What is Humanism?

Let me go back to Jacques Maritain, who was a Catholic philosopher and advocate of Christian democracy, and someone who was key to recovering Christian humanism in the 1920s and ’30s over and against deeply anti-humanistic ideologies associated with communism and fascism. Maritain made a distinction between what he calls anthropocentric humanism and Christian humanism. Anthropocentric humanism makes (using old language) man the measure of man. That’s what we see in Machiavelli. * Striving for an attaining what you believe is valuable (Anthropocentric Humanism)

The problem, as Maritain identifies it, is that what is human then becomes totally self-referential. We become turned in on ourselves. There’s a loss of any transcendent horizon. There’s a loss of what it means to be human as having inherently transcendent goals. So, for example, politics is reduced to being only about pursuing material benefits and security. It ceases to have any meaning or purpose beyond that. Human flourishing is simply a question of securing either economic well-being or, as it was for Machiavelli, the glory and status of the political community. * Striving for principles/ideals (Christian Philosophical/Religious Humanism)

Why the Four Statements?

In the sidebar we have the definitive summary of Zen's argument: See self nature, become Buddha Awakened

Not only that, but the focus of Zen teachings is always always always enlightenment, what it is, what it does, and how it happens.

But why? Is it to have a purpose or fulfill an obligation?

Is it to attain some ideal or higher understanding?

What teachings illuminate the differences, if any, between Philosophical/Religious Humanism and Zen?

War of Quotes

A monk asked, "What is your 'family custom'?"

The master [Zhaozhou] said, "Having nothing inside, seeking for nothing outside.”

Why is this the family custom? Does it constitute an ideal view or state to be achieved?

How is this question tackled in Zen teachings?