An Essay on Chan -- essays research papers

An Essay Answering Questions From the Assigned Text by FaureThis canvass will attempt to answer questions coming from the Bernard Faure text assigned in class. The questions are as follows How does Hu Shihs approach to Chan differ from D.T. Suzukis? Why was the knowledge of the Japanese on Zen not objective? What does Faure mean by the teleological fallacy? What does he mean by the two alternative approaches he suggests structural analysis and hermeneutics?How does Hu Shihs approach to Chan differ form D.T. Suzukis? To answer this we must first recognize that Hu Shih emphasizes the historicism of Chan, meaning he places great wideness on the historical aspect, while Suzuki aligns himself with the metaphysics aspect. Suzuki states that there are two kinds of people who can talk round Zen The first(Suzuki), which is one who has a firm custody on the concepts and greatly understands Zen, the other(Hu Shih), someone who is utterly unable to grab the concepts. Suzuki states that Hu Shih may know Zen historically, but that he does not actually know Zen. Suzuki says about Hu Shih that it is not a historians business not talk about Zen. Hu argues that a historic approach to Zen cannot be reduced to the circumstances of its emergence and how it transmits its home of departure into a means to understand itself and others. Since Hu Shih is from the academic world, his approach to Zen is more factual, while ...