Taoist roots of Zen???

[Wayfarer64]

That sounds/seems like the historical truth to my ears - But I also understand the stand-alone concept of Zen only being Zen and not a compilation of its' historic roots...In this now it is only Zen. in past nows it was becoming Zen...

The long-ago moment when a Taoist scholar first heard of Buddhism and had his satori of joining elements of each has everything/nothing to do with this moment's Zen. Getting back to the "was of now" is a bit like using a rickity bridge that bares little trafficking in egos so I'll agree to see this side of the span across time as Zen having left the nest. An image has sprung to my mind-

Zen is no fledgling... it has taken flight and flies like an arrow ever zinging toward/in satori!! The bow of constant change has its'on-going force but it is no longer one with the arrow...Which now has a single direction to fly...The arrow's shaft is Buddhist the feathered flights are Taoist and the point is Bushido...Maybe the archer was Buddha and our (collective) third eye is the target! BANG!

And that may be the longest string of mixed metaphores I have ever written!

Edited September 15, 2006 by Wayfarer64

[Pero]

I kept trying to respond to some of this but realize the silliness of my ego to have any real clue as to what the depths of Zen or Taoism are really about and how they do or don't relate to eachother.

 

I get that quite a bit too, but it often doesn`t stop me from posting. I think we`d all be mostly quiet if we realized we have no clue.

Sometimes I only later realize it`s all shit.

[Mandrake]

But exactly how did it mix? It is a trifle matter to heave out generalist statements.

 

"Buddhism came to china from India, but first it went to Sweden, and since it liked Scandinavia very much, it stayed there awhile. Suddenly it remembered and hurried back to Middle Kingdom, flourished and so on."

 

Buddhism existed in China before Bodhidharma. And, the daoists and confucianists where very hostile against buddhism in the beginning. A daoist emperor even tried to eradicate it. The buddhists had all reason to, and did keep their doctrine together without much incentives to "mix" it.

 

I was reading in Solala Towlers most recent, wonderful book. (I THINK? not sure where i read this maybe it was fromm Yang Jwing...no I read too many books at once!):

 

Buddhism came from India and mixed with the Tao to form Chan

Chan then mixed with Bushido after going to Japan to form ZEN

 

And there you have it!

 

True?

[Wayfarer64]

But exactly how did it mix? It is a trifle matter to heave out generalist statements.

 

"Buddhism came to china from India, but first it went to Sweden, and since it liked Scandinavia very much, it stayed there awhile. Suddenly it remembered and hurried back to Middle Kingdom, flourished and so on."

 

Buddhism existed in China before Bodhidharma. And, the daoists and confucianists where very hostile against buddhism in the beginning. A daoist emperor even tried to eradicate it. The buddhists had all reason to, and did keep their doctrine together without much incentives to "mix" it.

 

Dear Mandrake -

I'm not getting where yr coming from with this-

Being silly about the origins of Zen seems a bit out of place - but hey have fun with it...the doctrine you claim that was "kept together" never existed as such as a vihicle to bring Buddhism to China. If you need to believe in fairytales stay in the middlekingdom and enjoy yourself. But I do not see why the idea of a blended system of thought is so threatening to Zen proponents at this late date.

Do you feel yourselves "above" the origins of your sect? Are you indeed a true Zen practicioner that is deeply concerned with where Zen is going? Zen is not the only form of Buddhism and Zen can not claim to be the main-stream or even the most legit form of Buddhism. (As Islam claims to be the latest and therefore greatest religion to come from "the book" or Abraham) - etc...

The purity factor that Zen practicioners like to portray themselves with is just not real. And theirs is not the only thread of Buddhist thought that claims to hold a direct link back to Buddha. There may well be some small sect within Zen's liniage that is more "pure" than most others, but is that even a good thing? The claim of purity is usually used in very bad ways and I for one distrust its very nature and impetus. It is usually racist or at best segragationist in nature.

As much as many of us do not like the linier nature of history - this thread is about the origins of Zen and those origins can be traced through many permutations.

That Buddhism was reviled in China is a given... which is a reason to "mix it" so as to make it palitable to the Chinese. The early Buddhists in China were missionaries as well as practitioners and had to find a way to communicate their ideas in the religious language of those they were offering their new ideas to. The Bodidarma was the first to be reasonablly successful at this and that is why he is credited with bringing Buddhism to China -he made it stick to some degree. That Taoist ideas and language were used to do this seems only natural. Do you think that The Buddha's dialect or native tongue was used to communicate his ideas in China? This could not have been the case. So how could his teachings also remain unchanged if the way they were communicated was in the religious imagery of Taoist thought. Do you really believe that The Chinese accepted these new ideas without making them fit into their long-held belief systems? The Confucian system of honoring the past would deny that possibility as very likely. Buddhists needed to adapt their new ideas into the old ideas to give them any hope of being taken to heart.

It is sad to me that there is such vehement denial of these changes having happened. The Zen of today is associated most strongly with Japan. I pray this fear of Chinese influence is not just another form of racial hatred from the Japanese. Something they are so well know for through-out their history. But the viscious nature of the Japanese conduct in WWII - while being "good Buddhists" is for another thread perhaps.

[Cameron]

Wayfarer,

 

I can only speak of my own experience with Zen since I have no idea what really happened in China or Japan hundreds or thousands of years ago. The Zen teachers I have studied with briefly in America and come from Japanese lineages/have a Japanese Roshi/teacher were all very clear that Zen came from India/Sakyamuni Buddha through his line of successors, was brought to China from India via Bodhidharma and brought to Japan from China to Japan through different lineages and teachers. The greatest of which seems to have been recognized as Dogen and Hakuin.

 

I never got anything but a deeply respectful tone towards all the Indian and Chinese Masters from the Japanese. In fact, I here Japanese and American Roshis refer to the Chinese patriarchs such as Hui Neng as their "Dharma Anscestors". Frome everything I studied on Zen it seems to me when Buddha taught the 4 noble truths and eightfold path and when Bodidharma presented his version of truth to the Emperor of China or when the Zen master Hakuin asked "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" they were pointing to the same essential ground of being and reality. Which I personally am not capable of saying a word about.

 

If there is more interest in the exchange of Buddhism and Taoism over the centuries and how they differ you can find discussions going back the last couple years on the healingdao.com board. this question has occupied the central interest of that board for years now.

 

Cameron

[Wayfarer64]

Wayfarer,

 

I can only speak of my own experience with Zen since I have no idea what really happened in China or Japan hundreds or thousands of years ago. The Zen teachers I have studied with briefly in America and come from Japanese lineages/have a Japanese Roshi/teacher were all very clear that Zen came from India/Sakyamuni Buddha through his line of successors, was brought to China from India via Bodhidharma and brought to Japan from China to Japan through different lineages and teachers. The greatest of which seems to have been recognized as Dogen and Hakuin.

 

I never got anything but a deeply respectful tone towards all the Indian and Chinese Masters from the Japanese. In fact, I here Japanese and American Roshis refer to the Chinese patriarchs such as Hui Neng as their "Dharma Anscestors". Frome everything I studied on Zen it seems to me when Buddha taught the 4 noble truths and eightfold path and when Bodidharma presented his version of truth to the Emperor of China or when the Zen master Hakuin asked "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" they were pointing to the same essential ground of being and reality. Which I personally am not capable of saying a word about.

 

If there is more interest in the exchange of Buddhism and Taoism over the centuries and how they differ you can find discussions going back the last couple years on the healingdao.com board. this question has occupied the central interest of that board for years now.

 

Cameron

Thank you Cameron! That is very refreshing to hear and I am grateful to you for illuminating this thread with an impirical example of study that afirms the natural unity that I have only been able to discuss in more naturalistic and general terms...I have read books and been shown some meditative techniques said to be Zen but have also incountered a hostility from some folks who claim to be part of Zen towards the non-Japanese elements - as our friend Mandrake seems to be headed in that direction, it worries me as perhaps being part of a less than open approach to our common humanity.

I meant no disrespect toward the practice of Zen as a whole, only the elemants that refute Chinese or Indian contributions...and seem to be seeking a purity that I find repelant in attitude and questionable logically. I just don't get it. But as in most cases every sect has a sub-sect and so on to the individual with a singular mind-set and cultural baggage.

I admit to a slight distrust of "the Japanese" due to historical attrocities that are not owned up to ... and a Japanese step-mother who was at best an ignorant narrow-minded and mean-spirited such-n-such...But she was of the Renichi ShoShu - (Nom yoho renge Kio) Buddhists -She always struck me as being particularly materialistic in her approach to chanting and what she hoped to gain through chanting...

So I am extremely happy to hear your experience was not along those lines at all!

I beg your pardon if my harsh tone offended you. When something smacks of racism I call it out and wish to do battle against it with as much force as I can bring to the confrontation.

[Cameron]

Not offensive at all. Just doesn't mirror my own experience. Ime glad your open enough to be able to link some of the sentiments about Japanese culture and spirituality to your own life experiences and family. At the end of the day I think its human beings sharing experience or realizations with other human beings. Its interesting when someone says they come from a lineage from the The Buddha or Lao Tsu but Ime really more interested in modern insight into these timeless wisdom traditions rather than so called pure lineage or tradition.

 

I also study Aikido and quite a few of my teachers have been into tradional japanese culture including bushido and zen practice. But I never got any kind of superiority complex to the Chinese. Obviously, with Billions of Chinese and millions of Japanese it must exist somewhere but not in my experience.

 

My own teachers are a mixed bag of zen pracitioners, former zen practioners turned anti zen, Taoist practioners and those more into modern expressions of enlightenment like Eckart Tolle and Adyashanti. So, maybe like the ancient Chinese, I find myself not really distinguishing too much between Zen, Taoism or Buddhism and prefer to just appreciate the uniqe wisdom of each.

 

But, like I said, if you check out the Healing Tao board you'll find plenty of arguing back and forth that Taoism and Buddhism are quite different as well as the belief that they are exactly the same just use a different language. It has been a hot debate for several years now.

[sean]

Digging up a dead horse here, but I stumbled across a comment in another forum I thought I'd paste into this thread.

 

Via Taoism - tribe.net by Ryan

 

Daoism is pretty much just as traditional and "dogmatic" as Buddhism. A common misconception in the west is that Daoism is reducible to a few sparse texts- mainly the books of Laozi and Zhuangzi. This is sort of like if so someone took the Dhammapadda or something as the only important thing in Buddhism- it's arbitrary, missing alot of important practices and beliefs, and has nothing to do with Daoism as it has existed and developed in China and East Asia.

 

If you're interested in Daoist meditation, Michael Saso's book "The Golden Pavilion" offers a detailed introduction to a Shangqing practice and a translation of the outer Yellow Court scripture. There are probably other books too but this is the most practical one I've seen. There's also a really excellent website, the Center for Daoist Studies, and they describe a very simple, basic form of Daoist meditation here:

http://www.daoistcenter.org/Contours/Meditation.html

 

Zen Buddhism, in my opinion, is actually based on orthodox Yogacara philosophy and the Daoist influence is way overstated. I really don't think there's any notable element of Zen doctrine or practice that can't be traced back to Indian Buddhism. Some masters may have taken anecdotes from Daoist texts in their teaching but beyond that there isn't much.

 

---

 

On a similar note, a few months ago I was listening to a Joan Halifax podcast via Dharma Pordcast called Samu: Nothing Extra. In it she briefly touched on the Chinese influence on Buddhism. I remember having the impression from the talk that Chan was as influenced by Confucianism as by Taoism, hence the emphasis on fusing cultivation with work (wash your bowl!) that tends to be the emphasis of the former.

 

Sean

[Wayfarer64]

I'm glad these ideas came back up on the board. One thing I notice is that there is little speculation that the original Buddha chose some of his ideas from the pre-existing Taoism as well as the Hinduism of his own more localized back-ground. His years of study probably encluded exposure to Taoist ideas.

 

And his ideas seemed to have been a strong element in JC's teachings. I still see the continuum in these things. As in art and most cultural manifestations of the human spirit's urge for creativity, the new springs from the old and references older ways to reapply them into the modern world...

 

I just do not believe in any purest approach to any doctrine, there is a circular aspect as well as a linear aspect to how our cultural references get communicated.

 

The strongest point I make in the Zen/Tao issue is that for Buddhism to get through China and then into Japan, the Chinese are very likely to have left a deep impression in the flow...The Chinese have always absorbed the new into the old. Confucius changed how Taoism was understood as much as Taoism changed how Buddhism was understood over the many millenia of changes in the cultural proclivities of the court and the masses-which in themselves differed much of the time...So it just seems obvious that any and all of these permutations took place at some point in space/time...What has become of them we will always choose to investigate and contemplate and speculate on.

 

But as a Taoist I just see them changes working their magic and allowing everything to be happening somewhere at sometime...Everything to its season and environment. Thanks for the links I shall check 'em out ASAP.- Namaste--PS- What happened to Cloud Recluse?

[spyrelx]

Don't you all think that Buddhism influence Taoism more than the other way around?

 

I mean the complete reality guys (i.e., northern school) seem heavily influenced by buddhist concepts. All that praise of stillness, stillness meditation, etc.

 

Also, the concept of living within certain moral and ethical parameters that are emphasized (both in certain taoist spiritual lineages and in many daoist martial arts lineages) seem related more to buddhism (and confusionism) than any original aspects of daoism.

[Wayfarer64]

Spy-

I think historical accuracy is an important element of this discussion. Taoism was thousands of years old by the time Buddha walked the earth. It stems from pre-historic times as noted earlyer in this thread. The roots of the Yi Jing are as anscient as any ideas we know of on this planet. There is absolutly no influence of Buddhism in the Yi Jing.

 

The Yi Jing is primaraly a book about how to live morally. The misconception that it is a book of devination first and foremost is not correct in my view. It is a book that hopes to illustrate the best ways to behave under various conditions and cercumstances. That it can relate to your particular situation and respond is a great mystery, and freaks many people no end. But it does happen. Consult the Yi Jing about this issue I shall also and see what we get...I'll be back-Namaste-Pat

 

Confucius certainly influenced Taoism and he was almost contemperanious to Buddha. I agree with Mandrake in part - that Buddhists and Taoists are not the same. There are some shared concepts and practices, most had to stem from the Taoist tradition as it is so much older, tho in some cases the ideas and practices may have developed on their own, I do not think that is the case.

 

We can read the history of these trends. We do not have to guess about it.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Wayfarer64

[Wayfarer64]

Ok so I threw the coins for a quick Yi Jing take on these matters. I received:

 

49- KO or Revolution (molting)... with only the third line changing (into)

17- SUI or Following.

 

The gist being that there are acceptable changes here and they are naturally a progression through time and history. And that we should talk it over a few times in order to gain understanding.

 

the advice is to remain firm in one's convictions as we meet the new influences takig what is of deeper value and forgoing the superficial.

 

My interpretation in my book The Wayfarer Sonnets for the third line is -

49-

Old ways linger on

If gauging change's limits

Talk it over agin

 

17-

Be true to yourself

Keep good ideals growing up

lose youth, gain insight

 

So I guess this means that it is the synthisis that has more value than the seperate parts would have alone.

 

That these philisophical entities each & all stem from the deepest essence of the Tao would seem to be what I want to hang onto, not so much the seperations. Again I have a different hat to wear here than in the wider world. There I need to define the differences between Taoism and Buddhism to add to people's understanding.

Here at the Taobums I find myself trying to form a "ghestaldt" (sp) of the several sects we address here to reach a deeper understanding still...

[Yen Hui]

Chuang-Tzu And The Chinese Ancestry of Ch'an Buddhism

@ http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/livia.htm

Edited February 8, 2007 by Yen Hui

[林愛偉]

In Buddhism, there is reference for cultivating the Way (Dao) This cultivation is not different from

that taught and described by Laozi. Buddhism recognized "Dao" before Buddhism reached China.

 

Laozi only worded it specifically.. Buddhism is for direct cultivation towards attaining enlightenment.

That means it doesn't really look towards heavenly and earthly rewards as Daoism does.

 

Anywho.. I have no time to discuss right now.. more later.

 

Peace and Happiness,

Aiwei

[Mandrake]

Got my computer back. Three months wait for changing an adapter seems to be called customer service nowadays.

 

Dear Mandrake -

I'm not getting where yr coming from with this-

Being silly about the origins of Zen seems a bit out of place - but hey have fun with it...the doctrine you claim that was "kept together" never existed as such as a vihicle to bring Buddhism to China. If you need to believe in fairytales stay in the middlekingdom and enjoy yourself. But I do not see why the idea of a blended system of thought is so threatening to Zen proponents at this late date.

 

 

 

I think we both talk past each other here. I asked a question for specifics. I've encountered several people claiming this influence on Ch'an buddhism, anything from mild influence to Ch'an being a taoist creation. My point with the origin joke was just to show how easy it is to make a generalist statement and appropriate whatever you would like without giving specifics. Specifics: doctrinewise, practicals, whatever to give some real support to claims. Then it would have been a much more fruitful discussion.

Now, some people obviously interpreted my tone and statements as anti-taoist/fanatic puritan/whatever, but this is a position others have placed me in.

To make a contrast: Far fewer times I see buddhists or daoists eagerly state the buddhist influence on daoism (scriptures, some doctrines, temples, daoist religion as a countermove) and I get a feeling that some western daoists want to give daoism the credit for what they perceive as the unique part of ch'an/zen. These kinds of sentiments seem mostly emotional, since the main points of Ch'an are firmly grounded and derived from the buddhist sutras pivotal to it's philosophy and practice, such as the heart sutra, vajracheddika, shurangama, Lanka'avatara, Vimalakirti Nirdesa and other sutras. But arguments on this level are few and far between.

 

By my earlier comment it should be clear that I understand that Ch'an as a vehicle didn't introduce buddhism to China.

 

 

 

Do you feel yourselves "above" the origins of your sect? Are you indeed a true Zen practicioner that is deeply concerned with where Zen is going? Zen is not the only form of Buddhism and Zen can not claim to be the main-stream or even the most legit form of Buddhism. (As Islam claims to be the latest and therefore greatest religion to come from "the book" or Abraham) - etc...

The purity factor that Zen practicioners like to portray themselves with is just not real. And theirs is not the only thread of Buddhist thought that claims to hold a direct link back to Buddha. There may well be some small sect within Zen's liniage that is more "pure" than most others, but is that even a good thing? The claim of purity is usually used in very bad ways and I for one distrust its very nature and impetus. It is usually racist or at best segragationist in nature.

 

 

This is unnecessary, you're battling against windmills not me. No need to try mind reading, it results in paragraphs like this. Sure, I may not use many smileys, but because of text looking cold on an internet forum doesn't mean that the person behind is too

 

 

 

As much as many of us do not like the linier nature of history - this thread is about the origins of Zen and those origins can be traced through many permutations.

That Buddhism was reviled in China is a given... which is a reason to "mix it" so as to make it palitable to the Chinese. The early Buddhists in China were missionaries as well as practitioners and had to find a way to communicate their ideas in the religious language of those they were offering their new ideas to. The Bodidarma was the first to be reasonablly successful at this and that is why he is credited with bringing Buddhism to China -he made it stick to some degree. That Taoist ideas and language were used to do this seems only natural. Do you think that The Buddha's dialect or native tongue was used to communicate his ideas in China? This could not have been the case. So how could his teachings also remain unchanged if the way they were communicated was in the religious imagery of Taoist thought. Do you really believe that The Chinese accepted these new ideas without making them fit into their long-held belief systems? The Confucian system of honoring the past would deny that possibility as very likely. Buddhists needed to adapt their new ideas into the old ideas to give them any hope of being taken to heart.

 

 

I think I stated this before in clear enough terms. The adoption of the chinese poetic and metaphorical way of expression in contrast to the very dry, analytical style of the indian scriptures was a stroke of genius. I never claimed otherwise.

 

 

It is sad to me that there is such vehement denial of these changes having happened. The Zen of today is associated most strongly with Japan. I pray this fear of Chinese influence is not just another form of racial hatred from the Japanese. Something they are so well know for through-out their history. But the viscious nature of the Japanese conduct in WWII - while being "good Buddhists" is for another thread perhaps.

 

 

In Japan, the chinese influence from daoism was quite small - Confucianism was the rave in the aristocracy and came to exert greater influence on Zen. Confucianism is from China as well. This fear of Chinese influence seems to be something you've encountered more than I have.

 

To reiterate, there is a difference between a person using your clothes, or being your offspring.

 

Mandrake