What was the taoist response to buddhism?, how did it survive?

What was the taoist response to buddhism?, how did it survive?

Why aren't they just both variations on a theme?

I've studied both a lot lately and I find it ludicrous that they aren't just considered essentially equivalent.

both were born in the same century

Taoism was assimilated into he Buddhist cosmology

The Jade Emperor was considered equivalent to the Indian Indra as king of the gods for example.

The deities occupy a rank above mortals and below boddhisattvas, they still need to be enlightened.

But the idea is "well, while they're here we may as well pray for stuff to make our lives (and meditation) easier.

Taoism and buddhism were 2 distinct branches at the start but they slowly merged (together with confucianism) into one system of belief over the centries

Taoism seems cool, how do I become one?

Just be yourself and go with the flow, brah.
:^)

I'd start by reading the texts behind it. The first question is: philosophical taoism or religious taoism?

t. fool who has denied his innate nature and attempted to use righteousness and compassion as a substitution

buddhism was forcibly repressed a number of times in china because it hampered the war machine.

taoism didn't really have much to do with it, and taoism itself stopped being a factor in the middle dynasties

...

They basically said that Buddhists cling to enlightenment rather than accepting the universe as it is and living in harmony with it.

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.

Interesting

Superficial

calm down rust

Denying the self is idiotic. It's tantamount to using a microscope to prove that the microscope doesn't exist.

They considered it a foreign kind of Daoism.

Condemn them
Ridicule them
Argue with them
Find middle ground
Convert to buddhism

Buddhism doesn't deny that the self exists, they deny the idea of an unchanging eternal "essence" beneath your consciousness. In Buddhism, your "self" is a collection of ever-changing components each of which only forms "You" or "I" when combined.

In short, rather then a single unchanging personality driving around a meat mech, your Self is actually an interconnected mindbody that changes in response to numerous conditions both internal and external.

So there wasnt any competition or infighting?

Smoke weed and drink wine :)

"Regarding this knowledge of destruction, I declare that there is a supporting condition without which it does not arise...[86] What is this supporting condition? Liberation... Liberation has a supporting condition...: Dispassion... Dispassion has a supporting condition...: Disenchantment... Disenchantment has a supporting condition...: Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are... Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are has a supporting condition...: Concentration... Concentration has a supporting condition...: Happiness... Happiness has a supporting condition...: Tranquillity... Tranquillity has a supporting condition...: Rapture...[87] Rapture has a supporting condition...: Joy... Joy has a supporting condition...: Faith...[88] Faith has a supporting condition...: Suffering...[89] Suffering has a supporting condition...: Birth...[90] Becoming... Grasping... Craving... Feeling... Contact... the Six Sense-Bases... Name-and-Form... Consciousness... the (kamma-) formations... Ignorance...

That sounds a lot like Stirner's creative unknown.

yeah but S thinks that this bundle does not make you unhappy, whereas it does, precisely because it changes constantly and you follow it like a retard

It is, Stirner and Nietzche are basically Buddhists with different ethics.
Except that's wrong, and Siddhartha's whole scheme is based on a denial of life instead of embracing it.

His whole problem is that he viewed dukkha as a bad thing.

Actually, Stirner never says anything of the sort. Neither that it makes you unhappy nor that it doesn't make you unhappy, he just proposes that you should ultimately pursue whatever happens to be in your best interests.

Further, there's no reason to think Siddhartha has any particular insight on the matter. It's not like he was a psychologist or anything.

>The Buddha knew less about the human mind that modern (((psychologists)))

Oh help me I'm laughing.

What makes his claims about human nature more valid than those of any number of philosophers previous that claimed differently? It's not like he was subject to peer-review.

how could he have known about the neo-cortex and stuff? doesn't mean he wasn't intelligent, it is just a fact

The fact that most claims about human nature were essentialist dualist claims and the Buddha's were the opposite.

Compare Descartes, who viewed the mind as immaterial and part of an immortal soul, to Siddhartha, who said that what we call the Self is actually an emergent property of the interconnection of a complicated system involving the mind and the body in its entirety.

The fact that neurologists are looking at Buddhist ideas and realizing they were right about things only proves that he had a firmer grasp on the subject then other people.

And it wasn't due to any mysticism or magic, he was just a really good philosopher.

>Except that's wrong, and Siddhartha's whole scheme is based on a denial of life instead of embracing it.
this

emotions matter to hedonists who think hedonism is a good life style. Even better, hedonists will do anything to think that they are as hedonistic as they are and they even arrange moments in their life where ''it is wrong to display hedonism'' and where ''it is right to display hedonism'', so that they can feel both like saints and animals regularly.

But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist.

In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.

for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death


hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.

of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.

Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.

The entire flaw is that you think happiness is desirable.

Dukkha means frustration, or agitation, or dissatisfaction. It means that there is no way to achieve a state of unconditional unrelenting and eternal happiness.

This is a good thing. Such a state would be the death knell of becoming, of undergoing transformations, of samsaric existence. In a word, the Buddha is praying for death.

The unconditioned state.
The peaceful state.
The unburdened state.
The state of no return.
The state of safety.

All of these things are denials of life and living, which is fundamentally thoughts leading to craving leading to actions which are the seeds of becoming and continuous transformation.

To the one who says YES to life, that necessarily means saying NO to the stoic philosophy of the sage, who having seen life is convinced it is a trap, and desperately seeks escape.

Nirvana, the joyous state, the perfect state, the luminous state, such a state is an abomination.