P.51

　　 This  ambitious   paper   should   be  taken   as  merely
preliminary and exploratory in nature.  I cannot obviously do
justice to such a multi- faceted subject in a single essay. I
should therefore like to present in basic outline a framework
in which Zen and Taoism  can be seen under a better  light so
as to foster  proper perspectives  on each and thereby  their
ultimate relationship. Though scholars in the field recognize
basic  differences  in the two  systems, still, in discussing
either one or both, the analysis  invariably  concludes  with
certain common elements  that give rise to a false impression
that the two are identical or nearly so. On the surface, both
layman  and expert  may not see any differences  at all.  But
beneath it there are certain differences that must be
perceived  and acknowledged, i.e., the format  of the systems
in terms of the quest for reality may manifest an illusion of
sameness.  We must always be on guard against being misled by
the  unique   forms   that   adduce   similar   contents   of
experience.(1)
　　 D. T.   Suzuki  tells  us  that  there  are  eight  chief
characteristics  of  satori  or enlightenment: irrationality,
intuitive  insight,  authoritarianism, affirmation, sense  of
the  beyond,  impersonal  tone,  feeling  of  exaltation  and
momentariness.(2) The Taoist  would be very much at home with
all  of them, each  amplifying  in great  detail  the  Taoist
experience  without stirring  up any controversy  between the
two systems.  Yet  the  differences  are there  for both  the
Taoist and the Zennist, although not in clearly definable and
analyzable   terms.   Still,  there  are  common  grounds  of
discourse that point at "something universal,"  the "finality
of existence, " a "suprarelative  or transcendental aspect, "
the "infinite  expansion of the individual"  and "a new vista
of existence."(3)
　　 Our initial  mission  then is to seek  a common  focus, a
common ground upon which we may treat the two systems. I will
employ Suzuki s

P.52　　　　　　　　　　 

eighth characteristic, momentariness, to show us the way.  In
both systems, the momentary nature of our experience is taken
to  be the  basis  of all  existential  modes  as well  as of
valuation.  It is the fountainhead  of everything  human  and
humanly  possible;  to ignore it and to regard experience  as
static  is not only naive but to indulge  in a falsehood  and
abstraction  that veers away from reality  itself.  The great
non-Asiatic metaphysician Alfred N.  Whitehead, in one of his
rare  insightful  moments  concerning  religion, stated  that
"that-religion will conquer which can render clear to popular
understanding some eternal greatness incarnate in the passage
of temporal  fact."(4) Both Zen and Taoism have already  con-
quered  the minds  of Asians  (and  many non-Asians, too, for
that  matter)  by  simply   rendering   clear  "some  eternal
greatness  incarnate  in the passage  of temporal  fact." Had
Whitehead  fully known the message of both Zen and Taoism, he
most  certainly  would  have  attached  a  footnote  to  that
statement.  We today  can  stand  witness  to his  propriety,
albeit from a purely Western point of view.
　　 In Buddhism, Zen being a crystallized version of Buddhist
thought, the point of departure  in understanding  the nature
of the experiencing self is its impermanent character
(anitya).  Thus  understood, the self  no longer  assumes  an
abstract   static  nature  but,  paradoxically   enough,  the
non-substantive, non-self  (anaatman) nature.  The  foregoing
statement, to be sure, is extremely  difficult for the layman
to accept, much less grasp, because his understanding  begins
and ends  within  the self-created  prison  walls  of alleged
entities, such entities  as the logical  entities  which have