True Nature - The Reality of the Self and the World

True Nature - The Reality of the Self and the Universe

Continued from the previous post: The Self - As Experienced, and As Experiencer

Before proceeding we need to clarify something that should go without saying but often doesn’t: in Buddhism, both “self” and “true self” are (tacitly) inclusive of and in each other, as well as the whole of existence and time.
.
At this point we have seen that Dogen distinguishes between a self that experiences and a self that is experienced, and discussed some of the terms he uses to do so. Now we will look at how these two aspects interact according to Shobogenzo.
.
For the sake of clarity, the “self as experienced” and the “self that experiences” will be referred to hereafter as “the self” and “the true self,” respectively.
.
As previously discussed, Shobogenzo portrays the self (and all particular dharmas) as the experiential or perceptible form, shape, or image of the true self. The true self of human beings is portrayed as the sole experiencer of each individual; the master, so to speak, of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking (the traditional “five senses” of western thought plus the cognitive faculties). By identifying “thinking” as one of the “senses,” Buddhism decreased the propensity to identify the “self” (mind) with the “brain.” As a sense, “thinking” is only one of six faculties of a single being (our true self). Thus, for Dogen, beings with more or fewer senses than humans are of equal status in regard to the true self. This is supported by Buddhist doctrines that ascribe additional senses to certain advanced beings of (e.g. to see past lives, others’ minds, remote events, etc.) and affirm the inherent Buddha nature of beings with fewer senses (e.g. earthworms) and even beings without sense (i.e. the non-sentient).
.
What this means in the context of Dogen’s teachings is that our senses (including the cognitive faculties of the brain) do not sense—the true self senses. Our eyes, ears, and brain do not see, hear, and think; the true self sees, hears, and thinks. Each of our sense organs (including the brain) is simply one of the myriad dharmas that facilitate the true self in “fashioning a universe,” and “fashioning a self.” Our experience (of universe and self) is not actualized by our senses, but by our true self; more precisely, our experience is the actualization of the true self. Please note that this “actualization” is all-inclusive; every factor of our experience is the actualization of the true self. The lungs do not breathe, the heart does beat, nor does the brain breathe or beat the heart—the true self breathes and beats the heart. Insofar as the brain is involved with the lungs, heart, or anything else, it is only as the facilitator of the true self. Nor is this limited to so-called “involuntary” functions; the legs do not walk us to the mailbox, the true self uses the legs to go to the mailbox. The hand does not raise a flower, the true self raises a flower; the face does not crack a smile, the true self cracks a smile.
.
Thus, as the self is a shape, form, or image in Dogen’s works, the true self is a shaper, former, or imager. To be a self is to be experienced by the true self, that is, to be shaped, formed, or imaged by the true self. Insofar as this concerns the realm of human beings, to be experienced as a self that we call “myself” is to be shaped, formed, imaged, or in Dogen’s terms, to be “pictured” or “fashioned” by the true self of another being (or our own true self). This is something that those inclined to speculation can use to build grand linguistic schemes with almost infinite potential to convolute and obscure. If the true self is the “one true self,” how can the true self of one person “fashion” the self of another person? If the “self” that is fashioned by the true self of one person is not the same as the “self” fashioned by the true self of another, how can it be the same “true self?” And on, and on it goes…

For those that are not interested in delving into the exacting but unrewarding realm of “sawing bb’s,” there is an easier way: personal verification through experiential realization. This can be accomplished by first, as Dogen puts it, “ferreting out the meaning” of the words (rather than delving into linguistic “facts”), and then verifying whether or not it is true in actual practice (the real practical world). To clarify exactly what “meaning” needs to be “ferreted out,” let’s look again at Dogen’s words from Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa:
.
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
.
This should be fairly clear to those familiar with Shobogenzo (as well as those that have been following this blog for awhile). Dogen is pointing out that anything that can possibly be regarded as “experience” must include at least two components, something that is experienced and something that experiences. Without an experiencer there can be no experience, without an experience there can be no experiencer. In other words, “consciousness,” by definition is two-fold (i.e. there must be something to be conscious of and something that is conscious of it). Thus, “consciousness” (or experience) means “a self and an other.” Likewise, without a self there could be no true self at all. This is the first point.
.
Next, let’s consider the interaction of self and true self in light of Dogen’s view on the nature and dynamics of the one mind and the myriad dharmas. First, recall Dogen’s explanation of the mutual interpenetration and non-obstruction of each dharma and all dharmas; each particular thing contains and is contained by every other particular thing (as well as all other particular things). Second, consider the reasoning Dogen used to describe how the true nature of the “one mind” consisted of nothing other than the myriad dharmas, as they are; the “one mind” is not something that permeates or underlies all things—it is all things, as they are. Similarly, the true self is not something that permeates or underlies the individual self of all the many beings—it is the individual self of all the many beings. That is the second point.
.
Finally, there is Dogen’s assertion that the nature of something and the form in which it appears are not two different things. The very form of a thing, that is, the way it appears (the way it is perceived or experienced) is one with its true nature; if the form of any particular thing was somehow eradicated, its true nature would also be eradicated. In the same way, the very form of a self, that is, the way it actually appears (is perceived or experienced) is one with its true nature (i.e. the true self). That is the third and final point.

.

In light of these three points, it should be a fairly straightforward task to “ferret out” the meaning of Dogen’s expressions about how the mutual interaction of the self and the true self “fashion the whole universe,” and “fashion a self.” Now we are ready to consider the profound implication of this.
.
We are now at a point from which we may be able to glimpse Dogen’s view about what reality is and how reality and human beings interact. As we just recalled, according to Dogen there is no “true” or “essential” nature apart from particular things. This is clearly illustrated in his frequent critique of “naturalism” in which he refutes all forms of essentialism (which posit a true [or essential] nature apart from the forms or appearance of particular things). Therefore, when Dogen says that we “fashion a universe,” and “fashion a self,” he means that the reality “fashioned” by sentient beings is the only reality. In other words, there is no reality apart from the individual shapes, forms, and images “fashioned” by our own true self and experienced as the universe and the self we call “myself.”
.
While this is actually pretty simple and straightforward, it goes against just about everything we are conditioned to believe and can seem complicated, so let’s break it down and restate it once more. First: sentient beings (like humans) are by definition, “sentient” (conscious [of something]). Second: consciousness (awareness, experience) is by definition, “two-fold” (consciousness/conscious of something). Third: the “one mind” and the “myriad things” are nondual (coessential and coextensive). Fourth: the form, shape, or image that we experience as the world and as “our” self is formed, shaped, or imaged (pictured) by our “true” self (which also serves as our capacity to experience). Fifth: the form, shape, or image of things is one with their true nature, thus the form, shape, or image that we experience as the world and as our “self” is our “true” self. Sixth: no “essential nature” exists apart from the forms of particular things, and particular things only exist insofar as they are experienced by sentient beings (in two-fold consciousness).

.

Conclusion: The reality of the world and the self consists only of the “arrangements” we (as individuals) “fashion” from the “bits and pieces” (instances of existence-time) of our experience; no “other” reality can possibly exist outside of this.
.
(Some of you may have concluded [accurately] that this implies a different reality for each and every individual sentient being—exactly! This aspect will be taken up in the next post.)
.
To be continued…
.
Peace,
Ted