Pre-modern, Modern and Anti-modern Interpretations of \"Zen\"The debate over Zen has roots dating back to the early 20th century. One of the most famous debates on Zen took place between Hu Shi and D.T. Suzuki. Using philological methods, Hu compared records in the existing ancient book Master Caoxi's Record in Japan with the purported history of Zen Buddhism transmission as derived from the Altar Sutra. He found that the assertion that Saich, the founder of the Tendai sect of Japanese Buddhism, visited the Tang Dynasty in 803, the 19th year of the Zhenyuan reign, appeared incongruent with various other historical records which indicate that it was impossible for Saich to have access to Master Caoxi's Record at that time. Consequently, Hu Shi criticized Zen Buddhism for being rife with \"forgery and fraud.\" The cross-temporal comparison of philology and the unearthing of Buddhist documents in Dunhuang debunked many beliefs about Buddhism at that time. Based on this empirical approach to literature research, it is not difficult to understand why Hu Shi expressed disappointment with D.T. Suzuki's characterization of Zen Buddhism is \"irrational and illogical.\" This debate constitutes an important historical backdrop for D.T. Suzuki's Zen studies in the 20th century. <\/p>\n
In fact, the fundamental disagreement between Hu Shi and D.T. Suzuki in their approach to Zen research stems from their differing attitudes towards Buddhism and religion as a whole. They still appreciated each other's efforts with regards to collating, collecting, and integrating literature, which manifested in their mutual assessments of each other. Hu Shi criticized that Suzuki's research ignored the methods of documentary and historical criticism, viewing his work more as \"preaching\" than research; Suzuki believed that Hu did not distinguish between \"matters related to Zen\" and \"Zen itself. He argued that even thorough research into documentary materials only clarified matters related to Zen and not Zen itself. This indicates that the disagreement between the two is not in the use of documentary materials, but whether to give these materials a primary status. <\/p>\n
During that time, disagreements and confrontations did not occur only in the East. Another important historical backdrop to D.T. Suzuki's Zen studies was the research paradigm of Western Buddhist scholars at that time. Influenced by traditional philology and comparative linguistic approaches, the European academic community in the 19th century had already formed a research paradigm centered on Sanskrit, Pali and Tibetan sutras, focusing on the study of classical Buddhism. They advocated for returning to original Buddhism to genuinely study the Buddhist philosophy, and claimed that Mahayana Buddhism, and even East Asian Buddhism as a whole, was considered heterodox or marginal within Buddhism. This was a significant challenge to East Asian researchers who were accustomed to centering their studies around Mahayana Buddhism. <\/p>\n
This challenge explains the approach D.T. Suzuki took towards his Buddhist studies in the 20th century. Although Suzuki's fame is now often associated with Zen Buddhism, Zen was not the original subject of his research. His early writings and translations focused on Mahayana Buddhism. He translated Mahynaraddhotpda-astra (Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana), a classic of East Asias Mahayana Buddhism, into English. Subsequently, he wrote the Outline of Mahynaraddhotpda-astra, in an effort to introduce this classic into the field of Western classical Buddhist studies. Suzuki aimed to demonstrate to the Western academic community, which had downplayed and even criticized Mahayana Buddhism at that time, that East Asias Mahayana Buddhism was another pinnacle in the development of Buddhism. <\/p>\n
However, his struggle did not achieve the desired results. From the traditional perspective of classical Buddhist studies in Europe at that time, Suzuki's linguistic and textual critical ability was debatable, and his translation of the Sanskrit version of Mahynaraddhotpda-astra was considered subpar. Suzuki's efforts in this phase thus ended in failure. <\/p>\n
By the 1920s, Suzuki turned to Zen studies, which arguably marked his second attempt to contend with the mainstream discourse of Western Buddhist studies. He realized that in order for studies of Mahayana Buddhism to have impact in the European academic community, he had to turn to another Buddhist tradition with East Asian characteristicsthe Rinzai sect of Zen Buddhism. He began introducing Zen ideas to the West, which in turn earned him acclaim, and Western scholars widely regard Suzuki as the first person to bring Eastern Zen to the West. <\/p>\n
One of the reasons why D.T. Suzuki's second phase of research generated wide resonance was that he drew from existing Western knowledge concepts. Unlike the earlier studies of Mahayana Buddhism, his interpretation of Zen in the second phase was highly strategic. He no longer simply translated and introduced the Buddhist classics and Buddhist studies of the East to the West; instead, he focused on highlighting the anti-logical and irrational characteristics of Zen, positioning Zen on the opposite side of traditional Western rationalism. This garnered immediate interest from Western researchers. D.T. Suzuki went beyond the domain of \"experience\" in the Eastern sense, leveraging on the experiential concept of religion from the American pragmatic philosophy trend at that time. He also invoked the mystical aspects of ancient Western philosophy and Christianity to explain Zen. By doing so, he successfully transformed Eastern Buddhism, which Western scholars had previously regarded with skepticism, an accessible source of counter-thought. His way of interpreting \"experience\" also profoundly influenced later generations understanding of Zen. <\/p>\n
The Western academias response to D.T. Suzuki's Zen studies can also be broadly divided into two phases, with the 1970s and 1980s as the boundary. The first phase mainly consists of follow-up responses to Suzukis studies by many writers and researchers, such as Alan W. Watts, who authored The Way of Zen. For a time, Suzuki became an indispensible figure in Western Buddhist research, and whenever Zen was discussed, Suzukis name would inevitably be mentioned, making him an idol in the intellectual world. His influence even extended beyond the academic circles, and even the popularity of Zen in the early American hippie movement owed a debt to Suzuki's influence. <\/p>\n
However, after the 1980s, a new paradigm of Zen history research emerged in Western academia, leading to a significant shift in the attitude towards D.T. Suzukis work. This shift was characterized by criticism and reflection, essentially marking the twilight of Suzukis idol status. Interestingly, one of the main drivers of this wave of critical reflection can be traced back to the debate between Hu Shi and Suzuki. Their debates and the subsequent discovery of Buddhist scriptures in Dunhuang greatly influenced Japanese scholar Seizan Yanagida. Later, Yanagida reorganized and critiqued early historical documents of Zen Buddhism using modern methodologies. Along with further research on the disputes between Northern Buddhism and Southern Buddhism and the rising doubts about the mystical narratives in the history of Zen Buddhism, these studies greatly prompted this philosophical shift in Western Zen scholars. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the article here:<\/p>\n
Rupture and Reconstruction: A Koan About Zen Itself Berggruen ... - Berggruen Institute<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pre-modern, Modern and Anti-modern Interpretations of \"Zen\"The debate over Zen has roots dating back to the early 20th century. One of the most famous debates on Zen took place between Hu Shi and D.T. Continue reading