Dan74 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 1975 1:15 am
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:39 am
How similar is the concept of Tao to the Dhamma?
You need to define what you mean by Tao. Are you taking the classical writings by Lao Tzu, I Ching and Chuang Tzu? Or many later works?
Some scholars believe them (the classics) to have been influenced by Zen teachers, others think the influence is the other way around, but there is some overlap, I think.
The later works, not necessarily the Dàodéjīng itself, are absolutely certainly influenced by Buddhism. I was just reading a translation I found from a certain Friederike Assandri of the opening of
Chéng Xuányīng's Dàodéjīng commentary (apparently, according to Wikipedia, he is the posthumous founder of a school of Dàoism called
Chóngxuán that is "influenced by Madhyamaka" -- go figure!).
From just this posted excerpt, we can see Dàoists incorporating technical Buddhist terminology into their treatises, such as "dharmas," but also giving these words "their own spin" to suit their own needs. The whole translation of the opening section is
here, and readers will notice a lot more influences from Buddhism than just the adoption of the term "dharmas."
According to the Jiutian sheng shen jing (Scripture of the Stanzas of the Life Spirits of the Nine Heavens) it is said: “The sage took the three kinds of qi (氣)—the mysterious, the original, and the inaugural—as his body-substance (ti 體)”; this says that he is the same as the wondrous qi of the Three Heavens. Zang Zongdao also used the Three One as the response body of the sage. What is referred to as Three One is: first, essence; second, spirit; and third, qi. Essence refers to the mind that has numinous wisdom and astute reflection. Spirit refers to the unlimited, immeasurable function. Qi refers to the dharmas constituted by form, image, shape and appearance. The scripture says: “Looking at it, one cannot see it. This is called elusive”—this is the essence. [When it says,] “Listening for it, one cannot hear it. This is called imperceptible”—this is the spirit. [And when it says,] “Feeling for it, one cannot grasp it. This is called subtle”—this is qi. Uniting these three dharmas makes the body-substance of the one sage.
The scripture says, “These three, because they cannot be grasped through scrutinizing, blend into one.” But Lord Lao takes the Three One as his body (shen 身); his body has the differentiation of true and response, and there are three [different] explanations of the meaning:
The first says: To disperse the one in order to make three: this is the response of the sage. To blend the three in order to return to the one: this is the truth of the sage.
The second says: The three and the one together both are the response. Not three and not one: this is the truth. This is so because three as well as one are both [part of the realm of] names and numbers.
The third says: Outside of what is beyond names and numbers—how could there be something else that is true and has name or number?
It is just this: Three-in-one [and at the same time] not three-in-one: that is the truth. Not three-in-one yet [at the same time] threein-one: that is the response. The response of not three-in-one and also three-in-one: that response is the true response. The truth of three-in-one and yet not three-in-one: that truth is the response truth.
The truth, which is response truth, cannot be defined as truth. The response, which is true response, cannot be defined as response. Therefore it is not truth and not response, yet also response and truth. But the sage accords with the stimuli [from the beings] and adapts himself to [their] capacities and responds to the beings. Whether he sojourns among humans or is born in the heavens, he manifests himself in accordance with the situation and his marks and characteristics are not always the same.
This is why the Shengxuan [neijiao] jing says: “When he sojourns in that Pure Land, his marks and characteristics are majestic and fine looking. When he dwells in this [world] of many fires, he assumes forms that are the same as those below.” One who originally is able to be both heavenly and human—how would that be something a heavenly or a human being could be capable of? It must be [a being] neither heavenly nor human, and only because of this it is able to be both heavenly and human. Furthermore, he wondrously embodies the “imperceptible and elusive;” he is extremely hard to scrutinize in detail.
Now I will simply take up the one response of Zhou times. Among those who discuss this aspect of Lord Lao, Ge Hong cites the Zhutao yuzha in his Baopuzi (Master who Embraces Simplicity): “Laozi was of a yellow color, he had beautiful eyebrows, a large [forehead], long ears, big eyes, widely spaced teeth, a square mouth, and thick lips. On his forehead there were three crisscrossing lines, and a “sun horn” and a “moon crescent” and two nose-bridges; his ears had three entrances, and the soles of his feet had [marks of] the two [principles of yin and yang] and the five [primary elements] (i.e., metal, wood, water, fire, and earth), and the palms of his hands appeared a pattern in the form of [the character for] “ten” (shi 十) [representing the ten heavenly stems]. These are the marks of [Lord Lao, when he] entrusted his spirit to Mother Li and incarnated as the teacher of the Zhou. Although again the truth and the response are not the same, yet both take the “self-so” as their substance. This is why Zhuangzi says: “[Such a man] always relies on the self-so and doesn’t help life along.” The Xujue (Preface to the Daode jing) says: “Laozi embodied that which is by itself so. He was born before the Great Nonbeing.”
(I accidentally deleted the text "[body]" from the above while trying to format it for the forum. See the translation as it starts on p. 8 of the linked paper)
Something to note is the sheer volume of Dàoist literature from previous ages that Chéng Xuányīng is able to cite. We have only about 4ish traditional commentaries that preserve authentic Dàoism (or at least that is all I am aware of), and only commentaries on the Dàodéjīng, translated into English. There is so much that is completely out-of-reach. Most of Dàoism is completely out-of-reach for someone who doesn't speak or understand Chinese.
Also, this caught my eye:
https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fed ... _19065.pdf. I don't think I'll get around to reading it tonight though.