FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
Although the collection of his written works is vast, the large collection of fascicles edited and compiled under the title Shobogenzo; Treasury of the True Dharma Eye, is universally recognized as Dogen’s masterpiece. Consisting mainly of commentaries on a range of Buddhist topics, the fascicles of Shobogenzo are written in Japanese and usually center around one or more of the classic Zen koans and or passages from the Buddhist scriptures. While Dogen’s mastery of Zen expression is also demonstrated in his other works, especially Eihei Koroku, it is primarily in Shobogenzo that Dogen demonstrates an originality and creativity that is not only unique in Zen literature, but may even represent a culmination of Zen thought.
.
There are many reasons why this amazing work stands apart from the rest of his writings. Its extensiveness in range and scope is equally matched by its intensity of expression and insight. Widely regarded as Japan’s greatest literary achievement, Shobogenzo offers one of the most extensive treatments of Zen Buddhist doctrine and methodology in the whole of Zen literature. Dogen’s manner of expression in Shobogenzo utilizes a number of original and creative approaches including alternating perspectives, grammatical rearrangement, (apparently) unorthodox interpretation, and many others. Nobody denies that Dogen was an unusually gifted master of language, and few would argue with the suggestion that his works represent a mastery of language unmatched by any other single Zen master.
There are many reasons why this amazing work stands apart from the rest of his writings. Its extensiveness in range and scope is equally matched by its intensity of expression and insight. Widely regarded as Japan’s greatest literary achievement, Shobogenzo offers one of the most extensive treatments of Zen Buddhist doctrine and methodology in the whole of Zen literature. Dogen’s manner of expression in Shobogenzo utilizes a number of original and creative approaches including alternating perspectives, grammatical rearrangement, (apparently) unorthodox interpretation, and many others. Nobody denies that Dogen was an unusually gifted master of language, and few would argue with the suggestion that his works represent a mastery of language unmatched by any other single Zen master.
.
While there are classic Zen texts that may be considered as matching or even surpassing Dogen’s work, most of these (e.g. The Platform Sutra; The Linji Lu; The Huang Po; The Record of Matsu; etc.) represent decades, even centuries, of continuous refinement by numerous groups and individuals. While some questions remain concerning Dogen’s intention as to which fascicles were to be included in Shobogenzo, and whether some fascicles have been tampered with (most likely for sectarian reasons), Dogen’s Shobogenzo is largely representative of the work of a single individual. The details of these issues are not relevant here as they do not affect the issue at hand; they are mentioned in the interest of completeness (Steven Heine’s, Did Dogen Go To China, offers the most extensive study of these issues).
.
The main point here has been to indicate the reason Shobogenzo is singled out as “the record” Dogen alluded to in his stated intention to transmit the “right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage.” This brings us to an interesting point; Dogen actually compiled two texts under the name Shobogenzo. His “other” Shobogenzo is a collection of 301 classic Zen koans. Dogen evidently selected the koans from a number of classic Zen texts and, without modification or commentary, organized them into a single work. Many of these koans appear unmodified (in their original Chinese form) in “other” Shobogenzo (the one which includes his commentary).
.
Because the most obvious difference between the two “Shobogenzos” is that one includes Dogen’s Japanese commentary, and the other includes only the original Chinese koans, the two “Shobogenzos” are usually differentiated as “Kana” (Japanese) and “Mana” or “Shinji” (Chinese). Note, however, that even in the Shobogenzo that contains commentary by Dogen, the koans remain unmodified in their original Chinese form. Thus, it would be just as accurate to distinguish them as “with” or “without” commentary. In fact, this might be more accurate as the former method can easily mislead people to assume that the two texts are more dissimilar than they are. The fact of the matter is that the similarities that they do share are not just similar—they are identical. That is, the content they share is their title, and a number of specific koans which remain in their original Chinese form in both texts (i.e. the koans are not translated into Japanese in the so-called “Kana” Shobogenzo). The “traditional” method of distinguishing the two texts as “Mana” and “Kana” is, as far as I can tell, based upon a single comment by Ejo, Dogen’s main heir:
.
“…I heard him say that he wanted to rework all of the Shobogenzo that had previously been written in Japanese script and also to include some new manuscripts…”
~Shobogenzo, Hachi Dainingaku, Hubert Nearman
.
I certainly am not qualified to verify the linguist elements of 13th century Japanese, but it does seem fair to ask if Ejo’s remark actually distinguishes one Shobogenzo as a distinct and separate work from another Shobogenzo with the exact same title, or if it is simply distinguishes the “previously written Japanese script” of Shobogenzo from the original (Chinese) script of the (same) Shobogenzo. Even if Ejo’s intent was certain, it would not follow that such was Dogen’s position. Regardless of whether Dogen regarded Shobogenzo and Shobogenzo as two separate works, the fact that he regarded one or both as the “Treasury of the True Dharma Eye” deserves consideration. In any case, the texts are so intertwined that even if they are “two,” they always go together—if not as closely as the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, at least as closely as The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
.
For me, the most convincing evidence of the interconnection of the two Shobogenzos comes from my own experience with koan training. This aspect of Zen training provided a greater degree of clarity to Dogen’s writings than all other aspects of Zen training put together. Of course, distinguishing “aspects” of Zen training is a vulgar simplification; koan training cannot be distinguished from dokusan, dokusan cannot be distinguished from zazen, zazen cannot be distinguished from reliable teaching, etc. etc. Be that as it may, I cannot imagine how one could achieve an accurate understanding of Dogen’s written teachings, especially Shobogenzo and Eihei Koroku, without a firm grasp of the classic koans. Both of Dogen’s major records make extensive use of the classic koans, most of which are drawn from the 301 koan collection Shobogenzo.
.
Perhaps there is a more important question to consider. For the sake of argument, let us say that an accurate understanding of Dogen’s Shobogenzo could be achieved without assimilating the koans that permeate it. If such was the case, why would Dogen have included them in the first place, and more importantly, why wouldn’t we want to assimilate them anyway? Attempting to study these works without resolving the classic koans—assimilating them, not conceptualizing them—would be like trying to study Paradise Lost without a firm grasp of the Bible. Whatever did seem comprehensible would most likely be a misunderstanding.
.
This is not to deny that some of the wisdom of Paradise Lost can be conveyed to people unfamiliar with the Bible. This is achieved daily by teachers and artists, as well as the products of teachers and artists—systems of thought, and works of art. Nevertheless, to successfully transmit the wisdom of sacred literature and major poetry the teachers, artists, and their products must be at the levels of genius, or nearly so. For this reason, the differences between the “teachers” and “artists” as well as the “systems” and “works of art” that succeed in conveying such wisdom is hard to discern. The great teacher’s “system” is a work of art; the great artist’s “picture” is worth a thousand words. Moreover, the student that truly receives what the teacher or artist communicates will only do so with sustained attention and focused effective effort.
.
The main point here has been to indicate the reason Shobogenzo is singled out as “the record” Dogen alluded to in his stated intention to transmit the “right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage.” This brings us to an interesting point; Dogen actually compiled two texts under the name Shobogenzo. His “other” Shobogenzo is a collection of 301 classic Zen koans. Dogen evidently selected the koans from a number of classic Zen texts and, without modification or commentary, organized them into a single work. Many of these koans appear unmodified (in their original Chinese form) in “other” Shobogenzo (the one which includes his commentary).
.
Because the most obvious difference between the two “Shobogenzos” is that one includes Dogen’s Japanese commentary, and the other includes only the original Chinese koans, the two “Shobogenzos” are usually differentiated as “Kana” (Japanese) and “Mana” or “Shinji” (Chinese). Note, however, that even in the Shobogenzo that contains commentary by Dogen, the koans remain unmodified in their original Chinese form. Thus, it would be just as accurate to distinguish them as “with” or “without” commentary. In fact, this might be more accurate as the former method can easily mislead people to assume that the two texts are more dissimilar than they are. The fact of the matter is that the similarities that they do share are not just similar—they are identical. That is, the content they share is their title, and a number of specific koans which remain in their original Chinese form in both texts (i.e. the koans are not translated into Japanese in the so-called “Kana” Shobogenzo). The “traditional” method of distinguishing the two texts as “Mana” and “Kana” is, as far as I can tell, based upon a single comment by Ejo, Dogen’s main heir:
.
“…I heard him say that he wanted to rework all of the Shobogenzo that had previously been written in Japanese script and also to include some new manuscripts…”
~Shobogenzo, Hachi Dainingaku, Hubert Nearman
.
I certainly am not qualified to verify the linguist elements of 13th century Japanese, but it does seem fair to ask if Ejo’s remark actually distinguishes one Shobogenzo as a distinct and separate work from another Shobogenzo with the exact same title, or if it is simply distinguishes the “previously written Japanese script” of Shobogenzo from the original (Chinese) script of the (same) Shobogenzo. Even if Ejo’s intent was certain, it would not follow that such was Dogen’s position. Regardless of whether Dogen regarded Shobogenzo and Shobogenzo as two separate works, the fact that he regarded one or both as the “Treasury of the True Dharma Eye” deserves consideration. In any case, the texts are so intertwined that even if they are “two,” they always go together—if not as closely as the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, at least as closely as The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
.
For me, the most convincing evidence of the interconnection of the two Shobogenzos comes from my own experience with koan training. This aspect of Zen training provided a greater degree of clarity to Dogen’s writings than all other aspects of Zen training put together. Of course, distinguishing “aspects” of Zen training is a vulgar simplification; koan training cannot be distinguished from dokusan, dokusan cannot be distinguished from zazen, zazen cannot be distinguished from reliable teaching, etc. etc. Be that as it may, I cannot imagine how one could achieve an accurate understanding of Dogen’s written teachings, especially Shobogenzo and Eihei Koroku, without a firm grasp of the classic koans. Both of Dogen’s major records make extensive use of the classic koans, most of which are drawn from the 301 koan collection Shobogenzo.
.
Perhaps there is a more important question to consider. For the sake of argument, let us say that an accurate understanding of Dogen’s Shobogenzo could be achieved without assimilating the koans that permeate it. If such was the case, why would Dogen have included them in the first place, and more importantly, why wouldn’t we want to assimilate them anyway? Attempting to study these works without resolving the classic koans—assimilating them, not conceptualizing them—would be like trying to study Paradise Lost without a firm grasp of the Bible. Whatever did seem comprehensible would most likely be a misunderstanding.
.
This is not to deny that some of the wisdom of Paradise Lost can be conveyed to people unfamiliar with the Bible. This is achieved daily by teachers and artists, as well as the products of teachers and artists—systems of thought, and works of art. Nevertheless, to successfully transmit the wisdom of sacred literature and major poetry the teachers, artists, and their products must be at the levels of genius, or nearly so. For this reason, the differences between the “teachers” and “artists” as well as the “systems” and “works of art” that succeed in conveying such wisdom is hard to discern. The great teacher’s “system” is a work of art; the great artist’s “picture” is worth a thousand words. Moreover, the student that truly receives what the teacher or artist communicates will only do so with sustained attention and focused effective effort.
.
Peace,
Ted
No comments:
Post a Comment