Question of Dogen’s Intentions and the Form of
Shobogenzo
There is nearly universal agreement that about
ninety-five fascicles qualify as candidates for inclusion in Shobogenzo,
and that about eighty-six of these can be considered to have been expressly written
for Shobogenzo. From
there controversy abounds. For example, depending on which of the credible
proponent’s view is taken, the actual form of Shobogenzo consists of eighty-four
fascicles, or twelve, or twenty-eight, or seventy-five, etc. Besides questions
as to which fascicles should be
included, there is disagreement as to their order, the extent of their alteration,
their connection to Dogen’s koan collection of the same name, and similar questions.
Here I won’t debate these issues, but rather briefly
note my view on several points:
·
At least four of the advocated versions of Shobogenzo merit serious consideration.
·
It seems probably that Dogen ultimately intended
Shobogenzo to consist of one-hundred fascicles.
·
The evidence suggests Dogen engaged in revising fascicles
of Shobogenzo throughout his career.
·
There is good evidence that one of Dogen’s last
contributions to Shobogenzo was a revision of the key Genjokoan
fascicle.
The reader is referred to the excellent account of
the particular issues involved, the historical evidence, and the latest
scholarship on these issues by Steven Heine in his comprehensive study of
Dogen’s writings, Did Dogen Go To China? What He Wrote and When HeWrote It.
It is my view that the precise details and
historical evidence concerning what Dogen may or may not have intended as to the final form of Shobogenzo is ultimately of little import.
For the contemporary Zen practitioner the real significance of Shobogenzo is what it actually expresses,
not what Dogen may have intended to express. Moreover, it is simply
impossible to verify Dogen’s true intentions. More importantly, the truth
of Shobogenzo, like the truth of any
dharma, exists nowhere but in and as its actual form. From the nondual
perspective, the reality of a dharma and its form are not different things – the truth
of Shobogenzo exists in/as its form
here-now – and nowhere else.
No comments:
Post a Comment