Taoist views on Buddhist way

[rex]

Live and let live sounds good, but... I haven't found an efficient way to do it....

Nor I, but I was using it in an ecumenical sense. Actually this wider question of being able to live and let live could make for a new thread. Edited January 6, 2010 by rex

[forestofemptiness]

Not all Buddhists hold the world to be illusory. Theravedans often break the world into mind and body. Some Zen Masters would certainly smack the student if one said the world was illusory. Buddhists state that upon investigation, the world turns out to be empty. Because it is empty, if you cling to the world, you will suffer. So a Buddhist may say, that face will eventually turn to wrinkles, so why cling to the smooth face?

 

And what is the relationship between physical health and enlightenment? At most, physical health is a temporary phenomenon.

 

Of course, if you think that your body isi illusory, then there is no need to worry about the wrinkles on your face. Or, why should there exist a relationship between those wrinkles and Enlightenment? Just shake off the pseudo ego then Enlightenment come upon you . Easy and quick?

 

However, without pushing to the utmost of emptiness,hardly can a mind generate a Buddha Heart; And, Taoism sharply notices that without jing and qi's help, hardly can a mind settle down and push itself to the utmost of emptiness.

[Pero]

Which sources are not questionable? oh, I get it... the ones that support the views or your party.

 

Taomeow you said "Gautama Buddha explicitly stated that his dharma would be saving sentient beings for 500 years."

 

If this is true, it should be in a sutra. That is the source we'd find (more) credible. Not this guy said, that guy said (especially if the guy in question is Li Hong Zi...). Credibility has nothing to do with supporting or not my/our views.

[Taomeow]

Taomeow you said "Gautama Buddha explicitly stated that his dharma would be saving sentient beings for 500 years."

 

If this is true, it should be in a sutra. That is the source we'd find (more) credible. Not this guy said, that guy said (especially if the guy in question is Li Hong Zi...). Credibility has nothing to do with supporting or not my/our views.

A specific sutra might be hard to find for a western non-practitioner/non-afficionado of buddhism, for most pratcitioners of buddhism in the West likewise, first and foremost because the vast majority haven't been translated. Did you know that about one in nine praises ganja, e.g., as the tool of spiritual ascention? These have never been translated! Did you know that, on the other hand, most Tibetan buddhist texts had been destroyed by Moslem invaders, making the French (and a few English) translations by a westerner the only source currently available? but if I cite David-Neel as the source, you (not you personally perhaps, one of the guardians of the sacred cow of the westernized buddhist digest) will tell me, who is she? nobody! And about the sutras in praise of pot -- there's more of these than on any other subject in buddhism and hinduism combined -- I learned it from Rick Strassman who investigated sacred herbs and sacred writings about them, I didn't do the work myself, but I believe him because other knowledge he presents is credible. It's circumstantial evidence... always and for everybody unless you wrote those sutras yourself, THEN you know what they do and do not say.

 

When I read something from people who read the originals, that's the best source I practically have access to. Those "in support" of a doctrine will pick and choose what they give you, those "against" will do likewise, no one is "impartial." No one. So no source is one hundred percent reliable, but then you fall back on corroborating evidence, on other sources supporting or refuting a particular view. You integrate and glean a picture, and then post a one-liner, the way I did. What more could I do? A dissertation? Not interested... So I recall, e.g., that a monk who started the Zen reformation of buddhism did so because HE believed traditional orthodox buddhism had expired and become corrupt AT THE TIME, which was many centuries ago. That was the reason for the birth of zen cited by its creator. So then I see a modern master educated in sutras assert the same thing, and I happen to remember his name better than a dozen other names... whatever... I can easily find the name of the first zen dude and a quote, I just don't see the point. A buddhist who plays mickey-mouse buddhism will insist on it remaining just the way he knows and loves it anyway: mickey-mouse. A fairy tale of my life being an illusion. Screw that. A fairy tale of the glorious and magnificent universe full of beauty, meaning, mystery, life being nothing but suffering. Fuck that. A fairy tale of knowing what "right thoughts" and "right actions" and "right words" are or aren't. Duh.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Taomeow

[Lucky7Strikes]

LIKE and illusion. Not illusion.

 

Life is not suffering. A certain way of experiencing it is. Nirvana and Samsara are one (well, they aren't one, but more like "there's heaven on earth" sort of one.)

Edited January 6, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Taomeow]

LIKE and illusion. Not illusion.

 

Life is not suffering. A certain way of experiencing it is. Nirvana and Samsara are one (well, they aren't one, but more like "there's heaven on earth" sort of one.)

All right. Sounds good.

 

The thread was about "taoist views on buddhist way." I'm a taoist, and I presented a view. I should perhaps let it stand on its own without falling back on any other authority. I, a taoist, don't take buddhism seriously. It's not true for all taoists. Some taoists do. Many. But not all. I for one don't. Is all.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Taomeow

[exorcist_1699]

All right. Sounds good.

 

The thread was about "taoist views on buddhist way." I'm a taoist, and I presented a view. I should perhaps let it stand on its own without falling back on any other authority. I, a taoist, don't take buddhism seriously. It's not true for all taoists. Some taoists do. Many. But not all. I for one don't. Is all.

 

I have to say, I take Buddhism seriously . I always have great respect towards other religions ,especially Buddhism . In fact , any criticism on Buddhism , no matter from myself or others , first arouses unrest inside me .I remembered when I was very young I first read the " Diamond Sutra" ( its Chinese version , of course ) I was fascinated by its magnificent , eloquent style and sensed that it definitely is talking about some great intelligence totally different from all sciences and philosophies ( Taoism, to me , of course is not just a philosophy ) . Even only view the " Heart Sutra " and " Diamond Sutra" as some kinds of literature , you still find them masterpieces ( of translation) .

 

From the Chinese Taoist point of view, the two-thousand history of the blending between Taoism and Buddhism already solved most quarrels .It is under new historical context , towards a different group of audience , that the solved issues are raised and argued again .

Edited January 7, 2010 by exorcist_1699

[Gerard]

We Taoists adopt a much realistic attitude towards our physical body and its spiritual aspects. To me, better able to fight off every loose tooth or wrinkle on our face before talking about those big things. Why ? Unable to fight off a loose tooth or a wrinkle means the qi we initialize likely be low -quality one, which accordingly defintely can't help us jumping upwards to the level of Shen ( something similar to Awakening or Enlightenment in Buddhism ) . So, they are not only related , but closely interlinked .

 

You have little understanding of deep spiritual practice.

 

And honestly why put everything in boxes. Talking about "isms" only gives a mind a chance for more clinging.

 

 

...I, a taoist, don't take buddhism seriously.

 

In one lifetime you will understand the true message of a Buddha.

[Taomeow]

I have to say, I take Buddhism seriously . I remembered when I was young I first read the " Diamond Sutra" ( its Chinese version , of course ) I was fascinated by its magnificent , eloquent style and sensed that it definitely is talking about some great intelligence totally different from all sciences and philosophies ( Taoism, to me , of course is not just a philosophy ) . Even only view the " Heart Sutra " and " Diamond Sutra" as some kinds of literature , you still find them masterpieces ( of translation) .

 

From the Chinese Taoist point of view, the two-thousand history of the blending between Taoism and Buddhism already solved most quarrels .It is under new historical context , towards a different group of audience , that the solved issues are raised and argued again .

 

There's 376 million buddhists and 20 million taoists in the world. If that's what "solved most quarrels," if that's what "solved the issues..." ...so much more precious it is for taoism to stand its unique ground and not get swallowed altogether (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are much bigger than Buddhism, and of course each one of them, strong in numbers, would support the view that everything has already been solved and shouldn't be argued again... of course if it's been solved to the big guy's own satisfaction.)

 

Too bad taoists don't honk in traffic. Maybe they should. Of course a world massively converted to taoism -- by decree, with steel and fire, with gold and blood, with "god on their side" the way major doctrines had converted their followers in the heyday of quarrels having been "unresolved" yet -- is an impossibility, but for taoism to not go extinct is a responsibility -- at least to a taoist, IMO. And to say "enough is enough" to "blending" can be a starting point... Beyond 64 blendings, the world reverts to chaos, according to the I Ching. Some things should remain what they are or else they will turn into a handful of pieces that no one can benefit from juggling, or put back together again. Look what happened to the pagan religions of Europe. Look what happened to tibetan Bon. Look what happened to all shamanic traditions -- to everybody and everything that wasn't a big corporation religion. I don't want to think that taoism will disappear the way they all did. The last tiger has been killed in China, and the last dolphin in the Yellow River... I don't want the last taoist to be next.

 

"And it is as true as that a buffalo is not a horse," as a taoist mathematician (whose work, borrowed without attribution by Leibnitz who, upon learning the binary code from the Christian missionaries to China, made the eventual creation of this-here computer possible) used to say by way of "quod erad demonstrandum." It is as true as that buddhism is not taoism.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Taomeow

[Taomeow]

In one lifetime you will understand the true message of a Buddha.

See, that's exactly the illustration of just one thing that prevents me from taking buddhism as you and quite a few others present it seriously. The paternalistic, condescending tone. The "if you're not with us you're a nitwit" message. A taoist can't possibly take this style of communication seriously.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Taomeow

[Sunya]

Did you know that, on the other hand, most Tibetan buddhist texts had been destroyed by Moslem invaders, making the French (and a few English) translations by a westerner the only source currently available? but if I cite David-Neel as the source,

 

Did you mean Indian Buddhist texts? because yes many original Sanskrit texts have been lost, whether by Muslim invasion or because of other conditions. Tibet translated every sutra into Tibetan and currently has many many many untranslated sutras. I'm not aware of Tibet ever being invaded by Muslims nor am I aware of most Tibetan Buddhist texts being destroyed. Tibetans have done a very good job in preserving texts.

 

Many texts were indeed destroyed though, but that was done by Chinese invaders.. not Muslim.

Edited January 7, 2010 by mikaelz

[Taomeow]

Did you mean Indian Buddhist texts? because yes many original Sanskrit texts have been lost, whether by Muslim invasion or because of other conditions. Tibet translated every sutra into Tibetan and currently has many many many untranslated sutras. I'm not aware of Tibet ever being invaded by Muslims nor am I aware of most Tibetan Buddhist texts being destroyed. Tibetans have done a very good job in preserving texts.

 

Many texts were indeed destroyed though, but that was done by Chinese invaders.. not Muslim.

No, I'm referring to the British Indian military force comprised of Indian Moslems, invading Tibet in 1903-1904.

 

You are right about tibetans having preserved many, many texts, but tibetan buddhism happens to have produced a larger (and from my POV, more interesting to a taoist ) body of literature than any other, and much of it was destroyed at the time I pointed out, and more later by Chinese communists. One of my teachers told me about tibetan medical texts, huge in volume and scope of teachings, that were in possession of Buryat buddhist families in Siberia for hundreds of years (many Buryats were Tibetan buddhists by creed and had lamas educated in Tibet, who in their turn produced some great local teachers who were teachers to the dalai-lama; some of them were famous physicians to Russian czars... but I digress.) So anyway, some of these are among the texts that, interestingly enough, survive in Russian but not in Tibetan, to my knowledge. History works in mysterious ways...

[goldisheavy]

If our body is something illusory, why most kinds of Buddhist meditation/practices ask people to start from certain posture of sitting and mudra ( special positions of hands)? Is it not contradictory ?

 

Very good question. In some sense many Buddhist practices are actually deviant/foolish. And at least one Dzogchen tantra actually says so in clear and direct language. You didn't think this could happen did ya?

 

For reference:

 

http://www.amazon.co...a...2514&sr=8-2

 

The other reply to what you're saying is that Buddhist meditation postures are for convenience. Mudras (special hand positions) are symbolic gestures that can help achieve a proper state of mind, but they are not necessary.

The explanation can only be , by following certain posture and mudra , people can initialize some kind of energy or qi that help them towards Enligtenment.

 

Nope. Read above.

If it targets at getting a peaceful mind, then nothing better than lying or sitting there in freeform styles; sitting there straight in certain uncomfortable posture conversely makes our mind unrest .

 

Lotus posture is comfortable for those who achieve 100% proficiency in it. Modern Buddhist meditation literature does not insist on the lotus posture. And actually, I don't recall Pali Suttas insisting on the lotus posture either.

Please don't think that I am anti-Buddhism ; quite the contrary, what I am against are those vulgar , mediocre Buddhists who only have superficial understanding of Taoist practice. Taoist jing-qi-shen framework is much delicate and deep than what they can understand .

 

We Taoists adopt a much realistic attitude towards our physical body and its spiritual aspects. To me, better able to fight off every loose tooth or wrinkle on our face before talking about those big things. Why ? Unable to fight off a loose tooth or a wrinkle means the qi we initialize likely be low -quality one, which accordingly defintely can't help us jumping upwards to the level of Shen ( something similar to Awakening or Enlightenment in Buddhism ) . So, they are not only related , but closely interlinked .

 

Of course, if you think that your body is illusory, then there is no need to worry about the wrinkles on your face. Or, why should there exist a relationship between those wrinkles and Enlightenment? Just shake off the pseudo ego then Enlightenment come upon you . Easy and quick?

 

However, without pushing to the utmost of emptiness,hardly can a mind generate a Buddha Heart; And, Taoism sharply notices that without jing and qi's help, hardly can a mind settle down and push itself to the utmost of emptiness.

 

Did you ever read Zhuangzi? Did you notice his attitude toward health and longevity? I think the Daoist attitude is that if you live in accord with the Dao, health will come automatically. You don't have to worry about health as a separate item. Just follow the Dao, right? How do you understand this?

[Mark Foote]

If our body is something illusory, why most kinds of Buddhist meditation/practices ask people to start from certain posture of sitting and mudra ( special positions of hands)? Is it not contradictory ? The explanation can only be , by following certain posture and mudra , people can initialize some kind of energy or qi that help them towards Enligtenment. If it targets at getting a peaceful mind, then nothing better than lying or sitting there in freeform styles; sitting there straight in certain uncomfortable posture conversely makes our mind unrest .

 

 

Hey, exorcist_1699, your English is really good! Thanks for your contributions, here.

 

The Gautamid, later known as the Buddha (after his death, I believe), always started his description of setting up mindfulness with mindfulness of the body. After the suicide of dozens of his followers (they were practicing the meditation on the unlovely, which he prescribed), he taught that his own practice before and after enlightenment was "the intent contemplation on in-breaths and out-breaths", in sixteen points. Pretty physical.

 

Myself, I think the difficulty with his teaching was two-fold: first, it's not possible to comprehend the long inhalation as long, the short inhalation as short, the long exhalation as long, and the short exhalation as short without some kind of awareness of involuntary cranial-sacral fluid activity; and second, it's not readily apparent to most people that equanimity in mind is a necessary component of activity out of stretch. There's a sermon in the third Majjhima Nikaya volume on the Great Six-fold Sense (Field), in which the Gautamid declares that anyone who experiences as it really is sense-object, sense-organ, consciousness arising from contact between sense-organ and sense-object, impact as a result of consciousness, and feeling in connection with impact has already done all that needs to be done with respect to the eight-fold path, and develops all the various components of enlightenment. That's pretty physical.

 

I'd like to throw my two-cents in about the 500 years. I believe I have read (maybe in Warder's "Indian Buddhism") that the 500 years is not explicitly stated in the Pali Canon. Very interesting to me, though, that the teaching was only written down (in Ceylon) because the monks realized that the oral tradition was in danger of losing a few volumes; that was about 500 years after the teacher. Yes, there is a discussion in which the Buddha declares he was against admitting women because it would shorten the life of the order; he made an analogy about women and bandits, stating that just as the strength of men better enables them to survive bandits, so too the order would survive longer without women. something like that.

 

Tao Meow, the canon was carried into Tibet and China, as well as Ceylon (and Burma, and Thailand), so it survived the Moslem invasion. According to Warder, Buddhism was already on the decline in India at the time of the invasion; the Hindu faith was reclaiming the majority. Warder made a point of comparing the extant pieces of the sermon and discipline volumes between the Thai, Tibetan, and Chinese editions to study the history of Buddhism in India. It's in Warder's volume that I learned that the original split between Theravada and Mahayana was due to a disagreement over whether an enlightened individual could be "seduced by a succubus" (could have a wet dream).

 

As Shunryu Suzuki said, "life is much too important to take seriously", or something to that effect. good night, all!- Mark

 

p.s.- I see above that the Muslims you refer to, Tao Meow, were much later than those I'm referring to. Delay in post posting!

Edited January 7, 2010 by Mark Foote

[sweeney]

Buddha Sakyamuni saw that the universe is in constant motion. All flows without ceasation. So you have to go along with that. That is called skillfull means: Monkish, scholastic, philosophical, poetic, pureland faith, tantra, ch'an. Ch'an uses the Dao (Do) to augment skillfull means. Showing you that you are already in accord with the Dao and if you seek nirvana you loose it and keep on the wheel. So you become a bodhisattva to help others with skillfull means, such as; sesshin, yubyum jiggy, or kicking over pitchers of water. Tao is a skillfull method. Lord Lao Tzu showed us a 'way of' skillfull means. Try and use 'om mani padme om' to do Kung Fu you will be be stiff and get whaled. But my friends, lets just chill out and listen to the things going on in their suchness dao; distant traffic, crickets chirping, rain falling, sirens, people talking, birds singing, the wind whistling....

 

Namu Amida Bu!

 

Know the male yet keep the female!

[Birch]

I love synchronicity

 

Here I was, just finished reading a book about paths and pitfalls and from it came a question that I directly related to a possible buddhism/taoism difference.

 

From what I "got" from that book, everything to buddhists is mind, even emotions. However bodily the latter are in experience. And the book goes further to suggest that thoughts preceed emotions. However, in practice (at least where I'm at with it s far), I know this is not always the case, although they feed into each other, yes.

 

IMO/IME Taoist practices have a unique way of dealing with natural embodiment that I haven't found so far in quite the same way in buddism.

 

 

Another thought. If you teach women and then make their lives difficult for hundreds of years, it still won't work

[KoolAid900]

I don't really see any real difference between my experience with Alchemical Taoism and Vajrayana Buddhism. They have slightly different methods, and slightly more different ways of talking about those methods, but enlightenment is the same either way. The stage of physical immortality also occurs in Vajrayana, but seems more emphasized in the Tao. Vajrayana seems to prepare more for the point of death and right after as an extremely quick way to perfect the path.

 

Any genuine spiritual path leads to the same place ultimately or else it would not be a genuine spiritual path.

[KoolAid900]

I love synchronicity

 

Here I was, just finished reading a book about paths and pitfalls and from it came a question that I directly related to a possible buddhism/taoism difference.

 

From what I "got" from that book, everything to buddhists is mind, even emotions. However bodily the latter are in experience. And the book goes further to suggest that thoughts preceed emotions. However, in practice (at least where I'm at with it s far), I know this is not always the case, although they feed into each other, yes.

 

IMO/IME Taoist practices have a unique way of dealing with natural embodiment that I haven't found so far in quite the same way in buddism.

 

 

Another thought. If you teach women and then make their lives difficult for hundreds of years, it still won't work

 

I love synchronicity too, beautiful!

 

It seems that the difference has to do with language. With the Tao the starting and ending point seems to reside in Chi energy, BuddhaDharma it is the mind/inner world. Both are only systems of thought created as a way to understand experience and use it meaningfully. What Vajrayana Buddhism calls subtle levels of conceptual thought are the same as the movement of Chi energy, talked about from a different perspective. It is not as though in Buddhism there is no Chi energy and in Taoism there is no mind, they are just talked about differently and with varying emphasis. I have heard Vajrayana Buddhist masters validate practices such as Microcosmic orbit and say that on a subtle level karma is stored inside Chi energy (called winds usually). It seems that BuddhaDharma uses more mind/heart training than certain Taoist approaches in the beginning and does intensive work with the central channel later on. Alchemical Tao methods seems to do more Chi energy purification in the beginning. In actuality the Body, Chi and Mind cannot really be separated, but learning to define all things from one perspective provides a stable, consistent basis on which to build. This allows all experiences to be integrated into a meaningful whole.

[Birch]

[Vajrahridaya]

3) While Buddhist way only targets at spiritual immortality, Taoist targets at both physical and spiritual

immortality .

 

I wonder why there are Buddhist Masters in the mountains who have attained Immortality than? Also the Jalus in Dzogchen is Immortal, even though the physical body disapears from the view of the vast majority of beings on Earth, it's still there.

 

4) Taoist ways talk about method, fortune , companion and place(法,財,侣,地 ),Buddhist seldom mention them.

 

This is not true for Vajrayana which gives tons of focus on Method, and there are deities of fortune or abundance that one can focus practice on, and place? As in the place you do a practice?

 

5)Taoist recognizes that female and male's way of cultivations are different due to their physiological differences, at least at initial stage ; In Buddhist cultivation, there are no attention to such differences.

 

This is not true for Vajrayana which recognizes the differences and gives slightly different ways of posturing for females and males, as well as different order of yogic movements.

[forestofemptiness]

Traditionally, it goes:

 

Sensory form --> feeling (like, don't like, neutral) --> perception ---> thoughts/feelings/reactions/actions about, etc. --> consciousness

 

The idea that everything is mind comes much later in Buddhism.

 

I've been taught that Chinese Xin refers to both thoughts/feelings, and that separating thoughts and feelings is more of a western thing.

 

From what I "got" from that book, everything to buddhists is mind, even emotions. However bodily the latter are in experience. And the book goes further to suggest that thoughts preceed emotions. However, in practice (at least where I'm at with it s far), I know this is not always the case, although they feed into each other, yes.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

What kind of buddhism is Vajrayana? I know I tried some practices that were referred to as "Bön" in origin and I've seen a couple of things mentioned here that seemed to bear the label. I have, however, found them heavier on the active/visualisation front. So, basically MORE thinking and conceptualizing than less.

 

Vajrayana is the secret mantra vehicle or vehicle of transformation where one can attain Buddhahood in a very short period of time during our age. It's basically what Tibetan Buddhism is and there are many lineages and many branches of practice. It's origin is India but it was moved to Tibet in the 8 or 900's. Today's Bon is basically Vajrayana under the name of Bon. The method of visualization in the front is only a beginning practice and actively engages the mind in color, focus on an enlightened being, and then becoming that which one focuses on. It's a very practical practice that increases intelligence and the senses, as well as transforming the mind into the mind of a Buddha. What you were shown was Generation stage, and there is still Completion stage, then there is more... it's a process.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't really see any real difference between my experience with Alchemical Taoism and Vajrayana Buddhism.

 

I think if you're going to compare a Buddhist system with the energetic forms of Taoism, one would have to do it with the Vajrayana system of Buddhism. There are Chinese versions of Vajrayana that are not as well known as Chan/Zen, but which have the same kind of practices to one degree or another as the versions you find in Tibet, Burma, Nepal, and Bhutan.

[Birch]

What you were shown was Generation stage, and there is still Completion stage, then there is more... it's a process.

 

I'm down with processes.

 

Kindly explain "Completion stage"?

 

My dumb question of the day is why should (is?) the use of "spiritual" tools be restricted to specific religions? Is it historical? A kind of "it's always been like that since we can remember?" Is it linked to past migrations and cultural influence? Is it linked to present and future desires for such (migrations and cultural influence?)?

 

Something else? (Given I may be reproached for remaining within too strict conceptual boundaries...I'll leave it open.)

[KoolAid900]