Buddhism Vs. Taoism Vs. Zen

[Sersta]

I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts or insights on the differences between the three of these practices. I am generally familiar with all of them but not so much as to say where they part ways. I think from what I have discovered so far; philosophically I am drawn to Taoism, spiritually to Buddhism and aesthetically to Zen. Quite possibly as these are their inherent underlying traits. Any thoughts or personal views or feelings on this most welcome. Thank you.

[scameter]

Buddhism is a religion with the belief in karma and it's effects on existence and on our consciousnesses; it has distinct spiritual, metaphysical, and physical beliefs that are grounded both in logic, meditation and belief. Taoism is a philosophy of harmony with nature through use of the principles most prominent in it, such as simplicity, acceptance, living in the moment, relying on experience, compassion, wu wei, and others. Zen is a combination therein. From this, you should be able to see the differences, I think. If not, feel perfectly free to ask. I am not an expert on any of them, but I do know about all three, especially Taoism. :)

[Sersta]

Thanks Scameter, I'm pretty much of the same understanding as you. I asked a pretty wide open question which I think could have been posed better. I know that they are all very related yet as you say they have different approaches and pursue different elements of the same spiritual tenants. Perhaps exploring an example and how each would approach a particular life question could reveal the subtleties between them better. Say for example how they would related to some dilemma. Like relating to someone has wronged you, or consequences of your own wrong doings. Like I said I am partial to Taoism myself but I am finding its freely open nature vague in the pursuit of attainment of higher enlightenment. I appreciate any thoughts you may have on this and have gained much from reading your other posts as well. Sersta.

[TruthSeeker]

Like I said I am partial to Taoism myself but I am finding its freely open nature vague in the pursuit of attainment of higher enlightenment.
Taoism does not concerns itself with enlightenment...

[TruthSeeker]

Well, neither does Buddhism or Zen, for that matter!!!!! :o

[Sersta]

Ok that begs the question Truthseeker...What do they concern themselves with?

[Sersta]

Funny thinking I was missing something here I looked up enlightenment in my dictionary and this is what I got:

enlightenment |en?l?tnm?nt| noun
1 the action of enlightening or the state of being enlightened : Robbie looked to me for enlightenment.

• the action or state of attaining or having attained spiritual knowledge or insight, in particular (in Buddhism) that awareness which frees a person from the cycle of rebirth.

2 ( the Enlightenment) a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent exponents include Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith.[I]

[Thomas Knierim]

Sersta: I think from what I have discovered so far; philosophically I am drawn to Taoism, spiritually to Buddhism and aesthetically to Zen. Quite possibly as these are their inherent underlying traits.

Hm..., interesting statement.

I would agree about the aesthetics of Zen. It's so very Japanese. But Zen is a subset of Buddhism, so you should also find the spiritual properties of Buddhism in Zen.

Taoism can be said to be philosophical, yes, but it is purely metaphysical and ethical, not unlike Buddhism. Taoism is probably more spiritual than intellectual and Buddhism can be very philosophical.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I agree Thomas. And, thank you Sersta, that's quite kind of you. As for your questions:

1)Like relating to someone has wronged you

I think Buddhism would preach acceptance, as well as loving kindness. I also think Taoism would, but I think Buddhism would utilize karma moreso in their beliefs on this occurance. I think Zen would say that it simply happened, and that it is perfect and fitting to naturality as it is, but that one should react to it peacefully and acceptingly. I am not sure if you mean react instead of relate here, however, so my answer may be wrong generally.

2)or consequences of your own wrong doings.

Well, this one is pretty evident for Buddhism: karma. What you do leaves an imprint on your consciousness, which circles back to you and affects both you and existence. I am not sure, but I think Zen would also utilize this, but would also say, as with the above, that it is still perfect and perfectly natural as it is, but that it is still what it is, but should only be seen as it is and it's effects, not by the bias of any applied concept or idea(l). Taoism would say that actions are not wrong in any sense; they are simply actions. But, that they can indeed cause disharmony of the balance of the opposites in existence, which should be corrected, and indeed futurely avoided, by passivity, acceptance, simplicity, compassion, wu wei, and the other principles. :)

[TruthSeeker]

Ok that begs the question Truthseeker...What do they concern themselves with?
Peace...

[Sersta]

Thank you all for your learned responses. It is truly appreciated, including TruthSeekers concise yet poignant answer.

Thomas, I can visualize from what you are saying. The three could be seen as triplets. All very related yet with different personalities and somehow sharing a similar sense of humor. While its not very technical I think its along the lines of your views. Taking it a step further: Taoism being the free spirit black sheep of the family (not in a negative connotation as usually the black sheep are the most interesting ones. ) Zen is more like the middle child, restrained and minimalist. Hard working and diligent. Buddhism the first born leader compassionate and looks after and tries to guide the younger siblings.

I know that this is a very simple model personification of the three. Your descriptions of the three are quite valid. I especially appreciate your relating Taoism to Buddhism. It may be the elements of the three that have resonated with me that lead to my citing spirituality, philosophy and aesthetics as their respective importance. Thanks for your thoughts.

Scameter, I think your responses to my example are very interesting. It illuminated for me the nature of the different 'personalities' (for lack of a better word) of the three. I especially enjoyed your answers to the second part. As that was the most telling for me. Especially how Taoism would relate to the situation.

Thank you for taking the time to think about and respond to my questions. I am seeing them more clearly, and am looking forward to learning more about them.

[scameter]

Of course my friend. I enjoy it. And, by the way, the reason my responses on Taoism were so much larger is because it is what I know the most about, and what I call myself. :P

[Thomas Knierim]

As an afterthought: there is one thing about Zen that is strikingly similar to the mystic movement in Christianity. It is the idea of direct experience. They are both opposed to excessive intellectualising and excessive ritual. The promise of Christian mysticism is that it offers a hotline to God. The promise of Zen is that it offers a hotline to enlightenment. It does so by simply pointing to the light without words. As such Zen has a very different appeal from, let's say Indian Buddhism, which is very philosophical and intellectual.

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

The promise of Zen is that it offers a hotline to enlightenment. It does so by simply pointing to the light without words. As such Zen has a very different appeal from, let's say Indian Buddhism, which is very philosophical and intellectual.
Isn't Taoism like that as well?

What about "Zen-Buddhism"? <_<

[scameter]

I agree very much Thomas, and I think it is unfortunate that Christianity has lost much of it's mysticism, although it's current state of dogma and business has essentially existed since the beginning. I'm curious Thomas: would you say the Gnostics were of Christian mysticism?

And, somewhat truthseeker; a hotline to ourselves, and to nature. :) And, I think Zen is the same as Zen Buddhism. :D

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: I'm curious Thomas: would you say the Gnostics were of Christian mysticism?

Absolutely. Gnosticism is in fact the first mystic school in Christianity.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Interesting.... <_< I've been thinking alot lately about the Gnostics, and their odd interpretation of the Bible. It's really quite interesting; I plan to get a book on them sometime. :)

[TruthSeeker]

The Gnostics are not odd- the Catholics are. It really depends on your perspective...

[scameter]

Indeed, but from the general perspective, the Gnostics were different/odd in their interpretation of the Bible as from most interpretations. The Catholics were actually quite normal, as their name implies.

[Kether]

The Gnostics are not odd- the Catholics are. It really depends on your perspective...
True, but I think Scameter meant that the Gnostics were not 'normal', which is correct: the norm is basically what the herd agrees with, and the Gnostics were a minority that fell outside the mainstream.
As an afterthought: there is one thing about Zen that is strikingly similar to the mystic movement in Christianity. It is the idea of direct experience. They are both opposed to excessive intellectualising and excessive ritual.
The idea that Zen is opposed to excessive ritual, and that mainstream Buddhism is not, doesn't make sense to me. I agree that intellectualising is a less marked quality in Zen, but it seems to me that ritual, as opposed to intellectualising, is a very strong characteristic of the Zen approach. Perhaps I am using a slightly different definition of 'ritual' from you, but I would say that meditation belongs on the same side of the distinction between the cognitive and affective sides of spirituality as ritual.
Incidentally, I believe that some Buddhist teachers have criticised Japanese Zen for emphasising ritual too much; that it has become a system of empty traditions to be observed, not treated as a means to an end.
. The promise of Zen is that it offers a hotline to enlightenment. It does so by simply pointing to the light without words. As such Zen has a very different appeal from, let's say Indian Buddhism, which is very philosophical and intellectual.
Perhaps the philosophical side of Buddhism, and the Western philosophical tradition, concern themselves more with truth than with enlightenment? A more emotional approach can be helpful for attaining states of consciousness, but not for finding logical truths; similarly, an analytical approach is ideal for finding truth or knowledge, but not for achieving a mental state. Koans do not provide grounds for analysis or refutation, but that is not what they are designed for; they are designed to awaken the mind to a certain state of feeling.
This is all fascinating and revelatory for me...

[scameter]

True, but I think Scameter meant that the Gnostics were not 'normal', which is correct: the norm is basically what the herd agrees with, and the Gnostics were a minority that fell outside the mainstream.

Indeed.

I agree that intellectualising is a less marked quality in Zen, but it seems to me that ritual, as opposed to intellectualising, is a very strong characteristic of the Zen approach.

Zen is not ritualized because it has no formal and planned "methods" to gain anything. It is a "blossoming of mind", as Osho said; it is a point where a person realizes life as it is is entirely perfect in every way and exists as it is and is important therein, including ourselves. There is more to it than that, but I think that is a very fundamental aspect; shedding conceptuality and mental limitations to actualize the reality of existence. Meditation is only a prefered means of thought de-focusing. In fact, unlike in Buddhism, their meditation is meditating on nothing, on clearing their minds, whereas Buddhist meditation is focusing on one thing for a prolonged time. Did you know that one form of Zen meditation, originating in Japan, is to sword fight? Because of the linking of Zen Buddhism with Taoism to make Zen, it took in the idea of wu wei, or thoughtless action/effortless action, which it applies to it's meditation and shedding of conceptuality. I do not think Buddhism teaches the shedding of conceptuality as much as Zen and Taoism; if they did, they would not be so intellectual, which is not a characteristic of the more spiritual (for instance, Osho said in his Zen book that "Life is illogical, so how can logic be applied to it?") Zen and Taoism.

Incidentally, I believe that some Buddhist teachers have criticised Japanese Zen for emphasising ritual too much; that it has become a system of empty traditions to be observed, not treated as a means to an end.

Possibly. But, like Christianity, you cannot look at how it is practised; you must see the thing it's self. Buddhists are very ritualistic; but that doesn't mean Buddhism is.

Perhaps the philosophical side of Buddhism, and the Western philosophical tradition, concern themselves more with truth than with enlightenment?

Well, hence the Western era of "the Enlightenment", they are usually seen as similar, if not synonymous, or at least one leading to the other. I'm not sure about in Buddhism though.

A more emotional approach can be helpful for attaining states of consciousness, but not for finding logical truths

Not all, if any, truth is logical, if truth even exists.

Koans do not provide grounds for analysis or refutation, but that is not what they are designed for; they are designed to awaken the mind to a certain state of feeling.
This is all fascinating and revelatory for me...

:) Good. But, in fact, koans are often used in logical analysis and discussion. In fact, Buddhists logically discussed/discuss all the time, and they implemented Buddhist koans into their logic. I'm not sure about others, but I have also used this with Taoist koans and teachings.

By the way Kether, it just wanted to say that I really enjoy speaking with you. You aren't critical, you're hardly ever closed-minded, and you enjoy what you know and discuss. I love those qualities. :)

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

When I read the Tao Te Ching It really confrimed for me what Buddhism was saying for me. Think about it. The "Sage" of Taoism lives adaptivly and does not suffer, and he does not desire. This, to me, sounds like a Buddha. Not suffering, not desiring, just being.

As to Zen, I don't know too much about it. But from what I can see its basicly a school of Buddhism that was blened with Taoism. I also like how they use Koans to find new routes of logic and eventually enlightenment.

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: it seems to me that ritual, as opposed to intellectualising, is a very strong characteristic of the Zen approach.

Good point Kether. If you visit a Zen monastery you could actually gain this impression. The regimentation, the temple discipline, dress code, the stone garden, the emphasis on meditation and so on... all of this "smells" like ritual. I know from people who have staid in Zen monasteries that the lifestyle is not too different from what you would imagine prison to be like. :lol: But I think it is necessary to distinguish between practice and ritual, whereas practice means spiritual training. Zen puts a great emphasis on practice, not on ritual.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Indeed, and that's essentially true theobjective, although I did not personally get that impression from Taoism to relation to Buddhism. Although at the time I didn't know very much about Buddhism. :)

[Kether]

But I think it is necessary to distinguish between practice and ritual, whereas practice means spiritual training. Zen puts a great emphasis on practice, not on ritual.
But with routines, dress codes, and 'ritualised' behaviour, isn't there always the danger of falling into the trap of obeying and observing the meditation or stone garden-raking themselves, instead of treating them as the tools that they are? Are "the regimentation, the temple discipline, dress code, the stone garden, the emphasis on meditation and so on" really spiritual training, or have they become (at least in part) empty ritual?
Zen has become an essential part of the cultures and traditions of each of its homelands. You have mentioned before that many Thai Buddhists don't really understand Buddhist teachings - I believe you have met people who pray to the Buddha - and, perhaps, so it is with Zen. Spiritual practices may lose a lot in the process of becoming tradition.
I think Siddhartha himself said something about his philosophy being like a boat: it should be used, if it can be used, to reach the opposite bank of a river, but should not be carried around overland once the shore was reached. This, and things like the doctrine of skillful means, seem to suggest that rituals, routines and traditions are distinctly un-Buddhist, although Buddhism's treatment as a religion and as part of a cultural fabric have caused this fact to be widely ignored.
Well, hence the Western era of "the Enlightenment", they are usually seen as similar, if not synonymous, or at least one leading to the other.
Western Enlightenment values are a quite different thing from the Eastern concept of Enlightenment. Ironically, I think an excellent summary of what the former kind of Enlightenment is was provided by one of its greatest enemies, Michel Foucault, the "boa-deconstructor": "It has to be conceived as an attitude, an ethos, a philosophical life in which the critique of what we are is at one with the critique of the limits that are imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them."
This is simply not the same thing as Buddhist enlightenment, which is an individual state of mind. With this kind of Enlightenment, no, I don't think it has an enormous amount to do with truth: it is something felt. It is a way of feeling. Personally, I would rather live my life according to the Western kind of Enlightenment.
Not all, if any, truth is logical, if truth even exists.
Logical truth is logical.
By the way Kether, it just wanted to say that I really enjoy speaking with you. You aren't critical, you're hardly ever closed-minded, and you enjoy what you know and discuss. I love those qualities.
Well, thank you. But what do you mean, I'm not critical? I certainly try to think critically, to analyse, and to doubt, where grounds exist for doubt.

[scameter]

Logical truth is logical.

That doesn't make all truth logical, nor does that certify that logical truth even exists, which would essentially depend on the validity of logic.

Well, thank you. But what do you mean, I'm not critical? I certainly try to think critically, to analyse, and to doubt, where grounds exist for doubt.

:P No, I meant judgemental.

[Kether]

That doesn't make all truth logical, nor does that certify that logical truth even exists, which would essentially depend on the validity of logic.
You are making quite an odd assumption here. You are saying that there is some kind of standard of truth, falsehood or 'validity' that transcends logic, and you claim that logic's validity can be judged according to this standard. But how does one demonstrate or disprove the standard of demonstration and disproval itself? Well, there is one standard: evidence. It is an experiential fact that logic works. But you aren't arguing within an empirical framework: you're essentially claiming that the validity of logic can be logically proved or disproved, and I don't think that is logical, and therefore I think it is false.

Logical truths are logical. If something is logical, then it is true. You yourself believe this in practice: you believe what you believe because you think it is logical. Perhaps we can make some headway if we clarify our terms. In fact, I'm sure we can make a huge amount of headway if we clarify our terms.
First, let's define knowledge. Plato proposed an answer to that question in his Theætetus, in which he has Socrates define knowledge as Justified True Belief. It is intuitive that a known proposition must be believed (by the knower) and 'true', but Socrates as the Theætetus imagines him asserts that these two criteria alone are not sufficient: a knower must also have justification for believing that the proposition is true. Without the criterion of justification, we would have to say that a person who believed in proposition p, which was true coincidentally, 'knew' p. That seems counter-intuitive, and I think Plato's criterion of justification is a helpful one.
I believe that that which justifies a belief and that which makes it true are the same thing. The next thing we need to determine is: what justifies our belief in something? What makes it true?

[scameter]

You are making quite an odd assumption here. You are saying that there is some kind of standard of truth, falsehood or 'validity' that transcends logic, and you claim that logic's validity can be judged according to this standard. But how does one demonstrate or disprove the standard of demonstration and disproval itself? Well, there is one standard: evidence. It is an experiential fact that logic works. But you aren't arguing within an empirical framework: you're essentially claiming that the validity of logic can be logically proved or disproved, and I don't think that is logical, and therefore I think it is false.

I'm not claiming there is any standard by which things are based, proved or disproved; nor am I definitely saying that logic is invalid, and by that, I do not mean logically valid; I mean that it is real and truthful, which is quite different. I'm simply saying that truth does not have to be logical; and that this is mainly because logic is doubtable, and thus it's validity is within doubt. Truth could not be doubted. But, I disagree with your one standard, evidence. Sure, it's an excellent standard for things besides philosophy. But speaking philosophically, reality is doubtable, so how could evidence deriving from reality be any kind of standard for anything, much less for truth?

If something is logical, then it is true. You yourself believe this in practice: you believe what you believe because you think it is logical.

As with all beliefs with all people.

First, let's define knowledge.

Alright. I think knowledge is acquired information from experience through life. Even if knowledge is gotten through effort, such as in someone reading a book, that is still experiencial. Belief, however, is different, because it is experiencial knowledge that is recognized and is thought of using an individual's logic to prove it's validity, and is thus changed into a belief if it is valid. What one does not see as valid logically is discarded. But, not everyone's logic is the same.

I believe that that which justifies a belief and that which makes it true are the same thing.

Not necessarily. I think you are thinking of truth as individual, like beliefs. I don't think so. Beliefs, as I said above, I think, are recognized and individually logicalized for their validity, experiencial knowledge that becomes a belief through this process. Truth, however, is beyond us, because we are subjective. I think that truth is ultimately objective, and dependant on no individual or particular point of view. I think there can exist individual truths, just like there can exist logical truth, but I don't think all truth is individual or logical. But that which I just quoted from you would make it sound like you thought all beliefs are truthful, because they are as such via logic, which I think is too assuming, subjective, and is ultimately false.

[Kether]

I'm simply saying that truth does not have to be logical; and that this is mainly because logic is doubtable, and thus it's validity is within doubt.
It is possible to doubt logic, yes. But if logic is demolished, what standard do we have for determining whether or not it is valid? None whatsoever. We can doubt logic's validity, but we can never prove it or refute it, because there is no proof or refutation outside of its own terms.
Alright. I think knowledge is acquired information from experience through life.
Okay, that's a possible characteristic of knowledge, but do you agree with the more basic definition of knowledge as 'justified, true belief'?

Let me elaborate 'knowledge is justified true belief' a little further. I think that truth and falsehood are two mutually exclusive states that propositions can exist in, and that someone who believes a true proposition can be said to 'know' that proposition. I think it is also necessary to add on the criterion of justification: I'll illustrate this with an example. Imagine there is a bag with 100 coins in it, which are of two colours: silver and copper. There are 60 silver coins and 40 copper coins. In the terminology I am using, the proposition "there are 60 silver coins and 40 copper coins" is true, and I would say that this is because it accurately represents reality.
There is a person standing in front of the bag who has no information from which to deduce the nature of its contents, who nevertheless guesses that there are sixty silver coins and forty copper coins, purely by chance and coincidence. She believes the proposition 'there are 60 silver coins and 40 copper coins', which happens to be true, but we wouldn't say that she 'knows' the nature of the bag's contents. She can believe as fervently as she likes that there are 60 silver and 40 copper coins, but she doesn't know, because she has no justification. She would have justification if she opened the bag, or were given some additional information from which she could logically deduce some more facts and narrow the spectrum of possibly true propositions, but until then, she can only guess.
Me: I believe that that which justifies a belief and that which makes it true are the same thing.
Scameter: Not necessarily. I think you are thinking of truth as individual, like beliefs. I don't think so. Beliefs, as I said above, I think, are recognized and individually logicalized for their validity, experiencial knowledge that becomes a belief through this process. Truth, however, is beyond us, because we are subjective. I think that truth is ultimately objective, and dependant on no individual or particular point of view.
What I am saying is not that truth is subject to human whims (otherwise it wouldn't be truth): what I mean is that the justification for our beliefs is the only way we can know if they are true or not. The only way we can know, and thus grasp truth, is through the justification for our beliefs.
This means that the main issue here is: how do we justify belief? Answering that question is the only way we can find the answer to the question of what truth is, and whether we can grasp truth, and - crucially - whether we can claim to know anything.

[scameter]

It is possible to doubt logic, yes. But if logic is demolished, what standard do we have for determining whether or not it is valid? None whatsoever. We can doubt logic's validity, but we can never prove it or refute it, because there is no proof or refutation outside of its own terms.

Everything can be doubted, and not necessarily on the basis of logic. But, what makes you think we are even capable of identifying a standard to prove or refute anything, or that anything or that standard even exist to be proven or disproven?

Okay, that's a possible characteristic of knowledge, but do you agree with the more basic definition of knowledge as 'justified, true belief'?

No. Not all knowledge is necessarily true, because that would make all experience definitely true. For instance, if someone has a drug-induced hallucination, does it make it true simply because they have knowledge of it?

In the terminology I am using, the proposition "there are 60 silver coins and 40 copper coins" is true, and I would say that this is because it accurately represents reality.

By our definitions. Although this isn't a very good example, it may prove what I mean that many things we consider true are by our subjective standards: there could also be said that there are 61 minues 1 silver and 39 plus 1 copper. It's all by our certain, particular points of view, and that subjectivity limits us from finding truth, which is inherently objective. Altough I believe it is Pascal that believed this is true, and that only faith, being inherently illogical and thus incoherent with reality as it is, is the only means of knowing truth, essentially.

What I am saying is not that truth is subject to human whims (otherwise it wouldn't be truth): what I mean is that the justification for our beliefs is the only way we can know if they are true or not. The only way we can know, and thus grasp truth, is through the justification for our beliefs.

Which I believe to be impossible, because our beliefs are ultimately subjective and doubtable, and could never be justified other than by other human, subjective means of doing so, which would in their own sense be subjective and doubtable.

This means that the main issue here is: how do we justify belief? Answering that question is the only way we can find the answer to the question of what truth is, and whether we can grasp truth, and - crucially - whether we can claim to know anything.

I agree. I think it is impossible, as I have said previously, for us to justify our beliefs due, essentially, to our inevitable subjectivity. To some, they would think that things such as science, logic or math could justify beliefs, but those things are still subjective and human in themselves, and limited to our perceptive capabilities, as well as menatl capabilities. I think the only way to justify anything so as to say it is among truth is through pure objectivity, which I do not think we are capable of possessing.

[vicente]

philosophically I am drawn to Taoism, spiritually to Buddhism and aesthetically to Zen

I would recommend you read 'Open Secret' by Wei Wu Wei http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/

[Fat]

perhaps buddhism is a manual for enlightenment and for zen is living enlightenment. which came first anyways, zen or buddhism?

dont spend all your sock money on marmelade!

[Flux]

It's important, I think to make a distinction between religious and philosophical Taoism. Of philosophical Taoism, I know only what is said in the Tao Te Ching, one of my favorite books, and the text that first introduced me to eastern belief in general. I know next to nothing about religious Taoism, but I know that it can get quite metaphysical, and involves belief in the divinity of Lao Tsu and several chinese emperors. I know so little, however, that I could be wrong even on this. But I think that it is mistaken to think of Taoism as purely philosophical.

Fat--Zen Buddhism is a type of Buddhism. Buddhism proper came first. Then the Mahayana movement was begun in around 100 ACE. Mahayana (if I remember correctally, which I may not), was carried over to China by a man named Bodhidharma. In China and several other far eastern counteries, a varient of Buddhism called Chan developed. It was then transported to Japan, where Chan is pronounced Zen.

Zen Buddhism is excellent for those who like simplicity, and an absolute bare bones approach to Buddhism. It is generally thought of by foreigners and practitioners alike to take a pre-conceptual approach, favoring direct experience rather than extensive theorizing and study of texts (although there is evidence that Zen masters of the past had extensive knowledge of Mahayana Sutras, and Zen has accumulated quite a corpus of literature).

[Chan Tiger]

Hi Flux,

It's important, I think to make a distinction between religious and philosophical Taoism. Of philosophical Taoism, I know only what is said in the Tao Te Ching, one of my favorite books, and the text that first introduced me to eastern belief in general. I know next to nothing about religious Taoism, but I know that it can get quite metaphysical, and involves belief in the divinity of Lao Tsu and several chinese emperors. I know so little, however, that I could be wrong even on this. But I think that it is mistaken to think of Taoism as purely philosophical.


You're right that it's mistaken to think of Taoism as purely philosophical. In fact, the whole distinction between "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism" is a 19th century, colonialist construct. While the phrase "religious Taoism" is derived from a Chinese term, dao-jiao 道教 or "teachings of tao", the original meaning of daojiao really has nothing to do with "religious Taoism" as it was popularly understood in the West. Taoists themselves have never acknowledged the philosophical/religious distinction, and even (Western) scholars in the field of Taoist studies today do not acknowledge a distinction, except as a legacy of Western colonialism. You can read more about this here (http://www.daoistcenter.org/daojiao.html).

Taoism is an extremely exclusive and closed tradition, and the vast majority of people claiming to be "Taoists" actually have no connection to an authentic lineage. Much of what passes for Taoism is largely just watered down, warmed over Zen.

Fat--Zen Buddhism is a type of Buddhism. Buddhism proper came first. Then the Mahayana movement was begun in around 100 ACE. Mahayana (if I remember correctally, which I may not), was carried over to China by a man named Bodhidharma. In China and several other far eastern counteries, a varient of Buddhism called Chan developed. It was then transported to Japan, where Chan is pronounced Zen.

This is mostly correct, but Bodhidharma is credited with bringing Zen Buddhism to China, not Mahayana Buddhism as a whole. Mahayana Buddhism was brought over to China gradually, beginning around 67 CE and continuing throughout the first and second century. The Mahayana movement is much older than just the first century CE, although that is when it began to spread from India to China and the rest of East Asia. By the time Bodhidharma arrived in China (around 400 or 500 CE), Mahayana Buddhism was well-established there already.

Just a few things I'd like to add:

Chan, which is better known to Americans and Europeans by the Japanese name "Zen", actually comes from the Sanskrit word dhyana. "What is Zen?" is really more of a koan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan) than anything else, but the word basically means "meditation" or "meditative concentration". So "Zen Buddhism" is a style of Buddhism which takes meditation (or a form of meditation) as its primary practice.

Bodhidharma is said to have described Chan Buddhism in this way:

A special transmission outside the scriptures,
Not founded upon words and letters;
By pointing directly to mind
It lets one see into one's own true nature and thus attain Buddhahood.

This special transmission goes back to Shakyamuni Buddha's "Flower Sermon":

When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Gridhrakuta Mountain, he turned a flower in his fingers and held it before his listeners. Every one was silent. Only Maha-Kashapa smiled at this revelation.

The Buddha said: "I have the True Dharma Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa."

Mahakashyapa was then considered the first patriarch of Zen Buddhism. Bodhidharma is often called "the First Patriarch" of East Asian Zen, although technically if you include the Indian lineage he was the 28th Patriarch.


Zen Buddhism is excellent for those who like simplicity, and an absolute bare bones approach to Buddhism. It is generally thought of by foreigners and practitioners alike to take a pre-conceptual approach, favoring direct experience rather than extensive theorizing and study of texts.

That is certainly the reputation of Zen. But speaking from my own experience as a Chan (Zen) Buddhist, this tends to be heavily overstated. Scriptural study, rituals, and devotional practices are all part of traditional Chinese Chan Buddhism. The approach taken by my own teachers incorporates all of these different aspects, and while there is certainly an emphasis on direct experience, I wouldn't necessarily call Chan Buddhism "bare bones" or more simplistic than any other form of Buddhist practice. Meditation is central, but there's also a lot more to Buddhism than "just sitting".

[eteam]

It's important, I think to make a distinction between religious and philosophical Taoism. Of philosophical Taoism, I know only what is said in the Tao Te Ching, one of my favorite books, and the text that first introduced me to eastern belief in general. I know next to nothing about religious Taoism, but I know that it can get quite metaphysical, and involves belief in the divinity of Lao Tsu and several chinese emperors. I know so little, however, that I could be wrong even on this. But I think that it is mistaken to think of Taoism as purely philosophical.

Fat--Zen Buddhism is a type of Buddhism. Buddhism proper came first. Then the Mahayana movement was begun in around 100 ACE. Mahayana (if I remember correctally, which I may not), was carried over to China by a man named Bodhidharma. In China and several other far eastern counteries, a varient of Buddhism called Chan developed. It was then transported to Japan, where Chan is pronounced Zen.

Zen Buddhism is excellent for those who like simplicity, and an absolute bare bones approach to Buddhism. It is generally thought of by foreigners and practitioners alike to take a pre-conceptual approach, favoring direct experience rather than extensive theorizing and study of texts (although there is evidence that Zen masters of the past had extensive knowledge of Mahayana Sutras, and Zen has accumulated quite a corpus of literature).


Flux :)

There are 84,000 different ways to study Buddhism. But there is only one common goal, to be awakened :)

Taoism is very much a Chinese practice as answered by Mr. Chan Tiger. If you want to better understand the difference between Taosim, Confucianism, and Buddhism, read How Master Mou (Mou Po) removed our doubts or sometimes the title of this book was translated to English as Mou Tzu Li-hou Lun:)

Buddhism is Buddhism:) There is no such thing as Mahayana Buddhism or Theravada Buddhism. There is no such thing as Pure Land Buddhism or Chan Buddhism. There is only the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha:)

There were An Shih Kao, Kang Seng Hui, and Kumarajiva who came to China before Master Bodhidharma to teach Buddhism. Master Bodhidharma simply helped steert the practitioners of Buddhism in China in the right direction:)

I agree with you that people learn differently. However, to simply put that Zen is all about direct experience is a bit assuming. There is more to Zen than just sitting in meditation:)

[one_nothingness]

I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts or insights on the differences between the three of these practices. I am generally familiar with all of them but not so much as to say where they part ways. I think from what I have discovered so far; philosophically I am drawn to Taoism, spiritually to Buddhism and aesthetically to Zen. Quite possibly as these are their inherent underlying traits. Any thoughts or personal views or feelings on this most welcome. Thank you.

Taoism, Buddhism, Zen......all the same. 3 fingers pointing the same moon.

Lao Tzu...."The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao."
The Buddha ...."I have said nothing in 49 years of teaching."
Zen ...."A transmission outside the scriptures...beyond words."

Thank you for reading