PDA

View Full Version : Taoism and martial arts



Laotse
22nd February 2002, 14:01
I'd like to take the discussion of Zen and martial arts mindset off on a tangent. Zen Buddhism came not from India but China, where it was called (English translation) Chan Buddhism. Chan Buddhism was the mixture of Taoism and Buddhism.

There are a ton of implications here. Taoism is older than Buddhism by about two millenia. The martials arts of the Wudang monasteries precede Shaolin as well. Unlike the Shaolin monastery, their MA have not been defiled by the pandering to tourists that has become prevalent in recent years.

Although Taoism has existed in China for many millenia, like the martial arts themselves, it was never for everyone; Confucianism was derived from Taoism strictly for that purpose. When, as legend has it, the Yellow Emperor devised Taoism, China did not even have a word for religion. Later, when Buddhism began to give Confucianism a run for its money in China, Taoists created a very religious approach. Today, most Taoists such as myself are spiritual Taoists, not religious Taoists.

I say the Taoist approach to the warrior arts is eminently more practical than Zen Buddhism, which is really just the art of sitting on your butt all day long, doing nothing and thinking nothing (IMHO; no disrespect to you Zenners out there). Taoism is designed to be part of a person's everyday life, putting no particular restrictions on their activities. But to be a Taoist and not just someone who reads about it, you must do the practices. These vary from sect to sect, but a few commonalities stand out.

Taoist meditation practices, starting with qigong (chi kung), are extremely active in the way that visualization exercises are, though they are not the same. You learn to strengthen, tonify, create and manipulate energy first within your body, then outside of it. Energy bodies are vastly useful in warrior arts; I am told that Hatsumi is skilled in these areas and would be just another martial artist without them. The fact that most of his most senior students are not involved in this says something about them, not Hatsumi. It's all there for anyone who wants it.

Even before energy bodies, your development of skillful manipulation of energy (qi/chi/ki/prana) makes it possible to do things like pass Hatsumi's godan test. It also dramatically increases your reflexes and awareness of everything around you.

I won't take this any further until I get some feedback. If there is an interest, I can recommend some books. I practice primarily under the Universal (formerly Healing) Tao system of Mantak Chia, which is extremely accessible. Check out the American Healing Tao web site at www.healingtao.com.

SBreheney
23rd February 2002, 01:04
The conventional wisdom, which I have no reason to doubt, is that Zen actually arose as a Buddhist meditation practice in India, arrived in China approx. 500 CE where it acquired a hefty dose of Taoist and Confucian influence and became what is regarded as "Chan," before being transmitted to Korea and Japan. No one disputes the seminal Chinese role in the formation of what became known to the Japanese as Zen, but to claim it as a Chinese invention misses part of the picture.

Sidebar: A tantalizing notion I read somewhere once suggested a connection between the roots of Zen and Central Asian shamanism. True? I don't know, but it does underscore for me the idea that this stuff -- Taoism and Zen -- is *old* . . .


I say the Taoist approach to the warrior arts is eminently more practical than Zen Buddhism, which is really just the art of sitting on your butt all day long, doing nothing and thinking nothing (IMHO; no disrespect to you Zenners out there). Taoism is designed to be part of a person's everyday life, putting no particular restrictions on their activities.

If you're just sitting on your butt all day long, doing nothing and thinking nothing -- you're just sitting on your butt, etc. This is not Zen practice -- it's daydreaming, it's ruminating, it's anything *but* Zen practice.

True, the practice of zazen from one perspective is something one *does* -- quieting the body, quieting the mind, quieting the ordinary chatter of discursive thought which inhibits our ability to see things as they are. From this perspective, zazen = seated meditation.

But from a slightly different perspective, zazen is the practice of *no separation* -- realizing one's true nature, one's everyday activities become zazen, and vice versa. Your practice *is* your life.

Laotse
23rd February 2002, 14:48
Originally posted by SBreheney
The conventional wisdom, which I have no reason to doubt, is that Zen actually arose as a Buddhist meditation practice in India, arrived in China approx. 500 CE where it acquired a hefty dose of Taoist and Confucian influence and became what is regarded as "Chan," before being transmitted to Korea and Japan. No one disputes the seminal Chinese role in the formation of what became known to the Japanese as Zen, but to claim it as a Chinese invention misses part of the picture.


This is not much of a departure from what I said; I think we agree for the most part. I will admit that I oversimplified for the purpose of brevity, since my article was already long, so let me address just a couple of points.

The only thing you said I have real doubts about is any Zen origins in India; I have never encountered this claim in any of my sources. I would welcome citation of any sources you have, other than "conventional wisdom". Conventional wisdom is what we fall back on when we do not have any facts in front of us; it does not necessarily reflect the truth.

Zen is definitely derived from Chan (_The Tao of Zen_ by Ray Grigg, 1994, Charles E. Tuttle & Company, publishers), but it would be foolish of me to claim that they are the same; I will concede that my comments may have implied that. We all know that while a lot of Japanese martial arts and related practices are Chinese-derived or influenced, the Japanese have always "made them their own", putting their own imprimatur (sp?) on them.

As for your comments on zazen, I do not wish to argue. My comments were purely personal reflections that give a pretty good indication of why I am a Taoist and not a Zen Buddhist, although I am a Zen Buddhist sympathizer. Zen is seen, however unjustified it may seem to some, as a retreat from the world. I have difficulty thinking otherwise, although I will concede that it would be easy to argue with this point of view. While Taoism has its share of hermits, it is active and requires no retreat from the world for full practice.

Thanks for your comments! I really appreciate your clarifications.

SBreheney
23rd February 2002, 16:59
No real disagreement here. It's entirely fair for one not to simply accept anything labeled "conventional wisdom." Perhaps we each just appreciate different aspects of the story differently.

I'm not a Zen apologist, or a scholar -- I'm a Zen Buddhist practitioner and priest, and while the following isn't meant to be probative, perhaps something might be interesting.

The body of sutra literature which provides at least one of the bases for the Chan/Zen understanding of "emptiness", the Prajnaparamita literature, was originally written in Sanskrit, in India, and dates back to the beginning of the Common Era. Good stuff in there, exhaustive; most folks are only acquainted with the tiny portion of it known as the "Heart Sutra."

For more stuff in the vein of the Indian roots of Chan/Zen, check out just about anything by Daisetz T. Suzuki, as well as Thomas Cleary; I think there may also be some stuff in Zen Buddhism: A History by Heinrich Dumuolin and other books by that author, but I can't find my copy of Zen Buddhism and it's been more than a few years since I read it.

Sidebar: Something which *definitely* might interest you is the newfound interst here in the States in how China shaped Zen -- check out Zen's Chinese Heritage by Ferguson, Wisdom Publications, Boston 2000. Really fascinating stuff.

It probably wouldn't be persuasive that Zen lineage charts, used in liturgy and passed from teacher to student in lay ordination and transmission, list 27 generations of teachers preceding Bodhidharma's arrival in China. Scholarly? No. Emotional, merely sentimental? Perhaps, but it works for me. As always, different folks' mileages may vary.3

Thanks for the discussion!

SBreheney
23rd February 2002, 17:26
And another thing! ;)

Chan/Zen does not require a retreat from the world. Some have indeed practiced and continue to practice in that way. The motivations for monastic practice are many and varied, not all of which are spiritual: socio-economic, political, etc. Check out The Practice of Chinese Buddhism 1900-1950 by Welch, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1967.

In Chan/Zen sutra literature there is a strong ideal of the equality of monastic and *lay* practice. Check out the Vimalakirtinirdesha-sutra, of which there's at least two English translations(one by Thurman, and I think one by Cleary). And here in the West, lay practice is the dominant matrix.

Sidebar: For more on the Indian origins of Zen, check out The Way of Zen by Alan Watts, one of the first books by Zen I ever read oh so many years ago. While he concedes that "No one has been able to find any trace of a specific Dhyana School in Indian Buddhism," he does allow that "this is no evidence that it did not exist," and goes on to discuss various Chan/Zen teachings in light of Indian Buddhist sutra literature sources.

Many thanks.

:toast:

cguzik
23rd February 2002, 20:24
It is my opinion that any perception of Zen as withdrawing from the world comes directly from the understanding that to truly practice Zen one must live a monastic life. This is true but not for the reasons commonly believed -- which are that monks live peaceful, easy lives separate from the trials and tribulations of daily life. I would challenge anyone who thinks a monk's life is easy to spend some time at Eiheiji or any other Zen training temple.

Zen as a Mahayana school teaches that part of practice is that of the bodhisattva, to live in the world of samsara for the benefit of all beings. Zen practice is not separate from everyday life, whether you are a monk or a layperson, or both or neither.

Sean, where do you practice? Do you have any recommendation for a good English translation of the Prajnaparamita?

I used to practice at Kannondo and also with the San Jose Zendo, before I moved to the midwest.

Chris

Laotse
23rd February 2002, 21:05
Sean, that's some great information that I will definitely follow up on as I get the opportunity. I'm adding several of the books to my must-buy list, although I've always found Indian tracts to be, well, intractable. That's just my personal shortcoming.

I must admit, I was really more interested in starting a discussion on Taoism, partly because of the lack of discussion and knowledge of its influence on martial arts. The fact that all replies came back about Zen only reinforces that belief. I will come back to that when another opportunity presents itself, or I feel an inspiration.

Not only do I appreciate your input, but it is so great to see we can exchange this information, including our differences, without resorting to the childish flaming that seems to be prevalent in some of the other forums. Maybe more of those folks should get involved in a solid meditational practice!

cguzik
23rd February 2002, 21:55
Dale,

A significant aspect of Taoism that is present in both Zen and MA is yin/yang. The inherent oneness of duality is expressed in stillness and motion, kokyu, giving and receiving, attacking and defending.

Every MA emphasizes different ways to look at yin/yang but it's everywhere.

I don't think you can compare Taoist and Zen approaches to budo with regard to practicality, because neither has such a purpose. Some might say that benefit to MA practice is a side effect of spiritual practice, and that this could facilitate such comparison. But how do you measure?

Chris

Laotse
24th February 2002, 19:36
Chris,

I would never try to measure. Ultimately, the choice between Taoism and Zen, or any other spiritual or religious system, is a matter of personal comfort. I was introduced to Zen before Taoism; it left me cold, which was disappointing. Taoism felt just right. I suspect the "just right" feeling is what most people go with, no matter their choice.

I also agree that the choice does not necessarily mean much in the efficacy of a person's martial arts. Many other factors come into play, as we all know.

I would say, however, that the phrase "oneness of duality" is suspect. In fact, I see it as a contradiction in terms (which of course might be just fine in both Zen and Taoism). Dualism as I know it is an underpinning of Western philosophy, and a fatal shortcoming -- the notion that we are separate from everything around us. That's how people justify the polluting of the planet, as if it is not part of us. But that's another thread ...

doaho
6th March 2002, 16:40
Originally posted by Laotse


Taoists created a very religious approach. Today, most Taoists such as myself are spiritual Taoists, not religious Taoists.

what distinction are you using here?

Taoism is designed to be part of a person's everyday life, putting no particular restrictions on their activities. But to be a Taoist and not just someone who reads about it, you must do the practices.

"designed"
"must do"
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm




www.healingtao.com.

Michael Plank
6th March 2002, 21:18
I have at times considered myself a Quaker, an agnostic, a Zen Buddhist, and a Taoist. Now, though, I wonder if those distinctions were all that necessary. I guess that the trappings of belief are important inasmuch as they give the adherents something to claim as their own, but I like what William Penn said:

"The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask they will know one another though the divers liveries they wear here makes them strangers."

I've been accused of being too simplistic, and maybe I am, but I really cannot bring myself to seeing distinctions between religions the way that many other people can. Besides, what's in a name? or a few rituals?

"And the end of words is to bring men to the knowledge of things beyond what words can utter."--Isaac Penington
"The name that can be named is not the true name."--Tao-te Ching
"Say one word without opening your mouth."--Zen Koan

For me, right now, the ultimate teaching is: "Train harder and harder."--Yamaoka Tesshu

Hopefully, all of this confusion in my mind will clear itself up one day. (I'm sorry if this post sounded preachy in any way; I'm way to confused about life to want to preach to anyone)

Michael Plank :smilejapa:

ps, are there any Zen Monasteries around that you feel are particularly good (I may not like "calling" myself Zen Buddhist right now, but I would love the chance to study Zen seriously)?

SBreheney
6th March 2002, 23:20
Depends upon where you're located, and what you're looking for.

In the lineage in which I'm ordained, if you're looking for a *monastic* residential training opportunity try Zen Mountain Monastery (http://www.mro.org/) in Mt. Tremper, NY. Daido Loori Roshi is one of my teacher's Dharma brothers.

If you're looking for a more lay- and family-oriented, not-necessarily-residential training opportunity, try my teacher's center, Hazy Moon Zen Center (http://www.hazymoon.com) in Los Angeles. My teacher, Nyogen Yeo Sensei, is the abbot there.

Both centers practice in the integrated Soto/Rinzai lineage of the late Hakuyu Taizan Maezumi Roshi. Besides Daido Roshi and Nyogen Sensei, other Dharma successors to Maezumi Roshi have centers all over the US.

There are numerous other centers around the US which practice in other Chan/Zen lineages and traditions: Rinzai, Soto, Korean, Chinese Chan, Vietnamese. To research these, look to the web, or check out a recent book by Don Morreale,The Complete Guide to Buddhist America, ISBN 1570622701.

Good luck!

Laotse
9th March 2002, 03:35
Originally posted by doaho


Taoism is designed to be part of a person's everyday life, putting no particular restrictions on their activities. But to be a Taoist and not just someone who reads about it, you must do the practices.

"designed"
"must do"
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



Tom,

Rarely has anyone made me flinch with such a minimum of verbiage! I bow to you for this alone. :kiss:

"Designed" was clearly a poor choice of words. I will say that it is my humble opinion that one of the most useful aspects of spiritual Taoism is its applicability to everyday life ... and indeed, I have found similar usefulness from Tibetan Buddhism as well. I choose Taoism because I relate to it best -- an approach advised by the Dalai Lama himself, at least in one interview I read.

The "must do" portion is more interesting because you pointed to the Healing Tao web site. I wish you had stated your connection, because it is my primary source of Taoism as well! I made my statement about "must do the practices" based on teachings from a senior instructor in the Healing Tao. I will not name him publicly, not here, because I respect him enough to not drag him into the fray. We can discuss it on the side if you like.

I do realize that to say anyone "must do" certain things in order to be a "real Taoist" is just as much a trap as laying down guidelines for, say, being a "real Christian". Here in Texas we see that sort of lunacy on a daily basis (including within my own family). So I am not saying exactly which practices are required, or how they must be observed. There are and have been so many Taoist sects, often with opposing viewpoints, that it would be senseless.

What I will insist on is that just reading about Taoism and liking it does not a Taoist make. Now one might ask, as a parallel discussion, can one be a Christian just by reading the New Testament and agreeing with it? Are other actions required? Most Christians would say yes, then start squabbling over what those actions should be. That's why I draw the line at that point.

Once again let me express my admiration for your saying so much with so few words. A lesson I never learned, obviously! :)

doaho
9th March 2002, 15:14
Originally posted by Laotse


Tom,

Rarely has anyone made me flinch with such a minimum of verbiage! I bow to you for this alone. :kiss:

"Designed" was clearly a poor choice of words. I will say that it is my humble opinion that one of the most useful aspects of spiritual Taoism is its applicability to everyday life ... and indeed, I have found similar usefulness from Tibetan Buddhism as well. I choose Taoism because I relate to it best -- an approach advised by the Dalai Lama himself, at least in one interview I read.

The "must do" portion is more interesting because you pointed to the Healing Tao web site. I wish you had stated your connection, because it is my primary source of Taoism as well! I made my statement about "must do the practices" based on teachings from a senior instructor in the Healing Tao. I will not name him publicly, not here, because I respect him enough to not drag him into the fray. We can discuss it on the side if you like.

I do realize that to say anyone "must do" certain things in order to be a "real Taoist" is just as much a trap as laying down guidelines for, say, being a "real Christian". Here in Texas we see that sort of lunacy on a daily basis (including within my own family). So I am not saying exactly which practices are required, or how they must be observed. There are and have been so many Taoist sects, often with opposing viewpoints, that it would be senseless.

What I will insist on is that just reading about Taoism and liking it does not a Taoist make. Now one might ask, as a parallel discussion, can one be a Christian just by reading the New Testament and agreeing with it? Are other actions required? Most Christians would say yes, then start squabbling over what those actions should be. That's why I draw the line at that point.

Once again let me express my admiration for your saying so much with so few words. A lesson I never learned, obviously! :)



:smilejapa

Jon S.
9th March 2002, 19:27
I view Taoism as an Understanding, and Zen as a method by which we gain that Understanding.

Laotse
9th March 2002, 19:46
Originally posted by Jon S.
I view Taoism as an Understanding, and Zen as a method by which we gain that Understanding.

That's interesting. It was my understanding that the Tao can be experienced but never be understood.:D

Jon S.
9th March 2002, 19:56
Who said anything about understanding the Understanding? That's why there's no end to practicing Zen.

SBreheney
10th March 2002, 00:46
My teacher's fond of quoting the Sixth Patriarch, "There will be understanding . . . it simply cannot be expressed in words."

He's also fond of that quote from Werner Erhard from the 60s, "Understanding is the booby prize."

Then there's Mumon's comment to Case 9 of the Gateless Gate collection of Zen koans, "I approve the old barbarian's realization, but I do not approve the old barbarian's 'understanding'."

All of which is to say that mere intellectual understanding is not what it's all about.

:smilejapa

Jon S.
10th March 2002, 02:52
Who said anything about a "mere intellectual understanding"? There can't be because, as you said, words cannot express it. I see it more as a "gut" understanding of the nature of things; but my thoughts on the matter are hardly more than ignorant. Still, I think it's an understanding that becomes clearer with time and effort.

Regardless, I think both Taoism and Zen are very much a part of martial arts. Note though, as I indicated in the Zen thread, I don't view simple "Zen" as religious. Same with Taoism.

Have a nice day. :)

Jon Small

Michael Plank
10th March 2002, 03:35
These are some good posts. I know that, for myself, if it weren't for Zen, I would not have ever begun training. I started in Iaido because of its focus on slow and controlled motion and focus (meditation in motion...if you can stand the phrase). Now, though, I almost feel like the Martial Arts have become my religion. That still means that I turn to Zen and Taoism a lot, since they are so inextricably connected to the MAs. I'm excited to be a beginner on this path; I am interested to see where it will lead.

Michael Plank

SBreheney
10th March 2002, 04:22
No disagreement here about "understanding." Maybe it's just how we sometimes words like that.

Indeed, words, concepts, ideas cannot express it, but it's still amazing the way we humans insist on wrapping our heads around things instead of just living them. It's the difference between knowing something in our head and knowing something in our gut (or our heart, some would say, but I rather like "gut").


Still, I think it's an understanding that becomes clearer with time and effort.

Yes yes yes! But not so much time as with self-less, yet *attentive* effort.

A lot of grist for the mill in this thread. Many thanks to all!

:toast:

Jeff Hamacher
15th March 2002, 07:35
Dale,

i was rather surprised by your statement that Confucianism was derived from Taoism. my understanding of things from the delightful The Way of Zen (i have to second the Watts recommendation!) is that Confucianism was the basis for social order and behaviour, while Taoism was the basis for undoing the damage of that necessary but painful socialization. i'll have to double check my copy of Watts to be sure, but would anyone care to comment? thanks for the education thus far, everyone!

Laotse
27th March 2002, 03:46
Originally posted by Jeff Hamacher
Dale,

i was rather surprised by your statement that Confucianism was derived from Taoism. my understanding of things from the delightful The Way of Zen (i have to second the Watts recommendation!) is that Confucianism was the basis for social order and behaviour, while Taoism was the basis for undoing the damage of that necessary but painful socialization. i'll have to double check my copy of Watts to be sure, but would anyone care to comment? thanks for the education thus far, everyone!

As usual, I overstated things first time out in an attempt to make a point. Thank you for bringing it to my attention ...

What I am trying to say -- and I hesitate now to try again -- is that Taoism came first, and Confucianism necessarily carries heavy Taoist influences. Confucianism by all means is about governing social order and behavior. Taoism is much older and certainly not about undoing damage from socialization per se. I have been rightly corrected here so many times (usually gently, which I appreciate) that I hesitate to try to say exactly what it is about. After all, the Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao, right?

One way to look at it is that it is about understanding our place in the natural order of things (another phrase for the Tao), and learning to live with it. Confucianism was an imperial imposition on nature in an attempt to rule and control people. To me, an important part of Taoism is to accede to the uncontrollability of nature (and hence people), and to find my place within that.

Dale
2nd April 2002, 04:29
I feel that there is much intellectualization of that which is the same.
Both Daoism and Zen emphasise when living you need simply to live, do not attach yourself to anything, do only
that which is necessary,

To say that Zen is merely sitting around doing nothing demonstrates a lack of understanding of the way of Zen. One might equally state that the concept of Wu Wei in relation to Taoism condones laziness, which would demonstrate and equal lack of insight into the Tao. To the layman both concepts seem unrelated to physical training in Bujutsu.

According to Teisho the great Tao is the essence of Zen(Shibayama, Z. 2000. The Gateless Barrier; Zen Comments on the Mumonkan. Shambhala, Boston pp. 14).
Which reinforces the point that they are both one and the same, historical developments aside. The only difference between them is that in Zen one believes that it is possible to pass through the cycle of life and attain enlightenment while Taoism does not recognise enlightenment and sees perfect living/immortality as enlightenment.

Both Zen and Tao are interested in casting away with that which is not necessary, removing oneself from attachments and attaining harmony through practice akin to that which is seen as the Tao or the way.
I see little reason to debate the practicality of either Zen or the Tao in relation to practice in Bujutsu, as one is the essence of the other and either cannot exist in isolation. They are not debateable points but both enrich our practice in both life and Bujutsu.


Respectfully Yours
Dale Elsdon

SBreheney
2nd April 2002, 07:44
Good post.

Please allow me to offer a point of clarification about "teisho," however. :smilejapa

A "teisho" is a thing, not a person. "Teisho" are formal talks given by a teacher, usually during an intensive zazen retreat or "sesshin." More than a sermon, or a talk given by way of explanation or exhortation, "teisho" are regarded as a presentation from the perspective of enlightened mind, akin to hearing Shakyamuni Buddha himself speak.

So when reference is made to "Teisho on Mumon's Poem" in the Shibayama book cited above, the reference is to a teisho given by Shibayama Roshi on a particular poem by Mumon in the "Mumonkan," or "Gateless Gate" koan collection. It was therefore Mumon who wrote, "Gateless is the great Tao . . ." etc.

(I can dig around for the kanji for "teisho", but maybe this digression more properly belongs on the Japanese language forum. ;))

Gassho.

Dale
3rd April 2002, 03:58
Thank you,
I am forever learning!

I thought that Teisho fella said a lot of stuff! hehe:laugh: