That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Black Hole]

Well said Kai Sihing.

Knowledge is good as long as it leads us to reach our objectives, but too much information will only make our mind restless and cloudy. It reminds me of a story where a famous master chef was preparing meals for his customers.When the nice hot meals were ready to be served the customers were still discussing, arguing about how to prepare the meals, the ingredients, the detail description of the taste etc.etc. and only one customer,sitting there alone and enjoying the meal.

Peace to all!

[Antonius]

I think, for the sake of this discussion, I should clarify that I am discussing Zen (Chan) Buddhism in specific, not the Shaolin Arts in general. Much of Shaolin Kungfu and Chi Kung (the concepts of Yin Yang and Dantian, for ex.) has been influenced by and benefited from Taoism. But the same cannot be said of Chan. Although Zen and Taoism are similar in many ways, this is not necessarily a result of one influencing the other.

As Marcus said so nicely: Zen is Zen and Taoism is Taoism.

Well as been pointed out earlier no-one said/meant to say that.

Although no one specifically said that Zen was an offshoot or child of Taoism, the tacit implications were clear in comments like:

Clearly I feel there is strong evidence of cross-fertilization both historical as well as philosophical.

...and:

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.

If no one "meant" to imply that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism, then these statements should probably be qualified.

On reflection though I think there is a certain 'religious' attachment possibly prevalent in these parts to Bodhidhamma

I would say we are religiously attached to direct experience. But I would also say that many scholars are religiously attached to their intellectualism.

lest I inadvertantly offend anyone

I don't see why you would worry about offending anyone here, Mike. This is a discussion, not a witch hunt. I may have strong opinions on the subject, but hey, what else is new?

altho' clearly Chan/Zen continued to develop/change after his death

What about those examples I asked for?

I have heard that Bodhidharma's teaching so well exemplified these 4 tenets that they are sometimes mistakenly accredited to him.

Thank you Marcus. Yes. Those 4 points were first taught by the Buddha himself, not by Bodhidharma. Like I said earlier, Bodhidharma clearly had the teachings of Zen before he ever crossed the mountains into China.

In terms of dhamma though there are many paths and traditions and the intellect and study play different roles in each (whilst in all 'non-intellect' is of course essential)...Of course the unfortunate thing is there is no league table of 'success rates' for all these different schools

Are you sure? I would argue that the shortcomings of the intellectual approach have been well exemplified, and not just by Black Hole and Kai Sihing, but also by Bodhidharma. Has anyone ever achieved liberation through the intellect alone? (Nope.) Has anyone ever achieved liberation without any intellectual learning at all? (Yep.)

[barrys]

altho' clearly Chan/Zen continued to develop/change after his death

Anthony,

In the spirit of discussion and debate here are some thoughts from Alan Watts - The Way of Zen.

"... as Zen became more of an informal spiritual movement and more of a settled institution, it underwent a curious change of character. It became necessary to "standardize" its methods and to find means for masters to handle students in large numbers. There were also the special problems which arise for monastic communities when their membership increases, their traditions harden, and their novices tend more and more to be mere boys without natural vocation, sent for training by their pious families. The effect of this last factor upon the development of institutional can hardly be underestimated. For the Zen community became less an association of mature men with spiritual interests, and more of an ecclesiastical boarding school for adolescent boys. ... The Zen masters were forced to concern themselves not only with the way of liberation from convention, but also with the instilling of convention, of ordinary manners and morals, in raw youths.

... Zen solved the problem [of establishing the authenticity of an enlightenment and the authority of a Zen master] with remarkable ingenuity, employing a means which not only provided a test of competence but - what was much more - a means of transmitting the Zen experience itself with a minimum of falsification" He suggests the formalistion of this happened post 1004 when concern for the problem of of competition for office and who has a right to be a master was reflected in 'Record of the Transmission of the Lamp' by Tao-yuan.

Maybe these "changes" are of the nature any spiritual movement goes through as it grapples with maintaining the purity of message/truth, the battle for society to usurp it as a method of moral/social control and the practicalities involved in wider dispersion. Maybe the "truth" doesn't change but the practices around it come and go.

Enjoying this life I lead

Barry

[Antonius]

Barry, what chapter/page?

[Antonius]

Found it. Page 105 in my book. A search for Tao-yuan in the index should get you there in other editions.

Watts is referring to the 9th and 10th centuries in China when Zen (Chan), after a period of persecution, became very popular:

Hundreds of monks thronged its wealthy monastic institutions, and the fortunes of the school so prospered and its numbers so increased that the preservation of its spirit became a very serious problem.

I agree with the above statment, but his conclusion is somewhat odd, especially when taken out of context. Watts goes on to make a sweeping generalization by saying that (note the correction of Barry's typo):

as Zen became LESS of an informal spiritual movement and more of a settled institution, it underwent a curious change of character.

What underwent a curious change of character? Zen? All of Zen? Every school of Zen? All Zen teachings? Taken out of context, this passage tacitly suggests that the "preservation of its spirit" failed, which it obviously did not, and which Watts himself clarifies later in the chapter.

No, what underwent a curious change of character was the popular schools of Zen, not Zen itself. Despite all the hubbub, Zen survived. It survives to this day.

The Shaolin Wushu Monks have enjoyed tremendous popularity over the past two decades. Shaolin Wushu schools (and the so-called monks) can be found all over the world. Should we generalize and say that all Shaolin Kungfu has undergone the same change of character that Shaolin Wushu has undergone?

I think not.

This is a delicate point, and I do not mean to offend anyone with it, but I feel obligated to speak my opinion. I will say this: genuine Zen, just like genuine Kungfu and Chi Kung, is rare.

[Sifu Stier]

All of these varying opinions notwithstanding, the fact remains that the core foundation of the Buddhism brought from India by Bodhidharma was very much a product of Indian religious and philosophical thought, and of an Indian cultural perspective on spirituality. He brought an Indian 'mindset' which has always been a challenge for the Chinese to relate to and to fully embrace. Gautama Buddha, also an Indian, had the spiritual realization sitting beneath the Bodhi tree that life is inseparable from suffering, that life is death! His Indian perspective of this realization, which Bodhidharma certainly understood as an Indian, was that Nirvana is a release from both life and death, from both suffering and joy. This has always been the Indian Buddhist idea!

But the Chinese understood the received insights of the Buddha differently. The Chinese Ch'an or Zen perspective was that the Indian view expressed only half of the potential inherent in the idea of Nirvana. The other half is not to be released from life and death, from suffering and joy. Herein lies the fundamental paradox of Ch'an/Zen teaching. The indigenous Taoist
perspective always acknowledged the interplay of the polar opposites, Yin and Yang. This views every experience as both connected and disconnected simultaneously as the two seemingly contrary energies move in
unresolved and constantly changing interaction with one another. Thus, the
major contribution of Taoism to the Indian Buddhist teaching was to offer a way to achieve unity in duality and a feeling of balanced wholeness. The uniquely Chinese Buddhist perception is that life and death are therefore inseparable, suffering and joy are inseparable, the Absolute nature of Nirvana and the relative nature of the illusory world are inseparable. In this way, Indian Buddhism was reshaped to fit the Chinese mind by being inclusive
rather than exclusive! This inclusiveness permitted Classical Taoism and Indian Buddhism to coexist as Mahayana/Ch'an/Zen. Clearly, Zen includes Indian Buddhism, but Indian Buddhism does not include Zen! The Chinese did not relate to the Indian love of spiritual asceticism and metaphysics, so they modified and transformed what they received from India into a more practical
and 'natural' system which offered the potential of more immediate results. The resulting hybrid method is definitely not the original Indian Buddhism!

Buddhism is Buddhism, and Taoism is Taoism, but Zen is a magnificent blend of both!

[Andrew]

Now I'm REALLY confused .

Maybe someone (Sifu Stier?) could please help

Sifu Stier, you wrote:

Gautama Buddha, also an Indian, had the spiritual realization sitting beneath the Bodhi tree that life is inseparable from suffering, that life is death!

and later:

The uniquely Chinese Buddhist perception is that life and death are therefore inseparable, suffering and joy are inseparable

Am I missing something? Sorry if I am but I am genuinely confused .

Sifu Stier, you also wrote:

The Chinese Ch'an or Zen perspective was that the Indian view expressed only half of the potential inherent in the idea of Nirvana. The other half is not to be released from life and death, from suffering and joy.

I'm afraid I don't understand this either . Isn't it clear that if Enlightenment is not achieved then one is reborn into a new life where one can, or not, further cultivate towards Enlightenment? Isn't this true in Buddhism generally?

I have mentioned before that I am not so knowledgeable in these areas so I am really interested in understanding. Sifu Stier, Anthony, Marcus, Mike and all of the rest of the more informed posters here ---- many thanks and please do continue to clarify this for me.

Andrew

[Ovidius]

Ch'an or Zen perspective

The Chinese Ch'an or Zen perspective was that the Indian view expressed only half of the potential inherent in the idea of Nirvana. The other half is not to be released from life and death, from suffering and joy.

Jo Si Wang writes: "most students are fond of bizarre things and do not realize that Truth can be found nowhere but in daily activities, and common people usually ignore it because it is so near. - - The common ignoramus still presumes that the Tao of a sage cannot be attained. Oh!"

I think the point is that one does not have to give up worldly life to get one foot into Nirvana. One does not need to follow step by step the arduous path of, for example, Gotama Buddha or Mahavira.

[Sifu Stier]

Thanks for the follow-up post, Ovidius!

I know that the Zen perspective seems to be paradoxical, and it is! This is why significant and profound understanding of these teachings is best pursued through instruction and direction from a Zen Master, in conjunction with the accompanying meditation system.

Buddhism, in its original Indian form, essentially rejects the material world as a temporary place of suffering, illusion, and impermanence. From the Indian point of view, mankind's greatest enemy is desire, and the suffering caused by desire can only be overcome by modification of consciousness until Nirvana is achieved. This ideology reflects the Vedic cultural and religious roots of Buddhism. Don't forget that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism!

Zen, however, does not reject the world, but openly accepts it as it is, while also accepting life's varied experiences in the world unconditionally by 'going with the flow' of complete 'presence' in the moment at hand. From the Zen point of view, therefore, desire is a negative factor only when it is personalized with so much attachment to the object of desire that it interferes with one's ability to maintain neutrality and balance. Aside from such extremes, desire can be a positive asset when directed toward Wisdom, Illumination, and Enlightenment with moderation! Remember, the influence of Taoist ideas such as Yin and Yang is to look for harmonization of apparent opposites, to see the ultimate unity potentially manifested in the most confusing paradox, because the perceived opposites are but different sides of the same coin, the same Ultimate Reality! Hence, the perceived difference or opposition is an Illusion, just like Gautama Buddha said everything is to begin with!

[Andrew]

Thank you for your post Sifu Stier.

Am I right in thinking it was meant to help clarify my confusion at the two seemingly identical statements I quoted above as well as my other confused question? If it was then I must sincerely apologise because I didn't really understand your answer.

This is quite embarassing actually . Am I the only one that is so confused?

Andrew

[Antonius]

Buddhism is Buddhism, and Taoism is Taoism, but Zen is a magnificent blend of both!

Thank you for bringing this out into the open, Sifu Stier. This should help to clear up some of Mike's confusion as to what exactly is being said.

We (myself and Sifu Wong) are aware of the above argument made by Sifu Stier (as well as other scholars), but I would like to make it clear to everyone that we disagree, hence my persistence in this thread. At the very least, I'm sure everyone can agree that it is nice to see both sides of the arguments.

I agree that Buddhism is Buddhism, but there are nevertheless several traditions of Buddhism. As Mike is fond of pointing out, Buddhism is not "monotheistic."

There are three main traditions in Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

(Note: as per Mike's request, I will use the term Theravada instead of Hinayana so as not to offend anyone, even though historically Theravada was only one of several Hinayana schools.)

To quote Sifu Wong:

It should be stressed that Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana are not three Buddhisms, but three traditions of the same Buddhism. The core of Buddhist doctrines common to all three traditions constitute Theravada Buddhism. Beyond this core we find the majestic and splendid philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism concerning cosmic reality, and the mystical and arcane practices of Vajrayana Buddhism dealing with supernormal powers, which are for the most part unacceptable to Theravadins. Generally speaking, a Theravadin is a moralist, a Mahayanist is a compassionate cosmologist, and a Vajrayanist a spiritual magician.

As for Zen being a blend of both Buddhism and Taoism, that would imply that Chan (Zen) is something different from Buddhism, which it is not. Chan is a major school of Mahayana Buddhism, which is one of the major schools of Buddhism. If Buddhism is Buddhism, then that includes Chan Buddhism as well as other schools like Theravada and Vajrayana.

The resulting hybrid method is definitely not the original Indian Buddhism!

By "original Indian Buddhism," I assume you mean Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism, which is also from India, differs in many ways from Theravada Buddhism, but both are nonetheless still Buddhism.

Clearly, Zen includes Indian Buddhism, but Indian Buddhism does not include Zen!

If you changed "Zen" to "Mahayana", and "Indian" to "Theravadin," then I would agree. Mahayana Buddhism includes Theravada Buddhism, but Theravada Buddhism does not include Mahayana Buddhism. Nevertheless, both Mahayana and Theravada are traditions of Indian Buddhism.

Again, Chan belongs to the Mahayana school of Buddhism -- a school that existed before Chan ever came to China.

This ideology reflects the Vedic cultural and religious roots of Buddhism. Don't forget that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism!

This would imply that Gautama Buddha was the founder of Buddhism. Would you agree with this statement?

Zen, however, does not reject the world, but openly accepts it as it is, while also accepting life's varied experiences in the world unconditionally by 'going with the flow' of complete 'presence' in the moment at hand.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is different from Pre-Chan Mahayana Buddhism. Could you please elaborate?

[Sifu Stier]

Dear Andrew:

I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I am convinced that the Zen Masters meant for people to be confused! It seems to be an integral part of their teaching method. The simple premise of the Zen method is that only by
wrestling with the 'riddles of life' through regular meditation combined with a willingness to live each day with 'mindfulness' and 'presence' in each moment
can one attain a sudden Enlightenment, or Satori, at some point, probably at a place and time when least expected. So, if you just don't understand why you don't understand, you're already halfway there! Reject any identification with the confusion, go with the flow of where it leads you in thought and meditation, and wait with joyous anticipation for clarification to come to you! Wait! Look! Think less.....Feel More! There it is!!!

[Sifu Stier]

Dear Antonius:

Many of your comments and opinions on this subject may be more accurate in reference to those who have commited themselves to a life in a monastic community, but this is not the case with the majority of people who live secular lives outside a monastery. You seem to believe that the Chinese Buddhism is somehow less 'valid' or 'authentic' if it is seen as less than completely homogenous with the Indian Mahayana Buddhism from which it sprang. In fact, the difference in perspective between Indian and Chinese thought regarding the teachings of the Buddha is not 'less', in the opinion of most Buddhist scholars, but is actually 'more'! And it is an expanded perception which is uniquely Chinese, not expressed in the same way or with the same point of view as is the Indian Mahayana perspective. Yes, of course there is common ground, but Mahayana and Zen are not identical! The former school reflects Indian cultural and religious thinking, while the latter reflects Chinese, and later, Japanese, thinking and cultural influences. I can only conclude that you are so 'attached' to your own opinion on this matter that you are unwilling to see any other view! Perhaps such is your own personal 'koan'!

[Chiahua]

...Yes, of course there is common ground, but Mahayana and Zen are not identical! The former school reflects Indian cultural and religious thinking, while the latter reflects Chinese, and later, Japanese, thinking and cultural influences. I can only conclude that you are so 'attached' to your own opinion on this matter that you are unwilling to see any other view! Perhaps such is your own personal 'koan'!

I think this is a matter of nomenclature. Mahayana in my understanding is a term of convenience to contrast a large number of schools (including all the chinese branches) from the Southern schools of buddhism (I don't want to use the term "Hinayana" as it carries an air of judgment) as well as the Vajrayana school. Zen is a Mahayana school as I have been taught by my professor. I don't know the names of the Indian Mahayana schools.

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier:

My efforts in this thread are to clearly state my opinions -- opinions which happen to be in line with the opinions of my Sifu. Since this is Sifu Wong's discussion forum, and since I am his representative as well as a senior brother to many students here, I see it as perfectly reasonable for me to explain how our views differ from your own.

Our forum is open to everyone, and we are proud and honored to have distinguished guests such as yourself, but it is nevertheless a Shaolin Wahnam Discussion Forum. We welcome opinions from all forum members, even if they differ from our own. Nevertheless, it is obviously our prerogative -- on our own forum -- to express our opinions and point out how they might differ from the opinions of our guests.

I can only conclude that you are so 'attached' to your own opinion on this matter that you are unwilling to see any other view!

With all due respect, I don't see how you came to this conclusion. My posts clearly show that I have an acknowledgment and understanding of your view. I see your view, but that does not mean that I agree with it. Furthermore, I might point out that you did not clearly answer my questions, which would suggest a reticence in acknowledging my views on the subject.

And it is an expanded perception which is uniquely Chinese, not expressed in the same way or with the same point of view as is the Indian Mahayana perspective.

I don't see how this answers my question. Can you please be more precise? How exactly does Chan differ from pre-Chan Mahayana Buddhism? To be clear, I'm not saying that they are identical. I'm just asking how they differ.

Earlier, you said:

The uniquely Chinese Buddhist perception is that life and death are therefore inseparable, suffering and joy are inseparable....

I do not understand how this differs from Mahayana Buddhism. In short, I don't see how this can be viewed as a "uniquely Chinese Buddhist perception."

You seem to believe that the Chinese Buddhism is somehow less 'valid' or 'authentic' if it is seen as less than completely homogenous with the Indian Mahayana Buddhism from which it sprang.

Not so. The question is not whether it is more or less valid. The question is simply whether the statement about Chan being a hybrid of Buddhism and Taoism is accurate or inaccurate. In my opinion, it is inaccurate. Whether that makes it more or less "valid" is irrelevant.