Daoism vs Zoroastrianism

I agree with Dino on the differences between Daoism and Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is pro-active in a sense that Daoism is not. And Zoroastrianism is not against any drives and desires other than it advocates the LONG-TERM drives and desires when these collide with short-term impulses.
Therefore Zarathushtra's focus on thinking BEFORE speaking BEFORE acting.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Special Kain
Another difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is that in Daoism people want to become immortal and live forever. There were several meditation practices and chemical experiments that were devoted to this ideal. For example, there is one Daoist school that would have its followers create an "astral foetus" within their physical bodies in order to survive one's physical death.

Von: Special Kain

An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 12:47 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Dear Daniel

You are right. Daoism and Zoroastrianism put their focus on the physical world around us and encourage us to live in accordance with the flows and complexities of life. But Zoroastrian philosophy is also concerned with civilizations and therefore more proactivist in nature than Daoism. For example, I act as a Zoroastrian and I rest as a Daoist.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 12:39 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Dear Dino,

Indeed I agree here. I don't know what "Daudejing" intention is when they talk about natural flows. I do like activism more, I just want to have a clear understanding of the difference. Both seem to focus on roughly the same thing to my mind.

Ushta
Daniel

20 aug 2011 kl. 11:47 skrev Special Kain :
Dear Daniel

There is no talk about our drives and desires in the "Daudejing". It is rather a practical guide concerning lifestyles that are in conformity with nature. As such, it states that we should not freeze and stiffen, but rather go with the flow of nature, because this flow overcomes all obstacles in time. So Daoist philosophy is more about surrendering to natural flows, rather than proactively change the way streams flow.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 9:07 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Are you saying that Zoroastrianism is more clear when defining long term desires as the better choice. While Daoism use wage words as balance? To be against short term desires is to be against some sort of desire is it not? You just stated that Daoism wasn't negative towards restraint, so not pro-restraint then? How is Daoism and Zoroastrianism different in regard to productivity of drives and desires?

Ushta
Daniel

19 aug 2011 kl. 23:51 skrev Alexander Bard :
I agree fully with Dino and this is also most often mentioned as the reason for people choosing Zoroastrianism over Daoism. Daoism does not have the NEGATIVITY towards drives and desires that is so common in Buddhist philosophy. But neither does Daoism harbor the concept of PRODUCTIVITY of drives and desires inherent to Zoroastrianism. So while Daoism fosters an attitude of CONTROL and BALANCING, within Zarathushra's philosophy the act of balancing is never directed AGAINST DRIVE or DESIRE but rather Zarathushtra discusses the opposites of long-term drives and desires as SUPERIOR to short-term drives and desires. But in Zarathushtra's world drives and desire are good and productive in themselves. No wonder Zarathushtra was opposed to the cultures of monks, nuns, and hermits common to CULTURES OF RESTRAINT. Zarathushtra was opposed t restraint, but he was all for CLEVERNESS. I believe this is what Dino is at too when he points out the small but still existant difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism, its possibly closest relative in philosophy, and also a dominant influence on Zen, just like Zoroastrianism.
Ushta
Alexander