Zen and the gesture of deconstruction are complimentary. In my imagination, I can see Dogen and Derrida getting along smartly over tea.
Zen and deconstruction are both nondual systems of inquiry. Their objective is to render strange that which we took to be familiar. This is accomplished by reading things against their own grain.
For example, a deconstructive/Zen approach might say that, ironically, the truly religious person is comfortable using an atheistic mind.
The mind which works from “great doubt” paradoxically reveals “great faith” because “absolute reality” is “beyond” our egoic notions of “being.” So instead of falling back on our ideas of reference (as "believers" do) we have to let go into the uncomfortable and intimate space of “not knowing.”
This is the practice of Zen. Or, more specifically, this is zazen.
The zazen way is to look beyond ideas of belief. The only way past ideas is through direct encounter of the mind which makes ideas. Through direct confrontation with the dualistic “believing mind,” the Zen student challenges the ideas of a Self which is always present.
This looking reveals a humbling insight: just as Metaphysics is just another attachment to the craving for “good things,” belief in the idea of an unchanging Reality is heretical.
Perhaps this is why the Buddha taught: “No Soul.” Clinging to the idea of a total presence is just desire run amok. In other words, it’s suffering.
Everything changes. Nothing stays the same.
To use Derrida’s lovely language: presence is always “divided, differed, and different from itself...”
Acceptance beyond acceptance is therefore needed. We need a rapport and a rapprochement with the discomfort of our lived moments.
This is the way of the mystic.
Posts
