Contrast of Zen and Daoism.

[Hoshuku]

‘To encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment.’ From the first paragraph of the Sandokai.

Since the topic comes up so regularly in other places, I thought I’d apply my mind to comparing and contrasting Zen Buddhism and Daoism in the West. And keeping it brief.
Firstly, the western forms have both been largely stripped of their religious content. In Asia, both are primarily religions that people turn for tradition, comfort and support, see attached photos. Not for mystical experience or psychological / philosophical insight. The West has stripped away what it regards as outmoded cultural wrapping from both to uncover what it regards as the core.

Secondly, to contrast them, from what I can see from my limited view point, Zen practice is an journey to realize the fundamental emptiness and interdependence of everything and then to return to the world in a spirit of active compassion.

Daoist mysticism is integration with the natural world, seeking vitality and alignment with the spontaneous, dynamic forces of the universe.

Zen seems to have emptiness as it core concept, ie ‘mu’ or ‘wu’, 無. Daoism seems to have ‘wu wei’ at its core, ie effortless action 無為. Zen teaches "what is"; Daoism teaches "make good use of what is". This suggests to me that Daoism retains a sense of user, use and utility which Zen would say are an illusion.

It struck me on chanting the Sandokai, that it might have been created to deal with this issue.

I await comments with great interest as I am here to learn.

Bows
Hoshuku
Satlah

image.png
image.png

[Kotei]

Zen seems to have emptiness as it core concept, ie ‘mu’ or ‘wu’, 無. Daoism seems to have ‘wu wei’ at its core, ie effortless action 無為. Zen teaches "what is"; Daoism teaches "make good use of what is". This suggests to me that Daoism retains a sense of user, use and utility which Zen would say are an illusion.

It struck me on chanting the Sandokai, that it might have been created to deal with this issue.

The Sandokai tells me that realizing the emptiness of user, use and utility is not the endpoint of practice.
That everyday interdependent existence is how this emptiness unfolds.
Zen to me is about realizing the "what is" AND practicing the "make good use of what is".
Not holding opinions too strongly, living a caring life for the benefit of others.
Zazen and the Precepts not two different things.

Gassho,
Kotei sat/lah today.

[Jundo]

A good question for us Zen history wonks ...

Daoism did become a complicated conglomeration of folk beliefs and soothsaying, with various energy practices meant to bring about long life, if not immortality. It is such a mishmash that it is almost impossible to nail down a core of what Daoists believe. Most of these folks beliefs and energy practices are far removed from core Buddhist teachigns and practices, although they crept in to Chinese Buddhism here and there through the centuries because, well, different belief systems in the same culture tend to influence each other as time passes.

However, there was one aspect of philosophical Taoism that found common ground with Buddhist views of "Emptiness" when Buddhism came to China in the early centuries, and which aspect was very influential on what became the Chan/Zen flavors of Buddhism. This is Xuanxue, sometimes rendered as "Dark" or "Mysterious Studies," although that term should not in any way be associated with "evil" as in western meaning. It is also called "Neo-Daoism," although actually very old and almost forgotten amid the folk beliefs and energy practices that are the core of Daoism today. You can read more here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neo-daoism/

The Chinese may have interpreted some Mahayana teachings through a Xuanxue lens, thus we see some overlap in terminology, the "not picking and choosing" of writings like the Xinxinming, the emphasis on "non-doing," the dreamlike quality of this world, and some of the literary tropes that became Koans. It is important to emphasize that it was just an influence, among many other Chinese cultural influences such as Confucian values and social structures which became the basis for the "familial" organization of Sangha in Chan, plus Chinese literary interests and many other things. In turn, Buddhism influenced and created "Daoism" in ways perhaps more important than the other direction, and many Daoist ideas that did influence Buddhism were changed in doing so, i.e., the Chan or Buddhist version of the notion is different from the Daoist version in important ways even if they appear related. A good paper on how complicated was this relationship is this, by a Japanese scholar (https://toyo-bunko.repo.nii.ac.jp/.../files/memoirs54_03.pdf) and this more recent collection (but harder to access: https://brill.com/.../edcoll/9789004439245/BP000001.xml...) One representative discussion in the latter book can give a sense of this mutual seeding. Notice how Buddhism actually helped form the Daoist philosophical doctrine, rather than just the other way;

In Chapter 7, Friederike Assandri investigates the complex interactions and “confluences” between Buddhists and Daoists in medieval China. She points out that there were frequent public debates between the two groups from the late Six Dynasties period to the Mid-Táng, so neither religion should be regarded as a hermetically sealed theology. Rather, their respective adherents engaged in a continual process of exchange during which each side appropriated concepts, terms, and scriptures from the other. In her paper, Assandri explores this process through a study of the development of the Twofold Mystery teaching and its impact on the development of early Chán Buddhism. This form of teaching employed an epistemological system based on Mādhyamaka teaching that was utilized during analysis of the Dàodé jīng 道德經. After analyzing various sources, Assandri concludes that interactions between Daoists and Buddhists in the sixth and seventh centuries were not only frequent but enthusiastic, and that proponents of the Twofold Mystery teaching made full use of all the relevant terms, concepts, and soteriological schemes that were available to them, regardless of whether they were Daoist or Buddhist in origin. Meanwhile, many of the ideas developed in the context of the Twofold Mystery teaching found their way into the emerging Táng schools of Buddhism, including “proto-Chán,” and scriptures such as the Treasure Store Treatise.

... Daoists adopted the logical method of thinking that they had come to know through the Buddhist teachings of the Middle Way in the teachings of Twofold Mystery. ... This use of Buddhist terms and concepts is challenging for researchers, because it invites the conclusion that Daoists simply plagiarized Buddhist teachings. In fact, medieval Buddhists accused Daoists of doing precisely that, albeit as a polemic device, not as a consequence of careful scholarly deliberation. Much later, twentieth-century scholars arrived at a similar conclusion. However, shifting attention from the question of provenance of concepts to the issue of the function of those concepts within an overall frame of soteriology and philosophy, a more complex picture emerges. Although the Twofold Mystery’s main characteristic was its use of Buddhist logic, the system relied
on a Daoist worldview

So, there is no simple answer here (let alone ridiculous claims like "Zen is just Daoism in disguise, not Buddhism." That would be as silly as saying that "English is just old Latin in disguise" while ignoring its much larger roots in French and German, and the influence in turn that English had on the French and German languages!)

It is complicated!

Gassho, J
stlah

PS - About the "Twofold Mystery" - The "Twofold Mystery" (Chongxuan 重玄) in Chinese thought isn't strictly a Buddhist concept but a major Daoist school from the 6th-7th centuries (Sui/Tang Dynasties) that heavily integrated Buddhist Madhyamaka philosophy, using its logic of emptiness and tetralemma (four-cornered negation) to explain the Dao ....

Buddhist Influence: Borrowed core Madhyamaka concepts like: Emptiness (Kong, 空): The ultimate nature of reality. Tetralemma (Siju, 四句): A logical tool of negating four extremes (is/is not/both/neither) to point beyond conceptual thought. Two Truths Doctrine: Distinguishing conventional and ultimate reality.
Goal: To guide practitioners to oneness with the Dao by using Buddhist logic to transcend dualistic thinking.

[Hoshuku]

Thank you Jundo, as always detailed and on point. I quickly became aware that comparing Zen with a massive catch-all phenomenon such as Daoism wasn't going to be as clear as i hoped.

Bows
Hoshuku
Satlah

[Myo-jin]

Zen seems to have emptiness as it core concept, ie ‘mu’ or ‘wu’, 無. Daoism seems to have ‘wu wei’ at its core, ie effortless action 無為. Zen teaches "what is"; Daoism teaches "make good use of what is". This suggests to me that Daoism retains a sense of user, use and utility which Zen would say are an illusion.

One of my teachers, who is a doctor of Chinese medicine who also dabbled in Aikido put it something like this, ‘doing nothing, everything gets done’. Through an Aikido lens I understand this in a practical way that is hard to put into words except to say, to put it poetically, when wind blows, branches sway. We don’t think ‘now an attacker is coming so I need to do xyz technique’, but we unite with the movement of the attacker in such a way that the sum total of the equation equals 0.

With that in mind, it seems to me that Buddhist Mu and Daoist Wu wei are not so different. There is no sense of a subject doing something to an object, or as you put it ‘user, use and utility’, but a condition where subject and object are ‘not two’

Coming back to the aikido analogy, I’ve seen (and been) the guy on the mats who overthinks the technique, and ends up doing not aikido, but a sort of flowing ju-jutsu because the mind sets itself up as a subject wanting to influence its object. Once in a while though, things just come together and things just happen naturally, because they come from a place of egolessness.

All that is a roundabout way of saying I don’t see the Buddhist and Daoist ideas as essentially different

[Hoshuku]

Yes. I was thinking is they were that different. After all Buddhism in general is a practice or way and not just being empty.

Bows
Hoshuku
Satlah

[Myo-jin]

Yes. I was thinking is they were that different. After all Buddhism in general is a practice or way and not just being empty.

Bows
Hoshuku
Satlah

The other analogy I sometimes hear is that of a spinning top, where rapid motion and balanced stillness are both present.
Easy to over think these things, but I hope this helps.

gassho
m.

[Ryumon]

One of my teachers, who is a doctor of Chinese medicine who also dabbled in Aikido put it something like this, ‘doing nothing, everything gets done’. Through an Aikido lens I understand this in a practical way that is hard to put into words except to say, to put it poetically, when wind blows, branches sway. We don’t think ‘now an attacker is coming so I need to do xyz technique’, but we unite with the movement of the attacker in such a way that the sum total of the equation equals 0.

With that in mind, it seems to me that Buddhist Mu and Daoist Wu wei are not so different. There is no sense of a subject doing something to an object, or as you put it ‘user, use and utility’, but a condition where subject and object are ‘not two’

Coming back to the aikido analogy, I’ve seen (and been) the guy on the mats who overthinks the technique, and ends up doing not aikido, but a sort of flowing ju-jutsu because the mind sets itself up as a subject wanting to influence its object. Once in a while though, things just come together and things just happen naturally, because they come from a place of egolessness.

All that is a roundabout way of saying I don’t see the Buddhist and Daoist ideas as essentially different

I know absolutely nothing about aikido, but it sounds like the goal is to internalize actions so you do them without thinking. Is that correct?

(Sorry to take this discussion off on a tangent, but perhaps it's not a tangent after all...)

Gassho,

Ryūmon (Kirk)

Sat Lah

[Jundo]

I know absolutely nothing about aikido, but it sounds like the goal is to internalize actions so you do them without thinking. Is that correct?

By the way, there are aspects of practice like that in Soto Zen as well, for example, when moving in a ceremony, or eating with the intricate movements of Oryoki or drinking tea, or even working in the garden or sweeping, one might get so swept into the movements that one loses oneself and finds oneself as the movement itself.

But this is just one aspect of practice, very powerful and illuminating ... but only for sometimes! It is not (like some folks believe) necessary or even possible to go through all of life like that!

Better is our way of learning "moving non-moving," which is more like our normal activity, planning, thinking about, judging and implementation of tasks in life ... but with a subtle sense of stillness and silence and goallessness and equanimity at the heart. Yes, that may be a Daoist influence that blended very nicely into Chan to become our Zen ways.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Myo-jin]

By the way, there are aspects of practice like that in Soto Zen as well, for example, when moving in a ceremony, or eating with the intricate movements of Oryoki or drinking tea, or even working in the garden or sweeping, one might get so swept into the movements that one loses oneself and finds oneself as the movement itself.

But this is just one aspect of practice, very powerful and illuminating ... but only for sometimes! It is not (like some folks believe) necessary or even possible to go through all of life like that!

Better is our way of learning "moving non-moving," which is more like our normal activity, planning, thinking about, judging and implementation of tasks in life ... but with a subtle sense of stillness and silence and goallessness and equanimity at the heart. Yes, that may be a Daoist influence that blended very nicely into Chan to become our Zen ways.

Gassho, J
stlah

What you describe as “moving non-moving is closer to what I’m getting at. It’s not so much moving without thinking, or even automatic reflexes (although these things are picked up on the way) but moving in such a way as things occur naturally from inner stillness and silence. One of the hallmarks of a really good aikido throw is when the ukemi ends up flying through the air without a sense of anything having happened.

Sticking with Aikido as the example, some thought and deliberation is required, but the action itself arises naturally from that subtle inner silence and goallessness.
These days I don’t really practice Aikido any more. Tooo expensive and not enough time, although I will say that the practice, as well as Tai Chi, certainly influence my approach to Zen. I suppose now with Zazen I just skip the techniques and just move straight to the goalless silence in daily life. A much more difficult practice but easier on the knees!

Sattlah

Gassho
M.

[Jundo]

What you describe as “moving non-moving is closer to what I’m getting at. It’s not so much moving without thinking, or even automatic reflexes (although these things are picked up on the way) but moving in such a way as things occur naturally from inner stillness and silence. One of the hallmarks of a really good aikido throw is when the ukemi ends up flying through the air without a sense of anything having happened.

What I mean is not being in a moment of "flow" or "in the zone" (although they are lovely when they happen, and there are various things we can do to bring such states about sometimes.)

Instead, what I mean by "moving-non-moving" is most ordinary life, planning, doing, acting, thinking, judging like any other busy and multi-tasking human being in this problem-filled world, but simultaneously with another sense deep in the heart that, really, there is nothing to plan, do, act, consider or judge. It is like seeing the world two very different ways at once out of two eyes, with both eyes open together providing the clarity of a Buddha Eye. In fact, we don't always need to be aware of the "non-moving, non-planning etc." side, and it is something like the bones which are present and doing their job even when we don't think about them. When we need, we might summon up the feeling, but sometimes it is just in our pocket forgotten and held in reserve for when we need.

And while going about our daily life like any other sentient being, we hopefully are a bit less likely to become wrapped up in excessive planning, doing, acting, thinking, judging, and are less likely to get caught up in harmful emotions, desires, choices than many people.

But, otherwise, it is just pretty normal living, nothing special.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Myo-jin]

What I mean is not being in a moment of "flow" or "in the zone" (although they are lovely when they happen, and there are various things we can do to bring such states about sometimes.)

Instead, what I mean by "moving-non-moving" is most ordinary life, planning, doing, acting, thinking, judging like any other busy and multi-tasking human being in this problem-filled world, but simultaneously with another sense deep in the heart that, really, there is nothing to plan, do, act, consider or judge. It is like seeing the world two very different ways at once out of two eyes, with both eyes open together providing the clarity of a Buddha Eye. In fact, we don't always need to be aware of the "non-moving, non-planning etc." side, and it is something like the bones which are present and doing their job even when we don't think about them. When we need, we might summon up the feeling, but sometimes it is just in our pocket forgotten and held in reserve for when we need.

And while going about our daily life like any other sentient being, we hopefully are a bit less likely to become wrapped up in excessive planning, doing, acting, thinking, judging, and are less likely to get caught up in harmful emotions, desires, choices than many people.

But, otherwise, it is just pretty normal living, nothing special.

Gassho, J
stlah

I think I see where you’re coming from and honestly what I’m talking about isn’t entirely different, but neither is it identical, so something to consider.
I do think there is some danger of mistaking moments of ‘flow’ with wu-wei, or the mu-shin that is part and parcel Japanese Budo, an as far as I know essentially a Zen influence.

In any case, this might not be the place to go on such a tangent so I’ll leave it at that for now. Thanks for your input.

Gassho

Sattlah
M.

[Hoshuku]

I think I see where you’re coming from and honestly what I’m talking about isn’t entirely different, but neither is it identical, so something to consider.
I do think there is some danger of mistaking moments of ‘flow’ with wu-wei, or the mu-shin that is part and parcel Japanese Budo, an as far as I know essentially a Zen influence.

In any case, this might not be the place to go on such a tangent so I’ll leave it at that for now. Thanks for your input.

Gassho

Sattlah
M.

"I do think there is some danger of mistaking moments of ‘flow’ with wu-wei, or the mu-shin..." I've wondered on this point before. How would you say they differ or are similar?

Bows
Hoshuku
Satlah

[Myo-jin]

"I do think there is some danger of mistaking moments of ‘flow’ with wu-wei, or the mu-shin..." I've wondered on this point before. How would you say they differ or are similar?

Bows
Hoshuku
Satlah

Bear in mind this is purely my opinion, I’m no authority on zen or anything else, but it is based on observation and practice, so may be useful, or not.

Having said that, I’d say the key difference is egolessness, or goallessness, which might be described as ‘nothing to get caught up’, the ego/mind doesn’t get in the way because it ceases to exist, it is not trying to achieve anything, so things can occur naturally and without collision. Flow states are often, by contrast, about focus and peak performance at a task, and so is essentially goal directed.

I wanted to add, there is some overlap, both involve a loss of self consciousness, but the real difference is that whereas flow states are goal oriented, wu-wei is more existential, not just something to bring out to achieve a task, but a way of being in harmony with the Tao, whereas flow is essentially psychological in its scope.

To use the Aikido/Tai Chi example, it’s not that the practitioner is able to throw because of a flow state (although this can occur, but it’s not the way) but that at that moment there is no attacker or defender, no clash, no ego to force its will, no subject or object. If I throw my partner without thinking about it, that’s just carelessness, if I’m overly involved in ‘fighting’ them, I might ‘win’ if my technique is good, but it’s no better than that, and may well get caught up and stopped. If mind/ego are set aside and I am able to meet the event with a spirit like a ‘mild spring breeze’, joyful, open, even welcoming, putting aside winning or losing, then that’s wu-wei, and the whole movement arises and returns to emptiness.

So while we think we are training martial arts, actually we are training how to live by doing so in the laboratory of the dojo, but really daily life is the real dojo, so wu wei involves walking, eating, sitting, doing taxes, whatever. Learning to meet life in this way, so I’m inclined to think that there is a closer commonality between this and doing not-doing than with the flow state.

One thing I would be interested in is understanding how this attitude compliments, or not, the ‘doing non-doing’ of Zen, and if there is common ground?

Thank you for the opportunity to refine my thoughts on the subject.

Gassho
M.

[Hoshuku]

Bear in mind this is purely my opinion, I’m no authority on zen or anything else, but it is based on observation and practice, so may be useful, or not.

Having said that, I’d say the key difference is egolessness, or goallessness, which might be described as ‘nothing to get caught up’, the ego/mind doesn’t get in the way because it ceases to exist, it is not trying to achieve anything, so things can occur naturally and without collision. Flow states are often, by contrast, about focus and peak performance at a task, and so is essentially goal directed.

I wanted to add, there is some overlap, both involve a loss of self consciousness, but the real difference is that whereas flow states are goal oriented, wu-wei is more existential, not just something to bring out to achieve a task, but a way of being in harmony with the Tao, whereas flow is essentially psychological in its scope.

To use the Aikido/Tai Chi example, it’s not that the practitioner is able to throw because of a flow state (although this can occur, but it’s not the way) but that at that moment there is no attacker or defender, no clash, no ego to force its will, no subject or object. If I throw my partner without thinking about it, that’s just carelessness, if I’m overly involved in ‘fighting’ them, I might ‘win’ if my technique is good, but it’s no better than that, and may well get caught up and stopped. If mind/ego are set aside and I am able to meet the event with a spirit like a ‘mild spring breeze’, joyful, open, even welcoming, putting aside winning or losing, then that’s wu-wei, and the whole movement arises and returns to emptiness.

So while we think we are training martial arts, actually we are training how to live by doing so in the laboratory of the dojo, but really daily life is the real dojo, so wu wei involves walking, eating, sitting, doing taxes, whatever. Learning to meet life in this way, so I’m inclined to think that there is a closer commonality between this and doing not-doing than with the flow state.

One thing I would be interested in is understanding how this attitude compliments, or not, the ‘doing non-doing’ of Zen, and if there is common ground?

Thank you for the opportunity to refine my thoughts on the subject.

Gassho
M.

Thank you.

Bows
Hoshuku
Satlah