Dogen's Criticism of False Dharma

Tommy Bonn - in the comments section of http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.com/ asked:

1. How do you feel about Dogen's contempt for followers of other religions, or people who take up views he finds heretical? It's at least shockingly opposed to the modern spiritual trope that all paths point in the same direction, no? To tip my hand here, whenever I read the Shobogenzo, I find Dogen's extreme contempt for, say, Taoists or lazy people very upsetting and mostly discordant with the profound wisdom evident throughout so much of the text.

2. All sayings of Buddhas are expressions of truth, and all true statements are sayings of Buddhas? I think most Buddhists would assent to the first proposition, but I imagine many would at least be suspicious of the second. If this is the case, is Buddhism a form of philosophy? (Or perhaps ~all~ of philosophy ~plus~ something else?) Could you perhaps expand on the equivalence between true statements and words of Buddhas?

 

 

Hello Tommy,

  

In response to the first point you raise, I would suggest that from the perspective of Dogen’s address there were really only two ‘religions’ – the Way, Tao, or Truth, and Not the Way, Tao, or Truth. His primary intention, I think, was emphasize the futility, more, injurious nature of sectarian bickering – the truth is the truth, if some Buddhist teaching or expression is true it is the ‘authentic Buddha-Dharma’ if not it isn’t; in either case it has nothing to do with a particular (i.e. exclusive, superior, etc.) ‘sect’ or ‘school.’ In short I think Dogen’s criticism is less directed at ‘heresies’ (as opposed to ‘correct doctrines’) and more directed at ‘deluded views’ (as opposed to ‘enlightened understanding’). In other words I think Dogen would say all authentic (true, right, accurate) paths point in the same direction, while all inauthentic (false, wrong, distorted) paths are truly inauthentic.

 

Also most of Dogen’s enthusiastically fiery criticisms or ‘extreme contempt’ (not uncharacteristic in Zen literature generally) seem to me to be directed at truly pernicious views and practices – views and practices that have actually demonstrated the ability to divert genuine aspirants from authentic practice-enlightenment. The use by Dogen of such harsh language, in my experience, seems to signal the delineation of wrong views that are either particularly harmful, particularly widespread, or both – they are ‘shockingly’ virulent for good reason; to get our attention and make a strong impression.

 

Along similar lines, his ‘contempt’ of Taoism, for instance, when seen in the context wherein it appears, is less directed at Taoism itself than it is at misrepresentations of Taoism (e.g. the practice of equating Taoism and Buddhism – that is, suggesting that their doctrine and methodology are indistinguishable). Indeed, in one such criticism in Shobogenzo Dogen says that such practices not only distort the Buddha-Dharma, they do a disservice to Taoism as well – and his writings clearly demonstrate his obvious admiration for and influence by Taoism.

 

The best way I can think of to respond to the second issue you raise is to paste in some excerpts from my (as yet unpublished) Zen Cosmology. The points here should also add some details to the reasoning informing my response to your first issue.

 

Begin excerpts:

 

… I want to recall the reader’s mind to some relevant points previously observed.

 

·         To exist is to be experienced, to be experienced is to exist.

·         All experience is experience of particular dharmas.

·         The true nature (real form/essence) of dharmas is their normality, thusness, whether it is seen ‘as it is’ or ‘as it is not.’

·         To experience anything is to experience reality as it is.

·         To experience reality as it is as it is (i.e. to clearly see), is to be normal (enlightened, Buddha).

·         To experience reality as it is as it is not (i.e. not to clearly see), is to be abnormal (deluded, ordinary being).

 

To accept the validity of these points is to accept the implication that:

 

·         To clearly see reality, is to see truth as truth and see falseness as falseness.

 

This is what Zen means when it speaks of seeing with the eye to read scriptures, the Buddha-Eye, the normal eye, or the Dharma-Eye.

                               

…

 

To realize the koan (genjokoan) is, in Dogen’s terms, to ‘increase the sacred life of Buddha;’ in Zen this is inclusive of all ‘good.’ Not to realize the koan is not to increase the sacred life of Buddha… In Zen this encompasses all that constitutes ‘evil.’

 

… consider Dogen’s expression, ‘Buddhas are greatly enlightened about delusion.’ To see the true nature of a particular dharma is to see its one true reality; its normality or ‘as is-ness’ – thus to be wholly enlightened in/as that particular place-time. One is wholly enlightened in/as that ‘here-now’ because in seeing the one true reality at that place-time, one is thereby ‘equipped with the eye’ to see any and all untruths at that place-time. ...seeing any untruth about a dharma as true (i.e. to see a dharma ‘as it is not’) is to be wholly deluded in/as that particular place-time. …to see any untruth about a dharma as true is obviously to fail to see its one true reality.

 

In light of this reasoning (dori) it is accurate to say that there is only one true Dharma (Buddha-Dharma, Tao, Path) and only one false Dharma. Total existence-time is Buddha – whatever is, is Buddha. Every particular dharma is an expression of Buddha. To see, read, or understand any expression as it is, is to see, read, or understand the one true Dharma. To see, read, or understand any expression as it is not, is to see, read, or understand the one false Dharma.

 

Each here-now of an individual’s experience in/of the activity/expression of existence-time is inherently endowed with the potential to realize (make real) Buddha (or enlightenment), or to not realize Buddha. There are no other possibilities…

 

Each moment of the ceaseless advance of existence-time is an opportunity for enlightenment or not-enlightenment, the true Dharma or not-the-true Dharma, Buddhahood or ordinary being – one or the other; never both or neither…

 

Zen practice-enlightenment… ‘transforms experience into events,’ …fashions passive, random experience into ordered, significant realities. In this sense, ‘sole-sitting’ is a mode of ‘active alertness’ or ‘mindfulness’, an informed intentionally applied capacity to discern and actualize Buddha… Such active mindfulness makes all the difference between passively… ‘living one’s life in vain’ and intentionally ‘actualizing the universe’ (genjokoan).

 

What matters most in religion, as Dogen saw it, is not a deferred realization of immortality in an after-life, nor an eternal recurrence of rebirths, but the realization of enlightenment here and now. Hence, this present birth-and-death is the only absolute locus—discrete from before and after—in which we can speak of religion, that is, our liberation. In short, birth-and-death is the very locus in which the two possibilities of enlightenment and delusion are offered to every one of us. Thus, “in the midst of birth-and-death, an ordinary person wanders about in delusion, whereas a great sage is liberated in enlightenment.” Life can either be a blessing or a curse; hence, we must choose either enlightenment or delusion, but not both. Dogen’s view of religious life bore strictly on this life—no more, no less.

Hee-Jin Kim[i]

 

The ‘curse’ of ‘wandering about in delusion,’ whether… passive dullness… or… cultivated detachment, does not actually constitute the actualization of something, but rather the… absence of actualizing anything… regardless of whether the deluded condition… is the result of… ignorance or timidity, or the result of intentionally turning away from the world, it amounts to the same thing; a reduction… or decrease of experience/existence. To the extent a sentient being is… in harmony with reality as it is, their experience… increases the sacred life of Buddha. To the extent a being is deluded… their experience… fails to increase the sacred life of Buddha.

 

Accordingly, from the perspective of Zen, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ does not… amount to a thing, being, or event (i.e. a dharma) but… an absence or lack of a thing, being, or event… murder, for example, is an obstruction or restraint of the experience/existence of Buddha… rather than the realization of an activity or form… robbery is the hindering of another’s security… lying hinders another’s wisdom, etc.

…

 

From the nondual perspective this is obvious; if every actual instance of reality is Buddha (hence ‘good’), there can be no such a thing as ‘a realization of evil’ or ‘a manifestation of wrong.’ Here is a Zen koan that presents this point directly:

 

Yunmen, addressing his assembly, said, ‘I do not ask about before the 15^th day of the month, come and give me a word about after the 15^th day.

The assembly was silent.

Yunmen, answering for them, said, ‘Every day is a good day.’

Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), Case 6[ii]

 

From the perspective of enlightenment (after the 15^th day) every place-time (every day) is Buddha (good). … If ‘good’ is to have any validity in a nondual cosmology it needs to be understood as a mode of ‘affirmation’ – ‘every day’ is a dharma as it is; a real manifestation of Buddha; if every day is a ‘good’ day, it is because it is a reality, a dharma as it is. Thus, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ can only be valid as a mode of ‘negation.’ ‘Evil’ is a dharma as it is not – more, it is not a dharma as it is, … an absence of reality (good)… as Dogen says, ‘its essence is just nonappearance.’

 

In regard to the ‘wrongs’ that we are discussing now, among ‘rightness,’ ‘wrongness,’ and ‘indifference,’ there is ‘wrongness.’ Its essence is just nonappearance.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[iii]

 

Thus, the essential meaning or significance of ‘good’ is ‘manifestation as it is,’ ‘appearance as it is,’ ‘form as it is,’ actuality, reality – every real thing, being, and event is a good, thing, being, and event; every day is a good day.

 

This does not mean that all is rosy or that all evils serve some great good purpose. Every genuine Zen practitioner is intensely aware of the truth that suffering, tragedy, and horror abound, but they are also fully cognizant of the fact that they abound because of the failure to adequately actualize enlightened thought, speech, and action.

 

…the sole task of genuine Zen teachers and practitioners is to realize the koan (genjokoan), to actualize (make actual) ‘every day is a good day’ which consists in discerning all things as they are (from the enlightened perspective), and thereby, actualizing things as they should be (‘enact that vision amidst this world of duality’)…

 

Again, this is not at all to be understood as denying the value of moral or ethical training, behavior, and commitment or the significance of teachings concerning ‘good and evil’ or ‘right and wrong’ conduct. Such training and teachings are, like all actual dharmas, nothing less than self-expressions of Buddha-nature.

 

…Sentient beings are capable of being sentient of the things, beings, and events they encounter because the things, beings, and events they encounter are what make beings sentient…

 

As it is normal to see a horse as a horse, and thus distinguish it from what is not a horse, it is normal to see the ‘right’ conduct called for at any given place-time, and to distinguish it from the ‘not right’ (i.e. wrong) conduct (i.e. everything ‘other than’ the ‘right’ conduct).

 

We are capable of responding ably here-now because here-now is what enables us to respond. After all, here-now is us – the significance of which shines forth from this remarkable expression by Dogen:

 

Remember, [teaching] that sounds like ‘Do not commit wrongs’ is the Buddha’s right Dharma. This [teaching] ‘Do not commit wrongs’ was not intentionally initiated, and then intentionally maintained in its present form, by the common person: when we hear teaching that has [naturally] become the preaching of bodhi, it sounds like this. What sounds like this is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in words. It is bodhi-speech already, and so it speaks bodhi. When it becomes the preaching of the supreme state of bodhi, and when we are changed by hearing it, we hope ‘not to commit wrongs,’ we continue enacting ‘not to commit wrongs,’ and wrongs go on not being committed; in this situation the power of practice is instantly realized.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[iv]

 

What looks like a horse is form which is the supreme state of bodhi (i.e. Buddha) in/as horse-form, and what “sounds like ‘Do not commit wrongs’ is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in (and as) words.” A particular form or sound (e.g. horse, preaching) was not previously manifest and thereafter abiding (‘intentionally initiated, and then intentionally maintained’) in its present state…

 

For example, what is heard as a sound preaching ‘Do not commit wrongs,’ is Buddha manifesting as an ‘understandable explanation’ of the truth of enlightenment (‘preaching of bodhi’).

 

It goes without saying that we should avoid falling into a literal (one-sided; biased) understanding, thus losing sight of the mythopoeic significance of ‘wrong’ (i.e. an absence of ‘normality’ or ‘good’

 

…In other words, ‘not to commit wrongs’ does not mean to abstain from something; to refrain, desist, or avoid some form or forms of conduct. On the contrary, ‘not to commit wrongs’ means to ‘commit right,’ to conduct oneself appropriately, to continuously ‘respond with ability’

 

…To ‘not commit’ is to engage activity, not restrain activity, thus Dogen says, “we continue enacting ‘not to commit wrongs’…”

 

… as Buddha is only and always ‘good’ or ‘right’, Buddha is also only and always a particular here-now of a particular sentient being. …the ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of today is not the same ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of yesterday, and his ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ is not the same as her ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference.’ Thus Dogen points out:

 

At the same time, at each concrete place these three properties include innumerable kinds of dharmas. In ‘wrongs,’ there are similarities and differences between wrong in this world and wrong in other worlds. There are similarities and differences between former times and latter times. There are similarities and differences between wrong in the heavens above and wrong in the human world. How much greater is the difference between moral wrong, moral right, and moral indifference in Buddhism and in the secular world. Right and wrong are time; time is not right or wrong. Right and wrong are the Dharma; the Dharma is not right or wrong. [When] the Dharma is in balance, wrong is in balance. [When] the Dharma is in balance, right is in balance. This being so, when we learn [the supreme state of] anuttara samyaksambodhi, when we hear the teachings, do training, and experience the fruit, it is profound, it is distant, and it is fine.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[v]

 

Right and wrong are time (hence, existence-time), are the Dharma (i.e. Buddha Way), time is not right or wrong, Dharma is not good or evil. To ‘hear the teachings, do training, and experience the fruit’ is… to engage practice-enlightenment; thus, good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted is the Dharma, the ‘balance’ or ‘equilibrium’ realized in/as authentic practice-enlightenment. To maintain such equilibrium is to be ‘solely-seated’ at the hub… or Bodhi-seat, the here-now from which existence-time ceaselessly springs forth. In Zen this is sometimes called, ‘Taking up with one hand and setting down with the other,’ or ‘Walking straight on a path with 99 curves.’ This is the actualization of the universe (genjokoan).

 

Real actualization is only and always the actualization of some particular dharma, at some definite place-time, by some specific individual being – actualization is good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted; ‘wrong’ is only ‘not-conducted’ in/as actualization-conducted. All that is actualized is Buddha; to conduct-good/not-conduct-evil is to realize Buddha, when Buddha is not realized, not-conducting-evil/conducting-good is not realized.

 

…Not to meet one’s responsibility is to suffer selfishness; to be self-centered (egocentric), hence to deny, restrict, or constrain one’s self, which, being nondual with ‘other,’ is also to deny, restrict, or constrain others. To deny, restrict, or constrain one’s self and others is to hinder or obstruct the experience/existence of self and other – to stem or obstruct the advance of realization…

---

[i] Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, pp.167-168

[ii] Ted Biringer – as learned verbally

[iii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[iv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[v] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

End Excerpts

 

I hope this is helpful.

Please treasure yourself.

Ted

 

 

Recognizing Enlightenment and Delusion

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

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

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

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

Shobogenzo and the Issue of Misplaced Authority

Shobogenzo and the Issue of Misplaced Authority

 

Among other unfavorable outcomes, the narrow focus of specialization characteristic of scholarship and the generalization characteristic of traditional accounts has tended to provide support to the authority of an effectively biased version of Shobogenzo. That is, they have contributed credibility to views that identify Shobogenzo with what actually amounts to an ‘abridgement’ of Shobogenzo.

To clarify, a handful of apparently ‘easier’ fascicles along with a handful of fascicles commonly regarded as ‘philosophically profound’ have appeared in numerous anthological versions of Dogen’s work, exclusive of the majority of Shobogenzo fascicles. Many readers naturally assume such selections provide an accurate and balanced, if general account of Dogen’s vision of Zen.

Obviously, any understanding of a literary work arrived at exclusive of the bulk of its content would be unreliable at best. If the excluded bulk happens to be the more complex content, as has commonly been the case with ‘selected’ translations of Shobogenzo, misunderstanding can be the only result. A native Japanese speaker that read a translation of Acts II, IV, and V of Hamlet would certainly not be qualified to offer a reliable opinion on Shakespeare, and a native English speaker familiar with fifty or sixty fascicles of Shobogenzo is certainly not qualified to hazard an opinion on Dogen. Nevertheless, many less qualified offer more than opinions and even claim to be representatives of ‘Dogen’s Zen.’ Far more unfortunate, such claims are commonly accepted as valid by uncritical and unsuspecting students.

Shobogenzo’s View vs Dogen’s View

Shobogenzo’s View vs Dogen’s View

Significant controversy exists concerning the integral consistency of Shobogenzo’s vision of the Buddha-Dharma. Indeed, the prevalence of a false notion – that such inconsistency has been confirmed*– testifies to the level of significance such controversy entails.

In truth none of the particular examples of inconsistency thus far singled out by proponents of this view meet any standard that could be legitimately qualified as ‘confirmation’ – all claims about the ‘inconsistency’ among the fascicles within Shobogenzo is speculative, not demonstrable. Indeed, the only certain inconsistencies involving Shobogenzo I have encountered are those between the actual significance of Dogen’s expressions and the understanding of those expressions offered by certain commentators.

Most of the actual examples offered to support the notion of inconsistency are clearly misunderstandings arrived at through attempts to read Shobogenzo in a manner inappropriate to such writing; that is, attempting to read mythopoeic expression as literal description. Such an approach is inappropriate for any sacred text or literary masterpiece, and in this case can only exacerbate the already widespread fallacies that exaggerate the complications of Dogen’s symbolism.

Further, the reasoning of the speculative theory of inconsistency has been carried over to support another common misnomer; that Dogen’s view as to what constitutes the authentic Buddha-Dharma underwent a change (or changes) during the course of his teaching career. This theory presupposes the accuracy of the inconsistencies proposed by the former theory. According to this latter notion, the fascicles of Shobogenzo are inconsistent because Dogen’s views changed between the times the various fascicles were written. It is this notion, then, that is the source of frequent allusions to an ‘earlier Dogen’ and a ‘later Dogen’ in contemporary studies.

The quantity and quality to which Dogen’s views are supposed to have changed, along with the degree of abruptness with which the changes occurred, varies according to particular advocates. Briefly, the variations in the theories range from a basic division of ‘early’ and ‘late’ periods roughly corresponding to Dogen’s move from the Japanese Capitol to the isolated Echizen province a little over halfway through his career, to the elaborate theory detailed by Steven Heine as early early; early middle; middle middle; late middle; early late; and late late (See, Did Dogen Go To China?What He Wrote and When He Wrote It,by Steven Heine).

To clarify, I want to point out that accepting this notion requires us to recognize that the apparent inconsistencies are not mistakes in reading or understanding; not mistakes of transcription, editing, forgery, etc. In short, accepting this view requires us to accept that the apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies – to  affirm that Dogen expounded one view as the authentic Buddha-Dharma at one place and time, and expounded another, incompatible view at a different place and time. To accept this notion is to accept that the ‘later Dogen’ would have considered some views of the ‘earlier Dogen’ as wrong views, delusions; false Dharma (and vice versa).

Here I would argue that even if the topics, emphasis, and style of Dogen’s writings did change over the course of his career, and even if these changes coincided with the periods in which Dogen lived in the Capitol and when he lived in the Echizen province, it would not be unusual much less qualify as inconsistent. Indeed, it would be unusual if the content and style of his writing had remained fixed throughout the twenty years of his career, or if his altered environment failed to be demonstrated in his creative endeavors. More importantly, I would argue that none of this would suggest, much less demonstrate that Dogen’s views of the Buddha-Dharma changed during his career. In fact, the constitution of authentic Buddhism as presented by Dogen’s writings demonstrates a remarkable consistency throughout. Granted, there are uncertain points as to the full significance of some of Dogen’s expressions, but there are no certain points that can be regarded as definitely demonstrating inconsistency of Dogen’s views concerning the authentic Buddha-Dharma.

Clearly, attempting to refute vague speculations and generalizations is futile. At the same time, it is also true that every particular example of so-called inconsistency within Shobogenzo thus far offered falls far short of justifying charging Dogen with inconsistency, much less accepting such charges as confirmed. Accordingly, ascribing to the various theories about an ‘earlier and later’ Dogen is even less justifiable. In sum, despite widespread notions, there is no real evidence suggesting an inconsistency in the views expressed by Shobogenzo.

Further, even if there were some validity to the various theories of inconsistency in Dogen’s works, for the Zen practitioner they would be ultimately irrelevant. However, in light of the influence this notion has on contemporary works on Zen and Dogen, I would like to offer the reader a few salient points to keep in mind.

Dogen’s writings are composed in the same medium as all sacred texts and works of art; mythopoeic expression. Any attempt to read mythical and metaphorical expressions from a literal, historical, biographical, philosophical, metaphysical, or other non-mythopoeic perspective can only result in confusion and misunderstanding.

Completing a revision of the Genjokoan fascicle was evidently one of Dogen’s last contributions to Shobogenzo. Genjokoan (originally written in 1233) is one of the earliest fascicles composed for Shobogenzo. His revision in 1252 demonstrates Dogen’s ongoing involvement with even the early fascicles of Shobogenzo. This in itself raises significant questions about attempts to discern changes in Dogen’s views based on evidence of ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ writings. Anyone that has compared earlier and later versions of Dogen’s writings, for example, Fukan zazen gi, can attest to his unabashed willingness to radically alter and re-phrase earlier writings. Rather than indicating changes in Dogen’s understanding, such revisions more likely demonstrate the typical behavior of a teacher; ever striving to improve their communication of knowledge.

It is far more reasonable to see Dogen’s reworking of earlier writings as demonstrating an ongoing effort to refine and elaborate his vision, than it is to speculatively assume such revisions evince efforts to correct earlier viewpoints.

A basic rule of Zen study, as well as common sense, tells us that if our understanding of an expression by a Zen master fails to harmonize with our understanding of another expression by that master we would do well to inquire into the accuracy of our understanding before concluding it is the Zen master that is inconsistent. This basic rule is particularly relevant if the master is, like Dogen, widely recognized as a master of language with an unusual gift for creative expression.

In conclusion I would notice that regardless of Dogen’s views at the beginning, middle, or end of his career, the true nature of reality is the true nature of reality. Regardless of Dogen’s ‘true’ view, it is only our view that has any practical effect on us or the world. The only relevant measure with which Dogen’s writings can be effectively gauged is the actual effect they have on bringing our vision into greater harmony with the true nature of reality.

 

*This prevalence is evinced by the frequency of general statements cited in both academic and traditional works on Dogen and Shobogenzo noting ‘inconsistencies’ among the various fascicles constituting Shobogenzo.

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 True Nature of Existence, Experience, and Nonduality in Dogen's Zen

The True Nature of Existence, Experience, and Nonduality in Dogen's Zen

 

(Excerpt from the Flatbed Sutra Zen Newsletter Jan. 2012)

 

As the fundamental elements of reality in Dogen's cosmology, "dharmas" are primary and primordial, the manifestation and the source of the universe (self/world). In Dogen's writings, which maintain a particularly strict (radical?) adherence to the principles of nonduality, dharmas (objective or subjective) are always viewed and treated as qualitatively equal in regard to the significance of their reality, importance, value, and meaning - a dream, a concept, and a fleeting thought are as real, important, valuable, and meaningful as a pebble, a cup, a scripture, and a solar system.

 

 

[Note: Staying mindful that Buddhism regards "mind" as one of the sense organs (with eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body) and "thoughts" as its "objects" of perception keeps us from becoming too abstract about the notion of "objects" (dharmas); all "the myriad dharmas" amount to (and only to) "six objects of consciousness" (sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts).]

 

In Buddhism, all divisions between objective and subjective dharmas are recognized as conceptual conveniences, not metaphysical or literal facts. Thus, to say that dharmas constitute the fundamental elements of reality, is simply to acknowledge that they cannot be analyzed into "more fundamental" elements - in this context dharmas can be discussed "as if" separate entities, only by accounting for their interdependence and stressing the import of maintaining a conscious understanding that dharmas are impervious to generalization, classification, and categorization, as well as literal description or definition. For, according to the principles of nonduality (i.e. nonduality/duality) each dharma is recognized as a coextensive realization or exemplification that is both nondual and dual - each dharma is one with all things (nondual; indistinct and undifferentiated) and unique, one-and-only instance of existence-time (uji) (dual; a distinct element, one of the many). The nonduality/duality of "nonduality" is the true nature of dharmas that is often designated in Buddhism as "thusness" (immo). "Thusness" is the "as it is" reality of dharmas.

 

The two aspects of the nonduality of dharmas (i.e. nonduality/duality) can be generally understood thus: "the "nonduality" aspect of dharmas is their unequivocal real existence (ontology) in/as the universe (i.e. the totality of existence-time); and: the "duality" aspect of dharmas is their irreplaceable uniqueness, their one-and-only place-moment (dharma-position) in/as the universe (which is what makes them impervious to classification, literal definition, etc). The Buddhist recognition of the "thusness" of dharmas, then, is recognition of the inherent denial of any likeness among dharmas adequate for precisely accurate comparability; a dharma is exactly as it is - it is not exactly like any other dharma.

 

In his criticisms of "Indian Naturalism" (particularly the "Senika School"), for instance, Dogen outlines the obstructive potential of views or theories that posit (or imply) a noumenal nature or aspect of dharmas. Thus, the affirmation that "dharmas are always phenomenal" is followed-up with the assertion that "dharmas are never noumenal." In expressing the obvious - an obvious negative at that - this assertion may seem superfluous, but its significance is important in light of certain notions prevalent in Dogen's day, as well as within the contemporary Zen community.

 

The particular notions that make it important to understand dharmas "are not noumenon" primarily involve views on the nature and role of language, thinking, and reason in Zen practice-enlightenment. More specifically, within the contemporary Zen community the prevailing views - which are variable and indistinct, thus more accurately "general notions" - that regard language, thinking, and reason as less important or inferior to other aspects of practice-enlightenment (particularly seated meditation; i.e. zazen, shikantaza, etc.). Not infrequently, such notions go beyond views of inferiority and demonstrate a tendency to see language, thinking, and reason as nonessential, dispensable, or even as hindrances to Zen practice-enlightenment.

 

Such notions, especially the more extreme forms, are rarely explicitly stated. First, most of those holding such views are doing so unconsciously (or largely so); second, when such notions are explicitly articulated they tend to collapse rapidly due to their inherent lack of logic as well as their failure to harmonize with Buddhist principles. They fail to harmonize with Buddhist principles because they are inherently dualistic. The inherent dualism of such notions is sometimes extremely subtle, not only because it is expressed in vague or ambiguous language (implicit rather than explicit), but also because it is typically couched in terms of "nonduality." Thus, it is crucial to understand that dharmas are "not noumenal" in order to see through, avoid, or overcome wrong views (dualistic notions) that are largely unconscious, often subtle, widespread, and possessed of the power to obstruct accurate understanding (not to mention authentic practice-enlightenment).

 

To help clarify this, we will begin by observing the following quote of the contemporary Soto Zen master, Shohaku Okumura:

 

...Dogen Zenji is discussing this relationship between the self and all beings. He is pointing out that we like things we think are useful, meaningful, or valuable, but we dislike or ignore things that do not suit us. This evaluation occurs within the relationship between self and the myriad dharmas, but there is no such dichotomy within the reality of the myriad dharmas. Within the relationship between self and all beings, there is good and bad, positive and negative, right and wrong. We don't really see the myriad dharmas as they are. We think about things we encounter and name them, assign value to them, and put them into categories such as good and bad, valuable or worthless, likable or unlikable. Our life is actually formed by what we encounter because we create our own world of likes and dislikes based on how we categorize the things we meet. Within this world of likes and dislikes, we do not perceive the myriad dharmas as they really are. Things we like and things we hate look bigger than they are, and things we are not interested in become small or invisible to us. The world we live in is the world we create based on how our mind encounters the myriad dharmas, We cannot prevent our mind from creating our world as it does, but it is possible to realize that the world of our creation does not reflect true reality.

Shohaku Okumura, Realizing Genjokoan: The Key to Dogen's Shobogenzo, p.49

 

[Note: Okumura's comments attempt to elucidate a passage of the Genjokoan fascicle of Shobogenzo. The passage in question (as translated by Okumura) is, "Therefore flowers fall even though we love them; weeds grow even though we dislike them. Conveying oneself towards all things to carry out practice-enlightenment is delusion. All things coming and carrying out practice-enlightenment through the self is realization. Those who greatly realize delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded in realization are living beings. Furthermore, there are those who attain realization beyond realization and those who are deluded within delusion."]

 

First, this is one teacher's interpretation of one passage of one fascicle of one writing by Dogen - thus it should not be considered as a full or accurate indication of Shohaku Okumura's views, much less Dogen's; that is not our purpose in citing it. What this passage does present is an unusually explicit account of a subtle form of dualism common to the general view we been discussing. As mentioned, there are many variations of this view, thus this passage should not be taken as representing a "universal view" of the contemporary Zen community or even the Soto Zen community. Nevertheless, it is my experience that the basic notion expressed here generally accords with the views held by a majority of contemporary Zen practitioners, especially those identified with Soto Zen.

 

Now, Okumura's comments diverge from the classic Zen teachings on a number of points - all of which are grounded on the dualistic presupposition succinctly revealed in his statement, "We don't really see the myriad dharmas as they are." This statement presupposes the same subtle form of dualism found in a variety of common "Zen" expressions like, "The true nature of reality cannot be perceived," "The forms we see are illusory," "The 'appearance' of things is relative (or provisional) while their 'essential nature' (emptiness) is absolute" (i.e. ultimate, real), "The world we perceive is not thusness as is," etc.

 

There is one flaw inherent to all such statements (i.e. dualism), and there are two traits that reveal this flaw; first, its violation of a basic Buddhist principle, second, the speciousness of its basis. In the first case, for Okumura's assertion to be true there would have to be more than one reality (a "false" one we see, and a "real" one we don't see) - this would violate the Buddhist teaching of emptiness which unequivocally refutes the existence of independent entities. The second case presents a two-fold problem; a) the failure to account for or explain what or where "the real reality" (that we don't see) is, and, b) the failure to account for or explain how it is, or what means were used to attain or acquire the "knowledge of a reality" that "we don't or can't really see" - in short, how is/was it perceived that things "are not" as "they are" perceived? If they were truly "not as perceived" then "perceiving that truth" would instantly disprove that very proposition.

 

With this in mind, let's look a little closer at Okumura's expression. He speaks about a "relationship" between "the self and all beings" (synonymously with the "self and the myriad dharmas"). Next, he goes on to explain that we "don't really see the myriad dharmas as they are" because an "evaluation occurs" within this relationship that ultimately results in "the world we create" which "does not reflect true reality." This "evaluation" is described as a process in which we "think about things we encounter and name them, assign value" etc.

 

Here consider, what could this "relationship" consist of? According to Buddhism the "self" (experiencer) and "all beings" or "myriad dharmas" (experienced) are not two different things - each depends on and is dependent on by the other. Also recall that "thoughts" (including "evaluations") are regarded as one of the six kinds of "myriad dharmas." If this "evaluation occurs" as Okumura contends, then this evaluation itself must be qualified as a dharma - as it is - an expression of Buddha-nature. All dharmas are dharmas - as they are; thus Dogen often points out the Buddha-nature expressed as "doubt," "fear," and "surprise," even "wrong views" are real manifestations of Buddha-nature; a wrong view is, as it is, a wrong view.

 

This being so, the present is the "form as it is" of the state of experience, and even "alarm, doubt, and fear" are nothing other than reality as it is.

Shobogenzo,Hokke-ten-hokke, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Now notice that Okumura includes the phrase asserting "there is no such dichotomy within the reality of the myriad dharmas." Why say this? This is a good example of what we mentioned earlier about dualistic views being couched in terms of nonduality; here it sounds as if "self and other" are being recognized as "nondual," while in fact they are actually being merged into one thing (or nothing). In failing to account for the distinction (not separation) between self and other, this "explanation" amounts to a casual dismissal of the infinite variety of the universe, the multitudinous array that make the dharmas "myriad" rather than "uniform." Dogen explains the basic fallacy of this view is based on a misunderstanding of the Buddhist teaching that "all things are empty." Rather than recognizing that this means "all things - as they are - are empty," they mistakenly think that "all things - despite or behind appearances - are empty." In short, they think that the "emptiness (non-form)" of things is separate from the "form (non-emptiness) of things." Dogen explains this, for instance, in Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu:

 

When people without eyes of learning in practice take up the Tathāgata's words "If we see the many forms [and] non-form. . ." they think, "To see the many forms as non-form is just to see the Tathāgata." In other words, they think the words describe seeing the many forms not as forms but as the Tathāgata. Truly, a faction of small thinkers will [inevitably] study the words like that, but the reality of the words which the Buddha intended is not like that...

 

Zen Master Dai Hōgen of Seiryō-in Temple says, "If we see the many forms [as] non-form, we are not then meeting the Tathāgata."

 

This expression of Dai Hōgen now is an expression in the state of meeting buddha... "Because this concrete form is just the form of the Tathāgata, we say that the many forms should be the many forms." This is truly a supreme discourse of the Great Vehicle, and the experience of the masters of many districts. Decisively determining it to be so, we should believe it and experience it. Do not be fluff following the wind to the east and to the west. "The many forms are the form of the Tathāgata, not non-form": investigating this and meeting buddha, deciding this and experiencing conviction, we should receive it and retain it, and we should recite it and become thoroughly versed in it.

...

Therefore, there is only one way to comprehend the state in experience, namely: "the many forms are already beyond non-form, and non-form is just the many forms." Because non-form is the many forms, non-form is truly non-form. We should learn in practice that the form called "non-form" and the form called "the many forms," are both the form of the Tathāgata.

Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

In sum, the deluded notion that we "don't see the myriad dharmas as they are" can only be entertained by presupposing that dharmas are independent entities - that "objects of consciousness" exist independently of "conscious subjects"). This necessarily implies that our (subjective) self is also an independent entity. This is a clear violation of the basic Buddhist principle that regards dharmas as nondual essence/form unties. In Zen, all forms (all six types of objects) are real, as they are - and their reality is not different from their appearance. In Dogen's terms, "Nothing in the whole universe is concealed."

 

The realization of the Buddhist patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all dharmas. All dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is, the mind as it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and stillness, as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and a smiling face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they are; learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of pines and the integrity of bamboos, as they are.

Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

With a solid, practical grasp of these teachings comes a clear, even obvious, that each and every dharma is a phenomenon, and each and every phenomenon is a dharma. This also means that dharmas are never regarded as noumenon. Thus, we come to see that those demonstrating views that dharmas "are llusory," "are not as we perceive," "are temporary or provisional expedients," etc. are harboring, and hindered by, dualistic (non-Buddhist) viewpoints. In Dogen's cosmology, on the other hand, dharmas are never concealed, invisible, unverifiable, mysterious, or supernatural; rather, dharmas are always accessible as they are. Most significantly, dharmas exist, and the existence of each is of equal status in regard to its reality, importance, value, and meaning.

 

[Note: Our meaning of "phenomenon" and "noumenon" coincide with the first definitions offered by Encarta: phenomenon, 1. something experienced, a fact or occurrence that can be observed; and, noumenon, 1. something beyond the tangible world that can only be known or identified by the intellect, not by the senses.]

 

Dogen's emphasis on the phenomenal nature of dharmas serves to underscore their real, spatial-temporal, manifest existence. According to Dogen the true nature (essential reality, emptiness) of each and all particular dharmas is "as it is" (thusness). The significance of this becomes clearer as our study and practice increasingly expands our realization of the Buddhist principles of nonduality.

 

Let us try to bring all this together by considering Dogen's treatment of a saying by Daie Soko (Dogen's archetypal symbol for unreliable Zen masters):

 

A certain monk called Meditation Master Daie Sōkō, once said:

 

Folks today are fond of talking about mind and talking about nature, and because they are fond of talking about profundities and talking about wonders, they are slow to realize the Way. Since mind and nature form a duality, once these folks have discarded this duality, and have forgotten all about the profound and the wondrous as well, then dualities will no longer arise, and they will experience the Truth that the Buddha promised them.

Shobogenzo, Sesshin Sesshō, Hubert Nearman

 

Here we find a demonstration of the same subtle dualism inherent in the view expressed by Shohaku Okumura. It is doubtful that such a superficial view was really expressed by Daie Soko. Nevertheless, it is the view, not Daie, that Dogen is concerned with; and the way the view is voiced here captures the essential nature of the fallacy at the heart of even the most sophisticated forms of dualism. First, this view presents an almost perfect subversion of Dogen's own, as his comments make perfectly clear:

 

These remarks of his show that he was still unaware of the silken thread that binds the Buddhas and Ancestors together, nor had he comprehended what the lifeline of the Buddhas and Ancestors is. Accordingly, he only understood 'mind' to refer to discriminative thinking and consciousness, so he spoke this way because he had not learned that the various functions, such as discriminative thinking and consciousness, are what the intellective mind is. He wrongly viewed 'nature' to mean something that is abundantly clear and peacefully inactive, and did not understand whether Buddha Nature and the nature of all thoughts and things existed or did not exist. And because he had not seen his True Nature as It is, not even in his dreams, he had a false view of what Buddha Dharma is. The 'mind' that the Buddhas and Ancestors spoke of is the very Skin and Flesh, Bones and Marrow. And the 'nature' that the Buddhas and Ancestors have preserved is a monk's traveling staff and the shaft of a bamboo arrow. The Buddhas and Ancestors have profoundly realized the Buddhahood promised Them by the Buddha, and this is what is meant by being a pillar of the temple or a stone lantern. How wondrous it is that the Buddhas and Ancestors hold up and offer to us Their wise discernment and understanding!

Shobogenzo, Sesshin Sesshō, Hubert Nearman

 

[Note: Dogen's scorn for a teacher that "wrongly viewed 'nature' to mean something that is abundantly clear and peacefully inactive" makes us wonder what he might say of contemporary teachers that advocate "letting go of thoughts" or "just sitting without goals" (often appealing to the authority of "Dogen" as they do so!).]

 

Dogen's comments are clear enough, but it is worth stressing his emphasis that "the various functions" of mind are just what the "mind is" - as it is (thusness). Dogen's point, then, is that the very substance of the myriad dharmas is our experience - as it is- of them. The directly perceived image or form of a thing (dharma) is the thing itself. "An idea" is really "an idea" as it is, "an abstract concept" is true nature totally exerting itself as "an abstract concept."

 

The "general dualistic notion" we have been discussing is grounded in the same misunderstanding that caused Dogen to say Daie "did not understand whether Buddha Nature and the nature of all thoughts and things existed or did not exist." Notwithstanding the fact that many contemporary Zen teachers do not know the meaning of "Buddha nature" or "the nature of all thoughts and things" or even whether they exist or not, there is no reason for any genuine Zen practitioner to fail to verify it. Apart from "the nature of all thoughts and things" what is "Buddha nature"? Apart from "discriminative thinking and consciousness" what is "mind"?

 

Thus, for Dogen, the particularity, specificity, and uniqueness of things (dharmas) is far more important than their uniformity, equality, or mutual identity. So here are some juicy bits to get that Dharma-Eye lighted up:

 

And, just because sentient beings are always having their doubts about anything and everything that they have not directly experienced, this does not mean that what they may have previously doubted is the same as what they may now have doubts about, for doubts themselves are merely "just for the moment" kinds of time, and nothing more.

...

When you reach such a fertile field of seeing the way things really are, then the earth in its entirety will be "one whole sprouting, one whole form"; it will be comprised of forms that you recognize and forms that you do not, sproutings that you recognize and sproutings that you do not. It is the same as the times we refer to in "from time to time", which contain all forms of existenceand all worlds. So take a moment to look around and consider whether there is any form of being, that is, any "world", that does or does not find expression at this very moment of time.

Shobogenzo, Uji, Hubert Nearman

 

Buddha Nature is not the existence of something that arises arbitrarily or conditionally, for the whole realm of our being-which is Buddha Nature-is never hidden from us. But saying that the whole realm of our being is never hidden from us is not necessarily the same as saying that our physical world is what existence really is. The statement "The whole realm of my being is something that I possess" constitutes a false view of non-Buddhists. Buddha Nature is not the existence of something that one possesses at the start, for It pervades both our past and our present. It is not the existence of something that has arisen for the first time, for It does not partake of a single bit of illusory dust. It is not the existence of some particular being, for It encompasses all beings. It is not the existence of something that is beyond having a beginning, for It is something that makes Its appearance just in the way that It does. It is not the existence of something that has just come into being for the first time, for our ordinary, ever-present mind is synonymous with the Way.

 

Above all, you need to know that within this "having It through and through", sentient beings do not readily find an easy or pleasant way to encounter It. When you understand "having It through and through" in this manner, to have It through and through then means to penetrate Its very substance and to let all our notions and opinions about It drop off.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

 

Keep in mind that, since the darkness of spiritual ignorance is inseparable from the One Whole Mind, deliberate acts, becoming aware of things, and so forth, are also inseparable from the One Whole Mind. Since the darkness of ignorance is inseparable from cessation, then deliberate acts, becoming aware of things, and so forth, are also inseparable from cessation. Since the darkness of ignorance is inseparable from nirvana, deliberate acts, becoming aware of things, and so forth, are also inseparable from nirvana. We can speak in this way because what arises is also what ceases. "The darkness of ignorance" is a phrase we use in talking. "Becoming aware of things", "giving them name and form", and so forth, are no different. Keep in mind that the darkness of ignorance, deliberate actions, and so forth, are not different from Seigen Gyoshi's saying to his disciple Sekito Kisen, "I have a certain Hatchet and would give It to you, should you choose to reside on this mountain with me." The darkness of ignorance, deliberate actions, becoming aware of things, and so forth, are not different from Sekito's responding, "At the time when I was sent to you, I received your promise of being allowed to have your Hatchet, Reverend Monk, and so I would like to receive It."

Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman

 

When we speak of "what is set in motion by the flowering of the Dharma", we are referring to the mind's wandering off onto deluded paths. And the mind's delusive wandering, accordingly, refers to what is set in motion by the flowering of the Dharma. That is to say, our mind's wandering off is precisely what is set in motion by the Dharma's flowering. What this means is that, even though the mind's delusions are synonymous with the myriad thoughts and things that arise, the form their True Nature takes is what is aroused by the flowering of the Dharma. This "being set in motion" is not something to rejoice in, or watch for, or obtain, or arrive at; even so, what the Dharma's flowering sets in motion is precisely "neither two things nor three". Since the flowering of the Dharma is our having only One Vehicle to Buddhahood, because it is the flowering of the form of things as they really are, we speak of "being able to set in motion what moves". Even so, it is just the One Vehicle to Buddhahood, just the One Great Matter for which we train, just the ever-moving about of the mind as it is, and nothing more. So, do not reproach yourself for your mind's delusions. As the Scripture says, "Whatever is done by you is the way of bodhisattvas," and "The fundamental practice of the Bodhisattva Way is our serving and paying homage to all the Buddhas." Our opening up to this Way, manifesting It, awakening to It, and entering It are, all together, what is set in motion by the Dharma's flowering each and every time. There are our delusions about what is within the burning house, and our delusions about being at the threshold of the gate, and our delusions about what lies outside the gate, and our delusions about what being on the other side of the gate is like, and our delusions about being within the gate. Because, in our delusion, we give rise to such notions as "being within the gate" and "being beyond the gate", to say nothing of "being at the threshold of the gate" and "being within a burning house", we will, of necessity, open up to It, manifest It, awaken to It, and enter It whilst upon the cart drawn by the White Ox.

Shobogenzo, Hokke Ten Hokke, Hubert Nearman

 

The realization of the Buddhist patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all dharmas. All dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is, the mind as it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and stillness, as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and a smiling face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they are; learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of pines and the integrity of bamboos, as they are.

Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross