FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
Is Your Mountain My Mountain?
.
In recent posts:
We have been looking at Dogen's assertions about how each of us "fashion a universe" and "fashion a self." Here, we continue our discussion by exploring the difference and sameness of the universes and selfs fashioned by different human beings...
.
Now, one thing this means is that the only reality (universe and self) that any individual human being ever experiences is whatever reality that they personally create through the dynamic interaction of self/true self. To be precisely accurate, the reality created by each individual is the only reality that actually exists. This has significance in Dogen’s work, but now we are focusing on the practical aspects of how this works, we will return to what it means later.
.
If Dogen’s worldview is to remain consistent with his elucidation of the way each of us fashion our own universe and our own self—our own reality—he would have to affirm that there are as many realities as there are sentient beings. This is in fact, just what Dogen does assert throughout Shobogenzo. Every individual self is an individual perspective, an individual eye (“I”?). And every eye fashions a unique reality. However, this does not indicate a solipsist position, as some might assume, far from it. Two individual beings looking at a mountain are seeing the same mountain; as all beings are “the one mind,” all beings share the same material world—all beings are, in fact, the same material world. The “material” in this case being the material of experience. This is how and why it is possible for individual beings to communicate with each other in a meaningful way.
.
The nature and dynamics of this process is most clearly revealed in Dogen’s teachings on the uniqueness of “Dharma positions,” and the “total obstruction (or total exertion) of instances or things.” We can’t do justice to these teachings here, so we’ll simply state their basic tenet: each thing and all things participate in mutual interpenetration and non-obstruction. The point we are interested in here is that Dogen’s view does not necessitate that beings be isolated from each other. Each being that sees (experiences) an actual, particular mountain forms, fashions or images a unique, independent real mountain. The quality of a real mountain (or any other dharma) is not altered by being experienced (fashioned) by more or fewer beings; the reality of the mountain exists as completely in one image as it does in a billion images. At the same time, the reality of the mountain does not exist in the absence of being experienced; to think that that a real, “essential” mountain exists apart from its experience by sentient beings is, according to Dogen, a non-Buddhist view.
.
For Dogen, the abstract philosopher, the Shrenikan, and the natural man all qualify as “non-Buddhists” for the same reason: they all hold dualistic views. Of course, many other groups and individuals hold dualistic views, but Dogen focuses on these three as of a single species based on a shared presupposition. The common species of presupposition informing the views of these three (according to the examples singled out by Dogen) is one in which independent elements are attributed to the various things (dharmas) of experience. Dogen singles these three out not only for violating his view that existence is dependent on experience, but for two additional factors he sees as particularly pernicious. First is that their superficial appearance as “non-dualistic” can be deceptively convincing. By describing the “myriad dharmas” in terms of the unreal, provisional, delusory, etc., and describing the “one” in terms of the real, ultimate, enlightened, etc. these views superficially appear to support Buddhist teachings on nonduality, while actually subordinating “the many” to the “one.” While the sharp, active, or critical practitioner can clearly see the dualism inherent in such views, the dull, apathetic, or uncritical student may be easily misled by its veil of nonduality. Second, such views unavoidably require adherents to either overvalue or undervalue the human intellect. In the former case, adherents become enamored with the intellectual faculties and fail to go beyond conceptual knowledge to experiential actualization. In the latter, adherents are actually encouraged to cultivate a mistrust of the intellect, hence of human intelligence and reason. Both of these distortions foster and solidify conceptual notions that can cause students to become increasingly unresponsive to corrective guidance, reason, and common sense. The severity of such consequences merits further attention on how this happens.
.
If the various qualities of things (e.g. hard, blue, right, straight, false, etc.) existed independently of the things they qualified, then the cognitive faculties of the self (perception, thinking, imagination, etc.) along with their productions (concepts, theories, dreams, etc.) would also have independent existence. When we examine the views of the abstract philosopher, the Shrenikan, and the natural man (as described by Dogen) we see that each of them grant the intellect independence, and therefore, special status. Regardless of whether that status is regarded as superior or inferior to “other” elements of reality, the task for sentient beings becomes one of diminishment or elimination; specifically, diminishment or elimination of the existence or influence of the “other” elements, or of the intellect, respectively. In either case the “goal” for adherents of this presupposition (whatever that may be regarded as) can only be reached by the sublimation or eradication of one or more aspects of reality.
.
.
If Dogen’s worldview is to remain consistent with his elucidation of the way each of us fashion our own universe and our own self—our own reality—he would have to affirm that there are as many realities as there are sentient beings. This is in fact, just what Dogen does assert throughout Shobogenzo. Every individual self is an individual perspective, an individual eye (“I”?). And every eye fashions a unique reality. However, this does not indicate a solipsist position, as some might assume, far from it. Two individual beings looking at a mountain are seeing the same mountain; as all beings are “the one mind,” all beings share the same material world—all beings are, in fact, the same material world. The “material” in this case being the material of experience. This is how and why it is possible for individual beings to communicate with each other in a meaningful way.
.
The nature and dynamics of this process is most clearly revealed in Dogen’s teachings on the uniqueness of “Dharma positions,” and the “total obstruction (or total exertion) of instances or things.” We can’t do justice to these teachings here, so we’ll simply state their basic tenet: each thing and all things participate in mutual interpenetration and non-obstruction. The point we are interested in here is that Dogen’s view does not necessitate that beings be isolated from each other. Each being that sees (experiences) an actual, particular mountain forms, fashions or images a unique, independent real mountain. The quality of a real mountain (or any other dharma) is not altered by being experienced (fashioned) by more or fewer beings; the reality of the mountain exists as completely in one image as it does in a billion images. At the same time, the reality of the mountain does not exist in the absence of being experienced; to think that that a real, “essential” mountain exists apart from its experience by sentient beings is, according to Dogen, a non-Buddhist view.
.
For Dogen, the abstract philosopher, the Shrenikan, and the natural man all qualify as “non-Buddhists” for the same reason: they all hold dualistic views. Of course, many other groups and individuals hold dualistic views, but Dogen focuses on these three as of a single species based on a shared presupposition. The common species of presupposition informing the views of these three (according to the examples singled out by Dogen) is one in which independent elements are attributed to the various things (dharmas) of experience. Dogen singles these three out not only for violating his view that existence is dependent on experience, but for two additional factors he sees as particularly pernicious. First is that their superficial appearance as “non-dualistic” can be deceptively convincing. By describing the “myriad dharmas” in terms of the unreal, provisional, delusory, etc., and describing the “one” in terms of the real, ultimate, enlightened, etc. these views superficially appear to support Buddhist teachings on nonduality, while actually subordinating “the many” to the “one.” While the sharp, active, or critical practitioner can clearly see the dualism inherent in such views, the dull, apathetic, or uncritical student may be easily misled by its veil of nonduality. Second, such views unavoidably require adherents to either overvalue or undervalue the human intellect. In the former case, adherents become enamored with the intellectual faculties and fail to go beyond conceptual knowledge to experiential actualization. In the latter, adherents are actually encouraged to cultivate a mistrust of the intellect, hence of human intelligence and reason. Both of these distortions foster and solidify conceptual notions that can cause students to become increasingly unresponsive to corrective guidance, reason, and common sense. The severity of such consequences merits further attention on how this happens.
.
If the various qualities of things (e.g. hard, blue, right, straight, false, etc.) existed independently of the things they qualified, then the cognitive faculties of the self (perception, thinking, imagination, etc.) along with their productions (concepts, theories, dreams, etc.) would also have independent existence. When we examine the views of the abstract philosopher, the Shrenikan, and the natural man (as described by Dogen) we see that each of them grant the intellect independence, and therefore, special status. Regardless of whether that status is regarded as superior or inferior to “other” elements of reality, the task for sentient beings becomes one of diminishment or elimination; specifically, diminishment or elimination of the existence or influence of the “other” elements, or of the intellect, respectively. In either case the “goal” for adherents of this presupposition (whatever that may be regarded as) can only be reached by the sublimation or eradication of one or more aspects of reality.
.
While variations are legion, such conceptual divisions tend to be equated, roughly, with intellectual, emotional, and instinctual aspects of life. Depending on the particular school, the details of these divisions are classified with roles and ranks based on whatever needs to be diminished or eliminated to reach the goal (of enlightenment, serenity, salvation, or whatever). Such divisions underlie many of the popular “Ways to happiness” that really lead only to fear, anguish, and delusion. However the details of the scheme are arranged, the method is always the same: detachment from (some part) the world/self; the intellectual goal via detachment from emotion and instinct, the sentimental goal via detachment from instinct and intellect, and the instinctual goal via detachment from intellect and emotion.
.
To be continued...
.
Peace,
Ted
2 comments:
Very nice. It makes me want to re-read Dogen on these comments. It does synch with a Buddhism of "All thoughts and things."
Dear Serge S. Gilbert,
Yes, thank you for your comment.
Please treasure yourself.
Ted
Post a Comment