Michel Foucault and Zen: a stay in a Zen temple (1978)

1




Originally published in the Japanese Buddhist Review Shunfu and translated by
Christian Polac in Umi, no. 197, August-September 1978, pp. 1-6, as `Michel Foucault
et le zen: un sejour dans un temple zen. The Iollowing English translation is based on
the text Irom Dits et ecrits, which contained the Iollowing introductory note: `Working
on the history oI the Christian discipline, M. Foucault wished to understand better the
practice oI Zen and was invited to spend some time at the temple oI Seionji at
Uenohara, in the area oI Yamanashi, where Master Omori Sogen led the meditation
room. An editor oI the Buddhist review Shunfu recorder a number oI interviews with the
bonze which are translated by Christian Polac.


It is not that religion is delusional by nature, not that the
individual, beyond present-day religion, rediscovers his
most suspect psychological origins. But religious
delusion is a Iunction oI the secularization oI culture:
religion may be the object oI delusional belieI insoIar as
the culture oI a group no longer permits the assimilation
oI religious or mystical belieIs in the present context oI
experience.

Michel Foucault (1962), Mental Illness and
Psychology, University oI CaliIornia Press,
Berkeley, 1976.


Foucault: I dont know iI I am able to Iollow correctly the rigorous rules oI a Zen
temple, but Ill do my best. I am very interested in Buddhist philosophy. But, this time, I
didnt come Ior this. What interest me most, is liIe itselI in a Zen temple, that is to say
the practice oI Zen, its exercises and its rules. For I believe that a totally diIIerent
mentality to our own is Iormed through the practice and exercises oI a Zen temple. Just
now, you told us this is a living temple which is diIIerent Irom traditional temples. Do
you have diIIerent rules to other temples?

Priest:
2
I want to say that this is not a temple that is representative oI Zen culture. In
this sense, the temple is perhaps not suIIicient enough. There is an expression which
says that 'Zen represents man. We have here a number oI monks who Iollow with
ardour Zen in itselI. Living Zen means that.

Foucault: As concerns memories oI my Iirst visit to Japan, I have rather a Ieeling oI
regret to have seen nothing and to have understood nothing. That absolutely doesnt
mean that I wasnt shown anything but that during and also aIter I had made my tour to
observe many things I Ielt I hadnt grasped anything. For me, Irom the point oI view oI
technology, a way oI liIe, the appearance oI social structure, Japan is extremely close to

1
Chapter eight: Religion and culture: Michel Foucault
2
(A bonze or Japanese priest.)
the Western world. At the same time the inhabitants oI this country seem in every way a
lot more mysterious compared with those oI all other countries in the world. What
impressed me, was the mixture oI proximity and distancing and I couldnt get any
clearer impression.

Priest: I am told that almost all your works are translated into Japanese. Do you think
that your thoughts are understood enough?

Foucault: I have no way oI knowing how people interpret the work that I have done. It
is always a great surprise to me that my works have been translated abroad and even
that my works are read in France. To speak Irankly, I hope that my work interests ten or
a hundred people; and, iI it is a question oI a larger number, I am always a bit surprised.
From my point oI view, its that my name, Foucault, is easy to pronounce in Japanese;
Ior example, much easier than Heidegger. That is a joke oI course. I believe that
somebody who writes has not got the right to demand to be understood as he had
wished to be when he was writing; that is to say Iorm the moment when he writes he is
no longer the owner oI what he says, except in a legal sense. Obviously, iI someone
criticizes you and says that youre wrong. Interpreting badly your arguments, you can
emphasise what you wanted to express. But, apart Irom that case, I believe that the
Ireedom oI the reader must be absolutely respected. A discourse is a reality which can
be transIormed inIinitely. Thus, he who writes has not the right to give orders as to the
use oI his writings.

I don`t believe that I write an oeuvre in the original and classical sense oI the word. I
write things which seem usable. In a word, usable in a diIIerent way, by diIIerent
people, in diIIerent countries in certain cases. Thus, iI I analyse something such as
madness or power and that serves some purpose, then that`s enough, that`s why I write.
II someone uses what I write diIIerently then that`s not disagreeable to me, and even iI
he uses it in another context Ior something else, then I am quite happy. In this way, I do
not believe that I am the author oI an oeuvre and the thought and the intention oI the
author should be respected.

Priest: I have been told you are interested in mysticism. In your opinion, do mysticism
and esotericism mean the same thing?

Foucault: No.

Priest: Do you think that Zen is Japanese mysticism?

Foucault: As you know, Zen was born in India, developed in China and arrived in
Japan in the thirteenth century. I don`t believe thereIore that it is totally Japanese. #in:ai
is a Zen priest whom I like a lot and hes not Japanese.
3
He is neither a translator oI
sutra nor a Iounder oI Chinese Zen, but Ior me I Iind he is a great Zen philosopher. He
is Irom the nineteenth century, isn`t he? I read the French translation by ProIessor
Demieville, who is an excellent French specialist on Buddhism.

Priest: It seems that most Chinese specialist believe that Zen Buddhism came Irom
China rather than Irom India.

3
(Lin Chi Rinzai, died in 867. One of the greatest Zen Masters of the Tang dynasty.)
Foucault: The Zen which came Irom India is perhaps a little mythological. Its
probably to link Zen to the Buddha himselI. Zen in India isn`t very important, and
certainly it developed strongly in China in the seventh century and in Japan Irom the
thirteenth, isn`t that so?

Priest: What do you think oI the relationship between Zen and mysticism?

Foucault: I believe that Zen is totally diIIerent Irom Christian mysticism, but I think
that Zen is a mysticism. That said, I don`t know Zen well enough to deIend this
conviction. It might be said in any case that there is virtually no point in common with
Christian mysticism, whose tradition goes back to St Bernard, St Teresa oI Avila, to St
John oI the Cross. It is completely diIIerent. When I say mysticism, I use the term in the
Christian sense. What is very impressive concerning Christian spirituality and its
technique is that we always search Ior more individualization. We try to seize whats at
the bottom oI the soul oI the individual. 'Tell me who you are, there is the spirituality
oI Christianity. As Ior Zen, it seems that all the techniques linked to spirituality are,
conversely, tending to attenuate the individual. Zen and Christian spirituality and that oI
Zen are comparable. And, here, there exist a great opposition. In Christian mysticism,
even when it preaches the union oI God and the individual, there is something that is
individual; because it is a question oI the relation oI love between God and the
individual. The one is he who loves and the other is he who is loved. In a word,
Christian mysticism concentrates on individualization.

n Zen meditation

Foucault: With so little experience, I cant say precisely. Despite that, iI I have been
able to Ieel something through the bodys posture in Zen meditation, namely the correct
position oI the body, then that something has been new relationships which can exist
between the mind and the body and, moreover, new relationships between.//