Is Zen a Lost Cause?

For decades, I have identified as a Zen practitioner, despite its reputation for being illogical, as famously described by D.T. Suzuki. Given that I possess a highly logical and rational mind, this self-identification has always seemed somewhat contradictory. Over time, however, two significant developments in my personal journey have brought clarity to this paradox. The first was my exposure to the thoughts of George Polya, a mathematician renowned for his insights on creative problem-solving, when I became a math teacher in the early 2000s. The second came more recently, during my research into traditional Chinese thought while exploring Joseph Needham’s question: why did China never develop modern science? These developments have reshaped my understanding of Zen and illuminated its limitations.

Two Faces of Mathematics: Insights from George Polya

George Polya, in his classic work How to Solve It, offered a profound insight into the nature of mathematics:

Mathematics has two faces: it is the rigorous science of Euclid, but it is also something else. Mathematics presented in the Euclidean way appears as a systematic, deductive science; but mathematics in the making appears as an experimental, inductive science. Both aspects are as old as the science of mathematics itself.