FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
(Excerpt from the Flatbed Sutra Zen Newsletter
Jan. 2012)
As the fundamental elements of
reality in Dogen's cosmology, "dharmas" are primary and
primordial, the manifestation and the source of the universe
(self/world). In Dogen's writings, which maintain a particularly strict (radical?)
adherence to the principles of nonduality, dharmas (objective or subjective)
are always viewed and treated as qualitatively equal in regard to the
significance of their reality, importance, value, and meaning
- a dream, a concept, and a fleeting thought are as real, important, valuable,
and meaningful as a pebble, a cup, a scripture, and a solar system.
[Note:
Staying mindful that Buddhism regards "mind" as one of the sense
organs (with eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body) and "thoughts" as
its "objects" of perception keeps us from becoming too abstract about
the notion of "objects" (dharmas); all "the myriad dharmas"
amount to (and only to) "six objects of consciousness" (sights,
sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts).]
In Buddhism, all
divisions between objective and subjective dharmas are recognized as conceptual
conveniences, not metaphysical or literal facts. Thus, to say that dharmas
constitute the fundamental elements of reality, is simply to acknowledge that
they cannot be analyzed into "more fundamental" elements - in this
context dharmas can be discussed "as if" separate entities, only by
accounting for their interdependence and stressing the import of maintaining a
conscious understanding that dharmas are impervious to generalization,
classification, and categorization, as well as literal description or
definition. For, according to the principles of nonduality (i.e.
nonduality/duality) each dharma is recognized as a coextensive realization or
exemplification that is both nondual and dual - each dharma is one with all
things (nondual; indistinct and undifferentiated) and unique, one-and-only
instance of existence-time (uji) (dual; a distinct element, one of the
many). The nonduality/duality of "nonduality" is the true nature of
dharmas that is often designated in Buddhism as "thusness" (immo).
"Thusness" is the "as it is" reality of dharmas.
The two aspects of
the nonduality of dharmas (i.e. nonduality/duality) can be generally understood
thus: "the "nonduality" aspect of dharmas is their unequivocal
real existence (ontology) in/as the universe (i.e. the totality of
existence-time); and: the "duality" aspect of dharmas is their
irreplaceable uniqueness, their one-and-only place-moment (dharma-position)
in/as the universe (which is what makes them impervious to classification,
literal definition, etc). The Buddhist recognition of the "thusness"
of dharmas, then, is recognition of the inherent denial of any likeness
among dharmas adequate for precisely accurate comparability; a dharma is
exactly as it is - it is not exactly like any other dharma.
In his criticisms
of "Indian Naturalism" (particularly the "Senika School"),
for instance, Dogen outlines the obstructive potential of views or theories
that posit (or imply) a noumenal nature or aspect of dharmas. Thus, the
affirmation that "dharmas are always phenomenal" is
followed-up with the assertion that "dharmas are never noumenal." In expressing the obvious - an
obvious negative at that - this assertion may seem superfluous, but its
significance is important in light of certain notions prevalent in Dogen's day,
as well as within the contemporary Zen community.
The particular
notions that make it important to understand dharmas "are not noumenon"
primarily involve views on the nature and role of language, thinking, and
reason in Zen practice-enlightenment. More specifically, within the
contemporary Zen community the prevailing views - which are variable and
indistinct, thus more accurately "general notions" - that regard language,
thinking, and reason as less important or inferior to other
aspects of practice-enlightenment (particularly seated meditation; i.e. zazen,
shikantaza, etc.). Not infrequently, such notions go beyond views of
inferiority and demonstrate a tendency to see language, thinking, and reason as
nonessential, dispensable, or even as hindrances to Zen
practice-enlightenment.
Such notions,
especially the more extreme forms, are rarely explicitly stated. First, most of
those holding such views are doing so unconsciously (or largely so); second,
when such notions are explicitly articulated they tend to collapse rapidly due
to their inherent lack of logic as well as their failure to harmonize with
Buddhist principles. They fail to harmonize with Buddhist principles because
they are inherently dualistic. The inherent dualism of such notions is
sometimes extremely subtle, not only because it is expressed in vague or
ambiguous language (implicit rather than explicit), but also because it is
typically couched in terms of "nonduality." Thus, it is crucial to
understand that dharmas are "not noumenal" in order to see through,
avoid, or overcome wrong views (dualistic notions) that are largely unconscious,
often subtle, widespread, and possessed of the power to obstruct accurate
understanding (not to mention authentic practice-enlightenment).
To
help clarify this, we will begin by observing the following quote of the
contemporary Soto Zen master, Shohaku Okumura:
...Dogen Zenji is
discussing this relationship between the self and all beings. He is pointing
out that we like things we think are useful, meaningful, or valuable, but we
dislike or ignore things that do not suit us. This evaluation occurs within the
relationship between self and the myriad dharmas, but there is no such
dichotomy within the reality of the myriad dharmas. Within the relationship
between self and all beings, there is good and bad, positive and negative,
right and wrong. We don't really see the myriad dharmas as they are. We think
about things we encounter and name them, assign value to them, and put them
into categories such as good and bad, valuable or worthless, likable or
unlikable. Our life is actually formed by what we encounter because we create
our own world of likes and dislikes based on how we categorize the things we
meet. Within this world of likes and dislikes, we do not perceive the myriad
dharmas as they really are. Things we like and things we hate look bigger than
they are, and things we are not interested in become small or invisible to us.
The world we live in is the world we create based on how our mind encounters
the myriad dharmas, We cannot prevent our mind from creating our world as it
does, but it is possible to realize that the world of our creation does not
reflect true reality.
Shohaku
Okumura, Realizing Genjokoan: The Key to Dogen's Shobogenzo, p.49
[Note: Okumura's
comments attempt to elucidate a passage of the Genjokoan fascicle of
Shobogenzo. The passage in question (as translated by Okumura) is,
"Therefore flowers fall even though we love them; weeds grow even though
we dislike them. Conveying oneself towards all things to carry out
practice-enlightenment is delusion. All things coming and carrying out
practice-enlightenment through the self is realization. Those who greatly
realize delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded in realization are
living beings. Furthermore, there are those who attain realization beyond
realization and those who are deluded within delusion."]
First,
this is one teacher's interpretation of one passage of one fascicle of one
writing by Dogen - thus it should not be considered as a full or accurate
indication of Shohaku Okumura's views, much less Dogen's; that is not our
purpose in citing it. What this passage does present is an unusually explicit
account of a subtle form of dualism common to the general view we been
discussing. As mentioned, there are many variations of this view, thus this
passage should not be taken as representing a "universal view" of the
contemporary Zen community or even the Soto Zen community. Nevertheless, it is
my experience that the basic notion expressed here generally accords with the
views held by a majority of contemporary Zen practitioners, especially those
identified with Soto Zen.
Now, Okumura's
comments diverge from the classic Zen teachings on a number of points - all of
which are grounded on the dualistic presupposition succinctly revealed in his
statement, "We don't really see the myriad dharmas as they are."
This statement presupposes the same subtle form of dualism found in a variety
of common "Zen" expressions like, "The true nature of reality
cannot be perceived," "The forms we see are illusory," "The
'appearance' of things is relative (or provisional) while their
'essential nature' (emptiness) is absolute" (i.e. ultimate, real),
"The world we perceive is not thusness as is," etc.
There is one flaw
inherent to all such statements (i.e. dualism), and there are two traits that
reveal this flaw; first, its violation of a basic Buddhist principle, second,
the speciousness of its basis. In the first case, for Okumura's assertion to be
true there would have to be more than one reality (a "false" one we
see, and a "real" one we don't see) - this would violate the Buddhist
teaching of emptiness which unequivocally refutes the existence of independent
entities. The second case presents a two-fold problem; a) the failure to
account for or explain what or where "the real reality"
(that we don't see) is, and, b) the failure to account for or explain how it
is, or what means were used to attain or acquire the "knowledge
of a reality" that "we don't or can't really see"
- in short, how is/was it perceived that things "are not" as
"they are" perceived? If they were truly "not as perceived"
then "perceiving that truth" would instantly disprove
that very proposition.
With this in mind,
let's look a little closer at Okumura's expression. He speaks about a
"relationship" between "the self and all beings"
(synonymously with the "self and the myriad dharmas"). Next, he goes
on to explain that we "don't really see the myriad dharmas as they
are" because an "evaluation occurs" within this relationship
that ultimately results in "the world we create" which "does not
reflect true reality." This "evaluation" is described as a
process in which we "think about things we encounter and name them, assign
value" etc.
Here consider,
what could this "relationship" consist of? According to Buddhism the
"self" (experiencer) and "all beings" or "myriad
dharmas" (experienced) are not two different things - each depends on and
is dependent on by the other. Also recall that "thoughts" (including
"evaluations") are regarded as one of the six kinds of "myriad
dharmas." If this "evaluation occurs" as Okumura contends, then
this evaluation itself must be qualified as a dharma - as it is - an
expression of Buddha-nature. All dharmas are dharmas - as they are; thus Dogen
often points out the Buddha-nature expressed as "doubt,"
"fear," and "surprise," even "wrong views" are
real manifestations of Buddha-nature; a wrong view is, as it is, a wrong view.
This
being so, the present is the "form as it is" of the state of
experience, and even "alarm, doubt, and fear" are nothing other than
reality as it is.
Shobogenzo,Hokke-ten-hokke, Gudo
Nishijima & Mike Cross
Now notice that Okumura
includes the phrase asserting "there is no such dichotomy within the
reality of the myriad dharmas." Why say this? This is a good example of
what we mentioned earlier about dualistic views being couched in terms of
nonduality; here it sounds as if "self and other" are being
recognized as "nondual," while in fact they are actually being
merged into one thing (or nothing). In failing to account for the
distinction (not separation) between self and other, this
"explanation" amounts to a casual dismissal of the infinite
variety of the universe, the multitudinous array that make the
dharmas "myriad" rather than "uniform." Dogen
explains the basic fallacy of this view is based on a misunderstanding of the
Buddhist teaching that "all things are empty." Rather than
recognizing that this means "all things - as they are - are empty,"
they mistakenly think that "all things - despite or behind appearances -
are empty." In short, they think that the "emptiness (non-form)"
of things is separate from the "form (non-emptiness) of things."
Dogen explains this, for instance, in Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu:
When people
without eyes of learning in practice take up the Tathāgata's words "If we
see the many forms [and] non-form. . ." they think, "To see the many
forms as non-form is just to see the Tathāgata." In other words, they
think the words describe seeing the many forms not as forms but as the
Tathāgata. Truly, a faction of small thinkers will [inevitably] study the words
like that, but the reality of the words which the Buddha intended is not like
that...
Zen Master Dai
Hōgen of Seiryō-in Temple says, "If we see the many forms [as] non-form,
we are not then meeting the Tathāgata."
This expression of
Dai Hōgen now is an expression in the state of meeting buddha... "Because
this concrete form is just the form of the Tathāgata, we say that the many
forms should be the many forms." This is truly a supreme discourse of the
Great Vehicle, and the experience of the masters of many districts. Decisively
determining it to be so, we should believe it and experience it. Do not be
fluff following the wind to the east and to the west. "The many forms are
the form of the Tathāgata, not non-form": investigating this and meeting
buddha, deciding this and experiencing conviction, we should receive it and
retain it, and we should recite it and become thoroughly versed in it.
...
Therefore,
there is only one way to comprehend the state in experience, namely: "the
many forms are already beyond non-form, and non-form is just the many
forms." Because non-form is the many forms, non-form is truly non-form. We
should learn in practice that the form called "non-form" and the form
called "the many forms," are both the form of the Tathāgata.
Shobogenzo,
Kenbutsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
In sum, the
deluded notion that we "don't see the myriad dharmas as they are" can
only be entertained by presupposing that dharmas are independent entities -
that "objects of consciousness" exist independently of
"conscious subjects"). This necessarily implies that our (subjective)
self is also an independent entity. This is a clear violation of the basic
Buddhist principle that regards dharmas as nondual essence/form unties. In Zen,
all forms (all six types of objects) are real, as they are - and their
reality is not different from their appearance. In Dogen's terms,
"Nothing in the whole universe is concealed."
The realization of
the Buddhist patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all
dharmas. All dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is,
the mind as it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking,
standing, sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and
stillness, as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and
a smiling face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they
are; learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of
pines and the integrity of bamboos, as they are.
Shobogenzo,
Shoho-Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
With a solid,
practical grasp of these teachings comes a clear, even obvious, that each and
every dharma is a phenomenon, and each and every phenomenon is a dharma.
This also means that dharmas are never regarded as noumenon. Thus, we come to see that
those demonstrating views that dharmas "are llusory," "are not
as we perceive," "are temporary or provisional expedients," etc.
are harboring, and hindered by, dualistic (non-Buddhist) viewpoints. In Dogen's
cosmology, on the other hand, dharmas are never concealed, invisible,
unverifiable, mysterious, or supernatural; rather, dharmas are always
accessible as they are. Most significantly, dharmas exist, and
the existence of each is of equal status in regard to its reality, importance,
value, and meaning.
[Note: Our
meaning of "phenomenon" and "noumenon" coincide with the
first definitions offered by Encarta: phenomenon, 1. something
experienced, a fact or occurrence that can be observed; and, noumenon,
1. something beyond the tangible world that can only be known or identified by
the intellect, not by the senses.]
Dogen's emphasis
on the phenomenal nature of dharmas serves to underscore their real,
spatial-temporal, manifest existence. According to Dogen the true nature
(essential reality, emptiness) of each and all particular dharmas is "as
it is" (thusness). The significance of this becomes clearer as our study
and practice increasingly expands our realization of the Buddhist principles of
nonduality.
Let us try to
bring all this together by considering Dogen's treatment of a saying by Daie
Soko (Dogen's archetypal symbol for unreliable Zen masters):
A certain monk called
Meditation Master Daie Sōkō, once said:
Folks today are fond of talking
about mind and talking about nature, and because they are fond of talking about
profundities and talking about wonders, they are slow to realize the Way. Since
mind and nature form a duality, once these folks have discarded this duality,
and have forgotten all about the profound and the wondrous as well, then
dualities will no longer arise, and they will experience the Truth that the
Buddha promised them.
Shobogenzo, Sesshin Sesshō,
Hubert Nearman
Here we find a demonstration of
the same subtle dualism inherent in the view expressed by Shohaku Okumura. It
is doubtful that such a superficial view was really expressed by Daie Soko.
Nevertheless, it is the view, not Daie, that Dogen is concerned with;
and the way the view is voiced here captures the essential nature of the
fallacy at the heart of even the most sophisticated forms of dualism. First,
this view presents an almost perfect subversion of Dogen's own, as his comments
make perfectly clear:
These remarks of his show that
he was still unaware of the silken thread that binds the Buddhas and Ancestors
together, nor had he comprehended what the lifeline of the Buddhas and
Ancestors is. Accordingly, he only understood 'mind' to refer to discriminative
thinking and consciousness, so he spoke this way because he had not learned
that the various functions, such as discriminative thinking and consciousness,
are what the intellective mind is. He wrongly viewed 'nature' to mean something
that is abundantly clear and peacefully inactive, and did not understand
whether Buddha Nature and the nature of all thoughts and things existed or did
not exist. And because he had not seen his True Nature as It is, not even in
his dreams, he had a false view of what Buddha Dharma is. The 'mind' that the
Buddhas and Ancestors spoke of is the very Skin and Flesh, Bones and Marrow.
And the 'nature' that the Buddhas and Ancestors have preserved is a monk's
traveling staff and the shaft of a bamboo arrow. The Buddhas and Ancestors have
profoundly realized the Buddhahood promised Them by the Buddha, and this is
what is meant by being a pillar of the temple or a stone lantern. How wondrous
it is that the Buddhas and Ancestors hold up and offer to us Their wise
discernment and understanding!
Shobogenzo, Sesshin Sesshō,
Hubert Nearman
[Note: Dogen's scorn for
a teacher that "wrongly viewed 'nature' to mean something that is
abundantly clear and peacefully inactive" makes us wonder what he might
say of contemporary teachers that advocate "letting go of thoughts"
or "just sitting without goals" (often appealing to the authority of
"Dogen" as they do so!).]
Dogen's comments are clear
enough, but it is worth stressing his emphasis that "the various
functions" of mind are just what the "mind is" - as it is
(thusness). Dogen's point, then, is that the very substance of the
myriad dharmas is our experience - as it is- of them. The directly
perceived image or form of a thing (dharma) is the thing itself.
"An idea" is really "an idea" as it is, "an abstract
concept" is true nature totally exerting itself as "an abstract
concept."
The "general dualistic
notion" we have been discussing is grounded in the same misunderstanding
that caused Dogen to say Daie "did not understand whether Buddha Nature
and the nature of all thoughts and things existed or did not exist."
Notwithstanding the fact that many contemporary Zen teachers do not know the
meaning of "Buddha nature" or "the nature of all thoughts and
things" or even whether they exist or not, there is no reason for any genuine
Zen practitioner to fail to verify it. Apart from "the nature of all
thoughts and things" what is "Buddha nature"? Apart from
"discriminative thinking and consciousness" what is "mind"?
Thus, for Dogen, the
particularity, specificity, and uniqueness of things (dharmas) is far more
important than their uniformity, equality, or mutual identity. So here are some
juicy bits to get that Dharma-Eye lighted up:
And, just because sentient
beings are always having their doubts about anything and everything that they
have not directly experienced, this does not mean that what they may have
previously doubted is the same as what they may now have doubts about, for
doubts themselves are merely "just for the moment" kinds of time, and
nothing more.
...
When you reach such a fertile
field of seeing the way things really are, then the earth in its entirety will
be "one whole sprouting, one whole form"; it will be comprised of
forms that you recognize and forms that you do not, sproutings that you
recognize and sproutings that you do not. It is the same as the times we refer
to in "from time to time", which contain all forms of existenceand
all worlds. So take a moment to look around and consider whether there is any
form of being, that is, any "world", that does or does not find
expression at this very moment of time.
Shobogenzo, Uji,
Hubert Nearman
Buddha Nature is not the
existence of something that arises arbitrarily or conditionally, for the whole
realm of our being-which is Buddha Nature-is never hidden from us. But saying
that the whole realm of our being is never hidden from us is not necessarily
the same as saying that our physical world is what existence really is. The
statement "The whole realm of my being is something that I possess"
constitutes a false view of non-Buddhists. Buddha Nature is not the existence
of something that one possesses at the start, for It pervades both our past and
our present. It is not the existence of something that has arisen for the first
time, for It does not partake of a single bit of illusory dust. It is not the
existence of some particular being, for It encompasses all beings. It is not
the existence of something that is beyond having a beginning, for It is
something that makes Its appearance just in the way that It does. It is not the
existence of something that has just come into being for the first time, for
our ordinary, ever-present mind is synonymous with the Way.
Above all, you need to know
that within this "having It through and through", sentient beings do
not readily find an easy or pleasant way to encounter It. When you understand
"having It through and through" in this manner, to have It through
and through then means to penetrate Its very substance and to let all our
notions and opinions about It drop off.
Shobogenzo, Bussho,
Hubert Nearman
Keep in mind that, since the
darkness of spiritual ignorance is inseparable from the One Whole Mind,
deliberate acts, becoming aware of things, and so forth, are also inseparable
from the One Whole Mind. Since the darkness of ignorance is inseparable from
cessation, then deliberate acts, becoming aware of things, and so forth, are
also inseparable from cessation. Since the darkness of ignorance is inseparable
from nirvana, deliberate acts, becoming aware of things, and so forth, are also
inseparable from nirvana. We can speak in this way because what arises is also
what ceases. "The darkness of ignorance" is a phrase we use in
talking. "Becoming aware of things", "giving them name and
form", and so forth, are no different. Keep in mind that the darkness of
ignorance, deliberate actions, and so forth, are not different from Seigen
Gyoshi's saying to his disciple Sekito Kisen, "I have a certain Hatchet
and would give It to you, should you choose to reside on this mountain with me."
The darkness of ignorance, deliberate actions, becoming aware of things, and so
forth, are not different from Sekito's responding, "At the time when I was
sent to you, I received your promise of being allowed to have your Hatchet,
Reverend Monk, and so I would like to receive It."
Shobogenzo, Bukkyo,
Hubert Nearman
When we speak of "what is
set in motion by the flowering of the Dharma", we are referring to the
mind's wandering off onto deluded paths. And the mind's delusive wandering,
accordingly, refers to what is set in motion by the flowering of the Dharma.
That is to say, our mind's wandering off is precisely what is set in motion by
the Dharma's flowering. What this means is that, even though the mind's
delusions are synonymous with the myriad thoughts and things that arise, the
form their True Nature takes is what is aroused by the flowering of the Dharma.
This "being set in motion" is not something to rejoice in, or watch
for, or obtain, or arrive at; even so, what the Dharma's flowering sets in motion
is precisely "neither two things nor three". Since the flowering of
the Dharma is our having only One Vehicle to Buddhahood, because it is the
flowering of the form of things as they really are, we speak of "being
able to set in motion what moves". Even so, it is just the One Vehicle to
Buddhahood, just the One Great Matter for which we train, just the ever-moving
about of the mind as it is, and nothing more. So, do not reproach yourself for
your mind's delusions. As the Scripture says, "Whatever is done by you is
the way of bodhisattvas," and "The fundamental practice of the
Bodhisattva Way is our serving and paying homage to all the Buddhas." Our
opening up to this Way, manifesting It, awakening to It, and entering It are,
all together, what is set in motion by the Dharma's flowering each and every
time. There are our delusions about what is within the burning house, and our
delusions about being at the threshold of the gate, and our delusions about
what lies outside the gate, and our delusions about what being on the other
side of the gate is like, and our delusions about being within the gate.
Because, in our delusion, we give rise to such notions as "being within
the gate" and "being beyond the gate", to say nothing of
"being at the threshold of the gate" and "being within a burning
house", we will, of necessity, open up to It, manifest It, awaken to It,
and enter It whilst upon the cart drawn by the White Ox.
Shobogenzo, Hokke Ten Hokke,
Hubert Nearman
The realization of the Buddhist
patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all dharmas. All
dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is, the mind as
it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking, standing,
sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and stillness,
as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and a smiling
face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they are;
learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of pines
and the integrity of bamboos, as they are.
Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso, Gudo
Nishijima & Mike Cross
No comments:
Post a Comment