PDA

View Full Version : Daoism & Dharma



TheOne
10 April 2011, 06:41 PM
I believe simplicity is the best, so I will keep this post short.


What are the differences between Dharma and Daoism?

While we in Dharma seek to strive with the ultimate reality. Daoists seek merely to live in harmony with it.

While we in Dharma see Gods as an important and inherent aspect to Dharma. "Religious" Daoists see them as a byproduct of the Dao. "Philosophical" Daoists puts Gods to the side.

We in Dharma see the importance of living a "self controlled" life. Daoists see trying to control the self as an interference with the natural order of things.

We in Dharma use the scriptures and our meditation to guide us. Daoists use nature, and their own interpretation of it to guide them.


Now comes the "hard part". What is "better"(subjectively of course) to live in accord with the ultimate reality(Dao) or to strive to be united with it? Are they the same? Are they different? Why does it matter?


Namaste

yajvan
10 April 2011, 07:43 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I see it slightly differently - which then influences the kind of answer or discussion that may unfold.

Dao ( some prefer the spelling Tao) is a philosophy. The word itself as I comprehend it means 'path'. Hence the philosophy of a path or way that is engaged by their three jewels - humility, compassion and moderation which I see as self-control. These values are noble, excellent and something one should aspire to bring to full bloom in this life.
Now consider dharma धर्म - this word is rooted dhṛ meaning that which upholds, supports, preserves. It is a basic functional quality of this universe and many times see it as the quality of viṣṇu, He that uplifts, preserves and supports.
It is almost talking the basic physical laws of nature that allows this full functioning universe to exist. At this level it is beyond philosophy.

Now let's add in the notion of sanātana dharma. This sanātana means eternal , perpetual , permanent , everlasting. So sanātana dharma is that which uplifts and supports eternally. This sanātana dharma is also called ārṣa dharma.

This ārṣa means 'derived from ṛṣi-s' - the great seers, who have viewed and experienced the essence of creation (sattā). From here our values arise - from here different schools of thought manifest.

So as I see it it is very difficult to try and equate Dao with dharma, because without dharma¹, this Dao could not come into being.

Others may differ...

praṇām


words
1. we find dharma in the ṛg (rig) ved as dhárman

TheOne
10 April 2011, 08:21 PM
I agree with most of this except with "Without Dharma Dao could not come into being". I believe that this is a rather strange way at looking at it. The Dao is the infinite potential, the base 0, the all pervading Brahman but not merely these.
How is not Sanatana Dharma the way of Dao. Dao is the underlying infinite principle nature of the Universe. As for my views on Moksha, I think this video clears my view up a bit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7blUYJm6i-c&feature=related

yajvan
10 April 2011, 08:43 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I see it slightly differently - Others may differ...


praṇām

Sahasranama
11 April 2011, 02:08 AM
As for my views on Moksha, I think this video clears my view up a bit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7blUYJm6i-c&feature=related

When Alan Watts talks he sounds great, like a flowerly tree that doesn't bear any fruits. No Hindu sage would make someone feel guilty for simply existing or hit a student with a stick just for showing up. These practices are based in the concepts of original sin of Christianity and the idea that there does not exist anything to be grasped of Buddhism.

Adhvagat
11 April 2011, 02:34 AM
When Alan Watts talks he sounds great, like a flowerly tree that doesn't bear any fruits. No Hindu sage would make someone feel guilty for simply existing or hit a student with a stick just for showing up. These practices are based in the concepts of original sin of Christianity and the idea that there does not exist anything to be grasped of Buddhism.

Sahasranama, for me it seemed like he didn't agree with the concept of original sin, did you misunderstood him or did I misunderstood you? :)

Sahasranama
11 April 2011, 02:44 AM
Yes, he also said he believes in a self, but then he brings an example from Buddhism that is based on the Buddhist idea that there does not exist anything to be grasped. Then he starts talking how we need to feel guilty before we can begin our journey. Just some inconsistencies in his thought.

TheOne
11 April 2011, 05:41 AM
Yes, he also said he believes in a self, but then he brings an example from Buddhism that is based on the Buddhist idea that there does not exist anything to be grasped. Then he starts talking how we need to feel guilty before we can begin our journey. Just some inconsistencies in his thought.

He never said we *had* to feel guilty, he said its a byproduct of our cultural conditioning. We feel that we have to go through a "long and arduous journey" before we become awake that we have to somehow "deserve" enlightenment.

Sahasranama
11 April 2011, 12:15 PM
I expect him to be a little fuzzy headed since he is trying to combine all asian spirituality under one denominator. Maybe not something bad for someone who wants to avoid the label "religious." He sounds a bit like a Hindu, but officially he is a Zen Buddhist. But maybe I didn't understand what he was trying to say.

Adhvagat
11 April 2011, 02:46 PM
Sahasranama, for me it felt more like an example than combining per se.

TheOne
11 April 2011, 06:58 PM
I don't think we should be dismissive and merely say he is trying to combine asian philosophy. I believe he is showing their similarities in many respects.

Adhvagat
13 April 2011, 06:38 PM
Sarabangha mentions Taoism briefly on this post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=21821&postcount=81

Friend from the West
22 April 2011, 10:50 AM
Namaste all,
Could someone respond to last part of TheOne's post with a deviation as advice?:
Now comes the "hard part". What is "better"(subjectively of course) to live in accord with the ultimate reality and be close in relationship or to strive to be united with it? Are they the same? Are they different? Why does it matter?
Is the question of which is better to be Sugar itself or to taste it? Is this an individual choice or is there something within scripture to say one goal is right and one isn't?
Thanks very much.
Peace.
Rich

TheOne
22 April 2011, 10:39 PM
I didn't mean what is "better" I meant to show the difference between Dharma and Daoism. While in Dharma the "ultimate goal" is seen to reunify with the Universal Principle Daoism is living in harmony with the Universal Principle.

Ultimately, I see no difference in "living in accord" as opposed to "living in" because they are different ways of looking at the same "problem"

Friend from the West
22 April 2011, 11:26 PM
Namaste TheOne,
You answered your view on your question and as a follower of your thread, I appreciate it. Hope there are more responses to your question. I find it a very interesting question and hope to get some insight from more responses. In the meantime, would you mind expounding on your response?
Peace,
Rich

I didn't mean what is "better" I meant to show the difference between Dharma and Daoism. While in Dharma the "ultimate goal" is seen to reunify with the Universal Principle Daoism is living in harmony with the Universal Principle.

Ultimately, I see no difference in "living in accord" as opposed to "living in" because they are different ways of looking at the same "problem"[/quote]

anirvan
23 April 2011, 03:11 AM
I didn't mean what is "better" I meant to show the difference between Dharma and Daoism. While in Dharma the "ultimate goal" is seen to reunify with the Universal Principle Daoism is living in harmony with the Universal Principle.

Ultimately, I see no difference in "living in accord" as opposed to "living in" because they are different ways of looking at the same "problem"

I think Yajvan ji has answered the best possible answer you are seeking(if)!

Dharma is the nature and science of the universe/nature and its principles behind it"s harmony.
Daoism is asking to live in accord with harmony of nature.so to live in harmony you have to know how? that principle is laid in dharma(which is seen by seers).

so either way...whether you want to be one with nature or by simply living in accord with it, you are going to same goal...

and the goal is where nature will take into (if you follow its principle).

anirvan
23 April 2011, 03:15 AM
Namaste all,
Could someone respond to last part of TheOne's post with a deviation as advice?:
Now comes the "hard part". What is "better"(subjectively of course) to live in accord with the ultimate reality and be close in relationship or to strive to be united with it? Are they the same? Are they different? Why does it matter?
Is the question of which is better to be Sugar itself or to taste it? Is this an individual choice or is there something within scripture to say one goal is right and one isn't?
Thanks very much.
Peace.
Rich

your question is not relevant to the thread posted by TheOne.because this thread is never questioning about the impersonal aspect of God and our relationship to him/her.

you can ask this and discuss in vaishnav threads.

jayaguru

Your question is regarding ultimate goal of life.

Eric11235
24 April 2011, 02:03 PM
Vannakam all,

Having formerly pursued Taoism I would like to make a point on the concept of Tao.

As is outlined in the Tao te Ching from a philisophical Taoist standpoint the way is the indescribable creation and creator, it is akin to the concept of Atman and Brahman in more ways than one.

It is omnipresent. We all embody it, but it is not able to be truly described as it is beyond the scope of human comprehension, what we are actually talking about is not Tao, Tao is nameless, formless but is at the same time everything in and out of existence.

Having studied the Wen-Tzu and Tao Te Ching of Lao-Tzu as well as the Chuang Tzu and other Taoist literature and scripture I find many similarities between the two religions. Primarily the ultimate goal of both is to return to the Tao or Atman (which in my eyes are a similar concept)

I hope this has been if nothing else a little enlightening on the matter.

Namaste