That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Sifu Stier]

Very well, Antonius! I stand duly corrected, and I acknowledge that this is clearly 'your ball, your court, your game, and your rules.' Unlike you, however, I have expressed the views of the vast majority of Buddhist scholars regarding this issue, rather than the 'exclusivist' view of one school or organization. Expand your reading to include what the foremost Buddhist scholars and historians have to say on this topic, and then feel free to disagree with their opinions as well. Once again, don't shoot me, I'm only a messenger! I respectfully honor your right to your opinion on your Boards, and elsewhere. This has never been an issue for me as I have no desire to engage you or anyone else in an ongoing, giant pissing contest! I neither seek nor need your approval or agreement. My extensive study and education in these areas has lead me to believe that the consensus of the majority is usually, not always, but usually the most accurate take on things! In any event, I yield the Forum to you, and respectfully withdraw from further 'interference' with your views and teachings. No hard feelings here. I love you all just the same!

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier:

Unlike you, however, I have expressed the views of the vast majority of Buddhist scholars regarding this issue

It is true that a vast majority of Buddhist scholars and historians (but not necessarily Zen practitioners, or even Buddhist practitioners) have perpetuated the idea that Zen is a blend of Buddhism and Taoism. This is their prerogative, and yours.

But from our practice (Sigung Ho, Sifu Wong, myself, and other members of Shaolin Wahnam), we have found that there is actually little or no significant Taoist influence on Zen. We base our opinion not merely on intellectual understanding, but also on direct experience. We do the same with our Chi Kung and our Kungfu.

(I would like to take this opportunity to point out that our Sigung Ho was a high-level Taoist master before he became devoted to Zen. Hence, we in Shaolin Wahnam have exposure to both Zen and Taoist teachings.)

rather than the 'exclusivist' view of one school or organization.

Our view is not “exclusivist”. In fact, most Zen practitioners do not acknowledge, explicitly or implicitly, that Taoism has had much influence on Zen.

For example, Zen practitioners speak and write in simple, clear language. They call a spade a spade. If Taoism had influenced Zen significantly, they would call a spade a crescent moon that shovels soil. Even a causal comparison of the language used in Zen writings (like gong-an or koan) with Taoist writings (like Chuang Tzu) should substantiate this point.

On the other hand, when a Zen student asks a Zen master what a spade is, the master may answer that it is Buddha, or that is his grandfather, or that it is a bucket of sh*t. Does this suggest ”that the Zen Masters meant for people to be confused"? (No.) Do they call a spade a spade, or a bucket of sh*t? (Both.)

The two examples above illustrate the importance of direct experience. The master’s intention in the 2nd example is not to explain what a spade is, but to make use of that situation to help his student experience satori. The uninitiated will not understand what this is about, just as one who has no experience of internal force would not understand when he reads about a master asking his student to sink down his stance.

Expand your reading to include what the foremost Buddhist scholars and historians have to say on this topic, and then feel free to disagree with their opinions as well.

It is not true, as you seems to imply here Sifu Stier, that we do not expose ourselves to the writings of Buddhist scholars and historians. I mentioned earlier that I studied with Prof. Robert Thurman, an eminent Buddhist scholar and friend to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. My posts also show that I have read "The Way of Zen" by Alan Watts.

In fact, it is precisely because I have found a wide discrepancy between what scholars have written and what actually occurs in Zen practice that this thread has a special interest for me and many of us here.

Nevertheless, although I have read extensively, I may not have read as extensively as you, Sifu Stier. I would take this opportunity to benefit from your experience, or the experiences of others on the forum. Can you or other members please give specific examples, not just generalizations or opinions, where Taoism has influenced Zen?

[barrys]

Could I just say - Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh. There I feel much better now.

Barry

[Antonius]

I think I understand your frustration, Barry. These discussions can get complicated and confusing. This is one reason why I've started underlining key points for those who only have time to skim the thread.

Nevertheless, Sifu and I both feel that this discussion has raised some important issues, and that is why I am taking time out of my busy schedule to address them in depth.

[Chiahua]

Trying to wrap my head around this thread(s?)

So there are two separate but closely related issues here, and I don't want to mistate either.
On the one hand we're debating whether or not Taoism influenced Buddhism to form Zen.

• Are there tenets of Zen that are "uniquely" Daoist and cannot be traced back to doctrine that came from india? I accepted as dogma the story that Zen originated when Mahakashyapa smiled in response to the buddha lifting the flower, the first instance of "heart to heart" transmission...
• Zen developed in a culture that was already rich with philosophies. As my understanding goes, Zen was also a relative latecomer to China relative to other Buddhist schools. How come these other schools of Buddism show less Taoist influence? Was there something unique to the monks who eventually formed the Zen school (I'm thinking socio-economic factors, given that the Shaolin temple was an imperial temple, no?)

Personally I agree that there was some exchange of ideas, but that Taoism did not give birth to Zen. Bodhidharma was said to be most influenced by the Lankavatara Sutra (in DT Suzuki's intro to his translation of the text). If you read it, really differs from any sort of daoist work. It devotes a considerable amount of text to the dangers of the 6 gates that correspond to the perceptive senses, vijnana, including that of cognition (alaya-vijnana). In some ways, it's much much more elaborate in its theoretical exposition than any Daoist work or any Zen literature that comes after it.
My feeling is that the early translators of the buddhist scriptures had to make the works sound more Taoist or Confucian (and couching buddhist thought in the appropriate jargon) because they were introducing foreign religious doctrine into a country and culture that has been traditionally xenophobic and elitist (way to go, ancestors!), and already had a very rich indigenous intellectual tradition. With these "Taoist" and "Confucian" sounding translations of Buddhist scripture, it's possible that was what gave birth to the "Zen coming from Taoism" notion. If there was a linguist amongst us, she might be able tell us if the earlier translations differed in their wording than later translations that were made when Buddhism was fairly well established in the Chinese intellectual milieu.

Okay.
The second issue as I understand is the gulf between scholarly investigation and direct experience? I'll leave that to someone else since my own direct experience has been marred with too much intellectual wankery(I just hope my third eye doesn't go blind!).

[Sifu Stier]

Thank you, Sunyata! Excellent post, very well stated! I think you clarified that Zen did not directly come from Taoism, but rather that Taoist and Confucian terminology and concepts were used to teach and explain the Buddhist doctrines. This makes sense, as it would be both foolish and ignorant to assume that a foreign ideology like Buddhism could be transplanted in China to exist in a vacuum, untouched and uninfluenced by the language, culture, and spiritual traditions already present there!

I don't see much, if any, Taoist influence on Zen in terms of religious doctrine or meditative practice, but only in providing a familiar platform from which the Indian Buddhist teachings could be made more palatable to the Chinese mind. In fact, Buddhists have always viewed their methods of spiritual attainment as far superior to their antecedents and counterparts like Brahmanism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Taoism, oftentimes quite arrogantly and condescendingly. Apparently, regardless of one's spiritual persuasion, non-attachment to ego, personal discriminations, and biased value judgements is a difficult task for everyone!

[Chiahua]

"

In fact, Buddhists have always viewed their methods of spiritual attainment as far superior to their antecedents and counterparts like Brahmanism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Taoism, oftentimes quite arrogantly and condescendingly. Apparently, regardless of one's spiritual persuasion, non-attachment to ego, personal discriminations, and biased value judgements is a difficult task for everyone!

In fact, Buddhists of particular schools view their sometimes view their own method of cultivation as being superior to those of other schools. The adoption of the term Hinayana for example carries a hint of judgment. Hui Neng speaks that other methods of cultivation are for lesser individuals. Again, this might have something to do with socio-economic factors as the doctrine would first arrive as written documents, and thus only the literati would have access to these teachings.
It's important to note (and is hopefully obvious) that spiritual machismo is not unique to Buddhism. "Our god/dharma/golden calf/alien overlord is better than yours" is probably the one universal tenet.

[Antonius]

In fact, Buddhists of particular schools view their sometimes view their own method of cultivation as being superior to those of other schools.

Sure. And yet Buddhism also talks about the 84,000 Dharma Doors to enlightenment. To quote Sifu Wong: "84,000 dharma doors is a Buddhist term meaning that there are countless different methods to suit different people in their spiritual cultivations to reach different or the same intermediate goals, and the same supreme spiritual fulfillment."

I'm not sure about the translation of "lesser" here Sunyata:

Hui Neng speaks that other methods of cultivation are for lesser individuals.

...but it might be accurate. To quote Sifu again: "Zen is reputed to be the best of the best dharma doors. However it is not for everybody. It is for those who are ready, i.e. those who have good spiritual roots."

Nevertheless, as I said earlier in this thread: I think this is the beauty of both Zen Buddhism and Taoism -- that neither tradition advocates aggressive conversion to its views.

I'll quote Sifu again since I'm on a roll (and also pressed for time): "One becomes a Buddhist not by conversion but by free choice. Many of my students practise Zen and other Buddhist teachings without distracting from their own faiths, including Christianity. A Buddhist is one who voluntarily practises the teachings of the Buddha, which can be summed up in the Buddha's own words as follows: Avoid all evil, do good, and cultivate the mind. Reciting scriptures are saying prayers are two of numerous ways to cultivate the mind. Hence, all true Christians are also Buddhists at the same time."

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier:

I'm glad to see that you decided to stay, and I'm also happy to see you clarify things by going from:

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

...to:

I don't see much, if any, Taoist influence on Zen in terms of religious doctrine or meditative practice, but only in providing a familiar platform from which the Indian Buddhist teachings could be made more palatable to the Chinese mind.

Now it's time for me to practice!

[Sifu Stier]

As a footnote to the last post here by Antonius, I haven't changed my opinion in the least. I believe both of my statements to be true. I have said from the outset of this discussion that Chinese language and philosophical metaphors, especially familiar elements of Taoism and Confucianism, ideas and symbology which have long been synonomous with the heart of Chinese culture, were employed as comfortable 'mediums' through which the Buddhist doctrine and ideology could be transmitted to the masses. I never stated a belief that Ch'an doctrine or practices were developed from Taoist sources, nor did I intend to imply that I believe that to be true.

My initial thoughts in starting this thread were to discuss the co-existent relationship between the Ch'an or Zen Buddhist Tradition and the indigenous Taoist Tradition, exploring how they are similar, how they are different, and how they may have influenced and benefited one another. I never meant for this to become a Buddhist vs. Taoist war of ideologies, or a 'this tradition is better than that tradition' debate, or any other adversarial confrontation. I would like to add that I deeply resent the efforts of those individuals who have attempted to make this thread exactly that!

And lastly, I am neither a Buddhist or a Taoist, per se, so I really don't have any personal investment in such arguments one way or the other!

[Andrew]

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 - I would like to thank you very much for your posts here in general and most specifically for the one I have quoted above. It means a lot to me and helped clear my confusion more than any other single post in this thread to that point.

Having continued reading the thread as it has developed since that post I think I have now understood. I am still unsure what Taoism really is but I do now know what Zen Buddhism is. I have also realised that, despite not officially being such and without really knowing, I am a practicing Zen Buddhist .

I would like to thank all who have participated in this thread thus far. In particular I am very pleased and grateful that noone has departed from here as a result of differing views.

Now, just as a quick check of my "understanding" (maybe, if I finally got it, this will help others who have been just as confused):
- Zen Buddhism is a school of the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism with roots in India.
- To help introduce the Zen Buddhist teachings into the Chinese culture, the original language (sanskrit?) had to be modified (to a Chinese dialect) to make it comprehensible for the Chinese.
- Zen Buddhism was and remains Zen Buddhism.
- Taoism was and remains Taoism.
- The influence of Taoism (or maybe it would be better to say "existing Chinese culture") was purely linguistic and had little or no influence on the actual teaching nor practice of Zen Buddhism.
- So, as an analogy, Zen Buddhism practiced in Western countries has been influenced by Christianity in the same way because the language used to transmit its teachings had to be modified for it to be understood.

Did I get it now?

I hope so (and would be grateful for a confirmation .... or otherwise).

Thanks again to all concerned,
Andrew

[Ovidius]

The Golden Pill

particularly those methods which promised freedom from illness and disease, gracefully aging longevity, greater sexual prowess, and even physical immortality - - These popular ideas all played their part in developing the elusive Elixir of Immortality, the Golden Pill!

Thanks Sifu Stier!

I have heard that some emperors died because of taking "The Golden Pill" (I mean a concrete pill) which was supposed to make them immortal, but was toxic instead. Is this true? Do you think they eventually found a way to make the Pill, or should I say, a kind of a high level Chi Kung for mixing internal and external energies that results as a physical immortality?

[Andrew]

I think the thematic of a "Golden Pill" or other practices belong in a different thread. This has nothing to do (unless I am, again, missing something) with the discussion at hand and is possibly adding to the confusion. Please, Ovidius, start a relevant thread if you want to continue discussing that.

Thanks,
Andrew

P.S. If there is such a "Golden Pill" or similar I very much doubt anyone here knows too much about it and, if they did, they are not likely to admit it nor talk about it in public. ..... but maybe I'm wrong again

[Antonius]

My initial thoughts in starting this thread were to discuss the co-existent relationship between the Ch'an or Zen Buddhist Tradition and the indigenous Taoist Tradition, exploring how they are similar, how they are different, and how they may have influenced and benefited one another.

Many forum members, including Shaolin Wahnam members and myself, appreciate and enjoy your posts explaining Taoist practices and philosophies ranging from Returning to Nature to its influences in martial arts. Many members have stated their thanks for your efforts, including myself.

Perhaps I may have missed them in your posts, but except for general statements, I am still not clear about your views on the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Taoism, and how they may have influenced and benefited each other. I would greatly appreciate if you could give us some specific examples. I believe that Andrew also made that request earlier.

You mentioned some important beliefs and practices in Taoism, but not in Zen or Buddhism. You mentioned, for example, the detailed observation of nature, the recurrence of the seasons, and the cultivation of the golden pill. This is interesting and helpful information, but I fail to see how these Taoist practices are similar to or different from Zen, or how they benefit Zen. Again, it would be greatly appreciated if you could enlighten us.

I never meant for this to become a Buddhist vs. Taoist war of ideologies, or a 'this tradition is better than that tradition' debate, or any other adversarial confrontation.

This is very clear from your posts. I am sure no one here feels that you attempted to initiate a Buddhist vs. Taoist war of ideology. Personally, I don't think anyone in the forum has attempted to initiate it either.

I would like to add that I deeply resent the efforts of those individuals who have attempted to make this thread exactly that!

With all due respect, I am surprised that you feel this way. I'm not sure if you are referring to me, but I would like to categorically state that that was not my intention. If I may be allowed to speak for my Shaolin Wahnam brothers and sisters, I'll say that it was also not their intention. Nevertheless, if I appear to you in this way or have somehow appeared disrespectful with my opinions, please accept my apologies.

Actually, it would be silly for me to start a Buddhist vs. Taoist war of ideology since both Buddhist and Taoist philosophies and practices are important in our Shaolin Wahnam school. As mentioned earlier, Sigong Ho was a high-level Taoist master who could (understandably, many people may think this is nonsense) summon Taoist deities to do his bidding.

And lastly, I am neither a Buddhist or a Taoist, per se, so I really don't have any personal investment in such arguments one way or the other!

Both Buddhism and Taoism affect our training as well as our daily life. In this regard, it is even more meaningful for us not to invest in a Buddhist vs. Taoist war of ideology.

[Antonius]

To review some of what has happened in this thread so far...I belive that the difference of opinion and friendly debate, which we in Shaolin Wahnam accept and value as conducive to our development, began when Mike mentioned:

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).

To which Sifu Stier answered:

You make an excellent point, and in doing so have anticipated where I intended to take this thread.

When Sifu Stier said that Mike had anticipated where he (Sifu Stier) had intended to take the thread (i.e. that Zen was the “daughter” of the earlier Taoism and Buddhism), the implication that Zen was an offshoot (“daughter”) resulting from a “marriage” of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism was quite clear.

Sifu Stier further emphasized this point with:

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.

The reason this is so interesting to us in Shaolin Wahnam is because we believe, as Marcus said earlier, that Zen is Zen and Taoism is Taoism. We also feel that the Zen we practice today (in Shaolin Wahnam) has the same essence as the Zen that Bodhidharma brought to the Shaolin Temple in China. Hence, we wanted to benefit from Sifu Stier’s wide experience and reading by asking him to enlighten us with specific examples (not just generalized statements) about the influence of Taoism on Zen. In this way, he can help us to reevaluate our beliefs.

I don't see much, if any, Taoist influence on Zen in terms of religious doctrine or meditative practice, but only in providing a familiar platform from which the Indian Buddhist teachings could be made more palatable to the Chinese mind.

I am happy with the first part of Sifu Stier’s answer since it confirms our belief. But I am also a bit disappointed. Because so many scholars and historians have advocated that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism, I am eager to hear what these pervasive Taoist influences are. I find it hard to believe that these scholars and historians, whom many people regard as authoritative, have formed their opinions (which are often taken as fact) based on generalizations and speculations, and not on specific evidence.

On the other hand, I disagree with the second part of Sifu Stier’s answer. Many scholars mistakenly think that Zen was “Taoism in Buddhist clothing” because of the many “Taoist” terms in early Buddhist texts (that were translated into Chinese). For example, in some of these early texts, attaining Enlightenment was translated as “attaining the Tao”. It was precisely to avoid confusion that “Enlightenment” was later translated into an un-Chinese term, nie ban (a transliteration of the Sanskrit nirvana). Similarly the early Chinese term zi hui, which has a strong Confucian connotation, was later changed to ban rou, which is a transliteration from the Sanskrit word for “wisdom."

Morphologically speaking, the word “Tao” is not a Taoist tem. “Attaining the Tao” is frequently used in Confucian writings too, and both Confucian practitioners and scholars understand that “attaining the Tao” in Confucian writings is different from “attaining the Tao” in Taoist writings.