Pi Gamma Mu, International Honor Society in Social Sciences
A Student Paper: Zen Buddhism and Art: A Sociophilosophical Interpretation
Author(s): Stuart Edward Silverman Source: Social Science, Vol. 48, No. 1 (WINTER 1973), pp. 34-41 Published by: Pi Gamma Mu, International Honor Society in Social Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41885915 . Accessed: 25/04/2014 04:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Pi Gamma Mu, International Honor Society in Social Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Science. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A Student Paper Zen Buddhism and Art: A Sociophilosophical Interpretation Stuart Edward Silverman In this article, Mr. Silverman deals with the relationships of art and Zen Buddhism as a culture, a religion, and a way of life. The viewpoint developed is that, like all religions, Zen attempts to lead its followers to the direct experience of Reality, Truth, and seeing into the nature of one's own being. Conclusions by intimation for current thought and life are then indicated. IN the ORDER topic of TO Zen investigate Buddhism sensibly and art, the topic of Zen Buddhism and art, we begin by understanding what Zen Buddhism professes and what its tenets are. This is no easy task by any means. Even before we grapple with the complexities of its philoso- phy, we are opposed by its general an- tiliteral nature. Suzuki justifiably criticized Hu Shih when he attempted to explain Zen. "Zen must be understood from the inside, not from the outside. One must first attain what I call prajna-in- tuition and then proceed to the study of all its objectified expressions. To try to get into Zen by collecting the so-called historical materials and to come to a conclusion which will defi- nitely characterize Zen as Zen, Zen in itself, or Zen as each of us lives it in his innermost being, is not the right approach."1 Yet, the remaining fact is that Zen itself opposes and sur- passes explanations by its very nature, though thousands of writings have been presented by both Buddhists and laymen alike. By going both ways in this study, both from Zen to its art and from its art to Zen, perhaps we can develop a better understanding of the two. I Historically, Zen had its beginnings in the optimistic Buddhist religion in India. In 527, Bodhidharma, the 28th patriarch, came to China from South India and began the Zen. It was not until the early part of the T'ang dy- nasty, with the teaching of Hui-neng, that Zen truly took hold in China and developed into an independent Bud- dhist school of thought. Its acceptance was immeasurably helped by its simi- larity with Taoism, which, at this time, was firmly established in China. Zen was introduced to Japan as early as the Nara period, but again it took some time, until 1200, for it to become independent and solidly established. Its establishment is attributed pri- marily to the monk Eisai, who founded the Rinzai sect. By this time Zen, though based in an Indian reli- gion, was totally naturalized. The popularity and effects of Zen grew and deepened to an extent where today, especially in Japan, Zen phi- losophy is woven and ingrained in the common unconsciousness of the peo- ple and has fundamental influences upon their way of life.2 Its influences are seen in the traditional culture of Japan, as in art, poetry (Haiku), flower arranging, pantomime dance, cha-no-Yu, and architecture; and is subtly but substantially felt in modern aspects of the society as well. Though Mr. Stuart Edward Silverman is a senior stu- dent at Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, in New Brunswick, majoring in English and the humanities, with work in psy- chology and related studies. He is planning to work for the Ph.D. in the humanities. 34 This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A STUDENT PAPER 35 Zen's influences are easily discernible, the Zen itself that influences is not so available to sight. When stripped of the mysterious and ethereal blanket in which Zen has been traditionally enveloped, it emerges as being hardly that mystical or transcendental after all. Though its results to the person are inexplicable and its spirit surpasses intellectual analysis, its philosophy and tenets are somewhat definable. Zen, being a form of Buddhism, has no specific philosophy of its own ex- cept what is usually accepted by the Buddhists of the Mahayana school. What makes Zen so distinctive is its method, which is the inevitable growth of Zen's own attitudes toward life and truth. The essence of the Zen method and teaching is summarized in a gatha at- tributed to Bodhidharma but no doubt written several centuries later : "A spe- cial transmission outside the Scrip- tures, not depending upon the letter, but pointing directly to the Mind, and leading us to see into the Nature itself, thereby making us attain Bud- dhahood."3 Analytically, "A special transmis- sion outside the Scriptures, not de- pending upon the letter," is not a dis- agreement with the scriptures' teach- ings. Bather, it is a disagreement with the idea of scriptures, of written laws, of words, of reason based on words, of conceptualism. Like all religions, Zen attempts to lead and direct its follow- ers to the direct experience of Reality, of Truth, of seeing into the nature of one's own being. One precept of Zen is that words or literatures, scriptures, get in the way of that enlightenment and inhibit the realization of unity of man with nature. II When man uses words or ideas to express his Reality, the words, sup- posedly meaning that Reality, have a way of rapidly replacing it. The words then become little more than objects which name things without calling up mental pictures of their meaning.4 When man relies on litera- ture, literature prohibits him from in- dividual, introspective thought. Reli- gious slogans, when repeated over and over again, lose meaning. In the end, man loses his consciousness of the re- ligion itself : the words not only get in the way but become the way itself. (This outcome of literature is seen clearly today in churches where peo- ple repeat hymns and prayers uncon- scious and unaware of what the words are, let alone what they mean.) In terms of Zen, the result of relying on scriptures is that man uses the words and neglects the experience to reach what truly constitutes his innermost experience. Suzuki wisely presents the faults and failing of religious literature in Zen in his finger-moon analogy. "As nature abhors a vacuum, Zen abhors anything coming between the fact and ourselves. A finger may be needed to point at the moon, but ignorant must they be who take the pointer for a real object and altogether forget the final aim of the religious life. The sacred books are useful; as far as they indi- cate the direction where our spiritual efforts are to be applied, and their utility goes no further."5 Zen abhors words, then, because they get in' the way between man and his Reality and rapidly replace the Reality itself, leaving man with nothing but delu- sion. Visually, Zen's reaction to liter- ature is seen in the famous 13th cen- tury painting by Lang K'ai of the pa- triarch laughing as he tears up the su- tras, knowing that the true Buddha, the true Reality, is not found in any book but in his own consciousness. Zen disapproved of literature, fur- ther, because it is a product of ratio- This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 SOCIAL SCIENCE FOE WINTER 1973 nality and is dependent upon rational- ity for interpretation. Rationality, with its produce of intelligence and words, with its importance on ideas and concepts, is in clear opposition to realizing the Reality behind what man immediately and surfacely sees. Ra- tionality's most constant characteris- tic is its compartmentalizing for com- prehension. It is synonymous here with discrimination, with dualities and antitheses. By constantly viewing things with discrimination, Zen feels the mind gets bogged down with petty differences in attempts at under- standing and is unable to see the total unity of the universe; and in turn, man is unable to see himself as a fun- damental part of nature. Because Zen's aim is to make man see into his nature and thereby attain his Buddha- hood, attain a unity, clearly rational thought is unacceptable. In Zen, nature transcends inconsis- tencies, discriminations are annihi- lated, and the universe is not split up into myriad fragments, but viewed with its primal unity and harmony, a unity inclusive with man. For exam- ple, the whiteness of the heron and the blackness of the crow are identical in that both are natural, neither is one dyed nor the other bleached. In Zen art, with no distinctions or deluding dualities, there is no distinction made between Spirit and Matter, for it is the fusion of these that results in a mind prepared for sudden enlighten- ment. The effect of this lack of distinc- tion inherent in Zen art is a constant point of significance, for outside of ra- tionality is unity, with nature resulting in oneness with Buddha, the second reason for being "outside the scrip- tures." A third reason for being "outside the scriptures" is that giving the igno- rant lessons in them cannot enlighten man nor give him any real under- standing of the ultimate truth.6 In fact, such dead weight as explanations would actually inhibit him from en- lightenment rather than help or teach him. This final reason for disregard- ing the scriptures has important im- plications. In accordance with its antiliteral stand, Zen holds no formal teaching methods. It is meditative, egocentric, and intuitive. The resulting direct- ness, simplicity, and self-discipline which corresponded to the warrior code appealed to the samurai and helped Zen to be firmly established in the Kamakura period with its warrior ruling aristocracy. Its "antibook" manner resulted in that one learns Zen not by studying it so much as by being it. Where most religions are objective, Zen is totally subjective. In place of strenuous, structured learning resulting in a de- veloping awareness, Zen stressed what is called satori, the "sudden" school, the immediate experience of ultimate truth, a state of conscious- ness in which the duality of the world has ceased to exist. All traditional paraphernalia of Buddhism, not only the scriptures but also the icons, the chanted rituals, the structured mo- nastic discipline, are no longer of any importance. Satori, the spontaneous opening of the third or spiritual eye, is the prime aim of Zen and it embod- ies all its tenets and precepts. The ab- sence of icons in the paintings, the frequent scenes of monks carrying on not contemplation but common labor, and the like, all reflect the Zen philoso- phy. Satori, in short, is pure con- sciousness, pure communication, when nature spontaneously comes to itself and becomes man, the goal of Zen. The final two lines of the Bodhid- harma's declaration essentially define the satori. The ideal of Zen is, then, when the mind becomes one with na- ture itself, when unity is truly achieved and discrimination com- This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A STUDENT PAPER 37 pletely conquered, man attains Bud- dhahood and takes hold of Reality. From an analysis of Bodhidharma's declaration we see also the basic ten- ets of Zen. It is antiliteral due to liter- ature's rationality and deluding of Reality and because the scriptures do not help the ignorant achieve enlight- enment anyway. It stresses approach- ing Reality with a faculty higher than the intellect, joining with nature, see- ing the world with a sense of unity, and in the end suddenly realizing one's own Buddhahood through the undisciplines and spontaneous satori. Of course, this is not what Zen means altogether, but merely some of its doctrines. From this starting point, however, we can now begin to consider the more subtle ramifications of the religion and hopefully gain some understanding of the effect of Zen on art and art's ability to express the more subtle yet substantial as- pects of Zen. We consider now the es- sence of Man and Nature by Zen. Zen principles regarding Nature and Man, as we have seen, are of cor- nerstone importance in the religion. It is for this reason that a still more careful investigation of this area is necessary if we hope to understand Zen and its art at all. Ill Nature and Man are fundamentals. We may differ on our definitions of the two, on our philosophies of the two, on our suggestions for their coex- istence or our fears for their mutual destruction, on our theories of their beginnings and of their ends. Yet, on one point all philosophies agree: Na- ture and Man are fundamentals. No greater dichotomy in interpretation exists on Nature and Man than that of Zen and of Western thought. And as the national mind is reflected in the national art, the art that depicts the association is radically different in the West as compared to that of Zen. Let us first consider the Western ideas, and then see how they compare with the Zen ideas. We have seen that the West is char- acterized by Rationality. In the under- standing of Nature, as the national mind is rational, the West accordingly considers Nature in this context. The West correctly sees that Nature is not rational. It is without concreteness, a definable purpose. The West is ratio- nal: it is concrete, definite, discrimi- nating, has purpose, and is intelligent. Rationality and nonrationality cannot coexist as equals in the rational mind ; they are utterly irreconcilable, for there is no means for communication and no basis in common for under- standing. In this lies conflict. This characterizes the association of Na- ture and Man in the West.7 The rami- fications of this coexisting inequality are patent for the social scientist. Man views Nature as the other world of raw power. Perhaps due to his ego or fear of this awesome un- known, Western Man "conquers" Na- ture and exploits it. Much of the his- tory of Western Man is little more than a chronicle of his conquering of the unknown wildernesses, whether it be man climbing a mountain or land- ing on the moon and having it re- corded as Man conquers Moon, or, in a subtle sense, Man conquering, civiliz- ing, and then exploiting people to whom he cannot communicate or who seem not "intelligent." In terms of Na- ture, Man's misunderstanding and his attempts at exploiting are all too evi- dent in view of the rampant pollution today. Again, as in World War II, we see that when two irreconcilable, non- communicating worlds of strength meet, mutual misunderstandings and destruction result. Western Man's religions further separate Nature and Man. We are taught that God created Nature, that This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 38 SOCIAL SCIENCE FOR WINTER 1973 Man is made in the image of God; therefore, by Western rationality, Man is the controller of Nature on earth. Nature is considered to be the lowly passions, the "flesh," while Man resides in the transcending "spirit." In order to protect himself from the evil of Nature, Man must control it, with resulting trouble again. (It is cu- rious to note that the few times that Western Man attempted to "join with Nature," it was done not with a lessen- ing of rationality but with a stronger assertion of it.) In the West, the wedding of Man and Nature was called Romanticism. What it called for was a "return" to that other world outside of mankind and civilization called Nature. It was as much an embrace as an escape. With its constant use of images, inno- cence, and a pastoral quality, it is clear that Nature was considered unattainable if not without a reality. The ego crops up again, for the inter- est was not so much in Nature for Na- ture's sake, but in Man's being unable to achieve something unachievable. In short, Western Man has little under- standing of Nature, and limited sense of communion with it. In comparison to the West, Zen be- lieved that, when the problem of na- ture was solved, so was the problem of Man, for Nature and Man are one. Ze: felt that the reality of Man was defined as the same as the reality of Nature, so there were only feelings of equality between the two resulting in harmony and communion on equal lev- els. And, conveniently, Zen addition- ally felt that true communion could exist only between equals. Because Nature has a reality the same as Man, it could be understood on its own terms : there was no need for personi- fication, conquering, denials, escapes or embraces. Without the pressure of doing "the will of God" or serving "progress" and other dualities, Zen, with introspection, found satisfaction in the unity itself ; and this difference in the conditioning of pressure to con- quer versus harmony is fundamen- tally clear in Zen art. Artistically, the Romantic's aware- ness of the sentimentality of be- ing surrounded by Nature is clearly shown to be in opposition to Zen's simple yet total experience with Na- ture, seen clearest in the paintings of landscapes. In no Zen art will you find engineering feats which would imply Man's conquest of Nature, nor natural calamities which would imply Na- ture's conquest of Man. Many paint- ings show men in direct activities with Nature, like farming or fishing, which lead the spectator to a new awareness of the coexisting relationship. And further, in landscape painting the presence of the human element is di- minished in order to heighten the sense of cohabitation of Man and Na- ture. Similar habits are seen in Zen's working with Heaven and Earth, and Human and Divine themes, themes so distinctive in the West. In Zen art, with the antidiscrimina- tory doctrine at work, there were no sordid scenes or episodes, like Bosch or Grunwald, no swamps, terrors, or crippled trees to make the spectator especially aware of earth. Likewise, unlike the Byzantines, there were no pictorial inventions used to direct the imagination toward other-worldliness. Zen art avoids the too heavenly and divine, and the too earthly and human. The most popular religious subject was Bodhidharma; and even in the paintings of this most holy man, he was not shown as a God dwelling in paradise but as a man close to nature. As Suzuki again says, "Zen brought God in Heaven down to earth." Paint- ers often were spontaneous, undigni- fied, even drunk, in order to give the feeling of spontaneity and lack of dig- nity to nature and life itself. Most im- This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A STUDENT PAPEB 39 portantly, the painters, aware that na- ture is life and life is growth and movement, tried to include a feeling of rhythm to their strokes and a con- stant underlying "rhythm of nature" to all aspects of the scenes. An important associated idea of man and nature and one which dis- plays itself beautifully in art is the topic of naturalism and idealism. Let us define naturalism as "things as they appear to be," with the control- ling emotion being sensual appeal of actual nature ; and let us consider idealism as "things as they ought to be," with the controlling emotion being intellectual satisfaction of perfected nature. In both the West and Zen these two "isms" are certainly consid- ered, for in art, as in philosophy, such issues have far-reaching impact. It is interesting to note, however, how the two are dealt with so very differently by Zen and by the West. In doing so, we gain insight into Zen by both con- trast and enumeration. It was said by a Len artist that "Western painting is painting of the eye, Zen painting is painting of the idea." It can be added that Western painting is painting of the ideal while Zen painting is not. In Western art great emphasis was placed on stimula- tion of the sense with lavishness and richness. Rationality again reared its head and desecrated the idea of beauty by Zen standards. This is seen clearest in the apex of Western soci- eties, the Greeks, and their handling of beauty. Beauty was rationalized in terms of mathematical proportions, and as a result Aphrodite was created from a culmination of many beauties. Beauty was categorized and associ- ated with such other ideals as good- ness and truth. In the rationalizing of beauty, as with Western art in gen- eral, naturalism was overruled by idealism, which, in its execution, had no hold on nature and therefore no idea or presence of nature. Zen art far surpasses the West in catching and defining the inner spirit of the subject which eluded the Western portraits. We have seen that nature is a fun- damental idea in Zen and without a clear understanding of its ramifica- tions much of the understanding of Zen is lost. Further, nature, symbol- ized in the form of landscapes, is the supreme art subject. IV We come now to another important point in our examination of Zen and its relationship to art. We will focus primarily on the supreme theme of Zen art, the landscape, and will con- sider the importance and ramifica- tions of the sense of space, what the method was, and why the choice of brush-and-ink media. Concurrent with this will be the art's basis and depen- dence in the Zen tenets, as we now un- derstand them. By the manipulation of the subject matter, of perspective, and by its very nature, Zen landscape art showed the insignificance of man in relation to the cosmos and his very personal unity with nature. Zen preaches that only by losing oneself in the vastness of nature is one able to find oneself, to discover what the Zen masters would call one's "Buddhahood-nature." Just as the reality of the unity was basic to Zen, the implying of that reality was basic to its art. As the Zen used the symbolic nomenclature of reality to express the idea which we have noted repeatedly, the Zen artist used limited space to express the same symbolic re- ality, which is the culmination of Zen itself. This space, this economy of means, is at the heart of the Zen art. Just as with their portraits, Zen artists were not concerned with the lavish appear- ances of forms which the senses per- ceived but with the reality which lies This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 40 SOCIAL SCIENCE FOR WINTER 1973 beneath the surface. The enveloping space in the landscapes, the sense of poverty, became like an echo or a re- flection of the great incomprehensible void. The simplicity of the art, the harmony, the lack of complexities with their rational and intellectual overtones, the lack of clear distinc- tions between water, land, and sky, all help involve the viewer in thinking in relative terms and lead him to an awareness of the spirit of the unity. A single flower is as a forest ; a speck of dust takes on the importance of a mountain. The void, like the religion itself, is optimistic and positive in that it signified not nothingness but an infinity, an alive emptiness. The artists were, in a sense, displaying more by the absence of brush and ink than by their presence. Painting was where not to paint as much as where to paint.8 The methods used to produce this effect are, in part, based in Zen. To produce the sense of void and not sim- ply blank space, a three-depth design was used. An illusion of depth was produced by overlapping rocks, a feel- ing of height was produced by juxta- posing the big with the small, say a waterfall with a hut, and the combin- ing of these elements with different points of focus in the same piece giv- ing a moving picture type effect. In order to achieve the sense of co- hesion, as in a man's life, the outlines of the paintings were done first. The brushwork related the spirit only if the brush, imbued with a sense of unity, was in Ching Hao's words, "an extension of the arm, the belly, and the mind." The completed work must have the feeling of naturalness and ef- fortlessness. It is no wonder that Zen art portrays an underlying uniform sense of life rhythm in its landscapes. Essentially, then, we see again, in this interpretation, the sociopsychological implications for our contemporary society. The manner of painting is well founded in Zen philosophy, too. The spilled ink style, for example, empha- sizes the idea of sudden enlightenment and ultimately life itself. Suzuki summarizes the method of brushwork and its association to Zen in this manner : "Life delineates itself on the canvas called time; and time never repeats ; once gone, forever gone ; and so is an act : once done, it is never undone. Life is a sumiye-paint- ing, which must be executed once and for all time and without hesitation, without intellection, and no correc- tions are permissible or possible. Life is not like an oil painting, which can be rubbed out and done over time and again until the artist is satisfied. With a sumiye-painting, any brush stroke painted over a second time results in a smudge ; the life has left it. All correc- tions show when the ink dries. So is life. We can never retract what we have once committed to deeds; nay, what has once passed through con- sciousness can never be rubbed out. Zen therefore ought to be caught while the thing is going on, neither be- fore nor after. It is an act one instant. . . . This fleeting, unrepeatable, and ungraspable character of life is delin- eated graphically by Zen masters who have compared it to lightning or spark produced by the percussion of stones."9 Sociologically, there are in- timations here of values and attitudes. As we have seen, one basic underly- ing principle of Zen is its antidiscri- minatory nature. In that view, true Zen art, art conceived, created, and considered in Zen. is Zen itself. The religion and the religious art are one. This is the truest relationship be- tween Zen Buddhism and art. This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A STUDENT PAPER 41 Finally, Zen, in its truest sense, ex- ists only in the living of it. Once we arrest living ideas in words, like flow- ers in amber, the once living part, though intact, is dead. And again, like the space in Zen art, what is not sug- gested, not said, is more important and expressive than what is. For these reasons, it is better that Zen re- main undefinable in words and remain void of rationality. And, after all, is not life, too, antiliteral, undefinable, and, especially, irrational? Zen finds its communion with life precisely through that irrationality and gives the Zen peace of mind and wholeness of life. Notes *D. T. Suzuki, Studies in Zen, New York: Dell, 1955, pp. 136 ff. 2 H. Munsterberg, Zen and Oriental Art, Rut- land, Vermont: Tuttle, 1965, p. 101. O. Sirn, The Chinese on the Art of Painting, New York: Schocken, 1963, p. 93. E. Blair, Politics and the English Language, New York: Harcourt, 1946, p. 173. D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism, New York: Grove, 1961, pp. 11 ff. 6 Sirn, op. cit., pp. 53 ff. G. Rowley, Principles of Chinese Painting, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1959, p. 20. 8 Ibid., p. 33. 9 Suzuki, op. cit., pp. 300 ff. This content downloaded from 182.178.246.250 on Fri, 25 Apr 2014 04:48:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions