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