The Sentient Nature of Zen Expressions

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

‘Buddha’ means ‘enlightened sentient being’

If we misunderstand ‘Buddha’ to mean something other than ‘an enlightened sentient being’ then it will be difficult to recognize the difference between ‘enlightened conduct’ and ‘deluded conduct’ (i.e. karmic activity).

As Zen/Buddhism recognizes the ceaseless-passage of reality, thus there can only be ‘enlightened conduct’ or ‘deluded conduct’ at any given moment of a particular sentient being’s existence. When a sentient being thinks, speaks, or acts inconsistently with reality as it is (i.e. Buddha-Dharma), they are an ‘ordinary being’ (deluded). When the conduct of a sentient being is in harmony with reality as it is, they are a ‘Buddha’ (enlightened). To be in harmony with the truth (Buddha-Dharma, reality, thusness, etc.) about anything here-now, be it karma, causation, meditation, compassion, is to be Buddha – to diverge from the truth here-now is to be ordinary (i.e. deluded). Accordingly, the Yui-butsu-yo-butsu fascicle opens with this point:

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

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

Question of Dogen’s Intentions and the Form of Shobogenzo

Question of Dogen’s Intentions and the Form of Shobogenzo

 

There is nearly universal agreement that about ninety-five fascicles qualify as candidates for inclusion in Shobogenzo, and that about eighty-six of these can be considered to have been expressly written for Shobogenzo. From there controversy abounds. For example, depending on which of the credible proponent’s view is taken, the actual form of Shobogenzo consists of eighty-four fascicles, or twelve, or twenty-eight, or seventy-five, etc. Besides questions as to which fascicles should be included, there is disagreement as to their order, the extent of their alteration, their connection to Dogen’s koan collection of the same name, and similar questions.

Here I won’t debate these issues, but rather briefly note my view on several points:

·         At least four of the advocated versions of Shobogenzo merit serious consideration.

·         It seems probably that Dogen ultimately intended Shobogenzo to consist of one-hundred fascicles.

·         The evidence suggests Dogen engaged in revising fascicles of Shobogenzo throughout his career.

·         There is good evidence that one of Dogen’s last contributions to Shobogenzo was a revision of the key Genjokoan fascicle.

The reader is referred to the excellent account of the particular issues involved, the historical evidence, and the latest scholarship on these issues by Steven Heine in his comprehensive study of Dogen’s writings, Did Dogen Go To China? What He Wrote and When HeWrote It.

It is my view that the precise details and historical evidence concerning what Dogen may or may not have intended as to the final form of Shobogenzo is ultimately of little import. For the contemporary Zen practitioner the real significance of Shobogenzo is what it actually expresses, not what Dogen may have intended to express. Moreover, it is simply impossible to verify Dogen’s true intentions. More importantly, the truth of Shobogenzo, like the truth of any dharma, exists nowhere but in and as its actual form. From the nondual perspective, the reality of a dharma and its form are not different things – the truth of Shobogenzo exists in/as its form here-now – and nowhere else.

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Sekimon’s Rinkanroku says:

 

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

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

 

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

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

 

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

 

To Be Continued…