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

The Mind Alone Is The Myriad Dharmas

The Mind Alone Is The Myriad Dharmas

There is a wonderful passage in Himitsu-shōbōgenzō, Butsu-kōjō-no-ji, that presents a crystallization of Dogen’s world view or central myth. In this passage the nature and dynamics of the universe are presented by a vision of the nondual actualization of the self and self in terms of “the body” and the “Buddha-Dharma” (or “Dharma”). Here we are presented with a vision of reality wherein the individual “dies” (abandons ego-centricity) for the universal, and the universal “dies” (abandons undifferentiated oneness) for the individual. The richness of the images presented by this vision, within which we find Dogen characteristically pointing out significant features, is far beyond the ability of any summary, thus we reproduce it in part here:

“The Buddha-Dharma,” namely, is the myriad dharmas, the hundred weeds, all real dharmas, the triple world. No buddha has failed to perfectly realize this, and so there is nothing that is not perfectly realized as this by buddhas. That being so, when we inquire into life, there is none beyond real dharmas, and when we look for death, it is never separate from the myriad dharmas. Even to act in the interests of [life and death] also is this Dharma. For this reason, the principle of “abandoning the body for the Dharma” is clear. We have been abiding in and retaining this life and this death for a long time, [but] we have not received them from others; they do not depend on anyone else. As exhalation and inhalation at this concrete place, life is the body, and the body is the Dharma here and now. So the inevitable abandonment of life is, from the outset, for the Dharma. When we do not forget that death [also] is abandonment, we are experienced in the present by the Dharma; and even if we sought to abandon the body at a place beyond the Dharma, that could never be at all. As to the meaning of this “abandonment,” it is always incurred by “the body,” and just at the time of “abandonment of the body for the Dharma,” when we turn light around and reflect, it is also “abandonment of the Dharma for the body.” In other words, when the Dharma raises its own voice to proclaim itself, the expression “abandoning the Dharma for the body” is present; and when the body naturally raises its voice to announce itself, the expression “abandoning the body for the Dharma” is communicated: we should know that those to whom these buddha-actions, totally, have come, and those who have been learning them for long ages, are ourselves. Now and eternally, unable to regress or stray, we are put into practice by action in the present, and there is no instance in which action does not overflow from us. Since ancient times it has been said that a person who attains the truth entrusts life and death to the mind. Truly, it may be so; we should not doubt it. When this principle is apparent, we also know our own mind; and when we know our own mind, “this principle” also is apparent. At the same time, we also know what our own body is, and we also clarify and learn the dignified behavior that belongs to our body. In learning this we illuminate the way life is and the way death is. To illuminate this is not to have deviously thrown light upon what [otherwise] might not have been illuminated. We should understand that this kind of illumination takes place when we illuminate what is evident. To illuminate “this principle,” we should first know how the mind is and should learn how the mind is. To learn of its condition means, in other words, to know that “the myriad dharmas” are “the concrete mind,” and to understand that “the triple world” is “the mind alone.” Even what is called “knowing” and what is called “understanding” are the myriad dharmas and are the triple world, and are their having been like this. Thereafter we must exactly investigate what life is entrusted to, and what death is entrusted to. As we continue investigating, an evident truth is present; it is, namely, the vigorous activity of the mind alone. It has not been produced by anything else; it is the real state of the mind alone itself—it has not been marshaled by objects. Thus, the real state of life and death is just the mind alone having been entrusted to itself. The reason, if asked, is that there is no mind alone that is not the myriad dharmas, and no myriad dharmas that are not the mind alone. Even if we purport to banish this life and death to a place beyond the mind alone, it will still be impossible for us to be hated by the mind alone.

Himitsu-shōbōgenzō, Butsu-kōjō-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The above passage exemplifies Zen’s insights, culminating in and as Dogen’s works, of the metaphorical nature of reality. In recognizing the self as its root metaphor, Zen expressions (doctrines and methods) provide a perspective from which the myriad dharmas are seen as they are; the expressed forms of the nondual activity of the individual self (myriad dharmas) and the universal self (mind alone). This perspective conveys the true significance of the self by revealing the living vitality of the world (i.e. the myriad dharmas). It is this revelation of living vitality that Hee-Jin Kim translates as “the revaluated world” in his illuminating commentary on Dogen’s teaching of “negotiating the Way,” which begins with this passage:

In the Shobogenzo, “Bendowa” (1231), Dogen succinctly enunciates his Zen: The endeavor to negotiate the Way (bendo), as I teach now, consists in discerning all things in view of enlightenment, and putting such a unitive awareness (ichinyo) into practice in the midst of the revaluated world (shutsuro).” This statement clearly sets forth practitioners’ soteriological project as negotiating the Way in terms of (1) discerning the nondual unity of all things that are envisioned from the perspective of enlightenment and (2) enacting that unitive vision amid the everyday world of duality now revalorized by enlightenment. Needless to say, these two aspects refer to practice and enlightenment that are nondually one (shusho itto; shusho ichinyo).

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.21

The revelation of the living vitality or revaluation of the world manifests as an awareness of and appreciation for the sacredness of all manner of dharmas as well as the individual self. The instruments and institutions of civilization, the infrastructure of transportation and communication, technology, manufactured goods and consumable products are seen to be as sacred as Buddhas, the natural world, and our own body-minds. This metaphorical perspective (i.e. discerning all things in view of enlightenment) revalorizes the world by revealing that this world is, as it is, each and all the myriad dharmas that constitute the totality of existence-time here-now, the (Buddha) mind alone, the sole ancestor that is every “I”, every “I” that is the sole ancestor. Where dualistic egocentric “values” are based on the view of a world of external beings, insentient objects, matter, and empty space stretching outward and away from the self in all directions, the “view of enlightenment” reveals the true mythopoeic vision of the world wherein trees, lakes, motorcycles, shoes, and figures of speech are sentient beings and even ordinary tiles have hearts:

If we belittle tiles as being lumps of clay, we will also belittle people as being lumps of clay. If people have a Heart, then tiles too will have a Heart.

Shobogenzo, Kokyo, Hubert Nearman

The “revaluation” of the world is the “metaphorical transposition” – the “apocalypse” of the common world (the unawakened perspective), that is simultaneously the “revelation” of the Buddha world – wherein the true valuation of the world is recognized and actualized by/as authentic Zen practice-enlightenment. From this new perspective all dharmas are valued (revaluated) as unique instances of Buddha, thus notions of “superiority and inferiority” give way to the active engagement of discerning and actualizing authenticity (discerning all things in view of enlightenment and putting that awareness into practice in the world). This means, for one thing, that human feelings, interests, and passions (i.e. dharmas) are not viewed as more or less “real” (or important) than mountains, stars, historical facts, or scientific proofs; Melville’s Ahab and the carbon dating of a fossil are expressions of the self (self-expressions), equally real, unique instances of Buddha, hence, sacred, eternal, and sentient. The self is the root metaphor of Zen because Zen recognizes that all dharmas are self-actualizations.

Peace,

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