I stated earlier that I like Zen because it represents the highest attainment of un-assisted philosophy. It dawned on me later that I should probably explain myself.
What I mean by this is, Zen has sought the highest truths through naked thinking and meditation, without the assistance afforded by divine revelation (note). In this, it is much like Stoicism, which has been called the "porch of Christianity," since it was the last great philosophical school before Christ and because it reached many conclusions that "gelled" with Christ.
A person, of course, might respond that Zen and Stoicism are not the highest attainment of un-assisted philosophy. After all, a host of western philosophers over the past 500 years hasn't used divine revelation. In fact, if you take any western philosophy courses in college, you'll be lucky to read about any Christian philosophers, even Thomas Aquinas, who tried hard to reach truths that parallel divine revelation without using divine revelation (and ultimately concluded that his efforts were mere straw).
The thing is, all those philosophers weren't open to the highest things. They were wrapped in the mundane. In this, they were what Eric Voegelin called "philodoxers," individuals who are more concerned about winning arguments and gaining fame than quietly pursuing The Truth. Such individuals, Voegelin pointed out, are closed to the spiritual and, indeed, often intolerant of it.
Zen (like Stoicism) is not closed to the spiritual. Sure, it (like Stoicism) tends to a type of pantheistic spiritualism, but that's not a stupid conclusion when you're grappling intellectually with the highest things and don't have divine revelation on hand. Indeed, I'm not wholly convinced that pantheism (or, more accurately, some form of ontological monism) isn't that far more removed from the mystery of the Sacraments, especially that one Sacrament that sits exposed in my parish Church every weekday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Now, before anyone reports me to the Bishop, I want to emphasize that I said the two aren't "that far removed." You can interpret this however you want, but what I mean is, "relatively speaking," as in: "Compared to dualism," (which a priest, now bishop, once told me over a beer is modern man's biggest intellectual plague), "ontological monism is closer to the Catholic idea of the Sacramental." That is my opinion, but it's a rough-hewn one at this point. I'm open to correction.
In any event, I think that Zen, as a result of its sincere search over the past 2,000 years, has climbed remarkably high, with the result that many of its conclusions--especially those conclusions wrapped particularly tight with the Tao--correspond well with the spiritual conclusions of Christianity. And to the extent it does, it lends credence to Christian spirituality. When the non-believer says, "Your intellect is blinded by faith," we can thank him for the compliment, but then respond further, "That's funny. Zen, hardly a Christian tool and therefore not blinded by the faith that apparently blinds me, has reached many of the same conclusions."
