Thank you very much for this text. Maybe a side comment, partially related to main thread of your thoughts. I’m neither a native English nor Chinese speaker, and for some time I’ve been diving into the concept of xin (heart / heart-mind) across different strands of Chinese thought ( Confucianism, Daoism,Chan) and zen (mostly transmitted via D.T.Suzuki) - while comparing various translations, 95% of which reach me through English into my own language, Polish.
What strikes me is that xin is almost always translated simply as “mind,” which in modern Western usage often evokes something primarily rational, cognitive, and brain-centered. But for me, xin carries a much wider field of meaning: heart, feeling, consciousness, moral intuition, affective awareness, embodied knowing, intention — and probably much more. So somewhere in the western/ anglo-american reception of Japanese zen texts, I feel as if an essential aspect of chan gets partially lost: namely xin as heart-heart/mind rather than merely intellect or cognition.In this sense, I perceive/feel 平常心 (pingchang xin) maybe less as an “ordinary mind” and more as an "ordinary, open, conscious heart" resonating responsively with reality (ganying) — the center of being.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Kat! Xin spans a much larger conceptual space than 'mind.' Interestingly, your observation ties into how Western philosophical terms were translated into Chinese. For instance, 'Idealism' is translated as Weixin Zhuyi (唯心主义), which literally means 'solely-on-xin-ism.' It shows that when Chinese thinkers looked for an equivalent to 'spirit/idea' as opposed to 'matter' (Materialism), they naturally chose xin.
I think something similar happen with taoism mysticism, western academia is now noticing the shortcomings of that interpretation thanks to the works of Francois Jullien, who at some degree he learnt from the New Confuncianism. In general Jullien try to offer a rigorous access to chinese civilizacional proyect, also to confuncianism which instead of being mystified has, i think, been interpreted as interested only in morals.
You make a good case for the role of politics in influencing the shape of Western cultural history. I would frame the story a little differently, though. The Nihonjinron (what it means to be Japanese) can be viewed as a reaction to Western imperialism, devised to prevent the Japanese tradition from being swallowed up by the Western narrative of modernity. It is a culturally relativist tale that asserts difference and incommensurability. We are unique and have something that you don't have but we are willing to teach you about it. Western people looking East for spiritual nourishment were buying, and it helped recoup Japanese pride after the defeat in war and the discrediting of the Japanese spirit.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Alan Watts taught a different Zen, one more Chinese in flavor and without a political purpose in mind. He had a much larger audience than Suzuki in the US, even though he called himself merely a "philosophical entertainer."
I think the rise of the nation-state and national identity created these narratives of 'uniqueness' all across East Asia. As you said, it was partly a response to external threats, but also partly a way for countries to distinguish themselves from one another within the same shared cultural circle.
To be honest, I hadn't heard of Alan Watts before. Thanks to your tip, I’ve been looking into his work and find it quite interesting.
There is much to sort out about the discourse of Japanese identity. My view is that Okakura clearly distinguished Japan culturally from the continent. In contrast, the Kyoto School sought to join the conversation of world philosophy by explaining Buddhist insights in Western terms. In the 1930s, they became supporters of the ultranationalist government to varying degrees.
In the postwar era, the discourse emphasized Japanese uniqueness as a way of first defending the culture against Western universalist claims and later, when Japan became an economic superpower, as an assertion of Japanese superiority. The continent was largely ignored, with the unstated assumption throughout the postwar era of Japanese superiority to its less developed neighbors.
I'm glad you like Watts. I still enjoy reading him. He was an original.
That courtyard at the Wansong Pagoda is actually one of my favorite places to visit in Beijing. I don't know the full story behind 万松老人 though, thanks for the tip!
I have always been put off by Nihonjinron (theories of Japanese uniqueness) and always cringed when I heard a Westerner was vaguely interested in Zen. I’d never delved into “Zen”myself, although I knew in an offhand sort of way that it derived from Chinese “Chan”. This is a fascinating, eye-opening account of the modern branding and packaging for sale of a tradition, one that spans centuries across national borders, with very specific purposes and motives in mind. For me it was eye-opening.
The rise of modern nation-states in East Asia basically manufactured these divisions and myths of uniqueness. People argue about origins, but it’s really just one shared cultural pool that has always been in constant communication and mutual influence.
Japanese concepts of uniqueness, in particular differentness from China, preceded the modern era. The main impetus was the rise of 国学 in the 17th and 18th centuries, as typified in the work of scholars like 本居宣長. Some later proponents of this tradition, such as 平田篤胤, were very explicit in expressing the superiority of Japanese culture. This is actually a rather large topic. Works such as “Before the Nation” (Susan Burns) and “Rearranging the Landscape of the Gods” (Sarah Thal) might be of interest. (My apologies if you’ve already read them.)
This is a fascinating dismantling or historical re-think of the reception of Chan first in Japan and then in the West. My only quibble, is if there is truth in Chan/Zen, it is immediate, and absolute, before history rises in words. Thus, historical and nationalistic battles, while vitally important, do not touch “it.”
Thank you very much for this text. Maybe a side comment, partially related to main thread of your thoughts. I’m neither a native English nor Chinese speaker, and for some time I’ve been diving into the concept of xin (heart / heart-mind) across different strands of Chinese thought ( Confucianism, Daoism,Chan) and zen (mostly transmitted via D.T.Suzuki) - while comparing various translations, 95% of which reach me through English into my own language, Polish.
What strikes me is that xin is almost always translated simply as “mind,” which in modern Western usage often evokes something primarily rational, cognitive, and brain-centered. But for me, xin carries a much wider field of meaning: heart, feeling, consciousness, moral intuition, affective awareness, embodied knowing, intention — and probably much more. So somewhere in the western/ anglo-american reception of Japanese zen texts, I feel as if an essential aspect of chan gets partially lost: namely xin as heart-heart/mind rather than merely intellect or cognition.In this sense, I perceive/feel 平常心 (pingchang xin) maybe less as an “ordinary mind” and more as an "ordinary, open, conscious heart" resonating responsively with reality (ganying) — the center of being.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Kat! Xin spans a much larger conceptual space than 'mind.' Interestingly, your observation ties into how Western philosophical terms were translated into Chinese. For instance, 'Idealism' is translated as Weixin Zhuyi (唯心主义), which literally means 'solely-on-xin-ism.' It shows that when Chinese thinkers looked for an equivalent to 'spirit/idea' as opposed to 'matter' (Materialism), they naturally chose xin.
I think something similar happen with taoism mysticism, western academia is now noticing the shortcomings of that interpretation thanks to the works of Francois Jullien, who at some degree he learnt from the New Confuncianism. In general Jullien try to offer a rigorous access to chinese civilizacional proyect, also to confuncianism which instead of being mystified has, i think, been interpreted as interested only in morals.
You make a good case for the role of politics in influencing the shape of Western cultural history. I would frame the story a little differently, though. The Nihonjinron (what it means to be Japanese) can be viewed as a reaction to Western imperialism, devised to prevent the Japanese tradition from being swallowed up by the Western narrative of modernity. It is a culturally relativist tale that asserts difference and incommensurability. We are unique and have something that you don't have but we are willing to teach you about it. Western people looking East for spiritual nourishment were buying, and it helped recoup Japanese pride after the defeat in war and the discrediting of the Japanese spirit.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Alan Watts taught a different Zen, one more Chinese in flavor and without a political purpose in mind. He had a much larger audience than Suzuki in the US, even though he called himself merely a "philosophical entertainer."
I think the rise of the nation-state and national identity created these narratives of 'uniqueness' all across East Asia. As you said, it was partly a response to external threats, but also partly a way for countries to distinguish themselves from one another within the same shared cultural circle.
To be honest, I hadn't heard of Alan Watts before. Thanks to your tip, I’ve been looking into his work and find it quite interesting.
There is much to sort out about the discourse of Japanese identity. My view is that Okakura clearly distinguished Japan culturally from the continent. In contrast, the Kyoto School sought to join the conversation of world philosophy by explaining Buddhist insights in Western terms. In the 1930s, they became supporters of the ultranationalist government to varying degrees.
In the postwar era, the discourse emphasized Japanese uniqueness as a way of first defending the culture against Western universalist claims and later, when Japan became an economic superpower, as an assertion of Japanese superiority. The continent was largely ignored, with the unstated assumption throughout the postwar era of Japanese superiority to its less developed neighbors.
I'm glad you like Watts. I still enjoy reading him. He was an original.
A brilliant and necessary piece, Jingyu.
"By 1228, the tradition was a complete intellectual and institutional system with seven hundred years of history".
that about sums it up.
Thanks for this. Should be compulsory reading for anyone who uses the word 'zen' in their writings.
And the 从容录. We can still visit 万松’s memorial pagoda in Beijing.
That courtyard at the Wansong Pagoda is actually one of my favorite places to visit in Beijing. I don't know the full story behind 万松老人 though, thanks for the tip!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Equanimity?wprov=sfti1#
I have always been put off by Nihonjinron (theories of Japanese uniqueness) and always cringed when I heard a Westerner was vaguely interested in Zen. I’d never delved into “Zen”myself, although I knew in an offhand sort of way that it derived from Chinese “Chan”. This is a fascinating, eye-opening account of the modern branding and packaging for sale of a tradition, one that spans centuries across national borders, with very specific purposes and motives in mind. For me it was eye-opening.
The rise of modern nation-states in East Asia basically manufactured these divisions and myths of uniqueness. People argue about origins, but it’s really just one shared cultural pool that has always been in constant communication and mutual influence.
Japanese concepts of uniqueness, in particular differentness from China, preceded the modern era. The main impetus was the rise of 国学 in the 17th and 18th centuries, as typified in the work of scholars like 本居宣長. Some later proponents of this tradition, such as 平田篤胤, were very explicit in expressing the superiority of Japanese culture. This is actually a rather large topic. Works such as “Before the Nation” (Susan Burns) and “Rearranging the Landscape of the Gods” (Sarah Thal) might be of interest. (My apologies if you’ve already read them.)
The way I clicked the link of this article so fast
This is a fascinating dismantling or historical re-think of the reception of Chan first in Japan and then in the West. My only quibble, is if there is truth in Chan/Zen, it is immediate, and absolute, before history rises in words. Thus, historical and nationalistic battles, while vitally important, do not touch “it.”