One Mind As All Dharmas, All Dharmas As One Mind

‘The mind that has been authentically transmitted’ means one mind as all dharmas, and all dharmas as one mind.

Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

‘Buddha’ and ‘one mind’ are not different things – ‘this mind is Buddha,’ and ‘Buddha’ (or ‘this mind’) is ‘all dharmas.’ ‘All dharmas’ is ‘one mind’ (or ‘Buddha’). Further, each and every ‘particular dharma’ is an essential element of ‘all dharmas’ which is ‘Buddha’ (or ‘mind’), and ‘Buddha’ (or ‘mind’) is ‘all dharmas,’ hence ‘Buddha’ (or ‘mind’) is each and every ‘particular dharma.’

This Mind Is Buddha

This Mind Is Buddha

 

 

From the very beginning Buddhism has emphasized the mental nature of reality. The first verse of the first chapter of the Dhammapada, one of the earliest and most revered expressions of Buddhism, we read:

 

We are what we think.

All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.

~Dhammapada, translated by Thomas Byrom

The title and subject of an early Shobogenzo fascicle exemplifies this Buddhist axiom in Zen terms, Soku Shin Ze Butsu (“This Mind is Buddha”; translated by Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross as, “mind here and now is buddha”).

 

What every buddha and every patriarch has maintained and relied upon, without exception, is just “mind here and now is buddha.”

~Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 

This fundamental principle of Buddhism is emphasized by Dogen and presupposed in all his writings. The comprehensive, multifaceted Buddhist expressions and teachings on the nature and dynamics of “mind” are some of Buddhism’s most significant contributions to human wisdom; and some of the most commonly misunderstood and misrepresented. Dogen therefore, like other Buddhist masters before and after, dedicated a great deal of time and energy clarifying exactly what Buddhism means when it asserts, “We are what we think, all we are arises with our thoughts, and with our thoughts we make the world.”

 

By “this mind” in the statement, “This Mind Is Buddha,” Zen means the “one” totality of the “myriad” dharmas – in short, “this mind” is inclusive of everything constituting the “self” (what we are) and “other than self” (the world).

 

Authentically transmitted like this, it has arrived at the present day. “The mind that has been authentically transmitted” means one mind as all dharmas, and all dharmas as one mind.

~Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 

As one family is all the individual members, and all the individual members are one family, one mind (Buddha) is all dharmas, and all dharmas are one mind. From Dogen’s perspective, these examples are not to be regarded as analogies or similes; each (family) member is integral to the one family, each (particular) dharma is inherent to the one mind. What is Buddha? This mind is Buddha. What is this mind?

 

Clearly, “mind” is mountains, rivers, and the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars.

~Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 

Buddha – this mind – is (not is like) mountains, rivers, and the great earth, the sun, moon, and stars. Mind – Buddha – is houses and streets, animals, plants, thoughts and laughter, guns, bombs, corpses, books, cancers, and good deeds.

 

Mind does not make-up a dharma or dharmas, nor is a dharma or dharmas reducible to mind. Mind as a particular dharma is that dharma as it is, a particular dharma as mind is mind as it is. This tree is mind as it is; that pencil is mind as it is. That this tree or that pencil is mind “as it is,” means there are no hidden qualifiers or meanings – this tree is mind – so much so that even this goes too far; better to simply say “this tree.” That pencil is mind with nothing added, not even “is mind,” thus simply, “that pencil.” As Dogen says:

 

Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth. There are no additional waves or surf, no wind or smoke. Mind as the sun, the moon, and the stars is nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


 

Meeting An Eternal Buddha

Meeting An Eternal Buddha

[Excerpt from the newsletter – Flatbed Sutra Zen News, Dec. 2011

If, as Buddhism contends, self and other are nondual (not two) then regarding the other as self and self as other is normal, and doing otherwise is abnormal (the "other" is not only other people, but everything "other than" the self).

One practical implication of seeing (thus regarding) the other as self would be the great diminishment of greed and fear; there would be nothing to covet as everything would already be "ours" (true self) and there would be nothing to fear but our self. This would liberate us from a great deal of anguish, but the even greater result would be the opening of a vast new dimension of existence wherein our life experience would be enormously expanded and enhanced.

Awakening to a world in harmony with the vision of Shobogenzo would be to awaken to a world populated with an infinite number and diversity of conscious beings, all capable, even desirous, of intimate embrace. Thus, there is no need to go to India or Japan to meet an "eternal Buddha" - look, that pebble! There she is! Here, this tile! Here he is!

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.

...
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. The fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles that exist like this as the mind of eternal buddhas are conspicuous in their brightness and in their merits, and so we can enumerate those [merits] that are numerable and we can remember those that are knowable.
Himitsu-shobogenzo, Butsu-kojo-no-ji

Peace,

Ted

Encouraging Words from Dogen

Encouraging Words from Dogen

Realization in practice like this is just “mind here and now is buddha” picking itself up and authentically transmitting itself to “mind here and now is buddha.” Authentically transmitted like this, it has arrived at the present day. “The mind that has been authentically transmitted” means one mind as all dharmas, and all dharmas as one mind.

Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Let us quietly consider whether our own present life, and the miscellaneous real dharmas that are coexisting with this life, are part of life or not part of life. . . . There is nothing, not a single moment nor a single dharma, that is not part of life. There is nothing, not a single matter nor a single state of mind, that is not part of life.

…
So life is what I am making it, and I am what life is making me. While I am sailing in the boat, my body and mind and circumstances and self are all essential parts of the boat; and the whole earth and the whole of space are all essential parts of the boat. What has been described like this is that life is the self, and the self is life.

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Peace,

Ted

The True Nature of Mind Forms...

The True Nature of Mind Forms...

Remember, to receive and retain, to read and recite, and to think reasonably about [prajnā] are just to guard prajnā. And to want to guard it is to receive and retain it, to read and recite it, and so on.

~Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

To think about prajna (the wisdom of enlightenment) is to experience a mental image of prajna and to experience a mental image of prajna is to think about prajna.

Now, where is prajna apart from the mental experience of prajna?

Investigate this and you will personally verify the truth that the very substance of prajna is mind as it is.

Prajna does not exist independent of the mind as if waiting to be discovered. Pursuing this in practice brings realization that the true nature of all things, beings, forms, etc. (dharmas) is mind.

All dharmas (things, beings, etc.) are expressions of Buddha nature, expressions of the one mind, outside of which nothing exists. Dogen calls these expressions of mind, “the real form of all dharmas.” Thus Dogen describes, illumines, and clarifies the significance and implications of their true nature as mind –  mental images, pictures, visions, expressions, paintings and the like.

Peace,

Ted

Zen Treasury: Subtle Clues To Dogen's Shobogenzo

To Dogen, mind was at once knowledge and reality, at once the knowing subject and the known object, yet it transcended them both at the same time. In this nondual conception of mind, what one knew was what one was—and ontology, epistemology, and soteriology were inseparably united. This was also his interpretation of the Hua-yen tenet “The triple world is mind-only.” From this vantage point, Dogen guarded himself against the inherent weaknesses of the two strands of Buddhist idealism: the advocacy of the functions of mind (shinso) by the school of consciousness-only and the advocacy of the essence of mind (shinsho) by the school of tathagata-garbha—both of which were vulnerable to a dualism between phenomena and essence. Thus, philosophically speaking, Dogen maneuvered between monistic pantheism and reductionistic phenomenalism.

Hee-Jin Kim, Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, p.117

The obvious (surface) meaning of this is clear enough; for Dogen, to exist is to know (to sense, feel, perceive, experience, etc.), to know is to exist, and to know Buddha (enlightenment, liberation, nirvana, etc.) is to exist as Buddha. While this is profound in its own right, I would like to suggest there may be some subtler clues we might come away with.

Consider closely the implications of Kim’s assertion about Dogen making no division between existence, knowledge, or the Buddha Way (ontology, epistemology, and soteriology). If Dogen does not regard ontology, epistemology, and soteriology, as being three different things, as Kim contends, then clearly, Dogen’s expressions on any one of these must also apply to the other two.

It is this, that I would like to suggest can serve as a kind of key in approaching Shobogenzo. That is, it serves as a key insofar as it neutralizes Dogen’s obligation to confine his expressions to the specific terms and doctrines appropriate to any one of these three, as would be necessary if the three were treated as different things. This means, for example, that if Dogen could not accurately transmit some Buddhist truth on knowledge within the terms and teachings of Buddhist epistemology he could appeal to the terms and teachings available within Buddhist ontology or soteriology – he could even combine terms and teachings from these “three” realms of Buddhist thought, thus vastly increase the degree of subtlety with which his expressions could be refined.

In other words, Dogen’s view of the inseparability of ontology, epistemology, and soteriology vastly increases Dogen’s capacity to transmit wisdom by increasing the terms and teaching available for so doing. The possibilities available to a painter limited to a single color are not simply doubled with the addition of one more color, but pushed to the brink of infinity – a third color and the brink is transcended; this same reasoning applies to musicians, poets, and Zen masters.

If you have followed the significance of this, you will also be able to appreciate that, just as Hee-Jin Kim provides these clues to Dogen’s teachings on “ontology, epistemology, and soteriology,” Kim points similarly to “language, thinking, and reason,” as well as “activity, expression, and understanding.”

By assimilating the significance of these clues, we rid ourselves of obstacles by dispensing with limitations imposed by arbitrary divisions, thus expanding our capacity for receiving Dogen’s transmission.

Please, dig into Dogen’s treasury and enjoy its profound richness…

Peace,

Ted

Your very mind is Buddha - Reality, Existence & Experience

While we may have doubts about the fact that “our very mind is Buddha,” there is no reason for any Zen practitioner to be unaware, or unclear of the fact that this is exactly what Zen (and Mahayana) Buddhism teaches: your mind, here and now, is Buddha. Anyone can understand what this is asserting, and though we may doubt it, the Zen masters, including Dogen, tell us that having learned this, we can put it into practice and thereby verify the truth for ourselves. With this verification, Dogen assures us, we will realize that, “Your very mind is Buddha” means exactly what it says.

Since this is the way things are, “Your very mind is Buddha” means, pure and simply, that your very mind is Buddha; all Buddhas are, pure and simply, all Buddhas.
Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Nearman

The mind here and now is Buddha, is the myriad clear, clear real dharmas. In accord with the Mahayana scriptures, Dogen affirms that our “self” is nothing other than our “experience,” which is the nonduality of “experiencer/experienced.” Therefore our true self is exactly our experience here and now. While human experience is facilitated through the six sense-gates (i.e. eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind), human experience is singular (i.e. there is only one “experiencer” of all six senses). What is Buddha? Your very mind is Buddha. What is your very mind? Your very mind is your experience here and now. What is your experience here and now? Your experience consists of the sum of what you see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and think at each instance of existence-time.

Now let’s see if we can get at the significance of the Buddhist doctrine on the identity of “experience” and “existence,” and the reason for Dogen’s constant reminder of it. In Buddhism “existence” connotes “real form” (jisso) and “all dharmas” (shoho; all things, beings, events, etc.) are defined as “existent,” thus, “all dharmas are real forms” (shoho-jisso). So the significance of the teaching that existence is experience is in its illumination of the fact that anything and everything (shoho) we experience actually exists as a real form (jisso). In fact, “to really exist” is synonymous with “being experienced,” and “to experience” is synonymous with “real existence.”

One of Dogen’s classic elucidations of this is his interpretation of “sky-flowers” (kuge). Conventionally a metaphor for “unreal” or “illusory,” sky-flowers is a term for the “appearance of spots floating in the air” due to injured or diseased eyes. Dogen points out that insofar as a sentient being actually experiences these spots in the air, they are as real mountains, stones, walls, or any other dharma. To be experienced is to exist as a real form. To exist is to be an instance of existence-time (uji). To be an instance of existence-time is to be an instance of eternity – thus a “sky-flower” is as intrinsic to the real Buddha as a lotus-flower, the morning star, the Buddha ancestors, and every other real form.

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.

Sakyamuni Buddha says, “Buddhas alone, together with buddhas, are directly able to perfectly realize that all dharmas are real form.
Shobogenzo, Shoho-jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Peace,
Ted

Buddha Mind - Fences, Walls, Tiles, and Pebbles

The last post on this discussion ( Your Mountain and My Mountain – The Same Mountain? ) left off after discussing the tendency of certain schools of thought to divide up the various aspects of our experience, and then to classify these aspects into various schemes (usually indicative of what is “desirable” and “undesirable” for achieving whatever “goal” the particular school advocates). Now, proceeding with this discussion…
.
From Dogen’s perspective all of this classification and categorization is not only futile, it is ludicrous. If we simply recognize that experience and existence is indivisible in the first place we will realize that it is impossible to eliminate anything—and even if it was possible, it would accomplish nothing but a diminution of life. Thinking they are eliminating the influence of emotion and instinct, in reality the abstract philosopher only manages to deform her own experiential capacity. Likewise, the Shrenikan and the natural man do not eliminate the “entanglements” of the intellect, but only lobotomize themselves and diminish their capacity for experience. Intellect, emotion, and instinct are not independent entities; they are three of the myriad dharmas that constitute the one universe, the true self.
.
Dogen’s assertion that, “to study a single mote of dust is to study the whole universe,” is not limited to dust motes. The reason we can study the universe by studying a single mote of dust is that when we truly experience a mote of dust the whole universe is that mote of dust. In the same way, the whole universe is that emotion, that instinct, that thought.
.
As should be evident by now; the views Dogen refutes as non-Buddhist are all grounded on conceptual notions of independent entities (i.e. dualism). It is one thing to discern, distinguish, and discriminate among the myriad, variable, unique dharmas that constitute the one universe (the true self, or one Buddha mind), and quite another to misconstrue these dharmas as separate entities, universes unto themselves. To Dogen, who asserts that existence is experience, such views are outrageous. The whole range of experiences possible to the human condition is nothing more or less than the life of the Buddha, the actualization of the universe itself.
.
From the perspective of Dogen’s cosmology regarding the various aspects of our existence as truly separable is delusional, to further classify, and qualify some as good or desirable, and others as bad or undesirable is adding delusion to delusion, to then attempt to eradicate the bad, undesirable “entities” is sheer lunacy. Experience is existence. To exist is to be experienced; to be experienced is to be experienced by a “self” (our self, or another’s self). Experience is unceasing, existence is momentary. That experience is unceasing means that experience is continuous, which means it is an activity, not a fixed thing or condition. That existence is momentary means that existence is discontinuous, which means it is always our experience here and now (never there or then).
.
In sum, there is Buddha Mind, which is the fences and walls, tiles and stones, and all the Buddhas in the three temporal worlds directly experience It as something that cannot be held onto. There are only the fences and walls, tiles and stones, which are Buddha Mind, and all Buddhas directly experience It in the three temporal worlds as ungraspable. What is more, That which is ungraspable within the great earth with its mountains and rivers exists there by Its very nature. That which is ungraspable in grasses and trees, wind and water, accordingly, is Mind. Also, It is what is ungraspable in “Letting our mind abide nowhere and giving rise to the Mind.” And also, the Mind Beyond Grasping, which gives voice to the eighty thousand Gates by means of all the Buddhas throughout all generations everywhere, is the same as this.
Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku (Written Version), Hubert Nearman
.
Our “self” (and the “self” of others) then, exists as the unceasing activity of novel experience. From this it is clear that uncontrolled and unfocused experience amounts to chaotic and obscure existence; skillful management and clear understanding of experience amounts to harmonious, competent existence. In Buddhism, these are the two aspects of the one mind that are delusion and enlightenment. It is no accident that confusion, obscurity, and alienation are the universal symbols of evil. The devil’s skill in the art of trickery, the horror of the dark pit or the labyrinth, the dread of alienation and the prospect of insanity all testify to our innate aversion to chaos and obscurity. For the same reason, the universal symbols of good are enlightenment, lucidity, and intimacy. This is evinced by our innate desire to see and to know, to understand and to be understood. In short, it is how we “arrange” the “bits and pieces” of the ceaseless activity of experience that “fashions” our universe (here and now) as hell or heaven (samsara or nirvana).
.
To be continued…
.
Peace,
Ted

Dogen on the mind that cannot be grasped

The wisdom of Dogen, excerpts from, Shobogenzo, Shin fukatoko:

The Mind that cannot be grasped is what all Buddhas are, for They personally rely upon It as supreme, fully perfected enlightenment. As the Diamond-Cutting Scripture says, “The mind of the past cannot be retained; the mind of the present cannot be held onto; the mind of the future cannot be grasped.” This expression points to the Buddha’s reliance upon the Mind that cannot be held onto, which is what all Buddhas do. It is what They have come to rely upon, saying that It is the unretainable mind of past, present, and future, and that It is the ungraspable Mind of all thoughts and things. If you do not learn from the Buddhas what They are relying upon, which is what makes this matter clear, you will not directly experience It...

There are people who, upon hearing the phrase ‘cannot be grasped’, have simply assumed that there is nothing to be attained in either case, for these people lack the living pathway of practice. Further, there are those who say that It cannot be grasped because it is said that we already possess It from the first. How does that hit the mark?

...What we call ‘Buddha Mind’ is synonymous with the three temporal worlds of past, present, and future. This Mind and the three temporal worlds are not separated from each other by so much as one single hair’s breadth. Even so, when we are discussing the two as things that are distinct and separate from each other, then they are farther apart than eighteen thousand breadths of hair.
Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku (written version), Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted