Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi Subject: BKolaczkowski: Re: Zen Buddhism and Taoism are NOT the same Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.philosophy.taoism Date: 16 May 1995 12:18:41 -0700 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 44 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Message-ID: <3patqh$4p9@jobe.shell.portal.com> References: Reply-To: Bryan Kolaczkowski NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com [from alt.philosophy.taoism: Bryan Kolaczkowski ] Actually, the Vedic Aryans who moved into northern India (conquered) and spread what would become Hinduism and later, Buddhism, were pushed into India by expanding Mongolian tribes settling in what would be China. Taoism could be seen as a cross-cultural exchange between the Aryan (pre-buddhist) tradition and the Mongolian culture. This is further witnessed by the fact that many Hindu and Buddhist literature speaks of travelling scholars from the north who would trade for religious literature that they would then translate and read in China. This account is supported by Indian governmental records. We also have some evidence of Indian-Greek-Chinese trade during the time when things like the Tao Te Ching and later commentaries would have been being written, the latest manifestation of a long philosophical herritage. I think there is sufficient evidence in all the literature (Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist) to support the conclusion that each of these philosophies were energetically interacting and molding each other as they went along. This is supported by the Taoist trends of: 'bend and overcome' and 'acceptance of outside forces as well as inside'. Taoism would not be stiff and unchanging under outside influence; that's not the Taoist philosophy. There are similar trends in Hinduism and Buddhism. Neither of these philosophies had a pantheon of deities when they were first written or preached, but one was developed due to interaction with other (South Indian for one, or many, as there were a plethora of 'folk' religions in India when the Aryans invaded) religious and philosophical traditions. Also, in the Taoist commentaries, one sees a drastic movement from strict fableic parable to a more 'philosophical' metaphor and then to an explanation in a formal language. This parallels the Greek movement from Homer to Socrates and Plato and then to Aristotle. Same message, although transformed by numerous interactions and cross-cultural exchanges. Not only does the separation of Buddhism from Taoism seem to fail to fit the historical documentation, I think that some of the basic tennants of Taoism forbid such a separation. To know ONLY the way would not be to know the way at all. We can know how the way is separate and how it is universal, but this is not to know the way. Knowing the way consists in not knowing; and thus the way is. Response... (see self reference) --monk@unm.edu