The Mutual Actualization of the Self and the World

The Mutual Actualization of the Self and the World

 

The state that is visited by brightness and by color may be present in this learning in practice. “I entrust effects to effects themselves”: this expresses “natural realization.” “Natural realization” means enacting causes and accepting effects. The world has causes, and the world has effects. We enact the cause-and-effect that is this world, and we accept the cause-and-effect that is the world. “The [natural] self” is “itself,” and the self is inevitably just you, in other words, the four elements and five aggregates.

Shobogenzo, Kuge, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

We (the subject we call ‘myself’) ‘enact… this world.’ The actualization of consciousness is an object enacted by a subject; a subject enacts, an object is enacted. Notice that in the case that we think, speak, or act in regard to a ‘subject’ enacted (e.g. ‘I felt myself falling,’ ‘I made myself go,’ ‘I reminded myself of my vow,’ etc.) we think, speak, or act in regard to what is actually an ‘object.’ Further, to regard a subject as an object, or to regard an object as a subject is, in either case, to regard an object – for ‘that which regards’ is the subject in either case. And despite my objectification of the subject with ‘that which regards,’ my meaning should be clear enough; to treat an object as a subject does not make an object a subject. The subject is the enactor, the object is the enacted. For example, consider this expression of Dogen:

 

So life is what I am making it, and I am what life is making me.

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

In the first clause, ‘life’ is the object and ‘I’ is the subject; in the second clause, ‘life’ is the subject and ‘I’ is the object. Subject and object are nondual not one and the same, interdependent not interchangeable, coessential not undifferentiated, coextensive not homogenous. The subject is always the enactor, maker, or fashioner; the object is always the enacted, made, or fashioned.

 

I am belaboring the point because without a firm grasp it is easy to confuse the limitations and potentials of our actual capacities, our true abilities to respond (hence our responsibilities) to the world. For, while it is true that, in harmony with the principles of nonduality, our (subjective) ‘self’ is all-inclusive (of ‘self/other’) and our (objective) ‘world’ is all-inclusive (self/other), each, ‘self’ and ‘world,’ possesses unique qualities and characteristics. That is, if we fail to clearly distinguish which qualities and characteristics belong to our self (enactor) and which to the world (enacted) we will be unable to think, speak, or act normally (from the enlightened perspective). In short, we will be confused about what we actually can and cannot do in regard to ‘making life what it is.’

 

For example, according to the doctrine and methodology of certain pseudo-Zen groups, individual beings (subjects) are largely, or wholly enacted or fashioned by the (objective) world, hence efforts to enhance the world are largely, or wholly futile, thus regarded as symptoms of delusion. At the other extreme, for instance among some ‘New Age’ movements, individual beings are supposed to fashion the world so completely that their worldly circumstances (e.g. health, financial status, intelligence, etc.) are largely, if not entirely of their own making. The ‘way’ to peace, happiness, or liberation advocated by the former species is either to accept the world as it is, or else to cultivate detachment or ‘goallessness’ and cut off desire and aversion. The ‘way’ of the latter species is to transform the world into a horn of plenty by rooting out negativity by cultivating positive thoughts or ‘vibes’ with affirmations of health, abundance, and happiness. In both of these ‘ways’ the nature of subjective and objective reality, the truth of existence/experience is seen as it is not, hence can only obstruct their followers from the true Dharma.

As It Is

As it is...

 

Reality has never fluctuated; things are as they are. How could they be different from what they are? Everything is as it is. Even if it were possible to understand reality through conceptualization, it would not change a thing.

 
The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

Bendowa: Negotiating the Way – Authentic Zen Practice-Enlightenment

Bendowa: Negotiating the Way – Authentic Zen Practice-Enlightenment

 

From the perspective of Shobogenzo’s, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an unceasing advance into novelty; Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho) is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – the ceaseless actualization of existence-time, fully inclusive of past, present, and future. In Dogen’s vision, Zen practice-enlightenment is only and always an ongoing creative discernment-and-realization of Buddha nature here-now – the presentation (making present) of one’s true self ‘as it is.’ Thus, practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing (accurately discerning, understanding, etc.) the true nature of reality, things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas) as they are here-now, thereby harmonizing one’s thoughts, words, and deeds to the truth in and as the self/world. To clarify, consider Hee-Jin Kim’s analysis of the following passage from Bendowa; one of Dogen’s clearest articulations of his view of practice-enlightenment (Kim, following Abe & Waddell, translates Bendowa as ‘negotiating the Way’). Dogen writes:

 

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).

Bendowa (Translated by Hee-Jin Kim)

 

Dr. Kim clarifies the salient points to bring the significant implications into relief thus:

 

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: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.21

 

Authentic Zen practice-enlightenment consists of ‘these two aspects’ – discerning dharmas as they are, and actualizing that discernment here-now.

 

In other words, the practice-enlightenment advocated by Dogen consists of discerning the true (nondual) nature of all things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas) with the Dharma-Eye (from the enlightened perspective) and conducting oneself here-now accordingly (enacting that vision amid the world of duality).

 

[Note: It is worth noting that the ‘practice-enlightenment’ (shusho) advocated by Dogen (hence Zen) diverges from the ‘practice-enlightenment’ advocated by the majority of contemporary Zen teachers. Few contemporary Zen teachers advocate ‘discerning the true nature of all dharmas’ much less ‘enacting’ that discernment ‘amid the world of duality.’ Therefore, whatever most contemporary teachers do proclaim as ‘practice-enlightenment,’ it must be different from that expounded by the classic Zen records.

 

Judging from the classic Zen records, however, this situation is not unique to contemporary Zen; authentic practice-enlightenment has evidently always been something engaged by the few rather than the many. In harmony with those records, then, I don’t say there are no contemporary teachers that proclaim authentic practice-enlightenment, I only say there are few.

It is not necessary to detail exactly what the majority of contemporary Zen teachers do advocate as practice-enlightenment except to explain my reason for making the point in negative terms, which may be telling enough. I stated this in terms of what ‘is not’ advocated as practice-enlightenment rather than ‘what is’ advocated because there is very little consensus among contemporary Zen teachers in regard to what authentic practice-enlightenment actually consists in/of.]

 

To understand the discourse of Shobogenzo we need to understand Shobogenzo’s view of what a ‘Buddha’s discourse’ or ‘expression of Buddha’ is. In Shobogenzo, a Buddha’s discourse is essentially a form of Buddha; an instance of the Buddha-Dharma. Specifically, an expression of Buddha is a phenomenal manifestation of true nature – that which is expounded, conveyed, transmitted, or otherwise actualized by Buddha (which in Shobogenzo is “Total Existence”, as in “Total is existence is Buddha-nature” [Bussho fascicle], “This Mind is Buddha” [Soku Shin Ze Butsu fascicle], etc). In sum, then, as an expression of Buddha, Shobogenzo (like every dharma) is what it is, as it is.

 

Now, in light of Dogen’s view of Zen practice-enlightenment (as underscored by Hee-Jin Kim), how can we discern whether Shobogenzo presents genuine Buddhism and not pseudo-Buddhism or something else? By discerning its form; Shobogenzo claims to communicate wisdom for actualizing personal certainty concerning one's own true nature. Therefore, to assess Shobogenzo, one need only discern and apply what it communicates. If one thereby realizes certainty concerning true nature, Shobogenzo is thereby confirmed as being what it proclaims.

 

The Shoho Jisso fascicle of Shobogenzo elucidates the nature of the enlightened wisdom of Buddhism by focusing attention on a passage from a scripture in which Shakyamuni Buddha identifies the ‘supreme enlightenment (anuttara samyaksambodhi) of all bodhisattvas’ as ‘belonging’ to (i.e. having its origin or abode in) ‘this sutra’ and explains that:

 

This sutra opens the gate of expedient methods and reveals true real form.

Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

After clarifying that a ‘bodhisattva’ is synonymous to or equal with a ‘Buddha or Buddha ancestor’ – Shobogenzo underscores the fact that this very expression (wherein Shakyamuni identifies enlightenment with this sutra) is ‘in every case’ no other than ‘this sutra.’ To further emphasize the radically nondual nature of a Buddha’s discourse (‘this sutra’) and ‘complete enlightenment,’ Shobogenzo goes on to assert that the experience of (i.e. subjective encounter with) ‘this sutra’ and what is experienced (i.e. objectively encountered) as ‘this sutra’ are coessential elements of ‘this sutra’ itself – the subject and object of ‘this sutra’ are, as they are, ‘this sutra’ as it is:

 

The subject of ‘belonging’ and the object of ‘belonging’ are both ‘this sutra.’

Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Notice that if both the subject and the object of a Buddha’s expression (‘this sutra’) are equally an expression of Buddha (‘this sutra’), then the being that ‘experiences’ a Buddha’s discourse and the Buddha’s discourse that is ‘experienced’ are coextensive and coessential. In short, Dogen's words explicitly contend that ‘Buddhist expressions’ experience ‘Buddhas.’ In such a case not only are the expresser and the expressed interdependent, all objects and subjects are interdependent. At this very moment, are we discoursing on expressions of Buddha – or are Buddha discourses expressing us?

 

At this very moment, ‘this sutra’ really experiences ‘all bodhisattvas.’

Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

With this we can see why an accurate understanding of the nature of the self and the world (i.e. subject and object, perceiver and perceived) is inherently inaccessible through the non-mythopoeic, literally descriptive language of the contemporary world view (or any world view grounded in dualism for that matter). The reason that the true nature (actual reality) of subjects and objects cannot be expressed or understood in the language of dualism is because the reality of subjects and objects is nondual. Attempting to arrive at a true understanding by beginning from a false view is, in Zen terms, like attempting to go South by travelling toward the North Star.

 

 

 

 

Zazen True and False - The Continuous Actualization of Sole-Sitting

 

Continuous Actualization of Sole-Sitting – The Keystone of Zen

To clearly see is to use the Dharma-Eye, sometimes called the “eye to read scriptures.” To use the Dharma-Eye it must first be opened, and thereafter it must be skillfully developed and continuously actualized; this ongoing development and actualization is the keystone of authentic Zen practice and enlightenment, it is the art of Zen that Dogen calls sole-sitting (shikantaza, zazen-only). Once the Dharma-Eye is active, Zen practice (zazen-only) is actively developed and expanded to become inclusive not only of meditation, studying sutras, training with koans, etc., but every aspect of life. Going to work, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, and eating meals is Zen practice (just sitting). Shobogenzo provides detailed examples on the zazen of cooking, making robes, teeth cleaning, and even using the toilet. When the True Dharma-Eye is open, these are not the mundane tasks of cooking and cleaning, but the normal mind of the Tao, the authentic practice-enlightenment of Zen.

 

Once we find the Way that arrives at Buddha, we leave the area of the common person immediately. The people that have mastered this Way are few.

Himitsu Shobogenzo, Bustu-kojo-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

From the perspective of Zen, the opening of the Dharma-Eye is simultaneous with the Zen student becoming a Zen practitioner. An authentic Zen practitioner, by definition, solely practices Zen. In a very real sense, for the Zen practitioner there is no “Zen practice” (zazen; meditation) and therefore nothing other than “Zen practice.”

 

Regardless of what “shikantaza” or “just sitting” might have come to be defined or interpreted as being by various groups and individuals following Dogen’s existence-time, the nature of the “just sitting” presented by Shobogenzo has nothing to do with the kind of sitting that is thought of, spoken about, or performed in the “area of the common person.” Indeed, it is inevitable that the vast majority of ideas, definitions, explanations, and interpretations of shikantaza are distortions and misrepresentations, for “The people that have mastered this Way are few.”

 

There will be those who dote on what has passed and try to mimic that, and there may even be demons who slander those above them and refuse to learn from them. Do not be attracted to either type or feel resentment towards either. Why do I say not to feel sorry for them or resent them? Because it is said that people who recognize the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion to be what they are, are rare enough, so there is no need to feel resentment towards those who do not. Even more importantly, you should not lose sight of the intention that arose when you first took delight in seeking the Way of the Buddhas. It is said that when we first give rise to this intention, we are not seeking the Dharma so that others will praise us, but are discarding thoughts of fame and gain. Without seeking fame or gain, we should simply be persons who hold to the true course of realizing the Way, never concerning ourselves with expectations of recognition or support from rulers or other officials.

 

Even though this is the ideal, there are some people today who, alas, are devoid of any fundamental spiritual aspirations, having no spiritual goal that they seek, and are not the least concerned over their delusive entanglements with both ordinary people and those in lofty positions.

Shobogenzo, Keisei Sanshoku, Hubert Nearman

 

Leaving pity and resentment aside, then, let us dive right into Shobogenzo’s own presentation of what “shikantaza” or “just sitting” truly is. First, the term “shikan” (or shikantaza) that is often translated as “just” as in “just sitting” (shikan; just, taza; sitting) does not denote “merely,” or “simply,” but rather, “solely,” “totally,” “wholly.” Here we want to mention a point that is worth noticing; “shikan” is a homophone of “chih kuan” (stopping and seeing, meditation and prajna, samadhi and insight), a central notion of Tendai Buddhism, the actual tradition into which Dogen was initially ordained and which remained a central influence throughout his lifetime. The Tendai notion of “chih-kuan” presents “solely, wholly, etc.” in a specifically nondual manner – Tendai expressions on “stopping and seeing” (chih-kuan) emphasize  the unity of stopping-and-seeing so that stopping is stopping/seeing and seeing is stopping/seeing. The notion that Dogen intentionally employs the term “shikan” in some context of the significance of “chi-kuan” has been noticed and discussed in the scholarly community (e.g. Kodera, Heine) but has been largely dismissed as an interesting by unverifiable possibility. In view of Dogen’s characteristic use of homophonic language, and the fact that he was intimately familiar with the connotations of both terms it would seem that the intentional “double meaning” of “shikan” should be regarded as “given” and the notion it was unintended considered unlikely.

 

In any case, zazen is presented by Shobogenzo as the archetype of authentic practice-enlightenment itself. While Zen practice-enlightenment is only and always portrayed by Shobogenzo as something specific and particular – never as something vague or general – it is definitely not presented as being limited or confined to a specific form or particular activity. True, the only actual instances of practice-enlightenment that has or ever will manifest, is the practice-enlightenment of particular Zen practitioners at specific locations-times, but the form (hence, essence) of those instances are not in any way restricted to particular structures or activities. Particular Zen practitioners and actual instances of Zen practice-enlightenment are not two (nondual); Zen practice-enlightenment is solely manifest by and as Zen practitioners, Zen practitioners are solely manifest by and as Zen practice-enlightenment. This truth is archetypally embodied and expressed in Shobogenzo as “zazen,” described as “zazen-only” (shikantaza; solely sitting), and methodologically presented and transmitted as “nonthinking.”

 

As an archetypal image, zazen presents (makes present) Shakyamuni Buddha’s enlightenment on the “immovable spot” or “Bodhi-Seat.” The Bodhi-Seat is the instance of existence-time wherein the Buddha awakens; the moment-event of Buddhism’s supreme of the supreme, archetypally presented by the image of Buddha sitting upright in the lotus posture at the location-time of his enlightenment beneath the Bodhi Tree.

 

Described and explained as zazen-only (shikantaza), zazen is revealed as the “axis mundi,” the still point at the center of the Dharma-Wheel wherein the myriad dharmas ceaselessly rise and set in and as the continuous advance of the universe into novelty. Zazen-only demonstrates how the “three modes of conduct” (thoughts, words, and deeds) are wholly grounded in, at, and as the immovable spot; each and all the myriad dharmas are solely-seated in, at, and as this here-now of existence-time.

 

Methodologically presented and transmitted as nonthinking, zazen is made accessible for the liberation of all beings as the Buddha-Dharma itself; the “Great Vehicle” or “One Vehicle” (Mahayana or Ekayana) that is the essence of Zen. The “essence of Zen” being nondual with the “form of Zen,” is thus nothing more or less than Zen’s phenomenal expression in and as existence-time. As a spatial-temporal essence/form, the Zen is accessed by humans in the same manner and through the same capacities humans access any other manifest reality; the normal capacities of language, thinking, and reason. In Shobogenzo these capacities are most comprehensively treated by the vision of “nonthinking,” creatively presented as a unification and transcendence of “thinking” and “not-thinking.”

 

Thus, in Shobogenzo to engage in zazen is to be a Zen practitioner and to be a Zen practitioner is to engage in zazen. To be a Zen practitioner or engage in zazen is to be solely seated here-now; fully and totally enacting and being enacted in and as the myriad dharmas, in and as every thought, word, and deed.

 

It is not difficult to see that this vision of zazen is nothing more or less than the practical application of the principles of nonduality. For one that has verified that form is emptiness, all forms are empty; this cup is empty, this speech is empty, this boat race is empty – thus each particular dharma is solely-empty. Likewise, to verify the Buddha-nature of self (thus, of self/other), is to verify the Buddha-nature of all thoughts, words, and deeds; this memory is self, this utterance is self, this walking is self – each thought, word, and deed is solely-self (or solely Buddha). As the archetypal image of Zen practice-enlightenment, zazen is the embodiment of Zen practice-enlightenment, thus to be a Zen practitioner is to solely embody to be solely embodied as zazen.

 

In this sense, to be a Zen practitioner is to actualize zazen – to actualize anything other than zazen is not to be a Zen practitioner. Hence, a genuine practitioner is “solely seated” in and as existence-time here-now. Zen practice-enlightenment is, as it is, “solely sitting.”

 

From the Zen perspective it would be dualistic to regard practice-enlightenment as a distinct, independent reality; a Zen practitioner cannot “sit in zazen” and “study sutras,” or “sit in zazen” and “train with koans,” etc., for a Zen practitioner “solely sits” or “just sits.” As authentic practice-enlightenment is just sitting; any and all of a Zen practitioner’s thoughts, words, and deeds are just sitting. Zen practitioners do not teach, work, eat, sleep, and solely sit – teaching, working, eating, sleeping are solely sitting. All dharmas are solely emptiness; self and other are solely Buddha-nature; and the thoughts, words, and deeds of Zen practitioners are solely sitting.

 

For the Zen practitioner, then, there is sitting that is solely sitting and there is walking that is solely sitting; sitting is not walking and walking is not sitting, but both sitting and walking are solely sitting, solely zazen. The thinking of a Zen practitioner is not the speaking or acting of a Zen practitioner, but the thinking, speaking, and acting of a Zen practitioner is solely sitting, zazen-only.

 

Hence, there is the mind’s just sitting there, which is not the same as the body’s just sitting there. And there is the body’s just sitting there, which is not the same as the mind’s just sitting. There is ‘just sitting there with body and mind having dropped off’, which is not the same as ‘just sitting in order to drop off body and mind’. To have already realized such a state is the perfect oneness of practice and understanding that the Buddhas and Ancestors have experienced. Maintain and safeguard your mind’s functions of remembering, considering, and reflecting. Thoroughly explore through your training what mind, intent, and consciousness truly are.

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

 

Distorted, superficial, and superstitious notions concerning Dogen’s teachings on zazen-only abound in the contemporary Zen community. The majority of these distortions can be remedied by simply learning to appreciate the difference between metaphorical or mythopoeic language and the language of literal description, coupled with clear grasp of the basic principles of Buddhist nonduality. Many factors, including superficial views of emptiness and imitators attempting to cash in on the success of genuine Zen, have contributed to simplistic notions of seated meditation (zazen) over the course of Zen’s history. The fallacious notions of zazen embraced today are fundamentally the same as those that have dogged Zen throughout its history.

 

The most common fallacies combine elements of simplification and superstition; simplifications portraying zazen literally, as “sitting” (the physical posture of sitting), and superstitions about zazen (the simplistic literal sense) being the only element necessary to realize Zen liberation. Not infrequently it is even suggested that “just sitting” (in the literal sense) is enlightenment itself. Commonly dressed up in trite slogans about “no goals,” “nothing special,” “just this,” etc., zazen - the very keystone of Zen practice-enlightenment - is pawned off as a simple arrangement of the body-mind in a proscribed posture of physical sitting. Shobogenzo asserts what common sense already suggests concerning such notions:

 

Even if some appear to understand physical sitting to be what the Buddha taught, they have not yet grasped that ‘sitting there’ means “Just sit there!”

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

 

Despite Shobogenzo’s clear instructions, the classical Zen teachings, and common sense however, such notions continue to be accepted and applied by groups and individuals far and wide. Routinely arranging their body-mind in an upright, cross-legged sitting posture for measured periods of time, such groups and individuals honestly believe they are enacting “what the Buddha taught.” This shallow mimicry of the Buddha’s enlightenment is, in their view, the “just sitting” that Dogen taught. 

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong, or even unusual about erroneous understandings and false views; everyone has them, and even sages are compelled to continuously let go of old views in order to advance, expand, and clarify their understanding and skill. Sages know enough about stagnation and petrifaction to avoid becoming attached to any manner of fixed view; ego-centricity, spiritual pride, and sectarian allegiance however, can be extremely powerful obstacles for even the sincerest of genuine aspirants. 

 

As noted, promoters of distorted versions of Dogen’s “zazen” commonly proceed as if Zen expressions are meant to be understood in the literal sense of descriptive language rather than the mythopoeic language common to all sacred literature (as well as true art). To support and impress the notion that “just sitting” literally means to just sit in the ordinary physical sense, and that this “activity” is the only thing necessary for actualizing authentic practice-realization, proponents commonly cite cherry-picked phrases from Dogen’s voluminous writings. 

 

Parenthetically speaking two points are worth mention; in direct contradiction to their insistence on a “literal” reading of zazen, etc., these same advocates frequently insist on the “metaphorical” reading of numerous expressions in Dogen’s writings which they contend "actually mean" the literal performance of zazen. Second, such advocates typically assume a very liberal tolerance for their own biases while imposing strict constraints on the contentions of others; if, for example, one of their “supporting quotes" from Dogen is contested by an apparently contradictory quote from a different passage in Dogen’s work, the latter is likely to by dismissed as “out of context,” while the former is simply repeated as if its context were self-evident.

 

In general, then, the basic fallacy is that Dogen taught a unique style of Zen (i.e. Japanese Soto Zen) advocating a single method practice (i.e. zazen-only) essentially consisting of the literal performance of physically sitting still, commonly portrayed as being accompanied with a particularly “detached” mental attitude. The physical aspects described are technically equivalent to the basic meditation techniques common to most Buddhist traditions; sitting upright in the lotus (or half-lotus) position (a crossed-legged sitting posture). The mental aspect or attitude advocated is often described (again, in literal terms) as a kind of intentionally “goalless,” “objectless,” or “detached” state of mind. When pressed to elaborate, proponents of such notions tend to explain “goalless” or “objectless” in negative or apophatic terms; as meaning the abstention or avoidance of utilizing traditional Buddhist techniques such as mindfulness of Buddha, the body, mind, breath, koans, scriptures, etc. – zazen, they contend, is literally “just sitting”  with no object in mind, maintaining a detached but focused awareness wherein thoughts, words, and deeds, if noticed at all, are simply to be noted and “let go of” without arousing questions or second thoughts.

 

This, then, or something similar, is supposed to by Dogen’s supreme method; so effective no other practice is essential for authentic Zen actualization; there is literally no need to offer incense, bow, chant, confess, read sutras, or perform any other traditional or nontraditional practice. To support such notions, the most frequently quoted “authoritative” passage comes from an early writing of Dogen titled, Bendowa:

 

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. If a human being, even for a single moment, manifests the Buddha’s posture in the three forms of conduct, while [that person] sits up straight in samādhi, the entire world of Dharma assumes the Buddha’s posture and the whole of space becomes the state of realization.

Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

First, how does one that takes Dogen’s expressions literally go about manifesting “the three forms of conduct (thinking, speech, and action), while [that person] sits up straight in samadhi…”? Fortunately, Dogen was a Zen master not a delusional zealot, thus his language, like that of all the great sages, is mythical, not historical, mythopoeic not biographic – Shobogenzo is an expression of human truth, not an "objective" dissertation. If Dogen had truly believed practice-enlightenment consisted in the performance of a particular physical posture/mental attitude, he would not have dedicated most of his time and energy writing and teaching otherwise. Fortunately, Dogen understood, acknowledged, and taught that the real form of zazen-only was the myriad dharmas:

 

You need to discern and affirm for yourself the underlying meaning of his saying, “If you wish to see Buddha Nature, you must first rid yourself of your arrogant pride.” It is not that one lacks sight, but the seeing of which he spoke is based on ridding oneself of one’s arrogant pride. The arrogance of self is not just of one kind, and pride takes many forms. Methods for ridding oneself of these will also be diverse and myriad. Even so, all of these methods will be ‘one’s seeing Buddha Nature’. Thus, you need to learn both to look with your eyes and to see with your Eye.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

 

Apparently the expression conveying the true nature of zazen-only presented in Bendowa had already been misconstrued as a literal description or formula of “Zen practice” rather than a mythopoeic expression of truth in Dogen’s own day. For in the Bukkyo fascicle of Shobogenzo, written only about a decade after Bendowa, Dogen again brought the expression out - only this time he did so in a manner that could never mistakenly be superficially misrepresented as a merely formal description of practice.

 

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. “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

 

Obviously, if this expression was meant literally, more than a “Few people” would have clearly understood it. Calling it “reading sutras” debases it because it reduces it to literalism, cutting it out of the nondual reality of its existent form/essence; not calling it “reading sutras” is perverse because it fails to discern the truth of its inherent uniqueness. For the “few” that clearly understand, “reading sutras,”  along with offering incense, bowing, chanting, and confessing, is solely-sitting.

 

In any case, to clearly understand just sitting, reading sutras, or any other aspect of the Buddha Dharma, we must activate the Dharma-Eye. To read sutras, the ordinary eyes of literal description are simply not the appropriate tools; we must be equipped with the eyes of reading sutras.

 

Whenever “zazen” (or just sitting etc.) is treated or regarded as a separate activity or distinct action, as one activity among others (e.g. working, reading, eating, etc.), it is not the zazen-only illumined and presented by Shobogenzo. As the formal practice of seated meditation, zazen is simply one form of activity among many . As the actualization of the universe (i.e. genjokoan), however, zazen is not only wholly inclusive of “the three forms of human conduct” (thinking, speech, and action), it is Total Existence itself, the myriad dharmas as they are.

 

In this way, you need to thoroughly explore through your training the thousands of aspects, nay, the hundreds of thousands of aspects of just sitting.

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

Enjoy the ride!
Ted

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