Taoism in general, specifically it's connections with Ch'an

[Huifeng]

Okay, I understand now! Would it then be more correct to say that the I Ching influenced Taoism and Confucianism?

Yeah, something like that. The Yi Jing influenced pretty much all aspects of classic Chinese thought, religion, philosophy, ritual, etc. Likewise the other five classics, on poetry, etiquette, etc.

These basically pre-date notions of Ru (Confucianism), Dao or Lao Zhuang (Daoism), etc.

~~ Huifeng

[Huifeng]

Confucius spoke of original face as neither good or evil. That is what Buddha spoke of.

LastLegend,

Could you please be so kind as to show where both Confucius and the Buddha said this?
Thanks!

~~ Huifeng

[gregkavarnos]

Thank you to Hiseng and Ven. Huifeng for filling in a giant gap in my knowledge! I always naively assumed that Daoism (or the Tao Te Ching, to be more exact) predated the I Ching.

[LastLegend]

Confucius spoke of original face as neither good or evil. That is what Buddha spoke of.

LastLegend,

Could you please be so kind as to show where both Confucius and the Buddha said this?
Thanks!

~~ Huifeng

b) The Master said, `Men are close to one another by nature. They diverge as a result of repeated practice' (A, 17:2).

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-2 ... d_huma.htm

As for Buddha, Buddha nature is not relatively good or bad because it is free of self. Must I provide passage for this?

[Huifeng]

Confucius spoke of original face as neither good or evil. That is what Buddha spoke of.

LastLegend,

Could you please be so kind as to show where both Confucius and the Buddha said this?
Thanks!

~~ Huifeng

b) The Master said, `Men are close to one another by nature. They diverge as a result of repeated practice' (A, 17:2).

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-2 ... d_huma.htm

As for Buddha, Buddha nature is not relatively good or bad because it is free of self. Must I provide passage for this?

Hmmm, for Kong Fuzi still a fair leap into non-evil-or-good original faces for me, I'm afraid!
子曰：「性相近也，習相遠也。」
From the statement alone, the 性 is only said to be 相近, with no mention of either 善 or 惡. Though this was apparently a key point of debate for later Chinese philosophy in general...

As for the Buddha, see what you can find (other than the Platform Classic). I'm certainly unfamiliar with such a statement.

~~ Huifeng

[LastLegend]

That is all I can do. Much of my learning comes from Vietnamese audio and video transalation of Master Chin Kung's Dharma talks . I don't know Chinese so. I cannot dispute you there. I am just using words-Buddha nature, original face, common nature, natural state, etc. These are just words that point to the same thing.

Repeated practice as I understand is habits/karma.