It would not be amiss to treat dhyana (Ch., ch’an; Jp., zen) and the Greek word, theoria, which we know in English as “theory”, as members of the same family. According to Plato, theoria is direct knowledge of ‘what is’. This is what dhyana means, also. To use the analogy of eating a hot red pepper, to directly engage with the taste of that red pepper so as to know its hotness is theoria. By the same token, in Zen practice we wish to be directly acquainted with the pure Mind if only to stick our toe in its divine waters. This is heart of Zen.
Presented in a slightly different way, the chief object of dhyanic or theoretic knowing is apperception of the absolute, or the same, the Buddha-nature. By no means is this to be confused with comparative or discursive knowing which is the work of reason. Dhyanic comprehension is higher than whatever reason may plant and harvest from the field of samsara. As to why reason is inferior to dhyana, it is because it operates on behalf of the body and its relationship with the external world. It is also tied to language and definitional knowledge. Of course, reason has its place in Zen. But it can never directly contemplate (dhyana) our true nature.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.