Seeking information on Ch'an Buddhism

johnathan

Well, I have been studying Buddhism pretty much exclusively for about a year and a half now. My studies have mostly been in the Theravada Schools and I have become aware that these schools are beyond my grasp. I appreciate the intellectualism of it but its just to much information. I have ADHD-PI and my memory is like a sieve. I have moved my attention back to Zen (I read "The Way of Zen" a few years ago) and find its simplicity is more suited to my mental capabilities.

I guess I'd like to ask anyone who might know anything about Ch'an to share, especially how it might differ from Zen. I have read that Buddhism is the father and Taoism is the Mother of Ch'an Buddhism, and as time passed the Taoist elements of the teaching receded and became rather invisible.

I called myself a Daoist for many years before I took an interest in Buddhism. The thought of a practice that incorporates both Taoism and Buddhism seems to fit better with me.

Any web sites or book recommendations are welcome, or stories of ones own experiences with Ch'an (positive or negative).

MindGate

I thought Ch'an and Zen were the same thing..

johnathan

From what I am reading Ch'an evolved when Buddhism came in contact with taoism. Then eventually Ch'an moved to Japan, who were not Taoist and so dropped those aspects and what was left was Zen.

Cloud

Ch'an is Chinese and Zen is Japanese. Zen is the Japanese "version" of Ch'an, but of course Zen has two flavors as well... Rinzai and Soto.

Cinorjer

The Seventh World of Chan Buddhism
http://zbohy.zatma.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/7thWorld/7th-world-home.html

The best website I've found yet that goes into history, beliefs, philosophy, etc.

riverflow

Chan (Chinese) and Zen (Japanese) are the same thing.

I revisited Ray Griggs' book The Tao of Zen (which I read years ago) and I now find it to be a very misleading book (the idea that Zen Buddhism is some corrupt version of Daoism). I really don't think Griggs really knew what he was talking about and just had an ax to grind against Zen Buddhism.

Here is a "Zen Buddhism 101" list of books I put together that I would recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/lm/R3TVZBDFZ0NMGF/ref=cm_pdp_lm_title_1

Dakini

What Chan is like depends on which Chan tradition you choose, I think. There are new Chan schools in Taiwan that have set up temples in developed countries, that from what I've heard, take a more active role in guiding the student than Zen does, or than more traditional Chan schools. Taiwanese Chan seems to be big on charitable work, too, which is impressive. You might PM our member, Chan_Noob, who's a member of one of the newer Chan schools with an international presence. They stress ethics for their teachers, I might add. Teachers are required to take courses in ethics and professional standards of behavior towards disciples, and they have a lot of women teachers.

johnathan

I don't think New Ch'an schools are what I am looking for. I am looking for information on the original Ch'an school before it moved to Japan and became Zen.

I found this statement about it on an online book review that defines the type of Ch'an I am seeking:

"Most significantly, Chan is not pure Buddhism, but a synthesis of Buddhism with indigenous Chinese concepts such as dao and qi."

http://www.andrew-may.com/chan.htm

Dakini

I'll be interested to see what answers you get. I'm interested in Chan, too. But there are many Chans, and they all combine Taoism and Buddhism. There's one that looks like it incorporates a fair amount of Tibetan Buddhism, which, I take it, isn't what you're looking for. I bet the Buddhist churches in Chinese communities in the West are "traditional" Chan.

riverflow

The connection between Daoism and Buddhism leading to the development of Chan is important, but it has its limits. There's a very important point made here about the use of the word "Dao" in China that should be pointed out:

http://www.shaolin.org/zen/word-tao.html

andyZ

I'm not a big expert on the history of Chan, but if you take Zen koan studies, they're all based on Chinese texts – "Blue Cliff Record", "Gateless Gate" etc. All those texts were compounded in China. Even the practice of "just sitting" - shikantaza were brought to Japan from China. So the beginnings of Zen are purely Chan. In fact words Zen and Chan mean exactly the same thing. I would also argue that there's no pure Chan by itself. If you take Bodhidharma, the founder of Chan, he was an Indian Buddhist who barely even spoke Chinese, according to some texts. May be that's why he invented this whole business of "transmission outside words and scriptures"

wondering

Here is very good web site for Chan understanding. There is quite a bit of info on this site. Here is an article related specifically to Chan.

http://www.hsuyun.org/chan/en/essays/bychuanzhi/fastchan.html

Cinorjer

The history is complicated. For one thing, there was a split and fight about who was the real patriarch way back when, ending in Northern and Southern Chan schools, with Northern incorporating more Tantric elements and being temple orientated, and Southern being more Daoist influenced and since it was further from the Royal court, less involved in the pitfalls of politics although eventually even they became pawns in the power play going on. Japanese Zen came more from the Southern Chan line.

Both traced their founding to Bodhidhama, but it was actually a wonderful mess full of political skullduggery, dueling egos, and an occasional insight that echoes through to today. The Dharma in action is sometimes not a pretty thing to watch.

Dakini

Thank you Cinorjer--very helpful, as always. This last post of yours answers a number of questions I've had. I've been told that the Chan that incorporates Tantra is a recent development, a new-fangled invention. but according to what you say, that's not true. Do you know if that Northern school is still practiced, or did it die out?

johnathan

I found this online that is just barely touching the surface of what I'm looking for:

Chan is a school that does not "believe in" meditation, yet emphasizes and practices meditation. People sit in meditation pondering the claim that meditation cannot lead to enlightenment.

Chan comes to understand meditation in a Daoist sense: an attitude of "total absorption" than can accompany any normal living activity. Sitting meditation is among the normal activities, but Chan gives us no particular reason to do that in preference to innumerable others. Enlightenment/meditation can be achieved in any of them. How do the Chanists arrive at this focus on 'practice.'

First, let us draw attention to Buddhism's famous "paradox of desires." Its logic explains the move to the Boddhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism. According to the four noble truths, desire leads to suffering and overcoming desire is the way to achieve Nirvana. Suppose an individual seeker gets close to Nirvana--he overcomes his desire for wealth, status, sex, and then eventually even his desire for food, drink, and finally his desire to breath and live. Now is he able to enter Nirvana? Not yet. He still has one desire left--the desire to enter Nirvana. Only when he overcomes that one can he achieve it. He does! Standing on the brink of extinction, he no longer wants to go there, so he turns around and re-enters the cycle of Samsara--he is the Boddhisattva who voluntarily returns.

Similar paradoxes lurk behind the Yogacara and Madyamika systems. In the Yogacara system of illusions, the theory seems to say the minds and their illusions are all that exists. If they exist, they are real-real ideas. As such, they are not illusions. The world of appearances is identical with the Buddha-mind-it is what there is.
In the Madyamika system, we learn that the Buddha-nature is the only reality. If I is the only reality, then there is nothing that is not Buddha nature. Since there is nothing but Buddha nature everywhere Buddha nature is pure--there is nothing to be mixed with it. Hence you and I are pure Buddha nature. We have nothing to do or achieve.

Chan Buddhism can be viewed as pushing the implicit logic of Buddhism to reject the original goal of Buddhism--the quest for Nirvana. Chan is Buddhist atheism. The gradual development of this perspective, however, is a complex one in China and is made even more challenging by a pedagogical practice among Chan masters-"never tell to plainly." Each person should come to her own realization.

Dakini

The "desire" paradox doesn't really exist. There is skillful attachment and unskillful attachment (someone said this on another thread that's going right now, but this explanation has come up many times before). The aim to become Enlightened, the goal of the disciple to become more compassionate, these are skillful desires. And the closer to Buddhahood one gets, the more those "desires" or "attachments" fall away, and just become a way of life, a natural way of being in the world.

riverflow

Do you know if that Northern school is still practiced, or did it die out?

Put very broadly, the southern school is associated with Lin-Chi (or in Japan, Rinzai) and the northern school with Caodong (in Japan, Soto). The south placed an emphasis on koans and "sudden enlightenment" whereas the north placed emphasis on "silent illumination" (which, transplanted into Japan by Dogen, was called shikantaza, literally "just sitting") and "gradual enlightenment." But both schools used koans and zazen.

The northern Caodong/Soto school doesn't get much into satori and tends not to talk about that sort of thing much. They don't regard that sort of thing to be all that "special." Which is not to say that awakening is absent, but I think the general idea is that too much talk about satori makes it seem very goal oriented, which only creates an additional dualism-- everyone just wants to "get enlightenment."

This de-emphasis on satori takes its most extreme form in Dogen (Japan, Soto school), where doing zazen IS enlightenment, which is a never ending process or realisation. There is no enlightenment to attain because u already haz it!

There are certainly some similarities with Caodong/Soto and Daoism (particularly in the Neo-Taoism of Wang Bi), whereas I personally feel the Linchi/Rinzai approach to be rather "athletic."

johnathan

Is Buddha-nature synonymous with the eternal Tao?

Cinorjer

Thank you Cinorjer--very helpful, as always. This last post of yours answers a number of questions I've had. I've been told that the Chan that incorporates Tantra is a recent development, a new-fangled invention. but according to what you say, that's not true. Do you know if that Northern school is still practiced, or did it die out?

More of a rediscovery, from what I can find in various articles. The history of Chan is even woven into Tibetan Buddhism practice. I'm not an expert, by any means, and I figure a lot of very interesting history is only in Chinese and Japanese.

riverflow

Is Buddha-nature synonymous with the eternal Tao?

This gets tricky. From the Neo-Daoist perspective, yes. In this later development in Daoism, Wang Bi saw that "the Dao" was seen as a reified eternal essence that gives rise to the phenomenal world-- something that Wang Bi clearly rejected. This was partly a result of the "pure conversation" that took place between Daoists, Confucians and Buddhists of this time.

Buddha nature can appear to be a somewhat misleading term, because there is no reified "nature" or essence to be found anywhere. Emptiness is empty, as is nirvana and Buddha nature. This is at odds with Dao as understood by Daoists, because Dao is eternal and unchanging (Dao is also empty, but not in the same way as meant by "sunyata"). In Buddhism, there is no ground of being at all-- even emptiness is empty. That's the one final step that Daoism doesn't take.

minue622

Johnathan/

As an east asian who is relatively well familiar with Chan tradition, I can assure that the following statement applies not only to Chan but also Zen, (No surprize since they are simply two differen ways of pronouncing the same word for a buddhist school).

If you still believe that they are two different animals, it's somewhat like believing that puritans in England are totally different one from purtians in USA.

""" Chan is a school that does not "believe in" meditation, yet emphasizes and practices meditation. """

If you want to see an evidence for my claim, get 'zen mind, beginner's mind'by suzuki sunryu, and read it.

johnathan

@minue622 I finished reading "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" just minutes ago, so I know what you mean about Zen / Chan being a school that does not "believe in" meditation, yet emphasizes and practices meditation.

Having read it I question my need to find a taoist link to Buddhism... Close to the end of the book I read

"As Buddhists our traditional effort should be like Buddha's: we should not attach to any particular school or doctrine."

And

"Because Buddha was the founder of the teaching, people tentatively called his teaching "Buddhism," but actually Buddhism is not some particular teaching. Buddhhism is just Truth, which includes various truths in it."

And

"Other people may call us the Soto school, but there is no reason for us to call ourselves Soto. You should not even use the name Soto. No school should consider itself a separate school. It should just be one tentative form of Buddhism. But as long as the various schools do not accept this kind of understanding, as long as they continue calling themselves by their particular names, we must accept the tentative name of Soto. But I want to make this point clear. Actually we are not the Soto school. We are just Buddhists. We are not even Zen Buddhists; we are just Buddhists"

So with this understanding I believe to be "just" a Buddhist (who practices zazen) is sufficient enough for me.

aura

Ch'an Master Sheng Yen (founder of Dharma Drum Mountain Buddhist Association, New York) gave lectures on Ch'an and Zen which you may access (free) on their website:
http://ddmba.org/pages/teachings/legacy-of-chan.php

johnathan

Thanx @aura,

If this master Sheng Yen is teaching a true representation of Ch'an then it is all I need to say for certain that Ch'an is not for me and that it does differ from Zen (at least from what I know aboit it)

This master teaches thusly:

[Blockquote]Thus we have a second requirement, namely, great angry determination. This means putting aside all concerns and pushing forward because you are aware that, “If I were to suddenly die, I would fail to accomplish my practice in this lifetime.” With this attitude, you simply must work hard, putting aside any consideration of your own life and death. If a Chan practitioner does not have a very immediate, direct feeling that he or she may die at any moment, then it is difficult for great angry determination to arise. Some students may find my demands unreasonable, especially on retreat, where I may ask them to minimize their sleeping time as much as possible. So long as you are not about to collapse, you should continue working on the method. However, some students simply cannot sustain this kind of practice. In this case, I may take a comforting, alternative approach, suggesting that they should take a good rest until they are completely recovered, and then come back and practice again. Very often, this approach also works and after sleeping, those students will practice even harder and develop great angry determination. [/blockquote]

To me this method is based on a lot of clinging.

The Zen attitude of not even trying to attain enlightenment (if it comes it does, if not it doesn't) suits me fine. Its seems that a goal of not clinging being attained by not clinging is true wisdom to me.

Cinorjer

johnathan, what you are reading from Sheng Yen is a motivational speach, the sort of thing the Zen student usually only hears at about the midpoint of an intense retreat or extended meditation session, about the time they "hit the wall". It's designed to take a bunch of exhausted, discouraged people and get them to reach down inside themselves for that final push.

A Zen Master is more of a coach than a teacher at times. After all, what do they have to teach you? You both know what you're looking for can't be taught, only comprehended.

johnathan

Thanks for explaining that Cinorjer... Makes sense...

I guess from my OP I was looking for aspects of original Ch'an than might differ from what we now know as Zen. I have read stuff that eluded to certain Taoist aspects of Ch'an being dropped as Zen moved into Japan but have not found any source that explains what aspects those might be that would differenciate the two.

As I have come to a point where that distinction is no longer important to my practice, as I stated in a previous post in this thread, I am now only interested out of curiosity and Dakini is also interested so at this point I won't request the thread closed.

Is anyone aware of what aspects of Ch'an might have been dropped or altered as Ch'an moved into Japan, if any?

seeker242

Chan and Zen are the same thing. The differences are wholly superficial.

The Chan taught by Orientals in the West is not, in fact, the real Chan. It is the method to realise Chan. Chan was first discovered by a prince named Siddhartha Gautama (called Shakyamuni after his enlightenment), who was born in India about 2500 years ago. After he became enlightened and was called a Buddha, he taught us the method to know Chan. This method was transmitted from India to China, and then to Japan. In India it was called dhyana, which is pronounced 'Chan' in Chinese, and 'Zen' in Japanese. Actually, all three are identical. ~Master Sheng-yen, Chan Master

Cloud

Chan, Zen, Tao (Dao), Dhamma, Suchness, Thusness, Emptiness...

Cinorjer

While Chan, like every school of Buddhism, traces its roots back to Shakyamuni, we also have Bodhidharma in common.

aura

If you are looking for the most Taoist Buddhist convergence in Buddhism...
you might wish to investigate the Shaolin and see if they resonate with you
http://landsofwisdom.com/?p=1813

Dakini

This article doesn't discuss the Taoist elements in Ch'an, or Shaolin Ch'an. It says Shaolin Ch'an is influenced by Tibetan Buddhism more than any other Ch'an sect.

Sheng Yen was unusual. He said that the teacher's behavior was none of the students' business, they should only concern themselves that the teacher displays "right view". He says, "they should not concern themselves with the teacher's character and behavior. ... Even if the master tells lies, steals or chases women though knowing perfectly well that such actions are contrary to the Vinaya, ... he is still to be considered a true master as long as he scolds his disciples if they too commit transgressions."
http://chancenter.org/cmc/2011/08/15/selecting-and-studying-under-a-master/

MindGate

I asked Ch-an Noob about Ch'an, and he told me what to do... except how to find a teacher.

Dakini

I was thinking about Ch'an Noob, but he practices with one of those modern Taiwanese sects, and johnathan said he was more interested in an older, more traditional form of Ch'an.

Johnathan, maybe the only way to answer your question is to find a Ch'an temple, start studying, and identify the Taoist elements yourself. I looked at the site Cinorjer posted a link to. It was fascinating, but didn't address your question.

MindGate

I'm interested personally..

Dakini

johnathan and MindGate, you might get farther by doing an internet search. I just came up with what looks like a good site: www.taoism.net/articles/chantao.htm
This talks about common elements between Taoism and Ch'an. Ch'an websites seem to only talk about Buddhism. Try Googling things like: "Taoism in Chan Buddhism", and that sort of thing.