首 页  |  中国禅学  |  禅学三书  |  慈辉论坛  |  佛学论文  |  最新上传  |  文学频道  |  佛缘论坛  |  留言簿   |

 管理登陆        吴言生 创办              图片中心    关于本网     佛教研究所 主办


  • 晋宋时代的禅经译出与禅法传播[113]

  • 佛教如何看待“爱情”与“欲望[122]

  • 为什么说“ 一失人身,万劫不复[112]

  • 心不要随着境界而动[103]

  • 论唐代的讲经仪轨[711]

  • 出家人眼里的爱和情什么样?两[140]

  • 佛学公案:谁是知音?[135]

  • 生命的最高境界[129]

  • 业障重时,念佛有多困难,你知[140]

  • 为什么要对出家师父的法名尊称[132]

  • 四大名山的四位菩萨带您领略人[180]

  • 佛经里最容易念错的10个字,你[117]



  • 本站推荐

    恭迎佛吉祥日·卫塞

    禅理:任何人的苦乐

    一禅一世界,一叶一


       您现在的位置: 佛学研究网 >> E3英文佛教 >> [专题]e3英文佛教 >> 正文


    Zen and Pragmatism--A Reply (Comment and Disussion)
     
    [ 作者: DAISETZ T. SUZUKI   来自:期刊原文   已阅:9407   时间:2007-1-16   录入:douyuebo


    ·期刊原文


    Zen and Pragmatism--A Reply (Comment and Disussion)

    DAISETZ T. SUZUKI

    Philosophy East and West 4, no. 2, JULY 1954.

    (c) by The University Press of Hawaii

    p.167-174


                                    p.167

                  WHEN  I READ Dr.  Ames's  able  and stimulating
            article,"Zen and Pragmatism,"(1) I regretted  that  I
            had  not  made  my  points  clear  enough  in  my Zen
            articles, but at the same  time  I was  thankful  for
            having  incited  him to prepare  such an illuminating
            paper.  I  realize  that  I  make  many  inconsistent
            statements   in   my   presentation   of  Zen,  which
            unfortunately   cause  my  readers  some  trouble  in
            understanding  Zen, In the following  I will  try  to
            give--in  brief-as much light as I can on my views so
            far made public. The one most-needed point in coming.
            around  to the Zen way  of viewing  reality  is that,
            negatively  stated, Zen  is where  we cannot  go  any
            further  in our ordinary  way of reasoning, and that,
            positively,  Zen   is  "pure   subjectivity."   "Pure
            subjectivity"  requites  a great deal of explanation,
            but I must be brief here.
                When  we  have  an experience, say,when  I see  a
            flower and when I begin to talk about this perception
            to others  or to myself, the  talk  inevitably  falls
            into two pans: "this side"  and "that  side."  '"That
            side" or "the other side"  refers  to the flower, the
            person  to whom the talk is communicated, and what is
            generally  called an external world, "This side".  is
            the talker  himself, that  is, "I" Zen takes  up this
            "I" as the subject  of its study.  What  is "I"? That
            is,who is the self  that  is engaged  in talking  (or
            questioning)? How does the talker  come to know  "me"
            when  I am the talker  himself? How can I make myself
            "him"? If I succeed, I am no more  "I" but  "he," and
            "he" cannot  be expected to know "me." As long as "I"
            am the talker, "I" am talking  about me not as myself
            but as somebody who stands beside or opposite me. The
            self  is  an ever-receding  one, one  who  is forever
            going away from the "self." The self can never be the
            self-in-itself  when  the self is made the object  of
            the talk.
                In other words, to talk or to question is an act,
            and so the talker or questioner is the actor. As soon
            as the actor begins to talk about himself, he,
            _____________________________________________________

            (1) Philosophy  East  and  West,  IV, No.  1  (April,
                1954), 19-33.


                                    p.168

            the  actor,  is  no  more  himself-he  turns  into  a
            projection;  he  becomes  a shadow  of  himself.  The
            talking  is always  about something, never  the thing
            itself.  However  much one may talk, the talking  can
            never  exhaust  the  thing.   However  minutely   and
            precisely  one may describe an apple or analyze it in
            every    possible    way,   chemically,   physically,
            botanically,  dietetically, or  even  metaphysically,
            the apple itself is never there in these descriptions
            or analyses  One must become the apple itself to know
            what it is--knowing  in  its   ordinary  sense is not
            knowing.
                To be more  exact, perhaps, the  self  cannot  be
            understood when it is objectified,  when  it  is  set
            up on the other  side  of experience  and not on this
            side. This is what I mean by "pure subjectivity." The
            psychologists  may talk about  the self  in terms  of
            structure, or Gestalt, or pattern  of combination, or
            something  else, but all these terms never touch  the
            "self" itself. The self escapes from all these meshes
            of  conceptualization  or  objectification.  But, for
            this  reason,  we  cannot  declare  "self"  to  be  a
            non-entity  or  a mere  emptiness, for  the  self  is
            always   asserting   itself   and  demanding   to  be
            recognized  as such.  This has been so ever since the
            awakening  of  consciousness, which  made  an ancient
            sage exclaim, "Know thyself!" The self has really  an
            unfathomable  meaning,  that  is,  the self can never
            be objectively defined or verified.  Anything subject
            to objectification  thereby limits itself and forever
            ceases to be itself.
                "I am that I am"(2)--whatever its original Hebrew
            meaning  may have been--is  the fittest name for God.
            It is the  "I am"  of "I am before  Abraham  was."(3)
            Metaphysically, this corresponds  to "Being is Being"
            or,   according   to   John   Donne,   "God   is   so
            omni-present... that God is an angel in an angel, and
            a stone  in a scene, and  a straw  in a straw."(4) "I
            am," or "I am that I am," or "a straw is a straw," or
            a mountain is a mountain"  is in my terminology  pure
            or absolute subjectivity.  But we must remember  that
            as  soon   as  this  passes   on  to  the  plane   of
            intellection all  turns  into  mete  verbalism.  Pure
            subjectivity   or  subjectum  is  a  person,  not  an
            abstraction.  There  fore,  it  hears,  it  sees,  it
            grasps, it runs, it even  gets angry, though  it does
            not forget smiling, too. It is the hands, feet, ears,
            and eyes.  When it is cold, it shivers;  when hot, it
            perspires. It sleeps and eats. It is Rinzai's "man of
            no title."  He is an altogether  lively  agent When a
            monk  asked, "What  is the  man  of no title?" Rinzai
            came down from the seat and, grasping the monk by the
            throat, commanded, "Speak, speak! " The  monk  failed
            to "speak"  whereupon  the Master, pushing  him away,
            declared, "What a dried-up dungscraper is this man of
            no title!"
            _____________________________________________________

            (3) Exodus 3:14.

            (4) John 8:58.

            (5) Sermon VII.


                                    p.169

                From the objective or "that-side"  point of view,
            Rinzai's  action may seem altogether  irrational  and
            unexplainable.  But Zen is not there; Zen is on "this
            side, "  and  does   not  want  to  be  rational   or
            explainable.  What it wants  is to have  us "get into
            it" and be it and the actor  himself.  When  this  is
            accomplishes, a certain state of consciousness arises
            and what is known as satori  takes  place.  From this
            satori   Zen  builds  up  its  philosophy.   Whatever
            objectivity  or  intellectualization  or  utilitarian
            purposefulness  there  is in Zen, it all starts  from
            this  satori  experience.  Where  this  is absent, we
            inevitably get involved in the interpretation  of the
            "that-side"   aspect   of,  for   instance,  Rinzai's
            declaration   of  the  "man  of  no  title"  and  the
            treatment  he accorded to the questioning  monk.  The
            "that-side"  aspect is mere superficiality  and never
            gives  us  the  inside  or the  "this-side"  view  of
            reality.  There  is  here  a storehouse  of  infinite
            richness,  filled  with  all  possibilities,  as  the
            Buddhist  would say, "endowed with values (gu.nas) as
            numerous  as the sands of the River Ganga." It is not
            emptiness  as is supposed  by some Western critics of
            Buddhism.  If it is  an  emptiness, it is one  filled
            with  abundance-it  is fullness  of things.  As it is
            full, it wants  to express  itself.  An empty  vessel
            never overflows.
                Kingyuu (Chin-niu) was one of the chief disciples
            of Baso (Ma-tsu, d. 788).  When the dinner hour came,
            he carried the rice-holder  up to the refectory  and,
            dancing  and  laughing,  made  the  announcement,  "O
            bodhisattvas, come  and  eat!" This, it  is recorded,
            was kept up by the venerable  elder for twenty gears.
            What did he mean?
                One  of the  commentators  remarks: "What  is the
            idea  of Kingyuu's  acting  in such  an extraordinary
            manner? If the dinner  hour  was to be announced, why
            did he not, as they ordinarily  do, strike  the board
            and beat the drum? What  did he mean by carrying  the
            rice-vessel  himself  and performing  strange antics?
            Did  he go insane? If he wanted  to demonstrate  Zen,
            why did he not go up to the Dharma-hall  and give his
            sermons formally  from the pulpit, probably  striking
            the chair  or raising  the hossu? What necessity  was
            there  for  him  to  resort  to  such  an  outlandish
            performance?
                "People  nowadays  fail  to understand  what  the
            ancient worthies had in their minds when they behaved
            strangely.  Did  not the first  patriarch  make  this
            unmistakable  declaration  when he first came to this
            country:  'A   special   transmission   outside   the
            suutra-teaching  which  is no other  than  the unique
            transmission  of the seal of mind'? Kingyuu's  upaaya
            (expediency) ,  too,  consists   in  making  you  see
            directly  into the meaning of things and in saying to
            yourselves,'Yes, yes, this is it!' "(5)
            _____________________________________________________

            (5) Yengo   (Y乤n-wu,  1566-1642) ,  author   of  the
                Hekigan-shu      (Pi-yen-chi)     ("Blue     Rock
                Collection").


                                    p.170

                No  doubt, Kingyuu's  behavior  came  out  of the
            exuberance  of his  satori  experience.  When  a monk
            later  asked  a Master  about  Kingyuu's  idea  of "O
            bodhisattvas, come and eat!" the Master answered, "It
            is much like celebrating  an  auspicious   event   by
            means  of  a  feast."  Still  later,  another  Master
            observes,   "What   auspicious   event   is   to   be
            celebrated!" All  these  remarks  point  to an  event
            taking place on "this side." If they were transferred
            to   "the   other    side"    for   an   intellectual
            interpretation, they would fail to yield any fruitful
            solution.  Zen Masters  always try to keep their eyes
            inwardly  on "this side," because it is hem that they
            get into "the moment of living" (sheng-chi, ネ诀 ).
                This  was not all, however;  there  was something
            more   in  Kingyuu's   gesture.   He  was   not  only
            self-expressive  but  communicative.  Seccho  of  the
            Sung Dynasty  comments: "It is all tight, but them is
            something  in Kingyuu  not altogether  of good will."
            (6) This  is the  Zen  way  of  commenting  on  other
            Masters  generally.  "Not of good will"  is not to be
            understood  in its literal sense.  "Not of good will"
            means "good will," for Kingyuu intended to help those
            hungry  "bodhisattvas"   awake  to  the  meaning   of
            reality, for which  they  were  searching.  The "good
            will"  becomes  "nor a good  will"  when them  is any
            unworthy motive behind it, for it vitiates everything
            it  touches.   Seccho   challenges  Kingyuu  somewhat
            playfully, as if to say, "Are  you really  free  from
            motives unworthy of a Zen student!"
                Seccho's    versified   comment   on  the   whole
            "case"(7) is given here in order  to demonstrate  how
            Zen deals with matters of pure subjectivity.

                  Behind a mass of white clouds a hearty laugh he
                  laughs;
                  Carried  by both  hands  it is delivered  up to
                  them.
                  If one were like a golden-haired lion,
                  Even   three   thousand   miles   away,  should
                  the  crookedness of things be seen.

            Is Kingyuu  merely making  the monks eat the rice? Or
            is there something  out of the ordinary besides chat!
            If a man could really understand  this  procedure, he
            would really be like a golden-haired  lion, and would
            not   be   waiting   for   Kingyuu  to  come  to  him
            carrying  the rice  bowl and dancing  about  He would
            know the whole business  even before  anything  is at
            all enacted.  Then the show would  not be worth  even
            the snapping  of fingers.  Therefore, the Masters are
            never  tired  of advising  us not  to be looking  for
            reality in words or letters.
                From  these  remarks, quoted  at random  from the
            original  Zen textbooks, we can see in what  kind  of
            mental or spiritual atmosphere those Masters
            _____________________________________________________

            (6) Hs乪h-tou, 980-1052.

            (7) Hekigan-shu, Case 74.


                                    p.171

            are living and enjoying  themselves.  We will also be
            able to observe, at least tentatively, that there  is
            a rich, field for study on "this side" of our everyday
            experience.  Even when we designate this field as the
            field  of  pure  experience, we cannot  see  the  Zen
            Masters t坱e-?t坱e.
                Let  us  now  proceed  to  see  "this  side,"  if
            possible, from its negative aspect.  For this purpose
            I will quote  another  "case"  from the Hekigan.(8) A
            monk asked Baso (Ma-tsu): "Apart  from every possible
            predicate  one can make  of reality, will  you kindly
            tell me directly without any medium what reality is?"
            This  is a rather  modern  rendering;  I have avoided
            giving a literal translation  of the original because
            it contains  some  allusions  to Zen tradition  which
            complicate  the  matter, and  we are  not  at present
            concerned  with them.  It is enough  if we know where
            the main  point  is, and  this  is that  the monk  is
            moving   on   the   other   side   of  our   everyday
            consciousness  or experience, that his standpoint  is
            one  of  objectivity  or  intellectualization,  where
            logic is the sovereign.  The monk knows that if a man
            made any kind of statement  about ultimate reality he
            would most decidedly meet the Master's opposition  or
            get a blow of his stick.  Therefore, taking  away the
            weapon  from the Master's  hand which  the latter  is
            most  likely  to use upon  him, he demands  that  the
            Master  give  him  a  direct, non-mediated, and  most
            concrete   presentation   of  what  goes  beyond  all
            affirmation and negation. If this question were given
            to  a philosopher  he  would  have  to  write  a book
            embodying  all his highly abstract  thoughts.  If the
            work were  handed  over  to the monk, the monk  would
            very likely commit it to the fire and say: '"There is
            still  something  left  untouched  in your work and I
            want that."  He may then extend  his hand and keep up
            his supplication, which is also his condemnation.  As
            long as we are on the other  side we can never  cease
            our search for a satisfying answer.
                How did Baso  meet  the dilemma  proposed  by the
            monk? The monk  was even ready  to snap  at him if he
            showed   any  sign  of  moving   this  way  or  that,
            negatively  or positively.  Baso  was  a perfect  Zen
            expert.  He knew  thoroughly  where  the monk  stood,
            because  as long  as the monk was wanting  to "catch"
            Baso, this very attitude  was the weakest spot, so to
            speak, on the monk's part.  Baso nonchalantly blurted
            out: "I don't feel well enough  today to answer  you.
            You had better  go to Chizo  the elder and ask him."
                Now the question  is: Did Baso the Master  really
            feel  tired  at the moment? Or did  he not feel  like
            arguing with the monk? Or was this daily triviality a
            real answer to the monk's metaphysical question?
                There is another series of question: Did the monk
            really want to get an
            _____________________________________________________

            (8) Ibid, Case 73.


                                    p.172

            answer from the Master  in the way of information  or
            did he want to see how the Master  would  respond  to
            his  most  puzzling  question? Was  the  monk  in  an
            attitude  of challenge, or merely  in the noviciate's
            frame of mind?
                The matter is not so simple as it appears. Yengo,
            one   of   the    commentators, puts  in his  bit  of
            observation: "If I were Baso, I would, as soon as the
            monk  finishes  his questioning, beat him hard on his
            back with the stick  and chase  him right  out of the
            room  and see  if he came  to a realization  or not."
            Yengo  does  not stop here, however, but goes on: "If
            I, on the  other  hand, were  the monk, I would, when
            Base ends  his talk,  spread   my  seat-cloth  before
            him and make bows to him and see how the Master would
            behave."
                In actuality  the monk  did not proceed  as Yengo
            suggested.   To   all  appearance he obediently  went
            to Chizo   (Chih-tsang) the elder as directed  by the
            Master and asked him the same question  as he did the
            Master.  Chizo   said, "Why  not ask the Master?" The
            monk said, "It is the Master  himself  who sent me to
            you."  Thereupon  Chizo   told  the  monk, "I have  a
            headache today and am unable to answer you.  I advise
            you to go to Yekai  (Hui-hai), our elder brother, and
            ask him about it."
                The monk, like an innocent  child, went  to Yekai
            as told  by  Chizo  and asked  him the same question.
            Yekai said, "As to that, I am unable  to give you any
            answer."
                The monk  now did not know  what  to do but to go
            back  to  Baso  the  Master  and  report   the  whole
            procedure to him. The Master did not make any special
            comment, but simply said this: "The grey-haired   Zo,
            the dark-haired Kai."
                What  does  all this mean? From  the intellectual
            point  of view it does not make sense in any possible
            way.  It started with a highly metaphysical  question
            in regard  to the nature  of reality.  The monk  knew
            that  any  proposition  one can make  about  it would
            never hit the mark, as it refuses  to be caught up by
            the  hook  of verbalism.  But  without  appealing  to
            reason and language what way is left for human beings
            to find  reality? None  of the  consultants  the monk
            went to helped  him, as far as he could  see.  He was
            evidently  like most of us whose efforts  are to have
            the problem  solved  on "the other side" of our daily
            experience.  What did those three  Zen experts  mean,
            after  all,  by  appearing   to  avoid  giving   some
            reasonable, or  coherent, or  at  least  common-sense
            answer  to the poor monk who was earnestly  in search
            of  the  truth?  To  cap  all  those  "apologies"  or
            "excuses"  not to give  the monk  at least  something
            intelligible, we  have  the  Master's  final  verdict
            regarding  the two elder's hair or head.  Is this not
            astounding? Who would


                                    p.173

            ever  have expected  in Zen to see such an anticlimax
            to the all-seriousness  of the monk's quest after the
            ultimate reality?
                When Baso the Master's  final sentence is read in
            English we may say it yields some meaning, though not
            in connection  with  the monk's  question.  Now Yengo
            tells   us  that   "the   dark-haired   Kai  and  the
            grey-haired   Zo"  is to be comprehended  in the same
            light as the following statement also made by Baso to
            Ho,  the lay devotee.(9) Ho  once  asked  Baso: "What
            kind  of man is he who goes  companionless?" This  is
            like asking  about  God, we might  say, or about  the
            Absolute, because either goes without  any companion,
            has no mate  to  go  with,  is  altogether  free  and
            independent. Baso's answer was, "I will tell you when
            you drink  up in one draught  the whole river  of Sei
            (Hsi)." In what possible relationship can this advice
            stand to the hair-color  of the two elders? As far as
            "the  other  side"  or the objectivity  of things  is
            concerned, we find absolutely  nothing between Baso's
            two statements: the one about  drinking  up the whole
            river and the other about the kind of hair the elders
            have.  How could they be connected? But Yengo insists
            that  one is to be read  in the  light  of the other.
                Yengo  further  advises  us  that  if we wish  to
            understand   Zen  we  must  cut  all  the  roots   of
            thinking(10) and look all by ourselves into the right
            vein of-things(11) and then for the first  time be at
            home with ourselves. And again he will remark: "It is
            like  swinging  the  sword  in the  air: it does  not
            matter how far or how near it hits.  Only let us take
            hold  of  [reality]  where  there  is  clearness  and
            transparency  on all  sides."  Where, let  me ask, is
            this  clearness  and transparency  where  we can come
            face face  with  reality? It is no other  than  where
            absolute  emptiness  ('suuyataa) is, which means  the
            limit  of objectivity, where "the other side"  can go
            no further: this  is where  pure subjectivity  reigns
            supreme.  And this is where  the meaningless  phrase,
            "the  dark-haired  Kai and the grey-haired   Zo," has
            its full meaning.
                Now let  us listen  to what  Seccho   has  in his
            versified commentary on this "case" on negativity:

                  Zoto byaku Kai-to koku!(12)
                  Even  for  the clear-eyed  monks, difficult  to
                  understand!
                  Horse the Master(13) treads over all the people
                  of the world;
                  Compared  with  him, Rinzai  is  not  quite  an
                  expert pickpocket.
                  Away  from  the  four  phrases  and beyond  one
                  hundred negations
                  [where do we go],
                  Heavens above, humans below,  it  is  'I' alone
                  who knows."
            _____________________________________________________

            (9)  'P'ang Ch?shih,  of  the  latter  half  of  the
                 thirteenth century.

            (10) 種  i-k坣.

            (11) タń chang mai li.

            (12) In Chinese: Tsang-t'on pal Hai-t'on bei!

            (13) Ba (so) means " a horse.


                                    p.174

                An ancient  Zen  master  says: "Don't  ask me any
            question, for the answer is where the question  comes
            from."   You  may  go  around   with  your  question,
            metaphysical  or otherwise, among all the Buddhas  of
            the past,present, and future, and you  will  not  get
            any  satisfactory  answer, for  it is you  alone  who
            holds the key to your question.  However  far you may
            go on "the other side," the realm of objectivity  has
            its limit, and when  you come  to it, the only  thing
            you can do is to make  a leap  over it.  And the leap
            will bring you back to where you started.  "The other
            side"  is nowhere  else  but  "this  side."  "Heavens
            above, humans below, it is 'I' alone who knows." This
            questioner, negator, talker, and writer-they all come
            back to "I," whoever this may be.  They have traveled
            so many miles  away  from  home--all  in a dream, for
            when awakened "I" finds itself at the same old place.
                When negation  after negation  was carried in our
            metaphysical quest for reality all that we discovered
            was that there was nothing on "the other side" except
            the negator himself. But the negator could not negate
            himself,  which   would   mean   suicide,  and   this
            self-killing   is  something  a  man  as  man  cannot
            execute, because  what  he  thinks  he  has  finished
            killing is not himself but his conceptualized shadow,
            which, like a phantom, always follows the real self.
                As long as conceptualization  goes on, there will
            be no discovery  of the real self.  The self is to be
            sought  where it is cozily  settled  at home, perhaps
            looking at the cucumbers  or the beans, after a day's
            work  in his  vegetable  garden.  So, when  the  monk
            approached, he was  really  too  tired  to stare  his
            "intellectual"  activities.  Let the monk mumble  the
            "Zoto   byaku  Kai-to  koku" for several  times as if
            it were a mystic phrase (dhaara.nii);  his "self' may
            be discovered laughing behind a mass of white clouds.
                If Dr. Ames and other scholars who are interested
            in Zen were able to shift  once  for all the position
            on "the other side" of out daily experience and visit
            "this  side," where  Zen has its abode, they would, I
            am sure, understand  all that I have so  far tried to
            elucidate,  and  see  where  my  inconsistencies  and
            contradictions come from.  I may have occasion again,
            I hope, to elaborate  more fully the subject  which I
            have rather summarily treated here.
           

     

     【关闭窗口
    相关文章:
  • 修行不一定要打坐,可是打坐能帮助你修行[333]

  • 禅宗现代转型的发展路向及其启示[378]

  • 禅宗的特色、作略和风格[403]

  • 现代禅学顿渐关系的重构及其取径与概念[420]

  • 刘禹锡的诗与禅[345]

  • 禅宗与中国传统士人思想及其诗歌创作的互动[423]

  • 为什么在佛教的众多流派中,禅宗能一枝独秀?[632]

  • 从《坛经》看禅宗的智慧[871]

  • 禅宗最后立宗的法眼宗 它的教禅圆融观有何特点?[774]

  • 禅宗“打禅七”与净土宗“打佛七”的异同[992]

  • 王阳明的思想与禅宗有什么关系[1044]

  • 六祖惠能大师诞辰纪念日:一花开五叶,结果自然成[1175]

  • 禅宗“不立文字”的因缘探析[676]

  • 网络热词“呵呵”竟是佛教用语![1033]

  • 达摩祖师诞辰 一起学习祖师留下的最重要四句偈[990]

  • 一句话阐明禅宗要旨,这里面说了什么?[1078]

  • 从庄子到禅宗对中国人生哲学的建构[947]

  • 禅宗对佛教中国化的影响[1260]

  • 西夏大手印法与禅宗关系考——以《大乘要道密集》为中心[1141]

  • 禅宗公案:你从哪里来[1054]

  •  
    设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 联系站长 | 友情链接 | 版权申明 | 管理登录 | 
    版权所有 Copyright© 2005 佛学研究        站长:wuys
    Powered by:Great Tang Hua Wei & XaWebs.com 2.0(2006)