That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Sifu Stier]

Inconceivable Realms!

'It is so wonderful, so wonderful. The Realms of Buddha and Tao are inconceivable!'

'Tao is mindless of union with man, but a mindless man unites with Tao. To understand this one should know that one but not the other ages.'

Master Liang Chiai of Tung Shan, Founder of Tsao Tung Ch'an Sect (Soto Zen)

[Mike B]

Suggestion to instructors/moderators

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.

SifuStier

In this respect I must apologise for withdrawing from this thread - were I to have stayed then you would - at least - not have felt alone. I did so with the best intentions in that my posts were not (a) contributing to others or my calm and equanimity and (b) not contributing to a reasonable consideration of the arguments they contained. In this withdrawing I had hoped thus to be putting less fuel on the flames. I also publically apologise for nudging you in the direction of compare and contrast - as I noted this can be contentious in a religious context. The history of religious thought covers both religion and politics and so is in any forum an incendiary topic.

Barry made the most apposite meta-point - that - as I am sure we have all experienced, the format of internet fora is almost designed to encourage dissent and argument. As you had said all the martial arts fora you had previously visited had been fractious. At the time I had added a cheeky little note saying that we too can do fractious - it just takes more of a run-up LoL. Also you might give some weight to the fact that this is a discussion in the 'other spiritual systems' sub-forum! None of us are experts in this area and - as far as I am aware - instructors are not selected on the basis of their knowledge and their teaching skills in this area. So you have us at our weakest.

I believe in the supportive posts above by eg Ovidius, Sunyata, and Cha Muir you can see that this is not a situation where you are isolated. Equally we can see that you have indeed maintained good equanimity throughout - any (understandable) sign of crossness not having emerged for about ten pages!

Again in terms of apology this in a sense is an un-moderated forum - or rather more accurately I would say an auto-moderated forum - there being usually a wide group of instructors to moderate each other. At present many are in Malaysia so Anthony is somewhat unlucky at having got the bit between his teeth when there are less of his chums to calm his emotions. All of us here have at certain points in our lives have as I put it 'got the bit between our teeth' and galloped off at some stages (many times!) so let him who is truly innocent cast the first stone.

Can I respectfully suggest we abandon this thread completely - not least of which as there have been a huge range of topics raised? Could we thus lock it off and create new threads for such things as Taoism (I would love to learn more from you SifuStier), Zen, Buddhism and Study, Indian versus Chinese philosophy (or maybe we should omit compare threads?), Buddhism and Right Speech, etc etc? There are some very good posts and points here which are getting swept away in the tide. I for one found your post on All Is One to be both profound and clear and - in a way - precisely the state that I think/thought we are all aiming to get to in our daily practice.

We have had a guest for tea. The table got knocked over, everyone got wet, fingers were pointed. But hey none of us are perfect and if we can all go and change into some dry clothes maybe we could regroup.

No-one is perfect, no forum is perfect. However I truly believe that the Shaolin Wahnam Arts are a magnificent tool that can greatly benefit humanity. Us forumites, in return for access to Sifu Wong's teachings should try and maintain a forum of which he is proud.

So shall we adjourn for tea here and reconvene in different threads?

May all beings be well peaceful and happy.

Mike

ps I volunteer to answer the xmas quiz thread re 'why didn't the Buddha write it down' - "please miss! please miss! 'cos there was no writing in India then miss! but miss, he really wanted people to know what he said miss, 'cos he made all his followers memorise the millions of words he said and keep repeating it for hundreds of years miss, till they invented the pencil"

[Ovidius]

Chan = Buddhism + Taoism ?

Let me introduce a quotation from a book by B.K. Frantzis called Relaxing Into Your Being, p. 126:

Chan Buddhism was created in central China from the marriage of Taoism and Buddhism during the sixth cetury A.D. The health and spiritual aspects of the Taoist inner Chi work were seamlessly integrated into Chan's basic sitting meditation methods. When Chan moved to Japan, it was renamed Zen. Although the spiritual and philosophical aspects of Chan Buddhism were imported to Japan, Chan's chi practices derived from Taoism were not. Generally speaking, Chan Buddhism has a softer and less military bent than its Japanese or Korean version.

Later (pp. 164-165) he gives an example about the "inner Chi work" he refers:

Taoist Internal Breathing, lesson 12: Breathing Energy into the Tantien. - - This Taoist breathing method was also historically used in Chinese Chan Buddhism but was not passed down to Zen Buddhism in Japan or, for the matter, to the Japanese martial arts community, including aikido.

Master Liu Hung Chieh, the primary teacher of B.K. Frantzis, was well experienced on both Taoism and Buddhism. (Tien Tai sect Buddhist master Tan Hsiu Fa Shr invited him to come to his monastery and learn from him and later recognized that Liu had realized the Nature of Emptiness, the major objective of Buddhist Mahayana spiritual practice.)

Therefore: The Original Chan (Zen not as much) = Buddhism + Taoism

[Antonius]

If anyone is uncomfortabely with this debate, they are welcome to withdraw, but the off-topic personal comments (both overt and couched) must stop. They are wholly inappropriate and have no place in this thread (or any thread on our forum, for that matter).

This thread will not be abandoned, but it will continue to be moderated. If anyone would like to create new treads on topics raised in this one, they are welcome to do so.

[Andrew]

This thread has been (and I hope it will continue to be) extremely interesting and informative --- please let's keep it that way.

I must agree with Anthony - I do not believe that criticism of any individual(s) can possibly be considered constructive. Please, let's discuss the topic at hand.

If, at the end of this long discussion, there is no consensus reached then let's also be big enough to agree to disagree. Isn't that also part of the harmony of Yin and Yang?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Mike B]

This thread will not be abandoned

Oh well I tried! I shall crawl back under my stone again.

Just to be clear I shall re-apologise if I have been critical of any person (as opposed to expressed views/opinions) at any stage.

Just one point to all - with the greatest respect - this forum is the 'public face' of the Shaolin Wahnam School. How we all deal with guests and different views and reasonably held opinions, reflects on the public perspection of our Sifu's school.

May all beings be well, peaceful and happy.

Mike

[Antonius]

Equally we can see that you have indeed maintained good equanimity throughout - any (understandable) sign of crossness not having emerged for about ten pages!

This may be a British English vs. American English issue, but from my perspective, the use of the word “understandable” here can be seen as an approval of the behavior that was being moderated and tacitly implies that it was okay to deviate from the topic(s) and launch into personal attacks. It is not okay on this forum, as I want that to be clear.

Going off topic is one thing. Going off topic to make negative or questionable comments about members of this forum, or about the forum itself, is something entirely different. It is inappropriate and will not be tolerated.

As I said earlier, anyone who is uncomforable with the topic of this thread is welcome to withdraw or to create a new thread. Being uncomfortable with a topic itself is not an excuse to get personal.

Stay on topic, folks. Ovidius has provided some interesting material. (Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond right now.)

[Charles David]

We have had a guest for tea. The table got knocked over, everyone got wet, fingers were pointed.

I think it was more than just tea we were drinking.
Perhaps no one realized how powerful the philosophy was,
getting drunk on the tao! Really now.

I agree with Anthony, no one should be calling anyone names on this forum.
So please, in the future, do not refer to anyone as a 'forumite'. Truly uncalled for!

[DTebroc]

I have followed with interest this thread purely on the basis of being ignorant with a view of learning something about the Tao and Zen.
So much so that the thread has changed and become for me now something like:
“that was when this is how”
i.e. When something starts out innocent and How it progresses into something nasty, maybe nasty is the incorrect word but I definitely sensed a bad vibe from some of the posts.

I am a newbie to this forum and compliment everyone that has contributed to the vast wealth of knowledge contained herein.
I appreciate that people may become very passionate about something but agree that nasty/personalised comments detract from what to me is a wonderful forum.

The quote from SifuStier:
“Buddhism is Buddhism and Taoism is Taoism but Zen is a wonderful blend of both” Can that not also mean that Zen is Zen and Buddhism is Buddhism but Tao is a wonderful blend of both.

As I mentioned I was/am ignorant as to the specifics of Zen or Tao and from this thread I have obtained information but have become none the wiser, what I would like to say and this may emphasise my ignorance of the whole debate in the thread is:
At the end of the day does it really matter whether or not Zen is a blend of Taoism and Buddhism? Could not the Tao be a blend of Zen and Buddhism or any other spiritual form for that matter. Maybe I am missing the point completely.

As stated in earlier threads the one common thought is that there are many roads leading to the One Destination.
Whether we think we are driving the best car to that destination is a personal belief and as Anthony has said that is the beauty in non-forced conversion.

I would like to pay compliments to SifuStier in his contributions regarding the Tao and as MikeB has suggested would like to learn more about it on perhaps a specific thread regarding the Tao.

Without meaning to be disrespectful or insulting I feel that I would have gained more benefit from spending the time practising than skimming/reading the posts in this thread. Which is what I am about to do now.

[Sifu Stier]

Back to topic!

In reply to a monk's question, the Ts'ao Tung Ch'an Sect (Soto Zen) Master Pen Chi said:

"The real is the void in which essentially there is not a thing. The seeming is the realm of forms in which there is a myriad of appearances.
The real comprising the seeming is the real shifting to the seeming. The seeming comprising the real is the return of illusions to the real. The inclusive
integration of these is response from the invisible, free from existence, being neither pure nor impure, neither real nor seeming. This is what is called the immaterial and profound Great Tao of the non-grasping True Sect.

From olden times, my predecessors regarded this last position as the most subtle and most profound of all. You should inquire into it and see that the Virtue of Dharmakaya is wondrous, and is honored by the world as lofty Enlightenment brightens the void of space. Thus, a spiritual motive spreads the Holy Tao, and True Wisdom works for the welfare of all beings. Perfect Harmony is the inclusive integration."

[Kaijet]

reality???

Hello all,
For me as a Buddhist who is everyday practising, not reading nor talking about (remember the told Zen nun story from me) there is no reality at all because of my expirience from meditation. Since over 15 years I´m going to 10 days retreats and I´m practising daily. I´m telling this so the people understand my stories coming from my expireince, not because I´m read this book or I heard this person sayed and so on....!
If you practising meditation one day you will come to a stage were the hole body is vibrating like atomic partical and you will feel nothing is real.
Why?
How can a body who is feeling itself as solid but it is only a peace of changing and moving tiny little peaces real?. Every second millions of so called Kalapas (Pali language) diying and new million get born.
Example: You buying a bulb to lighten your room you are thinking there is only one light in the bulb and you payed it allready. But why on the end of month the powerstation is sending you a bill? The same with a candle you are thinking you looking at the same candlelight all the time but why after few hours the candle is gone? Sometimes it looks same but nothing is like it looks like.
So discussion is good but it is also good to know after my writing here I´m also a complete changed person because I´m also not real. No matter in Chan way, Tao way or Buddhist way nothing is real thats the meaning of all great masters of the arts.
Great respect to all who are writing there meaning, knowledge and expirience but no respect to people who are not dealing respectfull with the opinions of others because thats not Chan, Tao nor Buddhist even the persons talking sometime like they are .

[Antonius]

Chan Buddhism was created in central China from the marriage of Taoism and Buddhism during the sixth cetury A.D. The health and spiritual aspects of the Taoist inner Chi work were seamlessly integrated into Chan's basic sitting meditation methods.

First of all, thank you Ovidius for providing a specific example. It is appreciated. Nevertheless, I find Sifu Frantzis' statement to be inaccurate. Here's why:

As I mentioned earlier, much of Shaolin Kungfu and Chi Kung has benefited from Taoism, like the concepts of yin-yang and dan tian. In my opinion, this is probably what Sifu Frantzis' teacher, Liu Hung Chieh, was referring to in regards to "inner chi work." Although I own several of Sifu Frantzis' books and have met him in person, I don't have the book you are referencing, so I can't be sure. In any case, I disagree with the quote above.

Taoist sitting meditation is considerably different from Chan meditation. Meditation is the central practice towards spiritual fulfillment in both Chan Buddhism and Taoism, but the way they approach meditation is quite different.

For example, Taoist sitting meditation makes extensive use of visualization. Chan (Zen) meditation focuses on emptiness. This point might seem trivial to a scholar (which is not to suggest that Liu or Frantzis are merely scholars), but to a meditator, it is a major point. Actually, it could be argued that it is the essential point.

The use of visualization, like in the example of golden elixir, is not Chan. Although visualization can lead a cultivator to very high levels, its accomplishments, no matter how advanced, are still in the phenomenal realm. Chan aims at the transcendental realm. This practice can be traced back not only to pre-Chan Mahayana Buddhism, but to the Buddha himself.

As another example, attuning with the seasons and being as natural as possible is a Taoist practice that concerns the phenomenal realm. In Shaolin Wahnam, the philosophy and practice in Standing Zen and Flowing Zen (Flowingly Still) concern the transcendental. Anyone who has been outside of the phenomenal realm and tasted the transcendental knows that the difference between the two is significant. Kai Sihing alluded to this in his post.

I would also like to point out that our Sigung Ho came to the opposite conclusion as Sifu Liu. Sigung Ho was a high-level Taoist practitioner, but switched to Chan Buddhism, among other reasons, because it reaches for the trancendental.

[Michael Durkin]

Dear Sifu Stier,

I mutually understand that you can agree and disagree with the same person, and that by giving encouragement and gratitude for sharing information you aren't implicitly agreeing or disagreeing with what they are saying.

"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"

Perhaps due to the ever increasing length of this topic it may feel like things are getting 'energetic', but I feel what you have said is getting a bit carried away. If you know that what you are typing isn't 'incriminating', you have nothing to worry about.

I don't think anyone has been "flogging" you for having "an alternative view". What I have seen is that Antonious has realised some differences when comparing the philosophy himself and Sifu Wong subscribe to compared to what you are saying. Antonious has then asked for you to explain those differences. He has also stated that there are questions he feels you haven't answered. He has also explained why he doesn't agree with your answeres in a constructive manner. There for I don't see any "flogging". People disagree, that's life, you can choose not to get upset about it.

I don't believe theres a "gang mentality" that's here for "fault finding" resulting in you feeling "defensiveness". Like Antonious, I am here to learn, question and discover. I can say that I have enjoyed reading yours and everyone's posts, I'm very glad they have been posted than not at all. I don't believe in burning any bridges and glad to see that your still here.

I would be interested to read from your knowledge and experience what joys your philosophy has brought you. In another thread of course, we'll be hung drawn and quartered for going off topic here

Take Care,
Michael Durkin

[julie]

Hi everyone,

If Te Shan still alive, you all would have received many strokes of his staff......

Ha ha ha......

Best regards,
Julie

[Jeffrey Segal]

Greetings from Sungai Petani

What an interesting thread we have going here! I wonder if any of our members would care to re-read the various posts to see all the wonderful examples of Zen and Taoism that we have on display right here.

Thanks to Panu and Anthony for steering us back towards meaningful discussion. I would sincerely welcome some more specific examples of Taoist influences on Zen. Not surprisingly, I share the view that Zen is Zen and Tao is Tao but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be delighted to learn that is isn't so.

Without wishing to pour oil on any fires that may be burning in the hearts of some of our members, I would like to say that to the best of my knowledge and experience, Anthony Sihing's comments are indeed a fair representation of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute. I know for a fact that Sifu is proud of Anthony Sihing's posts here and elsewhere on the forum.

Excellent post, Kai Sihing.

A special greeting to all the brothers and sisters that cannot be with us here in Malaysia to celebrate the wedding of Wong Sau Foong and Teoh Swee Fatt. The Qigong review course yesterday was wonderful and I am particularly happy to see my Shaolinquan brothers enjoying their pushing hands today.

From the Heart,