Emptiness & Form, Attributes and Essence

Buddhist literature frequently details and praises the innumerable, marvelous attributes of Buddha. The majority of these attributes are described as greater, more powerful, or otherwise superior to those usually ascribed to human beings (e.g. abilities to communicate telepathically, be in many places at once, enjoy perfect knowledge and bliss, etc.). Those with a superficial understanding of such descriptions are often known to display astonishment at “irreverent” expressions that identify Buddha nature as identical to the nature of mere humans. Such astonishment often increases to incredulity or even disgust when Buddha nature is equated with animals, vegetables, or minerals — not to mention puddles of piss, the smell of farts, or dry pieces of shit as the classic Zen masters sometimes do. The Zen masters are not being irreverent, however, nor iconoclastic; such shocking expressions are aimed directly at the very forces that evoke such astonishment, shallow understanding and dualistic views.

Hearing of the marvelous attributes of Buddha, uncritical or speculative thinkers show a certain tendency to confuse or infuse “attributes” with the meaning of “essence.” The attributes of Buddha are the characteristics that distinguish Buddha as Buddha; the essence of Buddha is Buddha itself (or him/herself). When attributes are equated with essence it becomes (conceptually) possible to abstract attributes from real, particular dharmas (actual existent things) and thus conceive Buddha as “pure” awareness, goodness, wisdom, tranquility, etc. To conceive of any such “pure” attributes apart from real things that posses them is to dualistically grant them independent selfhood. Such abstract dualism inevitably leads to the effective annihilation of Buddha so far as human beings are concerned; Buddha becomes indescribable, mysterious, ineffable, incommunicable, and indefinable. According to Dogen’s perspective such a Buddha, if it existed, would be just as meaningless to human life as if it did not exist.

Existence, according to Dogen, is dependent on sentient experience; a thing (dharma) exists insofar, and to the extent that it is experienced. If we do not experience it, it does not exist; at the same time, if it exists it can be experienced, for nothing in the universe is concealed. Thus, according to Dogen’s Zen, a Buddha that is indescribable, mysterious, ineffable, incommunicable, and indefinable is not a Buddha. As human beings our ability to know or experience Buddha (or anything else) is, of course, necessarily limited to the human capacity; we cannot know, conceive, or experience anything beyond our capacity as humans (if we could, it would immediately be within the human capacity). Anything that we try to imagine that is greater than ourselves must be small enough to fit inside our own imagination, thus it would inevitably have to be smaller than ourselves. Therefore, any Buddha we could imagine would have to be smaller than ourselves also. Therefore, in Dogen’s Zen, no dharma (thing, being, instance) can be essentially superior or inferior to any other. All dharmas can be distinguished by their own particular attributes, characteristics, or features, but none differ essentially or substantively from us.

Dogen’s writings are much more concerned with elucidating the nature and significance of “form” (unique, particular dharmas), than they are with “emptiness” (universal oneness). The usual reason given for this is that Dogen was countering his era’s excessive preoccupation with emptiness which had led to the widespread acceptance of extremely biased (one-sided) views. Another reason for Dogen’s emphasis on form, which I think may be more significant, is the fact that after the initial phases of Zen practice and enlightenment there is little value in discussing emptiness. The primary significance of the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness, which can only be truly grasped through experiential realization, is what it reveals about the true nature of the universe and our self. This truth is actualized (made actual) by journeying through emptiness, not by or as emptiness in itself; and definitely not by taking up a permanent abode in emptiness. To clarify, let’s consider the first three lines of Shobogenzo, Genjokoan:

When all things are seen as the buddha-dharma, then there is delusion and enlightenment, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings.

When all things are seen as empty of self, there is no delusion and no enlightenment, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.

Buddha’s truth includes and transcends the many and the one, and so there is life and death, delusion and enlightenment, ordinary beings and buddhas.
Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, (Ted Biringer)

A true appreciation of emptiness can only be achieved with the actual experience of “When all things are seen as empty of self.” When this is being actualized, as Dogen says, “there is no delusion and no enlightenment, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.” All those that have journeyed through this experience can testify to the fact that Dogen is making an understatement; not only are there none of the things (dharmas) he mentions – there are no things at all; no sounds, no tastes, no touches, no sights, no smells, and no cognitions of any kind whatsoever.

Those that can testify to this also share something else with Dogen; they, like he, have journeyed through emptiness. If they had continued to dwell in emptiness, rather than journeying through, they would not be doing anything, certainly not testifying to the emptiness of emptiness.

“Buddha’s truth includes and transcends the many and the one,” means that the Buddha Dharma is constitutive of, and goes beyond, both form and emptiness. It is through the process of transiting from only form (all things) to only emptiness (no things) to and beyond both form and emptiness (all things/no things) that a human being truly begins to actualize authentic practice-enlightenment. As we will take up later, even the realization “Buddha’s truth” alluded to in the third line is not a place to dwell but an experience to journey through; how much more so the one-sided experience of emptiness (no-self).

Peace,

Ted

Giving Rise to the Enlightened Mind

In an earlier post it was stated that "study with the mind" in Dogen's writings refers to the active, intentional aspect of practice-enlightenment that expressed by the body - study with the mind is an activity, while study with the body is an expression; the human body (its moment to moment physical activity) is an expression of the actual understanding of study with the mind. One thing this means, according to Dogen, is that enlightenment always begins with “study with mind.” It is important not to confuse “mind” with some abstract notion of Buddha mind, or universal mind, etc.; this mind is the thinking, discriminating mind of real, particular, individual human beings — your mind and mine. Thus Dogen writes:

"Chitta" is an Indian word which we call the discriminative mind. Without this discriminative mind we could not give rise to the enlightened Mind. I am not saying that this discriminative mind is the enlightened Mind; rather, we give rise to the enlightened Mind by means of the discriminative mind.
~Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin, Hubert Nearman

Study with the body is to study with the mind as smiling is to happiness; happiness does not cause smiling, happiness is expressed as smiling. In the same way, study with the mind is expressed as study with the body. Also, just as genuine smiling (a true physical expression of happiness) can increase or expand genuine happiness, so too genuinely enlightened physical activity increases the practitioners enlightened wisdom.

Peace,

Ted

Dogen: Qualifying Ancestors, Qualifying Enlightenment

As mentioned previously, Dogen qualifies "Buddha ancestors" on the sole basis of authentic enlightenment (never on the basis of sect, lineage, or even tradition). Now, how does Dogen qualify the "authenticity" of someones enlightenment?

.

He clarifies this in the opening sentences of Shobogenzo, Dotoku:
.
The buddhas and the patriarchs are the expression of the truth. Therefore, when Buddhist patriarchs are deciding who is a Buddhist patriarch, they always ask “Do you express the truth or not?” They ask this question with the mind, they ask with the body, they ask with a staff and a whisk, and they ask with outdoor pillars and stone lanterns. In others than Buddhist patriarchs the question is lacking and the expression of the truth is lacking—because the state is lacking.
Shobogenzo, Dotoku, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross
.

The explicitness of Dogen’s statement that “who is” qualified as a Buddhist ancestor is settled by asking if they “express the truth or not” is not unusual in Shobogenzo. Not only does Dogen qualify the enlightenment of many ancestors with explicit references to the “evidence” of their expressions, he also offers the evidence of expressions to deny the enlightenment of personages. In any case, the point is clear enough; if expressions of truth are requisites for verifying the authenticity of Buddha ancestors, then all Buddha ancestors must fashion such expressions. Moreover, as such expressions must be accessible to experience (e.g. hearable, readable, seeable, etc.) they must be particular artifacts, that is to say, real things (dharmas).

.

Peace,

Ted

Shobogenzo & the Tao of Mythical Expression

We have said that for Dogen all expressions are real expressions, but that it is only Buddha ancestors that fashion expressions of truth. Most Dogen students know that Shobogenzo is regarded by many as Japan’s greatest literary achievement and is widely acknowledged as a masterpiece of world literature. Few, if any, would deny its qualification as one of the world’s great works of art, or its status ranking it as one the most important works of sacred literature in world history. In light of this no one would deny that an evaluation of Shobogenzo deserves as much attention and concentration as has been given to other of the worlds sacred texts. This means, first and foremost, to acknowledge the fact that the language of Shobogenzo, like that of all sacred literature, is the language of mythology and must be treated accordingly.

While the work of Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Northrop Frye, Suzanne Langer, James Hillman, and others has gone a long way in restoring the true meaning of “mythology,” the terms associated with it are still popularly used and understood as meaning “not true,” “fanciful,” “fabricated,” etc. Whatever value the term may have in that regard, it is certainly not what is meant here. The meaning of mythology here is in accordance with Dogen’s view of language, specifically, expressions of truth. That is, by the “language of mythology” we mean Dogen’s view of language as integral to the universe, and entwined with the infinite variety of myriad things. As expressed in the words of Hee-Jin Kim:

“…the scope and depth of language are coextensive and coeternal with those of the whole universe. Dogen envisions the infinite varieties of linguistic modes according to different beings in the universe, in terms of “words and letters” (monji), “the sutras” (kyokan), and “expressions” (Dotoku).”
Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p. 60

The nature of mythological language is succinctly expressed in the title of a four volume collection of books by Joseph Campbell: The Masks of God. As “masks,” the expressions of mythology have the potential to reveal as well as conceal the face of God—or, in Zen terms, our own “original face.” While Dogen, like all Zen masters, was fully cognizant of the limitations of language and their capacity to “conceal” reality, he was also keenly aware that regardless of this, language was the greatest, and maybe the only, vehicle of true liberation.

“…for all its limitations, language can still function as the most powerful agent of salvific liberation.”
Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p. 62

Mythical language, like great art, requires us to go beyond literal interpretations and academic theories if we want to achieve genuine understanding. Also like art, the meaning, reason, or significance of mythical expression is inherent in its form—and nowhere else; thus to perceive its true form is to realize its true nature. The concerns of the great mythologies are the concerns of Dogen’s teachings: the universal truths of life and death. In this sense, “Buddhism” and “Zen” served Dogen as the masks of true nature, or Buddha nature, which he called the “Treasury of the True Dharma-Eye” (Shobogenzo).

While Dogen’s knowledge of Earth’s geography was limited to what was known in 13th century Japan, his teachings were obviously intended to be inclusive of the entire human realm (and beyond). The countries and peoples of his world were all familiar with Buddhism, thus for Dogen, the term “non-Buddhist” was never used in reference to people that had not heard of Buddhism. It is important to remember that for Dogen, Buddhism was not a religion in opposition to “other” religions; Buddhism was simply the Buddha Dharma, the universal truth of life and death. For Dogen, expressions of truth, that is, authentic practice-enlightenment (shusho) was Buddhism. There was no more need for Buddhism to compete with other religions than there was for rice to compete with not-rice—authentic practice-enlightenment is Buddhism, everything else is not-Buddhism, period.

Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto, for instance, were not repudiated by Dogen as such, but informed by and distinguished from Buddhism, as joinery, masonry, or landscaping might be informed by and distinguished from architecture. Dogen’s well known criticism of the (then popular) “tripod doctrine” which asserted that Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism were “three legs” of “one truth” was not an attack on Taoism and Confucianism, but on the failure to distinguish their differences. As a master of the Buddha Dharma, Dogen naturally regarded Taoism and Confucianism to be of minor significance in contrast to Buddhism. But so were rice-cultivation and sandal-making, for which he was no doubt grateful, even if they were less important to him than Buddhism. In order to clarify or illustrate points in his own teachings, Dogen freely quotes Taoist and Confucian classics throughout his writings, and openly acknowledges that “instruction and training” can be found in Taoist and Confucian texts. Moreover, Dogen describes the failure of distinguishing between them as slandering Taoism and Confucianism as much as slandering Buddhism.

Also, there are irresponsible people who say, “Although they are different to begin with, the teachings of Taoism, the teachings of Confucianism, and the Scriptures of Shakyamuni ultimately have the same goal. They are just different ways for entering the gate to Truth.” Or they may say, “They are like the three legs of a tripod.” This is at the heart of a hot debate among present-day monks in Great Sung China. When people speak like this, the Buddha Dharma has already been banished from the earth and perished for them...

To recklessly discuss them as all having one and the same principle is to slander the Buddha Dharma and to slander Confucianism and Taoism. Even though there are some accurate points in the teachings of those two, our present day veteran monks have not even clarified a fraction of those points, much less have they grabbed hold of the Great Handle even once in ten thousand tries! Although instruction and training can be found in the works of both of these, ordinary, run-of-the-mill scholars today cannot readily follow it. There is none in that bunch who could even try to do that training. They cannot even connect one bit of teaching with another. How much less could these present-day veteran monks possibly realize the profound subtleties of Buddhist Scriptures! Not having clarified what the other two are actually about, they just irresponsibly put forth their own questionable teachings.
Shobogenzo, Bukkyō, Hubert Nearman

The point here is that for Dogen, Buddhism is nothing more, or less, than authentic practice-enlightenment, the true nature of the universe and the self. The truth of life and death is what Dogen means by the Buddha Dharma; it has nothing to do with a particular text, canon, doctrine, lineage, creed, sect, tradition, or even religion—authenticity is all that counts for Dogen. On this, Dogen is unyielding in the extreme—not even the Buddhist sutras (much less the records of Zen) are exempted from Dogen’s demand for authenticity. This fact is undeniably demonstrated by numerous examples in Dogen’s writings. While Dogen is not averse to explicitly denouncing particular Zen masters or Buddhist scriptures, his more common approach is to “correct” the traditional texts via deliberate mistranslation.

(Note: examples of Dogen’s explicit denigration/denial of ancestors and sutras are found in Shobogenzo, Butsudō [criticizing Zen master Rinzai] Shobogenzo, fascicles Sesshin Sesshō & Jishō Zammai [criticizing Zen master Daie] Shobogenzo, Shizen Biku [refuting the Platform sutra] Shobogenzo, Tembōrin [refuting the Surangama sutra]. This list is far from exhaustive.)

The most popular example of Dogen’s affinity for “correcting” Buddhist sutras is found in the Shobogenzo, Bussho fascicle. Here Dogen (mis-)translates a saying of Shakyamuni Buddha from the Mahāparinirvāna-sūtra. Basically, Dogen’s “improved” translation has the effect of changing the Buddha’s assertion that, “All beings inherently have Buddha nature,” to “All beings are Buddha nature.” Regardless of how we frame it, such action amounts to a deliberate alteration of the Buddhist scriptures—it is hard to imagine how to defend him from charges of refuting the Buddha himself.

Another example, which may be even bolder than the one in the Bussho fascicle is Dogen’s alteration of a sutra that is accomplished by the addition of a word. In Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Dogen inserts the word “whole-body” (konshin) into the first line of the Heart-sutra (Mahāprajnāpāramitāhrdaya-sūtra) and thereby renders it as follows:

“When Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara practices the profound prajnā-pāramitā, the whole body reflects that the five aggregates are totally empty.”
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu , Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

The enormity of Dogen’s self-assurance is evidenced here, not only by his willingness to “correct” this popular sutra, but by the fact that this fascicle is one of the earliest writings of his teaching career (perhaps the first, probably no later than the third). This would be gutsy move for a veteran teacher—for a 27 (or 28) year-old upstart, still years away from leading his first temple, such a move testifies to a rare, and unwavering commitment to ones values—or a gargantuan set of balls (or both, which seems likely).

To sum up the points here, acknowledging the status of Shobogenzo as one of the great works of world literature, we asserted it merited the attention granted to works of similar rank. Also, we noted that the language of Shobogenzo is (like that of all sacred literature) mythological; and followed this with a brief discussion of some of the obvious implications. The need to distinguish contemporary notions of Buddhism and religion from the worldview of Shobogenzo was emphasized with a reminder of Dogen’s historical context (13th century Japan). Finally, the primacy of truth, that is, the authenticity of practice-enlightenment in Dogen was shown to be over and above all else (including the Zen records and Buddhist sutras).

.

Peace,

Ted

Dogen: Wisdom of a Three-Year-Old Child

Dogen: Wisdom of a Three-Year-Old Child

Excerpted from Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Rev. Hubert Nearman

The poet Haku Rakuten of the T’ang dynasty was a lay disciple of Meditation Master Bukko Nyoman, who was a Dharma heir of Baso. When Rakuten was governor of Hangchow, he trained under Meditation Master Dorin of Choka.

Rakuten once asked Dorin, “Just what is the major intention of the Buddha Dharma?”

Dorin replied, “Refrain from all evil whatsoever; uphold and practice all that is good.”

Rakuten remarked, “If that’s all there is to it, even a child of three knows how to say that!”

Dorin replied, “Though a three-year-old child can say it, there are old men in their eighties who still cannot put it into practice.”

Upon hearing the matter put this way, Rakuten then bowed in gratitude.

Rakuten was actually a descendant of General Haku. Even so, he was a wizard of a poet, the likes of which is rare in any generation. People refer to him as ‘the literary genius of twenty-four generations’. Some have called him a veritable Manjushri; others, a Maitreya, the Buddha-next-to-come. There is no one who has not heard of his personality; everyone in the world of letters pays court to him. Even so, when it comes to the Buddha’s Way, he was a beginner, a youngster. Furthermore, it was as if he had never even dreamt of the meaning of “Refrain from all evil whatsoever; uphold and practice all that is good.” Rakuten thought that in saying to refrain from all evil and practice all good, Dorin was looking at the matter from the perspective of an ordinary, everyday person’s way of thinking. Rakuten had failed to grasp the principle of refraining from evil and practicing good—a principle which has existed in Buddhism from ancient-most times and has extended even to the present—nor had he ever even heard of it; consequently he did not tread where the Buddha Dharma is. Lacking the strength of the Buddha Dharma, he said what he did. Even so, when we refrain from evil or practice good as understood by ordinary, everyday people, it will still be our actualizing of ‘refraining’.

For the most part, what we first learn about Buddhism from a good spiritual friend and what we bring to fruition through our diligent practice are both one and the same. We describe this as ‘learning, from start to finish’. It is also called ‘the wondrous cause and the wondrous effect’, as well as ‘the cause of seeking Buddhahood and the effect of seeking Buddhahood’. Cause and effect in Buddhism should not be confused with such notions as ‘effects are totally unrelated to their cause’ and ‘cause and effect are exactly the same thing’, because these notions are not what is meant by ‘seeking Buddhahood’, and they will not achieve the effect of seeking Buddhahood. Because Dorin enunciated this principle, he ‘possessed’ the Buddha Dharma.

Were evil to pile upon evil and spread throughout the whole world, absorbing everything into its mass, ‘emancipation through refraining’ would still hold true. Since all that is good is already good—beginning, middle, and end—the nature, characteristics, form, and strength of upholding and practicing it will likewise be good. Rakuten had never walked in such footsteps, which is why he said, “Even a child of three knows how to say that!” He said this because he was lacking in the strength to realize the Way. Poor, pitiful Rakuten, why did you say such a thing?

.

Since Rakuten had not yet got wind of what Buddhism is really about, it is unlikely that he was truly acquainted with any three-year-olds or with what such a child is naturally capable of. If someone can truly understand a three-year-old, he will surely know all the Buddhas of the three temporal worlds. If someone does not yet know all the Buddhas of the three temporal worlds, how will he be able to understand a three-year-old? Do not imagine that you understand such a child just because you have met one face-to-face. Do not think that you do not know such a child just because you have not met one face-to-face. He who knows but a single mote of dust knows the whole world: he who fully comprehends one thing comprehends all the myriad things that comprise the universe. He who fails to comprehend all the myriad things will not comprehend even one of them. When someone has fully trained himself in this principle of comprehending and has reached full comprehension, he will not only see the myriad things that comprise the universe but will also see each one of them. This is why the person who studies one mote of dust will undoubtedly be studying the whole universe. To think that a three-year-old child cannot give voice to the Buddha Dharma or to think that a three-year-old is ‘cute’ is the height of foolishness. This is because clarifying what birth is and clarifying what death is constitutes the most important matter for a Buddhist monk.

A virtuous elder once said, “When you were born, you were provided with the lion’s roar.” Being provided with the lion’s roar is the meritorious fruit of a Tathagata’s turning of the Wheel of the Dharma: it is the turning of the Wheel of the Dharma. And another virtuous elder said, “The coming and going of birth and death is the Real Body of man.” Thus it is that clarifying what one’s True Body is and possessing the merit from the lion’s roar will indeed be the One Great Matter, and I do not mean that the task is easy or simple. Hence, attempting to clarify what prompts the words and actions of a three-year-old is also the Great Cause for which we train, since it is the same—and yet not the same—as what prompts the words and actions of all the Buddhas in the three temporal worlds.

Befuddled Rakuten had never heard what a three-year-old child had to say, and so he had never questioned himself as to what the Great Matter was. Instead, he made the kind of remark that he did. He did not hear what Dorin was voicing, though It resounded louder than thunder. In speaking of That which cannot be put into words, Rakuten said, “Even a child of three knows how to say that!” Not only did he not hear the child’s lion roar, he also stumbled over the Master’s turning of the Wheel of the Dharma.

The Master, out of pity, could not give up on Rakuten and went on to say, “Though a three-year-old child can say it, there are old men in their eighties who still cannot put it into practice.” The heart of what he said exists in what a child of three can say, and this we must thoroughly investigate. Also, there is the practice which eighty-year-olds may not be doing, but which we must diligently engage in. What Dorin has told us is that what the child is capable of saying has been entrusted to us, though it is not a task for a child, and what the old men were notable to practice has been entrusted to us, though it was not the task for old men such as these. In a similar way do we keep the Buddha’s Dharma in mind and take It as our foundation, so that we may make It our reason for training.
Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Rev. Hubert Nearman

.

Peace,

Ted

Self, True Self, Thinking, and the Senses

Self, True Self, Thinking, and the Senses

(A brief reminder--excerpted and slightly revised from a previous post)

Shobogenzo presents 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 presented as the sole agent of and individual’s experience; the master, so to speak, of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking (the traditional “five senses” of western thought plus the cognitive faculties).

Identifying thinking as one of the senses decreases the propensity to identify the “self” (mind) with the “brain.” As a sense, thinking is only one of six faculties of a single human being (our true self). Therefore, beings with more or fewer senses than humans are equal in regard to the true self. This is seen in Buddhist teachings that ascribe additional senses to advanced beings of (e.g. to see past lives, others’ minds, remote events, etc.) and affirms the Buddha nature of beings with fewer senses like earthworms, and even beings without senses (i.e. the non-sentient).

Peace,

Ted

Karma, Causality, Two Truths, and Misconception

Karma, Causality, Two Truths, and Misconception
.
If all experiential factors are real things (dharmas), as Dogen contends, then misconceptions are real things. Therefore, Dogen’s view on the unity of the form and nature of things apply. As a real thing (dharma) the form of a misconception and its nature are nondual which means that a misconception is truly a misconception. For the same reason an accurate conception is a truly an accurate conception (e.g. understandable explanations really are understandable explanations.).
.
To clarify this, let’s look at a misconception that Dogen (and many other Zen masters) dedicated much attention and energy to correcting; this is the misconception that commonly arises in association with the Buddhist doctrine of “two truths.”
.
[Note: This teaching usually discussed in relation to the Madhyamika school (which developed it and dealt with it most extensively). This doctrine was a major influence to all Mahayana schools, each interpreting it in their own way. The basic idea of this doctrine (that all schools generally agree on) will suit our purpose here so we will skip the details for now.]
.
Basically, the “two truths” doctrine asserts that there is a “provisional truth” and an “absolute truth.” The provisional truth is usually described in terms of “expedient means,” “temporary devices,” or as “appearance” (apparent truth). The absolute truth is usually discussed in terms of the “true,” “real,” or “ultimate” to which expedients direct us, or as the “true nature” behind or underlying appearances.
.
Now, there may be some question about whether all the classic Zen masters agree with Dogen’s view of these truths. Some definitely seem to diverge from Dogen, but most appear to be in harmony with him; though this is often more implicit than explicit. Fortunately, it is Dogen’s view we are interested in here, and he makes his views extremely and explicitly clear.
.
For Dogen, the two truths doctrine is definitely valid—but only if its interpretation maintains strict (or, perhaps, radical) adherence to the doctrine of nonduality. That is to say, for Dogen, provisional truth and absolute truth are valid insofar as they are understood as coessential and coextensive. In accord with nonduality then, provisional and absolute truths are ultimately seen to be equally significant (e.g. “expedient means” and the “reality” to which they point are not-two; “appearance” and “true nature” are an interdependent unity, etc.) In practice, Mahayana Buddhists (including Zen Buddhists) have shown a definite tendency to stray from the tenets of nonduality when it comes to the two truths doctrine; here is where we come to the common misconception.
.
Uncritical Buddhists, or those with a shallow understanding of nonduality can easily buy into views which may not claim to be—but actually are grounded on—dualistic presuppositions. Often such views appear in terms of a kind of pseudo-nonduality (as discussed in a previous post). The end result usually amounts (more or less) to notions that all conceptions, accurate or distorted, are provisional, unreal, finite, or mere appearance, while absolute truth is regarded as transcendent, ineffable, inexpressible, and incommunicable.
.
As discussed previously, such views are not only dualistic (hence, non-Buddhist), they are very difficult to root out once they take hold. Their direct attack on the intellect often affects a deep distrust of reason, and even common sense. This make such views particularly resistant to corrective guidance. The frequency with which this occurs in association with the two truths doctrine is probably the main reason for Dogen’s overall disfavor of it.
.
[Note: for more on Dogen’s disfavor of the doctrine see all of Hee-Jin Kim books (for a short, succinct example see, Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen On Meditation and Thinking, pp. 25-26).
.
To harbor dualistic views is to harbor non-Buddhist views. For advocates of these views, right and wrong, good and bad, practice and enlightenment, etc. are all “provisional;” and reality is beyond words, actions, and even thought. Thomas Cleary eloquently and convincingly argues (in the introduction to his translation, Transmission of Light) that due to the social reverence for authentic Zen (earned by dramatic success), the name of “Zen” is often appropriated by dualistic cults seeking an appearance of authority. His descriptions of such cults sound very familiar to contemporary “everything is it,” “nothing special,” “no goal,” and “no wisdom to attain” teachers and teachings. In this regard, consider Dogen’s words here:
.
Clearly, ‘not being blind to cause and effect’ is what ‘being profoundly convinced of cause and effect’ means, and accordingly, those who hear this rid themselves of evil conditions. Do not doubt this: do not mistrust it. Among those of our recent generations who call themselves students of Zen practice, there are many who have denied causality. And how do we know that they have denied causality? Because they are of the opinion that there is no difference between ‘not being subject to’ and ‘not being blind to’. Accordingly, we know that they have denied causality.
Shobogenzo, Jinshin Inga, Hubert Nearman
.
Here we see that modern slogans about “nothing to attain” and “all is Zen” sound suspiciously similar to what Dogen refers to as those that “call themselves students of Zen.” Fortunately, we have Dogen’s guidance on how we can tell if a group’s or individual’s proclamations are divergent from the authentic Buddha Dharma: “…they are of the opinion that there is no difference between ‘not being subject to’ and ‘not being blind to’.” Wherever assertions of “no difference” usurp assertions of “nondual” we can be pretty damn sure that dualism (or pseudo-nonduality) is lurking nearby—and whenever “no difference” begins to surface in association with “causality” (or karma) we are bound to discover some strain of antinomianism or quietism.
.
The “uniqueness” of each universe and self fashioned by each individual (discussed in recent posts) is not due only to the unique time and place of each physical presence. While conditions are a factor, it is causes that are the primary influence. According to Buddhist causality, each individual manifests as an undeniably unique unity with certain innate tendencies and characteristic traits (due to karma). Each individual’s experience of the world unfolds in a consistently natural (to them) manner, from the moment of their first appearance onward. Dogen often points to this by reminding us that chrysanthemums come from chrysanthemums, willows from willows. In Dogen’s in depth treatments of this he takes it even further; this particular chrysanthemum comes only from that particular chrysanthemum, only this particular willow from that particular willow.
.
Herein is why Dogen is so offended by the “denial of causality.” It is founded on the same thing as his scorn of “naturalism;” the implication that sentient beings are formed by the universe (or some other external force) rather than the formers of the universe.
.
Mahayana Buddhist doctrines are firmly informed by the principles of causation and karma. To state or imagine there is no difference between “not falling into causation” (not being subject to karmic conditions) and “not being unclear about causation” (being clearly aware of existence and dynamics of causation) is tantamount to saying the Buddha Dharma is superfluous. What point would there be in hearing the teaching of causation (or any Buddhist teaching), studying it, putting it into practice, and verifying it in experience, if a “clear understanding” of causation revealed that causation has no influence on us in the first place (that we are “not subject to causation)? It seems almost too obvious to mention, yet such distorted notions were as widespread in Dogen’s day as they are in our own. Thus, in the passage above Dogen defines what “not being unclear about causation” means by spelling it out in unmistakable terms, it means “…‘being profoundly convinced of cause and effect’…” for emphasis he adds, “Do not doubt this: do not mistrust it.”
.
We can only be “profoundly convinced of cause and effect” if we profoundly study it, learn it, practice it, and verify it in experiential realization. One of the things causality asserts is that we ourselves are the motivating influence of the course and direction of our life experience. We are neither passive marionettes whose strings are pulled by unknown forces, nor are we the hapless victims of chance and circumstance; we are the authors of our life experience.
.
If we “doubt this” or “mistrust it” how can we seriously put it into practice? If we do not put it into practice we cannot verify it, if we do not verify it we will not assimilate it or be able to access and utilize the enlightened wisdom (bodhi prajna) inherent in it.
.
“Knowledge” about causation is familiarity with the teaching of causation, being “profoundly convinced” of causation is verifying it experientially; the former is the knowledge of “ordinary” (unawakened) human beings, the latter is the wisdom of enlightened (awakened) human beings (Buddhas). Knowledge is acquired, wisdom is evoked. Our total knowledge is the sum of facts we have assimilated through our interactive experience of world and self. Our enlightened wisdom is the totality of the lucidity of comprehension and efficacious competence with which we manage our experience and navigate life, which for Buddhists means the Way of the Buddha Dharma.
.
Existence being dependant on it, experience itself is a given for all sentient beings. The only question is, in Dogen’s terms, whether we “turn the Dharma” or “are turned by the Dharma.” To be turned by the Dharma is to live the whimsical, wooden life of a puppet, to accept the mandates of whatever is most influential at the moment, to conform to the expectations, views, and conventions of the “ordinary” mind of mediocrity. Choosing instead to turn the Dharma is to choose liberation; to choose the “ordinary” mind of enlightenment. True liberation comes with the verification that we alone are the masters of our lives, and that our ability to manage the material of our lives (arrange the instances of our experience) is the measure of our ability to fashion a world and fashion a self—our ability to respond (responsibility) harmoniously to the unceasing flow of experience, illumining and enlivening the Buddha nature of the myriad dharmas of momentary existence.
.
Peace,
Ted Biringer

In Loving Memory of Jade Alexandria Biringer - April 27, 1993 - July 13, 1993

In Grateful Thanks to Bodhisattva Mahasattva
Jade Alexandria Biringer
April 27, 1993 – July 13, 1993

On Another's Sorrow
Can I see another's woe, And not be in sorrow too? Can I see another's grief, And not seek for kind relief?
Can I see a falling tear, And not feel my sorrow's share? Can a father see his child Weep, nor be with sorrow fill'd?
Can a mother sit and hear An infant groan an infant fear? No, no! never can it be! Never, never can it be!
And can he who smiles on all Hear the wren with sorrows small, Hear the small bird's grief & care, Hear the woes that infants bear,
And not sit beside the nest, Pouring pity in their breast; And not sit the cradle near, Weeping tear on infant's tear;
And not sit both night & day, Wiping all our tears away? O, no! never can it be! Never, never can it be!
He doth give his joy to all; He becomes an infant small; He becomes a man of woe; He doth feel the sorrow too.
Think not thou canst sigh a sigh And thy maker is not by; Think not thou canst weep a tear And thy maker is not near.
O! he gives to us his joy That our grief he may destroy; Till our grief is fled & gone He doth sit by us and moan.

~William Blake

Enlightenment Based On Enlightenment

Enlightenment Based On Enlightenment...

Continued from the post: Buddha Mind - Fences, Walls, Tiles, and Pebbles

Now then, if our existence is fashioned by “bits and pieces” of unceasing experience that “cannot be held onto,” it would obviously be a total waste of time and energy to endeavor to diminish or eradicate anything. The more effective approach is simply to learn, activate, and apply ourselves to the essential art of Zen practice-enlightenment that Dogen calls “nonthinking.” The authentic practice of Zen, according to Dogen, is the actualization of the universe (genjokoan), it is the intentional activity of “fashioning” a universe (and a self) that is lucid, harmonious, and free.
.
The “non” of nonthinking should not be confused with the “not” of not-thinking; nonthinking is inclusive of and transcendent to both thinking and not-thinking. For now the gist of the matter is this: “thinking” is the deliberate utilization of cognitive faculties, “not-thinking” is the ceaseless stream of (random, or chaotic) experience, and “nonthinking” then, is to think not-thinking, that is, to express the ultimate truth of all particular things (dharmas) through the practice of thinking (managing, utilizing) not-thinking (ceaseless experience).
.
To experience without the deliberate utilization of thinking is to be (exist as) an animal (an ox, or a cat), to experience deliberate not-thinking is to be a non-sentient thing (a rock, or a dead tree). At the same time, to experience nonthinking passively (as in cultic practices to “seek no goal” or “let things be as they are”) is to exist as a puppet; in Dogen’s terms, to be used by time rather than to use time, or to be turned by the Dharma rather than to turn the Dharma.
.
According to Dogen, no one can even begin to experience Zen without an intense aspiration to experience truth and an unqualified willingness to experience reality—all of reality as it truly is. To imagine one could achieve truth by denying or avoiding any aspect of reality, intellectual, emotional, instinctual, or otherwise is, in Dogen’s terms, to “be in delusion adding to delusion.” Dogen lauded the Sixth Zen Ancestor’s decision to leave his mother in order to meet the Fifth Ancestor, acknowledging the courage it must have taken for one with such a powerful emotional attachment. Ridiculing traditions that restricted females from participation or attendance because they might cause practitioners to “stray from the path,” Dogen quipped that perhaps males should also be restricted since they too could be “objects of sexual attraction.” The ceaseless stream of experience is the only material beings have for fashioning a universe and fashioning a self; the greater and fuller our experience the greater and fuller our existence. Therefore, not only is the universe fashioned uniquely according to the perspectives of individuals, but also according to the skills and depth of wisdom of individuals. Each being experiences the one mind uniquely, and the awakened being experiences it more accurately and deeply than the unawakened.
.
Now, let us give ear to the verse that the Venerable One spoke, specifically his lines, “Through my body, I have manifested the look of the Full Moon, thereby displaying the physical presence of all Buddhas.” Because the display of the physical presence of all Buddhas is a manifestation of one’s Spiritual Body, it has the look of the Full Moon. Accordingly, you need to grasp that all manner of tallness and shortness, as well as of squareness and roundness, are manifestations of your Spiritual Body. Those who are ever so ignorant of what this Spiritual Body is and of what manifesting It means are not only in the dark about the look of the Full Moon, they are not displaying the physical presence of all Buddhas. Foolish people fancy that the Venerable One provisionally displayed his body in some altered form, which is described as ‘the look of a full moon’, but this is an arbitrary and false notion of those who have not had the Buddha’s Way Transmitted to them from Master to disciple, for where or when would It possibly manifest as something separate from and independent of one’s body? What is important for you to recognize is simply that, at the time, the Venerable One was seated on the raised platform of a Dharma teacher. His body showed itself in the same manner as the body of anyone sitting here now, for this body of ours is, in fact, a manifestation of the Moon at Its full. His manifestation of the Spiritual Body is beyond being something square or round, beyond something existing or not existing, beyond something hidden or revealed, beyond something consisting of eighty-four thousand components: it is simply the manifestation of his Spiritual Body. ‘The look of the Full Moon’ describes the Moon implied in Fuke’s remark, “Right here is where the What is, whether the matter is put clumsily or delicately.” Because this manifestation of his Spiritual Body is rid of any arrogant pride, It goes beyond his being Nāgārjuna; It is the physical presence of all Buddhas. Because he displayed It, his Spiritual Body passes through and beyond the physical presence of all Buddhas. Hence, It has no connection with whatever may be on the periphery of the Buddha’s Way.
.
Although there is the Unbounded Radiance which takes some form like ‘the Moon of Buddha Nature at Its Full’, It is beyond what is commonly construed as ‘the look of a full moon’. And what is more, Its real functioning is beyond what is said or how it is put, and the manifestation of this Spiritual Body is beyond the physical and the mental, beyond the realm of the skandhas. Although It completely resembles the realm of the skandhas, It displays Itself by means of them, for this realm is the physical presence of all Buddhas. The Buddhas are the skandhas which give expression to the Dharma; the Unbounded Radiance has no set form. Further, when Its not having any set form is evinced by the meditative state that has no attachments, this is a manifestation of one’s Spiritual Body. Even though our whole assembly may desire to see ‘the look of the Moon at Its full’, this is something one’s eyes have never seen before. It is the turning point for the skandhas, which will give voice to the Dharma, and it is the absence of any fixed way in how the Dharma is stated or what form It may take, while the Spiritual Body manifests freely as It will. Its very ‘being hidden from sight’ and Its very ‘being openly displayed’ is Its stepping forward and stepping back in a cyclic manner. At the very time when Nāgārjuna’s Spiritual Body was manifesting Itself freely as he sat upon his platform, the whole assembly merely heard the words of the Dharma and did not perceive the ‘look’ of their teacher.
.
The Venerable Kānadaiba, who was Nāgārjuna’s Dharma heir, clearly recognized the Full Moon, the perfection of that Full Moon, the manifestation of Nāgārjuna’s Spiritual Body, the look of all Buddhas, and the physical presence of all Buddhas. Although there were many within the assembly who had entered the Master’s private quarters and had had the Buddhist Teachings poured into them, none could stand head-and-shoulders with Kānadaiba. Kānadaiba was respected for his Master’s sharing the Dharma seat with him, and he functioned as a teacher and guide for the whole assembly, since his partial seat was the whole of the Dharma seat. In that he had had the great, unsurpassed Dharma of the Treasure House of the Eye of the True Teaching authentically Transmitted to him, it was just like the Venerable Makakashō occupying the chief Dharma seat on Vulture Peak.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman
.
For Dogen, seeing the full moon, like seeing a dust mote, is seeing the whole universe. To experience the “full moon” as “all manner of tallness and shortness, as well as of squareness and roundness” is to experience a realer, grander, and more accurate full moon than that of a round white disk in the sky. Its existence is realer and more accurate because the experience that goes into fashioning it is clearer and more abundant. The reason the assembly does “not perceive the ‘look’ of their teacher” is because the masses prefer to think the moon exists independently of their experience of it, and thus independent of their responsibility. The flat white disk in the sky is an isolated, abstract, impersonal thing. Zen masters, including Dogen, also see the disk, just as they see the mote of dust, but they see it completely. This kind of seeing requires us to see with all our capacities of experience. This kind of seeing is not done by thinking or by not-thinking, but by nonthinking which includes and transcends both. The masses see the full moon as an abstraction (which is always a subtraction) of reality, the Zen master sees the full moon as a demonstration of the infinite tangible aspects of reality.
.
For Dogen, and all the classic Zen masters, enlightened vision or wisdom (bodhi prajna) is the criterion of “normality” (the “ordinary mind). “Foolish people” are “in the dark about the moon” insofar as mediocrity, ambiguity, or generalization is seen as the standards of “normality.” The bonds of self-centeredness, sloth, and fear lead many, who are otherwise astute, reasonable, and intelligent, to accept simplistic “interpretations” that subvert the intention of Dogen’s (and Zen’s) teachings on the “normal mind” (ordinary mind, everyday mind). Rather than seeing that the “ordinary” is Buddha, they opt to see the “Buddha” as ordinary.
.
Why? If the ego-centric, indolent, and timid can subtract enough precision and definition from the real forms of the myriad dharmas they can reassure each other of the validity of their (common) views—and comfortably dismiss the assertions of the visionary (and the responsibilities such assertions imply).
.
Attempting to prune away all the aspects of the full moon so one’s views harmonize with the majority that sees only a “round disk” is only accomplished by blinding oneself. Once, when Dogen was in China, he saw a depiction of the Zen ancestors painted on the wall inside a temple. The panel that was supposed to represent Nagarjuna simply showed a circle. Dogen asked:
.
“Just what kind of transformation is this?” The guest supervisor says, “It is Nāgārjuna’s body manifesting the form of the round moon.” In saying this he has no nostrils in his complexion and no words in his voice. I say, “This really seems to be a picture of a rice cake!” At this the guest supervisor laughs loudly, but there is no sword in his laughter to break the painted cake.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross
.
The guest supervisor’s laugh reveals that he sensed Dogen saw the truth—but there was no sword in his laughter. In other words, the laugh attempted to hide his ignorance—and imply that his view agreed with Dogen’s (whatever it might be). Thus, even when faced with the possibility to discover truth, some would rather be “mistaken as wise” than actually get at truth—at the risk of revealing their “ignorance.” As observed earlier, Dogen lamented that “Zen” was often misconstrued as being anti-intellectual. According to Dogen, this misled some to believe that study and clear understanding was not a requirement for authentic Buddhist practice. Dogen’s refutation of such notions is presented with no uncertain terms in his discussion on Nagarjuna manifesting the form of the moon.
.
Other skinbags who hear our talk also have nothing to say. Former and recent heads of the dining table are not perplexed to see [the picture] and they do not correct it. They probably could not even paint it themselves… because [people] do not wake up from views and opinions that the buddha-nature is related with the thinking, sensing, mindfulness, and realization [described] now, they seem… to have lost the boundary of clear understanding. Few even learn that they should speak the words. Remember, this state of neglect comes from their having stopped making effort. Among heads of the table in many districts there are some who die without once in their life voicing the expression of the truth “the buddha-nature.” Some say that those who listen to teachings discuss the buddha-nature, but patch-robed monks who practice Zen should not speak of it. People like this really are animals. Who are the band of demons that seeks to infiltrate and to defile the truth of our buddha-tathāgata?
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross
.
As we saw in our examination of the interaction between the experienced and the experiencer, in Dogen’s cosmology there can be no real distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions; our true self is as responsible for beating the heart as for smiling or going to the mailbox. However, in the worldview of cults that minimize or dismiss the role of intellectual effort in Zen, “experience” is regarded as something that “happens to us,” rather than something “we participate in.” To the “no goal” cults, seeing and hearing are not the activity of a true self transiting inward and outward, forward and backward fashioning a universe and a self. For them, seeing and hearing are simply inflicted on beings from somewhere “external” to or “other than” the being’s “self.” In such a view, “we” are nothing more than the hapless victim of our experience which is haphazardly thrust upon us by whatever environment we happen to be in. From such a worldview it is “normal” to see the “look of the full moon” as a white disk in the sky somewhat like a “rice-cake;” for such is the “normality” of general mediocrity.
.
To see the precise details and various characteristics of the full moon as Dogen, Kanadaiba, and all genuine Zen Buddhists do, demands focused, deliberate, enlightened effort—this is the normality of the Zen master (the ordinary mind of Zen). Such is not the focused, deliberate activity of the bean counter or the sniper, but the wholehearted attentive absorption of the child with a bin full of Lego’s, or the fly-fisherman at the mountain stream. The Zen practitioner that has genuinely cast off the body-mind (of self and other), that has genuinely glimpsed true nature (kensho), will not be satisfied to sit passively by allowing experience to simply “happen” as it will. The genuine practitioner has verified the truth expressed by Buddhas and ancestors—has awakened to the true nature of the universe and the self and personally experienced the true nature of freedom.
.
I am frequently questioned about the frequency with which my posts are involved with the consideration of "words." Here, in passing, let me be clear: the Buddha Dharma is words--and words are Buddha Dharma. The liberation of all beings always begins with words, moves on to meaning, then to experiential realization, which in turn is expressed as words. Thus, enlightenment is cast off, exerted, cast off, exerted as the continuous actualization of enlightenment based on enlightenment advances and actualizes the universe. With the certainty that experience is existence—is self creation—Zen practitioners can begin to develop the skillful means of experience, existence, creation—that is, the essential art of Zen.

-

Peace,

Ted Biringer

Dogen - Not Dogen - Once again Dogen

I hope to get a new post up soon. In the meantime, I have posted something on Dogen over at the sister blog: The Flatbed Sutra Zen Blog:
What is Wrong with Duality?
Come check it out, maybe even leave a comment...

Peace,
Ted

Buddha Mind - Fences, Walls, Tiles, and Pebbles

The last post on this discussion ( Your Mountain and My Mountain – The Same Mountain? ) left off after discussing the tendency of certain schools of thought to divide up the various aspects of our experience, and then to classify these aspects into various schemes (usually indicative of what is “desirable” and “undesirable” for achieving whatever “goal” the particular school advocates). Now, proceeding with this discussion…
.
From Dogen’s perspective all of this classification and categorization is not only futile, it is ludicrous. If we simply recognize that experience and existence is indivisible in the first place we will realize that it is impossible to eliminate anything—and even if it was possible, it would accomplish nothing but a diminution of life. Thinking they are eliminating the influence of emotion and instinct, in reality the abstract philosopher only manages to deform her own experiential capacity. Likewise, the Shrenikan and the natural man do not eliminate the “entanglements” of the intellect, but only lobotomize themselves and diminish their capacity for experience. Intellect, emotion, and instinct are not independent entities; they are three of the myriad dharmas that constitute the one universe, the true self.
.
Dogen’s assertion that, “to study a single mote of dust is to study the whole universe,” is not limited to dust motes. The reason we can study the universe by studying a single mote of dust is that when we truly experience a mote of dust the whole universe is that mote of dust. In the same way, the whole universe is that emotion, that instinct, that thought.
.
As should be evident by now; the views Dogen refutes as non-Buddhist are all grounded on conceptual notions of independent entities (i.e. dualism). It is one thing to discern, distinguish, and discriminate among the myriad, variable, unique dharmas that constitute the one universe (the true self, or one Buddha mind), and quite another to misconstrue these dharmas as separate entities, universes unto themselves. To Dogen, who asserts that existence is experience, such views are outrageous. The whole range of experiences possible to the human condition is nothing more or less than the life of the Buddha, the actualization of the universe itself.
.
From the perspective of Dogen’s cosmology regarding the various aspects of our existence as truly separable is delusional, to further classify, and qualify some as good or desirable, and others as bad or undesirable is adding delusion to delusion, to then attempt to eradicate the bad, undesirable “entities” is sheer lunacy. Experience is existence. To exist is to be experienced; to be experienced is to be experienced by a “self” (our self, or another’s self). Experience is unceasing, existence is momentary. That experience is unceasing means that experience is continuous, which means it is an activity, not a fixed thing or condition. That existence is momentary means that existence is discontinuous, which means it is always our experience here and now (never there or then).
.
In sum, there is Buddha Mind, which is the fences and walls, tiles and stones, and all the Buddhas in the three temporal worlds directly experience It as something that cannot be held onto. There are only the fences and walls, tiles and stones, which are Buddha Mind, and all Buddhas directly experience It in the three temporal worlds as ungraspable. What is more, That which is ungraspable within the great earth with its mountains and rivers exists there by Its very nature. That which is ungraspable in grasses and trees, wind and water, accordingly, is Mind. Also, It is what is ungraspable in “Letting our mind abide nowhere and giving rise to the Mind.” And also, the Mind Beyond Grasping, which gives voice to the eighty thousand Gates by means of all the Buddhas throughout all generations everywhere, is the same as this.
Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku (Written Version), Hubert Nearman
.
Our “self” (and the “self” of others) then, exists as the unceasing activity of novel experience. From this it is clear that uncontrolled and unfocused experience amounts to chaotic and obscure existence; skillful management and clear understanding of experience amounts to harmonious, competent existence. In Buddhism, these are the two aspects of the one mind that are delusion and enlightenment. It is no accident that confusion, obscurity, and alienation are the universal symbols of evil. The devil’s skill in the art of trickery, the horror of the dark pit or the labyrinth, the dread of alienation and the prospect of insanity all testify to our innate aversion to chaos and obscurity. For the same reason, the universal symbols of good are enlightenment, lucidity, and intimacy. This is evinced by our innate desire to see and to know, to understand and to be understood. In short, it is how we “arrange” the “bits and pieces” of the ceaseless activity of experience that “fashions” our universe (here and now) as hell or heaven (samsara or nirvana).
.
To be continued…
.
Peace,
Ted

Your Mountain and My Mountain - The Same Mountain?

Is Your Mountain My Mountain?

.

In recent posts:

The Self - As Experienced, and As Experiencer

True Nature - The Reality of the Self and the World

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.
.

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

Creating Circumstance-- and Not creating circumstances

Investigating the circumstances you create- and the circumstances you don't

.

By relying on the principle of ‘turning to the next’, you should, by all means, thoroughly investigate both your creating circumstances and your not creating circumstances. And by relying on the principle of ‘turning to the next’, you should thoroughly investigate both what you are concocting and what you are not concocting.
Shobogenzo, Juki, Hubert Nearman

.

Peace,

Ted

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

The Self - As Experienced, and As Experiencer

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.

.

To be continued...

.

Peace,

Ted

Dogen's Cosmology - Dogen's Perspective

Dogen's Cosmology - The Gateway to Dogen's Perspective
.

He who knows but a single mote of dust knows the whole world: he who fully comprehends one thing comprehends all the myriad things that comprise the universe. He who fails to comprehend all the myriad things will not comprehend even one of them. When someone has fully trained himself in this principle of comprehending and has reached full comprehension, he will not only see the myriad things that comprise the universe but will also see each one of them. This is why the person who studies one mote of dust will undoubtedly be studying the whole universe.
Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman
.
Dogen’s cosmology (as well as all the Zen masters) is one of unceasing creation in which nothing remains fixed. It is one in which the self, the world, and all the myriad things and beings participate in mutual interdependent actualization. In Dogen’s universe, the one is the one and does not interfere with the many or the particular; a dust mote is as significant as a Buddha. All things are participants in a dance of simultaneous interpenetration and non-obstruction, in which each thing at once creates the whole and creates itself. Advancing with an infinite variety of possibilities, at every instance the whole universe is totally refreshed, sparklingly new, only to be immediately cast off as the next instance of the whole universe is exerted in its place, to be cast off too in the next instance.
.
In such a cosmology seeing the world “as it is” can only be done on the fly, can only be done by being the world as it is. In Buddhism (thus Dogen), those that awaken to the truth of being the world as it is, are called Buddhas, and Buddhas are the only ones that can truly see the world as it is. Until we ourselves are Buddhas, Dogen advises us to learn what the Buddhas say about their experience of the world as it is. To give what they say the benefit of the doubt, to put it into practice, and to verify it for ourselves. Constructing a conceptual image of the “world as it is” can never lead to seeing the world as it is, even if that image is built from words of Buddhas. Again, if we want to see the world as it is, Dogen advises learning what those who know the world as it is (Buddhas) say it is, putting what they say it is into practice, and verifying what they say it is in personal experience.

.
So, just what do the Buddhas say about their experience of the world as it is? What does the universe consist of? How is it fashioned? Are there actual things or beings that inhabit it, if so what are they and how do they relate to each other? What is it that we human beings experience as a “self” which we sense as being “myself?”

.
According to Dogen, they say that the universe is fashioned by human beings who arrange it with bits and pieces of their experience. This universe is inhabited by a welter of things and beings which are instances of existence-time that do not obstruct or hinder each other’s existence. The “self” experienced by human beings as “myself” is fashioned in the exact same way the universe is fashioned, and this “self” is also an instance of existence-time. To be more precise, here is how Dogen puts it:

.
Since we human beings are continually arranging the bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion ‘a whole universe’, we must take care to look upon this welter of living beings and physical objects as ‘sometime’ things. Things do not go about hindering each other’s existence any more than moments of time get in each other’s way. As a consequence, the intention to train arises at the same time in different beings, and this same intention may also arise at different times. And the same applies to training and practice, as well as to realizing the Way. In a similar manner, we are continually arranging bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion them into what we call ‘a self ’, which we treat as ‘myself ’: this is the same as the principle of ‘we ourselves are just for a time’.
Shobogenzo, Uji, Rev. Hubert Nearman

.
As someone that viewed the world from a perspective wherein each of us is the fashioner of a universe and a self, we can understand Dogen’s vigilant insistence on the ultimate significance of each individual’s activity. From the position that momentary instances of existence-time form the fabric of the universe and the self, we can see the reason of his constant urgency for sincerity, effort, thoroughness, and precision. From Dogen’s point of view, time is literally of the essence, and each thought, word, and act, no matter how seemingly insignificant, has an ultimate effect on our reality here (existence) and now (time).
.

Therefore, I would like to propose this suggestion: getting a grasp on the structure of Dogen’s cosmology is the most effective way to improve our ability to understand his symbolism, thus accessing his vast storehouse of wisdom on the nature of life and death, delusion and enlightenment, mind, Buddha nature, existence, time, and fulfilling our obligation to save all the many beings.

.

How to do this?

Active, sincere, wholehearted practice, study and verification. Try supplamenting your current practice routine with a careful, intensive daily study of Shobogenzo. Make a commitment to listen closely to everything Dogen has to say, before reaching a conclusion as to the merit of his instruction. This may take a half dozen or more close readings, but what better do you have to do?

.

A Final Note: Despite the evident popularity of trying to decipher Shobogenzo word by word, Dogen did not write in a secret code--he wanted people to be able to understand it. It is far easier (and much more effective) to get the "big picture" by letting him finish what he has to say before jumping to your own conclusions. Besides, carefully reading the whole Shobogenzo half dozen times, or even ten dozen times will not require near as much effort as trying to twist it into our own conceptual images.

.
Peace,
Ted

Appearance and True Nature - Not Two

Dogen on the non-difference of the appearance of a thing and its true nature

-

You should understand that, in Buddhism, we have always spoken not only of body and mind as being inseparable, but also of the nature of something and the form it takes as not being two different things.

~Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Hubert Nearman

-

Peace,

Ted

Smelly Skinbag to Smelly Skinbag - Transmitting the Inaccurate to the Inaccurate

Dogen Lamenting the Decline of the Buddha Dharma in the 13th Century --- And describing causes and conditions all too familiar to the 21st Century...

-

But first, two short quotes on some excellent basic instruction:

--

When students are beginners, whether they have the mind of the Way or not, they should carefully read and study the Sagely Teachings of the sutras and shastras.

~Dogen, Record of Things Heard, Col. Trans. of Thomas Cleary, Vol. 4, p.796

-
When Students of the Way are looking at sayings, you must exert your power to the utmost and examine them very very closely.

~Dogen, Record of Things Heard, Col. Trans. of Thomas Cleary, Vol.4 p.825

-

To thank Dogen for so freely giving me this treasure I offer this vow (anyone that would like to join me, please feel welcome):

-

I vow: to carefully read and study the sutras and shastras; and when I look at the sayings of Zen masters I will exert my power to the utmost and examine them very very closely.

-

I dedicate this vow to fields and streets, oceans and forests, homes and schools, and to all our many guides along the ancient Way: All Buddhas throughout space and time, all Bodhisattvas, Mahasattvas, the Great Prajna Paramita!

-
Now, onto the main selection. (If you like, as you read see if Dogen's language seems difficult to understand, esoteric, or anything besides straightforward---If the meaning is clear (as I think), and you believe Dogen is sincere in his attempt to provide wise counsel (as I do), why does there seem to be so little on the importance of studying scriptures, treatises, and koans from contemporary teachers and writers? Seriously?)

-

Just because you cannot be expert in all the Buddhist Scriptures, do not be rash and say that the Buddhist Scriptures are not the Buddha Dharma. Even though you may hear others call themselves the very bones and marrow of the Buddhas and Ancestors, when we look with straightforward eyes at those who speak this way, we see that they are simply present-day trainees who are stuck on words. While some of them may be as good as those who accept and keep to a single phrase or a single verse, there may also be those who do not measure up to them. Do not insult the Buddha’s True Teaching by relying on this superficial understanding of theirs. Nothing in the world of sound and form is more spiritually meritorious than the Buddhist Scriptures. Sounds and forms may delude you if you are still greedily chasing after them. However, the Buddhist Scriptures will never delude you, so do not mistrust or slander Them.

-

Even so, over the last couple of centuries or so in Great Sung China, certain mistaken, smelly skin bags have said, “There’s no need for you to keep the sayings of the Ancestral Masters in mind, much less is there any need for long study of Scriptural Teachings or for your trying to make use of Them. Simply, make your body and mind like a dead tree or cold ashes, like a broken wooden ladle or a bottomless tub.” Folks like these have become a type of non-Buddhist or celestial demon, and to no good purpose. They seek to make use of things that are useless, and accordingly, they twist the Teachings of the Buddhas and Ancestors into wild and perverted teaching. What a pity! How terribly sad! Even ‘broken ladles’ and ‘bottomless tubs’ have been ancient Scriptures for some Ancestors of the Buddha. Rare has been the Ancestor of the Buddha who has completely tallied the number of texts of these Scriptures. Those who say that the Buddhist Scriptures are not the Buddha Dharma have not studied the occasions when Ancestors of the Buddha have made use of Scriptures, nor have they explored through their training the occasions when Ancestors of the Buddha have revealed their True Nature through their reliance on Scriptures, nor do they know how to gauge the level of intimacy between the Buddha’s Ancestors and the Buddhist Scriptures. Careless folks like these are as common as rice and flax seeds, bamboo canes and reeds. They ascend the Lion Throne and establish monasteries everywhere, passing themselves off as teachers of gods and humans. Because the inaccurate have studied with the inaccurate, their principles are likewise inaccurate, and because they are ignorant, they fail to seek what is reliable, but simply pass from darkness into darkness. How pitiful!

~Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman

--

More from Dogen (& 6 others) On Zen and Words & Letters

From Our Sister Site: Flatbed Sutra Zen Blog

--

Peace Friends...

Ted Biringer