…thus removing the pesky notions about ethical and moral conduct. Why bother about dark kamma if the ocean is going to embrace us poor waves when we die… ? 
Even worse, how is that different than Vedanta? shudders 
3 Likes
Also from that site:
Q. If you are a Taoist, however, the answer to the “what happens after I die” question is:
A. Nothing: You die. The body decays and returns to nature, becoming part of the earth and the beasts and plants that dwell there. Your spirit, memory, awareness and mind return to the greater energies of the Tao and “you” exist no more. What you know as “you” ceases to be. You are gone.
But what has this to do with the experience of non-duality you were talking about? And how does the experience of non-duality relate to Nirvana?
This is one of the reasons, I suspect, why longevity and immortality can be such big points in Daoism. Sometimes the religion believes in “Immortals” in a very literal reading of that term.
That being said, this is a very particular explanation. A more traditional explanation has a complex of 7 souls & spirits within a person, and each of these, while not on themselves making up a “person” (Daoism having selective ucchedavāda here), each has a destination, and not all of them “to the Dao”, since the Dao is sort-of all things (sometimes?).
The Daoist version is 三魂七魄, mentioned in the article.
In related news, I have it on good terms now (from Malcolm over at DharmaWheel) that the Tibetan recension of the Avataṃsakasūtra lacks any allusion to Indra’s Net at all.
In Cleary’s translation the term occurs 23 times, so I guess either the Chinese were doing a lot of inserting or the Tibetans a lot of erasing.
2 Likes
Ah interesting.
In the Dharmawheel thread they also talked about how Cleary’s translation of “interrelated” is actually not totally accurate to the Chinese. Bhiksu Dharmamitra for example doesn’t translate this passage as “interrelated”.
Seems like the widely held idea that the Avatamsaka sutra teaches interrelatedness may not be as solid as I once thought.
How is it different from the Buddhist doctrine of non-self, and the reality of Nirvana as beyond the self?
In the texts of classic Taoism, the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu, the afterlife is understood as becoming one with the Tao, rather than attaining personal immortality.
As commonly explained, there is a difference between philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism.
Philosophical Taoism refers to those early Taoist texts, such as the Tao Te Ching and the Zhuangzi, which were so influential to the subsequent development of Chinese Buddhism, especially Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism.
Religious Taoism, on the other hand, refers to those popular folk beliefs and practices, such as alchemy and the worship of gods and goddesses, which are often seen as superstitious and unnecessary accretions.
In an ultimate sense, however, alchemy is symbolic of inner spiritual transformation, and the various gods and goddesses are symbolic of one’s true self when living in harmony with the Tao, the wisdom in all things:
Taoism and Buddhism have much in common. In terms of philosophy and practice, both are nondual traditions. The worship of Deities is understood, fundamentally, to be an unveiling and honoring of aspects of our own wisdom-mind, rather than the worship of something outside of us. The two traditions also have historical connections, particularly in China. When Buddhism arrived - via Bodhidharma - in China, its encounter with the already-existing Taoist traditions gave birth to Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism.
Emptiness in Taoism and Buddhism (Shunyata and Wu)
The gods and goddesses in Taoism, including Lao-Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching, are regarded as humans who, through spiritual cultivation, attained immortality, much like how the Lotus Sutra refers to the Buddha as an immortal being, who attained immortality from the merits he accumulated while on the Bodhisattva path.
1 Like
Nirvana as a “reality beyond the self”? Earlier you talked about Nirvana as the experience of non-duality or something. I’m confused.
You still haven’t explained what “becoming one with the Tao” means, practically speaking.
I actually explained several times, in this specific thread, that the realization of non-self and non-duality, according to Mahayana Buddhism, are the same experience.
I’ve already explained several times, in this specific thread, how the realization of non-self and non-duality, according to Mahayana Buddhism, describe the same experience.
Please read Mahayana Buddhism, The Doctrinal Foundations for a general introduction to basic Mahayana concepts:
http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/9004485/mahayana_buddhism_-_the_doctrinal_foundations_second_edition.pdf
I’ve already explained that several times in this specific thread. Becoming one with the Tao is very much like the Mahayana description of Nirvana as becoming one with the Dharmakaya.
When the Buddha entered final nirvana, he became one with the Dharmakaya.
Hsingyun.org
There are 7 souls in Daoism. 3 heavenly souls and 5 animal souls. The 5 animal souls disperse and disappear upon death. Of the three heavenly souls, one goes to heaven, the other stays in the corpse until decomposition, at which point it too decomposes, and one resides in the gravestone or the family shrine AFAIK, either of its own accord or binded by a priest.
A lot of Daoist rites involve various forms of spellwork to make these souls behave ‘properly’. For instance, if a child is born with autism, a local ‘doctor’ (方士) may offer to cast some spells to try to locate the child’s missing 魂氣 (quite possibly via the usage of a geomancer’s compass), one of the heavenly souls in which the intellect is stored, which has a tendency to go galavanting across the country on occasion: leading to madness, mental illness, etc.
The Buddhist of non-self as presented in the Suttas doesn’t state we are like waves of an eternally eisting ocean, it rather says that we as individual beings are not able to find an eternal core not subject to conditions in ourselves, that is pretty much it. The reality of Nirvana as beyond the self is wholly absent in the EBTs and most of the Theravadin traditions. As for what the Mahayana believes, well, they can do it, but I am not interested, thank you very much.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, I am likely to blame the Chinese here, if anything was added. Malcolm noted that it was likely commentarial marginalia that got incorporated into the sūtra. I am of such a persuasion too, if I want to be maximally generous. We have plenty of instances of older nonstandard Bible translations from Northern Europe incorporating marginalia into the textus receptus for this to be reasonable.
Indra’s Net is too common a hermeneutic IMO to have popped up from “just” the Śikṣānanda recension (the one that incorporates Indra’s Net 因陀羅網 into the text of the sūtra proper). That being said, it is fully possible that it was added out of pride, a belief that “of course this sūtra talks about Indra’s Net”.
For contextualization: the earlier wild passage from the Mahāyānaparnirvāṇasūtra that I quoted:
Infamously heretical passage
迦葉菩薩白佛言：「世尊！我從今日始得正見。世尊！自是之前，我等悉名邪見之人。
Mahākāśyapa Bodhisattva asked the Buddha to speak: "Bhagavān! I from today start in obtaining samyagdṛṣṭi. Bhagavān! Until now, we all entirely abided in mithyādṛṣṭi.
世尊！二十五有，有我不耶？」
Bhagavān! In the twenty five existences, is there ātman definitely?
佛言：「善男子！我者即是如來藏義。一切眾生悉有佛性，即是我義。
The Buddha said: "Kulaputra! Ātman, prompt and exact, is Tathāgatagarbha in meaning. All sentient beings in entirety have the Buddha’s nature, prompt and exact, ātman is it’s meaning.
如是我義，從本已來，常為無量煩惱所覆，是故眾生不能得見。
Thus so ātman’s meaning is, from root proceeding onwards, constantly without limit under kleśāḥ covered, therefore sentient beings cannot obtain sight of it.
Is a very wild recension indeed. Many Chinese translations of the parinirvāṇa vaipulya exist, but none are like that of Ven Dharmakṣema.
Ven Dharmakṣema found (or, some people say, fabricated) a recension of the Mahāyānaparnirvāṇasūtra that has abundant passages like the one above, passages that are problematic to this very day in Mahāyāna Buddhism, as sects cannot agree on their proper Buddhist interpretation.
No one else’s translation has these passages. The contemporary Chinese recension of the Avataṃsakasūtra could well be a similar story.
1 Like
The 4th line of the tetralemma is for this.
1.X (affirmation)
2. ¬ X(negation)
3. X∧¬ X (both)
4. ¬(X∧¬ X)⇔X∧¬ X ⇔ 0 (neither)
Unless that is taught in an original Taoist text like the Tao Te Ching or the Chuang Tzu, I am not really concerned about what modern-day Taoists might say about there being seven souls in a person. There is a difference between classic or philosophical Taoism and the religion which developed hundreds of years afterward.
Ten “souls” of sanhunqipo 三魂七魄 “three hun and seven po” is not only Daoist; “Some authorities would maintain that the three-seven “soul” is basic to all Chinese religion” (Harrell 1979:522). During the Later Han period, Daoists fixed the number of hun souls at three and the number of po souls at seven. A newly deceased person may return (回魂) to his home at some nights, sometimes one week (頭七) after his death and the seven po would disappear one by one every 7 days after death. According to Needham and Lu (1974:88), “It is a little difficult to ascertain the reason for this, since fives and sixes (if they corresponded to the viscera) would have rather been expected.” Three hun may stand for the sangang 三綱 “three principles of social order: relationships between ruler-subject, father-child, and husband-wife” (Needham 1974:89). Seven po may stand for the qiqiao 七竅 “seven apertures (in the head, eyes, ears, nostrils, and mouth)” or the qiqing 七情 “seven emotions (joy, anger, sorrow, fear, worry, grief, fright)” in traditional Chinese medicine (Baldrian-Hussein 2008:522). Sanhunqipo also stand for other names.
Hun and po - Wikipedia
1 Like
For whatever reason, you are making a semantic argument. The early Buddhist texts, as far as I know, agree that Nirvana is the realization of non-self.
“Non-self” and “beyond the self,” or “beyond the concept of a self” to be more specific, are just two different ways of describing the same truth.
What Mahayana Buddhism adds to this is positive terms to describe Nirvana. It’s not just the negation of the self. It’s also the realization of oneness with the Dharmakaya:
When the Buddha entered final nirvana, he became one with the Dharmakaya.
Hsingyun.org
The above description of Nirvana isn’t far off from Bhikkhu Bodhi’s description of Nirvana:
Regarding the nature of Nibbana, the question is often asked: Does Nibbana signify only extinction of the defilements and liberation from samsara or does it signify some reality existing in itself? Nibbana is not only the destruction of defilements and the end of samsara but a reality transcendent to the entire world of mundane experience, a reality transcendent to all the realms of phenomenal existence.
The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a ‘dhamma’. For example, he says “of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana”. ‘Dhamma’ signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.
However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an ‘ayatana’. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a, ‘Dhatu’ an element, the ‘deathless element’. He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana.
He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as “touching the deathless element with one’s own body.”
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a ‘state’ (‘pada’) as ‘amatapada’ - the deathless state - or accutapada, the imperishable state.
Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is ‘Sacca’, which means ‘truth’, an existing reality. This refers to Nibbana as the truth, a reality that the Noble ones have known through direct experience.
So all these terms, considered as a whole, clearly establish that Nibbana is an actual reality and not the mere destruction of defilements or the cessation of existence. Nibbana is unconditioned, without any origination and is timeless.
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/nibbanaReal.htm
1 Like
DDJ X
載營魄抱一，能無離乎？專氣致柔，能嬰兒乎？滌除玄覽，能無疵乎？愛民治國，能無知乎？天門開闔，能為雌乎？明白四達，能無知乎？生之、畜之，生而不有，為而不恃，長而不宰，是謂玄德。
When the intelligent and animal souls are held together in one embrace, they can be kept from separating. When one gives undivided attention to the life breath, and brings it to the utmost degree of pliancy, he can become as a babe. When he has cleansed away the most mysterious imaginings, he can become without a flaw. In loving the people and ruling the state, cannot he proceed without any purpose of action? In the opening and shutting of his gates of heaven, cannot he do so as a female bird? While his intelligence reaches in every direction, cannot he appear to be without knowledge? The Dao produces all things and nourishes them; it produces them and does not claim them as its own; it does all, and yet does not boast of it; it presides over all, and yet does not control them. This is what is called ‘The mysterious Quality’ of the Dao.
James Legge, translation
Where does that say an individual being, whether human or animal, has seven souls?
Also, the James Legge translation is over a hundred years old, and was made by a Christian who wanted to explain Taoism in Christian terms. Would “soul” be the best term to use in a modern translation of the text?
This is the Thomas Cleary translation:
Carrying vitality and consciousness, embracing them as one, can you keep from parting?
Concentrating energy, making it supple, can you be like an infant?
Purifying hidden perception, can you make it flawless?
Loving the people, governing the nation, can you be uncontrived?
As the gate of heaven opens and closes, can you be impassive?
As understanding reaches everywhere, can you be innocent?
Producing and developing, producing without possessing, growing without domineering: this is called mysterious power.
Tao Te Ching - Tao Te Ching
The Tao Te Ching is one of those texts that, unless one is fluent in Chinese, one should turn to several translations in order to get a better idea of its meaning. This is why I own both the Legge and the Cleary translations.