Updated May, 2022
Chan Buddhism developed through a synthesis of Indian Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and ancient Chinese folk religion before making its way to Japan to become Zen. Chan's two dimensions -- one mystical or ascetic, and another religious or social -- are distinct but synchronistically codependent.
Our website offers an opportunity for readers to learn about Chan's complex matrix of beliefs, customs, and ascetic practices in both historical and contemporary contexts as well as to contribute their own thoughts and commentaries. We emphasize the value of Chan's mystical tradition and its relationship to the religious expression of Buddhism, a relationship that can be confusing and easily misunderstood.
Westerners new to Chán are often perplexed by the myriad approaches to Chán training and the vast contours of the Buddhist landscape. A recent Google search for "Chán Buddhism" retrieved nearly two hundred thousand individual web pages, and “Zen Buddhism” retrieved over thirty million. When we explore some of these sites, we find that the diverse teachings they proffer can seem equally abundant. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff?
Zen's historical background offers insights that can help. Zen in the West dates to the mid-19th century when it was introduced by Soen Shaku at the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. Zen gained its first significant boost in America and Europe in the 1920's through the written works of Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, a devoted translator and practitioner of Japanese Rinzai Zen. Today, over a century since its introduction, Zen has assimilated into Western culture through a variety of Japanese sects. In 2008, the Pew Research Center reported that, of all people considering themselves Buddhist in the United States, Zen Buddhism was the predominant affiliation among a total Buddhist population of over three million.
When a religion enters a new culture differing from that of its origins, its religious ideologies mix with pre-existing myths, superstitions, and religious expressions. This phenomenon has had enormous impact on Buddhism which has now spread around the globe, integrating into many diverse cultures. Today, expressions of Buddhism in the West are not only distinct from one-another, but often diverge from one-another in their beliefs, customs, and religious practices.
When Buddhism entered China--as early as 50 BC by some accounts--it quickly began mixing with Taoism, Confucianism, and various regional ethnic cultures. Over the course of the following seven- to eight-hundred years, Chinese Chán emerged. When Buddhism entered Japan from Korea over 500 years later, it integrated with Shinto to form a variant unique to Japan. The Zen sect was introduced to Japan a half-millennium after it had been established in China (the Rinzai [Lín Jì] Zen sect was introduced by Eisai in the late twelfth century, and the Soto [Tsao-tung] Zen sect was introduced by Dogen in the thirteenth century.)
Zen first entered the United States and other parts of the West predominantly through Japan, so it's not surprising that Japanese culture has dominantly influenced our ideas about Zen from the beginning. But the rising popularity of Korean Zen and Tibetan Buddhism over the last few decades, each with its own distinct ideologies, beliefs, and practices, has also influenced popular perception of all forms of Buddhism, including Zen.
The term Buddhism can have vastly different meanings to a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism than, say, to a Japanese Zen practitioner or Chinese Chán practitioner. Differentiation arises from beliefs in reincarnation, interpretation of sutras (Therevada Buddhism has its own independent set of sutras distinct from Mahayana schools), ceremonial practices, culinary rules, celibacy, ecclesiastic hierarchical structure, as well as numerous superstitions and myths. The extreme divergence of beliefs and practices is understandable, considering that, unlike most world-religions, Buddhism comes with no common "bible," and many of its sects have developed independently and in isolation from each other over thousands of years. And, in light of the fact that the Buddha’s teachings were not put in writing until several generations after his death, it’s reasonable to conclude that we cannot know with any certainty anything he actually said. The only foundational teaching all Buddhists around the world seem to agree upon as originating from the Buddha are his Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path contained therein. These would become the single unifying principles of all ethnic representations of Buddhism, with the exception, arguably, of Japanese Zen (a topic for another time).
Unfortunately, the wide range of interpretations of Buddhist terminology, religious practices, and spiritual disciplines from one sect to another has led to infighting between and within Buddhist groups and among teachers. Frequent scandals involving misuse of power and authority, exploitation of congregations, and corruption, has cast a dark shadow on Zen Buddhism and many of its representative institutions in the West. While there should be no debate over which "path" is the best--they all serve the same purpose if approached with the right intent, attitude, devotion, and discipline--there are so many different presentations of what is, essentially, the same thing—a mystical practice—that Chan’s purpose often becomes lost in the resulting chaos.
In a Western society that emphasizes individualism over collectivism, as well as scientific approaches to knowledge over intuitive ones, we, as a culture, face obvious challenges when attempting to integrate religious and spiritual ideologies and methodologies from Eastern cultures where values are rooted in ancestor veneration, filial piety, and group solidarity. Individualism and collectivism present opposing perspectives on our relationship with ourselves and the group in which we live: individualism encourages independent self-actualization, while collectivism encourages conformity over individual autonomy. The character of Chan is similarly dichotomous. Chan’s formal, institutional, presentation, characterized largely by ritualized group meditation sessions, is strengthened by collectivist ideologies, while Chan’s spiritual/ascetic practice is not: it requires individual freedom, independent investigation, and full autonomy. Thus, there is, and likely always has been, a certain tension between Chan’s religious and spiritual practices commensurate with the duality of the outward- and inward-looking mind.
D.T. Suzuki was tremendously influential in bringing Zen into popular western culture, but his approach to Zen was strongly academic and he tended to view it as distinct, independent, and isolated from it's religious, Mahayana, heritage. He and his contemporaries also positioned Japanese Zen as superior to other cultural expressions of Buddhism including Chinese Chan. Whether this was a new chapter in the history of Japanese Zen, successive teachers from various Japanese Zen sects have continued to perpetuate an attitude of Zen isolationism in the West.
Japanese-styled Zen groups have had a good amount of time to "test the waters" of American culture, yet many of these groups have struggled with the inherent incompatibilities between an alien culture forced upon an unprepared Western Mind. These incompatibilities may themselves contribute to contemporary Zen isolationism, for terminology associated with Zen is often misunderstood, misconstrued, and misappropriated by teachers and practitioners, wittingly or not, confounding its purpose as a spiritual vehicle for Self-realization.
For Zen or Chan to flourish in the West, they will need to adapt to our culture. This has been the natural course of Buddhism for nearly two thousand years as it has migrated from one country to another. There is no reason for us to reject our own cultural identity and replace it with another.
While Japanese-styled Zen groups have been here in the West for many decades, Chinese Buddhism has remained largely sheltered within Chinese ethnic communities to serve their populations of Chinese immigrants and their descendants. This has produced inherent cultural barriers for Westerners. It's not surprising that most of the problems we have seen in Zen temples have arisen in Japanese Zen sects, for these are still the schools that dominate the Western Zen landscape. Proportionally, however, Chinese and Korean Zen Buddhist sects have also had their share of challenges connecting with a Western psyche.
As founder and Abbot of one of the oldest Chán temples in the United States--Hsu Yun temple in Honolulu Hawaii--the monk, Jy Din, expressed disappointment to me that his temple attracted so few native Westerners. It was his belief that ethnic temples could never adequately serve the native Westerner due to the vast differences in culture and language unless Western culture could be allowed "in the door." Eager to make Chán available to all Westerners, in 1997 Jy Din created the Order of Hsu Yun (ZBOHY), naming it, affectionately, after his master. His vision for the order was to provide an on-line resource for Westerners interested in learning about and practicing Chan. Jy Din has passed away, but his desires to spread the teachings of Chan live on in the work of those who contribute insights and guidance to interested readers through this website.
In the spirit of Chan, we offer this website as a forum for articles, art, and poetry that inspire and illuminate and might assist on the journey through the expansive realm of Chan. We welcome submissions of content from our readers and encourage comments and questions which, while moderated, can be freely posted at the bottom of most pages.
As always, we hold no bias toward any particular cultural expressions of Buddhism and embrace varied and multiple approaches to practice and teachings. We provide equal access to all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious background, or personal history.
Chuan Zhi, January, 2019, updated September 2022