A Level Religious Studies - Zen Buddhism freeing the mind essay

“Zen Buddhism frees the mind from the limitations of words” Discuss (40).

Zen Buddhism is a Japanese school of Mahayana Buddhism that emphasises meditation and intuition instead of ritual worship or study of scriptures. Whilst it can be argued that Zen Buddhism does not free the mind from the limitations of words, this essay will argue that it does.

It can be argued that Zen Buddhism does not free the mind from the limitations of words because in doing so it limits itself. The idea of removing words from Zen Buddhism is regressive as even in Zen, words are required and are used as tools for a teacher – especially in the case of upaya where the teacher teaches to the level of their audience. These Zen masters also have written various works where their words have been documented, allowing for the ideas explored in Zen to be taught to others. Norman Fischer said that “Zen literature is built of legendary anecdotes of great masters” showing that words can actually be helpful in Zen Buddhism as they can bridge the gap between the teacher and student.

However, Zen Buddhism does free the mind from the limitations of words because there are no official scriptures for this school of Buddhism, showing that they achieved liberation from words after recognising their limitations. Zen Buddhism is based on the idea that there is a special transmission between person to person and the Flower sermon illustrates this: the historical Buddha transmit direct prajna to his disciple. This shows that the key teachings and truths associated with Zen are indeed passed via transmission from mind to mind, teacher to pupil. It is evident that this is an act of freeing the mind as words are not needed to understand the truth.

It can be said that Zen does not free the mind from the limitations of words as the two truth doctrine can be applied. This is about differentiating conventional truth (accepting things how they appear) from the ultimate truth (understanding the true nature of reality, that everything is empty of inherent existence). Conventional truth can still be considered useful as an initial understanding is required to make progress spiritually; words may convey ideas on a basic level but this is important. A person may not be able to understand ultimate truth and so conventional truth makes it accessible to these people. Zen Buddhism may follow this approach, and so words are of benefit as they can make the religion open to more people, helping them to get on the spiritual path.

Despite this, the two truth doctrine is a Mahayanan concept. Zen Buddhism focuses on ultimate truth and reality, showing how the use of words restricts our mind. We give things labels and make judgements on them and this focus acts as a way of limiting the mind, making it more difficult to see the true nature of reality. Zen Buddhism does free the mind because this is the way it has been developed – it is rooted in an understanding of ultimate reality. There are ways other than words to express the ideas a religion puts forward and Zen Buddhism is an example of where words are limited.

Some argue that Zen Buddhism does not free the mind from the limitations of words because the history of Zen shows that it has been influenced by scripture. The school drew inspiration from a variety of scriptures including the Lankavatara Sutra, the Diamond Sutra and the Platform Sutra. This suggests that even though now there is movement away from words, they are in fact integral to Zen Buddhism as they are part of its background and history. Zen Buddhism would perhaps not be the same without these scriptural influences, highlighting the importance of words to Zen.

Zen Buddhism does free the mind from the limitations of words because it is practice-oriented. Rinzai is about the sudden realisation of satori through koans and shouts whereas Soto places the emphasis on slow, steady development through mindfulness. These are both examples of how Zen Buddhism eliminates the need for words in the religion as the mind can be opened through these practises, neither of which require words. Both Rinzai and Zen can both lead to an understanding and achievement of enlightenment which is ultimately the religion’s goal, highlighting how Zen does free the mind from limitations of words.

To conclude, Zen Buddhism does free the mind from the limitations of words. The applications of other concepts (notably the two truth doctrine) is incorrect as the emphasis in Zen is on practise to help understand the ultimate truth about reality. The religion is rooted in this understanding of the world and whilst teaching it in a more basic way may make it more accessible, it removes the tradition of transmitting key ideas from mind to mind which is an important part of Zen. The history of the religion does have roots in scripture due to how it has been influenced by texts, so it seems that Zen is at a meeting point between the two arguments. Zen pushes most traditional aspects associated with religion aside and instead emphasises the importance of internal assessment, which requires no words, just an understanding of what is trying to be achieved: liberation. But there is also the opportunity to justify using more basic means of teaching with upaya, ultimately meaning that words are welcome but they may indeed limit one’s understanding.