Talking of Mind, Talking of Nature
A Commentary On Dogen's Shobogenzo, Sesshin sessho
Translation (in Bold) by Carl
Bielefeldt
Commentary by Ted Biringer.
(adapted from The Flatbed Sutra Newsletter. Dec. 2014)
Once,
when the Chan Master Shenshan Sengmi was traveling with the Great Master
Dongshan Wuben, the Great Master Wuben pointed out a cloister beside [the road]
and said, "Inside, there's someone talking of the mind and talking of the
nature."
Elder
brother Sengmi said, "Who is it?"
The
Great Master Wuben said, "Questioned once by my elder brother, and he's
immediately doomed."
Elder
brother Sengmi said, "Who is it that's talking of the mind and talking of
the nature?"
The
Great Master Wuben said, "In death, he lives."
[Note: "Great
Master Dongshan Wuben" (Tozan Gohon Daishi) is Dongshan Liangjie
(807-869), founder of the Caodong (Soto) lineage of Chan (Zen); Chan Master
Shenshan Sengmi (Shinzan Somitsu Zenji) was his brother in the Dharma (i.e.
both were disciples of the same master, Yunyan Tansheng); source, notes by Carl
Bielefeldt]
As he often does, Dogen begins his
teaching by citing a koan (case 62 of Dogen's 300 koan collection of: Shinji,
Shobogenzo). "Inside" means inside the cloister (or temple) the
two masters are beside. "Someone" means a person inside that
cloister. The fact that this dialogue is a mythopoeic expression (as are all
sacred and artistic expressions) tells us these terms also illumine something
more essential. In the present context the significance of these terms is
similar to the "inside" and the "someone" of Zen Master
Shitou's Song of the Grass-Roof Hermitage:
I've built a grass hut where there's nothing of
value.
After eating, I relax and enjoy a nap.
...
The person in the hut lives here calmly,
Not stuck to inside, outside, or in between.
...
Though the hut is small, it includes the
entire world.
In ten square feet, an old man illumines
forms and their nature.
...
Perishable or not, the original master
is present,
not dwelling south or north, east or
west.
...
If you want to know the undying person
in the hut,
Don't separate from this skin bag here
and now.
From, Song of the Grass-Roof Hermitage,Shitou Xiqian
(700-790), translated by Daniel Leighton in his, Cultivating the Empty Field
"Talking" is the activity of
language. As Dogen clearly elucidated, and contemporary cognitive scientists
are beginning to reveal, language is not only what facilitates the human
ability to communicate from mind to mind; it is what facilitates the human ability
to think and reason. Indeed, language is what allows human beings to experience
life as human beings.
"The mind" and "the
nature" are nondual foci (i.e. coessential elements) of experience, that
is, life itself (i.e. the actual experience of being alive). "The
mind" is what experiences life itself; "the nature" is
what is experienced as life itself. Experience is only and always
constituted of both foci; an "experiencer" ("the mind" that
experiences) and an "experienced" ("the nature" that is
experienced). As experiencers it is easy for humans to personally verify this
truth; apart from an experiencer there is no experienced, apart from an
experienced there is no experiencer. Thus it is self-evident that "the
mind" and "the nature" are nondual (not-two).
"Talking of the mind and talking of
the nature" is the activity of language itself; the communicating,
thinking, and reasoning experienced as life itself.
Here Dongshan initiates the dialogue by
expressing that inside there is someone engaging language;
expounding, thinking, and reasoning on experience. When Shenshan identifies the
"someone" as "Who?" ("Who is it?" i.e.
"Who?" is the "someone" engaging language), he thereby
reveals the absence (emptiness) of the "someone." For, to truly
mean "who?" is to truly question - thus truly not
know - the identity of someone (i.e. to ask "who?" when one knows
is not truly to ask "who?").
Dongshan verifies the emptiness of the
"someone" with "immediately doomed" - if "Who?"
(i.e. someone not known) is known, they are not truly
"Who?" The moment "Who?" is "John" or
"Jane," "Who?" is absent (i.e. immediately doomed, empty).
Having reached agreement this far,
Shenshan brings the right view to completion with, "Who is it that's
talking of the mind and talking of the nature?" As in the methodology most
familiar from the Diamond Sutra - A is not-A, therefore A is
A - Who? (the "someone inside") is not-Who? ("immediately
doomed"), therefore Who? is Who? ("Who is it
that's talking...").
Dongshan's, "In death, he
lives" not only approves the point, it emphasizes its ultimate import:
"...he lives." The fact that "A is not-A" is not
only insignificant in the absence of, "therefore A is A", it
is wrong, delusional - demonstrating why "half-truth" is a
synonym for "lie." The "reconstructionist" aspect of the
doctrine of emptiness (therefore A is A) is not only as
crucial as the "deconstructionist" aspect (A is not-A), it is the
key point - to recognize that particular things are empty (lack a separate,
independent self) is to see their absence (doom, darkness), only
by seeing that emptiness is particular things do we see their presence
(is-ness, life).
"Talking
of the mind and talking of the nature" is the great origin of the way of
the buddha; from it are caused to appear buddha after buddha and ancestor after
ancestor. Without "talking of the mind and talking of the nature,"
there would be no turning the wheel of the wondrous dharma; there would be no
production of the thought and cultivation of the practice; there would be no
"the great earth and sentient beings simultaneously achieved the
way"; there would be no "all living beings lack buddha nature."
Here Dogen clearly articulates the
implication of recognizing language ("Talking of the mind and talking of
the nature") as the fundamental activity of life itself. It is more
fundamental than Buddhism itself - "it is the great origin of the
way of buddha," "from it" Buddhas and ancestors "are
caused to appear." Without the activity of language "there
would be no turning the wheel" (Buddhist teaching), no aspiration for
or realization of enlightenment.
"Holding
up a flower and blinking" is "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature"; "breaking into a smile" is "talking of the mind
and talking of the nature"; "making a bow and standing there" is
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature"; "the ancestral
master entering the Liang" is "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature"; "transmitting the robe in the middle of the night" is
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature." Taking up the staff
is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"; laying down the
whisk is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature."
To emphasize the point Dogen clearly
articulates his meaning by applying it to a number of widely recognized (in
Zen) basic elements of Zen history and practice. Each of the particular
activities he lists is a simple truism of Zen life. "Holding up a
flower..." and "breaking into a smile," for example, refer to
the Buddha's transmission of Dharma to Mahakayshyapa with an expression as
recognizable in Zen as, "Let there be light" is in Christianity.
Thus, "Talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is not a
generalization; it does not mean "Everything is reducible to 'talking of
the mind and talking of the nature.'" It means "Each particular
thing, each specific action is 'talking of the mind and talking of the
nature.'"
In
sum, every virtue of buddha after buddha and ancestor after ancestor is
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature." There is the
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "the
ordinary"; there is the "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature" of "fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles." The realization
of the principle, "when the mind arises, the various dharmas arise,"
and the realization of the principle, "when the mind ceases, the various
dharmas cease," are in either case occasions of "talking of the mind,"
occasions of "talking of the nature."
Every actual manifestation of Buddha,
every particular form of reality is an expression of Buddha, is
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature."
Yet,
mediocre types, who have not penetrated the mind, who have not reached the
nature, without knowing "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature," without knowing "discussing the dark, discussing the
subtle," say that these must not be the words of the buddhas and
ancestors, teach that they should not exist. Because they do not know "talking
of the mind and talking of the nature" as "talking of the mind and
talking of the nature," they think of "talking of the mind and
talking of the nature" as "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature." This is particularly because they have not been critical of the
passage and obstructions of the great way.
Because they do not know
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature" as "talking
of the mind and talking of the nature," they think of "talking
of the mind and talking of the nature" as "talking of
the mind and talking of the nature." This is because they have
failed to wholeheartedly apply themselves to the language, thinking, and reason
("not been critical of") of the Buddha Dharma ("the passage and
obstructions of the great way").
*
* * * *
Of
late, there was a certain Zonggao, the Chan Master Dahui of Jingshan, who said,
People
today, because they like "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature" or "discussing the dark and discussing the subtle," are
slow to attain the way. When, you have thrown away both "mind" and
"nature" and forgotten both "dark" and "subtle,"
so that the two do not arise, you will verify and accord.
Whether or not Dahui actually said this
is beside the point - it is what these words express that demands
our attention. The notion that words or ideas like
"mind," "nature," "dark", and "subtle,"
can be "thrown away" or "forgotten" so as not to
"arise" can only be entertained from a perspective grounded on
dualism, hence a non-Buddhist perspective. If words or ideas like
"mind," "nature," etc. are true hindrances, causing people
to be "slow to attain the way," they must be realities (i.e.
have true existence). It would only be possible to "throw away" or
"forget" realities if separate, independent realities
existed - that's dualism. And obviously, if such words or ideas are unreal
they cannot be true hindrances.
This
saying does not know the pale yellow silk of the buddhas and ancestors, has not
heard of the monarchal line of the buddhas and ancestors. Consequently, he says
this because he knows that the mind is merely consideration, knowledge,
thought, and perception, and does not learn that consideration, knowledge,
thought, and perception are also the mind. Mistakenly figuring only that the
nature is pure, deep, quiescent, and still, he does not know about the
existence or non-existence of the buddha nature or dharma nature. Because he
has never seen "such a nature" even in his dreams, he has this biased
view of the buddha dharma.
Dogen points out that this "biased
view" is grounded on the false assumption that "mind" is a
reality more fundamental than the reality of "mentality"
("consideration, knowledge, thought, and perception") and that
"nature" is a reality more fundamental than the reality of
"appearance" or "form." Again, for a reality to be less
real than another reality, there would have to be separate, independent
realities - dualism. To hold any such view is to hold a false view - to "not
know about the existence or non-existence of the buddha nature or dharma
nature."
The
"mind" spoken of by the buddhas and ancestors is "skin, flesh,
bones, and marrow"; the "nature" maintained by the buddhas and
ancestors is "the bamboo truncheon and staff." The "dark"
that the buddhas and ancestors verify and accord with is "columns and
lanterns"; the "subtle" that the buddhas and ancestors take up
is "knowledge and understanding."
One American Zen master (who probably
never heard of Zen) offered a similar insight:
Is it not curious, that so vast a being as the whale should see the world
through so small an eye, and hear the thunder through an ear which is smaller
than a hare's? But if his eyes were broad as the lens of Herschel's great
telescope; and his ears capacious as the porches of cathedrals; would that make
him any longer of sight, or sharper of hearing? Not at all. Why then do you try
to 'enlarge' your mind? Subtilize it.
~Herman Melville
"The 'mind' spoken of by buddhas
and ancestors" ("talked of" by "someone") is
"skin, flesh, bones, and marrow," is "consideration,
knowledge, thought, and perception." The "nature" talked of by
"someone" is "the bamboo truncheon and staff," the pantry,
the gate. The "dark" that Zen practitioners "verify and accord
with" is recognized as "columns and lanterns" illumined.
The "subtle" that is expressed by Buddhas is not realized by throwing
away, forgetting, or enlarging but by subtilizing "knowledge and
understanding."
The
buddhas and ancestors who are truly buddhas and ancestors, from the beginning,
hear this "mind and nature," teach it, practice it, and verify it.
They maintain this "dark and subtle," and they study it. Those who
are like this are called the children and grandchildren studying the buddhas
and ancestors. Those who are not like this are not students of the way.
Buddhas and ancestors "hear
this..., teach it, practice it, and verify it," they maintain and study
it. Those called "the children and grandchildren studying the buddhas and
ancestors" are like this, i.e. are Buddhas and ancestors. Those who
do not hear this, teach it, practice it, verify it, maintain it, and study it
are not like this.
Therefore,
[Dahui's] "attaining the way" does not attain the way; when it does
not attain the way, it is not that it does not attain the way. It misses the
occasions of both attaining and not [attaining]. While, to say, as you say,
"forget both mind and nature," may be a part expressing the talking
of the mind, it is a small part, a hundredth, a thousandth, ten thousandth, a
hundred millionth part. To say, "discard both dark and subtle," is a
part forming the discussion of discussing of the dark.
The meaning of "attaining the
way" presupposed in the above statement attributed to Dahui fails to
harmonize with the reality of "attaining the way," thus is contrary
to the authentic Buddha Dharma. Dogen is not like that. Not only does Dogen
recognize consideration, knowledge, thought, and perception as real,
nondual, coessential elements of mind, he recognizes that even erroneous
utterances about the mind are not independent of talking of the
mind. Even if saying "discard both dark and subtle" is erroneous, it
is nevertheless talking of dark and subtle.
Not
having studied this pivot, if you stupidly say, "forgetting," you
think [it is] leaving the hand, you know it as escaping the body. You are not
yet liberated from the confines of the Small Vehicle; how could you reach the
innermost darkness of the Great Vehicle, let alone know "the higher
pivot"? It is difficult to say that you have tasted the tea and rice of
the buddhas and ancestors.
To think that "throwing away"
or "forgetting" something can somehow make something
into nothing is to have a seriously distorted view - a view that
"you" and "something" are two separate realities. You are
what you experience (i.e. see, hear, smell, taste, feel, think). When you
harbor a false view, a false view harbors you. When you discard a false view
and take up a true view, the false view does not become the true view
nor does it become nonexistent - the false view is still the false view, the
true view was ever already the true view.
To
study with a teacher and be diligent in your work is just to investigate
physically "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" at the
very moment of body and mind, to investigate it before the body and after the
body. There are not two or three other ways.
There is no body apart from mind, no
mind apart from body. The very moment of "body" is the very moment of
"body and mind," the very moment of "mind" is the very
moment of "body and mind." To "investigate physically" is to
"physically investigate" - here-now is now-here, there are not two or
three other ways.
*
* * * *
At
that time, the First Ancestor said to the Second Ancestor, "Externally,
put a stop to conditions; internally, the mind will be without panting. With
the mind like fences and walls, you will enter the way."
The
Second Ancestor talked of the mind and talked of the nature, but did not verify
and accord [with them]. One day, he suddenly understood.
Subsequently,
he addressed the First Ancestor, saying, "Your disciple has this time
finally put a stop to conditions."
The
first ancestor recognized that he had awakened and did not further press him,
saying only, "Haven't you achieved severance and extinction?"
The
Second Ancestor said, "No."
The
First Ancestor said, "How is the 'master'?"
The
Second Ancestor said, "Clear, clear, always knowing; therefore words can't
reach it."
The
First Ancestor said, "This is the substance of the mind transmitted down
from the buddhas and ancestors. Now you've got it; protect it well."
There
are those who doubt this episode, those who take it up. One episode among the
episodes of the Second Ancestor's service under the First Ancestor is like
this. When the Second Ancestor was persistently talking of the mind and talking
of the nature, at first he didn't accord with it. Finally, piling up merit and
accumulating virtue, he attained the way of the words of the First Ancestor.
The mediocre fools think that, [if] the Second Ancestor failed to verify and
accord when he was first talking of the mind and talking of the nature, the
fault lay in his talking of the mind and talking of the nature; subsequently,
having discarded talking of the mind and talking of the nature, he verified and
accorded. They say this because they have not penetrated the words, "when
the mind is like fences and walls, you will enter the way." This is
particularly ignorant of distinctions in studying the way.
Notice first Dogen's careful emphasis on
the import of discerning the actual significance of the "words"
that form the present koan. "Finally... he attained the way of the
words of the First Ancestor," "...fools think that... the fault
lay in his talking of..." "...because they have not penetrated
the words..." The reason "mediocre fools" arrive at such
distorted conclusions, according to Dogen, comes down to an ignorance of
"distinctions in studying the way."
Why
is this? After we have produced the thought of bodhi and turned to the practice
of the way of the buddha, when we are wholeheartedly performing the difficult
practices, though we may be performing them, we do not have one hit in a
hundred practices. Still, "whether from a friend, whether from a
scripture," eventually we hit it. This one hit in the present is [due to]
the power of a hundred misses in the past, is the "one maturation" of
a hundred misses. Hearing the teachings, cultivating the way, attaining the
verification are all like this. Yesterday's "talking of the mind and
talking of the nature" may be a hundred misses, but yesterday's hundred
misses of "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are
suddenly today's one hit.
Dogen's reasoning here is pretty
straightforward. If we employ a raft to cross a body of water in order to
arrive at the other shore we would not irrationally conclude that the time and
effort on the raft was inessential to, or independent of our arrival at the
other shore. The Second Ancestor's "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature" when he was not in "accord with it" is time and
effort not in accord with-the way of Buddha. The Second
Ancestor's "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" when
he "attained the way" is time and effort in accord with-the
way of Buddha. Arriving at the other shore is dependent on employing
a raft - only a "mediocre fool" would suppose the "time of
employing a raft" would be eradicated by the "time of arriving
at the other shore." At the "time of employing a raft" the
"time of arriving at the other shore" is not-yet; at the
"time of arriving at the other shore" the "time of employing a
raft" is already.
When
we have the beginner's mind in the practice of the way of the buddha, if [we
think that], since we are untrained and have not mastered it, we might discard
the way of the buddha and take another path, then we cannot attain the way of
the buddha. Those types who have not mastered the beginning and end of the
practice of the way of the buddha have difficulty clarifying the fact that this
passage and obstruction is reasonable.
When one initially resolves to be
pianist one sets out on the path of a pianist. All pianists travel the path of
a pianist, all that travel the path of a pianist are pianists - to be a pianist
and to travel the path of a pianist are coessential elements of the same
reality.
The
way of the buddha is the way of the buddha at the time of the first production
of the thought; it is the way of the buddha at the time of attaining true
enlightenment. It is the way of the buddha throughout beginning, middle, and
end. For example, for one walking ten thousand ri, one step is within a
thousand ri; the thousandth step is within a thousand ri. The first one step
and the thousandth step may be different, but the thousand ri are the same.
The path of a pianist is the path of a
pianist at the time of "a pianist's initial resolution"; it is
the path of a pianist at the time of "attaining the true status of a pianist."
It is the path of a pianist throughout beginning, middle, and end. The 1st
yard, 10th yard, and 100th yard are all essential
elements of the 100 yard dash, each yard is different and distinct, but the 100
yard dash is equally dependent on each of the 100 yards.
Yet,
an extremely stupid bunch thinks that, when we are studying the way of the buddha,
we have not reached the way of the buddha; only when we attain the fruit is it
the way of the buddha. They do not understand "taking up the way and
practicing the way." They [talk] like this because they do not understand
"taking up the way and practicing the way," they do not understand
"taking up the way and verifying the way." Those who talk like this
are the bunch who learn that only the deluded practice the way of the buddha
and have the great awakening; they do not know, and have not heard, that the
non-deluded also practice the way of the buddha and have the great awakening.
It would be "extremely stupid"
to think that when a pianist was studying piano and learning to play she was
not on the path of a pianist - that she was only on the path of a pianist when
she arrived at the status of pianist. To think that would demonstrate that one
did not understand the nonduality of "taking up piano and practicing
piano," did not understand the interdependent nature of "taking up
piano and realizing piano." To think like that would be to wrongly assume
that only non-pianists take up piano and become pianists; it would wrongly
assume that pianists do not take up piano and become pianists.
Though
we say that "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" before
verification and accord is the way of the buddha, we verify and accord through
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature." We should not learn
that "verification and accord" refers only to the deluded initially
having the great awakening: the deluded have the great awakening; the awakened
have the great awakening; the unawakened have the great awakening; the
undeluded have the great awakening; those who have verified and accorded verify
and accord.
While "studying piano and learning
piano" before arriving at the status of pianist is the path of a pianist,
a pianist is realized through "studying piano and learning piano." We
should not imagine that a "realization" refers only to non-pianists
realizing the status of a pianist: non-pianists are realized as non-pianists;
pianists are realized as pianists; the unrealized are realized as unrealized;
the realized are realized as realized; those who have realized do
realize.
Thus,
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is the direct
[approach] of the way of the buddha. Mister Gao's saying, without his having
mastered this principle, that we should not "talk of the mind and talk of
the nature" is not the principle of the buddha dharma. In the present land
of the great Song, there is no one who even reaches Mister Gao.
"Studying piano and learning
piano" is "a pianist" - the "studying piano and learning
piano" that is not "a pianist" is not true "studying piano
and learning piano." Saying that a pianist does not "study piano and
learn piano" is not in accord with reality. In the contemporary world of
Zen few verify that talking of the mind and talking of the nature
is (the) talking of the mind and (the) talking of the nature.
*
* * * *
The
Eminent Ancestor, the Great Master Wuben, the single most honored among the
ancestors, mastered the principle that "talking of the mind and talking of
the nature" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature."
The ancestral masters everywhere who have not mastered it have no sayings like
this present episode.
The ancestral masters who have
mastered it do have sayings like this present episode. For instance, a
monk asked a master, "How does the original pure essence manifest
itself?" The master said, "How does the original pure essence
manifest itself?" Consider this carefully - it is truly lovely.
When
elder brother Sengmi and the great master were traveling, [Dongshan] pointed
out a cloister beside [the way] and said, "Inside, there's someone talking
of the mind and talking of the nature."
Ever
since the eminent ancestor appeared in the world, his dharma descendants have
always correctly transmitted this saying [as] the ancestral style. It is not
something other traditions have seen even in their dreams; still less have they
known, even in their dreams, how to understand it. Only those who are legitimate
heirs have correctly transmitted it. How can one who does not correctly
transmit this principle reach the origin on the way of the buddha?
While this passage is clear, it is worth
noting that it exemplifies one of the universal "acid tests" provided
by sages in all places and times for discerning sages (from non-sages or false
prophets). One of Jesus' versions, for example, is "By their fruits ye
shall know them." Since Dogen considers verbal expressions to be as real
as other "fruits," his "By their utterances ye shall know
them," can be seen as equivalent.
The
principle in question here is: whether "inside" or
"surface," "there's someone" and "someone's
there" "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." Within
the surface, the mind is talking; within the surface, the nature is talking. We
should investigate and work at this. There has not yet been "talking"
that is not "nature"; there is no "mind" that is not
"talking."
Inside depends on outside,
outside defines inside. If it is true that "there's someone"
it must be true that "someone's there" - if there is "talking of
the mind" there is "the mind of talking."
"Buddha
nature" means all "talking." "Lacking buddha nature"
means all "talking." Though one studies the nature of the buddha
nature, [those who] do not study "having buddha nature" are not
studying the way; [those who] do not study "lacking buddha nature"
are not studying the way. [Those who] study that "talking" is
"the nature" are the legitimate descendants of the buddhas and
ancestors. [Those who] believe and accept that "the nature" is
"talking" are the buddhas and ancestors of the legitimate
descendants.
"Buddha nature" is existence;
"lacking Buddha nature" is nonexistence. Existence depends on
nonexistence, nonexistence defines existence. "Talking" is the
activity of language; the communicating, thinking, and reasoning experienced as
life itself. That "'Buddha nature' means all 'talking'" affirms that existence
is language. That "'Lacking buddha nature' means all 'talking'"
affirms that language is existence. While it is necessary to discern the
true nature (reality, essence) of Buddha nature (thusness, actual
existence), there is more to authentic Zen practice-enlightenment. One must
discern the significance of "having Buddha nature" as well as
"lacking Buddha nature."
On one occasion a monk asked Joshu,
"Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Joshu said, "Mu" (no, is
without, lacking). Language, thinking, and reason is Buddha nature.
On another occasion a monk asked Joshu,
"Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Joshu said, "U" (yes, has,
exists). Buddha nature is language, thinking, and reason.
When the significance of both these
expressions is discerned simultaneously it is clear that language, thinking,
and reason is language, thinking, and reason.
To
say that the mind is rattled and the nature is composed is the view of other
ways; to say that the nature is clear and deep and the form shifts and moves is
the view of other ways. The study of the mind and study of the nature on the
way of the buddha are not like this. The practice of the mind and practice of
the nature on the way of the buddha are not equivalent to the other ways. The
clarification of the mind and the clarification of the nature on the way of the
buddha, the other ways have no share in.
Since the experiential truth verifies
the nonduality of mind and nature (i.e. when the mind is rattled the nature is
rattled, when the nature is clear and deep the form is clear and deep), any
view that presupposes otherwise can reliably be dismissed as erroneous.
On
the way of the buddha, there is the "talking of the mind and talking of
the nature" of "someone"; there is the "talking of the mind
and talking of the nature" of "no one." There is the "not
talking of the mind and not talking of the nature" of "someone";
there is the "not talking of the mind and not talking of the nature"
of "no one." There is "talking of the mind and not talking of
the mind; there is "talking of the nature and not talking of the nature."
When one has not studied "talking of the mind" at the time when there
is "no one," then "talking of the mind has not reached the
field." When one has not studied "talking of the mind" at the
time when there is "someone," then "talking of the mind has not
reached the field." We study "no one who talks of the mind"; we
study "no one talking of the mind"; we study "this one who talks
of the mind"; we study "this one talking of the mind."
The "talking of the mind and
talking of the nature" of "someone" depends on the "talking
of the mind and talking of the nature" of "no one." The
"not talking of the mind and not talking of the nature" of
"someone" defines the "not talking of the mind and not talking
of the nature" of "no one," etc. To have learned about the
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of
"someone" but not yet learned about the "talking of the mind and
talking of the nature" of "no one" is not yet to understand
(even) the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of
"someone" - to have discerned that A is not-A, but not yet discerned
that therefore A is A, is not yet to have truly discerned (even) that A is
not-A. Thinking that "the moon pointed out by a finger" exists
independent of "a finger pointing out the moon" is thinking that
"has not reached the field."
Linji's total power to say something is just "the true person without rank," but he still has not said, "the true person with rank." He has not realized what remains to be studied, what remains to be said; we can say he has not reached the ground of penetration. Because "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are talking of the buddhas and talking of the ancestors, we meet them in the ear, we meet them in the eye.
If we meet "the true person with
rank" but do not meet "the true person without rank" we
have not yet truly met (even) "the true person with rank." To truly
meet the true person with rank is to truly meet the true person without rank.
Because "talking of the Buddhas and talking of the ancestors" is
"talking of the mind and talking of the nature" we realize the true
person, the true person realizes us.
The
elder brother Sengmi said, "Who is it?"
When
he expresses this saying, elder brother Sengmi should previously avail himself
of this saying and should subsequently avail himself of this saying. "Who
is it?" is the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"
of "that inside." Therefore, when "who is it?" is said,
when "who is it? is thought, this is itself "talking of the mind and
talking of the nature." This "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature" is something that those of other quarters have never known. They
have forgotten their child and taken it for a thief; so "they recognize
the thief as their child."
When (i.e. that
location-time; that here-now) Sengmi expresses, "Who is it?",
"Who is it?" expresses Sengmi - that "When" (that
expression: Who is it?/Sengmi) completely exerts the whole universe; the
totality of the past-present-future of existence/nonexistence is exerted as
previously, here-now, and subsequently. When (and only when) "Who is
it?" is expressed here-now "previously" and
"subsequently" are immediately realized (i.e. made real).
"Previously" and "subsequently" are realized as
"Who is it?" expressed here-now. To recognize the thief is actually
one's child means (previously) mistaking one's child for an actual thief.
Clear-eyed vision sees a thief as a thief, one's child as one's
child.
The
great master said, "Questioned once by my elder brother, and he's
immediately doomed."
When
mediocre types of students hear these words, they think that the
"someone" who is "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature," upon being asked, "who is it?" is "immediately
doomed." The reason is that they are facing the words, "who is it?"
without recognizing them, without any view of them at all; hence, [the words]
are "dead words." This is not necessarily the case. Those who have
penetrated this "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are
rare. To be "doomed" a hundred percent is not to be "doomed"
ten or twenty percent; hence "doomed" is a hundred percent. At the
very moment of "questioned," who would hold that this is not
"shielding the heavens and covering the earth"? Reflection of the
past is cut off; reflection of the present is cut off; reflection of the future
is cut off. Reflection of this very moment is cut off.
"Mediocre types of students"
mistakenly understand "immediately doomed" as meaning that the
"someone" is doomed when "Who is it?" is expressed
because they mistake "Who is it?" for "immediately doomed"
(their child for a thief). When "doomed" is exerted the whole
universe is "doomed," when "questioned" is exerted
there is only "questioned" in the whole universe. When
"reflection here-now" is exerted "reflection then-there"
(past, present, future) is "not-reflection then-there" - it
is "reflection here-now."
The
elder brother Sengmi said, "Who is it that's talking of mind and talking
of the nature?"
The
previous "who is it?" and this "who is it," though the name
is "Zhang's third," the person is "Li's fourth."
When John is who, who is not-Jane, when
Jane is who, who is not-John; John is Jane's previous, Jane is John's
subsequently.
The
Great Master said, "In death, he lives."
In
regard to this "in death," [we should not] think that it is directly
referring to the "immediately doomed"; he is not directly referring
to [the one who is] "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"
and arbitrarily saying, "who is it?" "Who is it?" arranges
the "someone" who is "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature." There should be a study holding that he does not wait forever to
be a hundred percent "doomed." The Great Master's words, "In
death, he lives," are the voices and forms of "someone talking of the
mind and talking of the nature" right before us. Again, they are also one
or two parts of completely "doomed." Life may be fully alive, but it
is not death changing to appear as life: it is just the sloughing off of
"he lives" that is "true at the head and true at the tail."
The Great Master's words;
"inside," "someone," "doomed," "dead,"
"alive," etc. are faces of the omnipresent "undying
person inside the hut." While "inside" depends on
"outside," when "inside" is right before us
"outside" is-not, is-darkened, is
"inside." "Who?" digests our food, beats our hearts,
arranges our oxygen-blood levels, manages our toxin filtering. "Who?"
facilitates "someone" with the organization of sights, sounds, smells,
tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts and the coordination of language,
thinking, and reason.
In
general, there is this kind of "talking of the mind and talking of the
nature" that is investigated on the way of the buddha and the way of the
ancestors. When we go further, by dying a complete death, we realize the way of
life of "he lives."
When "life" is exerted
"death" is-not, when "death" is illumined "life"
is dark (present as eclipsed). "Life" does not transform
into "death," "death" does not become
"life." Life here-now is the face of the whole universe, death
here-now is the face of the whole universe.
We
should realize that, from the Tang period till today, there have been many
pitiable types who have not clarified the fact that "talking of the mind
and talking of the nature" are the way of the buddha, who are in the dark
about the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" in
teaching, practice, and verification, and who talk rashly and speak wildly. We
should save them "before the body and after the body." What I say to
them is this: "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are the
essential functions of the Seven Buddhas and the ancestral masters.
The Seven Buddhas and the ancestral
masters are the normal (healthy, enlightened) mind, the Tao, the Zen Way, the
supreme supreme. "Talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are
the essential functions of the normal mind.
Shobogenzo, Sesshin sessho
(Talking of the Mind and Talking of the Nature)
FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
