That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Antonius]

Symbolism?

I've been thinking about the point raised earlier by Sunyata.

Zen writings are typically simple and direct. When a Zen master says a flower, he means a flower; he does not mean something else. But this does not mean that symbolism is completely absent in Zen writings. Symbols are sometimes used, but their occurrences are infrequent and atypical.

An example of symbolism in Zen can be found in a gong-an (a public record of an enlightenment or awakening) of the great 8th century Zen master, Ma Zu. (It can also be found on page 128 of "The Complete Book of Zen.") Ma Zu, tested his disciple, Bai Zhang, and helped him to attain an awakening:

Bai Zhang went to consult Ma Zu on his Zen development. In the interview, Ma Zu said nothing but stared at a feather duster hanging at a corner of his bed. Bai Zhang then commented, "If we want to use it, we have to take it from its place." The master retored, "If we take your skin from its place, what would become of you?" Apprently ignoring the master's retort, Bai Zhang went to the corner and held up the feather duster.

Ma Zu then said, repeating Bai Zhang's words, "If we want to use it, we have to take it from its place." Notwithstanding this, Bai Zhang returned the feather duster to its original place. At this instant, Ma Zu gave a shout so loud that Bai Zhang was deaf for three days.

Of course, the uninitiated will not understand the meaning of this gong-an with or without the symbolism. The explanation is quite lengthy, but suffice it to say that the feather duster symbolizes cosmic reality. (For a detailed explanation of this symbolism, see "The Complete Book of Zen," page 129-130.)

But the use of symbolism here is characteristically different from that found in Taoist writings. Here, symbolism is used as a testing and teaching tool to help disciples attain an awakening, whereas in Taoist writings (like in the example of the Kun fish becoming a Peng bird) it is used as a literary tool to explain Taoist philosophy. In the Zen case, symbolism was used for a practical purpose and pertained to the transcendental, whereas in the Taoist case, it was used for a theoretical purpose and pertained to the phenomenal.

[Michael Durkin]

Thank you Anthony for providing those two examples of Zen and Taoist exercises. And also for giving examples of Zens infrequent use of symbology as part of the practice, rather than a literary explanation.

Thankfully we have Sifu who has great understandings of Zen and Taoist practices allowing us to experience the most effective ways to achieve our goals, by applying this teaching through direct experience.

[Chiahua]

Pure speculation.

In the Zen case, symbolism was used for a practical purpose and pertained to the transcendental, whereas in the Taoist case, it was used for a theoretical purpose and pertained to the phenomenal.

That makes things much clearer for me. I was thinking of the sutras as expedient means. Some people reading the descriptions of the Western Paradise will take the descriptions literally and believe there are such realms. Others may think that the descriptions are metaphors for a heightened state of consciousness. Yet others may think that the descriptions are completely illusory. I haven't read Sifu's book on Sukhavati, so this is all speculation.
Another way in which the literature achieves practical result I think might be in the recitation itself. In that sense the content isn't so important, but the repetitiveness can lull you into a one-pointed mind. When I read the flower garland sutra I was lulled into a state of slumber (it was for school, so...).
This I think would be different from the magical incantations of religious Daoism, though.
Thank you for your insight Anthony.
Happy practicing,
Chia-Hua

[Mark A]

The two differences.

Hey Anthony,
Like I said earlier I really enjoyed the exercises. I thought I recgonised the feel of the Daoist one as Mantak Chia's system. ( I studied that for a number of years when I was younger). It kind gace me direct experience. Which as a fledgling scholar helps my understanding

Thanks
Mark

[Antonius]

A Parable

Thank you Mike, Mark, and Chia-Hua for the feedback. Speaking of expedient means...

There is a famous passage in the Lotus Sutra called "A Parable." It depicts a father calling to his children who are playing in a burning house. Despite his calls, they refuse to come out. So the father uses a "trick" to get his children out of the fire:

"Yet my sons,
Wrapped up in their games,
Refuse to heed my instructions
And will be destroyed by the fire!"

Then it occurred to him
To devise some expedient means,
And he said to his sons:

"I have many kinds
Of rare and marvelous toys,
Wonderful jeweled carriages,
Goat-carts, deer-carts,
Carts drawn by big oxen.
They are outside the gate right now
You must come out and see them!"

[Translated by Burton Watson, taken from Mike_B's link posted earlier.]

Although this passage is a parable, it is characteristically different than Taoist symbolic writings. The language of the Lotus Sutra is simple and direct. Goat-carts and deer-carts mean goat-carts and deer-carts. What we see here is another example of symbolism used as a teaching tool.

The Buddha used this parable to illustrate that one may use various devices to help others. Buddhism teaches that there are 84,000 dharma doors, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a figurative way of saying that there are many different paths (expedient means) to the same spiritual goal.

Taoist meditation and Zen meditation can both be considered different expedient means. But so can Christian and Muslim prayer. Religious chanting is an expedient means. Gardening can also be considered an expedient means.

[Andrew]

Nice Anthony. I do hope you share some more of your insights.

Andrew

[Antonius]

The Yin-yang and Non-duality

Thanks Andrew. Since no one has offered an explanation (people are probably busy with the holidays) of the passage of “Zhuang Zi” that I posted earlier, I'll offer one here.

In the allegorical story, the Kun fish and the Peng bird represent the yin-yang aspects of Taoist cultivation. Those familiar with Taoism know that the “kun” trigram relates to the north, and manifests as water. The corresponding trigram is “qian”, which relates to the south, and manifests as the sky. “Kun” symbolizes yin, and “qian” symbolizes yang.

This allegorical story from “Zhuang Zi” emphasizes the importance of yin and yang in Taoist philosophy and practice, setting the conceptual framework for all subsequent teachings.

Buddha Nature

Interestingly, this contrasts with Zen teachings. In the first gong-an of “Gateless Gate”, for example, the passage is about a monk asking the great Zen master, Zhao Zhou, whether a dog has Buddha nature:

A monk asked Zhao Zhou: "Has a Dog Buddha-nature or not?"
Zhao Zhou replied: "Wu!" ( 無 )

Those unfamiliar with Zen may find nothing special in Zhao Zhou’s famous answer. The crucial point is that every Zen practitioner, indeed every Buddhist practitioner, already knows that all beings, including dogs, have Buddha nature. Then why did the monk ask the question in the first place? And why did Zhao Zhou answer “No”?

I won't discuss Zhao Zhou’s answer here. Those interested might start another thread. My purpose here is to show that in Zen, the principal teaching is nothingness, whereas in Taoism, the principal teaching is yin-yang. Both of these points are emphasized right at the start of each tradition's classics. (Note: I didn't choose the passages because of this point.)

Dualism and Non-dualism

Yin-yang is dualistic, whereas “nothingness” is non-dualistic. These principles represent the core of Taoist and Zen teachings respectively. For example: day follows night in a harmonious rhythm; enjoy wine in public and cultivate earnestly in private; rest when tired and work when arisen. These are Taoist teachings.

Where is the Buddha? Everywhere. Please teach me how to cultivate. I teach nothing here. What is the first principle of holiness? There is no holiness, only nothingness. These are Zen teachings.

If Zen were a blend of Buddhism and Taoism, then Zen teachings would reflect the importance of the yin-yang principle, and a Zen master, if asked where the Buddha is, might answer that he was half in the moon and the half in the sun. But a Zen master wouldn't answer like this. He might answer "everywhere," or "nowhere," or he might shout, or he might say nothing. But he would not say that the Buddha was half in the moon, and half in the sun.

[Luo Lang]

Hi Anthony Sihing,
Many thanks for sharing.
Where do you get all this knowledge? Do you have a library in your mind?
Very inspiring indeed!

Regards
Rolo

[Antonius]

Thank you for the kind words, Roland. But I am nothing compared to Sifu. Really. In fact, for years we have jokingly referred to Sifu as a walking encyclopedia. His knowledge of Buddhism is truly inspirational. Although I studied Buddhism a long time before meeting Sifu, it was only after meeting him that I was inspired to learn in depth.

Sifu's books are a tremendous repository of knowledge. I think that if you reread "The Complete Book of Zen," you will be amazed at how much is actually in there. I own and read a lot of books on Kungfu, Qigong, Buddhism, and Taoism. I own over 50 books on Buddhism alone. But if I were to recommend a single book on Buddhism to someone, it would be "The Complete Book of Zen."

[Luo Lang]

But if I were to recommend a single book on Buddhism to someone, it would be "The Complete Book of Zen."

That One I bought myself for X-mas: I am a lucky man!

Sifu's wisdom and knowledge are indeed an inspiration!
Writing books on such a high level of content (and still have knowledge enough for other books!), anwering in the Q/A series, travelling around the world most of the year without having Jet lag ever, beeing so effective, agile and flexible in all what he's doing and finally beeing such a nice husband and father!
Sifu is the perfect example that the genuine Shaolinarts are alive!

Warmest regards

Roland

[Antonius]

A Buddhist Taoist and a Taoist Buddhist?

It just occurred to me that, because I've been advocating that Zen is Zen and not an offshoot of Taoism, some people may think that I don't value Taoism, or that I have no experience of Taoist teachings. Not so. Although I consider myself a Buddhist, I also consider myself a Taoist.

Is that possible? Can you be both? Yes. These two traditions are mutually compatible -- a fact that may have contributed to the general confusion, especially amongst Western scholars.

It is perfectly reasonable to be both a Buddhist and a Taoist. Many Chinese families have altars to both Buddhist and Taoist deities in their houses. When I visited Sifu's house in Malaysia, I was not surprised to find statues of both the Taoist Immortal Li and the Buddhist Bodhisattva Guan Yin on the family altar.

One reason these traditions can coexist so peacefully is that both are wonderfully accepting of the idea that there are many unique paths to the same destination (discussed earlier here). Furthermore, there is no proselytizing. You don't see Taoists admonishing Buddhists to give up their faith, or vice versa.

Since both Buddhism and Taoism can be found side-by-side in many Chinese households, scholars may have wrongly assumed that a blending would be only logical. This is not logical, and is caused by dualistic thinking, as well as a lack of direct experience (more later).

Furthermore, if any blending did occur, then there should be some concrete evidence to substantiate this theory. Where is that evidence?

[Zhang Wuji]

Wonderful post, Antonius.

I have been staying clear of this thread because emotions seemed to be running high for a while here, and I had nothing to contribute.

But having seen this post, I cannot agree more. I have never seen any incongruity in seeing all kinds of deities and buddha statutes in the same place. In fact, those of you who visited the temple at Penang must have noticed the Taoist statutes in the main chamber.

Just as Tao and Zen are not at odds with each other, neither should Christianity and Tao/Zen be. It is quite tragic in Western countries and in industralised Asian countries how certain Christian groups label anything other than their own brand of Christianity as "satanic". I have heard this myself, levelled against my Church, and the religion of my grandparents (Taoism/Buddhism or ancestral worship). If scholars think the chasm between Tao and Zen is wide, they should look at the polarity of other religions. I am in no position to talk about Islam, and anyway, I am slightly deviating. My point is that speaking relatively, Tao and Zen are more like brothers. This is not just an abstract statement. As Antonius noted, they co-exist very well in Chinese culture. In fact, until I began studying "Journey to the West" with religion in mind and reading this thread, the distinction never really occured to me.

OK, now to confess my hidden agenda. Because not everyone reads the Miscellaneous Discussions section, I want to invite once again to pray / send energy / or otherwise invoke divine help for the victims of the earthquake and killer waves. There are still many people missing and I am praying hard they will be rescued soon. Taoist, Buddhist, Catholic, Christian or Muslim, they need our prayers.

Sorry to have hijacked this thread. Please shoot me when this is all over

[Andrew]

A couple of quick points ....

1. Wuji, for such a noble cause you have permission to hijack the entire forum.
2. Anthony --- your depth of knowledge and experience as well as your clear, lively and interesting writing style make me hope that you have more for us here

Andrew

[Chiahua]

Since both Buddhism and Taoism can be found side-by-side in many Chinese households, scholars may have wrongly assumed that a blending would be only logical. This is not logical, and is caused by dualistic thinking, as well as a lack of direct experience (more later).

This is to say that scholars wrongly assumed blending in doctrine or philosopical ideals, as opposed to practice. On this note, I feel that scholars have appreciated how blending of Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist traditions are blended in non-monastic circles, or the general populace at large.
Their dualistic thinking is certainly caused by a lack of direct experience because they draw their experience on textual and archaeological evidence.
I'll try to add more later...
And certainly prayers to that part of the world that has been beset by such an enormous catastrophe.

[Antonius]

Blending, or Coexisting?

This gets a bit tricky since there are other kinds of Buddhism to be found in Asia in addition to Zen. But I get your point, Sunyata. Nevertheless, I think even in non-monastic circles, it's still not a blending. It's a peaceful coexisting of distinct traditions.

As Wuji mentioned, Buddhism and Taoism coexist very peacefully in the East. I talked about this in my last post, but I also mentioned it as one of many possible causes of the misunderstanding amongst scholars, especially in the West. I'd like to elaborate on that and my ideas about "blending".

Let's use an analogy. Anyone who practices both Sinew Metamorphosis and Dantian Breathing knows--from direct experience--that two distinct traditions (Buddhist Qigong and Taoist Qigong) can happily coexist without blending. Indeed, we know which exercise is of Buddhist origin and which is of Taoist origin precisely because of the distinctive characteristics that were respectfully kept separate, not blended together.

Sinew Breathing? Dantian Metamorphosis?

Any good student who wishes to benefit from these exercises knows that it would be foolish to blend them. Blending will only serve to weaken the exercises. If you blend the internal tension from Sinew Metamorphosis with Dantian Breathing, then you aren't practicing Dantian Breathing. If you visualize a golden ball of energy at your dantian while practicing Sinew Metamorphosis, then you aren't practicing Sinew Metamorphosis.

Both of these examples involve being a bad student. The student is no longer doing the exercise properly, but rather a "bastard" exercise of his/her own creation. The personal creation of a bad student is unlikely to stand the test of time. It is likely to do more harm than good.

What would it require for a Chinese Buddhist master (not a student or a layman) to not only blend his philosophy and practices with Taoism, but also to pass it on to the next generation? At the very least, it would require an acknowledgment that his centuries-old Buddhist tradition was somehow incomplete and thus needed to borrow philosophies and practices from Taoism. (Remember that Buddhism was already 1000 years old by the time Bodhidharma arrived in China.)

I'm not saying this couldn't happen. In fact, I would like to know if it happened. But if any Chinese Buddhist masters borrowed from Taoism, then there should be some concrete evidence. We should see specific practices and philosophies in Zen Buddhism that were not present before its arrival in China. I have yet to see any convincing evidence of that.