Going beyond self concern necessarily leads to states that cannot be described in language constructed around pronouns,

p.567

verbs and nouns.　In the end the rhetoric of Zen is metaphorical or poetic often making use of actions or signs we can no longer interpret since we are not party to a particular ancient culture.　Thus the knock about that masters seemed to so enjoy and the rough speech carry implicit meanings we can today often barely grasp.　Yet the matter is not intrinsically mysterious, the psychology of self transcendence, the abandonment of self concern, underlies the path, the view and the result.　In Buddhism all this has received detailed philosophical attention much of which has striking resemblance to Western theories of mind in psychotherapy (Crook 1980, Katz 1983, Crook and Fontana Katz 1990).

　　 Momentary insights need to be related to an ongoing manner of life before a practice can be said to be mature.　After “seeing the nature” many ancient masters remained in training often for years.　In traditions less subitist than Suzuki’s there is nothing strange about this.　While insight is characteristically sudden, the maturation and digestion of meaning may take a long time.　The ignorance of self concern is not resolved in a moment.　It takes time, and time is discourse, time is history.　There are many methods for the personal elucidation of Zen and one is not necessarily superior to another.　Rather, these differences often relate to individual capacities.　Roshi Kennett once remarked how in her Soto monastery in Japan a monk who was not doing well might be referred to a Rinzai master──and vice versa.

　　 It is important always to remember the returning line in the Heart Suutra.　“Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.”  The early Suzuki and those who followed him tend to forget the second line.　All forms and experiences are ultimately “empty” but the expression of emptiness is through these very forms.　The two are indivisible.

The Contribution of Chan

　　 Master Sheng-yen teaches in the lineages of both the Lin-chi (Rinzai) and Tsao-tung (Soto) traditions.　In particular he has

p.568

inherited the eclectic approach of the great Master Hsu-yun who, at the turn of the century, revived Buddhism in China after a long period of neglect.　As many schools and lineages had disappeared Hsu-yun made use of the surviving traditions of both Pure Land and Chan to produce a valuable synthesis that is both deeply rooted and flexible.

　　 On retreat with Master Sheng-yen the practitioner may choose a method of meditation the use of which is negotiated in interview.　Watching the breath, Koan and Silent Illumination are all taught.　But Sheng-yen does not believe in meditation instruction without a thorough understanding of the concepts that lie behind it.　He teaches his followers not only how to sit but why sitting is helpful to realising a Dharma understanding.　His talks range widely from the sayings of the Buddha through the Sutras and Zen dialogues to koan texts and philosophical works.　He argues that meditation without conceptual understanding is a very limited activity and that attainment of insight requires both.　To Master Sheng-yen, Chan is a Buddhism of exceptional clarity that seeks to fulfil the Buddha’s intentions in opting to teach his realisation to the world.　Today most Chinese buddhists frequently refer to their practice as Chan but few concentrate on insight so strongly as Master Sheng-yen.　Other groups are more concerned with charitable works and chanting in the style of the Pure Land sect.

　　 While Master Sheng-yen agrees that insightful experiences akin to the transcendence of self in Zen occur in many spiritual traditions, Christianity, Sufism etc, he states that the enlightenment of which the Buddha spoke depends on realisation within an understanding of the Zen view.　In particular this means an experiential insight into the emptiness of all phenomena including both self and universe.　His teaching is thus based in the Praj~naapaaramitaa and Maadhyamaka insights of Buddhism and their development in Chinese thought emphasising the Tathaagatagarbha as the root of mind.　Although I have not discussed the point with

p.569

him in depth, I doubt whether he would consider an insightful experience of no-self within Christian Zen as “seeing the nature” (kensho) unless the God of the practitioner was perceived as “empty.”　And this of course would be a tall order for most Christian believers although less problematic for those versed in apophatic theology and contemplation.

　　 Master Sheng-yen completed his own training in Japan studying for a doctorate at Rissho University and sitting traditional retreats.　On coming to America he brought with him both the koan tradition and the methods of Silent Illumination.　Whereas Suzuki rejected the latter as a useful path, Master Sheng-yen has in recent years taught this approach increasingly beginning in Wales in 1989.　He has presented Silent Illumination retreats in Poland, Russia, Croatia and Sweden and in 1999 in Berlin where his coverage of the subject was exceptionally complete.　We may argue therefore that it is through his teaching of Silent Illumination that Master Sheng-yen is making a profound contribution to European Zen.