One Bright Pearl

Fortunately, the true potential of mythopoeism as well as the limitations of literalism continues to be disclosed and communicated at an exponential rate, thanks to ongoing efforts in the fields of psychology and comparative mythology, as well as related developments within the spheres to the biological and cognitive sciences, which continue to enjoy a great increase of interest.

Even in the absence of these advances, however, most of us can recognize a clarifying, enlightening capacity is intrinsic to metaphoric language if we simply devote a little time considering the plain facts. For

instance, when a friend informs us that sunrise was at 0615 we naturally grasp the truth of the expression, even though it is literally nonsense; we know the sun does not literally rise, yet we understand the truth of ‘sunrise.’ We constantly use similar literal fallacies, contradictions, and paradoxical expressions to accurately communicate in nearly every area of our everyday lives.

It is usually only when we try to verify or refute the products of abstract speculation – hence subtracted from their actual context – that we get entangled in arguments confined by the limitations of dictionary

definitions. The expressions of poetry, koans, and myth are informed by wisdom concerning the true nature of reality, thus by wisdom of the true potential of language.

The Zen master Shibi once said, ‘The whole universe is one bright pearl.’ According to dualistic or literal standards, Shibi’s assertion is unequivocally false, irrational, meaningless nonsense. In accordance with

Zen or nondual standards however, Shibi’s statement is not only true, rational, and infused with ultimate meaning, it is charged with liberating potential. The power of such a metaphor is often precisely due to its paradoxical quality – the fact that it is ‘literally false.’ For instance, upon hearing Shibi’s assertion the Zen practitioner immediately grasps the truth that the whole universe is and is not ‘one bright pearl.’ Nobody is foolish enough to think Shibi means the whole universe is literally one bright pearl, thus the actual truth (real knowledge) communicated by the expression must abide at a deeper level.

If we fail to grasp the truth communicated by the word ‘sunrise’ the failure does not rest with the word or the person that expresses it, but with our ability to discern its true meaning. The truth that ‘the whole universe is one bright pearl’ is not rendered false by our failure to grasp it – nor is it rendered true by subjecting it to a literal definition; its actual truth endures as it is, and only as it is – even if only one being understands it.

Some scholars, by attempting to subject the language of Zen to (dualistic) literal standards, have cited isolated passages from Shobogenzo in support of their claims that the work is ‘inconsistent.’ To charge Shobogenzo with inconsistency based on such standards is about as reasonable as charging our friend with lying for saying that sunrise occurred at 0615. We do not need linguistic expertise or a degree in postmodern philosophy to recognize that ‘sunrise’ is not its reality and still recognize the truth actually communicated. As Dogen says:

This ‘One Pearl’ is still not Its name, but It can be expressed so, and this has come to be regarded as Its name.

Shobogenzo, Ikka Myoju (Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross)

 

Excerpt from,  Zen Cosmology: Dogen’s Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview pp.120-121

The Normal Mind is the Tao (ken-sho, ken-butsu)

The Normal Mind is the Tao (ken-sho, ken-butsu)

 

 

Enlightenment – discerning the true nature of the self – is an experiential activity, not a static condition or state of attainment. Enlightenment does not bestow Zen mastery (or teaching credentials), supernatural power, superior intelligence, or sainthood, much less freedom from moral obligation, causation, or delusion. The initial experience of enlightenment (ken-sho; seeing true nature) reveals, for the first time, the normal perspective. Ongoing practice-enlightenment (shusho) means to be continuously attentive to that perspective (ken-butsu; seeing Buddha) and thereby foster the actualization of normality in the here and now of existence-time.

 

An accurate view is not in itself an accurate understanding, but rather a view from which an accurate understanding becomes possible. Upon a mountaintop surrounded by clouds, one’s perspective is naturally limited by the clouds. When the clouds clear, one’s perspective naturally expands, increasing the possibility for understanding one’s true location in the world. Similarly, practice-enlightenment, being unhindered by the clouds of literalism and conceptualization (presuppositions, fixations, and biases), simply means being provided with a normal perspective, a perspective from which one can think, speak, and act in a manner appropriate to one’s actual situation.

 

One of the many things accounted for by the Zen doctrine of “Dharma transmission” is the Buddha-Dharma’s intrinsic capacity of eternal endurance and infinite elaboration. In harmony with the continuous self-generation inherent to the metaphorical nature of the self, the “Dharma” (i.e. the enlightened wisdom initially realized by Shakyamuni Buddha) is metaphorically portrayed as a “transmission” from the self to the self with traditional images of master and apprentice. As a master craftsman passes on his knowledge and skills to an apprentice, so the (universal) Buddha mind transmits the wisdom of enlightenment to the (individual) Buddha mind. Presenting this activity of “Buddhas alone together with Buddhas” in metaphorical images of “master and apprentice” reveals the nature of transmission with a clarity that is much easier to envision than that of more abstract expressions like “mind to mind,” “self and self,” etc.

 

[Note: Metaphorical expressions of “Dharma transmission” have long been distorted into objects of literalism and idolatry based on vulgar misunderstanding. While superficial (literal) interpretations of transmission have a long history, the true metaphorical significance of the Zen doctrine has never been as absent as now – contemporary discussion is almost exclusively limited to formal ceremonies, certificates, and rituals related to institutional succession, i.e. the official sanction or establishment of sectarian teachers.]

 

The Zen doctrine of transmission portrays the “self-generating” aspect of the metaphorical nature of the self as a process in which new metaphors (expressions of truth) are actualized by the ceaseless interaction of expression (self-expression) and response (self-response) among “Buddhas alone together with Buddhas.” The “response” (self-response) of the Buddha-mind to the expression of the Buddha-mind is the natural functioning of normal hearing (i.e. enlightened hearing, seeing, feeling, etc.; the experience of dharmas as they are). In this sense, then, “seeing” with the Dharma-eye (or Dharma-ear, nose, body, etc.) is “fashioning” or “making.” In other words, when dharmas (expressions of Buddha) are experienced as they are, the self that sees resonates with the self that is seen in a manner that rings out through space and time as the ceaseless actualization of the universe (genjokoan).

 

Thus, language becomes ascesis, instead of gnosis or logos—‘seeing things as they are’ now means ‘making things as they are.’ In this light the indexical analogy of ‘the finger pointing to the moon’ is highly misleading, if not altogether wrong, because it draws on a salvifically inefficacious conception of language.

~Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.64

 

Zen practice-enlightenment is the self seeing its true nature – its all-inclusiveness and its fathomless infinity. The totality of existence-time, then, is seen as only and always a particular form here and now (this dharma here and no other). Moreover, in seeing particular forms (this cup, that flower here and now) as a specific instance of total existence-time the self recognizes its fathomless infinity as infinite delusion.

 

 

Guts and blood...

 

Ted

Dogen: The Insentient Preaching Dharma, Shobogenzo, Mujo-seppo

Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Mujo-seppo, Part 1


Preaching the Dharma in preaching the Dharma is the realized universe that Buddhist patriarchs transmit to Buddhist patriarchs. This preaching the Dharma is the Dharma preaching. It is neither sentient nor insentient. It is neither intentional doing nor nondoing. It is not causally connected with doing and nondoing, and it is not something that arises from circumstances. At the same time, it does not follow the way of the birds; it is given to a Buddhist assembly. When the great state of truth is completely realized, preaching the Dharma is completely realized. When the Dharma treasury is transmitted, preaching the Dharma is transmitted. At the time of picking up a flower, preaching the Dharma is picked up, and at the time of transmitting the robe, preaching the Dharma is transmitted. For this reason, the buddhas and the patriarchs have, in like fashion, paid homage to preaching the Dharma since prior to the King of Majestic Voice, and have practiced preaching the Dharma as their original practice since prior to the buddhas themselves. Do not learn only that preaching the Dharma has been orchestrated by Buddhist patriarchs; Buddhist patriarchs have been orchestrated by preaching the Dharma. This preaching the Dharma is not merely the expounding of the eighty-four thousand gates of Dharma; it includes countless and boundless gates of Dharma preaching. Do not learn that later buddhas preach as Dharma the Dharma preaching of former buddhas. Just as former buddhas do not come back as later buddhas, so it is also in preaching the Dharma: former preaching of the Dharma is not used as later preaching of the Dharma. For this reason, Sakyamuni Buddha says, “In the same manner that the buddhas of the three times preach the Dharma, so now do I also preach the Dharma that is without distinction.” Thus, in the same way that buddhas utilize preaching the Dharma, buddhas utilize preaching the Dharma. And in the same way that buddhas authentically transmit preaching the Dharma, buddhas authentically transmit preaching the Dharma. Therefore, having been authentically transmitted from buddhas of the eternal past to the Seven Buddhas, and having been authentically transmitted from the Seven Buddhas to today, there exists “the non-emotional preaching the Dharma.” In this non-emotional preaching the Dharma the buddhas are present, and the patriarchs are present. Do not learn that “I now preach the Dharma” expresses an innovation that differs from the authentic tradition. And do not experience the time honored authentic tradition as if it were an old nest in a demon’s cave.
Shobogenzo, Mujo-seppo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

As observed in recent posts, Shobogenzo distinguishes between the vision of prajna (enlightened wisdom) and common abstract, biased vision. Prajna is the integral unity or the center of gravity of the combined causes and conditions that not only make humans human, but makes each human a unique character. In short, prajna facilitates and informs the meaning and significance of an individual being’s characteristic attitude toward the experience of life.

Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking are the six streams of experience that constitute human existence. These never-ceasing, ever-advancing streams are the common reality of Buddha nature/mu-Buddha nature shared by all beings.

The prajna of each human being (either actively or passively) arranges these six streams into the existence experienced by them. Active actualization is consciously directed prajna; passive actualization is unconscious and haphazard. This is what informs Dogen’s view that true wisdom is most clearly revealed in and as “expression of truth,” here called “preaching Dharma.” To clarify these points, Dogen follows his opening passage with this Zen koan:

National Master Daisho of Kotakuji in the Western Capital in the great kingdom of Tang, the story goes, is asked by a monk, “Can the insentient really preach the Dharma, or not?”
The National Master says, “They are always preaching ardently; they preach without interval.”
The monk says, “Why do I not hear it?”
The National Master says, “Whether or not you hear it yourself, you should not disturb others who do hear it.”
The monk says, “I wonder what kind of person is able to hear it.”
The National Master says, “Saints are able to hear it.”
The monk says, “Does the Master hear it or not?”
The National Master says, “I do not hear it.”
The monk says, “If the Master himself does not hear it, how does he know that the insentient preach the Dharma?”
The National Master says, “It is convenient that I do not hear it. If I heard it I would be on the level of the saints, and then you would not be able to hear me preaching the Dharma.”
The monk says, “So living beings are without the means [to hear].”
The National Master says, “I preach for living beings. I do not preach for saints.”
The monk says, “What are living beings like after they hear?”
The National Master says, “At that time they are beyond living beings.”
Shobogenzo, Mujo-seppo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Expressions of truth (preaching Dharma) are actualized by the whole body-mind. Dogen taught and demonstrated that the immediacy, energy, and authority of the Zen masters do not come from some super-human capacity or a super-enhanced capacity of the human body-mind. The expressions are wholly alive because the masters are wholly alive. Bodhidharma, Matsu, Linchi, Dogen, and Hakuin do not simply speak to our mind or our body, much less to some particular aspect of the body-mind; they speak to the wholeness of our being; for, like the expressions of Mozart, Bach, Michelangelo, and Picasso, they are expressions of wholeness.

This is the reason that, from the perspective of Shobogenzo, direct experience is truer and more alive than maxims, formulas, ideas, memories, concepts, etc. Direct experience is not “pure consciousness” or mere “open awareness.” In Dogen’s Zen, authentic practice-realization is never construed as passive perception, observation, or simply experiencing things “as they are.” Zen practice-realization is the actualization of the universe (genjokoan). To personally verify that “clear seeing is prajna itself” is to clearly see that the fashioner of the universe is nothing other than our own true self. To be unaware that “clear seeing is prajna itself” is to be unaware of our inherent liberation. According to Zen, our very existence is facilitated by our experiential capacities; when the Dharma-Eye is not activated, existence is fashioned by (haphazard) experience; when it is activated experience (intentionally) fashions existence.

Thus, the authenticity of Zen practice-realization is dependent on the “ordinariness” or “normality” of the mind of the practitioner. This means the ordinary or normal mind of an awakened being of course, not the “average” or “common” mind of the unawakened being. The expressions of Buddha ancestors reveal the wisdom of the true nature of human beings because Buddha ancestors are wholly awakened (ordinary, or normal) human beings. Strictly speaking, in Zen, there are no such things as “Buddhists,” there are common, deluded beings and there are Buddhas. For, to “clearly see” the wisdom of Buddhism (prajna) is, by definition, to actualize prajna itself – that is, to be a Buddha.

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

In Shobogenzo “clear seeing is prajna itself” (experience is existence itself), and that the reality of dharmas are unique to individuals, as well as truer and more extensive for those that have more fully developed their “eyes of practice,” a task with an infinite potential for expansion. For those unfamiliar with this way of looking at things, this can be difficult to reconcile. For those attached to dualistic or representational views of knowledge, it can seem nonsensical.

That the realities of things (dharmas) are more or less real based on how they are perceived is hard to concede, how much more the notion that “expressions” are more or less true for the same reason. Also, some might ask, if existence is actualized only as immediate experience, expressions, being “post-experiential” products, are as disconnected from reality as abstract concepts aren’t they?

No. Why?

First, for Dogen, expressions of truth are no more fixed than is actual experience; second, expressions need not be “post-experiential”; in fact, if they are post-experiential they are not expressions of truth. Expressions that merely repeat, represent (re-present), or correspond to previous real experiences or expressions of truth, even experiences or expressions of Buddhas, are only imitations of reality, replicas of truth.

Beginners and later students who wish to learn in practice the non-emotional preaching the Dharma should get straight into diligent research of this story of the National Master. “They are always preaching ardently; they preach without interval.” “Always” is a concrete time of many instants. “They preach without interval”: given that “preaching” is already manifest in reality, it is inevitably “without interval.” We should not learn that the manner in which “the insentient preach the Dharma” must necessarily be as in the case of the sentient. [To suppose that the manner in which “the insentient preach the Dharma]” might accord with the voices of the sentient, and with the manner in which the sentient preach the Dharma, and thus to wrest voices from the sentient world and to liken them to the voices of the insentient world, is not Buddhism. “The insentient preaching the Dharma” may not always be sound as matter—just as the sentient preaching the Dharma is not sound as matter. Now, asking ourselves and asking others, we must endeavor to learn in practice what is the sentient state and what is the insentient state. That being so, we should painstakingly apply our mind to learning in practice how the non-emotional might preach the Dharma. Stupid people think that the rustling of trees in the forest, and the opening and falling of leaves and flowers, are the non-emotional preaching the Dharma, but they are not practitioners of the Buddha-Dharma. If it were so, who could fail to know the non-emotional preaching the Dharma, and who could fail to hear the non-emotional preaching the Dharma? Let us reflect for a while: in the non-emotional world are there any “grass,” “trees,” and “forests” or not? Is the non-emotional world infiltrated by “the emotional world” or not? [No.] To recognize, on the contrary, that grass, trees, tiles, and pebbles are the non-emotional is to be incomplete in learning. And to recognize the non-emotional as grass, trees, tiles, and pebbles, is not to have experienced satisfaction. Though we shall now consider the grass, trees, and so on that are seen by human beings, and discuss them as the non-emotional, those very grass, trees, and so on are beyond the common intellect. For there are great differences between the forests of the heavens above and those of the human world; the produce of a civilized nation is not the same as that of a remote land; and grass and trees in the ocean are totally unlike those in the mountains. Still more, there are trees that grow in space and there are trees that grow in clouds. Among the hundred weeds and myriad trees that sprout and grow amid wind, fire, and so on, there are generally those that can be understood as sentient, those that are not recognized as insentient, and those weeds and trees which seem to be humans and animals: sentient and insentient have never been clearly distinguished. Still more, when we see a hermit’s trees, stones, flowers, fruits, hot springs, and cool waters, they are utterly beyond doubt—but how could they not be difficult to explain? Barely having seen the weeds and trees of China, or having become familiar with the weeds and trees of Japan, do not think that similar situations may be present through the whole universe in myriad directions.

The National Master says, “The saints are able to hear it.” That is, in orders where the non-emotional preaches the Dharma, the saints stand on the ground to listen. The saints, and the non-emotional, both realize hearing and realize preaching. The non-emotional does indeed preach the Dharma to saints, but is it sacred or is it common? [It is neither.] In other words, after we have clarified the manner in which the non-emotional preaches the Dharma, we are able to realize in physical experience that what the saints hear is as it is. Having attained realization in physical experience, we are able to fathom the state of the saints. Thereafter we should learn in practice, further, action on the road through the night which transcends the common and transcends the sacred. The National Master says, “I do not hear it.” Do not suppose that even these words are easy to understand. Does he not hear because he transcends the common and transcends the sacred, or does he not hear because he rips apart the nests of the common and the sacred? With effort like this, we should realize the [master’s] expression. The National Master says, “It is convenient that I do not hear it. If I heard it I would be on the level of the saints.” This elucidation is never one truth or two truths. The “convenient I” is beyond the common and the sacred; might the “convenient I” be a Buddhist patriarch? Because Buddhist patriarchs transcend the common and transcend the sacred, [what they hear] may not be exactly the same as what the saints hear. Researching the truth of the National Master’s words “Then you would not be able to hear me preaching the Dharma,” we should consider the bodhi of the buddhas and the saints. The point is this: when the non-emotional preach the Dharma the saints are able to hear, but when the National Master preaches the Dharma that concrete monk is able to hear. Day upon day and month after month we should endeavor to learn this truth. Now I would like to ask the National Master: I do not ask what living beings are like after they hear, but what are living beings like just in the moment of hearing you preach the Dharma?
Shobogenzo, Mujo-seppo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

To be continued in Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Mujo-seppo, Part 2

Peace,
Ted

Shobogenzo & the Tao of Mythical Expression

We have said that for Dogen all expressions are real expressions, but that it is only Buddha ancestors that fashion expressions of truth. Most Dogen students know that Shobogenzo is regarded by many as Japan’s greatest literary achievement and is widely acknowledged as a masterpiece of world literature. Few, if any, would deny its qualification as one of the world’s great works of art, or its status ranking it as one the most important works of sacred literature in world history. In light of this no one would deny that an evaluation of Shobogenzo deserves as much attention and concentration as has been given to other of the worlds sacred texts. This means, first and foremost, to acknowledge the fact that the language of Shobogenzo, like that of all sacred literature, is the language of mythology and must be treated accordingly.

While the work of Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Northrop Frye, Suzanne Langer, James Hillman, and others has gone a long way in restoring the true meaning of “mythology,” the terms associated with it are still popularly used and understood as meaning “not true,” “fanciful,” “fabricated,” etc. Whatever value the term may have in that regard, it is certainly not what is meant here. The meaning of mythology here is in accordance with Dogen’s view of language, specifically, expressions of truth. That is, by the “language of mythology” we mean Dogen’s view of language as integral to the universe, and entwined with the infinite variety of myriad things. As expressed in the words of Hee-Jin Kim:

“…the scope and depth of language are coextensive and coeternal with those of the whole universe. Dogen envisions the infinite varieties of linguistic modes according to different beings in the universe, in terms of “words and letters” (monji), “the sutras” (kyokan), and “expressions” (Dotoku).”
Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p. 60

The nature of mythological language is succinctly expressed in the title of a four volume collection of books by Joseph Campbell: The Masks of God. As “masks,” the expressions of mythology have the potential to reveal as well as conceal the face of God—or, in Zen terms, our own “original face.” While Dogen, like all Zen masters, was fully cognizant of the limitations of language and their capacity to “conceal” reality, he was also keenly aware that regardless of this, language was the greatest, and maybe the only, vehicle of true liberation.

“…for all its limitations, language can still function as the most powerful agent of salvific liberation.”
Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p. 62

Mythical language, like great art, requires us to go beyond literal interpretations and academic theories if we want to achieve genuine understanding. Also like art, the meaning, reason, or significance of mythical expression is inherent in its form—and nowhere else; thus to perceive its true form is to realize its true nature. The concerns of the great mythologies are the concerns of Dogen’s teachings: the universal truths of life and death. In this sense, “Buddhism” and “Zen” served Dogen as the masks of true nature, or Buddha nature, which he called the “Treasury of the True Dharma-Eye” (Shobogenzo).

While Dogen’s knowledge of Earth’s geography was limited to what was known in 13th century Japan, his teachings were obviously intended to be inclusive of the entire human realm (and beyond). The countries and peoples of his world were all familiar with Buddhism, thus for Dogen, the term “non-Buddhist” was never used in reference to people that had not heard of Buddhism. It is important to remember that for Dogen, Buddhism was not a religion in opposition to “other” religions; Buddhism was simply the Buddha Dharma, the universal truth of life and death. For Dogen, expressions of truth, that is, authentic practice-enlightenment (shusho) was Buddhism. There was no more need for Buddhism to compete with other religions than there was for rice to compete with not-rice—authentic practice-enlightenment is Buddhism, everything else is not-Buddhism, period.

Taoism, Confucianism, and Shinto, for instance, were not repudiated by Dogen as such, but informed by and distinguished from Buddhism, as joinery, masonry, or landscaping might be informed by and distinguished from architecture. Dogen’s well known criticism of the (then popular) “tripod doctrine” which asserted that Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism were “three legs” of “one truth” was not an attack on Taoism and Confucianism, but on the failure to distinguish their differences. As a master of the Buddha Dharma, Dogen naturally regarded Taoism and Confucianism to be of minor significance in contrast to Buddhism. But so were rice-cultivation and sandal-making, for which he was no doubt grateful, even if they were less important to him than Buddhism. In order to clarify or illustrate points in his own teachings, Dogen freely quotes Taoist and Confucian classics throughout his writings, and openly acknowledges that “instruction and training” can be found in Taoist and Confucian texts. Moreover, Dogen describes the failure of distinguishing between them as slandering Taoism and Confucianism as much as slandering Buddhism.

Also, there are irresponsible people who say, “Although they are different to begin with, the teachings of Taoism, the teachings of Confucianism, and the Scriptures of Shakyamuni ultimately have the same goal. They are just different ways for entering the gate to Truth.” Or they may say, “They are like the three legs of a tripod.” This is at the heart of a hot debate among present-day monks in Great Sung China. When people speak like this, the Buddha Dharma has already been banished from the earth and perished for them...

To recklessly discuss them as all having one and the same principle is to slander the Buddha Dharma and to slander Confucianism and Taoism. Even though there are some accurate points in the teachings of those two, our present day veteran monks have not even clarified a fraction of those points, much less have they grabbed hold of the Great Handle even once in ten thousand tries! Although instruction and training can be found in the works of both of these, ordinary, run-of-the-mill scholars today cannot readily follow it. There is none in that bunch who could even try to do that training. They cannot even connect one bit of teaching with another. How much less could these present-day veteran monks possibly realize the profound subtleties of Buddhist Scriptures! Not having clarified what the other two are actually about, they just irresponsibly put forth their own questionable teachings.
Shobogenzo, Bukkyō, Hubert Nearman

The point here is that for Dogen, Buddhism is nothing more, or less, than authentic practice-enlightenment, the true nature of the universe and the self. The truth of life and death is what Dogen means by the Buddha Dharma; it has nothing to do with a particular text, canon, doctrine, lineage, creed, sect, tradition, or even religion—authenticity is all that counts for Dogen. On this, Dogen is unyielding in the extreme—not even the Buddhist sutras (much less the records of Zen) are exempted from Dogen’s demand for authenticity. This fact is undeniably demonstrated by numerous examples in Dogen’s writings. While Dogen is not averse to explicitly denouncing particular Zen masters or Buddhist scriptures, his more common approach is to “correct” the traditional texts via deliberate mistranslation.

(Note: examples of Dogen’s explicit denigration/denial of ancestors and sutras are found in Shobogenzo, Butsudō [criticizing Zen master Rinzai] Shobogenzo, fascicles Sesshin Sesshō & Jishō Zammai [criticizing Zen master Daie] Shobogenzo, Shizen Biku [refuting the Platform sutra] Shobogenzo, Tembōrin [refuting the Surangama sutra]. This list is far from exhaustive.)

The most popular example of Dogen’s affinity for “correcting” Buddhist sutras is found in the Shobogenzo, Bussho fascicle. Here Dogen (mis-)translates a saying of Shakyamuni Buddha from the Mahāparinirvāna-sūtra. Basically, Dogen’s “improved” translation has the effect of changing the Buddha’s assertion that, “All beings inherently have Buddha nature,” to “All beings are Buddha nature.” Regardless of how we frame it, such action amounts to a deliberate alteration of the Buddhist scriptures—it is hard to imagine how to defend him from charges of refuting the Buddha himself.

Another example, which may be even bolder than the one in the Bussho fascicle is Dogen’s alteration of a sutra that is accomplished by the addition of a word. In Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Dogen inserts the word “whole-body” (konshin) into the first line of the Heart-sutra (Mahāprajnāpāramitāhrdaya-sūtra) and thereby renders it as follows:

“When Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara practices the profound prajnā-pāramitā, the whole body reflects that the five aggregates are totally empty.”
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu , Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

The enormity of Dogen’s self-assurance is evidenced here, not only by his willingness to “correct” this popular sutra, but by the fact that this fascicle is one of the earliest writings of his teaching career (perhaps the first, probably no later than the third). This would be gutsy move for a veteran teacher—for a 27 (or 28) year-old upstart, still years away from leading his first temple, such a move testifies to a rare, and unwavering commitment to ones values—or a gargantuan set of balls (or both, which seems likely).

To sum up the points here, acknowledging the status of Shobogenzo as one of the great works of world literature, we asserted it merited the attention granted to works of similar rank. Also, we noted that the language of Shobogenzo is (like that of all sacred literature) mythological; and followed this with a brief discussion of some of the obvious implications. The need to distinguish contemporary notions of Buddhism and religion from the worldview of Shobogenzo was emphasized with a reminder of Dogen’s historical context (13th century Japan). Finally, the primacy of truth, that is, the authenticity of practice-enlightenment in Dogen was shown to be over and above all else (including the Zen records and Buddhist sutras).

.

Peace,

Ted