George Wrisley Associate Professor of Philosophy University of North Georgia
[email protected] *This is an early draft. I’d be grateful for any feedback, particularly critical feedback. Please send any to the above email address. Thank you! Two Dogmas of Zen Buddhism Read widely in Zen Buddhism and it becomes clear: the majority of writers, with the notable exception of Dōgen, approach language as Wittgenstein does in the Tractatus. That is, they write as though language, concepts, and meaning are centered around the function of describing the facts. These writers do not offer a theory of how this is possible, as Wittgenstein did; instead, they offer a theory of how terribly inadequate language is for the task of describing the world as it really is. In fact, language not only fails to allow us to say how things really are, but it necessarily obscures reality from us. This is what I am calling the first dogma of Zen Buddhism. The second dogma of Zen Buddhism is that enlightenment is centrally the cultivation of a certain kind of experience, e.g., the experience of realizing the true nature of reality, i.e., its emptiness. These two dogmas usually go hand in hand, the one supporting the other. Representative of these claims, consider Mario D’Amato’s noting that, “a dominant theme in Mahāyāna soteriological thought is that language and conceptualization are at the root of the problem with sentient existence…”1 Further, discussing what he takes to be the third of three ways one may describe something, Garma C.C.