Subtle Intemacy between Emily Dickinson and Zen

Subtle Intimacy between Emily Dickinson and Zen The benighted who do not realize the true nature of themselves will never realize that heaven is in themselves. ―The Platform Scripture of the Sixth Patriarch The Fact that Earth is Heaven―/ Whether Heaven is Heaven or not. ― Emily Dickinson On the surface, there seems no possibility to find any connections between Emily Dickinson and Chinese Zen. First, Emily Dickinson lived in a time―the nineteenth century and a world ―the United States that had no idea of what Zen is. Second, she was brought up in a Western religious family and Western religion was pre-planted in her. The environment around her never provide her with any chance to even get in touch with Zen which is a religion that originated in India and gradually took its form in China. However, seeking for the meanings and the truth of existence, Emily Dickinson and Eastern Zen reached an agreement and found many matching points. Though God and Christ are the themes that repeatedly appear in Dickinson’s poetry, she was rebellious against Christianity. She withdrew from religious forms and never joined church. She went to Mount Holyoke Seminary in 1847 but there she proved herself a rebel: she did not stand up when the president Mary Lyon asked the students to rise if they wanted to admit that they were “lost” but eager to lead a Christian life. Her rebellion was clearly and frankly presented when she wrote ‘ They thought it queer that I didn’t rise―I thought a lie would be queerer’ (L, 21:85)1. God is a frequent protagonist in Emily Dickinson’s poems. Yet he is not an omnipotent Creator in her poems and in her heart. Instead, God is an imperfect and not so respectable idol. Sometimes God is mean to her and sometimes she doubts about God’s power and existence. God is not capable of helping her out and winning her trust. Savior! I’ve no one else to tell― And so I trouble thee. I am the one forgot thee so― Dost thou remember me? Nor, for myself, I came so far― That were the little load― I brought thee the imperial Heart I had no strength to hold― The heart I carried in my own― Till mine too heavy grew― Yet―strangest―heavier since it went― Is it too large for you? (217, c. 1861) In this poem Emily Dickinson confessed that she is the one that forgot God and she doubts about God’s capability. Therefore, she thrust a test on God―brought him the imperial Heart that is too heavy to carry in her. Naturally, if God is great enough and trust worthy, this simple task should be easy to fulfil. To “me”, a common person and child of God, the heart was an imperial load. But for God, the omnipotent savior, he should be able to unload it. Yet it is strange that the heart became heavier since it went to God. How ironic it is that God cannot unload the burden of it. Hence, “Savior I’ve no one to tell.” She is mocking God’s incapability by writing “Is it too large for you?” Actually this exactly shows her disbelief toward God. Such image of God appeared repeatedly in Emily Dickinson’s religious poems: Of Heaven above the firmest proof We fundamental know Except for its marauding Hand It had been Heaven below. (1205, c.1872) Those who believe in God only know what is apparent ― the heaven, but knows little about another that lay under the fundamental understanding of God ― God’s marauding hand. Concerning the faith in God, she is cautious. She does not believe in him, for God has hidden flaws in his character. For example, he offers heaven yet he is marauding. In some poems God is even mean to her. Those―dying then, Knew where they went― They went to God’s Right Hand― That hand is amputated now And God cannot be found― The abdication of Belief Makes the behavior small― Better an ignis fatuus Than no illume at all― (1551,c.1862) This poem was written in 1862 when Dickinson had experienced the great loss of her friends and family members. At this crucial time of life, who can she turn to for comfort and where is God who is assumed to offer peace and comfort? Though people knew their destination when they are dying, what they really got was different from what they had expected. People thought they would go to God’s Right hand, but this hand is amputated. Here God’s Right hand is a pun, which may means God’s Righteous Hand. However, ironically this righteous hand is amputated now. And God cannot be found when he should prove that he deserves people’s belief and faith. Dickinson’s skepticism about God never stops. Furthermore, it has been believed that Dickinson was one of the rare people in Amherst who did not believe in Calvinism. Calvinists were adherent to the religious doctrine that only those who are elected by God can be granted redemption. Since Emily Dickinson held skepticism toward God and God’s capability, she doubted about redemption naturally. Later, when revivalism prevailed in Amherst in 1844 and 1846, she still held skepticism and kept her own religious beliefs. She “mocks revivalism by calling it an opiate of the masses: Much gesture, from the Pulpit―/ Strong Hallelujahs roll―/Narcotics cannot still the Tooth/ That nibbles at the soul” (L, 14:88)2. Nevertheless, the feeling that Dickinson held towards religion is quite paradoxical. She does not believe in God but she is reluctant to abandon belief completely. She does not advocate the abdication of belief for it “makes the behavior small.” It is better to have a belief than have none even if the belief may be “ignis fatuus”, for ‘Better an ignis fatuus / Than no illume at all. The illumination of ignis fatuus may be faint but it is better to have this faint light than darkness. She just could not live without belief. Then what does Emily Dickinson believe in? If the truth does not lie in God, then to Emily Dickinson where does the truth lie? She stuck to her own beliefs so strongly that she just would not accept any beliefs or religion readily. She only accepted the quintessence. For example, she eliminated “elected redemption” from Puritanism and accepted self-responsibility. Just like Donna Dickinson wrote in Emily Dickinson: Puritanism gave women an inner world to conquer, a private realm of equal or greater importance to the masculine public one. A woman was dependent on no one but herself for her own spiritual well-being, and it was by an intense spiritual striving that she was to gain her own salvation. (L,12: 34)3 Also Emily Dickinson absorbed “nutrition” from transcendentalism. She took in the idea of self-reliance and kept on her pursuit of truth. The presentation of individual responsibility on Emily Dickinson is that she believed there is no God above there to grant elected redemption and “no one but the believer was responsible for his or her own salvation.” Ultimately she formed her own highly personal religious world and system. She doubted about God and put faith on herself. Just like H.W. Van Loon says in On Human Emily Dickinson doubted about the wisdom of the omnipotent God and when the kind lord was incapable of answering the questions that embarrassed her, she would invent the answers by herself. To Emily Dickinson the truth lies in oneself and truth is only gained by one’s own efforts and striving. There is no God above in heaven but one has to look in his or her heart for God. She wrote: The spirit is the Conscious Ear. We actually Hear When we inspect―that’s audible― That is admitted―Here For other Services―as Sound― There hangs a smaller Ear Outside the Castle― that Contain ― The other― only Hear― (733,c. 1863) What the spirit “hears” is real. The Castle’s ear (the organ of ear) is only an outlook form. It only hears sound. For truth, which is more than audible sound, one has to turn to the spirit, “the Conscious Ear” inside oneself. This attitude toward God and salvation is similar with the key to the tenor of Chinese Zen. Emily Dickinson doubted about and mocked at God. Zen casts away idol worship and disdains Buddha. For example, there was a Buddhist monk named Dan Xia (red sunset glow) burned the wood carving of a Buddha to keep warm one night. When accused of profanity of Buddha, he found his reason in Diamond Sutra that all the namarupa (Sanskrit, meaning form and matter) were visions and if one was not attracted by the superficial namarupa and could see through it, one could “see” Buddha. (凡所有相，皆是虚妄，若见诸相非相，即见如来。L,7: 7)4 So what he burnt was only an idol, a mere namarupa or a vision. Buddha is not the woodcarving or any colored mud molds worshiped in temples. The real Buddha or Savior can only be found inside oneself and as Emily Dickinson perceived that one can only be saved by oneself. In Diamond Sutra, which is regarded as the Bible of Zen, Buddha enlightens his disciples that the only way to the truth of the universe and the Buddhist doctrine is to realize one’s true nature and return to this original pure nature. How can various creatures in the world realize and return to this true nature? No one but the believer himself is responsible for it and no one but the believer himself can do it. Just as Buddha says in the 25th chapter in Diamond Sutra, I have never saved or helped anyone to salvation, for no one in the world needs Buddha to grant him salvation or to help him to gain salvation. Each creature in the world possesses the wisdom to help themselves to salvation and those who gained salvation is because that they realizes the true nature of themselves but not because I converted or saved them. (须菩提。莫作是念。何以故。实无有众生如来度者。L,1: 27)5 In Platform Scripture of the Sixth Patriarch, the sixth patriarch preaches to the followers of Zen that all the doctrines of Buddhism is in one’s nature, so one can realize the true nature of self by oneself. If one is always relying on other people who understand Buddhism to save him by teaching enlightenment, it is not possible to find such a person. The reason is that the true nature in one only can be understood by oneself. If one is deluded by namarupa, though those who have attained enlightenment can give one a hint or tell one that truth lies in oneself, one cannot gain salvation until he himself realizes his true nature. (若自性悟者不假外求。若一向执谓须他善知识方得解脱者。无有是处。何以故。自心内有善知识自悟。若起邪迷妄念颠倒。外善知识虽有教授。救不可得。L,6: 101)6 However, there exists a difference between Emily Dickinson’s religion and the Chinese Zen. The concept of salvation between the two is totally different. In Christianity and Dickinson’s religion, salvation means the disengagement of the original sin that is branded on one since the day of birth. In Zen all the creatures in the world possess original pure nature but they are induced by the kaleidoscopic namarupa that they see, hear, smell, taste, touch and sense. Deceived by these illusions they lost their true pure nature and commit many crimes. Therefore, they need to gain salvation. Despite the diverse difference between Dickinson’s salvation and that of Zen’s, the only way to salvation is the same and the faith in oneself is the same. Moreover, to Emily Dickinson, her doubt about God and the belief in herself run through all her life. Simultaneously, to believe in oneself and to find heaven and truth inside one’s heart is one of the principles to Zen doctrines. With the matching of the basic idea between Emily Dickinson and Chinese Zen, the thesis therefore claims that Emily Dickinson’s poetry echoes the doctrines of Chinese Zen. Further association should be found in order to prove this claim and make a theory. As mentioned before Emily Dickinson was partially influenced by Emerson’s transcendentalism, which is bonded with the East. The elements came from the East naturally in turn influence Emily Dickinson’s religion and philosophy. Known as “American Confucius and Massachusetts Buddha (L,10: 47)7” Emerson was conversant with Oriental religion and philosophy. The ligament between Emerson and Oriental philosophy is best represented in his poem Brahma. If the red slayer think he slays, Or if the slain think he is slain, They know not well the subtle ways I keep, and pass, and turn again. Far or forgot to me is near; Shadow and sunlight are the same; The vanished gods to me appear; And one to me are shame and fame. They reckon ill who leave me out; When me they fly, I am the wings; I am the doubter and the doubt, And I the hymn the Brahmin sings. The strong gods pine for my abode, And pine in vain the sacred Seven; But thou, meek lover of the good! Find me, and turn thy back on heaven. 8 In the first stanza the idea of samsara was introduced. There was no “red slayer” or “slain”, everybody was in the “subtle way.” In the second stanza, the distinctions between opposite sides of things are eliminated, for anything when it goes to extremity, it will turn to its opposite side. Therefore “far is near”, “shadow and sunlight are the same”, “vanished gods appear” and “one to me are shame and fame.” In the third stanza, the distinction between subject and object is wiped out ― “I am the doubter and the doubter.” The perceiver and the world becomes one. In the last stanza, Emerson despised the Christian Heaven by “abiding” a place to be found by turning back on heaven. Emerson wrote this poem to expatiate the doctrines of Hinduism, yet similarities can be identified between the philosophical ideas expressed in this poem and Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism and Zen. Two reasons can explain it. First, Oriental religions and philosophies are closely associated with one another. In this case, Buddhism originates from Brahmanism, which later forms modern Hinduism by absorbing some doctrines from Buddhism. While in China Buddhism by taking in some ideas from Taoism and Confucianism and takes its form into Zen. So, all the ideas found in Brahma commune with one another and can be summed up as oriental wisdom. Second, Emerson’s acquaintance with Oriental religious and philosophical classics also explains the penetrating Oriental philosophy expressed in Brahma. Hence, Emerson’s bond with the East. A step further, Emerson has a ligament with China. Emerson read and studied Confucianism, in which he approved of some of the basic ideas. He is regarded by Van Loon as a writer who writes not only with brain but also with heart. And Chinese philosophy is sometimes called the philosophy of heart. Emerson is bound to China as his heart is linked up with the “heart” of Chinese philosophy. Emerson started reading Confucianism when he was thirty-three and was interested in it. In 1840 together with other Transcendentalists Emerson spread transcendental ideas through publication of a small magazine named The Dial. Emerson also included some Confucianism that he approved of by means of quoting The Analects of Confucius and The Four Books. A parallel study has been done by Qian Mansu that though Emerson took in the Confucianism that he agreed and did not have a chance to touch Taoism, his transcendentalism is close to Zhuang Zi’s Taoism, because both philosophies intuitively believe in an ultimate unity of Man and Nature. When Emerson wrote in Nature: “I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me: I am part or parcel of God” he was mingled with nature just like Zhuang Zi. Therefore, with the study and partially acceptance of Eastern philosophy, Emerson and his transcendentalism are bounded with the East especially with China. Accordingly, transcendentalism as one of the important ism that influenced Emily Dickinson would certainly pass the subtle influence derived from the East and the bond with the East especially with China to Emily Dickinson. The link between Emerson’s transcendentalism and Chinese philosophy indirectly links Emily Dickinson with Chinese philosophy. Besides this indirect link with China, parallels and similarities between China and Emily Dickinson can be observed. That is, the introversive type of mode of thinking. This mode of thinking not only distinguishes Emily Dickinson from most Western writers but also draws her near Chinese philosophy. At the beginning both Chinese and Western philosophy paid great attention to heart and tended to be introversive. And it was agreed that heart was the organ where feelings dwell and it can also think and to cognize abstract theories. However, with the stress on reason and sense, logic, and science, heart in the sense of philosophy gradually weighed less in the west, since it is ultimately regarded as “the hollow muscular organ, which in vertebrates keeps up the circulation of the blood, by rhythmic contraction and dilatation.” And science proved that the organ that actually thinks is the brain. Since then, the discrepancy between Western and Eastern mode of thinking becomes clear. Consequently, the main stream mode of thinking of the West and the East falls into two categories: extroversive and introversive.9 On the whole, the main stream mode of thinking in the west is of the extrovert type, which directs the attention to the outside world. That is, most philosophers and poets in the west tend to be spectators of the world. They watch and study the world by standing outside or beside the world. Western philosophy concentrates on issues concerning nature and universe. Even to the questions and problems concerning human beings and the meaning of life, they tend to treat human beings as objects ready for observation, study and analysis. In the western system of mode of thinking, the relationship between man and universe belongs to the type of observer and object, and recognition and being recognized. For example, Robert Browning is one of the representatives of the extroversive mode of thinking. “According to Robert Browning the responsibility of a poet is to observe and understand human beings, to support them and finally to give them happiness.”(L,17: 32)10 He observed human beings’ hearts and portrayed what he observed and understood in his original dramatic monologues. Human hearts were like samples lying under his keen microscope. Thus, human and humanity are understood and realized through the struggle with nature and analysis of human as objects. Such mode of thinking dominates western writers. For instance, in the first American prose epic, Moby-Dick, a serious philosophical meaning, the ceaseless conflicts between good and evil, is taught through the struggle between man and nature. Also the romantics who express their personal emotions in their poems also concentrate on the outside world. Their emotions are evoked by the outside nature but not evoked through searching inside. However, Emily Dickinson’s mode of thinking belongs to the introversive type that is a characteristic of Chinese philosophy, including Confucianism, Taoism and Zen. Her deliberate resigning from the social life provides her with an opportunity to look inwardly into her heart and ponder the universe through searching inside herself. Her relationship with nature is far more intense than those who physically live in it. Through her persistent writing and searching into the themes that perplex human beings, she was spiritually immersed in nature and the universe. To her, nature is beyond human speech and wisdom as expressed in: Nature is what we know―/ Yet have no art to say―/ So Impotent Our Wisdom is/ To her simplicity (668, c. 1863). Nature is not the objects or sounds or adjectives that man can apply to it. It is somewhat mysteriously and spiritually bonded with man. Man is not a spectator or observer. This is somewhat similar to Chinese philosophy, which tends to humanize nature or naturalize man to harmonize man and nature. There is no clear distinction between man and nature and the real understanding of humanity and the universe lies in one’s own heart. Many Chinese philosophical aphorisms direct inwardly, for example, Confucianism advocates understanding humanity through introspection (反求诸己); Taoism―understanding the Way through returning to and understanding of nature (体道，体自然); Zen― realizing the nature of oneself by returning to one’s heart (明心见性). Thus, amazing parallels between Emily Dickinson and Chinese philosophy can be found. As mentioned before much parallel studies has been done that Emerson has a disposition very close to Taoism. Emily Dickinson “absorbs” the Oriental influence from Emerson but she is disposed closer to Zen. The answer lies in the difference between Taoism and Zen. One of the major diversities between Taoism and Zen is that Taoism is still bounded in form and matter, while Zen is free of any form and matter. Take the approach to language as an example, (language, as the only tool for a writer to express ideas, is extremely important to a writer), Taoism is still bounded within the confines of language, while Zen uses language but transcends it. During the period of the formation of Chinese Zen, despite the acceptance of some of the doctrines of Confucianism and Taoism, it is a religious philosophy that values above all sudden enlightenment: the instant of sudden enlightenment that is inexplicable in words. While the highest ambit of Taoism is the great joy of experiencing the intuitive unity of Man and Nature. The latter is not only explainable but has a “sloganized label” (intuitive unity of Man and Nature) on it. Though aphoristic sentences and poems are abundant in Zen classics such as the Diamond Sutra, it is stressed again and again that Buddha has lectured nothing: all the doctrines lectured by means of language are not the real truth. So, even the classics and “doctrines” should be abandoned in the end. This diversity toward language between Taoism and Zen distinguishes Emily Dickinson from Emerson and draws Emily Dickinson near Zen. To be exact, Emerson expresses his philosophical ideas clearly and directly by means of essays or journals. Whereas, Emily Dickinson chose the most ambiguous form―poetry to express her ideas. Emily Dickinson would have chosen non-language if there existed one. So even by means of poetry she chose the most indirect way to write it. Thus, a very similar attitude of Emily Dickinson and Zen toward language establishes parallels between the two. English is known for its directness, frankness, perspicuity and exactness. However, Dickinson is one of those who holds that language is incapable to express ideas directly. She writes, “Tell all the Truth but tell it Slant, Success in Circuit Lies.” Her poems are excellent examples for this indirection of language using. When she mentions a wounded deer in her poem it is not about a deer. She is only using the deer and the language in a slant way to “tell all the truth” since as a poet she has to use language as a media to express her ideas. Besides, quite a number of Emily Dickinson’s poems are branded as riddles―in these poems she deliberately hid the meaning between lines. There may be real meaning in the riddle poems, but the deliberate making of riddles itself may hint her attitude toward language: language can be so misleading in expressing any ideas even the simplest one, and the real truth cannot be told or written by means of language. The truth can only be perceived by enlightenment. Furthermore, those who understand what is preached by means of language will not necessarily believe in it. However, those who have perceived it believe in it. Just like Emily Dickinson, she invents answers in place of God and practices this all her life. She believes in herself because she perceives that there exists no God above there to save her. In view of her disposition to transcend form and matter, Emily Dickinson is close to Zen instead of Taoism. What is more, both Emily Dickinson and Chinese Zen emphasize and aim at spiritual extrication. Emily Dickinson doubts about the God and turns inward to herself for salvation. While Chinese Zen is a kind of religious philosophy with the ultimate goal to spiritual extrication, which is actually a kind of transcendence of oneself and one’s heart. And the only way to the spiritual extrication is to realize one’s true nature, to find the immortal Buddha in one’s own heart, for Chinese Zen stresses that there is no Buddha in the world or in heaven and the immortal Buddha is inside one’s heart. Only if one realizes his or her pure nature can he or she find the Buddha in them. Through the transcendence one reaches different ambits and finally the ambit of realizing the pure nature that inhabitants in one. Emily Dickinson devotes herself to a spiritual and soul-searching life, for almost all her life is spent on thinking and writing. It is this pure spiritual quest―seeking for spiritual salvation and extrication that links Emily Dickinson and Chinese Zen together. Such intimacy between Emily Dickinson and Chinese Zen reminds us of the Christian belief of “communion” and Lu Jiuyuan’s (陆九渊) philosophic saying: people have the same heart to conceive the same truth. (人同此心, 心同此理。) According to Zen, regardless of nationality, race and sex human beings around the world are the same: they share the same pure nature and they have the ability to realize and return to the pure nature, for human beings are included in the term “creatures”(一切众生). There is a book called Pointing at the Moon in Zen classics. It recorded well-known koans and stories about how various people realized the truth of Zen under diversified circumstances, by different means and enlightened by different things. The basic idea revealed in this book is anyone can realize the truth of Zen whatever be the approach he or she takes. The title itself is a metaphor for this idea: everyone in the world is under the same moon, and each one can point at it, using a finger or a bamboo stick or anything else. According to this idea, it is quite natural that a western woman poet living in a Christian environment should share similar ideas with Chinese Zen philosophy. To sum up, Emily searched inside for truth and found truth in her heart. It echoes what is said in Diamond Sutra that the benighted who cannot realize the true nature of themselves consequently cannot realize the Pure Land (heaven) in them. Though these people long for peacefulness and happiness, they will never get it. On the other hand, to the enlightened who realize their true nature it is the same wherever they are: they are in heaven and have eternal happiness. (凡愚不了自性。不识身中净土。愿东愿西。悟人在处一般。所以佛言。随所住处恒安乐。L,10:129)11 And Emily Dickinson wrote: The Fact that Earth is Heaven― Whether Heaven is Heaven or not If not an Affidavit Of that specific Spot Not only must confirm us That it is not for us But that it would affront us To dwell in such a place― (1408, c. 1877) In this poem she expresses that it does not matter whether there exists heaven as God promises or not, and whether heaven is exactly like what God promises or not. The fact is that the earth where she dwells is her heaven. The heaven promised by God can be reached only by being devoted to God, however she disdains to dwell in the heaven provided by God. She found her heaven inside her heart. The parallels between Emily Dickinson’s poetry and Chinese Zen are quite adequate to correct two miscomprehension. First, “Her introversion was not a free will, but a restriction that was thrust upon her owing to a hermit life.” Second, some of her poems are “destructive” because she used “spell-like language.” As far as the first miscomprehension is concerned, three flaws make it untenable. First, her introversion is not a restriction. To be introversive is only a mode of thinking. As mentioned before, there exist two modes of thinking: extroversive and introversive, dominant in the West and the East respectively. One can identify the difference between the two modes of thinking but one can never tell which is superior. These two modes of thinking are beyond comparison on the level of advantage or disadvantage. They are different traditions and interact with two complicated systems of culture, which are also beyond comparison on the level of advantage or disadvantage. Say, it would be simplistic to evaluate the logical, precise and direct Western style of writing and the obscure, vague and indirect Eastern style of writing by saying the western style is better for its exact clarity and powerful logic or the Eastern style is better for its beauty of indirectness or graceful restraint. Therefore, one cannot claim that Eastern mode of thinking is better than western and vise versa. Accordingly, it is unfair to say Emily Dickinson’s introversion and self-searching is a parochial restriction. Second, was Emily Dickinson driven to be introversive? It is grounded only upon a conjectured story. It is much more convincing that she chose to be introversive. Due to her rebellion against the western tradition, she was open to another mode of thinking and with the unconscious influence from the East, she automatically accepted introversive mode of thinking. Therefore, her introversion was indeed a free will. That is to say, she chose to be introversive instead of “ being thrust upon her”. Third, her hermit style life did not thrust upon her a restriction, because a hermit life itself does not necessarily mean a limitation of one’s view. On the opposite, sometimes instead of narrowing one’s view, a reclusive life widens one’s view. By concentrating on one’s inner world a deeper insight can be obtained. Abundant examples show that many Buddhist monks led a hermit life, though that is not a necessity, because Zen actually advocates to conceive the essence of Zen in common life. These monks chose to be reclusive in mountains and the wild to avoid the illusions of the world. They prefer to dwell poetically in a “quiet and pure” place like a mountain that is isolated from the “civilized” society. It is not strange at all why Emily Dickinson should make the same choice as those Buddhist monks: in order to find the truth she turned inward purposefully. As to the second miscomprehension, the language that she uses to compose poems is labeled “spell-like” or “incantation-like”. But it is easy to find that her language is actually Zen language. Both Emily Dickinson and Zen take the same attitude toward language. Language is only a system of symbols and words, no matter common or original, are equally “pronouns”. Once anything is expressed by means of language it has been changed and it is not the original meaning intended, for the original meaning has been substituted by words, “pronouns”. Therefore, on the one hand, a same idea thus can be expressed by any language, any words or “pronouns”. Because all the words or “pronouns” used to explain and express the idea can only direct to the meaning. On the other hand, an idea cannot be expressed by any language, since no language can really express the exact meaning. The paradox of language surely perplexed Emily Dickinson, who was one of the masters of English language. Therefore she chose to tell all the truths “slant” in the form of poetry. As the usual form of poetry is not slanting enough so she designed her poems into riddles. The riddles may have a real meaning in them but it is more likely to express the attitude toward the inability of language in expressing ideas. In fact, Dickinson’s riddle poems resemble koans in Zen very much. Chinese Zen is well known for its discarding of language. It can be traced back to the first koan of conceiving Zen. It is recorded that at the preach on Mountain Ling (灵山) Grantama Sakyamuni (释迦牟尼) held a lotus flower and showed it to the audience. Everyone except one, kept silence without knowing what it means. The only one who behaved differently is Mahakasyapa (迦叶尊者). He smiled in enlightenment. Then Grantama Sakyamuni passed the subtlety of Zen to Mahakasyapa. Since then Zen with “no thought” (无念) as its main doctrine, “non-namarupa” (无相) as the substance and “non-abiding” (无住) as the basis was passed down and developed in China. According to Zen, language not only barricades the real meaning but is also misleading, for the real truth cannot be expressed by language. If anything or any idea is expressed or described by language it is definitely changed by language and it is at a distance from the original idea. For this reason, instead of using language the Masters of Zen used various approaches to preach. For example, one of the Masters of Zen later known as the Gunnysack Master, traveled around carrying a sack all the time. Whenever people asked him what Zen was, he put the sack down and stood beside it without saying a word. If one understood this action would understand what Zen was. If people failed to understand he would take the sack and go his way. In fact, he was trying to preach one of the ideas of Zen that worldly possessions were just like the sack, which was both useful and burdensome. It is fairly understandable that one needs worldly possessions to survive, but difficult to realize that if one lives to pursue mere worldly possessions one is enslaved by them and driven by the desires of possessing them. Therefore, only by putting down the burden of all the desires can one realize that his or her true nature is pure and not captured or driven by the desires. However, the masters think such explanation in words is shallow and superficial, they would like people to get truth not from explanation or teaching but from enlightenment. The accordance in the attitude toward language between Zen and Emily Dickinson’s riddle poems actually exalted the mastery of language to a philosophical level. It is not “spell language.” Her purpose of writing riddle poems and using metaphors is not to fabricate difficulties for the reader but to show the limitation of language. Therefore, “some of her poems” are not only not “destructive” but are creative and constructive. Three major points of Emily Dickinson’s poetry are in accordance with the fundamental ideas of Zen. They will be discussed in the following parts of the thesis, namely Absence, Void of Selfness and Death and Immortality, this discussion, as I believe, will detach from her the labels of “Parochial”, “Pessimistic” and “In Despair”. 此条欢迎按照学术引用的方式引用！