The Mutual Actualization of the Self and the World

The Mutual Actualization of the Self and the World

 

The state that is visited by brightness and by color may be present in this learning in practice. “I entrust effects to effects themselves”: this expresses “natural realization.” “Natural realization” means enacting causes and accepting effects. The world has causes, and the world has effects. We enact the cause-and-effect that is this world, and we accept the cause-and-effect that is the world. “The [natural] self” is “itself,” and the self is inevitably just you, in other words, the four elements and five aggregates.

Shobogenzo, Kuge, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

We (the subject we call ‘myself’) ‘enact… this world.’ The actualization of consciousness is an object enacted by a subject; a subject enacts, an object is enacted. Notice that in the case that we think, speak, or act in regard to a ‘subject’ enacted (e.g. ‘I felt myself falling,’ ‘I made myself go,’ ‘I reminded myself of my vow,’ etc.) we think, speak, or act in regard to what is actually an ‘object.’ Further, to regard a subject as an object, or to regard an object as a subject is, in either case, to regard an object – for ‘that which regards’ is the subject in either case. And despite my objectification of the subject with ‘that which regards,’ my meaning should be clear enough; to treat an object as a subject does not make an object a subject. The subject is the enactor, the object is the enacted. For example, consider this expression of Dogen:

 

So life is what I am making it, and I am what life is making me.

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

In the first clause, ‘life’ is the object and ‘I’ is the subject; in the second clause, ‘life’ is the subject and ‘I’ is the object. Subject and object are nondual not one and the same, interdependent not interchangeable, coessential not undifferentiated, coextensive not homogenous. The subject is always the enactor, maker, or fashioner; the object is always the enacted, made, or fashioned.

 

I am belaboring the point because without a firm grasp it is easy to confuse the limitations and potentials of our actual capacities, our true abilities to respond (hence our responsibilities) to the world. For, while it is true that, in harmony with the principles of nonduality, our (subjective) ‘self’ is all-inclusive (of ‘self/other’) and our (objective) ‘world’ is all-inclusive (self/other), each, ‘self’ and ‘world,’ possesses unique qualities and characteristics. That is, if we fail to clearly distinguish which qualities and characteristics belong to our self (enactor) and which to the world (enacted) we will be unable to think, speak, or act normally (from the enlightened perspective). In short, we will be confused about what we actually can and cannot do in regard to ‘making life what it is.’

 

For example, according to the doctrine and methodology of certain pseudo-Zen groups, individual beings (subjects) are largely, or wholly enacted or fashioned by the (objective) world, hence efforts to enhance the world are largely, or wholly futile, thus regarded as symptoms of delusion. At the other extreme, for instance among some ‘New Age’ movements, individual beings are supposed to fashion the world so completely that their worldly circumstances (e.g. health, financial status, intelligence, etc.) are largely, if not entirely of their own making. The ‘way’ to peace, happiness, or liberation advocated by the former species is either to accept the world as it is, or else to cultivate detachment or ‘goallessness’ and cut off desire and aversion. The ‘way’ of the latter species is to transform the world into a horn of plenty by rooting out negativity by cultivating positive thoughts or ‘vibes’ with affirmations of health, abundance, and happiness. In both of these ‘ways’ the nature of subjective and objective reality, the truth of existence/experience is seen as it is not, hence can only obstruct their followers from the true Dharma.

On Zazen and Koans - A Response to Kogen

This post is in response to a comment from Kogen (Farmer monk) on the post Aug. 7 2012

Hello Kogen,

.

Thank you for writing.

.

To me it seems clear that every fascicle of Shobogenzo is as much about koans as zazen - that Dogen's expressions on "zazen" presuppose "koans" and his expressions on "koans" presuppose "zazen."

.

Dogen practice-enlightenment is not divided into "Zen" and "other" activities. Practice-enlightenment is not "this is zazen," "that is koan study," "this is samu," "that is kinhin" - rather, practice-enlightenment is shikantaza (sole sitting); SINGLE-MINDED sitting, ONLY sitting.

.

There is not sitting AND koans, not sitting AND kinhin, not sitting AND eating rice, there is SOLELY sitting.

.

You ask if there are fascicles that treat of "koans"

.

"...like Fukanzazengi does for zazen..."

.

It seems clear to me that Fukanzazengi, speaks of koan practice as much as sitting practice - more accurately, speaks of meditation and koans as part and parcel of the same activity.

.

Notice the koans Dogen refers to in Fukanzazengi. They are of the most frequently mentioned in the Zen records to exemplify the "means" which the "changing of the moment" is realized:

.

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

~Fukanzazengi

.

Practitioners familiar with the records will instantly recognize the “means of a finger” from the koan of master Gutei, “a needle” from the koan of Kanadeva meeting Nagarjuna, the “staff” of Teshan, and the “shout” of Rinzai. The specific particularity in which the Buddha is manifest is characteristic of Zen’s universal inclusivity and nondiscrimination –each is an essential person of Buddha-nature, an integral form of Buddha.

.

Dogen’s insistence to "study this" "get inside these words" "penetrate this saying" "take up these words again and again" are so constant it is easy to become desensitized - especially if we have become conditioned to think Dogen "did not teach that koans were part and parcel with zazen."

 .

Yet, Dogen’s explicit instructions to take up and study specific phrases, words, koans, sutras, and so on outnumber his instructions to dedicate ourselves to Zazen by at least 20 to 1. When Dogen urges us to "investigate these words in practice," I am not about to presume he means "some other kind of practice" - he means the same kind of practice he always means, we should take them up in sitting meditation.

.

To get a sense of this, consider these random examples form Dogen’s works:

 .

"The truth expressed now in the founding Patriarch’s words ‘What people are able to hear the non-emotional preaching the Dharma’ should be painstakingly researched through the effort of one life and many lives."

Shobogenzo, Mujo-Seppo, Nishijima & Cross

.

We should quietly investigate the principle of, and learn in practice the realization of words like this.

Shobogenzo, Ganzei, Nishijima & Cross

.

At the same time we should investigate whether the Great Master’s words ‘I call this thing bamboo and wood,’ and Shin-o’s words ‘I also call it bamboo and wood,’ are the same or not the same, and whether they are adequate or not adequate. The Great Master says, ‘If we search the whole Earth for a person who understands the Buddha-Dharma, it is impossible to find one.’ We should also closely scrutinize and decide about this expression.

Shobogenzo, Sangai-Yuishin, Nishijima & Cross

.

Thus the words ‘being without the Buddha-nature’ can be heard coming form the distant room of the fourth patriarch. They are seen and heard in Obai, they are spread throughout Joshu district, and they are exalted on Dai-i [mountain]. We must unfailingly apply ourselves to the words ‘being without the Buddha-nature.’ Do not be hesitant.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Nishijima & Cross

.

Learning these words in practice, we should meet with the ancestral patriarchs of Buddhism and we should see and hear the teachings of Buddhism.

Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Nishijima & Cross

.

We must investigate these words quietly; we should replace our heart with them and replace our brain with them.

Shobogenzo, Daigo, Nishijima & Cross

.

One of his favorite phrases; "learning in practice." I think it is important to understand exactly what he means. Here is one of his own explanations:

.

’Learning in practice’ means not intending to understand at once but striving painstakingly hundreds of times, or thousands of times, as if working to cut a hard object. We should not think that when a person has something to relate we will be able to understand at once.

Shobogenzo, Mitsugo, Nishijima & Cross

.

Also notice this explicit instruction offered to some lay practitioners - the FIRST thing they should do upon meeting a teacher:

.

Good gentelman, when you meet a teacher, first ask for one case of [koan] story, and just keep it in mind and study it diligently. If you climb to the top of the mountain and dry up the oceans, you will not fail to complete [this study].

Dogen's Extensive Record, Vol.8:14, Leighton & Okumura

.

You wrote: "...my teachers have been very open to my practicing with anything that works-koans, shamatha, mantras..."

 .

Excellent, if they were not you probably would have kept looking for reliable teachers.

.

You wrote: "Can you point to any Soto teachers being opposed to it?"

 .

I have worked with teachers from various lineages - and of the 4 I worked with in the Soto, only 1 recognized the zazen/koan nonduality - the others advocated against the "use of koans" in zazen - I should point out that of the Soto teachers I have spoken to, very few have experience with koan training.

 .

The standard line for teachers of the "Soto sect" is that zazen or shikantaza is distinct from, or independent of koan practice. Koans are commonly regarded as "expediant devices" or worse. Koan study is accepted by most, but is strictly distinguished from zazen - Dogen's exhortations to "study these words in practice" are usually "interpreted" as referring to some "other" practice than zazen.

.

I would rather avoid names - I will say however, it would be easier to name the few Soto teachers that do regard zazen/koans as nondual, than list the ones that don't.

 .

You wrote: "I've personally always thought the distinction between Soto and Rinzai is silly. Dogen was a lineage holder in both and urged his students, like Rujing, that we were Buddhists, just Buddhists."

 .

Yes. It sounds like you have found the one always reliable guide that is always as close as hands and feet.

 .

Thanks again - watch out for the corpses, they are strewn all over.

.

Ted

.

When Students of the Way are looking at sayings, you must exert your power to the utmost and examine them very very closely.

~Dogen, Record of Things Heard, Thomas Cleary, Vol.4 p.825

Zazen is Koan, Koan is Zazen

Zazen is Koan, Koan is Zazen

…evidenced by the prevalence in the Shobogenzo of extensive exegeses and interpretations of carefully selected koans from the classical sources… Dogen’s effort was not to destroy, but to restore, the koan to its rightful status… For Dogen, single-minded sitting and the “realization-koan” were two aspects of a single methodology. In brief, zazen was koan, koan was zazen.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.4

Thusness, Normality, and the Reason (dori) of Dharmas

Thusness, Normality, and the Reason (dori) of Dharmas

The notion of thusness is the Buddhist recognition and acknowledgement of the normality of all dharmas. The normality of things is the Buddha-nature of things; to see the normality of a thing is to see its thusness, that is, to see Buddha.

“I shall pursue the problem of reason… specifically with respect to dori (or kotowari), one of Dogen’s most favorite concepts, that connotes “truth,” “reason,” “reasonableness,” “justice,” “naturalness,” and so on. Broadly speaking, our concern has to do with reason and rationality in Dogen’s soteriology, which has been grossly neglected in Dogen studies. We may ask why we should bother with the subject in the first place when the issue is in such disrepute in this day and age of postmodernism?  …whatever the merits and demerits of postmodernism may be, I am deeply convinced more than ever that no age in human history calls for the genuine understanding and re-vision of reason more urgently than ours.”

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, pp.100-101

Because in reality all dharmas are Buddha, all dharmas possess intrinsic value, even ultimate value. The ultimate value intrinsic to dharmas (their thusness, or normality) is found in and treated by Dogen according to his notion of the reason, reasonableness, or rightness of dharmas – that is the intrinsic “dori” of dharmas. The term “dori” combines “do” (tao, way, path; also, to speak, to express) and “ri” (Chinese, li; principle, pattern, order; also, to arrange, to regulate).

As the works of David L. Hall, Helmut Wilhelm, Roger T. Ames, and others demonstrate, the significance of “dori” (reason) has a profoundly subtle and wide ranging capacity. In all his works, the preeminent scholar of Dogen studies, Hee-Jin Kim, has eloquently emphasized and illumined the profound significance of dori in Dogen’s Zen. Thus, to convey the primary significance of dori as it relates to Dogen’s Zen we can do no better than offer some quotes by the grand-master himself.

It is noteworthy that the notion of do in the East Asian traditions has a single common thread, namely, the meaning of walking, journeying, or movement along a path. The Way is never extricated from the processes of phenomena themselves.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.101

All things considered, the li constitutes those patterns, rhythms, and regularities which humans discern as meaningful in carrying out their day-to-day activities, by participating in the dynamics of the natural, and according to their personal, historical, and cultural conditions and forces. Rationality is never regarded as an immutable, self-contained truth or essence transcendentally existent in a hierarchical, teleological world order, but is grasped in an ever-shifting process of human affairs in relation to nature, history, and culture.

Considered in the Buddhist context, li, like tao, attains enormous complexity in its significance: The word is employed to denote siddhanta (fundamental principle/law) and, hence such Buddhist notions as thusness, emptiness, equality…”

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.102

“…li is also used to signify, for example, pramaha (to arrange, to regulate, to rectify). It is particularly noteworthy that in Hua-yen thought li (“principle”) is paired with shih (“phenomena”), and their relationship is conceived in such a way that the non-obstruction of li and shih (li-shih wu ai; rigi muge) is further refined as “the nonobstruction of shih and shih” (shih-shih wu ai; jiji muge)—in other words, the interpenetration and harmony of all phenomena.  

…Dori is broad and fexible enough in its capacity to embrace logos, mythos, ethos, and pathos; cognition, affection, and conation; nature and culture; fact and value; theoria and praxis; the self and the universe. …dori is practically oriented, enabling humans to participate in its countless configurations, rhythms, and regularities in life and the world as they discern meaningful …dori regulates, arranges, and manages, as much as it challenges, surmounts, and subverts.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.103

Peace,

Ted