That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Antonius]

For those of you skimming this thread (I know you're out there), these are my two main points (see above...if you have time) in this debate: that Taoism had no significant influence on the formation of Zen Buddhism, and that there is a chasm between scholarly investigation and direct experience.

Actually, Sunyata already did an excellent job of summing up the gist of the friendly debate with:

So there are two separate but closely related issues here, and I don't want to mistake either. On the one hand we're debating whether or not Taoism influenced Buddhism to form Zen...The second issue as I understand is the gulf between scholarly investigation and direct experience.

[Sifu Stier]

sudden illumination!

Andrew!

Wow! Talk about a 'sudden illumination and understanding'! I thought you said that you were totally confused, and that you didn't understand! Well, obviously not the case anymore. Nicely done! Congrats!

I tend to agree that any further discussion of Taoist Alchemy, if any, would be better placed elsewhere so as not to muddy the waters with anymore confusion in this thread!

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier:

I am a bit confused now that you agree with Andrew's summation above. Could you please clarify how you can reconcile his statement:

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.

...with your own statements:

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

...as well as:

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 discrepancies between Andrew's statements and your own seem clear to me, but perhaps I am missing something.

[Sifu Stier]

like lambs lead to the slaughter!

Antonius!

I hardly know where to begin! You haven't accepted any of the generally accepted and logical interactive connections between Buddhism and Taoism presented thus far, so I have little reason to believe that any further attempts to elucidate mutual 'cross-over' influences of the two traditions would be accepted by you either. You are clearly attached to a fixed view on this matter, and seem to be more than willing to argue to the last breath in order to prove your 'rightness' or 'correctness'. You have progressively bolstered what I believe are mostly your own personal opinions by stating that you speak in behalf of your Sifu as well, and then later, in behalf of his Sifu, too! This leaves me feeling like 'a lamb being lead to the slaughter'! I don't like being placed in a position where I am made to feel that the simple expression of views different from yours is synonomous with criticising Masters who have graciously welcomed my input on these boards. I see such 'bullying' tactics on your part, Antonius, as inappropriate and totally unwarranted, and an abuse of your status and position here!

The problem arises, therefore, that an open and fair discussion and exchange of views becomes nearly impossible when the supposed Forum Administrator participates with such an overbearing, dogmatic, and 'pontificating' presence, more akin to a 'hall monitor' or a 'truant officer' than a neutral forum administrator. You have personally created an atmosphere which is unfavorable to the goals of the discussion, and which certainly does not invite open dialogue, especially among your junior Wahnam brothers and sisters! I suggest that you take a step backward, take a deep breath, and honestly ask yourself if you are indeed representing your Sifu and other Elders in a way that would favorably impress and attract new members to your organization.

[Charles David]

[Chiahua]

You are clearly attached to a fixed view on this matter, and seem to be more than willing to argue to the last breath in order to prove your 'rightness' or 'correctness'.

I feel this goes back to the second strain of this debate, namely the difference between scholarly learning and practice. In the Zen view, the practice is the more important than anything other aspect of Buddhist life. Anthony draws on his considerable experiences and interactions with Sifu Wong and his seniors. He also expresses respect for Dr. Thurman (who is Uma's father, for you movie geeks out there) because he was not content to be merely read about Buddhism, but actually practiced it.
Perhaps if you shared some of your own experiences with the "Zen Taoism interface" that would shed light on your philosophical grounding. Anthony has discussed the considerable amount that he has learned from Sifu Wong, which is why you might perceive his position as "fixed". It's hard to argue about/with personal experiences.

[Andrew]

Wow! Talk about a 'sudden illumination and understanding'! I thought you said that you were totally confused, and that you didn't understand! Well, obviously not the case anymore. Nicely done! Congrats!

Thanks Sifu Stier. I really was confused. As the thread progressed I got more and more confused. All I did was to try and follow your wise advice, detach myself from the confusion and ..... well hey presto!

Thanks again for helping me through the confusion.

Andrew

P.S. Folks, now, as Sifu Stier says, I got it - please don't confuse me again

[Sifu Stier]

All is One!

A fundamental realization of my own practice has been that both Zen and Taoism acknowledge that 'All is One', and that this 'Oneness' includes all apparent separateness. Thus, Yin and Yang are complimentary opposites which mutually generate and define each other while maintaining their characteristic 'separateness'! And so, in both traditions, through detachment
and non-attachment, the spiritual aspirant is At One with All! Everything remains the same as before, but is now perceived and experienced with a new awareness and intimacy which is difficult, if not impossible, to explain to anyone who hasn't 'been there and done that' also. Linear thinking is transcended, as if by a quantum leap, and all value judgements, all personal discriminations, all attachments to narrow perspectives become arbitrary points of reference exposed as mere illusions. Validating this is the observation that all attempts to clearly explain the profundity of such things inevitably seems to produce statements followed by denials, opinions followed by contradictions, as the polar opposites constantly trade their temporary dominance perpetually in turn. One paradox after another. Where does 'A' really end and 'B' really begin if they are but alternate parts of the same wholeness or oneness? I strive to return to the obvious in my own meditation and practice in order to realize in quietude what all of our words can never really convey!

[Jordan]

Sifu Stier,

Your response to Antonius:

You haven't accepted any of the generally accepted and logical interactive connections between Buddhism and Taoism presented thus far

Provided by yourself? According to your previous post (which has been quoted), you agreed with Andrews statement that...

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.

Am I also missing something? (Very possible, I am recovering from food poisoning)

Kind Regards,

Jordan.

[Andrew]

Jordan --- sorry to hear about the food poisoning ... hope you're feeling better soon.

On topic:
I thought I had understood .... in fact I know I understand.

But I also understand Anthony's and Sunyata's comments and questions. There does still seem to be some inconsistency in some previous statements. Sifu Stier - It would be a big help if you could clarify this.

Slightly off topic:
I would like to note that Antonius is the main forum administrator here. His task, as such, is the organisation and maintenance of the forums and I'm sure we are all grateful to him for volunteering his time to do that.

All of the moderators (i.e. all of the Shaolin Wahnam Instructors - including Antonius) are also tasked with offering their opinions and advice and representing our school, our Sifu and other Elders to the best of our abilities. This is Sifu's wish. I know Anthony and am sure that he would NEVER knowingly misrepresent Sifu nor Shaolin Wahnam in any way. If he claims to represent views held by Sifu then I am absolutely certain that this is the case (and most likely he could and would present evidence to that effect if requested to do so). And if it were, for any reason, not true then I'm also 100% sure that Sifu would not sit back and allow him to continue.

Andrew

[Sifu Stier]

Welcome to the Inquisition!

Greetings to All!

Like anyone else posting here, I find myself in agreement with certain points made by others, not in agreement with other points made by the same individual, and thus, neither totally agreeing with nor completely disagreeing with ANYONE! To offer a given person a few words of supportive reply for contributing to the discussion should not be interpreted as tacit approval and
agreement with their views. Had I realized that a Grand Inquisition was about to examine and analyze every stroke of my keyboard in search of supposedly incriminating 'evidence' with which to prosecute me, I certainly would have edited my responses more carefully! Up until about one week ago, I was under the obviously deluded impression that I was among a wonderful group of new friends here! But at the first expression of an opinion not in total agreement with the 'official party line' of belief, that impression certainly changed. The 'gang mentality' which some of you have so quickly and easily embraced has been a sorry spectacle indeed! The recent, general atmosphere of fault finding and negative bias has left me feeling constant defensiveness against escalating verbal assault in a group 'witch hunt' focused solely on me. I can only conclude that most of you harbor significant uncertainties and unresolved doubts regarding many of the opinions which have been expressed in this thread. I can assure you that such issues will not be resolved by flogging everyone who offers an alternative view! Some of you are definitely more than "a little confused" and, YES!, some of you are definitely "missing something here".

[Ovidius]

Let's calm down

Hello,

I find myself in agreement with certain points made by others, not in agreement with other points made by the same individual, and thus, neither totally agreeing with nor completely disagreeing with ANYONE!

This is actually related to a point that I wanted to express once, but then forgot it. I believe that nobody is perfect in human form, not even Buddha or Jesus, that he or she speaks out only words that can be considered only as truth, even if taken out of context. By context I mean for example time, situation and audience. Everybody makes also pure mistakes, and definitely should have licence to own different or same opinions than majority. Also time and space for developement of opinions is important. By space I mean a kind of a non-rejecting attitude even if there is not yet expressed well grounding to the ideas, and by time, a time to develop this grounding and ideas further.

Had I realized that a Grand Inquisition was about to examine and analyze every stroke of my keyboard

I certainly do not wish such atmosphere here. It usually causes loss of creativity in society because people do not dare to say their opinions which may or may not be "well grounded", by which I mean groundend in a sense how society defines that concept. (What is a well grounded information is a topic of philosophy as it own. Also related to the concepts I am working on now in a essay project, namely ideology and indoctrination.)

feeling constant defensiveness against escalating verbal assault

This is a serious feeling. What should we all do to prevent this kind of situations occuring? I am sure we all have something important to learn about this! This should be discussed if we are to continue.

[Charles David]

Cheese

Sifu Stier,

Thank you for taking the time to answer all of the questions posed to you. The students here are very bright and have certainly asked some perspicacious ones. I'm sure that if we were all together, you could not mistake the humility and earnestness with which the questions were being posed.

As for me, I aspire to becoming a great teacher, and despair at ever being able to field my student's more difficult questions. Do I really have to learn the difference between Miniyana and Hahamama?

To further your point about contradictions, I recall Walt Whitman:

Do I contradict myself?
Of course I do
I contain multitudes


The pizza is almost ready.

[Chiahua]

MMmmmm delicious pizza

I could go for a slice right now...

Validating this is the observation that all attempts to clearly explain the profundity of such things inevitably seems to produce statements followed by denials, opinions followed by contradictions, as the polar opposites constantly trade their temporary dominance perpetually in turn.

This is sort of the “central problem” in trying to engage in friendly debate or scholarly discussion about Zen and Taoism. I think there are good scholarly ways to approach the subjects (linguistic and historical), but it’s crucial to bear in mind that such lines of inquiry are completely divorced from what a practitioner would consider “the true Tao” or “true Zen”, i.e. the experience of it, whether it is through meditation or other related practices.

To offer a given person a few words of supportive reply for contributing to the discussion should not be interpreted as tacit approval and agreement with their views.

It’s wonderful that you so supportive, and I for one appreciate your encouragement!

Had I realized that a Grand Inquisition was about to examine and analyze every stroke of my keyboard in search of supposedly incriminating 'evidence' with which to prosecute me, I certainly would have edited my responses more carefully.

It’s really unfortunate that you feel that way. Taken with the quote above, it’s really a shame that you feel threatened because you're so genial. We all walk a fine line here—on the one hand we want to have an intellectual discussion about Taoism and Zen. However, in scholarly debates one generally has to take an “A not B” position, where you construct an argument from textual evidence. That sounds so remote from what others are trying to achieve on this forum in living their daily lives.
The “witch hunt” you feel threatened by, in my opinion, is a search for internal consistency-- that is the gold standard by which western scholarship takes place. On the other hand, my Buddhism professor always drew the following contrast: western thought and discourse always wants to “compartmentalize” ideas and truths, saying “A not B” and so forth. Chinese intellectual thought on the other hand tends to be more “round” in the sense that there is a central core which is the “truth”; things are not wrong, they just contain parts of the truth, but do not possess all of it.
Sorry to roil the waters of logic and friendly debate….

Blessings to all,
Chia-Hua

[Antonius]

Okay. I'd say this has gone far enough. I want to get things back on track here. The name-calling just isn't appropriate and needs to stop now. Stay on topic please.

I feel this goes back to the second strain of this debate, namely the difference between scholarly learning and practice. In the Zen view, the practice is the more important than anything other aspect of Buddhist life.

"Burn your books and carry on with your training", is what the great Bodhidharma advised the monks at the Shaolin Temple. They had been focusing too much on the intellect and not enough on direct experience through practice. In order to emphasize the importance of direct experience, Bodhidharma suggested something unthinkable to scholars -- that they burn their books.

Hui Neng, the great Sixth Patriarch of Zen Buddhism, was illiterate. Interestingly, though he himself never learned to read or write, his thoughts were later recorded in the Platform Sutra (the only sutra in the Buddhist cannon that does not come from the Buddha's own words).

Isn't it fascinating that the people with the attainment themselves, like the Buddha and Hui Neng, saw no need to write things down, and yet their followers did?