life is joy (taoist) vs. life is suffering

Fenix

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?

compassionate_warrior

Buddhism presents the path to life as joy. I think Taoism says life is joy IF you live in the Tao. Same thing.

Fenix

Buddhism presents the path to life as joy. I think Taoism says life is joy IF you live in the Tao. Same thing.

ok, I should be probably asking about that on a taoist forum

Jason

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?

Personally, I think this idea is a bit of a misunderstanding. Suffering is definitely part of life, but life isn't just suffering, e.g., see this and this.

Jeffrey

Grasping is suffering. Like you are inspired then you start worrying how you can control things in a negative sense.

Fenix

@jason I cant open the second link, I'm using a mobile so I don't know if that's why it won't open

Jason

@jason I cant open the second link, I'm using a mobile so I don't know if that's why it won't open

Sorry, coding error. It's fixed now.

taiyaki

think of this way. suffering is a reality for most people.
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.

santhisouk

The only joy I can find out of life is when suffering is avoided through awareness.

taiyaki

how about watching a nice sunset? life isn't that miserable is it?

Jeffrey

When you are avoiding suffering you are not thinking about avoiding suffering. You are just seeing the sunset. Then the thought cuts in 'I am enjoying the sunset'. Now you need an awareness practice.

Dakini

Part of the problem here may be that "dukkha" is being translated as suffering. It doesn't mean suffering. There's no precise translation in English (wow--the things you learn on this forum! ), it can be translated as frustration, dissatisfaction, any number of things. I think this is a more accurate, less extreme view of life. Thinking of life as suffering turns some people off to Buddhism and leads to misunderstandings such as the one underpinning the OP.

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.

Jeffrey

No life to sanctify. Just joy emerging. Suffering confusion.

SherabDorje

@Fenix, can you provide quotations that show that Taoism is only about joy and Buddhism is only about suffering?

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.

BonsaiDoug

Taoism tells us for every Yin there is a Yang. So too in Buddhism. There is suffering (dukkha), but also a way to nirvana.

santhisouk

how about watching a nice sunset? life isn't that miserable is it?

Yes there is joy in watching the sunset, but I can't sit and watch it for life.:)

Talisman

Life is Dukkha (not suffering.) This means that life is unsatisfying. It is unsatisfying because all of the beauty and "joy" that we seek and attach ourselves to is impermanent and fleeting like a flash of lighting or smoke blown by wind. In the end, we are separated from all that we have grown to love and cherish. Life is unsatisfying because of "craving or desire." We chase momentary and fleeting joys. We chase after abiding selfness. True satisfaction is nirvana, the end of craving, the blowing out of the flames of desire. In order to reach this state of endless satisfaction, we must dedicate ourselves to the 8-fold path.

newtech

life is unsatisfactory, thats the word...because it has up and downs, satisfaction its not always there.

Fenix

@SherabDorje Hers the reference for this question

compassionate_warrior

I see nothing here that supports the OP. Did you notice the statement that said Taoism believed that it was the government's responsibility to help people eliminate material wants and strong passions? So they agree with Buddhism that the obstacle to happiness is material wants and passions. I don't think it was from this film that you got the idea that Buddhism sees life as suffering, while Taoism sees it as joy.

Fran45

Life is neither joy nor suffering. Life just is. It is our craving and clinging that leads to suffering I think unless I have misunderstood.

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.

Fenix

I see nothing here that supports the OP. Did you notice the statement that said Taoism believed that it was the government's responsibility to help people eliminate material wants and strong passions? So they agree with Buddhism that the obstacle to happiness is material wants and passions. I don't think it was from this film that you got the idea that Buddhism sees life as suffering, while Taoism sees it as joy.

It the first thing said in the video after the title

santhisouk

Life is samsara. samsara is suffering. Life without samsara is nirvana.

metta

compassionate_warrior

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.

I think this was a good post. If life is suffering, it's in large part because people make it so. That's the Buddha's message, isn't it?

compassionate_warrior

I see nothing here that supports the OP. Did you notice the statement that said Taoism believed that it was the government's responsibility to help people eliminate material wants and strong passions? So they agree with Buddhism that the obstacle to happiness is material wants and passions. I don't think it was from this film that you got the idea that Buddhism sees life as suffering, while Taoism sees it as joy.

It the first thing said in the video after the title

Thanks, I skipped the introduction. But it seems to contradict the later message that Taoists believe people suffer due to strong passions and lack of materials wants. Interesting also, that they believe the government should be the one to address this state of affairs.

Fenix

Thanks, I skipped the introduction. But it seems to contradict the later message that Taoists believe people suffer due to strong passions and lack of materials wants. Interesting also, that they believe the government should be the one to address this state of affairs.

why would you skip the beginning of the clip

they said that about the goverment? I must watch it closer again

SherabDorje

I don't think you can make conclusions about the differences between Buddhism and Taoism from one ten-minute video.

Wuji

The problem is that Buddhism isn't saying "Life is Suffering" literally. It is saying that with life comes suffering, oh and by the way, here is a path to cessation from that suffering. Taoism teaches the same thing but says hey stop trying to change what you can't and sitting over there choosing the suffer. As far as I can see it is the same exact message just Taoism shows you that going against life is like going against a flowing river, useless suffering. Buddhism has more detail and insight into things that cause you to suffer and how to live life to not suffer. Taoism is about acceptance and moving on more than prevention.

Vincenzi

@Wuji

I concur... it is most about "there's suffering in life", or "life is unsatisfactory".

compassionate_warrior

The OP is based on a misconception about Buddhism, which has somehow become a stereotype. As Dakini said above, part of the problem is difficulties in translation. Buddhism points out the frustrations and dissatisfaction that inevitably come up in life, and provides a method for liberating oneself from that, a method for experiencing contentment and joy. Based on what the film said about Taoism, I'd say the two are saying the same thing. The only difference is that Buddhism holds the individual responsible for his/her own happiness, whereas Taoism holds the government responsible to a large extent. Does Taoism offer a method, other than acceptance of what is? I wonder if a better film could be found.

Vincenzi

@compassionate_warrior

from reading the Tao Te Ching... it is not up to the government, that sounds more like Confusianism.

compassionate_warrior

Did you watch the film, though? The film said Taoists believe the government should provide for the people's basic needs and also their emotional needs, or something. The government is supposed to help the people "eliminate strong passions". Maybe there's Confucianist influence in Taoism, OR this could be the influence of thinking under a Communist regime. The idea that the regime should provide for basic necessities. I don't know about the "eliminating strong passions" part, though.

Malachy12

They're both right.

Yishai

@Malachy12
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.

santhisouk

It's a good realization. To know that life is suffering means we should make it meaningful. It doesn't mean we should not ever try find happiness.

Vincenzi

@compassionate_warrior

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.

compassionate_warrior

Frankly, I was surprised that the film said Taoists believe the gov't is responsible for attending to certain aspects of citizens' happiness. But it did.

budding_flower

Daoism has evolved to become a complex philosophy. You cannot say that Daoists do this and that, and believe in this and that. There maybe some basic principles, like the Yin and Yang, the imponderable Dao etc. but from Daoist thought sprung many types of expression in Chinesse philosophy, medicine and spirituality. What I’ve come to understand is that, Daoists are trying to cultivate spontaneity that comes with the union with the Dao, the cultivation of Wu Wei, roughly translated as not-doing, or better doing without doing.

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

Yishai

@budding_flower
Informative, thanks.

Vincenzi

@budding_flower

...or effortless doing.

budding_flower

Yes, better translation... thnx @Vincenzi

fest64

Thanks all round.
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 ♥ ))) )) ) )

budding_flower

@Fenix you where right about Daoism that it is folowing the joy of life and that really raises an interesting question: Why follow Buddhism when Daoism offers a life full of Joy and Flow not thinking about suffering as a cause of adherence to Desire, while the Buddhist premise is Dukkha, born from desire?

Vajraheart

Life is samsara. samsara is suffering. Life without samsara is nirvana.

metta

@santhisouk

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?

xabir

The Buddha taught that suffering is a part and parcel of life, or to put it more simply, 'there is suffering in life', and that there is a way to end suffering. He did NOT say "Life is Suffering" or "Life can only be suffering" even though sadly, this is what many teachers are promoting - their own distortion of Buddha's original words. There is suffering in life due to clinging, which can be ended. So the Buddha is simply diagnosing a condition, telling you the cause and providing the precrescription. For more info see this well-written article: Life Isn't Just Suffering by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html

santhisouk

Life is samsara. samsara is suffering. Life without samsara is nirvana.

metta

@santhisouk

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?

I agree with you.

metta