NOTES

 

*The definition of para-rational used in this paper comes from a course taught at California State University Dominguez Hills, which is: “… non-rational alternatives in modern culture, focusing on the non-logical, the visionary, and the religious/mystical. For the complete definition of para-rational used in that , please refer to: http://www.csudh.edu/hux/syllabi/542/course_3.html

 

Professor’s reaction to this paper:

 

An intelligent, clear commentary on Herrigel’s Zen in the Art of Archery. In your discussion, you might have made clearer the difference between the Western and Zen approaches to archery. I really don’t think most Western archers undertake archery primarily as a means to “build physical stamina in a rational and progressive study of technique.” This, I assume, is a happy by-product. Archery is primarily a sport, not an art, which involves competition and a pragmatic end (to hit the bull’s-eye). In brief, it is an end in itself. John Cage, a fan of Zen, relates that the most revered Zen archery master in Japan seldom ever hits the target and never the bull’s-eye! Let me also note that the school of Zen which Herrigel participated in is the Rinzai school which does indeed emphasize “repetitive practice/discipline,” but the Soto school deemphasizes these, asking its students only to sit quietly emptying the mind; even Satori is not sought as a necessary goal. Also, though orthodox Christianity and Zen-Buddhism are light years apart, their mystical traditional as argued by Aldous Huxley in his The Perennial Philosophy bear profound similarities; after all, the Western-Christian tradition until the Renaissance could hardly be considered rational.

 

WORKS CITED

 

Herrigel, Eugen. Zen in the Art of Archery. New York, Knopf Doubleday, 1989.