Zen and 'cultural studies' group-think

[Joss Winn]

I am reminded that about 18 months or so ago, I posted two long replies to
'What is a Zen Movie'.  I post them here again for your convenience.

Joss Winn

Subject: Re: inq: What's a Zen movie?

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



============

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997

From: Josiah Luke Winn

Subject: Re: inq: What's a Zen movie?

There is a brief bibliography at the end of my message.

Sybil Thornton wrote:

"I think, we should look at Zen film less from the perspective of the
product than from the perspective of its production and reproduction of its
tradition. I don't think there is any such thing as Zen film. There is
however a process for training filmmakers and performers characterized by a
preconceived model of form and diction and a rigorous apprenticeship under a
master."

It would seem that I am not the only one to consider Robert Sharf's work on
Zen as useful for this discussion (strange,in that he wouldn't regard
himself as a Zen scholar). When I initially responded to Paul's question, I
also wrote that I didn't think there was such a thing as a Zen film, but
then decided to omit this, thinking that I was being a little too hasty.

When I wrote last time, I wanted to detract from the rather crude efforts of
a 'Zen style' of film that lingers on emptiness and silence, and suggest a
'fuller' film style, one that I think reflects more accurately, the zen
lifestyle. I should add something at this point following David Desser's
comment: "'the Zen of everyday life' wherein one lives fully, in the moment,
totally dedicated to whatever it is one is doing." Admittedly this kind of
remark is found in every popular book on Zen, yet it is by no means unique
to Zen. Every Buddhist tradition would include this as an essential
practice. It's this kind of misunderstanding that we need to be aware of
when talking about Zen. There is, in fact, little that distinguishes it from
any other Buddhist tradition except for an obsession with it's patriarchal
geneaology and a greater emphasis placed on meditation-although not in all
cases.

Clearly, if we are to make a 'zen film', we should be aware of what Zen is,
and understand the rhetorical moves often found within the tradition. The
Zen tradition is fortunate in many ways, that it had such a charismatic
spokesperson to represent it in the West (Suzuki). In Japan the situation is
different of course. Zen is just another Buddhist sect and far from being
the most popular. It's influence on the arts derives mostly from it's
political connections during the Muromachi period, and not because there is
something intrinsically unique to it that defines the Japanese. Much of our
understanding of Zen and Japanese culture comes from Suzuki's book of that
title, a book which although still in print, is now the subject of much
criticism today among scholarly circles.

My knowledge of art within the Zen tradition is very slim, and although I
have criticised the emphasis on Zen emptiness, silence, minimalism, etc.
these are features that we can identify in traditional Zen arts. Indeed if
one were to go to a Zen monastery one would see that there is very little
ornament, especially compared to, say, a Shingon monastery. Yet, minimalism
isn't the exclusive property of the Zen tradition, nor is emptiness. We
should remember that Buddhism is an ascetic tradition and that this
lifestyle demands a certain amount of minimalism (admittedly few Japanese
priests would seem to follow this). The emphasis on emptiness is also by no
means exclusive to Zen. It has been the central philosophical doctrine of
the entire East Asian Buddhist tradition since it's arrival in China in the
2nd century.

Obviously there is a Zen aesthetic, yet how we translate that onto film I'm
not quite sure. How significant should we deem it anyway? Surely,there would
be more to a Zen film that it's immediate sensual properties. I do remember
enjoying Bae Yong-Kyun's film but am inclined to think that Paul's original
question was referring more to Zen style than a film explicitly about Zen.
As I have mentioned, I am more interested in considering what a Zen
narrative would consist of, what themes would it address?

With regards to Markus' comment: "Yes, but perhaps more important for this
discussion is the function of Zen in popular culture; this is basically what
we are dealing with when it comes to the cinema question. This helps us
sidestep questions which you begin to raise on "authentic" traditions. A
better approach is to think of practice, its appearance in popular culture
being one important form that may have absolutely nothing to do with what
goes on in the monasteries."

To do this we have to consider whether we are talking about Zen in the USA
or Zen in Japan. The two are quite different. I'm not sure if I should
really attempt to answer how Zen functions in either culture as I have only
spent a couple of months in Japan, and most of this was in a monastery.
Neither am I qualified to talk much about Zen in the USA, as I'm really only
a visitor here. In Japan, there are a few opportunities for the populace to
practice Zen meditation outside of the monastery. It is also common for Zen
monasteries to encourage companies to send groups of business men to do week
long intensive retreats. The retreat I did had twenty or so business men
there, most of whom had never meditated before. Their company was also kind
enough to provide cakes and buns for everyone each day! Anyway, I will leave
Zen and popular culture to someone else for now. It has been my intention to
point out the misunderstanding many Westerners (and even some Japanese) have
about the term 'Zen'and to encourage a more 'enlightened' (sorry!)
perspective. I really think it could be much more interesting than what we
have had up to now. It would also allow us to appreciate the richness of the
tradition beyond the usual spin on emptiness and minimalism. Unlike Sybil, I
do think that a 'Zen film' is possible, one that communicates issues found
within the tradition without a reliance on overt symbolism and empty imagery
and yet offers Zen answers or a Zen perspective on life through the use of
narrative in a subtle and familiar way. Since it is a religious tradition,
it should be relevant to all aspects of life, offering suggestions and
guidance. Neither would the film rest on the pretence of offering the viewer
a glimpse of enlightenment (within the Zen traditon, enlightenment is handed
down and certified individually from master to disciple, something a
film-maker could not do).


Joss

p.s. here's the brief bibliography:

 Faure, B. 1995. 'The Kyoto School and Reverse Orientalism.' Japan in
Traditional and Postmodern Perspectives. Eds. Charles Wei-hsun Fu and Steven
Heine. Albany: SUNY.

 --- 1993. Chan Insights and Oversights. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.

 --- 1991. The Rhetoric of Immediacy. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.

 Foulk, T.G. 1988. 'The Zen Institution in Modern Japan' Zen Tradition and
Transition. Ed. Kenneth Kraft. New York: Grove Press. 157-177.

 Ketelaar, James Edward. 1990. Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan.
Buddhism and its Persecution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

 Sharf, Robert H. 1995. 'The Zen of Japanese Nationalism.' Curators of the
Buddha: The study of Buddhism Under Colonialism. Ed. D. Lopez Jnr. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.

 --- 1994. 'Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited' Rude Awakenings. Zen, the
Kyoto School & the Question of Nationalism. Eds. James W. Heisig & John C.
Maraldo, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

 Stone, J. 1990. 'A Vast and Grave Task: Interwar Buddhist Studies as an
Expression of Japan's Envisioned Global Role.' Culture and Identity:
Japanese Intellectuals During the Interwar Years. Ed. Rimer, J.T. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.

 Suzuki, D.T. 1953. 'Zen: A Reply to Hu Shih.' Philosophy East and West. 3:
25-46.