That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Ovidius]

how does that show that Taoist practices and philosophies were blended into Zen?

It doesn't. I just wanted to show an example of Zen text that is non-typical -- it isn't apparent from the basis of how 10 Bulls is written that it is a text made by a Zen master. Maybe there are also Taoist (and earlier Buddhist) texts that are written in a Zen manner, who knows. Hence, the difference in style how Zen and Taoist texts are written cannot be attributed to be highly crucial when evaluating which text represents Taoist and which one Zen.

[Michael Durkin]

Dear Selva,

When looking at your post, evidence is required for a discussion like this. It is necessary to substantiate the claim that Zen Buddhism was influenced by Taoism. For example:

If I wanted to claim the throne of England and become King, then I would have to prove that I come from royal blood. If I tried to argue my case by using Zen philosophy by saying that I am already King, or that everyone has royal blood, or that my dog has royal blood, then I would not be taken seriously.

This discussion is a scholarly debate that aims to clear confusion by presenting convincing evidence. We aren't trying to use this evidence to understand how to attain enlightenment, or to say which method is better. I'm sorry if this appears patronising, but I think at times, this discussion needs to come back down to earth -- where it is taking part.

Happy New Year everyone
Michael

[chiron]

yeah i know!
i just read 'the subject of knowledge can't exist independently from the object of knowledge' and 'every object of the mind is itself mind' aka, thich nhat hanh.

if i claim that zen buddhism was influenced by taoism and even provided evidence someones going to look at it differently and so on.

I'd take you seriously if you said you were rightfully king!, but then i'd say get off its my turn your the dirty rascal. and yu'd be like not for long ha ha!.... I'M THE K.....

[Ovidius]

Interesting argument

Welcome back, Panu.

Thank you, Anthony. I found this kind of argument supporting the blending of Taoism and Buddhism resulting Zen.

(i) Traditional definition of Zen is:

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Not founded upon words or letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature and attaining Buddhahood.

-Bodhidharma, First Patriarch (4-6 cent. A.D.)
(D.T. Suzuki, "ZEN BUDDHISM: Selected writings of D.T. Suzuki" (Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956).)

(ii) This "special transmission outside the scriptures" (or "special transmission outside doctrine") is borrowed from a school of Taoism called Complete Reality or Completely Real Taoism and therefore Zen is a result of blending.

Argument is presented here by "Vajradhara": http://www.comparative-religion.com/...6&postcount=16

Is this "special transmission" something similar to "heart to heart transmission"? Does anyone know about Completely Real Taoism? Sifu Stier?

[Antonius]

It's good to have you back, Panu.

Hence, the difference in style how Zen and Taoist texts are written cannot be attributed to be highly crucial when evaluating which text represents Taoist and which one Zen.

The stylistic differences are a valid way to contrast the traditions 99% of the time. The fact that it doesn't work 1% of the time does not render the other 99% invalid. The piece you quoted is one of the few exceptions, i.e. the 1%. We know it is an exception precisely because there are thousands of other examples that make up the normal style, i.e. the 99%.

Furthermore, this exeption was an intentional stylistic choice by Kakuan -- a friendly parody of Taoism, if you will.

This "special transmission outside the scriptures" (or "special transmission outside doctrine") is borrowed from a school of Taoism called Complete Reality or Completely Real Taoism and therefore Zen is a result of blending.

This is incorrect. "Special transmission outside the scriptures" is also translated as "Transmission beyond the tradition," which I quoted earlier. This principle was originally spoken by Sakyamuni Buddha to Mahakasyapa 1000 years before Bodhidharma arrived in China. It definitely was not "borrowed" from Taoism.

Maybe there are also Taoist (and earlier Buddhist) texts that are written in a Zen manner, who knows.

I know. There are some Taoist texts that have a Zen flavor.

The following poem is reputed to have been composed by Zhang San Feng (the Taijiquan patriarch and Taoist master). It is taken from the Taoist classic, “Secret Directions to the Void”:

Teaching the real and eternal beneath the rootless tree
Six kinds of Tao combine to form one bright place
When we know the sounds of past and present
Originally there is no past no present and no face

This poem is actually more Zen than Taoist. Note the word “Tao”, which is translated literally here. Actually “six kinds of Tao” refers to the Buddhist teaching of the six realms of existence, namely: the realms of gods, humans, titans, animals, ghosts, and hell-beings.

But this text does not prove that Taoism was influenced by Zen. It proves that Zhang San Feng was influenced by Zen -- which is no surprise since he graduated from the Shaolin Temple.

[Sifu Stier]

Getting to the Heart of the Matter!

Dear Anthony:

This is all very informative and interesting yet, aside from your own personal interpretations of these writings, all of these documents can be studied and researched from many sources, both on-line and in book form. Thus, all of this scholarly dissertation doesn't really get to the heart of the matter, namely, a direct experience of Truth in one-mindedness devoid of ego and personality. This also applies to other 'external' constraints such as our impressive lists of accomplishments and personal achievements, our varied talents and abilities, and our many prideful attachments! These things all point only to what we do and to how we perceive ourselves with ego, but they don't point to Who we are aside from them. When we discern that we are other than our physical identity and all of the attributes and talents associated with it, other than our mental identity and all of the intellectual attributes and knowledge associated with it, then what remains...and Who remains to perceive it and to qualify it. Who is the 'I' that states..."I know"..."I believe"..."I think"..."I feel"..."I see"..."I hear"...and so forth?

Would you please comment from your own experience with Zen meditation as to how your expressions of the external constraints previously mentioned above reflect the Buddha's teachings regarding the abandonment of ego and personality in order to get to the heart of the matter? Thank you!

[Ovidius]

Some points that arised

The stylistic differences are a valid way to contrast the traditions 99% of the time. The fact that it doesn't work 1% of the time does not render the other 99% invalid.

What I wanted to express is that the stylistic differences should not be emphasized too much as a reliable watershed. That 1% proves that people of Zen and Taoism have had imagination beyond the traditional limits.

Furthermore, this exeption was an intentional stylistic choice by Kakuan -- a friendly parody of Taoism, if you will.

Well, Zen writings are parody many times. In fact, best of everyday humour comes from "Zen type of situations" when we suddenly notice the absurdity of language and situations

Personally I don't think that 10 Bulls was intended to make fun of Taoism. Kakuan just reformulates the Taoist story with a Zen message.

This is incorrect. "Special transmission outside the scriptures" is also translated as "Transmission beyond the tradition,"

Do you mean that the translation is also incorrect? I have noticed that there are many translations. Here is another by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (Essays in Zen Buddhism, Grove Press, 1961, p. 20):

A special transmission outside the Scriptures;
No dependence upon words and letters;
Direct pointing to the soul of man;
Seeing into one's nature and the attainment of
Buddhahood.

You explained that these come from Sakyamuni Buddha, and therefore they (or parts of these) are not borrowed from Taoism. Earlier you pointed out that "These concepts (which I have no time to explain at the moment) are vastly different from Sarvastivada (which is essentially a Hinayana school) teachings. Actually, Bodhidharma's teachings were a reaction AGAINST Sarvastivada teachings, not a continuation of them."

From my point of view it looks like there is some disagreement about these concepts in Buddhist circles and maybe some Buddhists can even argue that they are not Sakyamuni Buddha's words, or that the words are taken out of context and the meaning is twisted. If there would not be disagreement about these concepts, then all Buddhists would accept them as true?

Solid disagreement would mean of course that it isn't absolutely sure that the ground doctrines of Zen come from Sakyamuni Buddha's teachings.

I know. There are some Taoist texts that have a Zen flavor.

Thanks Anthony for the example

But this text does not prove that Taoism was influenced by Zen. It proves that Zhang San Feng was influenced by Zen

But can the tradition be separated from the individuals? I mean that Zhang San Feng was part of a living Taoism and it could be said that there is not any other Taoism or Zen than the people who practice "it". If people get influenced, then the traditions change, because people transfer the traditions, beliefs and styles to next generations. In a this way, Zen influenced Taoism that Zhang San Feng taught in his classic text to next generations and Kakuan's way how to teach Zen was influenced (inspired) by Taoist style of writing. By "how to teach Zen" I mean the 10 Bulls text, I take it as a lesson of Zen here. Although, not typical one.

[Antonius]

Thanks for sticking to the topic, Ovidius. (No, the topic is not "Anthony's ego," though that might make for an interesting thread. )

But the stylistic differences are clearly a reliable watershed. Even in Western scientific circles, the evidence supporting the stylistic differences would be considered massive and reliable. The fact that there are a few exceptions (like the ones you and I mentioned) in no way discounts the validity of the rest of the evidence. Most Western scientific experiments do not produce such convincing evidence (99% to 1%) and yet are considered conclusive.

Do you mean that the translation is also incorrect?

No. That's not what I meant. There are many translations of this phrase. I meant that it is incorrect to suggest that it was borrowed from Taoism. It was not borrowed from Taoism. The words come directly from Sakyamuni Buddha.

and maybe some Buddhists can even argue that they are not Sakyamuni Buddha's words

I do not know of any Buddhists that would argue this since the words come from the Indian Sutras and are clearly from Sakyamuni Buddha. There is no disagreement that I'm aware of. The incorrect statement you posted about it being borrowed from Taoism is the first I've ever heard of this, and I think it is just Internet confusion.

Solid disagreement would mean of course that it isn't absolutely sure that the ground doctrines of Zen come from Sakyamuni Buddha's teachings.

I think that you are drawing wild conclusions based on a single argument that you found somewhere on the Internert. The basic teachings of Zen clearly come from the Buddha himself, as I have evidenced already from reliable sources. For example (page 70 of "The Complete Book of Zen"):

Ananda, the Buddha’s favourite attending-disciple, asked Mahakasyapa what the Buddha had transmitted to him. Mahakasyapa asked him to go out of the temple into the bamboo grove and find the answer there. Ananda went but returned without finding the answer. Mahakasyapa then told him, “Take down the banner!” Ananada instantly understood and was enlightened. Ananda became the Second Patriarch.

Actually, this quote (from 1000 years before Bodhidharma) illustrates all 4 of the principles I mentioned here. All of these principles, which are characteristically Zen, trace back to the Buddha himself.

[Ovidius]

But the stylistic differences are clearly a reliable watershed.

How about the content, the message? I still hold on that it is the most important thing and the form how it is presented stays secondary. My basic argument is, that the style does not make text Taoist or Zen, but the message does.

The words come directly from Sakyamuni Buddha.

Not exactly, since he self didn't write them down. If I remember correctly, people (students) started to write down his sayings long after he died, and that is one reason why we have different versions of his teachings (or schools of Buddhism).

I think that you are drawing wild conclusions based on a single argument that you found somewhere on the Internert. The basic teachings of Zen clearly come from the Buddha himself, as I have evidenced already from reliable sources.

Yes, wild conclusions, but wild are yours too

I managed to persuade our University library to buy The Complete Book of Zen to their collections, so, most likely tomorrow I'll get it to my hands

"When the Buddha first attained enlightenment, the whole earth became purified, adorned with all types of jewels and flowers, and sweet–smelling perfume filled its every corner." + argument that this is not a symbolic description (From here).

In my opinion, this is very wild conclusion and far from reliability, no matter how big authority says or writes this. But I don't want to deny anyones faith on this kind of subject. I'm just saying that this is solely a matter of faith: there is no reliable way to go back to that time and verify this experience. Maybe on meditation one can get a verification, but that's personal "for your eyes only" evidence that cannot be analyzed by others.

[Antonius]

I still hold on that it is the most important thing and the form how it is presented stays secondary.

Panu, I have addressed both content and form (style) in many of my posts. Obviously, both are important. Please have another look at what I wrote. I think you will see that I've already addressed both of these in depth. This thread is far too long for me to continue repeating myself.

More importantly, I don't see how this supports your argument that Taoism was blended into Zen. We both agree that the content of Kakuan's text is Zen, not Taoist. So please give us specific examples of Taoist lessons that can found in Zen texts.

Not exactly, since he self didn't write them down.

I repeat: the words come directly from Sakyamuni Buddha. Whether or not he wrote them down is irrelevant.

Sakyamuni Buddha's words were memorized and passed on by his disciples through an oral tradition. These words were recorded in Sanskrit and Pali in 100BC -- and this is the only point that matters. Since the words were recorded long before Zen came to China, your statement about them being borrowed from Taoism is incorrect.

In order to maintain clarity in this confusing thread, I will point out that you avoided the issue with the comment above. Rather than admit that your earlier statement was mistaken (which would help maintain clarity for everyone), you raised another topic (how the Buddha's words were recorded).

I am not criticizing your penchant for debate, but I feel obligated to point this out in order to maintain clarity in this long thread. With a thread this long, it is imperative that we remain doggedly clear. If you claim that A = B, and B = C, so therefore A= C, that is logical. But you cannot continue claiming that A = C if it has been proven that A does not equal B. To do so only creates confusion.

I clearly showed that A does not = B. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact. It is impossible that the words you quoted were "borrowed" from Taoism because they were recorded in Pali and Sanskrit texts long before Bodhidharma came to India.

Yes, wild conclusions, but wild are yours too

By wild, I meant that your conclusions were not based on solid evidence, as I just demonstrated above. Your conclusions above were based on false logic.

My conclusions are based on solid evidence that I have referenced throughout, as well as direct experience. Quoting someone from another Internet discussion forum, as you did, is not what I consider solid evidence. Quoting directly from a classic text is solid evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I'd like to point out you still have not offered any to substantiate the claim that Zen and Taoism are blended. If you would like to offer some evidence, then please show concrete examples of Taoist practices or philosophies that can be found in Zen after its arrival in China, but not before.

[Antonius]

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.

Speaking of concrete evidence, I'd like to comment on the above statement (which I somehow missed earlier). The statement was taken from here.

I don't agree with the statement. Taoist meditation techniques -- as recorded in the classics and also as I have learned them from Sifu Wong and other teachers -- employ guided visualization through all levels of attainment, not just at the beginning stages. One of the most advanced Taoist meditation techniques was recorded in the Taoist classic “Method of the Highest Elixir”. It involves:

Building an elixir at the abdominal dantian, infusing it with the spirit of the cultivator and creating an elixir know as the “heavenly fetus”, bringing it up to the middle dantian, then up to the upper dantian, then opening the baihui vital point and letting the “heavenly fetus” (which is now a manifestation of the cultivator’s spirit) emerge from the physical body to roam heavenly realms.

Obviously, visualization is essential throughout this meditation technique.

The Small Universe (Xiao Zhou Tian), Big Universe (Da Zhou Tian), and Dantian Breathing are also advanced Taoist methods for spiritual cultivation recorded in the classics. Visualization is essential in all of these established methods.

The following is from an advanced Taoist meditation technique where visualization is essential. The instruction is taken from the Taoist classic, “The Art of Attaining the Elixir of Original Heaven”:

Kun Lun summit. Purify empty hall. Arise to Heavenly Gate. Meet at Sensibility Palace. Samadhi. Highest peak. Empty Cave Mountains. Marvelous Hall. Yellow House…

As I mentioned earlier, the use of visualization is one of the many differences between Zen and Taoist meditation.

Panu, you will notice that I not only speak from experience (having practiced Taoist meditation techniques), but I also substantiate my argument by quoting directly from classic Taoist texts. This is concrete evidence.

If anyone wants to refute my argument, then they will have to do the same if they want to be taken seriously. They will have to do more than simply say, "Taoism uses no visualization at higher levels!" In other words, they will need to provide concrete evidence to substantiate their claim, just as I have done.

[Sifu Stier]

Re: Taoist Visualization Techniques

Anthony:

The information in my earlier post which you refer to is based on the teaching of my Master, who has 90+ years of training experience with the methods in question, including but not limited to those you used as examples, and my own 44 years of direct experience in practicing the Taoist meditation methods. It is irrelevant what your beloved books imply to you. As with visualization methods employed for any purpose from weight loss or increased prosperity to meditation attainment, once the 'seed' of the visualization has been planted in the depths of the sub-conscious mind and establishes a permanent 'root' there, the continued use of the visualization is no longer necessary as the deeper mind will perpetually work to manifest the visualization until it is similarly programmed to do otherwise. As such, there comes a point in practicing even the most advanced techniques outlined in detail in any book where it is no longer necessary, or indeed advisable, to continue the visualization. To do so would in fact defeat the entire purpose of the method. It would be similar to 'picturing' or 'visualizing' every stroke of the pen needed to write every letter of every word on this page onto a sheet of paper while sounding out each letter and each word after one already has the ability to just write or just read without thinking about all of those details as a beginner needs to do. Let me pass along to you the advice my Master gave me over and over again for the longest time....."Think less and practice more!"

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier: The beloved books are not mine. They are for everyone to read.

These books are public knowlege and record the teachings of Taoism as they have been transmitted over roughly 2500 years. Furthermore, my argument is also based on direct experience of Taoist meditation. Sigung Ho was a high-level Taoist master; Sifu Wong inherited much of that tradition and passed it on to me (and others).

Your Sifu's philosophy is respectable and reasonable, but for the purposes of this thread, we should clarify that it does not represent the mainstream of Taoist philosophy. It represents Shen Men Tao philosophy, which is fine. But, to the best of my knowledge, it does not represent mainstream Taoist philosophy as recorded in the classics and taught in most schools.

If this philosophy represents mainstream Taoist thought, as you have implied, then you should be able to cite evidence from some of the countless Taoist classics written over the past 2500 years to support your claim. To be clear, I am not discounting anyone's direct experience. But if that experience is to be considered as representative of an ancient tradition, then there should be plenty of evidence connecting it to that tradition.

[Sifu Stier]

All for Naught?

Anthony:

So let me understand this. You think that Taoist meditators have devoted their time and efforts, in many instances like my Sifu's through long lifetimes, to learning these techniques solely for the pupose of memorizing a guided visualization technique, and that each and every time they meditated it was necessary for them use a visualization technique in order to enter any meditative state? What a hoot! How absurd! That doesn't even make any sense, and certainly does not reflect my direct experience with Taoist meditation methods. It would seem that your Buddhist based Shaolin ideology is so biased that it blinds you to the logical and probable intention of the methods in question. Also, there seems to be a 'control' issue in play here, in which you must always be the final authority, even when your direct experience experience with the subject matter is far less than that of those with whom you debate. That brings us around again to the direct question I asked you eight posts ago on 2nd January in my last paragraph, regarding getting to the heart of the matter, which you totally and conveniently ignored!

[Chiahua]

That doesn't even make any sense, and certainly does not reflect my direct experience with Taoist meditation methods.

So from what I am understanding of what you write about your experience, a Daoist beginner will use series of visualization techniques, progressing to more advanced levels of visualization when ready. But once one has mastered the beginning levels, one needs not visualize, one "just feesl it" without the aid of visualization. Is this close to what you are describing? So for Micro-cosmic orbit, one has to imagine the qi going along the meridians, imagining qi to the various points along the course. But once one is skilled, one doesn't need to imagine anything, because one actually feels it.
Am I close to the mark?

Happy day,
Chia-Hua

Imagination is more important than knowledge.
-Albert Einstein