Zen has a history. It also has a religious core which is better described as introspective or spiritual science. Zen’s history and its religious core need be kept separate, One comes through Chinese culture, the other, the religious or spiritual core, concerns seeing what the Buddha saw, directly.
For the present, I put the historical context of Zen or Chan into two general groups. The first group is pre-Song dynasty documents which includes documents found at the Dunhuang caves. The second group is made up of Song dynasty Chan texts (e.g., yulu, denglu, koans) derived from the Zutang ji (952) and Chuandeng lu (1004) and other Song textual sources.
From the second group we find the popular image of Zen that we have today which is really the product of the Fayan and the Linji schools, in that order, which are Song. We can think of the two groups as separated by a ‘document gap’ in which the notable difference is the first group is very obviously tied to the sutras and Mahayana Buddhism whereas the second is poetic and somewhat iconoclastic, although still wedded to Buddhism.
Where the two groups are inseparable is both acknowledge that Zen’s main goal for the individual is that they spiritually see their true nature (kensho). Less than this there is no authentic Zen. Unfortunately, this inseparability is only understood and acknowledged by those who have seen their true nature. The unchecked tendency is to move to the historical side of Zen and turn it into an institution.
At some point we have to get it into our heads that Zen is little more than a school of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism which emphasizes spiritual introspection leading to direct gnosis of pure Mind which is our true nature. What we believe to be historical forms are symbolic; not to be taken at a literal level. All the works of Zen are meant to inspire us to look deeply within, more than we can imagine.
Comments