The Authentic Buddha Dharma - Which Zen is Zen? Part 2

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 2

(Continued from Part 1 The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 1 )

 

Dogen’s decision to express the ‘right view’ concerning the significance of how and why the ‘one-vehicle’ or authentic Buddha Dharma came to be identified with notion that ‘Zen’ (Chinese; ch’an, Indian; dhyana) was a distinct school or sect of Buddhism was certainly not an arbitrary or spur-of-the-moment event. According to the journal that is supposed to represent the record of Dogen’s time in China studying under Master Ju-ching, this was a question that raised serious concerns for Dogen personally. For example, in one of his evidently early interviews with his teacher (prior to Dogen’s own awakening experience, also recorded in this journal), we read:

 

[Dogen] asked: ‘If the Great Way of all the buddhas and patriarchs cannot be confined to one narrow corner, why do we insist on calling it the Ch’an School?’

 

Ju-ching replied: ‘We must not arbitrarily call the Great Way of the buddhas and patriarchs the Ch’an School. The Ch’an School is a false name that is lamentable indeed. It is the name of bald-headed little beasts have been using. All the ancient virtuous ones of the past knew this. Have you ever read Shih-men lin-chien lu?’

 

Dogen replied: ‘I have not yet read the book.’

 

Ju-ching said: ‘If you read through it once, it will be sufficient. The purport of the book is correct.

Hokyo-ki, Dogen’s Formative Years in China, Takashi James Kodera

 

This citation nicely brings us to the next section of the Shobogenzo, Butsudo fascicle – the fascicle we have been discussing wherein Dogen presents his most comprehensive view of the matter. For the next section begins with a quote from the text that Ju-ching advised Dogen to read on the subject; the Shih-men lin-chien lu (Sekimon’s Rinkanroku).

 

Sekimon’s Rinkanroku says:

 

Bodhidharma first went from the land of the Liang dynasty to the land of the Wei dynasty. He passed along the foot of Suzan Mountain and rested his staff at Shorin [Temple]. He just sat in stillness facing the wall, and only that—he was not learning Zen meditation. He continued his for a long time but no one could understand the reason, and so they saw Bodhidharma as training in Zen meditation. Now, dhyana is only one of many practices: how could it be all there was to the Saint? Yet on the basis of this [misunderstanding] the chroniclers of that time subsequently listed him among those who were learning Zen meditation: they grouped him alongside people like withered trees and dead ash. Nevertheless, the Saint did not stop at dhyana; and at the same time, of course, he did not go against dhyana—just as the art of divination emerges from yin and yang without going against yin and yang.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Now, immediately following his quotation of this record, Dogen comments:

 

Calling him the twenty-eighth patriarch is on the basis that [Maha]kasyapa is the first patriarch. Counting from Vipasyin Buddha, he is the thirty-fifth patriarch. The Seven Buddhas’ and twenty-eight patriarchs’ experience of the truth should not necessarily be limited to dhyana. Therefore the master of the past says, “Dhyana is only one of many practices; how could it be all there was to the Saint?” This master of the past has seen a little of people and has entered the inner sanctum of the ancestral patriarchs, and so he has these words. Throughout the great kingdom of Song these days [such a person] might be difficult to find and might hardly exist at all. Even if [the important thing is] dhyana we should never use the name “Zen sect.” Still more, dhyana is never the whole importance of the Buddha-Dharma. Those who, nevertheless, willfully call the great truth that is authentically transmitted from buddha to buddha “the Zen sect” have never seen the Buddha’s truth even in a dream, have never heard it even in a dream, and have never received its transmission even in a dream. Do not concede that the Buddha-Dharma might even exist among people who claim to be “the Zen sect.” Who has invented the name “Zen sect”? None of the buddhas and ancestral masters has ever used the name “Zen sect.” Remember, the name “Zen sect” has been devised by demons and devils. People who have called themselves a name used by demons and devils may themselves be a band of demons; they are not the children and grandchildren of the Buddhist patriarchs.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Following Dogen’s presentation of the significance of the fallacious view, he presents a clear view of what he regards to be the accurate expression of Buddhist mythology:

 

The World-honored One, before an assembly of millions on Vulture Peak, picks up an uḍumbara flower and winks. The assembly is totally silent. Only the face of Venerable Mahakasyapa breaks into a smile. The World-honored One says, “I have the right Dharma-eye treasury and the fine mind of nirvana; along with the saṃghaṭi robe, I transmit them to Mahakasyapa. The World-honored One’s transmission to Mahakasyapa is “I have the right Dharma-eye treasury and the fine mind of nirvana.” In addition to this there is no “I have the Zen sect and I transmit it to Mahakasyapa.” He says “along with the saṃghaṭi robe;” he does not say “along with the Zen sect.” Thus, the name “Zen sect” is never heard while the World-honored One is in the world.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

 

To Be Continued…

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 1

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 1

-

Within the contemporary Zen community the term ‘Zen,’ when used as a designation for the 1500 year old tradition known as Zen Buddhism, is frequently used in ways that hardly suggest there is much universal agreement about what Zen Buddhism is. That is, while it is usually pretty clear that the term Zen is supposed to designate authentic Buddhism (the Buddha Dharma, Buddha Tao, or Buddha Way), the many various speakers and writers that identify themselves as Zen adherents or representatives often portray widely divergent versions of Zen doctrine and methodology. While it would be an exercise in futility to make any attempt to sort out all the variations of contemporary Zen in order to come to some clear vision as to ‘authentic Zen,’ we can at least get a fairly good vision of what it is that the Zen master Eihei Dogen regarded as the authentic Buddha Dharma.

-

In 1243 – at the very peak of his creative powers – Dogen wrote Butsudo (Butsu; Buddha, do [tao]; way, truth, path), a fairly long fascicle of Shobogenzo presenting a clear account of his own view of the matter. The Butsudo fascicle (which Nishijima & Cross translate as “The Buddhist Truth”) begins with a quote by the sixth [Zen] ancestor Huineng (Sokei) followed by comments from Dogen thus:

-

The eternal buddha Sokei on one occasion preaches to the assembly, “From Eno to the Seven Buddhas there are forty patriarchs.” When we investigate these words, from the Seven Buddhas to Eno are forty buddhas. When we count the buddhas and the patriarchs, we count them like this. When we count them like this, the Seven Buddhas are seven patriarchs, and the thirty-three patriarchs are thirty-three buddhas. Sokei’s intention is like this. This is the right and traditional instruction of the Buddha. Only the rightful successors of the authentic transmission have received the authentic transmission of this counting method. From Sakyamuni Buddha to Sokei there are thirty-four patriarchs. Each of the transmissions between these Buddhist patriarchs is like Kasyapa meeting the Tathagata and like the Tathagata getting Kasyapa. Just as Sakyamuni Buddha learns in practice under Kasyapa Buddha, each teacher and disciple exists in the present. Therefore, the right Dharma-eye treasury has been personally transmitted from rightful successor to rightful successor, and the true life of the Buddha-Dharma is nothing other than this authentic transmission. The Buddha-Dharma, because it is authentically transmitted like this, is perfectly legitimate in its transmission. This being so, the virtues and the pivotal essence of the Buddha’s truth have been faultlessly provided. They have been transmitted from India in the west to the Eastern Lands, a hundred thousand and eight miles, and they have been transmitted from the time when the Buddha was in the world until today, more than two thousand years. People who do not learn this truth in practice speak randomly and mistakenly. They randomly call the right Dharma-eye treasury and the fine mind of nirvana that have been authentically transmitted by the Buddhist patriarchs “the Zen sect”; they call the ancestral master “the Zen patriarch”; they call practitioners “Zen students” or “students of dhyana”; and some of them call themselves “the Zen schools.” These are all twigs and leaves rooted in a distorted view. Those who randomly call themselves by the name “Zen sect,” which has never existed in India in the west or in the Eastern Lands, from the past to the present, are demons out to destroy the Buddha’s truth. They are the Buddhist patriarchs’ uninvited enemies.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

-

Dogen’s comments here are probably clear enough – “This is the right and traditional instruction of the Buddha” – that is, the issue at hand here is what he regards as authentic Zen, or the genuine Buddha Dharma. Before going on to the next section however, it is worth emphasizing the importance of carefully considering the point that Dogen brings into relief with his expression that, “Just as Sakyamuni Buddha learns in practice under Kasyapa Buddha, each teacher and disciple exists in the present.” In Kazuaki Tanahashi translation of Butsudo, “This being so, the function, the essence, of the buddha way, is present with nothing lacking.” The point to get at is that whatever authentic Zen is, it (the function, the essence, each teacher and disciple, etc.) exists here-now (“in the present”, “is present with nothing lacking”).

 

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 2