p. 63 Following the lead of Daisetz T. Suzuki, the authors of almost all English-language commentaries on Zen Buddhism are in general agreement that Zen is not a philosophy. The primary purpose of this paper is to show how and why this view is fundamentally mistaken and that the continued espousal of it is counterproductive for furthering an understanding of any facet of Zen, philosophical or otherwise.

However divergent their opinions on what Zen Buddhism is, the major commentators on the subject concur in asserting that it is not a philosophy. For example:

From Alan Watts:

Zen Buddhism is a way and a view of life which does not belong to any of the formal categories of modern Western thought. It is not religion or philosophy; it is not a psychology or a type of science. [1]

Buddhism in general and Zen in particular are essentially "non-mental."
Man only attains "correct vision" from the moment when no idea, no "fabrication" of the mind any longer comes between him and the fact. But were we to take what has just been said as a "philosophical" position, we would be beside the question. [2]

Zen is anything but a philosophy in the Western sense of the word.[3]

Strictly speaking, there cannot be a philosophy of suchness, because suchness defies a clear-cut definition as an idea. When it is presented as an idea it is lost; it turns into a shadow, and any philosophy built on it will be a castle in the sand. [4]
Zen is not explainable by mere intellectual analysis. As long as the intellect is concerned with words and ideas, it can never reach Zen. [5]
It goes without saying that Zen is neither psychology nor philosophy. [6]

[Zen] is an example of what is known in India and China as a "way of liberation," and is similar in this respect to Taoism, Vedanta and Yoga. As will soon be obvious, a way of liberation can have no positive definition. [7]

The role of transcendental [Zen] wisdom consists not in conditioning the human mind but in liberating it. All doctrines using symbols and clichés enslave it... [8]

Admittedly (although a case might be made for it), Western philosophical systems are not usually considered to be liberation — or salvation-oriented. But we may grant this point without being thereby committed to maintaining that Zen is only a way of salvation. It is certainly possible, indeed desirable, to study critically the ways in which other peoples have looked at the world; p. 65 it is not necessary for a person to want to become a Muslim before he can profit from reading the Koran. Nor of course are the principles of Islam exempt from philosophical scrutiny merely because it too offers a way of liberation or salvation. The same point applies with even greater force to the Judaic-Christian religions, which have had such an enormous influence on Western philosophy. In sum, from the mere premise that Zen is a means of liberation or salvation we can derive no conclusions regarding its philosophical attributes, or lack thereof.

Further, that some at least of the beliefs of Zen Buddhists are philosophical beliefs is strongly evidenced by other statements of the Zen commentators themselves, such as the following from Suzuki:

... while Nature is the limit of objectivity beyond which our ontology cannot go, the ontological limit is the psychological limit, and vice versa. [9]
It is not the object of Zen to look illogical for its own sake, but to make people know that logical consistency is not final... [10]
Metaphysically stated, we can say that a persistent appeal to the spirit of inquiry is based on a firm faith in the working of Buddha-nature in every individual being. [11]
The epistemology of Zen is, therefore, not to resort to the mediumship of concepts. [12]

Terms like "ontology," "logical consistency," "metaphysically," and "epistemology" are clearly philosophical terms in the quoted passages Suzuki is making assertions about the nature of reality, human nature, and the scope and objects of human knowledge. Nor can these assertions be considered isolated curiosities; on the contrary, the commentaries of Suzuki and many of his colleagues contain a large number of assertions of just this kind. Whether or not these and similar assertions are true is not now relevant; they are all philosophical assertions, and if Suzuki is correct in making them in the name of Zen Buddhism, it follows that Zen Buddhism does contain a large number of philosophical beliefs, and hence is to that extent correctly called a philosophy. Moreover, it is difficult to quarrel with this conclusion, for on other occasions Suzuki reaches it himself:

As the philosophy of Zen is to transcend the dualistic conception of flesh and spirit... [13]
... the discipline of Zen has a great moral value outside its philosophy. [14]
p. 66 The philosophy of Zen avoids the error of one-sidedness involved in realism as well as in idealism. [15]
As we can see here and elsewhere, the uniqueness of Zen philosophy consists in offering... [16]

This conclusion is so obvious that it is hard to believe either (a) that Suzuki and his fellow commentators were able to overlook it or ignore it when asserting that Zen is not a philosophy: or (b) that the commentators were so concerned to emphasize the fact that Zen is also a way of liberation that they were willing to contradict themselves to make the point. Why else, then, might they have considered it important to insist that Zen Buddhism is not a philosophy?

To develop this question further we must turn our attention to the central figures in the rise of Zen Buddhism, the masters. These thoroughgoing individualists seem to leap rather than march through the pages of Chinese and Japanese history, and it has been largely due to their teachings and the personal examples of their lives that Zen has not degenerated into an esoteric, world-negating religious sect. Yet it must be admitted that the literature of Zen contains few, if any, statements from several important masters which can be considered philosophical statements. That is to say, when examining these texts, we find that a number of masters are not quoted as making statements like: "I believe that sense-data are a sign of the existence of physical objects;" or, "The mind is nothing but a bundle of perceptions." Rather, the only record we have of their assertions would, in English, more nearly resemble the following: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" or, "Have a cup of tea;" or "Kwatz!"

Developing this theme, Suzuki, for instance, occasionally argues that the Zen masters had no philosophical beliefs and made no philosophical assumptions, and he tries to establish the point by appealing to a general lack of philosophical proselytization and disputation in the literature. [17] Hence we may have another reason for the commentators going to great lengths to insist that the distinguishing beliefs and attitudes of Zen Buddhists are not philosophical beliefs and attitudes: if the Zen masters had no philosophical beliefs and assumptions, and if their teachings are the central feature of Zen Buddhism, it would follow that Zen Buddhism should not be called a philosophy.

However, from the premise that any number of Zen masters did not or do not actively discuss their philosophical beliefs, it certainly does not follow that they had none. To see how and why this is so, we must consider what it is to hold a philosophical belief and to "have a philosophy."

p. 67 Nearly everyone in the world holds a number of beliefs which, if articulated, would properly be classified as philosophical. Many people believe that they are capable of exercising free choice, that physical objects exist independently of perception, that there is a Creator of the universe, that they have a soul, and so on. Still other people hold the denials of some or all of these beliefs. But people who hold beliefs which are philosophical do not, on that account alone, hold those beliefs philosophically. If a person claims to know that flying saucers exist, for example, and he is asked how he knows this, he might reply that he has seen them. In the face of continued skepticism he might attempt to produce evidence that his experience had not been illusory. But if he is further asked how he knows that trees exist, in all probability he would not know how to answer his interlocutor, and would undoubtedly think that in comparison to skepticism about the existence of trees, his belief in the existence of flying saucers was a paradigm of rationality. From such replies it would be evident that the person believes that visual sense experiences are a source of knowledge; but it is not at all evident that the person realizes the philosophical ramifications of such epistemological claims. If the person does not so realize the extent of his claims, if he has never articulated, questioned, or defended his belief, then he holds his belief "uncritically," "naively," or "unconsciously"; he does not hold his beliefs philosophically.

Thus we may say of a person that some of his beliefs are philosophical without being committed to the assertion that he holds those beliefs philosophically. In the case of the flying saucer enthusiast, it would be highly misleading to say that he was an empiricist, even though the belief that sense experience is a source of knowledge is a cardinal tenet of empiricism. To say that a person is an empiricist implies that he could muster at least a minimal defense to meet the challenges of a skeptic or an idealist: that he would not be completely befuddled by being asked to justify his claim to know that trees existed. If the person could not pass these or similar tests, if he were in all respects a plain man, we would not say of him that he held a number of philosophical beliefs; rather we would say that several of his beliefs were philosophical, but that he holds those beliefs uncritically, naively, or unconsciously.

Returning now to the Zen masters, there is a sense in which it can be argued that some of them seem to resemble plain men more than philosophers. One master, for example, when asked by a monk what enlightenment was, told the monk to leave and not to scatter the dirt around; [18] which is, to say the least, an unphilosophical reply. Another master described himself by saying:

Drinking tea, eating rice,
I pass the time as it comes; p. 68
Looking down at the stream, looking up at the mountains,
How serene and relaxed I feel indeed! [19]

Suzuki says in one place that "Zen reveals itself in the most uninteresting and uneventful life of the plain man of the street,"[20] and in another place that the Zen masters discussed "such subjects as appealed to the plain man."[21]

It is doubtful, however, that a Zen commentator who was himself a Zen Buddhist or a strong advocate of their beliefs would be influenced by these arguments. For if he also holds the antiphilosophical belief that philosophical methods and beliefs are more harmful than beneficial to mankind, he must continue to insist that the distinguishing beliefs and attitudes of Zen Buddhists are not philosophical; if he does not, he will be driven to the equally uncomfortable alternatives of admitting either that some of the beliefs he advocates are in some way or another harmful to mankind or that some other of his basic beliefs are self-referentially inconsistent.

Thus we have the basic reason for the commentators' insistence that Zen p. 70 is not a philosophy, for it is in this way that they attempt to exempt their own assertions from examination on the basis of the beliefs they advocate in the name of Zen Buddhism. But all such attempts are doomed to failure, as will be seen below. For now it will suffice to note that a belief does not cease being philosophical because someone says it should. In whatever manner we choose to demarcate the class of nonphilosophical beliefs, the belief that philosophy is detrimental to liberation will not — along with many other Zen beliefs — be included therein.

Moreover, it is also important to note that subscription to this antiphilosophical belief does not even warrant asserting that Zen is not a philosophy as a means of issuing a warning. If a Zen commentator feels it imperative to warn his readers that an overly analytic approach to Zen might obscure some or many facets of the subject more than it illuminates them, he can accomplish his task in just so many words; he should not in any event resort to making statements which misdescribe the nature of the very topic he is attempting to explicate.

On the basis of these arguments it must be concluded that Zen is correctly called a philosophy, and that on this issue the commentators are mistaken. We can admit all of the following: (a) the activities of Zen Buddhists are an integral part of the subject; (b) Zen is also a way of liberation; (c) not all Zen masters openly advocated their beliefs; (d) some beliefs of Zen Buddhism are not philosophical beliefs; (e) some other Zen beliefs should be called antiphilosophical. All of this can be admitted without in any way obviating the basic point that Zen Buddhism contains a great many significant philosophical beliefs which are crucial for understanding the subject. Hence to that extent it is important, as well as accurate, to state that Zen Buddhism is a philosophy.

Before concluding, however, it is necessary to show that if the philosophical nature of many Zen beliefs is clearly seen, the student of Zen Buddhism will not only be better prepared for the Zen texts themselves, but for the writings of the commentators as well, for by their insistence that Zen is not a philosophy the commentators can easily obscure the philosophical nature of their own work. To see how this is done, let us return to our earlier example of the flying saucer observer.

Suppose that after the plain man has gone off to tell others of his UFO sightings a skeptic were to say to us: "How mistaken he was! Not only couldn't he be certain that flying saucers existed, he couldn't even be certain that trees existed, for the word 'certainty', if it has any application at all, applies only to the knowledge of mathematics and logic." We might choose to argue with the skeptic; we might, for instance, say that the plain man was entirely justified in making his knowledge claim (about trees, at any rate), p. 71 and that the skeptic was misusing the word "certainty." By so arguing we would be committed to the belief that sense experiences are a source of knowledge, which is the same belief held uncritically or unconsciously by the plain man. But it is clear that we would be holding the belief philosophically, and the statements we made in defense of it would all be philosophical statements. It would be a sheer mistake to believe that just because the plain man made no philosophical statements about his beliefs, the statements we made about his beliefs were not philosophical statements either. It might be correct to say that our plain man had no philosophy, but it would not be correct to say that we had no philosophy. By articulating and defending the beliefs held uncritically by the plain man we offer prima facie evidence that we hold those beliefs philosophically, and hence all of our statements about those beliefs are philosophical statements. Gathering those statements together in book form, we could appropriately entitle the work "The Philosophy of the Plain Man."

In just the same way, even if it were true to say of the Zen masters (which it is not) that they do not hold philosophical beliefs or do not hold them philosophically, or even if it were true to say of Zen Buddhism in general (which again, it is not) that it is not a philosophy, it still would not be proper for the Zen commentators to emphasize this issue to the point of seriously misleading their readers. In their attempts to articulate the beliefs of the masters, to assert that those beliefs are true, and to defend them, the Zen commentators offer prima facie evidence that they themselves, at least, are holding those beliefs philosophically. And because the philosophical statements they make on the basis of those beliefs form the bulk of their writings, readers should be told at the outset that what they will be reading in those commentaries will be, in an important sense, the philosophy of Zen Buddhism. [25] The commentators' statements expressing, elaborating, and defending those beliefs are one and all philosophical statements, hence they are engaged in philosophical enterprises, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding; and such works thus form a proper subject for philosophical examination and evaluation. To whatever degree the commentators are accurate repre- p. 72 sentatives of Zen Buddhism, to just that degree will anyone reading their writings be engaged in the study of those distinguishing beliefs and attitudes of Zen Buddhists which constitute the philosophy of Zen Buddhism. Hopefully such studies will serve to discourage continued tolerance for the perpetuation of those mistakes which only perform a disservice for anyone with an impartial — yet nonetheless serious — interest in the subject.