Wittgenstein and Zen
* back
to my home page: www.suzaki.has.it
Since Zen is to be found in the living act of life, I felt philosophy could
be the opposite end from Zen. What is
interesting, however, is Wittgenstein’s view on philosophy seems to point
something that resonates with Zen. My
intuition is that, this philosopher, Wittgensein,
realized how and when to use the brain and not to be used by it to live a
meaningful life. Although my knowledge
of Wittgenstein is very much limited, I tried to summarize here few points that
I found very inspiring. The subtitle was
for convenience sake. The source book was
in Japanese and the translation to English was my own. (See
note at the end of this page.) My personal
comments are in parenthesis: ((…)) – Kio (6/7/03)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:
((It appears that Wittgenstein
(W) believed that all philosophical questions were resolved in his one and only
published book in his time, Tractatus (T). Then, he went on to Philosophische-Untersuschungen
(PU) to explore the new territory of thoughts.
This seems to correspond to Daisetz Suzuki’s point that Zen should not
stay as Zen practice, but to extend its reach to Zen thoughts and philosophy
for it to benefit the world, e.g., Kegon.))
- “Those who are in philosophical confusion is
like a person in a room attempting to get out but does not know how. He tries to escape from the window but it is
too high. The chimney is too small. But if he turn
around, he should notice that the door was open all the time.” (p.44, Memoir; p.17 K*)
((This is similar to a Zen
expression of gateless gate. The whole
of its emphasis is for us to realize the way out for liberation, mastery of
destiny, live as we are meant to live.))
- “I wrote a book for those who think differently
and breath different air. He even thought his thought is misunderstood
even by his, so called, disciples.” (p.1, A
Biographical Sketch; p.21, K)
((To go through the gateless
gate requires a certain effort.
Interestingly, this is an effort of effortless effort. As explained below, I sense W came to the
same realization. As his short
75-or-so-page book, T, indicates, when it is understood,
it is simple. By the way, I know a guy who did this in 12 pages. FYI, see Wilbro’s
guide on my home page. Also, some may
say we do not need any word to get there as in Dogen’s
“Shikan Taza” or “Just sit.” – very brutal and yet
compassionate Zen approach. A pointer
here is: as Zen master Ikkyu
says, there are various routes to the top of the mountain, but it is the same
moon shining there. So, it may be that
certain approach may better fit to certain person to climb up the mountain – or
to go across the river to the other shore as others may say.))
- “The reason why philosophical problems are
proposed is that our language is being misunderstood/misused.” (Introduction to T*; p.27, K)
((He must have gone through a
deep contemplation before he realized this point, perhaps similar to the trial
of Krishnamurti and Bohm on
“limits of thoughts.”))
- “Various philosophical problems are at the
end meaningless problems. But not realizing that, we use brain uselessly and keep
struggling. Yet, such is unneeded. Our job is to realize that philosophical
problems are all based on the misunderstanding of
words/language. By realizing that they
are meaningless, these problems vanishes away. Our job is not to solve the philosophical
problems but to eradicate/erase it.”
(p.31, K’s summary of
W.)
((This seems to indicate the
point as expressed, for example, by Lao Tzu in, Tao Te Ching, Tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao))
- “Talk only things that can be talked about.” (6.53, T; p.32, K)
- “Truly important thing in life is indescribable.” (6.41-421, T; p.33, K)
((This may also correspond to
the Buddhist idea of “Muki” (Jp.). Its meaning
is “indescribable” that is before good and bad or any dualism is generated. Or, it corresponds
to the idea that aiming the ultimate purpose is to find the act where means and
end are one. He may even imply that only
chasing the means without clearly knowing the end is futile, and not wise.))
- “Philosophy is not a theory but an activity
to critique language. So, philosophical
writings are (not for the statement of proposition but )
to come up with resolution.” (4.112, T;
P.34, K)
((Therefore, one has to
“understand” how to use the language and the reason why. In other words, this is as
if we need higher intelligence that governs the logic. Yet, this “super logic” cannot base itself
upon logic. This is the limit of
thought. It is as if simply by using
language, we cannot come up with ultimate “insight.”))
- “Philosophy is the battle against the state
where our intellect is bound by ((misuse of)) the language.” (109,
PU; p40, K)
((Correspondingly, the main
point in my book, ‘Results from the Heart’ was, “Use the brain, listen to the
heart, and live with mission.))
- “What is your purpose in philosophy? - It
is to show a way for the fly to fly away from the bottle.” (309,
PU; p.40, K)
((What a wonderful statement!! He even seems to
lead us to a setting like such Zen koan points to: Get a duck out of the bottle without breaking
the bottle. Another a
gateless gate. Fly, flying away from the
bottle is “liberation” – some may call, end of suffering.))
- “For the question that cannot be expressed in
words, we cannot express the answer with words.” (6.5,
T; p.51, K)
((Therefore, if we use words
to express something that cannot be expressed by
words, this makes the proposition to be not valid. The slight difference in Zen is that Zen does
it at ease with paradoxical or illogical expression free from rationality. Or, Zen says there
is a teaching that cannot be expressed by words – such is the true teaching.))
- “If we ask a question that should not be
asked in that setting, it is not that it is impossible to dispute. Rather, it is meaningless.” (6.51, T; p.53, K)
((Wonderful! This may be seen as W’s enlightenment/Satori. Why be bothered by things or events that are
of no use to be bothered by? Do we hear
the song of a bird? What does it sing? Or, if we ask “So
what?” repeatedly till the end, what do we find?))
- “Even if we get the answer to scientific
questions that are deemed to be questioned, we sense that it has nothing to do
with our life’s various questions. If
so, there is no question left. And this
is the answer to various questions in life.”
(6.52, T; p.54, K)
((This
remind me of a koan: Eka asked Daruma (Bodhidarma), “Please
pacify my unsettled mind.” Daruma answered, “Show me your unsettled mind.” After searching for a while (perhaps a year
or two?), Eka answered, “I could not find it.” Laughing to this, Daruma
said, “Now, I pacified your unsettled mind.”
With this, Eka got the enlightenment. So, W. seemed to have gotten to this same
point by asking until he could not ask any more.))
- “To think, we should not have any
hypothesis. All explanation has to be
thrown away and only description has to be made… Philosophical
problem is resolved by having the insight on the function of words. Further, it is resolved when we realize to
resist the impetus to misunderstand its function. The problems of philosophy is resolved by not
bringing the new experience, but to organize the known facts.”
(109, PU; p.67, K)
((Very interesting
observation! Here, “impetus to misunderstand its function”
may mean “what should be” away form “what is.” The bottom-line, is, It is as-it-is. (Nyo in Jp.)) Very Zen, indeed. W seems to know the inner working of the mind
– perhaps as if a quiet observer did the job of observing patiently and very
well. This leads to the following
sentences…))
- “Philosophy leaves all things as they are. (124, PU)
Philosophy simply leaves all things left in front of our eyes. Philosophy does not require to explain anything, it does not hypothesize anything. - This
is because all things exist without hiding anything, thus, there is nothing to be discussed about.
Also, even if there is something that is hidden, we do not have any
interest in it.” (126, PU; p.68, K)
((I love his expression! He is not creating any structure as in any
natural science as has been the case from the very beginning days of Western
civilization. The truth is in front of
us as it is. It is to see, no need to
know intellectually. Certainly, words
can bind us. Hakuin
says, “Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away.” – The song of Zazen))
- “When life’s problems are extinct, it is recognized
that it is resolved.” (6.521, T, p.52,
K)
((“After years of Zen
meditation, I lost all the why’s.” so Martin Hughes, aka Edgarhell told. Dogen said, “Zen
meditation is the easy path to gain dharma.”
When we arrive at such moment (not with logic of course, but having gone
beyond.. transcended…across…), we find that there is
no skepticism nor theories of life exist or necessary. Or, call it nirvana if you are so
“imaginatively” inclined to call that state. ))
- “Those readers who understand me, is like
after climbing up the ladder, they are to throw away the ladder.” (6.54 T, p.59, K)
((This is to say; W’s readers
who understand the message should throw away the book – and to live according
to the “understanding.” Corresponding
story from the Buddha is: “I have taught you the Dhamma like a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not
for the purpose of holding onto. Knowing
the Dhamma to be like a raft, you should let go even of
[skillful] qualities, to say nothing of those that are not. –
Majjhima Nikava 22” (Accesstoinsight) Here, Dhamma
(or Dharma, Skr.) is like means, or the Buddha’s teaching
to point at the answer.))
- “Man should be silent to what cannot be
talked about.” (7, T; p.77,
K)
((Zen monk may point finger
the moon, however. Or,
being asked what is truth, they may say “the oak tree in the garden,” “three
pounds of flux,” a shout of “Katz,” “Just sit,” or even a few beating with
stick.))
- “Is it a fundamental point for religion to
speak up? I can certainly picture a sort of religion
in my mind. But
that religion does not have any dogma, and there is nothing to talk about. The core nature of religion has nothing to do
with the talk. Or, it may be better
said, if something can be talked about, it is an element of religion but not
the theory.” (W. and Wien
group, 12/17/1930; p.112, K)
((Ikkyu
said, “I would like to offer you something, but in Zen, we have nothing at
all.” And... this
nothing is everything…. Thank you, Mr.
Wittgenstein for your insight.))
“If you and I conduct a religious life, such
life should not be the one where we talk a lot about religion. What I believe is, as you try to help other
people, you will find the path to the God.”
(W’s letter to Mr. Doolly (spell?), P.113, K)
((Here, I see the possible
connection to his move from Hinayana to
Mahayana. Also,
this statement imply the understanding of Kegon. In Christianity, this is; “Love thy
neighbor.” Or
“Do unto others what you would like them to do to you.”
((Although
limited, it was very interesting to relate to this philosopher and his
understanding contrasted to Zen. The
sense I have now is as Ikkyu said,
Many
paths lead from
The foot of the mountain
But at the peak
We all gaze at the
Single bright moon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To end this file and as if to
add a leg to a snake, let me ask to the reader this
question: “When was the last time you realized you existed, and how do you
explain the experience?” Now, do you
hear the sound of one hand clapping?
Good day, and good luck on
your journey!
- Kio Suzaki
Note:
* T: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
* PU: Philosophische-Untersuschungen
* K: Kurosaki’s book on Wittgenstein (Jp.)
* back
to my home page: www.suzaki.has.it