The main contribution of (Western) Analytical Philosophy in the history of human thinking is: it believes that many problems that bother people are actually not problems at all, they are just "false problems." Some questions have not been answered satisfactorily for a long time, not because people have limited abilities, but because the way of asking questions is inherently problematic. Once you follow the train of thought of asking questions in this way, you will sooner or later lead people into a dilemma of infinite ‘no answer’. Therefore, analytical philosophy strives to drive all false questions out of the scope of human thinking, so that people can obtain peace of mind by simply ‘not thinking’ about certain topics.
Similarly, Chinese Ch’an also states that there are many false problems, but its technique of dealing with these problems is different to that of analytical philosophy. Chinese Ch’an teaches that only by restoring the ‘genuine’ or ‘underlying’ questioner (or ‘perceiving the empty mind ground from which ALL questions arise’) can the problems these questions represent be avoided in the genuine sense. Therefore, just as the Western academic scholars might ‘give voice’ to these false questions - the Chinese Ch’an Master refuses to give a positive answer, but crucially, (and often a point not acknowledged in the West) the Ch’an Master does not give a negative answer.
However, it should be pointed out that the distinction between true and false questions within analytical philosophy is also inherently problematic: if the boundary is meaningless (and lacks ‘substance’), then the true question, regardless of its scope, cannot be properly ‘fixed’, ‘located’ or even ‘asked’; on the other-hand, if the question is too meaningful - and possesses definite ‘boundaries’ of import, then it cannot represent the problem of inherent ‘falsity’ as it has ‘concretised’ into something ‘real’ and ‘limited’ in time and space. The recent developments in Western thinking are repeatedly attempting to explain this dialectical problem and double-bind, but in so doing, tend to favour the ‘negation’ of the question. This has led some Western scholars to mistakenly assume that they are implementing a ‘Chinese Ch’an solution’, but this is not the case.
As far as Ch’an is concerned, all questions are unnecessary movements of the surface mind, nothing but habitual contrivances that manifest as ‘false questions’ mistakenly interpreted as being both ‘valid’ and structurally ‘three-dimensional’ in the material world! The tetrelemma of Nagarjuna explains the Ch’an position – 1) everything ‘is’, 2) Everything ‘is not’, 3) Everything both ‘is’ and ‘is not’ and 4) everything is neither ‘is’ and ‘is not’ - so what's the problem? Only the intrinsic realisation of the ‘self-nature’ (as the ‘empty mind ground’) denotes a "person who is not deceived by others", and ‘who understands the law perpetually at peace’. Once enlightened, the problems of defilement, true delusion, life and death - and many other conflicts - although not resolved in the conventional sense, have been completely eliminated in the delusional sense. In other words, all (deluded) questions disappear before they ‘arise’ - as the habitual (inner) conditions that formulate a ‘dualistic’ and ‘suffering-inducing’ question in the mind - have been perpetually ‘removed’.
In contrast, the development of analytic philosophy is very incomplete. It merely attempts to persuades people not to pay attention to the various problems relating to ‘value’ and ‘freedom’ that are incapable of being subjected to ‘reason’, leading to these metaphysical issues still plaguing everyone who lives a serious life. Ch’an Buddhism is different. Its resolution of problems brings people a real "usefulness", which is the tranquillity and clarity of the whole (united) inner and outer being. The Ch’an method permeates the depths of people's hearts and breaks the source of delusion in one fell swoop. How can the complexity and difficulty the Ch’an method employs be conceived and inferred through the narrow experiences and thinking associated with everyday existence?
In summary, what this article is trying to illustrate is just this: Ch’an Buddhism is a part of the entire Buddhist system, no matter how much Ch’an surpasses the Buddha and the ancestors. If you want to keep your understanding of Ch’an from deviating, you should also find a basis within the sutras and understand it from the entire Buddhist philosophical background. At present, there are no other thought systems that can properly interpret Ch’an. If you abandon the scriptures, rely on your own brains, and adhere to Ch’an with some kind of thinking that suits your taste, even if you don’t enter the cave of deluded ghosts, you will eventually fall into a ‘dead void’. These are the products of a lack of genuine knowledge with regard to Ch’an self-cultivation. The ‘Perfect Enlightenment’ Sutra (圆觉经 - Yuan Jue Jing) says ‘The Tathagata-Realm is infinite and an individual mind (and heart) cannot fathom its vastness through an egotistical self-effort – which is like a firefly trying to impossibly burn the infinite dimensions of Mount Sumeru!’ The Western mind needs to breakout of its own self-contained isolation and comprehend the limitations that this cultural programming entails.
https://fo.ifeng.com/guandian/200712/1206_17_47728_1.shtml
禅宗西行——禅VS现代西方思潮
2007年12月06日 09:30中华五千年网
分析哲学在人类思想史上的主要贡献为:它认为许多困扰人的问题实际上根本不成其问题,它们只不过是些“假问题”。有些问题许久以来得不到满意的回答,不是因为人能力有限,而是提问的方式本身就有问题,一旦顺提问的思路走下去,迟早会将人引入两难的困境。因此,分析哲学力图将所有假问题赶出人类思考的范围,使人获得心灵的宁静。
与之相似,禅宗也认为存在许多虚假的问题,它处理这些问题的方法也是治疗的方法,认为只有使发问者恢复健全,才能避免这些问题的困扰。所以一旦参学者提出这些假问题,禅师不是给予正面回答,但也不给予否定,而直接一棒一喝,截断学人的攀缘妄想了事。
但应该指出的是,分析哲学对真问题、假问题的划分本身就很成问题:如果这个界限是无意义的,那么就不能对真问题的范围加以限定;如果这个问题是有意义的,它便不能陈述假问题。西方思想近来的发展也一再说明了这一划界的错误,但指出任何真问题都不可能存在的,却只有禅宗。
就禅宗的究极来说,但凡问题都是假问题。诸法实相离四句、绝百非、一尘不染,哪有什么问题呢?只有内证自性,便是“不受人惑的人”,明了法本如如、迷人自扰。一旦开悟,染净问题、真妄问题、生死问题……等诸多对立,虽然没解决,但却已被彻底消解掉了。也就是说,一切问题在被回答之前就消失了。
与此相比,分析哲学的消解便是很不彻底的。它只是在理智中劝说人们不要关注理智无能为力的价值问题、自由问题,但这些形而上问题仍困扰着每一个认真生活的人。禅宗却不同,它对问题的消解带给人以真实的“受用”,是整个心灵的宁静与澄明。它潜入到人内心的深处,一举打破妄念的源头,其中的复杂与艰难岂是靠狭隘经验与思量所能设想和推断的。
综上絮絮所言,本文试图说明的,不过是这样一点:禅宗再超佛越祖,它也是整个佛法大系的一部分。如要使对禅的理解不至于发生偏差,还应从经藏中找依据,从整个佛学背景来理解。在当前,还没有什么其余的思想可以恰当地诠释禅宗,如果舍弃经论,靠自家脑筋计度,以某种合自己口味的思想来附会禅宗,即便不入鬼窟,也终会两眼茫茫、不知所以。正如《圆觉经》所说:“以思维心测度如来境界,如萤火烧须弥山,终不能着。”以上对西方思潮的评判,只是两个浅近的例子而已。