That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Andrew]

...the teachings of one of his master,who likened thinking to farting. Natural , I suppose, but something we should only be doing once in a while.

I love this quote.

Andrew

[Mike B]

As a Westerner, I find it fascinating that both Zen Buddhism and Taoism warn extensively about the dangers of words and names.

This isn't a coincidence as such as in many ways Zen is the 'daughter' of the earlier Taoist and Buddhist schools - hence the familial resemblances (on a number of levels)...

Mike

[Sifu Stier]

Dear Mike:

You make an excellent point, and in doing so have anticipated where I intended to take this thread. It is quite clear that the Mahayana Buddhism which the Patriarch Bodhidharma (Pu Tai Ta Mo) learned from his Master Prajnatara of the Sarvastivada Sect, and thereafter brought to China in the year 526 A.D., is quite a bit different from the Ch'an>Zen Buddhism of today.
The Chinese tendency to blend outside resources into their own cultural heritage is certainly evident in the combination of Mahayana Buddhism with the indigenous Taoism. This unique blend of the two spiritual philosophies is the signature hallmark of the Ch'an/Zen School which has dominated Buddhist
thought and practice throughout China, Korea, and Japan. It maintains the agenda priorities of Buddhist meditation practice for mental self-discipline, personal self-cultivation, and spiritual Self-Realization from the Indian Spiritual Tradition, while simultaneously incorporating the Taoist love of Nature and predisposition to observe natural laws and principles in order to employ them in the 'human experience', especially as regards one's spiritual path. This combination of Indian and Chinese Spirituality allowed the common
man and woman to embrace a practical and effective system of personal spiritual growth within the context of a secular life, i.e. without having to become a monk or nun, the Buddhist prototype, or a reclusive spiritual adept living the life of a hermit high up in the mountains away from family and normal society, the Taoist prototype. No wonder Ch'an or Zen became so popular! Not many people of any era are drawn to the religious life of a monastery or a hermitage! And so, the Ch'an/Zen Schools seemed to offer the best of both methods all in one system which anyone could learn and practice anywhere at anytime! What's not to like?

[DTebroc]

I have very little information regarding what Zen or Tao is and so was very interested in this thread in gaining some insight into what they are all about. I must really compliment everyone, SifuStier especially for sharing his knowledge we are really very lucky. Also thanks to all the contributors so far for their contributions, this thread struck a nerve within me it actually has enhanced experiences/blessings I have received in a very short time from my Chi Kung practise. I knew very little about the Tao and must admit probably realised knew even less after reading this thread , but I had a dream last night which has given me great peace of mind:
In the dream I was looking for a particular piece of jewellery that for some reason was very important to me, I searched every jewellery shop, antique shop, metal work-shop, superstore. Every person that I asked about the item asked me to describe it and when asked I could’nt??
They all showed me different pieces to see if they looked like what I was looking for, to no avail, some told me straight off that they didn’t have it but would be happy to sell me something else.
Well I got really frustrated in my dream, I knew I wanted this thing but couldn’t find it let alone describe it, when this man stood in front of me and smiled, he asked what was I looking for and when I explained to him, he laughed and said why am I looking for something I already have.
At this I was really perplexed and slightly angry, after all I had spent ages (in my dream anyway) looking for this thing and here is this guy telling me I already have it!
He looked at me, looked at my hand and showed me my ring and said “there is never any need to search for something when you have it with you always” winked, tapped me on the forehead and walked away, I felt like I was a little boy being told off by my father then I awoke (at 4 am).
I stayed awake for an hour in which time I jotted down the dream because it felt really special to me and I think it contains so much stuff that I needed to put it down.
To me the Tao is the ring which is a never ending circle, I have it with me always which means the Tao/Zen is always with me even though there are times when I don’t know it/realise it, I suppose it is like a seed in all of us to be nurtured and grown. Funnily enough my wedding ring has an inscription inside it which finishes with “Always”, but what I also thought of was the wink from the old man in the dream after he said always and I think this means to me is ALL WAYS in that there are many ways to the Tao, people searching different spiritual/religious paths maybe I don’t know.
It has made me view things anew from this morning, I am now aware that the Tao/Zen is a potential within all of us because it always has been, always is and always will be. It is not the Tao that leaves us when things go wrong but us that leave the Tao even if only for a short time, but it is always there.
Another “jewel” I got from the dream was that there is no need to search for it let alone think about it, it will show itself. I don't think you need to be in a remote high mountain to find inner peace, or be a celibate hermit/monk/nun, inner peace just is
Love and peace to you all!

[Andrew]

Dave - What a lovely and thought-provoking post.

Thanks,
Andrew

[DTebroc]

Thank you Andrew, would you believe my brain is still giving me feedback from this one dream.
I would just like to put out a hearfelt appreciation(hug if you like) to everyone on this forum especially Master Wong for his wisdom and insruction of Cosmos Chi Kung to the instructors for their abiltiy to share and to everyone that posts/share their experience and views.
What I am realising so far in my learning is all the beauty that is around us, I am looking at things in a new light (no puns intended) or maybe not looking but finally seeing for real
Street lights in a busy street at night just as dusk is rising was a sight that moved me only three nights ago now that I've put this down I realise I can't describe how beautiful it looked (the Tao I suppose "that which cannot be described"), my daughter (20 months old) saying I love you (wuv woo) making my heart jump etc.. etc ...
Take Care

[Mike B]

..in doing so have anticipated where I intended to take this thread... This combination of Indian and Chinese Spirituality ... And so, the Ch'an/Zen Schools seemed to offer the best of both methods all in one system which anyone could learn and practice anywhere at anytime! What's not to like?

SifuStier

Well there was an intentional nudge as I have been patiently watching for the compare and contrast bit so not entirely accidental.

I agree with everything you say about the two in the full piece and they are both clearly Good Things.

As to the what's not to like - ie the black dot in an otherwise white area - it seems to me that:

i) its a pity philosophical Taoism is such a waning force in the world - given the economic plunder of both the earth and peoples natures it seems we could all do with more not less Taoism...

ii) Zen it seems to me is best understood in its Mahayana context (ie as a Chinese/Japanese monk would) - its very easy for westerners (as I did when a teenager) to pick up books about koans, ultimate reality, already being enlightened etc and pretty much make a bad job of understanding the whole dhamma thing (after all the Buddha taught - at length - for 40yrs to help people gain enlightenment not to have people (least of all Buddhists!) largely ignore much of his teachings)). Also it did rather blot its copybook in Japan in the 30s (and more recently in US scandals) - but that is another story.

Howver to be clear these points are merely in response to the what - bit - is not to like - they are as I say Good (or maybe that should be Great!) Things in the round.

As to the cross-fertilisation it seems to me that the whole tathagatgarba emphasis in Zen (ie everyone has Buddha Nature) is a real Taoist emphasis as is the (increased?) emphasis on emptiness. Interestingly on emptiness I read recently that western comparison of Taoism and Buddhism/Zen has rather been hampered by the translation of two different Chinese Terms (memory fails me) by the one word emptiness - ie 'emptiness' isn't the same emptiness

Anyway SifuStier I would welcome more of your thoughts as there are few people who truly 'have a foot in both camps' and can thus compare and contrast.

Kind regards

Mike

[Ovidius]

Internal Alchemy and Zen

Thanks to Sifu Stier for this very interesting thread and to everyone participating

I have some questions in my mind:

- What is Taoist Internal Alchemy and how it is practiced?
- Does Zen practices have relation to it -- should we think that they complete the Internal Alchemy processes as well?
- What is Immortality (the aim of Taoism?) -- should we understand it as a spiritual or even bodily?

[Sifu Stier]

One Way!

There are indeed many Paths ascending the same mountain, many Portals entering into the same Inner Sanctuary, many Ways to Salvation, Perfection,
Realization, Illumination, and Enlightenment. But since the Source of All That Is resides in Unified Oneness, All Ways are but One Way, Tao!

[Antonius]

I don't have time at the moment to counter all that has been said here, but I would like to offer an objection to some of the concepts. I understand that the title of this thread "That was Zen, This is Tao" is a play on words. For our foreign members who may not understand the pun, the original phrase in English is "That was then, this is now."

Nevertheless, I think this play on words may give a false impression of what Zen was, and what it is now. Although both Zen and Taoism obviously lead to a similar goal, their methods for getting there are quite different. They may be two roads leading to the same destination, but they are most definintely two different roads.

The idea that Taoism and Chan (Zen) were cross-fertilized (to borrow Mike's word) is a typical modern misunderstanding, and one that is usually perpetuated by scholars (and usually Western ones) -- not Chan masters. Taoism and Chan have separate histories. In the development of Chan in China, none of the six patriarchs had any influence from Taoism. Bodhidharma (Da Mo), Hui Ke, and Seng Can all taught at Shaolin. Dao Xing, Hong Ren, and Hui Neng taught at Baolin and Dongshan (both Buddhist temples).

One need only to look at the priests of Taoism and Zen to see some of the differences: Zen monks shave their head, are vegetarian, avoid wine and intoxication, value the Heart Sutra, and practice celibacy; Taoist priests generally have a full head of hair, drink wine, value the Dao De Jing, and are permitted to have wives (and sex!).

Or we might look at their meditation techniques. In Zen, practitioners keep their mind on the void. In Taoism, visualization is used extensively in meditation. From a Zen perspective, these visualizations are considered a "deviation" because they cause thoughts to arise, which conflict sharply with Zen teachings (but not with Taoist teachings).

Chan talks about no mind (wu xin), and Taoism talks about the extreme void (wu ji). To a Western ear, these terms may sound similar, but upon closer examination, they are obviously quite different. Of course, both terms refer to "cosmic reality" and are thus similar. But this does not point to a link between Taoism and Chan; it points to a link between all of the world's religions, all of which point to the concept of this "cosmic reality."

Bodhidharma's teaching can be summarized as follows:

-Not recorded in language and words.
-Transmission beyond the tradition.
-Directly pointing at the mind.
-Entering Buddhahood in an instant.

These concepts (which I have no time to explain at the moment) are vastly different from Sarvastivada (which is essentially a Hinayana school) teachings. Actually, Bodhidharma's teachings were a reaction AGAINST Sarvastivada teachings, not a continuation of them.

As for Zen Buddhism being different today than it was in the past -- this depends on where we look, just as it does with Kungfu. If we look at modern Shaolin Wushu, we might say that Kungfu is different today than it was practiced in the past. But if we look at genuine Kungfu schools, we might say that it is very much the same.

Okay, I'm off to school. Happy practicing, everyone.

[Mike B]

Antonius

Thank you for your contribution to this debate - it gets a bit one-sided if it turns into lecture mode

SifuStier is old enough to stand up for himself but as a native english speaker (as most forumites are I believe) not only did the (old) pun make me smile but I indeed take the title to mean that they are precisely not the same. Equally I take SifuStiers use of the metaphor of paths up the mountain to be the usual one of different paths to spiritual fulfillment - one could just as well add Christainity, Hinduism etc etc. Sure the precise technical definition of the goals differ but as our Sifu skilfully explains ultimately its all original face/face of God or whatever - ie the same experience.

Of course the two are not the same and you usefully point out the differences for those who may not know. However saying they are different does not disprove similarities.

This isn't the place to go into all the competing philosophies of the whole series of schools thrown up when Buddhism started splintering pre-BC. However important to me is the theme that Buddhism is an orthopraxy not an orthodoxy - most of the splintering came around due to different philosophical interpretations of what ontologically underlay the Buddha's teachings - a subject which never worried the Buddha. As an example of the fact that all these things look more compartmentalised from the future than they did at the time though is that the Sarvastivadins canonical Abhidharma survives (only?) in its Chinese translation.

I am not quite sure of what you mean by typical modern misunderstandings or indeed the implicit slur on western scholars (omitting the slur on scholars - are historians not to be judged on their work?) - J. Needham would be a good example as I am sure you know of a western scholar who contributed a lot to Chinese understanding of their own culture.

Clearly I feel there is strong evidence of cross-fertilization both historical as well as philosophical - let alone the fact that these traditions grew up alongside each other for a couple of thousand years! It would conversely have been impossible for them not to affect each other (and vice versa there is much evidence of Buddhism's influence of what became more neo-Taoism in a sense).

At a philosophical level to take your view one would have to argue that the changes in thought and approach from Indian Buddhism as it transmuted into Cha'n - many of which I pointed out show, at a minimum, similarities - were a coincidence!

So we all have views and as the Buddha never ceased to point out views cause dukkha!

Happy schooling (hope not too scholastic )

Mike

ps when I am in touchy mode I point out that hinayana ("lesser vehicle") is actually not a polite term for 'southern buddhism' - its actually somewhat rude and propagandist (esp. if speaking to southern buddhists). Anyway as I am not in defensive mode I won't point it out

pps I have read some cracking articles by Chan masters - some brilliant and insightful practical advice. However I have yet to come across a Chan master who regards himself (wastes his time?) being a professional historian - they are all rather focused on the more important here and now and liberation...

[Sifu Stier]

Dear Antonius:

I think that you may have missed your true calling. Your marked tendency for initiating argument and debate points to a strong potential for success as
an attorney at law! I also question whether your injection of personal views
into these threads in such an adversarial manner is perhaps a conflict of interest in your role as Forum Administrator, which in my view should be less visible and more neutral!

[Marcus]

Hello All,

My understanding of authentic Shaolin Kung Fu practice is that it should contain elements of Form, Force, Application and Theory. This is another opportunity for me to express just how lucky I feel to be a student of Sifu's. Not only are his students lucky enough to have access to excellent skills and techniques for Form, Force and Application practice, but we also have access to Sifu's extra-ordinary amount of experience and theory.

So, regarding the issue that Zen was the result of the Chinese blending Bodhidharma's original teaching with indigenous Taoism I offer the following quote from Sifu's "The complete book of Shaolin" p.309-311. For those who have it, I would also recommend "The complete book of Zen" p.66-69.

"To say that Zen Buddhism developed from Taoism is equally untenable. This mistake probably started when some scholars, who were expert in Chinese literature and philosophy but knew little about Zen, speculated that the great monk Tao An(313-385) and his distinguished disciple Hui Yuan (344-416) initiated Chan (Zen) Buddhism, because they practiced meditation, which in Chinese is often written as “Chan”.

What these scholars might not realise is that here the name “Tao” and the term “Chan” are not related to Taoism and Chan Buddhism respectively.

If these scholars had investigated deeper, they would have found that the “Chan” or meditation Tao An and Hui Yuan practiced was Anapanasati, the meditation of the Sarvastivada School, which is similar to Theravada meditation practiced today, but different from Zen meditation.

More importantly, although both Tao an and Hui Yuan, like other great monks, were familiar with Confucianism as well as Taoism, there was little Taoist (or Confucian) philosophy or practice in the Buddhism they preached.
Toa An, for example, was dissatisfied with the method of early translators using Taoist terms for Buddhist concepts; Hui Yuan said that Buddhist thought was far ahead and more profound than that of Confucianism and Taoism. There is also no records of any Zen Buddhism in China in the interim hundred years between them and the arrival of Bodhidharma.

In the development of Zen Buddhism in China, not a single one of the six Chinese Patriarchs had any significant Taoist influence. All the first three Patriarchs – Bodhidhaarma, Hui Ke and Seng Can – taught at the Shaolin Monastery; the other three – Dao Zin, Hong Jen and Hui Neng – taught at the Dongshan Temple and the Bao Lin Temple, which were typically Buddhist temples directly related to Shaolin.

Zen masters talk about no mind, Buddha-nature, Bodhisattvas and return to society to help others – all these are characteristically different from the Taoist’s yin-yang, cosmos, immortals and retreat to mountains to avoid worldy affairs.
Zen monks shave their head bald, abstain from meat and wine, and practice celibacy strictly; whereas Taoist priests value their typical head-buns, often drink wine and play chess in merriment and are permitted to have wives and children.
Zen monks refer to the Heart Sutra, the Diamond Sutra and other Buddhist scriptures, which are distinctly different from the Tao Te Ching, the Chuang Tzu and other Taoist text in both style and substance.
The typical meditation method of Zen practitioners is to keep the mind void, with the mind abiding at nothing. This is characteristically different from the typical Taoist method of meditation where visualization is used extensively.
Meditation techniques frequently employed by Taoist adepts, like nurturing vital energy into “divine foetus”, and visualizing specific deities residing at particular energy fields inside their body, are considered “perverse” by Zen masters as these techniques cause thoughts to arise, therefore conflicting with the Zen technique of aiming for the state of non-thought.

Hence, whether it is from the perspective of history, canonical works, daily mode of living, philosophy or spiritual cultivation, Zen and Taoism are distinctively different. Anyone who has actually gone through either Zen or Taoist training, instead of merely reading from some second-hand material, will find ithard to see how Zen Buddhism could have developed from Taoism. In this respect I am lucky to have some first hand experience: my master, Sifu Ho Fatt Nam, was well trained in Taoism before he started cultivating Zen."

The main reason for me writing and quoting is to make the simple point that Zen is Zen and Taoism is Taoism. I didn't want this fact to get over shadowed by any possible debate regarding just how much cross-fertilization has occurred over a period of time. I could also say that the Sun and the moon have many similarities, but the sun is not the moon and the moon is not the sun.

I also understand that the two most widely practiced methods of Zen today are meditation and gong-an (koan) solving and that this is what Bodhidharma taught.

Kind regards

Marcus

P.S Mike B I think you made your point regarding hinayana, very well


Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha

[Andrew]

Folks, this is getting interesting

I only have limited theoretical knowledge here and so have been (and will most likely remain) quite quiet in this thread.

Just a couple of quick comments:
Regarding the old pun ... I am English but have been living in Switzerland for 15 years. I didn't get the pun in the thread title originally (thanks for pointing it out Anthony) but had actually misinterpreted it completely. I thought it was more along the lines that Zen was in the past and Tao is (or is becoming) the modern replacement. I must admit I found this very confusing.

I practice Zen every day as part of my training in the Shaolin Arts and I have experienced Zen on occasion. Taoism is something I still am uncertain of. I know experientially what Zen is.

With regards to cross-fertilisation .... hmmm. Not sure. Many cultures have existed side by side for a long time without having major influence on each other. And if one looks at various (maybe all) spiritual paths or systems you will find a lot of similarities if you choose to search for them.

As to Anthony's role as Admininstrator and his participation here - I certainly welcome his views and comments even if (or maybe precisely because) they do not always coincide with the views of others. There are many others here who post views and comments which could also be considered controversial by some -- and that's part of what makes this forum so interesting. If everyone posting shared the same views there would be "no debate but just a lecture" as Mike so aptly put.

Now back to reading and learning from those of you with more knowledge and experience than me.

Andrew

[Mike B]

Marcus

Nice post - I just hope you have one of those pen scanner things and didn't have to type it all in yourself! Sifu Wong's article is as always insightful, informed and well-written.

However just to re-emphasise the point I am not disagreeing with Sifu Wong's view not do I think Sifu Stier would - after all Sifu S. started this thread (it seems to me to give some first hand knowledge and education about Taoism - "That was... this is...".

So I don't think there is any disagreement - no-one here has said Zen is an ofshoot of Taoism (the misconception that Sifu Wong was highlighting).

Maybe the 'offspring of' is an inappropriate metaphor (implying I guess 50% of genes from both) - I wasn't expecting cross-examination . However there is a real flavour (to chose another metaphor) of Taoist philosophy in some Zen ideas - most clearly in as I say the underlying buddha-nature - being true to which is very similar to being true to the Tao. If one looks at the history of how Buddhism developed over the millenia you see a constant development, change of emphasis, incorporation of new ideas. Now to some religious people (of all religions) this type of learning can be a threat (they don't like eg the idea that Christainity once had reincarnation and now doesn't). Nevertheless it is a valid topic of study and I for one would no more disrespect scholars than I would dentists (and certainly Chinese culture has been a very learned and scholastic culture in comparison with most others).

So looking at this idea development theme - this tathagatagarba idea was around in earlier Buddhism but really wasn't emphasised at all. The focus was more the defilements - being more obvious. If anything the whole thing was more at the level of an analogy - kind of "look put it this way if you get rid of all those defilements you would be a Buddha" - but again it was a seldom used point. Of course for Zen its the fundamental item of faith that makes people sit still dong 'nothing'.

Anyway as I say the two were neighbours for a couple of thousand years-ish.

Also to be clear away from all this debating/bantering/sword fighting. I am of the clear view that there is much from us all to learn from all of these traditions and its impossible for there not to be some mutual influencing.

Anyway most importantly I hope SifuStier hasn't been chased off his own thread - I for one was looking forward to some more of his thoughts which seem to me to be grounded both in knowledge and experience. We all have our blockages (and me more than the rest of you given I am a Qigong newbie) - if Anthony's is that he is from (spent too long in?) New York (and so gets his retaliation in first ), Andrew now has to live in Switzerland, and SifuStier's is that he has to sit in our occasionally prickly forum (I told you SifuS that we can do 'barbed' if we try lol).

Oops - goddammit - I just realised I am totally done on the Confucian basis of apparent disrespect to elders lol - I plead a blockage of being English in defence (where of course disrespect = affection lol).

Cheers

Mike

ps Marcus you mean kind of wu-wei and not making a point? lol I once knew but have long forgotten the correct rhetorical term for the device eg "I shalln't mention his stinginess..." whereby you get the credit for not doing something but benefit of having done it!