Recognizing Enlightenment and Delusion

According to the Zen records it is useless for practitioners to aim for a reified (imagined, envisioned) concept of ‘enlightenment’ or ‘Buddha’ – anyone that is not here-now enlightened or here-now Buddha must be here-now deluded or here-now ordinary; anything they ‘envision’ or ‘imagine’ will be off the mark. Thus Dogen says:

When we perfectly realize it, while still as we are, we would never have thought previously that realization would be like this. Even though we had imagined it, it is not a realization that is compatible with that imagining. Realization itself is nothing like we imagined. That being so, to imagine it beforehand is not useful.

Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The point, then, is that practitioners need to recognize delusion as delusion. Enlightenment is one possible form of activity (reality), and delusion is the other possible form of activity. To be deluded is to be ‘fashioned by activity’ (to be ‘turned by the sutra’, to be the ‘subject of causation’); to be enlightened is to be the ‘fashioner of activity’ (to ‘turn the sutra’, to be ‘causation’ itself).

The Coordination of Understanding and Verification

The Coordination of Understanding and Verification

 

While the true nature of the self must be experientially verified before it can be actualized, it can be accurately understood prior to verification. Indeed, accurate understanding is almost always a prerequisite to verification. For example, the basic dynamics of the ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ aspects of experience/existence can be accurately understood by learning and applying the methodology presented in the Buddhist scripture known as the Diamond Sutra.

 

Basically, this method is applied by clearly envisioning a threefold process. First, in focusing attention on our experience we come to recognize that ‘I’ is ‘not-I’ – what we experience as ‘I’ is actually constituted of the world, in particular, sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts. Second, we come to recognize that ‘not-I’ is ‘I’ – everything (the world) we experience is ‘I’.  Third, we come to recognize that ‘I’ is both ‘I’ and ‘not I’, and ‘not-I’ is both ‘I’ and ‘not I’ – ‘I’ is the subject of existence/experience, ‘not-I’ is the object of existence/experience.

 

The third recognition is the crucial point, getting stuck at the first or second phase of this process is not uncommon. In the second phase we accurately recognize that ‘everything we experience is us’ – but only with continued attention do we recognize the ‘subjective aspect of us’ has certain characteristics that are entirely different from those of the ‘objective aspect of us.’ When we encounter a sheep, for example, the experience itself constitutes the whole of our existence, the sheep is the ‘objective’ aspect of us, and is ‘enacted’ by us, but insofar as we exist (thus are enabled to enact the sheep), ‘we’ are ‘objective’ aspects of the sheep. The point to get is that our capacities as ‘subjective’ aspects of existence are limited – we have the capacity to enact a sheep as a sheep or not enact it, but we do not have the capacity to enact a sheep as a cat.

 

An expression of Buddha (i.e. a dharma) is the manifestation of the ‘creative striving’ of the self (the subject of the individual body-mind that is ‘you’). Because the creative striving of a subject can only be enacted by striving with something (i.e. a dharma), manifesting an expression of Buddha as it is (i.e. true Dharma) can never be achieved by a subject that denies or detaches from the world, but only by one that strives creatively with it (i.e. clearly discerns and actualizes it). To authentically strive creatively one must accurately recognize and understand the material they are working with and apply the skills and techniques that are effective for working with it. A Zen practitioner, then, is one that strives creatively, employing the skills and techniques developed and refined through systematic study, practice, and verification to fashion a Buddha realm from the ceaseless advance of experience that constitutes the world as it is.

 

Seeing True Nature: Reading Reality

Seeing True Nature: Reading Reality

 

From the perspective of the individual, Zen practice-enlightenment consists in ‘seeing true nature’ (kensho) or ‘seeing Buddha’ (kenbutsu) and conducting oneself accordingly. When one clearly sees reality as it is – dharmas (i.e. phenomena; particular things, beings, and events) here-now – one is enabled to think, speak, and act appropriately. In short, to see dharmas as they are is to ‘clearly discern’ or ‘accurately read’ reality.

From the Zen/Buddhist perspective, each and all dharmas are ‘expressions of reality,’ that is, ‘expressions of Buddha’ – thus to see dharmas as they are, is to accurately read (hence understand) expressions of Buddha. To see dharmas a expressions of Buddha, is to see each and all things as scriptures (sutras); words of Buddha. Hence, to see the true nature of a mountain or ocean is to accurately understand an expression of Buddha, to understand an expression of Buddha is to see Buddha (kenbutsu). Accordingly, to see Buddha (kenbutsu) is to hear and understand dharmas as ‘this sutra.’

Sakyamuni Buddha addresses Bodhisattva Universal Virtue: “If there is anyone who receives and retains, reads and recites, rightly remembers, practices, and copies this Sutra of the Flower of Dharma, we should know that that person is meeting Sakyamuni Buddha, and hearing this sutra as if from the Buddha’s mouth.”

In general, all the buddhas say that “to meet Sakyamuni Buddha” and to realize the state of Sakyamuni Buddha is to realize the truth and to become buddha. Such behavior of buddhas is originally attained through each of these seven practices. A person who performs the seven practices is “that person” whom “we should know,” and is “the very person here and now, as he or she is.” Because this is just the state in which we meet Sakyamuni Buddha, it is directly “hearing this sutra as if from the Buddha’s mouth.” Sakyamuni Buddha, since having met Sakyamuni Buddha, is Sakyamuni Buddha. Thus, the form of his tongue universally enfolds the three-thousandfold [world]: what mountain or ocean could be other than the Buddha’s sutras? For this reason, “the very person here and now” who copies is meeting alone with Sakyamuni Buddha. “The Buddha’s mouth” is constantly open through the myriad ages: what moment could be other than the sutras? For this reason, the practitioner who receives and retains the sutras is meeting solely with Sakyamuni Buddha. The virtue of not only the eyes and ears but also the nose and so on, may also be like this. The front and the back, the left and the right, taking and leaving, an instant of the present, also, are like this. We have been born to experience “this sutra” of the present: how could we not rejoice to be meeting Sakyamuni Buddha? Life is an encounter with Sakyamuni Buddha.

Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Thus, the nondual unity of essence and form is the keystone of Zen doctrine and methodology; the profundity of its significance is intimated by Dogen’s often repeated, ‘Nothing in the universe is concealed.’ As the keystone of Zen doctrine, the nondual unity of essence and form is the reason (dori) ‘there are understandable explanations.’ As the keystone of Zen methodology, it is the activity of ‘practice-enlightenment,’ ‘solely seated (meditation),’ or ‘thinking not-thinking’ (or ‘nonthinking’).

 

To be continued…

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

Deconstructive and Reconstructive aspects of Emptiness

Deconstructive and Reconstructive aspects of Emptiness

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Ted

The Dharma-Eye: Buddhas and Ordinary Beings

The Dharma-Eye: Buddhas and Ordinary Beings

According to Dogen, "Buddhas" and "ordinary beings" are distinct insofar as the former are "enlightened about delusion" while the later are "deluded about enlightenment." This distinction recognizes the real differences between awakened and unawakened beings; it does not, however, imply a real separation between Buddhas and ordinary beings.

To see reality with the Dharma-Eye is to see through it (by means of it). Dogen quoted the Buddha and commented as follows:

Shakyamuni Buddha once said in verse:

If any people give voice to this Discourse

Then they will surely be able to see Me.

But to express It for the sake of even one person

Is indeed something difficult for them to do.

So it follows from this that to be able to express the Dharma is to see Shakyamuni Buddha because, when 'such a one' comes to see 'Me', he is Shakyamuni Buddha.

~Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Iigi, Hubert Nearman
 

From the unawakened perspective, Buddhas and ordinary beings are separate entities, from the awakened perspective, Buddhas and ordinary beings are nondual (not two). According to Dogen the apparent gap between the reality experienced by Buddhas and the reality experienced by humans is but a misperception of reality.

Even if we misunderstand that it might be beyond the triple world, that is completely impossible. Inside, outside, and middle, beginning, middle, and end; all are the triple world. The triple world is as the triple world is seen, and a view of something other than the triple world is a mistaken view of the triple world. While in the triple world, we see views of the triple world as old nests and see views of the triple world as new twigs. The old nests were visions of the triple world, and a new twig is also a vision of the triple world.

~Shobogenzo Sangai-yuishin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

In contrast to some contemporary Zen teachers, Dogen says the (triple) world (the world we inhabit) is as it is seen. He does not say that the real universe is not as it is seen, or that it is "as it is" regardless of how it is seen - the real universe is as it is seen. If a being sees a body of water, the real universe is a body of water; if another being sees the same aspect of the material world as a palace, the real universe is a palace.

To speak in general, what people see as a mountain or as water differs in various ways. There are those who, upon catching sight of what I am calling 'the Water', see It as a string of pearls, but they fail to see such a necklace as the Water. They undoubtedly consider the form in which we humans perceive something as what the Water is. What they see as a pearl necklace, I see as the Water. And there are those who see the Water as a wondrous flower, but this does not mean that they are using an actual flower for the Water. Hungry ghosts, upon encountering the Water, may see It as a raging inferno, or as thick, congealing blood. Dragons and other denizens of the deep may see It as a palace or as a stately mansion. Some may see It as the Seven Treasures or as the Wish-fulfilling Jewel, and others as various sorts of trees, or as fences and walls, and others as the immaculate, liberated Dharma Nature, and others as someone's True Body, and others as someone's physical appearance along with that person's mental nature. When humans see the Water via any of these means, this can be the cause of their liberation from commonplace 'life'.

~Shobogenzo,Sansuikyo, Hubert Nearman

The reality of the universe is not something inherent in "what is seen," the reality of the universe is "as it is seen.” There is no reality of the universe existing behind what is experienced by us.

Therefore, to see something as "other than" the real universe (the triple world) is to see a real mistaken view of the world; that is, to see the real universe as a "mistaken view" of the real universe as it is. If a being mistakenly sees Buddha, for example, as "other than" their self, the real universe is truly seen as a mistaken view of Buddha (as well as self). A Buddha ancestor is "enlightened about delusion" because she "clearly sees" the real universe as the real universe, the unawakened being is "deluded about enlightenment" because she "mistakenly sees" the real universe as something other than the real universe.

The distinction between awakened beings and unawakened beings is the distinction between the "normal (healthy) mind" and the “abnormal (deluded) mind.” The mind of the Buddha is normal because it harmonizes with the true nature of reality. When Zen masters say the Buddha cannot be found outside our minds, they are transmitting the truth that Buddhas and demonstrate (or exemplify) the liberating potential inherent in all beings – as Buddha can only be realized within ourselves, so only through the demonstration of Buddhas can we see how Buddha is realized.

A person who has got the Dharma is one individual true eternal buddha here and now, and as such should not be met as someone from the past... As regards attainment of the truth, both [men and women] attain the truth, and we should just profoundly revere every single person who has attained the Dharma. Do not discuss man and woman. This is one of Buddhism's finest Dharma standards.

~Shobogenzo, Raihai-tokuzui, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

According to Dogen, Buddha-nature is the totality of existence-time, it is each dharma and all dharmas; no element, experience, or being lacks Buddha nature. Thus, attempting to stifle, dampen, cut out, or eradicate specific aspects, elements, or qualities of the world or the self is not only a denial of humanity, but a denial of Buddha-nature. Such denial can only be achieved by an avoidance of reality – much better, according to the Zen masters, to achieve “normality” by activating the Dharma-Eye that sees, experiences, expresses, and actualizes the wisdom and compassion of Buddhahood.

Peace, Ted

Dogen vs. Dogen "interpreters"

 Dogen vs. Dogen "interpreters"

I thought I would spend a little time seeing what kind of online sources concerning Dogen’s teachings were becoming available in recent years – I was disappointed, but not too surprised…

It seems all too common to find “Zen teachers” that claim to be “interpreters” of Dogen’s teachings, who seem rather to be saying things in direct contradiction to Dogen’s own writings. For example:

Michael Eido Luetchford, Soto Zen Teacher at Dogen Sangha Buddhist Group, from the online transcript http://www.dogensangha.org.uk/Talks/cz09_purposeofzazen.pdf

There were Japanese teachers in the Rinzai tradition (not including Rinzai himself), who taught that if you practise Zazen, you can get something very special which they called enlightenment. This creates in the person who is practising Zazen a kind of hope and eagerness to get something better, to become special, to get to some special state. But according to the teachings of Dogen, the thirteenth century monk whose teachings I follow, Zazen is giving up all those kinds of hopes and all those kinds of beliefs, and all hope of becoming a better person.

Michael Eido Luetchford [emphasis added]

What is this? All of the Zen masters taught that awakening the bodhi mind (which “they called enlightenment”) is the foremost task of Zen practitioners. To claim that Dogen did not consider enlightenment as essential is to deny Dogen’s own constant exhortations to the contrary. Here are a few random examples:

Clearly remember: in the Buddhist patriarchs’ learning of the truth, to awaken the bodhi-mind is inevitably seen as foremost. This is the eternal rule of the Buddhist patriarchs.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Hotsu-Bodaishin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross, [emphasis added]

The training that we undertake to directly experience supreme, fully perfected enlightenment sometimes makes use of our good spiritual friends and sometimes makes use of sutras.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Kankin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

In order to ultimately realize the prediction of Buddhahood, just as ever so many Ancestors of the Buddha have done, one trains in order to manifest one’s genuine enlightenment.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Juki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Michael Eido Luetchford goes on to assert another typical sound-bit that simply seems to ignore Dogen’s own clear teachings to the contrary. Here is Michael Eido Luetchford on “Dogen”:

 

Then there are many other forms of meditation where people consciously have something in their mind or are consciously meditating on some kind of subject or some kind of image. But that kind of practice is completely different from Zazen.

Michael Eido Luetchford[emphasis added]
 

And here is Dogen on Dogen:

 

At the very time of your sitting, you should examine exhaustively whether the total world is vertical or horizontal. At that very time, what is the sitting itself? Is it wheeling about in perfect freedom? Is it like the spontaneous vigor of a leaping fish? Is it thinking? Or not thinking? Is it doing? Is it non-doing? Is it sitting within sitting? Is it sitting within body and mind? Or is it sitting that has cast off sitting within sitting, sitting within body and mind, and the like?

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Sammai-O-Zammai, Waddell & Abe [emphasis added]

[To research] this truth of moment-by-moment utter entrustment, we must research the mind. In the mountain-still state of such research, we discern and understand that ten thousand efforts are [each] the mind being evident, and the triple world is just that which is greatly removed from the mind. This discernment and understanding, while also of the myriad real dharmas, activate the home­land of the self. They make immediate and concrete the vigorous state of the human being in question.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Yuigi, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

People who arouse a true and genuine aspiration and engross themselves in study to the full extent of their capacity, do not fail to attain. As for the description of the essential point to be mindful of, what thing must be concentrated upon, what practice is to be considered most urgent, that is as follows.

First is only that the aspiration of joyful longing be earnest.

…while travelling, abiding, sitting and reclining, in the midst of affairs as the pass, though various different events come up, he goes along seeking an opening, his mind occupied [with his quest]. With his mind so forcefully earnest, there can be no failure of attainment.

In this way, when the aspiration to seek the Way has become sincere, either during the period of sole concentration on sitting, or when dealing with illustrative example of the people of olden times, or when meeting the teacher, when one acts with true aspiration…

Unless you arouse a mind comparable to this, how will you accomplish the great task of the Buddha-Way, which cuts off the turning round of birth and death in a single instant of thought? If someone has such a mind … he will definitely attain enlightenment.

Dogen, Record of Things Heard (Shobogenzo-zuimonki), II:15, Thomas Cleary [emphasis added]

This Dharma is abundantly present in each human being, but if we do not practice it, it does not manifest itself, and if we do not experience it, it cannot be realized.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Once you attain this state of suchness and attain the harmoni­ous unity of activity and understanding possessed by the Buddha-patriarchs, you examine exhaustively all the thoughts and views of this attainment.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Sammai-O-Zammai, Waddell & Abe [emphasis added]

Again, here is Michael Eido Luetchford on “Dogen”:

Of course, in our minds we have lots of intentions all the time but in Buddhism our intention is to have no intention; my teacher often said “Our aim is no aim”.

Michael Eido Luetchford [emphasis added]

What kind of dreary Zen is this? Why would anyone pursue such a “practice”? The same thing could probably accomplished by sniffing glue… For those seeking something a bit more authentic, check out Dogen here:

You cannot realize the Buddha’s Way if you do not aim to practice the Way, and It will be ever more distant from you if you do not aim to study It. Meditation Master Nangaku Ejo once said, “It is not that your training and enlightenment are absent, but they must not be tainted with anything.”

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Shinjin Gakudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Mr. Luetchford is certainly not alone in making assertions suggesting that zazen is some kind of trance or detachment wherein thoughts and images are to be “stopped” somehow. For example, here is an excerpt from an online text claiming to teach Dogen’s method of zazen by Gudo Nishijima Roshi:

We avoid intentionally following a train of thought during Zazen by concentrating on maintaining the posture. Of course spontaneous thoughts and images arise in our consciousness during Zazen, but they are not important. When we notice that we are thinking about something, we should simply stop.

Gudo Nishijima Roshi http://www.dogensangha.org.uk/IBPZ/IBPZ-English.pdf

Here Dogen offers a plausible explanation for such discrepencies:

There are people who, upon hearing the phrase ‘cannot be grasped’, have simply assumed that there is nothing to be attained in either case, for these people lack the living pathway of practice. Further, there are those who say that It cannot be grasped because it is said that we already possess It from the first. How does that hit the mark?

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Whatever the case, contrast Nishijima's comment on the “unimportance” of the “thinking” mind in zazen with Dogen’s comments in this passage:

Generally speaking, there are three types of mind. “The first is the mind of chitta, which we call the discriminative mind. The second is the mind of hridaya, which we call the mind of grass and trees. The third is the mind of vriddha, which we call the True Mind.” Among these, we invariably employ the discriminative mind to arouse bodhichitta, the enlightened Mind. Bodhi is an Indian word which we call the Way, or what is True. Chitta is an Indian word which we call the discriminative mind. Without this discriminative mind we could not give rise to the enlightened Mind. I am not saying that this discriminative mind is the enlightened Mind; rather, we give rise to the enlightened Mind by means of the discriminative mind.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin, Hubert Nearman

It is truly a mystery – not really that there are people that ascribe such strange “interpretations” to Dogen’s Zen – but that there are people that find such interpretations acceptable…

Peace,

Ted

The Truth of Buddha-Nature

The Truth of Buddha-Nature..

The truth of the buddha-nature is that we are not equipped with the buddha-nature before we realize the state of buddha; we are equipped with it following realization of the state of buddha. The buddha-nature and realization of buddha inevitably experience the same state together. We should thoroughly investigate and consider this truth.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


Peace,
Ted

Many know about zazen - Few know zazen

All Zen Buddhists know about zazen, but few actually know zazen.

Near the end of Himitsu-shōbōgenzō, Butsu-kōjō-no-ji, Dogen says:

In the house of the Buddha there is Bodhisattva Regarder of the Sounds of the World. Few people have not seen her but very few people know her.
Himitsu-shōbōgenzō (Secret Shōbōgenzō), Butsu-kōjō-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

This Bodhisattva is, of course, Avalokitesvara, one of the most important Bodhisattvas in Buddhism and the great hero of the Heart Sutra.

Clearly, as Dogen says, “Few people have not seen her.” However, what does Dogen mean by, “but very few people know her”? The reason that millions know about her but very few know her is the same reason that all Zen Buddhists know about zazen, but few actually know zazen.

[Note: This failure to “know” has nothing to do with what Zen calls “not knowing” or “don’t know mind” – if we don’t know Avalokitesvara or zazen we certainly don’t know “not knowing.”]

"Zazen" is a term that is often taken for granted, glossed over, and misconstrued. We all know that the literal translation of, “zazen” is “seated meditation,” but what is that? That is the same as saying “2+2” is “4” - which is only saying the same thing in two ways; both of which are generalizations. We may understand the terms, but apart from "knowing" what they actually stand for (e.g. “4 apples,” “2 dogs plus 2 cats,” etc.) the terms are meaningless. There is no such thing as a “general” 2+2, or a “general” 4, 5, or 6; there are only particular, actual things that posses such qualities.

A general “seated meditation” is as non-existent as a general “zazen.” Defining zazen as “non-thinking,” “casting off body-mind,” etc. is no more meaningful than defining 4 as 1+1+1+1, or 7-3 Only particular, actual instances of zazen have actual significance.

.

So how do we “know” Avalokitesvara or zazen? We know them by becoming aware of their reality in actual experience. We come to know 4 (or 2+2) by experiencing its reality within actual, particular things of the world that possesses its quality; our hands are 2, Mommy’s hands are 2, together there are 4 hands, and on it goes. We come to know zazen and Avalokitesvara by experiencing its reality within actual, particular things of the world that possesses its quality; looking at forms with the whole body-mind, and listening to sounds with the whole body-mind we experience them directly – this is knowing zazen, knowing Avalokitesvara.
.
Dogen describes this condition as that in which the “body-mind” of “self and other than self” is cast off. The Zen masters tell us that this experience first occurs (kensho, or kenbutsu) when we actually awaken to our own true nature. The significance of this kind of knowing is demonstrated by the fact that all the great Zen masters are in agreement that it is essential to authentic Zen practice-enlightenment. Such an awakening is, in Dogen's terms, “that one experience that we cannot omit.”
.
To clarify, consider Dogen’s criticism of Zen Master Soko (Daie). There is a widespread misunderstanding among Zen students, especially those identified with the “Soto” tradition, that Dogen’s refutation of Soko’s teaching was based on his association with Zen koans. This claim is based on a simplistic grasp of the issue at best, at worst it is a blatant falsehood designed to detract us from the real issues. Dogen’s rejection of Soko’s teaching was based on the criteria he always used to verify or deny expressions of truth: authentic practice-enlightenment.

.

Regardless of the “Urban Legend” surrounding his view of Soko, Dogen’s rejection was due to the fact that Soko had failed to realize that one vital experience. Dogen’s own words on the matter are clear and straightforward:
.
Even though time and time again Tandō aimed at opening Sōkō up, the latter ultimately kept missing that one experience, and there is no way of compensating for that, for one cannot omit that experience.
Shobogenzo, Jishō Zammai, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

There are “certified Dharma heirs” that spend a lot of time and energy minimizing this experience, a few even suggest it might be “expendable” (some deny such an experience exists), but as we see, that is definitely not Dogen’s take. By why does Dogen (like the classic Zen masters) say that this is one experience that cannot be omitted? Because without it we can’t “know” zazen (and Avalokitesvara); zazen will simply be a general notion, a concept – and there is simply no way to practice a concept of zazen no matter how long we “just sit” in the lotus position.
.
In his criticism of Soko, Dogen not only criticizes his failure to experience kensho, he criticizes Soko’s failure to penetrate the sayings (koans) of the Buddha ancestors as well as the words and ways of Buddhas. Dogen was a Dharma-heir of both the Rinzai and Soto Zen traditions and his teachings demand authentic awakening as well as a thorough study of the sutras and koans. In his critique of Soko, he insists on the need to both, awaken or, “intuitively grasp what the Buddha Dharma is” and to study and learn, or, “to intellectually understand what the Buddha Dharma is.”

Sōkō did not thoroughly explore his own statement, “That is precisely what Sōkō is suspicious of,” nor did he drop it off, or break it open, or give rise to the Great Doubt, or break through that doubting.
…
It is so pitiful how he failed to understand what the Ancestors of the Buddha were saying to him in their talks and writings. He did not grasp that to study and train is to awaken to one’s True Self. He did not hear that to delve deeply into the writings of myriad generations is to come to realize what that Self truly is.

Without proper study, there are errors like these and there is self-deception like his.

Because this was the way ‘Meditation Master’ Sōkō was, in his assembly there was not a single disciple, or even half a one, who had a trustworthy nose ring, but there were many who were pretend monks.

Failure to intuitively grasp what the Buddha Dharma is and failure to intellectually understand what the Buddha Dharma is are both just like this. Beyond any question, novice trainees here and now should explore the Matter in detail with their Master. Do not be negligent out of pride.
Shobogenzo, Jishō Zammai, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Until we actually manage to cast off the body-mind of “self and other,” we do not know zazen, which means we do not know the “state of Buddha.” If we do not know the state of Buddha, we can certainly not know the “ascendant state of Buddha.” Here we come to the only point in Dogen’s Zen where we can in any way say that the experience of kensho, or kenbutsu (the initial experience of enlightenment) is of “minor” significance; it is minor insofar as it is only the beginning of authentic Zen practice-enlightenment. In short, it is “major” in that if we omit it we cannot truly realize Zen, it is “minor” in that it is only the true start of Zen.

Thus we come to the real blood and guts of a lifetime of Zen practice-enlightenment: the ascendant state of Buddha.

Great Master Gohon of Tōzan said, “You should know that there is the matter of the ascendant state of buddha. When you know of the matter of the ascendant state of buddha, you will truly possess the means to speak.”

“The means to speak” is the means to turn the wheel of Dharma. In truth, if we do not know the matter of the ascendant state of buddha, we idly stagnate without penetrating to and getting free of the state beyond buddha. If we do not penetrate it and get free, we do not transcend the worlds of demons. Once we find the Way that arrives at buddha, we leave the area of the common person immediately. The people who have mastered this Way are few. Still, just because we are unable to know it, we should not, so saying, leave it at that. If, with a true will, we learn in practice under good counselors who have truly illuminated [the Way], we will be able to attain it without fail.
Himitsu-shōbōgenzō (Secret Shōbōgenzō), Butsu-kōjō-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

.

Peace,

Ted

Giving Rise to the Enlightened Mind

In an earlier post it was stated that "study with the mind" in Dogen's writings refers to the active, intentional aspect of practice-enlightenment that expressed by the body - study with the mind is an activity, while study with the body is an expression; the human body (its moment to moment physical activity) is an expression of the actual understanding of study with the mind. One thing this means, according to Dogen, is that enlightenment always begins with “study with mind.” It is important not to confuse “mind” with some abstract notion of Buddha mind, or universal mind, etc.; this mind is the thinking, discriminating mind of real, particular, individual human beings — your mind and mine. Thus Dogen writes:

"Chitta" is an Indian word which we call the discriminative mind. Without this discriminative mind we could not give rise to the enlightened Mind. I am not saying that this discriminative mind is the enlightened Mind; rather, we give rise to the enlightened Mind by means of the discriminative mind.
~Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin, Hubert Nearman

Study with the body is to study with the mind as smiling is to happiness; happiness does not cause smiling, happiness is expressed as smiling. In the same way, study with the mind is expressed as study with the body. Also, just as genuine smiling (a true physical expression of happiness) can increase or expand genuine happiness, so too genuinely enlightened physical activity increases the practitioners enlightened wisdom.

Peace,

Ted

Dogen On "The Heart of the Matter"

Dogen On "The Heart of the Matter"
-
Once you have arrived at the heart of the Matter, the time when you did not understand will not have impeded your arrival. Further, getting to the heart of the Matter has not changed the fact that, previously, you did not understand. Even so, in your getting to the heart of the Matter and in your previous non-understanding, there have been the times of spring and the sounds of autumn. The reason why you have not understood even these is because your ears have been wandering about within their voices, despite the fact that they have been giving expression to It ever so loudly. As a result, their voices have not entered your ears. Your getting to the heart of the Matter will occur when their voices have penetrated your ears and you have entered a meditative state. Do not fancy that your having arrived at the heart of the Matter is of little importance and that your non-understanding was something large. You need to realize that because you will be beyond what you conceived of as being ‘you’, you will not be different from the Lord of Dharma. ~Shobogenzo, Yui Butsu Yo Butsu (Trans. Rev. Hubert Nearman)

Dogen on the mind that cannot be grasped

The wisdom of Dogen, excerpts from, Shobogenzo, Shin fukatoko:

The Mind that cannot be grasped is what all Buddhas are, for They personally rely upon It as supreme, fully perfected enlightenment. As the Diamond-Cutting Scripture says, “The mind of the past cannot be retained; the mind of the present cannot be held onto; the mind of the future cannot be grasped.” This expression points to the Buddha’s reliance upon the Mind that cannot be held onto, which is what all Buddhas do. It is what They have come to rely upon, saying that It is the unretainable mind of past, present, and future, and that It is the ungraspable Mind of all thoughts and things. If you do not learn from the Buddhas what They are relying upon, which is what makes this matter clear, you will not directly experience It...

There are people who, upon hearing the phrase ‘cannot be grasped’, have simply assumed that there is nothing to be attained in either case, for these people lack the living pathway of practice. Further, there are those who say that It cannot be grasped because it is said that we already possess It from the first. How does that hit the mark?

...What we call ‘Buddha Mind’ is synonymous with the three temporal worlds of past, present, and future. This Mind and the three temporal worlds are not separated from each other by so much as one single hair’s breadth. Even so, when we are discussing the two as things that are distinct and separate from each other, then they are farther apart than eighteen thousand breadths of hair.
Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku (written version), Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted

Even the non-dharma does not exist

The section in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan about how awakening to the truth that "the many things actualize awareness of the self" is the function of Zen practice (indicating that our true nature is the true nature of the universe). The text goes on to indicate the nature and function of enlightenment and delusion. Genjokoan states:

Those who are enlightened about delusion are buddhas.

So being "enlightened about delusion" means awakening to the reality of delusion. That is, realizing what delusion truly is. This could be likened to being shown the cause of a magician’s illusions: mirrors, wires, hidden compartments, etc., thus being able to grasp the reality of the illusion. The reality of the illusion (the mirrors, wires, hidden compartments) is existent, and the illusion is a real characteristic of its existence. Similarly, when realizing the cause of delusion: misperception or partial perception, of true nature, we realize the reality of delusion. The reality of delusion (misperception or partial perception of our own true nature) is existent, and delusion is a real characteristic of its existence. Those who are "enlightened about" this are called "buddhas."

Next, the Genjokoan says:

Those who are deluded about enlightenment are ordinary beings.

To be "deluded about enlightenment" is to view enlightenment as being something outside or apart from ourselves or the everyday world. Those who are aware of their true nature are called buddhas; those who are unaware of their true nature are called ordinary beings. Flowers fall, weeds flourish; cocks crow, dogs bark. The Genjokoan goes on:

There are people who continue to realize enlightenment based on enlightenment.

Dogen’s emphasis on post-kensho practice and enlightenment is rarely matched in Zen literature. In many places throughout his works he insists that the initial experience of enlightenment is just the beginning of genuine practice-enlightenment. Of course, enlightenment for Dogen is only authentic as practice and enlightenment. In his works, he often refers to realizing enlightenment based upon enlightenment (often using the Zen ancestors of the past as examples of how to approach the lifetime process of deepening and refining our realization). The Genjokoan continues:

There are people in the midst of delusion adding to delusion.

Dogen does not seem here to be simply repeating himself, but to be indicating something else. In Shobogenzo, Keisei-Sanshiki, Dogen uses the same phrase (as best as I can tell) in a manner that suggests a deeper implication:

When [a person] tells people who do not know the will to the truth about the will to the truth, the good advice offends their ears, and so they do not reflect upon themselves, but [only] bear resentment towards the other person. As a general rule concerning actions and vows, which are the bodhi-mind, we should not intend to let worldly people know whether or not we have established the bodhi-mind or whether or not we are practicing the truth; we should endeavor to be unknown. How much less could we boast about ourselves? Because people today rarely seek what is real, when the praises of others are available, they seem to want someone to say that their practice and understanding have become harmonized, even though there is no practice in their body, and no realization in their mind. "In delusion adding to delusion" describes exactly this.
Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross, Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Keisei-Sanshiki, Book 1, p. 91 (italics added)

In this passage, Dogen seems to define the condition of "increasing delusion in the midst of delusion" as the denial of delusion. That is to say, when people in delusion deny they are deluded (or assert they are enlightened) they are "in delusion adding to delusion." Looking at Case One of the Blue Cliff Record may shed some light on this particular condition. The koan reads:

Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, "What is the ultimate meaning of the holy truths?"
Bodhidharma said, "Vast emptiness, nothing holy."
The Emperor asked, "Who is facing me?"
Bodhidharma responded, "I don’t know."
The Emperor did not understand. After this Bodhidharma crossed the Yangtse River and traveled to the kingdom of Wei.
Later the Emperor asked Master Chih about it.
Master Chih asked, "Do you know who this man is?"
The Emperor said, "I don’t know."
Master Chih said, "He is the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, transmitting the confirmation of the buddha-mind."
The Emperor was regretful and wanted to send an envoy to bring Bodhidharma back.
Master Chih said, "Don’t say you will send someone to bring him back. Even if everyone in China went after him, he would not return."

Commenting on the line "The Emperor did not understand," Engo (Yuanwu - the editor of the Blue Cliff Record) says, "Too bad! Still, he’s gotten somewhere." (Cleary & Cleary) Might the meaning of Engo’s comment, "Still, he’s gotten somewhere," illumine what Dogen means by "in delusion adding to delusion"? In following the reasoning here, Emperor Wu could be understood as "adding to delusion" when he thought he knew something (or asserted his enlightenment). However, (although he is still in delusion) after his meeting with Bodhidharma, he admits that he does "not understand," that is, he does not deny his own delusion. The Emperor is in delusion (i.e. not enlightened), but he is no longer adding to delusion (by asserting his enlightenment).

Clearly, recognizing and acknowledging the reality of our own delusion is a prerequisite to enlightenment. For how or why would one aspire to, or arouse the will for enlightenment if they failed to recognize and acknowledge their own delusion? Hence, Dogen’s words, "Those who are enlightened about delusion are buddhas" could be read as meaning that the recognition and acknowledgement of delusion is simultaneous with enlightenment. Throughout the Shobogenzo, Dogen continuously asserts the nondual nature of delusion and enlightenment; but he never says (to the best of my knowledge) that buddhas are free from delusion, as is often implied by much of the contemporary literature of Zen. Indeed, as Genjokoan goes on to say:

When buddhas are buddhas, they do not know they are buddhas.

This line reminds us that when buddhas are experiencing the condition of Buddhahood, there is nothing but Buddha in the whole universe. This condition is sometimes described in Buddhist literature as the state where the known and the knower (or actor and action) are one. Obviously, for a buddha to have the thought, "I am a buddha," they would have to perceive themselves as something (buddha) in opposition to something else (not buddha), hence; they would not be in the condition of Buddhahood. That does not mean there are no buddhas, as the Genjokoan points out next:

Nevertheless, buddhas are buddhas and continuously actualize Buddhahood.

The condition of Buddhahood is not something that is gained, but something that is discovered and activated; that is, the nature of delusion is illumined and our original Buddhahood is realized. Of course, this experience is only called Buddhahood to differentiate it from delusion. When speaking of a state beyond delusion we call it "Buddhahood." However, in the absolute sense, as in Dogen’s opening lines to Genjokoan, there is nothing to be grasped (no buddhas, no ordinary beings, etc.) and in the transcendent sense, buddhas and ordinary beings always contain and include each other.

The classic Zen records tell us that in the actual experience of Buddhahood all names and labels are meaningless; for from the perspective of oneness or emptiness, differentiation does not exist. Even "oneness" is a relative term–that is, oneness is relative and only valid in contrast to multiplicity. Therefore, when differentiation is truly dissolved so, too, is Buddhahood. One wonderful Zen expression of this principle is a verse attributed to Ananda, one of Buddha’s disciples and the traditional Second Ancestor of Zen in India:

When we are awake to the truth, even the non-dharma does not exist.
The Transmission of the Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p. 10

Peace!

Ted Biringer