What Buddhism and Taoism have in Common?

[Vajrahridaya]

That you will not find from any authoritarian figure.

Especially the Dalai Lama!

ralis

 

The more you talk the less likely I am to really feel my apology. Oh well. Your opinions are what I call, negavision. Where one see's negatively only how one wishes to see from a subconscious level and see's all the proof's to back up this skewered vision like looking into a mirror and judging oneself through the apparent faults of others, which is really just one's own faulty interpretation of things.

 

The way I look at it, the Tao would be the "process" of how the whole universe moves, constantly shifting to maintain its balance, not a being or substance as per monism.

 

Speaking in a holographic, fractal sense, this eternal process exists not only on an outer level, but an inner level. The 'Tao' is within you, and by increasing your awareness and living in tune with it, you yourself become more and more an outward manifestation of that eternal process.

 

If it was merely a process according to Taoism, than it wouldn't be the mother of all 10,000 things.

 

What your doing is reading Buddhism into Taoism. Which is fine, and take away all the erroneous views and make the world a completely Buddhist world. That'd be great! Buddhist imperialism!! HAHA!!

 

I'm only kind of joking. Everyone needs their crutches and their way's of viewing to slowly transcend and go deeper in steps, until one does indeed see dependent origination.

 

As we have just discovered, Taoism and Buddhism both have a concept of "eternal oneness" in common.

 

 

No... Taoist oneness is due to a mysterious ground of being. Buddhist non-dualism is not a oneness. It's a non-substantial not-two and not-one either.

 

Sorry Stig... you missed the points of my posts and read Taoism into the meanings too much.

 

So who can tell me more about Sila? I would love to learn more.

 

 

It's an energy from seeing a connection to all beings. Where virtue naturally arises not as a contrived formula, but as a natural result of meditative contemplation.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

10:50am - 10:12pm that's a long poo!

 

By the way.....you posted at 10:12pm...yet you managed to edit your post at 10:04 pm!!!!! This means you traveled back in time!!!!! That's amazing man!!!! If Buddhist can do that then frankly I'm all for it! I'm in!

[Vajrahridaya]

10:50am - 10:12pm that's a long poo!

 

By the way.....you posted at 10:12pm...yet you managed to edit your post at 10:04 pm!!!!! This means you traveled back in time!!!!! That's amazing man!!!! If Buddhist can do that then frankly I'm all for it! I'm in!

 

Someone said that if you move fast enough, you'd open up a worm hole and go backward in time!!

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

That's kind of conundrum though cos that poo didn't seem fast by my perception...still time does slow down closer to a 'black hole'. Yet it is undeniable, you just traveled back in time. I don't know if Daoists can do that!!! I really don't!

[ngtest]

[rex]

Basic sanity and bringing the best out of people.

[Apech]

OK. What do Taoists and Buddhists hold in common?

 

I think that Buddhism has a unique starting point. It starts with a kind of existential question, that is, what is the nature of this world in which we find ourselves and why is it not enough, why is it not satisfactory? This is why the Buddha first taught by means of the Four Noble Truths, by describing why this world we perceive is not enough and does not give us either true lasting happiness or enlightenment. His solution was to liberate your mind through non-attachment in Nirvana. This really was a way of speaking because in the process of enlightenment you would come to realise that the things to which you are attached are not what they appear to be, that is they are illusory in that they have no 'self'. This includes you, you have no-self as well.

 

Dependent origination is the philosophical basis for describing how we come to perceive the world in the way we do - as consisting of separate self-existing objects in space - and to show that this is mistaken and that the things we perceive do not have that independent autonomous existence which they appear to have. Because of this they are not worthy of clinging on to. If we convince ourselves of this truth then we can happily let go of things and situations, free ourselves up enough to be able to see through appearance to the truth. The suffering which is much spoken of is just the effect of living in a way which places its security or happiness in these illusory objects.

 

This kind of analysis and position only arises if you start where Buddhism starts, that is with the world in which we find ourselves. All other religions start somewhere else. They start with acknowledging a power (however named) as the origin of the world. A creator of the world. And then from this point describing the process of creation, or how things came to be as a result of the activity of this power. From here they also speak of the nature of this power and our relation to it. This may be the kind of father/child relation promoted by organised religion or may be a deeper understanding as seen in mystical thought.

 

This kind of thinking is evident in both monotheistic and polytheistic religions. For this argument it doesn't really matter if the creator is seen as one or many, there is still a named power which is the origin.

 

Where Taoism stands apart from both of these is that it does not begin with either the nature of world and suffering, or with the originating power. It starts with describing the "Way", the way in which things arise, the way in which Heaven and Earth arise and how everything can be seen as relative (ugly/beautiful, long/short and so on) and as the interaction of polarised energies (yin and yang) which interact in patterns and cycles. By understanding the way in which this happens it is possible, on a personal level to follow this way, to act through non-action and so on, the effect of which is spiritual awareness of the profundity of this way and also increased health, strength and longevity.

 

Taoism does not really state that the Tao is the originating power as in theism. It does not personify the power in the way for instance, Christianity does. On the other hand it does not abstract the Tao, it is not posited as an alternative to this world as Nirvana is and it is not some kind of substance or essence. The Tao is real but it is beyond concept and therefore beyond 'name'. Naming things is seen as the origin of things, whereas the eternally unknown is the 'nameless', the Tao permeates (if you like) both the named and the nameless but not in an abstract way. The Tao is real and therefore cannot reified (since reification = treating an abstract as real). That is not to say that no Taoist has ever fallen into this error - they probably have.

 

In some ways Buddhism and Taoism are compatible which has been shown historically by their being side by side in China for such a length of time. It is quite legitimate (in my view) for Buddhist to look at Taoism without compromising their own positions and to take the best from it. And the same is possible for Taoists when looking at Buddhism. However in doing this we must understand that each way of thought is a self-consistent whole and it is not really possible to swap concepts without a great deal of care.

 

Overall I would say there is more positives to learn from each system than grounds for dispute. In this dialogue Buddhists should be Buddhist about it - that is hold to their view while being unattached to the outcome - while Taoists should be Taoist about it - that is understand that it is all part of ebb and flow of ever changing energy, that what seems to be the stronger argument now only exists because the weaker exists and that in time these two will change position.

 

In peace.

 

A.

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

OK. What do Taoists and Buddhists hold in common?

 

I think that Buddhism has a unique starting point. It starts with a kind of existential question, that is, what is the nature of this world in which we find ourselves and why is it not enough, why is it not satisfactory? This is why the Buddha first taught by means of the Four Noble Truths, by describing why this world we perceive is not enough and does not give us either true lasting happiness or enlightenment. His solution was to liberate your mind through non-attachment in Nirvana. This really was a way of speaking because in the process of enlightenment you would come to realise that the things to which you are attached are not what they appear to be, that is they are illusory in that they have no 'self'. This includes you, you have no-self as well.

 

Dependent origination is the philosophical basis for describing how we come to perceive the world in the way we do - as consisting of separate self-existing objects in space - and to show that this is mistaken and that the things we perceive do not have that independent autonomous existence which they appear to have. Because of this they are not worthy of clinging on to. If we convince ourselves of this truth then we can happily let go of things and situations, free ourselves up enough to be able to see through appearance to the truth. The suffering which is much spoken of is just the effect of living in a way which places its security or happiness in these illusory objects.

 

This kind of analysis and position only arises if you start where Buddhism starts, that is with the world in which we find ourselves. All other religions start somewhere else. They start with acknowledging a power (however named) as the origin of the world. A creator of the world. And then from this point describing the process of creation, or how things came to be as a result of the activity of this power. From here they also speak of the nature of this power and our relation to it. This may be the kind of father/child relation promoted by organised religion or may be a deeper understanding as seen in mystical thought.

 

This kind of thinking is evident in both monotheistic and polytheistic religions. For this argument it doesn't really matter if the creator is seen as one or many, there is still a named power which is the origin.

 

Where Taoism stands apart from both of these is that it does not begin with either the nature of world and suffering, or with the originating power. It starts with describing the "Way", the way in which things arise, the way in which Heaven and Earth arise and how everything can be seen as relative (ugly/beautiful, long/short and so on) and as the interaction of polarised energies (yin and yang) which interact in patterns and cycles. By understanding the way in which this happens it is possible, on a personal level to follow this way, to act through non-action and so on, the effect of which is spiritual awareness of the profundity of this way and also increased health, strength and longevity.

 

Taoism does not really state that the Tao is the originating power as in theism. It does not personify the power in the way for instance, Christianity does. On the other hand it does not abstract the Tao, it is not posited as an alternative to this world as Nirvana is and it is not some kind of substance or essence. The Tao is real but it is beyond concept and therefore beyond 'name'. Naming things is seen as the origin of things, whereas the eternally unknown is the 'nameless', the Tao permeates (if you like) both the named and the nameless but not in an abstract way. The Tao is real and therefore cannot reified (since reification = treating an abstract as real). That is not to say that no Taoist has ever fallen into this error - they probably have.

 

In some ways Buddhism and Taoism are compatible which has been shown historically by their being side by side in China for such a length of time. It is quite legitimate (in my view) for Buddhist to look at Taoism without compromising their own positions and to take the best from it. And the same is possible for Taoists when looking at Buddhism. However in doing this we must understand that each way of thought is a self-consistent whole and it is not really possible to swap concepts without a great deal of care.

 

Overall I would say there is more positives to learn from each system than grounds for dispute. In this dialogue Buddhists should be Buddhist about it - that is hold to their view while being unattached to the outcome - while Taoists should be Taoist about it - that is understand that it is all part of ebb and flow of ever changing energy, that what seems to be the stronger argument now only exists because the weaker exists and that in time these two will change position.

 

In peace.

 

A.

 

Very clear. Taught me a few things.

[Marblehead]

Someone said that if you move fast enough, you'd open up a worm hole and go backward in time!!

 

Someone said that if you believe hard enough, a frog would turn into a handsome prince.

 

Warning number one: Don't believe everything you hear.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Naming things is seen as the origin of things, whereas the eternally unknown is the 'nameless', the Tao permeates (if you like) both the named and the nameless but not in an abstract way. The Tao is real and therefore cannot reified (since reification = treating an abstract as real). That is not to say that no Taoist has ever fallen into this error - they probably have.

 

 

In peace.

 

A.

 

Buddhism doesn't have an eternal energy beyond name and form that permeates everything that is real from it's own side.

 

These views are not compatible.

[Stigweard]

Buddhism doesn't have an eternal energy beyond name and form that permeates everything that is real from it's own side.

 

These views are not compatible.

Yes but you do have the eternal oneness of impermanence

 

Sorry couldn't help myself

 

Carry on ...

[Apech]

Buddhism doesn't have an eternal energy beyond name and form that permeates everything that is real from it's own side.

 

These views are not compatible.

 

 

Did you read my final paragraph?

 

What is this 'from its own side' - the Tao doesn't have sides.

 

If the views were completely compatible and interchangable then they would be the same and Taoism would = Buddhism - of course they are distinct and different but that does not mean that either is inherently flawed. Indeed it would be possible for a Taoist to say that Buddhism overlooks the subtleties of the Tao and is forced to reintroduce at a later date Buddha-nature and the Dharma-kaya as emanating positive qualities.

 

Dependent origination is a powerful view for removing attachment but it is not replacement for realization is it?

 

 

 

Yes but you do have the eternal oneness of impermanence

 

Sorry couldn't help myself

 

Carry on ...

 

 

Stig,

 

Maybe we could say the superior view sees the compatibility of the incompatible, while the inferior view rejects what it cannot encompass.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Did you read my final paragraph?

 

What is this 'from its own side' - the Tao doesn't have sides.

 

That's not what I mean. As in... it's considered the one of all things.

 

 

If the views were completely compatible and interchangable then they would be the same and Taoism would = Buddhism - of course they are distinct and different but that does not mean that either is inherently flawed. Indeed it would be possible for a Taoist to say that Buddhism overlooks the subtleties of the Tao and is forced to reintroduce at a later date Buddha-nature and the Dharma-kaya as emanating positive qualities.

 

 

These are not considered the oneness of the all. They are merely resultant bodies of from realization and not inherently existent.

Dependent origination is a powerful view for removing attachment but it is not replacement for realization is it?

 

No, it IS realization. Dependent origination is the dharma and nirvana is the realization of dependent origination. Because it's positive form is the existence of a realized being... i.e. dharmakaya. But because it's dependent origination, it's not an inherent existence but a relative existence.

 

Maybe we could say the superior view sees the compatibility of the incompatible, while the inferior view rejects what it cannot encompass.

 

 

Yes, Buddhahood does not encompass erroneous views, it see's through them and rejects them and applies the dharma to correct them.

 

 

Yes but you do have the eternal oneness of impermanence

 

Sorry couldn't help myself

 

Carry on ...

 

It's not a oneness, it also see's that there is no oneness.

 

Sorry... your view needs correction.

[Apech]

That's not what I mean. As in... it's considered the one of all things.

These are not considered the oneness of the all. They are merely resultant bodies of from realization and not inherently existent.

No, it IS realization. Dependent origination is the dharma and nirvana is the realization of dependent origination. Because it's positive form is the existence of a realized being... i.e. dharmakaya. But because it's dependent origination, it's not an inherent existence but a relative existence.

Yes, Buddhahood does not encompass erroneous views, it see's through them and rejects them and applies the dharma to correct them.

 

 

You like to argue don't you.

[Vajrahridaya]

You like to argue don't you.

 

I like to correct mistaken views. If your view corresponds with the dharma... no debate.

 

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I like to correct mistaken views. If your view corresponds with the dharma... no debate.

 

 

Ah, that's part of the problem, right there...you like to correct mistaken views. That certainly comes through. Does it make you feel more important/special to be the corrector of mistaken fools here? You're not really here to openly share and learn, then?

 

And this coming from the man who 'took the Browns to the Super Bowl'!

 

So, why then, do the other versions of Buddhism (Zen, Mahayana, etc., ) even bother with pursuing lesser or inferior realization? Why don't the Buddhists just come out and say Dzogchen is the only way, forget about all other ways? Is this not also, how the seeds of religious tensions and wars are sown, by proclaiming the One Way?

Why spend so much time proclaiming one realization superior to another? What's the point?

Edited October 5, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

And this coming from the man who 'took the Browns to the Super Bowl'!

 

So, why then, do the other versions of Buddhism (Zen, Mahayana, etc., ) even bother with pursuing lesser or inferior realization? Why don't the Buddhists just come out and say Dzogchen is the only way, forget about all other ways? Is this not also, how the seeds of religious tensions and wars are sown, by proclaiming the One Way?

Why spend so much time proclaiming one realization superior to another? What's the point?

 

People have their capacity. Those on the lower tenet systems or wheels of the dharma will eventually evolve to the higher turnings if they follow their path well.

 

It's that simple. It's a process of progression in capacity to directly relate and comprehend experimentally. One can jump from any stage of the bodhisattva path to the last instantly. One can jump from the Arahant to the Bodhisattva path at any stage and one can even turn their Theravada voyage into a Bodhisattva voyage through deepening their understanding of dependent origination experientialy without ever having been exposed to the concepts of Dzogchen, one realizes Dzogchen by realizing dependent origination. Dzogchen is just the natural state of realization of dependent origination when fully experientialy comprehended through all faculties.

 

Ah, that's part of the problem, right there...you like to correct mistaken views. That certainly comes through. Does it make you feel more important/special to be the corrector of mistaken fools here? You're not really here to openly share and learn, then?

 

Of course I like when people come closer to a liberated view and Buddhahood. I shouldn't enjoy that? May all beings have the conditions for joy and may they all be virtuous. Should I enjoy confusing people instead? I seem to do this at times but I don't enjoy that.

 

Sure, I'm here to learn to better apply Dharma teaching to both myself and in word expression.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Actually, the more I listen to V. the more I think Buddhism and Taoism have absolutely nothing in common.

 

Buddhism belongs on Mars. We Taoist are exactly where we are supposed to be.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, the more I listen to V. the more I think Buddhism and Taoism have absolutely nothing in common.

 

Buddhism belongs on Mars. We Taoist are exactly where we are supposed to be.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Be a good Taoist!

 

I retract the rest of this statement for good reason.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

LOL! Yes, I always thought you didn't have the capacity in this lifetime. Which is fine. Be a good Taoist!

 

You know nothing about my capacities. BTW You are not being a good Buddhist tonight. Shame on you.

 

Happy Trails!

[ralis]

Actually, the more I listen to V. the more I think Buddhism and Taoism have absolutely nothing in common.

 

Buddhism belongs on Mars. We Taoist are exactly where we are supposed to be.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Buddhists always discuss the void, why can't it just stay there.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You know nothing about my capacities. BTW You are not being a good Buddhist tonight. Shame on you.

 

Happy Trails!

 

I feel it's you who needs to relax and not take things so personally. Of course there are going to be those who you will think are delusional on these boards. That doesn't mean they are though. I would hope that as a good Taoist you question yourself a bit more and humble yourself more to the possibility that your ideas and limitations of experience are merely that.

 

Buddhists always discuss the void, why can't it just stay there.

ralis

 

There is no void.

 

Do you think emptiness is pointing to a void?

[Marblehead]

Buddhists always discuss the void, why can't it just stay there.

ralis

 

Sometimes I wish it would hurry up and reincarnate. It will probably be Christian in its next life.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

You know nothing about my capacities.

 

You didn't have to take that as an insult. You could be like... "Your right V. I don't have the capacity to be as stupid and assumptive as you are." You know?

[Tao99]

LOL! Yes, I always thought you didn't have the capacity in this lifetime. Which is fine. Be a good Taoist!

 

Hey Marble - I wonder what kind of demented future his Buddhism sees for you. And all because you refuse to believe in DO. Shame on you! LOL

Edited October 6, 2009 by Tao99