The Zen Subculture: A Lifestyle or Nonsense? Research Paper

In a world fraught with much noise and chaos brought in by advancing technologies, arts, and music, the concept of Zen became synonymous with going back to simplicity, tranquility, and peacefulness that is not found in most subcultures of today. Not just in religion, the recent spate of incorporating Zen into contemporary living has become so popular that it has inspired people to apply it in designing their homes, artworks, or even in dealing with other people in organizations.

Its emphasis on combining simplicity and harmony makes it an ideal lifestyle because it could summon good concentration and deep-seated meditation. Thus, we can consider Zen Buddhism as a subculture of what popular culture is all about today since it is a segment of society that suggests a distinctive pattern of mores, lifestyles, and values that differs from the larger society.

The fact is that Zen is just a branch of the Buddhist religion. Reinders (1999) wrote that the word “Zen” originated from the “Sanskrit word dhyana (generally referring to an emptying or stilling form of meditation)” and that “was transliterated into Chinese as channa and abbreviated to chan; zen is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese character chan” (p. 797).

According to Encyclopædia Britannica Online (2008), Zen became an important school of Buddhism in Japan because it claims to transmit the spirit or essence of Buddhism, which consists in experiencing the enlightenment (bodhi) achieved by Gautama Buddha. In fact, it “constitutes the mainstream monastic form of Mahayana Buddhism in China, Korea, and Vietnam and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the Buddhist temples in Japan”.

This type of teaching arose in the 6th century in China as Ch’an, a form of Mahayana Buddhism; though introduced centuries earlier, Zen did not fully develop in Japan until the 12th century. In its secondary developments of mental tranquility, fearlessness, and spontaneity—all faculties of the enlightened mind—the school of Zen has had a lasting influence on the cultural life of Japan. At present, Zen does not only revolve around meditation because its teachings are applicable in almost all ways of life — thus, one Western commentator quips Zen as “a way of life, work, and art” (Nationmaster, 2008). In more recent years, the popular awareness of Buddhism laid bare the development of Asian studies and Buddhist studies programs in universities in the United States and from the popularization of some elements of Buddhism by the “Beat generation”.

Reinders (1999) insisted that the “various consciousness-expanding movements in the 1960s” popularized Zen that has “little to do with Zen in Japan”. He explained that “Zen in Japan emphasized monasticism”, while “American Zen remains predominantly lay-oriented”. Also, “Zen monks in Asia do not necessarily meditate on any regular basis, American Zen has emphasized meditation as the sine qua non of legitimate Buddhism” (p. 799).

Although the Zen we all know at present seems to have Japanese origins, Reinders (1999) informed that dhyana “has been practiced at least since the beginning of Buddhism in India”. As time went by, Buddhist teachings started to be adopted by Chinese monks in the First Century C.E. The date remains vague as Reinders (1999) presume that “efforts to date the birth of Chan have produced widely varying answers, ranging from the fifth to the thirteenth centuries C.E., depending on what is meant by ‘Chan’”.

It also said that the spread of Zen was a “gradual process” as “most scholars locate the birth of the Chan lineage in debates during the eighth century C.E., followed by significant elaboration and the creation of lineage records in the tenth and eleventh centuries”. Moreover, Chan stuck to be involved “with mainstream monastic Buddhism in China”, as compared to the Japanese Zen, where it “became a sect among sects, continuing to compete with other monastic forms of Buddhism, such as Shingon and Tendai”. In fact, “two main subsects developed within Zen itself: Rinzai and Soto, dating from the thirteenth century” (p. 797).

An important parcel of Zen’s history is the rise of anti-Buddhist movements in Japan during the Meiji period (1868–1872), Japanese Buddhist leaders sought to “redefine Buddhism as scientific and modern (in more or less Western terms)”. This is why “Zen leaders were much more oriented toward missionary work than were their Chinese counterparts”. The concept of the newly redefined Zen became more attached to the Japanese Buddhist movement because of the culture that existed at that time, with “the increasing nationalism and militarization of Japan from the late nineteenth century through to 1945”. Thus, the Japanese took recognition for the modern concept of Zen as it is “useful to the imperialist ideology and identical to Japanese identity itself” (Reinders 1999, p. 797)..

Originally, the teachings of Zen claims to preserve the essence of the Buddhist creed through direct experience, triggered by the mind-to-mind transmission of the dharma. It dismissed scriptures, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas in favor of training for direct intuition of cosmic unity, known as the Buddha-nature or the Void (Stryk 1969, p.45). However, in the world of art music, and even gardening, the impact of Zen has been felt only relatively recently. It is one obvious sign of contemporary longing for affirmation that everything we do indeed express spiritual values.

To experience Zen, a central way of directly co-existing with the underlying unity is termed as zazen (sitting meditation). “To sit,” said the Sixth Zen Patriarch, “means to obtain absolute freedom and not to allow any thought to be caused by external objects. To meditate means to realize the imperturbability of one’s original nature” (Stryk 1969, p. 340). Prescriptions for the manner of sitting are quite rigorous: one must take a specific upright posture and then not move during the meditation period, to avoid distracting the mind. Skillful means are then applied to make the mind one-pointed and clear.

One beginning practice is simply to watch and count each inhalation and exhalation from one to ten, starting over from one if anything other than awareness of the breath enters the mind. Although this explanation sounds simple, the mind is so restless that many people must work for months before finally getting to ten without having to start over. Getting to ten is not really the goal; the goal is the process itself, the process of recognizing what comes up in the mind and gently letting it go without attachment or preferences (Chadwick 1999, p. 11).

As one sits in zazen, undisturbed by phenomena, as soon as one becomes inwardly calm, the natural mind is revealed in its original purity. This “original mind” is spacious and free, like an open sky. Thoughts and sensations may float through it like clouds, but they arise and then disappear, leaving no trace. What remains is reality, “True Thusness.” In some Zen schools, this perception of thusness comes in a sudden burst of enlightenment, or “kensho”. When the mind is calmed, the action becomes spontaneous and natural. Zen practitioners are taught to have great confidence in their natural functioning, for it arises from our essential Buddha nature. It is said that two Zen monks, on becoming enlightened, ran naked through the woods scribbling on rocks (Gach 2001, p. 98).

.On the other hand, the Zen tradition also links spontaneity with intense, disciplined concentration. In the art of calligraphy, the perfect spontaneous brushstroke—executed with the whole body, in a single breath—is the outcome of years of attentive practice. Giving ourselves fully to the moment, to be aware only of pouring a tea when pouring tea, is the simplicity of beingness that most of us have to learn. Then whatever we give ourselves to fully, be it painting, or serving tea, or simply breathing, reveals the “thusness of life,” its unconditioned reality. As one of the most durable forms of Buddhism in Asia, Zen influence has extended to martial arts, gardening, haiku, motorcycle maintenance, and many other things (Gach 2001, p. 100).

Another tool used in one Zen tradition is the koan. Here the attention is focused ardently on a question that boggles the mind, such as “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” or “What is your face before your parents’ birth?” As Roshi (venerable teacher) Philip Kapleau (1980) observed, “Koans deliberately throw sand into the eyes of the intellect to force us to open our Mind’s eye and see the world and everything in it undistorted by our concepts and judgments.”

To concentrate on a koan, one must look closely at it without thinking about it, experiencing it directly. Beyond abstractions, Roshi Kapleau (1980) explained that “the import of every koan is the same: that the world is one interdependent Whole and that each separate one of us is that Whole” (p. 70).

Essentially, the aim of Zen practice is enlightenment or satori. This is described as the occurrence when a person is directly experiencing the unity of all existence, often in a sudden recognition that nothing is separate from oneself. As one Zen master put it:

The moon’s the same old moon,

The flowers exactly as they were,

Yet I’ve become the thingness

Of all the things I see! (Bunan 1969, p. 343).

The reason that Zen was embraced by Americans is that their longing for the peace of meditation can be enhanced through it. In the midst of a chaotic materialistic life, there is a desire to discover emptiness, to let the identity with self fall away, or to become familiar with the mind’s tricks in the still simplicity of a zendo, a Zen meditation hall. It is no wonder that many psychotherapists are studying the teachings of Zen Buddhism for its insights into the mind and human suffering. In fact, psychotherapists today use Zen as therapeutic because Barry Majid (2002) explained that:

Like analysis, meditation practice trains us to stay with, tolerate, and explore thoughts and feelings normally felt to be too painful or frightening to endure. I call this the structure-building aspect of practice…. Meditation teaches us to literally sit with and through (difficult mental states) in a way that progressively builds our capacity to tolerate, regulate, and organize our affective experiences… When we sit we do not try to become calm or peaceful or to quiet the mind, but rather, we practice staying with and amid whatever feelings arise (p. 103-104)

How Zen spread in America is still not clear. However, Reinders (1999) recounted that the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions became a turning point by linking “Japanese Zen monks (such as the Rinzai monk Shaku Soen, who made later visits as well) with American Transcendentalists and Theosophist”. Renowned Zen masters arrived in the United States, like Daisetsu Teitaro (D. T.) Suzuki, Shaku Sokatsu, and Senzaki Nyogen.

They influenced people by their teachings and after the event, some Zen meditation halls were established in California starting in the 1920s. In 1931, “Sasaki Shigetsu (also known as Sokei-an) founded the Buddhist Society of America in New York” (p.798). D.T. Suzuki, the foremost Zen master, taught the “enduring legacy” of Zen as it is “not a religion”. Suzuki “steadfastly refused to reduce Zen to any particular form, organization, historical movement, or set of dogmas”. Suzuki insisted that “Zen was the indefinable quality of the enlightened experience itself, the pure basis of all other religions” (p.799).

Although the growth of Zen in America slowed down in the World War II era, it stratified again in the 1960s and it was full-blown in the 1970s, “ where a generation of white American (Zen) monks received full initiation and leadership, including Richard Baker, Philip Kapleau, and Robert Aitken” (p.799). The popularity of Zen in America during the 1970s was even more magnified by the success of Robert Pirsig’s book entitled Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Although it is just a novel, people became intrigued about the unique teachings of Zen as it embraces the perception of the world on both sides: the rational and the romantic.

It is inevitable that Zen can be appreciated for its enlightening concepts that can be applied to almost anything. With Zen, all aspects of life become at the same time utterly precious, and utterly empty, “nothing special.” This paradox can be sensed only with the mystically expanded consciousness; it cannot be grasped intellectually. Because of the mysticism that Zen has brought to popular culture, it is criticized by one website that Zen “all agitation in the endless courtship of the ground state of the Tao” and “Zen takes neither savor nor solace in the scientific questing and testing for literal truth which is the correspondence to reality in assertions” (Foolquest).

In today’s popular culture, Zen can “mean almost anything: a carefree sentiment, an experience of intense focus, a label for Chinese landscape painting, empty-headedness, or a brand name on T-shirts and tea” (Reinders 1999, p. 799). Despite all the gray areas of this subculture, it is actually where the power of this type of lifestyle, art, music, or way of life lies because it promotes tranquility, peacefulness, and the absence of violence. It negates everything that plagues dominant culture.

Zen remains proof that we can break the chains of “common, everyday, logical thought to achieve a nondualistic, pure experience in which distinctions such as self/other and right/wrong disappear” (Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 2008). No doubt, Zen will continue to be an eccentric yet proper way of philosophy or way of life among people of the modern age because its concepts can be ecumenical and it does not discriminate any religion, artistic creation, or culture, as it is a mindset that promotes purity and unity among all things around our universe.

Works Cited

Bunan. World of the Buddha, Lucien Stryk (ed.), New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1969.

Chadwick, David. Crooked Cucumber: The Life and Zen Teaching of Shunryu Suzuki. 1999.

Encyclopædia Britannica. “Zen”. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2008. Web.

Faure, Bernard. The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism. 1991.

Foolquest. “A (therefore purpose defeating?) possibly adequate concise definition of Zen”. 2008. Web.

Gach, Gary. Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Buddhism. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Alpha Books, 2001.

Kapleau, Roshi Philip. The Three Pillars of Zen, New York: Anchor Books, 1980.

Magid, Barry. Ordinary Mind: Exploring the Common Ground of Zen and Psychotherapy, Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2002.

Nationmaster. “Zen Buddhism”. 2008. Web.

Reinders, Eric. “Zen”. Contemporary American Religion. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 1999.

Stryk, Lucien (ed.). World of the Buddha, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1969.