That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Sifu Stier]

More examples !

'The Great Tao is beyond all similes! One turns in vain to East or West for something like it. It is much faster than sparks from flint, and the flash of lightening can never overtake it! If you will stop differentiating and grasping appearances, you will realize Tao in an instant!

By Master Yi Hsuan of the Lin Chi Ch'an Sect (Rinzai Zen Sect)
(From 'Five Lamps Meeting at the Source' and 'Finger Pointing at the Moon')

Another example of the intimate connection between Ch'an and Taoist thought in the mind and words of a lifelong practitioner and Zen Master!

[Antonius]

Another example of the intimate connection between Ch'an and Taoist thought in the mind and words of a lifelong practitioner and Zen Master!

Thank you for bringing an example. Nevertheless, this is something I have already covered and doesn't really show a connection between Taoism and Zen. The use of the word "Tao" by Chinese masters does not, in and of itself, indicate a connection to Taoism. As I said earlier in the thread:

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.

The same applies to Buddhist writings.

Furthermore, as I'm sure you know, the Chinese character for "Tao" ( 道 ) can have many meanings. For example, in additon to meaning the "The Way," it can also be used to mean "to say." This is exemplified in the first line of the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Ching), which I quoted earlier in the thread:

道可道非常道 (Dao Ke Dao, Fei Chang Dao)

As another example, my own Chinese name, Ke An Dao ( 柯安道 ), has the word Tao in it. This, in and of itself, does not show a connection between me and Taoism.

[Sifu Stier]

Return to Tao!

The use of the word 'Tao' or its Chinese character in the context of spiritual and religious writings does not necessarily refer to Religious Taoism and/or the ceremonial rites and services thereof, but it most certainly does refer to the spiritual and philosophical concept of Tao as the context of the Ch'an Master's writings clearly shows. Of course, 'tao' could mean a 'road' or 'path'
or 'direction', and in combination with other characters for ideas of 'truth' and 'moral virtue' when used in more mundane and secular references. But such is definitely not the case in the spiritual writings from which the quotes were taken. The references are clearly referring to spiritual and philosophical ideas of Tao long established in Chinese Culture and in the mind of the author. Statements of the Ch'an Masters such as "The Realms of Buddha and
Tao are inconceivable" are not employing the word Tao to mean the 'road' to grandmothers house, or the 'Branch of the calm or quiet 'path' as implied in the characters of a Chinese name. Please, give me a break here! Frankly,
I don't understand why any intelligent person would believe that Buddhism and Philosophical Taoism remained totally segregated for many, many centuries and had absolutely no influence on each other. Anything is possible
under the sun, but some things are highly improbable! As a similar example, should I believe that Hellenistic culture and religion brought from Greece to Egypt in ancient times remained unchanged and untouched in its exposure to pre-existing Egyptian culture? If you really believe these improbable scenarios to be true, please contact me about some dry land in Louisiana that I'd like to sell to you! LOL!

[Mike B]

Half a dozen or so more examples...

Hi Jeff - glad to see you guys getting on with the important things in life like practice and enjoying yourselves I am glad Sifu is well and not shedding tears over us lesser mortals squabbling!

Anyway I did suggest (unsuccesfully) that we all reconvene and separate threads (a good example of which is Kai's splendid post about his deep experience not getting enough attention here (Taisihing Kai - I had a feeling of U Ba Khin's school there if so pleased you are training across traditions!)). However as you guys wish to bash on... At least the table and chairs have been righted and a clean tablecloth applied...

Also I do entirely agree with Kai that we are All!! wasting our time squabbling rather than practicing.

It would be nice to know what the standard of proof is here - its a bit difficult seeing after 199 posts people suddenly having a damascene conversion and saying their prior view was wrong!

Just as a matter of logic, once again, one does not show the absence of similarity/relationships by pointing out that there are some differences so I do not believe I have yet seen a *refutation of the Bruce Frantzis view*.

This correct linguistic point covering the use of the word Tao gets to be a toughie if taken too far. I think one needs to apply some common sense. It does show though at another level the basic point that rather like adjacent watercolours the three great Chinese philospohies all blended into each other at the margin.

For me personally by far the most persuasive argument is a comparative study of the changes undergone in Buddhist thought when Indian Buddhism became Chinese Buddhism and the Chinese Ch'an school and then the Japanese Zen schools - eg I mentioned earlier the tathagatagarba concept. However this falls foul of the criterion that study is not taken seriously here and also the relative lack of knowledge of this big topic in terms of having a reasonable debate (which is maybe why this was one of the ones that fell by the wayside).

I did discuss this topic with my friend the Zen monk this week who thought it 'obvious' - not that thats much help by way of proof LoL.

Anyway some more examples of direct quotes - more or less may be more or less persuasive to different people but I have to say after a time the sheer weight begins to mount:

1) From http://www.thetao.info/tao/buddha.htm (the page also has some info one where confusion has arisen over apparent but not real similarity over the differing concepts of emptiness I mentioned a while ago) "In China, Buddhism and Taoism, grew up together. In fact, according to the Platform Sutra, transcribed from the words of the great Zen Master Hui Neng in the 8th century, Taoists attended to least one, and probably many other, of his lectures. "

2) A current example showing the continuing fusion thinking from the Sixth Patriarch Zen Centre (CA):

Venerable Hyunoon Sunim "With Zen, when something arises you are uninvolved with it and when it disappears, you are still uninvolved with it. So in those situations it doesn't matter to you. If we can correctly realize these principles, then we will engage in less unnecessary suffering. So this is a way of the Tao. "

Also "The combining of Zen and Taoism is not new. Bodhidharma practiced Taoist yoga in India. He brought Buddhism to China where it combined with Chinese Taoism to produce living Lin Chi (Rinzai) Zen. The great Korean Zen Master Won Hyo combined both practices in the Silla dynasty 1300 years ago, practicing the same Sun-do breathing we teach here today. Japanese Zen Master Hakuin strongly emphasized the importance of Taoist breathing techniques for Zen practitioners.

In the search for awakening to our Essence Mind, Zen meditation is a direct spiritual path. With awakening, all that remains is harmony, love, peace, compassion and wisdom. But with poor healthy or energy and emotional imbalances, many obstacles arise for deep sitting meditaton. Modern day Zen practitioners unknowingly are not utilizing the benefits that Taoism can bring to their practice. Also, Zen has wisdom which goes beyond the harmonizing benefits of Taoism, but Taoists do not realize this Zen wisdom and for them it is easy to become attached to their own energy.

With wisdom and pure intention, if we combine Zen and Taoism, we can enter a correct spiritual path with balanced health and purified mind, and achieve great awakening."

A good repository of Zen/Ch'an teachings is at http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings.htm - in the introduction of which is written "A collection of Taoist writings are also available, as Ch'an was heavily influenced by them and often draws upon them". Please don't disrespect the site due to that comment nor as I quote it 'one one side of the debate' as for those Zen followers who are interested in reading the works of masters it is a veritable goldmine.

3) An example of crossover (from the 'Zen teachings of Mazu' trans. Thomas Cleary):
"The Tao

Right this moment, as you walk, stand, sit, and recline, responding to all situations and dealing with people - all is the Tao. The Tao is the realm of reality. No matter how numerous are the uncountable, inconceivable functions, they are not beyond this ealm. If they were, how could we speak of the teaching of the Mind-ground, and how could we tell of the inexhaustible lantern?"

4) An example of monks roaming over both Zen and Taoism study

There is an excellent translation by Guo-gu Shi of 'Essentials of Practice of Enlightenment for Beginners' by Master Hanshan Deqing [1546-1623] In the footnotes he writes:

"Hanshan Deqing [1546-1623] is considered one of the four most eminent Buddhist monks in the late Ming Dynasty [1368-1644] ... most importantly, for his Chan practice. In all of the history of Chan, there is not a single master that has written in such detail about his own practice and experiences, especially in describing the enlightened state of mind... Like other Ming Dynasty Buddhist monks, he also wrote many commentaries on non-Buddhist works such as Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi, as well as other Taoist and Confucian text " [Mike's note it is brilliant stuff - anyone interested in reading about Zen enlightenment experiences of Masters should really read this webpage - http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen...ightenment.htm ]

5) An example of complete intertwining of the two:

"Sayings of the Ancient Worthies", fas. I (Ku tsun-hsiu yu-lu).], translated by D.T. Suzuki:
Someone asked Ma-tsu: "How does a man discipline himself in the Tao?"

The master replied: "In the Tao there is nothing to discipline oneself in. If there is any discipline in it, the completion of such discipline means the destruction of the Tao. One then will be like the Sravaka. But if there is no discipline whatever in the Tao, one remains an ignoramus."

"By what kind of understanding does a man attain the Tao?"

On this, the master gave the following sermon:

"The Tao in its nature is from the first perfect and self-sufficient. When a man finds himself unhalting in his management of the affairs of life good or bad, he is known as one who is disciplined in the Tao. To shun evils and to become attached to things good, to meditate on Emptiness and to enter into a state of samadhi--this is doing something. If those who run after an outward object, they are the farthest away [from the Tao].

...

The Sravaka is enlightened and yet going astray; the ordinary man is out of the right path and yet in a way enlightened. The Sravaka fails to perceive that Mind as it is in itself knows no stages, no causation, no imaginations. Disciplining himself in the cause he has attained the result and abides in the Samadhi of Emptiness itself for ever so many kalpas. However enlightened in his way, the Sravaka is not at all on the right track. From the point of view of the Bodhisattva, this is like suffering the torture of hell. The Sravaka has buried himself in emptiness and does not know how to get out of his quiet contemplation, for he has no insight into the Buddha-nature itself."

A separate section:

6)"A monk asked: "Why do you teach that Mind is no other than Buddha?"

"In order to make a child stop its crying."

"When the crying is stopped, what would you say?"

"Neither Mind nor Buddha."

"What teaching would you give to him who is not in these two groups?"

"I will say, 'It is not a something.'

"If you unexpectedly interview a person who is in it what would you do?" finally, asked the monk.

"I will let him realize the great Tao."

Or:

7) A monk asked: "How does a man set himself in harmony with the Tao?"

"I am already out of harmony."

Mike

[Michael Durkin]

Thank you Mike B for your post and link to Master Hanshan Deqing practice.

[Marcus]

Hello all and greetings from Sungai Petani,

It's taken me longer than anticipated to read the last 6 pages since I was last able to check this post.

I just wanted to show my gratitued to Anthony for all of the time he has invested in this thread. Especially as I know he is very busy at this moment. I would also offer the thought that more Wahnam students havn't joined in this thread due to being here at Sungai Petani, there are so many people here and it is wonderful to meet so many of the Wahnam family.

Sorry, I have to go now as I must get some food. Greetings to everyone.

Kind regards

Marcus



Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha

[Mike B]

Enough examples yet?

Hi Marcus - lucky boy!

Here's a nice piece from http://www.taoism.net/articles/chantao.htm - while one might wonder whether these guys are neutral (after all they have an agenda to promote) nevertheless (i) its a nice read and one shouldn't view the world seeking to twist it to fit any fixed view, (ii) its educational and (iii) they marshall yet more weight of examples by way of supporting evidence.

I also included a lead-in paragraph as it does touch on the *massively* different tone of later Nothern Indian Buddhism Mahayana Buddhism and Ch'an/Zen.

There is a great line right at the end - "there is no room for any -ism".

*It's quite a long one - but for those of you more interested in wondering where the moon is and what it looks like rather than when the fingernail on the finger pointing at the moon was last cut it is worthy of reading with an open heart as it touches on the essence of two of China's great philosophies*

[Paranoid-mode note - for the avoidance of doubt the preceding paragraph is not aimed at any individual!]:

>>>>

"It is probably not too much to say that Taoism simplifies where Buddhism complicates. Lao Tzu suggested "letting understanding stop at what could not be understood." This doesn't leave any room for speculative Indian ideas, of reincarnation, or even "another shore."

Of the ten sects of Buddhism that developed in China the one that most closely came to reflect Taoist influence was the Ch'an variation of the Mahayana. Particularly after the reformation of Hui-neng (638-713), Ch'an set about to "spread the seed widely" as Hui-neng's mentor had advised him. Ch'an embraced Taoists and Confucians as well as Buddhists, and lower classes along with educated aristocrats.

Whether it is history or mythology is open to debate by historians, but the story has that Hui-neng himself was an illiterate woodsman when he was enlightened. He overheard one line from the Diamond Sutra: "Let your mind function freely without abiding anywhere or in anything." (John Wu trans.) Note how easily this correlates with the "watercourse way" of Taoism's "go with the flow." In fact Hui-neng (supposedly - history is fuzzy) described himself as a "simple, mindless man of Tao," a phrase that recurs in the sermons of Huang-po and Lin-chi.

Lin-chi began his sermons by addressing his monks as "followers of Tao." The phrase "to attain Tao" was synonymous with enlightenment. The common metaphor was that Buddhism was the father and Taoism the mother of the child Ch'an.

A telling episode in Chinese history occurred in 845 AD when the (Taoist) emperor Wu-tsung proclaimed that all the orthodox Buddhist monasteries should be closed. Curiously he did not consider Ch'an monasteries to be Buddhist and overlooked them. Not only were the Ch'an monasteries spared, the prince Suan-tsung who would be the next emperor went to one of them, Hsien-kuan (Hsiang-yen's) to study. Huang-po came to visit and impishly made a point of doing obeisance to a statue of Buddha right under the Prince's nose. (In the following the Prince's lines reflect Hui-neng's teaching.)

Said Suan-tsung: "In our pursuit of Tao, we must not be attached to the Buddha, nor to the Dharma, nor to sanga. What does your reverence seek after in performing these rites of obeisance?"

Huang-po: "I am attached neither to the Buddha, nor to the Dharma, nor to sanga. I am only performing the usual rites."

Suan-tsung: "What is the use of rites?"

Huang-po gave him a slap.

Suan-tsung: "You are being too rough!"

Huang-po: "What kind of thing do you find here in this place that you should speak of 'rough' and 'refined'?" And he gave him another slap.

If this story makes it seem that Huang-po was a confirmed Buddhist it is well to keep in mind a line from one of his sermons: "Adoration of and devotion to all the Buddhas in the universe are nothing in comparison to following a single mindless man of Tao." (Note - this probably refers to Hui-neng.)

Here's some from a Lin-chi sermon: "The true follower of Tao does not grasp at the Buddha, nor at bodhisattvas, nor at the arhats, nor at the exceeding glories of the three realms. In his transcendental independence and untrammeled freedom, he adheres to nothing.… Spare yourself the vain labour of discriminating and grasping at appearances and in a single instant you will realize Tao with spontaneous ease."

Lin-chi gets pronounced Rinzai in Japanese and inspires the most famous branch of Japanese Zen Buddhism. Naturally as time passes the Taoist elements of the teaching recede and become rather invisible.

One Taoist philosopher whose spirit is quite evident in Lin-chi's school is Chuang Tzu from the 3rd century BC. In a way he could be considered "father of the koan" for he had written:

"He who replies to one asking about Tao, does not know Tao. Although one may hear about Tao, he does not really hear about Tao. There is no such thing as asking about Tao. There is no such thing as answering such questions. To ask a question which cannot be answered is vain. To answer a question which cannot be answered is unreal. And one who thus meets the vain with the unreal is one who has no physical perception of the universe, and no mental perception of the origin of existence."

(Chuang-tzu, p. 289, H.A. Giles translation, Shanghai, 1926).

Grr grr, yes, well, here perhaps is the source of all the crazy answers that Ch'an masters gave to the question of "What is Tao?" There is really quite a range:

Monk: What is Tao? Hsiang-yen: A dragon is singing in the ancient forest! [or dry woods, dry wood, old wood, etc. - the variations have persisted.]
Monk: What is Tao? Yun-men: Go! [Chang Chung Yuan has "Go away!"]
Monk Ho (later Chao-chou): What is Tao? Nan-chuan: Your everyday mind!
Monk: What is Tao? Kuei-shan: Mindlessness is Tao.
Monk: I do not understand. Kuei-shan: You need only grasp the one who does not understand.
Monk: Who is the one who does not understand? Kuei-shan: No one else but your very own self.


Oy, Kuei-shan is so polite, Ch'an for Confucians.

But the turning of the question back upon the questioner is basic Ch'an practice, "who are you?" is the only answer worthy as a reply. It is "ad homonym" but Ch'an is essentially about self-realization, so everything else is off-topic.

Importantly, Hui-neng had noted that at core the individual identity and the Tao were not distinguishable. In non-duality the subject and object blend..

Another Ch'an master clearly trained in the Taoist classics was Tung-shan. An early conversation:

Ch'u: "Oh how wonderful, how wonderful! The ineffable realms of Buddha and Tao!"

Tung-shan: "I would not ask about the realms of Buddha and Tao. I only wish to know the man who is speaking of the realms of Buddha and Tao."

Ch'u: "duh?"

Tung-shan: "Buddha and Tao are but names and words; why don't you resort to the true doctrine?"

Ch'u: "What does the true doctrine teach?"

Tung-shan: "When you have got at the idea, forget about the words."

This last is a direct quote from Chuang-tzu.

The shift between concepts and reality was a Chinese preoccupation. Words were definitely a topic, and Chuang-tzu the "authority."

Ch'an masters had much to say about the limited possibilities of "words." The following is :from a sermon by Chan master Yun-men (d. 949 AD):

"...If you set out in quest of words and sentences, cudgeling your brains with their logical meanings, working over a thousand possibilities and ten thousand subtle distinctions, and creating endless questions and debates, all you will gain is a glib tongue, while all the time getting farther and farther away from Tao, with no rest for your wandering. If it could be found in the (sutras) why should there be a special transmission outside the scripture?...But if you have really found your true self, then you can pass through fire without being burnt...The important thing is your experiential realization of this state."

(The Golden Age of Zen, J. Wu, 1969, p. 164-165).

Perhaps, that "words" don't suffice to explain it, is the ultimate lesson of both Tao and Ch'an.

A final note:

Ch'an is empty, there is nothing in it.
There is no room for any -ism, not Buddhism, not Taoism.
Just plain empty.
It is not a belief system.
It is not a cosmogony.
Who you are is all it is.
Rudely, I interrupt my own essay to look back through the lens, and ask:

"Who are you?'


Mike

[Ovidius]

D.T. Suzuki

Hello everyone,

Here is something related to the topic.

Quotation from: Essays in Zen Buddhism: First Series, a book by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki; Grove Press, 1961, pp. 163-164. (e-book)

The traditional origin of Zen in India before its introduction into China, which is recorded in Zen literature, is so mixed with legends that no reliable facts can be gathered from it. In the days when there was yet no critical study of anything and when things, especially relating to religion, were believed in a wholesale manner, we could not expect anything else. It may now be too late to try to unravel the mysteries enveloping the origin of Zen in India except in a general and logical way from the historical facts already known concerning the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism. In fact, Zen Buddhism, as was already discussed, is the product of the Chinese mind, or rather the Chinese elaboration of the Doctrine of Enlightenment. Therefore, when we want to narrate the history of Zen, it may be better in some respects not to go to India but to stay in China and study the psychology and philosophy of her people and the surrounding conditions that made it possible for Zen to achieve a successful growth in the land of the celestials, always remembering that it is a practical interpretation of the Doctrine of Enlightenment.

Some scholars may, however, object to this kind of treatment of the subject, on the ground that if Zen is at all a form of Buddhism, or even the essence of it as is claimed by its followers, it cannot be separated from the general history of Buddhism in India. This is quite true, but as far as facts are concerned, Zen as such did not exist in India-that is, in the form as we have it today; and therefore when we try to go beyond China to trace its origin and development, the only way open to us will be the one I have followed in my previous Essays collected here. That is to say, we must consider Zen the Chinese interpretation of the Doctrine of Enlightenment, which is expounded in all Buddhist literature, most intensively in the Mahāyāna and more or less provisionally in the Hīnayāna. As time went on this doctrine steadily grew to occupy the minds of the Buddha's followers and to control the course of development of Buddhist thought generally; for was it not through Enlightenment that Gautama became the Buddha, the Enlightened One? and is it not the object of Buddhism to follow the footsteps of its founder in the attainment of final emancipation? But the Chinese adherents of Bodhism 1 or the upholders of Enlightenment did not wish to swallow Indian Buddhism undigested. The practical imagination of the Chinese people came thus to create Zen, and developed it to the best of their abilities to suit their own religious requirements.

If we consider Chan being developed by the Chinese people to match the requirements of local culture, which (including Taoism) already existed before Chan, then it is highly reasonable to think that parts of the original culture (including Taoism) was borrowed to the "new project" (Chan). It may be argued that if Chan developers did not make such connections to things that common folk earlier practiced and believed, Chan would have not been such success in China. The point of D.T. Suzuki is the following: Chan was not an unchangeable doctrine transmitted from India to China, it was developed by Chinese people, and also from a basis of system(s) of beliefs that they already had. They did not live in "a vacuum" and just sucked everyting in what was offered from outside, they made selections (much like every culture), and Chan is a result of this kind of process.

[Andrew]

I think this thread is becoming better folks ..... well done

I have done a bit of searching on the internet. My belief that I now know what Zen Buddhism is remains unchanged. From my searching there is a lot of material available which promotes the idea that Zen Buddhism was a joining (in some way, shape or form) of Buddhism and Taoism. I must, however, note that the vast majority of what I have found to this effect has, as Anthony has noted, been written by sources outside of oriental Asia as well as outside of Zen Buddhist circles.

There are, however, also other accounts which can just as easily be found such as:

Zen Buddhism
{zen bood' - izm}

Zen or Ch'an Buddhism represents a sectarian movement within the Buddhist religion that stresses the practice of meditation as the means to enlightenment. Zen and Ch'an are, respectively, Japanese and Chinese attempts to render the Sanskrit word for meditation, dhyana.

Zen's roots may be traced to India, but it was in East Asia that the movement became distinct and flourished. Like other Chinese Buddhist sects, Ch'an first established itself as a lineage of masters emphasizing the teachings of a particular text, in this case the Lankavatara Sutra. Bodhidharma, the first Ch'an patriarch in China, who is said to have arrived there from India c. 470 AD, was a master of this text. He also emphasized the practice of contemplative sitting, and legend has it that he himself spent 9 years in meditation facing a wall.

With the importance of lineages, Ch'an stressed the master - disciple relationship, and Bodhidharma was followed by a series of patriarchs each of whom received the Dharma (religious truth) directly from his predecessor and teacher. By the 7th century, however, splits in the line of transmission began to develop, the most important of which was between Shen - hsiu (606 - 706) and Hui - neng (638 - 713), disciples of the 5th patriarch, Hung - jen. According to a later and clearly biased legend, Hui - neng defeated Hung - jen in a stanza - composing contest, thereby demonstrating his superior enlightenment. He was then secretly named 6th patriarch but had to flee south for fear of his rival's jealousy.

The split between Shen - hsiu and Hui - neng accounts for the southern and northern branches of Ch'an, which competed vigorously for prestige and state support. Hui - neng's branch dominated in the long run, and by 796 an imperial decree settled the matter in his favor posthumously. By then, however, Hui - neng's branch was itself beginning to subdivide into several different schools.

The subsequent history of Ch'an in China was mixed. The sect suffered from the great persecution of Buddhism in 845. It recovered better than many Buddhist schools, however, partly because, in contrast to other monastic communities, Ch'an monks engaged in physical labor, which made them less dependent on state and lay support. During the Sung dynasty (960 - 1279), Ch'an again prospered and was a leading influence on the development of Chinese art and neo - Confucian culture.

It was during this period that Ch'an was first established in Japan. Within 30 years of each other, two Japanese monks, Eisai (1141 - 1215) and Dogen (1200 - 53), went to China, where they trained respectively in the Lin - chi (Japanese, Rinzai) and Ts'ao - tung (Japanese, Soto) schools of Ch'an. These they then introduced into Japan. Rinzai emphasizes the use of Koans, mental stumbling blocks or riddles that the meditator must solve to the satisfaction of his master. Soto lays more stress on seated meditation without conscious striving for a goal (zazen). Both schools fostered good relations with the shoguns and became closely associated with the Japanese military class. Rinzai in particular was highly influential during the Ashikaga period (1338 - 1573), when Zen played an important role in propagating neo - Confucianism and infusing its own unique spirit into Japanese art and culture.

The heart of Zen monasticism is the practice of meditation; it is this feature that has been most popular in Zen's spread to the West. Zen meditation highlights the experience of enlightenment, or satori (Chinese: wu), and the possibility of attaining it in this life. The strict training of Zen monks, the daily physical chores, the constant wrestling with koans, the long hours of sitting in meditation, and the special intensive periods of practice (sesshin) are all directed toward this end.

At the same time, enlightenment is generally thought of as being sudden. The meditator needs to be jolted awake, and the only one who can do this is his Zen master. The master - disciple relationship often involves private interviews in which the Zen trait of unconventionality sometimes comes to the fore; the master will allow no refuge in the Buddha or the sutras but demands from his disciple a direct answer to his assigned koan. Conversely, the master may goad the disciple by remaining silent or compassionately help him out, but with the constant aim of trying to cause a breakthrough from conventional to absolute truth.

Joseph M Kitagawa And John S Strong

Bibliography:
H Dumoulin, History of Zen Buddhism (1963); T Hoover, Zen Culture (1977); C Humphreys, Zen: A Way of Life (1971); S Ogata, Zen for the West (1959); N W Ross, ed., The World of Zen (1960); D T Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism (1927 - 1934), Introduction to Zen Buddhism (1957), and Manual of Zen Buddhism (1960); J Van de Wetering, The Empty Mirror: Experiences in a Japanese Zen Monastery (1974); A Watts, The Spirit of Zen (1958); P Yampolsky, The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (1967).

Having found and read this, I don't see that the connection between Taoism and Buddhism could possibly be supported by either the article's author nor the reference material he quotes.

So now we are confronted with "evidence" (in terms of books and other writings) which seem to support both views. And now????

Andrew

[Mike B]

My belief that I now know what Zen Buddhism is remains unchanged.

Well as I said earlier - and it one reason I retired from this thread earlier - I can't honestly see this thread ending with people putting up their hands and saying "oh thanks - in the light of new evidence I wasn't aware of before I am at a minimum of a more open mind and at a maximum convinced!

From my searching there is a lot of material available which promotes the idea that Zen Buddhism was a joining (in some way, shape or form) of Buddhism and Taoism. I must, however, note that the vast majority of what I have found to this effect has, as Anthony has noted, been written by sources outside of oriental Asia as well as outside of Zen Buddhist circles.

This is not a personal remark my friend! but - are you crazy!!?!
*Many* examples of *direct quotes* from (Asian!) Zen Masters have been included earlier!!! How 'primary' a source do you need???



Mike

ps I thought you attached a good article but it doesn't disprove any of the earlier points. Just as Anthony giving some examples where Zen and Tao differ (and no-one has maintained they are identical) quoting an article which doesn't mention Tao is not - logically - a disproof either. All one needs to settle this is clear evidence showing a connection, an interaction - in the face of such evidence I cannot see how one can conclude otherwise...

[Mike B]

Crazy Wisdom

And just before I go for the weekend (and spend most of it chi-flowing to recover from the stress) a quick (paranoid) English English lesson.

As politeness, and an etiquette that is to err in the favour of the guest rather than home team, rather lost something translated from English to American - just so I don't get hundreds of complaints re "are you crazy" [what has the world come to when paranoia seems sensible!]

Andrew speaks English English - as do I. 'Are you crazy' is an expression used between people who know each other well indicating complete astonishment and exasperation in what the other person has just said. It does not refer to their state of mental health nor should it be used as a substitute for proper professional advice. In cases of doubt always contact your doctor (or shrink in US$). Needless to say in my daily life I am generally on the receiving end of this one

Back to this r*ddy thread - if anyone cares anymore - may I suggest (none of my suggestions have ever worked before...) that we *narrow the focus down to the quotes from the (great) Zen Masters*.

Quite what any of us are trying to achieve with this thread is beyond me anymore. I wonder whether there are any last minute tickets to Sungai Petani? (although on the other hand given I have been not kicking in the same direction as the home team on this one maybe the reception committee would hand out too many free TCMA lessons LoL).

Have a good weekend everyone and my final thought goes to Kai and Julie - who are both too polite to say it - but we must all be crazy...

MRB No fixed abode

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier:

Statements of the Ch'an Masters such as "The Realms of Buddha and
Tao are inconceivable" are not employing the word Tao to mean the 'road' to grandmothers house, or the 'Branch of the calm or quiet 'path' as implied in the characters of a Chinese name. Please, give me a break here!

With all due respect, those here who understand ancient Chinese can probably see a problem with the above statement. On the one hand, you are arguing authoritatively that "Tao" means one thing and not another. On the other hand, your translation of my Chinese name (including the word "Tao") clearly shows that your understanding of ancient Chinese is inaccurate in this case.

For those who don't speak Chinese, "Branch of the Calm or Quiet Path" is a dictionary translation of the characters ( 柯 安 道 ) but is in no way an accurate expression of the meaning of the name. Perhaps some of our Chinese members with a strong understanding of classical Chinese would like to confirm this for us?

In any case, the quote "The Realms of Buddha and Dao" means nothing to me without the original Chinese text. As I'm sure you know, the specific meaning of "tao" is entirely dependant on the context it was used in. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept your translation or analysis without seeing the full context of the original. The Chinese text may indeed offer some evidence, but nothing you have posted here can be taken as such. The word "tao" is just too common and too profound to be considered conclusive in any way.

Sifu Stier, would you mind posting the original Chinese (citing the source, of course) of "The Realms of Buddha and Tao are inconceivable" so that we may examine the context and decide for ourselves if your translation is indeed accurate?

By the way, if you do not have a Chinese input editor, a free one can be found here: http://www.njstar.com/

As I have said, the word "tao" can have many meanings in Chinese. This is one of the reasons I love the Chinese name that I was given -- because the character for "tao" is so profound. I apologize in advance if I have mistakenly underestimated your knowledge of classical Chinese. If I have, then perhaps you might like to list some of the other meanings "tao" can have in Buddhist literature to help show readers the depth of this character?

[Antonius]

Mike:

Thanks for the (many!) examples. Nevertheless, despite the (many!) quotes you have cut and pasted here, I didn't find the evidence I was looking for. Please do not think I am being arrogant or dogmatic. I'm sure that, if you read my post (and also the one above to Sifu Stier), you can at least see where I am coming from. Or you can point out where I may have missed something amongst the (many!) quotes, articles, and links.

This one will be long, folks. Sorry. But anyone who is curious as to why Mike's examples are unconvincing to me is encouraged to trudge through.

Evidence?

Actually, I think this thread is an excellent example of the problems that arise in this debate. What often happens is that a mass of evidence is presented that is difficult for most people to sift through. Many people (including Mike, by his own words) take the sheer volume as evidence that it is conclusive.

I have another perspective.

I do not claim to be an expert, but I do have expertise that is useful in this regard. I can read ancient Chinese, for starters. I have studied Buddhism for about 15 years. I also have direct experience in both Buddhist and Taoist meditation. So if you are brave enough to read on, I think you will see that these skills give me another perspective when examining the evidence. As usual, the key points are underlined.

That word "Tao" (not again!)

This correct linguistic point covering the use of the word Tao gets to be a toughie if taken too far.

I find it fascinating that you are raising the topic of linguistics in regards to a language you do not understand. As I understand it, you read Sanskrit, but not Chinese. Am I correct?

This is a point that I have had to repeat several times. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to sink in and keeps getting buried. I have already cited several examples -- in Chinese -- where the word "Tao" has nothing to do with Taoism. Strangely, the response to this was to post even more quotes misusing the word "Tao." And none of them in Chinese.

As I have said (often!), "tao" is a common word in Chinese. To paste quote after quote that uses the word "tao" in English -- especially without referencing the original Chinese -- proves absolutely nothing here.

Taoism in the Heart Sutra?

Here is yet another example of the word "tao" having nothing to do with Taoism:

無 苦 集 滅 道

This quote is from the most famous sutra in the Buddhist cannon -- the Heart Sutra. As I'm sure you know, Mike, this sutra contains the core teachings of Buddhism (any Buddhism). I myself have it memorized in both English and Chinese and chant it daily. The quote above comes from the most famous Chinese version that was translated into Chinese by the great Xuan Zang in AD 650.

For those who can't read Chinese, this sentence contains the word "tao" at the end. It is quite clear to anyone with a solid understanding of ancient Chinese that the "tao" in the context of the Heart Sutra means "path" and has absolutely nothing to do with Taoism. The translation is as follows:

"There is no suffering, no cause, no extinction, and no path."

Mike, you and others can endlessly quote translations of Chinese masters with the word "tao", and although this may be convincing to those who don't know better, it is not at all convincing to me or anyone else who understands ancient Chinese. This point alone eliminates a lot of the evidence presented over the past few pages

He brought Buddhism to China where it combined with Chinese Taoism to produce living Lin Chi (Rinzai) Zen.

I don't see how this quote helps. It merely restates the obvious, i.e. the topic at hand. This can hardly be considered evidence, especially since I openly admitted (long ago) that many scholars agree with you.

Why do I not accept it as evidence? Let me be clear: I do not accept something as true merely because I read it somewhere.

Re: Sifu Frantzis and Breathing Energy into Tantien

Just as a matter of logic, once again, one does not show the absence of similarity/relationships by pointing out that there are some differences so I do not believe I have yet seen a *refutation of the Bruce Frantzis view*.

Fair enough. That's logical. But if you look more carefully, I think you'll see that I did actually address the so-called similarity. (Ovidius' quote was on page 13 and my response was on page 14, if anyone is interested.)

The similarity referenced was "Breathing Energy into the Tantien," which Frantzis or Lie (unclear who from the quote) argues was historically used in Chan meditation. This quote, however, does not offer any historical evidence that it was used. It merely says that it was used historically. Again, I don't believe something simply because I read it.

Can you find any specific evidence (not just a quote of someone saying so) that clearly shows that "Breathing Energy into Tantian" was used "historically" in Chan cultivation?

As I said earlier, it was used (and still is used...just this morning in fact!) in Shaolin Chi Kung, but (as far as I know) not in strict Chan Buddhism. And this makes sense because, as I said, Chan focuses on emptiness. Focusing on "Breathing Energy into the Tantian" is not emptiness -- it is visualization, which goes against the core teaching of Chan.

Similar and Different
In the same thread, I also showed how the methods of meditation are significantly different in the two traditions -- a point easily under-appreciated by people without direct experience in meditation. Kai Sihing alluded to this difference in his thread. Did anyone catch it?

This difference (betwen visualization &. emptiness) is so significant that other similarities in meditation are relatively insignificant in comparison. Furthermore, pointing out general similarities between traditions does not automatically constitute evidence. Whether both traditions talk about a transcendental cosmic reality, for example, is irrelevant in this discussion.

Many traditions speak of a transcendental cosmic reality (God, Allah, Brahman, Tao, Tathagata), but this similarity does not show that these various traditions were cross-fertilized. Each of these traditions can be said to be a path ("tao!") to the same truth ("tao!"), but they are still different paths -- precisely because of the differences in the specifics of the practices and philosophies.

Re: Sihing Kai

Also I do entirely agree with Kai that we are All!! wasting our time squabbling rather than practicing.

A waste of time? Is that what you got from his post, Mike? Kai’s English is not Shakespeare (sorry Sihing ), but I have no trouble understanding him. I’m quite sure Kai didn't conclude that we are all wasting our time.

I find your misinterpretation illuminating. You might want to reread the parts of Kai's post that say: "So discussion is good," and "Great respect to all who are writing there [their] meaning, knowledge and expirience." His post is on page 14.

Also, and this is important Mike, people benefiting from this thread probably don't appreciate your repeated complaining about it. My inbox is overflowing with emails telling me what a fantastic thread this is. One of those emails is from Sifu Wong.

Many people, myself included, are enjoying this thread. Some of us enjoy discussing and learning things. That's why we're here.If you are not one of them, or if you feel that you are wasting your time, then why are you here?

Direct Experience

Direct experience applies not only to meditation, but also to scholarly study. For example, because I can read the Heart Sutra in the original Chinese, I can decide -- for myself -- whether the “Tao” in the text has anything to do with Taoism. Those lacking this ability will similarly lack direct experience from the text.

This is not a personal remark my friend! but - are you crazy!!?!
*Many* examples of *direct quotes* from (Asian!) Zen Masters have been included earlier!!! How 'primary' a source do you need???

Mike, I fail to see how this is either "direct" or "primary." Frankly, most of what you have done is cut and paste -- and much of that relies on translations that you neither offered in the original nor could read if you did.

I, on the other hand, am offering evidence that is both primary (no need to rely on translation) and direct (meditation experience in both traditions). Of course, I don't pretend to offer a master's or a monk's perspective...but then I don't think you do either.

The end at last

I have already acknowledged that many scholars (mostly Western -- and please don't quote me numerous Asian masters who use the word "tao" as evidence...oh wait...you already have ) agree with your argument. This is understood. The call here is for specific evidence.

Despite the "weight" of your posts, you seem to have misunderstood this call for specific evidence. Admittedly, I may have missed or misunderstood some of your points since it was not always clear to me what was quotation and what was your own. Plus, there was really a lot of it.

Nevertheless, listing as evidence pasted articles and quotes that contain terms that you yourself don't have direct access to, and doing this in an intimidating volume, is -- in my opinion -- misleading for others in this thread.

Your comment to Andrew is, for me, the crux:

quoting an article which doesn't mention Tao is not - logically - a disproof either

Do you not see the flaw in this line of thinking? Your entire premise relies on the assumption that quoting an article which does mention Tao is somehow proof of a connection to Taoism. Since the use of the word Tao in no way proves a connection to Taoism (quod erat demonstrandum), your entire premise falls apart.

[Sifu Stier]

Antonius:

You don't have to convince me of anything. I believe that you believe that you alone, and those to whom you owe allegiance of course, hold the only correct opinion and view on this subject. At first, I was admittedly quite surprised by the unabashed egoism and stubborn arrogance which you are so attached to; then later, admittedly a bit annoyed by the confrontational aggressiveness of it all; and now, definitely entertained beyond measure! You are one funny guy! But at this juncture, your routine is wearing thin, and frankly, the thrill is gone for me.

You state that I have argued the meaning of Tao as one thing and not another, but so what? You have, too! Go back and read your previous posts.
You correctly state that the meaning of the word is dependent on the context of the writing in which it is found. I said the same in my post. When used in works directly related to spiritual philosophy and spiritual practices, logic suggests that the intended meaning is loftier and more profound, rather than mundane and pedestrian. In my opinion, this makes sense in that native Chinese readers and listeners would already be familiar with such meanings of the word or phrase from previous exposure to Taoist literature.

The vast number of excellent translations of Asian works by native translators is such that one need not read these works in the original Chinese to grasp an accurate understanding of them. Good for you if you are able to do so and wish to do so, but beyond that, such ability does not qualify your personal interpretation of the material as any better than anyone else. To insist that it does demonstrates nothing more than an undisciplined ego insistent on 'one upmanship' again and again.

I'm glad you found the 'dictionary' translation of your Chinese name entertaining. Pretty silly wasn't it? But it served as an example of what I suspect the Chinese were confronted with in trying to accurately translate Indian Buddhist texts into Chinese without an intimate working knowledge of the original languages and cultural references from which they came. This is one logical and probable reason for giving the translated materials a more ethnic Chinese flavor. Hence, even the Chinese texts are in most cases a translation of a translation! Thus, the whole issue of text language is irrelevant.....except for the ego gratification benefits of course.

In regards to the value of 'experiential' knowledge, I began a regular, daily meditation practice of both Taoist and Ch'an/Zen methods two weeks before my 12th birthday in January of 1961. My Sifu most often included a seated meditation session at the end of every group kung-fu class, so I was exposed to the practices from the very first time I ever attended a class of his. Some of the benefits of this practice have included an improved ability through the years to remain focused in the midst of distraction and confusion, to stay calmer in the face of adversity and emergency, and to develop more compassion and empathy for the problems and suffering of others, while letting go of my self-limiting attachments in order to unite with and embrace All That Is!

Lastly, Antonius, there is no way for you to estimate or underestimate my knowledge of anything while arrogantly seated up there on your high horse. You are not my senior in age or experience, and you are not my teacher. Thus, your embarrassing 'delusions de grandeur' in no way authorize you to make such evaluations for me. Had you not taken the initiative and indeed the offensive in criticizing and discrediting those of us who have disagreed with you here, I in turn would never ever have made these comments to you. But I will always gladly give what I receive in return! Enjoy!

[barrys]

I am trying to learn things of value to me out of the huge volume of things posted here.

A couple of things leapt out for me:

1.

Tung-shan: "When you have got at the idea, forget about the words."

This makes sense to me of being with clients and things I experience in my chi kung practice and standing meditation. I also remember a very experienced psychotherapist saying to me "I am not sure I could describe transference but I know when I see it".

Question 1. So I am guessing that spiritual practice is about getting at the idea behind the words. Is this right?. Is it right for both Zen and Taoism?


2.

Some of the benefits of this practice have included an improved ability through the years to remain focused in the midst of distraction and confusion, to stay calmer in the face of adversity and emergency, and to develop more compassion and empathy for the problems and suffering of others,

I have assumed this was the essence of all spiritual practice. This is what I hope to attain.

Question 2: Is this aim a part of both Zen and Taoism?

3.

while letting go of my self-limiting attachments

I have assumed, sometimes realised, that this was going to be necessary to achieve the qualities in number 2.

Question 3: Is this idea part of Zen and/or Taoism i.e. that it is necessary?


4.

in order to unite with and embrace All That Is!

This I could probably only say words about. I am not sure I have any experience of it. I know I have felt joy while not being aware of myself. Only realising this was so when I became aware of myself i.e. only realising I hadn't been aware of myself after I became aware of myself again.

Question 4a: Is this the place both Zen and Taoistic practices lead if one is diligent and lucky?

Question 4b: Is there any difference in the understanding in Zen and Tao of what this experience is like?

Question 4c: Is there any difference in the Zen or Tao about the nature of "All That Is"?

Thanks in anticipation,

Barry