1 reply to this topic

[arabboy25]

Hey I have to write a 500 word page on either of the following passages, textual analysis of course, I cannot apply my opinion can anyone help me?
Passage 1:

You cannot say that the teachings of the Buddhists are ignorant, for actually they are quite profound. But essentially speaking, they can finally be reduced to a pattern of selfishness. Why do we say this? In the world there cannot be birth without death or joy without sorrow. But wherever the Buddhists go, they always want to pervert this truth and preach the elimination of birth and death and the neutralization of joy and sorrow. In the final analysis this is nothing but self-interest. The teachings of the Taoists even carry with them an element of treachery, as evidenced in their sayings that the purpose of giving is to take away and the purpose of opening is to close. Furthermore, their general intention is to fool the people and to be wise themselves. When [the First Emperor] of Ch'in fooled his people, his tricks probably were derived from the Taoists.
The Buddhists advocate the renunciation of the family and the world. Fundamentally the family cannot be renounced. Let us say that it can, however, when the Buddhists refuse to recognize their parents as parents and run away. But how can a person escape from the world? Only when a person no longer stands under heaven or upon the earth is he able to forsake the world. But while he continues to drink when thirsty and eat when hungry, he still stands under heaven and sets his feet on earth.

Passage 2:

Someone said: If it were certain that one could become an immortal, the sages would have trained themselves to be such. But neither Duke Chou nor Confucius did so. It is clear that there is no such possibility.
Pao-p'u Tzu answered: A sage need not be an immortal and an immortal need not be a sage. The sage receives a mandate [from Heaven], not to attend to the way of everlasting life, but to remove tyrants and eliminate robbers, to turn danger into security and violence into peace, to institute ceremonies and create musical systems, to propagate laws and give education, to correct improper manners and reform degenerate customs, to assist rulers who are in danger of downfall and to support those states that are about to collapse. . . . What the ordinary people call sages are all sages who regulate the world but not sages who attain Tao. The Yellow Emperor and Lao Tzu were sages who attained Tao, while Duke Chou and Confucius were sages who regulated the world.
Someone asked: Which is first and which is last, Confucianism or Taoism?
Pao-p'u Tzu answered: Taoism is the essence of Confucianism and Confucianism is an appendage to Taoism. First of all, there was the "teaching of the yin-yang school which had many taboos that made people constrained and afraid." "The Confucianists had extensive learning but little that was essential; they worked hard but achieved little." "Mohism emphasized thrift but was difficult to follow," and could not be practiced exclusively. "The Legalists were severe and showed little kindness"; they destroyed humanity and righteousness. "The teachings of the Taoist school alone enable men's spirits to be
concentrated and united and their action to be in harmony with the formless.... Taoism embraces the good points of both Confucianism and Mohism and combines the essentials of the Legalists and Logicians. It changes with the times and responds to the transformations of things.... Its precepts are simple and easy to understand; its works are few but its achievements many." It is devoted to the simplicity that preserves the Great Heritage and adheres to the true and correct source.

[General_Zhaoyun]

My comments are as follow:

You cannot say that the teachings of the Buddhists are ignorant, for actually they are quite profound. But essentially speaking, they can finally be reduced to a pattern of selfishness. Why do we say this? In the world there cannot be birth without death or joy without sorrow. But wherever the Buddhists go, they always want to pervert this truth and preach the elimination of birth and death and the neutralization of joy and sorrow. In the final analysis this is nothing but self-interest.

Buddhism's doctrine taught that one should practise "selflessness" (the opposite of 'selfishness"). So the above saying that "reduce to a pattern of selfishness" has no basis at all and clearly ignores buddhist teaching. According to buddhist teaching, the life is a cycle of rebirth and is a suffering. Life is a suffering because one might not necessarily be reborn as a human. Even as a human, one might undergo suffering such as birth, ageing, sickness, death. One might even be reborn in the lower realm such as animals, hungry ghosts or hell, which is further suffering. One's karma causes one to be subjected to rebirth. Buddhism merely teaches a person how to "supercede" birth and death by ending rebirth through enlightenment, which is the true cessation of suffering. Ending of suffering is true happiness.

There is no 'self-interest'. It's self-liberation. In Mahayana buddhism, one practises helping the mass achieve enlightenment.

The teachings of the Taoists even carry with them an element of treachery, as evidenced in their sayings that the purpose of giving is to take away and the purpose of opening is to close. Furthermore, their general intention is to fool the people and to be wise themselves. When [the First Emperor] of Ch'in fooled his people, his tricks probably were derived from the Taoists.

There is no basis for such saying. The above statements are clearly wrong. The first Emperor does not practise Taoism, apart from the belief from some Taoist priest who wanted to convince him about immortality. Taoists practises harmony with the nature. In fact, it's against taking things for granted and against "changing nature". The "Tao" (i.e. the Way) is the doctrine guiding Taoist.

The Buddhists advocate the renunciation of the family and the world. Fundamentally the family cannot be renounced. Let us say that it can, however, when the Buddhists refuse to recognize their parents as parents and run away. But how can a person escape from the world? Only when a person no longer stands under heaven or upon the earth is he able to forsake the world. But while he continues to drink when thirsty and eat when hungry, he still stands under heaven and sets his feet on earth.

The Sangha community basically practise renunciation from the family and the world, because they want to have an ascetic environment where they can practise buddhism without the influence from the family and mundane world. However, for lay buddhist, they do not advocate the renunciation of the family and the world. Sure. Buddhist teaching taught about "departing from the world" in order to achieve enlightenment, but if you read the history of buddhism, many of the buddhist practice for laymans are very relevant in the human world and society. It does not teach one to run away from parents. In fact, in Chinese buddhism, there is a filial piety sutra (佛說父母恩重難報經） that teaches one to be filial to a parent. In the 4 kindness (四恩） practised by Chinese buddhism, a buddhist is taught to repay the kindness to parent (父母恩）, country (國家恩）, all sentient beings (衆生恩） and triple gem (三寳）.

Someone said: If it were certain that one could become an immortal, the sages would have trained themselves to be such. But neither Duke Chou nor Confucius did so. It is clear that there is no such possibility.

Only Taoist practises and aims to become immortal. Confucius's teaching (Confucianism) is essentially non-religious. Not all Chinese historical figures practise religions, apart from traditional practise such as heavenly worship or ancestor worship.

Pao-p'u Tzu answered: A sage need not be an immortal and an immortal need not be a sage. The sage receives a mandate [from Heaven], not to attend to the way of everlasting life, but to remove tyrants and eliminate robbers, to turn danger into security and violence into peace, to institute ceremonies and create musical systems, to propagate laws and give education, to correct improper manners and reform degenerate customs, to assist rulers who are in danger of downfall and to support those states that are about to collapse. . . . What the ordinary people call sages are all sages who regulate the world but not sages who attain Tao. The Yellow Emperor and Lao Tzu were sages who attained Tao, while Duke Chou and Confucius were sages who regulated the world.
Someone asked: Which is first and which is last, Confucianism or Taoism?
Pao-p'u Tzu answered: Taoism is the essence of Confucianism and Confucianism is an appendage to Taoism. First of all, there was the "teaching of the yin-yang school which had many taboos that made people constrained and afraid." "The Confucianists had extensive learning but little that was essential; they worked hard but achieved little." "Mohism emphasized thrift but was difficult to follow," and could not be practiced exclusively. "The Legalists were severe and showed little kindness"; they destroyed humanity and righteousness. "The teachings of the Taoist school alone enable men's spirits to be
concentrated and united and their action to be in harmony with the formless.... Taoism embraces the good points of both Confucianism and Mohism and combines the essentials of the Legalists and Logicians. It changes with the times and responds to the transformations of things.... Its precepts are simple and easy to understand; its works are few but its achievements many." It is devoted to the simplicity that preserves the Great Heritage and adheres to the true and correct source.

This is the essential teaching of Baopuzi 抱朴子 which is focused on Daoism.