Buddhism and Taoism: the mental debate

A famous Song-Dynasty painting depicting three men from the three great Eastern traditions laughing together. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

I rescheduled a certain post I wrote for tomorrow to talk about something else on my mind as of late. My interest in Asian religions and Asian culture began when I was 16 after watching an episode of Kung Fu, embarrassingly enough, followed soon after when my mother bought me a copy of the Tao Te Ching (Prof. Victor Mair’s translation).1 She mistakenly thought it was a Buddhist book, but I really appreciate the effort. :)

Since I was 16, I have been slowly oscillating between Taoism and Buddhism, with only minor interruptions into other religions. At first I was interested in Zen as only a teenage-know-it-all could be, but by late high-school, and my first year in college, I read the Mair translation of the Tao so many times, I had come to internalize a number of verses and texts, though nowadays they are pretty fuzzy. I had become in many ways an ardent Taoist or at least a self-proclaimed one. I remember years later in Hanoi, Vietnam buying a Vietnamese copy of the Tao Te Ching because it had the classical Chinese text in there with Vietnamese-style pronunciations along side modern Vietnamese (something hard to find on the Internet at the time). It was only then that the pendulum shifted again back toward Buddhism, through some experiences with my Japanese wife and subsequent experiences in Japan in 2005. That of course led me to the Pure Land path, blog writing and this great fool whom you see before you.

But every once in a while, I feel the itch and the pendulum shifting back the other way for me. I take comfort in the old Mair edition of the Tao (now my second copy), and with nostalgia think back to my early days in college when Taoism seemed like so much the answer. As of late, I feel the interest in Taoism returning once more, and I find myself agonizing over which path is more right for me. Hence the title. This is a mental debate, not intended as a definitive effort to categorize the two (an endeavor fraught with peril if you ask me). This is by no means the first time I’ve felt this debate rattling around in my head, but it usually passes after a few days and I am back where I started. This time around, I felt like typing it out for my own interest, and maybe others. This is not the most polished post, just a kind of free-writing I felt like doing tonight (dishes are done early, thankfully).

First, why now? I suppose the reason is that I am getting exasperated with the complexity of Buddhism. Compared to Taoism, Buddhism in many ways seems much better organized, both in terms of people, but also ideas and beliefs. Buddhism’s theories are sophisticated, and cohesive within the scope of Buddhism. Many great people over countless generations have contributed a huge volume of literature exploring karma, inter-dependency, the merits of various practices and various figures within Buddhism. Karma alone tends to be such a powerful tool for explain why things end up the way they do, but then ancient Indian thought starts splitting hairs about the various types of karma, and separately how to extinguish karma with this or that dharani or other practice. In a way, I suppose that it explains almost too much at times, which can be a problem if things do not appear to be in agreement with today’s notion of science and the physical world. Like painting oneself into a corner. On the other hand, I really thing Buddhist thought is amazingly profound, and greatly understudied by Westerner’s who just want to get their meditation or “asian fix”.

Much of what’s written in Buddhist texts can of course be seen as sophisticated allegories, or myths with a deep message, but it’s hard to separate myth from truth sometimes for me. Somehow, I feel if I disregard the “myth” side too much, I reduce Buddhism to a mere psychology or commit some kind of karmic blasphemy. On the other hand, much of this is also hard to reconcile in today’s understanding of the world too. Even rebirth, despite all the best Buddhist minds, is still one thing that’s stubbornly hard to come to grips with. Today’s Buddhists, like myself, sometimes have to struggle with how to explain various aspects of Buddhism. Meanwhile, its organization in terms of temples, sects, schools of thought and such also have a history of preying to the same human vices that many organized religions do such as corruption, dogmatism, arrogance, and good ol’ meddling in politics. :-/ As Kenkō deftly writes in the 13th-century Japanese text, Essays in Idleness:

[97] There are innumerable instances of things which attach themselves to something else, then waste and destroy it. The body has lice; a house has mice; a country has robbers; inferior men have riches; superior men have benevolence [as a source of pride]; priests have the Buddhist law. (trans. Prof. Donald Keene)

Taoism, by contrast, seems simpler on the surface, and therefore clashes less with our modern understanding of life, biology and such. At least in theory, one can learn a great deal from the Tao Te Ching and the Zhuang Zi, without getting too tangled in other aspects, but this is likely one Westerner’s ignorance of the Taoist religion in history and today’s culture. On the other hand, Taoism’s relative lack of organization is also a source of frustration. What if one day I wanted to talk with a Taoist priest. Where would I go? Which Taoist “community” could I turn to? Taoism’s close ties to Chinese culture also make it that much harder for someone like me to realistically get support and community. Also, one has to take into account “folk Taoism” which scholars and Westerners are often quick to dismiss (just as they do aspects of Buddhism), which is deeply woven into Chinese culture, whereas Buddhism has managed to adapt itself to many divergent cultures with success.

In speaking of teachings, Taoism’s emphasis on nature and the “female principle” is very compelling to me, compared to Buddhism’s relatively patriarchal character. Having been raised as the only boy in a house full of women (mom + sisters), I always felt a deep appreciation for women and the “woman’s way of doing things”, so Taoism’s sympathy with this strikes a deep chord with me. That is not to say either that it is a “sissy” religion, as the Tao Te Ching speaks of winning wars and like all Taoist literature, is composed by men, so it’s unclear how “feminine” Taoism really is. In today’s Taoism, it’s also unclear if patriarchal culture has de-emphasized certain female aspects or not. I simply don’t know.

Buddhism though is not a macho religion either, and Buddhist history shows many great nuns from the time of the Buddha (e.g. Mahaprajapati his step-mother for example) onward. The Pali Canon has the Theragata and Therigata which contain poems by direct disciples of the Buddha, and their experiences with awakening. The former is the male bhikkhus, while the later is female bhikshunis. Pure Land Buddhism, and Japanese esoteric Buddhism also both have a long history of female adherents as well, so it’s not entirely fair to say that Buddhism is patriarchal either. On the other hand, there are aspects of Buddhism that are decidedly patriarchal (the lop-sided number of precepts for females compared to men, the frequent references to unfavorable rebirth as a women, etc). Again, as with Taoism, it’s hard to separate the “pure” religious side from the culture from which it arose.

One aspect of both that intrigues me is the notion of praxis of putting it into practice. Again, Buddhism comes across as better organized due to it’s well-established traditions of meditation, visualization and the moral precepts, where Taoism is less clear. In the case of Taoism, it’s not entirely clear what one should do to follow the Tao better, though there are many verses that provide a good overview in the Tao Te Ching, such as this one:

I have three treasures that I hold and cherish.
The first is compassion,
The second is frugality,
The third is not daring to put myself ahead of everybody.

(trans. Prof. A.C. Muller)

…and other similar passages. Being from a Buddhist background, I am used to a kind of regimen that I should follow or else, whereas Taoism’s ambiguity allows more flexibility, but also more ambiguity. But also Taoism tends to come across as indifferent to the world, where Buddhism at least tries to effect some kind of good. The Taoist may argue that trying to force yourself upon the world, even where positive, may still be self-defeating if not spontaneous and selfless. I suppose the Buddhist would agree to some extent but then retort that it’s still better to do some good even if it’s somewhat contrived rather than none at all. Also, as noted above, compassion is an important aspect of Taoism, so the indifference may be exaggerated by me.

Now before I go on further, it’s also fair to point out that both have many aspects in common as well, such as a humanistic view of the world, an emphasis on tolerance, compassion and self-cultivation. Also, one could argue that in some cases Buddhist sects such as Zen are deeply woven with Taoist, so why the concern? It also should be noted that in much of Asian culture, the choice is not an all-or-nothing approach you see in the West, so people find inspiration with Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism to some degree. As this blog usually focuses on Japan, Japan’s highly eclectic approach to religion is a kind of microcosm of East Asian culture in general (except for Shinto which is indigenous to Japan only). The painting above illustrates one view in Chinese culture of the three religions working in harmony, though another painting shows their differences as well:

A famous Chinese painting of three men tasting vinegar, with an overt Taoism bias. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

This painting, popularized by the famous contemporary book, the Tao of Pooh,2 shows three men tasting vinegar. The first one frowning is supposed to represent Confucianism, the middle scowling one the Buddha, and the smiling one on the right as the Taoist. The overtly Taoist bias here should be carefully noted, but their views of the world do tend to differ somewhat. At the end of the day, Buddhism views the world as impermanent and providing no lasting enjoyment, while Taoism tends to be more optimistic, but views man’s efforts to get ahead as self-defeating. I’m simplifying things badly here, but this is just a first impression. On the other hand, the Buddha is often depicted within Buddhism as a doctor who simply provides a diagnosis and prescription to one’s problems, and of course one should listen to their doctor. Meanwhile the romantic view of the happy-go-lucky Taoist looks great in art, but frankly isn’t very practical. Though to be fair, Zhuang Zi was a good example of a more down-to-earth Taoist given that he had a family, loved his wife and obviously was literate enough to compose the eponymous text. So maybe Taoists aren’t flighty hippies either. :)

But what about the blending of traditions in my own life? Hell, everyone else seems to be doing it. I may be fretting over nothing in the end; wouldn’t be the first time time either. In a way, I am against the blending of traditions, not because it’s somehow morally wrong, but just self-defeating. A person who spends half his time learning the cello and half his time learning French will only do both so well, whereas if someone really bears down and focuses on one (leaving the other as an idle pastime maybe), they may do much better. There’s a certain value in taking one tradition and system and making the most of it. That’s why the debate rattles in my head once more as opposed to just finding some middle ground. Now, both traditions may converge at some point, but if I don’t carry one out to fruition, I may never know this either.

Don’t take this post as anything too serious. Perhaps this is just me taking stock of what I’ve done so far with my life and making sure it’s the right choice, or just philosophical fun on my part. As stated early on, these moods come and go. Sometimes I’ve had “Confucianism vs. Buddhism” debates in my head too. For once, I decided that I might as well put them down on “paper” for others to read.

Opinions are as always encouraged. :)

1 Due to my personal dislike of the Wade-Giles romanization system, I would prefer to spell “Tao Te Ching” here by the Pinyin system, which I learned in high school Mandarin courses. But, it’s just too confusing. Believe me, it’s a lot easier once you get the hang of it, but not practical at the moment. :-p

2 A well-written book in its own right, though I think it often oversimplifies things (or other strains of thought) in a way that’s naive and maybe a bit snarky. A fun read, but I don’t think it should be taken too seriously either.


12 Comments on “Buddhism and Taoism: the mental debate”

  1. Jonathan says:

    Doug, I really enjoyed reading this thoughtful posting – gives me a sense of your mental/philosophical progression over the years and I like the insight into how you’re continually re-negotiating and balancing different ways of thinking. I appreciate your nuanced reading of the vinegar-tasters painting as well. Re: your last paragraph – it seems religious (or philosophical) syncretism has long been a more accepted feature in certain Asian cultures (Japan, China) more than in the US, where ideas of “discrete” institutional separations between religions is the norm. So in my mind I’d see no “problem” in engaging mental thought processes that take from many traditions. P.S. It sounds like some of your comments about the “simplicity” of Taoism vs. Buddhism are as much to do with institutions and cultural practice as modes of thought in the abstract.

  2. Doug says:

    Hi Jonathan! I think you of anyone can appreciate the progression over the years, as it’s been a long one. :-p And always good to hear from you! :)

  3. Kyōshin says:

    Hi Doug, Thanks for sharing this. I too have had my fair share of pendulum swings over the years. Here are a few thoughts in relation to your post:

    (1) I suspect that Taoism is more complex than you imagine and that it is simply that you have spent a greater deal of time exploring Buddhism.
    (2) I think that the important thing is to find simplicity of practice rather than simplcity of teaching. My teacher said to me just this weekend; “If you concentrate on one thing you become broad-minded.” This sounds paradoxical but essentially if we become settled in a path then the stability we receive can then allow us to explore the diverse world of teachings without becoming unsettled or disturbed.
    (3) Taoism is a major influence on both Zen and Jodo Shinshu. In the case of the latter the notion of naturalness (jp. jinen), whilst not identical, is closely related to the Taoist ‘tzu-jan’. And Bodhiruci and T’an-Luan, both major Pure Land figures, were deeply steeped in Taoism.

    All the best, K

  4. Doug says:

    Hi K,

    Sorry for the late reply. I was going to write one thing, but then thought about it more (probably a post forth-coming), and wanted to reply back:

    1) I bet you’re right on this. Trouble is is finding resources that aren’t new-agey or overly mystical. Taoists aren’t exactly the most vocal folks. ;)
    2) That’s pretty interesting advice actually. Much food for thought there. A stable path has certainly been a problem to date.
    3) I noticed that influence as well, but I am undecided as to whether this is positive for Buddhism, or a negative (i.e. does it compromise core teachings somehow?).

  5. Horangi says:

    Hi Doug,

    Wow. I really, really resonate with this post since this I also started out as being really into Taoism before eventually settling in to Buddhist practice. However, this exact same debate went on in my head for years and actually in spite of identifying as a Buddhist I still own far more books on Taoism than I do on Buddhism!

    I’m not sure if this will be of any help to you, but eventually I came to a point where I decided that I was Buddhist, but with a Taoist sense of aesthetics. I don’t know if that makes sense, or if it helps that I’m a (lay) Zen Buddhist with ties to a Chinese Chan lineage.

    Ultimately I guess there were two deciding factors for me in favor of Buddhism. The first is that “authentic”, lineaged Taoism is still something of a closed world to most non-Chinese (a point you mention in your post). Although that is slowly starting to change, I think overall Buddhism is a much more open religion, even in terms of its scriptures — the early texts aside, Taoist scripture are often highly esoteric and utilize a symbolic vocabulary that is very difficult for the uninitiated to decipher (especially if you don’t read Chinese!). In my experience Buddhist sutras tend to be much more straightforward, even at their most “mythological”.

    The other deciding factor is that the aspects of Taoism I was most interested in were, I think, more philosophical, cultural, or aesthetic rather than “religious” per se. And these aesthetic strands are of course deeply interwoven with the cultures of East Asia (Vietnam, Korea, and Japan as well as China). So I think anyone who practices a traditional form of East Asian Buddhism will encounter these strands whether they realize it or not. In some ways I think the interaction between Taoism, Confucianism, and Mahayana Buddhist in East Asia is comparable to the relationship between Greek philosophy and Christianity in Western European culture: while there are occasional tensions (“Athens vs Jerusalem”), overall they harmonize each other and a great deal of Western Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Churches) draws from elements of classical Greek thought and aesthetics. It’s the same, I feel, with most schools of Mahayana Buddhism in East Asia.

    Your point about mixing traditions is very well taken, but keep in mind that Taoism and Buddhism have already been thoroughly mixed together. And it’s not just one way! Most of what you read the web will emphasize the influence of Taoism on Buddhism, but actually Buddhism also exerted just as much influence on Taoism. You can see this influence in the rituals and monastic structure of the Quanzhen (“Complete Reality”) school of Taoism, for instance.

    Anyway, sorry for the long-winded response, but I’ve been through this debate myself so many times I thought I would share my own thoughts and resolution with you.

    P.S.

    You might remember me as “Baekho”. I had a blog on wordpress a long time ago and while I haven’t had the time or energy to keep up with blogging I’ve continued to read the various iterations of your own blog. Keep it up! ^.^

  6. Horangi says:

    By the way, if you’re interested here are some links to some Taoist websites:

    Academic: Website for Daoist Studies

    Religious: The Daoist Foundation

    Both are run by Louis Komjathy, a scholar-practioner who has written a number of books.

  7. Kyōshin says:

    Hi Doug, Thanks for your reply!

    As an aside what I meant by ‘simplicity of practice’ was ‘simplicity of attitude’, or ‘concentration’. I think that’s a clearer way of putting it.

    (3) I noticed that influence as well, but I am undecided as to whether this is positive for Buddhism, or a negative (i.e. does it compromise core teachings somehow?).

    Yes it is complicated isn’t it! I think that this is still very much a ‘live’ issue for both scholars and practitoners. The ‘Critical Buddhism’ debate which started in Japan in the 90s (see a href=”http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AjlCz4xm1gIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=critical+buddhism&source=bl&ots=7RNGXRUbAg&sig=_6bRptc7WP5hTXC7H94h9Kg4ekc&hl=en&ei=nexGTPWsMdWRjAeZnrG6Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false”>’Pruning the Bodhi Tree’) was/is all about whether non-Buddhist eternalistic ideas were imported into the tradition during its transmission to China and Japan (eg. the tathagatagarbha / hongaku shiso notions).

  8. Doug says:

    Hi Horangi and welcome (bank) to the JLR! Yes, I definitely remember you as Baekho. It seems like a lot of Buddhist readers have had a “Taoist” stage, judging from comments in the blog, but also private emails I’ve received. As I expected the “phase” has once again faded, but it’s good to see others have this too. The comments you mentioned about Taoism and its interaction with Buddhism add to what Kyoushin offered, and help bridge some gaps in my knowledge (thanks for the websites too).

    As I mentioned to Kyoushin, I am concerned by the close interaction of the two, as it leads one to wonder if Buddhism somehow loses something in the process, but it’s also just as likely to gain in the process as well. We tend to assume the negative, but that isn’t always true, as evinced in the Christian examples cited below. Speaking as a technician, software can acquire features and code from other things, and only gain in the process (re: BSD sharing code with Linux and vice-versa) while still retaining their unique identity. So, perhaps I am just making a big deal out of thing. :)

    Thanks to everyone for the comments so far. Been a real entertaining read.

  9. Doug says:

    Hi K,

    Thanks for mentioning the Critical Buddhism movement. I read about that too briefly, but don’t know enough to comment. :)

  10. fyreflye says:

    What has all this thinking thinking thinking got to do with either “Buddhism” or “Taoism?” Give it all up and just relax into who you really are. As long as you hang your life on to other people’s labels and prescriptions you’ll never be anything but a slave to your monkey mind. Has all your reading not taught you even that?

  11. Johnny says:

    Dough have you looked into Mantak Chia’s books?I have found inspiration from his works on teaching Taoist meditations and explaining the path to enlightenment in Taoism and explaining the 3 minds merging into one (yi). He has tons of books and he encourages the reader to go on the journey here and now and rely more on their selves then other people. Im currently enjoying “Living in the Tao-The Effortless Path of Self-Discovery” by Mantak Chia and William U. Wei.

    I find myself attracted to both ways of life. I struggle in buddhism a lot though because it seems like a lot of things are for the elite monastic. The only thing really open would be jodo shu or jodo shinshu, because even Chinese Pure Land Buddhism seems kinda of elitist. SO I do not know which path really, I am confused, but I suppose the question should be “Who is confused” or “Who is the seeker”. I still cannot find an answer to any of those questions.

    Gassho
    -j

  12. Hanuman Das says:

    Hi Doug

    I’m not sure if you’ve seen this book before or not, but, it might interest you:

    http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Zen-Ray-Grigg/dp/0785811257/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280002987&sr=1-1

    The author makes the argument that Zen Buddhism is really Taoism in disguise!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers