The Reality of Zen

The Reality of Zen

 

As a tradition, activity, or institution of human civilization, ‘Zen’ denotes a path, manner, or way of life, rather than a particular structure or form. To revere a ‘Zen’ that consists of an authorized version, exclusive sect, prescribed method, formal practice, dogmatic code, or any other fixed form is to exalt a lifeless idol. In Zen’s vision, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an unceasing advance into novelty, an ongoing creative activity. Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho) is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – not the actualized, actual, or actualize of past, present, or future, but a ceaseless actualization of existence-time here-now which fully includes and transcends past, present, and future. More particularly, practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing the true nature of reality and, thereby, actualizing one’s thoughts, words, and deeds harmoniously with that truth in and as the self/world here-now.

Dori: Reason and Rationality in Zen

Dori: Reason and Rationality in Zen Part 1

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

 

[I] shall pursue the problem of reason… specifically with respect to dori (or kotowari), one of Dogen’s most favorite concepts, that connotes “truth,” “reason,” “reasonableness,” “justice,” “naturalness,” and so on. Broadly speaking, our concern has to do with reason and rationality in Dogen’s soteriology, which has been grossly neglected in Dogen studies. We may ask why we should bother with the subject in the first place when the issue is in such disrepute in this day and age of postmodernism? Hasn’t the hitherto undisputed hegemony of the Enlightenment and scientific rationalism been relentlessly challenged? In such a contemporary milieu, aren’t we already too familiar with Zen’s unconventional, irrevererent, iconographic temperament that “goes against the grain” of practically every possible cultural habit and trait? And, not surprisingly, has not comparability between Zen and postmodernism been widely exploited by a number of philosophers? All these questions are well taken. Yet, whatever the merits and demerits of postmodernism may be, I am deeply convinced more than ever that no age in human history calls for the genuine understanding and re-vision of reason more urgently than ours.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, pp.100-101

 

Contemporary works on Dogen, in both the scholarly and traditional community, commonly begin with apologies concerning complications inherent to his writings. Disclaimers citing the profundity of Dogen’s works appear frequently enough that such provisos nearly amount to the total knowledge of Dogen by some. Apparently dissuaded by the ‘enormous effort’ of mastering Dogen’s ‘labyrinthine symbolism,’ many decline the task of personally delving into his writings, settling instead for a summary grasp of ‘Dogen’s Zen’ as presented by the ‘enlightened’ or ‘erudite.’

Unfortunately, this trend not only makes the true vision of Dogen’s writings less well-known, but aids in perpetuating fallacies about Zen; particularly fallacies about Zen’s non-verbal, non-doctrinal, anti-intellectual bent.

Dogen’s writings – and Zen works generally, for that matter – are no less accessible than that of comparable works among the world’s great literature.

 

To be continued…

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

The Authentic Buddha Dharma - Which Zen is Zen? Part 2

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 2

(Continued from Part 1 The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 1 )

 

Dogen’s decision to express the ‘right view’ concerning the significance of how and why the ‘one-vehicle’ or authentic Buddha Dharma came to be identified with notion that ‘Zen’ (Chinese; ch’an, Indian; dhyana) was a distinct school or sect of Buddhism was certainly not an arbitrary or spur-of-the-moment event. According to the journal that is supposed to represent the record of Dogen’s time in China studying under Master Ju-ching, this was a question that raised serious concerns for Dogen personally. For example, in one of his evidently early interviews with his teacher (prior to Dogen’s own awakening experience, also recorded in this journal), we read:

 

[Dogen] asked: ‘If the Great Way of all the buddhas and patriarchs cannot be confined to one narrow corner, why do we insist on calling it the Ch’an School?’

 

Ju-ching replied: ‘We must not arbitrarily call the Great Way of the buddhas and patriarchs the Ch’an School. The Ch’an School is a false name that is lamentable indeed. It is the name of bald-headed little beasts have been using. All the ancient virtuous ones of the past knew this. Have you ever read Shih-men lin-chien lu?’

 

Dogen replied: ‘I have not yet read the book.’

 

Ju-ching said: ‘If you read through it once, it will be sufficient. The purport of the book is correct.

Hokyo-ki, Dogen’s Formative Years in China, Takashi James Kodera

 

This citation nicely brings us to the next section of the Shobogenzo, Butsudo fascicle – the fascicle we have been discussing wherein Dogen presents his most comprehensive view of the matter. For the next section begins with a quote from the text that Ju-ching advised Dogen to read on the subject; the Shih-men lin-chien lu (Sekimon’s Rinkanroku).

 

Sekimon’s Rinkanroku says:

 

Bodhidharma first went from the land of the Liang dynasty to the land of the Wei dynasty. He passed along the foot of Suzan Mountain and rested his staff at Shorin [Temple]. He just sat in stillness facing the wall, and only that—he was not learning Zen meditation. He continued his for a long time but no one could understand the reason, and so they saw Bodhidharma as training in Zen meditation. Now, dhyana is only one of many practices: how could it be all there was to the Saint? Yet on the basis of this [misunderstanding] the chroniclers of that time subsequently listed him among those who were learning Zen meditation: they grouped him alongside people like withered trees and dead ash. Nevertheless, the Saint did not stop at dhyana; and at the same time, of course, he did not go against dhyana—just as the art of divination emerges from yin and yang without going against yin and yang.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Now, immediately following his quotation of this record, Dogen comments:

 

Calling him the twenty-eighth patriarch is on the basis that [Maha]kasyapa is the first patriarch. Counting from Vipasyin Buddha, he is the thirty-fifth patriarch. The Seven Buddhas’ and twenty-eight patriarchs’ experience of the truth should not necessarily be limited to dhyana. Therefore the master of the past says, “Dhyana is only one of many practices; how could it be all there was to the Saint?” This master of the past has seen a little of people and has entered the inner sanctum of the ancestral patriarchs, and so he has these words. Throughout the great kingdom of Song these days [such a person] might be difficult to find and might hardly exist at all. Even if [the important thing is] dhyana we should never use the name “Zen sect.” Still more, dhyana is never the whole importance of the Buddha-Dharma. Those who, nevertheless, willfully call the great truth that is authentically transmitted from buddha to buddha “the Zen sect” have never seen the Buddha’s truth even in a dream, have never heard it even in a dream, and have never received its transmission even in a dream. Do not concede that the Buddha-Dharma might even exist among people who claim to be “the Zen sect.” Who has invented the name “Zen sect”? None of the buddhas and ancestral masters has ever used the name “Zen sect.” Remember, the name “Zen sect” has been devised by demons and devils. People who have called themselves a name used by demons and devils may themselves be a band of demons; they are not the children and grandchildren of the Buddhist patriarchs.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Following Dogen’s presentation of the significance of the fallacious view, he presents a clear view of what he regards to be the accurate expression of Buddhist mythology:

 

The World-honored One, before an assembly of millions on Vulture Peak, picks up an uḍumbara flower and winks. The assembly is totally silent. Only the face of Venerable Mahakasyapa breaks into a smile. The World-honored One says, “I have the right Dharma-eye treasury and the fine mind of nirvana; along with the saṃghaṭi robe, I transmit them to Mahakasyapa. The World-honored One’s transmission to Mahakasyapa is “I have the right Dharma-eye treasury and the fine mind of nirvana.” In addition to this there is no “I have the Zen sect and I transmit it to Mahakasyapa.” He says “along with the saṃghaṭi robe;” he does not say “along with the Zen sect.” Thus, the name “Zen sect” is never heard while the World-honored One is in the world.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

 

To Be Continued…

The Enlightened Wisdom (Bodhi Prajna) of Zen: Maha Prajna Paramita

A New Series of Posts on The Four Prajnas of Buddhahood on our sister blog FLATBED ZEN BLOG

A Zen Commentary on Prajna (Great Perfect Wisdom) from The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing by Ted Biringer

Peace,
Ted

Genjokoan: A Skeleton Key to Dogen’s Shobogenzo

Genjokoan: A Skeleton Key to Dogen’s Shobogenzo

.

A Study of Genjokoan and the Commentary in The Flatbed Sutra of LouieWing by Ted Biringer

.

PART 3

[Click Here for Part 1] [Click Here for Part 2]

 

The next lines of the Genjokoan read:

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.

.

These lines acknowledge the truth of the universal or empty aspect of reality. “When all things are seen as empty of self” refers to another way of perceiving the buddha-dharma (reality). The experience of reality from this perspective is the experience of absolute oneness. In the experience of oneness, there are no separate individual things; the buddha-dharma is totally undifferentiated. From this perspective, all things (the myriad dharmas) cease to appear as distinct entities (empty of self) and are therefore not distinguishable as things. That is to say, oneness is truly oneness, without anything left over. When there is no-thing that can be distinguished from any other thing, “there is no delusion and no enlightenment, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.” There are no people, no animals, no houses, no stars, or any other particular things.

.

In the Shobogenzo, Dogen reveals the meaning of this aspect of reality in some startling and ingenious ways. Without resorting to innuendo or “mystical” language he exposes the truth of the universal nature of emptiness, or the void, excepting nothing, not even emptiness itself. Dogen, perhaps more than any other Zen master, makes rational the profound rationale of the truth of emptiness, making the emptiness of emptiness as self-evident as the emptiness of form.

The Genjokoan continues:

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.

The Buddha’s truth is not in reality divided into the many (the myriad dharmas) and the one but includes and transcends both. Since the Buddha’s truth (true nature of reality) is all-inclusive, there is “life and death, delusion and enlightenment, ordinary beings and buddhas.” There are people, animals, houses, stars, and all the other particular things.

.

The point Dogen makes in this short line, forms the topic of thousands of pages of Buddhist literature. It is also the subject of the most popular Mahayana Buddhist scripture, The Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra was the subject of the very first commentary Dogen wrote for the Shobogenzo: Shobogenzo, Maka-Hannya-Haramitsu, the second or third thing he wrote upon his return from China. Though commentaries on emptiness are myriad, the profound implications of this sublime doctrine are extremely subtle and difficult to penetrate. Dogen’s illumination on the topic of emptiness is extraordinarily clear, provocative, and evocative.

.

Dogen’s expressions in the first three sections of Genjokoan are a succinct overview of the nature of the universe; first as perceived from the contrasting perspectives of the universal and the individual, then as transcending those perspectives. Transcending these opposing perspectives is sometimes referred to as the mutual interpenetrating and non-obstruction of the one and the many where each thing and event, and all things and events, contain, and are contained by, each other. This is expressed in the Buddhist literature by the doctrines of form and emptiness, the particular and the absolute, the universal and the individual, and so on. This mutually inclusive aspect of the one and the many is expressed in Zen koans in an intimate and direct manner; for instance, in the classic koan, Two Monks Roll Up the Blinds:

Master Hogen raised his hand and pointed to the blinds. Two monks went and rolled them up in the same way. Hogen said, “One gains, one loses.”

.

Upon resolution of this koan, you will intimately realize that master Hogen’s words “One gains, one loses” apply to each of the two monks. Indeed, his words apply to every thing and event in all of time and space.

.

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

.

To be continued...

[Click Here for Part 1][Click Here for Part 2]

.

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

“Consciousness Only” and Zen Buddhism

“Consciousness Only” and Zen Buddhism

As outlined by the “Four Noble Truths” of Buddhism, suffering results from a false view (avidya; ignorance) of “self.” This suffering is overcome when the false view is eliminated by realizing the truth of “no-self.” Thus, realization of no-self (anatman; muga) was the “goal” of Buddhism in the Buddha’s life (about 500 BCE) and First Councils (Theravada), as well as the Mahayana (and Vajrayana) traditions that culminated around 1100 to 1300 CE, more or less.

In fact, the distinction between schools can generally be described as the “way” (teachings and methods) each advocated for the realization of “no-self.” The interpretive literature of early Buddhism (Abhidharma) asserted a view of the “self” as a continuous series of constantly changing aggregates consisting of impersonal, groundless, causeless elements (dharmas). In order to reconcile this doctrine with the Buddhist doctrines of rebirth, moral obligation, karma, etc., the advocates of this view were forced to posit some unifying “force,” “agent,” or “essence,” that facilitated the coordination of the causes and effects that were presupposed by Buddhist teachings – and this force, agent, or essence must somehow avoid being portrayed as a reified entity (i.e. independent self).

Early attempts to find such a “force” resulted in the notions of the “life-stream” (ayus; myokon, etc.) notions of the Vijnanavada school, and other early traditions. A wide variety of theories were advanced concerning the nature and dynamics of this “life-stream.” One general notion was that this “life-stream” was the ground from which the “six consciousnesses” (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, thinking) arose, bestowing and maintaining the “fire” or “heat” (nan) and the “consciousness” (shiki) of the individual. The quality and quantity of this “life-stream” was regarded as dependent on the particular karmic conditions of each individual. We find many remnants of this and similar notions used in the records of Zen, for instance the “fire” and “consciousness” (translated as “wind” by Nearman) in the koan about the two halves of an earthworm:

In the assembly of the virtuous monk Chosa Keishin, his lay disciple Chiku, who was a high government official, raised a question, saying, “When a live earthworm is cut in two, both parts continue to move. I wonder, in which part does the Buddha Nature reside?”

The Master responded, “Do not engage in deluded, dualistic thinking.”

 
The official asked, “But how do you account for the twitching?”

The Master replied, “It is simply that the elements of wind and fire have not yet dissipated.”

(As translated by Hubert Nearman in Shobogenzo, Bussho)

The continuous and ongoing attempts by Buddhist masters to meet the challenges posed by the teachings on “no-self” eventually came to be centered in two great Buddhist doctrines: the “storehouse-consciousness” (tathatagata-garbha) and “consciousness-only” (vijnana-matra). Briefly, the “storehouse-consciousness” is presented in terms concerning the “primordial” or “original” nature of mind, while “consciousness-only” is portrayed as the “foundation” or “ground” underlying (and finally transcending) the six consciousnesses.

Which each of these doctrines presented views complete in themselves (and were advocated by independent schools), the best of both teachings eventually came to be merged in a number of greatly influential sutras and shastras – most significantly, the Lankavatara Sutra and the Awakening of Faith shastra. These two texts, in turn, became greatly influential to the development of all the major Mahayana traditions. While the legend of Bodhidharma’s giving Eka a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra has served to indicate its influence on Zen, the Awakening Faith shastra is alluded to and quoted even more extensively in the records of Zen (including Dogen who cites it as authoritative in Shobogenzo). The remarkable visionary insight of this slim volume was regarded authoritative enough to be included as a basic text of that erudite Buddhist school known as Huayen (Kegon) Buddhism.

Nevertheless, even in their culminating expression (i.e. the Lankavatara and Awakening of Faith) the doctrines of “storehouse-consciousness” and “consciousness only” failed to avoid certain vulnerabilities (mostly of the “essentialist” and “speculative” type) as far as the great Zen masters were concerned. As evident in the classic records of Zen, these doctrines (at least as articulated) fell short of expressing the whole truth of the matter, though they did provide an excellent springboard from which to articulate some of the most powerful expressions of Zen in the whole corpus of writing, including the Five Ranks of Tozan.

All in all, the great Buddhist doctrines of “storehouse-consciousness” and “consciousness only” are certainly worthy of our close and attentive study, but that study should not be regarded as complete with their “final” articulation in works like the Lankavatara and Awakening of Faith. Having arrived at a solid grasp of these Buddhist doctrines in their “formal” culminating expression, let us turn to the records of Zen where they continued to be refined at the forge of the ancestors – here is where the purity of their gold truly shines. Stripped of their nonessential speculative elements, these teachings have become direct pointers in the hands of the masters – these direct pointers rank with the best of the myriad “ways” employed by the masters to help students overcome the false view of “self” with the Zen skill of directly pointing to the identity of the human body-mind and Buddha. From the first Zen ancestor in China, Bodhidharma, to the contemporary Vietnamese Zen master, Thich Nhat Hanh, the “way” of liberation advocated is direct and personal:

Seeing your nature is zen, if you don’t see your nature it’s not zen.

~Bodhidharma, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, Red Pine

Seeing into one’s own nature is the goal of Zen.

~Thich Nhat Hanh, Zen Keys

Peace,

Ted

Letting Things Be vs Wholehearted Effort

Practical experience tells us that some aspects of our experience (hence, our existence) are subject to our control while others are not. We feel that we can choose to sit, stand, walk, or lie down, but not that we can choose to breathe, digest our food, circulate our blood, or grow new skin cells. In fact, the real “us,” that is, our “true self” does actually manage all of this and more; but the point we want to get at here concerns a frequent target of Dogen’s criticism: the presupposition that the “natural” or “unintentional” processes of experience are inclusive of our thoughts, speech, and actions. The worshiper of emptiness presupposes that hearing, for instance, occurs unconsciously as random sounds impress themselves upon the mind through the ear, rather than, as Dogen contends, that hearing is actualized by the mind conducting itself through the ear to the “objects” of sound. The former (false) view is based on the same principle that divides “appearance” from “reality” or “form” from “emptiness” – such a view “presupposes” that the mind is uniform, passive, pure, unmoving “consciousness” or “essential nature,” and that hearing (and seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking) are automatic, involuntary processes. Such distorted views lead to dead end doctrines and practices advocating “having no goals,” “letting things be as they are,” “just sitting in pure awareness,” etc. – of such notions Dogen says:

As to the phrase ‘when the right moment arrives’, folks in both the past and the present have frequently held the view that this means one simply waits for some future time when Buddha Nature will manifest before one’s eyes. They believe that while doing their training and practice in this way, the time will arrive when Buddha Nature will spontaneously manifest before their eyes. They say that until that time comes, It will not manifest even by visiting one’s Master and inquiring into the Dharma or even by doing one’s best to practice the Way. Looking at the Matter in this manner, they uselessly return to worldly ways, vainly waiting for It to fall down upon them from the heavens. Folks like this, I fear, are that type of non-Buddhist who believes that things just happen to happen, independent of any cause.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

Here Dogen clearly illustrates the ordinary (unawakened) inactive mind of “letting things be.” Realizing the reality of Buddha nature is not something that just happens. Authentic liberation requires wholehearted, accurately directed, intentional effort. Those that “just sit” and passively experience whatever happens to “spontaneously manifests” before their eyes cannot even see the true nature of grass and trees, much less Buddhas. Truly, it is immediately accessible to all, but none access it without informing themselves of the details concerning how to access it – and wholeheartedly applying themselves to it. On the significance of this Dogen quotes the Buddha’s words, then comments that we “need to be clear” that to give rise to this intention is to “wholeheartedly seek enlightened wisdom.”

The Tathagata said in the Avatamsaka Scripture:

When Bodhisattvas give rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood and make birth-and-death the foremost issue, they wholeheartedly seek enlightened Wisdom and, being steadfast, they will not waver. The meritorious functioning of that single-mindedness is deep and vast, knowing no bounds. If I were to analyze and explain it, I would be unable to exhaust the topic, even if I had eons to do it.

You need to be clear about this: using the issue of birth-and-death to give rise to your intention to realize Buddhahood is to wholeheartedly seek enlightened Wisdom.
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujō Shin, Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted

Dharma Transmission

Dharma-transmission

According to one “certified” master of the official Soto Zen school (which claims Dogen as their founder):

The term “Lineage” refers to an unbroken chain of “masters” having received “Dharma-transmission”, going all the way back to the historic Shakyamuni Buddha. This authentic lineage is said to insure that the Buddha’s original teaching (Dharma) is preserved and transmitted in its original.

Ryofu Pussel, Dharma-transmission in Dogen's Zen-buddhism

This definition generally agrees with the common understanding of the term as it is used in contemporary Zen communities.

As with most Buddhist teachings the tradition of Dharma-transmission should not be hastily understood; it is one expression of truth concerning the significance of the transmission of enlightened wisdom (prajna). Whenever sacred literature is reduced to biographical or historical fact it becomes susceptible to dogmatism and legalism. To regard such as the formulation of absolutes, rather than expressions of truth is to bring it down to mere idolatry.

While the evidence incontrovertibly refutes the historical possibility of “an unbroken chain of masters” going all the way back to the historic Shakyamuni Buddha, the Zen masters have never been overly concerned with historical facts; their business concerns the great matter of life and death. Master Yuanwu (1063-1135), compiler of the classic Zen text, The Blue Cliff Record, demonstrates one example of how Zen masters handle discrepancies between “matters of fact” and “expressions of truth.” Noticing just such a discrepancy in the first case of the Blue Cliff Record, Yuanwu commented:

According to tradition, Master Chih died in the year 514, while Bodhidharma came to Liang in 520; since there is a seven year discrepancy, why is it said that the two met? This must be a mistake in the tradition. As to what is recorded in tradition, I will not discuss the matter now. All that’s important is to understand the gist of the matter.

Blue Cliff Record, Thomas Cleary & J.C. Cleary

About a century later, Dogen came to a similar conclusion in relation to an issue concerning the Zen tradition of Dharma-transmission. Noting certain discrepancies among the variety of the lineage charts he saw while he was in China, Dogen questioned a senior monk about it:

The veteran monk Shugetsu, while he was assigned to the post of head monk on Tendo, showed to Dogen a certificate of succession of Unmon’s lineage… Mahakasyapa, Ananda, and so on, were aligned as if [they belonged to] separate lineages. At that time, Dogen asked Head Monk Shugetsu, “Master, nowadays there are slight differences among the five sects in their alignment [of names]. What is the reason? If the succession from the Western Heavens has passed from rightful successor to rightful successor, how could there be differences?” Shugetsu said, “Even if the dif­ference were great, we should just study that the buddhas of Unmon-zan mountain are like this. Why is Old Master Sakyamuni honored by others? He is an honored one because he realized the truth. Why is Great Master Unmon honored by others? He is an honored one because he realized the truth.” Dogen, hearing these words, had a little [clearer] understanding.

Shobogenzo, Shisho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

This monk’s comments were later supported by Dogen’s Chinese master and finally led Dogen to accept “for the first time, the existence of Buddhist patriarchs’ succession of the Dharma.”

My late Master, the eternal Buddha, the great Master and Abbot of Tendo, preached the following: “The buddhas, without exception, have ex­perienced the succession of the Dharma. That is to say, Sakyamuni Buddha received the Dharma from Kasyapa Buddha, Kasyapa Buddha received the Dharma from Kanakamuni Buddha, and Kanakamuni Buddha received the Dharma from Krakucchanda Buddha. We should believe that the succes­sion has passed like this from buddha to buddha until the present. This is the way of learning Buddhism.” Then Dogen said, “It was after Kasyapa Buddha had entered nirvana that Sakyamuni Buddha first appeared in the world and realized the truth. Furthermore, how could the buddhas of the Kalpa of Wisdom receive the Dharma from the buddhas of the Kalpa of Resplendence? What [do you think] of this principle?” My late Master said, “What you have just expressed is understanding [based on] listening to theories. It is the way of [bodhisattvas at] the ten sacred stages or the three clever stages. It is not the way [transmitted by] the Buddhist patriarchs from rightful successor to rightful successor. Our way, transmitted from buddha to buddha, is not like that. We have learned that Sakyamuni Buddha defi­nitely received the Dharma from Kasyapa Buddha. We learn in practice that Kasyapa Buddha entered nirvana after Sakyamuni Buddha succeeded to the Dharma. If Sakyamuni Buddha did not receive the Dharma from Kasyapa Buddha, he might be the same as a naturalistic non-Buddhist. Who then could believe in Sakyamuni Buddha? Because the succession has passed like this from buddha to buddha, and has arrived at the present, the individual buddhas are all authentic successors, and they are neither arranged in a line nor gathered in a group. We just learn that the succession passes from bud­dha to buddha like this. It need not be related to the measurements of kalpas and the measurements of lifetimes mentioned in the teaching of the Agamas. If we say that [the succession] was established solely by Sakyamuni Buddha, it has existed for little over two thousand years, [so] it is not old; and the successions [number] little more than forty, [so] they might be called recent. This Buddhist succession is not to be studied like that. We learn that Sakyamuni Buddha succeeded to the Dharma of Kasyapa Buddha, and we learn that Kasyapa Buddha succeeded to the Dharma of Sakyamuni Buddha. When we learn it like this, it is truly the succession of the Dharma of the buddhas and the patriarchs.” Then Dogen not only accepted, for the first time, the existence of Buddhist patriarchs’ succession of the Dharma, but also got rid of an old nest.

Shobogenzo, Shisho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Having “got rid of an old nest” allowed Dogen to see through the “idol” (i.e. external fact) of Dharma-transmission to the mythological truth of the expression; such truths are never “arranged in a line nor gathered in a group.” In a commentary on the Dharma-transmission between Shakyamuni to Mahakasyapa, Robert Aitken Roshi wrote:

The story of the Buddha twirling a flower before his assembly, like the story of the baby Buddha taking seven steps in each of the cardinal directions , need not be taken literally. The first account of his transmitting the Dharma to Mahakasyapa is set forth in a sutra of Chinese origin that is dated A.D. 1036, fourteen hundred years after the Buddha’s time. This was the Sung period—a peak in the development of Chinese culture when great anthologies, encyclopedias, and directories were being produced. Myth, oral tradition, and sectarian justification all played a role in this codification. The fable of the Buddha twirling a flower filled a great need for connection with the founder, and it was picked up immediately and repeated like gospel. The “Four Principles” attributed to Bodhidharma were also formulated during the Sung period, some six hundred years after Bodhidharma’s time, using some of the same language attributed to the Buddha: “A special transmission outside tradition—not established on words or letters.” The Sung teachers were making important points with their myths.

During World War II, I asked a Catholic priest who was interned with us, “What if it could be proved that Jesus never lived?” He replied, “It would destroy my faith.” That priest was very young at the time. I wonder what became of him, and what he might be saying on the subject now. Something a little different, I would suppose. I too was young at the time, but I felt there was something wrong with his answer. I still think so. I don’t believe it is very important whether Jesus and Buddha and Moses were historical figures. True religious practice is grounded in the nonhistorical fact of essential nature. “The World-Honored One Twirls a Flower,” “Pai-chang's Fox,” and all the other fabulous cases of Zen literature are your stories and mine, intimate accounts of our own personal nature and experience.

Robert Aitken Roshi, The Gateless Barrier

While the “literal” fact of formal Dharma-transmission can be used as guidance for the intermediate student (e.g. a student that has come to trust a teacher may find some assurance in that teacher’s sanction of another), a Dharma-transmission certificate, even in a “trusted lineage,” should not be regarded as guaranteeing a legitimate teacher. When we do find an authentic teacher, we can usually trust their ability to recognize others who have the skills and character needed to teach others. Nevertheless, we still need to check it out for ourselves; after all, it is the great matter of life and death.

In any case, the true significance of Dharma-transmission is not about lineage charts or certificates; it is about the transmission of wisdom (prajna) by wisdom, to wisdom. In Shobogenzo, Inmo, Dogen describes the significance of transmission in the context of the sixth ancestor of Zen, Huineng (Eno Daikan). After reminding us that Huineng, though never exposed to the “eternal teachings” was “suddenly illuminated” upon hearing a Buddhist scripture recited, Dogen goes on to say:

This is just the truth of Those who have wisdom, if they hear [the Dharma]{truth}, Are able to believe and understand at once. This wisdom is neither learned from other people nor established by oneself: wisdom is able to transmit wisdom, and wisdom directly searches out wisdom ... It is beyond coming and beyond entering: it is like the spirit of spring meeting springtime, for example. Wisdom is beyond intention and wisdom is beyond no intention. Wisdom is beyond consciousness and wisdom is beyond unconsciousness. How much less could it be related to the great and the small? How much less could it be discussed in terms of delusion and realization? The point is that although [the Sixth Patriarch] does not even know what the Buddha Dharma {Buddhist teaching} is, never having heard it before and so neither longing for it nor aspiring to it, when he hears the Dharma, he makes light of his debt of gratitude and forgets his own body and; such things happen because the body-and-mind of those who have wisdom is already not their own. This is the state called able to believe and understand at once. No-one knows how many rounds of life-and-death [people] spend, even while possessing this wisdom, in futile dusty toil. They are like a stone enveloping a jewel, the jewel not knowing that it is enveloped by a stone, and the stone not knowing that it is enveloping a jewel. [When] a human being recognizes this [jewel], a human being seizes it. This is neither something that the jewel is expecting nor something that the stone is awaiting: it does not require knowledge from the stone and it is beyond thinking by the jewel. In other words, a human being and wisdom do not know each other, but it seems that the truth is unfailingly discerned by wisdom.

Shobogenzo, Inmo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Dogen’s words, “wisdom is able to transmit wisdom, and wisdom directly searches out wisdom”, are a direct expression of Dharma-transmission itself. Wisdom (prajna) is Buddha-Dharma (Buddhist truth); wisdom transmits wisdom and is received by wisdom. Huineng heard the wisdom transmitted by wisdom (from the Diamond Sutra), his innate wisdom was “able to believe and understand at once.”

The jewel (wisdom) has been in the rock (body-mind) all along; the “rock” realizes the “jewel” has been embodied all along. “[When] a human being recognizes this [jewel], a human being seizes it.” Dharma-transmission is really the activation of inherent wisdom by expressed wisdom. To “grasp” the truth expressed in a sutra or a koan, is to actualize the fundamental point (genjokoan). That is Dharma-transmission. Thus, Dogen says, “a human being and wisdom do not know each other, but it seems that the truth is unfailingly discerned by wisdom.”

In Shobogenzo, Yui-Butsu-Yo-Butsu, he writes:

The Buddha-Dharma cannot be known by people. For this reason, since ancient times, no common man has realized the Buddha-Dharma and no-one in the two vehicles has mastered the Buddha-Dharma. Because it is realized only by buddhas, we say that buddhas alone, together with buddhas, are directly able perfectly to realize it.”

Shobogenzo, Yui-Butsu-Yo-Butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

This is Dharma-transmission. The Buddha-Dharma (wisdom) is transmitted by Buddha (wisdom) and realized (made real) by Buddha (wisdom). The “common man” is the “rock” (in Dogen’s earlier analogy); when the jewel is revealed, the “rock” is already a “jewel” – when the Buddha-Dharma is realized, the “common man” is already “Buddha.”

Peace,

Ted