That was Zen, this is Tao!

[Sifu Stier]

Anthony:

Having now labored at such length to clearly separate the two methods according to their differences, how do you reconcile the perceived differences in order to benefit from practicing both. Are they not incompatible as concurrent practices exactly because of their varying approaches to the meditative experience? Don't the visualization techniques of the Taoist methods, which you stated always remain in the phenomenal realm, interfere with your ability to transcend that realm to enter the Void? But wait! Isn't the mere thought of zazen and the intention to sit in that particular posture with hands folded just so, gradually quieting the mind and calming the breath to approach the Void also a simple visualization process? Is even possible to commence the practice of ANY style of meditation without first envisioning yourself doing so in the process? Doesn't the regular practice of zazen, with its emphasis on stripping away superflous mental activity interfere with your ability to switch over to a detailed Taoist visualization method? In your expert opinion born of your direct experience with both methods, how is it possible to use your mind in such vastly different ways, and what real benefits are derived in doing so compared to using either method alone? Why would someone want to practice both? And lastly, could you say something about the true nature of the mind which has been directly pointed at through your shared experience of the two methods?

[Ovidius]

Originally Posted by Antonius

Typically, Zen practitioners throughout history have aimed to return to Emptiness; Taoist practitioners have aimed to become Immortals.

Does this mean that both neutralize the necessity to be born again, but Zen achieves it by a permanent death and Taoism by a permanent life?

(*) Taoism = developing (self) and Zen = demolishing (self)?

In Emptiness "You" cannot exist (you are as good as dead - permanently), but in Non-Emptiness of Phenomenal World "You" can still exist as a living agent.

Sifu Stier's idea about the conflict if one practices both looks inevitable in this interpretation too: from a Zen point of view doing parallel Taoist training is a constraint for reaching the goal of Zen. "Why would someone want to practice both?" is a very interesting question if (*) is true.

[Antonius]

Sifu Stier and Ovidius: I don't find them any more incompatible than practicing two styles of martial arts. As I've said, when you have experience in both traditions, it's obvious that there is no conflict, just differences. But whether or not they are incompatible is irrelevant to the topic and does nothing to substantiate the claim that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism. Please either stick to the topic at hand, or create new threads on those tangential topics.

[Antonius]

32 pages of Evidence?

I find it fascinating that this thread has become so confusing. I'd like to take a stab at clarifying something, if I may. So far, I have provided a mountain of evidence to counter the claim that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism. But some readers may be wondering why I kept calling for specific evidence from my opponents. After all, this thread is the longest in the history of our forum. There must be some evidence in here, right?

Yes. Mine. General arguments have been presented by my opponents, but nothing concrete. Sixteen pages ago, I clarified what would constitute concrete evidence. In 32 pages of discussion, no one has come up with anything concrete. Then why is the thread so long?

I think it's mainly because people have lost clarity. The majority of the posts over the past 16 pages -- when they have been on topic -- have been attempts to poke holes in my evidence. That's fine. I could go on and on defending my evidence for another 32 pages while continuing to add more and more evidence. But we seem to have lost sight of something here:

I didn't make the original claim that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism. The onus of defense is not on me.

The ones making the claim are the ones who need to do the defending. I am on the offensive, attacking a claim that I believe to be false, and I have provided concrete reasons why I think it's false.

Attacking my evidence is not the same as providing evidence. It is, at best, a distraction technique (Sun Tzu?). When making a claim like "Zen is an offshoot of Taoism", one needs to provide evidence, especially if one's opponents are providing a mountain of evidence against that claim!

Even if I withdrew all of my evidence (which I won't ), my opponents would still be left with nothing concrete to substantiate their own claims. All they would have is quotes from some Western scholars (who also fail to provide evidence), and their own opinions on the matter. While that may be enough for some people to be convinced that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism, it's not concrete.

If anyone had provided any concrete evidence, it would have been easy to reference, just as I have been doing with my evidence. Then, instead of all this confusion, we would have posts like:

Anthony: in the Taoist Classic “Method of the Highest Elixir” it says "meditate on the void, shun visualization."

Anthony, in the Platform Sutra of the 6th Patriarch of Zen, it talks about Yin-Yang, which is a Taoist philosophy. This shows that Hui Neng was influenced by Taoism.

Anthony, history shows us that there was a long tradition in China of Zen monks marrying and drinking wine like Taoist Priests.

But we do not have quotes like that because no one has provided concrete evidence like that. The best we saw was from Ovidius, but it wasn't concrete because no one could produce evidence to substantiate its claim that Zen monks borrowed Dantian Breathing from Taoism. Again, all we had was a quote of someone expressing an opinion. That is not concrete evidence, especially when you consider my own evidence against it.

After 32 pages it's clear that, if any evidence was going to surface, it would have done so by now. Perhaps now people can understand why I kept calling for concrete evidence. I was genuinely looking forward to seeing some interesting evidence posted in this thread so that I could learn something new. I was hoping that someone here had found some research that neither I nor Sifu Wong had seen.

Basically, I wanted to see my opponents provide as much evidence to support their claim as I have provided against it. But they didn't. They couldn't even provide a handful of concrete evidence, let alone enough to compete with the mountain of evidence I have provided. The best they could do was attack me personally, attack my evidence, or distract from the topic at hand.

[Antonius]

The Five Arts of Taoism

Since no one has offered any concrete evidence to substantiate the claim that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism, I propose to do the next best thing. Having consulted with my Sifu on some of the finer points, I'll briefly discuss the main teachings of Taoism. Then I'll examine if these teachings have significantly changed Zen Buddhism as it was originally taught by Bodhidharma.

Taoist cultivation is traditionally classified into five broad categories known as “wu-shu” (or “five arts"). The classification is for convenience. Different Taoist schools or authorities may have slightly different versions of the “five arts”. (Please note that “wushu” written in different characters and pronounced in different tones means “martial art”.)

• Medicine
• Martial Arts
• Qigong
• Divination
• Spirituality

The category Medicine includes taking appropriate food in the appropriate seasons. It also includes preparation of the Golden Elixir to be taken orally in order to attain immortality.

Taoist Martial Arts emphasize internal training. The main styles are Taijiquan, Baguazhang and Xingyiquan.

Qigong is practiced for health, longevity, sexual prowess, martial arts, as well as attaining immortality. This category includes meditation.

Divination is a broad category and includes arts like astronomy, geomancy (feng shui), fortune telling, military strategies, exorcism, and divination (using the Yi Jing).

The category of Spirituality includes various means of spiritual cultivation to attain immortality or to return to the Tao. The main approach is “jing zuo” or sitting meditation.

It can be seen, therefore, that Taoist cultivation is extremely extensive, rich, and advanced.

[Antonius]

Has Taoism influenced Zen?

The knowledge in Zen is also extensive, but of a different nature than the knowledge found in Taoism. Zen has different goals. A simple comparison of the two traditions is as follows:

Taoist medicine is based on Yin-Yang and the Five Elemental Processes (Wu Xing). Zen medicine (which is insignificant compared to Taoist medicine) is based on the "Four Greats" of Metal, Water, Air, and Fire. These two medical systems are characteristicially different.

The signature Taoist martial art is Taijiquan. The signature Zen martial art is Shaolinquan. While there are many similarities between them, Taijiquan is Taijiquan and Shaolinquan is Shaolinquan. If they were the same, Sifu Wong would not teach them as separate arts.

Taoist qigong and Zen qigong are also characteristically different, though they have had many mutual influences. In my opinion, Taoist qigong is richer than Zen qigong. An example of Taoist qigong in our school is Dantian Breathing. An example of Zen qigong is Sinew Metamorphosis.

The category of Divination, which is very important in Taoism, is completely absent in Zen. This is mainly because the Buddha advised Buddhist monks not to use their psychic powers for divination.

In both Taoism and Zen, meditation is the main method towards the highest spiritual attainment. But the approaches, as I have explained in an earlier post, are characteristically different. Taoist meditation is rich in visualization, whereas visualization is discouraged in Zen meditation.

I'm quite satisfied with what I've learned in this long thread. The lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that Zen is an offshoot of Taoism -- not only in this thread but in my own research -- is surprising. When I compare this lack of evidence with the mountain of evidence offered against the claim, then it is even clearer to me now than when we started this discussion that Zen is Zen, and Tao is Tao.

[Andrew]

This has been a very long, thought-provoking, sometimes controversial, sometimes confusing, sometimes slightly off-topic, sometimes personal, sometimes aggressive, but always interesting thread. I believe many have learnt from and grown with it. Now seems like a good time to summarise it.

• Many consider Zen Buddhism to have been born of a blending between Mahayana Buddhism (from India) and Taoism (from China).
  
• Despite many attempts to receive or contribute evidence of this fact no viable proof has been supplied.
  
• Much clear evidence of the non-similarities between Zen Buddhism and Taoism have been presented such as the differences between Zen monks and Taoist priests, between focus on the void in Zen meditation and on visualization in Taoist meditation, between the simple, direct language of Zen and the arcane, symbolic language of Taoism, between non-dualism and the transcendental in Zen and yin-yang and the phenomenal in Tao.
  
• Similarities between Taoism and Zen Buddhism which have been presented remain superficial and could actually be applied to many world religions.
• Incorrect use of language can easily cloud an issue. To understand a complex and often symbolic language such as classical Chinese, knowing the dictionary meaning of the words often is insufficient to understand the underlying meaning. For example, the word “Tao” is not exclusive to Taoism. In some contexts “Tao” may mean Enlightenment, and in others it may mean “spiritual cultivation”. Exactly this fact may have led (and continue to lead) many scholars to misinterpret (and mis-translate) texts in classical Chinese regarding Zen Buddhism.
  
• Experience can confirm scholarly knowledge. But in this particular case, personal, practical experience actually confirms that the popularly held view by scholars (not practitioners) is inaccurate. In other words there is a huge chasm between scholarly speculation and direct experience.
  
• Majority views are not always accurate (example - the majority view that genuine Kung Fu is inneffective for fighting - which is KNOWN to be inaccurate by true Masters ... who have always been and remain the minority).
  
• Many things have been influenced by both Zen and Taoist teachings and we in Shaolin Wahnam are very lucky to be able to draw from the knowledge and experience of both traditions. But .......

Taoism was, is and will remain Taoism.
Zen Buddhism was, is and will remain Zen Buddhism.

Or, as Marcus so succintly stated
Zen is Zen.
Tao is Tao.


May the New Year bring health, happiness, success and prosperity to everyone -- of every race, creed, belief, and religion.

Andrew

[Emiko H]

Dear Brothers, Sisters and Honoured Guests,


To take on the challenge of making a ‘comparative analysis of two spiritual philosophies’ (Zen Buddhism and Taoism) is no small task.


The Purpose of Exploration
Naturally, whenever such an exploration is attempted, one is required to be honest, sincere and open to the possibility of learning something new. An examination is not meant to confirm what the examiner has already known, but rather to open new doors of understanding (otherwise there would be no point in exploring anything).


Results of the Exploration
After a lengthy exploration, here is the clear outcome we have arrived at:

Taoism and Zen Buddhism are unique and offer different benefits, both of which are invaluable and worthy of acknowledgement.


Refreshing Distinctions
The best explorations will always provide opportunities for refreshing distinctions to be made. Along the way, we have come to define two key distinctions:
a) Zen Buddhism is not ‘a Chinese invention’, not an offshoot of Taoism, and not a ‘blend of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism’.
b) There is a ‘huge chasm between scholarly speculation and direct experience.’


Extra, Unexpected Benefits of the Exploration
Indeed, this thread has been a great adventure, one that has offered much more than just a ‘comparative analysis’ between Zen Buddhism and Taoism. It has also provided many of us with a lovely start in both the Taoist and Buddhist philosophies, as well as a sound venue for the younger/newer members of the Shaolin Wahnam family to learn even more about their priceless heritage -- the history and authentic teachings passed down in a direct line from the Shaolin Monk, Ven. Jiang Nan himself, to our Sitaigung Yang Fat Kuen, then to our Sigung Ho Fatt Nam (a Taoist expert before converting to Zen), and finally to our Sifu, Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit.


Acknowledgments
I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all who put in the time, energy and ‘heart’ to participate in this thread – this, of course, includes all of our trusty, silent readers.

I would also ask, for purposes of clarity and efficiency (two important Shaolin principles), that all other worthy offshoots of this discussion be held in new, separate threads.


With respect and sincere thanks,


Emiko