Dogen on Sectarianism

Dogen on Sectarianism

 

Do not concede that the Buddha-Dharma might even exist among people who claim to be ‘the Zen sect.’ Who has invented the name ‘Zen sect’? None of the buddhas and ancestral masters has ever used the name ‘Zen sect.’

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[i]

 

The identification of Dogen’s doctrine and methodology with the Soto sect was not established by Dogen or his single successor, Koun Ejo (1198-1280). Dogen was only identified as the ‘founder of the Soto sect’ well after his death. Moreover, it is irrefutable that Dogen not only did not intend to found a sect, but that he explicitly and forcefully disparaged the very notion of it.

 

The view that Buddhism could be divided into separate entities is fundamentally contrary to the central principles of Dogen’s teachings. There was only one authentic Buddhism (or Buddha-Dharma); any ‘Buddhism’ that was not authentic Buddhism was not Buddhism at all. The notion that ‘Zen’ itself consisted of a separate distinct sect of Buddhism is adamantly refuted in Dogen’s own writings. In Shobogenzo, Butsudo, his most comprehensive elucidation of what does, and does not constitute authentic Buddhism, Dogen articulates his view of the notion that the Buddha-Dharma could be divided into sects in no uncertain terms:

 

Remember, the name ‘Zen sect’ has been devised by demons and devils. People who have called themselves a name used by demons and devils may themselves be a band of demons; they are not the children and grandchildren of the Buddhist patriarchs.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[ii]

 

Dogen did, of course, recognize the fact that, regardless of its accuracy or rationality, Buddhism was and is commonly identified and discussed in ‘sectarian’ terms by reliable sources as well as unreliable ones. However, in his acknowledgement and explanation as to the causes for the term ‘Zen sect’ having fallen into common usage, he makes no apologies or justifications for the fact, as is common today, but plainly describes it as ‘a degeneration.’ 

 

We should be absolutely certain that [the Buddha’s truth] has never been called ‘the Zen sect.’ Nevertheless, the common folk of recent ages, in their stupidity, do not know the old customs, and people who have not received the transmission of past buddhas wrongly say, ‘Within the Buddha-Dharma there are the lineages and customs of the five sects.’ This is a degeneration that has been left to follow its natural course.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[iii]

 

Moreover, Dogen’s repudiation was clearly directed to be inclusive of any and all notions of separate schools or sects within the Buddha-Dharma, many of which he named and described in detail – including the very ‘sect’ that his own primary lineage within the Buddha-Dharma had come to be identified with. Indeed, he treated the identification of authentic Buddhism with the ‘Soto sect’ to the fullness of his not small capacity for expressing scornful contempt:

 

The great master has never shown to the assembly any fist or wink of an eye that advocated the use of the name ‘Sōtō sect.’ Furthermore, there was no flotsam mixed in among his disciples, and so there was no disciple who used the name ‘Tōzan sect.’ How much less could they speak of a ‘Sōtō sect’? The name ‘Sōtō sect’ may be the result of including the name Sōzan. In such a case, Ungo and Dōan would have to be included too. Ungo is a guiding master in the human world and in the heavens above, and he is more venerable than Sōzan. We can conclude, in regard to this name ‘Sōtō,’ that some stinking skinbag belonging to a side lineage, seeing himself as equal [to Tōzan], has devised the name ‘Sōtō sect.’

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[iv]

 

As Dogen’s words leave no doubt concerning his own views on the matter I need not dwell on the point, except to stress that it harmonizes perfectly with a central principle of his whole vision; the unity of all authentic Buddhist expressions (i.e. form/essence transmissions of truth). The summum bonum of the Buddha-Dharma, the ‘supreme truth’ of enlightenment, according to Dogen, is at once various and differentiated (i.e. a manifest appearance in and as duality) and unified and undifferentiated (i.e. a manifest appearance in and of nonduality) – each and all the myriad expressions of Buddhas are the one thing ‘which every buddha and every patriarch transmits and authentically receives.’

 

That which every buddha and every patriarch transmits and authentically receives is the right-Dharma-eye treasury and the supreme truth of bodhi. The Dharma that the Buddhist Patriarch possessed has been transmitted in its entirety by buddhas, and there are no innovations to be added to the Dharma at all. This principle is the bones of the Dharma and the marrow of the truth.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[v]

 

Clearly, Dogen’s view of the unity of the Buddha-Dharma is not confined to a ‘select collection’, ‘authorized version’, or ‘special transmission.’ Not only did Dogen refute all notions of sectarian exclusivity, he explicitly asserted the unity of all the traditional Buddhist expressions (i.e. both the Mahayana and Theravada [Hinayana] scriptures and treatises) and all the expressions of genuine Zen ancestors (i.e. verbal and written doctrines, treatises, records, koan collections, etc.). In Dogen’s view, to understand the expression of Zen as a ‘separate transmission outside the teachings’ literally rather than poetically, was not only to be deluded about the nature of Zen/Buddhism, but to be in the dark even about the basic nature of language, thinking, and reason. All notions about written or verbal teachings as somehow non-essential to authentic Zen practice-enlightenment were denigrated by Dogen as delusional and heretical, even imbecilic and vulgar. To Dogen all the expressions of Buddhas and Buddha ancestors, written or otherwise, are part and parcel with Buddhism itself, intrinsic elements of the ‘rightly transmitted Buddha-Dharma.’ All expressions of Buddhas are expressions of truth, and all expressions of truth are expressions of Buddha.

---

[i] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[ii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[iii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[iv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[v] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 1

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 1

-

Within the contemporary Zen community the term ‘Zen,’ when used as a designation for the 1500 year old tradition known as Zen Buddhism, is frequently used in ways that hardly suggest there is much universal agreement about what Zen Buddhism is. That is, while it is usually pretty clear that the term Zen is supposed to designate authentic Buddhism (the Buddha Dharma, Buddha Tao, or Buddha Way), the many various speakers and writers that identify themselves as Zen adherents or representatives often portray widely divergent versions of Zen doctrine and methodology. While it would be an exercise in futility to make any attempt to sort out all the variations of contemporary Zen in order to come to some clear vision as to ‘authentic Zen,’ we can at least get a fairly good vision of what it is that the Zen master Eihei Dogen regarded as the authentic Buddha Dharma.

-

In 1243 – at the very peak of his creative powers – Dogen wrote Butsudo (Butsu; Buddha, do [tao]; way, truth, path), a fairly long fascicle of Shobogenzo presenting a clear account of his own view of the matter. The Butsudo fascicle (which Nishijima & Cross translate as “The Buddhist Truth”) begins with a quote by the sixth [Zen] ancestor Huineng (Sokei) followed by comments from Dogen thus:

-

The eternal buddha Sokei on one occasion preaches to the assembly, “From Eno to the Seven Buddhas there are forty patriarchs.” When we investigate these words, from the Seven Buddhas to Eno are forty buddhas. When we count the buddhas and the patriarchs, we count them like this. When we count them like this, the Seven Buddhas are seven patriarchs, and the thirty-three patriarchs are thirty-three buddhas. Sokei’s intention is like this. This is the right and traditional instruction of the Buddha. Only the rightful successors of the authentic transmission have received the authentic transmission of this counting method. From Sakyamuni Buddha to Sokei there are thirty-four patriarchs. Each of the transmissions between these Buddhist patriarchs is like Kasyapa meeting the Tathagata and like the Tathagata getting Kasyapa. Just as Sakyamuni Buddha learns in practice under Kasyapa Buddha, each teacher and disciple exists in the present. Therefore, the right Dharma-eye treasury has been personally transmitted from rightful successor to rightful successor, and the true life of the Buddha-Dharma is nothing other than this authentic transmission. The Buddha-Dharma, because it is authentically transmitted like this, is perfectly legitimate in its transmission. This being so, the virtues and the pivotal essence of the Buddha’s truth have been faultlessly provided. They have been transmitted from India in the west to the Eastern Lands, a hundred thousand and eight miles, and they have been transmitted from the time when the Buddha was in the world until today, more than two thousand years. People who do not learn this truth in practice speak randomly and mistakenly. They randomly call the right Dharma-eye treasury and the fine mind of nirvana that have been authentically transmitted by the Buddhist patriarchs “the Zen sect”; they call the ancestral master “the Zen patriarch”; they call practitioners “Zen students” or “students of dhyana”; and some of them call themselves “the Zen schools.” These are all twigs and leaves rooted in a distorted view. Those who randomly call themselves by the name “Zen sect,” which has never existed in India in the west or in the Eastern Lands, from the past to the present, are demons out to destroy the Buddha’s truth. They are the Buddhist patriarchs’ uninvited enemies.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

-

Dogen’s comments here are probably clear enough – “This is the right and traditional instruction of the Buddha” – that is, the issue at hand here is what he regards as authentic Zen, or the genuine Buddha Dharma. Before going on to the next section however, it is worth emphasizing the importance of carefully considering the point that Dogen brings into relief with his expression that, “Just as Sakyamuni Buddha learns in practice under Kasyapa Buddha, each teacher and disciple exists in the present.” In Kazuaki Tanahashi translation of Butsudo, “This being so, the function, the essence, of the buddha way, is present with nothing lacking.” The point to get at is that whatever authentic Zen is, it (the function, the essence, each teacher and disciple, etc.) exists here-now (“in the present”, “is present with nothing lacking”).

 

The Authentic Buddha Dharma – Which Zen is Zen? Part 2

(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

Can Zen Sectarianism Continue To Be Taken Seriously?

Can Zen Sectarianism Continue To Be Taken Seriously?

Despite the enormous advances in Zen and Buddhist scholarship of recent decades, many in the actual community of Zen practitioners continue to be largely guided by the vision of Zen fashioned by pre-modern and modern Japanese institutions, rather than the vision presented by the classic masters. Certain stereotypes about Zen are so entrenched in many contemporary Zen communities that even the most incontrovertible revelations of scholarship continue to be largely dismissed or ignored.

There seem to be a number of various reasons for this, but it seems significant that the probability for a discovery to be dismissed increases in proportion to the extent it is sectarian specific.

For instance, the "less sectarian" disclosure that Zen’s claim of being transmitted through “an unbroken succession from master-to-master” was historically untenable met greater acceptance than the "more sectarian" discovery that Dogen regarded koans to be as essential to Zen as sitting meditation.

In fact, propaganda portraying Dogen as someone that regarded “just sitting” as the only essential element of Zen practice was so effective his actual stance continues to be denied by many in the Soto sect to this day.

Let's consider this further in context of the well documented competition for “superiority” between the two major Zen institutions in Japan (Soto and Rinzai), which largely centered on the role of koans. Briefly, the Soto sect advocated “just sitting” and criticized the Rinzai sect for its “preoccupation” with koans.

Now notice that when it was discovered that the “Soto founder” (Dogen) took the Rinzai sect’s side in regarding koans as essential to Zen practice it not only exposed fallacies of Soto dogma, it revealed a necessity to doubt the credibility of everything the Soto sect asserted concerning Zen; if they were ignorant of Dogen’s actual teachings about koans and zazen, how can we seriously attach any authority to their claim of Dogen as being their “founder”?

...

Until next time, try not to drown in all the blood...

Ted

Realizing the True Nature of Yourself - Yes, "Self"

You need to discern and affirm for yourself the underlying meaning of his saying, “If you wish to see Buddha Nature, you must first rid yourself of your arrogant pride.” It is not that one lacks sight, but the seeing of which he spoke is based on ridding oneself of one’s arrogant pride. The arrogance of self is not just of one kind, and pride takes many forms. Methods for ridding oneself of these will also be diverse and myriad. Even so, all of these methods will be ‘one’s seeing Buddha Nature’. Thus, you need to learn both to look with your eyes and to see with your Eye.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

Putting one’s trust in the authority of the true self is only grandiose and misguided if it is attempted with an inaccurate understanding. Driving a car or installing an electrical outlet with no more than a superficial understanding can be disastrous; pursuing the great matter of life and death under the authority of the true self without clearly understanding what that means would be seriously unwise.

Popular notions about individualistic forms of “personal Buddhism” illustrate how ridiculous things get with superficial views of Buddhism. Assertions that “my Zen” and “your Zen” or “your Dogen” and “my Dogen” are all “just Buddhism” are not at all what Dogen means by trusting the true self; to the contrary, such notions come only from the personal self, from bowing to the authority of ego. Such fanciful ideas are one reason Dogen was so vehemently opposed to notions of separate “sects” of Buddhism.

If the principle of setting up one’s own way was the authentic Way, the Buddha Dharma would have disappeared in India long ago. Who would honor principles that individual people had set up on their own? If each person sets up his own principles, who could determine which were true and which were false? What was true and what was false could never be determined. If the true and the false cannot be determined, who could recognize what was actually the Buddha Dharma? If its principles cannot be clarified, it would be difficult to call anything ‘the Way of the Buddha’.
Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Hubert Nearman

In Dogen’s Zen, just as each real dharma is a unique expression of the wholeness of existence-time, each real expression of Buddhism is a unique expression of the wholeness of Buddha Dharma. Buddhism is not our personal opinions about expressions of truth; Buddhism is the truth that is expressed. From the perspective of Shobogenzo, the uniqueness of human experience – its realm, personal self (ego), and relative depth and clarity – is attributed to the integral character resulting from the specific combination of causes and conditions expressing each individual existence.

By “integral character” I mean the natural or innate propensity toward experiencing the world; it is the integral character of owls to eat meat, not clover; it is the integral character of rabbits to avoid owls, not seek them out. Moreover, not only does a newborn tiger naturally advance to become an adult tiger, it advances to become the adult tiger inherent to its specific causes and conditions, its “integral character.” From the moment of conception (or, in Buddhist terms, from before the eon of emptiness) each human being perceives, and interacts with her experience in a manner that is organically consistent with her integral character.

If not directly inspired by the widespread dualistic views (mostly within the Shingon and Tendei traditions) based on distorted interpretations of “original enlightenment” (hongaku), Dogen’s emphasis on the teachings of nonduality was undoubtedly reinforced by these circumstances. In any case, Dogen’s refutation of such views are primarily aimed at undermining assumptions that human experience (hence, existence) is produced or “fashioned” by the world, rather than being the “fashioner” of the world. The owl egg is not haphazardly transformed by the world into an adult owl; the environment does contribute to conditioning this development, but it does not cause it.

Shobogenzo clearly distinguishes between the vision of prajna (enlightened wisdom) and common abstract, biased vision. Prajna is the active force of integral character, the center of gravity at the heart of the combined energies of the various causes and conditions that makes a human not only human, but that particular human. It is the “clear seeing” (prajna) that is the “fashioner” of a universe and the fashioner of a self that each human calls “myself.” In this sense, prajna is the working force that facilitates and informs the meaning and significance of the individual human being’s characteristic approach to and interaction with their experience of the world.

Shakyamuni Buddha once said in verse:

If any people give voice to this Discourse
Then they will surely be able to see Me.
But to express It for the sake of even one person
Is indeed something difficult for them to do.

So it follows from this that to be able to express the Dharma is to see Shakyamuni Buddha because, when ‘such a one’ comes to see ‘Me’, he is Shakyamuni Buddha.
Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Iigi, Hubert Nearman

Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching [feeling], and thinking are the six streams that constitute human experience (thus, existence). These never-ceasing, ever-advancing streams are neither fixed, nor prearranged in particular forms or patterns; they are the random, chaotic, ceaseless manifestation of the one mind, the all inclusive realm of reality, the wholeness of existence-time common to all things and beings. This common reality is Buddha nature/mu-Buddha nature (more on this later); owl prajna actualizes it as an owl and an owl realm, tiger prajna as a tiger and a tiger realm, human prajna as a self and a universe.

The experience of this actualization by owls and tigers is known only to owls and tigers. For humans, however, this experience can only occur in one of two ways, actively or passively. Whether actively or passively all humans, being innately human, actualize a universe and a self from (“bits and pieces”) of the six streams of human experience. Active actualization is consciously directed prajna, intentionally enacted; passive actualization is the random, automatically functioning of prajna, unconscious and haphazard.

The Great Way that Buddha after Buddha has Transmitted has continued on without interruption, and the merits of training that Ancestor after Ancestor has revealed have spread far and wide…

At the same time, the inborn abilities of human beings are of many kinds. For instance, there are those who innately know what life really is. Once born, they free themselves from the sufferings and delusions of living. That is, through their own bodily existence they thoroughly master what life really is, beginning, middle, and end. And there are those who realize the Truth through learning. They undertake study and ultimately master themselves. In other words, they thoroughly exhaust the skin and flesh, bones and marrow of learning. And there are those who know what Buddha is. They go beyond those who realize the Truth through living and those who realize the Truth through learning. They transcend the bounds of self and other, are unbounded in the here and now, and are beyond having opinions when it comes to knowing self and other. That is to say, they have a knowledge that has no teacher. They are not dependent on a good spiritual friend, nor on Scriptural writings, nor on the nature of things, nor on external forms; they do not try to open up and turn themselves around, nor do they try to be interdependent with others; rather, they are completely transparent, with nothing hidden. Of these various types, do not conclude that one is smart and another dull. Each type fully manifests the merits from their training.

As a consequence, you would do well to explore through your training whether there are any beings, sentient or non-sentient, who cannot come to know the Truth simply by living their daily life. Any who have come to know the Truth through living life will have come to realize that Truth as the result of their living an everyday life. Once they have awakened to the Truth, they will reveal It in their everyday lives as they do their training and practice throughout their lives. Thus, the Buddhas and Ancestors, who are already Trainers and Tamers of Human Beings, have come to be called ‘Those who have fully realized what life really is’ because They have fully grasped what realization means. It will be your realization of what life is that leads you to partake of the great realization, because it will manifest from your study of Their realization.
Shobogenzo, Daigo, Hubert Nearman

If you are really doing your exploring through your training, whether by following the Scriptures or by following your spiritual friend, you will ultimately realize the Truth by yourself, independent of your Master. Realizing the Truth by oneself independent of one’s Master is the functioning of one’s True Nature. And even so, if you are inherently keen, you will still need to call upon a Master and inquire of the Way. And even if you are not inherently keen, you will still need to do your utmost in practicing the Way. But who among you is not inherently keen? Each one of you follows both the Scriptures and the advice of a good friend in order to arrive at the enlightenment which is the fruit of Buddhahood. Keep in mind that inherent keenness means that when you encounter the Scriptures or come face-to-face with a spiritual friend, you are encountering the meditative state of your True Nature, and that when you encounter the meditative state of your True Nature, you attain the meditative state of the True Nature of all things. It is our tapping into the wisdom from our previous lives, attaining the three illuminations, and awakening to fully perfected enlightenment. Coming face-to-face with our inherent keenness, we study it; coming face-to-face with the wisdom that goes beyond having a Master and that is inherent within us, we straightforwardly Transmit it. If we had no inherent keenness, then even though we came face-to-face with the Scriptures and a spiritual friend, we could not hear what the True Nature of all things is, nor could we realize It. The Great Truth is not a principle like that of someone drinking water to know for himself whether it is warm or cool.
…
Even were we to talk or converse as if we lacked True Nature, or were to work or act as if we lacked True Nature, this too would only be True Nature manifesting Itself. The passing of days and months of immeasurable eons past has been the passing of the True Nature of all things. And it is just the same for the present and the future. We may take the measure of our body and mind to be just the measure of our body and mind, not recognizing them as an aspect of our True Nature, but this way of thinking about them is also a function of our True Nature. Or we may take the measure of our body and mind not to be a true measure of our body and mind, while still not recognizing them as an aspect of our True Nature, but this way of thinking about them is likewise a function of our True Nature. Whatever we may consider or not consider them to be, in either case they are an aspect of our True Nature. To think that the ‘Nature’ in ‘True Nature’ means that water does not flow and that trees do not flourish and then wither away is a non-Buddhist view.

Shakyamuni Buddha once said, “The appearance of each thought and thing is just as it is, and the nature of each thought and thing is likewise just as it is.”
Shobogenzo, Hossho, Hubert Nearman

Meditation Master Setcho Juken once said, “The two Masters—Joshu and Bokushu—are examples of what it means to be an Old Buddha.” Accordingly, the words of Old Buddhas are Their awakened experience of Buddha Dharma and Their own personal ways of putting the Matter which They uttered in the past. Great Master Seppo Shinkaku once exclaimed, “Joshu, the Old Buddha!” A previous Ancestor of the Buddha also praised Joshu by eulogizing him as an Old Buddha, and a later Ancestor of the Buddha eulogized him as an Old Buddha as well. Obviously, they are saying that he is an Old Buddha who has gone beyond any spiritually awakened state attained by others of the past or present.
Shobogenzo, katto, Hubert Nearman
...

Peace,
Ted