It the Zazen of Zen, are all realms vertical?

In Shobogenzo, Sammai-O-Zammai, Master Dogen offers a suggestion on how to apply ourselves to meditation while sitting. He says:

We should investigate: at the very moment we are sitting, are all realms vertical? Are they horizontal? At the very moment we are sitting, what about that sitting? Is it a flip? Is it “brisk and lively”? Is it thinking? Is it not thinking? Is it making? Is it without making? Are we sitting within sitting? Are we sitting within body and mind? Are we sitting having sloughed off “within sitting,” “within body and mind,” and so on? We should investigate one thousand points, ten thousand points, such as these.
Translated by Carl Bielefeldt

Yes! This is exactly how practitioners with genuine aspiration apply themselves to Zen meditation. Looking deeply, examining exhaustively, not only our own perspective but that of "all realms."

Master Dogen is not alone; all of the outstanding figures of Zen history testify to the eternal quest that is the source of what, who, where, when, how, and why---the very essence and function of the vast unnamable fathomless void. Zen meditation (Zazen) illumines the wonder and mystery of being alive.

Even the non-dharma does not exist

The section in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan about how awakening to the truth that "the many things actualize awareness of the self" is the function of Zen practice (indicating that our true nature is the true nature of the universe). The text goes on to indicate the nature and function of enlightenment and delusion. Genjokoan states:

Those who are enlightened about delusion are buddhas.

So being "enlightened about delusion" means awakening to the reality of delusion. That is, realizing what delusion truly is. This could be likened to being shown the cause of a magician’s illusions: mirrors, wires, hidden compartments, etc., thus being able to grasp the reality of the illusion. The reality of the illusion (the mirrors, wires, hidden compartments) is existent, and the illusion is a real characteristic of its existence. Similarly, when realizing the cause of delusion: misperception or partial perception, of true nature, we realize the reality of delusion. The reality of delusion (misperception or partial perception of our own true nature) is existent, and delusion is a real characteristic of its existence. Those who are "enlightened about" this are called "buddhas."

Next, the Genjokoan says:

Those who are deluded about enlightenment are ordinary beings.

To be "deluded about enlightenment" is to view enlightenment as being something outside or apart from ourselves or the everyday world. Those who are aware of their true nature are called buddhas; those who are unaware of their true nature are called ordinary beings. Flowers fall, weeds flourish; cocks crow, dogs bark. The Genjokoan goes on:

There are people who continue to realize enlightenment based on enlightenment.

Dogen’s emphasis on post-kensho practice and enlightenment is rarely matched in Zen literature. In many places throughout his works he insists that the initial experience of enlightenment is just the beginning of genuine practice-enlightenment. Of course, enlightenment for Dogen is only authentic as practice and enlightenment. In his works, he often refers to realizing enlightenment based upon enlightenment (often using the Zen ancestors of the past as examples of how to approach the lifetime process of deepening and refining our realization). The Genjokoan continues:

There are people in the midst of delusion adding to delusion.

Dogen does not seem here to be simply repeating himself, but to be indicating something else. In Shobogenzo, Keisei-Sanshiki, Dogen uses the same phrase (as best as I can tell) in a manner that suggests a deeper implication:

When [a person] tells people who do not know the will to the truth about the will to the truth, the good advice offends their ears, and so they do not reflect upon themselves, but [only] bear resentment towards the other person. As a general rule concerning actions and vows, which are the bodhi-mind, we should not intend to let worldly people know whether or not we have established the bodhi-mind or whether or not we are practicing the truth; we should endeavor to be unknown. How much less could we boast about ourselves? Because people today rarely seek what is real, when the praises of others are available, they seem to want someone to say that their practice and understanding have become harmonized, even though there is no practice in their body, and no realization in their mind. "In delusion adding to delusion" describes exactly this.
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross, Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Keisei-Sanshiki, Book 1, p. 91 (italics added)

In this passage, Dogen seems to define the condition of "increasing delusion in the midst of delusion" as the denial of delusion. That is to say, when people in delusion deny they are deluded (or assert they are enlightened) they are "in delusion adding to delusion." Looking at Case One of the Blue Cliff Record may shed some light on this particular condition. The koan reads:

Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, "What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths?"
Bodhidharma said, "Vast emptiness, nothing holy."
The Emperor asked, "Who is facing me?"
Bodhidharma responded, "I don’t know."
The Emperor did not understand. After this Bodhidharma crossed the Yangtse River and traveled to the kingdom of Wei.
Later the Emperor asked Master Chih about it.
Master Chih asked, "Do you know who this man is?"
The Emperor said, "I don’t know."
Master Chih said, "He is the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, transmitting the confirmation of the buddha-mind."
The Emperor was regretful and wanted to send an envoy to bring Bodhidharma back.
Master Chih said, "Don’t say you will send someone to bring him back. Even if everyone in China went after him, he would not return."

Commenting on the line "The Emperor did not understand," Engo (Yuanwu - the editor of the Blue Cliff Record) says, "Too bad! Still, he’s gotten somewhere." (Cleary & Cleary) Might the meaning of Engo’s comment, "Still, he’s gotten somewhere," illumine what Dogen means by "in delusion adding to delusion"? In following the reasoning here, Emperor Wu could be understood as "adding to delusion" when he thought he knew something (or asserted his enlightenment). However, (although he is still in delusion) after his meeting with Bodhidharma, he admits that he does "not understand," that is, he does not deny his own delusion. The Emperor is in delusion (i.e. not enlightened), but he is no longer adding to delusion (by asserting his enlightenment).

Clearly, recognizing and acknowledging the reality of our own delusion is a prerequisite to enlightenment. For how or why would one aspire to, or arouse the will for enlightenment if they failed to recognize and acknowledge their own delusion? Hence, Dogen’s words, "Those who are enlightened about delusion are buddhas" could be read as meaning that the recognition and acknowledgement of delusion is simultaneous with enlightenment. Throughout the Shobogenzo, Dogen continuously asserts the nondual nature of delusion and enlightenment; but he never says (to the best of my knowledge) that buddhas are free from delusion, as is often implied by much of the contemporary literature of Zen. Indeed, as Genjokoan goes on to say:

When buddhas are buddhas, they do not know they are buddhas.

This line reminds us that when buddhas are experiencing the condition of Buddhahood, there is nothing but Buddha in the whole universe. This condition is sometimes described in Buddhist literature as the state where the known and the knower (or actor and action) are one. Obviously, for a buddha to have the thought, "I am a buddha," they would have to perceive themselves as something (buddha) in opposition to something else (not buddha), hence; they would not be in the condition of Buddhahood. That does not mean there are no buddhas, as the Genjokoan points out next:

Nevertheless, buddhas are buddhas and continuously actualize Buddhahood.

The condition of Buddhahood is not something that is gained, but something that is discovered and activated; that is, the nature of delusion is illumined and our original Buddhahood is realized. Of course, this experience is only called Buddhahood to differentiate it from delusion. When speaking of a state beyond delusion we call it "Buddhahood." However, in the absolute sense, as in Dogen’s opening lines to Genjokoan, there is nothing to be grasped (no buddhas, no ordinary beings, etc.) and in the transcendent sense, buddhas and ordinary beings always contain and include each other.

The classic Zen records tell us that in the actual experience of Buddhahood all names and labels are meaningless; for from the perspective of oneness or emptiness, differentiation does not exist. Even "oneness" is a relative term–that is, oneness is relative and only valid in contrast to multiplicity. Therefore, when differentiation is truly dissolved so, too, is Buddhahood. One wonderful Zen expression of this principle is a verse attributed to Ananda, one of Buddha’s disciples and the traditional Second Ancestor of Zen in India:

When we are awake to the truth, even the non-dharma does not exist.
The Transmission of the Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p. 10

Peace!

Ted Biringer

Giving Dogen - and Shobogenzo - their due respect

While many of Dogen’s writings are complex, subtle, and profound, they are not mysterious, mystical, or irrational. It is true that they demand sustained, active, intensive and extensive investigation and maybe some interpretation, but they do not require decoding. Like all great literature, Shobogenzo will only yield its treasure through genuine, rational, and sustained exploration.

As Shobogenzo is not only great literature, but also a soteriological device, genuine understanding also demands personal experimentation. As great literature, it must be read by employing a variety of reading skills. That is, it must be read from the various levels or dimensions of what the educator Mortimer J. Adler called "active reading." (Mortimer J. Adler, How To Read a Book). He delineated four general "levels" of reading: Elementary, Inspectional, Analytical, and Syntopical. These "levels" of reading correspond to a certain extent with the three basic "points" outlined in Dale S. Wright’s landmark book, Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism. The reader that applies the "levels" of Adler, or the "points" of Wright (or both) to Shobogenzo will certainly attain a better understanding than many so-called Dogen specialists have demonstrated. This kind of reading is extremely effective because, as Professor Wright says:

In the Language of Zen, it calls forth "the one who is right now reading," and refuses to allow the reader to cling to his or her own invisibility."
(Dale S. Wright, Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism)

When this kind of active reading is combined with a reliable method of spiritual practice/realization, it augments and enhances ones experience, understanding, and enjoyment of literature. In the case of Shobogenzo, following a regular practice of meditation is certainly necessary for achieving anything more than a superficial overview.

Anyone that would claim to understand, or be an adherent of Dogen’s teaching clearly needs to look very, very closely at what he said. In so doing, his work deserves the respect accorded to all great literary figures; that is, it must be evaluated from within its literary, cultural, and historical context. Any assertions about Dogen’s work short of at least this much would be vulgar, to say the least, especially by anyone identifying themselves as adherents of "Dogen’s Zen." Just as an understanding of Zen is meaningless without actual practice, the practice of Zen is meaningless without actual understanding. To assume an understanding of Dogen’s Zen based on a mere handful of his writings would be absurd, and an understanding based only on faith in the assertions of authorities is merely an imitation of understanding, which Dogen (and many Zen masters) considered as a mockery of genuine understanding.

As one of the most influential figures in the history of Buddhism, Dogen deserves to be given his due. Regardless of our intentions, before we venerate or condemn his teachings, we must do our utmost to clarify our understanding, to get to the truth of what Dogen actually taught. A quote attributed to Herbert Spencer sums up the point nicely, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

It seems to me that to honestly give Dogen his due we must first approach Shobogenzo as if it actually is what he said it is—The True Dharma-Eye Treasury, that is, the authentic truth of the Buddhism. This would mean that all the fascicles constituting Shobogenzo must, to the best of our ability, be read as Dogen intended them to be read; not as independent treatises, but as parts of a unity—the unity of Shobogenzo. Corollary to this is that each fascicle must, for the most part, be gauged by the same standard and granted equal authority concerning the genuine meaning of the whole Shobogenzo, or of any part of that whole. We would not expect to understand any one chapter of the Lotus Sutra outside its context in the whole, or the whole of the Sutra apart from its chapters, likewise with Shobogenzo.

The inference of this seems clear; the more unfamiliar, neglected fascicles of Shobogenzo, because they far outnumber the familiar, popularized fascicles, provide more than just the bulk of its content, they provide the bulk of its meaning. This does not mean that those teachings that have been revealed and propagated based on a relatively minor selection from Shobogenzo are widely off the mark—I believe they are not. Just as several chapters from the Lotus Sutra could reveal the genuine, if partial, message of that sutra, so too with Shobogenzo.

Fortunately, the language, reason, and methods of the fascicles constituting Shobogenzo are extraordinarily consistent, not only with each other, but also with Dogen’s other works and with those of Mahayana Buddhism (especially Ch’an [J. Zen]) generally. Yet, when all the fascicles of Shobogenzo are taken into account, not only is the scope of Dogen’s message expanded, many of the ambiguities concerning his teaching are resolved. In short, approaching Shobogenzo as a unified whole broadens and clarifies its genuine message.

In my view, Dogen’s records exemplify Zen’s characteristically freehanded approach to doctrines and systems of all kinds. This Zen characteristic is sometimes referred to in the classic records as, "Taking up with one hand, letting go with the other." The misunderstanding of this technique has evidently contributed to popular false notions of Zen as anti-doctrinal and iconoclastic. I have not seen any valid evidence that Zen in any way advocates the destruction of traditional teachings, forms of practice, systems of thought, or established institutions. To me it seems that Zen simply asserts that they should be employed, and applied in a useful manner.

It is not difficult to understand why there is such widespread misunderstanding about Zen’s use of language, doctrine, and methodology; many are profoundly subtle and difficult to grasp (much more so to employ). Indeed, it seems to me that many of the more subtle doctrines and techniques of Zen are concerned with the transmission and development of the skillful use of language and doctrine. Throughout the literature of Zen, one finds a great deal of emphasis on the necessity of developing the skill to use systems without being used by systems.

In my own view, it seems important to understand that Zen literature, including Dogen’s work does not merely acknowledge language as unavoidable; it embraces it as the dynamic, liberating vehicle of Buddha-Dharma itself. "Katto" translated into English as "entangling vines" or "entwining vines," is a term that is often used in Zen to indicate hindrances associated with attachment to, and/or conceptualization aroused by words, explanations, doctrines, etc. While many of the classic Zen records implicitly acknowledge the positive, even necessary role of language and doctrines (if only tacitly by the sheer fact of their existence), Dogen voices it clearly:

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. (Shobogenzo, Katto, Hubert Nearman)

This seems to be precisely the same point indicated by that great visionary of western tradition, William Blake, where, in his Jerusalem, he has Los declare:

Striving with Systems to deliver Individuals from those System;
That whenever any Spectre began to devour the Dead,
He might feel the pain as if a man gnawd his own tender nerves. (William Blake, Jerusalem)

It is not language, doctrine, methodology, or conceptual constructs in themselves that are rejected by the Zen masters; it is their misuse. In his writings, Dogen insists that helping others reach liberation is best achieved by "giving voice" to the truth of Buddha nature, which should not be confused with giving voice to a rigid view, or formula; sometimes it is tall, sometimes it is short:

Those who can help others reach the Other Shore through manifesting their True Self will manifest It and give voice to the Dharma for that purpose: this is Buddha Nature. Further, sometimes they will display the Dharma Body as something tall and sometimes they will display It as something short. (Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman)

To use a Zen simile, a rabbit running into a stump may be a meal, but a meal is not a rabbit running into a stump. A meal is berries on a vine, cultivated radishes, steamed rice, and myriad other forms. While an expression is Buddha-Dharma, Buddha-Dharma is not an expression. As Dogen points out:

You need to realize that the genuine functioning of the Dharma is beyond any immediate display of what is said or how It is put. A genuine voicing of the Dharma has no set form. (Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman)

Dogen consistently disparaged anything that even hinted at rigid adherence to systems of thought or attachment to methodologies or devices, even devices developed by the Zen ancestors. Far from being beneficial as an approach to Shobogenzo, reducing Dogen’s teaching to intellectually manageable patterns neutralizes its dynamic potential for pushing us beyond our limited view and actually expanding the horizons of our experience.

Reading Shobogenzo through any systematic screen is only possible if one imagines that the message of Shobogenzo is something to be explained. As students of literature tell us, the authentic message of any truly sacred text, like that of authentic poetry, inherently defies explanation. If the authentic message of a sacred text could truly be grasped through an explanation, it should have been written as an explanation to begin with. Obviously, if a sacred text conveyed nothing but what could be grasped by the ordinary human intellect, that text would hardly qualify as sacred. A literary work that does not speak to the heart as well as the mind and does nothing to actually expand our understanding, realization, and experience of life offers, at best, nothing more than a quantity of information, a mere number of trivial facts.

The tendency to categorize and systemize Dogen’s writings is not simply restricted to the sectarian factions of Soto Zen; traces of it appear in nearly every field of Dogen, and Japanese Zen studies. A veritable plethora of labels have been applied to Dogen and his works in a variety of attempts to systematically explain "Dogen’s Zen." Attaching significance to perceived connections between his writings and when he wrote them, many modern Dogen scholars subscribe to one or the other of the so-called "Renewal" and "Decline" theories. These categorizations are established by compartmentalizing Dogen’s work according to when he wrote them. When using this system, Dogen’s work is usually divided into the categories of "early and late" periods or "early, middle and late" periods. One prominent Dogen scholar suggests dividing these three periods into seven sub-divisions (Early Early, Late Early, Early Middle, Middle Middle, Late Middle, Early Late, and Late Late). (Steven Heine, Did Dogen Go to China?)

Because of its role, scholarship is more than justified in dividing, and categorizing the subject of its research, yet students and practitioners should be aware of the nature and function of those investigations. Scholarship can and does illumine important facets of Dogen’s life and work, but it is important to remember that, like a finely cut diamond, Shobogenzo is more than the sum of its facets. After all, the language of Shobogenzo, like that of all truly sacred literature, is mythological. For myth is the language of deliverance and liberation; a living dynamic expression with the potential of rendering transparent the interface of the temporal and the eternal, the finite and the infinite, all beings and Buddha, in Zen terms: the Gateless Barrier.

To read mythic expression as ordinary prose is to misread it.

Sacred text is inevitably addressed to the whole of our being and it is only through the whole of our being that we can receive it. Failing to respect the integrity of Shobogenzo by subjecting it to differentiation, discrimination, and conceptualization inevitably renders it opaque, nullifying its liberating potential.

Shobogenzo, like a necklace made of pearls, is at once ‘the many’ and ‘the one.’ Exploring Shobogenzo through divisions or systems of thought is like examining a necklace only after dividing and organizing the pearls into groups and patterns. There is no doubt that Dogen’s Shobogenzo is one of the most complex and multi-faceted works in all of the world’s literature, but aside from a few uncertain points its message is consistent, and its inherent design is exquisite.

Peace,
Ted Biringer

Learning by Master Dogen's example

Aside from the question of what Master Dogen actually meant, it is clear that he personally approached life with great zeal and intensity. Even setting aside the uncertainties concerning his biography, what little is known clearly testifies to the fact that he himself acted in accord with his repeated, energetic exhortations to “master in practice” and “examine sideways and upside down” and “apply yourselves as if your head was on fire” etc.
His own life was an eternal quest; committing to the path at 8 years old, running away at 13 to avoid the barriers of secular life, reading the entire Tripitaka twice by his early 20s, mastering Tendai, the exoteric and esoteric teachings. Not yet satisfied, he set about mastering Rinzai Zen under Myozan, then accompanied him on a journey to China. There, he traveled around and sought wise counsel wherever he could. Then, finding Tendo Nyojo, he intensified his practice and study, realized a profound awakening, then spent a couple more years “entering the room” deepening and refining his realization under the guidance of his teacher.
When he finally returned to Japan, he spent the rest of his life continuously exploring and developing all manner of methods, techniques, and activities to effectively transmit the Buddha-Dharma to his fellow countrymen. To this end he produced hundreds of fascicles which he continuously re-worked, edited, and refined many times, right up to his final illness, and he established Eihei-ji (still regarded as one of the great temples of the world), and he offered instruction to monks, nuns, and secular people from all classes. The energy that Dogen applied in those monumental efforts can still be felt on a visceral level through reading and (trying) to apply his teachings as outlined in some of the most creative expressions in Buddhist history.
Dogen’s life was clearly engaged in actively creating, exploring, and expressing the meaning, function, and experience of the Buddha-Dharma. When we see how vibrantly he speaks of discovering whole worlds in each moment, and in each drop of water, we come to understand his outspoken disdain for the distorted ‘nothing to realize’ and ‘everything is it’ notions of Zen that had taken root in his own time. We are (at least I am) inspired by Dogen’s constant earnestness on the necessity to focus our aspiration and effort that he asserts are essential to genuine practice and enlightenment. His repeated exhortations to “those who have already attained enlightenment” to continue to go ever-deeper attaining enlightenment upon enlightenment, are reinforced by his own example. His constant refrain reminds us that enlightenment without practice is not authentic enlightenment, and practice without enlightenment is not authentic practice.
We don’t need to prove Dogen’s meaning to understand that the necessity of wholehearted effort and focused, dedicated practice is a basic teaching of Buddhism, and a hallmark of Zen. And even those that have not researched much in the Zen records realize that the teachings of “practice and enlightenment” have always been susceptible to misunderstanding and misappropriation. Obvious to even the most casual of readers among Zen students is that some of the most pernicious divisions in the history of Buddhism have been caused by arguments around what this teaching means. The confusion between sudden realization (original enlightenment) and gradual cultivation (acquired enlightenment), has been the most visible and persistent manifestation of this argument in the Zen tradition.
According to his biographers, the apparent contradiction between original enlightenment and acquired enlightenment was the barrier to and eventually the catalyst of Dogen’s own great awakening. Resolving this conflict became the central focus of his spiritual quest. It was through his personal resolution of the seeming contradiction between the doctrine of original enlightenment and the need for spiritual practice that allowed him to—in his own words from Shobogenzo, Bendowa—“complete the task of a lifetime.”After such a powerful experience, it is only natural that the non-dual nature of practice and enlightenment became such a central theme in Dogen’s teaching. By “non-dual” I mean, empty of duality, I do not mean that practice and enlightenment are one, as is propagated by some. Practice and enlightenment in Zen are two aspects of one reality. I think that Dogen is clear on the fact that though they always go together, they each maintain their distinctive aspects.This brings me to, what I think is one of the best passages in Shobogenzo that takes up question raised, “What constitutes practicing Dogen’s Zen?”
The very first paragraph of one of Dogen’s very first teachings, Fukanzazengi, is constructed of four lines—each variations expressing the fundamental point.

“Now, when we research it, the truth originally is all around: why should we rely upon practice and experience? The real vehicle exists naturally: why should we put forth great effort? Furthermore, the whole body far transcends dust and dirt: who could believe in the means of sweeping and polishing? In general, we do not stray from the right state: of what use, then, are the tip-toes of training?”Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross, Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Book 1, p. 279

Coming from Dogen we know this is not a simplistic series of rhetorical statements, but an expression of spiritual realization, urging us to deep contemplation. It seems clear that Dogen is not saying, “the truth is all around: we do not need to rely upon practice, put forth great effort, etc.” Rather, he is saying, “the truth is all around: why do we need to practice, who could believe in the means, of what use, and so on.” His statements are neither rhetorical, nor are they conventional questions wanting answers. Here he not only respond to the question posed, Dogen indicates, at once, the revelation of the truth of Zen and illustrates the appropriate attitude for Zen practitioners to employ.
While his expressions were unique, and may even transcend those of his predecessors, what Dogen actually taught was what all the true buddhas and Zen ancestors taught; enlightenment is the essence of authentic practice, practice is the function of authentic enlightenment. The duality of practice and enlightenment is actualized and transcended, not eradicated or annihilated. It seems obvious in this light, that Dogen frequently used the term zazen in reference to the non-dual nature of practice and enlightenment, not just as a reference to ordinary sitting meditation. In Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Dogen outlines this fundamental teaching of Zen. Near the end of this essay, he uses a Zen koan to illustrate the non-dual nature of practice and enlightenment.
The koan runs something like this: Zen Master Hotetsu, of Mount Mayu is using a fan. A monk comes up and says, “The nature of air is ever-present, and there is no place it does not reach. Why then does the Master use a fan?”
The master says, “You understand that the nature of air is ever-present, but you do not understand the truth that there is no place it does not reach.”
The monk says, “What is the truth of there being no place it does not reach?”
At this, the master just continues to use the fan.
The monk does prostrations. Dogen goes on to say, “The actualization of the buddha-dharma, the living way of authentic transmission, is like this.”

Peace,
Ted Biringer

Dogen's use of Criticism in Shobogenzo

Throughout the history of the Japanese Soto sect, much has been made of the influence of the Chinese Rinzai master, Daie Soko, on the teachings of Dogen. Traditionally, Dogen has been presented as being profoundly critical of Daie’s Zen teachings, especially his teachings regarding koans. Of course, Shobogenzo is not unique in its negative criticism of Zen ancestors. Scathing, colorful, and often humorous critiques are characteristic of a number of the classic records of Zen.
Claims about Dogen’s negative criticism of Daie have some basis in fact, but its significance has been exaggerated, and the reasoning underlying Dogen’s criticisms have often been skewed. In light of Daie’s importance to the Japanese Rinzai sect, specifically, his teachings regarding koans, some of the reasons for exaggerating and distorting Dogen’s criticism of Daie seem clear; to infer the inferiority, or even the illegitimacy of the Rinzai sect and posit the superiority of the Soto sect.

While an objective reading of Dogen’s treatment of Daie is enough to cast doubt on most sectarian claims, recent scholarship has decisively revealed a number of fallacies regarding many of these claims--and provided a great deal of clarity on the real issues. As others have lucidly presented the history and details concerning this issue *1, there is no need to dwell on it here. Suffice it to say that some of the distortions were probably legitimate attempts for sectarian survival, but many (if not most) were grounded in sectarian competition for spiritual superiority (and its corollary, the power associated with spiritual authority).

The negative criticism in Shobogenzo does offer some interesting possibilities. In Shobogenzo, Dogen is critical of Daie, but not only of Daie, nor is his criticism simply leveled at his use of koans. Other Zen ancestors, including Rinzai, Tokusan, and Ummon, are subjected to criticism just as harsh as any directed at Daie. These Zen masters are rebuked for the same reasons Daie is rebuked; inaccurate expressions of buddha-dharma (J. buppo).

In fact, in Shobogenzo Dogen does not hesitate to challenges even the most revered Zen ancestors including Hyakujo, Setcho, Joshu, and others. Furthermore, Dogen explicitly denigrates Vimalakirti, the hero of the sutra widely venerated in the records of Zen, and even denounces the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Ancestor, Eno (second in Zen reverence only to Bodhidharma), as a fraudulent text. Moreover, some of Dogen’s more creative ‘misreadings’ and ‘interpretations’ of the Buddhist sutras could easily be regarded as tacit (if gentle) criticisms of the Buddha himself.

(In fairness, two characteristics of the negative portrayal of Daie in Shobogenzo should be noted. The first is a lack of any corresponding positive treatment; most of the important masters upbraided in Shobogenzo are nevertheless acknowledged in other sections of it. Although Daie is tacitly acknowledged as a legitimate ancestor (by Dogen’s acceptance of some of Daie’s descendents, including Bussho Tokko), explicit acknowledgement is conspicuously lacking. The second characteristic unique to Dogen’s charge against Daie is his direct assertion that Daie’s (recorded) teachings disqualify him as a Zen ancestor.)

Dogen’s criticism of Zen ancestors can be viewed as justified based on the rationale of Shobogenzo, which consistently asserts the nonduality of realization and expression in the buddha-dharma. That is, in Shobogenzo, realization and expression are interdependent aspects of the authentic buddha-dharma; each contains and is contained by the other. Hence, in Dogen’s view one’s realization of buddha-dharma is evident in one’s expressions of buddha-dharma. In fact, according to Shobogenzo, evaluating the authenticity of a Zen master’s realization "invariably" includes examining their expressions:

All the Buddhas and all the Ancestors express what They have realized. This is why the Buddhas and Ancestors, when singling out an Ancestor of the Buddha, invariably ask, "Can that person express their realization or not?"
Shobogenzo, Dotoku, Herbert Nearman

While Dogen rebukes, and even hints at the lack of qualifications of Zen ancestors, he stops short of complete denunciation (except of Daiei), and often lavishes praise on them elsewhere in Shobogenzo. For instance, when Rinzai is denigrated as a ‘weak spirited newcomer’ in Shobogenzo, Bukkyō, Dogen does not dismiss his legitimacy. In fact, throughout Shobogenzo Rinzai is quoted as an authority, and in some fascicles of Shobogenzo, like Gyōji, and Hotsu Mujō Shin, Dogen praises Rinzai’s example, singling him out as an outstanding model for Zen practitioners.

One of the most illuminating examples of Dogen’s technique of challenging Zen ancestors based on their recorded sayings is in Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku, where he asserts the inaccuracy of five of the ‘giants’ of Zen tradition. In that fascicle Dogen exposes the ‘blindness’ of Joshu, Kyozan, Gensha, Kaie, and Setcho, taking them all to task for their ‘mistaken’ expressions concerning a koan. Significantly, there is no hint of their disqualification as Zen ancestors. To the contrary, Dogen asserts that although "it may be hard to believe" that people who do not understand one aspect of buddha-dharma are able to understand the rest of it, we should "realize that ancient Ancestors may also make mistakes":

In that the five worthy Masters did not at all understand the everyday practice of the National Teacher, they are, to that extent, similarly inaccurate. For this reason I have now let you hear about ‘the mind not being able to grasp It’ in the Way of the Buddhas. Although it may be hard for you to believe that people who are unable to thoroughly understand this one aspect of the Teaching are apt to understand all the rest of the Teaching, you need to realize that ancient Ancestors may also make mistakes and compound them, as in this case.
Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku (Written Version), Herbert Nearman

Dogen’s recognition of the reality of human limitations is indicative of the realism—highlighted in the title of Hee-Jin Kim’s landmark book, Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist—which permeates his records. Dogen’s realistic acknowledgement that even ancestors "may also make mistakes" seems to be much more than a reluctant admission of human weakness, or fallibility; but more of a realistic assessment of the human condition, hence, of reality itself. In the Shobogenzo, Shizen Biku, fascicle, Dogen assures his listeners/readers that "having mistaken views" is not unique to time or circumstances by asserting it even happened when the Buddha himself was actively teaching:

In truth, even those who had left home life behind and received ordination when the World-honored One was in the world found it difficult to avoid having mistaken views and personal opinions, due to their not giving ear to His Teaching.
Shobogenzo, Shizen Biku, Herbert Nearman

To deny this characteristic of reality is, in Dogen’s teaching, to be ‘in delusion adding to delusion.’ Knowing the reality of buddha-dharma, on the other hand, is contingent on recognizing the reality of delusion. Herein lies the fundamental difference between ‘ordinary beings’ and ‘Buddhas’, as Dogen says in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan: "Ordinary beings are deluded about enlightenment, Buddhas are enlightened about delusion."

If Dogen is to be regarded as an authentic Zen master, then his teachings must be viewed as having the same goal as any authentic Buddhist master; the alleviation of suffering. Thus, all of Shobogenzo’s expressions, including those challenging Zen ancestors, must be understood as legitimate efforts to transmit the buddha-dharma. In light of this reasoning, it should be clear that Dogen’s criticism in Shobogenzo has more to do with instructing students then with admonishing long dead masters.

In summary, what can Dogen’s use of criticism teach us about applying ourselves to the Zen path of authentic practice-realization? Anything? Everything?

*1. For instance, see:

How Zen Became Zen: The Dispute over Enlightenment and the Formation of Chan Buddhism in Song-Dynasty China (Studies in East Asian Buddhism) by Morten Schlütter.

The Linji Lu and the Creation of Chan Orthodoxy: The Development of Chan's Records of Sayings Literature, by Albert Welter

Dogen and The Koan Tradition, and Did Dogen Go to China? What He Wrote and When He Wrote It, both by Steven Heine.

Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, Carl Bielefeldt.

Awareness, Nonthinking, Zazen, the essential art of Zen?

A skier mustering whole body-and-mind, totally absorbed in the activity of skiing down a mountain, forgets his or her "self" and is actualized by the myriad dharmas (the many things). With no ideas of self and not self, there is simply swoosh, swoosh, chunk, swoosh, swoosh. There is no "snow" there is whiteness, coldness. There are no "sounds" there is shoo, shoo, tweet, weeee! There is no "thinking" there is left, right, straight, watch out. In Shobogenzo, Hossho, Dogen gives us a delightful expression of this experience:

In the Dharma-nature there is no "non-Buddhist" or "demon," but only "Come for breakfast! Come for lunch! And come for tea!"
Shobogenzo, Hossho, Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross

The Genjokoan tells us:

To be actualized by the many things is to allow the body-and-mind of your self and the body-and-mind of other than your self to fall away.

This expression reveals the essence and function of the dynamic quality of awareness itself. When the body-and-mind of "our self" and the body-and-mind of "other than our self" both fall away, there is only, "Come for breakfast! Come for lunch! And come for tea!" All along our inherent awareness, that is, our buddha-nature or true-nature, has been functioning perfectly. Is this why people often laugh upon their initial enlightenment experience? There seem to be a number of wonderful gems about this in the Zen literature:

Q: What is implied by ‘seeing into the real Nature’?
A: That Nature and your perception of it are one. You cannot use it to see something over and above itself.
–Obaku
Bloefeld, John, The Zen Teaching of Huang-Po, 116

The nature of perception being eternal, we go on perceiving whether objects are present or not. Thereby we come to understand that, whereas objects naturally appear and disappear, the nature of perception does neither of those things; and, it is the same with all your other senses.
–Daibai
Bloefeld, John, The Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening, 22

The Surangama Sutra, contains a passage that presents this point so directly that it is included as case ninety-four of the Blue Cliff Record:

The Surangama scripture says, "When I do not see, why do you not see my not seeing? If you see my not seeing, naturally that is not the characteristic of not seeing. If you do not see my not seeing, it is naturally not a thing–how could it not be you?"
–The Blue Cliff Record

The Rinzai Zen master, Hakuin, comments on this koan in part:

Because it is not a thing, it must be your own awakened mind. The realm that is not a thing is your true vision; true vision is your essential nature. That’s the message.
Cleary, Thomas, Secrets of The Blue Cliff Record, 328

The Soto Zen master, Tenkei, comments in part on the same case:

The point is that of all the myriad things, none is not you. You are you; I am I. One can only know oneself. That’s what this means.
ibid., 328

Dogen’s words "To be actualized by the many things" are an original and marvelous expression of the same truth that Master Tenkei makes here as "of all the myriad things, none is not you."
Significantly, the Genjokoan goes on to explain:

All traces of enlightenment fall away, and the falling away of all traces of enlightenment is continuous.

Dogen is here expanding on a point he alluded to earlier (in Genjokoan) with the words "There are people who continue to realize enlightenment based on enlightenment." Realization of enlightenment is not a static event but a vigorous, dynamic condition of continuous manifestation. On the authentic Zen path of practice-enlightenment, each moment is experienced as the continuous unfolding of the entire universe, perpetually fresh and new. Engo calls this "continuous awareness from mind-moment to mind-moment":

When there is continuous awareness from mind-moment to mind-moment that does not leave anything out, and mundane reality and enlightened reality are not separate, then you will naturally become pure and fully ripe and meet the Source on all sides.
–Engo
Cleary, Thomas, Zen Letters, 45

Compare these words with Dogen’s own wonderful expression in Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Yuigi:

[To research] this truth of moment-by-moment utter entrustment, we must research the mind. In the mountain-still state of such research, we discern and understand that ten thousand efforts are [each] the mind being evident, and the triple world is just that which is greatly removed from the mind. This discernment and understanding, while also of the myriad real dharmas, activate the homeland of the self. They make immediate and concrete the vigorous state of the human being in question.
Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Yuigi, Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross

No thing, time, or event can escape the momentary nature of existence. Dogen points out in Shobogenzo, Uji (being time) that one quality of time is its ever-changing flow. He says:

The entire world is not unchangeable, is not immovable. It flows.
Shobogenzo, Uji, Tanahashi & Aitken, Moon in a Dewdrop: Writings of Zen Master Dogen

Dogen expresses the ever-changing, ever-renewing aspect of reality throughout his works in startlingly provocative and creative ways. For example, in his essay, Shobogenzo, Tsuki, Dogen says you should master in practice the fact that tonight’s moon is not yesterday’s moon:

So although the moon was there last night, tonight’s moon is not yesterday’s moon. We should master in practice that the moon tonight, at the beginning, middle, and end, is the moon tonight. Because the moon succeeds the moon, the moon exists and yet is not new or old.
Shobogenzo, Tsuki, Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross

At the same time, Dogen reveals that the very fact of its momentary existence demonstrates its inevitability, that is to say, its inevitable existence as an aspect of the whole of time and space (being time):

Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.
Shobogenzo, Uji, Tanahashi & Aitken, Moon in a Dewdrop: Writings of Zen Master Dogen

With the body-and-mind of self and other cast off (in nonthinking or forgetting the self) each moment is experienced as all being, "the entire world with nothing left out of the present moment." Each moment, each thing, including even such things as worry, and surprise contain and are contained by the whole of time and space. According to Dogen, "there are myriads of forms and myriads of grasses throughout the entire earth, and yet each grass and each form itself is the entire earth.

"Even worry itself is just the matter which is it, and so it is beyond worry. Again, we should not be surprised that the matter which is it is present in such a state. Even if it is the object of surprise and wonderment, it is still just it. And there is it about which we should not be surprised."
Shobogenzo, Inmo, Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross

Peace,
Ted Biringer

Reading Shobogenzo, Ejo's words on Dogen's intentions

Dogen’s successor, Ejo, added the following explanation to Shobogenzo, Hachi Dainingaku:

This was our Master’s last discourse, drafted when he was already ill. Among other things, I heard him say that he wanted to rework all of the Shōbōgenzō that had previously been written in Japanese script and also to include some new manuscripts, so that he would be able to compile a work consisting altogether of one hundred discourses.

This present discourse, which was a first draft, was to be the twelfth of the new ones. After this our Master’s illness worsened. As a result, he stopped working on such things as the drafts. Therefore, this draft is our late Master’s final teaching for us. Unfortunately, we will never see His full draft of the hundred chapters, which is something to be greatly regretted. Those who love and miss our late Master should, by all means, make copies of this twelfth chapter, and take care to preserve it. It contains the final instructions of our Venerable Shakyamuni and is the final legacy of our late Master’s Teaching.
I, Ejō, have given this final account. (Translated by Hubert Nearman)

This statement by Ejo, supports and augments the evidence of two important aspects of Shobogenzo that are widely agreed upon by both scholars and the Zen orthodoxy. First, that Dogen intended Shobogenzo as a singular canon consisting of one hundred fascicles. Second, that Dogen died before completing all one hundred fascicles. What is not so widely agreed upon, and is in fact much debated, are how many of the fascicles Dogen did complete, and which ones were intended for Shobogenzo.

There are a number of versions of Shobogenzo, including 12, 28, 60, 75, 89, 92, and 95 fascicle versions that have had, and/or continue to have their proponents as representative of Dogen’s intent. Of these, the official 95-fascicle Shobogenzo of the Soto sect is the most well known edition. As the most inclusive version (other than those including obviously separate or spurious texts), it is an important version for understanding Dogen’s message. However, as this version was not created until 1690, more than four hundred years after Dogen’s death, few seriously consider it as an accurate representation of Dogen’s intention.

The version that is most widely acknowledged as best representing Dogen’s intention is the 75-fascicle version. Including extensive commentary by one of Dogen’s own disciples, this version was the earliest published edition of Shobogenzo. This fact, combined with a number of other factors (style, dates of composition, subject matter, etc.) seem to offer the most convincing argument for considering it as ‘Dogen’s’ Shobogenzo.

(For an overview of the history and recent scholarship on the various versions of Shobogenzo, see Steven Heine’s, Did Dogen Go to China?: What He Wrote and When He Wrote It, esp. pp. 51-87)

Throughout his writings Dogen consistently asserted the interdependence of understanding and expression. While common sense reveals the fallacy of expression without understanding, Dogen points out that understanding without expression is just as fallacious. His writings are filled with exhortations to ‘express it in your own words’, and assertions that ‘if you cannot express it, you have not yet understood it.’ Moreover, his writings offer many evaluations of the depths of the understanding of ‘Zen ancestors’ based on their (recorded) expressions. Nor is his criticism restricted to ‘what’ an ancient expressed; just as often they are appraised by what they fail to express. Not even Joshu, who Dogen often highly reveres as ‘an eternal Buddha’ escapes being chastised by Dogen for an inadequate expression.

In light of this, if Shobogenzo was intended to form a definitive canon, as it evidently was, every fascicle that was admitted to it, regardless of its length, date, or subject must be read not only as part of a unified whole, but as inherently consistent with Dogen’s understanding. While exclusion can be regarded as intentional or unintentional, inclusion can only be regarded as an assertion of approval. There is convincing evidence that the fascicles of Shobogenzo were subjected to Dogen’s ongoing editorial refinement throughout his teaching career. Genjokoan, for instance, written in 1233 and included in every major version of Shobogenzo, was re-edited by Dogen shortly before his death in 1253.

This is not to imply that Shobogenzo is limited to a ‘singular message’, but that all of its various fascicles, by their very admission, must have been harmonious with Dogen’s understanding. Therefore, if fascicles of Shobogenzo seem to be at odds with each other we should attempt to reevaluate our own understanding of Dogen’s meaning rather than simply dismissing them as inconsistencies in Dogen’s teaching.

Thank you for your comments.
Peace,
Ted Biringer

Like and Dislike - The Blue Cliff Record Case 2

What Does the Blue Cliff Record teach us about Like and dislike, about Picking and Choosing?

Here is Joshu in Case 2

MAIN CASE

Chao Chou, teaching the assembly, said The Ultimate Path is without difficulty, it just avoids picking and choosing. As soon as there are words spoken ‘this’ is picking and choosing ‘that’ is clarity. This old monk does not abide within clarity "Do you still preserve anything or not?"

At that time a certain monk asked, "Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?"

Chao Chou replied, "I don’t know either."

The monk said, "Since you don’t know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?"

Chao Chou said, "It is enough to ask, make your bows and withdraw."

"Chao Chou, teaching the assembly, said." Yuan Wu comments, "What’s the old fellow doing?" Chao Chou did not start teaching until he was 80 years old. That is almost sixty years of polishing and deepening his realization after his initial awakening. Anyone interested in Zen ought to perk up like Yuan Wu, "Shhh, the old fellow is speaking…"

"‘The Ultimate Path is without difficulty.’" Yuan Wu comments, "Not hard, not easy."

Once the Layman P’ang was sitting in his cottage with his wife and daughter:
"Difficult, difficult, difficult," he suddenly exclaimed, "[like trying] to scatter ten measures of sesame seed all over a tree!"

"Easy, easy, easy," returned Mrs. P’ang, "just like touching your feet to the ground when you get out of bed."

Neither difficult nor easy," said Liang-chao. "On the hundred grass-tips, the Patriarchs’ meaning."
A Man of Zen, Sasaki, Iriya, Fraser

If Liang-chao and Yuan Wu are right, what about the layman and his wife? What about Chao Chou?

Leaving aside difficult and easy, what is the Ultimate Path, sometimes translated as the Great Way? Is it Buddha Dharma? Is it Tao? A monk asked Chao Chou about that:

The master said, "It’s just outside the fence."
The monk said, "I’m not asking about that."
The master said, "What ‘way’ are you asking about?"
The monk said, "The Great Way."
The master said, "The great way leads all the way to the capital."
The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, James Green, p.108

He says outside the fence, what about inside the fence?

"It just avoids picking and choosing." In case 2 of the Mumonkan, we learn how old Pai Chang’s five hundred lifetimes as a fox became lives of grace when he was avoided picking and choosing.

One time Chao Chou revealed his own fox-nature while he was walking with an official in a garden and they saw a rabbit run away.
The official said, "you are a great and accomplished person, why did the rabbit run away when it saw you?"
The master said, "I like to kill."
The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, p. 151

Chao Chou’s words seem incredible. However, if you can see the rabbit here, you will have mastered this case.

"As soon as there are words spoken." Chao Chou is setting out a pot of glue; it is hard to avoid being stuck here. What if words are not spoken?

Venerable Pi Mo Yen of Wu T’ai Shan Monastery used to carry a wooden pitchfork with him. Every time he saw a monk approaching him and bowing down for instruction, he pinned him by the neck with the fork and demanded, "What devil forced you to renounce the world (by becoming a monk)? What devil made you wander on pilgrimage? If you can say a word of Ch’an under the fork, you will die. If you can’t say a word of Ch’an under the fork, you will die. Now! Say something!"
There were few students who were able to respond to this demand.
The Transmission Of The Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p.370

He does not say there were none who were able to respond, just that there were few. Have you seen Hsueh Tou’s comment on case 23?
"Today what is the purpose of travelling the mountains with these fellows" He also said, "Hundreds of thousands of years hence, I don’t say there are none, just that they will be few."

"This is picking and choosing." As soon as there are words spoken, "this" is picking and choosing. What is "this?" This is it. Does "it" go along with picking and choosing? Look at case 29.

A monk asked Ta Sui, "The conflagration at the end of the eon sweeps through and the universe is totally destroyed. I wonder, is this destroyed or not?"
Sui said, "It is destroyed."
The monk said, "If so, then this goes along with it."
Sui said, "It goes along with it."
Blue Cliff Record, Case 29

Is the "this" in this is picking and choosing "it?" The Ultimate Path is without difficulty; "it" just avoids picking and choosing. Could we re-phrase this, "The Ultimate Path avoids picking and choosing; it is just without difficulty"?

Dogen likes to remind us that nonduality is really nondual. Listen as he comments on the line, "In following worldly circumstances there are no hindrances", from a poem by the Layman Cho Setsu:
To turn one’s back on the Truth is wrong, and to approach the Truth is also wrong. The Truth is the approaching and the turning away, which, in each instance of approaching or turning away, are the Truth itself. Is there anyone who knows that this wrong is also the Truth?
Shobogenzo, Kuge, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Can we put this koan in the format of Dogen’s comment? Picking and choosing is wrong, and not being without difficulty is also wrong. The Ultimate Path is without difficulty and avoids picking and choosing, which, in each instance of without difficulty or avoiding picking and choosing is the Ultimate Path itself. Is there anyone who knows that this wrong is also the Ultimate Path?

"That is clarity." He said that "this" was picking and choosing; now he says "that" is clarity! What is going on here? Yuan Wu says, "People these days who practice meditation and ask about the Path, if they do not remain within picking and choosing, then they settle down within clarity." He means both remaining and settling down are wrong. How can we respond to the implicit challenge here?

What is not remaining? The Diamond Sutra says, "If Bodhisattvas practice giving charity with their minds not dwelling on things, they are like people with sight in the sunlight, seeing all sorts of shapes and colors." (T. Cleary)

What is not settling down? The Diamond Sutra says, "Dwell nowhere and bring forth that mind." (Misc. Koans)

"This old monk does not abide within clarity." He says he’s not settling down, and he demonstrates he’s not remaining.

"Do you still preserve anything or not?" This is Chao Chou’s reason for all his words; he is, after all, teaching the assembly. "Do you understand?" he asks. "My presentation about the third ancestors message is, this old monk does not abide within clarity. How would you say it?"

There is a dialogue where Tung Shan responds for a monk who was asked a similar question from an opposing point.
A monk asked, "What is the talk on no-talk?"
The Master {Pao Yun} asked, "Where is your mouth?"
The monk answered, "I have no mouth."
The Master said, "With what do you eat your food?"
The monk had no response. Tung Shan answered for him: "He does not get hungry, why should he eat food?"
The Transmission Of The Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p.222

"At that time a certain monk asked." We should not skip over this line. At that time a certain monk is existence-time. Dogen reminds us, "Time does not pass."

The particular time of the deity [of yesterday] is also experienced precisely as my existence-time; though it appears to be far off, it is the realized now.
Shobogenzo, Uji, Hee-Jin Kim

"Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?" This monk shows his own non-preservation. He is saying, "As soon as Chao Chou’s words are spoken, ‘this old monk does not abide within clarity’, "this" is trailing mud and dripping water." This monk is like Pao Yun’s, "With what do you eat your food?"

"Chao Chou replied, ‘I don’t know either.’" Bodhidharma said, ‘I don’t know.’ They are not different, but they are not the same either. Yuan Wu says, "Many followers of Ch’an these days will also say when asked, ‘I don’t know either; I don’t understand.’ Nevertheless, though they are on the same road, they are not in the same groove." In case 51, Yen T’ou said, "Though Hseuh Feng is born on the same lineage as me, he doesn’t die in the same lineage."

The monk said, "Since you don’t know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?" This monk was sharp, but he did not know it had been settled. There was a similar exchange between the Layman P’ang and Ma Tsu:

Layman P’ang asked, "The unveiled original man asks you to look upward, please." The Patriarch looked straight down. The layman said, "Only the Master can play so wonderfully on a stringless lute. The Patriarch looked straight up. The layman bowed, and the Patriarch returned to his quarters. The layman followed him; when he entered the room, he said, "Just now bungled it trying to be wise."
Sun Face Buddha, Cheng Chien Bhikshu

Chao Chou said, "It is enough to ask, make your bows and withdraw."

Peace,

Ted Biringer

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan - Flowers Fall, Weeds Flourish

A line in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, says:

And though it is like this, it is plainly that flowers, while loved, fall and weeds while hated, flourish.

This line may be the most direct expression in the whole Shobogenzo. It may also be the most widely misunderstood. It is often interpreted as an analogy, which completely misses, and even subverts the point Dogen was making. In fact, Dogen points out that the previous three lines are analogical with the words, “it is like this.” In this line, he points out that reality is not like anything: it is simply reality; that is, “flowers fall…weeds flourish.”

This corresponds with the meaning of the often-quoted Zen dictum “a separate transmission outside the scriptures, not dependent on words and letters.” This does not mean that Zen disregards scriptures and texts, but that the reality the scriptures indicate is separate from the scriptures themselves, and not dependent on the words and letters that are used to indicate it.

Zen teachings require us to see into the words, while avoiding becoming attached to the words. We cannot “learn” Zen through reading and study, but we cannot disregard reading and study either. To use an analogy: reading a recipe for chocolate cake will not result in producing a chocolate cake—you must possess the ingredients and follow the instructions. At the same time, simply possessing the ingredients without the knowledge provided by the recipe will not do either.

In the first three statements of Genjokoan, Dogen illustrates what reality is like; in this line, he presents it more directly, “and though it is like this, it is only that flowers, while loved, fall; and weeds while hated, flourish.” This kind of expression, common in Zen literature, is meant to convey the truth that reality, or enlightenment is not produced by words, knowledge, or even spiritual practice; reality is reality, as it is here and now.

After laying the foundation in the first four lines of Genjokoan, Dogen methodically builds the structural framework upon which he spent the rest of his life fleshing out; the function and essence of “The rightly-transmitted Buddha-Dharma.”

Peace,

Ted Biringer

Delusion is easier on the knees

Aside from the question of what Dogen actually meant, it is clear that he personally approached life with great zeal and intensity. Even setting aside the uncertainties concerning his biography, what little is known clearly testifies to the fact that he himself acted in accord with his repeated, energetic exhortations to “master in practice” and “examine sideways and upside down” and “apply yourselves as if your head was on fire” etc.

His own life was an eternal quest; committing to the path at 8 years old, running away at 13 to avoid the barriers of secular life, reading the entire Tripitaka twice by his early 20s, mastering Tendai, the exoteric and esoteric teachings. Not yet satisfied, he set about mastering Rinzai Zen under Myozan, then accompanied him on a journey to China. There, he traveled around and sought wise counsel wherever he could.

Finding Tendo Nyojo, he intensified his practice and study, realized a profound awakening, then spent a couple more years “entering the room” deepening and refining his realization under the guidance of his teacher.

When he finally returned to Japan, he spent the rest of his life continuously exploring and developing all manner of methods, techniques, and activities to effectively transmit the Buddha-Dharma to his fellow countrymen. To this end he produced hundreds of fascicles which he continuously re-worked, edited, and refined many times, right up to his final illness, and he established Eihei-ji (still regarded as one of the great temples of the world), and he offered instruction to monks, nuns, and secular people from all classes.

The energy that Dogen applied in those monumental efforts can still be felt on a visceral level through reading and (trying) to apply his teachings as outlined in some of the most creative expressions in Buddhist history.

Dogen’s life was clearly engaged in actively creating, exploring, and expressing the meaning, function, and experience of the Buddha-Dharma. When we see how vibrantly he speaks of discovering whole worlds in each moment, and in each drop of water, we come to understand his outspoken disdain for the distorted ‘nothing to realize’ and ‘everything is it’ notions of Zen that had taken root in his own time. We are (at least I am) inspired by Dogen’s constant earnestness on the necessity to focus our aspiration and effort that he asserts are essential to genuine practice and enlightenment. His repeated exhortations to “those who have already attained enlightenment” to continue to go ever-deeper attaining enlightenment upon enlightenment, are reinforced by his own example. His constant refrain reminds us that enlightenment without practice is not authentic enlightenment, and practice without enlightenment is not authentic practice.

We don’t need to prove Dogen’s meaning to understand that the necessity of wholehearted effort and focused, dedicated practice is a basic teaching of Buddhism, and a hallmark of Zen. And even those that have not researched much in the Zen records realize that the teachings of “practice and enlightenment” have always been susceptible to misunderstanding and misappropriation.

Obvious to even the most casual of readers among Zen students is that some of the most pernicious divisions in the history of Buddhism have been caused by arguments around what this teaching means. The confusion between sudden realization (original enlightenment) and gradual cultivation (acquired enlightenment), has been the most visible and persistent manifestation of this argument in the Zen tradition.

According to his biographers, the apparent contradiction between original enlightenment and acquired enlightenment was the barrier to and eventually the catalyst of Dogen’s own great awakening. Resolving this conflict became the central focus of his spiritual quest. It was through his personal resolution of the seeming contradiction between the doctrine of original enlightenment and the need for spiritual practice that allowed him to—in his own words from Shobogenzo, Bendowa—“complete the task of a lifetime.”

After such a powerful experience, it is only natural that the non-dual nature of practice and enlightenment became such a central theme in Dogen’s teaching. By “non-dual” I mean, empty of duality, I do not mean that practice and enlightenment are one, as is propagated by some. Practice and enlightenment in Zen are two aspects of one reality. I think that Dogen is clear on the fact that though they always go together, they each maintain their distinctive aspects.

This brings me to, what I think is one of the best passages in Shobogenzo that takes up question raised, “What constitutes practicing Dogen’s Zen?” The very first paragraph of Dogen’s very first teaching, Fukanzazengi, is constructed of four lines—each variations expressing the fundamental point.

“Now, when we research it, the truth originally is all around: why should we rely upon practice and experience? The real vehicle exists naturally: why should we put forth great effort? Furthermore, the whole body far transcends dust and dirt: who could believe in the means of sweeping and polishing? In general, we do not stray from the right state: of what use, then, are the tip-toes of training?”Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross, Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Book 1, p. 279

Coming from Dogen we know this is not a simplistic series of rhetorical statements, but an expression of spiritual realization, urging us to deep contemplation. It seems clear that Dogen is not saying, “the truth is all around: we do not need to rely upon practice, put forth great effort, etc.” Rather, he is saying, “the truth is all around: why do we need to practice, who could believe in the means, of what use, and so on.” His statements are neither rhetorical, nor are they conventional questions wanting answers. Here he not only respond to the question posed, Dogen indicates, at once, the revelation of the truth of Zen and illustrates the appropriate attitude for Zen practitioners to employ.

While his expressions were unique, and may even transcend those of his predecessors, what Dogen actually taught was what all the true buddhas and Zen ancestors taught; enlightenment is the essence of authentic practice, practice is the function of authentic enlightenment. The duality of practice and enlightenment is actualized and transcended, not eradicated or annihilated. It seems obvious in this light, that Dogen frequently used the term zazen in reference to the non-dual nature of practice and enlightenment, not just as a reference to sitting meditation. In Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Dogen outlines this fundamental teaching of Zen. Near the end of this essay, he uses a Zen koan to illustrate the non-dual nature of practice and enlightenment. The koan runs:

Zen Master Hotetsu, of Mount Mayu is using a fan. A monk comes up and says, “The nature of air is ever-present, and there is no place it does not reach. Why then does the Master use a fan?”The master says, “You understand that the nature of air is ever-present, but you do not understand the truth that there is no place it does not reach.”The monk says, “What is the truth of there being no place it does not reach?”At this, the master just continues to use the fan.The monk does prostra-tions.

Dogen goes on to say, “The actualization of the buddha-dharma, the living way of authentic transmission, is like this.”Because of the universal significance that is applied by all Dogen admirers to Genjokoan, combined with the widely held notion that all Dogen’s teaching can be summed up by “zazen”, it is worth noting that the word “zazen” does not appear even once in this vastly popular fascicle.

The term zazen, like dharma, buddha, bodhi, and the like, has different meanings depending on the speaker, audience, and context of its expression. Just as the most common use of the term “Buddha” is as a reference to the historical Shakyamuni Buddha, so the most common use of the term “zazen” is as a reference to sitting meditation. By developing a working knowledge of the records and koans of Zen, it becomes obvious when Dogen is using the term zazen strictly in reference to sitting meditation, and when he is using it in the sense of: the non-dual nature of practice and enlightenment.

It is truly regrettable that Dogen’s profound expressions on practice and enlightenment has often been twisted into shallow, naturalistic views. When this is allowed to occur, Dogen’s wonderful teaching that practice is practice-and-enlightenment, and enlightenment is practice-and-enlightenment, is reduced into practice is enlightenment, and enlightenment is practice.

In Dogen’s teaching on practice and enlightenment, he regarded any teaching that posited practice as a term indicating something other than the enactment of enlightenment, as in practice-and-enlightenment, or as a term synonymous with enlightenment, as false teaching. Perhaps this is why some contemporary “Zen” books avoid the word “enlightenment,” altogether—except as something to be challenged, and the word “practice,” is so profuse. Rambling on about Zen practice this and Zen practice that, it often seems as if practice has become totally divorced from enlightenment—diminished to a simple catchphrase, a kind of pseudo-Zen. Worse, when this misrepresentation of practice is married to a strictly literalist interpretation of zazen, it reduces great enlightenment to ordinary sitting meditation. If the true creed of Dogen’s teaching is; “there is no enlightenment to seek, have no goal except to only sit which is itself full and perfect enlightenment", then I would simply prefer delusion--it is much easier on the knees.

Gassho,

Ted Biringer

Dogen's Extensive Record "Eihei Koroku"

Dogen's Extensive Record: A Translation of Dogen's Eihei Koroku by Taigen Dan Leighton

The Eihei Koroku (Dogen's Extensive Record) is second in importance, of Zen master Eiehei Dogen's writings, only to (the Kana) Shobogenzo (True Dharma-Eye Treasury).

This translation, rendered primarily by Taigen Dan Leighton (who also edited it and provided an excellent introduction) and Shohaku Okumura, is a monumental achievement. Taigen Dan Leighton is a Zen teacher/scholar who has furnished students of Zen with a number of superb translations, including: "Cultivating the Empty Field" (The Record of Hongzhi -- who was a major influnce on Dogen), "The Wholehearted Way: A Translation of Eihei Dogen's 'Bendowa'", and his latest "Visions of Awakening Space and Time: Dogen and the Lotus Sutra."

Leighton has spent decades of practice and study exploring Dogen's masterful works in the only way one truly can--by studying it AND applying it in actual practice. Consequently, Leighton has come to understand this outstanding figure of Zen history as very few do.

The "Eihei Koroku" offers us a view of Dogen that is not afforded in the "Shobogenzo" alone. Informal and intimate throghout a large part of this record, we can sense Dogen the human being behind the Zen Giant. At the same time, this book reveals the remarkable consistency that Dogen's Zen Buddhist teachings remained throughout his teaching career; as well as the lucidity with which his explications are presented in a variety of styles and settings, here and in his other records.

Best of all, becuase the "Eihei Roku" consists mainly of the teachings that Dogen presented directly to his own small group of close, intimate disciples as they were (primarily) recorded by Ejo (Dogen's eventual succssesor), it offers a view of Dogen from a totally different perspective than the "first person" writings of "Shobogenzo" which Dogen primarily wrote and edited himself.
Taigen's introduction, notes, and massive "back matter" (glossaries, tables, etc.) is itself worth the price of the book.

Bottom Line: Essential reading/reference/lifetime study for all English reading students--and a fascinating inside view for anyone wanting to get a handle on one of the most influential Zen masters of all time.

Words of old (not so dead) Zen worthies

Although Dogen was well versed in the sutras and refers to them often (especially the Lotus Sutra), it seems he regarded the Zen records as the preeminent expressions of enlightenment. At least this seems to be indicated by the evidence of his records; in his constant reverence for the "words of the ancestors" throughout his work, and moreso by the fact that his citations of the Zen records far outnumber his citations of all the sutras put together. His regard for the Zen records ran so high that in Shobogenzo, Temborin, he even asserted that "the words of an ancestor" could cause the words of a fraudulent or ‘spurious’ sutra to be authentic:

"As to my intention in saying so, there are those who say that the ten-fascicle Shurangama Scripture is a spurious scripture, whereas others say that it is a genuine Scripture: both views have persisted from long in the past down to our very day. There are older translations and there are newer translations, but the one considered spurious is the doubtful translation made during the Chinese Shenlung era (705-706). Be that as it may, the Venerable Abbot Goso Hōen, the Venerable Abbot Busshō Hōtai, and my late Master, the Old Buddha of Tendō, have just now recommended this verse. So, this verse has already been set in motion by the Dharma Wheel of the Buddhas and Ancestors; it is the turning of Their Dharma Wheel. As a result, this verse has already set Them in motion; it has already given voice to Them. Because it is set in motion by Them and sets Them in motion, even were the Scripture a spurious one, if They continue to offer its turning, then it is a genuine Scripture of the Buddhas and Ancestors, as well as the Dharma Wheel intimately associated with Them."
Shobogenzo, Tembōrin, Hubert Nearman

Makes me wonder if I should give the words of those old (not so dead) Zen worthies a little more attention...

Gassho,
Ted Biringer

Dogen on the Intention to give rise to the enlightened mind

Those who have given rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood by practicing and training until They awaken to Their enlightenment and realize nirvana. Those who have not given rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood by practicing and training until they awaken to their enlightenment and realize nirvana are not those whose very mind is Buddha.
Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu (Hubert Nearman)

To universally penetrate the whole universe by means of the whole universe is called ‘complete realization’. For us to give proof of a golden body sixteen feet tall by our attaining a golden body sixteen feet tall is to manifest our initial spiritual intention, our training and practice, our realizing of enlightenment, and our experiencing the freedom of nirvana—all of which comprises what existence is and what time is.
Shobogenzo, Uji (Hubert Nearman)

The Dharma was Transmitted for the sake of each and every Buddha, and the Dharma was inherited for the sake of each and every Buddha. This is why birth-and-death and coming-and-going exist. It is why the intention to train, training and practice, the attaining of Wisdom, and nirvana exist. By making use of the intention to train, training and practice, the attaining of Wisdom, and nirvana, we thoroughly explore that the human body really is birth-and-death and coming-and-going, and, in protecting what we have received, we now hold firm and we now let go.
Shobogenzo, Shohō Jissō (Hubert Nearman)

Our giving rise to our first spiritual intention and then later encountering the words of the Scriptures is likewise in harmony with Scriptural texts and spiritual friends.
Shobogenzo, Bukkyō (Hubert Nearman)

From the time of our giving rise to our intention to realize Buddhahood and our stepping forth, right up to our doing our daily practice now, all is the Living Eye and the Living Bones and Marrow rushing in to see Buddha. It is our doing our utmost in training to realize the Way until there is no gap between our own enlightenment and that of our Master.
Shobogenzo, Kembutsu (Hubert Nearman)

Shakyamuni Buddha once said, "When I saw the morning star emerge, I was enlightened simultaneously with the whole of the great earth and all its sentient beings." Accordingly, giving rise to the intention, doing the training and practice, awakening, and realizing nirvana will be giving rise to the intention, doing the training and practice, awakening, and realizing nirvana, and all at the same time. The body and mind of which the Buddha spoke encompasses grasses and trees, tiles and stones, as well as wind and rain, water and fire. Finding ways to make use of these in order to help realize what the Buddha said is precisely what giving rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood is…

By means of this body and mind of ours, we can give rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood. Therefore, do not despise treading on water or treading on rocks. While holding a single blade of grass aloft, we create a golden body sixteen feet high, and while holding aloft a single mote of dust, we construct a stupa for our dear Old Buddha. These activities are manifestations of our having given rise to the heart of Wisdom. It is our encountering Buddha, our heeding Buddha, our becoming Buddha, and our putting Buddha into practice…

You need to be clear about this: using the issue of birth-and-death to give rise to your intention to realize Buddhahood is to wholeheartedly seek enlightened Wisdom.
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujō Shin (Hubert Nearman)

Awakening one’s intention and arriving at the Ultimate,
though two, are not separate.
Of these two states of mind, the former is the more
difficult to arrive at,
So when those who have not yet arrived at the Ultimate
first lead others to arrive,
I, for that reason, bow to their first giving rise to their
intention.
With Your first arising, You were already a Teacher for
humans and gods,
Surpassing those who merely listen and those who seek
the Goal only for themselves.
The arising of such an intention as Yours has surpassed
the triple world,
And therefore we call it the supreme state above all.

The arising of the intention means giving rise, right off, to the intention to help others reach the Other Shore, even though you yourself have not yet reached that Place. We call this giving rise to the enlightened Mind for the first time. Once you have given rise to this Mind, you will then encounter Buddhas to whom you should make alms offerings, and you should hearken to Their Teaching. Further, should you then strive to give rise to the enlightened Mind, it would be like adding frost atop snow.

The term ‘the Ultimate’ refers to the Wisdom that is the result of Buddhahood. Were we to compare the state of supreme, fully perfected enlightenment with the state of giving rise to the enlightened Mind for the first time, it is like comparing the universal, all-consuming conflagration of the final age with the light of a firefly. Even so, when you give rise to the heart that helps others reach the Other Shore, even though you yourself have not yet reached that Place, there is no difference between the two…

Even so, ordinary, unawakened people have not taken notice of this, and because they have not taken notice of it, they have not given rise to the enlightened Mind.
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin (Hubert Nearman)

Gassho,
Ted Biringer
Author of The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

Dogen on Samsara and Nirvana

Not only that, you must fully understand that ‘birth and death’ is nirvana: there has never been any talk of a nirvana outside of birth and death. Moreover, even though you may erroneously reckon that there is a Buddha Wisdom that is separate from birth and death because you have worked it out that the mind permanently abides apart from the body, this ‘mind’ of yours—which understands, and works matters out, and perceives things, and knows what they are—is still something that arises and disappears, and is in no way ‘everabiding’. Surely, this ‘mind’ of yours is something completely transitory!
…
"In addition, should you suddenly get the notion that eradicating birth and death is what the Dharma is really about, it would lead you to sullying the Precept against despising the Buddha Dharma. Do watch out for this!
Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Rev. Hubert Nearman, O.B.C

Dogen's Shobogenzo - State of, and barriers to assimilation in the West

What is the significance of Dogen’s Shobogenzo, and is it truly possible to discern its authentic message?

I offer here, as objectively as possible, the current state of progress on, and the basic barriers to, the assimilation of Shobogenzo in the West. Corrections and/or alternative suggestions are welcome (please abstain from simple criticism which does not offer reasoning beyond personal opinions, thanks).

In spite of frequent references to the "boom" of Dogen studies in modern Zen literature, comprehensive examinations of his magnum opus are sparse. Outside the propagation of sectarian assertions, most of the English language publications concerning Dogen have focused on specific aspects of his thought or teaching, much without due regard to its context within the Buddhist tradition from which it springs, or even its context within the whole of his own works. Omitting sectarian popagation, specialized, scholarly analysis, the specious, and the trivial, leaves a veritable dearth of study considering the significance that such a masterpiece warrants.

English readers seeking to discern Dogen’s teaching face a number of difficulties and ambiguities, not the least of which arise from dogmatic bias and abstract philosophical speculation. Most explications of Dogen’s Zen approach it from one of two extremes: sectarianism, or scholarly specialization. Both, sectarian authorities and secular scholarship tend to focus on the unique or singular qualities of Dogen’s genius. Regardless of intentions, this has resulted in presenting Dogen and his work as an anomaly within the history of Buddhism. The popular view of Dogen seems to be one of a tragic hero isolated from his world and contemporaries by the sheer magnitude of his realization. While secular scholarship warrants a degree of justification due to the nature of its role, sectarianism does not. Dogmatic sectarian assertions appear to be aimed only at the retention, acquisition, or usurpation of authoritarian power.

Those sectarians seeking to appropriate (or undermine) Dogen’s authority primarily base their views of ‘Dogen’s Zen’ on the uniqueness of his ‘central’ teaching regarding the method of zazen (seated meditation). Aside from the question of why Dogen would devote such a minimal effort on his ‘central’ teaching (of the hundreds of texts written by Dogen, only eight short fascicles address zazen as a primary topic [See Carl Bielefeldt, Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation, pp.5-6]), his writings on zazen do not appear to present anything radically unique from traditional sources. Some of his instructions and exhortations are exceptionally inspiring and provocative, yet none present any obvious demarcation from the traditional teachings in the records of Zen. When confronted with the apparent discrepancies between institutional dogma and textual evidence, the religious authorities often offer some "creative" interpretations or fall back on esotericism (only the enlightened or initiated can grasp it), thus leading a number of people to dismiss Dogen out of hand.

Competing schools use the scarcity and apparent lack of originality of Dogen’s zazen texts, coupled with their own interpretation of Dogen’s zazen as a form of quietism, as the basis for their denial of his authority. Such assertions and counter assertions have fostered rigid adherence to positions in a viscous-circle of one-upmanship. The impossibility of substantiating sectarian positions based on nefarious interpretations of cherry-picked texts can only result in the continued hardening of views that is necessary to sustain positions defying rational explanation or appeals to reason.

While religious authorities emphasize Dogen’s uniqueness to assert claims of sectarian superiority (or inferiority when from competing sects), secular scholarship contributes to his isolation simply through the nature of its work (categorizing, verifying, specifying, identifying unique and/or modifying elements, etc.). Not only have these factors, and others, combined to isolate Dogen’s work from the tradition that inspires and supports it, they effectively destroy its integrity.

Dogen’s writings (especially Shobogenzo) have been mined, cherry-picked, cited, published, and propagated out of context more than any other work in literary history except the bible (and perhaps the works of William Blake and Thomas Jefferson). A handful of his more accessible essays appear in a multitude of works ranging from eclectically selected translations to exhaustive philosophical analysis of single fascicles. Nevertheless, the bulk of his work is, for the most part, neglected, relegating it to the very kind of obscurity that many scholars enthusiastically deride the Soto orthodoxy for allowing.

Achieving an accurate grasp of Shobogenzo presents some enormous challenges. Even discerning what Dogen actually said is a formidable task, to say nothing of what he meant. It was written in the language of 13th century Japanese (with a smattering of Chinese) by a creative genius that challenged every limitation of verbal expression in a style undaunted by grammatical rules. Simply rendering the original fascicles of Shobogenzo into modern Japanese requires great effort, how much more so to achieve a reliable English translation. Of his readers, Dogen assumes a solid grasp of traditional Buddhist history and doctrine, familiarity with Zen and Buddhist literature (including the koan literature), as well as a certain degree of spiritual maturity, experience, and insight.

The difficulties involved in achieving a reasonable understanding of Shobogenzo, are often evoked to rationalize approaches that sacrifice extensive investigation to intensive investigation. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to accept an interpretation of ‘Dogen’s Zen’ based on a handful of texts cherry-picked from a veritable corpus of fascicles. Clearly, any demand to accept Dogen’s writings as authoritative to the authentic teaching of Zen requires an accurate grasp on what those writings mean, which requires taking a reasonable account of the entirety of his work.

To deny that the wisdom inspiring and informing his work was not unique or anomalous to Dogen, is not to deny that the man himself was an isolated, lone individual. It is impossible to read Dogen’s work without acknowledging a certain degree of the loneliness one often senses in the works of the extraordinarily gifted. Dogen openly acknowledges feeling "as if a weight had been placed upon my shoulders" (See Shobogenzo, Bendowa). His activities during the first years of his return from China suggest that he may have entertained notions of popular or authoritative recognition. There is no doubt that he, like all genuine spiritual leaders, was driven by an overwhelming need to communicate his realization. Nor can one deny a sense that Dogen may have suffered a certain amount of frustration by the indifference of all but a few, as well as the neglect of those in power. While his comments are rarely directed to specific religious authorities and traditions in his own country, his harshest condemnations of certain "views and practices of ignoramuses he witnessed in China" are often suspiciously similar to the views and practices being propagated by the religious authorities and traditions of Japan in his own time.

Any disdain for his lack of recognition, however, cannot be taken as a sign of desire for personal glory, or fame. Born into an aristocratic family with wealth and connections, combined with his obvious charisma and intellectual genius, Dogen’s opportunities to achieve high status, religious or secular had always been within his reach—provided he had been willing to submit to the rules of fame and power. If one can ascribe a sense of disappointment to Dogen for the indifferent reception of his message, which he regarded as the first authentic transmission of the Buddha-Dharma to Japan, it must be attributed to a sense of personal responsibility, or obligation to the Buddha-Dharma, not personal ambition.

The proof of his commitment to the Buddha-Dharma alone is made clear by his unyielding defiance of institutional (and popular) views of enlightenment as being utterly beyond verbal expression. For Dogen, as is clear in his writings throughout his entire career, authentic realization of Buddha-Dharma inevitably includes the activity of expressing Buddha-Dharma. Consistent throughout his writings, both implicitly and explicitly is the assertion that "one has not resolved the great matter until they can put it into words." In Dogen’s Buddha-Dharma, realization without verbal (and by extension, literary) expression is not authentic realization.
The implication of this simple recognition is profound; if authentic expression is inherent in authentic realization, authentic realization must be inherent in authentic expression. This, combined with Dogen’s apparent intention for compiling Shobogenzo, suggests some possible motivations behind Soto authorities to conceal Shobogenzo for centuries; and, finally unable to sustain concealment, the concerted efforts apparently aimed at obscuring it through creative "interpretation."

Dogen’s work has long been regarded by the major Soto institutions as the authentic expression of the founder of Soto Zen in Japan, and hence, as the ultimate authority of Soto doctrine. While this hierarchical arrangement is already a strain on reason (in that realization is not considered authentic without the confirmation of institutionally recognized "Dharma heirs") it has not practically effected the concentration of institutional power. However, if it were shown that the teachings of Shobogenzo suggested that authentic realization could be transmitted through expression, hence, through Shobogenzo itself, the potential consequences to the powers of institutional authority are obvious. While there would be a number of legitimate roles for an institution to fulfil, none of them would include the retention of the level of power they have come to enjoy. In view of the history of institutional powers, it is reasonable to assume that efforts to circumvent such a revelation might be enacted.

It is not within the scope of this post to analyze the various methods that may have been employed to maintain power within the Soto Zen institutions, but it is worth noting that the most effective method would be to retain exclusive authority of "Dharma Transmission" (which has been thus far achieved). Because the doctrine of Dharma Transmission is inherently resistant (nearly invincible) to any form of criticism it has been plagued by individual and institutional appropriation and distortion throughout the history of Zen. This doctrine is still the most effective trump card held, and played, by individual and institutional "Zen authorities" that are challenged by major discrepancies within their doctrines or reasoning.

Ironically, the notion that Dogen acknowledged that textual authority could supercede that of certified "Dharma heirs" is denounced by Soto authorities based on the authority of (specially selected passages) Dogen’s texts. In spite of the irony, the vigor of their persistence to maintain this position (and its inherent power) has resulted in the popular view (including many in the scholarly community) that "text as authority" is oxymoronic, heretical, or even blasphemous to Zen Buddhism. Notwithstanding this institutional distortion of Zen, however, the traditional role of texts as legitimate vessels (containers and transmitters) of Buddha-Dharma is not as radical as contemporary notions might suggest. There have been Zen ancestors who have credited their own realization to texts in nearly every school, house, and lineage of Zen Buddhism.

Desperate efforts to minimize the significance of Dogen’s acknowledgement of textual authority by claiming his assertions apply only to fully "enlightened" masters are hollow. Dogen admits that even before undergoing his journey to China in search of his own spiritual resolution he viewed written expressions as more reliable than living teachers, certified Dharma-heirs or not. Confronted with the contradictions between the teachings of his, own greatly "recognized" teachers and the written Buddhist records, Dogen did not hesitate to dismiss the authenticity of his teachers (See Shobogenzo, Zuimonki).

The fact that he admitted recognizing the superiority of texts in a time before his own resolution infers that Dogen believed so-called "unenlightened" individuals could discern the authenticity of truth through reading a text. In this light, Dogen’s method of choice for words in Bendowa, while difficult to reconcile with contemporary notions of Zen as "a direct transmission outside words and letters," can be understood as the most obvious and rational decision:

I decided to compile a record of the customs and standards that I experienced first-hand in the Zen monasteries of the great Kingdom of Sung, together with a record of profound instruction from a [good] counselor which I have received and maintained. I will leave this record to people who learn in practice and are easy in the truth, so that they can know the right Dharma of the Buddha's lineage. This may be a true mission.
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Alternative Translation:

Because of my feelings of pity for these persons, I have undertaken here to write down what I saw and learned of the customs and practices in Chinese Zen monasteries, as well as to preserve the Transmission of what my spiritual teacher understood to be the most profound Purpose, and thereby to propagate the true Dharma of Buddhism. I trust that what follows is the genuine inner meaning of this.
Hubert Nearman

Clearly, if we are to take Dogen at his word, it will be necessary to examine the whole of what his records say.

Gassho to all,
Ted Biringer
Author of The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

Zen methodology, Dogen, and emptiness

I have noticed that I seem to spend a great deal of time trying to "clarify" my posts (and comments) concerning what is, in my view, a universal element in the classic teachings of Zen Buddhism on nonduality and emptiness. Rather than continuing to repeat the same thing, I am posting this overview to serve as a topic in itself, and also as a link to clarify my position elsewhere.

It is a Zen axiom that the sole value of any Buddhist doctrine or method is wholly, and proportionately, dependent on its actual soteriological effectiveness. This principle is based on the recognition that all terms, systems, methodologies, and conceptual constructs are no more than methodological designations. In fact, according to Zen, all designations (methodological or otherwise) are nonsubstantial (i.e. they are not "independent entities," but are in fact interdependent).

The practical application of this axiom by contemporary Zen Buddhists is often evident concerning a number of Buddhist doctrines and methodologies (e.g. doctrines of karma and the Bodhisattva, and the methodologies of devoting merit and bowing), but is nearly absent in others. This absence is particularly conspicuous concerning doctrines that apply the soteriological methods of nonduality (e.g. emptiness and form, practice and realization, Buddha and ordinary being, delusion and enlightenment, etc.). This may be partly due to the complexities of using methodological designations that are inherently self-referential (applicable to themselves), like the "emptiness of emptiness" and the "nonduality of nonduality."

Yet it is this principle, as revealed in the Prajnaparamita literature, that even allows for the possibility of "explanations" to be effective (or not). This is the insight of the Madhyamika as elucidated by the Indian Buddhist master, Nagarjuna (acknowledged in Zen tradition as an ancestor).

As Nagarjuna says in his examination on The Four Noble Truths:
Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.
MMK XXIV:18 (Trans. Jay L. Garfield)

It is significant to note that one of the first (maybe even the first) things Dogen wrote upon his return from China was a commentary on the Heart Sutra that specifically singled out how the effectiveness of teachings, or "explanations" was precisely proportionate to their emptiness:

"In the order of Sakyamuni Tathagata there is a bhiksu who secretly thinks "I shall bow in veneration of the profound prajna-paramita. Although this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations of all precepts, all balanced states, all kinds of wisdom, all kinds of liberation, and all views…

The bhiksu's secretly working concrete mind at this moment is, in the state of bowing in veneration of real dharmas, prajna itself - whether or not [real dharmas] are without (empty of) appearance and disappearance - and this is a venerative bow itself. Just at this moment of bowing in veneration, prajna is realized as explanations which can be understood: [explanations] from precepts balance, and wisdom, to saving sentient beings, and so on. This state is described as being without (empty). Explanations of the state of being without (emptiness) can thus be understood. Such is the profound, subtle, unfathomable prajna-paramita."
Shobogenzo, Maha-prajna-paramita, (Trans. Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross)

Failing to realize, apply, and maintain an accurate perception, or "right view" of this fundamental principal is one of the primary causes for the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Buddhist doctrines and methodologies. Nevertheless, while Zen (and most other Mahayana schools) acknowledges the validity of this revelation, it is not the only implication of the teachings on emptiness. The earliest records of Zen acknowledge the validity of the Huayen teachings of mutual identity, interpenetration, and non-obstruction of the universal and the particular (and among all particulars), as outlined in the pinnacle teaching’s of Li (universal) and Shih (particular).

The Huayen metaphors, On The Golden Lion, and, The Net of Indra, are perhaps the most well known illustration of this teaching by the Huayen ancestors (the fifth of which, Tsung-mi, is also acknowledged as an ancestor of Zen).

Perhaps lesser known is the Huayen teaching that Zen Master Dogen adapted in his own writings called the, Non-Obstruction of Concealment and Disclosure, by the Huayen ancestor, Ch’eng Kuan. A passage from the prologue on this teaching reads:

On the eighth day of a [lunar] month, half of the moon is bright and the other half is dark; the very appearance of the bright part [the disclosed] affirms but does not negate the existence of the hidden part. Likewise, the manifestation of something always implies the existence of the unmanifested or concealed part of the same thing (italics mine). At the moment when the bright part of the moon is disclosed, the dark part also "secretly" establishes itself. This is the reason for the so-called simultaneous establishment of concealment and disclosure…
(Trans. Garma C. C. Chang)

Students of Dogen will immediately recognize Dogen’s adaptation of this teaching in his essay Shobogenzo, Genjokoan: "As one side is illumined, the other side is darkened." Yet, this teaching permeates the entirety of Shobogenzo. It is explicitly used in Dogen’s teachings on practice and enlightenment, the expressible and the inexpressible, Buddha and ordinary being, original (sudden) enlightenment and acquired (gradual) enlightenment, speech and silence, nonduality and duality, past and present, and others. So permeated are Dogen’s writings (especially Shobogenzo) by this principal that any failure to account for it will undoubtedly lead to a misunderstanding of Dogen’s meaning.

While Dogen’s work comprises, by far, the largest corpus of English translations of Zen writings employing this principle, most of the classic records of Zen use it to a greater or lesser degree. It is the foundation of a number of Zen devices, such as the "Four Shouts", and the positions of "Guest and Host" associated with the Rinzai School, and the "Five Ranks" associated with the Soto.

Lacking a basic understanding of these methodologies can lead to some serious misunderstandings of Zen (and indeed any Mahayana School) expressions. Some of the most common manifestations resulting from the misunderstanding and misapplication of the liberative tools of nonduality as they apply to the doctrines on emptiness are:

A tendency to confuse "dualism" with "duality," leading to views that posit emptiness as "real," and form as "unreal."

Related to the first is the conceptualization of emptiness as truly and absolutely separate (or "other") than form (hence separate from the myriad dharmas, including us).

Concepts regarding emptiness as real (and separate from the myriad dharmas) arouse views of emptiness as "something" that can be attained (through prajna, intuition, or some form of practice).

Or, concepts of emptiness become reified, idolized and raised (as if upon a pedestal) above form (the myriad dharmas), reducing everything to a mere conceptualization of emptiness, which is often posited as a kind of "Supersymmetry" where all distinctions lose their significance.

Resulting in a loss of dynamism, creative imagination, authentic practice, intellectual development, reasoning, art, and the real characteristics, of charisma, zeal, and zest for the Dharma that is displayed in the records of the great Zen masters like Bodhidharma, Dogen, Hakuin, Huineng, and Ryokan. All of which is reduced into the bland, dull, flavorless soup of "oneness."

Leading to abandonment of authentic practice, justified with smug, self-assurances of "realization" that is really a mere contentment with conceptualized notions of oneness (rather than the actual experience of the infinite dynamic potential of authentic "Vast and Fathomless Unnamable Void").

Which finally manifests in forms of antinomianism (as is evidenced in many of the major western "Zen centers" where exploitation and violation of precepts are dismissed as the "enlightened behavior" of "crazy wisdom").

While the misunderstanding of any teaching can have negative results, the misperceptions concerning doctrines of nonduality and emptiness are especially effective in stifling genuine aspiration, zeal and affirmation for the Dharma. This is, of course, not the zeal of ambition or personal gain, but the true joyous realm of what Dogen calls "self-fulfilling samadhi." It is the "play," (in both senses of the word) of the universe itself. It is "Dharma enacting Dharma." In the words of the Large Sutra of Perfection of Wisdom:

What is the liking for the Dharma? The wish, the eagerness for Dharma. What is the delight in Dharma? The pleasure in Dharma. What is fondness for Dharma? The appreciation of its qualities. What is devotion to Dharma? The developing, the making much of that Dharma.
The Large Sutra of Perfect Wisdom, p. 104, Edward Conze

The records of Zen indicate how the nonduality of emptiness and form are fused in Manjusri’s sword of wisdom, that each of us take up with the Four Great Vows. Dogen says, it is difficult to cut into one. Emptiness and form are cut into one by the razor-sharp sword of case 100 in the Blue Cliff Record.

A monk asked Haryo, "What is the razor-sharp sword?"
Haryo said, "Each branch of coral supports the moon."

Master Tozan went around visiting the teachers of his day, to test and sharpen his own "sword." As he was taking leave of Nan-yuan, they had the following dialogue:

Nan-yuan said, "Make a thorough study of the Buddha Dharma, and broadly benefit the world."
The Master said, "I have no question about studying the Buddha Dharma, but what is it to broadly benefit the world?"
Nan-yuan said, "Not to disregard a single being."
The Record of Tung-shan, p.31, Trans. William F. Powell

According to one of Tung-shan’s verses on the Five Ranks, as we become more dexterous at wielding this sword, we activate "a natural determination to ascend the heavens." This is the inspiration that the Mahayana doctrine on the "Four Prajnas of Buddhahood" affirms as the inevitable effect of the realization of Buddha nature, concerning the third prajna (Observing Prajna) which closely corresponds to the fourth of the "Five Ranks" of Tung-shan.

Beyond this, the Zen masters indicate that, while we cannot help but rejoice at the freedom and boundless wealth of the fourth rank, another marvel remains. At the interface of the fourth and fifth ranks, the fourth prajna of Buddhahood—Practical Prajna—begins to function. The reality of total and absolute liberation. Dogen describes this as, "When Buddhas are Buddhas, they do not know they are Buddhas."

In Practical Prajna, wisdom and compassion are spontaneously manifested beyond intention, and convention. The fifth of the Five Ranks calls it: Arriving within Together. The verse for this rank is:

Falling into neither existence nor nonexistence, who dares harmonize?
People fully desire to exit the constant flux;
But after bending and fitting, in the end still return to sit in the warmth of the coals.
The Record of Tung-shan, p.31, Trans. William F. Powell

Gassho,
Ted Biringer