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

 

 

The Reality of Zen

The Reality of Zen

 

As a tradition, activity, or institution of human civilization, ‘Zen’ denotes a path, manner, or way of life, rather than a particular structure or form. To revere a ‘Zen’ that consists of an authorized version, exclusive sect, prescribed method, formal practice, dogmatic code, or any other fixed form is to exalt a lifeless idol. In Zen’s vision, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an unceasing advance into novelty, an ongoing creative activity. Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho) is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – not the actualized, actual, or actualize of past, present, or future, but a ceaseless actualization of existence-time here-now which fully includes and transcends past, present, and future. More particularly, practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing the true nature of reality and, thereby, actualizing one’s thoughts, words, and deeds harmoniously with that truth in and as the self/world here-now.

This Side is This Side, That Side is That Side

The notion that our ‘self’ is something that looks around and encounters ‘a world’ that exists before, after, or otherwise independent of its being encountered is a false notion, a delusion. ‘Things’ or ‘a world’ being encountered is ‘ourself.’ To recognize sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts here-now as our ‘self’ is enlightenment.

Driving ourselves to practice and experience the myriad dharmas is delusion. When the myriad dharmas actively practice and experience ourselves, that is the state of realization.

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

As sentient beings are the realization of dharmas here-now, dharmas here-now are the realization of sentient beings. When you see a mountain, a mountain is seen by you. A mountain makes you what you are, you make a mountain what it is – ‘you’ is mountain-made, ‘a mountain’ is you-made.

Dogen often speaks of ‘pictures’ or ‘paintings’ as well as ‘fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles’ to emphasize that Buddha exists nowhere else but in the very ‘human-made’ (experientially realized) dharmas constituting the here-now of every moment of our existence.

 

But while it is true that the myriad dharmas ‘are realized as sentient beings’ it is also true that sentient beings are ‘realized as the myriad dharmas’ – thus we need to be wary of egocentricity. Mountains, paintings, fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles depend on us, but we also depend on them – from ‘this side’ (our perspective) the myriad dharmas are objects, from ‘that side’ (the perspective of dharmas) we are objects. We need to learn from them in order to interact normally with them, to ably respond (responsibility). To learn from them is to recognize them as the very words and deeds of Buddha.

 

If we want to inquire into this mind, it is present in visible fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles; and if we want to experience this mind, it is present in the realization of fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles. Now, though these fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles are produced by human beings, at the same time they are words and deeds of Dharma. Who could hold sway over them? When we see them like this, it is evident that “fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles” are beyond substance before our eyes, and that substance before our eyes is not “fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles.” In sum, fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles on this side are illuminating us as yonder objects; and we on this side are being illuminated by fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles as yonder objects.

Himitsu-shobogenzo, Butsu-kojo-no-ji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Things and Their True Nature - Two? Not Two?

Appearance & Reality - Form & True Nature

Those who greatly realize delusion are buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded about realization are ordinary beings.

~Shōbōgenzō, Genjō-kōan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

This passage from Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, perfectly presents Zen’s response to the basic question, “What is the true essence of the things, beings and events we experience as objects appearing in and as the world.” That true essence is, “The very forms of the things, beings, and events precisely as they appear (i.e. exactly as we experience them).” A “Buddha” is a Buddha by the very fact of being aware that (awake to) the “true nature” of things, beings, and events is not other than, and nowhere else but in and as those things, beings, and events as they are (as they exist, hence, as they are experienced).

 

True, this conclusion directly contradicts the assertions of many contemporary Zen teachers that contend the “true nature” or “reality” of the world is beyond our capacity to experience, or other than the world we actually perceive. That it contradicts popular Zen notions, however, does not mean it is inaccurate, or that Dogen misspoke or was erroneously edited, etc. This message, which is only one of many wherein Dogen and contemporary Zen often diverge widely, is not only repeated throughout Dogen’s works, it is a central characteristic of it. The repeated emphasis, almost a refrain, in the works of Hee-Jin Kim on the priority of the “reconstructive” rather the “deconstructive” element of emptiness in Dogen is reason enough to insist that the fact that this aspect of Zen continues to be largely ignored in the contemporary discussion is unjustified to the point of gross negligence. Setting aside any question about right or wrong, when contemporary Zen teachers proclaim that the reality or true nature of the world is not the world we perceive, they are asserting a view that is diametrically opposed to Dogen’s Zen. In fact, according to Dogen, even the view that the real world is something other than the world as it is, is itself is a mistaken view of the real world as it is.

 

The triple world is as the triple world is seen, and a view of something other than the triple world is a mistaken view of the triple world…

Great Master Śākyamuni says, “It is best to see the triple world as the triple world."

This view is the triple world itself. This triple world is just as it is seen.

~Shōbōgenzō, Sangai-yuishin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

In Dogen’s Zen, the true nature of any and every form is “just as it is seen” – mountains, stars, and fences, dreams, illusions, and spots in the air – are, as they are, the true nature of reality as it is. As a Buddhist master, Dogen was particularly concerned with the significance of this truth in connection to Buddhist forms, especially Buddhist expressions. Some of the most colorful language of Shobogenzo appear as repudiations of views suggesting that the reality of Buddhist expressions might exist independently of their forms. According to Dogen, the expression of a Buddha is nondual with the form of that Buddha, the very body-mind of that Buddha; thus, such suggestions are not only delusional, they are slanderous. It is no wonder, then, why Shobogenzo heaps such intense scorn on notions suggesting that Buddhist expressions are “merely provisional,” and often goes so far as to identify the advocates of such views as demons and beasts.

 

Dogen’s colorful, often humorous repudiations of “little shavers,” “bands of demons,” “wild beasts,” and the like provide not only good entertainment, they provide us with the assurance that the lifeless “Zen” of charlatanism and institutional formality so prevalent today is not a new phenomenon. Moreover, Dogen’s frequent technique of clearly articulating deluded or wrong views and approaches common to quacksalvers and deluded teachers offer a wealth of guidance on spotting them in our own day, thus avoiding being mislead by distorted views and teachings. In this connection, there are a variety of popular notions about Zen enlightenment suggesting that “true nature,” “reality,” or “Buddhahood” has to do with something immanent in the things, beings, and events of the world, something concealed within, behind, or underlying the forms ever-appearing before our eyes here-and-now – as if these very “forms” and “appearances” were mere forms and appearances, rather than the actual manifest forms and appearances of reality itself, the Tao as it is, the very face of God, the actual voice of Buddha. In Dogen’s Zen, such views are the very epitome of the unenlightened condition, the common denominator of those bound by the shackles of ego-centricity.

 

Their state is such that they deludedly imagine that after the triple world and the ten directions which we are experiencing in the present have suddenly dropped away, then the Dharma-nature will appear, and this Dharma-nature will be other than the myriad things and phenomena of the present. The true meaning of the Dharma-nature can never be like that. This universe of things and phenomena, and the Dharma-nature, have far transcended discussion of sameness and difference and have transcended talk of disjunction or union. Because they are beyond past, present, and future; beyond separation and constancy; and beyond matter, perception, thought, action, and consciousness, they are the Dharma-nature.

~Shōbōgenzō, Hōsshō, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

The only “dilemma” as to the difference or sameness between the true nature or Dharma nature of things, beings, and events and the forms in which things, beings, and events appear is, it turns out, only a “dilemma” for those that make it a dilemma by “adding legs to a snake,” to use the Zen phrase. In other words, a thing, being, or event is – as it is – a thing, being or event. It is only by attempting to divide a thing, being, or event into a “true nature” and an “appearance” that we come up against a dilemma.

 

To clarify, consider an actual dog, manifest before us here-and-now; this dog is the true nature of this dog, this dog is the very form appearing as this dog. Take away the true nature, and you take away this dog; take away the form, and you take away this dog – this dog’s form is nondual with this dog’s Dharma-nature, not even a laser-scalpel can cut them in two. The division of a dog’s (or anything else’s) appearance from its true nature can only be accomplished by the conceptual capacity of abstract speculation; the result of such a division gives rise to (actualizes; begets) a new, real, existent thing or dharma, this new element of reality is called a mistaken view, a deluded notion, a hindrance, or, as in the present case, a dilemma.

.

From the Zen perspective, the very appearance “of things and phenomena” and the true nature of things and phenomena are far beyond speculative “discussion of sameness and difference” and transcend conceptual hypothetical “talk of disjunction or union.” The actual things, beings, and events manifest right here, right now – as right here, right now – are “beyond past, present, and future,” thus “they are the Dharma-nature.” Because this dog is this appearance (and no other), the form of this dog and the true nature of this dog are “beyond separation and constancy” and beyond divisions of “matter” (from mind), and of “perception, thought, action, and consciousness” (from appearance, substance, agent, and phenomenon), “they are the Dharma-nature” as it is.

 

Please treasure yourself,

Ted

Emptiness Sees Emptiness

Emptiness Sees Emptiness

(Article from the October, 2011 newsletter "Flatbed Sutra Zen News")

The Buddhist teaching of emptiness is most comprehensively treated in the scriptures known as the prajna paramita sutras, revered as primary sources of authority by all Mahayana traditions. "Prajna" is a rich term with many potential meanings and connotations depending on the context; in general, it refers to Buddhist wisdom. In the context of "prajna paramita" it refers specifically to "perfect" or "transcendent" wisdom, that is, the wisdom of "emptiness." From at least as early as the Sixth Ancestor of Zen in China, Huineng (638 - 713 C. E.), Zen has been more closely associated with the prajna paramita sutras than any other scriptures. According to Zen lore, the Sixth Ancestor realized enlightenment simply upon hearing a prajna paramita sutra, the Diamond Cutter Sutra, recited by a stranger on the street. Huineng's record, the "Platform Sutra," is the only text revered as a "sutra" (i.e. scripture) other than those attributed to the Buddha. The Platform Sutra expounds on the importance and significance of a number of sutras, but is particularly insistent on the supreme vision of the Diamond Sutra, not only promising enlightenment to those that practice it, but even to those that simply memorize it.

While the Diamond Sutra continues to be highly revered in Zen, which remains deeply steeped in its methodology, the marvelously concise Heart Sutra (Prajnaparamita-hrdya-sutra) came to occupy a position as the definitive statement on "emptiness" in Zen, as in many Mahayana traditions. As its title suggests, this succinct scripture presents a remarkably clear image of the profound wisdom at the heart of the vast corpus of prajna paramita literature. In Dogen's day, as in our own, this short scripture was known well enough that Buddhists hearing a single line would recognize it instantly. Dogen's own commentary on the Heart Sutra - the earliest writing included in Shobogenzo - opens by quoting the first line of the sutra. Dogen uses this quote (the only direct reference to the sutra in his commentary) to illumine a profound implication of emptiness by creatively altering the reading (thus significance) of the opening line of the Heart Sutra. The first line of the Heart Sutra actually reads:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress.

(Note: "Avalokitesvara," is an enlightened being (bodhisattva) of Buddhist mythology; the hero of the Heart Sutra. "Transcending anguish and distress" is realizing the Buddhist goal, liberation from suffering; nirvana, enlightenment).

Dogen's creative alteration of the line is not achieved by eliminating or substituting words, nor by transposing or changing their order, but through the addition of a single word.

This move by Dogen should not be glossed over, dismissed as accidental, or understood as a simple attempt to clarify the original meaning by providing an interpretive element. The Heart Sutra was well known to his audience, and his alteration, while slight, would have been stark in their ears. Upon first sight, the additional word jumps out as if erroneous, but as the implications of it dawn, its intentional placement becomes clear. The added word is, "konshin," which roughly translates as "whole-body," or "complete body-mind." Thus:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita whole body-mind clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress.

Although only one word, an English rendering conveying the significance of the alteration asks for some interpretive suggestions, perhaps, "Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita with his whole-body clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress," or, "The whole-body-Avalokitesvara-Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress."

To appreciate the implications of this we should understanding that the "five skandhas" are a traditional classification for the elements constituting the (whole) body-mind of a human being. In light of this we see that "five skandhas" is another way of saying "whole-body." Thus, the implication is clear; to say "The whole-body (of Avalokitesvara) sees that all five skandhas are empty," is equivalent to saying, "The whole-body sees that the whole-body is empty."

(Note: The five skandhas are form, feeling, sensation, mental formulation, and consciousness. In Buddhist literature the term "form" by itself serves as an abbreviation for all five skandhas).

Being a crucial element to every aspect of Buddhism, the teachings on emptiness (shunyata) are complex and multi-faceted. However, in order to grasp the main points of the present discussion it is enough to know that emptiness is regarded (at least by Mahayana Buddhists) as the reality, or true nature of all things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas). This is the key point indicated by the pivotal statement of the Heart Sutra, "Form is emptiness; emptiness is form."

With this in mind we can see that Dogen's statement unequivocally identifies the subject (i.e. Avalokitesvara; whole-body) that clearly sees with the object (i.e. Avalokitesvara; all five skandhas) that is clearly seen. The overall effective result of Dogen's alteration, then, is to forceful manner of drawing attention to the actively dynamic, energetically animated nature of "emptiness." Here are two things we know about Avalokitesvara according to Dogen's statement:

The whole of Avalokitesvara clearly sees the whole of Avalokitesvara.

The whole of Avalokitesvara clearly seen is empty.

Two crucial points; emptiness can see, and emptiness can be seen. Thus we know that, whatever else it might be, "practicing prajna paramita" is emptiness clearly seeing (experiencing) its own true nature - in short, practicing prajna paramita is emptiness seeing emptiness.

Even after this short foray into his commentary we see that, from Dogen's view, emptiness should never be understood or described apophatically or in purely negative terms like non-existent, absent, undifferentiated, motionless, insentient, unknowable, or incommunicable. This point merits emphasis; the propensity to misunderstand and misrepresent emptiness negatively is pervasive. Judging by the Zen records, this propensity has plagued every era of Zen history. The meticulously detailed refutations of negativistic views of emptiness permeating Dogen's writings testify to the pervasiveness of such distortions in his own era. Dogen view that this issue merited the energy he put into it seems clear; the distorting power of negativistic views of emptiness can obstruct practitioners from accurately understanding every aspect of Buddhism, not to mention putting it into practice and actualizing it.

From Dogen's perspective, it is better to have no understanding of emptiness than to adopt a negative understanding. At this point, then, we want to stress that, whatever else might be included in Dogen's view of emptiness, it is inclusive of at least these positive qualities:

Emptiness is present in/as existence-time

Emptiness is differentiated

Emptiness is active

Emptiness is sentient

Emptiness is intelligible

Emptiness is communicable

After opening Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, with the (altered) quote from the Heart Sutra, Dogen presents a series of affirmative expressions on the nature of the self, the world, and the myriad dharmas that reads like a crystallization of the reality illumined by the grand vision of Shobogenzo:

The five skandhas are form, sensation, perception, mental formulation, and consciousness; they are five instances of prajna. Clear seeing is prajna itself. To present this truth for realization it is expounded that "form is exactly emptiness, and emptiness is exactly form." Thus form is form, and emptiness is emptiness. They are the hundred particular things, the myriad dharmas.

Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Ted Biringer

By enumerating each of the five skandhas and then affirming them as "five instances of prajna," Dogen immediately emphasizes the differentiated quality of emptiness. This serves to counter the reductionist propensity to misunderstand and misrepresent emptiness apophatically as just discussed. Notice also, that by citing each of the skandhas, Dogen compels us to dwell longer on what is being conveyed than we might if he simply used "form," the common abbreviation for the five skandhas. This reduces the likelihood of missing the point by too hastily moving on. The greatest effect of Dogen's enumeration, however, is its setup for the next phrase, the key point of the whole commentary; "Clear seeing is prajna itself." Each of the five skandhas constituting Avalokitesvara (thus of all human beings) plays a specific role in the "clear seeing" that "transcends anguish and distress." Form "distinguishes" it, sensation "conducts" it, perception "receives" it, mental formulation "fashions" it (produces an intelligible image), and consciousness "realizes" it (understands, or interprets it in its particularity, thus facilitating its manifestation) in context and contrast to what is not-it.

Thus, Dogen utilizes the opening line of the Heart Sutra to illumine the heart of Zen; "Clear seeing is prajna itself." In perfect harmony with his conception of knowledge, existence, and soteriology the activity of clearly seeing the form of prajna (perfect wisdom), the form of prajna that is clearly seen, and the liberation actualized by prajna are not three different things. This dynamic process and its implications are repeatedly brought into relief throughout the whole Shobogenzo. To clearly see (i.e. sense, know, perceive, experience, etc.) is to be (i.e. actually manifest, exist), thus to clearly see liberation is to actualize (make actual, cause to exist) liberation.

Not, "I think, therefore I am," but, "Wherefore I think, I am." Or, to put it in the terms of our present discussion, "I am what I clearly see (sights, sounds, flavors, odors, tactile sensations, and thoughts) therefore what I clearly see I am."

It should go without saying, but since it usually does not, I should clarify that "clear seeing" is not "mere seeing." "Clear seeing" should not be construed as "passively" perceiving via the sense organs (i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind) as advocated by some so-called Zen teachers. Clear seeing is a skill that must be intentionally developed through sustained effort in accurately directed study and cultivation. It is the "clear" of clear seeing that qualifies it as "prajna itself." Such clear seeing is, of course, inclusive of sense perception, but only if that sense perception is actualized by the healthy mind referred to in Zen as the "normal mind" or "Buddha mind." This distinction is succinctly elucidated by Dogen in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan by the line:

Those who are enlightened about delusion are Buddhas. Those who are deluded about enlightenment are ordinary beings.

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Ted Biringer

(Note: "Ordinary beings" here refers to common or typical (unawakened) beings; thus "ordinary" should not be confused with the "normal" of the "normal mind" of Zen usage which is sometimes rendered into English as "ordinary mind." The "normal" in the Zen sense means "healthy," this normal mind is the awakened mind, also called the Buddha mind.)

Dogen affirms the authenticity of his comment by asserting its harmony with the heart of the Heart Sutra, "Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness is exactly form" - which he summarizes as, "form is form, emptiness is emptiness." What is going on here? At first glance, this seems to contradict the Heart Sutra's statement, not summarize it.

To clarify Dogen's point we can appeal to a method provided by the Diamond Sutra to illustrate that "form" only exists because of emptiness, and emptiness is only exists because of form. This basic method can be depicted like this (with "A" standing for (any particular) form, and "not" standing for emptiness): A = not-A, therefore A = A.

To explain, a dharma (i.e. any real, particular form) is only a dharma insofar as it is differentiated from everything "other than" that dharma. In other words, to experience a dharma is to distinguish something from everything else, everything that is not it. If there was nothing that was not it - it could not be distinguished as it (a particular dharma). From this we see that the existence of "a dharma" is dependent on the existence of something "other than" that dharma; and the existence of "other than" that dharma is dependent on the existence of "that dharma." Therefore, the existence of a dharma necessarily presupposes the existence of "other than" that dharma (and vice versa). In short, the real existence of "A" depends on the real existence of "A" and "not-A," the real existence of "not-A" also depends on the real existence of "A" and "not-A."

The Heart Sutra concisely portrays the nature of reality; A is exactly (equals, is coessential with, depends on) not-A, and not-A is exactly A. The Diamond Sutra illumines the dynamic process of reality; the existence of A is essential to, therefore inclusive of, the existence of "other than" A (and vice versa). The significance of this is; if A exists, not-A must also exist (and vice versa), and if A does not exist, not-A cannot exist (and vice versa). Thus, A is not-A, therefore A is A; not-A is A, therefore not-A is not-A. In Dogen's terms, form is form, emptiness is emptiness.

As already suggested, Dogen's "clear seeing" (as prajna itself) is inclusive of right-understanding and right-views as well as accurate sense perception. In harmony with all Zen masters, Dogen frequently reminds us that it is not enough to hear, or even to understand the teachings in order to realize Buddhist liberation. The "clear seeing" that is Zen practice-enlightenment is a process not a product, an activity not a resolution. The teachings must, of course, be learned, studied, and accurately understood, however, liberation or realization cannot be actualized unless these teachings are put into actual practice and personally verified (clearly seen). Avalokitesvara was able to accurately "practice prajna paramita" because s/he had come to accurately understand the Buddhist teaching on prajna - but only with the actual experience of clear seeing was liberation actualized.

Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring.

(Note: The realization of this prajnāpāramitā is the realization of buddha-bhagavats. We should inquire into it, and we should experience it. Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross).

We inquire into it through study and training; we experience it through sustained, wholehearted effort in practice (usually after much trial and error). The "it" we need to inquire into and experience is the true nature of ourselves. The process of inquiring into and experiencing the true nature of ourselves is succinctly expressed in a passage from Genjokoan, Shobogenzo.

To learn the Buddha's truth is to learn ourselves. To learn ourselves is to forget ourselves. To forget ourselves is to be experienced by the myriad dharmas. To be experienced by the myriad dharmas is to let our own body and mind, and the body and mind of the external world, fall away.

Shobogenzo, Genjo-koan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The actual experience of this learning begins with coming to an accurate understanding of it. To that end, we need to understand that here "the Buddha's truth" means enlightenment (liberation, nirvana, etc.), and "learning" means study, training, practice, and verification. Understanding this, we can begin to consider the significance of this from the Buddhist perspective of emptiness; hence, if "to learn the Buddha's truth is to learn ourselves" then "to learn ourselves is to learn the Buddha's truth." Similarly, the implications of emptiness apply to "forgetting," "experience," "our body and mind," "the myriad dharmas," etc.

In Dogen's Zen, "forms" (dharmas) are the fundamental units constituting reality; they are viewed as "empty" and "mental" in nature - when Avalokitesvara clearly saw all five skandhas were empty, emptiness clearly saw emptiness. With this we were able to see that emptiness is not ineffable, absent, or undifferentiated, but rather, emptiness is intelligible, present, and particularly distinct. Emptiness, being the true nature of all the myriad dharmas, is the very form of all the myriad dharmas.

This, then, brings us to the point of our present discussion; "To forget ourselves is to be experienced by the myriad dharmas" describes exactly "emptiness clearly seeing emptiness." Emptiness seeing emptiness is emptiness seeing the myriad dharmas, the myriad dharmas seeing emptiness, the myriad dharmas seeing the myriad dharmas, the myriad dharmas seeing seeing, and seeing seeing seeing.

"Seeing your nature is Zen. If you don't see your nature it's not Zen."

~Bodhidharma, Red Pine

Peace,

Ted