This question has made my mind busy for a while. Looking at the practical aspects of Taoism, one cannot help but discern a certain affirmation of life and energy. Whereas Buddhism, despite all the affirmative talk about love and humans seems to harbor a different view as an end state of things. Even philosophical Taoism with all its emphasis on action celebrates “this side.”
Let’s start by defining what passive means in this context? In my understanding a religion, salvation promise, philosophical school or an ideology is passive as long as the core premises pushes its adherents to pacifism towards life. This might be pacifism as in not condoning violence but also pacifism against oppression and more importantly against feelings.
Buddhism, like other major religions, is hard to define. There are many major sects and even more minor paths. Despite what some people claim it is hard to believe that Theravada and Mahayana are two sides of he same coin. Also, although Tibetan Buddhism passes as Mahayana because of its emphasis on salvaging the masses, I have a problem putting it in the same sect with Zen Buddhism. What does the strict ascetic inclinations of Rinzai, or selfless submission and retreat of Soto have to do with the almost Tantric practices of Tibetan Buddhism? Yet, they all have one simple goal, namely emptiness and quietude as final state of being(s).
Taoism, on he other hand, has a different approach to this emptiness/inactivity/quietude:
What can stop the murkiness?
Quieting down, gradually it clarifies.
What can keep still for long?
Moving, gradually it stirs into life.
(Tao Te Ching, 15, Ellen M. Chen translation)
Here we see the eternal rotation between action and inaction, murkiness and clarity, chtonic and heavenly. Yet, Tao is such that the inactivity and tranquility is in itself not murky or clear but has degrees of both gradually moving towards movement and action and finally life again in a never ending cycle. his notion is way more positive and affirmative of life and being than emptiness in Buddhism. It is not that emptiness has no value or has a negative value. The negativity arouses from Buddhist notion of reaching a final point which is not developing into action again. Taoism, like Stoicism, puts more value to inaction and quietude but it is almost always seen as a jumping ground for new life and action.
The transformation in itself is also no good or bad. It’s the nature of things and the nature of no-thing not to be in a permanent state. This much it shares with Buddhism. But in a radical twist of events Taoist cosmology and ontology has an absolute never ending story in comparison to Indra’s Net in Buddhism which is supposed to come to an end finally.
By emulating that end in individual practice, the Buddhist develops love and respect for fellow humans but also retire from their affairs permanently (at least in theory). Tao, on the other hand is a way that encompasses the secular and religious, the public and private, the individual and the governmental in such a way that everything can be a multitude of things and just the absolute chaos in this cycle, gradually developing and dissolving into the next phase.
This notion of a never ending cycle and the interplay between the body and the mind (for lack of a better word) has implications of a possibility for immortality. To reach that one has to accept every facet and live accordingly. A lot of hexagrams from the I-Ching point at the same practical attitude accompanied by a deep understanding of those cycles. We’ll look at how this practical idea is reflected in another article.