Please answer as many questions you know and put the number of the question infront of your answer! adn also if you used links please note them! thnks ! ILL GIVE THE BEST ANSWER TO WHOEVER ANSWER THE MOST QUESTION!MUAH [K]\n\n1) Which came first Taoism or Buddhism?\n\n2)How did Lao Tzo view on the relationnship between man and state differ from Confuciusm views?\n\n3) Why Do you think people were open to confucianism adn taoism during the warring states period??\n\n4)How is taoism and buddhism similar?\n\n\n*THANKS* AND SORRY FOR SPELLING AND GRAMER MISTAKES** \n\nYEA, YEA,! I KNOW WRONG CATEGORY BUT I ALREADY POSTED IN THE CULTURE SECIOTN AND NO ONE PAYING ATENTENION TO IT! SO WHY NOT PUT IT IN THE ENTERTAINMETN SECTION! LOL
119211
1) u have internet\n2) u have internet\n3) u have internet\n4) u have internet\n5) i did not have internet when i was in school, try the information highway, google the questions, i am sure u will find ur answers u seek grasshoper.
104494
I live in China but don't think myself have the capacity to give the right answer to yr question.\n\nIt's too abstruse for even an educated Chinese to answer.\n\nMaybe you can turn to a knowledgable Taoist in China.\nherein a website: \nhttp://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/
61095
Sounds good.  But why pray to the universe?  Is the universe conscious?\n\nAnd it does sound a lot like some things other religions have, like Eastern Religions.  Hmmm, perhaps you should study them and see if there are other good ideas they have to add to your Purist religion.\n\nGood luck with your religion.  ;)\n\nEDIT:  Oh yeah, and let me know if you get anywhere with it, because I am going to be a religious studies professor.  Wouldn't want to leave your religion out.  :-D\n\n2nd EDIT:  I didn't mean to imply you ripped off an Eastern Religion.  How do you think they came up with their ideas?  They contemplated the universe and the self!  And that is what you are doing.  That is why you both come to the same truths.  I only suggested to research them because if there is something good in them, then there is no sense in reinventing the wheel.
666809
QUESTION: Wasn’t it irresponsible for the Buddha to walk out on his wife and child?\n\nANSWER: It couldn’t have been an easy thing for the Buddha to leave his family. He must have worried and hesitated for a long time before finally leaving. But he had a choice, dedicating himself to his family or dedicating himself to the whole world. In the end, his great compassion made him give himself to the whole world. And the whole world still benefits from his sacrifice. This was not irresponsible. It was perhaps the most significant sacrifice ever made.\n\n-------------\n\ni also heard that it is her wife who ask Siddharta to give birth for her so she can remember him, she agree with Siddharta's search for truth.\nlater, i heard that his wife and his son and many family members also follows him.. (but you might want to validate it)
432056
A Zen master now would ask: what is the purpose of this question?  Who is the thing that thinks it's asking?  And why does this thing ask?  Also, reincarnation is not a buddhist concept (rebirth is which is VERY different) but, of course, whatever concept helps you is the important thing (given that all of these concepts are tools and not ends).
461674
Ok... this is long... I actually got a pretty bad grade during college for writing a paper about this and unfortunately using too many websites for information.  There is a lot of misinformation on the web (I no longer trust anything i read unless it's from an encyclopedia or reputable source online. Definitely not a martial arts website)   There also is a lot of misinformation in books written by authors such as "Si Fu Bob" and "how I will teach you the secrets of Shaolin Kung fu".  Basically, your history professor is correct. If you read textbooks written by college professors on Chan/Zen and Bodhidharma... they think his association with Bodhidharma is legend.  Some even dispute his existence at all.  If you read books on martial arts history, they'll say that his association with bodhidharma for sure is legend and that the Shaolin monks most likely harbored retired soldiers who knew self defense.  The concise encyclopedia brittanica will state that chinese martial arts harkens back to the 18th century B.C.  Go to google scholar (it has a lot of books written for the general public also with some books written by academics) or JSTOR (which has a better reference of articles written by academics) and look up "bodhidharma" and "legend."  All books written by academics will state that he is a legend and his association with martial arts is that... the general books written by regular folks for regular folks like "how to learn martial arts in 20 days" are hit and miss...  Hopefully, you didn't make the same mistake that I made and failed a midterm paper based on reading websites for info!\nOh, I found this answer in another area about kalaripayattu...\n\n"As to kalaripayattu....\nThere is no association historically between kalaripayattu and shaolin kung fu or any other martial arts. This only came about recently and has been pushed strongly by practitioners of kalaripayattu as an association (i guess to try and generate interest in the art). Unfortunately, the general pracitioners of kalaripayattu are unwilling to admit (although Professor Zarilli's book "When the Body Becomes All Eyes: Paradigms, Discourses and Practices of Power in Kalarippayattu, a South Indian Martial Art (Hardcover and almost all other books on kalaripayattu reference this)" that the earliest suggested birth of kalaripayattu is around 11th-13th century a.d. and that the earliest proof of kalaripayattu was from portuguese records in the 16th century a.d. No credible records of kalaripayattu exist before this.\n\nThe association between indian martial arts and chinese martial arts is between the legend of Bodhidharma (an Indian or Central asian monk, depending on the legend you use) who founded the Shaolin temple. The rumor began in the 1600's A.D. and was written by a Chinese Taoist monk who did not like the Shaolin monks.... \n\nThe first open association of Bodhidharma and the Shaolin martial arts is made in the 17th century A.d. and it states in the text that Bodhidharma created the exercises that developed into Shaolin quan in a cave in China after staring at a wall for nine years without moving. Between the founding of the Shaolin temple (600A.D.) and 1600A.D. no association has ever been made about Bodhidharma and Shaolin Kung Fu. \n\nFrom this legend in the 1600's A.D., kalaripayattu practitioners today  and other people have been trying to push that maybe Bodhidharma was a kalaripayattu practioner. If he was a kalaripayattu practitioner, then that must mean that kalaripayattu was created in the 600A.D. and is the progenitor of Shaolin Kung Fu and hence all martial arts! Of course, this disregards the other martial arts traditions in china that go back to before Shaolin kung fu by a few centuries.\n\nThere is physical and written evidence in China that martial arts as practiced by the Shaolin monks predate the 6th century A.D. and that most martial arts in most
10934
By the time I read all of the answers I realized that my thoughts had pretty much been covered. So kudos to all above me!\n\nBut I do want to emphasize what Snehal has proposed. One world........no religions. I agree with the answer that said that religions have basic similarities but that man has chosen to use their religion inappropriately. Wars have been fought merely over "interpretations." People have died for believing differently. Lives have been controlled because of those reading religion as a misinterpreted call for power. People are told what to think and what not to think and are condemned for differing opinions. \n\nI'm sure right now someone reading this is shaking their head thinking, "She has no clue what she is talking about." If it would stop with that, all would be fine. We are all entitled to have our own opinions. It is when someone will write me slamming me for my beliefs and finding  a way to avenge my thoughts by blasting me somewhere that we realize this is symbolic of our world's problems. It's not just because of religion of course. Religion is the scapegoat. Man can blame his judgements of others on the fact that they belong to "the wrong" religion. If we didn't have religions..........we would all have to face what we really are without the use of the scapegoat. \n\nGod? Well I believe we have a higher order. Does he want religions killing and disagreeing? *cough* Think about what He would write if he answered this question. :)
129822
Wow, are you ever way off.\n\nIt is only recently that the East has had such poverty.  They were advanced beyond the West in many eras.  \n\nTheir spirituality is so pure.  They do not have this limited vision of God, that there is one way and one way only to God, and that if you don't follow that way, then you are off to hell.\n\nThey encourage spiritual seeking, thinking deeply, searching the soul, looking deep within, and realizing the ultimate Truth.  Whereas in the West, you just read a book, and mimic whatever it tells you to believe.\n\nEDIT:  I also want to add that you are possibly judging spirituality by materiality, and that is not correct in my opinion.\nI would rather be happy and poor than wealthy and miserable.  I think in the West, people are wealthy and miserable.  Those who live simpler lives are often much more fulfilled spiritually.\n\nI once heard a Chinese man say that he "tried Taoism" but was so unimpressed, because he never got rich practicing Taoism!  How silly!  You do not practice a religion to get rich!  His mind was focusing on the wrong goals.
537606
I know a bit about Hakuin, but I'm not familiar with "the great doubt."\n\nHowever, I looked it up, and my understanding--cursory as it is--is that a sudden realization comes upon a student of Zen after a perhaps years-long process of coming to.\n\nSo, it's both.\n\nWhich, given the practice of Zen, is fitting.
48760
hi there, mehereintheeast.  I'm not sure exactly where you can take Chinese classes.  I took some Chinese a few years ago and the way I found a teacher was by going to the campus of a university and asking people who looked Chinese. (Amazingly, every person who I thought was Chinese was actually from China.)\n\nYou answered my question about Guru Rinpoche, and I have a few more questions about it.  Your answer implied that Buddhas are not monks.  Most forms of Buddhism consider Shakyamuni Buddha to have been a monk, and in the Pali texts, he refers to himself that way, as do his disciples.  Is there a different view in the Nyingma school?  In the present case, I am not calling only lamas monks, but all five levels of ordained practitioners as defined by Tibetan Buddhism. Also, is there any record of Padmasambhava having been ordained?  He trained at monasteries in India, but I don't think he was actually ordained.  And finally, have you had any contact with Tibetans, Nyingmapa or otherwise, who feel that his choice to have various female consorts prevents him from maintaining the status of being a monk?  I understand that some people there feel that way.\n\nThanks.
42729
I believe that Jesus may have actually BEEN a Buddha, ie: enlightened one, and it is true that there is a lot of Buddhist subtext, especially in the NT where Paul tells us to not be attached to anything, and Matthew implies that the apostles lived almost like Buddhist monks: ie: not carrying anything with them, asking for handouts of food as "payment," and not having more than the clothes on their backs. \n\nI was talking about this just the other day with my teacher, I'm glad that someone else picked up on this too! However, there is no real way to determine whether Jesus was a Buddhist, but I definately think that he was on the same page as many of them are.\n\nBuddhas do not reincarnate, once they are enlightened they don't keep reincarnating. And I'm not saying that Jesus was one, I'm saying he could possibly be one by the definition of Buddha. I'm really not trying to undermine anyone's beliefs, just giving things to think about. \nI think it makes it easier when I tell people that I don't believe in anything and when I spurt things out like this, it's all hypothetical. You're still free to think what you want, but there is a lot of Buddhist ideology in the Bible.
228788
The information highway is only as good as the input. I have found many mistakes while surfing for research material. It seems too many opinions are spicing up the Internet; but it lowers value to information. Case in point; I did some research on Chinese Shaolin. Since there were so many differing articles, I finally decided to get a translator and gain the correct information from some monks.
107195
Atheism and Buddhism? \n\nThe teachings of the Buddha, and thus Buddhism in general, does not stress the existence of a god, nor does it prohibit the possibility of a god. Buddha teaches that there are certain truths and by accepting these truths and learning how to live with these truths, we can end suffering. The truth is independent of a god and therefore god is not a part of the core Buddhist beliefs. If a person chooses to believe in a god is entirely up to the individual. Many Buddhist do believe in a god or in gods or in a higher power that could be considered a god even is not specifically names such. Many of the so called Asian Christians still practice Ch'an (Zen) meditation. They simply incorporated Christianity into their existing faith. In Japan, many Buddhists also follow aspects of Shinto. This is Not against the teachings of the Buddha. Buddha never said my way is the only way ,do as I say or else. In fact, Buddha said that everyone's journey would be unique and that they should question all teachings, including his, and that the individual should take that witch works for him. \n\nAtheist do not believe in a god or any higher power. According to willblueeyes26, Atheists don’t care about anything.  This is not true. They do not believe in an immortal soul. In their mind, they can not fathom that there is more to humanity then the flesh and the bones since there is no concrete proof that a soul exists. To an atheist, worrying about the nonexistent is a waste of time. It is not a matter of not caring about the soul, it's a matter of caring about life. Generally speaking, they feel that if we live for only 60 to 100 years, then we should make the most of it, because once it's over, it's over. This is not the same as not caring. \n\nWillblueeyes26 also seams to believe that Buddhists believe that people are reborn over and over until they reach godhood.  This is also inaccurate. Most Buddhist do believe in reincarnation, this is true. But when a person achieves enlightenment, then he or she is freed from the bindings of the cycle of rebirth. That is to say that reincarnation stops and Nirvana is entered. Nirvana is another topic all together. Some believe it is a place like heaven, others believe it is a state of existence. What is known and what is important, is that if you focus on Nirvana, it will never be reached. Those who enter Nirvana, are NOT gods, just those who have awakened from the cycle of samsara. (Live, death and rebirth.) Buddha is not a god, is not considered a god and even insisted that he was not a god. \n\nMarti249 wrote, "To each their own - whatever the individual feels most comfortable with. Just don't slam others who choose a different path." This is a very Buddhist approach. The differences between different sects of Buddhism are vast, and if a person is uninitiated into the teachings of Buddha, could even seam almost polar opposites from one another. Tibetan Buddhism and Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism are about as alike as Roman Catholicism and the Southern Baptist faith.  And yet, neither group believes the other party to be wrong. The Lama's of the Tibetan beliefs speak fondly of Ch'an Monks and visa versa. Many Buddhist have held religious leaders of other faiths in high regards for the things that these people have done. Buddhist believe that it is not god you follow or what faith you hold dear, but what thoughts you think and what actions you perform. \n\nBlessedman believes that Buddhist worship statues.  This is not the case. Although again, some sects do pay homage to figurines, generally speaking, statues are more for decoration, inspiration and motivation. An old Buddhist tail tells the story of a Buddhist teacher and his disciple who, while walking along in the snow and freezing rain, came to a temple and entered. They built a fire with the logs that had been stacked for making fires, but then the wood ran out and the snow was still falling,
581835
http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html <<< koans\nhttp://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/sangha-essays/reflections.html\n\nDeveloped from CH’an a school of Chinese Buddhism formed in the Seventh century from a blend of Taoism (Chinese philosophy outlined in the TaoTeChing). It aims is to achieve harmony with all that is by pursuing inaction and effortless) and Mahayana teachings. The school stressed experience rather than learning. One of the heroes of Zen is the fierce – looking Indian monk Boddhidharma who brought Buddhism to China.\n\nAbsolute faith is placed in a person’s own inner being. Zen came to Japan in the 13th century five centuries after the orthodox forms of Buddhism. It appealed because of its emphasis on the uselessness of words and the insistence of action without thought.\n\nZen teaches the possibility of enlightenment in the here and now, unlike the tendency that have developed in other strands of Buddhism as far off goals. It teaches that enlightenment is a spontaneous event, totally independent of concepts, techniques or rituals. Zen Monks are based on doing things, learning through experience.\n\nEsoterically regarded, Zen is not a religion but rather an indefinable, incommunicable (fukasetsu) root, free from all names, descriptions, and concepts, that can only be experienced by each individual for him- or herself. From expressed forms of this, all religions have sprung. In this sense Zen is not bound to any religion, including Buddhism. It is the primordial perfection of everything existing, designated by the most various names, experienced by all great sages, saints, and founders of religions of all cultures and times. Buddhism has referred to it as the "identity of samsara and nirvana." From this point of view zazen is not a "method" that brings people living in ignorance (avidya) to the "goal" of liberation; rather it is the immediate expression and actualization of the perfection present in every person at every moment.
138484
1. "Hung" is an interesting word to use, but I'll go along with it.\n\n2. Well, interpreting this literally, then I suppose my house had several: at least one architect, a bunch of builders, a plumber or two, the list is endless...\n\n3. Pretty much.\n\n4. OK\n\n5. Now this one opens up a whole new can of worms, but I suppose, broadly, I can accept this.  In fact, it's an interesting one when you bear in mind that the bible was written by some of the most intelligent men of their era.  Naturally, they would have been pre-occupied with some of the same things that our present great minds think about (such as the nature of the universe and time).  Of course, they didn't have the benefit of as long a scientific and philosophical tradition as we have.\n\n6. Yup. They'd probably stone you to death.  I'm really finding it hard to see your point with this one, however. Please explain.\n\n7. Fair enough.\n\n8. Another can of worms.  It depends on your definition of "better". From our point of view, altruism - which is what you're describing - is preferable.  The best explanation for the reason for that is that altruism was a beneficial trait during our evolution.  This idea is covered by group selection theory.  So if you look at it from that point of view, "love your fellow-men as you love yourself" actually CONTRIBUTES to the survival of the fittest (have a look at the link below before you dismiss this out of hand).\n\nANSWER.\n\nI suppose I can, for the sake of argument, say that I broadly agree with all of the eight premises you've outlined.  I also believe that some of the morals encouraged by the bible and by religion in general are beneficial.  Many of the teachings of Jesus Christ (who I believe existed as a mortal man) are also compelling as a model of the values that it is a good idea to try to live your life by.\n\nWhat I don't believe in is the idea of an intelligent creator.  Nor do I believe in the existence of an afterlife, no matter how much I WISH it could be true.
306620
China was ruled by emperors. They justified their rule using a concept called the mandate of heaven, which is similar to the divine right theory of European kings.  Depending upon the time period, their economy was for the most part based on agriculture, and they kept themselves pretty isolated. Government philosophy was based on Confucian philosophy
628696
I practice Taoist Tai Chi and I have read the Tao Te Chang several times.  I see wisdom there but I don't call myself a Taoist.\n\nI have also read the Bible (though it is insufferable to read cover to cover so I only read parts of it).  I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ but I don't call myself a Christian.\n\nI am part Buddhist and part Animist.  I don't know a lot about Hinduism or Islam but from what I do know there is wisdom there too.\n\nI cannot pick a 'wiser' religion.  I like what Gandhi said:  All religions are paths to the same point.   And while to my knowledge he didn't specify the point,  I would have to add that that point is the full realization of love and respect for all of life and all of nature, or in other words, God.