On Reading Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo
Despite all this, systematic study of Dogen in the West today is
virtually nonexistent. As a result, Western knowledge of Zen is painfully
fragmentary, not only in quantity, but more important, in quality. In recent
years, some sporadic attempts have been made to acquaint the West with Dogen,
but these cover only a tiny portion of the entire corpus of his religion and
philosophy. It is my hope that the study of Dogen’s Zen will remedy the
situation and will lead to a more complete understanding of Zen.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that it is high time for
Western students to deal with Zen as a historical religion in its concrete
historical, philosophical, moral, and cultural context—not to isolate it from
that context. After all, Zen is a cultural and historical product. I feel
strongly that such an approach to Zen is imperative to the maturity of Western
Zen (or any Zen for that matter), and my work endeavors to apply it seriously
to the study of Dogen. It might surprise many readers that such a historical
consciousness is actually in accord with Dogen’s belief that maintaining a
fidelity to history was the way to transcend it.
Hee-Jin Kim1
The widespread notion that Zen is antithetical to
language is, from Shobogenzo’s viewpoint, a serious delusion based on a
false assumption; specifically,
the dualistic assumption that the reality of verbal expressions (spoken or
written) is separate and independent
of the reality of what the expressions concern. Of the host of fallacies
about Zen spawned by dualism, the delusion that the reality of Zen somehow exists independently
of the expressions of Zen is the most pernicious. It is to
this distortion that we owe all the vulgar claims that Zen is some kind of
mysterious or ineffable reality, condition, or experience that is somehow
transcendent to, thus independent of, the normal human capacities of
communication.
Here it is worth stating the obvious; since claims
asserting that the truth about Zen cannot
be communicated through language, are themselves constituted of language, they thereby
refute their own validity!
Despite the obvious incoherency of such views, this
distorted notion has plagued Zen throughout the greater course of its history.
Concerning Dogen’s Intentions and the Form of
Shobogenzo
The uncertainty concerning which particular fascicles actually constitute Dogen’s Shobogenzo
merits attention. For example, depending on which proponent’s view is taken,
the ‘true’ form of Shobogenzo consists of eighty-four fascicles, or
twelve fascicles, or twenty-eight, or seventy-five, etc. Further, besides
controversy about how many and which
fascicles should be included, there is disagreement as to their order of
arrangement, the extent of their posthumous alteration, their relation to
Dogen’s koan collection of the same title, and other similar questions.
Here I won’t debate these issues, but briefly note
my own view on several points:
·
At least four of the advocated versions of Shobogenzo demonstrate sufficient credibility to merit serious
consideration.
·
There is good evidence that Dogen ultimately intended Shobogenzo
to consist of one-hundred fascicles.
·
There is good evidence that Dogen engaged in revising and
reediting fascicles of Shobogenzo throughout his career.
·
There is good evidence that one of Dogen’s last contributions to Shobogenzo
was a revision of the key Genjokoan fascicle (one of its two earliest
fascicles, chronologically as well as structurally).
The interested reader is referred to the excellent
detailed account of the particular issues involved, the historical evidence,
and the present state of scholarship on these issues by Steven Heine in his
remarkably comprehensive study of Dogen’s writings, Did Dogen Go To China?
What He Wrote and When He Wrote It.2
Now, I want to emphasize that, in my view, the
precise details and historical evidence concerning what Dogen intended concerning the final form of Shobogenzo is of little ultimate import.
For the Zen practitioner the only significance of Shobogenzo is what it actually expresses. For one thing it would
be impossible to verify Dogen’s true intentions even if there were universal
agreement. More importantly, Dogen’s personal intentions are finally irrelevant
to the truth of Shobogenzo.
The truth of Shobogenzo, like the truth of any dharma, exists nowhere but in and as its actual form. From
the nondual perspective, the reality of a dharma and its form are
not-two – the truth of Shobogenzo can only
abide in and as its form here-now –
and nowhere else.
The Unity of Shobogenzo
An issue related to the variety of fascicles
constituting Shobogenzo merits
attention; the tendency to misunderstand individual fascicles as independent
writings rather than parts of a unified work. Despite the universal
recognition of Shobogenzo as a unified
work (e.g. a masterpiece, the work, etc.), accounts and studies
frequently discuss particular fascicles of Shobogenzo
in terms only appropriate to distinct
texts. There is really no justification for ignoring the unity of Shobogenzo – the very reason for arguing about which fascicles belong presupposes the
unity of Shobogenzo – if not
for their place in that unity, such controversy would
obviously be superfluous.
Question of the Consistency of Shobogenzo and
Dogen’s View
Related to the questions as to the unity and
precise constituents of Shobogenzo, there is controversy concerning the integral consistency of its vision. The
prevalence of the false notion that inconsistency has been confirmed is evinced by the frequent inclusion of generalizations about
‘inconsistencies’ (and contradictions) among the fascicles of Shobogenzo
within both academic and traditional works on Dogen.
None of the particular examples of inconsistency singled
out by proponents offer anything like confirmation – the ‘inconsistency’ within
Shobogenzo is speculative, not
demonstrable. The only certain inconsistencies I am personally aware of are between
the significance of Dogen’s
expressions and the understanding of
them expressed by some commentators. Most examples offered in support of the
notion are clear misunderstandings resulting from attempts to read Dogen’s
works according to rules inapplicable to his writings; specifically, attempts
to read mythopoeic expression as literal description. Such attempts are
inappropriate for approaching any sacred text or literary masterpiece, and in
this case only exacerbate the already widespread fallacies about the
labyrinthine or esoteric complications of Dogen’s symbolism.
Unfortunately, the reasoning of this speculative
theory is carried over to support another common misnomer; the notion that
Dogen’s view as to the nature of the authentic Buddha-Dharma underwent a
significant changes during the course of his career. This notion presupposes
the accuracy of the claims of inconsistency, and amounts to an explanation for
their presence. According to this latter notion, the fascicles of Shobogenzo are inconsistent because Dogen’s views changed during the
time between which the fascicles were written. This notion is also the source
of the frequent, unqualified allusions to an ‘earlier Dogen’ and a ‘later
Dogen’ encountered in contemporary Dogen studies.
For clarity, I want to articulate the implications inherent
to the adoption of this notion. To accept this notion is to grant that the
apparent inconsistencies are not mistakes in reading or understanding,
or mistakes of transcription; one must grant that the apparent
inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies. To grant this is to affirm
that Dogen expounded one view as the
authentic Buddha-Dharma at one place and time, and expounded another, incompatible view at a
different place and time. In short, to accept this notion is to accept that the
‘later Dogen’ would have considered some views of the ‘earlier Dogen’ as wrong
views (false Dharma) and vice versa.
I want to emphasize that none of the actual
evidence suggests, much less demonstrates that Dogen’s views of the
Buddha-Dharma changed during his career. I find Dogen’s written views as to the
constitution of authentic Buddhism to demonstrate a remarkable consistency
throughout. Granted, there are uncertain
points concerning some of Dogen’s expressions, there are no certain points that can or should be
regarded as demonstrating inconsistency.
For the Zen practitioner, fortunately, it is ultimately
irrelevant whether or not there is any validity to the various theories of
inconsistency in Dogen’s works. However, in light of the influence this notion
has on contemporary works on Zen and Dogen, I would like to offer the reader a
few salient points to keep in mind.
First, Dogen’s writings are composed in the same medium
as all sacred texts; mythopoeic expression. Any attempt to read them from a
literal, historical, biographical, philosophical, metaphysical, or other non-mythopoeic
perspective can only result in confusion. Next, completing a revision of the Genjokoan
fascicle was evidently one of Dogen’s last contributions to Shobogenzo. Genjokoan
is one of the earliest fascicles Dogen composed for Shobogenzo. His
revision demonstrates his continuing involvement with the earliest fascicles of
Shobogenzo. This in itself undermines any attempt to discern changes in
Dogen’s views based on the evidence of ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ writings.
Rather than being indicative of changes in Dogen’s
understanding, I would suggest that such revisions demonstrate sincere endeavors
to improve the communication of his knowledge. It is far more reasonable to see
Dogen’s reworking of earlier writings as demonstrating an ongoing effort to refine
and elaborate his vision, than to speculatively assume they indicate attempts
to correct or expunge earlier viewpoints.
Further, ordinary common sense suggests that if our
understanding of an expression by a Zen master fails to harmonize with our
understanding of another expression by that master we would do well to inquire
into the accuracy of our understanding before concluding it is the
Zen master that is inconsistent. This is especially true if that master is,
like Dogen, widely recognized as a master of language with an unusual gift for
creative expression.
In conclusion I want to notice that regardless of
Dogen’s views, the true nature of reality is the true nature of reality.
Regardless of Dogen’s ‘true’ view, it is only our view of reality that has any practical effect on us or the
world. Thus, the only relevant measure with which Dogen’s writings can be
effectively gauged is the actual impact they have on bringing our own vision
into greater harmony with the true nature of reality.
Issue of Misplaced Authority
Among other unfavorable outcomes, the narrow focus
of specialization characteristic of scholarship and the generalization
characteristic of traditional accounts has tended to provide support to the authority
of an effectively biased version of Shobogenzo. That is, they have contributed credibility to views that
identify Shobogenzo with what
actually amounts to an ‘abridgement’ of Shobogenzo.
To clarify, a handful of apparently ‘easier’
fascicles along with a handful of fascicles commonly regarded as ‘philosophically
profound’ have appeared in numerous anthological versions of Dogen’s work, exclusive of the majority of Shobogenzo
fascicles. Many readers naturally assume such selections provide an accurate
and balanced, if general account of Dogen’s vision of Zen.
Obviously, any understanding of a literary work arrived
at exclusive of the bulk of its content would be unreliable at best. If
the excluded bulk happens to be the more complex content, as has commonly been
the case with ‘selected’ translations of Shobogenzo, misunderstanding
can be the only result.
Dogen’s True
Mission
In my view, Dogen’s Shobogenzo was intended
as – and successfully achieved – a complete exposition of the essential
doctrine and methodology of authentic Buddhism inclusive of everything
necessary for sincere students to directly and personally realize full and
perfect enlightenment. By that, I mean that Dogen fulfilled the ‘mission’
he set down in Bendowa, one of the
first writings he undertook upon his return from China. After describing how
his journey to China led him to, ‘accomplishing the task of a lifetime,’ Dogen
described his experience upon returning to his native land and how he came to
decide ‘to spread the Dharma and save living beings’:
‘…I came home
determined to spread the Dharma and to save living beings it was as if a heavy
burden had been placed on my shoulders. Nevertheless, in order to wait for an
upsurge during which I might discharge my sense of mission, I thought I would
spend some time wandering like a cloud, calling here and there like a water
weed, in the style of the ancient sages. Yet if there were any true
practitioners who put the will to the truth first, being naturally unconcerned
with fame and profit, they might be fruitlessly misled by false teachers and
might needlessly throw a veil over right understanding. They might idly become
drunk with self-deception, and sink forever into the state of delusion. How
would they be able to promote the right seeds of prajna, or have the
opportunity to attain the truth? If I were now absorbed in drifting like a
cloud or a water weed, which mountains and rivers ought they to visit? Feeling
that this would be a pitiful situation, I decided to compile a record of the
customs and standards that I experienced first-hand in the Zen monasteries of
the great Kingdom of Sung, together with a record of profound instruction from
a [good] counselor which I have received and maintained. I will leave this
record to people who learn in practice and are easy in the truth, so that they
can know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage. This may be a true
mission.’
Shobogenzo, Bendowa (Italics mine)3
Before proceeding I would point out that the method
Dogen chose for providing ‘true practitioners’ with a vehicle to ‘know the
right Dharma’ (i.e. written records) is a method disparaged by many
contemporary Zen representatives as unreliable, ineffective, or even
misleading. Many within the Soto Zen sect (which claims Dogen as its founder)
claim the only way practitioners can
‘know the right Dharma’ is through transmission from a living representative (i.e. a formally certified ‘Dharma-heir’).
Such claims commonly suggest that such a ‘transmission’ is not only required,
but solely sufficient, that is, no
‘records,’ whether of ‘customs and standards’ or ‘profound instruction,’ are
necessary. For those claiming to be ‘heirs’ of Dogen, this is convenient; the
record Dogen left so people could ‘know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s
lineage’ was all but lost
to the world for about 700 years. It should be noted that such ostentatious
claims are usually not intentionally malicious or insincere, but simply the
results of the usual competition and power struggles common to sectarian
institutions.
Shobogenzo: Intelligible and Accessible
In
the nation of Great Sung China today, there is a certain type of unreliable
person that has now grown to be quite a crowd. They have gotten to the point
where they cannot be bested by the few true people. This bunch says such things
as the following:
Just
like the comments about Eno’s walking on water or the one about Nansen’s buying
a scythe, what is being said is beyond anything that reason can grasp. In other
words, any remark that involves the use of intellect is not the Zen talk of an
Ancestor of the Buddha, whereas a remark that goes beyond anything that reason
can handle is what comprises a ‘remark’ by an Ancestor of the Buddha. As a
consequence, we would say that Meditation Master Obaku’s applying a stick to
his disciples or Meditation Master Rinzai’s giving forth with a loud yell go
far beyond rational understanding and do not involve the use of intellect. We
consider this to be what is meant by the great awakening to That which precedes
the arising of any discrimination. The reason why the ancient virtuous Masters
so often made skillful use of verbal phrases to cut through the spiritual
entanglements of their disciples was precisely because these phrases were
beyond rational understanding.
Fellows
who talk like this have never met a genuine teacher, nor do they have an eye
for learning through training. They are foolish puppies who are not even worth
discussing. For the past two or three centuries in the land of Sung China, such
devilish imps and ‘little shavers’ like the Gang of Six have been many. Alas,
the Great Way of the Buddha’s Ancestors has become diseased! This explanation
of those people cannot compare even with that of the shravakas who follow the
Lesser Course; it is even more confused than that of non-Buddhists. These
fellows are not laity nor are they monks; they are not gods or humans. And when
it comes to exploring the Buddha’s Way, they are more befuddled than beasts.
The stories which the ‘little shavers’ refer to as going beyond anything that
reason can grasp only go beyond anything their reason can grasp: it was not
that way for any Ancestor of the Buddha. Just because they said that such
stories are not subject to rational understanding, you should not fail to learn
through your training what the intellectually comprehendible pathways of the
Ancestors of the Buddha are. Even if these stories were ultimately beyond
rational understanding, the understanding that this bunch has cannot hit the
mark. Such people are in great number everywhere in Sung China, as I have
personally witnessed. Sad to say, they did not recognize that the phrase ‘the
use of intellect’ is itself a use of words, nor realize that a use of words may
liberate us from the use of our intellect. When I was in Sung China, even
though I laughed at them for their foolish views, they had nothing to say for
themselves; they were simply speechless. Their present negation of rational
understanding is nothing but an erroneous view. Who taught them this? Even
though you may say that they have not had someone to teach them of the true
nature of things, nevertheless, the fact remains that, for all intents and
purposes, they still end up being offspring of the non-Buddhist notion that
things arise spontaneously, independent of any form of causality.
Shobogenzo, Sansuikyo4
Shobogenzo is profound, complex, and
multifaceted, but it is not cryptic or obscure, much less ‘beyond rational
understanding.’ The only real obstacle to an accurate perception of the vision
of Shobogenzo is the failure to study it.
Despite the images evoked by common characterizations
of Dogen’s language as ‘complex,’ ‘difficult,’ ‘archaic,’ etc., the vision of Shobogenzo is no less accessible than
that of many (if not most) literary masterpieces, the Iliad, the Upanishads, or
the Inferno for instance. Indeed, Shobogenzo is almost certainly more
accessible than some texts that are widely considered to be standard reading for
all educated persons, Virgil, Aristotle, or Kant for example. In short, it is
true that Shobogenzo is a complex work that requires active reading,
intensive and extensive study, and sustained, focused effort, but it is not
written in esoteric terms, or secret code.
Shobogenzo in Light of Shobogenzo
An approach to Shobogenzo that begins from a perspective provided by
established presuppositions concerning its form, content, or significance
begins from a biased (partial)
perspective – thus can only end in
a biased conclusion. To initially
approach a literary work after having already
accepted the conclusions of traditional, scholarly, sectarian, or
institutional authorities is to demonstrate a distrust of, if not contempt for the
work itself, one’s own critical capacities, or both.
According to the Buddhist principles of nonduality,
the essence (reality, truth, significance) of a literary work, like that of any
dharma, exists only in and as its actual form and is, therefore, the only place
it can be accurately discerned. Treatises, commentaries, interpretations, references,
and other sources or aids to study can, at best, clear away particular
technical obstructions to our vision by providing us with details or contextual
information. Thus, the only reliable authority as to the true nature,
significance, and value (i.e. essence) of Shobogenzo is the very form of
Shobogenzo itself.
Approaching the Expression of Shobogenzo from
Shobogenzo’s Vision of Expression
Whether we agree with Shobogenzo’s vision concerning the true nature of language or not,
that vision itself is very clear; language is Buddha-nature, expressions of
truth – expressions of Buddha. Expressions
and Buddhas are nondual – Buddha is expressions, expressions are Buddha. This
only appears extravagant when viewed apart from the totality of Dogen’s vision;
from that grand perspective, all Buddhas and ancestors constitute a sole
ancestor: Shakyamuni Buddha. I mention this here to emphasize why Shobogenzo
needs to be approached with the same attitude used to approach scripture, or to
meet Buddha (kenbutsu).
According to its own perspective, Shobogenzo
is not a treatise on Buddhism, or instructions about the Dharma –
it is an expression of Buddhism, an exemplification of the Dharma
itself. We may reject Shobogenzo as such, but that would not
change the fact that this view is advocated by Shobogenzo, thus is the view
it is expressed from. Clearly, any
understanding achieved by approaching Shobogenzo as if it were expressed from a view other than the one it is
expressed from can only lead to an understanding other than the one
expressed by Shobogenzo.
The Vitality of Zen Practice-Enlightenment in
Shobogenzo
In Shobogenzo’s
vision of Zen, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an
unceasing advance into novelty, an ongoing creative activity – not a fixed system, dogmatic formula, or
absolute truth. Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho)
is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – not the actualized,
actual, or actualize of past, present, or future, but the
ceaseless actualization of here-now which fully includes and transcends
past, present, and future. Zen practice-enlightenment is only and always an
ever-ongoing creative discernment-and-realization of Buddha here-now – the presentation
(making present) of one’s true self ‘as it is.’ In short,
practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing (accurately discerning,
understanding, etc.) the true nature of reality, dharmas as they are here-now, thereby conducting one’s thoughts, words, and
deeds in harmony with that truth in and as the self/world here-now.
Notes
1 Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, pp. xxix
-xxx
2
Steven Heine, Did Dogen Go To China? What He Wrote and When He Wrote
It
3
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
4 Hubert Nearman
FREE Zen Newsletter!
Posts
