That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Ovidius]

Scepticism is good

Direct Experience - - 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?

I am not sure.

Your scepticism goes so deep that it refutes also the ground from you saying "Chan is not a marriage of Buddhism and Taoism". I mean that the kind of scepticism you hold can also be used against the evidence you are defending and holding as truth

What kind of "direct experience" would suffice since Master Liu is not alive and Sifu Frantzis' words are not counted as evidence -- probably even if he would personally explain it here. The point is, that the window of opportunity has closed a long time ago. There is no other way to study or know what the original Chan or Zen masters actually did (you know this is true, for example 18 Lohan Hands, Sifu Wong had to "reconstruct" them since the original ones are really not known by people today -> we don't directly know what and how Bodhidharma taught, and where did he learn those things), that to study the narrations of other people.

What comes to Zen and emptiness of mind (=no intention) in meditation, there are schools that think absolutely differently. For example Japanese Taikiken people (see: http://www.taikiken.org/book-zen.html). Taikiken is the Japanese style of Yiquan and they use the term Ritsu-zen (Standing Zen) when they talk about Zhan Zhuang training. Quotation from there:

In Japan the most widely practiced Zen discipline is zazen, or seated meditation. But the Chinese practitioners of the martial arts often use a standing Zen devised to reinforce the person's inner power and to enable him to generate sudden, violent bursts of energy. This energy is generally called ki, and standing Zen is the best way to cultivate it.

As you can see, people think that Zen training can have also Chi cultivating aspects (not just silent sitting), as Sifu Frantzis holds. Isn't "One Finger Zen" also a Chi cultivating excercise and "not intentionally empty"?

Therefore: Chi cultivation excercises are used today in Chan and Zen training (even in Shaolin Wahnam), and there is no reason to believe that historically such exercises were not adopted as a part of Chan training. (Didn't Bodhidharma taught 18 Lohan Hands, Sinew Metamorphosis and Bonemarrow Cleansing to Buddhist monks as a part of training? These excercises are "not empty" and therefore I don't see the contradiction why the breathing method described by Sifu Frantzis could have not been used also.)

[Antonius]

Okay – seriously. Enough with the personal stuff. I hope this will be my final word on this subject – but since the issue of disagreements in forum threads keeps popping up, I think it should be specifically addressed now.

SifuStier, a forum is a public place to discuss these issues. People have differing opinions. You started a thread with some interesting ideas and opened a fascinating intellectual discussion (and here I am leaving aside any question of whether or not we ought to intellectualize these same issues).

My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to thoroughly analyze those issues as well as their presentation. They have been presented for analysis. I’m sure that you can understand this reasoning, and that an in-depth analysis of the issues in no way constitutes a “witch hunt” or “one-upmanship”.

Please continue to contribute as you will on this forum – but understand that the act of posting an opinion, especially an authoritative one, gives it to the world to view and consider – and, yes, analyze and agree or disagree with. That is why these forums exist.

Understand my position: as a Shaolin Wahnam instructor, I feel a responsibility to clarify my own and my Sifu’s views on these subjects for those reading the forum who came here to learn about Shaolin Wahnam. I see those views as differing from your own; and as anyone reading the forum might confuse my school’s position with yours, it is important to clarify both positions as much as possible.

My requesting clarifications upon points you made that I felt were not clear is therefore not an inquisition, nor is it inappropriate to the discussion. Nor is my call for precision an attempt at criticizing or discrediting you or anyone else. If it was seen as such, then, once again, you have my apologies for the misunderstanding.

I feel sure that, if you take a moment, you will understand my position. It is not a personal one, nor have I ever intended a personal attack on you – and I would appreciate it if you would take the same viewpoint in future.

Ovidius, I appreciate your attemps at clarity here, and I think you have some excellent points that I would love to address. Unfortunately, I cannot answer them at the moment.

Folks, I am closing this thread temporarily in order to let everyone catch his or her breath. Also, with everyone in Malaysia at the moment, I am the only moderator available. Since this thread needs continued moderation and is potentially volatile, I will keep it closed until a moderator is available.

[Antonius]

The Issues in Question

Now that we've all had a breather and the moderators have returned, I think we should be ready to resume this interesting discussion. I would like to thank Sifu Stier for starting this thread, despite our differing opinions and his frequent personal attacks. For the record, I would like Sifu Stier to know that stating opinions different from his own is in no way questioning his position as a grandmaster.

My own master, Sifu Wong, has said many times that different schools and even different masters in the same school may have different philosophies and methodologies. We respectfully acknowledge Sifu Stier’s (and others’) opinions even when they differ from our own.

To better enable visitors to find their way through this long thread, I thought it would be helpful to highlight some of the main points.

As Sunyata pointed out, we are debating:

1. Whether Zen is a blend of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism.
2. Whether there is a chasm between scholarly speculation and direct experience.

My Shaolin Wahnam schoolmates and I have given specific examples to show that, although there are similarities between the two traditions, Zen is Zen and Tao is Tao. Marcus put it elegantly when he said that one could argue that there are many similarities between the sun and the moon, but the sun is the sun, and the moon is the moon.

Many of us are aware of the numerous scholarly articles and books, especially by Western scholars, claiming that Zen is a blend of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism. Nevertheless, we have discovered -- from direct experience -- that these claims are not accurate. In other words, we've noticed that a chasm exists between scholarly speculation and direct experience.

Furthermore, we have found it interesting that, despite the volume of their claims, these scholars actually provide little evidence to substantiate their arguments -- a point that many people may not realize. So we gladly take the opportunity provided in this thread to ask experts for specific examples where they think Chinese Taoism has blended with Buddhism to form Zen.

We hope members of the forum, especially experts like Sifu Stier, will not take this request as an insult to their opinions. If they can provide us with evidence, we are willing to revaluate whether Zen is really Zen. But if for any reason they cannot, or do not want to provide the evidence, we will still appreciate their participation in this thread.

[Antonius]

Specific Evidence, not generalized statements, please

I would like to thank Ovidius for offering the first piece of specific evidence in this thread when he quoted B.K. Frantzis, saying that “Chan Buddhism was created in central China from the marriage of Taoism and Buddhism during the sixth century A.D.” and also giving “Taoist Internal Breathing” as an example of Taoism influence on Buddhism. I have explained why I think Sifu Frantzis' statement is inaccurate, highlighting a crucial difference between typical Zen meditation and typical Taoist meditation. Please see my posts here and here.

Some people may be surprised to hear me say that Ovidius was the first to offer evidence. After all, so much had been said in this discussion.

Let me clarify: When we ask for evidence, we are not just asking for general statements, but rather for concrete examples of Taoist philosophy and practices that are found in Zen now that weren't found when it was first taught by Bodhidharma -- i.e. evidence that supports the claim that Zen is a blend of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism.

Maybe an analogy will make this clearer. Suppose someone claims that Hoong Ka Kungfu is a blend of Shaolin Kungfu and Taijiquan. When we ask for evidence to support this argument, we are not asking for claims like, “Master A says Hoong Ka is a blend of of Shaolinquan and Taijiquan”, or “Scholar B says Hoong Ka is a blend of of Shaolinquan and Taijiquan” or “Historian C agrees with Scholar B.”

Furthermore, we can't accept claims like, “The snake pattern is found in Hoong Ka” and “Internal force is found in Hoong Ka”. Since both the snake pattern and internal force are signature features in Taijiquan, one might mistakenly conclude that the influence of Taijiquan on Hoong Ka was significant. But the conclusion is incorrect, and anyone with direct experience in Hoong Ka and Taijiquan can distinctly see that the snake patterns and internal force found in Hoong Ka are characteristically different than those found in Taijiquan.

So statements like the ones reproduced below are irrelevant for our present purpose. They are merely general statements, and they do not give specific examples to show that the Zen we practice now is actually Taoism:

... as Zen became more of an informal spiritual movement and more of a settled institution, it underwent a curious change of character. It became necessary to "standardize" its methods and to find means for masters to handle students in large numbers.

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.

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.

We ask for specific examples, not general statements by scholars or even experts that Zen had undergone changes, or that Taoist yoga in India had combined with Taoism in China, or that mutual cross-over influences had been generally accepted by many people. In other words, we would appreciate it if the experts could tell us specifically how Taoism blended with Buddhism to form Zen, and not shout generally that many people have said that Taoism blended with Buddhism to form Zen.

[Antonius]

Concrete Examples

It might be helpful to contrast some of the above statements with my own. Although I make general statements ("Chan is not a marriage of Buddhism and Taoism,") I also provide concrete examples to support my claims. You can read some of them in my post here.

The main points are summarized below:

1. None of the six patriarchs of Chan Buddhism had any significant influence from Taoism.
2. Zen monks shave their head, are vegetarian, avoid wine and intoxication, value the Heart Sutra, and practice celibacy; Taoist priests generally have a full head of hair, drink wine, value the Dao De Jing, and are permitted to have wives (and sex!).
3. In Zen, practitioners keep their mind on the void. In Taoism, visualization is used extensively.
4. Zen talks about no mind (wu xin), and Taoism talks about the extreme void (wu ji). These terms may sound similar, but upon closer examination, they are obviously quite different.
5. Zen, as first taught by Bodhidharma and also as it is practiced now, is characteristically different Taoism. It can be summarized as follows:
   
   -Not recorded in language and words.
   -Transmission beyond the tradition.
   -Directly pointing at the mind.
   -Entering Buddhahood in an instant.

[barrys]

Good to see this thread is back up and running. Is there anyone who has any answers to my questions on my post just before it closed? post

Thanks in anticipation,

Barry

[Chiahua]

My Shaolin Wahnam schoolmates and I have given specific examples to show that, although there are similarities between the two traditions, Zen is Zen and Tao is Tao.

Also it's important to note that no-one is arguing against any sort of mutual exchange of ideas. Taoists and Zen buddhists most certainly talked to one another, and exchanged ideas, and definitely debated the finer points of doctrine. To break down the question further:

• how much did Taoist thought contribute to the core of Zen philosophy (given that within the two traditions there was much variation), such that Zen could not have existed without Taoism providing some key ideas?
• how much of what was perceived as Taoist influence was actually efforts on the part of early translators to render Buddhist philosophy into "Chinese terms" in order to make it more palatable to the literati at the time (in this case, it'd be interesting to see how the earliest Chinese translations of Buddhist thought compares with later ones, when Buddhism becomes more established)
• does Buddhist thought feed back into Taoism or other aspects of chinese thought? Was it a one way street? (I'm thinking of Neo-Confucianism here).
• is it valid to ask whether Zen was influenced by Taoism alone, and not by the greater Chinese intellectual context (including Confucianism, Mohism, and Yang-ism)

These are some of the questions that I'm curious about, and hope that they may be useful springboards for discussion.

Happy reading,
Chia-Hua

[Zen R Ridge]

Wow

Cough Cough

This thread is huge its taken me ages to read, but i would say its worthwhile
indeed very interesting points raised and so many references placed as evidence, keep it going!

However i am now starting to wonder is this one of those questions that has not and cannot be answered ?

Enjoyed the reading

Metta

Zen

[chiron]

errr hi, I'm not sure whether i can say anything without there being some sort of 'backlash' and thats really sad considering the topic and my amazement at discovering how zen 'evolved' as a new type of group conciousness that accpets the world as it is... amazing things i've gathered from this thread, one is the reminder that confusion spurs on the search! and i just want to say thank you for sharing i feel happily stupified. another thing i'd like to say; i've learnt from this thread how crazy it is that information, or wisdom just effortlessly transcends time history and opinions and manages to present itself in any form that anybody can have access to..if they wish..as it is here from sifu stier in words made by electrical light......whhhhaaaaaa !

[Andrew]

I too think it's great that this thread is open again. Thanks again to all who have participated thus far and thanks, in anticipation, to all those who will (and continue) to participate. And, at this juncture, a special thank you to Anthony for the excellent, clear, concise and informative summary above.

Andrew

[Sifu Stier]

Transitional Imagery!

It is true that Taoist meditation methods generally employ 'guided visualization' techniques in the beginning stages of practice. However, these visualizations are used only as a practical means to an ending goal, and should not be viewed as the 'end' in and of themselves as implied elsewhere here. Since most meditators of any method find it initially difficult, if not impossible, to quiet their mental activity sufficiently to think of 'nothing', the Taoist Masters developed Transitional Imagery Visualizations to help the beginner reduce the 'internal mental dialogue' and focus the thoughts on the various details of the visualization instead, resulting in the temporary exclusion of the usual variety of other thoughts. Additionally, most schools view the union of mind and body as essential to accessing experience on the spiritual plane, and therefore use these methods to unite and harmonize the two as an integral agenda priority, often with auxilliary goals and benefits of improved health and life extension, etc. As the meditator becomes accomplished in these techniques, and therefore more 'one pointed' in mental focus, they are then encouraged to let go of the visualizations and allow the mind to experience 'conscious quietude in the midst of prevailing conditions'. The idea is that it will oftentimes be easier and quicker to reach a mental state of 'no thought' by systematically withdrawing attention away from a myriad of thoughts, to a focused concentration on a specific thought or thoughts only, and finally to Quiet Consciousness of All That Is! Thus, quiet emptiness unites the meditator with the wholeness and harmony which connects everything! In my experience, the mental 'wrestling' with a Zen riddle, the 'koan' or 'kung-an', serves the the same purpose psychologically, and is similar in intent while remaining different in content.

[Antonius]

Influences

Ovidius raised a question in an earlier post:

As you can see, people think that Zen training can have also Chi cultivating aspects (not just silent sitting), as Sifu Frantzis holds. Isn't "One Finger Zen" also a Chi cultivating excercise and "not intentionally empty"?

In order to maintain clarity, I think it is important for us to differentiate between two things:

• What traditions have influenced Zen?
• What traditions have been influenced by Zen?

For example, The Art of One Finger Shooting Zen was influenced by Zen Buddhism, not vice versa. The same can be said of many martial arts, including some of those found in Japan.

The question Ovidius raised asks about traditions that have been influenced by Zen, which is a separate issue that, although interesting, has little relevence on the topic at hand. The topic at hand is whether or not Taoism influenced Zen.

[barrys]

Guys,

So, far this thread has been really useful to me. It has also raised questions about comparitive aspects, which was the original intent of the threadm that it would be useful for me to understand as they go to the heart of why I practice. Any answers would give me some indication about whether they are different paths to the same thing or different paths to different things. Depending on my aims and the intended destinations would depend on which path it would make sense to journey. So, I will paste my original questions as it would be helpful for me to understand.

A few things leapt out for me:

1.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 fortunate?

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

Question 4c: Is there any difference in understanding between Zen and Taoism about the nature of "All That Is"?

Thanks in anticipation. By the way I am off to Australia with my wife and kids for Xmas and New Year and may not get a chance to read or post. Looking forward to getting back in the New Year and renewing acquaintance with everyone.

In the meantime, let me pass whatever blessings I have acquired to you all. May there be an abundance of them for everyone in the New Year. Have a great time with whatever festival you celebrate and wherever you are.

Barry

[Luo Lang]

Hi there,
first of all: thank you all for sharing your knowledge on this thread. It is indeed very interessting.
A special thank goes to Anthony Sihing for his time and effort to keep not only this thread but also the whole forum alive!

you know this is true, for example 18 Lohan Hands, Sifu Wong had to "reconstruct" them since the original ones are really not known by people today

I strongly believe that what we are able to learn from Sifu is what the monks in Shaolin have learnt from Boddhidarma. The exercises may be or not slightly different. But more important is that the essence of the teachings is the same. How can I be sure of that? I would say through my practice I experience it every day. I am pretty sure I am not the only one here
The disscussion about details is for those who prefer the intellectualised talking instead of the daily training and its experiences.

I think Marcus Sihing has made indeed a very good point:
Zen is Zen, Tao is Tao!

Respectfully

Roland

[Antonius]

Breathing into Dantian

As promised, here is my response to Ovidius’ earlier comments:

Your scepticism goes so deep that it refutes also the ground from you saying "Chan is not a marriage of Buddhism and Taoism".

It is not skepticism, but rather a desire for information. I know that something similar to "Breathing into the Dantian" was practiced by Zen monks, but I am not sure whether this technique was adopted from Taoist qigong or was already present in Buddhist meditation before it came to China.

After all, the Buddha himself taught conscious breathing as an important technique for entering meditation (the "Sutra on the Awareness of Breathing", for example). The ancient Indians, of course, had some highly-developed energy arts and the Indian theory of the chakras is similar to the concept of the dantian.

The famous Japanese Zen master, Hakuin, taught the use of the Tanden (Japanese for dantian) to attain satori, but his method was not the same as "Breathing into the Dantian". Hakuin saw his Tanden as Zhao Zhou’s Wu (Joshu's Mu, in Japanese), or “nothingness”. This “nothingness” expanded until it dissolved his illusionary body.

I think that Bodhidharma probably brought various breathing methods and energy arts with him from India. Nevertheless, any further information would be appreciated as it would help me to expand my understanding on this subject.