Emptiness and the Sentient Nature of Reality

Emptiness and the Sentient Nature of Reality

 

Among the vast number of characteristics Dogen’s Shobogenzo attributes to emptiness, are these six, decidedly positive, characteristics:

 

Emptiness is present in/as existence-time

Emptiness is differentiated

Emptiness is active

Emptiness is sentient

Emptiness is intelligible

Emptiness is communicable

 

Even after a short foray into Dogen’s treatment of emptiness in the first fascicle written for Shobogenzo –Maka-hannya-haramitsu – it is clear that his vision of emptiness cannot be understood as negative or apophatic. This point merits emphasis; the meticulous attention to, and refutations of negativistic views of emptiness in Shobogenzo testifies to the pervasiveness of such distortions in Dogen’s era. The distorting power of negativistic views of emptiness can and does obstruct practitioners from clearly seeing any aspect of Zen, not to mention actualizing its wisdom.

 

The Sentient Nature of Reality

 

I meet with a human being, a human being meets with a human being, I meet with myself, and manifestation meets with manifestation.

Shobogenzo, Uji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

What has been described like this is that life is the self, and the self is life.

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

 

Dogen’s treatment of emptiness, in his (altered) citation of the Heart Sutra followed by the series of affirmative expressions on the nature of the self, the world, and the myriad dharmas presents (makes present) a glimpse into the grand vision of Shobogenzo. Right there, in the very first fascicle of Shobogenzo, the common thread that binds together and runs throughout the whole of Dogen’s masterpiece is prominently evident. That thread is the reason (dori) of the nonduality of duality, and the duality of nonduality.

 

 

In short, experience, existence, and liberation (epistemology, ontology, and soteriology) are nondual; the experience of clear seeing, the existence of prajna, and the actualization of liberation are three, but are not three different things. The nature and dynamics of the actualization of the universe (genjokoan) advanced by the nonduality of experience, existence, and liberation is creatively brought into relief in numerous ways and from a great variety of perspectives throughout Shobogenzo. To clearly see (i.e. know, experience, encounter) is to be (i.e. appear, exist, manifest), thus to clearly see liberation (Buddhahood, enlightenment, deliverance) is to be liberation. More precisely, the continuous activity of seeing Buddha (kenbutsu) is the continuous activity of becoming Buddha (gyobutsu). Your life (sentient existence) is what you clearly see (sentient experience), what you clearly see is your life.

 

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

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

 

A Unique Encounter With Buddha

The very act of respectfully meeting and serving is the buddha. This is in accordance with the notion of the enactment-buddha (gyobutsu), wherein enactment and buddha are one.

Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.66

 

From the Buddhist perspective of reality each and every particular thing, being, and event is a manifest form of the whole universe, an actual expression of Buddha. Every particular phenomenon is a unique, individual appearance of the myriad phenomena that constitute the mind alone. In short, each thing, being, and event we encounter is a unique encounter with Buddha – total existence-time as it is here-now.

Deconstructive and Reconstructive aspects of Emptiness

Deconstructive and Reconstructive aspects of Emptiness

Characteristic of Dogen’s unrelenting commitment to “right-views” or the “true-eye” is his frequent, unequivocal insistence that “authenticity” of practice-enlightenment is the only criteria for gauging the Buddha-Dharma.

Dogen’s own adherence to this maxim is clearly demonstrated by his refusal to avoid complex challenges, sidestep unpleasant aspects, or water-down unpopular implications of Buddhist truths. If the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness is authentic, as Dogen contends, it must be applied universally (i.e. to all dharmas), which means, for one thing, that it must be applied to the doctrine of emptiness itself. And, while an intellectual understanding of emptiness is “not enough” – even this necessary first step cannot be considered complete prior to the “experiential verification of emptiness” which is itself only the beginning of the authentic wisdom of emptiness according to Dogen’s standards.

It would be no stretch to suggest that Dogen would view total ignorance of emptiness as preferable to wrong or partial (biased) notions of emptiness. As the works of Hee-Jin Kim demonstrate, for Dogen the liberating potential of emptiness is only actualized with the transcendence of the “deconstructive” experience of emptiness and advance into the “reconstructive” experience of emptiness – and even this actualizes only the potential of liberation. Thus it is that the reconstructive aspect of emptiness – which itself is continuously “cast-off” and “totally exerted” – as the only aspect of emptiness with  practical liberating potential, is what Dogen directed his energy to transmitting.

The terms “deconstructive” and “reconstructive” (aspects of emptiness) designate two foci (focal points) of a single experiential process. This process can be envisioned as beginning from the common (unawakened) perspective wherein the self and the other are misperceived as separate entities, from here it proceeds to the initial experience of emptiness (i.e. the deconstructive mode) -often referred to in Zen as the “great death” - wherein self and other “drop away,”  then, advancing through the “great death,” proceeding to the enlightened (awakened) perspective wherein self and other are experienced as they are (thusness): nondual (not two).

Here, then, one experientially realizes the truth that self and other are not different realities, but rather distinct foci of one (nondual) reality (i.e. nonduality/duality). From the enlightened (reconstructive) perspective one perceives the same reality that is perceived from the common perspective - but now in context of the insight actualized through the (deconstructive) experience of emptiness.

Peace,

Ted

Grasping Emptiness by the nose...

Grasping Emptiness by the nose...

[Article Originally Posted by me at ZFI (Zen Forum International)]

The short, highly revered Heart Sutra, of which the Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu fascicle is a commentary on, is popular enough that Dogen only needed to quote a single line (the first) to indicate his topic.

The fact that Dogen altered that line by adding a single word is significant. Because the Heart Sutra is so well known, the alteration, although slight, jumps out as if misspoken, but as its implication dawns its purposeful intent becomes obvious.

The word Dogen added is, “konshin,” which roughly translates as “the whole-body,” or “his whole-body.” Although it is only one word, getting the significance of the addition across in English may require a bit of creative interpretation. Something like, “Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita [with] his whole body (konshin) clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress.”

The “form” of the whole body-mind realizes (makes real) the “emptiness” of the whole body-mind itself; alternatively, the “emptiness” of the whole body-mind realizes the “form” of the whole body-mind. This is the same point of the statement in the Heart Sutra, “Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.” That form is possible because of emptiness and emptiness is possible because of form, means “form” is truly form, and “emptiness” is truly emptiness.

The practical application of the principles of emptiness/form has tended to privilege emptiness (form is emptiness) over and above form (emptiness is form) by regarding emptiness/form in terms of superiority and inferiority. Such views are inherently dualistic and serve to foster quietist doctrines and practices that have plagued Zen from its early history to the present. Dogen’s addition of “konshin” (whole-body) is one of many examples in Shobogenzo that undermine this fallacy and reveal the true significance of emptiness/form.

The Maka-hannya-haramitsu fascicle begins by emphasizing the coessential status of emptiness and form. The enlightened wisdom of Buddhism (prajna paramita) reveals that the true nature of a form is emptiness, therefore to directly experience (clearly see = prajna) a form as it is (i.e. a form), is to directly experience the true nature (emptiness) of a form. Dogen next goes on to underscore that this implies that form is form, and emptiness is emptiness, and that this principle applies to all the myriad dharmas; all particular things are “instances” of “prajna itself.” Thus, all real dharmas are prajna, prajna is all real dharmas.

Dogen does, of course, recognize the reality and significance of Buddhist “oneness.” In fact, Shobogenzo illumines the nature of this oneness from a range of perspectives that present an unusually clear and extraordinarily detailed vision of the “one mind.” Yet, Dogen’s emphasis in Shobogenzo remains clearly focused on the concrete and particular. Shobogenzo focuses on the “real form” of dharmas because that is where the “real nature” (emptiness) of dharmas exists.

Form is emptiness itself, emptiness itself is form – not “form,” but this actual form, that particular form, this flower, that babbling brook. Each particular thing and event is an instance of form/emptiness, or as Dogen sometimes refers to them, “flowers of emptiness.” Three instances of emptiness/form are morning, noon, and night; two instances are one left ear and one right ear. A book, the sound of traffic, a kiss, yesterday’s lunch, your first dog all exist as instances of form/emptiness.

They are hundreds of things, and myriad phenomena. Twelve instances of prajna paramita are the twelve entrances [of sense perception]. There are also eighteen instances of prajna. They are eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and properties; plus the consciousnesses of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are a further four instances of prajna. They are suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the Way. There are a further six instances of prajna. They are giving, pure [observance of] precepts, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajna [itself]. One further instance of prajnaparamita is realized as the present moment. It is the state of anuttara samyaksaṃbodhi. There are three further instances of prajnaparamita. They are past, present, and future. There are six further instances of prajna. They are earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness. And there are a further four instances of prajna that are constantly practiced in everyday life: they are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down.
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

That form and emptiness are nondual does not mean that emptiness amounts to form or that form is reducible to emptiness. Nonduality signifies unity, not uniformity; emptiness and form are coessential, not identical, interdependent not interchangeable. Emptiness is the emptiness of (all) form, form is the form of (all) emptiness; to raise one is to raise both; to eliminate one is to eliminate both – reality of form is contingent on the reality of emptiness; the reality of emptiness is dependent on the reality of form. Therefore, if form is real, as Buddhism contends, emptiness is real; if emptiness is really emptiness, form is really form – thus Dogen asserts, “Form is form; emptiness is emptiness.”

“Konshin” (whole body) also appears in Koku, a fascicle of Shobogenzo that elucidates emptiness/form (of words) using “koku” (space) as a metaphor for emptiness. Dogen’s comments at the end of the opening paragraph of the koku fascicle, “How can space be limited to twenty types (a traditional classification of emptiness); there are eighty-four thousand types, and more.” Following this assertion, Dogen reveals the blood and guts of emptiness by utilizing a Zen koan to transmit the transcendental wisdom on grasping emptiness by the nose:

Zen Master Shakkyo asked Zen Master Seido, “Do you know how to grasp space?”

Seido said, “I know how to grasp it.”

Shakkyo said, “How do you grasp it?”

Seido made a grasping gesture at the air with his hand.

Shakkyo said, “You do not know how to grasp space.”

Seido said, “How do you grasp it, brother?”

Shakkyo firmly grabed Seido by the nose and gave it a tug.

Seido cried out in pain, saying, “Don’t be so rough! You’ll rip my nose off.”

Shakkyo said, “Now you know how to grasp space.”

Dogen does say Seido “knew how to ride on a tiger’s head, but not how to grasp a tiger’s tail,” which seems to let him off lightly; where is he riding a tiger’s head?

To demonstrate his knowledge of emptiness, Seido makes a useless gesture at the air with his hand. While the action was futile, even pathetic, it was a perfect demonstration of Seido’s knowledge of emptiness; false, vain, invalid, and absurd. Although it is not always so obvious, attempting to grasp reality, true nature, or emptiness through abstract concepts is always futile.

Dogen devoted lots of time and energy to refuting dualism, especially in relation to the aspect of the Dharma most vulnerable; the doctrine of emptiness. The reasoning of Shobogenzo is convincing; because dualistic views do not arise from experience, and cannot be verified by experience, they are inherently abstractions. Abstractions, by definition, are partial; being deductions, conjectures, and suppositions conceptually extracted or derived from the experience of reality, such ideas are always less than real experience.

Thus, if emptiness is viewed dualistically, the experiential reality of emptiness is thereby instantly reduced to concepts, extractions, and derivatives of speculation. Subjecting emptiness to abstract speculation necessitates dividing (abstracting) it from “form.” Now seen as separate realities, emptiness and form become eligible for classification and qualify as candidates for superiority and inferiority.

But if emptiness truly possesses the qualities of oneness, equality, etc., how is it demonstrated by Shakkyo’s rough handling of Seido? Isn’t Shakkyo only demonstrating form? It is exactly because of its oneness, equality, etc., that Shakkyo’s action can demonstrate it. If emptiness was various, it could not be all things and all times. Emptiness flows.

Because emptiness is totally empty of self it is totally empty of anything not-self; this flower is not “other than” emptiness because, without a self, nothing can be “other than” emptiness itself. As nothing is “other than” self, this flower, that bird, this thought, and finally all dharmas are not “other than” emptiness. Wherever there is a “self,” there must be a self/other; wherever there is an “other,” there must be a self/other. Therefore, the total reality that is called “a flower” is a dharma that is a “self” (the form perceived distinctly as “the flower”), plus an “other” (whatever “the flower” is perceived as being distinct from). Thus, the true nature of every particular dharma we experience is a reality that is “dharma” + “not-dharma.” In sum, a flower is a flower + no-flower, and when these are added together, “1” flower plus “0” flower, they make “a flower.”

When all things are seen as the buddha-dharma, then there is delusion and enlightenment, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings.

When all things are seen as empty of self, there is no delusion and no enlightenment, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.

Buddha’s truth includes and transcends the many and the one, and so there is life and death, delusion and enlightenment, ordinary beings and buddhas.
Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Ted Biringer

When a flower is seen as the buddha-dharma, then there is (“1”) a flower.

When a flower is seen as empty of self, there is (“0”) no flower.

Buddha’s truth includes and transcends “1 flower” and “0 flower,” and so there is a flower.

Because emptiness is without self, it goes along with all things; when they are still and silent, emptiness is still and silent, when it moves and cries out, emptiness moves and cries out. When words are spoken, emptiness is words, when words are emptiness, there is “no-other” than words, thus Dogen says:

Space is one unadulterated mass, which, once touched is then tainted. Since being tainted, “space has fallen to the ground.” Shakkyo’s words “How do you grasp it?” mean “Even if you call it ‘as it is,’ you have changed it already.” And although it is like this, in changing with it the thus-gone exists.
Shobogenzo Koku Shobogenzo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Emptiness is one totality without self or other, once touched, the totality is touched/not-touched. To touch the ground is to touch the totality of ground/not-ground. Even if you call it “as it is,” you change it to “as it is/not-as it is.” And although it is like this, in changing with it the “as it is” exists. Having no-self, emptiness “changes with” it because “it” is not “other” than emptiness.

A flower, as it is, is not “other than” emptiness, emptiness is not “other than” a flower as it is. Getting thirsty is not other than emptiness, drinking water is not other than emptiness, the fact that drinking water quenches thirst is, as it is, nothing other than emptiness. To suffer because of seeing our self as independent entities is emptiness as it is. Opening the Dharma-Eye and experiencing liberation from suffering is emptiness as it is. Thus, thirst, quenching thirst, compassion, service, delusion, and enlightenment are all empty – and therefore there is nothing “other” than thirst, service, etc. All dharmas are real form.

Emptiness is no-self; no-self is the true nature of all dharmas. True nature is not abstract or conceptually difficult and it is never obscure, much less incommunicable – nothing in the whole universe has ever been concealed. Emptiness is vigorous and concerned, ever advancing as the myriad dharmas of existence-time, emptiness is alive, it bleeds and it breathes, and it cries out when its nose is tweaked.

Reading the story of Shakkyo and Seido, studying it, practicing it, and verifying the truth of emptiness is emptiness as it is. Thus, the Shobogenzo, Koku fascicle opens with an explanation that the manifestation of Buddha ancestors is caused by “emptiness” in the “form” of words. Dogen explains that the transmission of emptiness/form (of the words), from ancestor to ancestor, causes the skin, flesh, bones, and marrow (i.e. the myriad dharmas) to be actualized as “konshin” (the whole body) which is said to be “hanging in space” (ka-koku). Check out the sutra quote that occupies the pivot of Dogen’s commentary on the Heart Sutra:

In the order of Śakyamuni Tathagata there is a bhiksu who secretly thinks, “I shall bow in veneration of the profound prajnaparamita. Although in this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations of all precepts, all balanced states, all kinds of wisdom, all kinds of liberation, and all views. There are also understandable explanations of the fruit of one who has entered the stream, the fruit of [being subject to] one return, the fruit of [not being subject to] returning, and the fruit of the arhat. There are also understandable explanations of [people of] independent awakening, and [people of] bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the supreme right and balanced state of bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. There are also understandable explanations of turning the wonderful Dharma wheel to save sentient beings.” The Buddha, knowing the bhiksu’s mind, tells him, “This is how it is. This is how it is. The profound prajnapara mita is too subtle and fine to fathom.”
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The thoughts of this monk (bhiksu) go to the heart of the significance of emptiness demonstrated by Shobogenzo; although there is no self and no other in the true oneness of emptiness, true, effective teachings exist. This monk realizes the point, so the Buddha tells him – This is how it is. And how is it? There are understandable explanations.

There are understandable explanations of precepts, balanced states, wisdom, and liberation. The no-self of emptiness does not mean that things are not real, it does not mean that distinctions are illusory, it does not mean that the essential nature of things is different than the appearance of things – just the opposite. If this were not so, Dogen would not have wasted his time teaching and writing. Shobogenzo exists, and is effective because there are understandable explanations of the Dharma.

Dogen, commenting on the monk’s thought that, “Although in this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations,” says that “this state” (emptiness) is described “as being without.” In Japanese, “being without” is “mu,” which is a word that Zen practitioners are as familiar with as they are with the Heart Sutra. “Mu” is the central subject of the famous Zen koan, “Joshu’s Mu,” which appears in a variety of forms in numerous koan collections, the most common form being:

A monk asked Joshu, “Does a dog have Buddha nature?”

Joshu said, “Mu.”

What is “Mu”? That is what each practitioner must personally verify, once they have come to understand a reliable explanation. Here is part of Dogen’s understandable explanation on the monk’s mind, real dharmas, and the state of “mu” (being without).

The bhiksu’s “secretly working concrete mind” at this moment is, in the state of bowing in veneration of real dharmas, prajna itself—whether or not [real dharmas] are without appearance and disappearance—and this is a “venerative bow” itself. Just at this moment of bowing in veneration, prajna is realized as explanations that can be understood: [explanations] from “precepts, balance, and wisdom,” to “saving sentient beings,” and so on. This state is described as being without. Explanations of the state of “being without” can thus be understood. Such is the profound, subtle, unfathomable prajna paramita.
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Peace,
Ted

Emptiness is Form; Self is Other

As Dogen students quickly realize, Dogen’s writings are brim full of references to a “state” or “condition” that he calls “the body and mind of ‘self’ and ‘other’ falling away.” In fact, this phrase is so frequently repeated one can become desensitized to its profound significance. For this reason I would like to suggest a few points that may be helpful to be attentive to when meeting this expression in Dogen’s works.

First, in Dogen’s usage, “the body and mind of ‘self’” is always inclusive of “the body and mind of ‘other’ than self” (i.e. the myriad dharmas). To hold a view that it would be possible to let our own body-mind fall away but not the body-mind of the external world would be inherently dualistic (it would be similarly dualistic to suppose the body-mind of the external world could fall away apart from the body mind of self). Being dualistic, such view are regarded by Dogen as being non-Buddhist.

We stated that Dogen’s allusions to the “falling away of body-mind” always implies the context of the self and the external world; we now want to underscore that point by extending this to include all his references to the body-mind of individuals, or the “self” of human beings. The reason this is significant is that it clarifies the important distinction between the ego-centric “self” (unawakened human beings commonly called “ordinary beings”), and the universal or true “self” (commonly called “Buddhas”).

When Dogen speaks of the personal “self” (shinjin; the individual body-mind), It is important to understand that this is the “self” of “self and other” (self and world). The personal body-mind “self” is only and always an inherent aspect of the nonduality of “self and other than self.”

As the two nondual “aspects”, or (to adopt Hee-Jin Kim’s suggestion) “foci,” self and other are coessential; if one is raised, both are raised, of one is eliminated, both are eliminated. At the same time, each maintains its own distinct characteristics; that is, although each always the other, neither of them alters or interferes with the particularity of the other – “self” and “other” are mutually inclusive and nonobstructive. Thus, the Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa fascicle, for example, tells us:

The many kinds of right are “good doing” but they are neither of the doer nor known by the doer, and they are neither of the other nor known by the other. As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other, and thus individual vigorous eyes exist in the sun and in the moon. This state is “good doing” itself. At just this moment of “good doing” the realized universe exists but it is not “the creation of the universe,” and it is not “the eternal existence of the universe.”
Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The point concern the present discussion is illustrated by the line, “As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other…”

Thus, to experience (know or see) a “self” or an “other” – there must be both a “self” and an “other” experienced (seen or known). A “self” cannot be experienced alone, an “other” cannot exist independent of a self – therefore, when Dogen says “self” he means “self/other,” when he says “other” he also means “self/other.”

Peace,
Ted

Zen Emptiness: The Real Form of All Dharmas

The realization of the Buddhist patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all dharmas. All dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is, the mind as it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and stillness, as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and a smiling face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they are; learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of pines and the integrity of bamboos, as they are.
Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

If all reality is particular forms and specific actions, as Dogen contends, there is no reason to worry about our ability to distinguish reality from unreality; everything that can be distinguished is real; if every particular form and specific action is reality, there is every reason to concern ourselves with our ability to perceive, understand, and act skillfully.

The ability to perceive, understand, and act skillfully is the measure of true wisdom, it is the ability to respond wisely in the here and now – this is the real wisdom of responsibility (response-ability). For, if all particular forms and actions are real dharmas, as Buddhism contends and Dogen emphasizes, then every particular “a wise act” (e.g. eating, reading to our child, looking both ways, practicing zazen, etc.) is a real dharma. Corollary with this, every specific “foolish act” (e.g. gluing our eyes shut, accepting views we have not personally verified, giving a 5 year old a pound of chocolate, accepting an invitation to a “special transmission” from a naked “Zen master,” etc.) is also real. And it does not stop there; all specific oak trees are real trees, all particular biases are real biases, all specific expressions of truth are real expressions of truth, all particular lies are real lies, flowers are real, cluster-bombs are real, awareness of the Dharma is real, ignorance of the Dharma is real.

Peace,
Ted

Existence-Time & the Emptiness of What?

Existence, Time, and the Reality of Things

Throughout, his career Dogen maintained and reinforced the significance of the unity of existence and time, most extensively elucidated in the acclaimed Shobogenzo fascicle, “Uji” (existence/time). “Uji” offers an extremely lucid explanation on the nature of existence and time revealing that all dharmas, being real, particular forms – are and must be real specific moments of time.

As moments of time, rather than moments in time, each and every particular dharma is shown to be an “instance” of eternity/infinity. To clarify this, consider some of Dogen’s comments from Shobogenzo, Kai in zanmai. In this fascicle, Dogen cites the Buddha as follows:

Only of real dharmas is this body composed.
The moment of appearance is just the appearance of dharmas;
The moment of disappearance is just the disappearance of dharmas.
At the moment when these dharmas appear we do not speak of the appearance of self.
At the moment when these dharmas disappear we do not speak of the disappearance of self.
An instant before, an instant after: instant does not depend on instant;
A dharma before, a dharma after: dharma does not oppose dharma.
Just this is called samadhi, state like the sea.
~Shobogenzo, Kai in zanmai, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Immediately following these words of the Buddha quoted from the Avatamsaka sutra Dogen writes:

The concrete moment of this “sea-like samadhi” is just a concrete moment “only of real dharmas,” and it is expression of the truth of “sole reliance on real dharmas.” This moment is said to be “this composed body.” The integrated form that is “composed” of “real dharmas,” is “this body.” We do not see “this body” as “an integrated form”: real dharmas compose it. This composed body has been expressed as the truth as “this body.”
~Shobogenzo, Kai in zanmai, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Here Dogen first underscores that actual, specific instances of time (concrete moments) are nothing more or less than actual, specific things (only of real dharmas). Dogen then walks us through the reasoning (dori) of this expression and highlights its implication; actual, specific instances of time are, in themselves, real things (forms, bodies). Once again we meet with Dogen’s insistence on the unity of form and nature. An actual, specific thing (like “this body”) is not made out of stuff, matter, elements, or anything else apart from its form. All real things are real forms; a form is not the “appearance” of something, or things, other than itself (a body is not an “integrated form”).

In previous posts we saw how Dogen utilized the Buddhist tenet of “emptiness is exactly form” to reveal that "the true nature of things is exactly the appearance of things.” We also noted Dogen’s assertion that the universe, and the self, are “fashioned” from “instances” (moments of time) of our experience. Here we meet with one of the important implications of this viewpoint: the nature/appearance of things is exactly time. As things (dharmas) are only real insofar as they are experienced, all real things are forms of time, and all real times are times of form. In Shobogenzo, Uji, Dogen unequivocally sets out his view of existence-time (uji); time is existence, existence is time. And, as usual, Dogen is not "generalizing," he means specific things and definite times, for example:

… Seigen is time, Ōbaku is time, and Kōzei and Sekitō are time…
…subject-and-object already is time...

...practice-and-experience is moments of time…
Shobogenzo, Uji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

It is important to understand that in Dogen’s view existence and time are not simply relative, they are unified: "existence-time." While the hyphenated “existence-time” is probably the best choice for English translation, it may imply a gap not present in the Japanese “uji.” Hee-Jin Kim observes that Dogen “transforms” the phrase “arutoki" (‘at a certain time,’ ‘sometimes,’ ‘once’) into "one of the most important notions in his Zen – uji (‘existence-time).”

This metamorphosis is executed by way of changing its two components the aru and the toki into u (“existence,” “being”) and ji (“time,” “occasion”), respectively, and recombining them as uji so that it unmistakably signals the nondual intimacy of existence and time.
~Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, pp. 69-70

This remarkably creative metamorphosis decisively establishes Dogen’s viewpoint on the nature and dynamics of existence-time from the enlightened perspective (i.e. The Buddha Way includes and transcends the many and the one).

.

In Mahayana Buddhism, emptiness (the one) reveals that "things" (dharmas) do not exist independently. Since the existence of a thing depends on things other than its “self” it is not an independent entity (self); it is empty of “self.” This universally applies to all things; all things (forms, beings, thoughts, etc.) are interdependent, therefore empty of an independent self. Thus each of the myriad things is empty (of a self), and all the myriad things together are emptiness.
.
What is “emptiness”? All the myriad things! Clearly, emptiness could not be a “thing” (dharma) that "informed" other things, nor could emptiness be a “thing” permeating all things; emptiness is no-thing. Obviously, without the myriad things emptiness would not only be non-existent, it would be utterly meaningless. As things are empty because they are dependent on things, emptiness is things because it is dependent on things.

.
If existence is time and time is existence, as Dogen proclaims, existence and time must be eternal and infinite. As discussed previously, in Dogen’s Zen “Buddha” (our true nature) is total existence; thus, in light of uji, Buddha is total existence-time. For total existence-time to really be “total,” it has to be inclusive of every bit of existence, absolutely all instances (moments) of existence (dharmas). If so, all instances of existence (dharmas) would have to be eternal. This is exactly Dogen’s view:

[Total existence] is beyond originally existing existence; for “it pervades the eternal past and pervades the eternal present.”
~Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Moreover, total existence-time would mean all time, absolutely every single moment of time. Thus, existent instances (dharmas) would have to be infinite. This too is exactly Dogen’s view:

Truly, great realization is limitless, and returning to delusion is limitless.
~Shobogenzo, Daigo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Thus for Dogen, this life and death is an essential aspect of the eternally dynamic universe; every dharma, no matter how trivial, and every moment, no matter how fleeting, is charged with infinite potential. Far from being ineffable, mysterious, unknowable, or incommunicable, eternity and infinity are palpably present and immediately available. The infinity and eternity of existence-time has nothing to do with an unending expanse of space or a never-ending duration of time. Time and existence, in Dogen’s Zen, has definite shapes and precise weights.

“Appearance” is inevitably a concrete “moment” having arrived; for “the moment” is “appearance.” Just what is this “appearance”? It may be “appearance” itself. It is “appearance” that is itself already a “moment,” and it never fails to disclose the naked skin, flesh, bones, and marrow. Because appearance is “appearance” that is “composed,” appearance as “this body” and appearance as “appearance of the self” is “only of real dharmas.”
…
“The moment of appearance” is “these real dharmas” here and now: it is not of the twelve hours.
~Shobogenzo, Kai in zanmai, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

For Dogen, a world or self conceived of as a pure, tranquil sea of uniform emptiness, or unvarying essential nature is neither a real world nor a true self, but mere existence in the absence of time. Similarly, a world or self of a ceaseless, invariable flow of time in which all dharmas are illusory appearances on the surface of reality would amount to an abstract conception of an ever advancing absence of existence.
.
Shackled under presuppositions of dualism, the essentialist and naturalist can only envision either existence or time, not existence-time. To see existence and time dualistically is to see neither infinity nor eternity but only the mystery and obscurity of abstraction. Abstraction is always subtraction, that is, negation. When teachers or teachings suggest a reality that is always and only indefinable, indescribable, incommunicable, inconceivable, unimaginable, etc. – all negative terms, be aware this is not Zen.

.

Zen Buddhism realizes and transcends "neti, neti" (not this, not this) to realize "immo, immo" (this, this). Thus one of Dogen’s favorite phrases from the Zen literature is, “You are like this, I am also like this.” Interdependence does not eradicate independence, it verifies it.

We recognize as sea not only that which is not the sea; we recognize as the sea that which is the sea.
~Shobogenzo, Kai in zanmai, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Yes, yes! It is important - even crucial - to recognize as dharmas (things, beings, teachings, events, thoughts, etc.) that which is not dharmas - but only if it is followed through by recognizing as dharmas that which is dharmas.

.

Peace,

Ted

Emptiness & Form, Attributes and Essence

Buddhist literature frequently details and praises the innumerable, marvelous attributes of Buddha. The majority of these attributes are described as greater, more powerful, or otherwise superior to those usually ascribed to human beings (e.g. abilities to communicate telepathically, be in many places at once, enjoy perfect knowledge and bliss, etc.). Those with a superficial understanding of such descriptions are often known to display astonishment at “irreverent” expressions that identify Buddha nature as identical to the nature of mere humans. Such astonishment often increases to incredulity or even disgust when Buddha nature is equated with animals, vegetables, or minerals — not to mention puddles of piss, the smell of farts, or dry pieces of shit as the classic Zen masters sometimes do. The Zen masters are not being irreverent, however, nor iconoclastic; such shocking expressions are aimed directly at the very forces that evoke such astonishment, shallow understanding and dualistic views.

Hearing of the marvelous attributes of Buddha, uncritical or speculative thinkers show a certain tendency to confuse or infuse “attributes” with the meaning of “essence.” The attributes of Buddha are the characteristics that distinguish Buddha as Buddha; the essence of Buddha is Buddha itself (or him/herself). When attributes are equated with essence it becomes (conceptually) possible to abstract attributes from real, particular dharmas (actual existent things) and thus conceive Buddha as “pure” awareness, goodness, wisdom, tranquility, etc. To conceive of any such “pure” attributes apart from real things that posses them is to dualistically grant them independent selfhood. Such abstract dualism inevitably leads to the effective annihilation of Buddha so far as human beings are concerned; Buddha becomes indescribable, mysterious, ineffable, incommunicable, and indefinable. According to Dogen’s perspective such a Buddha, if it existed, would be just as meaningless to human life as if it did not exist.

Existence, according to Dogen, is dependent on sentient experience; a thing (dharma) exists insofar, and to the extent that it is experienced. If we do not experience it, it does not exist; at the same time, if it exists it can be experienced, for nothing in the universe is concealed. Thus, according to Dogen’s Zen, a Buddha that is indescribable, mysterious, ineffable, incommunicable, and indefinable is not a Buddha. As human beings our ability to know or experience Buddha (or anything else) is, of course, necessarily limited to the human capacity; we cannot know, conceive, or experience anything beyond our capacity as humans (if we could, it would immediately be within the human capacity). Anything that we try to imagine that is greater than ourselves must be small enough to fit inside our own imagination, thus it would inevitably have to be smaller than ourselves. Therefore, any Buddha we could imagine would have to be smaller than ourselves also. Therefore, in Dogen’s Zen, no dharma (thing, being, instance) can be essentially superior or inferior to any other. All dharmas can be distinguished by their own particular attributes, characteristics, or features, but none differ essentially or substantively from us.

Dogen’s writings are much more concerned with elucidating the nature and significance of “form” (unique, particular dharmas), than they are with “emptiness” (universal oneness). The usual reason given for this is that Dogen was countering his era’s excessive preoccupation with emptiness which had led to the widespread acceptance of extremely biased (one-sided) views. Another reason for Dogen’s emphasis on form, which I think may be more significant, is the fact that after the initial phases of Zen practice and enlightenment there is little value in discussing emptiness. The primary significance of the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness, which can only be truly grasped through experiential realization, is what it reveals about the true nature of the universe and our self. This truth is actualized (made actual) by journeying through emptiness, not by or as emptiness in itself; and definitely not by taking up a permanent abode in emptiness. To clarify, let’s consider the first three lines of Shobogenzo, Genjokoan:

When all things are seen as the buddha-dharma, then there is delusion and enlightenment, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings.

When all things are seen as empty of self, there is no delusion and no enlightenment, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.

Buddha’s truth includes and transcends the many and the one, and so there is life and death, delusion and enlightenment, ordinary beings and buddhas.
Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, (Ted Biringer)

A true appreciation of emptiness can only be achieved with the actual experience of “When all things are seen as empty of self.” When this is being actualized, as Dogen says, “there is no delusion and no enlightenment, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.” All those that have journeyed through this experience can testify to the fact that Dogen is making an understatement; not only are there none of the things (dharmas) he mentions – there are no things at all; no sounds, no tastes, no touches, no sights, no smells, and no cognitions of any kind whatsoever.

Those that can testify to this also share something else with Dogen; they, like he, have journeyed through emptiness. If they had continued to dwell in emptiness, rather than journeying through, they would not be doing anything, certainly not testifying to the emptiness of emptiness.

“Buddha’s truth includes and transcends the many and the one,” means that the Buddha Dharma is constitutive of, and goes beyond, both form and emptiness. It is through the process of transiting from only form (all things) to only emptiness (no things) to and beyond both form and emptiness (all things/no things) that a human being truly begins to actualize authentic practice-enlightenment. As we will take up later, even the realization “Buddha’s truth” alluded to in the third line is not a place to dwell but an experience to journey through; how much more so the one-sided experience of emptiness (no-self).

Peace,

Ted

True Nature - The Reality of the Self and the World

True Nature - The Reality of the Self and the Universe

Continued from the previous post: The Self - As Experienced, and As Experiencer

Before proceeding we need to clarify something that should go without saying but often doesn’t: in Buddhism, both “self” and “true self” are (tacitly) inclusive of and in each other, as well as the whole of existence and time.
.
At this point we have seen that Dogen distinguishes between a self that experiences and a self that is experienced, and discussed some of the terms he uses to do so. Now we will look at how these two aspects interact according to Shobogenzo.
.
For the sake of clarity, the “self as experienced” and the “self that experiences” will be referred to hereafter as “the self” and “the true self,” respectively.
.
As previously discussed, Shobogenzo portrays the self (and all particular dharmas) as the experiential or perceptible form, shape, or image of the true self. The true self of human beings is portrayed as the sole experiencer of each individual; the master, so to speak, of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking (the traditional “five senses” of western thought plus the cognitive faculties). By identifying “thinking” as one of the “senses,” Buddhism decreased the propensity to identify the “self” (mind) with the “brain.” As a sense, “thinking” is only one of six faculties of a single being (our true self). Thus, for Dogen, beings with more or fewer senses than humans are of equal status in regard to the true self. This is supported by Buddhist doctrines that ascribe additional senses to certain advanced beings of (e.g. to see past lives, others’ minds, remote events, etc.) and affirm the inherent Buddha nature of beings with fewer senses (e.g. earthworms) and even beings without sense (i.e. the non-sentient).
.
What this means in the context of Dogen’s teachings is that our senses (including the cognitive faculties of the brain) do not sense—the true self senses. Our eyes, ears, and brain do not see, hear, and think; the true self sees, hears, and thinks. Each of our sense organs (including the brain) is simply one of the myriad dharmas that facilitate the true self in “fashioning a universe,” and “fashioning a self.” Our experience (of universe and self) is not actualized by our senses, but by our true self; more precisely, our experience is the actualization of the true self. Please note that this “actualization” is all-inclusive; every factor of our experience is the actualization of the true self. The lungs do not breathe, the heart does beat, nor does the brain breathe or beat the heart—the true self breathes and beats the heart. Insofar as the brain is involved with the lungs, heart, or anything else, it is only as the facilitator of the true self. Nor is this limited to so-called “involuntary” functions; the legs do not walk us to the mailbox, the true self uses the legs to go to the mailbox. The hand does not raise a flower, the true self raises a flower; the face does not crack a smile, the true self cracks a smile.
.
Thus, as the self is a shape, form, or image in Dogen’s works, the true self is a shaper, former, or imager. To be a self is to be experienced by the true self, that is, to be shaped, formed, or imaged by the true self. Insofar as this concerns the realm of human beings, to be experienced as a self that we call “myself” is to be shaped, formed, imaged, or in Dogen’s terms, to be “pictured” or “fashioned” by the true self of another being (or our own true self). This is something that those inclined to speculation can use to build grand linguistic schemes with almost infinite potential to convolute and obscure. If the true self is the “one true self,” how can the true self of one person “fashion” the self of another person? If the “self” that is fashioned by the true self of one person is not the same as the “self” fashioned by the true self of another, how can it be the same “true self?” And on, and on it goes…

For those that are not interested in delving into the exacting but unrewarding realm of “sawing bb’s,” there is an easier way: personal verification through experiential realization. This can be accomplished by first, as Dogen puts it, “ferreting out the meaning” of the words (rather than delving into linguistic “facts”), and then verifying whether or not it is true in actual practice (the real practical world). To clarify exactly what “meaning” needs to be “ferreted out,” let’s look again at Dogen’s words from Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa:
.
When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.
Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman
.
This should be fairly clear to those familiar with Shobogenzo (as well as those that have been following this blog for awhile). Dogen is pointing out that anything that can possibly be regarded as “experience” must include at least two components, something that is experienced and something that experiences. Without an experiencer there can be no experience, without an experience there can be no experiencer. In other words, “consciousness,” by definition is two-fold (i.e. there must be something to be conscious of and something that is conscious of it). Thus, “consciousness” (or experience) means “a self and an other.” Likewise, without a self there could be no true self at all. This is the first point.
.
Next, let’s consider the interaction of self and true self in light of Dogen’s view on the nature and dynamics of the one mind and the myriad dharmas. First, recall Dogen’s explanation of the mutual interpenetration and non-obstruction of each dharma and all dharmas; each particular thing contains and is contained by every other particular thing (as well as all other particular things). Second, consider the reasoning Dogen used to describe how the true nature of the “one mind” consisted of nothing other than the myriad dharmas, as they are; the “one mind” is not something that permeates or underlies all things—it is all things, as they are. Similarly, the true self is not something that permeates or underlies the individual self of all the many beings—it is the individual self of all the many beings. That is the second point.
.
Finally, there is Dogen’s assertion that the nature of something and the form in which it appears are not two different things. The very form of a thing, that is, the way it appears (the way it is perceived or experienced) is one with its true nature; if the form of any particular thing was somehow eradicated, its true nature would also be eradicated. In the same way, the very form of a self, that is, the way it actually appears (is perceived or experienced) is one with its true nature (i.e. the true self). That is the third and final point.

.

In light of these three points, it should be a fairly straightforward task to “ferret out” the meaning of Dogen’s expressions about how the mutual interaction of the self and the true self “fashion the whole universe,” and “fashion a self.” Now we are ready to consider the profound implication of this.
.
We are now at a point from which we may be able to glimpse Dogen’s view about what reality is and how reality and human beings interact. As we just recalled, according to Dogen there is no “true” or “essential” nature apart from particular things. This is clearly illustrated in his frequent critique of “naturalism” in which he refutes all forms of essentialism (which posit a true [or essential] nature apart from the forms or appearance of particular things). Therefore, when Dogen says that we “fashion a universe,” and “fashion a self,” he means that the reality “fashioned” by sentient beings is the only reality. In other words, there is no reality apart from the individual shapes, forms, and images “fashioned” by our own true self and experienced as the universe and the self we call “myself.”
.
While this is actually pretty simple and straightforward, it goes against just about everything we are conditioned to believe and can seem complicated, so let’s break it down and restate it once more. First: sentient beings (like humans) are by definition, “sentient” (conscious [of something]). Second: consciousness (awareness, experience) is by definition, “two-fold” (consciousness/conscious of something). Third: the “one mind” and the “myriad things” are nondual (coessential and coextensive). Fourth: the form, shape, or image that we experience as the world and as “our” self is formed, shaped, or imaged (pictured) by our “true” self (which also serves as our capacity to experience). Fifth: the form, shape, or image of things is one with their true nature, thus the form, shape, or image that we experience as the world and as our “self” is our “true” self. Sixth: no “essential nature” exists apart from the forms of particular things, and particular things only exist insofar as they are experienced by sentient beings (in two-fold consciousness).

.

Conclusion: The reality of the world and the self consists only of the “arrangements” we (as individuals) “fashion” from the “bits and pieces” (instances of existence-time) of our experience; no “other” reality can possibly exist outside of this.
.
(Some of you may have concluded [accurately] that this implies a different reality for each and every individual sentient being—exactly! This aspect will be taken up in the next post.)
.
To be continued…
.
Peace,
Ted

Appearance and True Nature - Not Two

Dogen on the non-difference of the appearance of a thing and its true nature

-

You should understand that, in Buddhism, we have always spoken not only of body and mind as being inseparable, but also of the nature of something and the form it takes as not being two different things.

~Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Hubert Nearman

-

Peace,

Ted

Dogen's commentary on the Heart Sutra

Based on Master Dogen's Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu (Mahaprajnaparamita), translated by Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

This "commentary" on the Heart Sutra (if it can be considered as such) is Dogen’s earliest writing in the Shobogenzo. The fact that he wrote it first seems to be a good indication that he regarded an accurate understanding of its topic to be of great importance to Zen practitioners. In this relatively short essay, Dogen outlines some of the profoundly evocative implications of emptiness that continued to permeate his works throughout his prolific teaching career. The essay begins:

"When Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara practices the profound prajnaparamita, the whole body reflects that the five aggregates are totally empty." The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are five instances of prajna. Reflection is prajna itself. When this principle is preached and realized, it is said that "matter is just the immaterial" and the immaterial is just matter. Matter is matter, the immaterial is the immaterial. They are hundreds of things, and myriad phenomena. Twelve instances of prajna paramita are the twelve entrances [of sense perception]. There are also eighteen instances of prajna. They are eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and properties; plus the consciousnesses of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are a further four instances of prajna. They are suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the Way. There are a further six instances of prajna. They are giving, pure [observance of] precepts, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajna [itself]. One further instance of prajnaparamita is realized as the present moment. It is the state of anuttara samyaksaṃbodhi. There are three further instances of prajnaparamita. They are past, present, and future. There are six further instances of prajna. They are earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness. And there are a further four instances of prajna that are constantly practiced in everyday life: they are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down.
-------------------------　
"When Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara1 practices the profound prajnaparamita, the whole body reflects that the five aggregates are totally empty." The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are five instances of prajna. Reflection is prajna itself.

The first thing to notice is how Dogen adds the single word "konshin" (translated here as "the whole body") to the first line of the Heart Sutra (which actually reads, "Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, when practicing the profound prajnaparamita, reflects that the five aggregates are totally empty").

The addition of this word serves to highlight a profound implication of the nature of emptiness; the fact that all things are empty means all things are real existence—including the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness), which Dogen asserts, "are five instances of prajna."

Hee-Jin Kim comments on this section of Dogen’s essay, saying, "Once again, Dogen’s interpretation here construes all dharmas as but the perfection of wisdom" (Flowers of Emptiness, p.63). While it is fairly easy to penetrate the meaning behind the teachings that "all dharmas are empty", many get stuck here and fail to follow this truth through to its deeper implication; the fact that this affirms the real existence of form (rather than one-sidedly negating it). As Kim goes on to say:

"’Emptiness’ is the emptiness of self-nature, hence it simultaneously negates and affirms ‘form’ (or existence); All dharmas are at once empty and phenomenal."
(Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.64).

With this in mind, we can grasp the implications of Dogen’s statement about the five aggregates; the very fact that "form (as well as feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) is emptiness" means that each particular form (feeling, perception, etc.) is real existence itself—each particular thing is in fact "an instance of prajna" (transcendent wisdom). Thus, the flower the Buddha twirled before his assembly, because it is empty, is existent. Mahakyashapa’s smile, is existent—is prajna itself.

Driving this point home, Dogen says, "Reflection is prajna itself." This line in the Heart Sutra, "…reflects that the five aggregates are totally empty", is often translated as, "…clearly saw (or sees) that the five skandhas are empty…" Thus, Thomas Cleary’s translation of Dogen’s text reads, "Clear vision is wisdom (prajna)."

Hee-Jin Kim clarifies the point here, noting, "Avalokitesvara and wisdom (prajna) are not the observer and the observed, but one reality. The luminous vision (reflection, or clear vision) then is the working of Avalokitesvara/wisdom. Avalokitesvara sees Avalokitesvara; wisdom enacts wisdom."
(Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.63).
　
The next line was the one that Shunryu Suzuki showed his appreciation for in his "Zen Mind Beginners Mind." Dogen says:

When this principle is preached and realized, it is said that "matter is just the immaterial" and the immaterial is just matter. Matter is matter, the immaterial is the immaterial. They are hundreds of things, and myriad phenomena.

As Suzuki Roshi pointed our, many of us are familiar with, "matter is just the immaterial, the immaterial is just matter" (form is emptiness, emptiness is form), but Dogen reminds us that "matter is matter, the immaterial is the immaterial" (form is form, emptiness is emptiness). Therefore, "They are hundreds of things, and myriad phenomena."

This teaching is also expounded marvelously in the Diamond Sutra’s formula of, "X is not-X, therefore X is called X" (X is empty of X, thus X is all existence). There are thousand of clear demonstrations of this in the prajnaparamita sutras, yet Dogen’s expression, with the Zen characteristic of immediacy makes a direct impression that is sometimes lost in the drawn-out dialogues of the sutras.

Dogen’s use of the first line of the Heart Sutra instantly reminds us of the relative nature of things, that is, it calls to our mind the Buddhist teaching of "no-self." This teaching reveals the truth that there are no separate, independent entities—that is, all "particular things" are inter-dependent, or relative. However, this teaching can, and often does lead to nihilistic misunderstandings. Much of Dogen’s work concerns clarifying the inter-dependent nature of "things" (dharmas) in the light of the form of form and emptiness of emptiness. As Thomas Cleary points out in his translation of this fascicle:

"However, if it is because of relativity, or conditionality, that all things are ‘empty,’ it is equally true that by the very same conditionality they do exist dependently… A thorough reading of Dogen’s Shobogenzo will reveal that correcting or preventing the tendency toward nihilistic interpretation of emptiness is a major concern of Dogen’s teaching. In this essay, Dogen identifies phenomena themselves with transcendent wisdom (prajnaparamita), emphasizing that within so-called nothing or emptiness all things are found including the facilities, or means, of the Buddhist teachings."
(Thomas Cleary, Introduction to Shobogenzo: Zen Essays by Dogen)

While this teaching is logically straightforward and, with a little effort, fairly easy to grasp intellectually, the history of Zen, if the classic records are accurate, indicate that misunderstanding this aspect of emptiness has proven to be a recurring problem. In the words of Yin-shun:

Yin-shun says, "Most people don’t understand this. They think that ‘emptiness’ means ‘nothing’ and that it can’t produce everything that exists. They don’t realize that if dharmas weren’t empty, no dharmas would ever appear, that what exists would always exist and what doesn’t exist would never exist. But dharmas aren’t like that… The birth and destruction, the existence and non-existence of dharmas is dependent on their lack of self-existence and their fundamental emptiness. Thus, Nagarjuna said, ‘Because of emptiness, all things are possible.’"
Translated by Red Pine.
　
Once we do come to understand this aspect of the nature of emptiness, we can truly appreciate the real existent nature of Buddhist doctrines and methods. Or, as already quoted by Cleary, "within… emptiness all things are found including the facilities, or means, of the Buddhist teachings." Thus Dogen hits us full in the face with a multitude of real existent Buddhist teachings:

Twelve instances of prajna paramita are the twelve entrances [of sense perception]. There are also eighteen instances of prajna. They are eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and properties; plus the consciousnesses of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are a further four instances of prajna. They are suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the Way. There are a further six instances of prajna. They are giving, pure [observance of] precepts, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajna [itself]. One further instance of prajnaparamita is realized as the present moment. It is the state of anuttara samyaksaṃbodhi. There are three further instances of prajnaparamita. They are past, present, and future. There are six further instances of prajna. They are earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness. And there are a further four instances of prajna that are constantly practiced in everyday life: they are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down.
　
After laying the groundwork and clarifying the essential points, Dogen goes on to quote a passage that reveals the true significance of the Buddhist doctrines and methods. That is, truly grasping the experience "this state" of emptiness where there is "no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas" means that there really "are understandable explanations" (Buddhist teachings). Dogen cites this passage:

In the order of Sakyamuni Tathagata there is a bhikṣu who secretly thinks, "I shall bow in veneration of the profound prajnaparamita. Although in this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations of all precepts, all balanced states, all kinds of wisdom, all kinds of liberation, and all views. There are also understandable explanations of the fruit of one who has entered the stream, the fruit of [being subject to] one return, the fruit of [not being subject to] returning, and the fruit of the arhat. There are also understandable explanations of [people of] independent awakening, and [people of] bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the supreme right and balanced state of bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. There are also understandable explanations of turning the wonderful Dharma wheel to save sentient beings." The Buddha, knowing the bhikṣu’s mind, tells him, "This is how it is. This is how it is. The profound prajnaparamita is too subtle and fine to fathom." The bhikṣu’s "secretly working concrete mind" at this moment is, in the state of bowing in veneration of real dharmas, prajna itself—whether or not [real dharmas] are without appearance and disappearance—and this is a "venerative bow" itself. Just at this moment of bowing in veneration, prajna is realized as explanations that can be understood: [explanations] from "precepts, balance, and wisdom," to "saving sentient beings," and so on. This state is described as being without. Explanations of the state of "being without" can thus be understood. Such is the profound, subtle, unfathomable prajna paramita.
　
To be continued (hopefully)
Peace,
Ted

Zen methodology, Dogen, and emptiness

I have noticed that I seem to spend a great deal of time trying to "clarify" my posts (and comments) concerning what is, in my view, a universal element in the classic teachings of Zen Buddhism on nonduality and emptiness. Rather than continuing to repeat the same thing, I am posting this overview to serve as a topic in itself, and also as a link to clarify my position elsewhere.

It is a Zen axiom that the sole value of any Buddhist doctrine or method is wholly, and proportionately, dependent on its actual soteriological effectiveness. This principle is based on the recognition that all terms, systems, methodologies, and conceptual constructs are no more than methodological designations. In fact, according to Zen, all designations (methodological or otherwise) are nonsubstantial (i.e. they are not "independent entities," but are in fact interdependent).

The practical application of this axiom by contemporary Zen Buddhists is often evident concerning a number of Buddhist doctrines and methodologies (e.g. doctrines of karma and the Bodhisattva, and the methodologies of devoting merit and bowing), but is nearly absent in others. This absence is particularly conspicuous concerning doctrines that apply the soteriological methods of nonduality (e.g. emptiness and form, practice and realization, Buddha and ordinary being, delusion and enlightenment, etc.). This may be partly due to the complexities of using methodological designations that are inherently self-referential (applicable to themselves), like the "emptiness of emptiness" and the "nonduality of nonduality."

Yet it is this principle, as revealed in the Prajnaparamita literature, that even allows for the possibility of "explanations" to be effective (or not). This is the insight of the Madhyamika as elucidated by the Indian Buddhist master, Nagarjuna (acknowledged in Zen tradition as an ancestor).

As Nagarjuna says in his examination on The Four Noble Truths:
Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.
MMK XXIV:18 (Trans. Jay L. Garfield)

It is significant to note that one of the first (maybe even the first) things Dogen wrote upon his return from China was a commentary on the Heart Sutra that specifically singled out how the effectiveness of teachings, or "explanations" was precisely proportionate to their emptiness:

"In the order of Sakyamuni Tathagata there is a bhiksu who secretly thinks "I shall bow in veneration of the profound prajna-paramita. Although this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations of all precepts, all balanced states, all kinds of wisdom, all kinds of liberation, and all views…

The bhiksu's secretly working concrete mind at this moment is, in the state of bowing in veneration of real dharmas, prajna itself - whether or not [real dharmas] are without (empty of) appearance and disappearance - and this is a venerative bow itself. Just at this moment of bowing in veneration, prajna is realized as explanations which can be understood: [explanations] from precepts balance, and wisdom, to saving sentient beings, and so on. This state is described as being without (empty). Explanations of the state of being without (emptiness) can thus be understood. Such is the profound, subtle, unfathomable prajna-paramita."
Shobogenzo, Maha-prajna-paramita, (Trans. Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross)

Failing to realize, apply, and maintain an accurate perception, or "right view" of this fundamental principal is one of the primary causes for the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Buddhist doctrines and methodologies. Nevertheless, while Zen (and most other Mahayana schools) acknowledges the validity of this revelation, it is not the only implication of the teachings on emptiness. The earliest records of Zen acknowledge the validity of the Huayen teachings of mutual identity, interpenetration, and non-obstruction of the universal and the particular (and among all particulars), as outlined in the pinnacle teaching’s of Li (universal) and Shih (particular).

The Huayen metaphors, On The Golden Lion, and, The Net of Indra, are perhaps the most well known illustration of this teaching by the Huayen ancestors (the fifth of which, Tsung-mi, is also acknowledged as an ancestor of Zen).

Perhaps lesser known is the Huayen teaching that Zen Master Dogen adapted in his own writings called the, Non-Obstruction of Concealment and Disclosure, by the Huayen ancestor, Ch’eng Kuan. A passage from the prologue on this teaching reads:

On the eighth day of a [lunar] month, half of the moon is bright and the other half is dark; the very appearance of the bright part [the disclosed] affirms but does not negate the existence of the hidden part. Likewise, the manifestation of something always implies the existence of the unmanifested or concealed part of the same thing (italics mine). At the moment when the bright part of the moon is disclosed, the dark part also "secretly" establishes itself. This is the reason for the so-called simultaneous establishment of concealment and disclosure…
(Trans. Garma C. C. Chang)

Students of Dogen will immediately recognize Dogen’s adaptation of this teaching in his essay Shobogenzo, Genjokoan: "As one side is illumined, the other side is darkened." Yet, this teaching permeates the entirety of Shobogenzo. It is explicitly used in Dogen’s teachings on practice and enlightenment, the expressible and the inexpressible, Buddha and ordinary being, original (sudden) enlightenment and acquired (gradual) enlightenment, speech and silence, nonduality and duality, past and present, and others. So permeated are Dogen’s writings (especially Shobogenzo) by this principal that any failure to account for it will undoubtedly lead to a misunderstanding of Dogen’s meaning.

While Dogen’s work comprises, by far, the largest corpus of English translations of Zen writings employing this principle, most of the classic records of Zen use it to a greater or lesser degree. It is the foundation of a number of Zen devices, such as the "Four Shouts", and the positions of "Guest and Host" associated with the Rinzai School, and the "Five Ranks" associated with the Soto.

Lacking a basic understanding of these methodologies can lead to some serious misunderstandings of Zen (and indeed any Mahayana School) expressions. Some of the most common manifestations resulting from the misunderstanding and misapplication of the liberative tools of nonduality as they apply to the doctrines on emptiness are:

A tendency to confuse "dualism" with "duality," leading to views that posit emptiness as "real," and form as "unreal."

Related to the first is the conceptualization of emptiness as truly and absolutely separate (or "other") than form (hence separate from the myriad dharmas, including us).

Concepts regarding emptiness as real (and separate from the myriad dharmas) arouse views of emptiness as "something" that can be attained (through prajna, intuition, or some form of practice).

Or, concepts of emptiness become reified, idolized and raised (as if upon a pedestal) above form (the myriad dharmas), reducing everything to a mere conceptualization of emptiness, which is often posited as a kind of "Supersymmetry" where all distinctions lose their significance.

Resulting in a loss of dynamism, creative imagination, authentic practice, intellectual development, reasoning, art, and the real characteristics, of charisma, zeal, and zest for the Dharma that is displayed in the records of the great Zen masters like Bodhidharma, Dogen, Hakuin, Huineng, and Ryokan. All of which is reduced into the bland, dull, flavorless soup of "oneness."

Leading to abandonment of authentic practice, justified with smug, self-assurances of "realization" that is really a mere contentment with conceptualized notions of oneness (rather than the actual experience of the infinite dynamic potential of authentic "Vast and Fathomless Unnamable Void").

Which finally manifests in forms of antinomianism (as is evidenced in many of the major western "Zen centers" where exploitation and violation of precepts are dismissed as the "enlightened behavior" of "crazy wisdom").

While the misunderstanding of any teaching can have negative results, the misperceptions concerning doctrines of nonduality and emptiness are especially effective in stifling genuine aspiration, zeal and affirmation for the Dharma. This is, of course, not the zeal of ambition or personal gain, but the true joyous realm of what Dogen calls "self-fulfilling samadhi." It is the "play," (in both senses of the word) of the universe itself. It is "Dharma enacting Dharma." In the words of the Large Sutra of Perfection of Wisdom:

What is the liking for the Dharma? The wish, the eagerness for Dharma. What is the delight in Dharma? The pleasure in Dharma. What is fondness for Dharma? The appreciation of its qualities. What is devotion to Dharma? The developing, the making much of that Dharma.
The Large Sutra of Perfect Wisdom, p. 104, Edward Conze

The records of Zen indicate how the nonduality of emptiness and form are fused in Manjusri’s sword of wisdom, that each of us take up with the Four Great Vows. Dogen says, it is difficult to cut into one. Emptiness and form are cut into one by the razor-sharp sword of case 100 in the Blue Cliff Record.

A monk asked Haryo, "What is the razor-sharp sword?"
Haryo said, "Each branch of coral supports the moon."

Master Tozan went around visiting the teachers of his day, to test and sharpen his own "sword." As he was taking leave of Nan-yuan, they had the following dialogue:

Nan-yuan said, "Make a thorough study of the Buddha Dharma, and broadly benefit the world."
The Master said, "I have no question about studying the Buddha Dharma, but what is it to broadly benefit the world?"
Nan-yuan said, "Not to disregard a single being."
The Record of Tung-shan, p.31, Trans. William F. Powell

According to one of Tung-shan’s verses on the Five Ranks, as we become more dexterous at wielding this sword, we activate "a natural determination to ascend the heavens." This is the inspiration that the Mahayana doctrine on the "Four Prajnas of Buddhahood" affirms as the inevitable effect of the realization of Buddha nature, concerning the third prajna (Observing Prajna) which closely corresponds to the fourth of the "Five Ranks" of Tung-shan.

Beyond this, the Zen masters indicate that, while we cannot help but rejoice at the freedom and boundless wealth of the fourth rank, another marvel remains. At the interface of the fourth and fifth ranks, the fourth prajna of Buddhahood—Practical Prajna—begins to function. The reality of total and absolute liberation. Dogen describes this as, "When Buddhas are Buddhas, they do not know they are Buddhas."

In Practical Prajna, wisdom and compassion are spontaneously manifested beyond intention, and convention. The fifth of the Five Ranks calls it: Arriving within Together. The verse for this rank is:

Falling into neither existence nor nonexistence, who dares harmonize?
People fully desire to exit the constant flux;
But after bending and fitting, in the end still return to sit in the warmth of the coals.
The Record of Tung-shan, p.31, Trans. William F. Powell

Gassho,
Ted Biringer

How have you approached the Shobogenzo

I have noticed a few coincidences lately between some of the discussions I have had and some of the things I have been reading. Now, I am not actually a very superstitious person, but I have learned to pay attention to coincidences…

The thing that seems to keep coming up is the relation between "study" and "practice" in Zen—especially regarding what Dogen’s Shobogenzo has to teach us about it, and how we can access that teaching.

One thing that has happened—which I have found to be somewhat surprising—is that several people that offered their views (not their opinions, mind you, but their "knowledge"- as in what they "know") on the teachings of the Shobogenzo, when asked, admitted that they had not even read the whole thing—much less the Eihei roku, or zuimonki.

Two of these people have been "practicing" Zen (Soto) for more than ten years and claim to be living their lives according to the teachings of Dogen—but how could they know that? I was able to inquire a little deeper with one of them. She admitted that she really had not made much of an effort to study Dogen’s work, but took her teacher’s word for what Dogen did or did not teach.

Lately I have been spending a little time each day trying to catch up on books written by contemporary Zen teachers. In the course of my reading I have come across several passages by different teachers that begin with something along the lines of, "Dogen believed that…" and "According to Dogen…" and then finish their sentences by saying something that did not seem to fit anything I had ever read or heard about in Dogen’s work. I looked, but the authors did not reference which record that they found the teaching in, much less the source. It made me wonder if they too, were simply repeating what a teacher had told them.

So, after mulling things over a little I thought that maybe we could share our own experiences, ideas, and insights on the study and practice of Zen. Here are some questions to help get the juices flowing:

How have you approached the Shobogenzo (or other Zen texts)?

How far is too far to go when offering our "knowledge" about Dogen’s (or anyone’s) teaching if we have not actually studied it ourselves?

Should we "qualify" our views with things like, "My teachers says that Dogen…" and "According to my teacher, Dogen taught…" Or do you think it is perfectly acceptable to say, "Dogen taught…" without qualifying our source?

If and when you do offer your experience and/or knowledge on Dogen, or anything to do with Buddhism or Zen, what do you base the validity of your understanding on?

Since I am the one that is trying to drag you into this, I will start…

When I offer my understanding of Dogen’s Shobogenzo I usually try to do so in a way that acknowledges that I could be wrong. Many times I have been forced to let go of some notion or another that did not stand up in the face of fresh knowledge or experience.

So let me qualify what I am about to share now and thereby avoid the cumbersome task of qualifying each point as I make them. Everything I think I "understand" about the Shobogenzo (or anything else really) is subject to change in the light of new knowledge or experience. Having said that, I believe that I can qualify everything I am about to say with at least two examples from Dogen’s own records. Okay, here goes…

My understanding of the Shobogenzo is based on 21 years of practice and study, employing a wide range of approaches and methods in a concerted effort to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the Shobogenzo. I think that this effort has, for the most part, proven successful —I hasten to add that by "comprehensive understanding" I mean extensive, not exhaustive, thoroughgoing, not all-inclusive.

Early on, I came to the conclusion that an accurate grasp of the message of Dogen’s unique, multidimensional work would require much more than an extensive familiarity with the entirety of its text and the tradition from which it evolved. It would also require years of intensive and extensive practical application, exploration, and experimentation. I reasoned that the work of such a uniquely gifted thinker and writer embedded within a specific literary tradition, an accurate understanding of the Shobogenzo demanded a thorough grasp of the philosophical, historical, literary, and religious systems through which it is conveyed. Moreover, as a soteriological expression by a Zen Buddhist master, a true appreciation of it would require the experience that only the actual implementation of its vision could provide. In short, it was clear from the beginning that any hope of discerning the authentic message of Dogen’s masterpiece demanded a combined approach allowing full and equal attention to experience as well as to knowledge, to practice as well as to study. I still believe this.

During the last 21 years I have sat with a wide variety of practitioners from various lineages. In the early years I worked with four different Zen masters (2 Soto, 1 sanbokyodan, and 1 in the lineage of Thich Nhat Hanh). I eventually settled on the teacher that I have now been with for almost 15 years. I spent my first 13 years with this teacher engaged in koan-introspection, shikantaza, and studying the works of Dogen. I also continued my own independent study during this time. I studied Japanese for two years but did not have much talent for it, and am deeply grateful for the many gifted translators that are supplying us with quality texts. I experimented with a variety of meditation techniques outlined in the classic Zen texts—especially the ones that seemed to me to be similar to Dogen’s teachings on "nonthinking."

My initial resistance to undertaking what at first seemed a daunting, if not futile task (coming to terms with the Shobogenzo) was gradually relieved as the validity of my approach was continuously confirmed by the very medium of the subject of my inquiry; the Shobogenzo itself. I eventually discovered, that this method of approaching the Shobogenzo is not simply a requirement for comprehending and expressing Dogen’s teaching, it is an inherent aspect of it. That is to say, I came to the realization of something Hee-Jin Kim had realized and expressed a decade before I had ever even heard of Zen Buddhism. His expression is much better than I could paraphrase hence I quote:

"[N]onduality did not primarily signify the transcendence of duality so much as it signified the realization of duality. When one chose and committed oneself to a special course of action, one did so in such a manner that the action was not an action among others, but the action—there was nothing but that particular action in the universe so that the whole universe was created in and through that action…

"As we incorporate these observations on Dogen’s view of the body-mind understanding into what I have said about activities and expressions, it is evident that activities, expressions, and understanding were one and the same for Dogen. It was not that we acted first and then attempted to understand, nor was it even that action was a special mode of understanding; all modes of understanding were necessarily activities and expressions."
(Hee-Jin Kim, Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, pp.105-106)

In discussing the validity of this observation with others over the years, I have often been met with a great deal of skepticism and resistance, especially by those within the Zen community. Nevertheless, I believe that Kim’s is an accurate assessment of a theme that runs through the entire corpus of Dogen’s work and is especially prominent in the Shobogenzo. For Dogen, activity, expression, and understanding—while maintaining their particular differences—always go together. Hence, any authentic understanding of the Shobogenzo inevitably includes "activity" and "expression."

While some inside the Zen community have been willing to (at least temporarily) entertain this notion, most have vehemently denied it all together once the mere outline of its corollary becomes apparent; namely, that the authentic practice of Zen consists largely of verbal, and by extension, literary activity. This sounds astonishing in the ears of those that have been inundated with the rhetoric surrounding Zen’s self-designation as "a separate transmission, outside words and letters, and not dependant on writings." While Dogen’s own writings may present the clearest evidence of how widely misunderstood this "self-designation" of Zen is, a simple appeal to common sense, I think, provides sufficient reason to dispel the most glaring misunderstandings in regard to this notion.

The misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the meaning behind "a separate transmission, outside words and letters, and not dependant on writings" is grounded on a faulty supposition. The faulty supposition in question is that "a separate transmission, outside words etc." is necessarily exclusive of words and letters (or any manner of verbal and literary activity). In other words, asserting the position that Zen is "outside words etc." and asserting that the authentic practice of Zen consists largely of verbal and literary activity need not be read as contradictory statements. The rationality of this point may become clearer if I try illustrating it within a different context. For instance, we would not find any difficulty in the statement that human life "exists outside words and letters, is not dependent on writings, and its occupation consists largely of verbal and literary activity. Indeed, one is hardly able to imagine human life apart from its ability and practice of verbal activity.

I firmly believe (and will present my evidence in the coming weeks, if requested) that the Shobogenzo insists that a failure to endeavor in intellectual and verbal activity will effectively bar one from the authentic practice of Zen.

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not construe this to mean, in any way that Dogen did not acknowledge the ineffable aspect of reality or the limitations of language and intellect. What I am saying is that based on my experience and understanding, Dogen’s teachings did not deny the limitations of the human condition, but evaluated and illumined them within the context of the highest realizations of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, namely, emptiness and dependent origination. When seen through the experience of emptiness, or what Dogen often calls "nonthinking," each and every particular thing has absolute significance. Not only words and letters, but as Dogen never tires of saying, "walls, tiles, pebbles and mountains, the whole earth and the great sky." In the Shobogenzo Dogen even illumines the absolute significance of such things as dreams, illusions, pictures, doubt, and surprise.

Try to keep an open mind, and apply what I have discussed above to what Dogen points out in Shobogenzo, Bussho:

"We must unfailingly apply ourselves to the words "being without the Buddha-nature." ("being without" is a translation of "mu") Do not be hesitant. Though we should trace an outline of being without (mu) the Buddha-nature, it has the standard which is What, the real time which is You, the devotion to the moment which is This, and the name, common to all, which is Shu: it is direct pursuit itself.

The fifth patriarch says, "The Buddha-nature is emptiness, ("emptiness" is a translation of "ku") so we call it being without." (mu) This clearly expresses that emptiness (ku) is not non-existence. (mu) To express that the Buddha-nature is emptiness, (ku) we do not say it is half a pound and we do not say it is eight ounces, but we use the words "being without." (mu) We do not call it "emptiness" (ku) because it is void, (ku) and we do not call it "being without" (mu) because it does not exist; (mu) because the Buddha-nature is emptiness, (ku) we call it "being without." (mu) So real instances of being without (mu) are the standard for expressing "emptiness," (ku) and emptiness (ku) has the power to express "being without." (mu) This emptiness (ku) is beyond the emptiness (ku) of "matter is just emptiness." ("Shiki Soku Ze Ku" from the heart sutra) [At the same time,] "matter (U)is just emptiness" (ku) describes neither matter being forcibly made into emptiness (ku) nor emptiness (ku) being divided up to produce matter. (U) It may describe emptiness (ku) in which emptiness (ku) is just emptiness. (ku) "Emptiness(ku) in which emptiness(ku) is just emptiness(ku)" describes one stone in space. (ku)"
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Nishijima & Cross

You see? Try this kind of reading with some of your favorite chapters of the Shobogenzo and see what you see. It never hurts to try.
All comments are welcome. Thank you.
Ted

Copyright Ted Biringer 2008