Hasta
hace
poco
tiempo
el
Budismo
Zen
era
casi
totalmente
desconocido
en
Occidente,
con
excepción
de
unos
pocos
orientalistas
cuyo
interés
por
el
tema
era
principalmente
académico.
El
Zen
es
tan
definidamente
distinto
de
cualquier
otra
forma
de
Budismo,
y
hasta
podría
decirse
de
cualquier
otra
forma
de
religión,
que
ha
provocado
la
curiosidad
de
muchos
que
normalmente
no
hubieran
pensado
en
mirar
hacia
Oriente
en
busca
de
sabiduría
práctica.
Una
vez
que
se
provoca
curiosidad,
no
es
fácil
aplacarla,
pues
el
Zen
ejerce
una
particular
fascinación
sobre
las
cansadas
mentes
de
la
religión
y
la
filosofía
convencionales.
Desde
un
comienzo
el
Zen
se
aparta
de
toda
forma
de
teorización,
instrucción
doctrinaria
y
formalidades
desprovistas
de
vida;
éstas
son
tratadas
como
simples
símbolos
de
la
sabiduría,
y
el
Zen
está
fundado
en
la
práctica
y
en
una
experiencia
íntima,
personal,
de
la
realidad
que
la
mayoría
de
las
formas
de
la
religión
y
la
filosofía
no
encaran
más
que
como
una
descripción
emocional
e
intelectual.
No
se
quiere
decir
con
eso
que
el
Zen
es
el
único
camino
verdadero
que
lleva
a
la
iluminación;
se
ha
dicho
que
la
diferencia
entre
el
Zen
y
otras
formas
de
religión
reside
en
que
"todos
los
otros
caminos
trepan
lentamente
por
las
laderas
de
la
montaña,
pero
el
Zen,
al
igual
que
un
camino
romano,
arroja
a
los
lados
todos
los
obstáculos
y
se
mueve
en
línea
recta
hacia
la
meta".
Después
de
todo,
los
credos,
los
dogmas
y
los
sistemas
filosóficos
son
solamente
ideas
acerca
de
la
verdad,
del
mismo
modo
que
las
palabras
no
son
hechos
sino
que
hablan
acerca
de
los
hechos;
mientras
que
el
Zen
es
una
vigorosa
tentativa
de
ponerse
en
contacto
directo
con
la
verdad
misma,
sin
permitir
que
teorías
y
símbolos
se
yergan
entre
el
conocedor
y
la
cosa
conocida.
En
cierto
sentido
el
Zen
es
sentir
la
vida
en
lugar
de
sentir
algo
acerca
de
la
vida;
no
muestra
ninguna
paciencia
hacia
la
sabiduría
de
segunda
mano,
hacia
la
descripción
que
haga
cualquier
persona
sobre
una
experiencia
espiritual,
o
las
meras
concepciones
y
creencias.
Si
bien
la
sabiduría
de
segunda
mano
es
valiosa
como
cartel
que
señala
el
camino,
con
demasiada
facilidad
se
la
confunde
con
el
camino
mismo,
y
hasta
con
la
meta
final.
Son
tan
sutiles
las
formas
en
que
las
descripciones
de
la
verdad
pueden
presentarse
como
la
verdad
misma,
que
el
Zen
es
con
frecuencia
una
forma
de
iconoclastía,
una
destrucción
de
las
simples
imágenes
intelectuales
de
la
realidad
viviente,
cognoscible
solamente
a
través
de
la
experiencia
personal.
Pero
es
en
sus
métodos
de
instrucción
donde
el
Zen
es
único.
No
hay
en
él
enseñanza
doctrinaria,
ningún
estudio
de
escrituras,
nada
de
programas
formales
de
desarrollo
espiritual.
Aparte
de
unas
pocas
recopilaciones
de
sermones
de
los
primeros
maestros
Zen,
que
son
las
únicas
tentativas
de
una
exposición
racional
de
sus
enseñanzas,
la
casi
totalidad
de
nuestros
antecedentes
de
la
instrucción
Zen
son
un
número
de
diálogos
(mondo)
entre
los
maestros
y
sus
discípulos
que
parecen
dedicar
muy
poca
atención
a
las
normas
usuales
de
la
lógica
y
el
razonamiento
sano,
a
punto
tal
que
aparecen
a
primera
vista
como
carentes
de
sentido.
[...]
Pero
el
Zen
no
trata
de
ser
inteligible,
es
decir,
de
poder
ser
comprendido
por
el
intelecto.
El
método
del
Zen
es
desconcertar,
excitar,
intrigar
y
agotar
al
intelecto
hasta
que
se
perciba
que
la
intelección
es
solamente
acerca
de;
habrá
de
provocar,
irritar
y
volver
a
agotar
a
las
emociones
hasta
que
se
vea
claramente
que
la
emoción
es
solamente
sentir
acerca
de
,
y
luego
discurrir,
cuando
el
discípulo
haya
sido
sometido
a
una
impasse
intelectual
y
emocional,
sobre
cómo
salvar
la
brecha
que
existe
entre
el
contacto
conceptual
de
segunda
mano
con
la
realidad
y
la
experiencia
de
primera
mano.
Para
lograr
esto
pondrá
en
juego
una
facultad
más
elevada
de
la
mente,
conocida
como
intuición
o
Buddhi,
denominada
en
ocasiones
"Ojo
del
Espíritu".
Resumiendo:
el
Zen
aspira
a
concentrar
la
atención
sobre
la
realidad
misma,
en
lugar
de
hacerlo
sobre
nuestras
reacciones
intelectuales
y
emocionales
ante
la
realidad;
siendo
la
realidad
ese
algo
siempre
cambiante,
siempre
creciente,
que
conocemos
como
"vida",
que
jamás
se
detiene
ni
por
un
instante
para
que
nosotros
la
hagamos
encajar
satisfactoriamente
dentro
de
un
rígido
sistema
de
casilleros
e
ideas.
Es
así
como
cualquiera
que
haga
la
tentativa
de
escribir
sobre
Zen,
tiene
que
enfrentarse
con
dificultades
insólitas:
no
puede
jamás
explicar,
sólo
puede
indicar;
tan
sólo
puede
ir
planteando
problemas
y
proporcionando
indicios
que,
cuando
mucho,
apenas
alcanzaran
a
acercar
al
lector
a
la
verdad,
pero
en
el
mismo
instante
en
que
trata
de
llegar
a
una
definición
exacta,
la
cosa
se
le
desliza
de
las
manos,
y
la
definición
termina
siendo
nada
más
que
una
concepción
filosófica.
Until
recently Zen Buddhism was almost completely unknown in the West, with the
exception of a few orientalists whose interest in the subject was primarily
academic.
The Zen is so distinctly different from any other form of Buddhism, and even could be said of any form of religion, which has caused the curiosity of many who would not normally thought of looking to the East in search of practical wisdom.
Once curiosity is raised, it is not easy to placate, as the Zen exerts a particular fascination for the tired minds of conventional religion and philosophy. From the beginning the Zen departs from all forms of theorizing, doctrinal instruction and formalities devoid of life; they are treated as mere symbols of wisdom, and Zen is grounded in practice and in an intimate, personal experience of the reality that most forms of religion and philosophy do not address more than an emotional description and intellectual. Do not you mean that Zen is the only true path leading to enlightenment; It has been said that the difference between Zen and other forms of religion is that "all other paths climb slowly up the slopes of the mountain, but the Zen, like a Roman road, throws sides all obstacles and moves in a straight line towards the goal. " After all, the creeds, dogmas and philosophical systems are only ideas about truth, just as words are not facts but talk about the facts; while the Zen is a vigorous attempt to make direct contact with truth itself, without allowing Yergin theories and symbols between the knower and the thing known. In a sense Zen is feeling life instead of feeling something about life; shows no patience with the wisdom of resale, to the description by any person on a spiritual experience, or mere conceptions and beliefs. While the wisdom of resale is valuable as sign points the way, is too easily confused with the road itself, and even the ultimate goal. They are so subtle ways in which descriptions of truth may be presented as truth itself, that Zen is often a form of iconoclasm, the destruction of simple intellectual images of the living reality, knowable only through personal experience .
But it is in their methods of instruction where Zen is unique. No doctrinal teaching on it, no scriptural study, no formal programs of spiritual development. Apart from a few collections of sermons of the early Zen masters, which are the only attempts at a rational exposition of his teachings, almost all of our history of Zen instruction are a number of dialogues (mondo) between teachers and their disciples that seem to devote little attention to the customary rules of logic and sound reasoning, so much so that at first glance appear as meaningless. [...]
But Zen is not to be intelligible, ie, they can be understood by the intellect. The method of Zen is to baffle, excite, intrigue and exhaust the intellect until it perceives that intellection is only about; will provoke, irritate and again exhaust the emotions until they clearly see that emotion is only feeling about, and then devise, when the pupil has been subjected to an intellectual and emotional impasse on how to bridge the gap between second hand conceptual contact with reality and experience firsthand. To achieve this will play a higher faculty of the mind, known as Buddhi or intuition, sometimes called "Eye of the Spirit." To summarize: the Zen aims to focus attention on the reality itself, rather than on our intellectual and emotional reactions to reality; being that something always changing, always growing, we know as "life" that never stops for a moment for us to do satisfactorily fit within a rigid system of lockers and ideas reality.
Thus anyone who makes an attempt to write about Zen, has to face unusual difficulties: you can never explain, it can only indicate; only you can go to pose problems and provide evidence that, at best, barely reached to bring the reader closer to the truth, but in the same instant that tries to reach a precise definition, things will slip out of hand, and definition ends up being nothing more than a philosophical concept.
The Zen is so distinctly different from any other form of Buddhism, and even could be said of any form of religion, which has caused the curiosity of many who would not normally thought of looking to the East in search of practical wisdom.
Once curiosity is raised, it is not easy to placate, as the Zen exerts a particular fascination for the tired minds of conventional religion and philosophy. From the beginning the Zen departs from all forms of theorizing, doctrinal instruction and formalities devoid of life; they are treated as mere symbols of wisdom, and Zen is grounded in practice and in an intimate, personal experience of the reality that most forms of religion and philosophy do not address more than an emotional description and intellectual. Do not you mean that Zen is the only true path leading to enlightenment; It has been said that the difference between Zen and other forms of religion is that "all other paths climb slowly up the slopes of the mountain, but the Zen, like a Roman road, throws sides all obstacles and moves in a straight line towards the goal. " After all, the creeds, dogmas and philosophical systems are only ideas about truth, just as words are not facts but talk about the facts; while the Zen is a vigorous attempt to make direct contact with truth itself, without allowing Yergin theories and symbols between the knower and the thing known. In a sense Zen is feeling life instead of feeling something about life; shows no patience with the wisdom of resale, to the description by any person on a spiritual experience, or mere conceptions and beliefs. While the wisdom of resale is valuable as sign points the way, is too easily confused with the road itself, and even the ultimate goal. They are so subtle ways in which descriptions of truth may be presented as truth itself, that Zen is often a form of iconoclasm, the destruction of simple intellectual images of the living reality, knowable only through personal experience .
But it is in their methods of instruction where Zen is unique. No doctrinal teaching on it, no scriptural study, no formal programs of spiritual development. Apart from a few collections of sermons of the early Zen masters, which are the only attempts at a rational exposition of his teachings, almost all of our history of Zen instruction are a number of dialogues (mondo) between teachers and their disciples that seem to devote little attention to the customary rules of logic and sound reasoning, so much so that at first glance appear as meaningless. [...]
But Zen is not to be intelligible, ie, they can be understood by the intellect. The method of Zen is to baffle, excite, intrigue and exhaust the intellect until it perceives that intellection is only about; will provoke, irritate and again exhaust the emotions until they clearly see that emotion is only feeling about, and then devise, when the pupil has been subjected to an intellectual and emotional impasse on how to bridge the gap between second hand conceptual contact with reality and experience firsthand. To achieve this will play a higher faculty of the mind, known as Buddhi or intuition, sometimes called "Eye of the Spirit." To summarize: the Zen aims to focus attention on the reality itself, rather than on our intellectual and emotional reactions to reality; being that something always changing, always growing, we know as "life" that never stops for a moment for us to do satisfactorily fit within a rigid system of lockers and ideas reality.
Thus anyone who makes an attempt to write about Zen, has to face unusual difficulties: you can never explain, it can only indicate; only you can go to pose problems and provide evidence that, at best, barely reached to bring the reader closer to the truth, but in the same instant that tries to reach a precise definition, things will slip out of hand, and definition ends up being nothing more than a philosophical concept.
