The Fallacy of Calling Buddhism and Zen Anti-Essentialist

In recent discussions of spiritual traditions, particularly Zen and Buddhism, it has become fashionable to describe them as “anti-essentialist.” The idea here is that these traditions defy fixed definitions or essential characteristics. But while this description may be well-intentioned — emphasizing the fluidity, openness, and non-dogmatic nature of these paths — it rests on a conceptual paradox. In fact, calling Buddhism or Zen “anti-essentialist” is itself a form of essentialism.

Let’s unpack why this is a problem.

1. Anti-Essentialism as a New Essentialism

To claim that a tradition has no defining characteristics is to give it a defining characteristic — that of having none. It’s akin to someone saying, “I don’t take a political stance.” That very statement is a political stance, just as choosing not to choose is still a choice. Saying that Zen or Buddhism cannot be pinned down actually pins them down as traditions that resist definition. In effect, anti-essentialism becomes a new essence.

2. Buddhism’s Defining Features

Despite claims of indefinability, Buddhist teachings do in fact emphasize certain core insights that distinguish them from other traditions. The Three Marks of Existence —…