Buddha alone together with Buddha

Buddha alone together with Buddha

 

According to Dogen reality is actualized by ‘Buddha alone together with Buddha’ (Yui Butsu Yo Butsu). Huike, the second ancestor of Zen in China, described the experience of this vision in these words:

 

For those who find this body of reality [dharmakaya], the numberless sentient beings are just one good person: the one person who has been there in accord with This through a million billion aeons.

Zen Dawn: Early Zen Texts from Tun Huang,  translated by J.C. Cleary, pp.39-40

 

Zen Cosmology: Dogen's Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview

 

The Sentient Nature of Zen Expressions

In Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Dogen emphasizes a significant implication concerning Buddhist sutras (scriptures) in light of Zen's vision of the nondual nature of reality; the experience of (i.e. subjective encounter with) ‘this sutra’ and what is experienced (i.e. objectively encountered) as ‘this sutra’ are coessential elements of ‘this sutra’ itself – the subject and object of this ‘sutra’ are ‘this sutra’ as it is:

 

The subject of “belonging” and the object of “belonging” are both “this sutra.”
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross 

 

This truth is so alien to central tenets of the common worldview it can fail to register without close attention. Because the independence of subjective and objective reality is taken as self-evident in the common view , it is easy not to notice that if both the subject and object of ‘this sutra’ are ‘this sutra,’ then the one experiencing ‘this sutra’ and what is experienced as ‘this sutra’ are nondual. This truth is an inevitable conclusion of the reason (dori) intrinsic to a nondual cosmology. From the perspective of a nondual cosmology not only are expresser and expressed interdependent, all subjects and objects are interdependent.

 

At this very moment, ‘this sutra’ really experiences ‘all bodhisattvas.’
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross 

 

With this it is obvious why Zen teachings about the true nature of reality cannot be understood from the perspective of dualism. Any understanding of Zen that is arrived at from an approach grounded in dualism will inevitably be a wrong understanding. Dogen's discussion on this includes the observation:

 

The sutra is not sentient, the sutra is not insentient, the sutra is not the product of doing and the sutra is not the product of nondoing.
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross 

 

The gist of this should be clear in light of our discussion of emptiness and interdependence. Briefly, ‘this sutra’ being nondual, cannot be understood to be sentient or insentient. Sentient and insentient are two foci of a unified (nondual) reality; they are interdependent, coessential and coextensive – the way up is the way down, ‘sentient’ is meaningless in the absence of ‘insentient’ and vice versa. Likewise, ‘this sutra’ cannot be produced by doing or nondoing – if it were a product of ‘doing’ it would equally be a product of ‘nondoing.’

 

Notice that ‘this sutra,’ insofar as it is real, must be a dharma. In light of this we can see numerous other things ‘this sutra’ is not. This sutra is not ‘confined to a special realm, state, or condition,’ is not ‘indescribable,’ is not ‘incommunicable,’ is not ‘transcendent to language,’ and is not ‘inaccessible to normal human experience and understanding.’

 

In harmony with the principles of nonduality, when Zen expressions explicitly assert something ‘is not’ they implicitly assert that same something ‘is.’ Thus, to explicitly assert that this sutra ‘is not sentient,’ ‘is not insentient’ is to implicitly assert that this sutra ‘is sentient,’ ‘is insentient.’ Therefore, Zen teachings are definitely not confined to only pointing out what ‘Zen’ or ‘true nature’ is not. Thus Dogen does not only assert that ‘this sutra’ is ‘not this’ and does ‘not this,’ but also points out ‘this sutra’ is ‘this’ and does ‘this’:

 

Even so, when it experiences bodhi, experiences people, experiences real form, and experiences “this sutra,” it “opens the gate of expedient methods.” “The gate of expedient methods” is the supreme virtue of the Buddha’s ultimate state, it is “the Dharma abiding in the Dharma’s place,” and it is “the form of the world abiding in constancy.” The gate of expedient methods is not a temporary artifice; it is the learning in practice of the whole universe in ten directions, and it is learning in practice that exploits the real form of all dharmas.
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross 

Shobogenzo and the Issue of Misplaced Authority

Shobogenzo and the 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. A native Japanese speaker that read a translation of Acts II, IV, and V of Hamlet would certainly not be qualified to offer a reliable opinion on Shakespeare, and a native English speaker familiar with fifty or sixty fascicles of Shobogenzo is certainly not qualified to hazard an opinion on Dogen. Nevertheless, many less qualified offer more than opinions and even claim to be representatives of ‘Dogen’s Zen.’ Far more unfortunate, such claims are commonly accepted as valid by uncritical and unsuspecting students.

Provisional Teachings are Skillful Means, but Skillful Means are not Provisional

Provisional Teachings are Skillful Means, but Skillful Means are not Provisional...
...

A Buddha’s discourse is beyond the sentient and the non-sentient; it is beyond the relative and the absolute. Even so, when He became aware of bodhisattvas, of ordinary humans, of the Real Form of things, and of this discourse, He opened the Gate of Skillful Means. The Gate of Skillful Means is the unsurpassed meritorious functioning of the fruits of Buddhahood. It is the Dharma that resides in the place of Dharma and It is the form of the world as it constantly manifests. The Gate of Skillful Means does not refer to some momentary skill.

~Shobogenzo, Shohō Jissō, Hubert Nearman

 

“Skillful means” or “expedient means” (upaya) refer to the actual phenomenal form or forms of Buddhism, that is, to all of Buddhism that is actually accessible to human experience. Thus, when used in a general sense, rather than in the context of a particular teaching or technique, “expedient means” is inclusive of the whole range of Buddhist doctrine and methodology. While technically equivalent with “doctrine and methodology,” “skillful means” nevertheless puts greater emphasis on the significance of actual techniques and practical teachings than does more general terms. Also, as when we refer to the expedient means of law, or the skillful means of medicine, for example, referring to the skillful means of Buddhism focuses attention on the actual form or forms of the specific course, path, or way Buddhism is realized in the world.

 

To clarify and emphasize the significance of the specificity or uniqueness of “expedient means” or “skillful means,” consider, for example; the process of law is only realized (made real) through and as the actual engagement of the skillful means specific to law, medicine through and as the engagement of the skillful means particular to medicine. The manifestation (phenomenal appearance) of law in the world is seen and known as “practicing law,” the manifestation of medicine as “practicing medicine.”

 

Similarly, the actual manifestation of Buddhism is realized as and through “practicing Buddhism.” In other words, medicine is not realized apart from practicing medicine (exercising its means), law does not exist independent of practicing law, and Buddhism does not appear apart from practicing (engaging the means of) Buddhism. It should go without saying, but for completeness notice; drugs, scalpels, medical procedures, or therapies are not “medicine” apart from the presence of skillful application – independent of actual “practice” such are mere abstractions or, at best artifacts with as much potential to harm as to heal. Recorded codes of lawful conduct, precedents, or policies existing in the absence of means to manifest cannot be considered “law,” and Buddhist scriptures, temples, icons, rituals, practices – even teachers or students – could not be qualified as “Buddhism” in an absence of adequate means for manifestation.

 

In sum, provisional teachings may be skillful means, but skillful means should not be misunderstood as provisional teachings. Thus Dogen reminds us:

 

"The Gate of Skillful Means does not refer to some momentary skill."

 

 

Please treasure yourself,

Ted

 

Zen Iconoclasm: Apocalypse (Revelation)

Like every long lived scientific and religious tradition, the history of Zen includes numerous examples of persecution and hostility wreaked upon its visionaries by the orthodox authorities that we have identified as “devotees of the conventional perspectives of science and religion.” Also in common with other scientific and religious tradition, many of the Zen visionaries escaped suppression during their lifetimes only to be subjugated by the devotees of orthodoxy in death – most commonly by means of that well guarded trump-card of institutions everywhere – interpretation.

When expressions of truth fail to pitch us out of our familiar surroundings, fail to engender wonder or dread, awe or rapture we can be sure our conditioning has been effectively implemented. The kind of conditioning that serves to veil truth, rather than reveal it is designed by cunning rather than intelligence, its aim is exploitation rather than cultivation. The methodology of such conditioning, which Blake calls “Priestcraft,” is deception, and it agents are the servants of fear and greed called the devotees of orthodoxy. Despite its comprehensive reach and effectiveness, the primary means of this Priestcraft is simple; reduce expressions of truth – the images and figures of myth and metaphor – to mere signs, indicators, historical facts, and literal definitions. If the alchemists of the “opiates of the masses” have revealed any truth, it is that concocting “interpretations” that classify, categorize, codify, or otherwise reduce expressions of truth to systematic generalizations is extremely effective for redirecting human awareness from the reality (i.e. dharmas) plainly before them to conceptual notions in support of orthodox authority. This method so effectively embalms dead forms that encouraging dissection, amputation, eradication, and detachment (of or from the self) has become a distant second as a method used by devotees of orthodoxy.

When the moon in a Buddhist scripture is defined as a symbol for enlightenment, the image of a Zen koan explained as an allusion to emptiness, or the sayings of a Zen masters described as expedient devices, expressions of truth become dispossessed of authenticity, thus of liberating potential. Such definitions and explanations subjugate the exceptional and visionary to the mediocrity of orthodox standards by reducing the paradoxical, multifaceted figures of myth and metaphor to stereotypes and generalizations that conform to established principles and codes of institutional convention. Thus, species of pseudo-Zen long ago established by sectarian and institutional authoritarians, under the pretence of “interpretation,” continue to be widely perpetuated. This method of mummification has been so successful that even the iconoclasm of Zen has been effectively reduced to a convention of the dullest and most witless kind – manifest as an infantile exaltation of vulgarity, crudity, and anti-intellectualism.

In contradistinction to its sophomoric imitations, authentic Zen iconoclasm is a subtly refined rhetorical art, proficiency in which requires years of diligent cultivation. Even with sustained cultivation adept performance may not be realized, though cultivation is still necessary for increasing an accurate appreciation of Zen iconoclasm, as well as the significance of Zen rhetoric generally. For Zen iconoclasm is not so much the result of methodological development as it the result of mythological (metaphorical) insight. Its insight into the metaphorical nature of the self provided Zen with a clear understanding of the vastness of our inherent creative potential, the capacity to actualize reality (i.e. dharmas) through (by means of) the six modes of human experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking). While it is this capacity that facilitates all human experience, it can only be activated deliberately (consciously) by those awake to true nature, that is, through practice-enlightenment. While all eyes (ears, noses, etc.) participate in the actualization of the forms they see (hear, smell, etc.) it is only the Dharma-eye (Dharma-ear, Dharma-nose, etc.) that can actively (consciously) influence this process of actualization. And, as previously discussed, this “active influence” is exerted through the mythopoeic capacity of human beings, the capacity to transmit wisdom from mind to mind (Buddhas alone together with Buddhas) through the figures of myth and metaphor (self-expressions of Buddha-nature).

Clearly seeing the true metaphorical nature of the self (nondual with the world, self/world, thus all dharmas) clearly reveals the true dangers of ontologically reifying the self through conceptualization or literalism. Here then we would point out that Zen iconoclasm is not confined to those instances wherein it appears in eccentric, shocking, deviant, and sacrilegious words and deeds; rather, Zen iconoclasm permeates the whole corpus of Zen literature. For, in light of its vision of the self as root metaphor, the injurious potential of substantiating the self through dualistic literalism could “literally” not be overstated. For what this light reveals is that reality itself is iconoclastic by nature. Thus, the dark humor, subversive tone, shocking images, and similarly unorthodox aspects of Zen expression are not only the deliberate application of deeply cultivated skillful means; they are inherent characteristics of expressions of truth (self-expressions).

Our statement that “this light reveals that reality itself is iconoclastic by nature” will be clearer when we later explore the significance of existence-time (uji); here, then, a brief explanation on how the light of true nature demonstrates the inherent iconoclasm of reality will have to suffice. If all dharmas are self-expressions, each dharma is a unique instance of existence-time, therefore each dharma is by nature iconoclastic. The very actualization of a dharma is a shattering, a casting-off of every possible preconception; in its “becoming,” a dharma advances the whole of existence-time. In Dogen’s terms, the actualization of a dharma is the “total exertion of a single thing.” As seen in light of existence-time, each dharma actualizes a unique, once-in-an-existence-time dharma-position, a particular location-moment manifestation (in and as experience here and now). The becoming of each dharma is a manifestation of what was (previously) not-manifest, thus its manifestation is not simply iconoclastic in itself (in that it destroys any and all preconceived images, containers, forms of itself) it is the iconoclastic “kalpa-ending conflagration” (i.e. the Buddhist version of the apocalypse). In short, each and every particular thing, being, and event actualizes an apocalypse/revelation of the universe, utterly destroying the old world (which, in lacking that dharma, was a totally different world), and giving life to a completely new world (the first world ever to contain that dharma).

...

Peace,

Ted

Experience, The True Self, & The Individual Self

Experience, The True Self, & The Individual Self

.

Stating that dharmas are the fundamental constituents of reality is only meaningful in a context wherein the significance of “reality” is understood – and understood as somehow distinct from “dharmas.” As abstract generalizations “2+2” and “4” are merely two ways of stating the same thing; as experiential manifestations “2+2” and “4” can be distinctly different (e.g. a carpenter wants 2 nails at each end of a board, she calculates 4 nails per board). Therefore, we use the term “reality” for the actual manifestation of our experience of/as a “self.” For the only reality anyone has ever known is the experience of something (a thing, being, or event) or experience as something (a thing, being, or event) – the experience of “an other” or experience as “a self.” Thus, Dogen points out:

When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

One thing this means is that all three, “experience” (consciousness), “self,” and “other” presuppose each other, or in Buddhist terms, are interdependent. Therefore, to speak of “experience” is to speak of self and other, to speak of “self” is to speak of experience and other, etc. With this in mind, our initial statement (i.e. dharmas are the fundamental constituents of reality) could be accurately expressed as, dharmas are the fundamental constituents of experience, or dharmas are the fundamental constituents of self, or dharmas are the fundamental constituents of other – each of these expressions identify “dharmas” with the reality of “experience,” “self,” and “other.”

Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that the term “self” seems, or feels more intimate, more meaningful, thus less alien and less abstract than “other” and “experience.” Therefore, we accept the Buddhist view that experience, self, and other are mutually inclusive and of equal status, and also follow Buddhism’s general practice of opting to utilize the term “self” as the primary metaphor for reality. To sum up and clarify; “self” (which presupposes “experience” and “other”) is the root metaphor of reality, thus the primary principle of Zen practice-enlightenment.

Before proceeding, a brief comment on a side issue related to the self as the primary metaphor of Zen is in order. It is axiomatic in Zen that authentic (i.e. intentional and effective) practice-enlightenment can only begin when the true nature of the self is experientially verified. Thus, the initial experience of true nature, often called “seeing true nature” (kensho), or “seeing Buddha” (kenbutsu), is naturally emphasized in Zen. The emphasis on an initial awakening, while perfectly understandable, has led many to over-estimate its import in the overall actualization of Zen practice-enlightenment – many have even concluded that it is the be-all and end-all of Zen. Here, then, let it be said that it is crucial to understand that awakening to the true nature of the self is the beginning, not the end of Zen practice-enlightenment.

Now, let us proceed by taking up what may be the thorniest question of all; who or what is it that we refer to as “we?” What is this “self” whose “true nature” the classic Zen masters are continuously urging us to awaken to? The majority of contemporary books whose subject centers on the “self,” books on health, psychology, religion (including Zen), and even self-help, show a marked propensity to avoid defining what it is they mean by the “self.” Like these books, the general population seems to assume that the meaning of “self” is self-evident. Nevertheless, when we compare how particular individuals explain their understanding of the self we find a multitude of differences and disagreements as well as a vast amount of obscurity, vagueness, and confusion. Because we view this writing, like all manner of expression, as a self-expression (i.e. an expression of the self, by the self, to the self) on the true nature of the self, we (i.e. the self) need to attempt to present a general outline of our understanding of the self here.

In Buddhism, “self” (Sanskrit: Atman, or Pali: Atta), like the Old English “aethm” and German “atem,” etymologically means “breath,” thus connoting “life,” “spirit,” “inspiration,” and perhaps most significantly “consciousness.” At the same time, “self” (sometimes used synonymously with “soul,” “ego,” “person,” etc.) is often used in a manner indicative of a “separate individual,” “particular being,” or “independent entity.” It is primarily in this latter sense of the term that the central tenet of Buddhist doctrine, “no-self” or “non-self” (anatman), is addressed. This tenet asserts, briefly, that no independent self (separate, enduring entity) exists.

As long as the term “self” is understood in a way that leaves unsettled the impossibility for a self to exist as an independent entity, it fails to qualify as Buddhist, and indeed must be considered non-Buddhist. Nevertheless, this does not mean that any and all notions of “self” are therefore rejected or prohibited by Buddhism – even the earliest and most conservative forms of Buddhism recognized the importance of, and developed sophisticated approaches to, the inarguably existent and dynamic experience of human subjectivity. It is fair to say that the culminating schools of Mahayana Buddhism all achieved elaborately comprehensive visions of the self that ably accounted for all aspects of subjectivity without violating the tenet of “no-self.”

Generously, and unabashedly borrowing and adapting from the Huayen, Tendai, and other Buddhist schools (as well as from Taoism and Confucianism), Zen developed and utilized a number of doctrines and methods to deal with a “self” that effectively harmonizes with “no-self.” And accordingly, whether in terms of “ordinary beings and Buddhas,” “false mind and true mind,” “guest and host,” or similar variations, the “self” gradually but unvaryingly realized an increasing potential of mythological significance. As with the term “soul” in Neoplatonism (only developing unhindered for much longer), it became, and continues to be possible in Buddhism to use “self” in speaking of the individual self (e.g. myself, yourself, herself, etc.) and the world self (e.g. the universe, great self, Buddha, etc.) at once, that is, to communicate meaningfully and truthfully about both the individual and the world. Of course, it remains possible for “self” to distinctly refer to one or the other; the ordinary, personal, or ego self, or the original, great, or true self. Which “self” (i.e. the individual, the world, or both) is meant in a particular instance is usually easily determined by its context.

Having noted the variety of dharmas that can be illumined by the term, let us now consider the actual nature of the several particulars designated as “self.” We will begin with the individual self, that is, the ordinary, personal, or ego self – the self we commonly identify as “our self.” Generally, the individual self is the subject of experience. To clarify, first note that any (and every) sense of “self” is by definition divided by a sense of “self” and “other than self.” Recall Dogen’s words above:

When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

It should now be clear that the content of experience (i.e. an “object of consciousness”) is experienced by the individual self as something distinct from, or other than the individual self. In short, then, the individual self is the “what” that is experienced as being independent of the content (object) of experience.

Now we are ready to consider the world self, that is, the universal, great, or true self – the self that Buddhism often identifies as “Buddha.” In general, the world self is the whole universe, the totality of existence-time. Whereas the individual self is the subject of experience as distinct from the object of experience, the “true” self is inclusive of both the subject and the object of experience. In the context of Dogen’s expression, the individual self is the self of “self and other” (i.e. the self distinct from the other); the world self is “what is known” and “what is seen,” which, as Dogen points out, is inclusive of both “a self and an other.”

We make haste to point out that the perspective of the “world self” denies neither the reality nor the significance of the “individual self.” In contrast to the assertions of some contemporary “Zen teachers,” the individual self is not illusory or provisional, but rather a real eternal constituent of the world self – is in fact wholly constituted of the world self. In short, while the world self is not wholly contained by the individual self (far from it!), the individual self is nevertheless wholly contained within the world self, thus wholly contained within the totality of existence-time.

.

I hope this is helpful.

Peace,
Ted

Meeting An Eternal Buddha

Meeting An Eternal Buddha

[Excerpt from the newsletter – Flatbed Sutra Zen News, Dec. 2011

If, as Buddhism contends, self and other are nondual (not two) then regarding the other as self and self as other is normal, and doing otherwise is abnormal (the "other" is not only other people, but everything "other than" the self).

One practical implication of seeing (thus regarding) the other as self would be the great diminishment of greed and fear; there would be nothing to covet as everything would already be "ours" (true self) and there would be nothing to fear but our self. This would liberate us from a great deal of anguish, but the even greater result would be the opening of a vast new dimension of existence wherein our life experience would be enormously expanded and enhanced.

Awakening to a world in harmony with the vision of Shobogenzo would be to awaken to a world populated with an infinite number and diversity of conscious beings, all capable, even desirous, of intimate embrace. Thus, there is no need to go to India or Japan to meet an "eternal Buddha" - look, that pebble! There she is! Here, this tile! Here he is!

If we want to inquire into this mind, it is present in visible fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles; and if we want to experience this mind, it is present in the realization of fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles. Now, though these fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles are produced by human beings, at the same time they are words and deeds of Dharma.

...
In sum, fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles on this side are illuminating us as yonder objects; and we on this side are being illuminated by fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles as yonder objects. The fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles that exist like this as the mind of eternal buddhas are conspicuous in their brightness and in their merits, and so we can enumerate those [merits] that are numerable and we can remember those that are knowable.
Himitsu-shobogenzo, Butsu-kojo-no-ji

Peace,

Ted

Koans, Zen Cosmology, and Practice-Enlightenment Here and Now

Koans, Zen Cosmology, and Practice-Enlightenment Here and Now

To be adequate for authentic practice-enlightenment in our everyday world here and now our vision of Dogen’s cosmology requires us to bring his vision forward (and westward) by seeing it through the accumulated insights of the “grand discussion” (and seeing them through it). So too our vision must extend backward (and eastward) through Dogen’s predecessors within the various Buddhist traditions, as well as those among the great eastern traditions of Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and others.

Most importantly our vision through Dogen’s predecessors must be inclusive of the Zen Buddhist tradition as presented in the classic records of the Zen ancestors from the prehistoric “seven Buddhas” through the historical Shakyamuni Buddha and his Indian successors, beginning with Mahakashapa and continuing through Bodhidharma, then to Bodhidharma’s Chinese successors, beginning with Huike, then down through the sixth Chinese ancestor, Huineng and his successors, then on through the five major ancestral lines. From among the voluminous literary production of the Zen tradition, the “koan” related literature, the most distinctive element of Zen as an independent tradition, is far and away Dogen’s greatest influence, thus is of particular importance to our understanding of his Zen cosmology.

The special significance of the koan literature is its powerful capacity to cut through barriers of conceptualization and make bodhi-prajna (enlightened wisdom) an immediate, intimate experience, rather than conveying a teaching that must then be verified or worked out practically – resolving a koan, in contrast to learning through study and cultivation, begins with the true nature of things and works out the implications from there, whereas conventional learning begins with implications and works toward the true nature of things. This does not mean that koan training can replace ordinary conventional study, both are essential to authentic practice-enlightenment, and in fact since koan training is an exacting method requiring accurate understanding and skill, conventional study and cultivation must necessarily precede successful koan training – as well as supplement that training in the past, present, and future that is only and always here and now.

Peace,

Ted

Definite Mysteries and Particular Unknowns

Definite Mysteries and Particular Unknowns

In contrast to the assertions of some claiming to represent Zen, Dogen vehemently denied all notions of Buddha-nature (i.e. reality) as being something mysterious, ineffable, or inexpressible. When these terms do apply to Dogen’s Zen, they apply to definite mysteries, particular unknowns, and specific inexpressible experiences. For Dogen, definite, particular, and specific, applied to all dharmas, thus his constant refrain, “Nothing in the whole universe is concealed.”

Throughout Shobogenzo, Dogen constantly emphasizes that reality is only and always actual manifest particulars, real specific things or events, that is - “all dharmas are real form” - for example:

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

Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Dogen frequently speaks of “walls, fences, tiles, and pebbles” in acknowledging the fact that Buddha (mind) exists nowhere but in the very miscellany of the things (dharmas) populating the here and now of every moment of our existence. In his best known meditation treatise, Fukanzazengi, Dogen cites some of the various forms (dharmas) of Buddha frequently mentioned in the classic Zen records as having awakened practitioners:

Moreover, the changing of the moment, through the means of a finger, a pole, a needle, or a wooden clapper; and the experience of the state, through the manifestation of a whisk, a fist, a staff, or a shout, can never be understood by thinking and discrimination.

~Dogen, Fukanzazengi

Many Zen students will recognize the “means of a finger” from the koan of Zen master Gutei, “a needle” from the story of Kanadeva meeting Nagarjuna, the “staff” of Teshan, and the “shout” of Rinzai. The specific particularity in which the Buddha is manifest (a finger, a pole, a whisk, etc.) is characteristic of Zen’s universal inclusivity and nondiscrimination – all dharmas are equal in status, value, significance, for each is an essential person of Buddha-nature, an integral form of Shakyamuni Buddha, an image of truth.

Peace,

Ted

Emptiness Sees Emptiness

Emptiness Sees Emptiness

(Article from the October, 2011 newsletter "Flatbed Sutra Zen News")

The Buddhist teaching of emptiness is most comprehensively treated in the scriptures known as the prajna paramita sutras, revered as primary sources of authority by all Mahayana traditions. "Prajna" is a rich term with many potential meanings and connotations depending on the context; in general, it refers to Buddhist wisdom. In the context of "prajna paramita" it refers specifically to "perfect" or "transcendent" wisdom, that is, the wisdom of "emptiness." From at least as early as the Sixth Ancestor of Zen in China, Huineng (638 - 713 C. E.), Zen has been more closely associated with the prajna paramita sutras than any other scriptures. According to Zen lore, the Sixth Ancestor realized enlightenment simply upon hearing a prajna paramita sutra, the Diamond Cutter Sutra, recited by a stranger on the street. Huineng's record, the "Platform Sutra," is the only text revered as a "sutra" (i.e. scripture) other than those attributed to the Buddha. The Platform Sutra expounds on the importance and significance of a number of sutras, but is particularly insistent on the supreme vision of the Diamond Sutra, not only promising enlightenment to those that practice it, but even to those that simply memorize it.

While the Diamond Sutra continues to be highly revered in Zen, which remains deeply steeped in its methodology, the marvelously concise Heart Sutra (Prajnaparamita-hrdya-sutra) came to occupy a position as the definitive statement on "emptiness" in Zen, as in many Mahayana traditions. As its title suggests, this succinct scripture presents a remarkably clear image of the profound wisdom at the heart of the vast corpus of prajna paramita literature. In Dogen's day, as in our own, this short scripture was known well enough that Buddhists hearing a single line would recognize it instantly. Dogen's own commentary on the Heart Sutra - the earliest writing included in Shobogenzo - opens by quoting the first line of the sutra. Dogen uses this quote (the only direct reference to the sutra in his commentary) to illumine a profound implication of emptiness by creatively altering the reading (thus significance) of the opening line of the Heart Sutra. The first line of the Heart Sutra actually reads:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress.

(Note: "Avalokitesvara," is an enlightened being (bodhisattva) of Buddhist mythology; the hero of the Heart Sutra. "Transcending anguish and distress" is realizing the Buddhist goal, liberation from suffering; nirvana, enlightenment).

Dogen's creative alteration of the line is not achieved by eliminating or substituting words, nor by transposing or changing their order, but through the addition of a single word.

This move by Dogen should not be glossed over, dismissed as accidental, or understood as a simple attempt to clarify the original meaning by providing an interpretive element. The Heart Sutra was well known to his audience, and his alteration, while slight, would have been stark in their ears. Upon first sight, the additional word jumps out as if erroneous, but as the implications of it dawn, its intentional placement becomes clear. The added word is, "konshin," which roughly translates as "whole-body," or "complete body-mind." Thus:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita whole body-mind clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress.

Although only one word, an English rendering conveying the significance of the alteration asks for some interpretive suggestions, perhaps, "Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita with his whole-body clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress," or, "The whole-body-Avalokitesvara-Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress."

To appreciate the implications of this we should understanding that the "five skandhas" are a traditional classification for the elements constituting the (whole) body-mind of a human being. In light of this we see that "five skandhas" is another way of saying "whole-body." Thus, the implication is clear; to say "The whole-body (of Avalokitesvara) sees that all five skandhas are empty," is equivalent to saying, "The whole-body sees that the whole-body is empty."

(Note: The five skandhas are form, feeling, sensation, mental formulation, and consciousness. In Buddhist literature the term "form" by itself serves as an abbreviation for all five skandhas).

Being a crucial element to every aspect of Buddhism, the teachings on emptiness (shunyata) are complex and multi-faceted. However, in order to grasp the main points of the present discussion it is enough to know that emptiness is regarded (at least by Mahayana Buddhists) as the reality, or true nature of all things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas). This is the key point indicated by the pivotal statement of the Heart Sutra, "Form is emptiness; emptiness is form."

With this in mind we can see that Dogen's statement unequivocally identifies the subject (i.e. Avalokitesvara; whole-body) that clearly sees with the object (i.e. Avalokitesvara; all five skandhas) that is clearly seen. The overall effective result of Dogen's alteration, then, is to forceful manner of drawing attention to the actively dynamic, energetically animated nature of "emptiness." Here are two things we know about Avalokitesvara according to Dogen's statement:

The whole of Avalokitesvara clearly sees the whole of Avalokitesvara.

The whole of Avalokitesvara clearly seen is empty.

Two crucial points; emptiness can see, and emptiness can be seen. Thus we know that, whatever else it might be, "practicing prajna paramita" is emptiness clearly seeing (experiencing) its own true nature - in short, practicing prajna paramita is emptiness seeing emptiness.

Even after this short foray into his commentary we see that, from Dogen's view, emptiness should never be understood or described apophatically or in purely negative terms like non-existent, absent, undifferentiated, motionless, insentient, unknowable, or incommunicable. This point merits emphasis; the propensity to misunderstand and misrepresent emptiness negatively is pervasive. Judging by the Zen records, this propensity has plagued every era of Zen history. The meticulously detailed refutations of negativistic views of emptiness permeating Dogen's writings testify to the pervasiveness of such distortions in his own era. Dogen view that this issue merited the energy he put into it seems clear; the distorting power of negativistic views of emptiness can obstruct practitioners from accurately understanding every aspect of Buddhism, not to mention putting it into practice and actualizing it.

From Dogen's perspective, it is better to have no understanding of emptiness than to adopt a negative understanding. At this point, then, we want to stress that, whatever else might be included in Dogen's view of emptiness, it is inclusive of at least these positive qualities:

Emptiness is present in/as existence-time

Emptiness is differentiated

Emptiness is active

Emptiness is sentient

Emptiness is intelligible

Emptiness is communicable

After opening Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, with the (altered) quote from the Heart Sutra, Dogen presents a series of affirmative expressions on the nature of the self, the world, and the myriad dharmas that reads like a crystallization of the reality illumined by the grand vision of Shobogenzo:

The five skandhas are form, sensation, perception, mental formulation, and consciousness; they are five instances of prajna. Clear seeing is prajna itself. To present this truth for realization it is expounded that "form is exactly emptiness, and emptiness is exactly form." Thus form is form, and emptiness is emptiness. They are the hundred particular things, the myriad dharmas.

Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Ted Biringer

By enumerating each of the five skandhas and then affirming them as "five instances of prajna," Dogen immediately emphasizes the differentiated quality of emptiness. This serves to counter the reductionist propensity to misunderstand and misrepresent emptiness apophatically as just discussed. Notice also, that by citing each of the skandhas, Dogen compels us to dwell longer on what is being conveyed than we might if he simply used "form," the common abbreviation for the five skandhas. This reduces the likelihood of missing the point by too hastily moving on. The greatest effect of Dogen's enumeration, however, is its setup for the next phrase, the key point of the whole commentary; "Clear seeing is prajna itself." Each of the five skandhas constituting Avalokitesvara (thus of all human beings) plays a specific role in the "clear seeing" that "transcends anguish and distress." Form "distinguishes" it, sensation "conducts" it, perception "receives" it, mental formulation "fashions" it (produces an intelligible image), and consciousness "realizes" it (understands, or interprets it in its particularity, thus facilitating its manifestation) in context and contrast to what is not-it.

Thus, Dogen utilizes the opening line of the Heart Sutra to illumine the heart of Zen; "Clear seeing is prajna itself." In perfect harmony with his conception of knowledge, existence, and soteriology the activity of clearly seeing the form of prajna (perfect wisdom), the form of prajna that is clearly seen, and the liberation actualized by prajna are not three different things. This dynamic process and its implications are repeatedly brought into relief throughout the whole Shobogenzo. To clearly see (i.e. sense, know, perceive, experience, etc.) is to be (i.e. actually manifest, exist), thus to clearly see liberation is to actualize (make actual, cause to exist) liberation.

Not, "I think, therefore I am," but, "Wherefore I think, I am." Or, to put it in the terms of our present discussion, "I am what I clearly see (sights, sounds, flavors, odors, tactile sensations, and thoughts) therefore what I clearly see I am."

It should go without saying, but since it usually does not, I should clarify that "clear seeing" is not "mere seeing." "Clear seeing" should not be construed as "passively" perceiving via the sense organs (i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind) as advocated by some so-called Zen teachers. Clear seeing is a skill that must be intentionally developed through sustained effort in accurately directed study and cultivation. It is the "clear" of clear seeing that qualifies it as "prajna itself." Such clear seeing is, of course, inclusive of sense perception, but only if that sense perception is actualized by the healthy mind referred to in Zen as the "normal mind" or "Buddha mind." This distinction is succinctly elucidated by Dogen in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan by the line:

Those who are enlightened about delusion are Buddhas. Those who are deluded about enlightenment are ordinary beings.

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Ted Biringer

(Note: "Ordinary beings" here refers to common or typical (unawakened) beings; thus "ordinary" should not be confused with the "normal" of the "normal mind" of Zen usage which is sometimes rendered into English as "ordinary mind." The "normal" in the Zen sense means "healthy," this normal mind is the awakened mind, also called the Buddha mind.)

Dogen affirms the authenticity of his comment by asserting its harmony with the heart of the Heart Sutra, "Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness is exactly form" - which he summarizes as, "form is form, emptiness is emptiness." What is going on here? At first glance, this seems to contradict the Heart Sutra's statement, not summarize it.

To clarify Dogen's point we can appeal to a method provided by the Diamond Sutra to illustrate that "form" only exists because of emptiness, and emptiness is only exists because of form. This basic method can be depicted like this (with "A" standing for (any particular) form, and "not" standing for emptiness): A = not-A, therefore A = A.

To explain, a dharma (i.e. any real, particular form) is only a dharma insofar as it is differentiated from everything "other than" that dharma. In other words, to experience a dharma is to distinguish something from everything else, everything that is not it. If there was nothing that was not it - it could not be distinguished as it (a particular dharma). From this we see that the existence of "a dharma" is dependent on the existence of something "other than" that dharma; and the existence of "other than" that dharma is dependent on the existence of "that dharma." Therefore, the existence of a dharma necessarily presupposes the existence of "other than" that dharma (and vice versa). In short, the real existence of "A" depends on the real existence of "A" and "not-A," the real existence of "not-A" also depends on the real existence of "A" and "not-A."

The Heart Sutra concisely portrays the nature of reality; A is exactly (equals, is coessential with, depends on) not-A, and not-A is exactly A. The Diamond Sutra illumines the dynamic process of reality; the existence of A is essential to, therefore inclusive of, the existence of "other than" A (and vice versa). The significance of this is; if A exists, not-A must also exist (and vice versa), and if A does not exist, not-A cannot exist (and vice versa). Thus, A is not-A, therefore A is A; not-A is A, therefore not-A is not-A. In Dogen's terms, form is form, emptiness is emptiness.

As already suggested, Dogen's "clear seeing" (as prajna itself) is inclusive of right-understanding and right-views as well as accurate sense perception. In harmony with all Zen masters, Dogen frequently reminds us that it is not enough to hear, or even to understand the teachings in order to realize Buddhist liberation. The "clear seeing" that is Zen practice-enlightenment is a process not a product, an activity not a resolution. The teachings must, of course, be learned, studied, and accurately understood, however, liberation or realization cannot be actualized unless these teachings are put into actual practice and personally verified (clearly seen). Avalokitesvara was able to accurately "practice prajna paramita" because s/he had come to accurately understand the Buddhist teaching on prajna - but only with the actual experience of clear seeing was liberation actualized.

Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring.

(Note: The realization of this prajnāpāramitā is the realization of buddha-bhagavats. We should inquire into it, and we should experience it. Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross).

We inquire into it through study and training; we experience it through sustained, wholehearted effort in practice (usually after much trial and error). The "it" we need to inquire into and experience is the true nature of ourselves. The process of inquiring into and experiencing the true nature of ourselves is succinctly expressed in a passage from Genjokoan, Shobogenzo.

To learn the Buddha's truth is to learn ourselves. To learn ourselves is to forget ourselves. To forget ourselves is to be experienced by the myriad dharmas. To be experienced by the myriad dharmas is to let our own body and mind, and the body and mind of the external world, fall away.

Shobogenzo, Genjo-koan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The actual experience of this learning begins with coming to an accurate understanding of it. To that end, we need to understand that here "the Buddha's truth" means enlightenment (liberation, nirvana, etc.), and "learning" means study, training, practice, and verification. Understanding this, we can begin to consider the significance of this from the Buddhist perspective of emptiness; hence, if "to learn the Buddha's truth is to learn ourselves" then "to learn ourselves is to learn the Buddha's truth." Similarly, the implications of emptiness apply to "forgetting," "experience," "our body and mind," "the myriad dharmas," etc.

In Dogen's Zen, "forms" (dharmas) are the fundamental units constituting reality; they are viewed as "empty" and "mental" in nature - when Avalokitesvara clearly saw all five skandhas were empty, emptiness clearly saw emptiness. With this we were able to see that emptiness is not ineffable, absent, or undifferentiated, but rather, emptiness is intelligible, present, and particularly distinct. Emptiness, being the true nature of all the myriad dharmas, is the very form of all the myriad dharmas.

This, then, brings us to the point of our present discussion; "To forget ourselves is to be experienced by the myriad dharmas" describes exactly "emptiness clearly seeing emptiness." Emptiness seeing emptiness is emptiness seeing the myriad dharmas, the myriad dharmas seeing emptiness, the myriad dharmas seeing the myriad dharmas, the myriad dharmas seeing seeing, and seeing seeing seeing.

"Seeing your nature is Zen. If you don't see your nature it's not Zen."

~Bodhidharma, Red Pine

Peace,

Ted

Dogen: Wisdom of a Three-Year-Old Child

Dogen: Wisdom of a Three-Year-Old Child

Excerpted from Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Rev. Hubert Nearman

The poet Haku Rakuten of the T’ang dynasty was a lay disciple of Meditation Master Bukko Nyoman, who was a Dharma heir of Baso. When Rakuten was governor of Hangchow, he trained under Meditation Master Dorin of Choka.

Rakuten once asked Dorin, “Just what is the major intention of the Buddha Dharma?”

Dorin replied, “Refrain from all evil whatsoever; uphold and practice all that is good.”

Rakuten remarked, “If that’s all there is to it, even a child of three knows how to say that!”

Dorin replied, “Though a three-year-old child can say it, there are old men in their eighties who still cannot put it into practice.”

Upon hearing the matter put this way, Rakuten then bowed in gratitude.

Rakuten was actually a descendant of General Haku. Even so, he was a wizard of a poet, the likes of which is rare in any generation. People refer to him as ‘the literary genius of twenty-four generations’. Some have called him a veritable Manjushri; others, a Maitreya, the Buddha-next-to-come. There is no one who has not heard of his personality; everyone in the world of letters pays court to him. Even so, when it comes to the Buddha’s Way, he was a beginner, a youngster. Furthermore, it was as if he had never even dreamt of the meaning of “Refrain from all evil whatsoever; uphold and practice all that is good.” Rakuten thought that in saying to refrain from all evil and practice all good, Dorin was looking at the matter from the perspective of an ordinary, everyday person’s way of thinking. Rakuten had failed to grasp the principle of refraining from evil and practicing good—a principle which has existed in Buddhism from ancient-most times and has extended even to the present—nor had he ever even heard of it; consequently he did not tread where the Buddha Dharma is. Lacking the strength of the Buddha Dharma, he said what he did. Even so, when we refrain from evil or practice good as understood by ordinary, everyday people, it will still be our actualizing of ‘refraining’.

For the most part, what we first learn about Buddhism from a good spiritual friend and what we bring to fruition through our diligent practice are both one and the same. We describe this as ‘learning, from start to finish’. It is also called ‘the wondrous cause and the wondrous effect’, as well as ‘the cause of seeking Buddhahood and the effect of seeking Buddhahood’. Cause and effect in Buddhism should not be confused with such notions as ‘effects are totally unrelated to their cause’ and ‘cause and effect are exactly the same thing’, because these notions are not what is meant by ‘seeking Buddhahood’, and they will not achieve the effect of seeking Buddhahood. Because Dorin enunciated this principle, he ‘possessed’ the Buddha Dharma.

Were evil to pile upon evil and spread throughout the whole world, absorbing everything into its mass, ‘emancipation through refraining’ would still hold true. Since all that is good is already good—beginning, middle, and end—the nature, characteristics, form, and strength of upholding and practicing it will likewise be good. Rakuten had never walked in such footsteps, which is why he said, “Even a child of three knows how to say that!” He said this because he was lacking in the strength to realize the Way. Poor, pitiful Rakuten, why did you say such a thing?

.

Since Rakuten had not yet got wind of what Buddhism is really about, it is unlikely that he was truly acquainted with any three-year-olds or with what such a child is naturally capable of. If someone can truly understand a three-year-old, he will surely know all the Buddhas of the three temporal worlds. If someone does not yet know all the Buddhas of the three temporal worlds, how will he be able to understand a three-year-old? Do not imagine that you understand such a child just because you have met one face-to-face. Do not think that you do not know such a child just because you have not met one face-to-face. He who knows but a single mote of dust knows the whole world: he who fully comprehends one thing comprehends all the myriad things that comprise the universe. He who fails to comprehend all the myriad things will not comprehend even one of them. When someone has fully trained himself in this principle of comprehending and has reached full comprehension, he will not only see the myriad things that comprise the universe but will also see each one of them. This is why the person who studies one mote of dust will undoubtedly be studying the whole universe. To think that a three-year-old child cannot give voice to the Buddha Dharma or to think that a three-year-old is ‘cute’ is the height of foolishness. This is because clarifying what birth is and clarifying what death is constitutes the most important matter for a Buddhist monk.

A virtuous elder once said, “When you were born, you were provided with the lion’s roar.” Being provided with the lion’s roar is the meritorious fruit of a Tathagata’s turning of the Wheel of the Dharma: it is the turning of the Wheel of the Dharma. And another virtuous elder said, “The coming and going of birth and death is the Real Body of man.” Thus it is that clarifying what one’s True Body is and possessing the merit from the lion’s roar will indeed be the One Great Matter, and I do not mean that the task is easy or simple. Hence, attempting to clarify what prompts the words and actions of a three-year-old is also the Great Cause for which we train, since it is the same—and yet not the same—as what prompts the words and actions of all the Buddhas in the three temporal worlds.

Befuddled Rakuten had never heard what a three-year-old child had to say, and so he had never questioned himself as to what the Great Matter was. Instead, he made the kind of remark that he did. He did not hear what Dorin was voicing, though It resounded louder than thunder. In speaking of That which cannot be put into words, Rakuten said, “Even a child of three knows how to say that!” Not only did he not hear the child’s lion roar, he also stumbled over the Master’s turning of the Wheel of the Dharma.

The Master, out of pity, could not give up on Rakuten and went on to say, “Though a three-year-old child can say it, there are old men in their eighties who still cannot put it into practice.” The heart of what he said exists in what a child of three can say, and this we must thoroughly investigate. Also, there is the practice which eighty-year-olds may not be doing, but which we must diligently engage in. What Dorin has told us is that what the child is capable of saying has been entrusted to us, though it is not a task for a child, and what the old men were notable to practice has been entrusted to us, though it was not the task for old men such as these. In a similar way do we keep the Buddha’s Dharma in mind and take It as our foundation, so that we may make It our reason for training.
Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Rev. Hubert Nearman

.

Peace,

Ted

Dogen On Teachers and Scriptures

While it is an axiom of Zen that "The Treasure Is Never Found Outside Ourself," it can be easy to forget. Here Dogen offers us a stark reminder about the foremost principle of Zen:

--

At the same time, whether people are following a good spiritual teacher or following the Scriptures, all such persons are following their True Self. The Scriptural texts are, naturally, the Scriptural texts of Self, and good spiritual teachers are, naturally, good spiritual teachers of Self. Thus, you should investigate through your training that thorough training means thoroughly training oneself, that studying the hundreds of things which sprout up like grass means studying oneself, that studying the myriad things that take root and branch out like trees means studying oneself, and that this self is, of necessity, synonymous with making such an effort. By exploring like this through your training, you drop off self and you promise enlightenment to yourself.
Shobogenzo, Jisho Zammai, Hubert Nearman

-

Peace,

Ted

Dogen and Shobogenzo Zen Links

Dogen and Shobogenzo related links to online Zen resources

Soto Zen Text Project (Excellent Online Translations from Dogen’s Works)

The Zensite (Massive collection of Dogen related material, including translations)

Mining Ashvaghosha’s Gold [A Dogen/Shobogenzo Related Blog by Mike Cross, translator (with Gudo Nishijima) of "Master Dogen's Shobogenzo"]

98 Dogen/Shobogenzo Related Posts from The Flatbed Sutra Zen Blog

Poet Seers (Some English translations of Dogen’s poems)

Poetry Chaikhana (Some more poems by Dogen)

Online Shobogenzo – 95 Chapter Version, translated by Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Online Shobogenzo – 96 Chapter Version, translated by Rev. Hubert Nearman

Shobogenzo Comparison Table of the 95, 96, and 75 Chapter Versions [A table comparison of the included fascicles (chapters), their numerical order, and the English translations of the 96 chapter version (by Hubert Nearman), the 95 chapter version (by Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross) and the "standard" 75 chapter version of Shobogenzo. Includes links to various online translations (more links coming soon).]
—————————————————————-
Please share your favorite Dogen links in the comment section.
Enjoy!
Peace,
Ted

Zen Master Honzhi's Christmas Advice

Christmas message from Hongzhi (1091-1157:

Separate yourself from disturbance and face whatever appears before you. Not one iota seeps through from outside. The two forms (yin and yang) have the same root, and the ten thousand images have one substance. Following change and going along with transformation the whole is not clouded over by previous conditions. Then you reach the foundation of the great freedom. Wind blows and moon shines, and beings do not obstruct each other. Afterwards, settle back within and take responsibility. Wisdom returns and the principle is consummated. When you forget about merit your position is fulfilled. Do not fall for occupying honorable stations, but enter the current of the world and join with the delusion. Transcendent, solitary, and glorious, directly know that transmitting is merit, but having transmitted is not your own merit.
~Hongzhi (1091-1157?)

Like and Dislike - The Blue Cliff Record Case 2

What Does the Blue Cliff Record teach us about Like and dislike, about Picking and Choosing?

Here is Joshu in Case 2

MAIN CASE

Chao Chou, teaching the assembly, said The Ultimate Path is without difficulty, it just avoids picking and choosing. As soon as there are words spoken ‘this’ is picking and choosing ‘that’ is clarity. This old monk does not abide within clarity "Do you still preserve anything or not?"

At that time a certain monk asked, "Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?"

Chao Chou replied, "I don’t know either."

The monk said, "Since you don’t know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?"

Chao Chou said, "It is enough to ask, make your bows and withdraw."

"Chao Chou, teaching the assembly, said." Yuan Wu comments, "What’s the old fellow doing?" Chao Chou did not start teaching until he was 80 years old. That is almost sixty years of polishing and deepening his realization after his initial awakening. Anyone interested in Zen ought to perk up like Yuan Wu, "Shhh, the old fellow is speaking…"

"‘The Ultimate Path is without difficulty.’" Yuan Wu comments, "Not hard, not easy."

Once the Layman P’ang was sitting in his cottage with his wife and daughter:
"Difficult, difficult, difficult," he suddenly exclaimed, "[like trying] to scatter ten measures of sesame seed all over a tree!"

"Easy, easy, easy," returned Mrs. P’ang, "just like touching your feet to the ground when you get out of bed."

Neither difficult nor easy," said Liang-chao. "On the hundred grass-tips, the Patriarchs’ meaning."
A Man of Zen, Sasaki, Iriya, Fraser

If Liang-chao and Yuan Wu are right, what about the layman and his wife? What about Chao Chou?

Leaving aside difficult and easy, what is the Ultimate Path, sometimes translated as the Great Way? Is it Buddha Dharma? Is it Tao? A monk asked Chao Chou about that:

The master said, "It’s just outside the fence."
The monk said, "I’m not asking about that."
The master said, "What ‘way’ are you asking about?"
The monk said, "The Great Way."
The master said, "The great way leads all the way to the capital."
The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, James Green, p.108

He says outside the fence, what about inside the fence?

"It just avoids picking and choosing." In case 2 of the Mumonkan, we learn how old Pai Chang’s five hundred lifetimes as a fox became lives of grace when he was avoided picking and choosing.

One time Chao Chou revealed his own fox-nature while he was walking with an official in a garden and they saw a rabbit run away.
The official said, "you are a great and accomplished person, why did the rabbit run away when it saw you?"
The master said, "I like to kill."
The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, p. 151

Chao Chou’s words seem incredible. However, if you can see the rabbit here, you will have mastered this case.

"As soon as there are words spoken." Chao Chou is setting out a pot of glue; it is hard to avoid being stuck here. What if words are not spoken?

Venerable Pi Mo Yen of Wu T’ai Shan Monastery used to carry a wooden pitchfork with him. Every time he saw a monk approaching him and bowing down for instruction, he pinned him by the neck with the fork and demanded, "What devil forced you to renounce the world (by becoming a monk)? What devil made you wander on pilgrimage? If you can say a word of Ch’an under the fork, you will die. If you can’t say a word of Ch’an under the fork, you will die. Now! Say something!"
There were few students who were able to respond to this demand.
The Transmission Of The Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p.370

He does not say there were none who were able to respond, just that there were few. Have you seen Hsueh Tou’s comment on case 23?
"Today what is the purpose of travelling the mountains with these fellows" He also said, "Hundreds of thousands of years hence, I don’t say there are none, just that they will be few."

"This is picking and choosing." As soon as there are words spoken, "this" is picking and choosing. What is "this?" This is it. Does "it" go along with picking and choosing? Look at case 29.

A monk asked Ta Sui, "The conflagration at the end of the eon sweeps through and the universe is totally destroyed. I wonder, is this destroyed or not?"
Sui said, "It is destroyed."
The monk said, "If so, then this goes along with it."
Sui said, "It goes along with it."
Blue Cliff Record, Case 29

Is the "this" in this is picking and choosing "it?" The Ultimate Path is without difficulty; "it" just avoids picking and choosing. Could we re-phrase this, "The Ultimate Path avoids picking and choosing; it is just without difficulty"?

Dogen likes to remind us that nonduality is really nondual. Listen as he comments on the line, "In following worldly circumstances there are no hindrances", from a poem by the Layman Cho Setsu:
To turn one’s back on the Truth is wrong, and to approach the Truth is also wrong. The Truth is the approaching and the turning away, which, in each instance of approaching or turning away, are the Truth itself. Is there anyone who knows that this wrong is also the Truth?
Shobogenzo, Kuge, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Can we put this koan in the format of Dogen’s comment? Picking and choosing is wrong, and not being without difficulty is also wrong. The Ultimate Path is without difficulty and avoids picking and choosing, which, in each instance of without difficulty or avoiding picking and choosing is the Ultimate Path itself. Is there anyone who knows that this wrong is also the Ultimate Path?

"That is clarity." He said that "this" was picking and choosing; now he says "that" is clarity! What is going on here? Yuan Wu says, "People these days who practice meditation and ask about the Path, if they do not remain within picking and choosing, then they settle down within clarity." He means both remaining and settling down are wrong. How can we respond to the implicit challenge here?

What is not remaining? The Diamond Sutra says, "If Bodhisattvas practice giving charity with their minds not dwelling on things, they are like people with sight in the sunlight, seeing all sorts of shapes and colors." (T. Cleary)

What is not settling down? The Diamond Sutra says, "Dwell nowhere and bring forth that mind." (Misc. Koans)

"This old monk does not abide within clarity." He says he’s not settling down, and he demonstrates he’s not remaining.

"Do you still preserve anything or not?" This is Chao Chou’s reason for all his words; he is, after all, teaching the assembly. "Do you understand?" he asks. "My presentation about the third ancestors message is, this old monk does not abide within clarity. How would you say it?"

There is a dialogue where Tung Shan responds for a monk who was asked a similar question from an opposing point.
A monk asked, "What is the talk on no-talk?"
The Master {Pao Yun} asked, "Where is your mouth?"
The monk answered, "I have no mouth."
The Master said, "With what do you eat your food?"
The monk had no response. Tung Shan answered for him: "He does not get hungry, why should he eat food?"
The Transmission Of The Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p.222

"At that time a certain monk asked." We should not skip over this line. At that time a certain monk is existence-time. Dogen reminds us, "Time does not pass."

The particular time of the deity [of yesterday] is also experienced precisely as my existence-time; though it appears to be far off, it is the realized now.
Shobogenzo, Uji, Hee-Jin Kim

"Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?" This monk shows his own non-preservation. He is saying, "As soon as Chao Chou’s words are spoken, ‘this old monk does not abide within clarity’, "this" is trailing mud and dripping water." This monk is like Pao Yun’s, "With what do you eat your food?"

"Chao Chou replied, ‘I don’t know either.’" Bodhidharma said, ‘I don’t know.’ They are not different, but they are not the same either. Yuan Wu says, "Many followers of Ch’an these days will also say when asked, ‘I don’t know either; I don’t understand.’ Nevertheless, though they are on the same road, they are not in the same groove." In case 51, Yen T’ou said, "Though Hseuh Feng is born on the same lineage as me, he doesn’t die in the same lineage."

The monk said, "Since you don’t know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?" This monk was sharp, but he did not know it had been settled. There was a similar exchange between the Layman P’ang and Ma Tsu:

Layman P’ang asked, "The unveiled original man asks you to look upward, please." The Patriarch looked straight down. The layman said, "Only the Master can play so wonderfully on a stringless lute. The Patriarch looked straight up. The layman bowed, and the Patriarch returned to his quarters. The layman followed him; when he entered the room, he said, "Just now bungled it trying to be wise."
Sun Face Buddha, Cheng Chien Bhikshu

Chao Chou said, "It is enough to ask, make your bows and withdraw."

Peace,

Ted Biringer