In a nutshell, what’s the difference between Daoism and Buddhism?
This question reminds me of one of my favorite Peanuts cartoons. Peppermint Patty is sitting at her school desk, and recieves a paper with her essay test subject. She reads it aloud and her hair stands on end: “Explain World War II!” Then she takes a second look and sees it’s not quite as bad as she thought: “Use both sides of paper, if neccesary.”
To sum up, both philosophies are multifaceted and complex, and the similarities and differences cannot be meaningfully distinguished ‘in a nutshell.’
Sorry.
I might be wrong, but wouldn’t the taoists accept being in the nutshell and experience it fully, while the buddhists would recognize the nutshell as an illusion?
I get zen and taoism so confused, so don’t take my word on it.
perhaps if we all add bits and pieces…
daoism holds that reality is what it is. it’s only by our human attempts to describe and elaborate on reality that we loose sight of it. buddhism holds that this reality is an illusion. the ideas aren’t completely incompatible, to my mind.
here’s a specific to get us started: daoists believed that when you die, you’re dead. simple as that. buddhists believe in reincarnation.
people smarter than me: feel free to contradict. people dumber than me: shame on you.
stuart b.
Nice analogy KC…
I would add that the Taoists might transcend the nutshell, but would ultimately derive their purpose from returning to said nutshell with their newfound wisdom.
Buddhists would begin to transcend the nutshell, spend several lifetimes trying to teach others that they too should transcend the nutshell, and ultimately completely abandon the nutshell, because it never existed to begin with.
Once the guys on the qigong forum catch scent of this, expect it to quickly spiral into a conversation that only they understand and on which none of them will ever reach agreement.
okay, I’ll try to say something both pithy and meaningful…
Daoists seek balance and harmony, while Buddhists seek perfection and compassion.
Stupid Buddhists!
There are many types of buddism. So what I say will not always be true for all forms of buddism.
Taoism goes with the flow, appreciates the life
Buddism seeks freedom from life and reincarnation…moksha or something along that line. Buddism deals with the illusion of life, freedom from reincarnation basically living and what happens after you die.
Taosim, that I studied, mostly dealt with living life…not too much, not to little.
Just my little knowledge.
The buddhist would hold that he or she was merely a part of the whole, seemless from it in all ways, while the taoist would recognize that he was a nut.
Expect at least one post complaining that we are leading people on false paths. Also, it is important to note that someone will say that the tao that can be said is not the true tao.
That’s how it is, in a nutshell.
Oh, sorry, forgot correct punctuation.
That’s how it is in a nutshell.
Doesn’t Taoism explore the nature of nature while Buddhism delves into the nature of human experience.
That’s not Taoism in a nutshell… this is Taoism in a nutshell.
“HELP! I’M IN A NUTSHELL! HOW DID I GET INTO THIS NUTSHELL?!”
Ryu
KC Elbows should write a book on religion.
In Dr Seuss rhyme. :eek:
My fav so far:
while the taoist would recognize that he was a nut.
What about “confusion says…?”
I suppose the confucian would honor the nuts that came before him.
It might be of interest of MightyB if we noted that there is thousands of sects of Taoism, and thousands of sects of Buddhism. Most noteably I would point out Chan Buddhism in China and Zen buddhism in Japan. Roughly.
I took a look in my nutshell and all it had in it was emptiness.
I can’t tell if it’s the void from which all Taoist things come or the one all Buddhists hope to return to.
Since the emptiness I have spoken of is not the Tao, because it can be spoken. Then, is the void that I don’t mention the true one?
Well…
Since the question is about philosophical differences we can rule out the religious trappings for now.
I find it interesting to look at the background of the 2 “philosophers”.
The historic Buddha was a prince who was well versed in classical Hindu training in all manners. He also received training as a ruler of a country. While personal spiritual quest through empirial methodologies is important to him. He also developed blue print for an ideal community; ie the Sangha insitution which impliment the 8 hold path practice that he conceived. In other words, he was well prepared to lead in all manners of speaking.
We know very little about Lao Tze except that he was a librarian during the late Zhou dynasty (Eastern Zhou?). At the time only nobles would be allowed to have education. It is possible that he was a nobleman. He was definately an intellectual who was well developed spirtiually and perhaps even ready to help govern the empire. However, he had little luck in getting near the power circle at the time or he just didn’t bother with it. Anyway, His one and only definative work “Tao Te Ching” has a bit of rant about the political climate of the time. BTW, we are more familiar with the behaviors of the miserable intellectuals these days, right? While he didn’t have an instantly implimentalbe plan for his philosophy, he put forth an interesting concept that class distinction should be eliminated. Leaders or no leaders, people are of equal rights and responsibilities. Man made institutions (ie government) that is of rules and regulations are intellect products that deprive people of the freedom of choice. Mankind without freedom [of choice] is but a living dead race of animal. Having said that it doesn’t mean that he’s an anarchist nor was he an atheist.
It is important to note that both Buddha and Lao Tze didn’t subscribe to a notion of God. It doesn’t mean that they are atheists. Part of the reason that reincarnations, Karma, etc… were kept in Buddha teaching might have to do with his deep roots in the classical Hindu training. Some issues weren’t entirely resolved. I believe he wasn’t going to battle (pun intended) the whole Indian empire’s foundation of cultural, philosophical, and spritiual world views. After all, he was trained as a statesman. He KNEW better.
Mantis108
…stimulous
… /
… /..
…/…
…/…
…/…
…/…
…/…
…/…
…|…|
…daoism…buddhism
…|…|
…contemplation
…|…|
…|…|
…|…|
…/…
…/…
…/…action…
…|…|
…|…|
….…/
….…/
….…/
….…/
….…/
….…/
…|…|
…|…|
…Retrospect
A Taoist would awaken from a dream that he was trapped in a nutshell to wonder if - in fact - he was actually a nutshell trapping a man.
Taoists/Buddhists
they both seek the same thing but have a differing contextual mode to acheive it. Ideally the result of Taoism, Buddhism, Sufism, Christanity etc all end at the same place, its just their path is different. However Buddhsim is classed as a religion whereas Taoism is not one. Again, though some would say that Buddhism is not essentially a religion (prehaps that would be the view point of the Mahayana sect), but merely a path and discipline to liberation.
taoism is taoism
buddhism is buddhism
my analogy is this : apples - oranges
peace