That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Sifu Stier]

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.

[Antonius]

Differences and Similarities

I would like to thank Barry for highlighting to the crux of this thread:

Any answers would give me some indication about whether they are different paths to the same thing or different paths to different things.

I have been arguing that Taoism and Zen are different paths to the same place. Others have been arguing that Taoism and Zen are similar or shared paths to the same place.

I have offered specific examples of how Zen is a distinctly different path than Taoism. Others have offered mostly general examples suggesting that Zen and Taoism are blended together. I have given specific examples of the differing methodologies between Zen and Taoism, as well as examples of the differeing philosophies. Others have given general examples of similarities between Zen and Taoism (citing these as proof of cross-fertalization).

It's worthwhile to note that general similarities can be found between many of the world's religions -- an exercise that shows that many (or all) of the world's religions ultimately talk about the same goal. This exercise does not, however, show that all of the world's religions are cross-fertilized.

The many similarities between the word's religions show us that they are all paths to the same goal. The specific differences between the world's religions are what make them each a unique path to that goal.

[Sifu Stier]

It is a well known fact that a mostly friendly rivalry has existed in Chinese culture and society between the various Buddhist and Taoist Sects for many, many centuries. I can say from my own experience of living in Hong Kong for a number of years time, and regularly travelling to Singapore, Macau, Taiwan, and even the PRC, that such rivalry continues even nowadays. It was interesting to note while I was there, however, that Chinese culture, and the Chinese psyche, generally speaking, is so steeped in Taoist thinking that philosophical concepts of the Great Tao, Yin and Yang, Five Elements, Ten Celestial Stems and Twelve Terrestrial Branches, and so forth, permeate every part of Chinese life including, but not limited to, Chinese Astrology, Feng-Shui, Traditional Medical Practice such as Acupuncture and Herbal Medicines, the planting and harvesting of crops, and so forth. I found this 'ethnic identification' with these concepts to be so all encompassing in Chinese society as to be a great part of what it means to the average man and woman on the street to be a Chinese. Even those who are Buddhist monks and nuns share and express their connection to Taoist concepts as a natural part of their self-identity as a Chinese. As such, I found that most people there tended to relate to foreign ideas and practices such as Western Medicine, European Philosophy, and foreign political ideology by comparison to traditional Chinese thinking regarding such things. It's nearly impossible to avoid references to Taoist culture anywhere in the Chinese sectors of the Orient, with the possible exception of the modern People's Republic of China. The same seems to hold true among Chinese enclaves outside the Orient, such as the large Chinatown communities found in larger cities abroad. Therefore, having seen, heard, and experienced this cultural phenomenon first hand, I can't imagine that Buddhism or any other 'ism' not originally native to China could possibly escape the influence of classical Taoist thought. And I hope everyone here understands that I am not making references to Religious Taoism and its various rites, rituals, or beliefs, but to Philosophical Taoism only. For anyone to deny and dismiss the influence of Taoist conceptual thinking on anything Chinese, including Chinese Buddhism, is in my opinion both inaccurate and ignorant!

[Darryl]

Good evening everyone, I'll be your Moderator for the evening and would just like to welcome everyone to the largest thread on the forum so far.

So far, in a nice and simple little summary, we have two main views -

1) - The 'Oil & Water' view
2) - The 'Melting Pot' view

It would seem that I have managed to find two contradictions by selecting a duality to demonstrate singularity and singularity to demonstrate duality. Luckily, it's all just words. The actual thoughts (non thoughts?) should be the focus (lack of focus?) of this debate.

This has the potential to still be an excellent thread and since it's gone this far, it can still go farther. However, I do agree that it should be kept at a Moderated level, without people having to bang their heads against brick walls or feel that things are still not getting through to the other side. Since I have neither side (and don't really care anyway), I feel that I am in an excellent posititon to wander around and point fingers .

First bit of finger pointing,

For anyone to deny and dismiss the influence of Taoist conceptual thinking on anything Chinese, including Chinese Buddhism, is in my opinion both inaccurate and ignorant

A stated opinion is fair enough, but to keep the thread moving towards new territory we can accept that there are two very different views being expressed in this thread and that both have their place (within Moderation). As such, lets accept that the common ground is that there are two differring positions and move on from there.

Typically, a debate occurs when one person states a view, provides an example to back up their view and then waits for a continuation or rebuttal from another person. At the moment, we have many rebuttals, some excellent posts but a rather clunky continuation. However, given that the majority view is not always the accurate view, equal consideration should be given to the minority view and the possibility entertained that stranger things have been known to happen.

[Ovidius]

First, thanks to everyone for a wonderful thoughts and thanks to Anthony for reviving the thread!

So much has been said, I'll try to comment them later because I have in my mind something else...

Originally Posted by Darryl

two main views -

1) - The 'Oil & Water' view
2) - The 'Melting Pot' view

Having read descriptions about what Taoism is I cannot make a conclusion that it is entirely a unitary doctrine with a certain set of practices and beliefs that can be classified as "Taoism". What do you think? To say that Taoist practices are aiming to "Tao" or "Immortality" may not be strong evidence against this because "Tao" is used also in Buddhist literature (as it is stated here) and Immortality is also the aim of Christianity (Immortality in Heaven) and many other religions practices. In this way, it could be said, that almost any practice (including witchcraft etc.) that exists in China could be put to "Taoism box", and to support this putting into "Taoism box", we can surely find a suitable verse from Daodejing. In this way, when we speak Taoist practices and the whole network of beliefs, they could be interpreted to be so wide that they cover also the tenets of Chan Buddhism. But not the other way, since Chan is a narrower view. (This is not to say that "Chan is not as complete" or that "Taoism is a wide open doctrine".)

If this is true, then if you are a Taoist, you can easily accept Chan as one instance of "searching the Tao", and enjoy the supporting evidence of "Melting Pot" view. But if you identify yourself more as a Chan Buddhist, then you most likely differentiate Chan from Taoism, because it looks too broad and colourful concept to have anything to do with Chan, and you enjoy supporting the "Oil & Water" view.

[Antonius]

Lets have some fun

While the opposition continues with generalizations and personal attacks (ignorant?), my Shaolin Wahnam schoolmates and I give specific example after specific example showing that Zen is Zen and Taoism is Taoism.

In summary: Zen is simple, direct, and effective. Taoism, of course, is also effective, but it is arcane and symbolic.

Let's have some fun with this thread. Reproduced below are two different passages chosen at random -- one from a famous Zen source and the other from a famous Taoist source. Can you tell which is which? I'll leave it for a day or so, and then provide the answer. (Please don't spoil the fun for others by giving the answer away.)

Passage 1

In the North Sea, there is a kind of fish. Its name is Kun. Kun’s body is extremely huge, its length extending to unknown thousands of miles. Suddenly it changed into a bird. Its name is Peng. Peng’s back is even bigger, its width extending to unknown thousands of miles.

When it exerts with force, Peng flies up from the sea to the sky, and its wings are like gigantic clouds at the horizon. Whenever storms arise in the North Sea, the Peng bird fly to the South Sea. The South Sea is void without boundary. It is not created by man’s work. It is created by Heaven and Earth, so it is also known as the Lake of Heaven.

Passage 2

Yue An asked a student: Chi Chong made one hundred carriages. He retained the front of the carriage but removed the back, then removed the spokes of the wheels. What remained of the carriage?

(Note: Chi Chong was known in classical China as an expert in making carriages.)