Just Sitting vs Mere Sitting - and the nature of koans: response to Martin Lake

Hello, this post is in response to some recent comments by Martin Lake that raise some important points. For the full text of the comments see:
 http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.com/2012/04/zen-without-koans-like-christianity.html

Hello Martin,

Thank you for sharing.

I am not sure that I accurately understand your comments (or their context); please keep this in mind in reading my responses, in which I will try to indicate what I am assuming to be your meaning or context.

Martin wrote: “My experience of koans is that they are records of the behaviour of those who have clarified the state.”

 

Here I am assuming that by “my experience of koans” you are talking about reading them, hearing them expressed (within and or outside of teachings, teishos, sermons, etc.), and or thinking about them rather than any kind of systematic study or training with a koan teacher.

If so, I can see how they might be viewed as “records of behaviour” – that is certainly how a great many of them are structured. But I wonder what you might think of the many koans that are not structured in the manner of a person’s conduct. For example:

 

Why has the Western Barbarian no beard?

Mumonkan, Case 4

The Ryogon Sutra says, "When I don't see, why don’t you not see my not seeing? If you could see my not seeing that would not be the nature of not seeing. Since you don’t see my not seeing, it must not be a thing. Thus, how could it not be you?

Hekiganroku, Case 94

Gettan said, "Keichu, the wheel-maker, made a cart whose wheels had a hundred spokes.

If you took away the wheels and the axle, what would be vividly apparent?
Mumonkan, Case 8

 

Also, in this context, “the state” you refer to seems to mean “one (and the same) particular state” – that is, that all the different koans, the many and various “records of behaviour" all have their source in one and this “one and the same state.” If so, this would certainly seem to be inconsistent with the classic Zen literature (including the records and writings of Dogen and Keizan) which portrays the nature and dynamics of practice-enlightenment as the actualization of the universe (genjokoan) at the interface of both the “myriad dharmas” and the “mind alone” (as interdependent and coessential elements of true nature).

Martin wrote: “What else could they be?”

Even on the surface it seems they could be something other than “records of behavior.” How about allegorical stories? Or, vehicles of truth? Expressions of wisdom? Perhaps even the Buddha Dharma?

While it seems to me that these are at least as likely as “records of behavior,” however, even these fall short of my view/experience of koans. In my view koans are not simply “recordings,” they are not even authentic expressions/teachings of Buddhas and ancestors, they are precisely what the classic Zen masters proclaimed, that is, instances of the Dharma itself, expressions of Buddhas and ancestors as they are here and now. To cite one example, Dogen says:

In encountering these sayings and expressions of Theirs, do not treat them as something apart from the Buddha's assembly, for They are Buddhas turning the Wheel of the Dharma. Because this Wheel of the Dharma encompasses everything in all directions, the Great Ocean, Mount Sumeru, all lands, and all thoughts and things have fully manifested themselves.

Shobogenzo, Muchu Setsumu, Hubert Nearman

Martin wrote: “Koans can be recognised as such when we clarify the state for ourselves, otherwise we get lost in opinion or think they have something special to give us.”

 

This seems to suggest the view that studying koans would be an act in futility for anyone that had not yet clarified “the state” (whatever that may be); and that koans do not have anything special (like wisdom, liberation, etc.) to transmit. If so, do you think that Dogen was wrong when he proclaimed that students should “first know the sayings of Buddhas and ancestors” – for instance:

People who study the Buddha Dharma should first know the sayings of Buddhas and ancestors, without being confused by those outside the way.

Eihei Koroku, Leighton & Okumura

Was Dogen trying to confuse or mislead students when he advised them to “first ask” for one koan when you “meet a teacher”?

Good gentlemen, when you meet a teacher, first ask for one case of [koan] story, and just keep it in mind and study it diligently. If you climb to the top of the mountain and dry up the oceans, you will not fail to complete [this study].

Dogen's Extensive Record, Vol.8:14, Leighton & Okumura

If koans have nothing special to give us, then why would Dogen tell Ejo that even by hearing a koan “a student may suddenly become enlightened”?

 

(Asked by Ejo about the "use" of Nansen killing the cat) If it were not a turning word, we could not say, 'Mountains, rivers, and the great earth, are the marvelously pure illumined mind'; and we could not say, 'The very mind is Buddha.' So in the expression of this turning word, see that the cat is identical to the Buddha-body. Furthermore, hearing these words, a student may suddenly become enlightened.

Shobogenzo-Zuimonki, (Record of Things Heard, Thomas Cleary)

Martin wrote: “Can you tell me the difference between "just sitting" and "mere sitting"?

In short, the difference is the difference between “authenticity” and “inauthenticity.”

For the longer version, here I will post some excerpts on this topic from an article on Hee-Jin Kim's findings regarding Dogen's Zen in the latest “Flatbed Sutra Zen Newsletter” (Oct. 2012 – Jan. 2013).

 

[Note: three dots “…” indicate omitted material]

Abbreviation Key: 

MR - Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist

FE - Flowers of Emptiness: Selected Translation from Shobogenzo
RWL - The Reason of Words and Letters,
DMT - Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen.

…
Nonthinking: The Essential Art of Zen Practice-Enlightenment

This brings us to the next topic of discussion; Dogen’s notion of authentic practice-enlightenment. The first four points are:

 

1.       In Dogen’s Zen, zazen (or shikantaza) is the primary archetype of authentic Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho).

2.       The nature and dynamics of the form/essence unity embodied by the zazen archetype is most comprehensively revealed and elucidated by Dogen in his vision of “nonthinking.”

3.       As a human capacity, nonthinking is a mode of thinking informed by, and enacted in harmony with the wisdom of nonduality as revealed by the doctrines of emptiness and interdependence.

4.       As practice-enlightenment, nonthinking is the intentional, skillful utilization of thinking for the actualization of universal liberation performed by beings awake to true nature (i.e. a Buddha).

 

[Note: for examples of Dogen’s notion of “nonthinking” see MR pp. 62-63, & esp. DMT pp. 79-120; on the specific notion of “zazen as archetype” see for example MR p. 58, DMT pp. 23-26]

 

In connection with nonthinking, “the wisdom of nonduality” means the recognition of the nondual nature of “thinking” and “not-thinking.”

 

“Thinking” means actively engaging in discriminative, critical, thought concerning a dharma or dharmas; the application of the normal capacities of human intelligence or cognition.

 

“Not-thinking” is the reality and presence of all dharmas that are “not-thought” at a particular location-time of “thinking” – the sum total of the universe not appearing in/as a particular instance or phenomenal form of “thinking.”

 
…

“Nonthinking,” then, is a mode of thinking in which the thinker is awake to or cognizant of the presence of not-thinking in/as the present existence-time of thinking.

 

Dogen affirms “nonthinking” is “thinking not-thinking,” the significance of which he elucidates by demonstrating that “not-thinking” is a “concrete-state” (i.e. a dharma). This expression by Dogen (see Shobogenzo, Zazenshin) is itself an exemplification of nonthinking; it expresses a thought that recognizes (thus accounts for the presence of) the spatial-temporal form/essence (concrete state) of “not-thinking.”

…

…should be clear that “nonthinking” is nothing more or less than the application of the truth of nonduality to the activity of “thinking.” In terms of the prajna-paramita… thinking is not-thinking, therefore, thinking is thinking – it is in the (full) context of this that “thinking” can be accurately understood as the mode of thinking that Dogen calls “nonthinking.”

 

…

… Dogen’s view of Zen practice-enlightenment, as presented by his teaching of nonthinking, views the human capacity of thinking to be much more expansive than commonly supposed… thinking, from Dogen’s perspective, is not confined to intellectual capacities but is inclusive of all human capacities for discernment (e.g. sensation, perception, linguistic abilities, intellectual pursuits, emotional capacities, consciousness, etc.). It is in light of this refusal to divide, classify, categorize, pigeonhole, or otherwise abstract or reduce the ever-advancing novel actualization of self/world experience-existence, that thinking (along with its sisters, language and reason) is as essential an element of practice-enlightenment as is any other element of Zen, including seated meditation. 

 …

5.       Dogen's Zen is grounded in and dependent on the clear and comprehensive understanding and skillful utilization of “language, thinking, and reason.”

Despite the fact of the almost total lack of recognition or assimilation by the Zen/Buddhist community (from Dogen’s time to the present), Dogen’s vision of language, thinking, and reason is the de facto vision of Dogen’s Zen. The fascicles of Shobogenzo not only elucidate and expound Dogen’s vision, they exemplify it…

…

It is in light of this that Kim writes, for example:

 

The foregoing passage (from Shobogenzo, Bussho) demonstrates Dogen’s analytic and critical thinking in search of clarity and depth of meaning. In fact, I consider this as a very good example of his practice.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.106 (italics in the original)

And:

Rather, his approach (for transmitting Zen to his students) emerged from his foremost desire to provide them with fundamental principles—spelled out in terms of language, thinking, and reason—with which each could grapple with his/her individual soteric project, thereby realizing his/her own Zen. Dogen demonstrated this himself by writing the fascicles of the Shobogenzo.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.122 (italics in the original)

…

 According to Dogen, the practical application of authentic practice-enlightenment consists in:
 

6.       Utilizing the skillful means (expedients, effective capacities) of the normal human body-mind.

 

By “utilizing skillful means” is meant the adept application of efficacious abilities; Kim identifies this as, “dialectically negotiating the Way” (between or within nonduality and duality). By “the normal human body-mind” is meant the healthy (hence enlightened) human individual commonly recognized as a “person” or “self” constituted of a body-and-mind, and more technically denoted in Zen/Buddhist literature as “the five skandhas” (i.e. form, sensation, perception, mental formulation, and consciousness). “Normal” here coincides with the Zen saying, “The normal mind is the Tao” – this is the normal of “healthy,” “harmonious,” “undistorted,” “correct,” etc.; not the normal of “average,” “usual,” “typical,” “mundane,” “routine,” etc.

 

To utilize the skillful means of the normal human body-mind (i.e. the practical application of nonthinking) is to intentionally engage in continuous, ongoing discernment of true nature (of the self/world) at/in/as the ever-arriving here-now and conducting one’s self accordingly.

 …

The practical application or process of Dogen’s practice-enlightenment is illuminated by the works of Hee-Jin Kim in a variety of ways; one of the most succinct examples is a translation and commentary on a passage from Bendowa, one of Dogen’s early writings…

…

Kim states the key point near the beginning of his commentary on the passage as follows:

In the Shobogenzo, “Bendowa” (1231), Dogen succinctly enunciates his Zen: The endeavor to negotiate the Way (bendo), as I teach now, consists in discerning all things in view of enlightenment, and putting such a unitive awareness (ichinyo) into practice in the midst of the revaluated world (shutsuro).” This statement clearly sets forth practitioners’ soteriological project as negotiating the Way in terms of (1) discerning the nondual unity of all things that are envisioned from the perspective of enlightenment and (2) enacting that unitive vision amid the everyday world of duality now revalorized by enlightenment. Needless to say, these two aspects refer to practice and enlightenment that are nondually one (shusho itto; shusho ichinyo).

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.21

 

The significance of this passage is probably clear enough. Nevertheless, certain implications may not be readily apparent to readers unfamiliar with common distortions frequent among popular Zen or pseudo-Zen communities and literature. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that clarity of expression is any guarantee something will receive the attention it merits; many of the key elements of Dogen’s Zen revealed in Kim’s initial effort continue to be widely misunderstood and neglected nearly 40 years after the fact.

 

In any case, the real significance that Kim brings to relief in singling out how “Dogen succinctly enunciates his Zen” here needs to be appreciated in context of the knowledge that Dogen’s enunciation diverges widely from prevailing contemporary enunciations professing to describe Dogen’s Zen…

 

…

unless we are ready to assert that Dogen does not qualify as an authority on his own view of Zen, we are compelled to acknowledge that the prevailing views and accounts of Dogen’s Zen are fallacious.
 

It is a simple truism that false presuppositions about a thing are incompatible with an accurate understanding of that thing, yet the obvious implication, that the recognition of false notions is therefore a prerequisite for the assimilation of truth, often goes unheeded. Let us, then, clearly spell out the significant implication here; clearly recognizing fallacious notions one holds regarding Zen or Dogen is a prerequisite for realizing any truth regarding Zen or Dogen…

 …

to briefly survey one of the most perniciously tenacious fallacies about the methodology of Dogen’s practice-enlightenment that is revealed by Hee-Jin Kim’s illumination of Dogen’s writings.

 

The fallacy in question… is that the methodology advocated by Dogen as “zazen” (seated meditation), “shikantaza” (sole-sitting), “sanzen” (practicing-Zen), or “hi-shiryo” (nonthinking) consists in and of a mere ritual performance involving a bodily posture (upright sitting) and proscribed mental attitude (specific do’s and don’ts). The distortion, or more accurately, superstition surrounding this “Zen” method is that the proscribed physical posture/mental attitude is itself the actual manifestation of authentic Zen practice-enlightenment. Some of the more popular champions of Dogen as the advocate of a fixed-form of “Zen practice” insinuate that the efficacy of this uncomplicated access to Buddhahood is inherent to the physical posture itself (the mental aspect is commonly portrayed as secondary, sometimes even inessential).

 

Significantly, those promoting such misleading notions commonly support their claims on superficial readings of Dogen’s own expressions. In other words, their fallacious proclamations are themselves dependent on neglecting, distorting, or subverting the first principles (i.e. language, thinking, and reason) of Dogen’s methodology. To cite one popular example, we turn again to Dogen’s Bendowa.

 

In the authentic transmission of [our] religion, it is said that this Buddha-Dharma, which has been authentically and directly transmitted one-to-one, is supreme among the supreme. After the initial meeting with a [good] counselor we never again need to burn incense, to do prostrations, to recite Buddha’s name, to practice confession, or to read sutras. Just sit and get the state that is free of body and mind.

Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Rather than reading this as the mythopoeic expression of a Buddhist master, this passage is read as if it were the literal explanation of an instruction manual. In short, this passage (and passages similar to it) is espoused as meaning that as soon as a practitioner has met a reliable teacher all manner of study and practice, except “just sitting,” can literally be abandoned…

 

…

such a superficial reading of this passage – written in 1231 – had already developed in Dogen’s time. For, twelve years later (1243), in the Bukkyo fascicle of Shobogenzo, Dogen wrote that most people misunderstood the significance of this expression, and pointed out that to view “reading sutras” as literally meaning “reading sutras” was reductionism, while imagining that one could thus dismiss the whole question of “reading sutras” was vulgarity.

 

My late master constantly said, “In my order, we do not rely on burning incense, doing prostrations, reciting names of buddhas, practicing confession, or reading sutras. Just sit, direct your energy into pursuing the truth, and get free of body and mind.”

 

Few people clearly understand an expression like this. Why? Because to call “reading sutras” “reading sutras” is to debase it, and not to call it “reading sutras” is to be perverse.

Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

The whole point here is that the language, thinking, and reason of Zen must be effectively understood and skillfully applied if one is to truly appreciate the language, thinking, and reason of Zen expression. Like poetry, art, myth, and all sacred literature, the expressions of Zen are not addressed merely to the intellect, but to one’s whole being. When we truly see the “waving thistle” of a poem, what is seen is neither a “waving thistle” nor other than a “waving thistle” – such “seeing” is not something that is achieved with the literal eye, nor something achieved without the literal eye. This kind of seeing is achieved with the eye that is not-the-eye and is therefore the eye. In Buddhism this is sometimes called the Dharma-eye, the Buddha-eye, or the eye to read scriptures. As Dogen goes on to say:

“You are not allowed to talk and not allowed to be mute: say something at once! Say something at once!” We should learn this truth in practice. Because this principle [of reading sutras] exists, a man of old has said, “To read sutras we must be equipped with the eyes of reading sutras.”

Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

The notion that the uniqueness of the physiognomy of seated meditation is the keystone of Dogen’s Zen, and the most distinguishing characteristic of him as a Buddhist master, is undoubtedly one of the greatest misnomers about Dogen and his writings among contemporary practitioners. Fallacious notions, commonly in the form of vague, but grand generalizations about the exceptionally original, rigorous, or efficacious quality of the bodily form of seated meditation in Dogen’s Zen can clearly be seen as having its primary source in sectarianism. In contrast to traditional sectarian claims the fact of the matter is:

7.       The technical physiognomy of Zazen and/or shikantaza receives relatively little detailed attention in the corpus of Dogen’s writings.

 

8.       The little detailed attention Dogen’s writings do dedicate to the practical physical performance of zazen and/or shikantaza is clear, straightforward – and generally unremarkable.

 

In comparison with the detailed attention Dogen’s writings dedicate to the koan literature, sutra study, the nature and dynamics of language, thinking, and reason of practice-enlightenment, Buddha-nature, existence-time, and numerous other topics, his treatment of the practical aspects of seated meditation is minimal at best. In comparison with the creativity and originality of his treatment of those same topics, his meditation manuals hardly qualify as vastly original; apart from a few minor points his treatment of seated meditation is indistinguishable from other sources of his era and earlier. As Kim points out:

 

Dogen's instructions on seated meditation were brief and minimalist. He did not elaborate on meditation techniques or meditative experiences in any detail, nor did he attempt to guide his disciples through graduated stages of meditative and spiritual progression, as we often see in some religious traditions within and without Buddhism.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.122

 

As long as we hold to a view that Dogen’s practice-enlightenment consists in a unique bodily form of seated meditation we will simply be unable to recognize that authentic practice-enlightenment consists in actualizing a “unitive vision amid the everyday world of duality.” In sum, for Dogen, “zazen” is the archetype of the actualization of the “unitive vision amid the everyday world of duality.” As expressed in the following observation of Hee-Jin Kim:

 

Language, thinking, and reason constitute the key to both zazen and koan study within Dogen’s praxis-oriented Zen. The koan’s and zazen’s function is not to excoriate and abandon the intellect and its words and letters, but rather to liberate and restore them in the Zen enterprise. In short, enlightenment is not brought about by direct intuition (or transcendent wisdom) supplanting the intellect and its tools, but in and through their collaboration and corroboration in search of the expressible in deeds, words, and thoughts for a given situation (religious and secular).

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.78

 

...

Having established these fundamental points of Kim’s illumination of Dogen’s vision of practice-enlightenment, we now want to briefly elaborate upon their significance:

 

1.       Dogen’s “brief and minimalist” treatment of zazen harmonizes with his “extensive and elaborate” treatment of the significance and methodology of ongoing critical discernment of, and conduct appropriate to, the true nature of the self/world, which is envisioned as the essential art of Zen practice-enlightenment (i.e. nonthinking; utilizing the skillful means of the normal human body-mind).

 

This point brings Dogen’s vision of practice-enlightenment into harmony with the Zen axiom that Buddhahood (enlightenment) can only be achieved by oneself. The harmonization of these two aspects serves to illumine the reason that:

 

2.       Dogen’s writings are naturally focused solely on presenting aspirants with the knowledge and skill necessary to successfully realize Buddhahood.

 

Whether we are considering Dogen’s teachings on nonthinking, sitting meditation, or the proper procedure for cleaning teeth, we need always be wary of falling into reductionism, superficial literalism, or idolatry; Zen does not recognize, must less worship fixed-forms, methods, formulas or codes of any kind. This brings us to the next point:

 

3.       The language of Zen, like all genuine expressions of truth, is mythical language, not narrative description or literal definition.

 

Attempting to read Dogen’s expressions on sitting meditation, nonthinking, or using the toilet according to the rules or notions of a non-mythical or non-poetic language is to literally (pun intended) miss the mark from the get go. The language of truth is, as ever, mythopoeic language. Unlike the language of literal description, Zen language can communicate the truth that each particular thing contains and is contained by every other particular thing. Thus, when speaking about zazen, zazen is the principal and nonthinking (and all other particular things) is a satellite; when speaking of nonthinking, nonthinking is the principal and zazen is a satellite. To use a more Dogen-like phrase, “Whenever we verify zazen, nonthinking is shadowed.”

 

“Whenever we verify one side, the other is shadowed.”

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, trans. Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.51

 

Dogen’s treatment of language, thinking, and reason – epitomized in his notion of nonthinking – is, as Kim says “the common thread running through” (thus binding together, or fashioning) the Zen vision Dogen dedicated his life to elucidating:

 

…I have presented some salient facets of Dogen’s thought on authentic practice, which was his paramount concern in his praxis-oriented Zen. In this regard, his emphasis was on the reconstructive use of such notions of as duality in relation to nonduality and dependent origination in relation to emptiness. His thrust was as much on engagement in duality as it was on nonattachment to duality. Thus Dogen located his religious method and hermeneutics in the clear understanding and responsible use of language, thinking, and reason. The present work’s primary purpose has been to explicate such a methodological/hermeneutic orientation and its significance. This orientation, as I see it, was the common thread running through Dogen’s Shobogenzo (as well as his other writings), although it evolved throughout his monastic career before reaching its final form later in life—most notably in relation to his notion of nonthinking.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.121

It should be clear by now how “language, thinking, and reason” constitute the orientation that is “the common thread,” that runs through the whole of Dogen’s works, and is thus presupposed in all his expressions. This, then, clarifies our reason for stressing that Dogen’s vision of “nonthinking” is the true keystone of Dogen’s methodology concerning practice-enlightenment – to hold a view of that keystone to be otherwise, the practical performance of seated meditation for instance, is to be obstructed from an accurate vision of Dogen’s Zen.

 

As a “Buddha ancestor,” Dogen recognized his mission as the liberation of all beings from suffering and the realization of complete enlightened fulfillment. This meant, according to the basic Zen tenet of "enlightenment-by-oneself without a teacher" (mushi dokugo), which includes textual study and working with reliable teachers, that Dogen’s task entailed doing whatever was within his capacity to encourage beings to “awaken on their own.”

 

…

The vision of “things as they are” is never of a fixed reality/truth; the power for self-subversion and self-renewal is inherent in the vision itself. Thus “things” seen as they are are transformable [sic]. Every practitioner’s task is to change them by seeing through them. From Dogen’s perspective, this is the fundamental difference between contemplation (dhyana) and zazen-only. To him, seeing was changing and making.
Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen: On Meditation and Thinking, p.38

…

Dogen’s Zen does not pretend to reveal the truth of things, beings, or events, rather it inspires trust in one’s aspiration for activating and developing one’s own innate capacity to discern the true nature of reality (Buddha) as it is. In other words, Dogen’s expressions (like all genuine expressions of truth) do not teach “laws” or “facts” – they present practitioners with means – the eye, the key… for actualizing the fulfillment of their inherent aspiration for enlightenment.

From the perspective of ceaseless-advance it is obvious that authentic practice-enlightenment could never be accurately approached while being entangled with notions about fixed-forms, specific formulas, defined doctrines, or proscribed techniques. Thus, Dogen’s vision is of a Zen that is only and always particular, actual, and novel; particular to the specific dharmas involved, actual as experiential phenomenal appearances, and novel as the ceaseless-arrival (or arising) of here (place) and now (time). Thus Kim writes:

 

Accordingly, he underscored that Zen which is reexpressed and reconceived by each individual practitioner and by each generation, according to different conditions and needs. Zen's so-called fierce individualism is, in this way, firmly grounded in one's existential situation: Each practitioner must add his/her own details.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p. 122

 

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks again.

Ted

Seeing Not-Seeing

Seeing Not-Seeing

 

 

Consider the image utilized to reveal the Dharma-eye’s capacity to see nondually in Dogen’s expression, “When one side is illumined, the other side is darkened.” Seeing total existence-time as a particular form is seeing what “is illumined”; seeing a particular form as a specific instance of total existence-time is seeing (accounting for) what “is darkened.” To see (illumine) “this side” of an apple is to see “that side” of the apple darkened; seeing “this side” depends on, and therefore confirms, the presence of “that side” – thus, seeing “this side” of the apple is seeing the whole apple as it is; half-illumined half-darkened. Likewise, in seeing any/every particular form, the Dharma-eye confirms the presence of the totality of the self. One of the clearest mythopoeic expressions of this is presented in the Surangama Sutra, from which it was adapted by Zen and elaborated in a number of koan collections. The particular image in question appears, for example, as the main koan of case 94 of the Hekiganroku:

 

The Surangama Sutra says: When I don't see, why don’t you see my not-seeing? If you see my not-seeing, it could not be the nature of not-seeing. Since you don’t see my not-seeing, it is naturally not a thing (i.e. dharma). How could it not be you?

Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), Case 94 (main case)

 

If we discern the wisdom transmitted here, we see that the extent of our enlightenment is precisely matched by the extent of our delusion. No matter how many times or how fast we spin the apple, seeing it will always depend on illumining one side and darkening the other. Similarly, no matter how expansive enlightenment is, it will always correspond exactly with delusion. Seeing one’s true nature confirms this truth; great enlightenment is our inherent ability to intelligibly discern whatever we illumine, great delusion is the inherent dependence of illumination on darkening – to illumine anything is to darken everything else.

 

 

Thus, language becomes ascesis, instead of gnosis or logos—‘seeing things as they are’ now means ‘making things as they are.’ In this light the indexical analogy of ‘the finger pointing to the moon’ is highly misleading, if not altogether wrong, because it draws on a salvifically inefficacious conception of language.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.64

Zen Picking & Choosing: Koans and Zen Masters

Zen Picking & Choosing: Koans, Expressions, and Zen Masters

Being expressed from the nondual perspective, Zen expressions on objectivity and subjectivity naturally presuppose their being heard and understood nondually. The subjects and objects of Zen expression are not “signifiers” or “symbols” that “represent” independent entities, but interdependent beings and forms, the actual vehicles (that both “contain” and “convey”) of metaphorical modes of experience, each fully dependent on and inclusive of all. The emphasis here is their identity in and as “experience.” The experience of Zen practice-enlightenment is the experience of the self alone together with the self – the great matter of life-and-death. This experience is actualized by (therefore inclusive of) both “illumining” and “darkening.” Experience itself (thus Zen practice-enlightenment) is thusness as it is – it manifests without prior design. Even if it was possible, pure objectivity or subjectivity would be exactly the same; as either term would be meaningless, picking and choosing one over the other would be meaningless. Fortunately, the Zen perspective is void of pure objective or subjective (much less objectless) experiences – authentic practice-enlightenment is free from the vain “picking and choosing” of abstract speculation. This point is firmly established in the early mythology of Zen by the third Chinese ancestor, Shosan:

The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and choosing;

When love and hate are both absent; everything dwells in perfect clarity.
~Shinjinmei (Trust in the Heart-Mind), first verse

The significance and implications of this passage (and the whole poem for that matter) is brought to light, refined, and elaborated by innumerable expressions throughout the Zen literature. One of the clearest, and most direct expressions on this is found as case 2 in the classic Zen work, Hekiganroku. The expression therein is centered on a dialogue between the revered Zen master, Joshu, and a monk from the assembly where he taught. Here is the koan that comprises the “main case” of the expression:

Joshu, Addressing his assembly, Joshu said, "The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and choosing. But as soon as words are uttered, there is “picking and choosing” and there is “clarity.” This old monk (Joshu himself) does not dwell in clarity. Do you monks treasure this clarity or not?” (Do you understand, agree, or go along with [me, my meaning, and/or clarity itself] or not?)

A monk stepped forward and said, “If you do not dwell in clarity, then what do you treasure?” (If it is not “clarity” where do you dwell?)

Joshu said, "I do not know, either.”

The monk said, "If you do not know, Teacher, how can you say that you do not dwell in clarity?"

Joshu said, "It is enough to have asked the question. Now bow and withdraw."

~Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), case 2, main case

All thoughts, words, and deeds are necessarily “selections” – an idea appears as an idea through selecting or “picking and choosing” (illumining) particular dharmas from among the myriad, and ignoring (darkening) the rest. Regardless of the method or the one that employs it, thinking, speaking, or acting necessitates “selection,” illuming and darkening. Thus, “as soon as words are spoken” other words are “unspoken” – thus even though the great Zen master is compelled to “pick and choose” and not “dwell” in an enlightened condition (clarity), realization of the nonduality of “picking and choosing” and “clarity” delivers one into the liberated condition in which “picking and choosing” is itself “clarity” and “clarity” is itself “picking and choosing.” For the true self, being actualized by and as the object chosen and the subject choosing comprises the whole of actualized experience. If the self that makes the selection is the self from which the selection is made, then it is the self that is made by (fashioned by) the selection. Therefore, as the self is experience itself (the actualization of subject/object), then the experience of “clarity” (a subject/object) is the self (as clarity itself) and “picking and choosing” (a subject/object) is the self (as picking and choosing itself) the subject/object of the thusness of either is neither voided not altered in the slightest – clarity, picking and choosing, and every other dharma is a subject with an object, and an object with a subject – the two are distinct and co-extensive, not merged or independent.

The ordinary (unawakened) being, like the objective scientist, subjective artist, and abstract speculator naturally selects the “good,” “important,” “beautiful,” “significant,” or “true” from the welter of raw experience. Most will acknowledge the inevitability of leaving some of their experience untreated, many will agree that some of their experience goes “unexperienced” (i.e. the will admit not noticing every tree, thought, movement, etc.), and the more astute may confess to having fashioned much of their experience (i.e. thoughts, feelings, understanding, etc.) from preconceptions and after-images of actual experience, but without the vision afforded by the Dharma-eye none admit, much less realize it is not them that fashions experience, but experience that fashions them.

Driving ourselves to practice and experience the myriad dharmas is delusion. When the myriad dharmas actively practice and experience ourselves, that is the state of realization.

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Just as the lucid dreamer realizes the he is “dreamed” the Zen practitioner realizes she is “fashioned.” And as the dreamer knows his “dream-self” is dreamed by his “dreaming-self” and never the two shall meet; the Zen practitioner sees that her (individual/universal) “self” is fashioned by her (universal/individual) “self” and never the two shall meet – and, never shall the two not meet. For if “fashioning” is continuous, experience is continuous. One ’s self is never “objective” to subjectivity, nor “subject” to objectivity – both are coessential qualities of the self – whatever sense of “objectivity” is experienced is (ever already) a subjective perspective of the self. As soon as “matters of fact,” “spiritual authorities,” “scientific truths,” “authentic certifications,” “natural laws,” or “logical proofs” are viewed or treated as abstract realities we can be sure that objectivity and subjectivity have strayed from the Way and fallen into dualism.

Peace, Ted

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan: Study and the Commentary

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan: Study and the Commentary from The Flatbed Sutra of LouieWing by Ted Biringer

 

PART 7

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6]

We concluded the last part of our study with the line from Genjokoan:

 

There are people in the midst of delusion adding to delusion.

.

Thus, we open our continuing study with some comments on this line:

 

Dogen is not simply repeating his previous point but indicating something else. In Shobogenzo, Keisei-Sanshiki, Dogen uses the same phrase in a manner that suggests its deeper implication:

When [a person] tells people who do not know the will to the truth about the will to the truth, the good advice offends their ears, and so they do not reflect upon themselves, but [only] bear resentment towards the other person. As a general rule concerning actions and vows, which are the bodhi-mind, we should not intend to let worldly people know whether or not we have established the bodhi-mind or whether or not we are practicing the truth; we should endeavor to be unknown. How much less could we boast about ourselves? Because people today rarely seek what is real, when the praises of others are available, they seem to want someone to say that their practice and understanding have become harmonized, even though there is no practice in their body, and no realization in their mind. “In delusion adding to delusion” describes exactly this.xxix

In this passage, Dogen defines the condition of “increasing delusion in the midst of delusion” as the denial of delusion. That is to say, when people in delusion deny they are deluded (or assert they are enlightened) they are “in delusion adding to delusion.”

Looking at case one of the Blue Cliff Record can shed some light on this particular condition. The koan reads:

Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, “What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths?”

Bodhidharma said, “Vast emptiness, nothing holy.”

The Emperor asked, “Who is facing me?”

Bodhidharma responded, “I don’t know.”

The Emperor did not understand. After this Bodhidharma crossed the Yangtse River and traveled to the

kingdom of Wei. Later the Emperor asked Master Chih about it. Master Chih asked, “Do you know who this man is?”

The Emperor said, “I don’t know.”

Master Chih said, “He is the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, transmitting the confirmation of the buddha-mind.”

The Emperor was regretful and wanted to send an envoy to bring Bodhidharma back. Master Chih said, “Don’t say you will send someone to bring him back. Even if everyone in China went after him, he would not return.”

Commenting on the line “The Emperor did not understand,” Engo says, “Too bad! Still, he’s gotten somewhere.” The meaning of Engo’s comment, “Still, he’s gotten somewhere,” illumines what Dogen means by “in delusion adding to delusion.” In following the reasoning here, Emperor Wu was “adding to delusion” when he thought he knew something (asserted his enlightenment). However, (although he is still in delusion) after his meeting with Bodhidharma, he admits that he does “not understand,” that is, he does not deny his own delusion. The Emperor is in delusion (not enlightened), but he is no longer adding to delusion (by asserting his enlightenment).

Recognizing and acknowledging the reality of your own delusion is a prerequisite to enlightenment. For arousing the necessary will for enlightenment is only possible when you recognize and acknowledge your own delusion. For Dogen, recognition and acknowledgement of your delusion is simultaneous with enlightenment. Throughout the Shobogenzo, Dogen remains ever-aware of the nondual nature of delusion and enlightenment. For as we read above, buddhas are those “who are enlightened about delusion.” Dogen does not say that buddhas are free from delusion, as is sometimes proclaimed by people without a clear understanding of Zen.

The Genjokoan goes on to say:

When buddhas are buddhas, they do not know they are buddhas.

This line points out that when buddhas are experiencing the condition of Buddhahood, there is nothing but Buddha in the whole universe. This is the condition that is sometimes described in Buddhist literature as the state where the known and the knower (or actor and action) are one. Obviously, for a buddha to have the thought, “I am a buddha,” they would have to perceive themselves as something (buddha) in opposition to something else (not buddha), hence; they would not be in the condition of Buddhahood. That does not mean there are no buddhas, as the Genjokoan points out next:

Nevertheless, buddhas are buddhas and continuously actualize Buddhahood.

The condition of Buddhahood is not something that is gained, but something that is discovered and activated; that is, the nature of delusion is illumined and your original Buddhahood is realized. Of course, this experience is only called Buddhahood to differentiate it from delusion. When you speak of a state beyond delusion you call it “Buddhahood.” However, in the absolute sense, as in Dogen’s opening lines to Genjokoan, there is nothing to be grasped (no buddhas, no ordinary beings, etc.) and in the transcendent sense, buddhas and ordinary beings always contain and include each other.

In the actual experience of Buddhahood all names and labels are meaningless; for from the perspective of oneness or emptiness, differentiation does not exist. Even “oneness” is a relative term–that is, oneness is relative and only valid in contrast to multiplicity. Therefore, when differentiation is truly dissolved so, too, is oneness or Buddhahood.

One wonderful Zen expression of this principle is a verse attributed to Ananda, one of Buddha’s disciples and the traditional Second Ancestor of Zen in India:

When we are awake to the truth, even the nondharma does not exist.xxx

The simple fact that the Genjokoan goes to such lengths to describe the nature and actual experience of Buddhahood is enough to put Dogen in a very exclusive minority. When the experience of Buddhahood is described, it is usually simply described as “indescribable.” In Genjokoan, Dogen not only describes characteristics like “buddhas do not know they are buddhas” and that buddhas “continuously actualize Buddhahood,” he also describes why and how that is. The Genjokoan explains:

Mustering the whole body-and-mind to look at forms, and mustering the whole body-and-mind to listen to sounds, they perceive them directly; not like an image reflected in a mirror, and not like the reflection of the moon on water.

This is a description of the condition called Buddhahood. “Buddha” describes a person in the activity or condition of authentic practice and enlightenment, the deeper meaning of zazen. The keystone of Zen practice is not “sitting meditation” (though that is where it is often first discovered), it is “mustering the whole body-and-mind” and perceiving the world directly…

xxix Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross, Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Keisei-Sanshiki, Book 1, 91

xxx Ogata, Sohaku, The Transmission of the Lamp, 10

…To Be Continued…

 

~The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing: The Second Ancestor of Zen in the West by Ted Biringer

 

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6]

 

Peace,

Ted