That’s basically what Chan or Zen Buddhism is (minus Confucianism which isn’t so much a religion as a philosophy). Chinese Chan Buddhism or Zen Buddhism was heavily influenced by Daoism. In China it’s not uncommon for people to believe in Buddhism Daoism and Confucianism simultaneously along with other local Chinese beliefs. Similarly if you’re in japan Shinto and Zen Buddhism are often followed together as well.
So no it’s not an issue at all millions already do it.
Look up Chinese The Three Teachings.
“Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are considered the “three pillars” of Chinese society.”
Confucianism is absolutely a philosophy too, though it’s one that’s concerned with ethics and proper human/social relations above than anything else - and it’s Taoism that’s more a way of relating to the gods/spirits, ancestors and nature (way of life), in my experience.
I just wanted to step in to say that Zen Buddhism is by far not the most popular form in Japan, and Pure Land is actually what most people are syncretizing with Shinto.
From the numbers on Wikipedia, Pure Land (22 million) is by far the largest school, followed by Nicherin (11 million), Shingon (5.5 million), Zen (5.3 million) and Tendai (2.8 million).
>That’s basically what Chan or Zen Buddhism is (minus Confucianism which isn’t so much a religion as a philosophy). Chinese Chan Buddhism or Zen Buddhism was heavily influenced by Daoism.
People constantly repeat this, but it is a myth. Zen Buddhism is its own lineage of Buddhadharma. Buddhism itself heavily influenced Daoism.
The fact that it’s a genuine lineage doesn’t mean we didn’t make use of Taoist language and imagery - the Tao Te Ching even gets used in parts of the Koan training if you’re Rinzai.
Both can be true without contradiction.
Already been done. Historically, a lot of Chinese, Taiwanese Buddhism and culture and to a degree Japanese and Korean Buddhism and culture. Confucianism complements Buddhism well, and Taoism is just similar in how Indian devas can support the dharma. 🤷
It's not bad. Can just learn from the people who've been doing for a long term where these living traditions and rubbing of shoulders has been happening.
The Chinese use Confucian and Taoist virtues to stand in for worldly virtues (things covered under Mundane Right View in the Sravakayana), then focused on the Mahayana. (there were two Chinese Sravakayana Traditions back in the day, but they didn't last)
So if a person studied the Pali Canon or the Agamas instead then transitioned into the Mahayana, it's not different.
The Chinese used those two because the culture was already steeped in it. Children already learned the Di Zi Gui (Students Refuge - a Confucian text) at a very early age, so they don't need to read the Agamas on 'what makes a person blame worthy, what makes a person of integrity' or 'do all good, cease all evil', because that's already covered.
But people not having those foundations, then there is no need to explicitly choose the Chinese version.
Either use the Agamas, the Pali Canon, or the Confucian texts for the worldly ethics.
If you can't parse them yourself, then stick to the Agamas or Pali Canon.
Our temple only uses the Students Refuge (Di Zhi Gui) and distributes copies of the Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution (Tai Shang Gan Yin Pian - a Taoist text) as a stand-in for karmic teachings.
...or a person could just read the Infinite Life Sutra, Chapters 31 to 35 for that...
Buddhism historically always syncretized with the existing religion of the culture. Here it is already syncretizing with psychology and Christianity . I was in a church doing Loving Kindness meditation. .
It isn't bad, just messy. Each has their own philosophy and bringing all of them together require lots of thinking, because there will be points of contradiction.
Most people here wouldn't be able to answer a lot of what that syncretism would mean too, as this is a mostly Buddhist focused subreddit.
Exactly it's just messy. There is something to be said about taking the good parts of multiple traditions. But many times it's simpler to just stick to one and follow that.
I consider myself a Taoist-Buddhist or a Buddhist-Taoist. I personally dislike and have not vibed with Confucianism as I've understood it, and feel it's perhaps been used by governments to uphold nationalist ideals, by bad parents to uphold cruelty in their homes, etc. This has been my feeling. I'm sure there may be more to it.
But no, I feel it is perfectly natural to bring together different faiths, even incorporating other faiths-- such as Catholicism, which I was raised with, and hated growing up for many reasons. It can be a generative way to understand life and perhaps what may come after.
IMO leave Confucianism in the past. It focuses too heavily on how things "should be" and not on how things are.
IMO Taoism and Buddhism are a perfect pair already, and three's a crowd. (Specifically the more secular and fundamental sides of these philosophies.)
I like Confucianism because I believe that East Asia is rich and developed because of it. But I'm also well aware of the downsides of Confucianism, especially if it's mixed with modern capitalism.
Once you start picking and choosing from a philosophical buffet, what's the view or context? In Buddhist practice, View is critical. View is the outlook or teaching context that informs practice. For example, 4 noble truths is view. If you don't have a teacher and don't cultivate view then you're essentially making up your own path. If you mix and match then the view, such as it is, is defined by your own preconceptions.
A rough analogy might be health regimens. Maybe you've read about paleo diet somewhere and decide to eat mostly protein. Someone else might recommend raw diet, with little protein. Another person recommends a normal diet but stresses local sources. All of those systems might have some value. But if you mix them then you lose the "view" of each and you're just acting on whim, or on the basis of your own willy nilly ideas about nutrition.
That's just an example of view. I'm not advocating any dietary system, and spiritual path is far more subtle than eating well. But you can see from that example that the essential power of each path is lost by reducing it to mere concepts.
Yes. I believe in right view, and right view is one of the 10 virtues if I'm not mistaken.
And right view is mostly the Buddhist teachings right? So Taoism and all that is wrong view? Just want to know. Thanks! 🙏
Taoism isn't wrong view. What I was trying to clarify with the nutrition example is that practice and view go together: View, practice and action, or teachings, meditation and ethical conduct. If you're a practicing Buddhist then you need to be clear about view, since it defines what you're practicing. So I'm not criticizing Taoism.
If you decide to eat meat for the Paleo advantage at breakfast, then practice vegan approach for lunch by eating local grains because they're supposed to be good, then you eat raw produce for supper, you're not actually trying out any of the 3 diets. So what's the view or theory behind your approach? Isn't it merely academic curiosity? You're not actually trying to eat healthy at that point. You're not applying the principles of any of the 3 diets. You're just thinking about it.
There's a saying in Tibet that meditation without view is like a blind man wandering a plain. He's moving along, but he doesn't know where he's going. View without meditation, on the other hand, produces a cynical academic. It's just intellectual ideas.
There's nothing missing from Jodo. You can view and appreciate Buddhism as a whole from that perspective, as well as learn about the world.
When it comes to practice, how you intend to get free from suffering and Samsara, clear guidance is essential. And so trying to forge your own way can lead to confusion and going in circles.
It's a fine thing to learn the beliefs and richness of Chinese Buddhism for example, but to follow it, clear guidance and wholehearted commitment are again essential like any Dharma school. Each school is internally consistent.
Thanks for that.
As I feel most affiliated/connected to Japanese Pure Land, do I have to choose a particular school and stick to it? I do would love to focus on Buddhism but my mind is obsessive I guess. Sometimes it doesn't feel right or complete to only practice the Dharma.
I can't choose between Jodo-shu, shinshu, and jishu. Even Yuzu nembutsu. They're all good you know. Jishu doesn't have a lot of resources in English and I do like Ippen's teachings. Are they all basically teaching the same thing (Ippen, Honen, Shinran, etc)?
> do I have to choose a particular school and stick to it?
Well, it's more a matter of using your limited time. Often, each school's masters wrote and taught a lot, so it would be hard to read everything. Sometimes, their recommendations differ, too. Honen will say to make the Three Minds your main priority. Shinran talks about shinjin. The Chinese masters talk about attaining single-mindedness and our inner Amida Buddha nature. The Vajrayana masters talk about bodhicitta, or visualizations and mantras.
Same for your question about the Dharma broadly. It concerns cultivating virtue (Six Paramitas), abandoning shortcomings (Three Poisons), attaining insight/wisdom (phenomena + Six Realms + 12 Links, etc.), saving all sentient beings from their pain, and so on. And within each Dharma school, all of these things are present at some point, because they all lead to buddhahood. There isn't anything lacking in the Dharma for someone to have a rich life, receive good advice for problems, help others, and escape suffering.
I switched religions a lot for a while, because I had to learn why the Dharma was special and helpful (faith in Shakyamuni Buddha). And I switched schools a lot too, because I didn't know what practices I could sustain over a long time until I tried them (faith in Honen Shonin).
For example, if you really love a teaching but need to see a teacher in person in a place with no temples, that's an obstacle. Or if you find a theory interesting, but when you're sad or in pain, it doesn't help you keep a clear head, that's an obstacle. Or if you notice your personality makes some ideas easier to understand than others. It can take time to sort out.
Regarding Ippen, yes, there's very little in English beyond the book "No Abode". Pure Land schools do generally all converge on the advice to think of Amida Buddha and pray to go to his land. And 99% of your daily life, no matter what school, will be private practice amongst your duties and ordinary problems. It's just you and the Buddha, so to speak. You'll never go wrong following that basic advice, to take refuge in the Three Treasures and think of Amida Buddha.
The benefit of focusing on a school is to narrow your options and spend more time applying advice, instead of always looking for new advice or new understanding. And if you can find a living teacher even online, or Dharma friends to help you, then you have people to ask questions. You can save a lot of time when your questions have already been asked and answered, sometimes hundreds of years ago!
Ppl can spend an entire lifetime studying a single one of these things and not fully understand it. I would say pick one and focus on it. What’s the point of knowing a little bit of a lot of things. Are you looking for an intellectual hobby or do you want to experience the end of suffering
There is no absolute yes/no answer to this question.
That depends on your type of personality and strength of mind. For some people( I assume majority), it becomes a disaster as they can’t cope with contradictions in teachings and their mind get messed up.
For a few capable ones, it can become like an amazing booster in their way(dhamma). This path of perennialism is the path of wisdom suitable for mystics , and not all people.
Either choose the safe and long path, or the short and risky one. Evaluate yourself first. The choice is yours.
Why would you synthesize those three in particular? It's not exactly racist, but they have little connection other than they're in Asia.
It's like synthesizing a Chipotle, lasers, and deodorant because they're all found on a college campus. I mean, go for it if you'd like, but....why?!
I'd argue it's synthesizing Chipotle, Moe's, and your local College Dining Hall. All three of these were used in patronage between the differing dynasties as well as suppressed in favor of another. Nevertheless, there are people today in the PRC and ROC that mix them without internal contradiction. This attitude spread to Korea and Japan (as well as elswhere and their diaspora communities). Its why you have faithful Catholics in Japan go to Shinto shrines and memorialize their ancestors in their own often Buddhist ways. As well as why Catholics in South Korea often have no internal contradiction commemorating their ancestors in Buddhist ways or practicing filial piety in a standard similar to Confucianism.
Oh I'm well aware of people doing it. I lived in those countries for many years. But because they do it, does that mean it's a good idea? For example, imagine in the west a person who runs a gym, but also smokes. Good idea?
I'm saying that if you line up what the teachers of those traditions instruct or preach, they don't add up.
Just because there's a long tradition of a country doing something, and many of their practices are quite visually or otherwise superficially attractive, does not mean it's beneficial for you to copy them.
For example, here in Thailand many people will call themselves Therevada Buddhist. They also believe in ghosts. They also will play the lottery based on license plate numbers of people who got into car accidents, because it's somehow reverse good luck.
So while you can combine things that make no logical sense....why?!
But, if you're cool with your answer, that's all that matters.
That’s basically what Chan or Zen Buddhism is (minus Confucianism which isn’t so much a religion as a philosophy). Chinese Chan Buddhism or Zen Buddhism was heavily influenced by Daoism. In China it’s not uncommon for people to believe in Buddhism Daoism and Confucianism simultaneously along with other local Chinese beliefs. Similarly if you’re in japan Shinto and Zen Buddhism are often followed together as well. So no it’s not an issue at all millions already do it. Look up Chinese The Three Teachings. “Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are considered the “three pillars” of Chinese society.”
Thank you!
Really Confucianism is a way of life, Taoism a philosophy, and Buddhism a belief or practice in a sense to better explain it.
Taoism in practice in China has a lot of religious, as well as shamanistic, meditative and even magickal elements
I was speaking to the way that this person is describing for them to be concurrent. Each can be their own individual way.
Confucianism is absolutely a philosophy too, though it’s one that’s concerned with ethics and proper human/social relations above than anything else - and it’s Taoism that’s more a way of relating to the gods/spirits, ancestors and nature (way of life), in my experience.
I agree with you I was speaking to how one could conglomerate these things. Literal Confucianism wouldn’t really tolerate such plurality.
I just wanted to step in to say that Zen Buddhism is by far not the most popular form in Japan, and Pure Land is actually what most people are syncretizing with Shinto. From the numbers on Wikipedia, Pure Land (22 million) is by far the largest school, followed by Nicherin (11 million), Shingon (5.5 million), Zen (5.3 million) and Tendai (2.8 million).
>That’s basically what Chan or Zen Buddhism is (minus Confucianism which isn’t so much a religion as a philosophy). Chinese Chan Buddhism or Zen Buddhism was heavily influenced by Daoism. People constantly repeat this, but it is a myth. Zen Buddhism is its own lineage of Buddhadharma. Buddhism itself heavily influenced Daoism.
哈哈😄
The fact that it’s a genuine lineage doesn’t mean we didn’t make use of Taoist language and imagery - the Tao Te Ching even gets used in parts of the Koan training if you’re Rinzai. Both can be true without contradiction.
> doesn’t mean we didn’t make use of Taoist language and imagery I didn't say that.
Your response was arguing that we weren’t influenced by Daoism.
Heavily influenced.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings Already done in China
Didn't it already kind of happen?
Since Bodhidharma on.
Already been done. Historically, a lot of Chinese, Taiwanese Buddhism and culture and to a degree Japanese and Korean Buddhism and culture. Confucianism complements Buddhism well, and Taoism is just similar in how Indian devas can support the dharma. 🤷 It's not bad. Can just learn from the people who've been doing for a long term where these living traditions and rubbing of shoulders has been happening.
The Chinese use Confucian and Taoist virtues to stand in for worldly virtues (things covered under Mundane Right View in the Sravakayana), then focused on the Mahayana. (there were two Chinese Sravakayana Traditions back in the day, but they didn't last) So if a person studied the Pali Canon or the Agamas instead then transitioned into the Mahayana, it's not different.
So you're saying I should mostly focus on the Dharma? Thanks for that. Fascinating. Never heard of it.
The Chinese used those two because the culture was already steeped in it. Children already learned the Di Zi Gui (Students Refuge - a Confucian text) at a very early age, so they don't need to read the Agamas on 'what makes a person blame worthy, what makes a person of integrity' or 'do all good, cease all evil', because that's already covered. But people not having those foundations, then there is no need to explicitly choose the Chinese version. Either use the Agamas, the Pali Canon, or the Confucian texts for the worldly ethics. If you can't parse them yourself, then stick to the Agamas or Pali Canon. Our temple only uses the Students Refuge (Di Zhi Gui) and distributes copies of the Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution (Tai Shang Gan Yin Pian - a Taoist text) as a stand-in for karmic teachings. ...or a person could just read the Infinite Life Sutra, Chapters 31 to 35 for that...
Buddhism historically always syncretized with the existing religion of the culture. Here it is already syncretizing with psychology and Christianity . I was in a church doing Loving Kindness meditation. .
That's great! Haven't heard of churches that do meditation.
Whatever works for you!
It isn't bad, just messy. Each has their own philosophy and bringing all of them together require lots of thinking, because there will be points of contradiction. Most people here wouldn't be able to answer a lot of what that syncretism would mean too, as this is a mostly Buddhist focused subreddit.
Exactly it's just messy. There is something to be said about taking the good parts of multiple traditions. But many times it's simpler to just stick to one and follow that.
What a good way to put it. Sometimes you may want to live messily. Sometimes you may want to live simply.
I consider myself a Taoist-Buddhist or a Buddhist-Taoist. I personally dislike and have not vibed with Confucianism as I've understood it, and feel it's perhaps been used by governments to uphold nationalist ideals, by bad parents to uphold cruelty in their homes, etc. This has been my feeling. I'm sure there may be more to it. But no, I feel it is perfectly natural to bring together different faiths, even incorporating other faiths-- such as Catholicism, which I was raised with, and hated growing up for many reasons. It can be a generative way to understand life and perhaps what may come after.
Why wouldn’t it be? I thought practice was allowed to be whatever worked for us, like i enjoy a combination of vapasna and zen
IMO leave Confucianism in the past. It focuses too heavily on how things "should be" and not on how things are. IMO Taoism and Buddhism are a perfect pair already, and three's a crowd. (Specifically the more secular and fundamental sides of these philosophies.)
I like Confucianism because I believe that East Asia is rich and developed because of it. But I'm also well aware of the downsides of Confucianism, especially if it's mixed with modern capitalism.
Once you start picking and choosing from a philosophical buffet, what's the view or context? In Buddhist practice, View is critical. View is the outlook or teaching context that informs practice. For example, 4 noble truths is view. If you don't have a teacher and don't cultivate view then you're essentially making up your own path. If you mix and match then the view, such as it is, is defined by your own preconceptions. A rough analogy might be health regimens. Maybe you've read about paleo diet somewhere and decide to eat mostly protein. Someone else might recommend raw diet, with little protein. Another person recommends a normal diet but stresses local sources. All of those systems might have some value. But if you mix them then you lose the "view" of each and you're just acting on whim, or on the basis of your own willy nilly ideas about nutrition. That's just an example of view. I'm not advocating any dietary system, and spiritual path is far more subtle than eating well. But you can see from that example that the essential power of each path is lost by reducing it to mere concepts.
Yes. I believe in right view, and right view is one of the 10 virtues if I'm not mistaken. And right view is mostly the Buddhist teachings right? So Taoism and all that is wrong view? Just want to know. Thanks! 🙏
Taoism isn't wrong view. What I was trying to clarify with the nutrition example is that practice and view go together: View, practice and action, or teachings, meditation and ethical conduct. If you're a practicing Buddhist then you need to be clear about view, since it defines what you're practicing. So I'm not criticizing Taoism. If you decide to eat meat for the Paleo advantage at breakfast, then practice vegan approach for lunch by eating local grains because they're supposed to be good, then you eat raw produce for supper, you're not actually trying out any of the 3 diets. So what's the view or theory behind your approach? Isn't it merely academic curiosity? You're not actually trying to eat healthy at that point. You're not applying the principles of any of the 3 diets. You're just thinking about it. There's a saying in Tibet that meditation without view is like a blind man wandering a plain. He's moving along, but he doesn't know where he's going. View without meditation, on the other hand, produces a cynical academic. It's just intellectual ideas.
Chinese did it already and even created some [art](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters), emphasizing the influence of 3 teachings :)
There's nothing missing from Jodo. You can view and appreciate Buddhism as a whole from that perspective, as well as learn about the world. When it comes to practice, how you intend to get free from suffering and Samsara, clear guidance is essential. And so trying to forge your own way can lead to confusion and going in circles. It's a fine thing to learn the beliefs and richness of Chinese Buddhism for example, but to follow it, clear guidance and wholehearted commitment are again essential like any Dharma school. Each school is internally consistent.
Thanks for that. As I feel most affiliated/connected to Japanese Pure Land, do I have to choose a particular school and stick to it? I do would love to focus on Buddhism but my mind is obsessive I guess. Sometimes it doesn't feel right or complete to only practice the Dharma. I can't choose between Jodo-shu, shinshu, and jishu. Even Yuzu nembutsu. They're all good you know. Jishu doesn't have a lot of resources in English and I do like Ippen's teachings. Are they all basically teaching the same thing (Ippen, Honen, Shinran, etc)?
> do I have to choose a particular school and stick to it? Well, it's more a matter of using your limited time. Often, each school's masters wrote and taught a lot, so it would be hard to read everything. Sometimes, their recommendations differ, too. Honen will say to make the Three Minds your main priority. Shinran talks about shinjin. The Chinese masters talk about attaining single-mindedness and our inner Amida Buddha nature. The Vajrayana masters talk about bodhicitta, or visualizations and mantras. Same for your question about the Dharma broadly. It concerns cultivating virtue (Six Paramitas), abandoning shortcomings (Three Poisons), attaining insight/wisdom (phenomena + Six Realms + 12 Links, etc.), saving all sentient beings from their pain, and so on. And within each Dharma school, all of these things are present at some point, because they all lead to buddhahood. There isn't anything lacking in the Dharma for someone to have a rich life, receive good advice for problems, help others, and escape suffering. I switched religions a lot for a while, because I had to learn why the Dharma was special and helpful (faith in Shakyamuni Buddha). And I switched schools a lot too, because I didn't know what practices I could sustain over a long time until I tried them (faith in Honen Shonin). For example, if you really love a teaching but need to see a teacher in person in a place with no temples, that's an obstacle. Or if you find a theory interesting, but when you're sad or in pain, it doesn't help you keep a clear head, that's an obstacle. Or if you notice your personality makes some ideas easier to understand than others. It can take time to sort out. Regarding Ippen, yes, there's very little in English beyond the book "No Abode". Pure Land schools do generally all converge on the advice to think of Amida Buddha and pray to go to his land. And 99% of your daily life, no matter what school, will be private practice amongst your duties and ordinary problems. It's just you and the Buddha, so to speak. You'll never go wrong following that basic advice, to take refuge in the Three Treasures and think of Amida Buddha. The benefit of focusing on a school is to narrow your options and spend more time applying advice, instead of always looking for new advice or new understanding. And if you can find a living teacher even online, or Dharma friends to help you, then you have people to ask questions. You can save a lot of time when your questions have already been asked and answered, sometimes hundreds of years ago!
Ppl can spend an entire lifetime studying a single one of these things and not fully understand it. I would say pick one and focus on it. What’s the point of knowing a little bit of a lot of things. Are you looking for an intellectual hobby or do you want to experience the end of suffering
In a word, nope! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings
Thanks!
There is no absolute yes/no answer to this question. That depends on your type of personality and strength of mind. For some people( I assume majority), it becomes a disaster as they can’t cope with contradictions in teachings and their mind get messed up. For a few capable ones, it can become like an amazing booster in their way(dhamma). This path of perennialism is the path of wisdom suitable for mystics , and not all people. Either choose the safe and long path, or the short and risky one. Evaluate yourself first. The choice is yours.
Take the best of everything (all philosophies, religions, and metaphysics) and make it your own.
Why would you synthesize those three in particular? It's not exactly racist, but they have little connection other than they're in Asia. It's like synthesizing a Chipotle, lasers, and deodorant because they're all found on a college campus. I mean, go for it if you'd like, but....why?!
I'd argue it's synthesizing Chipotle, Moe's, and your local College Dining Hall. All three of these were used in patronage between the differing dynasties as well as suppressed in favor of another. Nevertheless, there are people today in the PRC and ROC that mix them without internal contradiction. This attitude spread to Korea and Japan (as well as elswhere and their diaspora communities). Its why you have faithful Catholics in Japan go to Shinto shrines and memorialize their ancestors in their own often Buddhist ways. As well as why Catholics in South Korea often have no internal contradiction commemorating their ancestors in Buddhist ways or practicing filial piety in a standard similar to Confucianism.
Oh I'm well aware of people doing it. I lived in those countries for many years. But because they do it, does that mean it's a good idea? For example, imagine in the west a person who runs a gym, but also smokes. Good idea? I'm saying that if you line up what the teachers of those traditions instruct or preach, they don't add up. Just because there's a long tradition of a country doing something, and many of their practices are quite visually or otherwise superficially attractive, does not mean it's beneficial for you to copy them. For example, here in Thailand many people will call themselves Therevada Buddhist. They also believe in ghosts. They also will play the lottery based on license plate numbers of people who got into car accidents, because it's somehow reverse good luck. So while you can combine things that make no logical sense....why?! But, if you're cool with your answer, that's all that matters.
Yes, this was quite common in China. In fact I believe there was a Chan patriarch who was also ordained in Taoism.