KU Leuven

East-West Perspectives in Philosophy

Andrés Salazar Abello
0814177

Coherence in Zen’s Paradoxical Understanding of Language

Submitted: 27 December 2020

Zen Buddhist tradition introduces a particular conception of language that can only be further
discussed in relation to buddhahood. A problematic reading of Zen may be to equate
buddhahood as that which lies beyond language. However, language does not play an
exclusively masking role in Zen, particularly if we take seriously the notion of emptiness that
extends to the entirety of experience, including interpretation and interpersonal expressions.
Zen masters would still employ language as a medium to spark realization in their students.
This point is already puzzling, but another element further complicates our understanding of
Zen’s use of language: the nonsensical. In recognizing the value of intentional nonsense, Zen
tradition emphasizes the importance of showing the way towards enlightenment instead of
providing it as a direct gift. The use of the nonsensical in both articulated language and in
physical expressions may allow us to explore the part that language plays in Zen. Taking these
particularities of Zen into account, what is then the actual role that nonsensical expressions
play in realizing the emptiness of experience? In this paper, I propose that the nonsensical is
actually a central element in Zen’s conception of language, especially for its use in the
transmission or rather stimulation of realization.

I will first attempt to clarify the understanding of language in Zen, particularly in relation to
the emptiness of experience. Here, I claim that Zen’s conception of language is only
comprehensible if we take into account the underlying notions of emptiness and non-dualism.
Second, I will focus on the nonsensical element of language and argue its link in stimulating
the realization of emptiness and non-dualism. In this section, I defend that the nonsensical
element is a coherent implication of Zen’s conception of language that allows for a coherent
understanding of the use of language, especially when taking into account the intention of
masters to help in the awakening of their students.
 I. Language within emptiness

Zen may spark a double interpretation that brings about an important challenge to understand
its relation to language. A first interpretation is that language masks or distorts reality and
hence should be understood as an obstacle to achieve enlightenment. In this sense, we would
conceive language as something which enlightenment transcends. It would also entail, in a
more negative sense, a component which impedes us to achieve enlightenment and perceive
the immediateness and emptiness of experience. This approach would lead towards a dismissal
of language in Zen, not only regarding some of its particularities or specific forms of expression
and interpretation, but of the entirety of language. Such view has been supported by some
Western interpretations in the 20th Century through the lens of dichotomies. Surpassing the
limits of language would bring about a universal understanding, it would unchain the individual
from the linguistic limits of its own society to perceive the universal, where “enlightenment is
identification with the ‘universal’ in ‘human nature’” (Wright, 1992, p. 116). This
interpretation encounters a challenge, however. Even though it characterizes language as pre-
enlightenment, and even an obstacle, it would still not explain the implementation of language
as a stimulus for awakening, particularly exemplified in master-monk dialogues.

Before moving to the second interpretation, I will briefly have to say something about the
underlying notions of emptiness and non-dualism that allow for a coherent understanding of
language in Zen. Buddhist practice seeks to achieve the realization of immediate experience.
The accent here is not on temporal actuality, but rather on the non-mediation of experience by
thought or self-reflection. “Zen Buddhism puts the primary emphasis on munen. No-thought
or no-thinking is the core of the doctrine of sudden enlightenment” (Dumoulin, 2005, p. 143).
Enlightenment refers then to the realization of no self-reflection as seeing the reality as a whole,
without mediated distinctions and imposed categoric dualities to that encountered through
experience, and even to experience itself. To achieve this is to see through the Buddha eye, and
realization of the Buddha nature. However, this is not to say that through enlightenment one
becomes a Buddha, since buddhahood cannot be perceived, nor can it be opposed to anything.
An important point of Zen is that the actual emptiness of all experience and the interrelated
totality of all reality share equally in the Buddha nature. Hence, there can be no I, no subject,
nor that, no object. What is more, there is no dualism. The emptiness and interrelatedness in
emptiness is the realization that Zen seeks.
Considering the particular conception of realization or awakening in Zen, its understanding of
and relation with language becomes more complex than dismissing it as an obstacle. If we
admit the evident notion that “Zen Buddhism is interpersonal and social in nature (…) language
plays a crucial role in learning and transmitting the Way” (Ogawa, Masuda, & Sargent, 2017,
p. 86). What is necessary to understand a second, non-dismissive interpretation of language in
Zen, might lie in the actual Zen tradition beyond Zazen (the focus on meditative practices).
Language actually plays a central role in Zen, not for the direct transmission of the Buddha
eye, but leading the student towards his own realization. The first Chinese Buddhist patriarch,
Bodhidharma, helps us understand why the student is guided towards enlightenment, not given
the way, in his Wake-Up Sermon:

Someone who seeks the Way doesn't look beyond himself. He knows that the mind is the
Way. But when he finds the mind, he finds nothing. And when he finds the Way, he finds
nothing. If you think you can use the mind to find the Way, you're deluded. When you're
deluded, buddhahood exists. When you're aware, it doesn't exist. This is because awareness
is buddhahood (Pine, 1987, p. 58).

The previous passage helps us better understand the need for the student to seek within himself
to attain realization. Bodhidharma’s point, however, is not to assure and value the logical and
analytical skills in each student. It is precisely because awareness is buddhahood that he is not
to be looking for an external state of realization, nor to become himself a Buddha. What this
entails for language in Zen can be better explained by clarifying the use of koan, summarized
as “a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the short-fall of
logical and analytic reasoning and to provoke enlightenment” (Ogawa et al., 2017, p. 86).
Interestingly, koan allows us to see a seemingly paradoxical feature of language in Zen. On the
one hand, it hints the limits of linguistic interpretation and logical reasoning. On the other, it is
itself a linguistic expression constructed and interpreted within its own rules and limitations
for realization. I will argue that the key element to understand the plausibility of this
paradoxical feature of language through the use of koan is its nonsensical element.

II. No-sense in language and enlightenment

The use of koans in Zen is not only exceptional, but it became a noteworthy aspect of the
tradition, applied in different concepts and themes. A significant particularity of koans is the
use of paradoxes not to inspire decipherment, but to spark sudden realization. Language in Zen
is not only a form of distortion where dualizations are created, but also a form of interaction
between master and student, with a particular intention, namely, to know each other’s mind
(Sōgen Hori, 2006, p. 205). Knowing the other’s mind is a test of the other to perceive his
enlightenment, all within the paradoxical rapport proper to koan. Then, what is particular of
koans to actually bring about such test, and that allows to spark enlightenment in the student?
I have already insisted on the paradoxical element of koan, but what seems actually proper in
the stimulus for enlightenment is the appeal to the nonsensical. If we centre our analysis on the
paradoxical, we could continue focusing on the deficiencies of logic and analytic reasoning.
The paradoxical would reveal the deficiencies of conventions in language and in self-reflection.
Nevertheless, to awaken to buddhahood seems to guide us beyond the denial of self-reflection.
Koan provides a fuller sense of guidance to realize emptiness.

By the nonsensical element in koan I mean the dismissal of all attempts and ultimately of all
possibility to attributing sense. Hence, koan is not only the creation or application of
nonsensical elements, but it seeks itself to be no-sense. It is therefore a paradoxical instrument
that attempts to reveal the no-sense and emptiness of all that it could refer to, and that it is itself
nonsensical. We could then characterize koan as both transmitting and revealing no-sense. As
introduced in the first section, emptiness and the notion of no-thought are not specific
dimensions or a reality ultimately attained, much less fabricated. They are themselves
realization, buddhahood. It is similar for the case of linguistic expressions of koan and their
nonsensical characterization. If we perceive koan as something entirely different, not taking
into account the absolute and non-dualist interrelation, we might be missing some of the core
teachings of Zen and its understanding of language. This would be the case if we perceive koan
and language in its entirety as opposed to enlightenment. However, if we seek to remain
coherent, we need to avoid such dualizations. Koan does not entirely opposes itself to
emptiness. As an instrument, but also as an element of no-sense, koan serves to reveal its own
nonsensical dimension and the no-sense beyond itself, but not opposing the one against the
other.

The nonsensical in koan and its use in Zen makes us question the form in which its paradoxical
structure is not dissolved into an absolute dismissal of language, thus not prescribing us to
abandon its use in Zen practice. To better understand this, it might help seeing how the absolute
no-sense dimension of koan may be perceived as both content-dependent and content-
independent. Content-dependence allows us to see how the very use of conventions in koan
serve a purpose of withdrawal of those very same conventions. Rules of language, but also its
contextual particularities, are portrayed as falling short to capture the immediateness of all
reality. On the other hand, its counterpart provides a sense of independence of particular
conventions and contexts, it portrays the ultimate inadequacy of any linguistic expressions.
Following non-dualism as mentioned above, however, both aspects in relation to content are
not opposed. How can a claim with the purpose of reaching beyond language, while at the same
time depending on it, remain coherent in Zen? A possible explanation may come from more
linguistic approaches to understand the use of koan.

As Rosemont (1970) argues, “language can have many uses other than conveying information,
and perlocutionary speech acts are often made with intentions only indirectly related to the
content of the utterances” (p. 117). I suggest following Rosemont and focus on the intention
behind the expression of koan. The key component in koan, allowing for the use of language
at the same time as appealing beyond it, would then be the intention of awakening by conveying
the complete dimension of no-sense in a single serving. The adequacy or inadequacy of
language would lose the spotlight, as the intention behind a dialogue is what holds together the
paradoxical understanding of language. As already mentioned, the use of koan is particularly
characterized by the finality of making the student himself achieve realization. Masters attempt
to do so by conveying no-sense through the nonsensical in already structured language,
therefore, transgressing the common understandings of content and contextual meaning.

We can further focus on the intention of conveying no-sense by expanding from verbal
expressions such as directly in koan and even to other forms of non-verbal communication.
Masters employing blows with staffs is for instance a form of expression where the expression
is not to be directly related to its linguistic or symbolic content. Instead of perceiving blows as
censure or direct violence, a more adequate interpretation in Zen rhetoric is the intentionality
of no-sense. Just as in non-verbal expressions, the intention of realization in the student through
the nonsensical is central. By focusing on intentionality, particularly within the Zen practice,
it becomes clearer that it is coherent to use language while at the same time characterizing its
inadequacy. A defining characteristic of koan sentences is “an immense and incorrect category
leap” (Rosemont, 1970, p. 117), and these non-verbal expressions can also be seen in making
such leaps. Whether verbally and non-verbally, the key point of intention in helping the student
achieve realization, and the conveying of no-sense, remain at the core of the paradoxical use
of language.

If the previous portrayal of koan and its relation to the nonsensical are coherent, then we see
the integrated perception of the paradoxical language as both being itself no-sense and as an
attempt to portray nonsense. The integration between these elements seems to be better
explained by the intention behind such expressions, which I argued are not exclusively verbal.
The actual use of language and expressions by masters explains how Zen sustains several
paradoxical elements in language. Language in Zen maintains both the insufficiencies and the
need to surpass linguistic conventions, while still using it in helping to lead students towards
realization. The intention to transmit no-sense helps us integrate this paradox and understand
the role that language plays not only in Zen perspective, but also in its actual practice.

The no-sense that I have argued for, which has a central role in koan and in all expressions to
spark enlightenment, can only make sense in the broader understanding of emptiness and non-
dualism. Much as in Zen’s characterization of language that I summarized in the first section,
the final conclusion to capture the no-sense bonding the paradox of language only makes sense
along the idea of emptiness and non-dualism. The no-sense that the master intends, and which
he mobilizes by the use of nonsensical category leaps, not only attempts to lead towards
realization, but it is itself empty. The nonsensical in verbal and non-verbal expressions is truly
no-sense as it cannot be anything else. Any pretension beyond it would contradict the actual
emptiness of reality. The intention of the master is to reveal not only how the expression and
all linguistic forms are empty, void of sense, but that all is. The teaching of no-sense is then
not the opposition to a true sense, but rather the absence of all sense and the inexistent duality
of sense and no-sense. As best seen through the use of koan, language in Zen conveys this non-
dualism of ultimately carrying no-sense. Its use in particular conundrums actually point
towards the no-sense of language.

Conclusion

Zen paradoxical understanding and use of language features an apparently problematic notion.
It seems complicated to conciliate dismissing and using language while still retaining a
coherent approach. However, I have argued that by exploring the interaction of language and
the underlying notions of emptiness and non-dualism, we can better explore what holds
together the paradoxical elements of language in Zen. If properly framed with emptiness and
non-dualism, language can be further explored as coherently conveying nonsensical and itself
ultimately being nothing more than no-sense. Zen’s paradoxes for language are not dissipated,
but actually made constitutive of what language may be able to be: empty. I have proposed that
it is the intentional element for no-sense aimed at realization, in close relation to emptiness and
non-dualism, that actually provides a coherent understanding of language in Zen and holds its
paradoxical elements together.

Bibliography

Dumoulin, H. (2005). Zen Buddhism: a history: Bloomington : World Wisdom.

Ogawa, T., Masuda, A., & Sargent, K. (2017). Zen and Language: Zen Mondo and Koan. In
A. Masuda & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), Handbook of Zen, Mindfulness, and Behavioral
Health (pp. 85-91). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Pine, R. (1987). The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma. New York: North Point Press.
Rosemont, H. (1970). The Meaning Is the Use: Koan and mondo as Linguistic Tools of the
Zen Masters. Philosophy east & west, 20(2), 109-119. doi:10.2307/1398142
Sōgen Hori, G. V. (2006). Zen Koan Capping Phrase Books: Literary Study and the Insight
“Not Founded on Words or Letters”. In S. Heine & D. S. Wright (Eds.), Zen classics:
formative texts in the history of Zen Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Wright, D. S. (1992). Rethinking Transcendence: The Role of Language in Zen Experience.
Philosophy east & west, 42(1), 113-138. doi:10.2307/1399693