Dogen's Shobogenzo, Zazen-Shin (A Needle for Zazen) Part 2

Zazen-Shin (A Needle for Zazen)

Part 2 of 3 – Link to Part 1 – 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)

 

The truth that in zazen 'the body-mind (of self-and-other-than-self) is cast off' is raised and discussed by many, but few raise and discuss the truth that 'cast off is the body-mind.' Fortunately, the following recorded incident between two of Dogen's important disciples (Gikai and Ejo [Dogen's Dharma heir]) provides us with a clear example of the import of not taking this expression of truth one-sidedly. This conversation took place while Gikai was undergoing koan training with Ejo:

 

Gikai: I have attained an insight based on our former teacher's saying, "shinjin datsuraku."

 

Ejo: Good. Good. What do you understand?

 

Gikai: I understand "datsuraku shinjin."

 

Ejo: What is the meaning?

 

Gikai: I had thought only (my) barbarian beard was red, but here is another red-bearded barbarian."

 

 Ejo: Among the many permitted [answers to] shinjin [datsuraku], there is this kind of shinjin.

...

Modern Soto scholars cannot accept the Goyuigon account at face value, because to do so would force them either to revise their usual interpretation of Dogen's Zen as a religion of unmediated meditation or to attempt to argue that both Ejo and Gikai had failed to understand Dogen's teachings.

William M. Bodiford, Soto Zen in Medieval Japan, pp.55-56

 

Gikai had been polishing the tile 'body-mind are cast off' (shinjin datsuraku) when he noticed the mirror-image 'cast off is the body-mind' (datsuraku shinjin). Ejo had to check to see if Gikai 'understood' the essence as clearly as he saw the form - Gikai verified it by turning to the red-bearded barbarian. Finally, when Gikai received acknowledgement from Ejo, who acknowledged who. To get to the bottom of this, consider the following case:

 

Chung Kuo-shih called to his attendant three times, and three times his attendant responded. Kuo-shih said, "I was about to say that I was ungrateful to you. But the fact is that you are ungrateful to me."

Mumankan, Case 17, The Main Case, trans. Robert Aitken Roshi, The Gateless Barrier, p.113

 

Nangaku says, "If, when a person is riding in a cart, the cart does not move, is it right to prod the cart, or is it right to prod the ox?" Now, as to the meaning of "If the cart does not move," what is a cart moving and what is a cart not moving? For example, is water flowing a cart moving? Is water not flowing a cart moving? We might say that flowing is water not moving. It may also be that water moving is beyond "flowing." Thus, when we investigate the words, "if the cart does not move," we may find that there is "not moving," and we may find that there is no "not moving"-because [the cart] must be in time. The words "if it does not move" have not one-sidedly expressed only not moving. [Nangaku] says, "Is it right to prod the cart, or is it right to prod the ox?" Can there be both prodding the cart and prodding the ox? Must prodding the cart and prodding the ox be equivalent, or might they be not equivalent? In the secular world there is no method of prodding the cart. Though the common person has no method of prodding the cart, we have seen that in Buddhism there is a method of prodding the cart-it is the very eyes of learning in practice. And though we learn that there is a method of prodding the cart, [prodding the cart] cannot be completely the same as prodding the ox. We should consider this in detail. Though methods of prodding the ox are present in the ordinary world, we should investigate further and learn in practice the prodding of the ox in Buddhism. Is it the prodding of a castrated water buffalo? Is it the prodding of an iron ox? Is it the prodding of a mud ox? Should a whip do the prodding? Should the whole universe do the prodding? Should the whole mind do the prodding? Should the marrow be beaten flat? Should a fist do the beating? There should be fist beating fist, and there should be ox beating ox.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Dogen begins his explication of Nangaku's words here by keeping us focused on the elements of nonduality (emptiness and interdependence) that have been central to his commentary. What is a cart? (or, 'What is a cart!'). Since 'moving' is raised, it is important to be mindful of the presence and role of 'not-moving.' Sometimes it is right to say 'moving' is 'not-moving.' Sometimes it is right to say 'moving' is 'moving.' Sometimes it is right to say that 'moving' includes and (thus) goes beyond both 'moving and not-moving.' And though it is like this, it is simply that flowers fall and weeds grow... In any case, since these words were uttered by Nangaku we are sure they "have not one-sidedly expressed only not moving."

 

Again, Dogen makes it clear that in the utterance of a Buddha (or Buddha ancestor) there are no superfluous words; can prodding the cart and prodding the ox exist simultaneously? Can they exist independently? Are they the same or different? Conventionally or literally (in the secular world) 'prodding a cart' is not considered a rational possibility; but, as my koan teacher once assured me, in Zen nothing is impossible. Dogen agrees, prodding the cart "is the very eyes of learning in practice." At the same time, just as 'polishing a tile' and 'making a mirror' are not-two, yet not 'one,' so 'prodding the cart' cannot be the same as 'prodding the ox.' "We should consider" each of these methods, together and separately, "in detail." Also, just because conventional "methods of prodding the ox are present" in the common world, we should not simply assume it is these that are applied in Zen. In Zen it is not impossible to prod an iron ox, a wooden ox, or a mud ox - in Zen we can use no-staff to prod a golden ox from a glass bottle. In any case, when authentic ox prodding is actualized not only do oxen prod oxen, oxen oxen oxen.

 

Daijaku makes no reply, a state that we should not idly overlook. It is "throwing away a tile and pulling in a jewel"; it is "turning the head and changing the features." Nothing at all can filch this state of no reply.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Students and teachers that fail to hear Kozei's silence as a clear expression directly to the point have not yet heard the Lion's Roar expressed by Buddha Shakyamuni's silent twirling of a flower - his disciple, Mahakayshyapa cracked a smiled, that is, his face cracked in 'not two,' not 'one.' When an expression is no-expression, it is truly an expression.

 

Nangaku teaches further, "Your learning sitting dhyana is learning sitting buddha." Investigating these words, we should grasp them as just the pivotal essence of the ancestral patriarchs. We were not aware of an exact definition of "learning zazen," but [now] we have seen that it is "learning sitting buddha." How could anyone but the child and grandchild of rightful successors assert that "learning zazen" is "learning sitting buddha"? Truly, we should know that a beginner's zazen is the first zazen; and the first zazen is the first sitting buddha.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Nangaku surpasses even Shakyamuni! And Dogen "teaches further" offering up the fundamental point in a tasty, bite size morsel, "these words" he tells all with eyes and ears, are "just the pivotal essence of the ancestral patriarchs." Do you realize the fundamental point (genjokoan)? Investigate these words, investigate these words!

 

Describing zazen, he says, "When we are learning sitting dhyana, that dhyana is beyond sitting and lying down." What he is saying now is that zazen is zazen, not sitting or lying down. After we have received the one-to-one transmission of [the teaching] that [zazen] is beyond sitting and lying down, unlimited instances of sitting and lying down are ourself. Why should we seek life-blood in the familiar or unfamiliar? Why should we discuss delusion and realization? Who wishes to pursue an intellectual conclusion?

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

While Nangaku's expression is as clear and evident as a fruit in the palm of our hand, Dogen is well aware of the pernicious tendency among ordinary beings to mistake 'zazen' for 'sitting meditation.' This is like misunderstanding 'polishing a tile' as 'making a mirror' - 'polishing a tile' is 'not-making a mirror.' When polishing a tile is polishing a tile, making a mirror is polishing a tile, reflecting in a mirror is polishing a tile, breaking a mirror is polishing a tile, and experiencing seven years of bad luck is polishing a tile. When zazen is zazen, sitting is zazen, lying down is zazen, polishing tiles and making mirrors are zazen.

 

Nangaku says, "When you are learning sitting buddha, buddha is beyond any set form." When we want to say what these words say, [the expression] is like this. The reason sitting buddha appears as one buddha and a second buddha is that it is adorned with "transcendence of any set form." [Nangaku's] saying now that "buddha is beyond any set form" expresses the form of buddha; and because it is buddha beyond any set form, it is utterly impossible for it to escape [the form of] sitting buddha. In sum, because buddha is adorned with transcendence of any set form, when it is learning sitting dhyana it is just sitting buddha.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Sitting buddha is buddha sitting in the lotus posture. Because sitting buddha is a real manifest form of existence-time no form of existence-time is not-sitting buddha. Because all dharmas (things, beings, and events) are real manifest forms of existence-time, none are independent of sitting buddha. When sitting buddha is sitting buddha, learning sitting dhyana is sitting buddha, polishing a tile is sitting buddha, and cracking a smile is sitting buddha.

 

Who, in the nonabiding Dharma, could have preference or aversion for not being buddha or preference or aversion for being buddha? Because it has dropped off [preference and aversion even] before the moment of preference and aversion, [sitting buddha] is sitting buddha.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When sitting buddha is sitting buddha, preference and aversion are sitting buddha, place-times prior to preference and aversion are sitting buddha, five hundred lives of a fox are sitting buddha. In the ceaselessly-advancing (nonabiding) universe all preference and aversion for being buddha or not being buddha are cast off - cast off is preference and aversion for being buddha or not being buddha.

 

Nangaku says, "When you are [practicing] sitting buddha, that is just killing buddha." This says further that when we are investigating sitting buddha, the virtue of killing buddha is present. The very moment of sitting buddha is the killing of "buddha." If we want to explore the good features and the brightness of killing buddha, they are always present in sitting buddha. The word "to kill" is as [used by] the common person, but we should not blindly equate [its usage here] with that of the common person. Further, we should investigate the state in which sitting buddha is killing buddha, [asking:] "What forms and grades does it have?" Taking up [the fact] that, among the virtues of buddha, killing buddha is already present, we should learn in practice whether we ourselves are killing a person or not yet killing a person.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When (at that place-time) sitting buddha is illumined, killing buddha is eclipsed (present as shadowed), when killing buddha is illumined, sitting buddha is eclipsed.

 

"To attach to the sitting form is not to have attained the principle of that [sitting]." This "to attach to the sitting form" means to reject the sitting form and to defile the sitting form. The fundamental principle here is that when we are already practicing sitting buddha, it is impossible not to be attached to the sitting form. Because it is impossible not to be attached to the sitting form, although attachment to the sitting form is something brilliant, it may be "not to have attained the principle of that [sitting]." Effort like this is called "the dropping off of body and mind." Those who have never sat do not possess this state of truth. It exists in the moment of sitting, it exists in the person who is sitting, it exists in the buddha that is sitting, and it exists in the buddha that is learning sitting. The sitting that is performed only as the sitting and reclining of human beings is not this state of sitting buddha. Even if human sitting naturally appears to be sitting buddha, or a buddha sitting, it may be a case of a human being becoming buddha, or a case of a human being of becoming buddha. There are human beings of becoming buddha, but all human beings are not of becoming buddha. Buddha is not a state of all human beings. All buddhas are not simply all humanity. Therefore, a human being is not always a buddha, and buddha is not always a human being. Sitting buddha also is like this, and Nangaku and Kozei, excellent master and stout disciple, are like this. Sitting buddha realizes the experience of becoming buddha: this is Kozei's case. For the benefit of becoming buddha, sitting buddha is demonstrated: this is Nangaku's case. In Nangaku's order there is effort like this. In Yakusan's order there are the assertions [quoted] previously. Remember, what has been described as "the pivotal essence of every buddha and every patriarch" is just sitting buddha. Those who are already the buddhas and the patriarchs used this pivotal essence. Those who have never [used it] have simply never seen it, even in a dream.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When sitting buddha is sitting buddha, killing buddha is sitting buddha, becoming buddha is sitting buddha - therefore, sitting buddha realizes (makes real) the experience of becoming buddha: "this is Kozei's case." Again, when sitting buddha is illumined, becoming buddha is presented (made present; as eclipsed): "this is Nangaku's case."

 

In general, in the Western Heavens and the Eastern Lands, that the Buddha-Dharma has been transmitted has always meant that sitting buddha has been transmitted. That is because [sitting buddha] is the pivotal essence. When the Buddha-Dharma has not been transmitted, sitting dhyana (zazen) has not been transmitted. What has been transmitted and received from rightful successor to rightful successor is only this principle of zazen. Those who have not received the one-to-one transmission of this principle are not Buddhist patriarchs. Without illuminating this one dharma, we do not illuminate the myriad dharmas, and do not illuminate the myriad deeds. Those who have not illuminated each dharma, dharma by dharma, cannot be called clear-eyed, and they are not the attainment of the truth; how could they be Buddhist patriarchs of the eternal past and present? Therefore, we should be absolutely certain that the Buddhist patriarchs have, in every case, received the one-to-one transmission of zazen. To be illuminated by the presence of the Buddhist patriarchs' brightness is to exert oneself in the investigation of this sitting in zazen. Stupid people mistakenly think that the Buddha's state of brightness might be like the brightness of the sun and the moon, or like the luminance of a pearl or a flame. The brilliance of the sun and moon is only karmic manifestation of the turning of the wheel through the six worlds; it cannot compare to the Buddha's state of brightness at all. "The Buddha's brightness" means accepting, retaining, and hearing a single phrase; maintaining, relying on, and upholding a single dharma; and receiving the one-to-one transmission of zazen. If [people] are not able to be illuminated by the brightness, they lack this state of maintenance and reliance and they lack this belief and acceptance. This being so, even since ancient times, few people have known that zazen is zazen. On the mountains of the great kingdom of Song today, leaders of top-ranking temples who do not know zazen and who do not learn of it are many; there are some who know [zazen] clearly, but they are few. In many temples, of course, times for zazen are laid down, and everyone from the abbot to the monks regards sitting in zazen as the main task. When recruiting students, too, they urge them to sit in zazen. Even so, those abbots who know [zazen] are rare. For this reason, while there have been, from ancient times to recent generations, one or two old veterans who have written Zazenmei ("Mottoes of Zazen"), and one or two old veterans who have edited Zazengi ("Standard Methods of Zazen"), and one or two old veterans who have written Zazenshin ("Maxims of Zazen"), the "Mottoes of Zazen" are all devoid of any redeeming feature, and the "Standard Methods of Zazen" remain unclear as to its actual performance. They were written by people who do not know zazen, and who have not received the one-to-one transmission of zazen. [I refer to] the "Maxims of Zazen" in the Keitokudentoroku, the "Mottoes of Zazen" in the Kataifutoroku, and so on. It is pitiful that [such people] spend a lifetime passing in succession through the monasteries of the ten directions, and yet they have not experienced the effort of one sitting. Sitting is not in them; their effort does not meet with themselves at all. This is not because zazen hates their own body and mind, but because they do not aspire to the genuine effort [of zazen], and they are quickly deluded. Their collections seem only to be about getting back to the source or returning to the origin, about vainly endeavoring to cease thought and become absorbed in serenity. That is not equal to the stages of reflection on, training in, assuming the fragrance of, and cultivation of [dhyana]; it is not equal to views on the ten states and the balanced state of truth: how could [those people] have received the one-to-one transmission of the zazen of the buddhas and the patriarchs? Chroniclers of the Song dynasty were wrong to have recorded [their writings], and students in later ages should discard them and should not read them. As a maxim for zazen, the one written by Zen Master Wanshi Shogaku of Tendokeitokuji on Daibyakumyozan in Kyogenfu City in the great kingdom of Song, and this alone, is the patriarchs, is a [true] needle for zazen, and is a fit expression of the truth. Only his is the brightness [that illuminates both] outside and inside of the Dharma world. He is a Buddhist patriarch among the Buddhist patriarchs of the eternal past and present. Former buddhas and later buddhas continue to be spurred by this needle. Through this needle, patriarchs of the present and patriarchs of old are realized.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Most of this section is pretty straightforward and probably needs little commentary. However, because many Zen adherents continue to harbor the fallacy that 'zazen' in Dogen means ordinary 'sitting meditation' (i.e. sitting upright in the lotus or half-lotus posture) I want to underscore some of Dogen's words here. First, "If [people] are not able to be illuminated by the brightness, they lack this state of maintenance and reliance and they lack this belief and acceptance. This being so, even since ancient times, few people have known that zazen is zazen."

 

What does it mean not to "know that zazen is zazen"? Clearly, it is different than not knowing zazen - in that case, Dogen would have said, "few people have known zazen." Not to know zazen is zazen means knowing zazen as something other than zazen - to know zazen is zazen is to know zazen as it is, not to know zazen is zazen is to know zazen as it is not. As long as I know what zazen is, I cannot see zazen as anything else - whether my 'knowing' is accurate or not. This means that if I hold a false view of zazen I am totally obstructed from a true view of zazen. Thus, it is crucial that we each clearly look into the validity of our view about what zazen is.

 

Next, to make it absolutely clear that zazen is not ordinary seated meditation, Dogen points out the fact that, "In many temples, of course, times for zazen are laid down, and everyone from the abbot to the monks regards sitting in zazen as the main task. When recruiting students, too, they urge them to sit in zazen. Even so, those abbots who know [zazen] are rare." The fact that "everyone from the abbot to the monks" in "many temples" do "of course" take seated meditation "as the main task" and yet those who truly know zazen "are rare" clearly shows that seated meditation - which is obviously performed by all monastics high and low - is not what Dogen means by 'zazen.' What is it that Dogen means by 'zazen'? Or better, by 'zazen' Dogen means 'What' - which is what Dogen's expression, Zazenshin, exemplifies.

 

At a slightly more discursive level, it is clear that Dogen's vision of zazen not only widely diverges from popular notions advocated as 'just sitting' in the contemporary Zen community, it is incompatible with them. That is, as long as one holds the 'wrong view' that zazen is limited to the literal act of 'sitting meditation' or 'just sitting' (i.e. as popularly advocated; e.g. spending timed periods sitting in a proscribed posture while maintaining a particular 'mental' attitude like 'letting go of thoughts and/or perceptions,' being 'goalless' or 'objectless,' etc.), one is inevitably obstructed from the 'right view' of zazen. Thus Dogen says, "It is pitiful that [such people] spend a lifetime passing in succession through the monasteries of the ten directions, and yet they have not experienced the effort of one sitting." Pitiful indeed; spending a lifetime practicing seated meditation in a community that 'regards sitting meditation as the main task,' yet never even experiencing 'one sitting.'

 

Not to experience even one sitting means, "Sitting is not in them; their effort does not meet with themselves at all." In Bielefeldt's translation of Zazenshin it says, "...they do not have the concentrated effort of a single sitting-that sitting is not their own, and concentrated effort never encounters them." (trans. Carl Bielefeldt, in Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, p.198). In short, to actualize an instance of 'concentrated effort' (zazen), is to be actualized by/as an instance of 'concentrated effort.' When zazen is zazen, one's self is zazen, effort is zazen, meeting is zazen - thus when 'you' meet 'zazen,' zazen meets zazen, you meet you, meeting meets meeting, zazen zazens zazen.

 

"This is not because zazen hates their own body and mind, but because they do not aspire to the genuine effort [of zazen], and they are quickly deluded." Zazen is universally available; when genuine aspiration (bodhicitta; the thought or desire of enlightenment) is actualized, zazen is actualized, when bodhicitta (enlightened thought) is not-actualized delusion is actualized - when enlightenment is illumined, delusion is eclipsed, when delusion is illumined, enlightenment is eclipsed.

 

"Their collections seem only to be about getting back to the source or returning to the origin, about vainly endeavoring to cease thought and become absorbed in serenity." Any view of 'zazen' arrived at by someone holding to a false or deluded view of the nature of existence-time (e.g. that the 'origin' of reality exists independent of here-now, hence could be 'returned to,' or that one can 'cease thought' and 'become absorbed in serenity,' etc.) will inevitably be a false view of zazen. Authentic zazen is ever and always 'What' (ceaseless-advance into novelty), the instant zazen becomes a 'fixed reality' (not a novel, never-before actualized here-now) zazen is not zazen.

 

"That is not equal to the stages of reflection on, training in, assuming the fragrance of, and cultivation of [dhyana]; it is not equal to views on the ten states and the balanced state of truth: how could [those people] have received the one-to-one transmission of the zazen of the buddhas and the patriarchs?" Such false views of zazen - it is 'just sitting,' 'goalless,' 'returning to the source,' 'pure awareness,' 'objectless serenity,' etc. - fail even to match the vision informing such elementary Buddhist practices as 'the ten states' or 'the balanced state of truth,' how much further divergent must they be from the true zazen of the 'one-to-one transmission' (i.e. Zen)?

 

Link to Part 1 – Link to Part 3