Zazen True and False - The Continuous Actualization of Sole-Sitting

 

Continuous Actualization of Sole-Sitting – The Keystone of Zen

To clearly see is to use the Dharma-Eye, sometimes called the “eye to read scriptures.” To use the Dharma-Eye it must first be opened, and thereafter it must be skillfully developed and continuously actualized; this ongoing development and actualization is the keystone of authentic Zen practice and enlightenment, it is the art of Zen that Dogen calls sole-sitting (shikantaza, zazen-only). Once the Dharma-Eye is active, Zen practice (zazen-only) is actively developed and expanded to become inclusive not only of meditation, studying sutras, training with koans, etc., but every aspect of life. Going to work, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, and eating meals is Zen practice (just sitting). Shobogenzo provides detailed examples on the zazen of cooking, making robes, teeth cleaning, and even using the toilet. When the True Dharma-Eye is open, these are not the mundane tasks of cooking and cleaning, but the normal mind of the Tao, the authentic practice-enlightenment of Zen.

 

Once we find the Way that arrives at Buddha, we leave the area of the common person immediately. The people that have mastered this Way are few.

Himitsu Shobogenzo, Bustu-kojo-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

From the perspective of Zen, the opening of the Dharma-Eye is simultaneous with the Zen student becoming a Zen practitioner. An authentic Zen practitioner, by definition, solely practices Zen. In a very real sense, for the Zen practitioner there is no “Zen practice” (zazen; meditation) and therefore nothing other than “Zen practice.”

 

Regardless of what “shikantaza” or “just sitting” might have come to be defined or interpreted as being by various groups and individuals following Dogen’s existence-time, the nature of the “just sitting” presented by Shobogenzo has nothing to do with the kind of sitting that is thought of, spoken about, or performed in the “area of the common person.” Indeed, it is inevitable that the vast majority of ideas, definitions, explanations, and interpretations of shikantaza are distortions and misrepresentations, for “The people that have mastered this Way are few.”

 

There will be those who dote on what has passed and try to mimic that, and there may even be demons who slander those above them and refuse to learn from them. Do not be attracted to either type or feel resentment towards either. Why do I say not to feel sorry for them or resent them? Because it is said that people who recognize the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion to be what they are, are rare enough, so there is no need to feel resentment towards those who do not. Even more importantly, you should not lose sight of the intention that arose when you first took delight in seeking the Way of the Buddhas. It is said that when we first give rise to this intention, we are not seeking the Dharma so that others will praise us, but are discarding thoughts of fame and gain. Without seeking fame or gain, we should simply be persons who hold to the true course of realizing the Way, never concerning ourselves with expectations of recognition or support from rulers or other officials.

 

Even though this is the ideal, there are some people today who, alas, are devoid of any fundamental spiritual aspirations, having no spiritual goal that they seek, and are not the least concerned over their delusive entanglements with both ordinary people and those in lofty positions.

Shobogenzo, Keisei Sanshoku, Hubert Nearman

 

Leaving pity and resentment aside, then, let us dive right into Shobogenzo’s own presentation of what “shikantaza” or “just sitting” truly is. First, the term “shikan” (or shikantaza) that is often translated as “just” as in “just sitting” (shikan; just, taza; sitting) does not denote “merely,” or “simply,” but rather, “solely,” “totally,” “wholly.” Here we want to mention a point that is worth noticing; “shikan” is a homophone of “chih kuan” (stopping and seeing, meditation and prajna, samadhi and insight), a central notion of Tendai Buddhism, the actual tradition into which Dogen was initially ordained and which remained a central influence throughout his lifetime. The Tendai notion of “chih-kuan” presents “solely, wholly, etc.” in a specifically nondual manner – Tendai expressions on “stopping and seeing” (chih-kuan) emphasize  the unity of stopping-and-seeing so that stopping is stopping/seeing and seeing is stopping/seeing. The notion that Dogen intentionally employs the term “shikan” in some context of the significance of “chi-kuan” has been noticed and discussed in the scholarly community (e.g. Kodera, Heine) but has been largely dismissed as an interesting by unverifiable possibility. In view of Dogen’s characteristic use of homophonic language, and the fact that he was intimately familiar with the connotations of both terms it would seem that the intentional “double meaning” of “shikan” should be regarded as “given” and the notion it was unintended considered unlikely.

 

In any case, zazen is presented by Shobogenzo as the archetype of authentic practice-enlightenment itself. While Zen practice-enlightenment is only and always portrayed by Shobogenzo as something specific and particular – never as something vague or general – it is definitely not presented as being limited or confined to a specific form or particular activity. True, the only actual instances of practice-enlightenment that has or ever will manifest, is the practice-enlightenment of particular Zen practitioners at specific locations-times, but the form (hence, essence) of those instances are not in any way restricted to particular structures or activities. Particular Zen practitioners and actual instances of Zen practice-enlightenment are not two (nondual); Zen practice-enlightenment is solely manifest by and as Zen practitioners, Zen practitioners are solely manifest by and as Zen practice-enlightenment. This truth is archetypally embodied and expressed in Shobogenzo as “zazen,” described as “zazen-only” (shikantaza; solely sitting), and methodologically presented and transmitted as “nonthinking.”

 

As an archetypal image, zazen presents (makes present) Shakyamuni Buddha’s enlightenment on the “immovable spot” or “Bodhi-Seat.” The Bodhi-Seat is the instance of existence-time wherein the Buddha awakens; the moment-event of Buddhism’s supreme of the supreme, archetypally presented by the image of Buddha sitting upright in the lotus posture at the location-time of his enlightenment beneath the Bodhi Tree.

 

Described and explained as zazen-only (shikantaza), zazen is revealed as the “axis mundi,” the still point at the center of the Dharma-Wheel wherein the myriad dharmas ceaselessly rise and set in and as the continuous advance of the universe into novelty. Zazen-only demonstrates how the “three modes of conduct” (thoughts, words, and deeds) are wholly grounded in, at, and as the immovable spot; each and all the myriad dharmas are solely-seated in, at, and as this here-now of existence-time.

 

Methodologically presented and transmitted as nonthinking, zazen is made accessible for the liberation of all beings as the Buddha-Dharma itself; the “Great Vehicle” or “One Vehicle” (Mahayana or Ekayana) that is the essence of Zen. The “essence of Zen” being nondual with the “form of Zen,” is thus nothing more or less than Zen’s phenomenal expression in and as existence-time. As a spatial-temporal essence/form, the Zen is accessed by humans in the same manner and through the same capacities humans access any other manifest reality; the normal capacities of language, thinking, and reason. In Shobogenzo these capacities are most comprehensively treated by the vision of “nonthinking,” creatively presented as a unification and transcendence of “thinking” and “not-thinking.”

 

Thus, in Shobogenzo to engage in zazen is to be a Zen practitioner and to be a Zen practitioner is to engage in zazen. To be a Zen practitioner or engage in zazen is to be solely seated here-now; fully and totally enacting and being enacted in and as the myriad dharmas, in and as every thought, word, and deed.

 

It is not difficult to see that this vision of zazen is nothing more or less than the practical application of the principles of nonduality. For one that has verified that form is emptiness, all forms are empty; this cup is empty, this speech is empty, this boat race is empty – thus each particular dharma is solely-empty. Likewise, to verify the Buddha-nature of self (thus, of self/other), is to verify the Buddha-nature of all thoughts, words, and deeds; this memory is self, this utterance is self, this walking is self – each thought, word, and deed is solely-self (or solely Buddha). As the archetypal image of Zen practice-enlightenment, zazen is the embodiment of Zen practice-enlightenment, thus to be a Zen practitioner is to solely embody to be solely embodied as zazen.

 

In this sense, to be a Zen practitioner is to actualize zazen – to actualize anything other than zazen is not to be a Zen practitioner. Hence, a genuine practitioner is “solely seated” in and as existence-time here-now. Zen practice-enlightenment is, as it is, “solely sitting.”

 

From the Zen perspective it would be dualistic to regard practice-enlightenment as a distinct, independent reality; a Zen practitioner cannot “sit in zazen” and “study sutras,” or “sit in zazen” and “train with koans,” etc., for a Zen practitioner “solely sits” or “just sits.” As authentic practice-enlightenment is just sitting; any and all of a Zen practitioner’s thoughts, words, and deeds are just sitting. Zen practitioners do not teach, work, eat, sleep, and solely sit – teaching, working, eating, sleeping are solely sitting. All dharmas are solely emptiness; self and other are solely Buddha-nature; and the thoughts, words, and deeds of Zen practitioners are solely sitting.

 

For the Zen practitioner, then, there is sitting that is solely sitting and there is walking that is solely sitting; sitting is not walking and walking is not sitting, but both sitting and walking are solely sitting, solely zazen. The thinking of a Zen practitioner is not the speaking or acting of a Zen practitioner, but the thinking, speaking, and acting of a Zen practitioner is solely sitting, zazen-only.

 

Hence, there is the mind’s just sitting there, which is not the same as the body’s just sitting there. And there is the body’s just sitting there, which is not the same as the mind’s just sitting. There is ‘just sitting there with body and mind having dropped off’, which is not the same as ‘just sitting in order to drop off body and mind’. To have already realized such a state is the perfect oneness of practice and understanding that the Buddhas and Ancestors have experienced. Maintain and safeguard your mind’s functions of remembering, considering, and reflecting. Thoroughly explore through your training what mind, intent, and consciousness truly are.

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

 

Distorted, superficial, and superstitious notions concerning Dogen’s teachings on zazen-only abound in the contemporary Zen community. The majority of these distortions can be remedied by simply learning to appreciate the difference between metaphorical or mythopoeic language and the language of literal description, coupled with clear grasp of the basic principles of Buddhist nonduality. Many factors, including superficial views of emptiness and imitators attempting to cash in on the success of genuine Zen, have contributed to simplistic notions of seated meditation (zazen) over the course of Zen’s history. The fallacious notions of zazen embraced today are fundamentally the same as those that have dogged Zen throughout its history.

 

The most common fallacies combine elements of simplification and superstition; simplifications portraying zazen literally, as “sitting” (the physical posture of sitting), and superstitions about zazen (the simplistic literal sense) being the only element necessary to realize Zen liberation. Not infrequently it is even suggested that “just sitting” (in the literal sense) is enlightenment itself. Commonly dressed up in trite slogans about “no goals,” “nothing special,” “just this,” etc., zazen - the very keystone of Zen practice-enlightenment - is pawned off as a simple arrangement of the body-mind in a proscribed posture of physical sitting. Shobogenzo asserts what common sense already suggests concerning such notions:

 

Even if some appear to understand physical sitting to be what the Buddha taught, they have not yet grasped that ‘sitting there’ means “Just sit there!”

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

 

Despite Shobogenzo’s clear instructions, the classical Zen teachings, and common sense however, such notions continue to be accepted and applied by groups and individuals far and wide. Routinely arranging their body-mind in an upright, cross-legged sitting posture for measured periods of time, such groups and individuals honestly believe they are enacting “what the Buddha taught.” This shallow mimicry of the Buddha’s enlightenment is, in their view, the “just sitting” that Dogen taught. 

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong, or even unusual about erroneous understandings and false views; everyone has them, and even sages are compelled to continuously let go of old views in order to advance, expand, and clarify their understanding and skill. Sages know enough about stagnation and petrifaction to avoid becoming attached to any manner of fixed view; ego-centricity, spiritual pride, and sectarian allegiance however, can be extremely powerful obstacles for even the sincerest of genuine aspirants. 

 

As noted, promoters of distorted versions of Dogen’s “zazen” commonly proceed as if Zen expressions are meant to be understood in the literal sense of descriptive language rather than the mythopoeic language common to all sacred literature (as well as true art). To support and impress the notion that “just sitting” literally means to just sit in the ordinary physical sense, and that this “activity” is the only thing necessary for actualizing authentic practice-realization, proponents commonly cite cherry-picked phrases from Dogen’s voluminous writings. 

 

Parenthetically speaking two points are worth mention; in direct contradiction to their insistence on a “literal” reading of zazen, etc., these same advocates frequently insist on the “metaphorical” reading of numerous expressions in Dogen’s writings which they contend "actually mean" the literal performance of zazen. Second, such advocates typically assume a very liberal tolerance for their own biases while imposing strict constraints on the contentions of others; if, for example, one of their “supporting quotes" from Dogen is contested by an apparently contradictory quote from a different passage in Dogen’s work, the latter is likely to by dismissed as “out of context,” while the former is simply repeated as if its context were self-evident.

 

In general, then, the basic fallacy is that Dogen taught a unique style of Zen (i.e. Japanese Soto Zen) advocating a single method practice (i.e. zazen-only) essentially consisting of the literal performance of physically sitting still, commonly portrayed as being accompanied with a particularly “detached” mental attitude. The physical aspects described are technically equivalent to the basic meditation techniques common to most Buddhist traditions; sitting upright in the lotus (or half-lotus) position (a crossed-legged sitting posture). The mental aspect or attitude advocated is often described (again, in literal terms) as a kind of intentionally “goalless,” “objectless,” or “detached” state of mind. When pressed to elaborate, proponents of such notions tend to explain “goalless” or “objectless” in negative or apophatic terms; as meaning the abstention or avoidance of utilizing traditional Buddhist techniques such as mindfulness of Buddha, the body, mind, breath, koans, scriptures, etc. – zazen, they contend, is literally “just sitting”  with no object in mind, maintaining a detached but focused awareness wherein thoughts, words, and deeds, if noticed at all, are simply to be noted and “let go of” without arousing questions or second thoughts.

 

This, then, or something similar, is supposed to by Dogen’s supreme method; so effective no other practice is essential for authentic Zen actualization; there is literally no need to offer incense, bow, chant, confess, read sutras, or perform any other traditional or nontraditional practice. To support such notions, the most frequently quoted “authoritative” passage comes from an early writing of Dogen titled, Bendowa:

 

After the initial meeting with a [good] counselor we never again need to burn incense, to do prostrations, to recite Buddha’s name, to practice confession, or to read sutras. Just sit and get the state that is free of body and mind. If a human being, even for a single moment, manifests the Buddha’s posture in the three forms of conduct, while [that person] sits up straight in samādhi, the entire world of Dharma assumes the Buddha’s posture and the whole of space becomes the state of realization.

Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

First, how does one that takes Dogen’s expressions literally go about manifesting “the three forms of conduct (thinking, speech, and action), while [that person] sits up straight in samadhi…”? Fortunately, Dogen was a Zen master not a delusional zealot, thus his language, like that of all the great sages, is mythical, not historical, mythopoeic not biographic – Shobogenzo is an expression of human truth, not an "objective" dissertation. If Dogen had truly believed practice-enlightenment consisted in the performance of a particular physical posture/mental attitude, he would not have dedicated most of his time and energy writing and teaching otherwise. Fortunately, Dogen understood, acknowledged, and taught that the real form of zazen-only was the myriad dharmas:

 

You need to discern and affirm for yourself the underlying meaning of his saying, “If you wish to see Buddha Nature, you must first rid yourself of your arrogant pride.” It is not that one lacks sight, but the seeing of which he spoke is based on ridding oneself of one’s arrogant pride. The arrogance of self is not just of one kind, and pride takes many forms. Methods for ridding oneself of these will also be diverse and myriad. Even so, all of these methods will be ‘one’s seeing Buddha Nature’. Thus, you need to learn both to look with your eyes and to see with your Eye.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

 

Apparently the expression conveying the true nature of zazen-only presented in Bendowa had already been misconstrued as a literal description or formula of “Zen practice” rather than a mythopoeic expression of truth in Dogen’s own day. For in the Bukkyo fascicle of Shobogenzo, written only about a decade after Bendowa, Dogen again brought the expression out - only this time he did so in a manner that could never mistakenly be superficially misrepresented as a merely formal description of practice.

 

My late master constantly said, “In my order, we do not rely on burning incense, doing prostrations, reciting names of buddhas, practicing confession, or reading sutras. Just sit, direct your energy into pursuing the truth, and get free of body and mind.”

 

Few people clearly understand an expression like this. Why? Because to call “reading sutras” “reading sutras” is to debase it, and not to call it “reading sutras” is to be perverse. “You are not allowed to talk and not allowed to be mute: say something at once! Say something at once!” We should learn this truth in practice. Because this principle [of reading sutras] exists, a man of old has said, “To read sutras we must be equipped with the eyes of reading sutras.”

Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Obviously, if this expression was meant literally, more than a “Few people” would have clearly understood it. Calling it “reading sutras” debases it because it reduces it to literalism, cutting it out of the nondual reality of its existent form/essence; not calling it “reading sutras” is perverse because it fails to discern the truth of its inherent uniqueness. For the “few” that clearly understand, “reading sutras,”  along with offering incense, bowing, chanting, and confessing, is solely-sitting.

 

In any case, to clearly understand just sitting, reading sutras, or any other aspect of the Buddha Dharma, we must activate the Dharma-Eye. To read sutras, the ordinary eyes of literal description are simply not the appropriate tools; we must be equipped with the eyes of reading sutras.

 

Whenever “zazen” (or just sitting etc.) is treated or regarded as a separate activity or distinct action, as one activity among others (e.g. working, reading, eating, etc.), it is not the zazen-only illumined and presented by Shobogenzo. As the formal practice of seated meditation, zazen is simply one form of activity among many . As the actualization of the universe (i.e. genjokoan), however, zazen is not only wholly inclusive of “the three forms of human conduct” (thinking, speech, and action), it is Total Existence itself, the myriad dharmas as they are.

 

In this way, you need to thoroughly explore through your training the thousands of aspects, nay, the hundreds of thousands of aspects of just sitting.

Shobogenzo, Zammai-ō Zammai, Hubert Nearman

Enjoy the ride!
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

Dharmas and the Self (or Not-Self; Anatman)

Dharmas and the Self

.

[This article was revised and adapted from the Flatbed Zen Newsletter – available at our sister blog, The Flatbed Sutra Zen Blog]

 .

Our usage of the term “dharma”

.

In Buddhist literature the term "dharma" has many meanings; its meaning in a particular instance is usually most clearly discerned by its context. The meaning of the term "dharma" concerning us here is one of the most common –– that is as a general signifier for distinct particularities, occasions, or entities; any specific datum that can be singled out, pointed to, imagined, etc. Thus, a human being is a dharma, so is a minute, a century, a unicorn, a flower, a phone call, a rock, a dream, a universe, and an imaginary friend. In short, the usage of the term “dharma” in this post is confined to its indication of particular things, beings, and instances.

.

Dharmas: The Fundamental Constituents of the Self

.

Dharmas (particularities) are the first thing with which Zen doctrine and methodology must be concerned. The Buddhist doctrine of emptiness (shunyata) is commonly regarded as the starting point for Buddhist study. The Buddhist teachings on emptiness elucidate the truth that all dharmas are empty of self (own being); thus, these teachings presuppose an understanding of the Buddhist notion of dharmas. It is the insight of dharmas as the most fundamental constituents of reality that the doctrine of emptiness accounts for; Buddhism affirms dharmas as the true nature of the world and self, and appeals to the teachings of emptiness to account for the reasoning thereof.

The self, or non-self (anatman), has been identified with dharmas since the earliest Buddhist teachings. This identification remains central in all Buddhist traditions. While details and emphasis regarding the nature of dharmas often varies widely among schools the fundamental insight is the same – the self is constituted of dharmas and is actualized by dharmas. In short, dharmas are not only what the world and the self is, they are the means whereby the world and the self manifest.

In experiencing the world of dharmas the self experiences itself; in truly recognizing this, the self verifies that she is of dharmas, and abides within dharmas – when dharmas are truly seen as dharmas the division between “self” and “other than self” is absent (i.e. reality ceases to be conceptually divided into “self” and “not-self”).

As the essence and form of the self and the other, dharmas are autochthonous; that is, dharmas originate in and inhabit the location and time in which they are experienced. The source of the self, then, is also its homeland; the myriad dharmas. The dynamics of the self-luminous, self-generating (autochthonous) nature of dharmas is comprehensively treated by Dogen’s teaching of “self-fulfilling samadhi.” The focus of the present post is that all dharmas are real and all realities are dharmas – thus dharmas are their own reason (dori), their own cause and effect, their own meaning, their own value.

This is, of course, inconsistent with the prevailing world view which has an inherent propensity to regard all manner of dharmas as mere representatives of a reality rather than reality itself. This is most apparent in notions about language; words, names, teachings, etc., which are commonly viewed as symbols that only represent, stand for, or point to “realities,” but lack intrinsic value in themselves. The same reasoning, however, is central in nearly every arena of human interest. This results from the almost universal acceptance of the “representation” theory of knowledge presupposed in nearly every field of modern science as well as those of the arts. Just as words, names, reports, etc. are regarded as mere representatives for “real” things, beings, or events (i.e. dharmas) in the (objective) world, so too perceptions of the world are regarded as representatives – reconstructions – of the “actual” objects (i.e. dharmas) that exist in the “real” world.

For example, according to the common view the flower seen is not the “real” flower but a re-presentation of it created by the mind (or brain) with data provided to by the senses, in addition to the mind’s own capacity to “fill in” gaps not provided by the senses due to inherent limitations of the sense organs (e.g. the eyeball’s limited peripheral range, physical blind spots, etc.).

There is no account offered for why it is that the mind (or brain) is “smart enough” to fill in the “rest of the picture,” but is not smart enough to “get the picture” without going through the effort of filling in gaps… And, for whom does the mind make all this effort to provide the “representation” to? Well, according to the scientific theory, the mind creates the representation to provide it to itself.

When, in addition to this naïve, irrational conception of knowledge, we consider the widely accepted notions about the nature of thought (and emotion), it is easy to see the reasons for the massive intellectual, emotional, and spiritual poverty of modern civilization. Where Buddhism regards thoughts as dharmas perceived by the mind (which is regarded by Buddhism as a sense organ), the common view regards thoughts as unique, even vastly different from other perceptions – where the common view regards the perception of a flower as not the “real” flower but at least a representation of a real flower, thoughts are not even considered as representing anything real. Further, in the modern world view the reality and reliability of thought is commonly subjected to serious doubt, and often regarded and treated as inherently misleading.

Now, if thoughts are unreliable, and language and perception do not present reality to us, what means could reliably provide any knowledge of the “real” world? Notice also; if thought were truly unreliable then any notion (i.e. thought) about our inability to perceive reality could not be trusted – moreover, if such a notion could be verified, it would, thereby, render itself unreliable!

The common world view misses the mark by presupposing that an “objective” world or universe exists independent of (and generally impervious to) subjective experience. The “representation” theory implies that human beings are forever barred from any direct experience of “reality” and therefore inexorably confined to speculating about the true nature of a world. The reality of the “objective” world, according to this notion, can only be inferred through the analysis of perceptions, assumed to “re-present” real objects of that world, constructed by the mind (or brain) from impressions that are assumed to be after-effects of the “real” world’s influence on the sense organs.

The Zen perspective is diametrically counter to the common view. Zen refuses to engage in mere hypothetical speculation, much less accept it as first principle of truth. More, Zen discourages such speculation by deriding the folly of unnecessarily entertaining conceptual notions that are inherently unverifiable, thus irrelevant. Recognizing that any “reality” existing independent of human perception would, by definition, have no influence on human existence, Zen exhorts us to focus on the one reality that is actually relevant to human existence. Zen calls our attention to the myriad dharmas – the sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts – constituting the only reality that has ever actually been experienced; the world and the self being experienced here and now.

To recognize dharmas as the source, manifestation, and destination of the self and the world is to see the ultimate significance of even the most prosaic things, beings, and events. Corollary with this recognition is an intimacy of kinship with each and all dharmas – a natural identification with the world, a certain understanding that the self and the myriad dharmas are of one family.

In recognition of the primacy of dharmas, we strongly encourage practitioners to follow the guidance of the classic Zen masters who frequently return to, emphasize, and insist on the importance of maintaining awareness of the nature of dharmas and the implications of that nature. To this end, we now summarize the main points here observed concerning dharmas, and follow this with a few clarifications.

A dharma is a fundamental constituent of reality apart from which nothing exists; if it exists, it must be a dharma, and if it is a dharma, it must exist.

A dharma is an actual and particular instance of reality, an observable (i.e. intelligible) phenomenon in/of space and time.

A dharma is autochthonous, its origin is precisely the location and time (uji; existence-time) of its appearance; all things (i.e. the world and the self) have their source in dharmas, a dharma is its own source.

Some Clarifications Concerning the Nature Dharmas

To preclude some of the more common misunderstandings related to the points discussed, a few brief clarifications on the nature of dharmas is merited here.

First, the description of dharmas as the fundamental constituents of reality is meant unconditionally, thus, it does not leave open the possibility for the existence of a “force,” “essence,” or “nature” more fundamental than dharmas. Because dharmas are always particular, they are usually referred to in terms of “elements,” “constituents,” or “units,” rather than “natures,” “forces,” or “essences.” This usage of terms, however, should be regarded as undermining the primary significance qualifying dharmas as being “most fundamental.” The primary purpose of pointing out dharmas as the most fundamental elements of reality is to clarify that dharmas are not constituted of anything more fundamental than themselves. In short, dharmas are not “made up of” more basic elements or any subtler essence, nature, or force. Insofar as any essence, nature, or force is existent, it too must have its source in, and thus, be qualified as a particular dharma. The significant implication here is that as fundamental instances of reality, dharmas cannot be understood, explained, or defined by, or according to any “other” constituent whatsoever, elements or essences. In sum, dharmas are not made of anything other than what they are – dharmas are dharmas through and through.

Next, recognizing every phenomenon (i.e. every form, sound, smell, taste, feeling, and thought) as a dharma, and every dharma as an actual and particular instance of reality has several crucial implications. One, it makes it incumbent to regard every dharma as of equal status concerning the authenticity of its actuality (true nature); the import being a total absence of superiority and inferiority among dharmas concerning their true nature. Two, it renders as unnecessary any obligation to account for any evolutionary or developmental process whereby dharmas experience some form of progression or sophistication from a primordial or elementary condition; being “as they are” from the beginning, dharmas are impervious to reductionism from the start. Three, it puts an end to any and all debates involving speculative notions of unknowable realities or unverifiable laws and forces; if something really exists, it is a dharma, hence, an observable, intelligible phenomenon.

Finally, to acknowledge the truth of the autochthonous nature of dharmas is to recognize the fallacy of all forms of nominalism; no dharma can be the mere representative, symbol, or signifier of a reality other than itself. Every dharma, including words, names, ideas, perceptions, signs, mental images, and anything else that can described, pointed to, or singled out in any way is – as it is – an instance of existence-time, a manifest expression of Buddha. The import here is that dharmas are their own reason (dori), their own cause and effect, their own meaning, their own value.

I hope this is helpful.

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