FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
As Dogen students quickly realize, Dogen’s writings are brim full of references to a “state” or “condition” that he calls “the body and mind of ‘self’ and ‘other’ falling away.” In fact, this phrase is so frequently repeated one can become desensitized to its profound significance. For this reason I would like to suggest a few points that may be helpful to be attentive to when meeting this expression in Dogen’s works.
First, in Dogen’s usage, “the body and mind of ‘self’” is always inclusive of “the body and mind of ‘other’ than self” (i.e. the myriad dharmas). To hold a view that it would be possible to let our own body-mind fall away but not the body-mind of the external world would be inherently dualistic (it would be similarly dualistic to suppose the body-mind of the external world could fall away apart from the body mind of self). Being dualistic, such view are regarded by Dogen as being non-Buddhist.
We stated that Dogen’s allusions to the “falling away of body-mind” always implies the context of the self and the external world; we now want to underscore that point by extending this to include all his references to the body-mind of individuals, or the “self” of human beings. The reason this is significant is that it clarifies the important distinction between the ego-centric “self” (unawakened human beings commonly called “ordinary beings”), and the universal or true “self” (commonly called “Buddhas”).
When Dogen speaks of the personal “self” (shinjin; the individual body-mind), It is important to understand that this is the “self” of “self and other” (self and world). The personal body-mind “self” is only and always an inherent aspect of the nonduality of “self and other than self.”
As the two nondual “aspects”, or (to adopt Hee-Jin Kim’s suggestion) “foci,” self and other are coessential; if one is raised, both are raised, of one is eliminated, both are eliminated. At the same time, each maintains its own distinct characteristics; that is, although each always the other, neither of them alters or interferes with the particularity of the other – “self” and “other” are mutually inclusive and nonobstructive. Thus, the Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa fascicle, for example, tells us:
The many kinds of right are “good doing” but they are neither of the doer nor known by the doer, and they are neither of the other nor known by the other. As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other, and thus individual vigorous eyes exist in the sun and in the moon. This state is “good doing” itself. At just this moment of “good doing” the realized universe exists but it is not “the creation of the universe,” and it is not “the eternal existence of the universe.”
Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
The point concern the present discussion is illustrated by the line, “As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other…”
Thus, to experience (know or see) a “self” or an “other” – there must be both a “self” and an “other” experienced (seen or known). A “self” cannot be experienced alone, an “other” cannot exist independent of a self – therefore, when Dogen says “self” he means “self/other,” when he says “other” he also means “self/other.”
Peace,
Ted
First, in Dogen’s usage, “the body and mind of ‘self’” is always inclusive of “the body and mind of ‘other’ than self” (i.e. the myriad dharmas). To hold a view that it would be possible to let our own body-mind fall away but not the body-mind of the external world would be inherently dualistic (it would be similarly dualistic to suppose the body-mind of the external world could fall away apart from the body mind of self). Being dualistic, such view are regarded by Dogen as being non-Buddhist.
We stated that Dogen’s allusions to the “falling away of body-mind” always implies the context of the self and the external world; we now want to underscore that point by extending this to include all his references to the body-mind of individuals, or the “self” of human beings. The reason this is significant is that it clarifies the important distinction between the ego-centric “self” (unawakened human beings commonly called “ordinary beings”), and the universal or true “self” (commonly called “Buddhas”).
When Dogen speaks of the personal “self” (shinjin; the individual body-mind), It is important to understand that this is the “self” of “self and other” (self and world). The personal body-mind “self” is only and always an inherent aspect of the nonduality of “self and other than self.”
As the two nondual “aspects”, or (to adopt Hee-Jin Kim’s suggestion) “foci,” self and other are coessential; if one is raised, both are raised, of one is eliminated, both are eliminated. At the same time, each maintains its own distinct characteristics; that is, although each always the other, neither of them alters or interferes with the particularity of the other – “self” and “other” are mutually inclusive and nonobstructive. Thus, the Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa fascicle, for example, tells us:
The many kinds of right are “good doing” but they are neither of the doer nor known by the doer, and they are neither of the other nor known by the other. As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other, and thus individual vigorous eyes exist in the sun and in the moon. This state is “good doing” itself. At just this moment of “good doing” the realized universe exists but it is not “the creation of the universe,” and it is not “the eternal existence of the universe.”
Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
The point concern the present discussion is illustrated by the line, “As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other…”
Thus, to experience (know or see) a “self” or an “other” – there must be both a “self” and an “other” experienced (seen or known). A “self” cannot be experienced alone, an “other” cannot exist independent of a self – therefore, when Dogen says “self” he means “self/other,” when he says “other” he also means “self/other.”
Peace,
Ted
No comments:
Post a Comment