Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Buddha alone together with Buddha

Buddha alone together with Buddha
 
According to Dogen reality is actualized by ‘Buddha alone together with Buddha’ (Yui Butsu Yo Butsu). Huike, the second ancestor of Zen in China, described the experience of this vision in these words:
 
For those who find this body of reality [dharmakaya], the numberless sentient beings are just one good person: the one person who has been there in accord with This through a million billion aeons.
Zen Dawn: Early Zen Texts from Tun Huang,  translated by J.C. Cleary, pp.39-40
 
 

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Dogen's Criticism of False Dharma


Tommy Bonn - in the comments section of http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.com/ asked:


1. How do you feel about Dogen's contempt for followers of other religions, or people who take up views he finds heretical? It's at least shockingly opposed to the modern spiritual trope that all paths point in the same direction, no? To tip my hand here, whenever I read the Shobogenzo, I find Dogen's extreme contempt for, say, Taoists or lazy people very upsetting and mostly discordant with the profound wisdom evident throughout so much of the text.

2. All sayings of Buddhas are expressions of truth, and all true statements are sayings of Buddhas? I think most Buddhists would assent to the first proposition, but I imagine many would at least be suspicious of the second. If this is the case, is Buddhism a form of philosophy? (Or perhaps ~all~ of philosophy ~plus~ something else?) Could you perhaps expand on the equivalence between true statements and words of Buddhas?

 
 

Hello Tommy,

  

In response to the first point you raise, I would suggest that from the perspective of Dogen’s address there were really only two ‘religions’ – the Way, Tao, or Truth, and Not the Way, Tao, or Truth. His primary intention, I think, was emphasize the futility, more, injurious nature of sectarian bickering – the truth is the truth, if some Buddhist teaching or expression is true it is the ‘authentic Buddha-Dharma’ if not it isn’t; in either case it has nothing to do with a particular (i.e. exclusive, superior, etc.) ‘sect’ or ‘school.’ In short I think Dogen’s criticism is less directed at ‘heresies’ (as opposed to ‘correct doctrines’) and more directed at ‘deluded views’ (as opposed to ‘enlightened understanding’). In other words I think Dogen would say all authentic (true, right, accurate) paths point in the same direction, while all inauthentic (false, wrong, distorted) paths are truly inauthentic.

 

Also most of Dogen’s enthusiastically fiery criticisms or ‘extreme contempt’ (not uncharacteristic in Zen literature generally) seem to me to be directed at truly pernicious views and practices – views and practices that have actually demonstrated the ability to divert genuine aspirants from authentic practice-enlightenment. The use by Dogen of such harsh language, in my experience, seems to signal the delineation of wrong views that are either particularly harmful, particularly widespread, or both – they are ‘shockingly’ virulent for good reason; to get our attention and make a strong impression.

 

Along similar lines, his ‘contempt’ of Taoism, for instance, when seen in the context wherein it appears, is less directed at Taoism itself than it is at misrepresentations of Taoism (e.g. the practice of equating Taoism and Buddhism – that is, suggesting that their doctrine and methodology are indistinguishable). Indeed, in one such criticism in Shobogenzo Dogen says that such practices not only distort the Buddha-Dharma, they do a disservice to Taoism as well – and his writings clearly demonstrate his obvious admiration for and influence by Taoism.

 

The best way I can think of to respond to the second issue you raise is to paste in some excerpts from my (as yet unpublished) Zen Cosmology. The points here should also add some details to the reasoning informing my response to your first issue.

 

Begin excerpts:

 

… I want to recall the reader’s mind to some relevant points previously observed.

 

·         To exist is to be experienced, to be experienced is to exist.

·         All experience is experience of particular dharmas.

·         The true nature (real form/essence) of dharmas is their normality, thusness, whether it is seen ‘as it is’ or ‘as it is not.’

·         To experience anything is to experience reality as it is.

·         To experience reality as it is as it is (i.e. to clearly see), is to be normal (enlightened, Buddha).

·         To experience reality as it is as it is not (i.e. not to clearly see), is to be abnormal (deluded, ordinary being).

 

To accept the validity of these points is to accept the implication that:

 

·         To clearly see reality, is to see truth as truth and see falseness as falseness.

 

This is what Zen means when it speaks of seeing with the eye to read scriptures, the Buddha-Eye, the normal eye, or the Dharma-Eye.

                               


 

To realize the koan (genjokoan) is, in Dogen’s terms, to ‘increase the sacred life of Buddha;’ in Zen this is inclusive of all ‘good.’ Not to realize the koan is not to increase the sacred life of Buddha… In Zen this encompasses all that constitutes ‘evil.’

 

… consider Dogen’s expression, ‘Buddhas are greatly enlightened about delusion.’ To see the true nature of a particular dharma is to see its one true reality; its normality or ‘as is-ness’ – thus to be wholly enlightened in/as that particular place-time. One is wholly enlightened in/as that ‘here-now’ because in seeing the one true reality at that place-time, one is thereby ‘equipped with the eye’ to see any and all untruths at that place-time. ...seeing any untruth about a dharma as true (i.e. to see a dharma ‘as it is not’) is to be wholly deluded in/as that particular place-time. …to see any untruth about a dharma as true is obviously to fail to see its one true reality.

 

In light of this reasoning (dori) it is accurate to say that there is only one true Dharma (Buddha-Dharma, Tao, Path) and only one false Dharma. Total existence-time is Buddha – whatever is, is Buddha. Every particular dharma is an expression of Buddha. To see, read, or understand any expression as it is, is to see, read, or understand the one true Dharma. To see, read, or understand any expression as it is not, is to see, read, or understand the one false Dharma.

 

Each here-now of an individual’s experience in/of the activity/expression of existence-time is inherently endowed with the potential to realize (make real) Buddha (or enlightenment), or to not realize Buddha. There are no other possibilities…

 

Each moment of the ceaseless advance of existence-time is an opportunity for enlightenment or not-enlightenment, the true Dharma or not-the-true Dharma, Buddhahood or ordinary being – one or the other; never both or neither…

 

Zen practice-enlightenment… ‘transforms experience into events,’ …fashions passive, random experience into ordered, significant realities. In this sense, ‘sole-sitting’ is a mode of ‘active alertness’ or ‘mindfulness’, an informed intentionally applied capacity to discern and actualize Buddha… Such active mindfulness makes all the difference between passively… ‘living one’s life in vain’ and intentionally ‘actualizing the universe’ (genjokoan).

 

What matters most in religion, as Dogen saw it, is not a deferred realization of immortality in an after-life, nor an eternal recurrence of rebirths, but the realization of enlightenment here and now. Hence, this present birth-and-death is the only absolute locus—discrete from before and after—in which we can speak of religion, that is, our liberation. In short, birth-and-death is the very locus in which the two possibilities of enlightenment and delusion are offered to every one of us. Thus, “in the midst of birth-and-death, an ordinary person wanders about in delusion, whereas a great sage is liberated in enlightenment.” Life can either be a blessing or a curse; hence, we must choose either enlightenment or delusion, but not both. Dogen’s view of religious life bore strictly on this life—no more, no less.

Hee-Jin Kim[i]

 

The ‘curse’ of ‘wandering about in delusion,’ whether… passive dullness… or… cultivated detachment, does not actually constitute the actualization of something, but rather the… absence of actualizing anything… regardless of whether the deluded condition… is the result of… ignorance or timidity, or the result of intentionally turning away from the world, it amounts to the same thing; a reduction… or decrease of experience/existence. To the extent a sentient being is… in harmony with reality as it is, their experience… increases the sacred life of Buddha. To the extent a being is deluded… their experience… fails to increase the sacred life of Buddha.

 

Accordingly, from the perspective of Zen, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ does not… amount to a thing, being, or event (i.e. a dharma) but… an absence or lack of a thing, being, or event… murder, for example, is an obstruction or restraint of the experience/existence of Buddha… rather than the realization of an activity or form… robbery is the hindering of another’s security… lying hinders another’s wisdom, etc.


 

From the nondual perspective this is obvious; if every actual instance of reality is Buddha (hence ‘good’), there can be no such a thing as ‘a realization of evil’ or ‘a manifestation of wrong.’ Here is a Zen koan that presents this point directly:

 

Yunmen, addressing his assembly, said, ‘I do not ask about before the 15th day of the month, come and give me a word about after the 15th day.

The assembly was silent.

Yunmen, answering for them, said, ‘Every day is a good day.’

Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), Case 6[ii]

 

From the perspective of enlightenment (after the 15th day) every place-time (every day) is Buddha (good). … If ‘good’ is to have any validity in a nondual cosmology it needs to be understood as a mode of ‘affirmation’ – ‘every day’ is a dharma as it is; a real manifestation of Buddha; if every day is a ‘good’ day, it is because it is a reality, a dharma as it is. Thus, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ can only be valid as a mode of ‘negation.’ ‘Evil’ is a dharma as it is not – more, it is not a dharma as it is, … an absence of reality (good)… as Dogen says, ‘its essence is just nonappearance.’

 

In regard to the ‘wrongs’ that we are discussing now, among ‘rightness,’ ‘wrongness,’ and ‘indifference,’ there is ‘wrongness.’ Its essence is just nonappearance.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[iii]

 

Thus, the essential meaning or significance of ‘good’ is ‘manifestation as it is,’ ‘appearance as it is,’ ‘form as it is,’ actuality, reality – every real thing, being, and event is a good, thing, being, and event; every day is a good day.

 

This does not mean that all is rosy or that all evils serve some great good purpose. Every genuine Zen practitioner is intensely aware of the truth that suffering, tragedy, and horror abound, but they are also fully cognizant of the fact that they abound because of the failure to adequately actualize enlightened thought, speech, and action.

 

…the sole task of genuine Zen teachers and practitioners is to realize the koan (genjokoan), to actualize (make actual) ‘every day is a good day’ which consists in discerning all things as they are (from the enlightened perspective), and thereby, actualizing things as they should be (‘enact that vision amidst this world of duality’)…

 

Again, this is not at all to be understood as denying the value of moral or ethical training, behavior, and commitment or the significance of teachings concerning ‘good and evil’ or ‘right and wrong’ conduct. Such training and teachings are, like all actual dharmas, nothing less than self-expressions of Buddha-nature.

 

…Sentient beings are capable of being sentient of the things, beings, and events they encounter because the things, beings, and events they encounter are what make beings sentient

 

As it is normal to see a horse as a horse, and thus distinguish it from what is not a horse, it is normal to see the ‘right’ conduct called for at any given place-time, and to distinguish it from the ‘not right’ (i.e. wrong) conduct (i.e. everything ‘other than’ the ‘right’ conduct).

 

We are capable of responding ably here-now because here-now is what enables us to respond. After all, here-now is us – the significance of which shines forth from this remarkable expression by Dogen:

 

Remember, [teaching] that sounds like ‘Do not commit wrongs’ is the Buddha’s right Dharma. This [teaching] ‘Do not commit wrongs’ was not intentionally initiated, and then intentionally maintained in its present form, by the common person: when we hear teaching that has [naturally] become the preaching of bodhi, it sounds like this. What sounds like this is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in words. It is bodhi-speech already, and so it speaks bodhi. When it becomes the preaching of the supreme state of bodhi, and when we are changed by hearing it, we hope ‘not to commit wrongs,’ we continue enacting ‘not to commit wrongs,’ and wrongs go on not being committed; in this situation the power of practice is instantly realized.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[iv]

 

What looks like a horse is form which is the supreme state of bodhi (i.e. Buddha) in/as horse-form, and what “sounds like ‘Do not commit wrongs’ is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in (and as) words.” A particular form or sound (e.g. horse, preaching) was not previously manifest and thereafter abiding (‘intentionally initiated, and then intentionally maintained’) in its present state…

 

For example, what is heard as a sound preaching ‘Do not commit wrongs,’ is Buddha manifesting as an ‘understandable explanation’ of the truth of enlightenment (‘preaching of bodhi’).

 

It goes without saying that we should avoid falling into a literal (one-sided; biased) understanding, thus losing sight of the mythopoeic significance of ‘wrong’ (i.e. an absence of ‘normality’ or ‘good’

 

…In other words, ‘not to commit wrongs’ does not mean to abstain from something; to refrain, desist, or avoid some form or forms of conduct. On the contrary, ‘not to commit wrongs’ means to ‘commit right,’ to conduct oneself appropriately, to continuously ‘respond with ability’

 

…To ‘not commit’ is to engage activity, not restrain activity, thus Dogen says, “we continue enacting ‘not to commit wrongs’…”

 

… as Buddha is only and always ‘good’ or ‘right’, Buddha is also only and always a particular here-now of a particular sentient being. …the ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of today is not the same ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of yesterday, and his ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ is not the same as her ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference.’ Thus Dogen points out:

 

At the same time, at each concrete place these three properties include innumerable kinds of dharmas. In ‘wrongs,’ there are similarities and differences between wrong in this world and wrong in other worlds. There are similarities and differences between former times and latter times. There are similarities and differences between wrong in the heavens above and wrong in the human world. How much greater is the difference between moral wrong, moral right, and moral indifference in Buddhism and in the secular world. Right and wrong are time; time is not right or wrong. Right and wrong are the Dharma; the Dharma is not right or wrong. [When] the Dharma is in balance, wrong is in balance. [When] the Dharma is in balance, right is in balance. This being so, when we learn [the supreme state of] anuttara samyaksambodhi, when we hear the teachings, do training, and experience the fruit, it is profound, it is distant, and it is fine.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[v]

 

Right and wrong are time (hence, existence-time), are the Dharma (i.e. Buddha Way), time is not right or wrong, Dharma is not good or evil. To ‘hear the teachings, do training, and experience the fruit’ is… to engage practice-enlightenment; thus, good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted is the Dharma, the ‘balance’ or ‘equilibrium’ realized in/as authentic practice-enlightenment. To maintain such equilibrium is to be ‘solely-seated’ at the hub… or Bodhi-seat, the here-now from which existence-time ceaselessly springs forth. In Zen this is sometimes called, ‘Taking up with one hand and setting down with the other,’ or ‘Walking straight on a path with 99 curves.’ This is the actualization of the universe (genjokoan).

 

Real actualization is only and always the actualization of some particular dharma, at some definite place-time, by some specific individual being – actualization is good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted; ‘wrong’ is only ‘not-conducted’ in/as actualization-conducted. All that is actualized is Buddha; to conduct-good/not-conduct-evil is to realize Buddha, when Buddha is not realized, not-conducting-evil/conducting-good is not realized.

 

…Not to meet one’s responsibility is to suffer selfishness; to be self-centered (egocentric), hence to deny, restrict, or constrain one’s self, which, being nondual with ‘other,’ is also to deny, restrict, or constrain others. To deny, restrict, or constrain one’s self and others is to hinder or obstruct the experience/existence of self and other – to stem or obstruct the advance of realization…



[i] Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, pp.167-168
[ii] Ted Biringer – as learned verbally
[iii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
[iv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
[v] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 
End Excerpts
 
I hope this is helpful.
Please treasure yourself.
Ted
 
 

Monday, March 14, 2016

Dogen on Sectarianism


Dogen on Sectarianism

 

Do not concede that the Buddha-Dharma might even exist among people who claim to be ‘the Zen sect.’ Who has invented the name ‘Zen sect’? None of the buddhas and ancestral masters has ever used the name ‘Zen sect.’

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[i]

 

The identification of Dogen’s doctrine and methodology with the Soto sect was not established by Dogen or his single successor, Koun Ejo (1198-1280). Dogen was only identified as the ‘founder of the Soto sect’ well after his death. Moreover, it is irrefutable that Dogen not only did not intend to found a sect, but that he explicitly and forcefully disparaged the very notion of it.

 

The view that Buddhism could be divided into separate entities is fundamentally contrary to the central principles of Dogen’s teachings. There was only one authentic Buddhism (or Buddha-Dharma); any ‘Buddhism’ that was not authentic Buddhism was not Buddhism at all. The notion that ‘Zen’ itself consisted of a separate distinct sect of Buddhism is adamantly refuted in Dogen’s own writings. In Shobogenzo, Butsudo, his most comprehensive elucidation of what does, and does not constitute authentic Buddhism, Dogen articulates his view of the notion that the Buddha-Dharma could be divided into sects in no uncertain terms:

 

Remember, the name ‘Zen sect’ has been devised by demons and devils. People who have called themselves a name used by demons and devils may themselves be a band of demons; they are not the children and grandchildren of the Buddhist patriarchs.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[ii]

 

Dogen did, of course, recognize the fact that, regardless of its accuracy or rationality, Buddhism was and is commonly identified and discussed in ‘sectarian’ terms by reliable sources as well as unreliable ones. However, in his acknowledgement and explanation as to the causes for the term ‘Zen sect’ having fallen into common usage, he makes no apologies or justifications for the fact, as is common today, but plainly describes it as ‘a degeneration.’ 

 

We should be absolutely certain that [the Buddha’s truth] has never been called ‘the Zen sect.’ Nevertheless, the common folk of recent ages, in their stupidity, do not know the old customs, and people who have not received the transmission of past buddhas wrongly say, ‘Within the Buddha-Dharma there are the lineages and customs of the five sects.’ This is a degeneration that has been left to follow its natural course.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[iii]

 

Moreover, Dogen’s repudiation was clearly directed to be inclusive of any and all notions of separate schools or sects within the Buddha-Dharma, many of which he named and described in detail – including the very ‘sect’ that his own primary lineage within the Buddha-Dharma had come to be identified with. Indeed, he treated the identification of authentic Buddhism with the ‘Soto sect’ to the fullness of his not small capacity for expressing scornful contempt:

 

The great master has never shown to the assembly any fist or wink of an eye that advocated the use of the name ‘Sōtō sect.’ Furthermore, there was no flotsam mixed in among his disciples, and so there was no disciple who used the name ‘Tōzan sect.’ How much less could they speak of a ‘Sōtō sect’? The name ‘Sōtō sect’ may be the result of including the name Sōzan. In such a case, Ungo and Dōan would have to be included too. Ungo is a guiding master in the human world and in the heavens above, and he is more venerable than Sōzan. We can conclude, in regard to this name ‘Sōtō,’ that some stinking skinbag belonging to a side lineage, seeing himself as equal [to Tōzan], has devised the name ‘Sōtō sect.’

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[iv]

 

As Dogen’s words leave no doubt concerning his own views on the matter I need not dwell on the point, except to stress that it harmonizes perfectly with a central principle of his whole vision; the unity of all authentic Buddhist expressions (i.e. form/essence transmissions of truth). The summum bonum of the Buddha-Dharma, the ‘supreme truth’ of enlightenment, according to Dogen, is at once various and differentiated (i.e. a manifest appearance in and as duality) and unified and undifferentiated (i.e. a manifest appearance in and of nonduality) – each and all the myriad expressions of Buddhas are the one thing ‘which every buddha and every patriarch transmits and authentically receives.’

 

That which every buddha and every patriarch transmits and authentically receives is the right-Dharma-eye treasury and the supreme truth of bodhi. The Dharma that the Buddhist Patriarch possessed has been transmitted in its entirety by buddhas, and there are no innovations to be added to the Dharma at all. This principle is the bones of the Dharma and the marrow of the truth.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[v]

 

Clearly, Dogen’s view of the unity of the Buddha-Dharma is not confined to a ‘select collection’, ‘authorized version’, or ‘special transmission.’ Not only did Dogen refute all notions of sectarian exclusivity, he explicitly asserted the unity of all the traditional Buddhist expressions (i.e. both the Mahayana and Theravada [Hinayana] scriptures and treatises) and all the expressions of genuine Zen ancestors (i.e. verbal and written doctrines, treatises, records, koan collections, etc.). In Dogen’s view, to understand the expression of Zen as a ‘separate transmission outside the teachings’ literally rather than poetically, was not only to be deluded about the nature of Zen/Buddhism, but to be in the dark even about the basic nature of language, thinking, and reason. All notions about written or verbal teachings as somehow non-essential to authentic Zen practice-enlightenment were denigrated by Dogen as delusional and heretical, even imbecilic and vulgar. To Dogen all the expressions of Buddhas and Buddha ancestors, written or otherwise, are part and parcel with Buddhism itself, intrinsic elements of the ‘rightly transmitted Buddha-Dharma.’ All expressions of Buddhas are expressions of truth, and all expressions of truth are expressions of Buddha.




[i] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
[ii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
[iii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
[iv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
[v] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Dogen On Great Delusion and Great Enlightenment


1.       The Nonduality of Enlightenment and Delusion


1.       Enlightenment and delusion are nondual, thus equal in actuality, significance, and value.

2.       Enlightenment is only and always realized within and through delusion; delusion is only and always realized within and through enlightenment.
 

2.       The Nature and Dynamics of Enlightenment and Delusion
 

1.       Enlightenment is the experiential verification of reality, the normal sentient capacity that is genjokoan (‘the actualization of the universe’).

2.       Delusion is the experientially verifiable existential quality of reality that enables experiential verification (i.e. genjokoan).

3.       With the experiential verification of reality (enlightenment) sentient beings see (experience, know) their true nature (their unborn/imperishable identity in/as the universe).

4.       In seeing their identity in/as the universe, sentient beings see enlightenment/delusion is infinite and eternal.


Great Delusion and Great Enlightenment


Insofar as the terms ‘delusion’ and ‘enlightenment’ are used to designate the nondual foci ‘enlightenment’ and ‘delusion’ (enlightenment/delusion), delusion is ‘great delusion’ (daimei) and enlightenment is ‘great enlightenment’ (daigo). The point here is that, while the term ‘delusion’ is commonly used to designate ‘wrong’ or ‘distorted’ views, and the term ‘enlightenment’ to designate ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ views, the terms are not limited to those meanings.


For example, Dogen says that ‘Buddhas are enlightened about delusion’ (Shobogenzo, Genjokoan) which means, for one thing, that Buddhas do not exist independent of delusion – delusion and enlightenment are nondual, hence, coessential and coextensive. The recognition of delusion as ‘great delusion’ is one of the key insights informing Zen expressions on the unlimited potential for the expansion or advancement of realization (practice-enlightenment). It is also an insight that resolves an apparent paradox; that of the capacity of dharmas to simultaneously ‘expand’ and ‘contract.’


To clarify, the significance of ‘great delusion’ can be generally understood in light of the truth of how dharmas are experienced. The (only) way dharmas are experienced is by distinguishing them from what they are not – this dharma is this dharma by virtue of the fact that it is not anything else in the universe. Thus, the reality (existence/experience) of any dharma always consists of ‘what is that particular dharma’ and ‘what is not that particular dharma.’ To think of, speak about, or act upon any dharma requires (is dependent on) distinguishing what is that dharma from what is not that dharma – requires the existence of what is and the existence of what is not that dharma. The reason (dori) of ‘great delusion’ can thus be seen as inherent to the reason of experience/existence itself; experiencing something (i.e. a dharma) intrinsically-involves not experiencing everything. In sum, ‘great delusion’ designates the truth that seeing anything depends on (thus is inclusive of) not-seeing everything – in short, seeing (enlightenment) is blindness (delusion).


The wisdom (true knowledge) disclosed by the recognition of ‘great delusion’ is that eternal omnipresence and infinite complexity is inherent to each and all dharmas. If, as we just saw, the existence (existence/experience) of a dharma depends on the existence of not that dharma, then experiencing a dharma is (also) experiencing the ‘presence’ of ‘a lack’ (everything that is not that dharma). As experience is existence, and the reality of a dharma is inclusive of what is and what is not that dharma, the existence of any dharma is the existence of every dharma. To say the same thing from the other perspective, the whole of existence-time is each particular instance of existence-time.


Moreover, due to the quality of passage inherent to the nature of dharmas, their ‘arrival’ and ‘departure’ are unceasing – as Shobogenzo says, ‘Before donkey business is finished, horse business begins.’ With this we get a sense of what it means to say dharmas are infinitely complex as well as eternally omnipresent. The recognition of dharmas as infinitely complex is the reason informing the refrain in Zen records urging us to strive on; to continuously apply ourselves, to diligently refine our skill, and to sustain our effort. Eternal omnipresence and infinite complexity means delusion is ever-present and unlimited (i.e. ‘great’) – just as enlightenment is ever-present and unlimited.


Finally, delusion is inherent to reality whether beings are aware of it or not. At the same time, the distinction between being aware of it and not being aware of it is of the utmost significance in Zen; it is the distinction between ‘Buddhas’ and ‘ordinary beings.’ In the Genjokoan fascicle of Shobogenzo, Dogen underscores this distinction by asserting that to see dharmas as they are is to ‘sense something is lacking.’ To ‘sense something is lacking’ is to experience ‘the presence’ of ‘a lack.’ The ‘presence of this lack’ is most comprehensively treated by the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness which we explore later. For now it suffices to notice that being aware of this ‘presence’ in/as (all) dharmas is being Buddha ‘enlightened about delusion,’ which also means being ‘enlightened about enlightenment’ – being unaware of this ‘presence’ is being an ordinary being ‘deluded about enlightenment,’ which, of course, also means being ‘deluded about delusion.’


With these points in mind consider Dogen’s commentary on the following koan:


Great Master Hochi of Kegon-ji temple in Keicho (succeeded Tozan; his monk's name was Kyujo) on one occasion is asked by a monk: "What is it like at the time when a person in the state of great realization returns to delu­sion?" The Master says, "A broken mirror does not again reflect. Fallen blos­soms cannot climb back onto the trees."


The present question, while it is a question, is like preaching to the assembly—[preaching] not proclaimed except in the order of Kegon, and not possible for anyone except a rightful successor of Tozan to deliver. Truly this may be the squarely regulated order of a Buddhist patriarch who experiences satisfaction. "A person in the state of great realization" is not intrinsically in great realization and is not hoarding a great realization realized externally. It is not that, in old age, [the person] meets with a great realization [already] present in the public world. [People of great realization] do not forcibly drag it out of themselves, but they unfailingly realize great realization. We do not see "not being deluded" as great realization. Neither should we aim, in order to plant the seed of great realization, to become at the outset a deluded being. People of great realization still realize great realization, and people of great delusion still realize great realization. If there is a person in great reali­zation, accordingly there is buddha in great realization, there are earth, water, fire, wind, and air in great realization, and there are outdoor pillars and stone lanterns in great realization. Now we have inquired into a person in the state of great realization. The question "What is it like at the time when a person in the state of great realization returns to delusion?" truly asks a question that deserves to be asked. And Kegon does not hate [the question]; he venerates the ancient ways of the forest orders—[his conduct] may be the meritorious conduct of a Buddhist patriarch. Let us consider for a while, is the return to delusion of a person in the state of great realization completely the same as a person being in the unenlightened state? At the moment when a person in the state of great realization returns to delusion, is [that person] taking great realization and making it into delusion? Does [the person] return to delusion by bringing delusion from a distant place and covering great realization? Or does the person in the state of great realiza­tion, while remaining a whole person and not breaking great realization, nevertheless partake in a return to delusion? Again, does "the return to delusion of a person in the state of great realization" describe as "returning to delusion" the bringing forth of a further instance of great realization? We must master [these questions] one by one. Alternatively, is it that great realization is one hand, and returning to delusion is one hand? In any case, we should know that the ultimate conclusion of our study up to now is to hear that a person in the state of great realization experiences returning to delusion. We should know that there is great realization which makes re­turning to delusion a familiar experience. Thus, recognizing a bandit as a child does not define returning to delusion, and recognizing a child as a bandit does not define returning to delusion. Great realization may be to recognize a bandit as a bandit, and returning to delusion is to recognize a child as "a child." We see great realization as a bit being added in the state of abundance. When a bit is taken away in the state of scarcity, that is returning to delusion. In sum, when we grope for and completely get a grip on some­one who returns to delusion, we may encounter a person in the state of great realization. Is the self now returning to delusion? Is it beyond delu­sion? We must examine it in detail, bringing it here. This is to meet in expe­rience the Buddhist patriarchs. The Master says, "A broken minor does not again reflect. Fallen blossoms cannot climb back onto the trees." This preaching for the multi­tude expresses the very moment of a mirror being broken. That being so, to concern the mind with the time before the mirror is broken and thereupon to study the words "broken mirror," is not right. [Some] might understand that the point of the words now spoken by Kegon, "A broken mirror does not again reflect, fallen blossoms cannot climb back onto the trees," is to say that a person in the state of great realization does not again reflect, and to say that a person in the state of great realization cannot climb back onto the trees—to assert that a person in the state of great realization will never again return to delusion. But [Kegon's point] is beyond such study. If it were as people think, [the monk's question] would be asking, for example, "How is the everyday life of a person in the state of great realization?" And the reply to this would be something like "There are times of returning to delusion." The present episode is not like that. [The monk is asking] what it is like at the time when a person in the state of great realization returns to delusion; therefore he is calling into question the very moment itself of returning to delusion. The actualization of an expression of the moment like this is: "A broken minor does not again reflect. Fallen blossoms cannot climb back onto the trees." When fallen blossoms are just fallen blossoms, even if they are rising to the top of a hundred-foot pole, they are still fallen blossoms. Because a broken mirror is a broken mirror just here and now, however many vivid situations it realizes, each similarly is a reflection that does not again reflect. Picking up the point that is expressed as a mirror being bro­ken and is expressed as blossoms being fallen, we should grasp in experi­ence the moment which is the time when a person in the state of great re­alization returns to delusion. In this [moment], great realization is akin to having become buddha, and returning to delusion is akin to [the state of] ordinary beings. We should not study [Kegon's words] as if they discussed such things as turning back into an ordinary being, or traces depending o n an origin. Others talk about breaking the great state of enlightenment and becoming an ordinary being. Here, we do not say that great realization is broken, do not say that great realization is lost, and do not say that delusion comes. We should never let ourselves be like those others. Truly, great realization is limitless, and returning to delusion is limitless. There is no delusion that hinders great realization, [but] having brought forth three in­stances of great realization, we create half an instance of small delusion. In this situation, there are [snow mountains] realizing great realization for the sake of snow mountains; trees and stones are realizing great realization rely­ing on trees and stones; the great realization of buddhas is realizing great realization for the sake of living beings; and the great realization of living beings is greatly realizing the great realization of buddhas: it cannot be re­lated to before and behind. Great realization now is beyond self and beyond others. It does not come; at the same time, it fills in ditches and fills up valleys. It does not go; at the same time, we keenly hate pursuit that follows an external object. Why is it so? [Because] “we follow objects perfectly.”

Shobogenzo, Daigo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross