Zen Buddhism and humanism
Item abstract only
Author
Park, O'Hyun See all items with this value
Date
2001
Volume
2
Pages
130-138
ISSN
1530-4108 See all items with this value
Abstract
Zen Buddhism can be viewed from many angles. Etymologically speaking, the word Zen means “meditation.” Second, it is a particular sect of Buddhism. As such, it has its own unique historical background and its respective formalities differentiated from other branches of Buddhism. Third, it is the heart and essence of Buddhism. Seen from this point of view, it has no doctrine or scriptures of its own but simply pointing to the ultimate source of all Buddhist teachings, which is the enlightenment attained by the historical Buddha. Taken into this consideration, Zen training in all its various forms is directed towards achieving what the historical Buddha attained during his life on the earth. Last, more profoundly viewed, Zen transcends all particularities of Buddhism. And thus it is not one particular religion as much as it is religion itself in its profoundly simple intention or its simply profound intention. In other words, Zen is tantamount to the true life, authentic being or the life of intefral self in which human ego has overcome its dichotomy from itself, other person and nature. When Zen heals the dichotomies between subject and object, there is no longer anything left to be called Zen. In other words, the uniqueness of Zen is its-being-transformed-into-the-unconditional-life. Zen dies out, when it is realized. The unconditional life requires Zen no more than fire calls for heat. Seen from the last point of view of Zen, this paper attempt to compare and contrast Zen Buddhism to Humanism.
Seen from the last point of view, Zen Buddhism is nothing but a pointing to reality beyond itself. And therefore it is not a possession. In cannot be defined objectively, simply because it is living source of all lives. Zen Buddhism in this sense can be like and unlike humanism. Humanism signifies many different things, but most universally it can authenticate human existence.
Nevertheless, the paper attempts to point out the very ambiguity as to what constitutes the human by way of listing several types of humanism. For example, some humanists are more comfortable with divine being than with natural beings, while others are more comfortable with human beings. These different views of humanism have been oscillated throughout history. Similarly Buddhism in its inception has championed against both divinity and nature. However, the paper attempts to show the fact that the similarities are very superficial. Both Zen Buddhism and humanism are equally abstractions. Even on this equal level, Zen Buddhism differs from humanism in the sense that Zen Buddhism is clearly aware of itself as an abstraction.
Seen from the last point of view, Zen Buddhism is nothing but a pointing to reality beyond itself. And therefore it is not a possession. In cannot be defined objectively, simply because it is living source of all lives. Zen Buddhism in this sense can be like and unlike humanism. Humanism signifies many different things, but most universally it can authenticate human existence.
Nevertheless, the paper attempts to point out the very ambiguity as to what constitutes the human by way of listing several types of humanism. For example, some humanists are more comfortable with divine being than with natural beings, while others are more comfortable with human beings. These different views of humanism have been oscillated throughout history. Similarly Buddhism in its inception has championed against both divinity and nature. However, the paper attempts to show the fact that the similarities are very superficial. Both Zen Buddhism and humanism are equally abstractions. Even on this equal level, Zen Buddhism differs from humanism in the sense that Zen Buddhism is clearly aware of itself as an abstraction.