The Transmission of Wisdom 2

The Transmission of Wisdom 2

As a tradition, activity, or institution of human civilization, ‘Zen’ denotes a path, manner, or way of life, rather than a particular structure or form. To revere a ‘Zen’ that consists of an authorized version, exclusive sect, prescribed method, formal practice, dogmatic code, or any other fixed form is to exalt a lifeless idol. In Zen’s vision, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an unceasing advance into novelty, an ongoing creative activity. Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho) is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – not the actualized, actual, or actualize of past, present, or future, but a ceaseless actualization of existence-time here-now which fully includes and transcends past, present, and future. More particularly, practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing the true nature of reality and, thereby, actualizing one’s thoughts, words, and deeds harmoniously with that truth in and as the self/world here-now. To clarify, consider Hee-Jin Kim’s analysis of the following passage from Bendowa; one of Dogen’s clearest articulations of his view of practice-enlightenment. In this translation Kim, following the lead of Norman Waddell and Masao Abe[i], renders ‘Bendowa’ as ‘negotiating the Way’:

In the Shobogenzo, “Bendowa” (1231), Dogen succinctly enunciates his Zen: The endeavor to negotiate the Way (bendo), as I teach now, consists in discerning all things in view of enlightenment, and putting such a unitive awareness (ichinyo) into practice in the midst of the revaluated world (shutsuro).

Hee-Jin Kim Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.21

Dr. Kim clarifies by bringing the salient points into relief thus:

This statement clearly sets forth practitioners’ soteriological project as negotiating the Way in terms of (1) discerning the nondual unity of all things that are envisioned from the perspective of enlightenment and (2) enacting that unitive vision amid the everyday world of duality now revalorized by enlightenment. Needless to say, these two aspects refer to practice and enlightenment that are nondually one (shusho itto; shusho ichinyo).
Hee-Jin Kim Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.21

 

To be continued…

---

[i] The Heart of Dogen’s Shobogenzo, pp.7-30

Enlightenment and Dogen’s True Mission: the Rightly Transmitted Buddha-Dharma

Enlightenment and Dogen’s True Mission: the Rightly Transmitted Buddha-Dharma

 

Among the world’s spiritual traditions the ultimate goal is variously called salvation, deliverance, liberation, paradise, nirvana, and other similar names. ‘Enlightenment’ is the name most commonly used in Zen. Thus ‘enlightenment,’ or more specifically, ‘full and perfect enlightenment’ (annuttara-samyak-sambodhi) is the root of every name, expression, or allusion to the end or goal of Zen.

Enlightenment in Zen, means personally verifying (seeing and understanding) the true nature of reality. According to Zen, seeing true nature or ‘realizing enlightenment’ means liberating all beings from suffering. Leaving aside the question as to how this is said to occur, the expressions of Dogen (or any genuine Zen teacher) spring from a sincere conviction that what they communicate truly possesses the power to actualize universal liberation. Only by remaining mindful of the true import Dogen attached to his expressions – whether or not we agree with him – can we possibly encounter the truth of what he communicated.

Notwithstanding the uncertainty of Dogen’s intentions as to the final form of Shobogenzo, it is clear that he did intend Shobogenzo to form a unified vision with a specific purpose. In my view, Dogen’s Shobogenzo was intended as – and successfully achieved – a complete exposition of the essential doctrine and methodology of authentic Buddhism inclusive of everything necessary for sincere students to directly and personally realize full and perfect enlightenment. By that, I mean that Dogen fulfilled the ‘mission’ he set down in Bendowa, one of the first writings he undertook upon his return from China. After describing how his journey to China led him to, ‘accomplishing the task of a lifetime,’ Dogen described his experience upon returning to his native land and how he came to decide ‘to spread the Dharma and save living beings’:

 

‘…I came home determined to spread the Dharma and to save living beings it was as if a heavy burden had been placed on my shoulders. Nevertheless, in order to wait for an upsurge during which I might discharge my sense of mission, I thought I would spend some time wandering like a cloud, calling here and there like a water weed, in the style of the ancient sages. Yet if there were any true practitioners who put the will to the truth first, being naturally unconcerned with fame and profit, they might be fruitlessly misled by false teachers and might needlessly throw a veil over right understanding. They might idly become drunk with self-deception, and sink forever into the state of delusion. How would they be able to promote the right seeds of prajna, or have the opportunity to attain the truth? If I were now absorbed in drifting like a cloud or a water weed, which mountains and rivers ought they to visit? Feeling that this would be a pitiful situation, I decided to compile a record of the customs and standards that I experienced first-hand in the Zen monasteries of the great Kingdom of Sung, together with a record of profound instruction from a [good] counselor which I have received and maintained. I will leave this record to people who learn in practice and are easy in the truth, so that they can know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage. This may be a true mission.’

Shobogenzo, Bendowa (Italics mine), Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Here I would point out that the method Dogen chose for providing ‘true practitioners’ with a vehicle to ‘know the right Dharma’ is a method disparaged by many contemporary Zen representatives as unreliable, ineffective, or even misleading. Many within the Soto Zen sect (which claims Dogen as its founder) claim the only way practitioners can ‘know the right Dharma’ is through transmission from a living representative (i.e. a formally certified ‘Dharma-heir’). Such claims commonly suggest that such a ‘transmission’ is not only required, but solely sufficient, that is, no ‘records,’ whether of ‘customs and standards’ or ‘profound instruction,’ are necessary.

 

For those claiming to be ‘heirs’ of Dogen, this is convenient; the record Dogen left so people could ‘know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage’ was all but lost to the world for about 700 years. It should be noted that such ostentatious claims are usually not intentionally malicious or insincere, but simply the results of the usual competition and power struggles common to sectarian institutions.

 

 

Bendowa: Negotiating the Way – Authentic Zen Practice-Enlightenment

Bendowa: Negotiating the Way – Authentic Zen Practice-Enlightenment

 

From the perspective of Shobogenzo’s, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an unceasing advance into novelty; Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho) is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – the ceaseless actualization of existence-time, fully inclusive of past, present, and future. In Dogen’s vision, Zen practice-enlightenment is only and always an ongoing creative discernment-and-realization of Buddha nature here-now – the presentation (making present) of one’s true self ‘as it is.’ Thus, practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing (accurately discerning, understanding, etc.) the true nature of reality, things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas) as they are here-now, thereby harmonizing one’s thoughts, words, and deeds to the truth in and as the self/world. To clarify, consider Hee-Jin Kim’s analysis of the following passage from Bendowa; one of Dogen’s clearest articulations of his view of practice-enlightenment (Kim, following Abe & Waddell, translates Bendowa as ‘negotiating the Way’). Dogen writes:

 

The endeavor to negotiate the Way (bendo), as I teach now, consists in discerning all things in view of enlightenment, and putting such a unitive awareness (ichinyo) into practice in the midst of the revaluated world (shutsuro).

Bendowa (Translated by Hee-Jin Kim)

 

Dr. Kim clarifies the salient points to bring the significant implications into relief thus:

 

This statement clearly sets forth practitioners’ soteriological project as negotiating the Way in terms of (1) discerning the nondual unity of all things that are envisioned from the perspective of enlightenment and (2) enacting that unitive vision amid the everyday world of duality now revalorized by enlightenment. Needless to say, these two aspects refer to practice and enlightenment that are nondually one (shusho itto; shusho ichinyo).

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.21

 

Authentic Zen practice-enlightenment consists of ‘these two aspects’ – discerning dharmas as they are, and actualizing that discernment here-now.

 

In other words, the practice-enlightenment advocated by Dogen consists of discerning the true (nondual) nature of all things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas) with the Dharma-Eye (from the enlightened perspective) and conducting oneself here-now accordingly (enacting that vision amid the world of duality).

 

[Note: It is worth noting that the ‘practice-enlightenment’ (shusho) advocated by Dogen (hence Zen) diverges from the ‘practice-enlightenment’ advocated by the majority of contemporary Zen teachers. Few contemporary Zen teachers advocate ‘discerning the true nature of all dharmas’ much less ‘enacting’ that discernment ‘amid the world of duality.’ Therefore, whatever most contemporary teachers do proclaim as ‘practice-enlightenment,’ it must be different from that expounded by the classic Zen records.

 

Judging from the classic Zen records, however, this situation is not unique to contemporary Zen; authentic practice-enlightenment has evidently always been something engaged by the few rather than the many. In harmony with those records, then, I don’t say there are no contemporary teachers that proclaim authentic practice-enlightenment, I only say there are few.

It is not necessary to detail exactly what the majority of contemporary Zen teachers do advocate as practice-enlightenment except to explain my reason for making the point in negative terms, which may be telling enough. I stated this in terms of what ‘is not’ advocated as practice-enlightenment rather than ‘what is’ advocated because there is very little consensus among contemporary Zen teachers in regard to what authentic practice-enlightenment actually consists in/of.]

 

To understand the discourse of Shobogenzo we need to understand Shobogenzo’s view of what a ‘Buddha’s discourse’ or ‘expression of Buddha’ is. In Shobogenzo, a Buddha’s discourse is essentially a form of Buddha; an instance of the Buddha-Dharma. Specifically, an expression of Buddha is a phenomenal manifestation of true nature – that which is expounded, conveyed, transmitted, or otherwise actualized by Buddha (which in Shobogenzo is “Total Existence”, as in “Total is existence is Buddha-nature” [Bussho fascicle], “This Mind is Buddha” [Soku Shin Ze Butsu fascicle], etc). In sum, then, as an expression of Buddha, Shobogenzo (like every dharma) is what it is, as it is.

 

Now, in light of Dogen’s view of Zen practice-enlightenment (as underscored by Hee-Jin Kim), how can we discern whether Shobogenzo presents genuine Buddhism and not pseudo-Buddhism or something else? By discerning its form; Shobogenzo claims to communicate wisdom for actualizing personal certainty concerning one's own true nature. Therefore, to assess Shobogenzo, one need only discern and apply what it communicates. If one thereby realizes certainty concerning true nature, Shobogenzo is thereby confirmed as being what it proclaims.

 

The Shoho Jisso fascicle of Shobogenzo elucidates the nature of the enlightened wisdom of Buddhism by focusing attention on a passage from a scripture in which Shakyamuni Buddha identifies the ‘supreme enlightenment (anuttara samyaksambodhi) of all bodhisattvas’ as ‘belonging’ to (i.e. having its origin or abode in) ‘this sutra’ and explains that:

 

This sutra opens the gate of expedient methods and reveals true real form.

Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

After clarifying that a ‘bodhisattva’ is synonymous to or equal with a ‘Buddha or Buddha ancestor’ – Shobogenzo underscores the fact that this very expression (wherein Shakyamuni identifies enlightenment with this sutra) is ‘in every case’ no other than ‘this sutra.’ To further emphasize the radically nondual nature of a Buddha’s discourse (‘this sutra’) and ‘complete enlightenment,’ Shobogenzo goes on to assert that 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, as they 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

 

Notice that if both the subject and the object of a Buddha’s expression (‘this sutra’) are equally an expression of Buddha (‘this sutra’), then the being that ‘experiences’ a Buddha’s discourse and the Buddha’s discourse that is ‘experienced’ are coextensive and coessential. In short, Dogen's words explicitly contend that ‘Buddhist expressions’ experience ‘Buddhas.’ In such a case not only are the expresser and the expressed interdependent, all objects and subjects are interdependent. At this very moment, are we discoursing on expressions of Buddha – or are Buddha discourses expressing us?

 

At this very moment, ‘this sutra’ really experiences ‘all bodhisattvas.’

Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

With this we can see why an accurate understanding of the nature of the self and the world (i.e. subject and object, perceiver and perceived) is inherently inaccessible through the non-mythopoeic, literally descriptive language of the contemporary world view (or any world view grounded in dualism for that matter). The reason that the true nature (actual reality) of subjects and objects cannot be expressed or understood in the language of dualism is because the reality of subjects and objects is nondual. Attempting to arrive at a true understanding by beginning from a false view is, in Zen terms, like attempting to go South by travelling toward the North Star.

 

 

 

 

The Unified Vision of Shobogenzo

The Unified Vision of Shobogenzo

Today I return to a topic that I have not posted on for awhile; the "unity" of Dogen's masterpiece, Shobogenzo. Some of the unifying factors of Shobogenzo that deserve emphasis are the extraordinary consistency of the viewpoint, symbolism, and reason (dori) demonstrated by Shobogenzo as a whole. True, an accurate appreciation of Shobogenzo offers a number of challenges to modern readers, yet, as a comprehensive expression of the Buddha Dharma created by a profoundly enlightened Zen master that also happened to be an exceptionally gifted thinker and writer this remarkable work merits the effort required. Despite uncertainties about Dogen’s intention as to the order and inclusion of the fascicles constituting Shobogenzo, that it was intended to express a unified vision of the authentic Buddha Dharma is widely acknowledged .

As with any unified literary expression, only when the wholeness of the vision of Shobogenzo is comes into view can its various parts be truly appreciated. When it is experienced as a unity, rather than a miscellaneous collection, Shobogenzo is a hologram; each part demonstrating the whole, and the whole being demonstrated by each of its parts. Dogen’s Shobogenzo was clearly intended to convey, or transmit, a comprehensive expression of Buddhism with the potential to empower students/practitioners with the wisdom and skill for actualizing enlightenment. Thus, it seems that Dogen accomplished the mission he outlined in one of the earliest writings he completed upon returning from China:

“…I came home determined to spread the Dharma and to save living beings it was as if a heavy burden had been placed on my shoulders. Nevertheless, in order to wait for an upsurge during which I might discharge my sense of mission, I thought I would spend some time wandering like a cloud, calling here and there like a water weed, in the style of the ancient sages. Yet if there were any true practitioners who put the will to the truth first, being naturally unconcerned with fame and profit, they might be fruitlessly misled by false teachers and might needlessly throw a veil over right understanding. They might idly become drunk with self-deception, and sink forever into the state of delusion. How would they be able to promote the right seeds of prajna, or have the opportunity to attain the truth? If I were now absorbed in drifting like a cloud or a water weed, which mountains and rivers ought they to visit? Feeling that this would be a pitiful situation, I decided to compile a record of the customs and standards that I experienced first-hand in the Zen monasteries of the great Kingdom of Sung, together with a record of profound instruction from a [good] counselor which I have received and maintained. I will leave this record to people who learn in practice and are easy in the truth, so that they can know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage. This may be a true mission.”
Bendowa, Master Dogen's Shobogenzo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

In writing this, Dogen revealed his clear disagreement with a popular viewpoint often asserted in contemporary Zen literature - not infrequently by those claiming to be followers of his teachings. This statement surely seems to contradict certain dogmatic tenets suggested by contemporary Soto-Zen institutions:

“I will leave this record to people who learn in practice and are easy in the truth, so that they can know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage.”

In contradiction to certain popular notions about Zen, Dogen is clearly suggesting that the "right Dharma" is communicable through words and letters. Some contemporary Zen teachers will, of course, deny that Dogen meant what he said, and insist that the “right Dharma” can only be accessed through the individual guidance of a "living" certified "enlightened master" (i.e. themselves, or other teachers “certified” within the lineage (or lineages) that they regard as legitimate).

Zen, of course, warns about the dangers of becoming attached to doctrines - realization cannot simply be learned it must be verified in practice. However, Dogen, like other classic Zen masters, clearly reveals how to avoid “becoming attached” to doctrines, and how to effectively put them into practice. When Dogen wrote he “will leave this record” so people “can know the right-Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage,” he meant exactly that - and more:

“Just as the words and letters I have seen thus far are one, two, three, four, and five, so the words and letters I see now are also six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. The monastics of future generations will be able to understand a nondiscriminative Zen (ichimizen) based on words and letters, if they devote efforts to spiritual practice by seeing the universe through words and letters, and words and letters through the universe.”
Tenzo Kyokun, as cited in Dogen Kigen: Mystical Realist, professor Hee-Jin Kim

Wow! Are there any "monastics of future generations" around today? I don't say there are none, but I say that there are few...

Peace,
Ted