DT Suzuki
Kelli W.
Zen Buddhism
Professor Goble
April 25, 2013
D.T Suzuki Interpretation D.T Suzuki talks about the nature of Zen within this chapter, touching upon things we have already discussed in class regarding its ever-developing characteristics. I would have to agree with some of his points, especially when talking about Zen's “sporadic” nature. He discusses the more misunderstood aspect of Zen's simplicity of 'truth'; it's nonsensical paradoxical statements, responses, and remarks. Although we must recognize that Suzuki forgets to mention that this way of being was not largely practiced in Chinese Chan/Zen traditions. However, Suzuki brings up the idea that Zen does not “attract an intrinsic importance to the sacred sutras or to the exegeses by the wise and learned” (Suzuki 4). I think this actually goes against what we have learned, in that there was a large portion of time that Zen Buddhists largely admired the “wise and learned”, these were their teachers. As well, he seems to flip-flop on labeling Zen practices as mysticism, where he first says “Mystification is far from being the object of Zen itself” (Suzuki 3,4), yet goes on to say “I said that Zen is mystical. This is inevitable, seeing that Zen is the keynote of Oriental culture”, and then, even further, “Therefore, to understand the East we must understand mysticism; that is, Zen” (Suzuki 5). This leaves me confused as to which he actually agrees with, and is it a fundamental characteristic of Zen or not? Was he referring to an older period of Zen first and a more modern one second? Possibly Suzuki was emphasizing the idea of Zen being such a central part of Asian culture, and as mysticism was too- therefore they must be related in some way. Sharf starts off his reading immediately emphasizing “Zen is "pure experience" itself- the ahistorical, transcultural experience of "pure subjectivity" which utterly transcends discursive thought” (Sharf 107). He even further goes against Suzuki's emphasis on
Zen Buddhism
Professor Goble
April 25, 2013
D.T Suzuki Interpretation D.T Suzuki talks about the nature of Zen within this chapter, touching upon things we have already discussed in class regarding its ever-developing characteristics. I would have to agree with some of his points, especially when talking about Zen's “sporadic” nature. He discusses the more misunderstood aspect of Zen's simplicity of 'truth'; it's nonsensical paradoxical statements, responses, and remarks. Although we must recognize that Suzuki forgets to mention that this way of being was not largely practiced in Chinese Chan/Zen traditions. However, Suzuki brings up the idea that Zen does not “attract an intrinsic importance to the sacred sutras or to the exegeses by the wise and learned” (Suzuki 4). I think this actually goes against what we have learned, in that there was a large portion of time that Zen Buddhists largely admired the “wise and learned”, these were their teachers. As well, he seems to flip-flop on labeling Zen practices as mysticism, where he first says “Mystification is far from being the object of Zen itself” (Suzuki 3,4), yet goes on to say “I said that Zen is mystical. This is inevitable, seeing that Zen is the keynote of Oriental culture”, and then, even further, “Therefore, to understand the East we must understand mysticism; that is, Zen” (Suzuki 5). This leaves me confused as to which he actually agrees with, and is it a fundamental characteristic of Zen or not? Was he referring to an older period of Zen first and a more modern one second? Possibly Suzuki was emphasizing the idea of Zen being such a central part of Asian culture, and as mysticism was too- therefore they must be related in some way. Sharf starts off his reading immediately emphasizing “Zen is "pure experience" itself- the ahistorical, transcultural experience of "pure subjectivity" which utterly transcends discursive thought” (Sharf 107). He even further goes against Suzuki's emphasis on