PDA

View Full Version : Tao and Zen



Beatzen
28 Dec 11, 07:38
One of the ways that Westerners have come to describe what we might call the "operation" of the mind of Zen is to liberate or negate abstractions like symbols, language and other systems that meter meaning.

The superfluity of gramatical forms as we understand them could best be demonstrated by the following analogy:

We generally refer to objects as nouns, or things. Take my hand in the form of my fist. A fist is a noun. But by opening my hand, it reveals that a verb had been disguised as a noun at that time.

It is well known that the unique elements that contributed to the evolution of Zen "philosophy", as opposed to that of it's Indo-Tibetan cousins is a biproduct of it's contact and cross-contamination with the native philosophy of chinese taoism.

Now, what do we mean when we say "tao," because to a zen buddhist contemplating the nature of reality, it is important to know exactly which "tao" you are reffering to.

Would it be the temporally sequential "tao" of kung fu-tzu's Analects (verb), or the substantialist "tao" of Lao-tzu's Tao Te-Qing (noun).

For it becomes quite apparent that in a way, verbs and nouns interpenetrate. It is similar to the way in which modern physicists speculate on the quality of light to appear simultaneously as particles and wave patters.

Discuss how the dharma might give us insight into transcending both action and stillness, for this, in the Bloodstream sutra by Bodhidharma, is said to be the highest meditation.

Aloka
28 Dec 11, 10:07
Hi Kagyupa, I'm not too clear if is this a quote from somewhere, or if its something you've summarised or composed yourself.

If its a quote or a summary of something you've read, can you provide the source and a URL link to it, please ?

Beatzen
28 Dec 11, 10:13
I composed the post myself. The analogy of the hand is adapted from Alan Watt's chapter on the philosophy of taoism in his Way of Zen.

References to the difference between the "Tao" of Confucius (kung fu-tzu) and of Lao-tzu are adapted from the critical essays in Pruning the Bodhi Tree by Jamie Hubbard, which discusses the possibility of Zen heretical tendencies towards non-buddhistic "substantialist" views.

The later book is interesting in that it asserts the view that the Buddha proclaimed that there is no substrate of existence. Substrate coming from the latin for a "ground from which [something] springs" Though ultimately this sounds quite nihilistic.

The author is a professional academic and former buddhist monk who styles himself a "critical buddhist," as in the contemporary movement in Zen surrounding the dissenting works of Matsumoto Shiro and Hakamaya

Aloka
28 Dec 11, 10:24
Ok, thanks .;D

Yuan
28 Dec 11, 10:41
Hi Kagyupa,

I think this line from the Bloodstream sutra says it all:

"Seeing your nature is Zen." (Translation Source (http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Ancestors/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/The%20Zen%20Teachings%20of%20Bodhidharma/THE%20ZEN%20TEACHINGS%20OF%20BODHIDHARMA.htm))

I guess I don't understand how Taoism or Confucianism should have anything to do with Buddhism. Or that Zen (at least according to the Bloodstream sutra.) has anything to do with getting insights about and transcend action and stillness.

Esho
28 Dec 11, 15:57
[...] Zen (at least according to the Bloodstream sutra.) has anything to do with getting insights about and transcend action and stillness.

Hi Yuan,

Can you elaborate more about this. I can't understand what you mean about this statement :confused:

Beatzen
28 Dec 11, 18:25
i am a hopelessly clueless student but I know for a fact that bodhidharma says this.

I think it means sort of surrendering into a relationship with one's mind that neither manipulates/projects towards gaining knowledge nor attempts to enforce stillness.

That's a really psychologically austere way to meditate. I could only do that If I were really exhausted with myself.

Yuan
29 Dec 11, 00:12
Hi Yuan,

Can you elaborate more about this. I can't understand what you mean about this statement :confused:

Hi Kaarine,

That sentence was referring to the last sentence from Kagyupa's post.

Discuss how the dharma might give us insight into transcending both action and stillness, for this, in the Bloodstream sutra by Bodhidharma, is said to be the highest meditation.

I was questioning that statement.

Esho
29 Dec 11, 00:26
I was questioning that statement.

Oh, OK. Thanks Yuan... as English is not my original language I sometimes can't grasp the precise meaning of some posts...

;)

Yuan
29 Dec 11, 00:56
i am a hopelessly clueless student but I know for a fact that bodhidharma says this.

I think it means sort of surrendering into a relationship with one's mind that neither manipulates/projects towards gaining knowledge nor attempts to enforce stillness.

That's a really psychologically austere way to meditate. I could only do that If I were really exhausted with myself.

Oh, I found the sentence in the bloodstream sutra that has the moving and not moving thing. But to me, that complete sentence really is saying "5 Skandhas are sunyata."

The key to the bloodstream sutra is still about seeing your nature.

Beatzen
29 Dec 11, 02:33
I want to see a pali scriptural reference for the "five skandhas = empty" statement. It would help me.

Yuan
29 Dec 11, 06:07
How would seeing a pali scriptural references to "five skandhas are sunyata" help you? I thought we are discussing the Bloodstream Sutra? I am not aware that Bloodstream Sutra is part of the pali canon.

Beatzen
29 Dec 11, 10:33
nevermind.

Aloka
29 Dec 11, 10:57
Questions about the Pali Canon can be asked in the Theravada forum.