Erich From and Zen Buddhism - Essay Example

[The [The [The Erich From and Zen Buddhism This paper will discuss and assess the views of psychoanalyst Erich Fromm about Zen Buddhism. It would also encompass his brief biography and different relevant issues pertaining to his life and theories will also be discussed. Background of the Study At a meeting in Mexico during 1957, Professor Suzuki, leading spokesman of Zen in the world, described the Zen approach with special emphasis on its potential for psychoanalysis. To be the flower is to thrust into the source of creativity, the unconscious. The true artist gets into the flower and lives its life. That artist may, nevertheless, be every man, providing he has left his scrappy, limited, restrained, egocentric existence behind. The unconscious, in terms of Zen, the unidentified, is antescientific but however not beyond the reach of consciousness. To become conscious of the unconscious is certainly Zen's primary task. Biography of Erich Fromm (1900-80). He completed his education at the Universities of Frankfurt, Heidelberg, and Munich, and at the Berlin Institute of Psychoanalysis. Following his immigration to the United States in 1933, he established a private practice in psychiatry and taught at New York University and the National University of Mexico. His main writings explored those needs that he recognized as exclusively human- relatedness, transcendence, rootedness, individuality, and a frame of orientation. His works, several of which reached wide audiences, include Escape from Freedom (1941), Man For Himself (1947), The Heart of Man (1964), and The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973). Background of Zen Buddhism The manifestation of many contributions to the topic of Zen Buddhism, is in more than one way indicative of our state of affairs in the Western World. If the need of Oriental philosophy is however increasingly felt in our times, the explanation would rather point to a psychological frame of reference. Erich Fromm maintains that there is a paradoxical element in Zen Buddhism which is more congenial to Western rational thought than is Western religion itself. Thus according to him, it is not surprising that the teachings of Zen help Western man to find an answer to his most upsetting problems. (Fromm, 2000) C.G. Jung is inclined to equate the terms satori with the Self. (Suzuki, 1999) Jung terms the ego as the center of awareness. The Self embraces and includes the ego. (Jung, 1998 ) Satori is, therefore, a release of the ego through the Self, to which the Buddha-Nature, i.e. total consciousness is added. Sigmund Freud is less hopeful about the success of this approach. Even as the methods used in reaching conscious awareness are varied, there remains however a weak relationship between Zen and psychoanalysis. The Zen master, to be true, maintains that intellection of any kind is a key offense so far as the understanding of Zen is concerned, while Freud emphatically posits: "where id was, there ego shall be". The great experts of Zen are well aware of this quandary, and it is in this light that Suzuki states: "If I am asked ... what Zen teaches, I would reply, Zen teaches nothing. Whatever teachings there are in Zen, they come out of one's own mind. We teach ourselves; Zen only points the way. Unless this pointing is teaching, there is certainly nothing in Zen intentionally set up as its fundamental doctrines or as its fundamental philosophy." (Suzuki, 2000) Hubert Benoit concurs with this idea when he points out that Zen comprises a variety of angles. "My reader", he states, "should understand that no artificial understanding is deemed to pass from my mind to his ... this synthesis should happen in his mind by a means appropriate to himself, as it occurs in my mind by a means appropriate to me". (Benoit,1995) Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis Many a fundamental difference between Zen and psycho-analysis is already perceptible at this point, but so are other similarities, despite the varied methods of approach. It is thus the task of this paper to restrict the essence of Zen in terms of psychological experience, in order to outline areas of concurrence as well as of variety and to come to some sort of appreciation of "prajna-paramita" the sphere of great perfection/, the summum bonum of Zen. This fact is worsened by the Zen masters' assertion that the experience of prajna-paramita is not communicable because it is basically a matter of "pure subjectivity". As a result, the student striving for an understanding of Zen will reach that level which his individual predilection allows. Pure subjectivity stands for enlightenment which is free from touching contagion, hence not derived from psychotic phenomena. The subjective element applies to individual attainment. One can safely say that Zen emerges or transcends the premiss of no-supposition. This is psychologically pertinent since a withdrawal of conscious contents from man's conscious self-image is equal to invigorating and activating the subliminal potential. In terms of Zen, this is fundamentally what we comprehend by "satori". If the individual going through such an experience is capable of encompassing the unconscious material in his total psychic framework, or particularly his message of "Ganzheitserlebnis" (experience of becoming whole), has finally come into its own and that the promise Zen holds presents a workable alternative to the process of creeping psychic dissociation in the 20th century. Carl Jaspers defines the connotation of philosophy as being on the way', the fate of man in his temporality. Jaspers' comprehension of reality through inner action (Jaspers, 1999) is further recounts his bizarre experiences with Zen which he approached through the distinctive medium of archery. Only then is the self capable of coming out as a constructive, climactic achievement in the life of the individual. The Zen master might express himself in the following manner: my aim is to be purposeless, i.e. in a state of no-anxiety, and as to the arrow: it certainly will find its own objective since it is an essential part of my total experience of archery and no longer adheres to my separative self. The poet calls this line "the way of the dancer's soul". (Richard, 2001) This example proves unquestionably that the introduction of dichotomous thought patterns, even furtively, is an act of sedition, hence incompatible with the teachings of Zen. Whether we talk of Jaspers' das Umgreifende' or Herrigel's umfassende Wahrheit' (encompassing truth) we only highlight the dilemma which comes out if and when the Zen scholar attempts to verbalize, because "every Gedachtsein' (state of being thought) means being fallen out of the surrounding. The one who wishes to articulate the experience of prajna-paramita is unwilling to divulge his innermost thoughts because he realizes that by doing so he is leaving the area of the encompassing and enters the sphere of being-fallen-out', i.e. vijnana /a state of perceiving with cerebral knowledge. Prajna, conversely, depicts seeing without mental knowledge, that is without the participation of both senses and mind. Communication and Zen Buddhism In a way, the mondo with its scarcity of verbal expression and its terseness reflects the basic resistance of the Zen master to relate his experiences and therefore to expose himself to a dichotomous train of thought. Bearing in mind the tart struggle that precedes the state of inspirational peace and the nature of personality transformation, it is quite comprehensible why the Zen masters would be hesitant to verbalize. Before any step is taken to describe these two concepts further, we would have to elucidate the basic concept of "sunyata", a requirement in the understanding of Zen. Erich Fromm defines it as "the openness to receive", (Fromm, 2000) which means open-mindedness to evaluate our world of experience (vijnana) appropriately. Our world of experience, according to Taoist notion, is never random in any of its manifestations. As a result, Yang can only be understood in terms of Yin and vice versa. Both are adjuncts of mankind's sequential extistence, hence inferior principles that serve a greater pacifying principle. It is only in the state of satori that this superior, universal principle shows itself in its timelessness, which in Zen is often regarded as the state of beginningless beginning', motionless motion', unconscious cosciousness'. It is then an affirmation' of the everyday world in its natural suchness'.... Indeed it makes baloney of the thought that Buddhism is always a philosophy of world-denial". (Allan, 1997) It is thus in the sphere of prajna-paramita that the non-dual aspect of the Zen mondo assumes importance, and it is in the struggle for the superior principle that the world is divulged as "Ganzheitserlebnis". Heinrich Zimmer states that this non-dual entity manifests itself in everyday life as the sexual act. Here human beings slipped into the Cosmic Unconscious which allows them to be flower, stone, animal and human, impromptu. Psychic Alienation In the striving to conquer psychic estrangement, Western man can either face the critical question of individuality in a positive manner and evolve significantly in his dealings with his fellow men, or he may choose not to ask the relevant question. As long as knowledge remains a subject-object relationship it adheres to the area of vijnana and its mostly collective values. Zen scholars suggest here the historic plunge into the unfamiliar. The individual having reached the far-away shore of prajna-paramita understands that his very own knowledge bears the mark of universality. Despite the assurance that Buddhahood is in everyone's reach, the Zen master never imparts anything about his knowledge to others, because he is conscious that it is the knowledge which the subject has of himself directly without any medium between him and his knowledge. The return to the pleromatic womb of ecstasy has remained a ubiquitous desire of human beings. Wherever the plunge into the unknown is attempted--and this incorporates the leap from vijnana to prajna-paramita--the experience remains outside of the verbal perspective. Any attempt to articulate and define it bears the mark of estrangement. What remains significant in the encounter with Zen Buddhism is its instructive message by means of which Western man may be weaned away from his self-absorbed penchant of gluttony and personal enrichment. At this road juncture the sages of Zen and the Biblical prophets speak a similar language. Both Zen and psychoanalysis can cause an "ethical transformation" as greed is transformed into love and sympathy, because mounting into maturity is equal to freeing oneself from the fetters of prehistoric libidinal cathexis. In terms of Freud: "In our view the individual advances from self-absorption to object-love". (Freud, 1996) The aim of psychoanalysis is the sublimation of egotistical self-love, while altruism is a Zen a priori. When a Zen Buddhist monk was asked as to the profundity of the Zen river while he was walking over a bridge, he immediately seized the questioner and would have thrown him into the river, but a friend quickly intervened. The monk wanted the questioner to go down to the bottom of the river to survey its intensity according to his own measure. The question as to the depth of the Zen river shows up the uselessness of verbalization. The Zen master advised his followers against accepting anything until it was proved to be true. The monk repeated the question, which made the master mock at him, saying: I am not deaf. The question regarding the Source, i.e. prajna, is brought up as a matter of scholarly assumption. The master remains hushed, thereby making it apparent that the inquiry is superfluous. The latter, nevertheless, misunderstanding the well calculated interruption, quickly repeats his request, thereby betraying his complete ignorance of prajna-intuition. Zen deals with the suchness' of things and is thus against ratiocination. It is for this reason that Suzuki regards Zen as fundamental realism rather than mysticism because it appeals to knowing rather than thinking and thus forms the leap from "econd-hand to direct experience. A monk approaches master Keisho to ask him about the Primary Man. Keisho replies: "No mistaking about this vigorous existence six feet high". The monk now asks: "Is it up to the Primary Man or not to presume this form" The master replies: "What do you call the Primary Man" The master, rather than give him instructions as the monk aspired, proposes the question: "Who is to instruct you" (Fromm, 20000) The question regarding the nature of the Primary Man is, actually, the question of what forms prajna-paramita. Keisho was instantly aware that the monk was vijnana oriented. He thus defined the Primary Man in terms reasonable to the logic of the monk by referring to "this forceful existence six feet high". Nevertheless, Keisho's reference to physical appearance bewildered the monk who was obviously a tyro with respect to Zen instruction. This is reflected in the following question: "It's up to the Primary Man, or not, to suppose this form" Keisho's interjection: "What do you call the Primary Man" throws the monk off balance even more because the Primary Man is not indistinguishable with the physical man, and yet, from Keisho's vantage ground of prajna experience, they are not completely separate. The monk's ensuing questions about the Primary Man only emphasize his basic dilemma. Keisho can only direct the monk, but he cannot make him experience prajna-intuition as such. This is the cause why Keisho asks the monk: "who is to instruct you" (Fromm, 2000) Ungan Donjo's comment about the omniscience of the man under discussion is prajna oriented. Tozan's inquiry, nevertheless, refers to acquired knowledge, applicable within the field of vijnana. Donjo's retort: "Not a book in his house", underscores the Master's lack of concern with the virtual aspect of knowledge. Prajna-intuition is a state of consciousness leading to total understanding, an expression of ego mastery over id. On this level the individual under consideration is no longer in need of sleep. The omniscient man mentioned in the mondo symbolizes the spirit of ego awareness, i.e. maha-prajna- paramita (transcendental wisdom), which prevents any reasoning in dialectical terms. Tozan's inquiry, if he may put a question to the man is unnecessary in terms of prajna, as a result there will be no answer. Implication Of Basic Tenets The inference here confirms the basic precept of Zen that each human being indicates "a radius of equal length in the centerless circled which the universe depicts. Dogo's question follows the broad inquiry into the nature of Buddhist teaching. Sekito retorts that such knowledge cannot be imparted. Dogo is vijnana-oriented and presses for an answer. As long as Dogo is wedged in the web of vijnana, there is no saying how and where the mind will move. Nevertheless, on the distant shore of Rrajna-paramita the direction is no longer pertinent. The next time Dogo wishes to know if there is anyone in possession of the teaching. Sekito replies that such knowledge is limited to the one who has acquired it. Certainly, Dogo quickly applies that information to Sekito. Dogo has clearly no experience of prajna-intuition. Sekito's answer is thus trait of the true Zen Master. "No, I don't appreciate Buddhism", means that he has no cogent grasp of prajna. The knowledge of Zen is knowledge unknowable'. Sekiso's question is replete with apprehension because of his vijnana existence. The presence of the master is a source of enormous strength to him. Dogo calls the attendant to fill the pitcher. This is the way Zen masters cut short intellection on the part of their students. Dogo observes another little break after the pitcher has been filled. He is quasi giving Sekiso another chance to comprehend the sign. In his innocence he repeats the question precisely. Sekiso will perhaps not be able to stay uncaring to so sweeping a gesture on the part of his master. Nevertheless, whether he is capable of finally experiencing satori in order to reach the far-flung shore of prajna-paramita is a matter of his subjective penchant. There is an extra element of interest to both Zen and psychoanalysis in this mondo. Sekiso is in a state of nervousness because of his reliance on the respected teacher. If the Zen student manages to wind his way through the maze of Zen thought, he will come to the conclusion that the sign to grasping the obscure implications vested in the Zen mondos lies in the non-dual facet of Nature which is achievable through prajna-intuition. Zen masters maintain that it is completely flawed to relate Zen Buddhism with escape from involvement. Zen is not mysticism, if the latter is to be understood in the sense of escapism. Zen is right in the middle of the ocean of becoming. It is certainly Nature itself". (Fromm, 2000) Even as satori should ultimately lead to the transcendent peace of prajna-paramita, the Zen masters have warned that solitude and disentanglement from worldly affairs are, actually, violations of the basic premiss of Zen. Tao, i.e. the way, leading to prajna-paramita leads to an understanding of life through the doorway of one's own subjectivity. Conclusion According to Fromm "well-being means, lastly, to drop one's ego, to renounce gluttony, to stop chasing after the safeguarding and the enrichment of the Ego, to be and to experience one's self in the act of being, not having, protecting desiring, using. If the Buddhist is asked to propose a general working norm of health and wisdom, at least to be approximated in changeable degrees, overcoming vanity is one I prefer and find favorable in light of the Buddhist tradition. It may even be a point of meeting for a general religious viewpoint on therapy, and not just for an Eastern position. Despite the dilemmas of ego psychology, it is also a notion that makes sense to a Freudian, particularly in the light of Freud's paper on narcissism. Fromm has not just invigorated the Freudian concept of narcissism, but he takes it away from this and brings it close to the principle of the Buddha. Fromm remarks: The awakened person of whom the Buddhist teaching speaks is the person who has conquered his narcissism, and who is thus capable of being fully wakeful. It remained a mission for Erich Fromm to rejuvenate the Freudian idea of narcissism: "Narcissism is a fervor the strength of which in many individuals can only be compared with sexual longing and the desire to stay alive. As a matter of fact, many times it proves to be stronger than either. Even in the average individual in whom it does not reach such strength, there remains a narcissistic nucleus which seems almost imperishable." It is true that the Buddhist doctrine of egolessness offers a hint to the besetting dilemmas of the narcissistic man, but Fromm feels that it is an aspect that fits in with all the great religions of the world, East or West. The student of Zen who attempts to pierce the sphere of Nature by recognizing himself with it in his pure sujectivity', is thereby struggling to let Nature in its pure objectivity' become aware within him. This conative penchant is a positive factor in the application of Zen as a way of life. (Frommm, 2000). The summum bonum of Zen Buddhism is to become aware of the unconscious, a precondition of the psychoanalytical process also. Living authentically means to have achieved "Ganzheitserlebnis" (experience of totality) which describes the area of living in truth. Here, nevertheless, we have discussed a crucial difference between Zen and psychoanalysis. To study a flower, in terms of Suzuki, means to be the flower. Anything short of "experience of totality" is vijnana, the world of intellection and dichotomous existences. Not to have reached the shore of prajna-paramita is tantamount to having failed to grasp the essence of Zen. Westerners would call the analytical process successful if the patient's burden of delusions, repressions and distorted projections can substantially be diminished. Even as the aim of psychoanalysis is "Ganzheitserlebnis", such experience, according to Freud, remains doubtful, hence entirely eschatological. Put otherwise: to become conscious of the unconscious is, in terms of psychoanalysis, a maximal, in terms of Zen, a minimal requisite. One of the most evident differences between Zen and psychoanalysis is the method applied to the student/patient situation. The above mondos have been divided into numerous categories among which the master's irritation towards his students features significantly. The Zen scholar may suddenly end a conversation by slapping the student's ear or his face, overlooking him by means of well calculated replies, a method barely to meet with endorsement in the psychoanalytical encounter in our parts of the world. If, according to Erich Fromm, the appearance of the mature man' is the objective of both Oriental Zen and Occidental psychoanalysis, and if the man on that level has shrugged off his inconsequential fears of uncertainty, his one-sided ratiocinative inclination, there is hope for human beings to arrive at a better clutch of the meaning of reality. Works Cited Allan, W. Watts: The Way of Zen. Studies in Zen, ed., Ch. Humphreys, New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1997, pp. 72-73. Benoit, Hubert: The Supreme Doctrine. New York: The Viking Press, 1995, p. XV. Carl Jaspers: Einfuhrung in die Philosophie (Introduction into the Philosophy). Munchen: R. Piper & Co., 1961, p. 14. Freud, Sigmund. 1996. St. Ed., Vol. XVII, "A Difficulty in the Path Psycho-Analysis", p. 139. Fromm, Erich D.T. Suzuki, Richard DeMartino: Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis. New York: Grove Press, Inc. 2000, pp. 1-20. Jung: C.G. 1998.Psychological Types, Transl. Godwin Baynes, New York: Pantheon Books, p. 540. Richard, De Martino. 2001 . "The human situation and Zen Buddhism". In Erich Fromm et. al., Zen Buddhism and psychoanalysis. New York: Harper & Row. Suzuki, D.T.1999: An Introduction to Zen Buddhism, "Foreword" by C.G. Jung, London: Rider, p. 13. Suzuki, D. T. 2000 . "Lectures on Zen Buddhism". In Erich Fromm et. al., Zen Buddhism and psychoanalysis. New York: Harper & Row. Read More