Dogen's Shobogenzo, Zazen-Shin (A Needle for Zazen) Part 3

Zazen-Shin (A Needle for Zazen)

Part 3 of 3 – Link to Part 1 – Link to Part 2

A Commentary on Dogen's Shobogenzo, Zazenshin

Translation (In Bold) by Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross - Commentary by Ted Biringer.

(Adapted from the Sept. 2014 issue of the Zen newsletter, Flatbed Sutra Zen News)

 

 

 

 

The Zazenshin in question is as follows:

 

Zazenshin

 

Written by Shogaku, who was posthumously titled, by imperial decree, Zen Master Wanshi

 

Pivotal essence of every buddha,

Essential pivot of every patriarch.

Not touching things, yet sensing,

Not opposing circumstances, yet being illuminated.

 

Not touching things, yet sensing:

The sensing is naturally subtle.

Not opposing circumstances, yet being illuminated:

The illumination is naturally fine.

 

The sensing is naturally subtle:

There has been no discriminating thought.

The illumination is naturally fine:

There has been not the slightest dawning.

 

There has been no discriminating thought:

The sensing, without any duality, is singular.

There has been not the slightest dawning:

The illumination, without any grasping, is complete.

 

The water is clean right to the bottom,

Fishes are swimming, slowly, slowly.

The sky is wide beyond limit,

And birds are flying, far, far away.

 

The point of this needle for zazen is that "the Great Function is already manifest before us," is "the dignified behavior that is ascendant to sound and form," is a glimpse of "the time before our parents were born," is that "not to insult the Buddhist patriarchs is good," is "never to have avoided losing body and life," and is "the head being three feet long and the neck being two inches."

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Dogen begins by reminding us that this expression is a Buddha's discourse - an expression of wisdom on the great matter of life and death. It is the truth that "the Great Function is already manifest before us" - existence-time here-now is Buddha. It is "the dignified behavior that is ascendant to sound and form" - actualizing universal liberation and fulfillment. It is "a glimpse of 'the time before our parents were born'" - discerning our true nature with certainty. It is that "not to insult the Buddhist patriarchs is good" - activating our skillful capacity, our ability to respond (responsibility). It is "never to have avoided losing body and life" - freedom from fear and self-centeredness. And is "the head being three feet long and the neck being two inches" - it is at that time when Buddha is Buddha.

 

"Pivotal essence of every buddha." "Every buddha" without exception sees "buddha at every moment" as "the pivotal essence." That "pivotal essence" has been realized: it is zazen.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

The pivotal essence is what every buddha sees at/as every place-time, and the pivotal essence is how every buddha sees at/as every place-time. Thus the making real (realization) of the pivotal essence ceaselessly advances in/as self-and-other (subjectivity/objectivity): This is zazen.

 

"Essential pivot of every patriarch." "The late master did without such words"-this principle itself is "every patriarch." The transmission of Dharma and the transmission of the robe exist. In general, every instance of "turning the head and changing the features" is the pivotal essence of every buddha. And every individual case of changing the features and turning the head is the essential pivot of every patriarch.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

"Outside words and letters" - these words and letters are themselves "outside." Here Shakyamuni twirls a flower, Now Mahakayshyapa smiles. The pivotal essence is the universal sacred life of all things, beings, and events. The essential pivot is the particular place-time of each thing, being, and event.

 

"Not touching things, yet sensing." "Sensing" is not sense perception; sense perception is small-scale. Neither is it intellectual recognition; intellectual recognition is intentional doing. Therefore, "sensing" is "beyond touching things," and that which is "beyond touching things" is "sensing." We should not consider speculatively that it is universal awareness, and we should not think narrowly that it is self-awareness. This "not touching things" means "When a clear head comes, a clear head does. When a dull head comes, a dull head does"; it means "to break by sitting the skin that our mothers bore."

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Touching is only and always realized (made real) by a toucher and a touched, a toucher is realized by a touched and a touching, a touched is realized by a toucher and a touching. Not touching is only realized by touching (thus all of touching's intrinsic elements) - therefore touching is beyond (includes and transcends) touching, and not touching is beyond not touching. The same truth applies to seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking. This is the true form of sensing. When I sense a horse, a horse is sensed by me; when an ox is sensed by me, I do not sense a horse. This is the true essence of sensing. When both the form and essence of sensing are expressed it is, "Nothing in the whole universe is concealed" and it is "When I don't see, you don't see my not seeing."

 

"Not opposing circumstances, yet being illuminated." This "being illuminated" is not the illumination of enlightened understanding and is not spiritual illumination. "Not to oppose circumstances" is described as "being illuminated." Illumination does not merge into circumstances-because circumstances are just illumination. The meaning of "non-opposition" is "the whole universe never having been hidden," is "a broken world not showing its head," is "the subtle," is "the fine," and is "[the state beyond] complicated and uncomplicated."

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

All the real 'circumstances' in the whole universe are instances of illumination itself - particular dharmas encountered by particular sentient beings at particular place-times. "Not to oppose circumstances" means the myriad dharmas advance and illumine the self.

 

A monk asked Dongshan, "How can one escape from heat and cold?"

Dongshan said, "Why not go where there is no heat and cold?"

The monk asked, "Where is there not heat and cold?"

Dongshan said, "When it is hot the heat kills you, when it is cold the cold kills you."

 

"The sensing is naturally subtle: There has been no discriminating thought." The state in which "thought" is "sensing" is not always reliant on external assistance. "The sensing" is concrete form, and concrete form is mountains and rivers. These mountains and rivers are "subtlety." This "subtlety" is "the fine." When we use [this state] it is totally vigorous. When we become a dragon, whether we are inside or outside the Dragon Gate is irrelevant. To use even one mere instant of the present "sensing" is to garner the mountains and rivers of the whole universe and, exerting total effort, to "sense" them. Unless our own "sensing" is in the state of direct familiarity with mountains and rivers, there cannot be a single instance of sensing or half an instance of understanding. We should not grieve about "discriminating thought" being late in arriving. "Every buddha," in the state of already having discrimination, has already been realized. The "nonexistence of what has occurred" is "already" having occurred, and "already having occurred" is realization. In sum, "there having been no discrimination" is [the state of] "not meeting a single person."

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

We know a mountain exists when (at that time) 'we see a mountain' and 'a mountain is seen' - when we see a mountain and a mountain is seen a mountain exists in our knowing. Besides mountains that exist in our knowing, no mountains are known to exist. 'A mountain' exists as an object of consciousness, 'a mountain knower' exists as a subject of consciousness. We know a unicorn exists when 'we dream a unicorn' and 'a unicorn is dreamed' - thus a unicorn exists in our knowing. Besides such existent unicorns, no unicorns exist in our knowing; how could we believe in the fallacy that "Unicorns do not exist"?

 

"The illumination is naturally fine: There has been not the slightest dawning." "The slightest" means the whole universe. Still, [the illumination] is naturally the fine itself and is naturally illumination itself, and for this reason it seems never to have fetched anything to itself. Do not doubt the eyes, but do not necessarily trust the ears. The state of "You must directly clarify the fundamental outside of principles; do not grasp for standards in words" is illumination. For this reason "there is no duality" and for this reason "there is no grasping." While having dwelled in and retained this state as "singularity" and having maintained and relied upon it as "completeness," [those descriptions] I still doubt.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When the slightest is the slightest, what is the slightest. Experience here-now is existence here-now; what you see is what you get. Assertions and proclamations are assertions and proclamations - all are real dharmas, some really express truth, some really express falseness. When there is 'no duality' there can be no 'nonduality' - in such 'a state' there is no grasping, and no not grasping. While such may be called a 'singularity' and be relied upon as 'completeness', Dogen has his doubts. As for me, I have no doubt that such a state is an inevitable milestone along the ancient way. I also have no doubt it has proven to be a pernicious, inescapable shit-hole for many that lingered there too long. It is also known as Dante's unmentioned level of Hell - those abiding here are subjected to dew-drops dripping on lotus leaves for eternity and beyond. Notice in Dogen's 'version' below, the inky cave of 'no duality' is politely not mentioned.

 

"The water is clean right to the bottom. Fishes are swimming, slowly, slowly." As to the meaning of "the water is clean," water suspended in space is not thoroughly "clean water." Still less is water that becomes deep and clear in the vessel world, the water of "the water is clean." [Water] that is not bounded by any bank or shore: this is "water that is clean right to the bottom." When fish move through this water, "swimming" is not nonexistent. "Swimming," for however many tens of thousands of distances it progresses, is unfathomable and is unlimited. There is no bank from which to survey it, there is no air to which it might surface, and there is no bottom to which it might sink. Therefore, there is no one who can fathom it. If we want to discuss its measurements, [we say] only that "the water is clean right to the bottom." The virtue of sitting in zazen is like this swimming of fishes: who can estimate it on a scale of thousands or tens of thousands? The course of action that penetrates to the bottom is the whole body not follow ing the way of the birds.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Zazen is not bound to any fixed form, water that is clean "is not bounded by any bank or shore." When (at that time) fish move through this water there is only 'fish move through this water' in the whole universe, then there are no-tiles, there are no-mirrors. To say 'there are no-tiles' and 'there are no-mirrors' does not mean 'tiles are nonexistent' and 'mirrors are nonexistent,' rather tiles are 'fish move through this water,' mirrors are 'fish move through this water.' When 'fish move through this water' is illumined, tiles are eclipsed and swimming is eclipsed, hence "not nonexistent." How can the not nonexistent be fully fathomed? What is the not nonexistent. What is also the existent.

 

"The sky is wide beyond limit. And birds are flying, far, far away." "The sky is wide" does not describe what is suspended in the firmament. The sky suspended in the firmament is not "the wide sky." Still less is that which pervades that place and this place universally "the wide sky." [The sky] not hidden or revealed by any outside or inside: this is "the wide sky." When birds fly through this sky, flying in the sky is the undivided Dharma. Their action of flying in the sky cannot be measured. Flying in the sky is the whole universe-because the whole universe is flying in the sky. We do not know the extent of this "flying," but in expressing it with words which are beyond the realm of estimation, we describe it as "far, far away." "Straightaway, there should be no strings under the feet."When the sky is flying away, the birds also are flying away; and when the birds are flying away, the sky also is flying away. Words that express mastery of flying away are "It only exists at this concrete place." This is a needle for the still-still state. Tens of thousands of distances traveled vie to tell us, "It only exists at this concrete place."

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When (at that time) the sky is 'flying away,' the birds are also 'flying away,' tiles are 'flying away,' and mirrors are 'flying away.' It only exists at/as this particular experience here-now.

 

Such is the Zazenshin of Zen Master Wanshi. Among [the maxims of] veteran patriarchs through the ages, there has never been a Zazenshin like this one. If stinking skinbags in all directions wished to express the like of this Zazenshin, even if they exhausted the effort of a lifetime or of two life times, they would not be able to express it. Through all directions today, we do not find [any other]: there is this maxim alone. When my late master held formal preaching in the Dharma hall, he would constantly say, "The eternal buddha Wanshi!" He never spoke like this of other men at all. When we have the eyes to know a person, we can also know the sound of a Buddhist patriarch. Truly we have seen that in [the lineage of] Tozan, a Buddhist patriarch exists. Now it is eighty years or so since [the death of] Zen Master Wanshi. Admiring his Zazenshin, I have written the following Zazenshin. Now it is the eighteenth day in the third lunar month in the third year of Ninji.When I count [the years] between this year and the eighth day of the tenth lunar month in the twenty-seventh year of Shoko, it is only eighty-five years. The Zazenshin that I have written now is as follows:

 

Zazenshin

 

Pivotal essence of every buddha,

Essential pivot of every patriarch.

Beyond thinking, realizing,

Beyond complication, realization.

 

Beyond thinking, realizing:

The realizing is naturally immediate.

Beyond complication, realization:

The realization is naturally a state of experience.

 

The realizing is naturally immediate:

There has been no taintedness.

The realization is naturally a state of experience:

There has been no rightness or divergence.

 

There has been no tainting of the immediacy:

That immediacy is without reliance yet it gets free.

There has been no rightness or divergence in the experience:

That state of experience is without design yet it makes effort.

 

The water is clean, right down to the ground,

Fishes are swimming like fishes.

The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens,

And birds are flying like birds.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

"Pivotal essence of every buddha" - Buddha-nature; the myriad dharmas in/of existence-time. "Essential pivot of every patriarch" - Kozei constantly sits in zazen, Nangaku polishes a tile, Gutei raised one finger, and each of these is what?

 

"Beyond thinking, realizing" - Realizing what? "Beyond complication, realization" - The fundamental point.

 

"Beyond thinking, realizing: The realizing is naturally immediate." When I beat an ox, an ox is beaten by me.

 

"Beyond complication, realization: The realization is naturally a state of experience." What existence (existence-time) is experienced is what experience exists, what experience exists is what existence is experienced.

 

"The realizing is naturally immediate: There has been no taintedness." 'Not-two,' not 'one' - because right is right, wrong is wrong, because true is true, false is false; right and wrong are ever and always distinct, true is true, not false, false is false, not true - right and wrong are not-two, true and false are not one.

 

"The realization is naturally a state of experience: There has been no rightness or divergence." When here-now (particular experience/existence) is here-now rightness is here-now, divergence is here-now.

 

"There has been no tainting of the immediacy: That immediacy is without reliance yet it gets free." Firewood is not-ash, ash is not-firewood; firewood abides in its dharma-position (its particular existence-time of total existence-time) as firewood, ash abides in its dharma-position as ash. Thus firewood has a before and an after (and a little before, a long before, a long, long before, a long after, a million years after, an ever-after, etc.) and is simultaneously cut off from before and after (is ever and always the here-now of firewood). Ash has a before and an after and is simultaneously cut off from before and after.

 

"There has been no rightness or divergence in the experience: That state of experience is without design yet it makes effort." The experience/existence of true nature (practice-enlightenment, Buddha, actualizing the koan, etc.) is 'What' (ever-advancing into novelty; reality without design, without fixed form). 'What,' or 'making Buddha,' which is an experience without design, is characterized by (possesses the features of) making effort. 'Making effort,' 'aiming,' 'striving' to 'become Buddha' is 'What' realized as that "state of experience without design."

 

"The water is clean, right down to the ground, Fishes are swimming like fishes." 'Clean right down to the ground' is 'the water.' 'What' swimming like fishes is fishes.

 

"The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens, And birds are flying like birds." Lift a rock and you will find it there, split a piece of wood and you will find it there. What looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it must be a duck.

 

The Zazenshin of Zen Master Wanshi is never imperfect in expression, but I would like to express it further like this. In sum, children and grand children of the Buddhist patriarchs should unfailingly learn in practice that sitting in zazen is the one great matter. This is the authentic seal that is received and transmitted one-to-one.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Such is the Zazenshin of Zen Master Dogen. Among the treatises on zazen by Buddha ancestors in total existence-time, there is none like this one. When my former teacher expressed the Dharma in the dokusan room, he would constantly say, "The eternal Buddha Dogen!" He only spoke like this of genuine eternal Buddhas. In grateful thanks for Dogen's Zazenshin, I have written the following Zazenshin:

 

Zazenshin

 

Pivotal essence; buddhas alone

Essential pivot; together with buddhas

Thinking not-thinking, nonthinking

Simple/complex, actualization.

 

Thinking not-thinking, nonthinking:

The non's thinking is the normal mind.

Simple/complex, actualization:

Actualization is the fundamental point.

 

The non's thinking is the normal mind:

What is the Tao.

Actualization is the fundamental point:

Every day is a good day.

 

What is the Tao:

The ceaseless-advance into novelty.

Every day is a good day:

What is a good day.

 

Water is water.

Fishes are fishes.

The sky is the sky.

Birds are birds.

 

The Zazenshin of Zen Master Dogen is ever novel as Zen Master Dogen's Zazenshin. Here-now the Zazenshin of Zen student Ted Biringer is expressed like this. In sum, children, grand children, and great, great grandchildren of the Buddha ancestors freely make effort and sincerely strive to learn, practice, verify, and actualize zazen as zazen. This is the authentic Buddha-Dharma that is transmitted (sent/received) by Buddhas alone together with buddhas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to Part 1 – Link to Part 2

Dogen's Shobogenzo, Zazen-Shin (A Needle for Zazen) Part 2

Zazen-Shin (A Needle for Zazen)

Part 2 of 3 – Link to Part 1 – Link to Part 3

A Commentary on Dogen's Shobogenzo, Zazenshin

Translation (In Bold) by Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross - Commentary by Ted Biringer.

(Adapted from the Sept. 2014 issue of the Zen newsletter, Flatbed Sutra Zen News)

 

The truth that in zazen 'the body-mind (of self-and-other-than-self) is cast off' is raised and discussed by many, but few raise and discuss the truth that 'cast off is the body-mind.' Fortunately, the following recorded incident between two of Dogen's important disciples (Gikai and Ejo [Dogen's Dharma heir]) provides us with a clear example of the import of not taking this expression of truth one-sidedly. This conversation took place while Gikai was undergoing koan training with Ejo:

 

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.

...

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

 

Gikai had been polishing the tile 'body-mind are cast off' (shinjin datsuraku) when he noticed the mirror-image 'cast off is the body-mind' (datsuraku shinjin). Ejo had to check to see if Gikai 'understood' the essence as clearly as he saw the form - Gikai verified it by turning to the red-bearded barbarian. Finally, when Gikai received acknowledgement from Ejo, who acknowledged who. To get to the bottom of this, consider the following case:

 

Chung Kuo-shih called to his attendant three times, and three times his attendant responded. Kuo-shih said, "I was about to say that I was ungrateful to you. But the fact is that you are ungrateful to me."

Mumankan, Case 17, The Main Case, trans. Robert Aitken Roshi, The Gateless Barrier, p.113

 

Nangaku says, "If, when a person is riding in a cart, the cart does not move, is it right to prod the cart, or is it right to prod the ox?" Now, as to the meaning of "If the cart does not move," what is a cart moving and what is a cart not moving? For example, is water flowing a cart moving? Is water not flowing a cart moving? We might say that flowing is water not moving. It may also be that water moving is beyond "flowing." Thus, when we investigate the words, "if the cart does not move," we may find that there is "not moving," and we may find that there is no "not moving"-because [the cart] must be in time. The words "if it does not move" have not one-sidedly expressed only not moving. [Nangaku] says, "Is it right to prod the cart, or is it right to prod the ox?" Can there be both prodding the cart and prodding the ox? Must prodding the cart and prodding the ox be equivalent, or might they be not equivalent? In the secular world there is no method of prodding the cart. Though the common person has no method of prodding the cart, we have seen that in Buddhism there is a method of prodding the cart-it is the very eyes of learning in practice. And though we learn that there is a method of prodding the cart, [prodding the cart] cannot be completely the same as prodding the ox. We should consider this in detail. Though methods of prodding the ox are present in the ordinary world, we should investigate further and learn in practice the prodding of the ox in Buddhism. Is it the prodding of a castrated water buffalo? Is it the prodding of an iron ox? Is it the prodding of a mud ox? Should a whip do the prodding? Should the whole universe do the prodding? Should the whole mind do the prodding? Should the marrow be beaten flat? Should a fist do the beating? There should be fist beating fist, and there should be ox beating ox.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Dogen begins his explication of Nangaku's words here by keeping us focused on the elements of nonduality (emptiness and interdependence) that have been central to his commentary. What is a cart? (or, 'What is a cart!'). Since 'moving' is raised, it is important to be mindful of the presence and role of 'not-moving.' Sometimes it is right to say 'moving' is 'not-moving.' Sometimes it is right to say 'moving' is 'moving.' Sometimes it is right to say that 'moving' includes and (thus) goes beyond both 'moving and not-moving.' And though it is like this, it is simply that flowers fall and weeds grow... In any case, since these words were uttered by Nangaku we are sure they "have not one-sidedly expressed only not moving."

 

Again, Dogen makes it clear that in the utterance of a Buddha (or Buddha ancestor) there are no superfluous words; can prodding the cart and prodding the ox exist simultaneously? Can they exist independently? Are they the same or different? Conventionally or literally (in the secular world) 'prodding a cart' is not considered a rational possibility; but, as my koan teacher once assured me, in Zen nothing is impossible. Dogen agrees, prodding the cart "is the very eyes of learning in practice." At the same time, just as 'polishing a tile' and 'making a mirror' are not-two, yet not 'one,' so 'prodding the cart' cannot be the same as 'prodding the ox.' "We should consider" each of these methods, together and separately, "in detail." Also, just because conventional "methods of prodding the ox are present" in the common world, we should not simply assume it is these that are applied in Zen. In Zen it is not impossible to prod an iron ox, a wooden ox, or a mud ox - in Zen we can use no-staff to prod a golden ox from a glass bottle. In any case, when authentic ox prodding is actualized not only do oxen prod oxen, oxen oxen oxen.

 

Daijaku makes no reply, a state that we should not idly overlook. It is "throwing away a tile and pulling in a jewel"; it is "turning the head and changing the features." Nothing at all can filch this state of no reply.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Students and teachers that fail to hear Kozei's silence as a clear expression directly to the point have not yet heard the Lion's Roar expressed by Buddha Shakyamuni's silent twirling of a flower - his disciple, Mahakayshyapa cracked a smiled, that is, his face cracked in 'not two,' not 'one.' When an expression is no-expression, it is truly an expression.

 

Nangaku teaches further, "Your learning sitting dhyana is learning sitting buddha." Investigating these words, we should grasp them as just the pivotal essence of the ancestral patriarchs. We were not aware of an exact definition of "learning zazen," but [now] we have seen that it is "learning sitting buddha." How could anyone but the child and grandchild of rightful successors assert that "learning zazen" is "learning sitting buddha"? Truly, we should know that a beginner's zazen is the first zazen; and the first zazen is the first sitting buddha.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Nangaku surpasses even Shakyamuni! And Dogen "teaches further" offering up the fundamental point in a tasty, bite size morsel, "these words" he tells all with eyes and ears, are "just the pivotal essence of the ancestral patriarchs." Do you realize the fundamental point (genjokoan)? Investigate these words, investigate these words!

 

Describing zazen, he says, "When we are learning sitting dhyana, that dhyana is beyond sitting and lying down." What he is saying now is that zazen is zazen, not sitting or lying down. After we have received the one-to-one transmission of [the teaching] that [zazen] is beyond sitting and lying down, unlimited instances of sitting and lying down are ourself. Why should we seek life-blood in the familiar or unfamiliar? Why should we discuss delusion and realization? Who wishes to pursue an intellectual conclusion?

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

While Nangaku's expression is as clear and evident as a fruit in the palm of our hand, Dogen is well aware of the pernicious tendency among ordinary beings to mistake 'zazen' for 'sitting meditation.' This is like misunderstanding 'polishing a tile' as 'making a mirror' - 'polishing a tile' is 'not-making a mirror.' When polishing a tile is polishing a tile, making a mirror is polishing a tile, reflecting in a mirror is polishing a tile, breaking a mirror is polishing a tile, and experiencing seven years of bad luck is polishing a tile. When zazen is zazen, sitting is zazen, lying down is zazen, polishing tiles and making mirrors are zazen.

 

Nangaku says, "When you are learning sitting buddha, buddha is beyond any set form." When we want to say what these words say, [the expression] is like this. The reason sitting buddha appears as one buddha and a second buddha is that it is adorned with "transcendence of any set form." [Nangaku's] saying now that "buddha is beyond any set form" expresses the form of buddha; and because it is buddha beyond any set form, it is utterly impossible for it to escape [the form of] sitting buddha. In sum, because buddha is adorned with transcendence of any set form, when it is learning sitting dhyana it is just sitting buddha.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Sitting buddha is buddha sitting in the lotus posture. Because sitting buddha is a real manifest form of existence-time no form of existence-time is not-sitting buddha. Because all dharmas (things, beings, and events) are real manifest forms of existence-time, none are independent of sitting buddha. When sitting buddha is sitting buddha, learning sitting dhyana is sitting buddha, polishing a tile is sitting buddha, and cracking a smile is sitting buddha.

 

Who, in the nonabiding Dharma, could have preference or aversion for not being buddha or preference or aversion for being buddha? Because it has dropped off [preference and aversion even] before the moment of preference and aversion, [sitting buddha] is sitting buddha.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When sitting buddha is sitting buddha, preference and aversion are sitting buddha, place-times prior to preference and aversion are sitting buddha, five hundred lives of a fox are sitting buddha. In the ceaselessly-advancing (nonabiding) universe all preference and aversion for being buddha or not being buddha are cast off - cast off is preference and aversion for being buddha or not being buddha.

 

Nangaku says, "When you are [practicing] sitting buddha, that is just killing buddha." This says further that when we are investigating sitting buddha, the virtue of killing buddha is present. The very moment of sitting buddha is the killing of "buddha." If we want to explore the good features and the brightness of killing buddha, they are always present in sitting buddha. The word "to kill" is as [used by] the common person, but we should not blindly equate [its usage here] with that of the common person. Further, we should investigate the state in which sitting buddha is killing buddha, [asking:] "What forms and grades does it have?" Taking up [the fact] that, among the virtues of buddha, killing buddha is already present, we should learn in practice whether we ourselves are killing a person or not yet killing a person.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When (at that place-time) sitting buddha is illumined, killing buddha is eclipsed (present as shadowed), when killing buddha is illumined, sitting buddha is eclipsed.

 

"To attach to the sitting form is not to have attained the principle of that [sitting]." This "to attach to the sitting form" means to reject the sitting form and to defile the sitting form. The fundamental principle here is that when we are already practicing sitting buddha, it is impossible not to be attached to the sitting form. Because it is impossible not to be attached to the sitting form, although attachment to the sitting form is something brilliant, it may be "not to have attained the principle of that [sitting]." Effort like this is called "the dropping off of body and mind." Those who have never sat do not possess this state of truth. It exists in the moment of sitting, it exists in the person who is sitting, it exists in the buddha that is sitting, and it exists in the buddha that is learning sitting. The sitting that is performed only as the sitting and reclining of human beings is not this state of sitting buddha. Even if human sitting naturally appears to be sitting buddha, or a buddha sitting, it may be a case of a human being becoming buddha, or a case of a human being of becoming buddha. There are human beings of becoming buddha, but all human beings are not of becoming buddha. Buddha is not a state of all human beings. All buddhas are not simply all humanity. Therefore, a human being is not always a buddha, and buddha is not always a human being. Sitting buddha also is like this, and Nangaku and Kozei, excellent master and stout disciple, are like this. Sitting buddha realizes the experience of becoming buddha: this is Kozei's case. For the benefit of becoming buddha, sitting buddha is demonstrated: this is Nangaku's case. In Nangaku's order there is effort like this. In Yakusan's order there are the assertions [quoted] previously. Remember, what has been described as "the pivotal essence of every buddha and every patriarch" is just sitting buddha. Those who are already the buddhas and the patriarchs used this pivotal essence. Those who have never [used it] have simply never seen it, even in a dream.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

When sitting buddha is sitting buddha, killing buddha is sitting buddha, becoming buddha is sitting buddha - therefore, sitting buddha realizes (makes real) the experience of becoming buddha: "this is Kozei's case." Again, when sitting buddha is illumined, becoming buddha is presented (made present; as eclipsed): "this is Nangaku's case."

 

In general, in the Western Heavens and the Eastern Lands, that the Buddha-Dharma has been transmitted has always meant that sitting buddha has been transmitted. That is because [sitting buddha] is the pivotal essence. When the Buddha-Dharma has not been transmitted, sitting dhyana (zazen) has not been transmitted. What has been transmitted and received from rightful successor to rightful successor is only this principle of zazen. Those who have not received the one-to-one transmission of this principle are not Buddhist patriarchs. Without illuminating this one dharma, we do not illuminate the myriad dharmas, and do not illuminate the myriad deeds. Those who have not illuminated each dharma, dharma by dharma, cannot be called clear-eyed, and they are not the attainment of the truth; how could they be Buddhist patriarchs of the eternal past and present? Therefore, we should be absolutely certain that the Buddhist patriarchs have, in every case, received the one-to-one transmission of zazen. To be illuminated by the presence of the Buddhist patriarchs' brightness is to exert oneself in the investigation of this sitting in zazen. Stupid people mistakenly think that the Buddha's state of brightness might be like the brightness of the sun and the moon, or like the luminance of a pearl or a flame. The brilliance of the sun and moon is only karmic manifestation of the turning of the wheel through the six worlds; it cannot compare to the Buddha's state of brightness at all. "The Buddha's brightness" means accepting, retaining, and hearing a single phrase; maintaining, relying on, and upholding a single dharma; and receiving the one-to-one transmission of zazen. If [people] are not able to be illuminated by the brightness, they lack this state of maintenance and reliance and they lack this belief and acceptance. This being so, even since ancient times, few people have known that zazen is zazen. On the mountains of the great kingdom of Song today, leaders of top-ranking temples who do not know zazen and who do not learn of it are many; there are some who know [zazen] clearly, but they are few. In many temples, of course, times for zazen are laid down, and everyone from the abbot to the monks regards sitting in zazen as the main task. When recruiting students, too, they urge them to sit in zazen. Even so, those abbots who know [zazen] are rare. For this reason, while there have been, from ancient times to recent generations, one or two old veterans who have written Zazenmei ("Mottoes of Zazen"), and one or two old veterans who have edited Zazengi ("Standard Methods of Zazen"), and one or two old veterans who have written Zazenshin ("Maxims of Zazen"), the "Mottoes of Zazen" are all devoid of any redeeming feature, and the "Standard Methods of Zazen" remain unclear as to its actual performance. They were written by people who do not know zazen, and who have not received the one-to-one transmission of zazen. [I refer to] the "Maxims of Zazen" in the Keitokudentoroku, the "Mottoes of Zazen" in the Kataifutoroku, and so on. 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? Chroniclers of the Song dynasty were wrong to have recorded [their writings], and students in later ages should discard them and should not read them. As a maxim for zazen, the one written by Zen Master Wanshi Shogaku of Tendokeitokuji on Daibyakumyozan in Kyogenfu City in the great kingdom of Song, and this alone, is the patriarchs, is a [true] needle for zazen, and is a fit expression of the truth. Only his is the brightness [that illuminates both] outside and inside of the Dharma world. He is a Buddhist patriarch among the Buddhist patriarchs of the eternal past and present. Former buddhas and later buddhas continue to be spurred by this needle. Through this needle, patriarchs of the present and patriarchs of old are realized.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

 

Most of this section is pretty straightforward and probably needs little commentary. However, because many Zen adherents continue to harbor the fallacy that 'zazen' in Dogen means ordinary 'sitting meditation' (i.e. sitting upright in the lotus or half-lotus posture) I want to underscore some of Dogen's words here. First, "If [people] are not able to be illuminated by the brightness, they lack this state of maintenance and reliance and they lack this belief and acceptance. This being so, even since ancient times, few people have known that zazen is zazen."

 

What does it mean not to "know that zazen is zazen"? Clearly, it is different than not knowing zazen - in that case, Dogen would have said, "few people have known zazen." Not to know zazen is zazen means knowing zazen as something other than zazen - to know zazen is zazen is to know zazen as it is, not to know zazen is zazen is to know zazen as it is not. As long as I know what zazen is, I cannot see zazen as anything else - whether my 'knowing' is accurate or not. This means that if I hold a false view of zazen I am totally obstructed from a true view of zazen. Thus, it is crucial that we each clearly look into the validity of our view about what zazen is.

 

Next, to make it absolutely clear that zazen is not ordinary seated meditation, Dogen points out the fact that, "In many temples, of course, times for zazen are laid down, and everyone from the abbot to the monks regards sitting in zazen as the main task. When recruiting students, too, they urge them to sit in zazen. Even so, those abbots who know [zazen] are rare." The fact that "everyone from the abbot to the monks" in "many temples" do "of course" take seated meditation "as the main task" and yet those who truly know zazen "are rare" clearly shows that seated meditation - which is obviously performed by all monastics high and low - is not what Dogen means by 'zazen.' What is it that Dogen means by 'zazen'? Or better, by 'zazen' Dogen means 'What' - which is what Dogen's expression, Zazenshin, exemplifies.

 

At a slightly more discursive level, it is clear that Dogen's vision of zazen not only widely diverges from popular notions advocated as 'just sitting' in the contemporary Zen community, it is incompatible with them. That is, as long as one holds the 'wrong view' that zazen is limited to the literal act of 'sitting meditation' or 'just sitting' (i.e. as popularly advocated; e.g. spending timed periods sitting in a proscribed posture while maintaining a particular 'mental' attitude like 'letting go of thoughts and/or perceptions,' being 'goalless' or 'objectless,' etc.), one is inevitably obstructed from the 'right view' of zazen. Thus Dogen says, "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." Pitiful indeed; spending a lifetime practicing seated meditation in a community that 'regards sitting meditation as the main task,' yet never even experiencing 'one sitting.'

 

Not to experience even one sitting means, "Sitting is not in them; their effort does not meet with themselves at all." In Bielefeldt's translation of Zazenshin it says, "...they do not have the concentrated effort of a single sitting-that sitting is not their own, and concentrated effort never encounters them." (trans. Carl Bielefeldt, in Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, p.198). In short, to actualize an instance of 'concentrated effort' (zazen), is to be actualized by/as an instance of 'concentrated effort.' When zazen is zazen, one's self is zazen, effort is zazen, meeting is zazen - thus when 'you' meet 'zazen,' zazen meets zazen, you meet you, meeting meets meeting, zazen zazens zazen.

 

"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." Zazen is universally available; when genuine aspiration (bodhicitta; the thought or desire of enlightenment) is actualized, zazen is actualized, when bodhicitta (enlightened thought) is not-actualized delusion is actualized - when enlightenment is illumined, delusion is eclipsed, when delusion is illumined, enlightenment is eclipsed.

 

"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." Any view of 'zazen' arrived at by someone holding to a false or deluded view of the nature of existence-time (e.g. that the 'origin' of reality exists independent of here-now, hence could be 'returned to,' or that one can 'cease thought' and 'become absorbed in serenity,' etc.) will inevitably be a false view of zazen. Authentic zazen is ever and always 'What' (ceaseless-advance into novelty), the instant zazen becomes a 'fixed reality' (not a novel, never-before actualized here-now) zazen is not zazen.

 

"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?" Such false views of zazen - it is 'just sitting,' 'goalless,' 'returning to the source,' 'pure awareness,' 'objectless serenity,' etc. - fail even to match the vision informing such elementary Buddhist practices as 'the ten states' or 'the balanced state of truth,' how much further divergent must they be from the true zazen of the 'one-to-one transmission' (i.e. Zen)?

 

Link to Part 1 – Link to Part 3