William R. LaFleur

Zen Is not a Philosophy, but…

Religion is difficult to understand with sufficient depth and subtlety. Zen is no exception. In one sense, Zen may be said to be one of the most difficult religions to understand, for there is no formulated Zen doctrine or theological system by which one may intellectually approach it. Accordingly, it is not surprising to find various superficial understandings or misunderstandings of Zen among Westerners interested in Zen, whose cultural and religious traditions are entirely different from those in which Zen has developed.

Dōgen on Buddha-Nature

Dōgen (1200–53) is one of the most outstanding and distinctive figures in the history of Japanese Buddhism. He is unique in at least the following three senses.

Flowing Traces@@@Flowing Traces: Buddhism in the Literary and Visual Arts of Japan.

According to the contributors to this volume, the relationship of Buddhism and the arts in Japan is less the rendering of Buddhist philosophical ideas through artistic imagery than it is the development of concepts and expressions in a virtually inseparable unity. By challenging those who consider religion to be the primary phenomenon and art the secondary arena for the apprehension of religious meanings, these essays reveal the collapse of other dichotomies as well. Touching on works produced at every social level, they explore a set of connections within Japanese culture and move to re-envision such usual distinctions as religion and art, sacred and secular, Buddhism and Shinto, theory and substance, elite and popular, and even audience and artist.

Religion Challenged by Modern Thought

When religion began is a difficult question to answer. Roughly speaking, we may say that we can trace religion’s origin back to the time when the human being came to exist. Since then, throughout human history, hardly anyone has doubted the necessity of religion for human beings. But in the past few centuries, doubts about religion itself have arisen. Questions such as ‘Is religion truly indispensable to man?’ and ‘Cannot human being live his or her life without religion?’ and ‘Is religion not, perhaps, an obstacle to human progress?’ have been raised. It may be said that it was sometime during the nineteenth century that these doubts developed into a radical questioning of the necessity of religion itself. Of course criticism of a particular religion had been made since ancient times. But the fundamental significance of religion as such for man had not always been questioned. In the West, some questions about religion were brought out during the Age of Enlightenment. But religion at that time was not questioned in the same way as it is now. People in the time of the Enlightenment criticized religion for its world-view and its understanding of nature. But, even then they probably did not doubt the significance of religion for the human soul.

The End of World Religion

To begin with I would like to clarify the implications of my title. The word ‘end’ has at least two meanings: it means ‘limit’, ‘boundary’, or ‘ceasing to be’, and ‘aim’, ‘objective’, ‘purpose’, or ‘reason for being’. In the first sense, it is somewhat negative, referring to a spatial, temporal, or existential limit of some kind. The second, more positive, meaning signifies a direction to move toward, a final goal to be attained, or an ultimate reason to be realized. This double implication gives a dynamic ambiguity quite appropriate to the present purpose, for I wish to discuss the limitations of ‘world religions’ in their present forms and the authentic form of the ‘world religion’ to be realized in the future.

Self-Awakening and Faith — Zen and Christianity

The dialogue between Zen and Christianity has been becoming more serious and important during the past decade or so. Those of us involved in it are pleased with this development because we maintain that such a dialogue is necessary for the development of mutual understanding between East and West.

Zen and Nietzsche

Nietzsche says: ‘God is a sacred lie (eine heilige Luge).’1 He is not saying that ‘God is a lie’ as many atheists and anti-religionists do. Rather, he affirms that God is ‘the sacred’. In that respect, Nietzsche is in agreement with religionists who believe in God. But, Nietzsche does not stop there. He in effect says: ‘God is sacred. And yet, God is a lie precisely in being sacred.’ Nietzsche’s statement should be understood in this fashion.

Religion and Science in the Global Age — Their Essential Character and Mutual Relationship

It is almost impossible to deal with a problem of the magnitude of ‘Religion and Science in the Global Age’ in its full scale and depth. Nevertheless I would like to discuss what I consider essential to the issue and elucidate it from a Buddhist point of view.

True Person and Compassion — D. T. Suzuki’s Appreciation of Lin-chi and Chao-chou

In memory of Daisetz Teitarō Suzuki (1870–1966), I would like here to consider his appreciation and interpretation of the Lin-chi Lu1 and the Chao-chou Lu2 on the basis of what Suzuki regarded as the idea of ‘man’ or ‘person’ (nin in Japanese, jen in Chinese), an idea he found common to both works. The Lin-chi Lu and Chao-chou Lu are two Zen classics recording respectively the sayings of Lin-chi I-hsuan (Ja: Rinzai Gigen, d. 866) and Chao-chou Ts’ung-shen (Ja: Jōshu Jūshin, 778–897). Traditionally called ‘King of Zen Records’,3 Suzuki once remarked that the Lin-chi Lu is ‘regarded by many as the strongest Zen treatise we have.’4 Yet, the collection of Zen sayings and anecdotes he prized most was the Chao-chou Lu, which, in Suzuki’s evaluation not only possesses the same vital Zen realization as does the Lin-chi Lu, but also expresses vividly the compassionate aspect of Zen.

Emptiness is Suchness

Buddhists emphasize ‘Emptiness’ and say that everything is empty. Although this is a very important point for Buddhism in general and for Zen in particular, I am afraid that it is quite misleading, ox at least very difficult to understand, particularly for the Western mind. So I think that ‘everything is empty’ may be more adequately rendered in this way: ‘Everything is just as it is.’ A pine tree is a pine tree; a bamboo is a bamboo; a dog is a dog; a cat is a cat; you are you; I am I; she is she. Everything is different from everything else. And yet, while everything and everyone retain their uniqueness and particularity, they are free from conflict because they have no self-nature. This is the meaning of the saying that everything is empty.