That was Zen, this is Tao!

[chiron]

hi anthony, your posts are really good and confusing, but where could the evidence your searching for be?. and what is evidence? a man living in the tao wouldn't say this is 'the' movement or 'the' philosiphy' because it totally contradicts the tao. which always says, not this not that, not that either, no, not that, no, let go, not that, let it go, again, again............................................. .... so HOW theres going to be some text or exercise that defines the 'ordination' of the tao is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!! where will you find this evidence of tao influencing or creating zen or whatever? For one, how could it NOT? when 'it is' and every single single thing is ever new, and which awakened tao man would assume to ever define anything, exercise or philosiphy... if they have then they can't be 'tao'

also what is the significance of lineage????? what does it mean? and why do people place so much importnace on it... surely its just a form of attatchment??? I'd like to know what it MEANS that was zen, this is tao. THIS IS TAO ! ~we know beacause it is. now. everchanging undefineable isness. what does that was zen mean????????

Has consciousness shifted from an old school style to a more refined tao/now wakefulness????? by old school i mean scholarly as well as passe. and that this is tao, means experiential existence???????? is that the shift that what the differences between the systems are????

[Chiahua]

also what is the significance of lineage????? what does it mean? and why do people place so much importnace on it... surely its just a form of attatchment???

The importance of lineage was crucial to Zen monks. Because they basis of their knowledge was not on doctrinal learning (scholarly learning), all aspects of teaching were dependent on the master/disciple relation. You had to know the line of transmission to be able to say to others, "hey, I know my Zen is genuine because of my teachers." One could argue that what matters most is if it works for you. I'm not denying that, but it is useful to know in the world. Even Zen was not immune to the shifting tides of politics back in the China of old.
Anthony, the blending and coexisting distinction is a cruicial one to make, thanks for that!

Happy New Year,
Chia-Hua

[Marcus]

Hello Selva,

I'd like to know what it MEANS that was zen, this is tao.

I would recommend that you re-read this thread from the beginning as there is a wealth of information here that would answer your question. We have been very fortunate to have this thread running as there is more valuable information here than in many books.

hi anthony, your posts are really good and confusing,

Out of all of the posters on this thread I have found Anthony's posts to be the clearest. His ability to explain and describe complex/archaic themes on a consistent basis is outstanding. As above, re-read this thread, slowly and thoroughly. If you still have unanswered questions I would respectfully suggest you spend some time organising your thoughts into a more readable post as I found your last post very confusing and your thoughts scattered.

where will you find this evidence of tao influencing or creating zen or whatever?

It is the responsibility of those who perpetuate the misconception that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism to substantiate their claim. I have yet to be convinced by any evidence offered (of which there has been very little, dispite frequent requests)

a man living in the tao wouldn't say this is 'the' movement or 'the' philosiphy' because it totally contradicts the tao.

I do not re-call Anthony having written either of those things and you should be careful of putting words into people's mouths. The reoccurring theme as I understand it is that Zen and Taoism are distinct traditions and most importantly Anthony has never said that one is better than the other. This point is important. As Anthony himself wrote:

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.

Your posts in this thread have implied that a discussion like this is not in the spirit of Taoism or Zen. Clearly, you do not understand either tradition. Friendly debates are common to both traditions.

Finally, please re-read this thread from the beginning (I recommend this to everyone, though I'd suggest setting aside a large chunk of spare time ). You will see that the efforts of many in this thread have been to clear up what we see as a misconception that is being perpetuated by scholars and others.

Kind regards

Marcus



Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha Namo Amitabha Buddha

[chiron]

hi there, thank you for the lineage info. so basically without it, thered be no proggression....woops !

about anthonys posts...confusing as in intriegiung inspirational, if I wasn't confused by them, There wouldn't be anything to learn! when I'm confused it means I'm in the process of thinking in new ways...so it's all damn good, I'm not saying its all muddled , I AM! and learning from it!!!

AT THE MOMENT
I think that zen can only be an offshoot of taoism because where else would it have arrived from? The tao being what impressive men have dared to appricitate in words. Their attempts only made in their boldest awareness... and through that we've got some indication of whats possible to enter.

But how could zen not have been created, from the tao? thats all! to me it's not possible, I see now marcus the part about saying one is better than the other.... I just passed that by because i simply wasn't/aren't <-- sorry suffolk dialect slips out alot] saying that ones better!

That would just be daft. and only really insane people would say a religions better than another

I think that every human being intrinsically essentially and effortlessly understands zen and taoism, as we all are made of mystery and love. I also believe that zen sprouted from the tao, only because where else?. say the word zen was first spoken, as the name of a new tradition and conciousness, coming from the mouth of a man its the tao. all encompassing!

if anthony says 'zen is zen' thats just like me saying 'the tao is' theres no competition or accurate source, and by chance it could have been the other way round. actually the respect I have for zen would make me swap the word tao for it. and what difference would that make?! if my head was called a foot its still what it is.

I didn't realise that lineage was for zen monks... so my diissappriciation of it would imply I think zen is somehow inferior. and having learnt what lineage IS. i can only respect! and say thank you sunyata!!!!!!!

I also would like to question again what the title of this thread means, however many times i read the content. I think the symbolism to zen being past and tao present is significant but i wont assume to know why....?????????????????????? maybe its just a play on words

thank you all so much from the bottom of my heart you are amazing my life is yours and I owe you everything

[chiron]

i read it again

whos going to provide the evidence you seek to a misunderstanding of views/opinions ?

there are alot of names to lineages and all their new births but like everyones said at some point in some context, they all lead to the 'light' the names don't mean anything, words are clutter , everything is always new, and everything that is, time space maya blood, just is. [perhaps all illusion?]

so why still conflict or search for evidence?!

[Jeffrey Segal]

staying on topic

Hello Selva,

This has been a very long thread and there is no shame in not having assimilated its many twists and turns.

That said, I must say that your recent posts seem to be written without having taken the time to digest some of the more salient points that Anthony and others have so clearly voiced here.

We are not talking about Taoism in the sense of it being everything and nothing, infinity and zero, the great void etc. We are exploring whether, how and to what extent Zen or Chan Buddhism was influenced by indigenous Chinese Taoism (in terms of rites, philosophy, practice and teaching methods etc) upon its arrival in China from India at the hands of Bodhidharma the Great.

To quote Andrew, my Wahnam brother:

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

Of course you are entitled to your opinions and nobody wants to take away your right to all-encompassing theories about the Tao and Zen in terms of their significance as expressions of ultimate reality. Perhaps, upon re-reading some of the posts in this thread, you will find that Anthony is in fact responding to certain claims that were made, claims that (to my mind) he has eloquently refuted, drawing on his own experience as a Buddhist scholar and practitioner of many years.

The meaning of the title of this thread has already been discussed at quite some length.

Please do not feel that I am castigating you in any way. I can tell from your posts that you are a genuine seeker who finds this thread intriguing and stimulating. My words are meant only to keep us all focused on the topic at hand.

Best regards,

[Chiahua]

so... back on topic?

I'll toss out something I read recently, about the introduction to Buddhism into China (not Ch'an, which developed a couple centuries later):

The Chinese of the time adopted the Buddha into their scheme of things as a demi-god on the order of their own mythical Yellow Emperor and the philosopher Lao Tzu, who was believed to have attained immortality....
The Chinese were particularly desirous of knowing whether Buddhism could add to their knowledge of elixirs and practices that would contribute to longevity, levitation, and other superhuman achievements. (1)

The author is talking about co-opting and coexisting, rather than blending.
Bearing in mind that Ch'an was a relative latecomer to the Chinese religious climate compared to other schools, my understanding is that Ch'an isn't some hybrid of Taoism and Buddhism but a reaction to the other schools of Buddhism at the time. In terms of the prevailing culture influencing the development of Ch'an, I believe that since meditation is a more esoteric practice popular among the literati, the people who would be making such doctrinal changes would know the contexts of where things were coming from. They wouldn't knowingly blend Taoism and Buddhism together for the same reasons as you wouldn't blend together sinew metamorphosis and micro cosmic visualization.

I don't think there's really any disagreement on whether or not there is a chasm between scholarly knowledge and direct experience at this point: it's a massive one. Maybe the question is, what value does scholarship hold for people more interested practical matters? I was thinking of KaiJet's excellent story, which argues cheerfully that scholarly learning can be harmful to your well being! Well, there are ways to go about one's studies that hopefully don't create too much mental blockage (seen elsewhere on this forum).

Happy non-mental-blockage-forming-reading,
Chia-Hua


(1) de Bary, WT (1969) The Buddhist Tradition in India, China, and Japan. New York: Vintage Books p 130

[chiron]

well okay, but some people's understanding of how taoism and buddhism influenced/created zen is deifferent to others?!

what I am saying is that a search for evidence is a bit like looking for fake grail, when it blatantly can't exist for either view points. which are also irrelevant if you think , two men with different views standing in a field shouting at the other one each looking for evidence....? as to who is right and who is wrong? what evidence will there be? some writing on paper? the absolute truth KNOWN to one individual from a phone converstaion from god?
its just squabbling over some sort of identity they've collected in their lives
and are rather attatched to. its just going to lead nowhere, they could just say well, i know this in my heart, peace be to your inner knowledge lets go take a walk under the sky... know what i meean?

where does evidence come from apart from the mind of one person? and how would we know the words of evidence spoken were true?, whether we choose to believe them or not, and most of the time we never believe anyone but ourselves, so we have a limited view of truth or reality.

If though as zen and tao both are, we just accept everything that is, then everything would be true... is it that hard to believe that two contradicting things can exisit equally real? I mena thats what yin and yang are, they exactly contradict, but they don't say the other one is somehow inaccurately designed or misinformed.

So asking for evidence is silly when existence is real the same as non-existence, and it is really just looking for something to say 'i'm right, i have the right knowledge etc...' sorry to repeat myself again please ignore my posts if they detract but my current theme is arguing with my mother about who is most right about reality .....just the most preposterous disagreement in the world to choose but thats probably why, we are really just seriously taking the piss out of each other





Tao was seen as The Way of Heaven Expressed in Nature. The Presence of an Intelligent Creator was acknowledged, but never limited by rigid definition. How can we
define or describe the Infinite Source of All-That-Is? Such is impossible! So instead, the attributes of this Source were searched out in the natural world of Its creation.

[Antonius]

my current theme is arguing with my mother about who is most right about reality

Selva: That is not the topic of this thread. If you are interested in that topic, please start another thread. It is not appropriate to discuss that here.

The topic here is a scholarly one debating the origins of Zen Buddhism in China. This is not "two men with different views standing in a field shouting at the other." This is an intelligent and articulate scholarly discussion.

In scholarly pursuits, evidence is a necessity. It is not "silly." Sources are expected to be cited and referenced. It is perfectly reasonable to expect scholars and others to provide scholarly evidence to substantiate their theories -- just as I have done to substantiate my theories.

I might point out that this topic is the most popular thread to date on our forum, and one that many people are enjoying. Please stay firmly on the topic at hand, or create new threads on related topics.

[Antonius]

Sunyata: Thank you for the de Bary quote. Maybe I can pull some strings at my alma mater and invite him into this discussion.

Just out of curiosity, what time frame is he referring to exactly? (Sadly, I don't have that book. Maybe I'll try to find it at one of the second-hand stores.)

[chiron]

this is also a debate about the possible chasm between scholarly and direct experience?

could it also be about then what the purpose of intelligence is, and how it enables us to learn from both ways?
i mena where does intelligence go when in diredct experience?

which is on topic!

also I am quite a selfish person ... i like to cry for experience like a baby

but still id on't appricate the idea of evidence when both scholarly and direct experience need an open mind and willingness to change to learn new things

[Chiahua]

also I am quite a selfish person ... i like to cry for experience like a baby

but still id on't appricate the idea of evidence when both scholarly and direct experience need an open mind and willingness to change to learn new things

Well, people say (mostly hippies) that a mind is like a door-- it only works as a door. But that's not entirely true. You have doors because you want to keep out the cold, and the papparazzi in my case (joke). What is your idea of "evidence"?

Anthony, I'm not sure I want Dr. de Bary or Dr. Thurman to see this thread... they'll probably read the thread and think, "what are these guys on?" But seriously that department is a gold mine.

[chiron]

perhaps evidence is a way of proving your perspective is the right one, but who judges which is the right perspective except for ina courtroom?

where they close th doors!! nah i get cold too

[Antonius]

Selva: You are not on topic. We are talking about direct experience, but only in how it relates to analyzing the origins of Zen. Your philosophical musings are appropriate for another thread, not this one.

And yes, evidence is a way of proving things. That's how it works. If I wrote a book claiming that Christianity was an offshoot of Hinduism, I would be expected to substantiate that claim with evidence. You and others are entitled to believe whatever you like -- with or without evidence. But some of us choose to base our beliefs on concrete evidence, not on unsubstantiated claims or opinions. We have a right to discuss that here.

You have been politely warned several times by other instructors. Please do not continue to wander off topic.

Sunyata: Yes, it was always fun bumping into Dr. de Bary or Dr. Thurman in the halls. Can you look up the dates for that quote? I'm just curious (and anxious to get back to the topic).

[Chiahua]

I checked it the book, and it's some time before 317 AD which is when barbarian hordes forced the imperial court to abandon north china. Dr. de Bary says of the southern court:

...the dominant trend in the Buddhism of the time was toward abstruse philosophical discussion in salons that brought together the cream of secular society and the best wits in the great metropolitan monasteries. A facile interpretation of Buddhism in Neo-Taoist terms prevailed and Buddhism's Indian origins were all but forgotten. (1)

So centuries before Bodhidharma was said to have travelled to China, "blends" of Buddhism and Daoism were extant, but I get the feeling that the result was definitely un-Ch'an-like. This site places the introduction of Buddhism in China at around 50 AD, but it was obviously spread out over a long period.
I wonder if Daoist meditation is closer to the elaborate Indian forms of meditation, which you could probably trace to present day Therevada/Southern school forms of meditation or Tibetan schools.
I mean, historically the golden age of Ch'an was it the T'ang dynasty (roughly 600 CE), and by then Daoism had probably gone through so many changes that any blending would have occured not with philosophical Daoism of old, but more religious arcane Daoism.

Happy New Year,
Chia-Hua