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

What 'Enlightenment' actually means

It is crucial to understand what ‘enlightenment’ actually means; an actual manifestation of truth, realized by a particular sentient being at a specific place-time. It is for this reason that individual practitioners are instructed in the teachings and methods that recognize the nonduality of ‘practice’ and ‘enlightenment.’ Practice is ‘practice-grounded-in-enlightenment’ and enlightenment is ‘enlightened-practice.’ Again, practice means ‘actualizing (making actual) enlightenment’ and enlightenment means ‘enlightenment actualized.’ Practice does not ‘cause enlightenment’ and enlightenment does not ‘exist independent of’ practice; practice is practice-enlightenment, enlightenment is practice-enlightenment. Dogen calls this ‘distinct’ yet ‘coextensive’ characteristic of practice-enlightenment “untaintedness.”

 

If we failed to recognize the feature of the moment of being in this truth, that might be stupid. That feature, namely, is untaintedness. Untaintedness does not mean forcibly endeavoring to be aimless and free of attachment and detachment; nor does it mean maintaining something other than one’s aim. Actually, without being aimed at, or attached to, or detached from, untaintedness exists.

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

Karma is Activity

Karma is activity. Activity is ever and always the conduct (a particular thought, word, or deed) of a particular sentient being at a particular location-time. When the conduct of a sentient being harmonizes with reality (truth, Buddha-Dharma) as it is here-now, that is enlightenment (‘Buddhahood’). When the conduct of a sentient being diverges from the truth here-now, that is delusion (‘ordinary being’). To be deluded is to be ‘bound to suffering’, to be enlightened is to be ‘liberated from suffering’ – the former ‘suffer’ the consequences of here-now of their actions (karma), the latter ‘utilize’ the liberating potential of action (karma) here-now. For karma is never some ‘general’ reality that exists separate from actual distinct actions of particular beings here-now; ‘karma itself’ (as an independent thing or entity) does not exist. Likewise, the only real ‘delusion’ in the universe are the particular ‘deluded thoughts, words, or deeds’ of actual sentient beings here-now; the only ‘realization’ is that manifest as particular thoughts, words, or deeds of sentient beings here-now.

 

Delusion, remember, is something that does not exist. Realization, remember, is something that does not exist.

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

The Transmission of Wisdom 3

The Transmission of Wisdom 3

Authentic Zen practice-enlightenment consists of ‘these two aspects’ – discerning dharmas as they are, and actualizing that discernment here-now. It is worth noting that the ‘practice-enlightenment’ advocated by Dogen (hence Zen) differs significantly from the ‘practice-enlightenment’ advocated by most contemporary Zen teachers. Many contemporary Zen teachers refrain from even acknowledging the reality of an ‘enlightened perspective,’ fewer still advocate discerning all dharmas from the enlightened perspective, and even fewer encourage enacting that perspective in the ‘world of duality.’ Therefore, whatever most contemporary teachers do proclaim as ‘practice-enlightenment,’ it must be different from that expounded by Dogen. Judging from the classic Zen records, this is not unique to our era; authentic practice-enlightenment has evidently always been something engaged by a minority of those in the Zen community. In harmony with those records, then, I do not say no contemporary teachers proclaim authentic practice-enlightenment, only that they are few.

It is not necessary to detail exactly what the majority of contemporary Zen teachers do advocate as practice-enlightenment except to explain my reason for making the point in negative terms, which may be telling enough. I stated this in terms of what ‘is not’ advocated rather than ‘what is’ because there is little consensus among contemporary Zen teachers in regard to what authentic practice-enlightenment actually consists in/of.

In any case, the point here is that Zen is a dynamic activity, not a fixed form. This dynamic activity is presented in the classic literature as a communication of enlightened wisdom ‘from the mind to the mind’ or ‘from Buddha to Buddha.’ Known formally in Zen as ‘Dharma-transmission,’ ‘mind to mind transmission,’ or, Dogen’s favorite term, ‘(the transmission of Dharma) from Buddha alone together with Buddha’ (yui-butsu-yobutsu). In Shobogenzo, Dharma-transmission is portrayed as the ever-ongoing unified activity/expression of the self and all Buddhas past, present, and future in the ceaseless actualization of universal liberation. As ‘activity,’ Zen is seeing, knowing, experiencing, etc. As ‘expression,’ Zen is seen, known, experienced, etc. ‘Seeing’ is true nature, and ‘seen’ is true nature. If it is ‘seeing true nature’ it is Zen. If it is not ‘seeing true nature’ it is not Zen. 

 

Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen.

Bodhidharma, Traditional founder of Zen, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, Red Pine, p.29

Fashioning Experience Into What We Call Myself

Fashioning Experience Into What We Call Myself

 

From the nondual perspective it is obvious that the true nature of an object experienced and the true nature of the subject experiencing it are not two different things. The myriad dharmas always around you is you – seeing this is seeing Buddha, seeing Buddha is making Buddha, making Buddha is being Buddha.

The sense organs do not convey signals from an alien (independently existent) realm to the mind of an isolated self; the sense organs are integral aspects of the ‘actualization of the universe’ (genjokoan) which is experienced/exists as the world/self unity a human being calls ‘myself.’

What we experience – dharmas – is what we are. And since experience is ever active, never static, what we are is an activity, a doing. And this doing that we are is a continuous ordering, fashioning, or arranging of dharmas, which are the ‘bits and pieces’ we experience as ‘myself.’

In a similar manner, we are continually arranging bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion them into what we call ‘a self ’, which we treat as ‘myself ’: this is the same as the principle of ‘we ourselves are just for a time’.

Shobogenzo, Uji, Hubert Nearman

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

Once The Bodhi Mind is Established

The Continuous Actualization of the Enlightened Mind

Expressions of truth are actualized by the skillful and creative application of truth via the subjective energy and volition of the practitioner. Obviously, such skill could hardly be cultivated and developed by turning away or detaching from the world. As a Buddhist master, Dogen understood and taught that authentic practice-enlightenment demanded practitioners to engage in a sustained effort to perceive and comprehend the truth in actual experience by engaging intentional, systematic training to activate, develop, cultivate, and exercise the human capacities for perception, cognition, and critical discernment. Authentic expressions of truth, being real dharmas, are and must be eternal forms (i.e. real instances of existence-time). As it is the nature of human experience to ceaselessly advance - continuously take-up and cast-off all objects of consciousness (sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts) - without a moment’s rest, expressions of truth, which present and actualize reality, can only be executed underway, so to speak.

The situation of this supreme truth of bodhi is such that even the whole universe in ten directions is just a small part of the supreme truth of bodhi: it may be that the truth of bodhi abounds beyond the universe. We ourselves are tools that it possesses within this universe in ten directions. How do we know that it exists? We know it is so because the body and the mind both appear in the universe, yet neither is ourself. The body, already, is not “I.” Its life moves on through days and months, and we cannot stop it even for an instant. Where have the red faces [of our youth] gone? When we look for them, they have vanished without a trace. When we reflect carefully, there are many things in the past that we will never meet again. The sincere mind, too, does not stop, but goes and comes moment by moment. Although the state of sincerity does exist, it is not something that lingers in the vicinity of the personal self. Even so, there is something that, in the limitlessness, establishes the [bodhi-]mind. Once this mind is established, abandoning our former playthings we hope to hear what we have not heard before and we seek to experience what we have not experienced before: this is not solely of our own doing. Remember, it happens like this because we are “people who are it.”

Shobogenzo, Inmo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [brackets in the original]

As actual forms of existence-time, expressions of truth (real dharmas) demonstrate the fallacy of abstract speculation; the insubstantial nature of theoretical doctrines is clearly exposed in direct experiential realization – the vague “mysterious” realms and “unknown” forces suggested by mystical mumbo jumbo simply lose all significance in the living reality of personal experience. Expressions of truth are the transmission of prajna (enlightened wisdom) from the whole body-mind to the whole body-mind. Where knowledge of truth is acquired by sustained effort in study, wisdom is the gradual, organic expansion of human normality actualized through the illumination of that truth in actual practice-enlightenment; the former is accessed via the memory, the later is the actualized integral character of the individual practitioner.

 

Please treasure yourself.

Ted

(Pre-"Soto") Soto Style Koan Introspection in Dogen's Zen

(Pre-"Soto") Soto Style Koan Introspection in Dogen's Zen

The final exceptional passage in the Goyuigon concerns the content of Zen enlightenment and its relationship to koan training. Gikai prefaces this conversation with Ejo by stating: “During the prior meditation period, I was aided by our former teacher’s great enlightenment situation, the shinjin datsuraku words.” …in this passage… the words “shinjin datsuraku” represent a stock phrase or device (i.e., an “old example,” kosoku or koan) for contemplation during meditation. This use of shinjin datsuraku as a formal meditation device is confirmed by the fact that Ejo then tested Gikai’s understanding by asking him to present an “appended phrase” (jakugo, i.e. a passage… summing up the meaning of a koan.) Their dialogue is as follows:

 

Gikai: I have attained an insight based on our former teacher’s saying, “shinjin datsuraku.”

 

Ejo: Good. Good. What do you understand?

 

Gikai: I understand “datsuraku shinjin.”

 

Ejo: What is the meaning?

 

Gikai: I had thought only (my) barbarian beard was red, but here is another red-bearded barbarian.”

 

Ejo: Among the many permitted [answers to] shinjin [datsuraku], there is this kind of shinjin.

 

This conversation has been quoted in full because it reveals three practices usually thought to be incongruous with the method of Zen practiced in early Soto. It implies that Gikai had been occupied with Dogen’s words during his meditation; that Ejo used koan instruction as part of the dharma succession process; and that formal quotations of stereo-typed expressions were used to test the understanding of the koan. Modern Soto scholars cannot accept the Goyuigon account at face value, because to do so would force them either to revise their usual interpretation of Dogen’s Zen as a religion of unmediated meditation or to attempt to argue that both Ejo and Gikai had failed to understand Dogen’s teachings.
William M. Bodiford, Soto Zen in Medieval Japan, pp.55-56

Zen Picking & Choosing: Koans and Zen Masters

Zen Picking & Choosing: Koans, Expressions, and Zen Masters

Being expressed from the nondual perspective, Zen expressions on objectivity and subjectivity naturally presuppose their being heard and understood nondually. The subjects and objects of Zen expression are not “signifiers” or “symbols” that “represent” independent entities, but interdependent beings and forms, the actual vehicles (that both “contain” and “convey”) of metaphorical modes of experience, each fully dependent on and inclusive of all. The emphasis here is their identity in and as “experience.” The experience of Zen practice-enlightenment is the experience of the self alone together with the self – the great matter of life-and-death. This experience is actualized by (therefore inclusive of) both “illumining” and “darkening.” Experience itself (thus Zen practice-enlightenment) is thusness as it is – it manifests without prior design. Even if it was possible, pure objectivity or subjectivity would be exactly the same; as either term would be meaningless, picking and choosing one over the other would be meaningless. Fortunately, the Zen perspective is void of pure objective or subjective (much less objectless) experiences – authentic practice-enlightenment is free from the vain “picking and choosing” of abstract speculation. This point is firmly established in the early mythology of Zen by the third Chinese ancestor, Shosan:

The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and choosing;

When love and hate are both absent; everything dwells in perfect clarity.
~Shinjinmei (Trust in the Heart-Mind), first verse

The significance and implications of this passage (and the whole poem for that matter) is brought to light, refined, and elaborated by innumerable expressions throughout the Zen literature. One of the clearest, and most direct expressions on this is found as case 2 in the classic Zen work, Hekiganroku. The expression therein is centered on a dialogue between the revered Zen master, Joshu, and a monk from the assembly where he taught. Here is the koan that comprises the “main case” of the expression:

Joshu, Addressing his assembly, Joshu said, "The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and choosing. But as soon as words are uttered, there is “picking and choosing” and there is “clarity.” This old monk (Joshu himself) does not dwell in clarity. Do you monks treasure this clarity or not?” (Do you understand, agree, or go along with [me, my meaning, and/or clarity itself] or not?)

A monk stepped forward and said, “If you do not dwell in clarity, then what do you treasure?” (If it is not “clarity” where do you dwell?)

Joshu said, "I do not know, either.”

The monk said, "If you do not know, Teacher, how can you say that you do not dwell in clarity?"

Joshu said, "It is enough to have asked the question. Now bow and withdraw."

~Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), case 2, main case

All thoughts, words, and deeds are necessarily “selections” – an idea appears as an idea through selecting or “picking and choosing” (illumining) particular dharmas from among the myriad, and ignoring (darkening) the rest. Regardless of the method or the one that employs it, thinking, speaking, or acting necessitates “selection,” illuming and darkening. Thus, “as soon as words are spoken” other words are “unspoken” – thus even though the great Zen master is compelled to “pick and choose” and not “dwell” in an enlightened condition (clarity), realization of the nonduality of “picking and choosing” and “clarity” delivers one into the liberated condition in which “picking and choosing” is itself “clarity” and “clarity” is itself “picking and choosing.” For the true self, being actualized by and as the object chosen and the subject choosing comprises the whole of actualized experience. If the self that makes the selection is the self from which the selection is made, then it is the self that is made by (fashioned by) the selection. Therefore, as the self is experience itself (the actualization of subject/object), then the experience of “clarity” (a subject/object) is the self (as clarity itself) and “picking and choosing” (a subject/object) is the self (as picking and choosing itself) the subject/object of the thusness of either is neither voided not altered in the slightest – clarity, picking and choosing, and every other dharma is a subject with an object, and an object with a subject – the two are distinct and co-extensive, not merged or independent.

The ordinary (unawakened) being, like the objective scientist, subjective artist, and abstract speculator naturally selects the “good,” “important,” “beautiful,” “significant,” or “true” from the welter of raw experience. Most will acknowledge the inevitability of leaving some of their experience untreated, many will agree that some of their experience goes “unexperienced” (i.e. the will admit not noticing every tree, thought, movement, etc.), and the more astute may confess to having fashioned much of their experience (i.e. thoughts, feelings, understanding, etc.) from preconceptions and after-images of actual experience, but without the vision afforded by the Dharma-eye none admit, much less realize it is not them that fashions experience, but experience that fashions them.

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

Just as the lucid dreamer realizes the he is “dreamed” the Zen practitioner realizes she is “fashioned.” And as the dreamer knows his “dream-self” is dreamed by his “dreaming-self” and never the two shall meet; the Zen practitioner sees that her (individual/universal) “self” is fashioned by her (universal/individual) “self” and never the two shall meet – and, never shall the two not meet. For if “fashioning” is continuous, experience is continuous. One ’s self is never “objective” to subjectivity, nor “subject” to objectivity – both are coessential qualities of the self – whatever sense of “objectivity” is experienced is (ever already) a subjective perspective of the self. As soon as “matters of fact,” “spiritual authorities,” “scientific truths,” “authentic certifications,” “natural laws,” or “logical proofs” are viewed or treated as abstract realities we can be sure that objectivity and subjectivity have strayed from the Way and fallen into dualism.

Peace, Ted

Experience, The True Self, & The Individual Self

Experience, The True Self, & The Individual Self

.

Stating that dharmas are the fundamental constituents of reality is only meaningful in a context wherein the significance of “reality” is understood – and understood as somehow distinct from “dharmas.” As abstract generalizations “2+2” and “4” are merely two ways of stating the same thing; as experiential manifestations “2+2” and “4” can be distinctly different (e.g. a carpenter wants 2 nails at each end of a board, she calculates 4 nails per board). Therefore, we use the term “reality” for the actual manifestation of our experience of/as a “self.” For the only reality anyone has ever known is the experience of something (a thing, being, or event) or experience as something (a thing, being, or event) – the experience of “an other” or experience as “a self.” Thus, Dogen points out:

When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

One thing this means is that all three, “experience” (consciousness), “self,” and “other” presuppose each other, or in Buddhist terms, are interdependent. Therefore, to speak of “experience” is to speak of self and other, to speak of “self” is to speak of experience and other, etc. With this in mind, our initial statement (i.e. dharmas are the fundamental constituents of reality) could be accurately expressed as, dharmas are the fundamental constituents of experience, or dharmas are the fundamental constituents of self, or dharmas are the fundamental constituents of other – each of these expressions identify “dharmas” with the reality of “experience,” “self,” and “other.”

Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that the term “self” seems, or feels more intimate, more meaningful, thus less alien and less abstract than “other” and “experience.” Therefore, we accept the Buddhist view that experience, self, and other are mutually inclusive and of equal status, and also follow Buddhism’s general practice of opting to utilize the term “self” as the primary metaphor for reality. To sum up and clarify; “self” (which presupposes “experience” and “other”) is the root metaphor of reality, thus the primary principle of Zen practice-enlightenment.

Before proceeding, a brief comment on a side issue related to the self as the primary metaphor of Zen is in order. It is axiomatic in Zen that authentic (i.e. intentional and effective) practice-enlightenment can only begin when the true nature of the self is experientially verified. Thus, the initial experience of true nature, often called “seeing true nature” (kensho), or “seeing Buddha” (kenbutsu), is naturally emphasized in Zen. The emphasis on an initial awakening, while perfectly understandable, has led many to over-estimate its import in the overall actualization of Zen practice-enlightenment – many have even concluded that it is the be-all and end-all of Zen. Here, then, let it be said that it is crucial to understand that awakening to the true nature of the self is the beginning, not the end of Zen practice-enlightenment.

Now, let us proceed by taking up what may be the thorniest question of all; who or what is it that we refer to as “we?” What is this “self” whose “true nature” the classic Zen masters are continuously urging us to awaken to? The majority of contemporary books whose subject centers on the “self,” books on health, psychology, religion (including Zen), and even self-help, show a marked propensity to avoid defining what it is they mean by the “self.” Like these books, the general population seems to assume that the meaning of “self” is self-evident. Nevertheless, when we compare how particular individuals explain their understanding of the self we find a multitude of differences and disagreements as well as a vast amount of obscurity, vagueness, and confusion. Because we view this writing, like all manner of expression, as a self-expression (i.e. an expression of the self, by the self, to the self) on the true nature of the self, we (i.e. the self) need to attempt to present a general outline of our understanding of the self here.

In Buddhism, “self” (Sanskrit: Atman, or Pali: Atta), like the Old English “aethm” and German “atem,” etymologically means “breath,” thus connoting “life,” “spirit,” “inspiration,” and perhaps most significantly “consciousness.” At the same time, “self” (sometimes used synonymously with “soul,” “ego,” “person,” etc.) is often used in a manner indicative of a “separate individual,” “particular being,” or “independent entity.” It is primarily in this latter sense of the term that the central tenet of Buddhist doctrine, “no-self” or “non-self” (anatman), is addressed. This tenet asserts, briefly, that no independent self (separate, enduring entity) exists.

As long as the term “self” is understood in a way that leaves unsettled the impossibility for a self to exist as an independent entity, it fails to qualify as Buddhist, and indeed must be considered non-Buddhist. Nevertheless, this does not mean that any and all notions of “self” are therefore rejected or prohibited by Buddhism – even the earliest and most conservative forms of Buddhism recognized the importance of, and developed sophisticated approaches to, the inarguably existent and dynamic experience of human subjectivity. It is fair to say that the culminating schools of Mahayana Buddhism all achieved elaborately comprehensive visions of the self that ably accounted for all aspects of subjectivity without violating the tenet of “no-self.”

Generously, and unabashedly borrowing and adapting from the Huayen, Tendai, and other Buddhist schools (as well as from Taoism and Confucianism), Zen developed and utilized a number of doctrines and methods to deal with a “self” that effectively harmonizes with “no-self.” And accordingly, whether in terms of “ordinary beings and Buddhas,” “false mind and true mind,” “guest and host,” or similar variations, the “self” gradually but unvaryingly realized an increasing potential of mythological significance. As with the term “soul” in Neoplatonism (only developing unhindered for much longer), it became, and continues to be possible in Buddhism to use “self” in speaking of the individual self (e.g. myself, yourself, herself, etc.) and the world self (e.g. the universe, great self, Buddha, etc.) at once, that is, to communicate meaningfully and truthfully about both the individual and the world. Of course, it remains possible for “self” to distinctly refer to one or the other; the ordinary, personal, or ego self, or the original, great, or true self. Which “self” (i.e. the individual, the world, or both) is meant in a particular instance is usually easily determined by its context.

Having noted the variety of dharmas that can be illumined by the term, let us now consider the actual nature of the several particulars designated as “self.” We will begin with the individual self, that is, the ordinary, personal, or ego self – the self we commonly identify as “our self.” Generally, the individual self is the subject of experience. To clarify, first note that any (and every) sense of “self” is by definition divided by a sense of “self” and “other than self.” Recall Dogen’s words above:

When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

It should now be clear that the content of experience (i.e. an “object of consciousness”) is experienced by the individual self as something distinct from, or other than the individual self. In short, then, the individual self is the “what” that is experienced as being independent of the content (object) of experience.

Now we are ready to consider the world self, that is, the universal, great, or true self – the self that Buddhism often identifies as “Buddha.” In general, the world self is the whole universe, the totality of existence-time. Whereas the individual self is the subject of experience as distinct from the object of experience, the “true” self is inclusive of both the subject and the object of experience. In the context of Dogen’s expression, the individual self is the self of “self and other” (i.e. the self distinct from the other); the world self is “what is known” and “what is seen,” which, as Dogen points out, is inclusive of both “a self and an other.”

We make haste to point out that the perspective of the “world self” denies neither the reality nor the significance of the “individual self.” In contrast to the assertions of some contemporary “Zen teachers,” the individual self is not illusory or provisional, but rather a real eternal constituent of the world self – is in fact wholly constituted of the world self. In short, while the world self is not wholly contained by the individual self (far from it!), the individual self is nevertheless wholly contained within the world self, thus wholly contained within the totality of existence-time.

.

I hope this is helpful.

Peace,
Ted

The Truth of Buddha-Nature

The Truth of Buddha-Nature..

The truth of the buddha-nature is that we are not equipped with the buddha-nature before we realize the state of buddha; we are equipped with it following realization of the state of buddha. The buddha-nature and realization of buddha inevitably experience the same state together. We should thoroughly investigate and consider this truth.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


Peace,
Ted

Genjokoan: Skeleton Key to Dogen’s Shobogenzo Part 4

Genjokoan: A Skeleton Key to Dogen’s Shobogenzo

.

A Study of Genjokoan and the Commentary in The Flatbed Sutra of LouieWing by Ted Biringer

.

PART 4

[Click Here for Part 1] [Click Here for Part 2] [Click Here for Part 3]

.

Throughout his works, Dogen consistently affirms the vital position of verbal expression in the buddha-dharma (the authentic teaching of Buddhism), and at the same time, clearly defines its limitations. The next line of Genjokoan is one of the finest examples of this.

And though it is like this, it is simply that flowers, while loved, fall; and weeds, while hated, flourish.

This line may be the most direct expression in the whole Shobogenzo. It may also be the most misunderstood. It is often interpreted as a simile, which completely misses, and even subverts the point Dogen is making. In fact, Dogen points out that the previous three points are similes with the words, “And though it is like this.” In this line, he points out that reality is not like anything: it is simply reality; that is, “flowers fall…weeds flourish.”

This teaching corresponds with the true meaning of the often-quoted Zen dictum “a separate transmission outside the scriptures, not dependent on words and letters.” This does not mean that Zen disregards scriptures and texts, but that the reality the scriptures indicate is separate from the scriptures themselves, and not dependent on the words and letters that are used to indicate it.

Zen teachings require you to see into and through the words, while avoiding becoming attached to the words. You cannot “learn” Zen through reading and study, but you cannot disregard reading and study either. To use an analogy: reading a recipe for chocolate cake will not result in producing a chocolate cake–you must possess the ingredients and follow the instructions. At the same time, simply possessing the ingredients without the knowledge provided by the recipe will not do either.

In the first three statements, Dogen illustrates what reality is like; in this line, he presents it more directly, “and though it is like this, it is only that flowers, while loved, fall; and weeds while hated, flourish.” This kind of expression, common in Zen literature, is meant to convey the truth that reality or enlightenment is not produced by words, knowledge or even spiritual practice; reality is reality, as it is here and now.

~The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing: The Second Ancestor of Zen in the West by Ted Biringer

.

To be continued...

[Click Here for Part 1] [Click Here for Part 2] [Click Here for Part 3]

Peace,

Ted

Two Fallacies about Zazen

As all Dogen students know, Dogen frequently praises the merit of sitting meditation (zazen); imploring us to wholeheartedly practice zazen and consistently affirming the nondual relationship of practice and enlightenment. He also goes to great lengths to define his terms, often by contrasting his meaning of zazen with popular “wrong notions” about zazen.

.

In his most detailed account of zazen, Shobogenzo, Zazenshin,  Dogen outlines two common fallacies about prevalent in his era. One is the teaching that zazen is “just sitting” and letting things be (thoughts, sounds, smells, etc.); he deplores the notion that any of the six streams of experience (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking) should just be allowed to come and go, that there is “nothing special” to realize, and that “just sitting and attaining peace of mind” is the “right method” of zazen. For example:

In recent years, however, stupid unreliable people have said, “In the effort of Zazen, to attain peace of mind is everything. Just this is the state of tranquility.” This opinion is beneath even scholars of the small vehicle. It is inferior even to the vehicles of men and gods. How can we call such people of the Buddha-Dharma? In the Great Kingdom of Buddha-Dharma today, people of such effort are many. It is lamentable that the Patriarch’s truth has gone to ruin.

Shobogenzo, Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Nevertheless, popular books and teachers continue to espouse variations of this very notion today. One popular teacher (Joko Beck) asserts that, “The natural state is what practice is about,” and, “Our essential task is not to try to achieve something. Our true nature is always there, always undisturbed.”

.

This is very different from Dogen’s teaching which exhorts us to, above all, “achieve the bodhi mind” (attain enlightenment), frequently reminding us that:

 

“This Dharma is abundantly present in each human being but…if we do not experience it, it cannot be realized.”

Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

And:

Unless you arouse a mind comparable to this, how will you accomplish the great task of the Buddha-Way, which cuts off the turning round of birth and death in a single instant of thought? If someone has such a mind, we do not talk about whether he has inferior wisdom of degenerate faculties, we do not discuss whether he is a stupid and ignorant evil man; he will definitely attain enlightenment.

Shobogenzo, Zuimonki, Thomas Cleary

The second common delusion manifests in various forms of the notion that “everything is Zen.” This is commonly touted by expressions like, “Everything you see and hear is the One-essence, it is nothing but the Buddha-dharma” or, “Allow whatever comes to come and, when it goes, just let it go, don’t suppress it or attach to it. Think of it as a bubble” (Genpo Merzel)

.

In Contrast, Dogen urged us to approach life as an eternal quest for meaning and experience—asserting that whole worlds existed in each moment, in each drop of water. Dogen’s disdain for “no goal or no purpose” notions of Zen practice was unabashed. Dogen constantly asserts that aspiration and effort are essential to genuine Zen practice and enlightenment:

It is pitiful that [such people] spend a lifetime passing in succession through the monasteries of the ten directions, and yet they have not experienced the effort of one sitting. Sitting is not in them; their effort does not meet with themselves at all. This is not because Zazen hates their own body and mind, but because they do not aspire to the genuine effort [of Zazen], and they are quickly deluded. Their collections seem only to be about getting back to the source or returning to the origin, about vainly endeavoring to cease thought and become absorbed in serenity. That is not equal to the stages of reflection on, training in, assuming the fragrance of, and cultivation of [dhyana]; it is not equal to views on the ten states and the balanced state of truth: how could [those people] have received the one-to-one transmission of the Zazen of the buddhas and the patriarchs?

Shobogenzo, Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Dogen’s work almost seems to consist of nothing but expounding the thought, practice, and continuous actualization of practice and enlightenment. He urges those who have already attained enlightenment to continue to go ever deeper attaining enlightenment upon enlightenment. Dogen repeatedly and consistently asserts that practice without enlightenment is not authentic practice.

Concentrating our resolve, we should just strive in pursuit of the truth. We should learn in practice that in pursuing the truth we are as if meeting life-and-death [itself]; it is not that we pursue the truth in life and death. People today imagine that they will set aside the pursuit of the truth when they reach fifty or sixty, or reach seventy or eighty: this is extremely stupid… If you do not single-mindedly strive to be saved, who will be inspired by whom? When we are vainly wandering in the wilds, skeletons without a master, we should realize right reflection—as if making an eye.

… The sixth Patriarch was a woodman in Shinshu district. It would be difficult to call him an intellectual. He had lost his father in infancy and had been brought up by his old mother; he made a living as a woodman in order to support her. After hearing one phrase of a sutra at a town crossing, he left his old mother at once, and went in search of the great Dharma. He was a man of great makings, rare through the ages. His pursuit of the truth was in a class by itself. To cut off an arm may be easy, but this severance from love must have been enormously difficult; this abandoning of obligation could not have been done lightly. Having devoted himself to the order of Obai, he pounded rice day and night, without sleep or respite, for eight months. In the middle of one night, he received the authentic transmission of the robe and the bowl. Even after getting the Dharma, he still carried the stone mortar on his travels, and continued his rice-pounding for eight years. Even when he manifested himself in the world and preached the Dharma to deliver others, he did not set aside the stone mortar. This was maintenance of practice rare through the ages.

Baso of Kozei sat in Zazen for twenty years and he received the intimate seal of Nangaku… Even into old age he did not let up.

Master Ungan learned in practice alongside Dogo in the order of Yakusan. Having made a pledge together, [Ungan and Dogo] did not put their sides to a bed for forty years; with one taste, they investigated the state in experience…

Great Master Kokaku of Ungo-zan mountain in former days resided in a hut on Sanpo mountain… The Great Master on one occasion, on visiting Tozan, decisively attained the great state of truth… No longer expecting heavenly cuisine, he saw the great state of truth as his sustenance. We should try to imagine his determination.

Shobogenzo, Gyoji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The requirement of wholehearted effort and focused, dedicated practice is basic to Buddhism, and a hallmark of Zen.

Peace,

Ted

If Zazen is the Medium, What is the Vehicle?

If Zazen is the Medium, What is the Vehicle?

...

Because it furnishes effective, methodical training for the development and utilization of the Dharma-eye, zazen (and its synonyms) in Dogen’s writings, is the channel, or medium, through which religion (Dharma) is transmitted...

.

Because they contain and convey the “words and ways” of Buddhas and ancestors and have “carried” them “into nirvana” the Buddhist Sutras (scriptures) is the vehicle of religion (Dharma).

Practicing what the Buddha taught means making the words and ways of all the Buddhas manifest. Because this is what Buddhas and Ancestors have done for the sake of Buddhas and Ancestors, the Teachings have been accurately passed on for the sake of the Teachings. This is what the turning of the Wheel of the Dharma is. From within the Eye of this Wheel, these Teachings have caused all the Buddhas and Ancestors to manifest and to be carried into nirvana.
Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman

The Buddhist Sutras, for Dogen, are “the entire universe itself,” which of course, includes the records and koans of Zen. Revelatory of the nondual (unified) reality of human existence, the Buddhist Sutras are the vehicle of the Buddha Dharma, and are the key to the authentic practice-enlightenment of Zen. So, authentic zazen is the channel, or medium of religion, the Sutras are the vehicle of religion, therefore, religion (the Buddha Dharma, in Dogen’s terms) is equally zazen and sutras. As always in Dogen's writings, this unity does not mean “undifferentiated oneness,” but nondual interdependence; authentic zazen is always inclusive of the sutras, the sutras are always inclusive of zazen.

“Practicing” (authentic zazen) “what the Buddha taught” (the sutras) “means making the words and ways of all the Buddhas manifest” (actualizing the enlightened vision expressed in the Sutras). Making the words and ways (contained and conveyed by the sutras) manifest in the world here and now is to actualize the Dharma. It is then, through the words and letters, which are never apart from the whole of existence-time, that Zen practitioners may come to know the “one-taste” reality of Zen. Thus Dogen wrote:

The monastics of future generations will be able to understand one-taste Zen (ichimizen) based on words and letters, if they devote their efforts to spiritual practice by seeing the universe through words and letters, and words and letters through the universe.
Tenzo kyokan, trans. Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.60
.

For when we encounter the sutras we encounter the Buddhas and Ancestors.

.
The one who encounters the twelve divisions of the Scriptural Teachings encounters the Buddhas and Ancestors, and the one who speaks of the Buddhas and Ancestors speaks of the twelve divisions of the Scriptural Teachings.
Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman

.

Peace,

Ted