FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
If anything possessed ‘being a sentient being’, then ultimately such a thing would not be Buddha Nature. This is why Hyakujō said, “To assert that a sentient being possesses Buddha Nature slanders Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. And to assert that a sentient being lacks Buddha Nature slanders Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.” Accordingly, to say that one possesses a Buddha Nature and to say that one lacks Buddha Nature both become slander. Even though they become slander, it does not mean that one cannot say anything about It.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman
.
Generally speaking, the saintly all devise some method of training whereby they sever the roots of whatever vines are entangling them. But they might not explore how to cut off entangling vines by using the very vines themselves, for they may not have used these embracing vines as the means to understand their being entangled. So how could they possibly understand the inheriting of vines and the succession of vines by means of these embracing vines? It is rare for any to recognize that the inheritance of the Dharma is synonymous with embracing vines, and, since none of them have heard about it, none have yet expressed it this way. Surely, there could not possibly be many who have experienced it!
My former Master, an Old Buddha, once said, “The vines of the bottle gourd embrace the bottle gourd itself.” This teaching that he gave to his assembly is something that had never been encountered or heard of anywhere in the past or present. The vines of the bottle gourd intertwining with the vines of the bottle gourd is the Buddhas and Ancestors thoroughly exploring what Buddhas and Ancestors are. It is the Buddhas and Ancestors realizing that there is no difference between the awakening of a Buddha and the awakening of an Ancestor. It has been referred to as the direct Transmission of the Dharma from Mind to Mind.
Shobogenzo, Katto, Hubert Nearman
.
“She is an artist.”
.
When we don’t know “she” is “Rachelle,” we can understand these words, but we can’t understand the meaning of these words, therefore we can’t verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality these words convey. When we know “she” is “Rachelle,” we understand the words and their meaning, thus we can verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality these words convey, in this case that “Rachelle is an artist.”
.
Similarly, when we don’t know “the one mind” is “the myriad dharmas,” we can’t understand the meaning of words about mind or dharmas, thus we can’t verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality the words convey. When we know “the one mind” is “the myriad dharmas,” we can understand words about mind and dharmas, verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality they convey.
.
One thing that all the classic Zen masters seem to emphasize, in one way or another, is that there is a crucial difference between understanding words and understanding the meaning of words. Dogen frequently makes assertions about the importance of digging into expressions to ferret out their true significance. In doing so, he often stresses the point by “qualifying” the Buddhist terms and Zen expressions he uses by saying, “this does not mean what people ordinarily think it means,” or similar statements. For instance, more than once in his writings Dogen declares that although many people have heard the Zen sayings and teachings about the “ordinary mind” (normal, or everyday mind), but few understand what it really means.
.
The state like this is called “the normal mind,” but [people] are prone to misunderstand it to be a class of common miscellany.
Shobogenzo 28, Butsu-kojo-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
.
Since everyone should be able to understand the words “the normal mind,” the misunderstanding Dogen is referring to is in regard to the meaning of the words. The bad news is that if we fail to understand what the words truly mean, we can’t possibly verify them, thus they will remain utterly insignificant in our lives here and now. The good news is that if we do understand what the words truly mean we can verify them and actually assimilate their wisdom. In other words, when we understand its true meaning, we can read or hear the word, “dharma” and associate it with the experiential reality of “dharma/mind,” rather than with its literal meaning, or our preconceived notion of its meaning. For Dogen, it is because of the true nature of dharmas and mind (i.e. the unity of the appearance and the meaning of dharmas), that allows language (a dharma) to convey truth about reality. When he says “dharmas,” he does not mean, “in contrast to mind,” he means, “in context with mind.”
.
In an earlier post it was observed that in Dogen’s worldview human beings (along with all forms, i.e. dharmas) are real insofar as they are experienced. That is, the reality of human beings is actualized by being experienced (by oneself or others) as a form (the body-mind; shinjin). Yes, this means that, according to Dogen, the falling tree makes no sound if no one experiences it, and a human being (or any dharma) is not real if no one (itself or another) experiences it. The most obvious implication here is that whatever (or whoever) does experience human beings (or other dharmas) must also be real. This aspect of reality is one of the central topics of Shobogenzo.
.
When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.
Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman
.
If in Dogen’s view, a human being as experienced (by self or other) is a form or dharma (body-mind), what is a human being as an experiencer of forms (dharmas)? By reason of common sense we know that experience and experiencer are nondual, and also that each is (like all dharmas) one with the whole universe. But Dogen certainly does not let matters rest there; he constantly exhorts us to look deeply and come to understand how these two aspects differ, relate, and interact with each other and the rest of the world. Shobogenzo itself is one demonstrations of how Dogen himself accomplished doing just that.
.
In Shobogenzo, the experienced and experiencing self is illumined from a variety of perspectives. The “self as experienced,” is viewed as a body-mind (shinjin) and is most often treated in terms of human beings (un-awakened beings), forms, images, thoughts, things, and pictures (or paintings). The “experiencing self” is viewed as all inclusive existence (i.e. uji; existence-time) and is usually dealt with in terms of Buddhas (awakened beings), Buddha-nature, true nature, the one mind, the whole universe (or world), and the true self.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman
.
Generally speaking, the saintly all devise some method of training whereby they sever the roots of whatever vines are entangling them. But they might not explore how to cut off entangling vines by using the very vines themselves, for they may not have used these embracing vines as the means to understand their being entangled. So how could they possibly understand the inheriting of vines and the succession of vines by means of these embracing vines? It is rare for any to recognize that the inheritance of the Dharma is synonymous with embracing vines, and, since none of them have heard about it, none have yet expressed it this way. Surely, there could not possibly be many who have experienced it!
My former Master, an Old Buddha, once said, “The vines of the bottle gourd embrace the bottle gourd itself.” This teaching that he gave to his assembly is something that had never been encountered or heard of anywhere in the past or present. The vines of the bottle gourd intertwining with the vines of the bottle gourd is the Buddhas and Ancestors thoroughly exploring what Buddhas and Ancestors are. It is the Buddhas and Ancestors realizing that there is no difference between the awakening of a Buddha and the awakening of an Ancestor. It has been referred to as the direct Transmission of the Dharma from Mind to Mind.
Shobogenzo, Katto, Hubert Nearman
.
“She is an artist.”
.
When we don’t know “she” is “Rachelle,” we can understand these words, but we can’t understand the meaning of these words, therefore we can’t verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality these words convey. When we know “she” is “Rachelle,” we understand the words and their meaning, thus we can verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality these words convey, in this case that “Rachelle is an artist.”
.
Similarly, when we don’t know “the one mind” is “the myriad dharmas,” we can’t understand the meaning of words about mind or dharmas, thus we can’t verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality the words convey. When we know “the one mind” is “the myriad dharmas,” we can understand words about mind and dharmas, verify them in practice and be enlightened to the reality they convey.
.
One thing that all the classic Zen masters seem to emphasize, in one way or another, is that there is a crucial difference between understanding words and understanding the meaning of words. Dogen frequently makes assertions about the importance of digging into expressions to ferret out their true significance. In doing so, he often stresses the point by “qualifying” the Buddhist terms and Zen expressions he uses by saying, “this does not mean what people ordinarily think it means,” or similar statements. For instance, more than once in his writings Dogen declares that although many people have heard the Zen sayings and teachings about the “ordinary mind” (normal, or everyday mind), but few understand what it really means.
.
The state like this is called “the normal mind,” but [people] are prone to misunderstand it to be a class of common miscellany.
Shobogenzo 28, Butsu-kojo-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
.
Since everyone should be able to understand the words “the normal mind,” the misunderstanding Dogen is referring to is in regard to the meaning of the words. The bad news is that if we fail to understand what the words truly mean, we can’t possibly verify them, thus they will remain utterly insignificant in our lives here and now. The good news is that if we do understand what the words truly mean we can verify them and actually assimilate their wisdom. In other words, when we understand its true meaning, we can read or hear the word, “dharma” and associate it with the experiential reality of “dharma/mind,” rather than with its literal meaning, or our preconceived notion of its meaning. For Dogen, it is because of the true nature of dharmas and mind (i.e. the unity of the appearance and the meaning of dharmas), that allows language (a dharma) to convey truth about reality. When he says “dharmas,” he does not mean, “in contrast to mind,” he means, “in context with mind.”
.
In an earlier post it was observed that in Dogen’s worldview human beings (along with all forms, i.e. dharmas) are real insofar as they are experienced. That is, the reality of human beings is actualized by being experienced (by oneself or others) as a form (the body-mind; shinjin). Yes, this means that, according to Dogen, the falling tree makes no sound if no one experiences it, and a human being (or any dharma) is not real if no one (itself or another) experiences it. The most obvious implication here is that whatever (or whoever) does experience human beings (or other dharmas) must also be real. This aspect of reality is one of the central topics of Shobogenzo.
.
When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.
Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman
.
If in Dogen’s view, a human being as experienced (by self or other) is a form or dharma (body-mind), what is a human being as an experiencer of forms (dharmas)? By reason of common sense we know that experience and experiencer are nondual, and also that each is (like all dharmas) one with the whole universe. But Dogen certainly does not let matters rest there; he constantly exhorts us to look deeply and come to understand how these two aspects differ, relate, and interact with each other and the rest of the world. Shobogenzo itself is one demonstrations of how Dogen himself accomplished doing just that.
.
In Shobogenzo, the experienced and experiencing self is illumined from a variety of perspectives. The “self as experienced,” is viewed as a body-mind (shinjin) and is most often treated in terms of human beings (un-awakened beings), forms, images, thoughts, things, and pictures (or paintings). The “experiencing self” is viewed as all inclusive existence (i.e. uji; existence-time) and is usually dealt with in terms of Buddhas (awakened beings), Buddha-nature, true nature, the one mind, the whole universe (or world), and the true self.
.
To be continued...
.
Peace,
Ted
No comments:
Post a Comment