Dogen On Great Delusion and Great Enlightenment

1.       The Nonduality of Enlightenment and Delusion

1.       Enlightenment and delusion are nondual, thus equal in actuality, significance, and value.

2.       Enlightenment is only and always realized within and through delusion; delusion is only and always realized within and through enlightenment.

 

2.       The Nature and Dynamics of Enlightenment and Delusion

 

1.       Enlightenment is the experiential verification of reality, the normal sentient capacity that is genjokoan (‘the actualization of the universe’).

2.       Delusion is the experientially verifiable existential quality of reality that enables experiential verification (i.e. genjokoan).

3.       With the experiential verification of reality (enlightenment) sentient beings see (experience, know) their true nature (their unborn/imperishable identity in/as the universe).

4.       In seeing their identity in/as the universe, sentient beings see enlightenment/delusion is infinite and eternal.

Great Delusion and Great Enlightenment

Insofar as the terms ‘delusion’ and ‘enlightenment’ are used to designate the nondual foci ‘enlightenment’ and ‘delusion’ (enlightenment/delusion), delusion is ‘great delusion’ (daimei) and enlightenment is ‘great enlightenment’ (daigo). The point here is that, while the term ‘delusion’ is commonly used to designate ‘wrong’ or ‘distorted’ views, and the term ‘enlightenment’ to designate ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ views, the terms are not limited to those meanings.

For example, Dogen says that ‘Buddhas are enlightened about delusion’ (Shobogenzo, Genjokoan) which means, for one thing, that Buddhas do not exist independent of delusion – delusion and enlightenment are nondual, hence, coessential and coextensive. The recognition of delusion as ‘great delusion’ is one of the key insights informing Zen expressions on the unlimited potential for the expansion or advancement of realization (practice-enlightenment). It is also an insight that resolves an apparent paradox; that of the capacity of dharmas to simultaneously ‘expand’ and ‘contract.’

To clarify, the significance of ‘great delusion’ can be generally understood in light of the truth of how dharmas are experienced. The (only) way dharmas are experienced is by distinguishing them from what they are not – this dharma is this dharma by virtue of the fact that it is not anything else in the universe. Thus, the reality (existence/experience) of any dharma always consists of ‘what is that particular dharma’ and ‘what is not that particular dharma.’ To think of, speak about, or act upon any dharma requires (is dependent on) distinguishing what is that dharma from what is not that dharma – requires the existence of what is and the existence of what is not that dharma. The reason (dori) of ‘great delusion’ can thus be seen as inherent to the reason of experience/existence itself; experiencing something (i.e. a dharma) intrinsically-involves not experiencing everything. In sum, ‘great delusion’ designates the truth that seeing anything depends on (thus is inclusive of) not-seeing everything – in short, seeing (enlightenment) is blindness (delusion).

The wisdom (true knowledge) disclosed by the recognition of ‘great delusion’ is that eternal omnipresence and infinite complexity is inherent to each and all dharmas. If, as we just saw, the existence (existence/experience) of a dharma depends on the existence of not that dharma, then experiencing a dharma is (also) experiencing the ‘presence’ of ‘a lack’ (everything that is not that dharma). As experience is existence, and the reality of a dharma is inclusive of what is and what is not that dharma, the existence of any dharma is the existence of every dharma. To say the same thing from the other perspective, the whole of existence-time is each particular instance of existence-time.

Moreover, due to the quality of passage inherent to the nature of dharmas, their ‘arrival’ and ‘departure’ are unceasing – as Shobogenzo says, ‘Before donkey business is finished, horse business begins.’ With this we get a sense of what it means to say dharmas are infinitely complex as well as eternally omnipresent. The recognition of dharmas as infinitely complex is the reason informing the refrain in Zen records urging us to strive on; to continuously apply ourselves, to diligently refine our skill, and to sustain our effort. Eternal omnipresence and infinite complexity means delusion is ever-present and unlimited (i.e. ‘great’) – just as enlightenment is ever-present and unlimited.

Finally, delusion is inherent to reality whether beings are aware of it or not. At the same time, the distinction between being aware of it and not being aware of it is of the utmost significance in Zen; it is the distinction between ‘Buddhas’ and ‘ordinary beings.’ In the Genjokoan fascicle of Shobogenzo, Dogen underscores this distinction by asserting that to see dharmas as they are is to ‘sense something is lacking.’ To ‘sense something is lacking’ is to experience ‘the presence’ of ‘a lack.’ The ‘presence of this lack’ is most comprehensively treated by the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness which we explore later. For now it suffices to notice that being aware of this ‘presence’ in/as (all) dharmas is being Buddha ‘enlightened about delusion,’ which also means being ‘enlightened about enlightenment’ – being unaware of this ‘presence’ is being an ordinary being ‘deluded about enlightenment,’ which, of course, also means being ‘deluded about delusion.’

With these points in mind consider Dogen’s commentary on the following koan:

Great Master Hochi of Kegon-ji temple in Keicho (succeeded Tozan; his monk's name was Kyujo) on one occasion is asked by a monk: "What is it like at the time when a person in the state of great realization returns to delu­sion?" The Master says, "A broken mirror does not again reflect. Fallen blos­soms cannot climb back onto the trees."

The present question, while it is a question, is like preaching to the assembly—[preaching] not proclaimed except in the order of Kegon, and not possible for anyone except a rightful successor of Tozan to deliver. Truly this may be the squarely regulated order of a Buddhist patriarch who experiences satisfaction. "A person in the state of great realization" is not intrinsically in great realization and is not hoarding a great realization realized externally. It is not that, in old age, [the person] meets with a great realization [already] present in the public world. [People of great realization] do not forcibly drag it out of themselves, but they unfailingly realize great realization. We do not see "not being deluded" as great realization. Neither should we aim, in order to plant the seed of great realization, to become at the outset a deluded being. People of great realization still realize great realization, and people of great delusion still realize great realization. If there is a person in great reali­zation, accordingly there is buddha in great realization, there are earth, water, fire, wind, and air in great realization, and there are outdoor pillars and stone lanterns in great realization. Now we have inquired into a person in the state of great realization. The question "What is it like at the time when a person in the state of great realization returns to delusion?" truly asks a question that deserves to be asked. And Kegon does not hate [the question]; he venerates the ancient ways of the forest orders—[his conduct] may be the meritorious conduct of a Buddhist patriarch. Let us consider for a while, is the return to delusion of a person in the state of great realization completely the same as a person being in the unenlightened state? At the moment when a person in the state of great realization returns to delusion, is [that person] taking great realization and making it into delusion? Does [the person] return to delusion by bringing delusion from a distant place and covering great realization? Or does the person in the state of great realiza­tion, while remaining a whole person and not breaking great realization, nevertheless partake in a return to delusion? Again, does "the return to delusion of a person in the state of great realization" describe as "returning to delusion" the bringing forth of a further instance of great realization? We must master [these questions] one by one. Alternatively, is it that great realization is one hand, and returning to delusion is one hand? In any case, we should know that the ultimate conclusion of our study up to now is to hear that a person in the state of great realization experiences returning to delusion. We should know that there is great realization which makes re­turning to delusion a familiar experience. Thus, recognizing a bandit as a child does not define returning to delusion, and recognizing a child as a bandit does not define returning to delusion. Great realization may be to recognize a bandit as a bandit, and returning to delusion is to recognize a child as "a child." We see great realization as a bit being added in the state of abundance. When a bit is taken away in the state of scarcity, that is returning to delusion. In sum, when we grope for and completely get a grip on some­one who returns to delusion, we may encounter a person in the state of great realization. Is the self now returning to delusion? Is it beyond delu­sion? We must examine it in detail, bringing it here. This is to meet in expe­rience the Buddhist patriarchs. The Master says, "A broken minor does not again reflect. Fallen blossoms cannot climb back onto the trees." This preaching for the multi­tude expresses the very moment of a mirror being broken. That being so, to concern the mind with the time before the mirror is broken and thereupon to study the words "broken mirror," is not right. [Some] might understand that the point of the words now spoken by Kegon, "A broken mirror does not again reflect, fallen blossoms cannot climb back onto the trees," is to say that a person in the state of great realization does not again reflect, and to say that a person in the state of great realization cannot climb back onto the trees—to assert that a person in the state of great realization will never again return to delusion. But [Kegon's point] is beyond such study. If it were as people think, [the monk's question] would be asking, for example, "How is the everyday life of a person in the state of great realization?" And the reply to this would be something like "There are times of returning to delusion." The present episode is not like that. [The monk is asking] what it is like at the time when a person in the state of great realization returns to delusion; therefore he is calling into question the very moment itself of returning to delusion. The actualization of an expression of the moment like this is: "A broken minor does not again reflect. Fallen blossoms cannot climb back onto the trees." When fallen blossoms are just fallen blossoms, even if they are rising to the top of a hundred-foot pole, they are still fallen blossoms. Because a broken mirror is a broken mirror just here and now, however many vivid situations it realizes, each similarly is a reflection that does not again reflect. Picking up the point that is expressed as a mirror being bro­ken and is expressed as blossoms being fallen, we should grasp in experi­ence the moment which is the time when a person in the state of great re­alization returns to delusion. In this [moment], great realization is akin to having become buddha, and returning to delusion is akin to [the state of] ordinary beings. We should not study [Kegon's words] as if they discussed such things as turning back into an ordinary being, or traces depending o n an origin. Others talk about breaking the great state of enlightenment and becoming an ordinary being. Here, we do not say that great realization is broken, do not say that great realization is lost, and do not say that delusion comes. We should never let ourselves be like those others. Truly, great realization is limitless, and returning to delusion is limitless. There is no delusion that hinders great realization, [but] having brought forth three in­stances of great realization, we create half an instance of small delusion. In this situation, there are [snow mountains] realizing great realization for the sake of snow mountains; trees and stones are realizing great realization rely­ing on trees and stones; the great realization of buddhas is realizing great realization for the sake of living beings; and the great realization of living beings is greatly realizing the great realization of buddhas: it cannot be re­lated to before and behind. Great realization now is beyond self and beyond others. It does not come; at the same time, it fills in ditches and fills up valleys. It does not go; at the same time, we keenly hate pursuit that follows an external object. Why is it so? [Because] “we follow objects perfectly.”

Shobogenzo, Daigo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Dogen vs. Dogen "interpreters"

 Dogen vs. Dogen "interpreters"

I thought I would spend a little time seeing what kind of online sources concerning Dogen’s teachings were becoming available in recent years – I was disappointed, but not too surprised…

It seems all too common to find “Zen teachers” that claim to be “interpreters” of Dogen’s teachings, who seem rather to be saying things in direct contradiction to Dogen’s own writings. For example:

Michael Eido Luetchford, Soto Zen Teacher at Dogen Sangha Buddhist Group, from the online transcript http://www.dogensangha.org.uk/Talks/cz09_purposeofzazen.pdf

There were Japanese teachers in the Rinzai tradition (not including Rinzai himself), who taught that if you practise Zazen, you can get something very special which they called enlightenment. This creates in the person who is practising Zazen a kind of hope and eagerness to get something better, to become special, to get to some special state. But according to the teachings of Dogen, the thirteenth century monk whose teachings I follow, Zazen is giving up all those kinds of hopes and all those kinds of beliefs, and all hope of becoming a better person.

Michael Eido Luetchford [emphasis added]

What is this? All of the Zen masters taught that awakening the bodhi mind (which “they called enlightenment”) is the foremost task of Zen practitioners. To claim that Dogen did not consider enlightenment as essential is to deny Dogen’s own constant exhortations to the contrary. Here are a few random examples:

Clearly remember: in the Buddhist patriarchs’ learning of the truth, to awaken the bodhi-mind is inevitably seen as foremost. This is the eternal rule of the Buddhist patriarchs.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Hotsu-Bodaishin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross, [emphasis added]

The training that we undertake to directly experience supreme, fully perfected enlightenment sometimes makes use of our good spiritual friends and sometimes makes use of sutras.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Kankin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

In order to ultimately realize the prediction of Buddhahood, just as ever so many Ancestors of the Buddha have done, one trains in order to manifest one’s genuine enlightenment.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Juki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Michael Eido Luetchford goes on to assert another typical sound-bit that simply seems to ignore Dogen’s own clear teachings to the contrary. Here is Michael Eido Luetchford on “Dogen”:

 

Then there are many other forms of meditation where people consciously have something in their mind or are consciously meditating on some kind of subject or some kind of image. But that kind of practice is completely different from Zazen.

Michael Eido Luetchford[emphasis added]
 

And here is Dogen on Dogen:

 

At the very time of your sitting, you should examine exhaustively whether the total world is vertical or horizontal. At that very time, what is the sitting itself? Is it wheeling about in perfect freedom? Is it like the spontaneous vigor of a leaping fish? Is it thinking? Or not thinking? Is it doing? Is it non-doing? Is it sitting within sitting? Is it sitting within body and mind? Or is it sitting that has cast off sitting within sitting, sitting within body and mind, and the like?

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Sammai-O-Zammai, Waddell & Abe [emphasis added]

[To research] this truth of moment-by-moment utter entrustment, we must research the mind. In the mountain-still state of such research, we discern and understand that ten thousand efforts are [each] the mind being evident, and the triple world is just that which is greatly removed from the mind. This discernment and understanding, while also of the myriad real dharmas, activate the home­land of the self. They make immediate and concrete the vigorous state of the human being in question.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Yuigi, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

People who arouse a true and genuine aspiration and engross themselves in study to the full extent of their capacity, do not fail to attain. As for the description of the essential point to be mindful of, what thing must be concentrated upon, what practice is to be considered most urgent, that is as follows.

First is only that the aspiration of joyful longing be earnest.

…while travelling, abiding, sitting and reclining, in the midst of affairs as the pass, though various different events come up, he goes along seeking an opening, his mind occupied [with his quest]. With his mind so forcefully earnest, there can be no failure of attainment.

In this way, when the aspiration to seek the Way has become sincere, either during the period of sole concentration on sitting, or when dealing with illustrative example of the people of olden times, or when meeting the teacher, when one acts with true aspiration…

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 … he will definitely attain enlightenment.

Dogen, Record of Things Heard (Shobogenzo-zuimonki), II:15, Thomas Cleary [emphasis added]

This Dharma is abundantly present in each human being, but if we do not practice it, it does not manifest itself, and if we do not experience it, it cannot be realized.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Once you attain this state of suchness and attain the harmoni­ous unity of activity and understanding possessed by the Buddha-patriarchs, you examine exhaustively all the thoughts and views of this attainment.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Sammai-O-Zammai, Waddell & Abe [emphasis added]

Again, here is Michael Eido Luetchford on “Dogen”:

Of course, in our minds we have lots of intentions all the time but in Buddhism our intention is to have no intention; my teacher often said “Our aim is no aim”.

Michael Eido Luetchford [emphasis added]

What kind of dreary Zen is this? Why would anyone pursue such a “practice”? The same thing could probably accomplished by sniffing glue… For those seeking something a bit more authentic, check out Dogen here:

You cannot realize the Buddha’s Way if you do not aim to practice the Way, and It will be ever more distant from you if you do not aim to study It. Meditation Master Nangaku Ejo once said, “It is not that your training and enlightenment are absent, but they must not be tainted with anything.”

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Shinjin Gakudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Mr. Luetchford is certainly not alone in making assertions suggesting that zazen is some kind of trance or detachment wherein thoughts and images are to be “stopped” somehow. For example, here is an excerpt from an online text claiming to teach Dogen’s method of zazen by Gudo Nishijima Roshi:

We avoid intentionally following a train of thought during Zazen by concentrating on maintaining the posture. Of course spontaneous thoughts and images arise in our consciousness during Zazen, but they are not important. When we notice that we are thinking about something, we should simply stop.

Gudo Nishijima Roshi http://www.dogensangha.org.uk/IBPZ/IBPZ-English.pdf

Here Dogen offers a plausible explanation for such discrepencies:

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

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Shin Fukatoku, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross [emphasis added]

Whatever the case, contrast Nishijima's comment on the “unimportance” of the “thinking” mind in zazen with Dogen’s comments in this passage:

Generally speaking, there are three types of mind. “The first is the mind of chitta, which we call the discriminative mind. The second is the mind of hridaya, which we call the mind of grass and trees. The third is the mind of vriddha, which we call the True Mind.” Among these, we invariably employ the discriminative mind to arouse bodhichitta, the enlightened Mind. Bodhi is an Indian word which we call the Way, or what is True. Chitta is an Indian word which we call the discriminative mind. Without this discriminative mind we could not give rise to the enlightened Mind. I am not saying that this discriminative mind is the enlightened Mind; rather, we give rise to the enlightened Mind by means of the discriminative mind.

Dogen, Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin, Hubert Nearman

It is truly a mystery – not really that there are people that ascribe such strange “interpretations” to Dogen’s Zen – but that there are people that find such interpretations acceptable…

Peace,

Ted

Genuine Aspiration & the Fallacy of Goallessness

Genuine Aspiration & the Fallacy of Goallessness
...
According to the Buddhist teachings on nonduality (emptiness and interdependence), attempting to divine the significance of Buddha nature by investigating the natural world is futile; any such significance revealed in the world is placed there by the mind’s interaction with it. The material world exists as the fabric from which we fashion a universe and a self; it is not an entity existing independently of us nor is it an objective aspect of us.

Also Buddhism asserts that submission, obedience, or conformity to an “other,” whether an individual, an institution, or even worse, “things as they are,” can only be achieved through the denial or suppression of particular aspects of our own true nature. The vision of humanity’s place in the universe portrayed by the Buddhist masters asserts that true human liberation can only be realized through the actual fulfillment of genuine human desire; full complete enlightenment (annutara samyak sambodhi).

According to the Mahayana sutras and shastras, aspiration (bodhicitta) for universal liberation is the true source of all desire. These teachings emphasize (especially in the Zen tradition) that submission to or compliance with any authority other than that of personal verification serves as an impenetrable barrier to liberation. If that “authority” consists of dualist or naturalistic notions about “things as they are” or “matters of fact,” followers not only obstruct their own liberation, they exchange their human potential for the existence of a beast. Dogen’s most severe attacks were aimed at “naturalism” for good reason; to adopt naturalistic views and practices advocating “detachment,” “goallessness,” “letting things be,” etc. is to sacrifice human intelligence and wisdom for cunning and calculation, compassion and mercy for objectivity and indifference, love and intimacy for the mere instinctual drive for physical pleasure and reproduction, and liberation for bondage.

To ascribe to an “objective” view of nature is to adopt a vision of purposelessness, ferocity, pitilessness, and chaos. Killing and eating and reproducing merely to kill and eat and reproduce. Objective nature brings fire, ice, floods, and plagues as easily and with as little intention or concern as it brings food, clothing, shelter, and companionship. No view of an “objective” world where things (dharmas) are simply ‘as they are’ (regardless of our conscious intentions and efforts) can be reconciled with the wisdom and compassion that characterizes the vision of Buddhism.

Authentic practice-realization requires us to make accurately understood, precisely directed, concerted effort toward specific goals.

The first such specific goal is to expand our capacity of perception beyond the fallacy of the subject-object split and thereby personally verify the truth of the Buddhist teaching refuting the existence of “objective” reality. Those that choose instead to conceive of and follow an elemental or impersonal Buddha, only succeed at the cost of subverting the very significance of Buddhism. The former approach is to expand the human capacity to perceive reality as it is; the latter approach attempts to reduce reality as it is to the undeveloped capacity of perception of the average unawakened human being.

But, it may be argued, if the stupid drive for mere survival envisioned by the “objective” view of nature is mercilessly bloody, it is innocently so; the eagle does not devour the eyeball of the living rabbit from malice, the parasite does not burrow into the fox’s eardrum from a desire to cause pain. The capacity for evil demonstrated by man far surpasses anything that can be witnessed in nature – what possible reasoning can Buddha offer for suggesting human beings are superior to other forms of life? The Buddhist reasoning is grounded in the doctrine that all evil has its source in the human capacity for self-restriction (ignorance, avidya); evil does not arise from human actualization – evil arises from a failure of human actualization. It is in the failure to actualize the inherent human capacity to rise above “objective” nature that causes the creative potential of humanity to stagnate and putrefy into the greed, hatred, and ignorance. The eagle and the parasite are incapable of envisioning a better world – even if they could wish for “more,” it would only be for “more of the same.” According to the Buddhas and ancestors, however, human beings are inherently equipped with the capacity to envision and realize greater possibilities of existence – up to and including universal liberation from old age, sickness, and death.

It is impossible for us to know whether animals experience anything like human doubt, but it seems unlikely that even the more advanced animals wonder why things happen as they do or wish things could be different – much less commit themselves to bringing about the changes they desired. When so-called Zen teachers advise followers to be “goalless” and teach them to practice simply “being aware of the world as it is,” or “just sit and let things be as they are,” etc. they are advocating and fostering a doctrine with a very specific goal: the goal of giving up humanity and adopt the life of a mere beast.

As human beings mature and come to realize they can imagine a reality better than the one they exist in, they cannot help but feel a sense of frustration.

The naturalist and the pseudo-Zen cultist advocate meeting such frustration with acceptance of and submission to the “facts of life.” They proscribe practices designed to cut out or eradicate those aspects of humanity that facilitate the power to envision and create, while fostering the diseases of self-doubt and fear that lead to compliance and conformity to the “way things are.”

Authentic Zen masters, like all true sages and visionaries, point in the opposite direction. Where the timid and servile attempt to escape the suffering of unfulfilled desire by eradicating, diminishing, or suppressing aspects of themselves (thus of Buddha), the sage overcomes suffering by clarifying and actualizing the genuine goal of that desire. Thus, the vision of Buddhism is centered on the truth verified by Shakyamuni Buddha; not only is it possible to envision and actualize a better world, it is possible to actualize a realer world. As all real dharmas are mind-forms (mental images) all mind-forms are real dharmas.

In Buddhism, “samsara” (the round living-and-dying) is the world of suffering in which beings are in bondage to old age, sickness and death. “Nirvana” is the world of liberation from suffering (the round living-and-dying) in which beings overcome old age, sickness, and death. The former is the realm of craving (unfulfilled desire), the latter the realm of satisfaction. For the dualist or pseudo-Zen cultist that sees some things (dharmas) as “real” and “unchanging” and other things as “illusory” or “provisional,” samsara is conceived as something ugly, delusory, temporary, etc.; samsara is something to be escaped, eradicated or overcome. Nirvana, on the other hand, is conceived of as pure, blissful, real and permanent; nirvana is something to be attained, achieved, or realized.

Now, of course, in the Buddhist doctrine of samsara and nirvana – samsara is truly as the Mahayana sutras say, the wheel of living and dying, the realm of suffering; nirvana is, as Buddhism asserts, liberation from the wheel of living and dying. However, this doctrine, like all Buddhist doctrines, is only genuine when samsara and nirvana are actualized as real dharmas through experiential realization. As real expressions of Buddha nature, samsara and nirvana are experienced in genuine practice-realization as nondual – samsara/nirvana.

Simply put, living and dying is what nirvana is, for there is nothing to despise in living and dying, nor anything to be wished for in nirvana.
…
This living and dying is precisely what the treasured life of a Buddha is. If we hate life and want to throw it away, that is just our attempt to throw away the treasured life of Buddha. And if we go no farther than this and clutch onto life and death, this too is our throwing away the treasured life of Buddha by limiting ourselves to the superficial appearance of Buddha. When there is nothing we hate and nothing we cling to, then, for the first time, we enter the Heart of Buddha.
Shoji, Hubert Nearman

By relying upon our physical body and spiritual abilities, we turn the mundane into the sacred, and by relying upon their effects and consequences, we surpass Buddha and transcend Ancestor. By relying on these causes and conditions, we take hold of dirt and transmute it into gold. By relying upon effects and consequences, we receive the Transmission of the Dharma along with the robe.
...
The Gate of Skillful Means is the unsurpassed meritorious functioning of the fruits of Buddhahood. It is the Dharma that resides in the place of Dharma and It is the form of the world as it constantly manifests. The Gate of Skillful Means does not refer to some momentary skill.
...
‘To open the Gate of Skillful Means’ means to point to the genuine Real Form of things. Even though we chop time up into moments of beginning, middle, and end, pointing to the genuine Real Form of things covers the whole of time. The underlying principle of momentarily opening the Gate of Skillful Means involves opening It by opening the whole universe. At the very moment when you catch sight of the opening of the whole universe, it will be something that you have never encountered before. By our grasping once or twice at an intellectual concept of what opening of whole universe is and then grasping at it for a third or fourth time as something real, we cause the Gate of Skillful Means to open. Accordingly, it may seem that the whole universe is identical with opening the Gate of Skillful Means, but it appears to me that an immeasurable number of whole universes have each taken a small piece from the opening of the Gate of Skillful Means and have made that small piece into the form that each universe displays. But their grandeur is due entirely to their being encompassed within the present discourse.
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted

Open letter to Eido Shimano Roshi, from Robert Aitken Roshi

For all interested in the current and future state of the Maha Sangha.
-
Robert Aitken Roshi has raised an important issue in a recent post on his blog. Please check it out at:
Robert Aitken Roshi’s open letter to Eido Tai Shimano Roshi
Thank you!

Beings are numberless, I vow to save them.
Greed, hatred, and ignorance arise endlessly, I vow to abandon them.
Dharma-gates are countless, I vow to enter them.
Buddha’s Way is unsurpassed, I vow to embody it fully.

Gassho,
Ted

Dogen On Teachers and Scriptures

While it is an axiom of Zen that "The Treasure Is Never Found Outside Ourself," it can be easy to forget. Here Dogen offers us a stark reminder about the foremost principle of Zen:

--

At the same time, whether people are following a good spiritual teacher or following the Scriptures, all such persons are following their True Self. The Scriptural texts are, naturally, the Scriptural texts of Self, and good spiritual teachers are, naturally, good spiritual teachers of Self. Thus, you should investigate through your training that thorough training means thoroughly training oneself, that studying the hundreds of things which sprout up like grass means studying oneself, that studying the myriad things that take root and branch out like trees means studying oneself, and that this self is, of necessity, synonymous with making such an effort. By exploring like this through your training, you drop off self and you promise enlightenment to yourself.
Shobogenzo, Jisho Zammai, Hubert Nearman

-

Peace,

Ted