I just read an interesting and well-written article by Domyo Burk: https://zenstudiespodcast.com/nondualism-zen/
Domyo describes Chan as having “transformed Buddhism so radically that it’s legitimate to question whether Chan is even Buddhism.” I struggle with this claim, and it’s this point I want to address.
Please take the following as my speculations (if wise, based on what you’ve taught me or my readings; if not wise, my own reflections) and my way of learning more about Zen history. From a practical perspective, this is not important—only theoretically and historically interesting.
1. It’s a big assumption to claim Chan separated from “original” Buddhism present in India at the time of Bodhidharma. That assumes what existed in India at that time (a lot of scholastic buddhism I believe, such as the Visuddhimagga) was “original”, and/or that the Pāli Canon was “original.” The Visuddhimagga is a commentary on the pali cannon, and the the pali cannon was written centuries after the Buddha. With what we know about memory, it seems unlikely it can be "original".
2. An alternative assumption that to me seems more reasonable: Chan was a return to the Buddha’s subtle insight, discarding later dualistic interpretations (while ALSO adding new doctrines etc., yes, as part of evolving in China). The Buddha worried his insight was “too subtle” to transmit—perhaps because it was non-dualistic. Maybe later traditions misunderstood this subtlety and introduced dualistic frameworks (stages, goals), making Buddhism resemble self-help. Zen’s radical simplicity may reflect that original subtlety better.
3. Another possibility, and in line with traditional zen doctrine (although it doesn't seem as likely to me): Bodhidharma represented a stream of Buddhism (i.e., early zen), now lost to history, closer to the Buddha’s "original" teaching.
4. Maybe Taoism and Zen didn’t just influence each other—they may have discovered similar truths about subtlety and non-duality independently of each other. Maybe this is one reason why they influenced each when chan developed in China. Other non-buddhist traditions also draw similar conclusions on non-duality, suggesting this could be possible perhaps.
5. Other Chinese schools didn’t develop like Chan, suggesting Chan’s development wasn’t only culturally driven. Could maybe support the claim that Chan was as much about returning to original buddhism as it was about evolving within and with a Chinese culture.
6. Therefore, Zen may be closer to the Buddha’s original insight than what was happening in India at the time of the first Chinese ancestor. And thus I think it’s a stretch to question whether zen is even buddhism. It makes more sense to me to claim that zen is more buddhist than the scholastic buddhism present in India and China in the 3rd and 4th century.
Really enjoyed her article, and this is simply me engaging (probably a bit simplistically) with her perspective. Thank you, Domyo
Would love to get your perspectives to learn more!
Gassho, Hōzan
satlah
Domyo describes Chan as having “transformed Buddhism so radically that it’s legitimate to question whether Chan is even Buddhism.” I struggle with this claim, and it’s this point I want to address.
Please take the following as my speculations (if wise, based on what you’ve taught me or my readings; if not wise, my own reflections) and my way of learning more about Zen history. From a practical perspective, this is not important—only theoretically and historically interesting.
1. It’s a big assumption to claim Chan separated from “original” Buddhism present in India at the time of Bodhidharma. That assumes what existed in India at that time (a lot of scholastic buddhism I believe, such as the Visuddhimagga) was “original”, and/or that the Pāli Canon was “original.” The Visuddhimagga is a commentary on the pali cannon, and the the pali cannon was written centuries after the Buddha. With what we know about memory, it seems unlikely it can be "original".
2. An alternative assumption that to me seems more reasonable: Chan was a return to the Buddha’s subtle insight, discarding later dualistic interpretations (while ALSO adding new doctrines etc., yes, as part of evolving in China). The Buddha worried his insight was “too subtle” to transmit—perhaps because it was non-dualistic. Maybe later traditions misunderstood this subtlety and introduced dualistic frameworks (stages, goals), making Buddhism resemble self-help. Zen’s radical simplicity may reflect that original subtlety better.
3. Another possibility, and in line with traditional zen doctrine (although it doesn't seem as likely to me): Bodhidharma represented a stream of Buddhism (i.e., early zen), now lost to history, closer to the Buddha’s "original" teaching.
4. Maybe Taoism and Zen didn’t just influence each other—they may have discovered similar truths about subtlety and non-duality independently of each other. Maybe this is one reason why they influenced each when chan developed in China. Other non-buddhist traditions also draw similar conclusions on non-duality, suggesting this could be possible perhaps.
5. Other Chinese schools didn’t develop like Chan, suggesting Chan’s development wasn’t only culturally driven. Could maybe support the claim that Chan was as much about returning to original buddhism as it was about evolving within and with a Chinese culture.
6. Therefore, Zen may be closer to the Buddha’s original insight than what was happening in India at the time of the first Chinese ancestor. And thus I think it’s a stretch to question whether zen is even buddhism. It makes more sense to me to claim that zen is more buddhist than the scholastic buddhism present in India and China in the 3rd and 4th century.
Really enjoyed her article, and this is simply me engaging (probably a bit simplistically) with her perspective. Thank you, Domyo
Would love to get your perspectives to learn more!
Gassho, Hōzan
satlah
Comment