One of my favorite books is Ray Grigg's The Tao of Zen. His thesis, which he argues persuasively, is that Zen is rooted in Chinese Taoism, while Zen Buddhism is, obviously, rooted in Indian Buddhism.
Here's a lengthy excerpt from the "Buddhism in China" chapter. While it's possible to quibble with some of Grigg's conclusions, his basic contrasting of Taoist/Chinese and Buddhist/Indian approaches to life seems accurate to me.
The indented italicized passages are quotations from other writers. I haven't included the footnotes that show where the quotation came from.
As Buddhism in China was adjusted to fit Chinese sensibilities, the distinction between it and the Taoist sects and religions began to blur. In the common mind a synthesis of Buddhism and Taoism began to take place.
Chinese versions of the Buddhist scriptures were adapted to Chinese ideas, and Buddhism and Taoism were often mingled together in popular belief.
This mingling did not take place among the more literary and scholarly Taoists. For them the integration of Buddhism into China helped to define and invigorate the Taoism of the Lao Tzu and the Chuang Tzu.
Their Taoism involved ostensibly, no belief; it was and continues to be an aesthetic philosophy rather than a religion.
Mahayana Buddhism is a religion that evolved from a philosophical base. Taoism and Buddhism can be reconciled philosophically but not religiously. Those following the original form of Taoism have been unable to relate to the Mahayana aspects of Buddhism.
Even in the popular mind some of these differences were not so easily resolved.
Buddhism was in many ways distinctly un-Chinese. The Indian belief that human beings live over and over again on earth was entirely unknown in China. The Chinese reverence for the family clashed with the Buddha's teaching that family ties were a hindrance to enlightenment, and the celibacy required of Buddhist monks.
Where Buddhism saw life as suffering, Chinese tradition regarded the order of nature as fundamentally good and the right life as one lived in harmony with nature. Far from wanting to escape from the body and individual personality, most Taoists wanted to prolong their individual existence indefinitely.
In other words, a basic difference separates the character of Indian Buddhism and the native Chinese traditions of Confucianism and Taoism.
Taoism is earthy. It is basically optimistic. It accepts in general terms that life is worth living and that nature, personified in the metaphor of the Great Mother, is essentially a balanced beneficence.
Buddhism's character is more sober, less optimistic. As Richard Cavendish notes:
Although it has often been observed that Buddhism is a cheerful and good-hearted religion, the Buddhist attitude to life is intensely pessimistic. Life on earth is evil, painful and transitory. It is full of suffering and nothing lasts, nothing stays the same.
One of the characteristics of Zen that argues for a Taoist rather than a Buddhist origin is its lightness, its playfulness, its appreciative acceptance of life. Buddhism is serious, leaden, weighted down by Gautama's traumatic realization that suffering lies beneath the veneer of life's comforts, and pleasures.
The story of his own evolution from innocent prince to enlightened being is a revealing process. The emphasis is on the endurance and perseverance that the quest for enlightenment demands.
He struggles through seven years of wilderness meditation and asceticism before reaching realization. The same long struggle is reenacted later in China by Bodhidharma who sits persistently for nine years facing a wall. The literal truth of these stories is less important than the underlying attitudes they reveal.
The Chinese embrace life as worth living, and they seek ways of living it wisely and well. This is evident in the popular Kuan-yin, a maternal incarnation of the Buddha, who bestows fertility, safety, and comfort to her supplicants.
This same positive attitude is seen in the round and jovial folk-Buddhas of modern China who sit big-bellied and contented, or stand wide-legged and laughing. These images of the Buddha, unlike the austere and emaciated ones from India, invite a full and happy life.
Even in religion the Chinese enjoy life too much to waste it on asceticism and metaphysical exercises.
They would gladly sacrifice a few years for immortality as a good investment of time. They would willingly do t'so-ch'an (Japanese: zazen, literally "sitting meditation") to effect social harmony or attain worldly gain and influence.
But they would not expend much energy on something as abstract and metaphysical as enlightenment. "Once you had enlightenment," they would ask, "what would you do with it?" The question is expressed with an appropriate mixture of playfulness and practicality in a Zen story:
A Zen roshi and a Hindu guru were walking together along a riverbank and decided to visit an adjacent island.
"Let's walk to the island," said the guru.
"Why not take the ferry?" suggested the roshi.
"Because," said the guru, "I've spent twenty years learning to walk on water."
"Why take twenty years learning to walk on water," asked the roshi, "when you can take a ferry for a penny?"
The same grounded practicality characterizes the Lao Tzu. As Victor H. Mair points out:
The Chinese classic emphasizes political skills and social harmony in preference to the theistic orientation of the Indian scripture.
The Mahayana religious component in Ch'an and Zen Buddhism emphasizes the zazen in emulation of the sitting Buddha of India. Very practical reasons exist for doing zazen but they have been overlayed with exhortations to persevere, to be like the Buddha, to sit until all sentient beings are saved.
In contrast, the Taoist element in Ch'an and Zen Buddhism is not interested in such theological objectives.
The purpose of protracted sitting is not to perpetuate itself but to release the practitioner into the spontaneity and freedom of merely being. The end of the searching and discipline is a full and balanced life lived gracefully and harmoniously in wonderful simplicity.
The sitter returns to the village to become fully engaged in the profoundly ordinary business of day-to-day existence.
The Lao Tzu dedicates about half its wisdom to the affirmation of such worldly affairs. Although its treatment lacks the playfulness of the Chuang Tzu, it is nonetheless a clear confirmation of this life in this earthy place, fully committed to the worth that is inherent in the whole social and natural world.
Any discipline in Taoism is used to reenter fully what is already present. This is also the case in Zen.
Buddhism's discipline does not complete the cycle of leaving, returning, and reaffirming. It spins outward to become removed, unearthly, and austere, reluctantly present in the world as if living were a kind of selfless sacrifice.
A hindu guru and a Western Atheist thinking himself to be a Zen Roshi were walking by the river.
The Atheist, seeing a small ferry platform on the edge of the river, took the lead hurrying to the entrance gate.
The guru asked, "where are we going now, dear friend? "
The Atheist said "I have no idea. But let's go across the river. I love boat rides. It only costs a penny. It's an adventure! Please? "
The guru said, "OK, let's go! "
And so they stood upon the ferry platform and watched the scene pass by together as they crossed the river until they arrived at the other side, which, in truth was pretty much the same as where they had just come from.
As the Atheist and the Guru gazed back at the river Bank where they began the Atheist noted that it looked pretty much the same as the one they now stood upon.
And then he asked the Guru, "Why did you bring me here?"
The Guru rolled his eyes and whispered gently, "Brother, Let's hang out right here and now for a while, OK.
" Let's go within and cross the river separating you and I. And get to a truly beautiful destination. On that river we are the boatmen, so we are only paying ourselves. And at that destination an infinite treasure of love awaits us."
Posted by: Spence Tepper | December 19, 2021 at 06:57 AM
Reading this essay, one would assume that "the Chinese" all practiced a whimsical Taoism, while "the Japanese" were all austerely devoted to sitting zazen and getting whacked with a keisaku while on a committed path to satori.
That would be a wildly inaccurate picture. What we know of the history of religious practice in Asian regions is that the the vast majority practiced folk religions. Shinto has been far more influential in Japan than has Zen Buddhism. By the same token, Taoism has had a influence on Chinese culture. Both are basically hazy folk religions. Same same.
Posted by: Tendzin | December 19, 2021 at 07:44 AM
@ Spence [ " Let's go within and cross the river separating you and I " ]
All that I am
All that I ever was
Is here in your perfect eyes, they're all I can see
I don't know where
Confused about how as well
Just know that these things will never change for us at all
From: Snow Patrol - "Chasing Cars"
Posted by: Dungeness | December 19, 2021 at 11:04 AM
Taoism is playful. Buddhism is serious. I prefer Taoism.
Struggles of an adventure
Anything would be better than, Radha Soami n Gurinder Singh Dhillions self centered religious nothings
Which has nothing to be gained even after years of struggling you end up broke.
While Gurinders laughing his way to the bank
Penniless you wonder endlessly searching for a meaning to life only to end up in some dera listening to endless repeatable dhillion going on about the lovely religious concepts of others religious beliefs.
Nothing within the Radha Soami Cult to teach or learn as Gurinder so willingly shows off accidently.
But keep banging your head against that brick wall, all because I say so...Gurinders own words
Not much to go on is it...
Anyway is better than the Radha Soami way n Gurinder Singh Dhillions religious scam
Life is for experiencing and not to be wasted listening to sweet nothings
Posted by: Manoj | December 19, 2021 at 01:16 PM
@ Manoj (since I guess there's no longer a rule on his forum that posters need to stay on topic of the essay, and he posts the same thing over and over).
"Anything would be better than, Radha Soami n Gurinder Singh Dhillions self centered religious nothings"
Since there are millions of RSSB satsangis who say they get a great deal of positive enjoyment out of this religion, your view is clearly subjective.
"Which has nothing to be gained even after years of struggling you end up broke.
While Gurinders laughing his way to the bank"
This is a one I haven't heard before -- RSSB makes people "end up broke." Even die hard exers don't make that claim.
As for Gurinder's finances, that indeed is a matter of some doubt and I would agree is worthy of criticism. Sued by an Indian filmmaker for stiffing him on a huge loan, his own disciple and family member accusing him of masterminding a money laundering scheme -- these troubling ssues have not been answered, and in my mind they do cast some doubt on the guru's business dealings.
"Penniless you wonder endlessly searching for a meaning to life only to end up in some dera listening to endless repeatable dhillion going on about the lovely religious concepts of others religious beliefs."
Yeah, again I don't get this claim that RSSB has ruined any initiate's bank account. What are you talking about guy?
"Nothing within the Radha Soami Cult to teach or learn as Gurinder so willingly shows off accidently."
OK, well this is kind of on topic, to my mind anyway. That is, what precisely is there to really "learn" in religion? The concepts are simple: love and service. Thus every RSSB book and satsang is reliably boring; there is nothing new to be discovered.
Like or not, this is our existential dilemma. Yet we go on with our Search, even after becoming an exer, trying to find this or that in science or another religion that provides answers. Zen is really great and clean, but yet it isn't, so we have to find just the "right" zen. Yet still the search goes on.
The sad fact is that however exer we may be, we can't escape our constitutional situation. We will forever seek meaning and love and leadership, ie that basic things that Sant Mat offers. However we try to leave Sant mat for something else, we end up just substituting a new "mat" and doing a different simran. But our basic situation hasn't changed. It can't. That's because we were all created as Souls and are apart from our true home. As hokey as that sounds, that's what our heart keeps telling us.
"But keep banging your head against that brick wall, all because I say so...Gurinders own words"
Not really Gurinder's own words, but I get the underlying objection to the RSSB imperative that we must storm heaven via meditation or else. By the way, Charan said that too (I keep pointing out, yet Charan is more teflon than Reagan ever was and not even the most rabid exer will say word one against Huzur. This is a phenomena I've never figured out).
"Not much to go on is it...
Anyway is better than the Radha Soami way n Gurinder Singh Dhillions religious scam
Life is for experiencing and not to be wasted listening to sweet nothings."
Well, Charan did appoint Gurinder, so I'm not sure it's fair to blame the current Guru for carrying on what was assigned him. Yes, we're supposed to enjoy life, but we can't, because life itself can't be enjoyed, because, as Sant mat tells us, and is correct in telling us, no one is happy here. That is the why and wherefore of Sant mat.
Posted by: Tendzin | December 20, 2021 at 05:49 PM