p.566

　　 If this relation between language, temporality and experience did not exist it would be impossible for the Masters even to speak of enlightenment as the outcome of an event in the past──the time when the Buddha sat down beneath the Bodhi tree.　Wright (1998) says:

A dialectical relationship between the practice of thought and Zen experience is essential to the tradition.　Thought pushes experience further, opens up new dimensions for it, and refines what comes to experience.　Experience pushes thought further, opens up new dimensions for thinking and sets limits to its excursions.　The brilliance of Zen thinking is its tentative and provisional character, the “non-abiding,” “non-grasping,” mind.　Knowing through thought that all thought is empty, Zen masters have explored worlds of reflection unavailable to other traditions──playfully “thinking” what lies beneath common sense.

　　 The Zen objection to Sutra reading and study lies in the perception that idealising theories and models of mind create forms of mental closure as “beliefs,” thereby preventing the exploration of experience that is itself the essence of the quest; an exploration that goes beyond language to where pre-theoretical and pre-discursive understanding operate.　Since the time of the Buddha the nature of the self has been the key problem.　A profound psychological analysis in phenomenological form underlies the practice and is treated at length in the La.nkaavataara Suutra of which Suzuki himself provides the major translation and commentary.　It is of course not essential for a practitioner to know this, he may simply practice, but the cultural roots exist for him within the meditation instructions he will be given or the koans he may be set.　Yet to abandon understanding for rhetoric alone may quickly become a confusing practice.

　　 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.