Look Deeply Into Your Own Mind

Once, before a talk, Charles asked, “Which spiritual tradition is the closest to the truth?”
.

Louie Wing said, “The spiritual guides and awakened teachers of all the great traditions did not preach and demonstrate the reality of awakening because they had something they could give you. They simply directed you to look deeply into your own mind and perceive its true nature. How could there be any difference of superiority or inferiority among the awakened teachers within the various styles? All that is important is to awaken to the one true reality of your own mind.”

 
The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

Acknowledging One's Own Fallibility

Acknowledging One's Own Fallibility

 

The truth of nonduality asserted by Zen is not complicated, marvelous, or earth-shattering, much less inexpressible, inconceivable, or esoteric – it is the most common and obvious truth of human experience. Moreover, by recognizing the plain truth that actual experience is more reliable than abstract speculations about experience, we become equipped with a universally accessible means for achieving and verifying an accurate understanding of even the most far-reaching implications of human existence. Nevertheless, it does require one to sincerely consider the possibility that Zen’s view is accurate – thus the possibility that one’s present view is erroneous.

Zazen True and False - The Continuous Actualization of Sole-Sitting

 

Continuous Actualization of Sole-Sitting – The Keystone of Zen

To clearly see is to use the Dharma-Eye, sometimes called the “eye to read scriptures.” To use the Dharma-Eye it must first be opened, and thereafter it must be skillfully developed and continuously actualized; this ongoing development and actualization is the keystone of authentic Zen practice and enlightenment, it is the art of Zen that Dogen calls sole-sitting (shikantaza, zazen-only). Once the Dharma-Eye is active, Zen practice (zazen-only) is actively developed and expanded to become inclusive not only of meditation, studying sutras, training with koans, etc., but every aspect of life. Going to work, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, and eating meals is Zen practice (just sitting). Shobogenzo provides detailed examples on the zazen of cooking, making robes, teeth cleaning, and even using the toilet. When the True Dharma-Eye is open, these are not the mundane tasks of cooking and cleaning, but the normal mind of the Tao, the authentic practice-enlightenment of Zen.

 

Once we find the Way that arrives at Buddha, we leave the area of the common person immediately. The people that have mastered this Way are few.

Himitsu Shobogenzo, Bustu-kojo-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

From the perspective of Zen, the opening of the Dharma-Eye is simultaneous with the Zen student becoming a Zen practitioner. An authentic Zen practitioner, by definition, solely practices Zen. In a very real sense, for the Zen practitioner there is no “Zen practice” (zazen; meditation) and therefore nothing other than “Zen practice.”

 

Regardless of what “shikantaza” or “just sitting” might have come to be defined or interpreted as being by various groups and individuals following Dogen’s existence-time, the nature of the “just sitting” presented by Shobogenzo has nothing to do with the kind of sitting that is thought of, spoken about, or performed in the “area of the common person.” Indeed, it is inevitable that the vast majority of ideas, definitions, explanations, and interpretations of shikantaza are distortions and misrepresentations, for “The people that have mastered this Way are few.”

 

There will be those who dote on what has passed and try to mimic that, and there may even be demons who slander those above them and refuse to learn from them. Do not be attracted to either type or feel resentment towards either. Why do I say not to feel sorry for them or resent them? Because it is said that people who recognize the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion to be what they are, are rare enough, so there is no need to feel resentment towards those who do not. Even more importantly, you should not lose sight of the intention that arose when you first took delight in seeking the Way of the Buddhas. It is said that when we first give rise to this intention, we are not seeking the Dharma so that others will praise us, but are discarding thoughts of fame and gain. Without seeking fame or gain, we should simply be persons who hold to the true course of realizing the Way, never concerning ourselves with expectations of recognition or support from rulers or other officials.

 

Even though this is the ideal, there are some people today who, alas, are devoid of any fundamental spiritual aspirations, having no spiritual goal that they seek, and are not the least concerned over their delusive entanglements with both ordinary people and those in lofty positions.

Shobogenzo, Keisei Sanshoku, Hubert Nearman

 

Leaving pity and resentment aside, then, let us dive right into Shobogenzo’s own presentation of what “shikantaza” or “just sitting” truly is. First, the term “shikan” (or shikantaza) that is often translated as “just” as in “just sitting” (shikan; just, taza; sitting) does not denote “merely,” or “simply,” but rather, “solely,” “totally,” “wholly.” Here we want to mention a point that is worth noticing; “shikan” is a homophone of “chih kuan” (stopping and seeing, meditation and prajna, samadhi and insight), a central notion of Tendai Buddhism, the actual tradition into which Dogen was initially ordained and which remained a central influence throughout his lifetime. The Tendai notion of “chih-kuan” presents “solely, wholly, etc.” in a specifically nondual manner – Tendai expressions on “stopping and seeing” (chih-kuan) emphasize  the unity of stopping-and-seeing so that stopping is stopping/seeing and seeing is stopping/seeing. The notion that Dogen intentionally employs the term “shikan” in some context of the significance of “chi-kuan” has been noticed and discussed in the scholarly community (e.g. Kodera, Heine) but has been largely dismissed as an interesting by unverifiable possibility. In view of Dogen’s characteristic use of homophonic language, and the fact that he was intimately familiar with the connotations of both terms it would seem that the intentional “double meaning” of “shikan” should be regarded as “given” and the notion it was unintended considered unlikely.

 

In any case, zazen is presented by Shobogenzo as the archetype of authentic practice-enlightenment itself. While Zen practice-enlightenment is only and always portrayed by Shobogenzo as something specific and particular – never as something vague or general – it is definitely not presented as being limited or confined to a specific form or particular activity. True, the only actual instances of practice-enlightenment that has or ever will manifest, is the practice-enlightenment of particular Zen practitioners at specific locations-times, but the form (hence, essence) of those instances are not in any way restricted to particular structures or activities. Particular Zen practitioners and actual instances of Zen practice-enlightenment are not two (nondual); Zen practice-enlightenment is solely manifest by and as Zen practitioners, Zen practitioners are solely manifest by and as Zen practice-enlightenment. This truth is archetypally embodied and expressed in Shobogenzo as “zazen,” described as “zazen-only” (shikantaza; solely sitting), and methodologically presented and transmitted as “nonthinking.”

 

As an archetypal image, zazen presents (makes present) Shakyamuni Buddha’s enlightenment on the “immovable spot” or “Bodhi-Seat.” The Bodhi-Seat is the instance of existence-time wherein the Buddha awakens; the moment-event of Buddhism’s supreme of the supreme, archetypally presented by the image of Buddha sitting upright in the lotus posture at the location-time of his enlightenment beneath the Bodhi Tree.

 

Described and explained as zazen-only (shikantaza), zazen is revealed as the “axis mundi,” the still point at the center of the Dharma-Wheel wherein the myriad dharmas ceaselessly rise and set in and as the continuous advance of the universe into novelty. Zazen-only demonstrates how the “three modes of conduct” (thoughts, words, and deeds) are wholly grounded in, at, and as the immovable spot; each and all the myriad dharmas are solely-seated in, at, and as this here-now of existence-time.

 

Methodologically presented and transmitted as nonthinking, zazen is made accessible for the liberation of all beings as the Buddha-Dharma itself; the “Great Vehicle” or “One Vehicle” (Mahayana or Ekayana) that is the essence of Zen. The “essence of Zen” being nondual with the “form of Zen,” is thus nothing more or less than Zen’s phenomenal expression in and as existence-time. As a spatial-temporal essence/form, the Zen is accessed by humans in the same manner and through the same capacities humans access any other manifest reality; the normal capacities of language, thinking, and reason. In Shobogenzo these capacities are most comprehensively treated by the vision of “nonthinking,” creatively presented as a unification and transcendence of “thinking” and “not-thinking.”

 

Thus, in Shobogenzo to engage in zazen is to be a Zen practitioner and to be a Zen practitioner is to engage in zazen. To be a Zen practitioner or engage in zazen is to be solely seated here-now; fully and totally enacting and being enacted in and as the myriad dharmas, in and as every thought, word, and deed.

 

It is not difficult to see that this vision of zazen is nothing more or less than the practical application of the principles of nonduality. For one that has verified that form is emptiness, all forms are empty; this cup is empty, this speech is empty, this boat race is empty – thus each particular dharma is solely-empty. Likewise, to verify the Buddha-nature of self (thus, of self/other), is to verify the Buddha-nature of all thoughts, words, and deeds; this memory is self, this utterance is self, this walking is self – each thought, word, and deed is solely-self (or solely Buddha). As the archetypal image of Zen practice-enlightenment, zazen is the embodiment of Zen practice-enlightenment, thus to be a Zen practitioner is to solely embody to be solely embodied as zazen.

 

In this sense, to be a Zen practitioner is to actualize zazen – to actualize anything other than zazen is not to be a Zen practitioner. Hence, a genuine practitioner is “solely seated” in and as existence-time here-now. Zen practice-enlightenment is, as it is, “solely sitting.”

 

From the Zen perspective it would be dualistic to regard practice-enlightenment as a distinct, independent reality; a Zen practitioner cannot “sit in zazen” and “study sutras,” or “sit in zazen” and “train with koans,” etc., for a Zen practitioner “solely sits” or “just sits.” As authentic practice-enlightenment is just sitting; any and all of a Zen practitioner’s thoughts, words, and deeds are just sitting. Zen practitioners do not teach, work, eat, sleep, and solely sit – teaching, working, eating, sleeping are solely sitting. All dharmas are solely emptiness; self and other are solely Buddha-nature; and the thoughts, words, and deeds of Zen practitioners are solely sitting.

 

For the Zen practitioner, then, there is sitting that is solely sitting and there is walking that is solely sitting; sitting is not walking and walking is not sitting, but both sitting and walking are solely sitting, solely zazen. The thinking of a Zen practitioner is not the speaking or acting of a Zen practitioner, but the thinking, speaking, and acting of a Zen practitioner is solely sitting, zazen-only.

 

Hence, there is the mind’s just sitting there, which is not the same as the body’s just sitting there. And there is the body’s just sitting there, which is not the same as the mind’s just sitting. There is ‘just sitting there with body and mind having dropped off’, which is not the same as ‘just sitting in order to drop off body and mind’. To have already realized such a state is the perfect oneness of practice and understanding that the Buddhas and Ancestors have experienced. Maintain and safeguard your mind’s functions of remembering, considering, and reflecting. Thoroughly explore through your training what mind, intent, and consciousness truly are.

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

 

Distorted, superficial, and superstitious notions concerning Dogen’s teachings on zazen-only abound in the contemporary Zen community. The majority of these distortions can be remedied by simply learning to appreciate the difference between metaphorical or mythopoeic language and the language of literal description, coupled with clear grasp of the basic principles of Buddhist nonduality. Many factors, including superficial views of emptiness and imitators attempting to cash in on the success of genuine Zen, have contributed to simplistic notions of seated meditation (zazen) over the course of Zen’s history. The fallacious notions of zazen embraced today are fundamentally the same as those that have dogged Zen throughout its history.

 

The most common fallacies combine elements of simplification and superstition; simplifications portraying zazen literally, as “sitting” (the physical posture of sitting), and superstitions about zazen (the simplistic literal sense) being the only element necessary to realize Zen liberation. Not infrequently it is even suggested that “just sitting” (in the literal sense) is enlightenment itself. Commonly dressed up in trite slogans about “no goals,” “nothing special,” “just this,” etc., zazen - the very keystone of Zen practice-enlightenment - is pawned off as a simple arrangement of the body-mind in a proscribed posture of physical sitting. Shobogenzo asserts what common sense already suggests concerning such notions:

 

Even if some appear to understand physical sitting to be what the Buddha taught, they have not yet grasped that ‘sitting there’ means “Just sit there!”

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

 

Despite Shobogenzo’s clear instructions, the classical Zen teachings, and common sense however, such notions continue to be accepted and applied by groups and individuals far and wide. Routinely arranging their body-mind in an upright, cross-legged sitting posture for measured periods of time, such groups and individuals honestly believe they are enacting “what the Buddha taught.” This shallow mimicry of the Buddha’s enlightenment is, in their view, the “just sitting” that Dogen taught. 

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong, or even unusual about erroneous understandings and false views; everyone has them, and even sages are compelled to continuously let go of old views in order to advance, expand, and clarify their understanding and skill. Sages know enough about stagnation and petrifaction to avoid becoming attached to any manner of fixed view; ego-centricity, spiritual pride, and sectarian allegiance however, can be extremely powerful obstacles for even the sincerest of genuine aspirants. 

 

As noted, promoters of distorted versions of Dogen’s “zazen” commonly proceed as if Zen expressions are meant to be understood in the literal sense of descriptive language rather than the mythopoeic language common to all sacred literature (as well as true art). To support and impress the notion that “just sitting” literally means to just sit in the ordinary physical sense, and that this “activity” is the only thing necessary for actualizing authentic practice-realization, proponents commonly cite cherry-picked phrases from Dogen’s voluminous writings. 

 

Parenthetically speaking two points are worth mention; in direct contradiction to their insistence on a “literal” reading of zazen, etc., these same advocates frequently insist on the “metaphorical” reading of numerous expressions in Dogen’s writings which they contend "actually mean" the literal performance of zazen. Second, such advocates typically assume a very liberal tolerance for their own biases while imposing strict constraints on the contentions of others; if, for example, one of their “supporting quotes" from Dogen is contested by an apparently contradictory quote from a different passage in Dogen’s work, the latter is likely to by dismissed as “out of context,” while the former is simply repeated as if its context were self-evident.

 

In general, then, the basic fallacy is that Dogen taught a unique style of Zen (i.e. Japanese Soto Zen) advocating a single method practice (i.e. zazen-only) essentially consisting of the literal performance of physically sitting still, commonly portrayed as being accompanied with a particularly “detached” mental attitude. The physical aspects described are technically equivalent to the basic meditation techniques common to most Buddhist traditions; sitting upright in the lotus (or half-lotus) position (a crossed-legged sitting posture). The mental aspect or attitude advocated is often described (again, in literal terms) as a kind of intentionally “goalless,” “objectless,” or “detached” state of mind. When pressed to elaborate, proponents of such notions tend to explain “goalless” or “objectless” in negative or apophatic terms; as meaning the abstention or avoidance of utilizing traditional Buddhist techniques such as mindfulness of Buddha, the body, mind, breath, koans, scriptures, etc. – zazen, they contend, is literally “just sitting”  with no object in mind, maintaining a detached but focused awareness wherein thoughts, words, and deeds, if noticed at all, are simply to be noted and “let go of” without arousing questions or second thoughts.

 

This, then, or something similar, is supposed to by Dogen’s supreme method; so effective no other practice is essential for authentic Zen actualization; there is literally no need to offer incense, bow, chant, confess, read sutras, or perform any other traditional or nontraditional practice. To support such notions, the most frequently quoted “authoritative” passage comes from an early writing of Dogen titled, Bendowa:

 

After the initial meeting with a [good] counselor we never again need to burn incense, to do prostrations, to recite Buddha’s name, to practice confession, or to read sutras. Just sit and get the state that is free of body and mind. If a human being, even for a single moment, manifests the Buddha’s posture in the three forms of conduct, while [that person] sits up straight in samādhi, the entire world of Dharma assumes the Buddha’s posture and the whole of space becomes the state of realization.

Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

First, how does one that takes Dogen’s expressions literally go about manifesting “the three forms of conduct (thinking, speech, and action), while [that person] sits up straight in samadhi…”? Fortunately, Dogen was a Zen master not a delusional zealot, thus his language, like that of all the great sages, is mythical, not historical, mythopoeic not biographic – Shobogenzo is an expression of human truth, not an "objective" dissertation. If Dogen had truly believed practice-enlightenment consisted in the performance of a particular physical posture/mental attitude, he would not have dedicated most of his time and energy writing and teaching otherwise. Fortunately, Dogen understood, acknowledged, and taught that the real form of zazen-only was the myriad dharmas:

 

You need to discern and affirm for yourself the underlying meaning of his saying, “If you wish to see Buddha Nature, you must first rid yourself of your arrogant pride.” It is not that one lacks sight, but the seeing of which he spoke is based on ridding oneself of one’s arrogant pride. The arrogance of self is not just of one kind, and pride takes many forms. Methods for ridding oneself of these will also be diverse and myriad. Even so, all of these methods will be ‘one’s seeing Buddha Nature’. Thus, you need to learn both to look with your eyes and to see with your Eye.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

 

Apparently the expression conveying the true nature of zazen-only presented in Bendowa had already been misconstrued as a literal description or formula of “Zen practice” rather than a mythopoeic expression of truth in Dogen’s own day. For in the Bukkyo fascicle of Shobogenzo, written only about a decade after Bendowa, Dogen again brought the expression out - only this time he did so in a manner that could never mistakenly be superficially misrepresented as a merely formal description of practice.

 

My late master constantly said, “In my order, we do not rely on burning incense, doing prostrations, reciting names of buddhas, practicing confession, or reading sutras. Just sit, direct your energy into pursuing the truth, and get free of body and mind.”

 

Few people clearly understand an expression like this. Why? Because to call “reading sutras” “reading sutras” is to debase it, and not to call it “reading sutras” is to be perverse. “You are not allowed to talk and not allowed to be mute: say something at once! Say something at once!” We should learn this truth in practice. Because this principle [of reading sutras] exists, a man of old has said, “To read sutras we must be equipped with the eyes of reading sutras.”

Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Obviously, if this expression was meant literally, more than a “Few people” would have clearly understood it. Calling it “reading sutras” debases it because it reduces it to literalism, cutting it out of the nondual reality of its existent form/essence; not calling it “reading sutras” is perverse because it fails to discern the truth of its inherent uniqueness. For the “few” that clearly understand, “reading sutras,”  along with offering incense, bowing, chanting, and confessing, is solely-sitting.

 

In any case, to clearly understand just sitting, reading sutras, or any other aspect of the Buddha Dharma, we must activate the Dharma-Eye. To read sutras, the ordinary eyes of literal description are simply not the appropriate tools; we must be equipped with the eyes of reading sutras.

 

Whenever “zazen” (or just sitting etc.) is treated or regarded as a separate activity or distinct action, as one activity among others (e.g. working, reading, eating, etc.), it is not the zazen-only illumined and presented by Shobogenzo. As the formal practice of seated meditation, zazen is simply one form of activity among many . As the actualization of the universe (i.e. genjokoan), however, zazen is not only wholly inclusive of “the three forms of human conduct” (thinking, speech, and action), it is Total Existence itself, the myriad dharmas as they are.

 

In this way, you need to thoroughly explore through your training the thousands of aspects, nay, the hundreds of thousands of aspects of just sitting.

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

Enjoy the ride!
Ted

(Pre-"Soto") Soto Style Koan Introspection in Dogen's Zen

(Pre-"Soto") Soto Style Koan Introspection in Dogen's Zen

The final exceptional passage in the Goyuigon concerns the content of Zen enlightenment and its relationship to koan training. Gikai prefaces this conversation with Ejo by stating: “During the prior meditation period, I was aided by our former teacher’s great enlightenment situation, the shinjin datsuraku words.” …in this passage… the words “shinjin datsuraku” represent a stock phrase or device (i.e., an “old example,” kosoku or koan) for contemplation during meditation. This use of shinjin datsuraku as a formal meditation device is confirmed by the fact that Ejo then tested Gikai’s understanding by asking him to present an “appended phrase” (jakugo, i.e. a passage… summing up the meaning of a koan.) Their dialogue is as follows:

 

Gikai: I have attained an insight based on our former teacher’s saying, “shinjin datsuraku.”

 

Ejo: Good. Good. What do you understand?

 

Gikai: I understand “datsuraku shinjin.”

 

Ejo: What is the meaning?

 

Gikai: I had thought only (my) barbarian beard was red, but here is another red-bearded barbarian.”

 

Ejo: Among the many permitted [answers to] shinjin [datsuraku], there is this kind of shinjin.

 

This conversation has been quoted in full because it reveals three practices usually thought to be incongruous with the method of Zen practiced in early Soto. It implies that Gikai had been occupied with Dogen’s words during his meditation; that Ejo used koan instruction as part of the dharma succession process; and that formal quotations of stereo-typed expressions were used to test the understanding of the koan. Modern Soto scholars cannot accept the Goyuigon account at face value, because to do so would force them either to revise their usual interpretation of Dogen’s Zen as a religion of unmediated meditation or to attempt to argue that both Ejo and Gikai had failed to understand Dogen’s teachings.
William M. Bodiford, Soto Zen in Medieval Japan, pp.55-56

Koans, Zen Cosmology, and Practice-Enlightenment Here and Now

Koans, Zen Cosmology, and Practice-Enlightenment Here and Now

To be adequate for authentic practice-enlightenment in our everyday world here and now our vision of Dogen’s cosmology requires us to bring his vision forward (and westward) by seeing it through the accumulated insights of the “grand discussion” (and seeing them through it). So too our vision must extend backward (and eastward) through Dogen’s predecessors within the various Buddhist traditions, as well as those among the great eastern traditions of Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and others.

Most importantly our vision through Dogen’s predecessors must be inclusive of the Zen Buddhist tradition as presented in the classic records of the Zen ancestors from the prehistoric “seven Buddhas” through the historical Shakyamuni Buddha and his Indian successors, beginning with Mahakashapa and continuing through Bodhidharma, then to Bodhidharma’s Chinese successors, beginning with Huike, then down through the sixth Chinese ancestor, Huineng and his successors, then on through the five major ancestral lines. From among the voluminous literary production of the Zen tradition, the “koan” related literature, the most distinctive element of Zen as an independent tradition, is far and away Dogen’s greatest influence, thus is of particular importance to our understanding of his Zen cosmology.

The special significance of the koan literature is its powerful capacity to cut through barriers of conceptualization and make bodhi-prajna (enlightened wisdom) an immediate, intimate experience, rather than conveying a teaching that must then be verified or worked out practically – resolving a koan, in contrast to learning through study and cultivation, begins with the true nature of things and works out the implications from there, whereas conventional learning begins with implications and works toward the true nature of things. This does not mean that koan training can replace ordinary conventional study, both are essential to authentic practice-enlightenment, and in fact since koan training is an exacting method requiring accurate understanding and skill, conventional study and cultivation must necessarily precede successful koan training – as well as supplement that training in the past, present, and future that is only and always here and now.

Peace,

Ted

Zen, Dogen, Hillman, and the Self

Zen, Dogen, Hillman, and the Self...

Who Pracitices?

 

Zen practice can only begin when we come to terms with the thorniest questions of all; “Who or what is the subject that practices?” What is this “self” whose “true nature” the Zen masters urge us to awaken to?”

 

The majority of contemporary books whose subject centers on the “self,” books on health, psychology, religion (including Zen), and even on so-called self-help, show a marked propensity to avoid defining what it is they mean by the “self” as if this was self-evident.

 

Self One, Self Two?

 

In Buddhist literature the term “self” is used in two distinct ways, to refer to the ordinary, personal, or ego self, and to refer to the original, great, or true self; which “self” is meant is determined by its context.

 

The “Ordinary” Self

 

The “ordinary” self is depicted as the subject of experience that is experienced as independent of the object of experience. That is, the content of conscious experience is experienced by the ordinary self (which we ordinarily identify as “myself” or “our self”) as something distinct from, or other than itself. One thing this means is that the consciousness of the ordinary self is always divided by a sense of “self” and “other than self.” As Dogen says:

 

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
 

In sum, the “ordinary” self is the subject of experience as distinct from the object of experience.

 

The “True” Self

 

In contrast to the “ordinary” self, the “true” self is portrayed as being inclusive of both the subject and the object of experience. In the context of Dogen’s line above, the “ordinary” self is the self of “self and other,” while the true self corresponds to his “what is known” and “what is seen” (which Dogen says contains both a self and an other).

 

It should be noted that the perspective of the “true self” does not deny the reality or significance of the “ordinary self,” it is inclusive of it. In other words, the ordinary self is not illusory or provisional; it is a real aspect of the true self, is in fact totally constituted of the true self – thus, the ordinary self is wholly contained by the true self, but the true self is not contained by the ordinary self, far from it. This is complex and not essential to the point of this post; we mention it only to preclude hasty conclusions. We are all aware of the basic notion of the ordinary self, thus we’ll move on to the main topic; the true self.

 

As suggested by Dogen’s words on the constituents of “what is known” and “what is seen,” the self (“self” means “true self” hereafter) is the location or moment of experience. Thus, the self is a position or occurrence of space and time rather than a particular entity or capacity in space and time. Further, the self is inclusive of both the subject and the object of experience.

 

Seeing and Seen – One or Two?

 

Experience is always two-fold, that is, experience is always the experience of something experienced by someone. In experience there is “a self and an other.” For example, the experience of “seeing a mountain” can only be realized by the presence of “a mountain” and “a seer.” The self, then, is not the mountain or the seer, but the self is “seeing a mountain.” So it is with all experience; to see a mountain, hear a waterfall, or contemplate a thought, there must be both something experienced (mountain, waterfall, or thought) and someone that experiences it; the self is the location where or moment when experiencer and experienced are joined in the actualization of experience.

 

With this it should be clear that the self cannot be qualified as either an ontological or an epistemological element or entity; now we can move on to some more significant aspects of the self – some aspects that make the Zen goal of “seeing the true nature of the self” a worthy pursuit.

 

Dogen and Hillman: The Self – A Worthy Pursuit?

 

In Buddhism, the great significance of the self is demonstrated by the fact that the Buddha is said to be found within the self, and nowhere else. This accounts for Dogen’s (and other Zen masters) assertions that only the self contains anything worth getting; the self is the only place or moment value exists. In this aspect, the self portrayed by Dogen is not unlike the “soul” of “Archetypal Psychology” (James Hillman et. al). Consider these words from Hillman’s landmark book, Re-visioning Psychology:

 

However intangible and indefinable it is, soul carries highest importance in hierarchies of human values, frequently being identified with the principle of life and even of divinity.

Re-visioning Psychology, James Hillman, p.xvi
 

Dogen certainly seems to agree with James Hillman here; for example, consider this passage in which he identifies the “ascendant state” of Buddha” with the “vigorous activity of playing with the soul.”

 

We should know that “there are human beings in the ascendant state of buddha.” [The state] is, in other words, the vigorous activity of playing with the soul. That being so, we can know it by taking up [the study of] eternal buddhas, and we can know it by holding up a fist.

Shobogenzo, Butsu-kojo-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 

In the same passage just cited, Hillman writes:

 

In another attempt upon the idea of soul I suggested that the word refers to that unknown component which makes meaning possible, turns events into experiences, is communicated in love, and has a religious concern.

Re-visioning Psychology, James Hillman, p.xvi
 

While he might prefer unconcealed in place of Hillman’s unknown, Dogen too finds the “religious concern” of the soul (letting the Buddha-Dharma play as our soul) as that which “makes meaning possible” – even implying that failing to engage the soul in this way is to live “in vain.” Moreover, Dogen frequently makes the same connection as Hillman in regard to communication or preaching for others (expression, transmission) in love (compassion); for example:

 

We should let the Buddha-Dharma play as our soul. This is called not passing any life in vain. Do not think, on the contrary, that because we are not yet clear we should not preach for other people.

Shobogenzo, Jishō-zanmai, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 

After re-stating his original views on the soul, Hillman goes on to say:

 

Now I am adding three necessary modifications. First, “soul” refers to the deepening of events into experiences; second, the significance of the soul makes possible, whether in love or religious concern, derives from its special relation with death. And third, by “soul” I mean the imaginative possibility in our natures, the experiencing through reflective speculation, dream, image, and fantasy—that mode which recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or metaphorical.

Re-visioning Psychology, James Hillman, p.xvi
 

As we see in Shobogenzo, Dogen also affirms the soul’s (true self’s) role in “deepening” events into experiences, and even regards the soul (as does Hillman) as the source of the “events” that can be deepened into experiences. Also, Dogen’s frequent allusions to the notion that insight into impermanence is the beginning of authentic religious aspiration testifies to his agreement with Hillman’s notion that the soul’s capacity to fuel love and the religious concern is directly linked to its “special relation with death.”

 

Zazen and the Imaginative Capacity of the Self

 

It is Hillman’s third “modification” though, that is particularly significant in throwing some light on Dogen’s vision of the self. For Dogen, it is the “imaginative possibility in our (true) natures,” which he most commonly calls “shikantaza” (zazen-only), that is the keystone of Zen, the “art” of Zen practice-enlightenment. It is this “imaginative possibility” that “recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or metaphorical” that facilitates (via authentic zazen) the human capacity to “fashion” a (ordinary) self and an other, that is, to actualize the universe (genjokoan).

 

In Shobogenzo, Udonge, Dogen describes (metaphorically of course) the “maintenance of ‘the right Dharma-eye treasury’” (Shobogenzo; authentic Buddhism) as changing “what I possess… into the transmission” (of the Buddha-Dharma from Buddha to Buddha). In the same passage Dogen metaphorically equates “The ancestral master’s coming from the west” (Bodhidharma’s coming to China) with “twirling flowers” (a triple metaphor; at once evoking and combining the “transmission” from Shakyamuni to Mahakasyapa, the story of Huineng and the “Lotus Sutra turning monk,” and the universe of the Lotus Sutra). Dogen then identifies “twirling flowers” as “playing with soul” which he further equates with “zazen-only” (sole sitting), “becoming a Buddha and becoming a Buddha ancestor,” “putting on clothes and eating meals,” and finally as “the matter which is the ultimate criteria of a Buddha ancestor.”

 

When we take what I possess and change it into the transmission, that is maintenance of “the right Dharma-eye treasury.” The ancestral master’s coming from the west was the coming of twirling flowers. Twirling flowers is called “playing with the soul.” “Playing with the soul” means just sitting and dropping off body and mind. Becoming a buddha and becoming a patriarch is called “playing with the soul.” Putting on clothes and eating meals is called “playing with the soul.” In sum, the matter which is the ultimate criteria of a Buddhist patriarch is, in every case, playing with the soul. While we are being met by the Buddha hall, or while we are meeting with the monks’ hall, variety in their flowers becomes more and more abundant, and light in their colors deepens layer upon layer.

Shobogenzo, Udonge, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 

Yes, yes…

Peace,

Ted