Comparison Between Karl Jaspers And Seung Sahn

2877 Words6 Pages

Karl Jaspers and Seung Sahn

In this paper I will be making a comparison between the thoughts of Karl Jaspers and Korean Zen master Seung Sahn on the nature of consciousness and transcendence. The essays in question by Jaspers are his essays “On the Origin of My Philosophy,” written in 1941, and his lectures on the significance of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and “the Encompassing,” given in 1935 (p. 158). The other text being studied is The Compass of Zen, a compilation of Seung Sahn’s lectures on the three main branches of Buddhism. The Compass of Zen was begun in the 1960s as a basic text to explain the “bone,” or common essence, of Buddhism to Sahn’s Zen students. The 1960s brought a sharp rise on interest in Buddhism among Americans, …show more content…

For example, if you think about a dog, it illuminates your understanding of the dog, but not of where your thought came from. Indeed, the origin of consciousness is not something that should not be rationally understood: “the Encompassing can never be known as a particular something from which other things can be deduced” (p.227). In a slightly different interpretation of this idea, Buddhism teaches that the origin of everything is in a place before thought, and therefore beyond all form and words- pure nothingness. “Your mind is originally pure and clear; that is true holiness…attaining that everything is empty is better than some special idea of holiness” (Sahn p.40). This idea is known in Sanskrit as Samadhi, and is the state of the “unmoving mind” (Sahn p.27). Nothingness is man’s original nature, the origin of consciousness, and it is innately good. It is part of a universal essence, and therefore feels the suffering of all living beings; by channeling this innate goodness we become compassionate …show more content…

Jaspers believes that it is best to use as many approaches as possible for understanding. The use of reason is the bond that unites all modes of thought: he refers to it as “the inextinguishable urge to philosophize” (p.223). He says that philosophy is not a science; it is attaining truth via reflection. (p. 172). He follows this by saying that the failure of man to find understanding using any one system of thought produces confusion in the mind about what is really important. Buddhism also addresses the issue of confusion about what is really important; it explains this confusion as originating in “attachment” to imperfect worldly desires and things: “They don’t see that what they crave is deeply marked with impurity. This is humans’ basic delusion: our attachment leads us to crave and covet things that cannot help our lives” (Sahn

Open Document