Zen and Western Thought by Masao Abe

First published: 1985

Type of Philosophy: Buddhism, Japanese philosophy, metaphysics, philosophy of religion

Context

Masao Abe’s work describes the main characteristics of the philosophy of the Kyoto School, explains the Zen Buddhist standpoint in the context of Western thought, analyzes Western philosophy and theology through dialogues, and confronts the problem of modernity. As the heir to D. T. Suzuki’s role as the main exponent of Zen for the West, Abe explicated the fundamental standpoint of Zen philosophy in many contexts. He provided interpretive analyses of traditional Zen teachings and used the logic of is/is not to analyze Western thought. Like other philosophers of the Kyoto School, Abe was well acquainted with Western intellectual and religious traditions, but unlike his fellows, Abe addressed primarily a Western audience. Abe’s work is constructive in that, through dialogues and critical exchanges, he attempts to articulate a standpoint that successfully confronts nihilism and revitalizes both Western and Eastern religion.

The Doctrine of Absolute Nothingness

In the opening pages of the work, Abe interprets a well-known Zen saying: Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; after one attains some insight, mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers; and when one becomes enlightened, mountains are really mountains and rivers are really rivers. For Abe, this short passage elucidates Mahayana Buddhism’s central doctrine of absolute nothingness, or emptiness (shunyata). Abe’s commentary on this passage explains the philosophical basis from which he compares Zen with Western thought and criticizes Western philosophy and theology.

Abe explains that before studying Zen, an individual affirms the existence of mountains and rivers, differentiates between them, and, most significantly, objectifies them—mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. Objectification entails the positing of mountains and rivers as realities external to the internal subject, which Abe terms the ego-self. From the Zen standpoint, this duality between the subject (ego-self) and object (in this case, mountains and rivers) obstructs the realization of one’s true self, or Buddha-nature. To inquire into the self in an objectified way throws the questioner into an infinite regression of subjects and objects. When one asks, “Who am I?” or “Who sees these mountains and rivers?” the very subject that perceives objects becomes an object. One can take this further by inquiring, “Who is asking these questions?” ad infinitum and never arrive at an awakening to the self, one’s Buddha-nature.

Release from this infinite regression entails a full existential realization that Buddha-nature is beyond the realm of objectifying thought, which frees one from the dichotomy of subject and object. From the Zen standpoint, this emptying of duality is the perception of nondifferentiation. The second phrase in the saying—mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers—refers to the realization that comes after the student of Zen gains some insight.

A subtle duality, however, still exists in this stage of nondifferentiation: a division between the state of differentiation and nondifferentiation. The realization of Buddha-nature requires a further negation, the negation of nondifferentiation. Abe calls this negation of negation absolute negation and contends that this absolute negation is, logically, an absolute affirmation. This paradox of the oneness of affirmation and negation, or what Abe calls the logic of is/is not, is the essence of Buddha-nature.

The Essence of Buddha-Nature

What is Buddha-nature? Abe answers this question by analyzing Dōgen Zenji’s Buddha-nature theory. Dōgen’s theory is based on his reinterpretation of the traditional Buddhist doctrine that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature. According to Dōgen, all beings, both sentient and nonsentient, are Buddha-nature. Part of Dōgen’s project, according to Abe, is to undercut the tendency to objectify Buddha-nature as some sort of substantial existence. Abe identifies several aspects of Dōgen’s view on Buddha-nature, including its de-homocentric nature, its nonsubstantiality, and its identity with worldly phenomena.

One of the central concerns in Buddhism is the problem of life and death in human existence and the emancipation from the suffering that entails this existence. Moreover, this emancipation is said to occur in human consciousness. Realizing one’s Buddha-nature, therefore, has traditionally meant discovering that internal essence that transcends ordinary human existence. However, Dōgen sees this view as an objectification of Buddha-nature that will forever keep a person imprisoned in duality. For Dōgen, although the realization of Buddha-nature lies in human consciousness, the reality of Buddha-nature includes the entirety of worldly existence. This view is what Abe terms de-homocentric—the problem of life and death is located not in the human realm but in the appearance and disappearance of all worldly phenomena, both sentient and nonsentient. By emphasizing its de-homocentric nature, Buddha-nature is no longer objectified as a substance possessed by humans.

What is the relation between Buddha-nature and worldly existence? Dōgen asserts that all beings are Buddha-nature, thus signifying the oneness of Buddha-nature and worldly existence. According to traditional Buddhist doctrine, however, worldly existence is characterized by constant change, or impermanence, and is, therefore, not associated with the unconditioned, unchanging Buddha-nature. In contrast, Dōgen asserts that impermanence itself is Buddha-nature, thus continuing his efforts to undercut the tendency to objectify Buddha-nature. For Dōgen, Buddha-nature discloses itself as everyday phenomena such as grasses, trees, and stones. Furthermore, it is the moment-to-moment arising/disappearing of ordinary phenomena that marks the essence of Buddha-nature.

Practice and Enlightenment

Though the philosophical aspects of Zen are of great importance, Abe maintains that one must actualize philosophical insights in everyday life. The question then arises, if the moment-to-moment passing of phenomena constitutes Buddha-nature, how can one practice? If there is nothing beyond the here and now of everyday existence, then what purpose is there in meditation? Abe answers these questions with Dōgen’s view on Zen practice, shikantaza, or “just sitting.” Just as everyday life (all beings) and Buddha-nature are one for Dōgen, so too are practice and enlightenment. In other words, practice itself is enlightenment, and enlightenment is practice. For Abe, Dōgen’s views on practice and enlightenment do not eliminate the reason for practicing Zen meditation but instead help the practitioner transcend self-centered human intention. According to Abe, therefore, shikantaza is the purest kind of practice.

Critical Analyses of Western Philosophy

Abe analyzes Western philosophy and theology based on the logic of is/is not. Eastern and Western thought differ significantly in their respective views on what Abe calls “negativity.” Traditionally, Western thought has favored the positive over the negative: being over nonbeing, life over death, permanence over impermanence. The positive principles of being, life, and permanence are considered primary, while nonbeing, death, and impermanence are viewed as secondary or derivative. In the East, however, the negative has always played a fundamental role in religions and philosophies. In fact, both being and nonbeing have equal force in many Eastern worldviews, particularly Buddhism.

Abe stresses that the Zen notion of nothingness is not the relative nonbeing that is the opposite of relative being. Rather, Zen nothingness is absolute nonbeing, which signifies a return to the original state of reality that existed before the division between positive and negative. This concept of reality is at odds with the traditional metaphysics of the West, including Platonism, which locates reality in the transcendent realm of ideal forms, and Christianity, which conceives of God as beyond this world. If Platonism and Christianity can be said to posit a transcendent reality, then Zen asserts, to use the philosopher Keiji Nishitani’s term, a trans-descendent reality.

In his critical analyses based on the logic of is/is not, Abe examines modern philosophies that seem to advocate ideas similar to those of Zen Buddhism, including the philosophies set forth by Friedrich Nietzsche and Alfred North Whitehead. Nietzsche contends that in the face of the uncertainty and arbitrariness of the world, Western metaphysics and Christianity have hoisted false constructs (ideal forms, God) to avoid the nihility of existence. In so doing, they have imprisoned humanity in a false morality and cut it off from its natural birthright, spontaneity in life. Moreover, this avoidance entails the deception of positing a transcendent other, which offers comfort in the face of real existence but is in reality a lie.

Nietzsche claims that to truly live, one must face and endure nihility without recourse to any deception, including a higher reality or power. This facing up to the arbitrary uncertainty of existence is a return to life itself, which Nietzsche calls the innocence of becoming. This return to life is, furthermore, a commitment to live life with an awareness and abandonment of this deception of the transcendent.

While appreciating Nietzsche’s challenge to transcendental constructs, Abe claims that Nietzsche still posits some kind of objective reality. Behind the false constructions of ideal forms or God lies a dynamic changing reality for the living subject. Therefore, even though the notions of unchanging substance and transcendent reality are relinquished, the innocence of becoming and natural life are still posited as a reality to be chosen by the human. Though Western metaphysics is radically changed in Nietzsche’s philosophy, the subject/object duality still remains.

In Whitehead’s philosophy of universal relativity, Abe finds much in common with the Buddhist notion of dependent arising. Both concepts assert that although individual entities are unique, they are also profoundly interdependent, so much so that each entity contains all other entities. Whitehead’s philosophy of universal relativity and radical interdependence attempts to overcome the duality of separate substances (that each entity is a separate thing in itself).

Abe maintains that if Whitehead held that all entities fell under this radical interdependence, a true identity between the Buddhist doctrine of dependent arising and Whitehead’s universal relativity would exist. However, Abe finds Whitehead’s treatment of God a problem, specifically his notion of the nontemporal/nonspatial dimension of God. While at one level Whitehead contends that God and the world are both immanent in each other and also transcendent, God’s primordial nature, being beyond space and time, is permanent. The primordial nature of the world, however, is a state of constant flux. According to Abe, Whitehead’s view creates a subtle yet profound duality between God and the world, despite their overt interrelationship. Whitehead’s formulation, therefore, does not transcend duality and is at odds with the Buddhist notion of interdependence.

Abe also engages Christian theology in critical dialogue, particularly the theology of Paul Tillich. While applauding Tillich’s attempt at comparison, Abe discloses some misconceptions that Tillich has regarding Buddhism. For example, in his analysis of the Kingdom of God and Nirvana, Tillich explains that Christianity’s aim is the unity of everyone and everything in the Kingdom of God, while in Buddhism, it is the unity of everything and everyone in Nirvana. The emphasis on everyone in Christianity signifies the superiority of humans over things in God’s kingdom, while the emphasis on everything in Buddhism means that things are superior to humans in the realm of Nirvana. Abe takes issue with this formulation, explaining that although it is true that the immediate presence of all impermanent/empty things is Buddha-nature, the realization of this occurs only in human consciousness. In other words, while reality is identified with all things, both sentient and nonsentient, the awakening to this reality is actualized in the human realm, thus proffering humans a special, though not superior, status among things. In his analysis, Tillich violates the logic of is/is not by privileging things over humans and, therefore, has not understood the essence of Zen.

Another criticism of Tillich’s work is the stand that the philosopher takes regarding religious encounters with the various secular movements of the twentieth century. These movements, including nationalism, scientism, Marxism, and liberal humanism, are analyzed by Tillich in the mode of an “observing participant,” locating the discussion in the historic-cultural realm. Abe strongly maintains that one should confront these movements in the mode of a “self-staking participant,” locating the encounter on the existential realm of personal faith and religious awareness. Abe contends that it is precisely a religious encounter with and an overcoming of nihilism that make religion a necessity in the modern world.

Zen and Western Thought was the first book-length study by the leading exponent of Zen for the West in the second half of the twentieth century. Its critique of Western philosophy and theology from the standpoint of Zen has provided a basis not only for a deeper understanding of Zen philosophy but also for interfaith dialogue.

Principal Ideas Advanced

•Although the Zen doctrine of absolute nothingness is sometimes misunderstood as merely a kind of nihilism, Zen goes beyond the duality of relative being and relative nonbeing.

•Buddha-nature, the positive term for absolute nothingness, paradoxically contains both being and nonbeing in an absolute manner; this paradox is termed the logic of is/is not.

•Using absolute nothingness as a standpoint, religion can confront and overcome the nihilism that results from modernity and globalization.

Bibliography

Cobb, John B., and Christopher Ives, eds. The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991. This collection of nine articles—an initial essay by Masao Abe, responses by seven Western theologians, and a final rejoinder by Abe—represents the extensive work taking place in the field of interfaith dialogue.

Heisig, James W., and John C. Maraldo, eds. Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994. This collection of articles addresses the relationship between the leading intellectuals of the Kyoto School and Japanese nationalism. Although previous works on the Kyoto School have dealt with theology and philosophy, this is the first book-length study in English on the school’s political, social, and historical context.

King, Winston L. “The Existential Nature of Buddhist Ultimates.” Philosophy East and West 33, no. 3 (July, 1983): 263-271. King analyzes the Buddhist concept of ultimate reality and its existential nature, from early to Mahayana Buddhism. He discusses the significance of Abe’s interpretation of emptiness as a creative and active force.

Mitchell, Donald W., ed. Masao Abe: A Zen Life of Dialogue. Boston: Charles E. Tuttle, 1998. An assortment of essays honoring Abe’s body of work.