriptions of warmth include bliss, loving-kindness, oneness, non-dual, allowing, openness, spacious, and connected. All of this transcends the skandhas and yet none of this can be shown to have inherent independence when subjected to Madhyamika reasoning, which is a tool, not ultimate reality (and empty in and of itself).

 

This is where you go astray. It is not "nothing at all." Both samsara and nirvana are ultimately seen as being of one taste, one nature. That nature is empty of inherent independence, however, and is of the nature of space with characteristics of presence and warmth as described above. Nirvana and samsara are not independent and are not other than this very moment. They are also dependently originated.

Most of what you described here, aside from your last sentences in both paragraphs, sounds like it could be Brahman (or other formulations of same, such as the Dao or the Neoplatonic One) and yet supposedly Buddhism denies the Brahman. So what is it that it denies?

It seems to me to be dependent means to be unfree. Dependent origination is what applies to phenomena, namely to be dependent on causes and conditions and on other phenomena. If the Absolute is dependent, doesn't that in turn mean it is subject to causes and conditions? This treats the Absolute as though it is a "thing" among other things, whereas in reality it is supposed to transcend all things or be the source or ground of all reality.

From the perspective of the Madhyamika view (well, I should probably say from my understanding - I'm certainly no authority), those who deny the characteristics of transcendence, timelessness, and changeless are mistaken. They lapse into the error of nihilism. These are simply characteristics of space. Conversely, those who conclude that these characteristics imply a self-subsisting entity are equally mistaken. They lapse into the error of eternalism. They gratuitously posit an independent "something" that possesses those characteristics.

This is something else which confuses me in Buddhism. If something is impermanent (say the Absolute), then it will end and hence is nihilism. Yet if something is timeless and transcendent, it is unchanging. That which is timeless and unchanging is eternal by definition. In other words, something either has an end or it doesn't...what possible alternative is there?

I guess there are different dharma doors for different people, but to me it seems that other similar systems (say Vedanta, Neoplatonism, Daoism, Kashmir Shaivism) are clearer, more logical, and more coherent than much of Buddhism and don't have the negative quality of being subject to nihilistic misinterpretations (if Madhyamika and Theravadin "anatta" doctrines are indeed not truly nihilism, which is a contentious issue.)

What is difficult to recognize is that Mahayana Buddhism points to is not a thing at all, but beyond all verbal conceptualization (ironically, it does take a lot of words to get there though!).  Just because you can't name "it" doesn't mean it is therefore a "no thing" as opposed to a "some thing."  The Middle Way plays a central role in Nagarjuna's thought in which both essentialism ("some thing") and nihilism ("no thing") are rejected, seen as the trap of dualistic thinking.  

 

Where other traditions might still feel the need to actually posit an Absolute reality, Mahayana Buddhism just stops talking (this becomes more apparent in Buddhism's further migration eastward).  This doesn't mean x is right and y is wrong, or that y is right and x is wrong.  It's just a particular method -- it works better for some than for others.  Many apophatic traditions do often have "disclaimers" that even words applied to the Divine or whatever are really just tenuous labels for what ultimately lies beyond all language and conceptualization.  The denial of an eternal Absolute is the denial of conceptualization and points toward the embracing of a trusting silence. 

 

It's a mistake to equate that silence with mere nihilism-- this error says more about our (perhaps misguided) need to tie language to reality in some singular absolute sense.  Nonduality is not quite the same thing as monism.  We keep grasping and grabbing with our words, we are unable to trust in our own experience of reality, whatever that might be.  But silence has its place too-- sometimes I feel we are too addicted to words (including Nagarjuna-- heck, including myself!). 

I can certainly agree with this and find such an approach useful myself. Maybe I've just been encountering the wrong crowd of Buddhists because beyond a mistrust of the use of language or dualistic thinking, there seems to be a certain strand of Buddhism that wishes to actually deny that there is an Absolute and also deny that Madhyamika's function is one of silence in order to transcend conceptualization in order to intuit the truth. Take for example articles like this:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

I think part of the problem is the vast access we now have to Buddhist texts for anyone to read without the guidance of a good teacher and a well-grounded community of practitioners.  Such a context I feel is necessary.  Going on the texts alone is bound to lead to misunderstanding-- Buddhism is no sola scriptura religion, and cannot be comprehended divorced from step-by-step, day-by-day practice.  The ease of availability of Buddhist texts and doctrines enables anyone to jump into the deep end of the pool without a practicing community, and this can easily lead to misunderstanding.

Though sometimes the reverse could be true. For example, there is no actual categorical denial of the the atman in the Pali and anatta is consistently used as an adjective as I noted earlier. Yet certain Theravadin dogmas regarding the atman make their students read the texts in a predetermined way which might serve to obfuscate the truth on the matter, depending on your perspective. Similarly in Mahayana the Tathagatagarbha Sutras and especially the Nirvana Sutra openly speak of the atman and the Absolute, yet certain sects of teachers state that these teachings are provisional or mere upaya in order to put forth the more typical Madhyamika denial of any essences or Absolutes.

Perhaps ultimately it isn't nihilism, but I suppose what I find incompatible to my nature or strange is doctrines which are so close to nihilism that they can easily be mistaken as such and require warnings to inform people that it isn't as such.

The early western understanding of Buddhism (ala Schopenhauer) gets Buddhism entirely wrong because the western metaphysical use of words like "nothing" or "emptiness," etc. mean something entirely different from the Buddhist usage.  Sadly, this Schopenhauerian misunderstanding still gets stuck in people's minds.  Bottom line: Schopenhauer had his own agenda and appropriated Buddhism for his own nihilistic purposes. 

 

In actual Buddhism, it is the belief in absolute reification (i.e. the belief in independent, essentialized beings, including the ego) which it calls delusional, a distortion of reality.  This delusion is one of the ways through which suffering arises.  

 

Put crudely, Buddhism questions not the existence of things (existing vs. no-existing), but rather the nature of the existence of things as independent, self-subsisting entities.  That is what Buddhism denies in anatman.  Everything is impermanent.  Every thing.

 

In the Middle Way, being (essentialism) and non-being (metaphysical nihilism) are both extremes inextricably tied together which are to be avoided.  To conflate this with metaphysical nihilism is based on an inability to recognize Buddhism's Middle Way doctrine.  "Emptiness" and "dependent co-origination" are really two ways of saying the same thing.  

I understand what you are saying here and I still disagree. This disagreement of course isn't merely a Western or Schopenhauerian issue, the Vedantins, Shaivites, and other Hindu philosophers lodged the same claim of nihilism against Buddhism (particularly Madhyamika) in various debates on the issue.

From what I've seen, many Buddhists state that the skandhas exhaust reality and claim there is nothing (such as the Hindu Atman-Brahman) which transcends the skandhas. The skandhas in turn are impermanent and suffering. Nirvana is the cessation of ignorance and the further cause for the arising of karma and the skandhas. So we are logically left with all being impermanent suffering and with its cessation (since there is nothing beyond), nothing at all. This is nihilism. 

Furthermore dependent origination is discussing the conditioned realm of phenomena, but does it take into account that which is unconditioned, transcendent, and therefore not dependently originated? Some Buddhists account for this (like Dolpopa) but many state there is no such thing, i.e. a denial of a transcendent, timeless, changeless, and hence eternal Absolute like Brahman. It is this positioning which I see as nihilistic and disagree with.

It is easy to misunderstand and to mischaracterize Buddhism as "nihilistic" because of its rather complex doctrines.  For some, these doctrines are helpful tools to aid in awakening.  Whatever works best-- and sometimes experimenting with different approaches is helpful.  The point isn't what is right or what is wrong (these are mere verbal matters in the end, tools), but what works best toward your own awakening.  

That's the only utility I can see for Madhyamika, as a via negativa methodology for realizing the impermanence and lack of self in all conditioned entities in order to awaken to that which is not impermanent, namely the timeless and eternal Absolute (Brahman, etc.) Most Buddhists categorically deny that this is what Madhyamika is or its intention from what I've seen however.

Lets Debate!!! no just kidding, 84.000 doors to the dharma brotherr 84.000 doors

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!

Kongming,

 

When I look closely at your words, I perceive that you possibly WOULD LIKE to be Daoist, but that you feel hesitant, and maybe even want "permission," so to speak, to do so.

 

People sometimes don't feel entirely free to follow their heart, do as they please, or otherwise do what is right for them.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that I think you WANT to be Daoist, but that you're waiting until you feel more free to make that decision.

 

Of course, it's very possible that I'm mistaken, only you know.

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.

So my question is, considering what I just said about simplicity, which path would you like to follow? What do you WANT? Is my observation that you'd prefer Daoism correct?

What I want is transcendence, transformation, awakening, enlightenment, gnosis, etc. The question becomes how can I most realistically achieve this in this life?

I would just like to add that there is no nihilistic element in buddhism, if you get the teachings on emptiness correctly it is one of the most profound teachings on the suchness of reality - and it does not fall into any conceptual extremes such as non-existence or "eternal" existence etc. - it is utterly beyond conetpual elaboration On first look one might think - buddha thought nihilism or some eternal substance, but there is nothing more confused then a thought like that... buddha was surely beyond tradition and conventional terminology, so why would he teach "this" or "that" as his final enlightened intend?

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.

Do you really see nihilism at work in general Western society?

 

Materialism, sure.

In the physical/philosophical sense of the word, that existence is 'made' out of 'matter'. As a remnant of Christianity -- the notion that the world was created, put together by a creator, out of 'matter' -- materialism lingers on, even though we are starting to realize that 'matter' isn't really there in that sense.

In the commonly used sense of the word -- that one who loves to buy stuff and have nice things is a 'materialist' -- it's certainly true all over the world, not just the West. Modern Eastern cultures are just as 'materialist' as modern Western ones.

 

Nihilism, though... I don't see that an atmosphere of nihilism "pervades" the West at all. Western philosophy, yes, and this has been true for a long time... but not Western culture, not the life of the average Westerner. People love to believe in the inherent meaning and purpose of life, especially that of human life.

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