Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
life is joy (taoist) vs. life is suffering
Fenix
Veteran
Is it said that life is suffering in Buddhism, if so why? And if life is suffering how does Taoism see life as joy? Which is right?
0
Comments
in that sense buddhism talks to people who are suffering.
the emphasis is on that life sucks so we need to find a way for it not to suck.
whereas tantra and taoism is all about accepting life. using what you have to awaken to reality.
buddhism for the most part is about the acceptance. just a different emphasis and method to the same goal.
but it goes like this. first you deny the world. then there is no world. then you come back to the world. that is the full cycle of a zen practitioner. we come into this practice because we suffer or others suffer. we leave realizing that we can accept suffering through being and non-attachment. we embrace life and accept all of its expressions: suffering, joy, peace, etc.
So no, life isn't so bad. I think the point of Buddhism is, in part, that we tend to make it worse than it is. Not everyone slows down enough to view and enjoy the sunset, and life's other simple pleasures. Some people are wracked with guilt, jealousy, low self-esteem, excessive ego or other "defilements" that really aren't necessary, and create problems ("suffering"). some people ruminate on their problems and blow them up to something bigger than they are. Like when you're sick, for example: you may be thinking how miserable this cold is, or you focus excessively on the pain in your knee or the broken leg, instead of thinking, "this will pass, I'll be back on my feet enjoying life in short order". It's all in the mind. I don't think this is too different from Taoism. Whenever I read any books on Taoism I'm always struck by how similar it seems to Buddhism.
I'm not going to go looking for references, so this is IMO, but it seems that Buddhism picked up some more emphasis on balance from Taoism on its way through China, as well as on the concept of "suchness", which contributed to the development of Ch'an and Zen.
I think your premise in the OP is fundamentally incorrect and it's just not like that.
Although I suppose that ultimately life neither is nor isn't and isn't either is or isn't (?) - but I haven't experienced this, I've just read about it.
metta
they said that about the goverment? I must watch it closer again
I concur... it is most about "there's suffering in life", or "life is unsatisfactory".
from reading the Tao Te Ching... it is not up to the government, that sounds more like Confusianism.
Yes, life is both suffering and joy.
I don't think Buddhism denies that. I wish I knew more about Taoism to know its views better.
AFAIK, and the passages I have read of the Tao Te Ching confirm this... Taoism is a philosophy that came, in part, as an answer to Confusianism... there's much, much less emphasis on the government; just some mentions of the ideal prince.
Buddhism begins with the acknowledgement of suffering in the world that points out that life is impermanent. For me it could be also as devise for awakening people to the reality of impermanence and emptiness, the acknowledgement of suffering. Dukkha is a starting point and not the wholeness of Buddhism.
And to conclude there is another aspect in Daoism that doesn’t exist in Buddhism, the attainment of immortality through inner alchemy or Nei Dan. Not physical immortality, but the creation of a vehicle that would sustain the sense of self after death, something that contradicts entirely the concept of Nirvana...
With metta,
Budding_Flower
Informative, thanks.
...or effortless doing.
I thought it was “Suffering is present in life”, underline “in life”.
Hence I found myself thinking:
Life is metta,
Cravings #1 cause loss of metta to some
(Via distraction of source),
Making frustrations(suffering).
#1 Gain of craving #1 causes metta(through not lacking #1) and
Lust of #1(Others yet to gain #1).
Thus the cycle goes around and around!
And the ripples cross the pond.
Imho
( ( (( ((( ♥ Metta ♥ ))) )) ) )
Your basically saying that life without life is nirvana? I mean, just from the original statement in this post. I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
I think, based upon what has been said by Buddhas, as well as my own contemplations and glimpses? That Samsara is basically just a mis-cognition of life while living. Nirvana would just be the constant state of a correct cognition of the nature of all things, including life and death.
Yeah?
metta