Hi Bob, sorry did see this till just then. Yeah, dont mind a bit of debate. I really get ticked off when people misrepresent Taoism and preach it as if it were the truth...and say the most obviously inaccurate things. My source of learning is not merely books, university courses... I am mentored by real living Taoist masters and I suggest you do the same. I prefer that my Taoist mentors be Mandarin proficient ( doesn’t matter what race) as this allows them direct untranslated access to the Taoist Cannon writings ( hundreds of them ) I am glad you and I share a common believe about Physical Immortality. This is in accordance to original Taoism. Diluted and Contaminated Taoism ( like Neo- Taoism) tend to "over reason" / rationalise and settle for SPIRITUAL immortality, citing Physical Immortality to be IMPOSSIBLE. If you are interested in pursuing this topic, might I suggest you research articles about " Lu Dong Bin " ( Lu Tung Pin) on the internet...please be aware of the varieties of spelling. He is the most famous of the 8 Immortals , primarily credited for evangelising the Tao. Other topics you might like to look into are works by the " Yellow Emperor". It might surprise you to know that even famous Taoist like Chuang Tzu do not believe in physical immortality. This is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Tao te Ching. Lao Tzu , Chang San Feng ( Tai Chi founder) , the Yellow Emperor, all achieved physical immortality…according to traditional Taoist teachings. As for science and Immortality, I have a private collection of scientific articles, have a look at this one which came out just last month: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/05/1078464645918.html Also , ponder on the fact that some trees are 4000 years old...and still living . So is physical immortality so far fetched?
Hey Soggy we 'meet' again . Gotta ask though could you post me a link or some information to were this proof of Lao Tzu as a single author by style analysis is discussed. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Lao Tzu was more a mythical figure than a real man. Still I'm open to being proven wrong so as I say I would appreciate some links. I'll indulge you with the same for the opposing view if your interested. Though off course i don't think it really matters if it was written by one man or 10 women and a horse. If it makes sense and people are guided by the words I dont think its all that important who exactly wrote them. Oh and Bob I think soggycat is dead on mark if your interested in Taoism going and trying to find an authentic practitioner would seem to be the best idea. Mind you I'd also suggest that while being open is good, being gullible is not; dont just swallow up whatever anyone tells you, including if they are asian- being asian doesn't necessarily make someone a more spiritual or better informed person, think critically (or to put it another simpler way be aware). Theres alot of new agey type stuff surrounding Eastern religions and alot of people in the West like to romanticise 'foreign' religions... not that theres necessarily anything wrong with any of that but if your sincerely interested in practicing Taoism its probably best to avoid such stuff.
Just noticed this... You know soggy when China came into contact with Buddhism because of the apparent similarities there was rather a misguided theory that Lao Tzu (who I believe was supposed to have disappeared off to the West) actually was the teacher of the Buddha! Anyway just thought Id point out that Taoism only predates the Buddha according to Taoist's for Buddhists however Buddhism by no means began with Shakyamuni Buddha and he certainly wasnt the first Buddha. There were plenty of previous Buddha's around before him... Not to mention he did fly around as a Bodhisattva teaching people for a couple of aeons beforehand. Again I realise this is just a story but then the same could be said for attaining immortality.
There are many Taoist adepts who consider the "Physical Immortality" bunch to be only one side of the coin. There are two main divisions, the "alchemical" Taoists (who believe in power in this world and physical immortality) and the "hygienic" Taoists (the school that Chuang Tzu and Chang San-feng represented, who use the writings of the I Ching and Lao Tzu and who believe in spiritual immortality, content with a natural lifespan). The T'ai Chi families don't believe in trying to attain physical immortality, for instance, I've asked some of them. The hygienic lot don't consider the alchemists to be "contaminated" however, just different. People have to work through what they have to work through, and if you think that it is important to stick around on this corrupt world for eternity, for whatever reason, then you have my best wishes. Whether Lao Tzu was a real person or not, I can't say. Someone had to write the book, though. Whether he taught the same thing the Buddhas did, I think it is awfully close, and can lead to a similar result, hence the happy occurence of Ch'an Buddhism, a combination of the two schools. In Mahayana doctrine we are all Buddhas (most just don't remember that), so I guess that would include Lao Tzu, too. So to say that hygienic Taoists aren't really Taoists and are somehow "diluted" seems a bit harsh. -HKP
Just as much conjecture as presuming that Lao Zi wrote the Dao De Jing. As Kava said unless your an historian it matters little, rather the current interpretations of the writings are of more relevence.
Sorry but you need to read a bit more about Buddhism. What Gautama taught is that there were many Buddhas before him and in different worlds. In fact we all are Buddhas, but the ability to achieve that state depends entirely upon you. Remember the "Noble Eightfold Path"?
Why does soggy cat like to agrue so much? he has no knowledge on the subjects he disagrees with! and his argueing certainly precludes him from spiritual disciplines such as Buddhism and taoism whaich he knows nothing about.. MF
Difficult to listen with so much noise... Taoism for me has always been a philosophy. It has been the basis of much of my current thought and attitude. I'm by no means a scholar, but that which I have studied has made a great difference to my life. In many cases I have seen Tao explained as water. This has always served me as an excellent desciption of its process.
1.Lao Tzu achieved Immortality, like many before and after him....according to Taoism 2.Buddha died from food poisoning, according to Buddhism Based on simple level logic , how can one even begin to equate the two? It's also biased and Buddha-centric , to define a Taoist according to Buddhist standards. Why not say, Buddha achieved LaoTzuHood? To compare Buddhism with Taoism and cross -connect concepts is like comparing apples with oranges. The 2 may be fruits, but differ too much in chromosonal count . But some people say that there's a lot of similarity bewteen Taoism and Zen ( Chan ) Buddhism. That is true. This is because when pure Buddhism arrived in China circa 100AD ( 600 years after Buddha), it absorbed and borrowed from many Taoist teachings prevalent in that day. After all Taosim had already been around 2000 years earlier. That's why Zen Buddhism speaks about Nothingness, Emptying one's mind , returning to the Void etc etc. Notice alos that Zen Buddhism flourished in China, NOT Nepal / India where it came from? Please dont take my word for it, go and read some PROPER HISTORY books on this topic...not books written by biased Taoist or Buddhist. And btw, there are more Buddhist in China than in India today, only 20% of India is Buddhist.
The commonly accepted view in China is that the authorship of Tao Te Ching is Lao Tzu. Infact sometimes the book itself is called LaoTzu. While it is true there is no concrete proof that the writer is LaoTzu, there is similar lack of proof for the opposing theory that it is the product of a collection of several writers. So most of what we know is a result of oral tradition and as well as the fact that writing style analysis suggest it was written by one person not several. For instance, LaoTzu was poetic/ aphorism, Chuang Tzu was prose and Lieh Tzu was commentary. LaoTzu is no more mythical than Jesus Christ. Who today can prove / disproof his existence without a shadow of a doubt? But I agree, …the words not the writer matters more for us today
If you read my post on the last page you'll see that some people actually did suggest the Buddha achieved "LaoTzuHood". So I think both sides are equally guilty of attempting to account/take credit for the others teaching. Incidentally the Buddha's body may have died but then in Mahayana teachings that was only one of his manifestion body (nirmana kaya), but his bliss body (sambhoga kaya) and the law body (dharma kaya) are rather different stories. And also incidentally the Mahayana tradition also believes that the historical Buddha never actually really was human; that is he wasnt really born and died, instead he actually put on a kind of 'elaborate show' to motivate us (i.e. teaching by skilful means). Kind a weird eh? I think your a bit off the mark here soggy. The thing is Chan/Zen Buddhism doesnt speak of 'nothingness' that was generally a mistake of early translators who used familiar Taoist terminology that they thought were fairly similiar for unfamiliar Buddhist terms. The actual Buddhist concept that they were translating was "emptiness" which is actually rather different from Taoist "nothingness". The early period of Buddhism in China is even referred to as the "extending the metaphor" period. However these translation mistakes were corrected later. The actual concept was definitely not "absorbed" or "borrowed" just the terminology used. The whole "emptiness" concept in Buddhism was in fact developed by a famous Indian philospher called Nagarjuna who is credited with founding the Madhyamika school of thought. This school is often referred to as the "emptiness school" because of the emphasise it placed on the teaching of sunyata(the inherint emptiness of everything). And while your quite correct to say that Chan Buddhism wasn't popular in India that is because it was a further development of earlier Indian traditions. The Madhyamika school was very popular in India as was the Tathagata Garba (Buddha Nature) school of thought which was also arguably alot more influential to Chan Buddhism than Madhyamika philosphy. In summary, Buddhism was of course flavoured/influenced by Chinese culture and the indigenous religions of the region at the time. However, the concept of "emptiness" was developed long before Buddhism had any contact with Taoism so they didn't just develop the term in response to Taoist philosphies. (In fact it was a response to an early Buddhist philosphy called Abhidharma but now were getting super pedantic )
What I'm hearing you say is that the "Emptiness" concept in Buddhism was developed by Nagarjuna, and not Buddha himself. Thank you. It supports my view that much of Buddhism today has evolved alot from the original one promoted by Gautama himself, thanks to people like Nagarjuna who "added" to the original recipe. As you might have guessed by now, I'm a purist and don't advocate mix-and-match philosophies. In my view, if I want to follow Buddhism, I will follow pure unadulterated Buddhism. If I want to follow Taoism, I will follow pure unadulterated Taoism.Not neo-Taoism which combines conepts of Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism
Glad to be of service Off course I think it may be worth pointing out a few things: 1. While Nagarjuna is the founder of the Madhyamika school he did off course base his teachings on what the Buddha taught or at least what it was recorded he taught. 2. Siddhartha Gautama actually authorised teachings given by his disciples which he considered to be correct to be considered his words. 3. The traditional form of Buddhism as originally practiced in India would be exceedingly difficult to practice in a country that does not have a tradition of wandering mendicants and where that sort of behaviour is not only tolerated but actively supported. For some examples, the clothes you would be allowed would lead you to freeze in some of the colder climates not to mention in Britain going door to door for alms wouldnt be too well received. When Siddhartha established his sangha he did so by slotting it into an established religious niche. Which he subsequently made his own . 4. The Buddha actually specifically taught that any kind of dogmatism was a bad thing and it can well be argued that according to his teachings a certain amount of flexibility was actually promoted in regards the teachings and religious rules. Each individual circumstance was to be considered. As such considering one form of Buddhism the pure form and the other unpure would seem to be contradicting old Siddhartha. As I've said before the pure, original form is more often than not a fantasy of Westerners. By what criteria can we establish original teachings from future elaborations especially if they have over time been accredited to the founder, in my opinion its almost impossible to ever truly find what the "pure, original untainted form" is because religions will always influenced by the society they appear in. HOWEVER, if you have indeed found the pure original form of Taoism soggycat then I wish you well... your enjoying it anyway no doubt
Soggycat, just re-read HK Pedestrian's post. Maybe it will help you to open your stubborness. Why do you like to see with different eyes what's already there? For me all sgaes are the same whether Aboriginal Australian, Indigenous North-Americans, Mexican Huicholes, Indian Yogis, Daoist hermits, Zen monks, bla,bla, bla... The truth has one colour but only the pigheaded people like to see it in a different way. I am getting sick of this discussion. Maybe I should have lots of sex instead???
Actually, the Sung dynasty combination of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism is called "Neo-Confucianism" in the West. In Chinese, it is called Li Hsueh, or study of principle, 理學. T'ai Chi Ch'uan owes its underlying theory to Neo-Confucianism. Just as there are no "pure" versions of Buddhism or Taoism, there is no claim of superiority or being the sole owner of "pure" T'ai Chi from the actual members of the surviving T'ai Chi families (Ch'en, Yang or Wu). We are all individuals, with unique gifts, talents and liabilities. It can be said that there are as many different Taoisms as there are Taoists, as no two people will ever see the same thing exactly the same way. To expect others to comply with one's own version of a religion is fundamentalism, and we all know what kind of bad hair days THAT can lead to! Cheers, -HKP
Comparison of Buddhism to Taoism: Given such stark contrasts, how can Taoism be fused harmoniously with Buddhism ? http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/u.htm Traditional Buddhism shares a tremendous amount in common with Traditional Taoism, but the two differ in three primary ways: On morality: While Buddhism makes moral judgements, seeing some human traits as wrong and incorrect, Taoism doesn't make moral judgements. While a Taoist may describe a certain trait in a particular instant as preventing a person from seeing reality, the Taoist doesn't feel that is a bad thing; while the Buddhist sees that person as living in chains and feels a need to liberate their morality! Taoism accepts things as they are, and thus, moral decisions and feelings remain internal, while the Buddhist attempts to objectify their morality. In practice: As a result, the Buddhist attempts to structure the world and the path to enlightenment in certain ways. There are 4 truths, an 8 fold path, there are clinging aggregates here and there, and all kinds of things, good and bad, that have been setup to avoid or strive to achieve. Taoism sees such attempts as a part of the problem! That trying to structure one set of rules on the diversity of humanity, no matter how diverse and ammending those rules are, will never quite work! While the Buddhist meditates with special tools, idols, and at designated times, the Taoist believes that meditation isn't different from living normally — it is a different thing to do, and has healthy value, but it isn't more nor less important that tieing one's shoes! On enlightenment: Taoism believes that suffering is natural — that an attempt to get rid of suffering would be an equal to getting rid of pleasure as well. Taoism is similar to Theravada Buddhism in believing that desires often confuse or prevent a person from accepting what is reality. They share in common the core belief that spiritual progress means being able to accept and live in harmony with reality with one's self.
Zen Buddhism borrowed much from Taoism Like I said before ..... Taoist influence on Buddhism in China: http://www.chibs.edu.tw/publication/chbj\13\13-38.htm Zen is Taoism disquised as Buddhism http://www.shared-visions.com/explore/culture/taoofzen.htm
Comparison of Confucianism with Taoism From the early days of Taoism as a religion there was a rivalry with Confucianism. Confucianism encouraged the individual to conform to the accepted (artificial)moral standards, and duties, of an idealised social system. Taoism, on the other hand, preferred that individuals should ignore the moralistic dictates of society and seek only to conform with eternal (natural )patterns of the universe, the Tao or Way. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/sources/ Whereas Confucianism urged the individual to conform to the standards of an ideal social system, Daoism maintained that the individual should ignore the dictates of society and seek only to conform with the underlying pattern of the universe, the Dao http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555647/Daoism.html
