--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism, Second Series (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1952), p. 220.

18. D. T. Suzuki, "The Philosophy of Zen," p. 4.

19. Ibid., p. 5.

p. 23

important than any doing, done or undone. Suzuki might seem to subscribe to the last, but he finds it quite wrong to identify Zen with quietism. It is a strenuous quest. And while the enlightenment, called satori, which it seeks is neither psychology nor philosophy in any usual sense, and is said to, be not at all intellectual, even incomprehensible, it calls for serious, desperate exertion in the spirit of inquiry. Suzuki speaks of this in connection with the koan exercises that have been used to keep Zen from degenerating into quietism or into a merely intellectual understanding. The baffling koan statement is not to be received passively, and not to be meditated on, but used as a pole for vaulting over relativity "to the other side of the Absolute." [20]

III
　　 Zen's paradoxical existentialist-sounding language might be dismissed as mystifying, if not for the age-old and renewed testimony that there is something of great significance here, to be rediscovered and found the one thing worth communicating, though scarcely to be expressed Suzuki reports the twelfth-century Tai-hui as calling the end of striving a plunge into the unknown with the cry, "Ah, this!" and declaring that all the scriptures are merely commentaries upon that cry. [21]

　　 In his 1951 paper Suzuki comes back to this rapturous grasp of the present moment as the experience of 'suunyataa, when its mistakenly supposed negative character is seen to be the altogether positive quality of tathataa or suchness. "Tathataa is the viewing of things as they are," he says, reaffirming Ma-tsu's "everyday thought" about everyday experience as "the highest teaching of Buddhist philosophy." And in this connection Suzuki grants: '"The tathataa-concept is what makes Zen approach pragmatism and existentialism: they all accept experience as the basis of their theorization." But then he says: "Zen, however, is different in a most significant way from pragmatism: Whereas pragmatism appeals to the practical usefulness of truth, that is, the purposefulness of our action, Zen emphasizes the purposelessness of work or being detached from teleological consciousness, or, as Zen characteristically expresses it, not leaving any trace behind as one lives one's life." [22]

　　 But has not Suzuki fallen into a misapprehension of pragmatism which has too often led to very unfair misrepresentation! There have been turns of phrase in pragmatic writing which, out of context, lend color to such a judgment. James spoke of the cash-value of ideas. He and Peirce and Dewey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism, Second Series, pp. 82, 84, 96, 97 (note).

21. Ibid., p. 93.

22. D. T. Suzuki, The Philosophy of Zen," pp. 6, 7.

p. 24

have emphasized problem-solving. They appealed to results. But James made clear that his "cash-value" was just vivid idiom, borrowed from the market place, for the efficacy of ideas, especially when he denounced what he called "the bitch goddess success." Dewey was annoyed that Russell, who knew better, perversely identified pragmatism with commercialism and the doctrine of might be right. The pragmatist simply seeks to know and do what is good and right in human situations, when they an generalized enough to be thought about, without losing touch more than is unavoidable with their particularity, their suchness. This involves solving problems, finding effective means, seeking results. The pragmatist identifies this procedure with science and social techniques. The Zen Buddhist belongs to a pre-scientific tradition of highly private questing, albeit stimulated by monastery fellowship and old masters. But is one more teleological or practical than the other?

　　 It is strange for Suzuki to hold against the pragmatist a concern for "the practical usefulness of truth" [23] Zen Buddhism is proudly practical in accepting experience as its basis. The mondo and the koan are recommended for their usefulness, in the search for enlightenment, Suzuki speaks of what will lead to 'suunyataa; he talks about going beyond mere reasoning and of what is defeating or futile in reasoning. Here is one teleological expression after another. And it sounds practical in "view things as they are." The market, with its buying and selling, is often mentioned in Zen writing as one of the things that are, as much as the affirmed tree, bird, mountain, or flower. If "everyday thought" is the ultimate Tao, what is more "everyday" than seeking what is satisfying, avoiding what is not?

　　 The typical "everyday thought" for Zen and Suzuki is: "I sleep when I am tired, I eat when I am hungry." [24] What could be more teleological, if what is meant is that I sleep because I am tired and eat because I am hungry, which is to say that I sleep for the purpose of resting and eat in order to be filled? If Suzuki replies that there is no separation of means and ends here, no conscious thought of doing something for the sake of something else, Dewey would agree; he always maintained that in normal living there is or should be a coalescence of means and ends. For him, the purpose of problem-solving thought is simply to restore a happy absorption of purpose in what is done for its own sake. This would seem to be much the same as what Suzuki means by a "non-teleological interpretation of life," which he presents as the insight to be attained, the end and goal of living, beyond the limitations of "time, relativity, causality, morality, and so on." [25] The differ-