Concepts are like a labyrinth, language like a dense forest, and one can get so deeply lost in them as to be unable to extricate oneself.
Zen says: the sea of suffering is boundless, but turn back and there is the shore; lay down attachment, and at once you can transcend.
This may well be true. But why do I still remain stubbornly deluded?
Because the labyrinth is a game. When you are playing a labyrinth game, isn’t your goal to get out of the labyrinth? Then you can obviously get out at any time—just lift yourself to a higher dimension and step outside. Why must you so obediently struggle within the labyrinth?
When you play a Rubik’s Cube, isn’t it to restore it to its original state? Why not just take the cube apart and put it back together again? Why go through all that trouble?
Very simple: because this way is fun, and that way is not fun.
Both seek to escape the labyrinth of concepts, but the difference between the philosopher and the Zen master is this: the philosopher insists on being captivated by it in order to seek a way out, whereas the Zen master simply leaps upward in one bound to a higher realm.
Even knowing full well that the labyrinth may never have a way out, the philosopher still remains stubbornly deluded. Why? Because it is fun. Concepts are among the most refined and complex toys human beings can use, among the most varied and the most durable to play with. After “laying them down,” what could be more fun?
The philosopher’s task is to make the labyrinth he is exploring clear and bright. Some philosophers will eventually find the treasure that belongs to them, but he will never leave that treasure to later generations; what they leave behind are only signposts.
December 8, 2008
Latest Comments
- Mou Xiong
2009-04-15 23:44:29 Anonymous 124.205.78.60
“the philosopher insists on being captivated by it in order to seek a way out, whereas the Zen master simply leaps upward in one bound to a higher realm.”
Doesn’t the first part rather contradict the following text a bit? Probably a lot of philosophers are just pursuing fun too, and so it doesn’t count as being captivated.
That sentence is still very vivid, though; I feel the same way about it 🙂 But the Zen master’s leap upward may not be free of captivity to other things either… To put it extremely, how one acts is basically inconsequential anyway, isn’t it? - Gu Chu
2009-04-16 08:30:01
What I meant was that philosophers pursue what is fun and cannot extricate themselves from it—that is, the condition of being addicted to a game. Of course, that is a kind of captivation.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply