Tao Te Ching

[Joy]

So you're actually embracing some of the Ne/Si aspects of Taoism, despite your true character?

We all value all information elements to varying degrees, and even more importantly, all information elements are of equal value from an objective standpoint.

Also, the same situation/object/concept can be viewed from different perspectives. These different perspectives are information aspects.

[FDG]

Stoicism is anti-nature. In fact, rationality is anti-nature.

Nothing which is real is anti-nature. Otherwise, it wouldn't be real.

[Ezra]

Nothing which is real is anti-nature. Otherwise, it wouldn't be real.

Well, that's an obviously impossible statement to argue against, provided your premise is true. However, I don't think it is, and even if it was, the terms you're talking about when you speak of "nature" I highly doubt are the same as mine. What I mean by nature are those that go against what human beings are naturally inclined to do. In fact, stoicism practically prides itself on its being contrary to human nature.

[Joy]

When I think of a person being "stoic" I tend to think of SLI's? I think if I were going to contrast Stoicism and Taoism, I would say that Stoicism (based on what little I know of it) is more SLI and Taoism more SEI.

I just don't see Te anywhere in Taoism. All that really stands out to me is strong Ne/Si valuing.

[Ezra]

When I think of a person being "stoic" I tend to think of SLI's? I think if I were going to contrast Stoicism and Taoism, I would say that Stoicism (based on what little I know of it) is more SLI and Taoism more SEI.

I just don't see Te anywhere in Taoism. All that really stands out to me is strong Ne/Si valuing.

Have you read the Tao Te Ching? About how to effectively control rulers? I'd say that was pretty damn Te.

I'm not sure stoicism is limited to SLI. Read about it on Wikipedia, and not only will you come out probably knowing more about it than me, but you'll come out with an understand of what it really involves. I read a chapter in Alain De Botton's Consolations of Philosophy (fantastic book by the way; I highly recommend it) about stoicism, and it's something I could see many different types gladly embracing.

[Logos]

Stoicism is anti-nature. In fact, rationality is anti-nature.

That is not the case at all, and any actual familiarity with the teachings of Stoicism would quickly reveal this to be the case.

When I think of a person being "stoic" I tend to think of SLI's? I think if I were going to contrast Stoicism and Taoism, I would say that Stoicism (based on what little I know of it) is more SLI and Taoism more SEI.

Stoicism is closer to an IJ temperament.

[Logos]

Have you read the Tao Te Ching? About how to effectively control rulers? I'd say that was pretty damn Te.

That is not Te.

[Joy]

Have you read the Tao Te Ching? About how to effectively control rulers? I'd say that was pretty damn Te.

nah

I'm not sure stoicism is limited to SLI. Read about it on Wikipedia, and not only will you come out probably knowing more about it than me, but you'll come out with an understand of what it really involves. I read a chapter in Alain De Botton's Consolations of Philosophy (fantastic book by the way; I highly recommend it) about stoicism, and it's something I could see many different types gladly embracing.

Maybe I'll check it out.

Stoicism is closer to an IJ temperament.

Interesting... it has just occurred to me that all IJ types have either weak or unvalued Fe. Anyways, I see "stoic" in the common use of the word as a combination of social introversion and a lack of Fe.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[ashlesha]

bump

[ashlesha]

okay, discussion

introverted irrational + dialectical algorithmic = ili or sei

I only just started reading it. I had it saved in my bookmarks for awhile forgotten about. yesterday I was stressed out over shit in my life and happened to click on it and I swear my blood pressure dropped after five minutes. I don't remember text ever having such an immediate effect on my mood.

I just want people to talk about it please.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/co.../taote-v3.html

[Absurd]

The Tao Te Ching holds a patent on spiritual truth? Those spiritual truths didn't exist before it was written? They wouldn't have existed had it not been written?

It doesn't.

You can try to formulate a truth by making a simple statement such as: "Apples taste good."

Problem is, you may and will be confronted with: "Apples taste bad."

Your truth was not an absolute truth. Any idea that has an antithesis cannot be an absolute truth.


Tao Teh Ching says that hard and easy complement each other, long and short form each other, high and low rest upon each other and first and last follow each other.

[Aquagraph]

For now I must remain speechless in awe.
I'm totally not sober either.

This is also the first time I'd wanna say NTR.

Lastly, this almost provoked a tear. Thank you for this thread and timing.

[NewBorn STAR]

I read this thread without reading

[mu4]

Tao Te Ching translations are inevitably influenced by the translator. I think S. Mitchell's version is a Zen/Chan influenced version and I believe Zen to be valuing.

Many translations are written by people with a foundation in Chinese language and philosophy who are trying to render the original meaning of the text as faithfully as possible into English. Some of the more popular translations are written from a less scholarly perspective, giving an individual author's interpretation. Critics of these versions, such as Taoism scholar Eugene Eoyang, claim that translators like Stephen Mitchell produce readings of the Tao Te Ching that deviate from the text and are incompatible with the history of Chinese thought.[10] Russell Kirkland goes further to argue that these versions are based on Western Orientalist fantasies, and represent the colonial appropriation of Chinese culture.[11][12] In contrast, Huston Smith, scholar of world religions, said of the Mitchell version, "This translation comes as close to being definitive for our time as any I can imagine. It embodies the virtues its translator credits to the Chinese original: a gemlike lucidity that is radiant with humor, grace, largeheartedness, and deep wisdom." —Other Taoism scholars, such as Michael LaFargue[13] and Jonathan Herman,[14] argue that while they are poor scholarship they meet a real spiritual need in the West. The most recent translation is by Bill Porter (Red Pine) (Copper Canyon Press, 2009) and distinguishes itself in its extensive commentary by scores of poets, monks, and Chinese scholars.[15] There are a handful of sites on the web that compare chapters translated by various authors such as TaoTeChingMe.com[16] and Wayist.org.[17]

Lin Yu Tang has made the best version I've read.
http://www.terebess.hu/english/tao/yutang.html

The tao de jing in many ways embodies a contradiction and what it tells you is really only half the equation. It is poetry from a unreliable narrator who from the beginning tells you that the text is unreliable.


道 可 道 ， 非 常 道 。
“Dào ke dào, fei cháng dào”

名 可 名 ， 非 常 名 。
“Míng ke míng, fei cháng míng”

非 in this context means deviation, and 常 in this context would be common/normal/actual but it's invariably translated as eternal/absolute/etc.

So the 2nd part of the first two lines means, deviate from actual dao or ming(name).

The first part of the text is basically says, 可 道(can be taught), 可 名(can be named).

Dao that can be taught, deviates from actual dao
Name that can be named, deviates from actual name

People inescapably impose their own perspective on these two passages and that's just the begining.
The weird thing is people say the Tao Te Ching is difficult or it's hard to understand, when it's actually a very simple and short text.
People fight over what is the original meaning/authentic meaning of the text when the text basically flat out says, the correct meaning is beyond the text and that any original and authentic meaning(and any such conclusions drawn about them) in the text is rather pointless vs gaining a knowledge of the Tao.

I think the Tao needs to learned from the modern exponents rather than the old text, although it's worth making your own inquiries by looking at some translations.

[Gilly]

Zen philosophy and aesthetics seem Ti as shit to me. The "pointing finger" metaphor that is so salient/central to Zen teachings strikes me as Ni-esque in nature.

[mu4]

Zen philosophy and aesthetics seem Ti as shit to me. The "pointing finger" metaphor that is so salient/central to Zen teachings strikes me as Ni-esque in nature.

I think it is ish but it's not really imo and is heavily based on practice, meditation, scripture.

I think Theravada Buddhism is more as it's based in analysis.

IMO, Buddhism as a whole isn't very valuing vs something like Taoism where one of the main threads of thought is to eliminate value based thinking.


http://www.mindgazer.org/tao/chtzu_level.htm

Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou {18}, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and a butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is called the transformation of material things.

Zen has appropriated many Taoist stories and ideas within it's teachings but in my opinion somewhat ritualized them.

[ashlesha]

SO HOW BOUT THAT TAO TE CHING

[krieger]

i don't know much about the tao te ching, but when i read about Zen-Buddhism it looked to me like the process of getting rid of attachments it described is something i do naturally. i have more trouble getting OUT of the Zen state than getting into it.

[mu4]

SO HOW BOUT THAT TAO TE CHING

The first rule of the Tao Te Ching, is to not talk about the Tao Te Ching.

[Animal]

hkkmr, I was wondering if you could speak to the accuracy of this translation I have . It's by a guy named David Hinton who has translated a lot of Chinese poetry. It seems to be a very literal translation. This is the first verse:

A Way become Way isn't the perennial Way.
A name become name isn't the perennial name:

the named is mother to the ten thousand things,
but the unnamed is origin to all heaven and earth.

In perennial nonbeing you see mystery, and in perennial being you see appearance.
Though the two are one and the same, once they arise, they differ in name.

One and the same they're called dark-enigma,
dark-enigma deep within dark-enigma,
gateway of all mystery.

You can read the rest here: http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/...inton_TTK.html

As for Buddhism, Theravada (the school I'm most familiar with), becomes one big -fest at the higher levels of analysis. Look at this thread on a Theravada Buddhist forum: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11448 <-- Theravadans do this sort of thing all day, lol.

[mu4]

hkkmr, I was wondering if you could speak to the accuracy of this translation I have . It's by a guy named David Hinton who has translated a lot of Chinese poetry. It seems to be a very literal translation. This is the first verse:

A Way become Way isn't the perennial Way.
A name become name isn't the perennial name:

the named is mother to the ten thousand things,
but the unnamed is origin to all heaven and earth.

In perennial nonbeing you see mystery, and in perennial being you see appearance.
Though the two are one and the same, once they arise, they differ in name.

One and the same they're called dark-enigma,
dark-enigma deep within dark-enigma,
gateway of all mystery.

I would say this is maybe a bit too mystical(not sure the right way to express it) but translating the Tao Te Jing is kind of like drawing yourself on a canvas as it heavily reflects the person that is translating. I think Lin Yu Tang's version is probably the best I've read, even the capitalization of the words which directly correspond to the Chinese concepts(although some people dislike this). Lin Yu Tang also has translated other Chinese Taoist text and I think as he is a native speaker of Chinese, he generally has a more Chinese perspective, which I find lost in the translation from other translators.

http://www.tao-te-king.org/

This is also a good site as it lays out the Chinese next to the verbatim and next to other interpretations. I think ultimately, many of the words which are used in all the translations will mirror one's own take on it which is not a reflection of the Tao but of oneself.

[Animal]

Thanks. I looked up Lin Yu Tang's translation and it seems a lot less mystical (or "spacey") than Hinton's. It's more concrete and less confusing. I feel like I have to read too much into Hinton's when I'm reading his version and fear interpolating too much that isn't actually there. I like the site you linked to as well.

[Aquagraph]

At the times of severe storm, trees fall but the frail shoots of grass are spared without any harm inflicted.

[Aquagraph]

Dao to me often manifests as the conjoining of two seemingly contradictory elements for a fruitful result. It also covers the Hegelian dialectics; that is the thesis (Yang, action), antithesis (Yin, reaction sway) and thesis (Dao, the eventually bound result).

I love the rain when it shines.

Also the book starts with " A Dào that you could explain would not be the timeless Dào. Concepts which you can conceive are no timeless concepts." and then it starts describing the nature of Dao.
Just brilliant.

Ei zen kummempaa.

[Gilly]

I think it is ish but it's not really imo and is heavily based on practice, meditation, scripture.

I think Theravada Buddhism is more as it's based in analysis.

idk, sounds more like an Se/Ni vs Si/Ne difference to me. I feel like Se/Ni leans more towards practice, ritual, etc.

IMO, Buddhism as a whole isn't very valuing vs something like Taoism where one of the main threads of thought is to eliminate value based thinking.

You think Ti shuns value-based thinking? It's an introverted element, ffs. Are we studying the same theory?

Zen has appropriated many Taoist stories and ideas within it's teachings but in my opinion somewhat ritualized them.

Yes I'm aware; I view it as a pretty stereotypical Alpha-feeding-Beta transition.

[Gilly]

IMO the whole idea of "non-attachment" is hugely Ti/Fe. The underlying assumption is that "the one thing that stays the same is that everything changes," ie regardless of your attachments to outside things, you will still personally experience the same fluctuations of happiness and sadness that are just the natural human emotional process. Moral relativism is a clear outgrowth of this attitude, and both exemplify "dynamic ethics;" I view Buddhism on the whole as mainly an Alpha religion, but Zen in particular seems to employ Se-oriented aesthetics and takes a very Ni-centric approach to its teaching methods and philosophical attitudes.

[mu4]

idk, sounds more like an Se/Ni vs Si/Ne difference to me. I feel like Se/Ni leans more towards practice, ritual, etc.

Imo rituals/practice are more a product of rationality than anything. Althrough might imply a more forceful disciplined approach to it.

You think Ti shuns value-based thinking? It's an introverted element, ffs. Are we studying the same theory?

Yes I'm aware; I view it as a pretty stereotypical Alpha-feeding-Beta transition.

It's impossible to eliminate all value based thinking yet which function strives to do it, but this is largely a product of the individual being a host to all the function. But in this discussion, I hope we're talking preference and as a whole I think Zen's preference is for practice and discipline.

It is however possible based on your interpretation of Buddhaism to prefer the parts of it that is compatible with Beta, and there are many areas which I think are compatible.

However, some areas Buddhaism are not in tune with Alpha, the core tenant of Buddhaism is "All life is suffering", which imo is antithesis to Alpha thought.

Buddhaism is characterized by prohibition(rather than moderation) from sensual experience, vice and happiness.

This is in stark contrast to Taoism which although not hedonistic, is epicurean in nature, where all experiences are valued. Taoism values experiencing things for oneself and achieving harmony with nature.

One important allegory for the ideas of what Buddhaism/Confucianism and Taoism describes is vinegar tasters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters

The allegory succinctly describes the points of view of the philosophies and life.

Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state.

[mu4]

Every one under heaven says that our Way is greatly like folly. But it is just because it is great, that it seems like folly. As for things that do not seem like folly — well, there can be no question about their smallness!
Here are my three treasures. Guard and keep them! The first is pity; the second, frugality; the third, refusal to be 'foremost of all things under heaven'.
For only he that pities is truly able to be brave;
Only he that is frugal is able to be profuse.
Only he that refuses to be foremost of all things
Is truly able to become chief of all Ministers.
At present your bravery is not based on pity, nor your profusion on frugality, nor your vanguard on your rear; and this is death. But pity cannot fight without conquering or guard without saving. Heaven arms with pity those whom it would not see destroyed.

Tao Te Ching 67

[Gilly]

"All life is suffering" actually sounds rather Beta now that I think about it, lol.

[mu4]

"All life is suffering" actually sounds rather Beta now that I think about it, lol.

I would say "all life is struggle" is better for Beta. "All life is suffering" is too passive for Beta and I've always associate it with Delta.

[Gilly]

Eh, semantics.

[mu4]

Dao to me often manifests as the conjoining of two seemingly contradictory elements for a fruitful result. It also covers the Hegelian dialectics; that is the thesis (Yang, action), antithesis (Yin, reaction sway) and thesis (Dao, the eventually bound result).

I love the rain when it shines.

Also the book starts with " A Dào that you could explain would not be the timeless Dào. Concepts which you can conceive are no timeless concepts." and then it starts describing the nature of Dao.
Just brilliant.

Ei zen kummempaa.

I want to note Dao is not really Hegelian imo, it's a materialist dialectic.

In Taoism, Dao precedes Ming(name/idea).

Tao Te Jing 42

Out of Tao, One is born;
Out of One, Two;
Out of Two, Three;
Out of Three, the created universe.
The created universe carries the yin at its back
and the yang in front;
Through the union of the pervading principles it
reaches harmony.

The perspective of Taoism is scientific, monist, and pantheistic. And imo in many ways, the elimination of Taoism from orthodox thought was one of the reasons why China did not make scientific advancements. This was especially true post Neo-Confucian reform in the Song Dynasty. In contrast during this same era, the High Middle Ages in Europe, dialectics had a resurgence.

[Aquagraph]

I want to note Dao is not really Hegelian imo, it's a materialist dialectic.

That too. I also get a feeling of emergent materialism.

I find it impossible to keep up with the fine line that is my personal Dao and the Dao as seen by the eyes of the educated.

The perspective of Taoism is scientific, monist, and pantheistic.

I think you might have over-analyzed it to be those things. Whenever I hear a claim, I try to put the other way around and usually something interesting pops up.

I won't say that Dao would be unscientific but how is it not so?
I think the dualism is very perceivable too but it really doesn't exclude monism imho.
It's very hard to disagree with the alleged pantheism, but would you think consider it panentheistic too?

And imo in many ways, the elimination of Taoism from orthodox thought was one of the reasons why China did not make scientific advancements. This was especially true post Neo-Confucian reform in the Song Dynasty. In contrast during this same era, the High Middle Ages in Europe, dialectics had a resurgence.

Plausible.

[The Ineffable]

i agree; i think taoism basically has elements of Ni and Si but is probably closer to SLI as an integral philosophy.

However the teaching would be superfluous for a SLI; then there is the predominant element of the abstract and analogies (with a strong sene of certainty in them) which would make no sense for this type, but for a Ne Ego, IMO.

[rat1]

How the hell is this good advice?

It obviously is.

[The Ineffable]

However, some areas Buddhaism are not in tune with Alpha, the core tenant of Buddhaism is "All life is suffering", which imo is antithesis to Alpha thought.

Buddhaism is characterized by prohibition(rather than moderation) from sensual experience, vice and happiness.

I don't think Buddhism is anthitetical to Alpha, at least not to Alpha NT. First of all, "all life is suffering" is not a consolation, or a call for accomodating it, but an understanding. Its purpose is actually getting rid of suffering, not accepting it, however it's "cynism" actually stands in a logical understanding that passion (craving, attachment) is the only cause of suffering, and in order to remove the latter, one has to get rid of the former. It is a mechanism, a natural law. I read quite some Buddhist literature and I never felt they ask for something that *ought* be followed, but stating a fact, somewhat in this manner: "I studied the nature of things and concluded that the only way to get rid of suffering is getting detached, it is up to you what you choose. I have chosen not suffering, sacrificing earthly vanity and lust".

Remember that original Buddhist teachings never make referrence to self-discipline, social support, divinity, emotional satisfaction, pessmism or optimism, but only and only truth, right? It's basically only the laws of (human) nature Buddha was talking about. How does it differ from a modern cure for a sickness, or from activities that are recommended for a healty life like eating properly or doing sports?

[mu4]

First of all, "all life is suffering" ....

Just because it's a understanding doesn't mean it's right. I think I disagree with this understanding and as such my preference is not in this direction.

[Animal]

FWIW, the Buddha never actually said "all life is suffering." That's a bad translation by early Europeans who went to Asia and misunderstood what was being said to them. This is the format the Four Noble Truths take in most of the original scriptures:

"The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.

"The Noble Truth of the Origin (cause) of Suffering is this: It is this craving (thirst) which produces re-becoming (rebirth) accompanied by passionate greed, and finding fresh delight now here, and now there, namely craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence and craving for non-existence (self-annihilation).


"The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering is this: It is the complete cessation of that very craving, giving it up, relinquishing it, liberating oneself from it, and detaching oneself from it.


"The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering is this: It is the Noble Eightfold Path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.

Source: Dhammacakkapavatana Sutta

What's more, the word often translated as "suffering" (dukkha) means something closer to "dissatisfaction." The Buddha is pointing to the frailty of being born into a human form: we are mortal, prone to sickness and aging, subject to the vicissitudes of life (being separated from what we want, being united with what we don't want, etc.). The First Noble Truth is simply about acknowledging the fact that it isn't easy being inside a human body, inside of time, inside our shared fate. He is not saying all of life is suffering, but simply that suffering (or disappointment) is a fact of life. In other words, the Buddha is confronting our existential predicament: in the face of death, how do we go about living our lives? Clinging onto transient sensual pleasures will ultimately leave us disappointed. Sensory pleasures, here, include not only short-term objects of pleasure, like sex or food, but also long-term attempts to assuage our existential angst, such as workaholism, obsessive anger, or addiction:

How very happily we live, free from hostility among those who are hostile. Among hostile people, free from hostility we dwell. How very happily we live, free from misery among those who are miserable. Among miserable people, free from misery we dwell. How very happily we live, free from busyness among those who are busy. Among busy people, free from busyness we dwell. How very happily we live, we who have nothing. We will feed on rapture like the Radiant gods.


Winning gives birth to hostility. Losing, one lies down in pain. The calmed lie down with ease, having set winning & losing aside.

Source: The Dhammapada

The closest Western analogue, I think, would be Epicurus: the physicalist, who believed that, in the face of our mortality, life should be about minimizing pain and regret as much as possible: "Life is short. Make the best of it."

Buddhism has a lot of beautiful advice about how we tend to make life more painful than it needs to be. My favorite example of this is the story of the two arrows. The Buddha asked his monks, if a fellow were to be hit by an arrow, wouldn't that suck? They agreed it would suck. If he, then, were to get hit by a second arrow, wouldn't that suck more? They agreed, it would suck twice as much. Then he said, life often sends us the first arrow -- inevitable pain. But we shoot ourselves with the second arrow: raging against the inevitable pain life sends us. I love that about Buddhism.

But, the teachings are so married to the sramana culture of ancient India -- an entire class of spiritual seekers who basically lived a life of wandering homelessness -- that it's difficult to apply many of the principles if you want to live a secular life, with a job, with a family, etc. That's ultimately what led me away from Buddhism. It was simply impractical, although a lot of it is great advice.

[mu4]

FWIW, the Buddha never actually said "all life is suffering." That's a bad translation by early Europeans who went to Asia and misunderstood what was being said to them. This is the format the Four Noble Truths take in most of the original scriptures:

Source: Dhammacakkapavatana Sutta

What's more, the word often translated as "suffering" (dukkha) means something closer to "dissatisfaction." The Buddha is pointing to the frailty of being born into a human form: we are mortal, prone to sickness and aging, subject to the vicissitudes of life (being separated from what we want, being united with what we don't want, etc.). The First Noble Truth is simply about acknowledging the fact that it isn't easy being inside a human body, inside of time, inside our shared fate. He is not saying all of life is suffering, but simply that suffering (or disappointment) is a fact of life. In other words, the Buddha is confronting our existential predicament: in the face of death, how do we go about living our lives? Clinging onto transient sensual pleasures will ultimately leave us disappointed. Sensory pleasures, here, include not only short-term objects of pleasure, like sex or food, but also long-term attempts to assuage our existential angst, such as workaholism, obsessive anger, or addiction:


Source: The Dhammapada

The closest Western analogue, I think, would be Epicurus: the physicalist, who believed that, in the face of our mortality, life should be about minimizing pain and regret as much as possible: "Life is short. Make the best of it."

Buddhism has a lot of beautiful advice about how we tend to make life more painful than it needs to be. My favorite example of this is the story of the two arrows. The Buddha asked his monks, if a fellow were to be hit by an arrow, wouldn't that suck? They agreed it would suck. If he, then, were to get hit by a second arrow, wouldn't that suck more? They agreed, it would suck twice as much. Then he said, life often sends us the first arrow -- inevitable pain. But we shoot ourselves with the second arrow: raging against the inevitable pain life sends us. I love that about Buddhism.

But, the teachings are so married to the sramana culture of ancient India -- an entire class of spiritual seekers who basically lived a life of wandering homelessness -- that it's difficult to apply many of the principles if you want to live a secular life, with a job, with a family, etc. That's ultimately what led me away from Buddhism. It was simply impractical, although a lot of it is great advice.

I think this is a better explanation, I was never really into Buddhism as I think Buddhism is largely a world denying religion. I think Buddhism focuses on suffering and is more like Stoicism than Epicureanism. Epicureanism focuses on pleasure as much as suffering.

It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing "neither to harm nor be harmed"),
and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.

Taoism is the Chinese philosophical system that most happily compares with Epicureanism.

In the story of the vinegar tasters, Lao Tzu thinks it tastes sweet.