inq: What's a Zen movie?

[jlwinn@umich.edu]

Hello, my name is Joss Winn and I'm a graduate student at the University
of Michigan.  I study Japanese Buddhism, particularly Zen, and am also a
student this semester of Prof. Mark Nornes in his Asian Cinema class
(highly recommended!)  I follow the discussions of KineJapan quite
closely but haven't had much to contribute until now.

This message is quite long and mostly concerns itself with Buddhism and
not film.  I do think, however, that it is entirely relevant to the
question of a "Zen movie."

With regards to "What's a Zen movie?", we first have to ask "what is
Zen?" 
There is a habit in the West (I don't know about Japan) to abuse the
term 'zen' and manipulate it for all manner of enterprises.  It has an
exotic appeal that is consistently taken advantage of. Of course, we
talk of 'Zen
art', so why not 'Zen movies'? Well, it depends on what piece of art
we're talking about.  If it's
one of Hakuin's brush paintings, then yes, that is certainly art within
the Zen Buddhist tradition.  It is 'Zen art'.  I have no problems with
the
use of the term 'Zen' in instances like this.  It is when we find such
things
as 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' and 'Zen and the Art of
Making Lots of Cash' (I
made the last one up but have seen these types of books).  It is this
abuse of the term that has led to the quite common remark, "oh, how very
Zen!" which, if we examine what Zen actually was and still is in most
instances, this is an entirely ignorant exclamation, drawing not from
the Buddhist conception of
Zen, but from the Western misconception of Zen that has developed over
the last century.  

I do not see myself as a Zen purist, nor am I a Zen Buddhist, although I
have spent a brief period in Japan training at a Ryutakuji, a Rinzai Zen
monastery in Shizuoka-ken.  I also attended regular 'sittings' and
retreats at a Zen temple in London for a few years, so I have had some
contact with the tradition beyond books.  However, it is to books that
we
should turn if we want to understand the historical development of
the Western conception of 'Zen'.  I think if we do this, it will allow
us
to consider whether a 'Zen Movie' is possible, and if so, what would it
be like?  

The introduction of Zen in Europe and the USA is due almost entirely to
the efforts of DT Suzuki, a name that many people are familiar with.
Suzuki wrote
dozens of books on Zen in English and provided the foundations for both
the popular and scholarly understanding of Zen in the West today.
However, in the last decade, Suzuki's works have come under considerable
criticisim for presenting an entirely twisted sense of the Zen
tradition's history, doctrine and practice. 

Suzuki's presentation of Zen rests largely on his position as a scholar
during the Meiji and Taisho
periods.  If we read his works they present the essence of Zen as an
experience of 'satori'or 'enlightenment'.  (There is a problem with
talking about an 'essence' in  Buddhism which, doctrinally, argues there
is no essence to anything-so how come, for Suzuki,  their is an 'essence
of Zen'?)  This over emphasis on satori has been shown, quite
convincingly, to derive from Suzuki's position as a Meiji Buddhist
scholar. 

During the Meiji period, Buddhism was severely persecuted for
being a foreign tradition while the State were attempting to emphasise
the
indigenous Shintoism as the national ethic.  In response, Buddhist
institutions
realised the need for reform and began to promote a new type of
Buddhism,
one that was no longer the rich land-owning and rather stagnant
tradition
that it had become, but rather a vibrant tradition that was immediately
relevant to everyone.  Part of their efforts were directed towards
establishing private Buddhist Universities in order to compete with the
new State universities.  As a result of this, a new form of scholarship
was born: Japanese Buddhology.  (Interestingly, it is now the largest
body
of scholarship on Buddhism in the world). This scholarship followed the
Japanese model of Buddhism as being highly sectarian (in no other
Buddhist
country are different forms of Buddhism defined in terms of their
institutional history-usually,in other countries,  all types of
belief and practice can found within a single monastic copmpound).

Suzuki must be understood as not only a Buddhist scholar,
but also a Meiji scholar who was educated in a new system of education,
was highly susceptible to Western modes of thinking and whose own
understanding of Zen was influenced by Western psychology and
philosophy.
Prof. Robert Sharf of the University of Michigan has done quite a
convincing job of showing where Suzuki was coming from, who his sources
of
understanding were and why he presented Zen as he did.  He shows how
Suzuki's emphasis on  satori, or the 'Zen experience' is a gross
misrepresentation of Zen Buddhism if we examine the history of the
tradition itself. In fact, Sharf argues that Suzuki's emphasis on satori
as the
quintessential Zen experience is used in the interests of a greater
nationalistic discourse.  Sharf shows how Suzuki defines satori as
uniquely Japanese, and that Westerners are unable to experience it.  By
interpreting the Zen experience in this way, Suzuki was able to place
both
Zen and the 'enlightened' beneficiaries of that tradition (i.e. the
entire
Japanese nation) above the increasingly influential Western powers and
the threat of imperialism. 

>From my brief time in a Zen monastery (two months during the summer
of 1994) I found that the Zen life (as epitomized by the monastic
life),has
very little to do with what Suzuki is talking about.  Rather, monks are
more concerned with learning elaborate ritual techiniques, memorizing
scriptures and performing the daily work routine.  

Within Buddhism, the monks and nuns are seen as absolutely essential to
the continuation of the tradition.  The monastic lifestyle provides the
perfect example of Buddhist practice, and so I am inclined to think that
if we are really to get a sense of what Zen is, then we must understand
what is going on in the monastery.  This is not to suggest that lay
practioners are not practicing Zen correctly or authentically (what is
authentic practice anyway?) but that the regulated monastic lifestyle
presents the ideal within the tradition of what Zen is.  If we are to
accept this, then much of the Western understanding of Zen needs to be
revised and Suzuki needs to be put back on the shelf only to be
reverentially dusted once in a while.  
Indeed Suzuki was important as the populariser of Zen in the West, and
he presented it a way that was very
seductive and in terms that were very recognizable.  But that is the
problem.  When Suzuki used terms like 'the Zen experience', he was not
refering to anything found within the Zen tradition itself, but rather
an
interpretation unique to him and a few other progressive scholars
learned
in Western psychology and philosophy.  Sharf goes so far to say that
'Suzuki's Zen is not Zen at all'.  I understand what Sharf is saying,
but
it requires some elaboration (see above) and also suggests that Zen
doesn't
change.  Indeed the tradition has changed, and Suzuki's influence in the
West was admired by some Japanese priests who, realising that it was a
way
of reviving their failing tradition, adopted much of his terminology to
explain themselves.  However, for the most part, Suzuki did not
significantly change the Zen tradition in Japan.  The monks might desire
satori, but for the most part, they are more interested in learning the
professional techniques in order to serve their local community in the
form of performing funerary rites.

I do not mean to present a negative image of Zen or Japanese Buddhism.
On
the contrary, I have a great deal of admiration and interest in
contemporary Buddhism in Japan (there is nothing wrong with
performing funerary rites!)  However, I do think it is important to
understand our own
misunderstanding of Zen, and realise that when we see a book called 'Zen
and the Art of Making Cash' it is so far removed from what the tradition
is
today, that it's a joke. 

I have also wondered about Richie's questionable interpretation of Ozu
when he describes the "empty moments"
in his films as examples of "mu, a Zen aesthetic term implying, among
other things, nothingness"  Without getting into the details
of Buddhist philosophy, we should note that as a Zen term, Mu is a
strictly
soteriological term indeed referring to 'emptiness', although not
'nothingness'. It would appear that Richie is
saying that in one sense, Ozu's films are 'Zen Movies', and perhaps Ozu
did have an interest in Zen.  Yet, it is quite likely that both Richie
and
Ozu would have received their understanding of Zen from popular books
either by Suzuki or by others influenced by him and not from the
tradition
itself.

So what, if it is possible, is a Zen Movie?  Surely not one full of
empty
moments-that would be a cliche long since given up by contemporary Zen
scholars.  What is Zen?  It's a Buddhist tradition in which monks (and a
few nuns) concern themselves with rituals of some sort or another.  They
meditate (a ritual), chant scripture, worship the Buddha and a whole
lineage of patriarchs going back to the Buddha, they perform funerary
rites, go on alms, spend a great deal of time cleaning and maintaining
their monastery and provide a center for the local community to practice
generosity (by giving gifts to the monks) and learn about the history of
Buddhism, and the basic teachings of the Buddha.  Occasionally a temple
might offer
classes in mediation, although this is rare.  Zen is also a Buddhist
tradition with which the laity might concern themselves when a family
member dies, or as a place to go for New Year's celebrations. Of course,
a
very small minority of the laity also meditate at home, at a local
temple
or during week long monastic retreats.  Yet most of the time, the lay
Zen
Buddhist performs daily reverence to the family ancestors at the
Butsudan
(the domestic shrine) and is not concerned with emptiness or
enlightenment.

Aside from studying Buddhism, I am also interested in making films and
would love to combine my interest in Zen Buddhism and film-making. To be
a
Zen film, it would have to be a Buddhist film; that is, it would somehow
include themes of suffering, the absence of self, the persistence of
life due to past good and bad actions, and the opportunity to stop this
continuation of life and simultaneously help others do so too. We may
ask, "would it have a happy or sad ending?"  Theoretically, it
couldn't possibly have a truely happy ending because the audience would
still be left in the theatres as the credits roll, evidence that there
are
still suffering Beings present in the world.  Yet it needn't have a sad
ending either since the fact that Buddhism still exists in the world
(testified by the very creation of our Zen film), means that there is
still the
opportunity for all Beings to attain nirvana/enlightenment.  Perhaps
there
should be no ending to the film, just as there is no ending to the cycle
of death and rebirth without enlightenment (I would not suggest that my
film could enlighten anyone!) By having no ending, the audience would
naturally be frustrated and have the opportunity to reflect on suffering
as they watch the credits!


Well, I hope those that have bothered to read this far can understand my
irritation with the popular use of the term 'Zen'.  When I first saw
"Zen
movies", I imagined empty moments of silence and  motorcycle
maintenance, and I'm very
bored of coming across that.

Joss

p.s. good luck with your film, Paul!