The Dao is the light. The Dao is the dark. The yin and the yang. Kinda like the Force, really, for metaphysical concepts. I don't remember Daoism ever providing an explanation for where we go after death...I don't think too many people really thought about it in classical Chinese thought. There are some interesting bits in the Zhuangzi about how to deal with death, though.

I find the essential mystery of Daoism, and one that really appeals to me, to be the idea that action-in-inaction is the way to Get Things Done. That to do something properly you must do it not because of any other motive than looking at the situation and seeing that it must be done. Like karmayoga, I think. And that direct perception sheds light on the Dao.

When there is no love in the family,
filial piety appears.
When there is no peace in the country,
patriotism is born.

Just a bit of nitpicking:
In Wade-Giles it's Tao Te Ching.
In Hanyu Pinyin it's Daodejing.

Other than that I agree with what you're saying. But remember that Taoism also has a strongly anti-Confucian element as well. In TTC 17 it states:


Remember that one of the animating factors of Taoism is that it positions itself as an anti-Confucianism, intellectually speaking. It eschews all this talk about jen and li and yi (etc.) and instead focuses on a form of action, wei-wu-wei, which is not tied to ritual but rather to the idea that there is an inherent inaction in all action.

yes, I am definitely struggling to define the areas where TAO may mix messages with Buddha's teaching.

Does anyone know if there are exact areas of concern in that regard?

For instance I know they share the DAO cosmological view but they do not share the afterlife views.

This inaction being the way to get things done is a little confusing but does Buddhism teach a similar form of wu wei.

The buddhists use the Tao Te Zing and so do Hindu and Confucians. And within those religions are many varying factions or schools of thought if you will.
.

Hi Manored,

I have been with you on threads before I recognize the name.

are you suggesting that all of these mysteries may have answers in some sort of afterlife?

This may be so. But I think there are clues in this life. And the purpose of this life may be nothing more than exploring these clues.

If we analogize this to a game - and game, one can ask: What happens at the end of the game? And the answer may be: We will know at the end of the game. But, we need to play the game first in order to find out.

I personally haven't gone into Buddhism enough to understand the basic philosophy. My general belief is that they are saying, at the core, pretty much the same thing. However, through history, there has been many modifications to the basic core in order to accommodate different cultures, groups, etc.

Much of the Nirvana concept, which sound very similar to me as Heaven, may have just been introduced in order to better market the philosophy/religion. In the same way that the concept of Hell was added to Christianity.

It's tough getting to the essence of any philosophy since you have to wade through all kinds of language interpretations as well as lots of concepts that have been added throughout history.

I just try to triangulate my experiences, with what I read, and what I see, I try to come up with a cohesive understanding of what life is all about.

Rich

yes, I am definitely struggling to define the areas where TAO may mix messages with Buddha's teaching.

Does anyone know if there are exact areas of concern in that regard?

For instance I know they share the DAO cosmological view but they do not share the afterlife views.

This inaction being the way to get things done is a little confusing but does Buddhism teach a similar form of wu wei.

how do you know hindus use the tao te ching? that's news to me...although a hindu is free to use anything he pleases, it isnt really a religion either but a philosophy if it is understood correctly. to date i havent met anyone who has even read the vedic texts here in india.

ah, that reminds me of something you mentioned in a post about scriptures mirroring each other. i read in the qur'an something that sounded very much like one of the central themes in the gita. not a literal copy of course because given the languages that would be impossible. but both made the point that if a person is truly selfless and following the will of god, submitting to a higher Will, then he has not in fact killed, it is his lord who has killed. i found that interesting because mohammad was illiterate and ignorant of any hindu scriptures, they would have been considered infidels. even if any of his contemporaries were capable of doing so it would have been unthinkable to copy anything our of the books of idolators. so where then did the idea come from?

so I prefer to focus my attention elsewhere, such as living =)

This may be of some use to you as well: The Four Noble Truths

I think it is all part of living and there is plenty of time for everything.

"Where there is impossibility, there is possibility; and where there is possibility, there is impossibility. It is because there is right, that there is wrong; it is because there is wrong, there is right...Thereupon the self is also the other; the other is also the self.

[/I][/COLOR]You have mistaken what this says. Taoism isn't saying that right or wrong exist, it is saying that both are the same thing. We invent what is right and what is wrong but in nature there is no distinguishing factor that says right or wrong. Same goes for the self, it is a label that doesn't do anything of itself, a concept that has nothing substantial about itself yet we run around thinking it to be.

[/I][/COLOR]You have mistaken what this says. Taoism isn't saying that right or wrong exist, it is saying that both are the same thing. We invent what is right and what is wrong but in nature there is no distinguishing factor that says right or wrong. Same goes for the self, it is a label that doesn't do anything of itself, a concept that has nothing substantial about itself yet we run around thinking it to be.

Actually Alan, its funny you say that because I just read on the internet here somewhere that one of the ancient chinese texts is actually almost word for word translated the same way that John 1:1 was written only they speak of the Overall Creation instead of individualizing it as the Logos Incarnate. Do you think that is coincidental in any way? That text would have been written 4 thousand years before John. And I know that the book of Gilgamesh and some oither ancient Mesopotamian writings also mimic the Bible, or should I say the Bible written long after them seems to mimic them.

Therefore Krump is right to a degree that is is created in the minds of the human perception. But just because it is by our perception that this truth is revealed does not mean that it would not still be a truth without our perception, that is ridiculous.

Darkness will still exist in the absence of light whether man sees it or not.

Likewise, what is evil and wrong doing against another person is exactly that whether the human mind chooses to define the parameters or not. Of course it requires interaction between humans to create the division but our choice to lay down parameter is not what creates the godd and evil of a matter.

I do not need two people to come along and have one punch me in the nose, and than the other to kiss me on the cheek to know that it was wrong for a person to punch me in the face. I would know that a punch in the face is wrong without having ever been kissed.