When I empty out intentions and relax in meditation, what is this force that moves my body in complex patterns? For example, when I let go for a bit I start walking and making circles and doing movements with my hands (mudras), and even martial arts type of moves with intricacy and intelligence. There is a force making me doing it and I feel my body following energies like a magnet. So the questions are: 1) why does it happen? 2) what am I suppose to do with it? 3) is this like wu wei of taoism or Tibetan Buddhist Shamans channeling spirits?

Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as > "the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore, > the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the > stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated > (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the > auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the > amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted, > dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, > the asylum, the refuge, the destination." Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying > "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water, > nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the > base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, > nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this > world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say > there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and > no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. > Just this is the end of suffering." The Tao Te Ching chapter 1 says > "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be > named is not the eternal Name." while chapter 7 says, > "The Tao is > infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can > never die." And chapter 14 says, > "Look, and it can't be seen. Listen, > and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't > bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the > realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an > image, subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no > beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you > can be it ..." The Bhagavad Gita states in chapter 2, > "The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.", "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging." And in 12.3, > "... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent. From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent. My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction? Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.

I am interested in Buddhism and the book Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu in c. 600 BC. Is there common ground between these two Eastern philosophies? link to audio of *Tao Te Ching*

In this Partially Examined Life podcast the presenters stated that when Buddhism moved into Chinese it naturally was influenced by the pre-existing Taoist philosophy which is uncontroversial. However they then when on to make this stronger claim that > it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the > development of Mahayana. That is quite a claim and obviously the real position is more complex. However is there any truth in that statement? Was Taoism instrumental in the development of Mahayana Buddhism?

The question says it all. I'm not much familiar with either. I've read the book of Tao a few times and have read a few Buddhist scriptures. To me they seem so different and so alike at the same time, but I barely have any surface knowledge to draw any conclusions.

What are some of the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism? Can one achieve the Tao through Buddhism and vice versa, can one achieve nirvana through Taoism?

On this site there's a topic https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2655/tao-te-ching-and-buddhism where one of the answers says: > A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite. And in an answer to the topic [Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11302/13525) : > Buddhism seeks to transcend suffering while Taoism seeks unity with nature So they don't necessary mutually exclusive each other, and of course one can combine it in zen. But **how** do practitioners do that exactly? How do they seek detachment and attachment at the same time?
FYI: [Detachment (philosophy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy))

I've seen the pendulum is widely used as an illustration for finding a neutral, balance point between the extremes. Its movement is also periodic which shares the same characteristic with samsara. It seems that the allusions are mostly used in Taoism text, but one can see it in [this site](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=pendulum) too. I think that it may be hard to find (if not possible) in the sutra, as pendulum is more well known in the West. But I've seen it and the swing used in poems influenced by Zen in my language (Vietnamese) to describe mood changing. So is there a viewpoint of Buddhism over the pendulum? Any references, even personal opinion is fine, but it should depict the philosophy of Buddhism within in.

I had the most profound experience after what felt like a near death experience. I believe I was having a heart attack, and after focusing on my body for 20-30 minutes I ceased being aware of signs of a heart attack for a moment after my body felt slightly better and less like I was dying. At this point what felt like a veil covering my perception was lifted, I had the most profound feeling. I can try to conceptualise what the feeling was like in words but it won't do it justice because that is not how it came to me. But suffice to say it was similar to many instances of 'enlightenment, satori, entering the kingdom of heaven, satchitananda etc etc etc. Some of the attributes/things I experienced for the next 3 weeks were: non-duality, no judgement towards others or myself (no categorising things as good or bad), Falling in love with the present moment, falling in love with every person I met, Feeling the world was perfect, being able to face any fear, being indifferent(apathetic) to new stimuli (however I could turn it on, I was able to get happy about things if I wanted to, but bad news did not affect me). I was no longer looking for a future moment to fulfil me. I felt as if before this experience I was playing a character of myself, I still felt the same after it, however, much more connected to my self. This state lasted for 3 weeks and did not lose any of these attributes the entire time, except for the 'non-judging of things' I noticed slightly lessened towards the end (I noticed a few times me judging but could catch myself and stop it). At the end of the 3 weeks, I drank at a party, Since that time I have not felt these effects. Paradoxically I want nothing else but to get back to that perceptive state, however, it felt almost as if there was nothing to 'get back to' when I was in it, more so like I was always there but just blind to what was there. Some of the words that seemed to ring true after the event were 'nothing is hidden from me, enlightenment is the only constant, the present moment is the only constant, consciousness is all there is, you are everything, the world is perfect, the present moment is perfect'. A part of me thinks that because it felt that by letting go of trying to control my awareness this view opened up to me, so I'm scared that now that I've lost it I will not get it back. It has totally possessed me for the last 3 weeks (6 weeks ago the experience happened) I really would do anything to get back there. Does anybody have any advice on how I could regain and sustain that perception if any glimpses of it re-emerge? Additional questions: I have adhd and have been prescribed ritalin ( i have not taken yet) will this affect me getting back there. This awakening happened during the night after drinking large amounts of alcohol, however losing it was from drinking alcohol.. I am oscillating between drinking a lot to try and get back there and never drinking again. (please note, my symptoms of ADHD go away the morning after drinking and im worried that I could only focus enough to view reality(awakening) because of that). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Ramana Marhashi's experience appears to be similiar to mine except for him expressing that he died but his physical body did not. Wherein my awakening appeared to me not from 'dying' but from the relief of not dying and giving up trying to control my intention/desire/awareness. Part of me is interested in Dzogchen for the phrase 'the self perfected state' as it felt during this period like it was nothing being 'added' to my experience that I was always enlightened but could not see it. There's soooo many books on these topics, its hard for me to grasp. And I fear that I will spend the rest of my life trying to get back to a point i'll never re experience (like so many other people who have chased enlightenment).

According to the book [The Tao of Zen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Zen) , Zen/Chan is esentially a form of Taoism. This makes sense to me, as it's hard to understand what is the common ground between the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the other Mahayana traditions. However, this is not a predominant opinion about the origins of Zen. I understand that it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in *The Tao of Zen*?

This answer refers to a Tao Buddhist. I've never heard of this term. Is a a definite religious movement or is it just a colloquial term that refers to someone who holds both view simultaneously? In either case, is there any conflict when subscribing to both philosophies at the same time?

Taoism and Buddhism say we should distance our self from suffering and accept life as is if we cannot change it. But what if we have serious clinical depression or cannot provide properly for those we care about? It is easy to distance when your self is the only factor but not when others depend on us. If we cannot make the lives of those we care about good then is the next step to teach them Buddhist or Tao values of accepting life as is?

Or must we just count our breaths and repeat the phrase? I was asked I think "what is your original face" - and I think it's the way / tao, but that's just something that occurred to me, I wrote down on a computer and it seemed alright. It's not that I want to be a part of some tradition or church, really. But all I got out of counting breaths was a lot of leg pain, somewhat (but not completely) offset with some nice feelings and lots of stuff like this /<<<^^^^^

The predominant opinion of people with a lot of experience with practising Buddhism seems to be that there are [irreconcilable gaps between Buddhism and Christianity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Buddhism_and_Christianity) and that it makes no sense to be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time. On the other hand, they don't seem to have a problem with mixing Buddhism with Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion. Are there objective differences between these all these religions on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism? EDIT: It seems that many answerers didn't understand my question. Let me say it again. I'm **not** asking: "Is it possible to reconcile Buddhism with Christianity?". This is what I **am** asking: Are there objective differences between Hinduism, Bön, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese folk religion on the one hand and Christianity on the other that make Christianity much more irreconcilable with Buddhism?