Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Enlightened about delusion, deluded about enlightenment


Those who are enlightened about delusion are buddhas. Those who are deluded about enlightenment are ordinary beings.
~Dogen (Shobogenzo, Genjokoan)

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Shobogenzo 1 & Shobogenzo 2: Two Texts, or One?

Although the collection of his written works is vast, the large collection of fascicles edited and compiled under the title Shobogenzo; Treasury of the True Dharma Eye, is universally recognized as Dogen’s masterpiece. Consisting mainly of commentaries on a range of Buddhist topics, the fascicles of Shobogenzo are written in Japanese and usually center around one or more of the classic Zen koans and or passages from the Buddhist scriptures. While Dogen’s mastery of Zen expression is also demonstrated in his other works, especially Eihei Koroku, it is primarily in Shobogenzo that Dogen demonstrates an originality and creativity that is not only unique in Zen literature, but may even represent a culmination of Zen thought.
.
There are many reasons why this amazing work stands apart from the rest of his writings. Its extensiveness in range and scope is equally matched by its intensity of expression and insight. Widely regarded as Japan’s greatest literary achievement, Shobogenzo offers one of the most extensive treatments of Zen Buddhist doctrine and methodology in the whole of Zen literature. Dogen’s manner of expression in Shobogenzo utilizes a number of original and creative approaches including alternating perspectives, grammatical rearrangement, (apparently) unorthodox interpretation, and many others. Nobody denies that Dogen was an unusually gifted master of language, and few would argue with the suggestion that his works represent a mastery of language unmatched by any other single Zen master.
.
While there are classic Zen texts that may be considered as matching or even surpassing Dogen’s work, most of these (e.g. The Platform Sutra; The Linji Lu; The Huang Po; The Record of Matsu; etc.) represent decades, even centuries, of continuous refinement by numerous groups and individuals. While some questions remain concerning Dogen’s intention as to which fascicles were to be included in Shobogenzo, and whether some fascicles have been tampered with (most likely for sectarian reasons), Dogen’s Shobogenzo is largely representative of the work of a single individual. The details of these issues are not relevant here as they do not affect the issue at hand; they are mentioned in the interest of completeness (Steven Heine’s, Did Dogen Go To China, offers the most extensive study of these issues).
.
The main point here has been to indicate the reason Shobogenzo is singled out as “the record” Dogen alluded to in his stated intention to transmit the “right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage.” This brings us to an interesting point; Dogen actually compiled two texts under the name Shobogenzo. His “other” Shobogenzo is a collection of 301 classic Zen koans. Dogen evidently selected the koans from a number of classic Zen texts and, without modification or commentary, organized them into a single work. Many of these koans appear unmodified (in their original Chinese form) in “other” Shobogenzo (the one which includes his commentary).
.
Because the most obvious difference between the two “Shobogenzos” is that one includes Dogen’s Japanese commentary, and the other includes only the original Chinese koans, the two “Shobogenzos” are usually differentiated as “Kana” (Japanese) and “Mana” or “Shinji” (Chinese). Note, however, that even in the Shobogenzo that contains commentary by Dogen, the koans remain unmodified in their original Chinese form. Thus, it would be just as accurate to distinguish them as “with” or “without” commentary. In fact, this might be more accurate as the former method can easily mislead people to assume that the two texts are more dissimilar than they are. The fact of the matter is that the similarities that they do share are not just similar—they are identical. That is, the content they share is their title, and a number of specific koans which remain in their original Chinese form in both texts (i.e. the koans are not translated into Japanese in the so-called “Kana” Shobogenzo). The “traditional” method of distinguishing the two texts as “Mana” and “Kana” is, as far as I can tell, based upon a single comment by Ejo, Dogen’s main heir:
.
“…I heard him say that he wanted to rework all of the Shobogenzo that had previously been written in Japanese script and also to include some new manuscripts…”
~Shobogenzo, Hachi Dainingaku, Hubert Nearman
.
I certainly am not qualified to verify the linguist elements of 13th century Japanese, but it does seem fair to ask if Ejo’s remark actually distinguishes one Shobogenzo as a distinct and separate work from another Shobogenzo with the exact same title, or if it is simply distinguishes the “previously written Japanese script” of Shobogenzo from the original (Chinese) script of the (same) Shobogenzo. Even if Ejo’s intent was certain, it would not follow that such was Dogen’s position. Regardless of whether Dogen regarded Shobogenzo and Shobogenzo as two separate works, the fact that he regarded one or both as the “Treasury of the True Dharma Eye” deserves consideration. In any case, the texts are so intertwined that even if they are “two,” they always go together—if not as closely as the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, at least as closely as The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
.
For me, the most convincing evidence of the interconnection of the two Shobogenzos comes from my own experience with koan training. This aspect of Zen training provided a greater degree of clarity to Dogen’s writings than all other aspects of Zen training put together. Of course, distinguishing “aspects” of Zen training is a vulgar simplification; koan training cannot be distinguished from dokusan, dokusan cannot be distinguished from zazen, zazen cannot be distinguished from reliable teaching, etc. etc. Be that as it may, I cannot imagine how one could achieve an accurate understanding of Dogen’s written teachings, especially Shobogenzo and Eihei Koroku, without a firm grasp of the classic koans. Both of Dogen’s major records make extensive use of the classic koans, most of which are drawn from the 301 koan collection Shobogenzo.
.
Perhaps there is a more important question to consider. For the sake of argument, let us say that an accurate understanding of Dogen’s Shobogenzo could be achieved without assimilating the koans that permeate it. If such was the case, why would Dogen have included them in the first place, and more importantly, why wouldn’t we want to assimilate them anyway? Attempting to study these works without resolving the classic koans—assimilating them, not conceptualizing them—would be like trying to study Paradise Lost without a firm grasp of the Bible. Whatever did seem comprehensible would most likely be a misunderstanding.
.
This is not to deny that some of the wisdom of Paradise Lost can be conveyed to people unfamiliar with the Bible. This is achieved daily by teachers and artists, as well as the products of teachers and artists—systems of thought, and works of art. Nevertheless, to successfully transmit the wisdom of sacred literature and major poetry the teachers, artists, and their products must be at the levels of genius, or nearly so. For this reason, the differences between the “teachers” and “artists” as well as the “systems” and “works of art” that succeed in conveying such wisdom is hard to discern. The great teacher’s “system” is a work of art; the great artist’s “picture” is worth a thousand words. Moreover, the student that truly receives what the teacher or artist communicates will only do so with sustained attention and focused effective effort.
.
Peace,
Ted

Friday, February 19, 2010

How we encounter Buddha Ancestors

We need to carefully scrutinize, right now, whether we ourselves are deluded or not, for it is by this that we humbly encounter the Buddhas and Ancestors.
~Shobogenzo, Daigo, Hubert Nearman

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Life is Our True Self Revealing Itself Fully

What is life? What is our "True Self"? Dogen expresses the Zen view:
-
Our True Self revealing Itself to the full is what life is, and life is our True Self revealing Itself to the full. At the time when our True Self reveals Itself, we can say that there is nothing that is not a full displaying of life, and there is nothing that is not a full displaying of death.
-
It is the operating of this True Self that causes life to come about and causes death to come about. At the very moment when we fully manifest this functioning of our True Self, It will not necessarily be something great or something small, or the whole universe or some limited bit of it, or something drawn out or something short and quick. Our life at this very moment is the True Self in operation, and the operating of our True Self is our life at this very moment. Life is not something that comes and life is not something that goes; life is not something that reveals itself and life is not something that is accomplished. Rather, life is a displaying of one’s Buddha Nature to the full, and death is also a displaying of one’s Buddha Nature to the full. You need to realize that both life and death occur in the immeasurable thoughts and things within ourselves.
~Shobogenzo, Zenki, Hubert Nearman
-
How do we clarify this Zen "Truth" about Our True Nature"? The same way all those that have clarified it did so--as Dogen puts it:
-
All Buddhas, along with all Bodhisattvas and all sentient beings, by the power of their inherent keenness, clarify what the Great Truth of the True Nature of all things is. They clarify what the Great Truth of this True Nature is by following the Scriptures and by following their spiritual friend. In this way, they come to understand their own True Nature. The Scriptures are what True Nature is: they are our true Self. And because True Nature is our true Self, It is not the self that non-Buddhists and devilish beings misunderstand It to be.
~Shobogenzo, Hossho, Hubert Nearman
-
Lovely! So clear and direct! How could we fail to be grateful?
-
Peace,
Ted

Monday, February 08, 2010

Enlightened about delusion

The Shobogenzo, Genjokoan says:
Those who are enlightened about delusion are buddhas.
In the Shobogenzo, being “enlightened about delusion” means awakening to the reality of delusion. That is, realizing what delusion truly is. It is like when, for example, a person is shown the cause of a magician’s illusions: mirrors, wires, hidden compartments, and so on. The person can then 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 you realize the cause of delusion: misperception or partial perception, of true nature, you 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.”

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Koans the hallmark of Dogen's Zen?

[In China at the time Dogen visited] All public monasteries, whether or not their abbacies were reserved for Ch’an monks, had basically the same buildings, bureaucratic structures, schedules of activities, and basic forms of Buddhist discipline and practice. All public monasteries had buddha halls (butsuden), where various offerings and sutra chanting services were held; dharma halls (hattō), where abbots gave lectures and entertained questions; and sangha halls (sōdō), where the main body of monks sat in meditation, ate, and slept at their places on the open platforms. If there was anything that was distinctive about the Ch’an monasteries, it was not the stress on zazen or the occasional ritual in which the entire community was required to perform manual labor together (fushin samu) — those practices were common to all the public monasteries. No, what distinguished the training in Ch’an monasteries was chiefly the teaching style of the abbots, who based their talks and debates on the koan literature that was the hallmark of the Ch’an tradition.
...
To summarize, what the so-called transmission of Zen to Japan in the thirteenth century really amounted to was the wholesale transmission from Sung China of the latest in Buddhist monastic institutions, teachings, and practices.
...
The Zen school in Japan, or rather the various Zen schools (plural) that were based on branch lineages, were institutionally separate from the other schools of Japanese Buddhism...
Nevertheless, they were heirs not only to the Chinese Ch’an tradition of dharma lineages and koan study, but to the entire Buddhist monastic tradition as it flourished in Sung China.

Dogen himself stressed in the chapter of his Shobogenzo entitled “The Buddha Way” (Butsudō) that what he was transmitting was not just the “Zen lineage” (zenshū) — a name that he castigated — but true Buddhism in its entirety. At the same time, he boldly asserted that his own line of dharma transmission, passed down through his teacher Ju-ching, preserved the true Buddhism better than any other line.
...
It is true that Soto teachers gained prestige from their membership in the Zen lineage, and that to become a member one had to master the tradition of commenting on koans.
~T. Griffith Foulk, History of the Soto Zen School

Peace,
Ted

Dogen - Zen Lineages, Zen Sects

The title which Dogen is most frequently referred to as, “The Founder of the Soto Sect of Zen in Japan,” begs for serious qualification. Dogen’s own writings seem to suggest he might regard this title as ill informed, even irreverent. For Dogen, authentic enlightenment was the standard; not pedigree. Those authentically enlightened are “Buddha Ancestors,” others are not; whether they belong to a particular lineage or no lineage at all.

While Dogen did acknowledge the traditional lineages, tracing his own through that of his Chinese Master, he saw lineages for what they are; convenient identifiers—no more significant than the names of cities or provinces. As with all speculative notions, assumption based merely on lineage (or no lineage) is not only pointless, it is ludicrous. While many of Dogen’s writings illustrate his disdain of sectarianism, in Shobogenzo, nearly the entire fascicle of Butsudo is dedicated to, on one hand, exposing the fallacies of confused notions linking “lineages” with “sects,” and on the other hand, elucidating the “right view” for Buddhists as revealed by the authentic Buddha Ancestors, including Dogen’s Chinese master:

My late Master, an Old Buddha, once ascended the Dharma seat and addressed his assembly, saying, “People nowadays just talk of there being separate traditions and customs, such as those of Ummon, Hōgen, Igyō, Rinzai, and Sōtō, but this is not the Buddha’s Teaching, nor is it what Ancestors and Masters say.”
~Shobogenzo, Butsudo, (Hubert Nearman)

Dogen was a Dharma heir of both Rinzai and Soto Zen, and his writings offer unabashed praise, and revere his teachers in both lineages as “Ancestral Masters.” This attitude is consistent in his writings which repeatedly assert that the authenticity of enlightenment is the only criteria for qualifying Buddha Ancestors. The Butsudo fascicle’s unapologetic contempt of vulgar notions concerning lineage and sectarianism, Dogen offers some the harshest, most colorful, and most humorous expressions in the whole Shobogenzo. One can only imagine the scorn he would heap on some of the outlandish notions assumed by many contemporary Zen institutions. Dogen’s writings freely draw on the wisdom of all lineages, and harshly criticize notions of sectarian division in what he calls the “House of Buddha Ancestors,” including those of a “Soto” sect:

There is no separate Transmission, no separate sect, in addition to this. Our Great Master never showed his Fist or his twinkling Eye to his assembly, calling either ‘the Sōtō sect’. Further, since there were no mediocre trainees mixed in with his family, how could there possibly be any in his family who spoke of a ‘Sōtō sect’!
~Shobogenzo, Butsudo, (Hubert Nearman)

There is little doubt that Dogen would be inspired to articulate some vividly colorful language if he could see some of the recent institutions created under the name of Zen. In their apparent enthusiasm to embrace American entrepreneurism it seems like every westerner that obtains certification to teach “Zen” sets out to initiate, organize, found, or otherwise establish a new branch, no, “brand” of Zen—their own. Just a few decades ago the number of “certified” Zen teachers in America could be counted on one hand, today “Zen masters,” “Dharma-heirs,” “Abbotts,” “Roshis,” and “Founders,” vie for space in glossy magazines to advertise Zen enlightenment in all manner of forms from one-on-one interviews with living Buddhas and catered retreats at multi-million dollar resorts, to trademark protected techniques for instant enlightenment (expensive, but 100% guaranteed!).

Megalomaniacs with delusions of grandeur are apparently not new to Zen; it is to one of them, in fact, that Dogen credits as the deviser of the name “Soto sect.”

When it comes to this name ‘Soto’, clearly some stinking skin bag in an offshoot lineage who fancied himself the equal of Tozan devised the name ‘Soto sect’.
~Shobogenzo, Butsudo, (Hubert Nearman)

What do you make of it?

Peace,
Ted