According to one of Zen’s four slogans we are told, “do not depend on written words,” and yet much of Zen and for that matter, much of Buddhism, seem to demand a lot of reading on our part. This slogan I think is meant to imply that language cannot disclose ultimate reality. It takes something more. In fact, ultimate reality can only be hinted at. And even the ‘hints’ often fall short of awakening.

The Buddha’s teaching about ultimate reality therefore presents a major problem for the new student or even the old student given the utter incapacity of the written or spoken word to convey buddhatā (the state of Buddhahood).

Language, in other words, is not a bridge to the beyond. It can take us to the edge of the chasm where on the other side of the chasm is buddhatā. But this is not a bridge. Yes, words can even evoke various kinds of subtle concepts about ultimate reality even suggesting a number of means by which to attain buddhatā, but concepts are not buddhatā. They are not bridges. In this regard we are left with an inadequate silence. And what good does it do to deepen or prolong this silence? Silence or quietism is not a bridge either.

What Siddhartha used as a bridge before he attained buddhatā and became recognized as a Buddha, was dhyāna which went from the conditioned to the unconditioned. But is this some kind of leap that is preceded by an emptying out process, that is, an attempt at attenuate the power of thought which is always conditioned? This is not an easy question to answer. It is a difficult subject even for scholars who leave us with little more clarity than before we read their books. But Zen seems to have found the way. It's not by sitting, however, but by "intuition" which has been overlooked in the circles of modern Zen.