The Buddhist traditions sharing the same continent of existence with the Hindu, shares the same similarities. The teachings of the Buddha were remained in the oral transmission prior to the 3rd Shangha (Monks) Council held 300 odd years after passing of the Buddha (PariNibbana), in Sri Lanka (Part of India) by the patronage of King Asoka. During the first council, the entire teachings were recited by weeks if not months by a huge retinue of monks from the various corners of the continent in chants. Most of it started with the phrase “Evam Me Suttam” (Thus have I heard…) as recollected by Arahat Ananda. Similar encounters happened to the second council. A small group of Dhamma Duta (Ambassador of the Buddha’s teaching) were sent Northward into the Himalayas of Tibetan Regions, thus establishing the Northern traditions of Mahayana. These groups are more advanced, as they had already put into writing the oral teaching. The Buddhist inherited this oral transmission. Further evolution of such practices is notable in the Japanese and Korean Zen traditions.
Dao is more pertinent in such manner as the opening statement of LaoTze in the DaoDeChing dictates the Dao, which is expressed, is not the eternal Dao. It is a fact that the entire Chinese frame of mind is a composition of the trinity of Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism. These roots had again been manifested in the Chinese 5 arts and Metaphysics is one of them. Therefore how could it be devoid of the oral traditions? Refusing such a fact means starting it all over again, tabula – rasa. Classical Chinese Metaphysics are vested in such a tradition. It would have been called New Age Metaphysics if the latter is the order of the day. My concerns are if the any Academy of Chinese Metaphysics refused to acknowledge thus, it will be a pity of its founder in championing the course of demystifying Chinese Metaphysics from object placement to apparel adornment in the name of Fengshui is nothing but a hypocrite.
Ar. David Yek Tak Wai