FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
Zazen-Shin (A Needle for Zazen)
Part 1 of 3 – Link to Part 2 – Link to Part 3
A Commentary on Dogen's
Shobogenzo, Zazenshin
Translation (In Bold) by
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross - Commentary by Ted Biringer.
(Adapted
from the Sept. 2014 issue of the Zen newsletter, Flatbed Sutra Zen News)
According to the translator’s Note: Shin means a bamboo
needle that was used for acupuncture in ancient China. So shin means a method of
healing body and mind, and the word came to be used as a maxim that has the
power to cure a human being of physical and mental discomfort. Subsequently,
the word shin was
used to describe short verses useful in teaching the important points of a method
of training.
The content of zazen-only, as we have observed
thus far in its diverse aspects, is what distinguished Dogen's meditation from
other forms of meditation. Dogen simplified, purified, enriched, and
radicalized the content of zazen-methodologically, metaphysically, and
religiously-though his view was greatly influenced by Chinese and Japanese
Buddhist traditions, especially those of Zen and Tendai. Indeed, to Dogen
zazen-only was at once metaphor and reality.
Hee-Jin Kim, Eihei
Dogen: Mystical Realist, p.67
While Great Master Yakusan Kodo is sitting, a
monk asks him, "What are you thinking in the still-still state?" The
master says, "Thinking the concrete state of not thinking." The monk
says, "How can the state of not thinking be thought?" The master
says, "It is non-thinking."
Experiencing the state in which the words of the
great master are like this, we should learn in practice "mountain-still
sitting," and we should receive the authentic transmission of
"mountain-still sitting": this is the investigation of
"mountain-still sitting" that has been transmitted in Buddhism. "Thinking
in the still-still state" is not of only one kind, but Yakusan's words are
one example of it. Those words are "Thinking the concrete state of not
thinking." They include "thinking" as skin, flesh, bones, and
marrow, and "not thinking" as skin, flesh, bones, and marrow. The
monk says, "How can the state of not thinking be thought?" Truly,
although "the state of not thinking" is ancient, still it is
"How can it be thought about!" "In the still-still state"
how could it be impossible for "thinking" to exist? And why do
[people] not understand the ascendancy of "the still-still state"? If
they were not the stupid people of vulgar recent times, they might possess the
power, and might possess the thinking, to ask about "the still-still
state." The great master says, "It is non-thinking." This use of
"non-thinking" is brilliant; at the same time, whenever we
"think the state of not thinking," we are inevitably using
"non-thinking." In "non-thinking" there is someone, and
[that] someone is maintaining and relying upon me. "The still-still
state," although it is I, is not only "thinking": it is holding
up the head of "the still-still state." Even though "the
still-still state" is "the still-still state," how can "the
still-still state" think "the still-still state"? So "the
still-still state" is beyond the intellectual capacity of Buddha, beyond
the intellectual capacity of the Dharma, beyond the intellectual capacity of
the state of realization, and beyond the intellectual capacity of understanding
itself. The one-to-one transmission to Yakusan in the state like this is the
thirty-sixth, already, in a line of direct descent from Sakyamuni Buddha; and
when we trace upward from Yakusan, there is, after thirty-six generations, the
Buddha Sakyamuni. Having been authentically transmitted like this,
"thinking the concrete state of not thinking" is present already. In
recent years, however, stupid unreliable people have said, "In the effort
of zazen, to attain peace of mind is everything. Just this is the state of
tranquility." This opinion is beneath even scholars of the Small Vehicle.
It is inferior even to the vehicles of humans and gods. How can we call such
people students of the Buddha-Dharma? In the great kingdom of Song today,
people of such effort are many. It is lamentable that the Patriarch's truth has
gone to ruin. There is another group of people [who say]: "Sitting in
zazen to pursue the truth is an essential mechanism for beginners and
late-learners, but it is not necessarily the action of Buddhist patriarchs. For
them, 'walking also is Zen, and sitting also is Zen. In talking and silence,
movement and rest, the body is at ease.' Do not associate [Buddhist patriarchs]
exclusively with this effort [of zazen]." Many who call themselves
followers of Rinzai are of this opinion. They speak like this because they have
been remiss in receiving the transmission of the true life of the
Buddha-Dharma. What is "a beginner"? Which [sort] is not a beginner?
At what place do they locate a beginner? Remember, as the established [method
of] investigation in learning the truth, we pursue the state of truth in zazen.
The point, in manifest form, is that there is acting buddha which does not
expect to become buddha. Because acting buddha is utterly beyond becoming
buddha, the universe is realized. The body-buddha is utterly beyond becoming
buddha, [but] when nets and cages are broken, sitting buddha does not hinder
becoming buddha at all. Just at this moment, the power is originally present,
through a thousand ages and ten thousand ages, to enter [the state of] Buddha
or to enter [the state of] demons. And forward steps and backward steps possess
the capacity intimately to fill ditches and to fill valleys.
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Dogen's assertion about the use of non-thinking
being "brilliant" is meant to underscore that it is
"obvious" or "clearly evident," not that it is
"particularly insightful," or "remarkably intelligent."
Carl Bielefeldt translates it as "crystal clear," Hee-Jin Kim as
"unmistakable." The insightful commentary accompanying Kim's
translation of the line provides an excellent perspective from which to begin
my own commentary. Kim writes:
"The use of nonthinking is unmistakable,
and yet to think through not-thinking , we always exert nonthinking." He
expressly asserts that nonthinking is for use and exertion (shiyosuru,
mochiiru) in the salvific endeavor. This is why he also calls nonthinking
"the essential method" (yojutsu) or "the dharmic
method" (hojutsu)-therefore by implication, as the practice-of
seated meditation. Nonthinking is the essential method of zazen to be employed
by the meditator. It is praxis, not theoria, gnosis, or logos,
as many philosophically minded commentators of Dogen's thought would have us
believe.
Nonthinking is also identified by Dogen as
"right thinking" (shoshiyui; shoshiryo; shoshi), one of the
categories of the eightfold right path (hasshodo) that leads to the
cessation of suffering and the attainment of nirvana. This... implies that
right thought is not only to be practiced simultaneously in conjunction with
the seven other categories of the path (i.e., right understanding, right
speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and
right concentration), but also is the kernel of them all, that is, of
the Buddhist path to liberation... (...thinking in this context involves not
only cognitive qualities, such as conceptualization, reflection, deliberation,
and criticism, but also affective and conative ones, such as feeling, emotion,
volition, and desire.) Further, in context of the three divisions of the
eightfold path--morality, meditation, and wisdom (kai-jo-e)-Dogen
singles out right thought from the division of wisdom. He takes it to be the
essence of meditation...
Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking,
pp.91-92
Further, every manifestation of any one of these
three, according to the Buddhist vision of reality, is empty and
interdependent. That is, 'an actual instance of thinking' (or not-thinking or
non-thinking) is real form (i.e. a dharma; an actual thing, being, or event
in/of existence-time).
As Dogen points out, Yakusan's words,
"Thinking the concrete state of not-thinking," are one actual
'example,' one particular form of 'thinking in the still-still state.' As an
actual, particular form, Yakusan's words are a 'real instance' in/of
existence-time. As one actual form of reality, this expression, like all actual
forms of reality, is empty and interdependent. This means, for one thing, that
this 'instance of thinking' (i.e. Yakusan's, "Thinking the concrete state
of not-thinking") contains and is contained by all instances of reality.
Zen recognizes the true nature of all forms as Buddha-nature, or emptiness -
each form is an 'instance of total existence-time.' Yakusan's words are one
particular form of the one mind, the myriad dharmas, the 'whole body-mind' (konshin),
the "skin, flesh, bones, and marrow." Thus, 'thinking' is not
included in the one mind, but as the one mind ('as skin,
flesh, bones, and marrow'), and 'not-thinking' is not simply an activity or
thing included in the skin, flesh, bones, and marrow, it is included as
skin, flesh, bones, and marrow. When 'thinking' appears, the whole universe is
thinking, when 'not-thinking' appears, the whole universe is not-thinking.
The monk says, 'How can the state of not
thinking be thought?' And even senior veterans of Zen are liable to conclude
the question mark is appropriate. Dogen, however, is not easily misled - even
if a question mark appears, it does not divert him from the fundamental point -
84,000 people might say the monk is asking a question, but Dogen still
recognizes the monk's words as an expression of truth. What truth? Any 'state
of not thinking' that is real must be the whole body-mind, how could it not be
thought about? Why would a 'state of not thinking' be different from every
other reality of existence-time? The fact that it looks like a question, or
sounds like a question is no reason to conclude it is a question - by simply
looking closely at the point even the dullest monk would be able to see that
'not thinking' is not different than 'thinking' when it comes to 'How.' If you
know how 'thinking' can 'be thought' you cannot fail to see how 'not thinking'
can be thought. It is like those who ask, 'Where do we go when we die?' I
usually respond, 'Where are we now?' Resolve the latter and the former will be
self evident - even more fundamental, 'Who lives and dies?' The resolution of
this provides a golden thread that leads to the master of all the 'How's',
'What's', and 'Why's' we can come up with. As Hee-Jin Kim notes concerning
Dogen's take on this passage:
Fu-shiryo-tei ikanga shiryo sen ("How can
one think of not-thinking") is read by Dogen as: Fu-shiryo-tei ikan (no)
shiryo ("Not-thinking is the How's thinking"). "How," like
"What" and other interrogatives, signifies ultimate reality/ultimate
truth. Thus not-thinking is equated with the How's thinking, which is subsequently
construed as nonthinking.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.162,
note 8
Since 'the state of not thinking' is a reality
it must be interdependent with (thus inherently one with) each and all other
actual forms, thus Dogen points out that regardless of the fact that 'the state
of not thinking' is venerable and worthy of respect (i.e. 'ancient'), it is
still 'How can it be thought about!' (i.e. thus, a real particular form
characterized by emptiness like every other particular form). Therefore, it is
not only not 'impossible', it is inevitable for 'thinking' to
exist in/as 'not thinking' (i.e. the still-still state).
It is this inevitability (of 'thinking'
and 'not thinking' to be mutually inclusive and non-obstructive) that is
described by Yakusan as "non-thinking." Dogen illumines the
significance of this by pointing out the basic fact of interdependence; among
the myriad real forms in/of/as non-thinking "there is someone" who I depend
on (to exist) and who is dependent (for existence) on me (i.e. mutual
interdependence and nonobstruction). Simultaneously, this interdependence
maintains harmony with the basic fact of emptiness; 'the still-still state' is
not 'the still-still state' (i.e. form is emptiness, emptiness is form), therefore
'the still-still state' is 'the still-still state' (i.e. form is form,
emptiness is emptiness).
[Note: Dogen clarifies in his
commentary on the Heart Sutra, Shobogenzo, Maka-Hannya-Haramitsu,
the ultimate point of the Buddhist axiom 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form'
is the truth 'form is form, emptiness is emptiness.' In terms of our present
discussion, 'not-thinking is thinking,' 'thinking is
not-thinking,' thus, 'not-thinking is not-thinking,' 'thinking' is
'thinking.']
In short, each and every actual instance of
'thinking' is inclusive of/as every actual instance of thinking and
every instance of not-thinking. Now, according to Zen, this is simply the true
nature of reality, regardless of whether or not an individual 'thinker'
recognizes it. To those that do not yet recognize this, a Zen master might
explain it as 'thinking not-thinking' - those that do recognize it might speak
of it as 'non-thinking.'
Thus the truth of the Buddha-Dharma has been
transmitted and is "present already." In saying this, Dogen
encourages us to study and understand his expression concerning true
practice-enlightenment (i.e. 'non-thinking'), to test it in practice, and
thereby verify its authenticity through our personal experience of its
accuracy. Following this, he discourages us from wasting time pursuing methods
that diverge from the path he has outlined. He does this by raising a number of
fallacies that were popular in his own day. It so happens that these fallacies
are similar to a number of views and approaches popular in our day. Thus, while
a detailed treatment would take me to far off course for my purpose here, some
brief comments are warranted.
To think that Zen practice-enlightenment has
anything to do with attaining a state of tranquility, calmness, or peace of
mind is to be seriously mistaken. Zen practice-enlightenment has nothing to do
with 'attaining' anything. When tranquility, calmness, or peace of mind occurs
then practice-enlightenment is tranquility, calmness, or peace of mind.
Likewise, when turbulence, agitation, or panic occurs practice-enlightenment is
turbulence, agitation, or panic. For one actualizing practice-enlightenment,
when it is cold the whole universe is cold, when it is hot there is nothing but
hot, when one is an emergency room worker encountering a busload of mutilated
school children the whole universe is blood and guts, desperation, confusion.
To engage practice-enlightenment is to engage our capacity to actualize the
world and to be actualized by the world. The world ('other') exhaustively
consists of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts -
beyond these no world has ever been encountered. We (our 'self') exhaustively
consist of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking - beyond
these no self has ever been encountered. Without sights, sounds, etc. there
would be no world, without seeing, hearing, etc. there would be no self - self
is other, other is self, therefore, self is self, other is other. When sights
are sights and seeing is seeing practice-enlightenment is practice-enlightenment.
Thus the notion that practice-enlightenment is a device needed by beginners but
not essential to veterans is also obviously off the mark, as is the notion that
'everything's Zen.'
Next, Dogen takes up the classic Zen koan about
'Polishing a Tile' and again avoids being sucked in by hasty, or conventional,
conclusions.
Zen Master Daijaku of Kozei, after receiving the
immediate transmission of the mind-seal while learning in practice under Zen
Master Daie of Nangaku, constantly sits in zazen. Nangaku on one occasion goes
to Daijaku's place and asks him, "Virtuous monk! What are you aiming at,
sitting in zazen?" We should quietly consider and investigate this
question. That is, we should consider in detail whether [Nangaku] is asking: Is
there an aim that might be superior to sitting in zazen? Beyond the framework
of sitting in zazen, has there never yet been a state of truth to aim at?
Should we not aim at anything at all? Just in the moment of sitting in zazen,
what kind of aim is being realized? More than we love a carved dragon, we
should love the real dragon. We should learn that the carved dragon and the
real dragon both possess the potency of clouds and rain. Do not hold the remote
in high regard, and do not hold the remote in low regard: be accustomed to it
as the remote. Do not hold the close in high regard, and do not hold the close
in low regard: be accustomed to it as the close. Do not think light of the
eyes, and do not attach importance to the eyes. Do not attach importance to the
ears, and do not think light of the ears. Make the ears and eyes sharp and
clear.
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
First of all, Dogen recognizes the truth that
this encounter between Nangaku and Kozei, was an encounter between two enlightened
Zen masters, not an encounter between a master and an ordinary
(unenlightened) monk. By stating this encounter occurred after Kozei
received 'transmission,' Dogen dispels the fallacy that Kozei was not
enlightened at the time of this meeting. This is no small feat; the fallacious
view in question is accurate according to all the usually accepted evidence.
Thus we see Dogen is not one to allow historical facts to obscure the truth.
Dogen says this encounter took place after Kozei's enlightenment, therefore it
did.
[Note: For those unfamiliar with
Dogen's treatment of this case (thus unable to see I am being facetious), it is
well known that Dogen changed the 'facts' of this case for his own purposes, as
he does with many traditional sources, including even Buddhist scriptures (thus
effectively 'correcting' the Buddha himself). Traditionally this encounter
between Nangaku and Kozei is understood as taking place prior to Kozei's
enlightenment, even as being a 'cause' (or at least a factor) in bringing on
Kozei's awakening.]
In characteristic fashion, Dogen begins by
urging us to "consider and investigate this question" and provides a
number of specific points that should prove fruitful. We should "consider
in detail" just what Nangaku's words - "What are you aiming at,
sitting in zazen?" - are getting at. Is the question mark appropriate? If,
while actualizing practice-enlightenment, there could be an aim greater than
practice-enlightenment, what could it possibly be? Outside the present
manifestation ('framework') of the actualization of truth (sitting in zazen)
can there be another actualization of truth that can be aimed at? When
practice-enlightenment is being actualized what kind of aim is being realized?
Following his guidance on specific points, Dogen
offers some general guidance. As much as we cherish the praises, descriptions,
elucidations, and other products achieved through practice-enlightenment (i.e.
'the carved dragon'; the 'form' of the Buddha-Dharma, e.g. doctrines, methods,
texts, rituals, etc.), we should cherish the ever-present,
ceaselessly-advancing novel universe of here-now practice-enlightenment (i.e.
'the real dragon'; the 'essence' of the Buddha-Dharma; the ongoing
actualization of existence-time ever arising and dropping away) even more. It
is not that the real dragon is superior to the carved dragon - as dharmas, both
'form' and 'essence' are equal in actuality, significance, and value,
"both possess the potency of clouds and rain" - rather, the point is
that each is a unique instance of total existence-time, thus each calls
for a unique response. In this case 'the essence' being 'loved more' than 'the
form' is appropriate. The significance of this is underscored by Dogen's
expressions on not holding (i.e. treating, understanding) the 'remote' or the
'close' (real dragon or carved dragon) as 'high' or 'low' - rather, hold them as
they are; remote as remote, close as close. Do not regard
seeing (experience) as 'higher' or 'lower' than hearing (learning) - each is an
essential element of practice-enlightenment; both study and perceptual
awareness need to be fully engaged and continuously deepened and refined.
Kozei says, "Aiming to become buddha."
We should clarify and master these words. When he says "becoming
buddha" just what does he mean? Does "becoming buddha" describe
becoming buddha being done by a buddha? Does "becoming buddha"
describe becoming buddha being done to a buddha? Does "becoming
buddha" describe the manifestation of one instance and the manifestation
of two instances of "buddha"? Is "aiming to become buddha,"
being the dropping off [of body and mind], "aiming to become buddha"
as dropping off? Does "aiming to become buddha" describe that even
though "becoming buddha" is of myriad kinds, it continues to be
entangled with this "aiming"? Remember, the words of Daijaku are that
to sit in zazen is, in every case, "aiming to become buddha." To sit
in zazen is, in every case, "becoming buddha" as "aiming."
The "aiming" may be before the "becoming buddha," may be
after the "becoming buddha," and may be just the very moment of
"becoming buddha." Let us ask for a while: How many instances of
"becoming buddha" does one such instance of "aiming"
entangle? This entanglement is further entwining with entanglement. At this
time, all cases of entanglement-as totally "becoming buddha" in
separate instances, and as totally "becoming buddha" always being
exactly itself-are individual instances of "aiming." We cannot flee
from a single instance of "aiming." At a time when we flee from a
single instance of "aiming," we lose body and life. [But even] the
time when we lose body and life is an instance of entanglement as
"aiming."
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Dogen begins his discussion of Kozei's response
by underscoring the crucial importance of diligently applying ourselves to the particular
words uttered and their actual meaning. If we fail to "clarify
and master these words" there is no point in proceeding further - it is
impossible to 'verify the truth' of an expression we do not understand. In this
section Dogen's guidance remains focused on specifics; what exactly does Kozei
mean by 'becoming buddha'? Do Buddhas 'become buddha'? If so, do they 'become
buddha' through the thoughts, words, or deeds of some reality independent of
themselves? Is a real instance of 'becoming buddha' different from any other
real instance in regard to having/being a specific place-time in the Dharma
(i.e. abiding in a 'dharma-position')?
For those with experience in koan training the
style and perspective of these considerations will be familiar; they exemplify
a kind of 'stream of consciousness' that frequently occurs during koan
introspection. Such 'inquiring' attention is less an 'aiming' for an unseen
goal, and more a focused, concentrated activity to clearly and comprehensively
discern the actual phenomenon already here-now (in this case the
expression "aiming to become buddha"). To consider whether 'the
dropping off of the body-and-mind of self-and-not-self' (zazen) is the same as
'aiming to become buddha' is not to aim for some insight that is not already
present here-now.
Dogen often says, "Nothing in the whole
universe is concealed." The 'form' (dharma; manifestation, appearance) we
are aiming to discern is already present; it is the expression 'aiming
to become buddha'; therefore, its 'essence' (significance, content) must be
present as well (in Zen the 'form' and 'essence' of something is nondual; not
two). Thus, if 'to sit in zazen' is 'aiming to become buddha', then 'to
sit in zazen' is 'becoming buddha' as 'aiming.' Whatever other forms of
'becoming buddha' might exist, the form (hence, form/essence) 'becoming buddha'
displays in/as 'aiming' is 'sitting in zazen.' Thus, when and where an actual
instance of 'becoming buddha' exists, 'aiming' (zazen) too inevitably exists,
and where/when an actual instance of 'aiming' exists, 'becoming buddha' is
inevitably present. For example, an occurrence of 'aiming' that manifests at a
place-time before 'becoming buddha' is (i.e. exists as) 'becoming
buddha.' More specifically, such an occurrence of 'aiming' is an essential element
of the reality of the place-time of 'becoming buddha' - in the absence
of the 'aiming (to become buddha) before the very moment of becoming
buddha' it would not be possible for the 'aiming at the very moment of
becoming buddha' to be realized (i.e. the moment of [place-time]
becoming buddha is only the moment of because it is not-the
moment before [or after], without before and after the moment
of would be meaningless).
Because 'becoming buddha' is real, each
instance of zazen (aiming to become buddha) is a real manifest form of
'becoming buddha' (i.e. each instance of zazen is 'becoming buddha,'
all real zazen must be 'before-becoming buddha,' 'after-becoming buddha,'
or 'the moment-of becoming buddha'). In view of the universal nature of
emptiness, each such instance of zazen contains all instances of zazen
and is contained by all instances of zazen. "At this time"
(any actual place-time, every real here-now) each instance of 'becoming buddha'
is (exists as) a definite, place-time (i.e. a place-time 'cut off from'
all other place-times) of 'becoming buddha' - and (also "at this
time") the totality of all these particular place-times is the totality
of 'becoming buddha' (i.e. the many instances do not 'make up' the one reality,
the many instances are the one reality).
Nangaku then picks up a tile and starts to
polish it on a stone. Daijaku eventually asks, "What is the master
doing?" Truly, who could fail to see that he is polishing a tile? But who
can see it as polishing a tile? Rather, the polishing of a tile has [always]
been questioned like this: "What are you doing!" The
"doing" of "what" is always the polishing of a tile. In
this land and other worlds, different though they are, polishing a tile may
possess an import that has never ceased. It is not simply a matter of not
fixing to our own views as our own views: we perfectly ascertain that in the
myriad kinds of work there is import to be learned in practice. Remember, we
witness buddha without knowing or understanding buddha, just as we see waters
without knowing them and see mountains without knowing them. [Nevertheless,] if
we hastily conclude that there can be no path of penetration to the Dharma
before our eyes, that is not Buddhist study.
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Dogen points out that Kozei would have to be
blind or an idiot if he could not see what Nangaku is doing, "who could
fail to see that he is polishing a tile?" Then he points out that while it
may be easy to see, accurately discerning what 'polishing a tile' truly is may
not be, "who can see it as polishing a tile?" Dogen already clarified
that Kozei is an enlightened master; his expression, then, needs to be read as
such. The first thing we notice is the interrogative structure of the utterance
- Dogen's own paraphrase reads, "What are you doing!" Again, Hee-Jin
Kim's note nicely brings the point into relief:
Again, though it is rendered conventionally,
Dogen's own reading is so-shimo ("The What's doing"), instead of
nanioka nasu ("What are you doing?").
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.164,
note 21
The 'seeing and hearing' of 'who' is always
'forms and sounds,' the 'thinking' of 'how' is always 'thinking not-thinking'
(i.e. nonthinking; the non's thinking), and the 'doing' of 'what' is always
'polishing a tile.' To experience a thought, word, or deed is to experience a
particular instance of total existence-time - when one dharma is illumined,
each and all ('other') dharmas are darkened (i.e. present as 'eclipsed'
or 'shadowed'). When (at that place-time) Nangaku polishes a tile, the myriad
dharmas of existence-time (including every manifestation of zazen, instance of
becoming buddha, etc.) are present as 'eclipsed' (i.e. that particular
act is the 'explicit' here-now, all other acts are the 'implicit'
here-now). To see 'Nangaku polishing a tile' is to see 'What' (thusness,
Buddha, existence-time) as 'polishing a tile.' To see 'What' as
'polishing a tile' is to see 'polishing a tile' (a particular act here-now) as
'What.'
To emphasize that authentic
practice-enlightenment is ever advancing into novelty (i.e. clear seeing does
not end with seeing Nangaku's particular act of 'What' but ever-advances as each
fresh act), "It is not simply a matter of not fixing to our own
views..." Dogen's refrain, "nothing in the whole universe is
concealed" does not mean "everything in the whole universe can be
discerned at a glance." There "is import to be learned in practice."
The more attentively and skillfully we observe and consider the myriad dharmas
that are our self and the world, the clearer we realize them, and the clearer
they realize us. Each thing, being, and event is empty, thus infinite - not
concealed, certainly, yet never exhausted either. Practice-enlightenment is
'not yet, not enough, not yet enough...'
Nangaku says, "Polishing to make a
mirror." We should clarify the meaning of these words. In "polishing
to make a mirror" Buddhist truths are always present and the realized
universe is present: it is never an empty pretense. Though tiles are tiles and
mirrors are mirrors, we should know that when we are striving to master the
truth of polishing, [polishing] possesses a limitless abundance of distinguishing
features. It may be that even the eternal mirror and the clear mirror are made
into mirrors by polishing a tile. If we do not know that mirrors derive from
polishing a tile, we are without a Buddhist patriarch's expression of the
truth, we have not experienced a Buddhist patriarch's mouth opening, and we are
not seeing and hearing a Buddhist patriarch's exhalations.
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Don't become desensitized to its import because
of Dogen's frequent usage; he does not say "We should clarify the meaning
of these words" because he likes to hear himself talk - "it is never
an empty pretense." In harmony with the Heart Sutra and the Diamond
Sutra, "tiles are tiles and mirrors are mirrors" - form is form,
emptiness is emptiness - yet it will not do to neglect the fact that tiles are
not-tiles and mirrors are not-mirrors - form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
When tiles are tiles mirrors are tiles, grasses are tiles; when tiles are
not-tiles, tiles are mirrors, tiles are grasses. If we do not yet see that
'polishing a tile' makes mirrors and realizes grasses we do not yet see the
truth of the Buddha-Dharma.
Daijaku says, "How can polishing a tile
realize a mirror?" Truly, polishing a tile, as [the work of] an iron man,
does not rely upon the resources of others. Even so, "polishing a
tile" is not "to realize a mirror." The realization of a
mirror-though it is nothing other than itself-may be [described as]
instantaneous.
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Form is emptiness (not-form), a tile is a mirror
(not-a tile), therefore, form is form (not-emptiness), a tile is a tile (not-a
mirror). When form is form, emptiness is form, when form is emptiness,
emptiness is emptiness; when polishing a tile is polishing a tile, mirrors are
polishing a tile, when mirrors are mirrors, polishing a tile is mirrors
(not-polishing a tile). How thinks not-thinking and How polishes not-polishing.
Sitting in zazen is as it is an instantaneous manifestation of total
existence-time, becoming buddha is as it is an instantaneous manifestation of
total existence-time.
Nangaku says, "How can sitting in zazen
make you into a buddha?" Clearly, there is a truth that zazen does not
expect to become buddha. The principle is evident that to become buddha is
irrelevant to zazen.
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Sitting in zazen is sitting in zazen; it is
not-becoming buddha, is not-polishing tiles, is not-eating rice,
etc.
Daijaku says, "Just what is right, here and
now?" These words look like a question only about this concrete place, but
they are also asking about rightness here and now at any other place. Remember,
for example, the moment when a close friend meets a close friend: [his] being
my close friend is [my] being his close friend. "Just what is right, here
and now," is direct manifestation [of both sides] at once.
Shobogenzo Zazenshin,
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
Dogen's succinct comment is to the point, and
the lovely example he provides not only 'fleshes it out' it brings it to life
in all place-times of here-now. I meet you, and at that place-time, you meet
me. What is the scientific fact of such a meeting, what is that place-time's
objective reality? If one historian recorded the fact that I met you, and
another insisted that you met me, which would be presenting the 'true story?'
Is it right to say 'bullhorns have bulls' or 'bulls have bullhorns',
'barbarians are red-bearded, or red-beards are barbarians?' Following Dogen's
great enlightenment experience he went to his teacher's (Ju-ching) room and
offered incense, in response to his teacher's inquiry about this Dogen said:
"My body and mind are cast off!"
"The body and mind are cast off" (shinjin datsuraku), joined
the teacher, "cast off are the body and mind" (datsuraku shinjin).
As recorded in Hee-Jin Kim's, Eihei Dogen:
Mystical Realist, p.37
No comments:
Post a Comment