| |
Introduction
Though coming from different philosophical roots, many similarities exist between Hinduism and Daoism. In this essay I will be comparing Hinduism and in particular Advaita Vedanta with Daoist philosophy (of no particular school). This essay will be of particular interest to Hindus, Daoists and any students of Eastern philosophy.
A note on Chinese words: I will use standard Pinyin transliteration in this essay, except where I am quoting someone else. 'Tao' and 'Dao' are the same word spelt differently, the latter being the correct Pinyin transliteration and the former being an older but more commonly used version in the West. Oh, and it's pronounced with a 'd', but not an English 'd'. Look up Chinese pronounciation somewhere for more information.
The One: monism in Hinduism and Daoism
Both Vedanta Hinduism and Daoism are monistic. Monism is essentially the belief that all is one, or all is God/God is all. It should not be assumed that this means pantheistic. In pantheism the entire world or universe is worshipped as God, however monism is a philosophical position stating that all things are fundamentally the same; different manifestations of the same entity, principle or truth. It must be made clear that the Hindu and particularly the Vedanta meaning of 'God' is very different from its popular meaning in the West. This is discussed in detail later on.
The earliest Hindu scripture, the Rig Veda, describes "the One" as a being which "breathed without breath". This concept of the One developed throughout the history of Hindu thought finding its most concrete form in the Darshana (orthodox school) of Vedanta. Vedanta teaches that Brahman is the source of creation. Not a creator per se, but Brahman is considered to be the creation itself. While we perceive reality as consisting of many phenomena and events, all of these are manifestations of Brahman, with Brahman being the grounding for reality. Humans fail to see the one behind the many out of ignorance and fall into illusion (maya).
I will elaborate on the idea of illusion with this thought experiment: Is a dream real?
You will probably say 'no', so let's analyse it in greater depth. When you are dreaming you believe it to be real or else you'd either wake up or take control of the dream. Not only that, but the thoughts which make up a dream must be real, or they would not exist. So must your perception of those thoughts, otherwise you wouldn't be having the dream. So one can argue that dreams are in fact real but then this leads to a problem - if dreams are real, what about 'reality'? Perhaps we need to do away with our existing definition of the word reality altogether and propose a relative definition. We could say that dreams are real, but not as real as the material world. In other words, the reality of dreams isn't the same level of 'realness' as material experience. And why stop there? who is to say that the material world is not a lower form of reality with a greater reality above it? this is essentially what Vedanta is proposing. God or Brahman is said to be the truest form of reality and indeed the only true reality, with everything beneath it being derived from it. Just as our dreams are based on our experiences in the real world, so is the material universe a manifestation of the Ultimate Reality which is Brahman. To put that in terms which will be slightly more in-line with current scientific thinking, it could be claimed that material reality is a manifestation of a set of fundamental laws governing its operation. If the most fundamental aspect of existence can be found, then it could be named the Ultimate Reality. Of course, at this point one can validly point out that there's no need to name this the Ultimate Reality, Brahman, God, Dao, or anything at all.
Vedanta separates Brahman into two categories: saguna brahman and nirguna brahman. Saguna brahman means God with qualities attached. The idea is that the limited human mind can only perceive God by attaching properties to it and assigning it a personality. Even claiming that God exists is attaching a property which in turn limits our understanding. Saguna brahman is the word pointing to that which is the true nature of God. I've tried to word that last sentence carefully, and with good reason. Nirguna means 'no qualities'. Vedanta teaches that God's true form cannot be known, described or analysed in any way. At this point you can see that the word 'God' is inappropriate; I only use it as I am writing for a Western reader. None of the following can be said of it: that it exists, that it does not, or that its existence is neither of those. To describe God, even to name it or claim it exists and/or is of a certain personality is to limit it to something which it isn't. You could say that Brahman is the impersonal grounding for reality, which has no real existence apart from the things through which it is manifested. Except it isn't that at all. And it isn't not, either... etc
Suffice it to say that our minds cannot describe that which I am naming 'Brahman', as indeed its very nature is contrary to description. Now the Dao De Jing - the most well known text in Daoism says: "The Tao that can be described is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name" (James Legge translation). Raymond Smullyan elaborates on this in his book The Tao is Silent: "When you name it, it cannot be the un-named Tao which exists when you don't name it. And this unnamed Tao is perhaps more serene, more truly itself than the named Tao".
Names point to things, they often describe things, but they are not those things in themselves. When we hear a name our mind pulls in its own prejudices and assumptions, all based on our knowledge and experience of the thing being named. The thoughts that immediately come to mind when we hear a name do not do the named thing justice, regardless of how detailed our thoughts might be. And indeed, in the case of the Dao, a more detailed description is probably a worse description as it is simply more limiting. The same applies for nirguna brahman, and this is how I am proposing we may link the two: both are 'described' as being indescribable, being beyond names and labels. Both are also described as the source and the underlying nature of existence. From the Dao De Jing again: "(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things" (James Legge translation). I should point out here that Daoism does not teach that the Dao is a creator. To say that the Dao 'created' something implies that it acted, that it has conscious intention, etc, when in fact it is more accurate to say that the Dao is action and intention. Perhaps we can say the Dao is manifest in process of creation as well as all processes in the universe.
The way and Dharma
The meanings of 'Dao' are numerous and in the context of Daoist philosophy it can be difficult to translate. The Oxford Chinese Dictionary lists some of its meanings as road, way, path, and method. Of those "the Way" is probably the most common translation. According to Thomas Cleary in his notes in The Essential Tao: "In its most emcompassing senses, the Way means the way things are, the source of this natural order, and methods of harmonizing with the vital spirit of the Way". It is interesting that the Pali word Dhamma (Sanskrit Dharma) was translated to Dao by the Chinese upon their initial encounter with Buddhism
Dharma has a few different meanings too. In general it may be translated as 'the way things are', 'the state/order of nature', and 'the universal/divine law'. For Hindus it has the additional meaning of 'duty'. Clearly the most general translations reflect the meaning of Dao. The idea of there being a guiding principle in nature, or a natural order to the universe is also paralleled by the Greek 'dyke' meaning law, duty or justice and the Ancienct Egyption ma'at, meaning simillar things and sometimes represented as a deity. In India this concept of Dharma grew out of an earlier concept known as 'Rta'. The word rta is related to the Avestan word 'asha' - truth. In the Vedas Rta is described as the law of the universe. The idea was further developed in the concept of Dharma, the way of nature or the universe, the way things must be, and hence the way humans must conduct themselves (duty).
This idea of duty is however problematic for Daoism. While Confucianism was filled with teachings about one's duty to their parents and to the state, Daoism was teaching that one should simply live by the Way, that more rules caused more problems rather than solving any. Raymond Smullyan discusses the ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, and sin in The Tao Is Silent. Being a Daoist he naturally rejects the notion of sin outright, as well as the idea that there is good and evil. The funny thing is - I agree with him!
Morality
Hinduism is not a religion of laws and rules. There are no commandments. The Bhagavad Gita lays out many of the moral beliefs in Hinduism, but doesn't ever say "thou shalt not". Rather, it provides a way for people to follow. It warns that living an adharmic life - which means doing the opposite of its suggestions by causing harm to others - will merely distance one from their own nature, and leave them worse off karma-wise. To sum it up, I could say: "you're free [as in free will] to harm others but doing so only harms yourself in the end".
To reconcile what appear to be conflicting ideas of right and wrong, I will suggest another understanding of Dharma: it is not so much a prescription of how we should lead our lives but an acknowledgement as to how we must necessarily lead our lives. We as beings cannot possibly act outside our own nature. Both our nature as humans (or the nature of whatever form we happen to take) and the nature of the universe itself limit our conduct. We have free will, but that free will can itself do nothing but obey the natural law or order of the universe.
We have no choice but to be what we are. Trying to be anything else would in the end fail. As far as Daoism is concerned we do not choose the conditions of our birth. In Hinduism, our karma contributes to our conditions at birth. If Dharma is to be translated as duty it must be understood that this is not evidence of a strongly moralistic belief system. The ultimate goal of Hinduism is enlightenment, which essentially means to be fully acquainted with one's own nature. An enlightened being follows their nature, not an external set of moral rules. Likewise Daoism suggests that one who follows their nature (which is Dao) will do 'good' without the need for external rules. Indeed the proper meaning of 'adharmic' would be 'to go against nature'.
Yin and Yang
In Daoism what appear as two opposites are in reality one, arising from one source and each holding within it something of the other - this is the concept of Yin and Yang summed up in one sentence. When I first came across the principle of Rta I thought I had finally found a direct Hindu equivalent to Dao, and in many senses it is. In Hinduism Rta is that which guides nature. It underlies each process and phenomenon in the universe, constantly balancing out opposing forces in order to maintain the universal order. I wouldn't say 'it exists' but neither would I say that of the Dao. Rather, I would say that they are names to which we give the order in the universe.
It is unfortunate that to the Westerner, Hinduism can appear a nonsensical set of conflicting and primative beliefs revolving around a pantheon of gods analogous to the Greek or Roman gods. It takes some patience to look beneath the surface and realise that Hinduism consists of a rich philosophy which is often expressed through metaphors. We may find among these metaphors and idea perhaps resembling those of Chinese Yin and Yang.
In the theological sect of Shaivism (worship of Shiva) the universe is described as resulting from an eternal union between Shiva, the god of destruction, and his wife, Parvati. The 'myth' goes that Shiva manifests himself as the universe through union with Parvati, who represents Shakti - meaning power. Shiva is the unmanifest while Shakti is manifest (or the manifesting). These opposites appear to arise simultaneously, as each relies on the other for its existence. I'm not suggesting we take it literally, which is why I use the word myth. But as a metaphor it does sit nicely with this from the Dao De Jing: "Being and nonbeing produce each other"
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rta
The Tao Is Silent: Raymond Smullyan
The Bhagavad Gita: Juan Mascaro translation
The Upanishads: Juan Mascaro translation
The Essential Tao: Thomas Cleary (includes Dao De Jing and Juang Zi translations)
Matt Squire
|
Contents
Comparing Hinduism and Daoism