FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
Tommy Bonn - in the comments section of http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.com/ asked:
1. How do you feel about
Dogen's contempt for followers of other religions, or people who take up views
he finds heretical? It's at least shockingly opposed to the modern spiritual
trope that all paths point in the same direction, no? To tip my hand here, whenever
I read the Shobogenzo, I find Dogen's extreme contempt for, say, Taoists or
lazy people very upsetting and mostly discordant with the profound wisdom
evident throughout so much of the text.
2. All sayings of Buddhas are expressions of truth, and all true statements are sayings of Buddhas? I think most Buddhists would assent to the first proposition, but I imagine many would at least be suspicious of the second. If this is the case, is Buddhism a form of philosophy? (Or perhaps ~all~ of philosophy ~plus~ something else?) Could you perhaps expand on the equivalence between true statements and words of Buddhas?
2. All sayings of Buddhas are expressions of truth, and all true statements are sayings of Buddhas? I think most Buddhists would assent to the first proposition, but I imagine many would at least be suspicious of the second. If this is the case, is Buddhism a form of philosophy? (Or perhaps ~all~ of philosophy ~plus~ something else?) Could you perhaps expand on the equivalence between true statements and words of Buddhas?
Hello Tommy,
In response to the first
point you raise, I would suggest that from the perspective of Dogen’s address
there were really only two ‘religions’ – the Way, Tao, or Truth, and Not the
Way, Tao, or Truth. His primary intention, I think, was emphasize the futility,
more, injurious nature of sectarian bickering – the truth is the truth, if some
Buddhist teaching or expression is true it is the ‘authentic Buddha-Dharma’ if
not it isn’t; in either case it has nothing to do with a particular (i.e. exclusive,
superior, etc.) ‘sect’ or ‘school.’ In short I think Dogen’s criticism is less
directed at ‘heresies’ (as opposed to ‘correct doctrines’) and more directed at
‘deluded views’ (as opposed to ‘enlightened understanding’). In other words I
think Dogen would say all authentic (true, right, accurate) paths point in the
same direction, while all inauthentic (false, wrong, distorted) paths are truly
inauthentic.
Also most of Dogen’s
enthusiastically fiery criticisms or ‘extreme contempt’ (not uncharacteristic
in Zen literature generally) seem to me to be directed at truly pernicious
views and practices – views and practices that have actually demonstrated the
ability to divert genuine aspirants from authentic practice-enlightenment. The
use by Dogen of such harsh language, in my experience, seems to signal the delineation
of wrong views that are either particularly harmful, particularly widespread,
or both – they are ‘shockingly’ virulent for good reason; to get our attention
and make a strong impression.
Along similar lines, his ‘contempt’
of Taoism, for instance, when seen in the context wherein it appears, is less
directed at Taoism itself than it is at misrepresentations of Taoism (e.g. the
practice of equating Taoism and Buddhism – that is, suggesting that their
doctrine and methodology are indistinguishable). Indeed, in one such criticism
in Shobogenzo Dogen says that such practices not only distort the
Buddha-Dharma, they do a disservice to Taoism as well – and his writings
clearly demonstrate his obvious admiration for and influence by Taoism.
The best way I can think
of to respond to the second issue you raise is to paste in some excerpts from
my (as yet unpublished) Zen Cosmology. The points here should also add some
details to the reasoning informing my response to your first issue.
Begin excerpts:
… I want to recall the
reader’s mind to some relevant points previously observed.
·
To exist is to be
experienced, to be experienced is to exist.
·
All experience is
experience of particular dharmas.
·
The true nature (real
form/essence) of dharmas is their normality, thusness, whether it is seen ‘as
it is’ or ‘as it is not.’
·
To experience anything is
to experience reality as it is.
·
To experience reality as
it is as it is (i.e. to clearly see), is to be normal (enlightened,
Buddha).
·
To experience reality as
it is as it is not (i.e. not to clearly see), is to be abnormal
(deluded, ordinary being).
To accept the validity of
these points is to accept the implication that:
·
To clearly see reality, is
to see truth as truth and see falseness as falseness.
This is what Zen means
when it speaks of seeing with the eye to read scriptures, the Buddha-Eye, the
normal eye, or the Dharma-Eye.
…
To realize the koan (genjokoan) is, in Dogen’s terms, to ‘increase the sacred life of
Buddha;’ in Zen this is inclusive of all ‘good.’ Not to realize the koan is not
to increase the sacred life of Buddha… In Zen this encompasses all that
constitutes ‘evil.’
… consider Dogen’s expression, ‘Buddhas are greatly
enlightened about delusion.’ To see the true nature of a particular dharma is
to see its one true reality; its
normality or ‘as is-ness’ – thus to be wholly
enlightened in/as that particular place-time. One is wholly enlightened
in/as that ‘here-now’ because in seeing the one
true reality at that place-time, one is thereby
‘equipped with the eye’ to see any and all untruths
at that place-time. ...seeing any
untruth about a dharma as true (i.e.
to see a dharma ‘as it is not’) is to be wholly
deluded in/as that particular place-time. …to see any untruth about a dharma as true is obviously to fail to see its one true reality.
In light of this reasoning (dori) it is accurate to say that there is only one true Dharma
(Buddha-Dharma, Tao, Path) and only one false Dharma. Total existence-time is
Buddha – whatever is, is Buddha. Every particular dharma is an expression of
Buddha. To see, read, or understand any expression as it is, is to see, read, or understand the one true Dharma. To
see, read, or understand any expression as
it is not, is to see, read, or understand the one false Dharma.
Each here-now of an individual’s experience in/of
the activity/expression of existence-time is inherently endowed with the
potential to realize (make real) Buddha (or enlightenment), or to not realize
Buddha. There are no other possibilities…
Each moment of the ceaseless advance of existence-time
is an opportunity for enlightenment or
not-enlightenment, the true Dharma or
not-the-true Dharma, Buddhahood or
ordinary being – one or the other;
never both or neither…
Zen practice-enlightenment… ‘transforms experience
into events,’ …fashions passive, random experience into ordered, significant
realities. In this sense, ‘sole-sitting’ is a mode of ‘active alertness’ or
‘mindfulness’, an informed intentionally applied capacity to discern and actualize
Buddha… Such active mindfulness makes all the difference between passively… ‘living
one’s life in vain’ and intentionally ‘actualizing the universe’ (genjokoan).
What matters most in religion, as Dogen saw
it, is not a deferred realization of immortality in an after-life, nor an
eternal recurrence of rebirths, but the realization of enlightenment here and
now. Hence, this present birth-and-death is the only absolute locus—discrete
from before and after—in which we can speak of religion, that is, our
liberation. In short, birth-and-death is the very locus in which the two
possibilities of enlightenment and delusion are offered to every one of us.
Thus, “in the midst of birth-and-death, an ordinary person wanders about in
delusion, whereas a great sage is liberated in enlightenment.” Life can either
be a blessing or a curse; hence, we must choose either enlightenment or
delusion, but not both. Dogen’s view of religious life bore strictly on this
life—no more, no less.
The ‘curse’ of ‘wandering about in delusion,’
whether… passive dullness… or… cultivated detachment, does not actually
constitute the actualization of
something, but rather the… absence of
actualizing anything… regardless of whether the deluded condition… is the
result of… ignorance or timidity, or the result of intentionally turning away
from the world, it amounts to the same thing; a reduction… or decrease of
experience/existence. To the extent a sentient being is… in harmony with
reality as it is, their experience… increases the sacred life of Buddha. To the
extent a being is deluded… their experience… fails to increase the sacred life
of Buddha.
Accordingly, from the perspective of Zen, ‘evil’ or
‘wrong’ does not… amount to a thing,
being, or event (i.e. a dharma)
but… an absence or lack of a thing, being, or event… murder,
for example, is an obstruction or restraint of the experience/existence of
Buddha… rather than the realization of an activity or form… robbery is the
hindering of another’s security… lying hinders another’s wisdom, etc.
…
From the nondual perspective this is obvious; if
every actual instance of reality is Buddha (hence ‘good’), there can be no such
a thing as ‘a realization of evil’ or ‘a manifestation of wrong.’ Here is a Zen
koan that presents this point directly:
Yunmen,
addressing his assembly, said, ‘I do not ask about before the 15th
day of the month, come and give me a word about after the 15th day.
The
assembly was silent.
Yunmen,
answering for them, said, ‘Every day is a good day.’
Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), Case 6[ii]
From the perspective of enlightenment (after the 15th
day) every place-time (every day) is Buddha (good). … If ‘good’ is to
have any validity in a nondual cosmology it needs to be understood as a mode of
‘affirmation’ – ‘every day’ is a dharma as
it is; a real manifestation of Buddha; if every day is a ‘good’ day, it is
because it is a reality, a dharma as it is. Thus, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ can only be
valid as a mode of ‘negation.’ ‘Evil’ is a dharma as it is not – more, it is not
a dharma as it is, … an absence of
reality (good)… as Dogen says, ‘its essence is just nonappearance.’
In regard to the ‘wrongs’ that we
are discussing now, among ‘rightness,’ ‘wrongness,’ and ‘indifference,’ there
is ‘wrongness.’ Its essence is just nonappearance.
Thus, the essential meaning or significance of
‘good’ is ‘manifestation as it is,’ ‘appearance as it is,’ ‘form as it is,’
actuality, reality – every real thing,
being, and event is a good, thing,
being, and event; every day is a good day.
This does not mean that all is rosy or that all
evils serve some great good purpose. Every genuine Zen practitioner is
intensely aware of the truth that suffering, tragedy, and horror abound, but
they are also fully cognizant of the fact that they abound because of the
failure to adequately actualize enlightened thought, speech, and action.
…the sole task of genuine Zen teachers and
practitioners is to realize the koan (genjokoan),
to actualize (make actual) ‘every day is a good day’ which consists in discerning all things as they are (from the enlightened
perspective), and thereby, actualizing things as they
should be (‘enact that vision amidst this world of duality’)…
Again, this is not at all to be understood as
denying the value of moral or ethical training, behavior, and commitment or the
significance of teachings concerning ‘good and evil’ or ‘right and wrong’
conduct. Such training and teachings are, like all actual dharmas, nothing less
than self-expressions of Buddha-nature.
…Sentient beings are capable of being sentient of the things, beings, and events
they encounter because the things, beings, and events they encounter are what make beings sentient…
As it is normal to see a horse as a horse,
and thus distinguish it from what is not a horse, it is normal to see the
‘right’ conduct called for at any given place-time, and to distinguish it from
the ‘not right’ (i.e. wrong) conduct (i.e. everything ‘other than’ the ‘right’
conduct).
We are capable
of responding ably here-now because
here-now is what enables us to
respond. After all, here-now is us –
the significance of which shines forth from this remarkable expression by
Dogen:
Remember, [teaching] that sounds like ‘Do not commit wrongs’ is
the Buddha’s right Dharma. This [teaching] ‘Do not commit wrongs’ was not
intentionally initiated, and then intentionally maintained in its present form,
by the common person: when we hear teaching that has [naturally] become the
preaching of bodhi,
it sounds like
this. What sounds like this is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in words. It is bodhi-speech already, and so it speaks bodhi. When it becomes the preaching of
the supreme state of bodhi, and when we are changed by hearing
it, we hope ‘not to commit wrongs,’ we continue enacting ‘not to commit wrongs,’
and wrongs go on not being committed; in this situation the power of practice
is instantly realized.
What looks
like a horse is form which is the supreme state of bodhi (i.e. Buddha) in/as horse-form,
and what “sounds like ‘Do not commit
wrongs’ is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in (and as) words.” A particular
form or sound (e.g. horse, preaching) was not previously manifest and
thereafter abiding (‘intentionally
initiated, and then intentionally maintained’) in its present state…
For
example, what is heard as a sound preaching ‘Do not commit wrongs,’
is Buddha manifesting as an
‘understandable explanation’ of the truth of enlightenment (‘preaching of
bodhi’).
It
goes without saying that we should avoid falling into a literal (one-sided; biased) understanding, thus losing sight of the
mythopoeic significance of ‘wrong’
(i.e. an absence of ‘normality’ or ‘good’
…In
other words, ‘not to commit wrongs’ does not mean to abstain from something; to
refrain, desist, or avoid some form or forms of conduct. On the contrary, ‘not
to commit wrongs’ means to ‘commit right,’ to conduct oneself appropriately, to
continuously ‘respond with ability’
…To
‘not commit’ is to engage activity,
not restrain activity, thus Dogen
says, “we continue enacting ‘not to
commit wrongs’…”
… as
Buddha is only and always ‘good’ or ‘right’, Buddha is also only and always a
particular here-now of a particular
sentient being. …the ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of today is not the same ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of yesterday, and his
‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ is not the same as her ‘rightness,
wrongness, and indifference.’ Thus Dogen points out:
At the same time, at each concrete place these three properties
include innumerable kinds of dharmas. In ‘wrongs,’ there are similarities
and differences between wrong in this world and wrong in other worlds. There
are similarities and differences between former times and latter times. There
are similarities and differences between wrong in the heavens above and wrong
in the human world. How much greater is the difference between moral wrong,
moral right, and moral indifference in Buddhism and in the secular world. Right
and wrong are time; time is not right or wrong. Right and wrong are the Dharma;
the Dharma is not right or wrong. [When] the Dharma is in balance, wrong is in
balance. [When] the Dharma is in balance, right is in balance. This being so,
when we learn [the supreme state of] anuttara samyaksambodhi, when we hear the teachings, do
training, and experience the fruit, it is profound, it is distant, and it is
fine.
Shobogenzo,
Shoaku-makusa[v]
Right and
wrong are time (hence, existence-time), are the Dharma (i.e. Buddha Way), time
is not right or wrong, Dharma is not good or evil. To ‘hear the teachings, do training, and
experience the fruit’ is… to engage
practice-enlightenment; thus, good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted is the
Dharma, the ‘balance’ or ‘equilibrium’ realized in/as authentic
practice-enlightenment. To maintain such equilibrium is to be ‘solely-seated’
at the hub… or Bodhi-seat, the here-now from which existence-time ceaselessly
springs forth. In Zen this is sometimes called, ‘Taking up with one hand and
setting down with the other,’ or ‘Walking straight on a path with 99 curves.’
This is the actualization of the universe (genjokoan).
Real actualization is only and always the
actualization of some particular dharma, at some definite place-time, by some
specific individual being – actualization is
good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted; ‘wrong’ is only ‘not-conducted’ in/as
actualization-conducted. All that is actualized is Buddha; to
conduct-good/not-conduct-evil is to realize Buddha, when Buddha is not
realized, not-conducting-evil/conducting-good is not realized.
…Not to meet one’s responsibility is to suffer
selfishness; to be self-centered (egocentric), hence to deny, restrict, or
constrain one’s self, which, being nondual with ‘other,’ is also to deny,
restrict, or constrain others. To deny, restrict, or constrain one’s self and
others is to hinder or obstruct the experience/existence of self and other – to
stem or obstruct the advance of realization…
