That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Sifu Stier]

Experience is the real difference!

Greetings to All!

Let me take this opportunity to express my thanks and gratitude to all of the Shaolin Wahnam Associates who have graciuosly extended so many kind courtesies to me on this Forum, especially Si-Hing Anthony, and most recently, Moderator Emiko. Through the course of oftentimes heated debate, I continue to hold all parties in high regard, and harbor no grudge of any kind towards anyone here. Furthermore, I am at times admittedly sensitive to certain 'attitudes' which are expressed, but am always open to any and all opinions which are sincerely and respectfully professed.

In regards to the latter, along with probably every reader of past posts on this thread to date, I recognize that strong personal feelings about the differences which have been expressed thus far was the primary cause of the initially intended comparison becoming an adversarial debate. Given this fact, I wonder why my Wahnam friends remain so insistent on keeping their focus on the differences which separate and segregate people on this subject matter, rather than embracing a focus on the similarities which bind and unite all concerned. Individual choice and stated preference in spiritual path and practice are not in any way compromised by harmonious union!

Lastly, I am not a scholar in these areas of discussion. I hold no accredited College or University Degree in Oriental Religion, East Asian Studies, Chinese Philosophy, or the like. I am but a simple man of moderate intelligence and ability with a great deal of personal experience. As such, anything that I post here is based solely on my 44 years of intimate self-experimentation and self-realization through the study and practice of Indian, Tibetan, and Chinese meditation systems. In spite of the length of time spent in these methods, my accomplishment and understanding of the subject matter may well be small compared to others posting here. Be that as it may, I have always welcomed every opportunity to learn whatever I can from whomever I can, but I have never believed that any one spiritual path is the only right way, or that any one person has all the answers and is the sole custodian of Universal Truth!

I suggest, therefore, when discussing perceived differences that we all should remember that our personal 'truth' may not be shared by all, and should not be presented as the 'final word' on the subject!

[Andrew]

Maybe it is time for a type of "reset". So much has been said (written) and the thread has gone from simplicity to confusion to reasonable summaries and conclusions to confusion to explanations and now back to confusion again. I may not longer be confused but I think many others are.

Anthony has written many excellent posts recently. They are, in my opinion, neither aggressive nor "aimed at" anyone - in fact I don't know how they could be perceived as such. I found them to be extremely interesting and informative - probably the clearest posts on this thread to date. I sincerely hope that he will continue to take so much effort to compile such posts.

Some of Anthony's more recent examples:

http://wongkiewkit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16454&postcount=181

http://wongkiewkit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16370&postcount=165

http://wongkiewkit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16374&postcount=166

http://wongkiewkit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16403&postcount=170

In the last of these posts I note Anthony gave 2 quotes - one from a Taoist source and the other from a Zen source. Until now noone has commented on these two (unless I missed it). For me, having now understood, it is clear that the first passage stems from the Taoist source and the second from the Zen source. The first is very symbolic in nature whereas the second is simple, direct and effective in its message. I would like to invite others to comment (particularly if they perceive my interpretation as incorrect) and in particular I would like to ask Anthony to confirm my interpretation and maybe offer some further clarification - his knowledge, understanding and experience by far exceeding my own.

A general note:
Although it may be understandable in certain circumstances to over-react to such clearly stated and concise argumentation if it does not comply with one's own beliefs, an internet forum is not such a circumstance. Any such over-reaction should not and, in future, will not be tolerated. Before posting on a forum there is always the opportunity to power the computer down, calm onesself using whatever method (I would suggest Zen meditation for those with adequate training), and then review ones emotions before rebooting the computer.

I would also like to ask once again that posts made here stay on topic as far as possible. This was the reason I posted

And the confusion begins again "

following Ovidius' post. This thread, whatever its original purpose, has clearly become:
1. Debating whether or not Zen is a blend of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism
2. Debating whether or not there is a chasm between scholarly speculation and direct experience

Please let us continue this debate in friendly manner devoid of anything which could even be perceived as personal attack or animosity.

Andrew

[Sifu Stier]

To Tao or not to Tao!

Dear Andrew et al!

Ach du lieber! Mein Gott! Thank you so much for completely ignoring the suggestions of my last post. Is it not possible to set aside this whole devisive issue of whether Chinese Chan Buddhism, not Japanese Zen versions, was influenced by indigenous Taoist Philosophy? It seems to me that all parties to that nasty debate have more than adequately stated their opinions on the issue, and have undoubtedly not been swayed in their view of the matter by opposing arguments! So what purpose does it serve to rekindle further debate on the issue now or ever in this thread?

Additionally, let me say that I greatly admire the close knit comraderie of the Shaolin Wahnam camp, and the loyalty of its many members to 'higher-ups' or Seniors in the Organization, and the impassioned but unnecessary apologetics offered up in their behalf. But seriously, let go of the argument! I have sufficient challenges in my personal and professional life to deal with each and every day, and have absolutely no need or desire to address worse than those in a leisure time activity such as posting on this Forum! I would really like to hear the opinions of other non-Wahnam readers and participants of this thread regarding my suggested change of focus in discussion here, if you are courageous enough to do so! If it is only going to be a continuation of the previous 'knock down, dragged out' debate, I would prefer to respectfully withdraw from this thread to post on other topics in other threads.

[YunXiang]

Hello Everyone!

I'd like to thank all who have contributed to this thread. I personally enjoyed and learnt a lot from the good and long, long, long read.

Dear Sifu Stier,

I must say that I have found all of your posts interesting and informative. I appreciate your time and effort, contributions, and sharing your experiences.

I wonder why my Wahnam friends remain so insistent on keeping their focus on the differences which separate and segregate people on this subject matter, rather than embracing a focus on the similarities which bind and unite all concerned.

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree with this. When there is a disagreement, Wahnam members voice it. When there is an agreement, Wahnam members voice it. This applies to everyone's posts whether they are Wahnam members or not.

There will be differences in this forum and in life. Our differences make us unique. Our differences make us special. From my experience, I learn and grow from the different perspective of others. I don't learn from the disagreement if I'm my intentions aren't learn and/or my ego gets in the way (e.g. trying to be a "big shot' or being a prima donna).

What binds and unites us all I believe is that we all seek happiness and joy and we are all human (I hope so anyway!).

Besides, the differences make life fun!

I suggest, therefore, when discussing perceived differences that we all should remember that our personal 'truth' may not be shared by all, and should not be presented as the 'final word' on the subject!

I haven't seen any posts thus far that suggests anyone has presented the final word. If I've missed something, please feel free to let me know. Honestly speaking, I think the final word for this thread is last word of the last post when this thread is officially closed.

Please note that I present my post in the intention of sharing my perspective; I do not intend to stuff my own opinions down anyone's throats. Thus, feel free to take whatever benefits you from any of my posts. You may even discard it as rubbish if you like.

Once again, thank you for your participation in this forum. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future.

To Everyone,

I hope that everyone can share their perspectives in this thread. There is much for me to learn and I look forward to the further discussions from you all. Also I apologise for not staying on topic. I admit my knowledge is not great in either Taoism and Zen Buddhism (and I'm a bit shy!), but I'll try to think of something to post here.

Best Wishes,
Mike.

[Michael Durkin]

From starting again and re-reading the many posts in this discussion I am still uncertain about a few things. For example :

No one might have said directly that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism, but SifuStiers quotes below from post No.48 confuse me.

" The Chinese tendency to blend outside resources into their own cultural heritage is certainly evident in the combination of Mahayana Buddhism with the indigenous Taoism. This unique blend of the two spiritual philosophies is the signature hallmark of the Ch'an/Zen School which has dominated Buddhist
thought and practice throughout China, Korea, and Japan. "

What is the "certainly evident" evidence that Mahayana Buddhism is a combination with indigenous Taoism, that is the signature hallmark of the Ch'an/Zen school.

and

" the Ch'an/Zen Schools seemed to offer the best of both methods all in one system ".

and that Zen simultaneously incorporates... :

" Taoist love of Nature and predisposition to observe natural laws and principles in order to employ them in the 'human experience', especially as regards one's spiritual path "

I beleive the points that have been expressed by Shaolin Wahnam members have said that Zen aims passed the phenomenal human experience, but too the transcendental.

Some of these quotes have been repeatedly questioned by others, I dont think I'm the only one with miss understandings.

From Shaolin Wahnam's perspective, as Anthony said : "It is true that a vast majority of Buddhist scholars and historians (but not necessarily Zen practitioners, or even Buddhist practitioners) have perpetuated the idea that Zen is a blend of Buddhism and Taoism", is something that Shoalin Wahnam would like to correct. Much like restoring the fact that Kung Fu is effective for combat, and Chi Kung can cure many known illnesses as well as incurable ones.

I would agree that Anthony has been argumentative and critical. Isn’t that what is expected in a debate? But I would disagree that he is disrespectful and oftentimes poorly mannered. In fact I am quite surprised that Anthony can remain so calm and also courteous despite many personal attacks launched on his person. There are many examples that Anthony has given where he was verbally assaulted in his post 187. I see it unfair that Anthony might be viewed as having the same behavior when there isn't an example of his verbal assault. As most of you know, most forums of this sort are full of flame wars and abusive language. Shaolin Wahnam aims to be different.

Recently SifuStier states, "The Unlimited and Indescribable which mere words cannot convey. Thus, all words regarding It are forgotten and abandoned". But this doesn't really answer questions in a discussion like this one. I'm not asking anyone to "define the exact nature of Tao, as It is ultimately indefinable and inexpressible.". Would someone mind providing the middle ground information that doesn't transcend words. Andrew for example, has struggled with SifuStiers answers that transcend words, in his post 192

While letting go of attachments and refraining from defining the ultimate truths, are what enable us to experience the truth. SifuStiers quoting of 'transcending words' wisdom, hasn't help answer peoples straight forward questions.

SifuStier, I don't believe in burning any bridges and I'm glad to see that your still here.

There are some interesting questions asked by Sunyata in post 157 that would help this discussion move forward.

Would anyone care to comment on the two stories where the identity of Zen and Tao are unknown? Post 170, SifuStier?

Hang in there everyone,
take care.

[Ovidius]

Peace brothers and sisters!

And the confusion begins again

I am really sorry but I was just wondering about the unity of Zen forms and making some dialogue... Maybe it is not so "united" doctrine after all (like Taoism), maybe its many forms practiced around the world contain the only Chan and Zen that there is and has ever been. Sifu Wong says, "When you practise genuine Shaolin kung fu, you also practise chi kung and Zen", so genuine Kung Fu is also Zen, and Buddha had also Warrior students, and what they practiced was not in conflict with Buddha. But can this Zen be extracted from the outer forms? Are there any "original forms"? Is the full lotus position and breath observing the only original form of Zen? Do the forms matter? Many awakenings have happened also outside the traditional forms, in the middle of normal activities of life, so Zen isn't chained to forms? If it is a state of mind, or spirit, as it seems to be, then it is quite irrelevant whether or not Zen or Chan practicing community adopted anything from outside Buddhism. I am very satisfyed to this and gladly withdraw from making any more confusion.

[Ovidius]

The stories

Would anyone care to comment on the two stories where the identity of Zen and Tao are unknown?

The first is Taoist (uses metaphorical language) and second is Zen Buddhist (it is a riddle)?

[Antonius]

Zen writings and Taoist writings are characteristically different

Sorry for the delay, folks. I spent my post-exam weekend spending time my girlfriend and my family. Thank you Andrew for keeping me and the thread on track.

Here is the answer to my previous post: The first passage was taken from “Zhuang Zi,” and the second from “Gateless Gate”.

“Zhuang Zi” (also spelt as “Chuang Tzi”) is a famous Taoist classic recording the teachings of a famous Taoist master of the same name. Actually the book is named after the master.

“Gateless Gate” is a famous Buddhist classic recording gong-ans (koans). A gong-an, or “public record” does that -- it records the experience of a Zen practitioner gaining a spiritual awakening or enlightenment.

The two texts were chosen at random.

For those familiar with Zen and Taoist writings, it is easy to tell which is which. As mentioned in my previous post, Taoist writings are arcane and symbolic, whereas Zen writings are simple and direct. Typical Zen writings are like Passage 2, and typical Taoist writings are like Passage 1. You won't find Zen writings written in the language of the first passage, or Taoist writings written in the language of the second passage.

I think it is fine to discuss similarities between Taosim and Buddhism as long as we are clear that general similarities do not imply cross-fertilization. I already spoke about similariies and differences here.

The passages above serve as further testimony that Zen is Buddhism, and not a blend of Buddhism and Taoism. If it were, Zen writings would have more of a Taoist flavour, even in translation. But as the two representative passages above show, Zen writings and Taoist writings are characteristically different.

[Jeffrey Segal]

welcome back

Hello Anthony,

Nice to have you back on this thread and good to hear that you spent the weekend with your girlfriend and your family. Many thanks for all the hours you've put into your posts, especially during exam time. I've found them fascinating.

I'm looking forward to your continued posting here.

[chiron]

I read somewhere yesterday that humans are unnatrual in their capacity to willfully change their own nature and map of reality.[?!] I've also been told that aborigionies think we are a race of mutants has anyone come across bits of taoism and zen, that mention the capabilitites of humans specifically? Things i've read from the tao, are all, the tao is not this, not this either etc... and osho zen seems to be about having a laugh. If anyone has read stuff about us, or our design or position in taoism or zen please share!

[Antonius]

Simple in language, profound in meaning

Thanks Jeff.

So did Zhuang Zi write a fairy tale in the first passage above?

Of course not. Taoist writings are arcane and symbolic. When Zhuang Zi wrote about the Kun fish that became the Peng bird, the famous Taoist master was, of course, not just talking about a fish becoming a bird. I'll leave it to the Taoist experts to explain the symbolism and the meaning behind the story.

Zen writings are simple. There is no play on words. There is no symbolism. When the Zen master Yue An mentioned a carriage in the story, he meant a carriage. When he mentioned wheels, he meant wheels.

Although the language is simple, the meaning is profound. Because of this profundity, many people may not understand the meaning. Or they may find the story illogical. This is because they approach Zen intellectually, rather than experientially.

Both Student A and Student B might answer that the carriage has wheels without spokes, yet the master might be pleased with Student A’s answer but reprimanded Student B.

Or Student C might say that there is no carriage, and Student D might say there are no wheels. The master might be pleased with Student C but reprimanded Student D.

Or Student E might answer the same way as Student C, and student F the same way as student D. Yet the master might be pleased with Student F but not with Student E.

If Zen writings are not symbolic, then why would the master be pleased with some answers but not with others? What the Zen master wants from his students is not just the answer itself. The master is looking at how the student answers. He uses language as a tool to test his students, or to confirm whether his students have had a spiritual awakening (satori).

This use of language is not found in Taoism, but it was used by Zen masters long before Bodhidharma’s arrival in China.

When Bodhidharma told Emperor Liang Wu Di that there is no holiness, but only emptiness, he used language in the same way. Or when Hui Ke told Bodhidharma that he could not bring out his heart (mind) because he had no heart, he also used language in this way. But from ancient times until now, this use of language to test or confirm satori has never been used in Taoism.

This use of language is another example of the important differences between Zen and Taoism. These many differences are what make Zen and Taoism distinct spiritual traditions. As I said earlier, both traditions lead to the same goal -- they just get there along distinctly different paths.

[Andrew]

I wonder why my Wahnam friends remain so insistent on keeping their focus on the differences which separate and segregate people on this subject matter, rather than embracing a focus on the similarities which bind and unite all concerned.

Take a fish and a bird. Search for similarities and you will find them in abundance. It is their non-similarities which makes each what it is and unique from the other.

Maybe someone (SifuStier?) would like to open a new thread to discuss similarities between Taoism, Zen Buddhism and other world religions. I am sure it will be extremely illuminating to see how similar most (if not all) world religions are.

I am really sorry but I was just wondering about the unity of Zen forms and making some dialogue..............

No need to apologise. This thread now has defined emphasis. To address your post(s) in this thread would detract from the emphasis -- now it has finally been defined. If you would like to re-post your questions and thoughts in another thread then I'm sure many would be pleased to read them and comment.

I read somewhere yesterday that humans are unnatrual in their capacity to willfully change their own nature and map of reality.[?!] I've also been told that aborigionies think we are a race of mutants has anyone come across bits of taoism and zen, that mention the capabilitites of humans specifically? Things i've read from the tao, are all, the tao is not this, not this either etc... and osho zen seems to be about having a laugh. If anyone has read stuff about us, or our design or position in taoism or zen please share!

This is very interesting and, as I mentioned above for Ovidius, I'm sure many would be interested in your points. Once again, though, this is not relevant to the discussion at hand so please re-post it in another thread.

A note to all here, this discussion is back on track. PLEASE keep it that way. If you have related but not directly relevant comments or questions then please feel to post them in a new thread.

Thanks
Andrew

[Sifu Stier]

Hello out there!

Hello? I did open a new thread to discuss the similarities between these systems. IT WAS THIS THREAD! But it has since been highjacked into the undying argument! What a pity for everyone!

[Joan]

Greetings to everyone,

I have only had a chance to read through all of this thread in the past few days. Very interesting!

I particularly liked working out the Zen and Taoist passages. Thank you Anthony for returning with the explanation and for some excellent clear posts.

I hope that the exams went well for you although I am sure that they did!

Now that the topic is back on track, I look forward with eager anticipation to reading everybody's posts.

Smile from the Heart,
Joan.

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier, no one has hijacked your thread. We are firmly on the topic that you created. Please have another look at your opening post here:

I thought that it might be of interest to those who regularly post here to do a bit of comparative analysis between these two spiritual philosophies.

We are doing exactly that -- a comparative analysis of Zen and Taoism. Furthermore, your comment here...

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

...in response to Mike's comment here...

This isn't a coincidence as such as in many ways Zen is the 'daughter' of the earlier Taoist and Buddhist schools - hence the familial resemblances (on a number of levels)...

...clearly shows that you intended, from the beginning, to discuss how "Buddhism is Buddhism, and Taoism is Taoism, but Zen is a magnificent blend of both!" And that's exactly what you have done. My Shaolin Wahnam siblings and I are responding to the topic at hand -- a topic many of us happen to find fascinating even though our views differ from your own. So thank you for opening such an interesting topic.