FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
Zen Picking & Choosing: Koans, Expressions, and Zen Masters
~Shinjinmei (Trust in the Heart-Mind), first verse
Being expressed from the nondual
perspective, Zen expressions on objectivity and subjectivity naturally
presuppose their being heard and understood nondually. The subjects and objects
of Zen expression are not “signifiers” or “symbols” that “represent”
independent entities, but interdependent beings and forms, the actual vehicles
(that both “contain” and “convey”) of metaphorical modes of experience, each fully dependent on and inclusive of all. The emphasis here is their identity in and as
“experience.” The experience of Zen practice-enlightenment is the experience of
the self alone together with the self – the great matter of life-and-death.
This experience is actualized by (therefore inclusive of) both “illumining” and
“darkening.” Experience itself (thus Zen practice-enlightenment) is thusness as
it is – it manifests without prior design. Even if it was possible, pure
objectivity or subjectivity would be exactly
the same; as either term would be meaningless, picking and choosing one over
the other would be meaningless. Fortunately, the Zen perspective is void of
pure objective or subjective (much less objectless) experiences – authentic practice-enlightenment
is free from the vain “picking and choosing” of abstract speculation. This
point is firmly established in the early mythology of Zen by the third Chinese
ancestor, Shosan:
The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and
choosing;
When love and hate are both
absent; everything dwells in perfect clarity.~Shinjinmei (Trust in the Heart-Mind), first verse
The significance and implications of this passage (and the whole
poem for that matter) is brought to light, refined, and elaborated by
innumerable expressions throughout the Zen literature. One of the clearest, and
most direct expressions on this is found as case 2 in the classic Zen work, Hekiganroku. The expression therein is
centered on a dialogue between the revered Zen master, Joshu, and a monk from
the assembly where he taught. Here is the koan that comprises the “main case”
of the expression:
Joshu, Addressing his assembly, Joshu
said, "The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and
choosing. But as soon as words are uttered, there is “picking and choosing” and
there is “clarity.” This old monk (Joshu himself) does not dwell in clarity. Do
you monks treasure this clarity or not?” (Do you understand, agree, or go along
with [me, my meaning, and/or clarity itself] or not?)
A monk stepped forward and said, “If
you do not dwell in clarity, then what do you treasure?” (If it is not
“clarity” where do you dwell?)
Joshu said, "I do not know,
either.”
The monk said, "If you do not
know, Teacher, how can you say that you do not dwell in clarity?"
Joshu said, "It is enough to
have asked the question. Now bow and withdraw."
~Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), case 2, main case
All thoughts, words, and deeds
are necessarily “selections” – an idea appears as an idea through selecting or “picking and choosing” (illumining)
particular dharmas from among the myriad, and ignoring (darkening) the rest.
Regardless of the method or the one that employs it, thinking, speaking, or
acting necessitates “selection,” illuming and
darkening. Thus, “as soon as words are spoken” other words are “unspoken” –
thus even though the great Zen master is compelled to “pick and choose” and not
“dwell” in an enlightened condition (clarity), realization of the nonduality of
“picking and choosing” and “clarity” delivers one into the liberated condition
in which “picking and choosing” is itself “clarity” and “clarity” is itself
“picking and choosing.” For the true self, being actualized by and as the
object chosen and the subject choosing comprises the whole of actualized experience. If the self that makes the selection is the self from which the selection is made, then
it is the self that is made by (fashioned
by) the selection. Therefore, as the self is experience itself (the
actualization of subject/object), then the experience of “clarity” (a
subject/object) is the self (as clarity itself) and “picking and choosing” (a
subject/object) is the self (as picking and choosing itself) the subject/object
of the thusness of either is neither voided not altered in the slightest –
clarity, picking and choosing, and every other dharma is a subject with an
object, and an object with a subject – the two are distinct and co-extensive,
not merged or independent.
The ordinary (unawakened) being, like
the objective scientist, subjective artist, and abstract speculator naturally
selects the “good,” “important,” “beautiful,” “significant,” or “true” from the
welter of raw experience. Most will acknowledge the inevitability of leaving
some of their experience untreated, many will agree that some of their
experience goes “unexperienced” (i.e. the will admit not noticing every tree,
thought, movement, etc.), and the more astute may confess to having fashioned
much of their experience (i.e. thoughts, feelings, understanding, etc.) from
preconceptions and after-images of actual experience, but without the vision
afforded by the Dharma-eye none admit, much less realize it is not them that
fashions experience, but experience that fashions them.
Driving ourselves to practice and
experience the myriad dharmas
is delusion. When the myriad dharmas
actively practice and experience ourselves, that is the state of realization.
Shobogenzo,
Genjokoan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Just as the lucid dreamer realizes
the he is “dreamed” the Zen practitioner realizes she is “fashioned.” And as the
dreamer knows his “dream-self” is dreamed by his “dreaming-self” and never the
two shall meet; the Zen practitioner sees that her (individual/universal)
“self” is fashioned by her (universal/individual) “self” and never the two
shall meet – and, never shall the two not
meet. For if “fashioning” is continuous, experience is continuous. One ’s self
is never “objective” to subjectivity, nor “subject” to objectivity – both are
coessential qualities of the self – whatever sense of “objectivity” is
experienced is (ever already) a subjective perspective of the self. As soon as
“matters of fact,” “spiritual authorities,” “scientific truths,” “authentic
certifications,” “natural laws,” or “logical proofs” are viewed or treated as
abstract realities we can be sure that objectivity and subjectivity have
strayed from the Way and fallen into dualism.
Peace, Ted
