The Unified Vision of Shobogenzo

The Unified Vision of Shobogenzo

Today I return to a topic that I have not posted on for awhile; the "unity" of Dogen's masterpiece, Shobogenzo. Some of the unifying factors of Shobogenzo that deserve emphasis are the extraordinary consistency of the viewpoint, symbolism, and reason (dori) demonstrated by Shobogenzo as a whole. True, an accurate appreciation of Shobogenzo offers a number of challenges to modern readers, yet, as a comprehensive expression of the Buddha Dharma created by a profoundly enlightened Zen master that also happened to be an exceptionally gifted thinker and writer this remarkable work merits the effort required. Despite uncertainties about Dogen’s intention as to the order and inclusion of the fascicles constituting Shobogenzo, that it was intended to express a unified vision of the authentic Buddha Dharma is widely acknowledged .

As with any unified literary expression, only when the wholeness of the vision of Shobogenzo is comes into view can its various parts be truly appreciated. When it is experienced as a unity, rather than a miscellaneous collection, Shobogenzo is a hologram; each part demonstrating the whole, and the whole being demonstrated by each of its parts. Dogen’s Shobogenzo was clearly intended to convey, or transmit, a comprehensive expression of Buddhism with the potential to empower students/practitioners with the wisdom and skill for actualizing enlightenment. Thus, it seems that Dogen accomplished the mission he outlined in one of the earliest writings he completed upon returning from China:

“…I came home determined to spread the Dharma and to save living beings it was as if a heavy burden had been placed on my shoulders. Nevertheless, in order to wait for an upsurge during which I might discharge my sense of mission, I thought I would spend some time wandering like a cloud, calling here and there like a water weed, in the style of the ancient sages. Yet if there were any true practitioners who put the will to the truth first, being naturally unconcerned with fame and profit, they might be fruitlessly misled by false teachers and might needlessly throw a veil over right understanding. They might idly become drunk with self-deception, and sink forever into the state of delusion. How would they be able to promote the right seeds of prajna, or have the opportunity to attain the truth? If I were now absorbed in drifting like a cloud or a water weed, which mountains and rivers ought they to visit? Feeling that this would be a pitiful situation, I decided to compile a record of the customs and standards that I experienced first-hand in the Zen monasteries of the great Kingdom of Sung, together with a record of profound instruction from a [good] counselor which I have received and maintained. I will leave this record to people who learn in practice and are easy in the truth, so that they can know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage. This may be a true mission.”
Bendowa, Master Dogen's Shobogenzo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

In writing this, Dogen revealed his clear disagreement with a popular viewpoint often asserted in contemporary Zen literature - not infrequently by those claiming to be followers of his teachings. This statement surely seems to contradict certain dogmatic tenets suggested by contemporary Soto-Zen institutions:

“I will leave this record to people who learn in practice and are easy in the truth, so that they can know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage.”

In contradiction to certain popular notions about Zen, Dogen is clearly suggesting that the "right Dharma" is communicable through words and letters. Some contemporary Zen teachers will, of course, deny that Dogen meant what he said, and insist that the “right Dharma” can only be accessed through the individual guidance of a "living" certified "enlightened master" (i.e. themselves, or other teachers “certified” within the lineage (or lineages) that they regard as legitimate).

Zen, of course, warns about the dangers of becoming attached to doctrines - realization cannot simply be learned it must be verified in practice. However, Dogen, like other classic Zen masters, clearly reveals how to avoid “becoming attached” to doctrines, and how to effectively put them into practice. When Dogen wrote he “will leave this record” so people “can know the right-Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage,” he meant exactly that - and more:

“Just as the words and letters I have seen thus far are one, two, three, four, and five, so the words and letters I see now are also six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. The monastics of future generations will be able to understand a nondiscriminative Zen (ichimizen) based on words and letters, if they devote efforts to spiritual practice by seeing the universe through words and letters, and words and letters through the universe.”
Tenzo Kyokun, as cited in Dogen Kigen: Mystical Realist, professor Hee-Jin Kim

Wow! Are there any "monastics of future generations" around today? I don't say there are none, but I say that there are few...

Peace,
Ted

Grasping Emptiness by the nose...

Grasping Emptiness by the nose...

[Article Originally Posted by me at ZFI (Zen Forum International)]

The short, highly revered Heart Sutra, of which the Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu fascicle is a commentary on, is popular enough that Dogen only needed to quote a single line (the first) to indicate his topic.

The fact that Dogen altered that line by adding a single word is significant. Because the Heart Sutra is so well known, the alteration, although slight, jumps out as if misspoken, but as its implication dawns its purposeful intent becomes obvious.

The word Dogen added is, “konshin,” which roughly translates as “the whole-body,” or “his whole-body.” Although it is only one word, getting the significance of the addition across in English may require a bit of creative interpretation. Something like, “Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva practicing deep prajna paramita [with] his whole body (konshin) clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty transcending anguish and distress.”

The “form” of the whole body-mind realizes (makes real) the “emptiness” of the whole body-mind itself; alternatively, the “emptiness” of the whole body-mind realizes the “form” of the whole body-mind. This is the same point of the statement in the Heart Sutra, “Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.” That form is possible because of emptiness and emptiness is possible because of form, means “form” is truly form, and “emptiness” is truly emptiness.

The practical application of the principles of emptiness/form has tended to privilege emptiness (form is emptiness) over and above form (emptiness is form) by regarding emptiness/form in terms of superiority and inferiority. Such views are inherently dualistic and serve to foster quietist doctrines and practices that have plagued Zen from its early history to the present. Dogen’s addition of “konshin” (whole-body) is one of many examples in Shobogenzo that undermine this fallacy and reveal the true significance of emptiness/form.

The Maka-hannya-haramitsu fascicle begins by emphasizing the coessential status of emptiness and form. The enlightened wisdom of Buddhism (prajna paramita) reveals that the true nature of a form is emptiness, therefore to directly experience (clearly see = prajna) a form as it is (i.e. a form), is to directly experience the true nature (emptiness) of a form. Dogen next goes on to underscore that this implies that form is form, and emptiness is emptiness, and that this principle applies to all the myriad dharmas; all particular things are “instances” of “prajna itself.” Thus, all real dharmas are prajna, prajna is all real dharmas.

Dogen does, of course, recognize the reality and significance of Buddhist “oneness.” In fact, Shobogenzo illumines the nature of this oneness from a range of perspectives that present an unusually clear and extraordinarily detailed vision of the “one mind.” Yet, Dogen’s emphasis in Shobogenzo remains clearly focused on the concrete and particular. Shobogenzo focuses on the “real form” of dharmas because that is where the “real nature” (emptiness) of dharmas exists.

Form is emptiness itself, emptiness itself is form – not “form,” but this actual form, that particular form, this flower, that babbling brook. Each particular thing and event is an instance of form/emptiness, or as Dogen sometimes refers to them, “flowers of emptiness.” Three instances of emptiness/form are morning, noon, and night; two instances are one left ear and one right ear. A book, the sound of traffic, a kiss, yesterday’s lunch, your first dog all exist as instances of form/emptiness.

They are hundreds of things, and myriad phenomena. Twelve instances of prajna paramita are the twelve entrances [of sense perception]. There are also eighteen instances of prajna. They are eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and properties; plus the consciousnesses of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are a further four instances of prajna. They are suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the Way. There are a further six instances of prajna. They are giving, pure [observance of] precepts, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajna [itself]. One further instance of prajnaparamita is realized as the present moment. It is the state of anuttara samyaksaṃbodhi. There are three further instances of prajnaparamita. They are past, present, and future. There are six further instances of prajna. They are earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness. And there are a further four instances of prajna that are constantly practiced in everyday life: they are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down.
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

That form and emptiness are nondual does not mean that emptiness amounts to form or that form is reducible to emptiness. Nonduality signifies unity, not uniformity; emptiness and form are coessential, not identical, interdependent not interchangeable. Emptiness is the emptiness of (all) form, form is the form of (all) emptiness; to raise one is to raise both; to eliminate one is to eliminate both – reality of form is contingent on the reality of emptiness; the reality of emptiness is dependent on the reality of form. Therefore, if form is real, as Buddhism contends, emptiness is real; if emptiness is really emptiness, form is really form – thus Dogen asserts, “Form is form; emptiness is emptiness.”

“Konshin” (whole body) also appears in Koku, a fascicle of Shobogenzo that elucidates emptiness/form (of words) using “koku” (space) as a metaphor for emptiness. Dogen’s comments at the end of the opening paragraph of the koku fascicle, “How can space be limited to twenty types (a traditional classification of emptiness); there are eighty-four thousand types, and more.” Following this assertion, Dogen reveals the blood and guts of emptiness by utilizing a Zen koan to transmit the transcendental wisdom on grasping emptiness by the nose:

Zen Master Shakkyo asked Zen Master Seido, “Do you know how to grasp space?”

Seido said, “I know how to grasp it.”

Shakkyo said, “How do you grasp it?”

Seido made a grasping gesture at the air with his hand.

Shakkyo said, “You do not know how to grasp space.”

Seido said, “How do you grasp it, brother?”

Shakkyo firmly grabed Seido by the nose and gave it a tug.

Seido cried out in pain, saying, “Don’t be so rough! You’ll rip my nose off.”

Shakkyo said, “Now you know how to grasp space.”

Dogen does say Seido “knew how to ride on a tiger’s head, but not how to grasp a tiger’s tail,” which seems to let him off lightly; where is he riding a tiger’s head?

To demonstrate his knowledge of emptiness, Seido makes a useless gesture at the air with his hand. While the action was futile, even pathetic, it was a perfect demonstration of Seido’s knowledge of emptiness; false, vain, invalid, and absurd. Although it is not always so obvious, attempting to grasp reality, true nature, or emptiness through abstract concepts is always futile.

Dogen devoted lots of time and energy to refuting dualism, especially in relation to the aspect of the Dharma most vulnerable; the doctrine of emptiness. The reasoning of Shobogenzo is convincing; because dualistic views do not arise from experience, and cannot be verified by experience, they are inherently abstractions. Abstractions, by definition, are partial; being deductions, conjectures, and suppositions conceptually extracted or derived from the experience of reality, such ideas are always less than real experience.

Thus, if emptiness is viewed dualistically, the experiential reality of emptiness is thereby instantly reduced to concepts, extractions, and derivatives of speculation. Subjecting emptiness to abstract speculation necessitates dividing (abstracting) it from “form.” Now seen as separate realities, emptiness and form become eligible for classification and qualify as candidates for superiority and inferiority.

But if emptiness truly possesses the qualities of oneness, equality, etc., how is it demonstrated by Shakkyo’s rough handling of Seido? Isn’t Shakkyo only demonstrating form? It is exactly because of its oneness, equality, etc., that Shakkyo’s action can demonstrate it. If emptiness was various, it could not be all things and all times. Emptiness flows.

Because emptiness is totally empty of self it is totally empty of anything not-self; this flower is not “other than” emptiness because, without a self, nothing can be “other than” emptiness itself. As nothing is “other than” self, this flower, that bird, this thought, and finally all dharmas are not “other than” emptiness. Wherever there is a “self,” there must be a self/other; wherever there is an “other,” there must be a self/other. Therefore, the total reality that is called “a flower” is a dharma that is a “self” (the form perceived distinctly as “the flower”), plus an “other” (whatever “the flower” is perceived as being distinct from). Thus, the true nature of every particular dharma we experience is a reality that is “dharma” + “not-dharma.” In sum, a flower is a flower + no-flower, and when these are added together, “1” flower plus “0” flower, they make “a flower.”

When all things are seen as the buddha-dharma, then there is delusion and enlightenment, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings.

When all things are seen as empty of self, there is no delusion and no enlightenment, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.

Buddha’s truth includes and transcends the many and the one, and so there is life and death, delusion and enlightenment, ordinary beings and buddhas.
Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Ted Biringer

When a flower is seen as the buddha-dharma, then there is (“1”) a flower.

When a flower is seen as empty of self, there is (“0”) no flower.

Buddha’s truth includes and transcends “1 flower” and “0 flower,” and so there is a flower.

Because emptiness is without self, it goes along with all things; when they are still and silent, emptiness is still and silent, when it moves and cries out, emptiness moves and cries out. When words are spoken, emptiness is words, when words are emptiness, there is “no-other” than words, thus Dogen says:

Space is one unadulterated mass, which, once touched is then tainted. Since being tainted, “space has fallen to the ground.” Shakkyo’s words “How do you grasp it?” mean “Even if you call it ‘as it is,’ you have changed it already.” And although it is like this, in changing with it the thus-gone exists.
Shobogenzo Koku Shobogenzo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Emptiness is one totality without self or other, once touched, the totality is touched/not-touched. To touch the ground is to touch the totality of ground/not-ground. Even if you call it “as it is,” you change it to “as it is/not-as it is.” And although it is like this, in changing with it the “as it is” exists. Having no-self, emptiness “changes with” it because “it” is not “other” than emptiness.

A flower, as it is, is not “other than” emptiness, emptiness is not “other than” a flower as it is. Getting thirsty is not other than emptiness, drinking water is not other than emptiness, the fact that drinking water quenches thirst is, as it is, nothing other than emptiness. To suffer because of seeing our self as independent entities is emptiness as it is. Opening the Dharma-Eye and experiencing liberation from suffering is emptiness as it is. Thus, thirst, quenching thirst, compassion, service, delusion, and enlightenment are all empty – and therefore there is nothing “other” than thirst, service, etc. All dharmas are real form.

Emptiness is no-self; no-self is the true nature of all dharmas. True nature is not abstract or conceptually difficult and it is never obscure, much less incommunicable – nothing in the whole universe has ever been concealed. Emptiness is vigorous and concerned, ever advancing as the myriad dharmas of existence-time, emptiness is alive, it bleeds and it breathes, and it cries out when its nose is tweaked.

Reading the story of Shakkyo and Seido, studying it, practicing it, and verifying the truth of emptiness is emptiness as it is. Thus, the Shobogenzo, Koku fascicle opens with an explanation that the manifestation of Buddha ancestors is caused by “emptiness” in the “form” of words. Dogen explains that the transmission of emptiness/form (of the words), from ancestor to ancestor, causes the skin, flesh, bones, and marrow (i.e. the myriad dharmas) to be actualized as “konshin” (the whole body) which is said to be “hanging in space” (ka-koku). Check out the sutra quote that occupies the pivot of Dogen’s commentary on the Heart Sutra:

In the order of Śakyamuni Tathagata there is a bhiksu who secretly thinks, “I shall bow in veneration of the profound prajnaparamita. Although in this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations of all precepts, all balanced states, all kinds of wisdom, all kinds of liberation, and all views. There are also understandable explanations of the fruit of one who has entered the stream, the fruit of [being subject to] one return, the fruit of [not being subject to] returning, and the fruit of the arhat. There are also understandable explanations of [people of] independent awakening, and [people of] bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the supreme right and balanced state of bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. There are also understandable explanations of turning the wonderful Dharma wheel to save sentient beings.” The Buddha, knowing the bhiksu’s mind, tells him, “This is how it is. This is how it is. The profound prajnapara mita is too subtle and fine to fathom.”
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The thoughts of this monk (bhiksu) go to the heart of the significance of emptiness demonstrated by Shobogenzo; although there is no self and no other in the true oneness of emptiness, true, effective teachings exist. This monk realizes the point, so the Buddha tells him – This is how it is. And how is it? There are understandable explanations.

There are understandable explanations of precepts, balanced states, wisdom, and liberation. The no-self of emptiness does not mean that things are not real, it does not mean that distinctions are illusory, it does not mean that the essential nature of things is different than the appearance of things – just the opposite. If this were not so, Dogen would not have wasted his time teaching and writing. Shobogenzo exists, and is effective because there are understandable explanations of the Dharma.

Dogen, commenting on the monk’s thought that, “Although in this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations,” says that “this state” (emptiness) is described “as being without.” In Japanese, “being without” is “mu,” which is a word that Zen practitioners are as familiar with as they are with the Heart Sutra. “Mu” is the central subject of the famous Zen koan, “Joshu’s Mu,” which appears in a variety of forms in numerous koan collections, the most common form being:

A monk asked Joshu, “Does a dog have Buddha nature?”

Joshu said, “Mu.”

What is “Mu”? That is what each practitioner must personally verify, once they have come to understand a reliable explanation. Here is part of Dogen’s understandable explanation on the monk’s mind, real dharmas, and the state of “mu” (being without).

The bhiksu’s “secretly working concrete mind” at this moment is, in the state of bowing in veneration of real dharmas, prajna itself—whether or not [real dharmas] are without appearance and disappearance—and this is a “venerative bow” itself. Just at this moment of bowing in veneration, prajna is realized as explanations that can be understood: [explanations] from “precepts, balance, and wisdom,” to “saving sentient beings,” and so on. This state is described as being without. Explanations of the state of “being without” can thus be understood. Such is the profound, subtle, unfathomable prajna paramita.
Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Peace,
Ted

Dogen: Concepts and the Gate of Skillful Means

Dogen: Concepts and the Gate of Skillful Means

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.

Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso, Hubert Nearman

“Consciousness Only” and Zen Buddhism

“Consciousness Only” and Zen Buddhism

As outlined by the “Four Noble Truths” of Buddhism, suffering results from a false view (avidya; ignorance) of “self.” This suffering is overcome when the false view is eliminated by realizing the truth of “no-self.” Thus, realization of no-self (anatman; muga) was the “goal” of Buddhism in the Buddha’s life (about 500 BCE) and First Councils (Theravada), as well as the Mahayana (and Vajrayana) traditions that culminated around 1100 to 1300 CE, more or less.

In fact, the distinction between schools can generally be described as the “way” (teachings and methods) each advocated for the realization of “no-self.” The interpretive literature of early Buddhism (Abhidharma) asserted a view of the “self” as a continuous series of constantly changing aggregates consisting of impersonal, groundless, causeless elements (dharmas). In order to reconcile this doctrine with the Buddhist doctrines of rebirth, moral obligation, karma, etc., the advocates of this view were forced to posit some unifying “force,” “agent,” or “essence,” that facilitated the coordination of the causes and effects that were presupposed by Buddhist teachings – and this force, agent, or essence must somehow avoid being portrayed as a reified entity (i.e. independent self).

Early attempts to find such a “force” resulted in the notions of the “life-stream” (ayus; myokon, etc.) notions of the Vijnanavada school, and other early traditions. A wide variety of theories were advanced concerning the nature and dynamics of this “life-stream.” One general notion was that this “life-stream” was the ground from which the “six consciousnesses” (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, thinking) arose, bestowing and maintaining the “fire” or “heat” (nan) and the “consciousness” (shiki) of the individual. The quality and quantity of this “life-stream” was regarded as dependent on the particular karmic conditions of each individual. We find many remnants of this and similar notions used in the records of Zen, for instance the “fire” and “consciousness” (translated as “wind” by Nearman) in the koan about the two halves of an earthworm:

In the assembly of the virtuous monk Chosa Keishin, his lay disciple Chiku, who was a high government official, raised a question, saying, “When a live earthworm is cut in two, both parts continue to move. I wonder, in which part does the Buddha Nature reside?”

The Master responded, “Do not engage in deluded, dualistic thinking.”

 
The official asked, “But how do you account for the twitching?”

The Master replied, “It is simply that the elements of wind and fire have not yet dissipated.”

(As translated by Hubert Nearman in Shobogenzo, Bussho)

The continuous and ongoing attempts by Buddhist masters to meet the challenges posed by the teachings on “no-self” eventually came to be centered in two great Buddhist doctrines: the “storehouse-consciousness” (tathatagata-garbha) and “consciousness-only” (vijnana-matra). Briefly, the “storehouse-consciousness” is presented in terms concerning the “primordial” or “original” nature of mind, while “consciousness-only” is portrayed as the “foundation” or “ground” underlying (and finally transcending) the six consciousnesses.

Which each of these doctrines presented views complete in themselves (and were advocated by independent schools), the best of both teachings eventually came to be merged in a number of greatly influential sutras and shastras – most significantly, the Lankavatara Sutra and the Awakening of Faith shastra. These two texts, in turn, became greatly influential to the development of all the major Mahayana traditions. While the legend of Bodhidharma’s giving Eka a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra has served to indicate its influence on Zen, the Awakening Faith shastra is alluded to and quoted even more extensively in the records of Zen (including Dogen who cites it as authoritative in Shobogenzo). The remarkable visionary insight of this slim volume was regarded authoritative enough to be included as a basic text of that erudite Buddhist school known as Huayen (Kegon) Buddhism.

Nevertheless, even in their culminating expression (i.e. the Lankavatara and Awakening of Faith) the doctrines of “storehouse-consciousness” and “consciousness only” failed to avoid certain vulnerabilities (mostly of the “essentialist” and “speculative” type) as far as the great Zen masters were concerned. As evident in the classic records of Zen, these doctrines (at least as articulated) fell short of expressing the whole truth of the matter, though they did provide an excellent springboard from which to articulate some of the most powerful expressions of Zen in the whole corpus of writing, including the Five Ranks of Tozan.

All in all, the great Buddhist doctrines of “storehouse-consciousness” and “consciousness only” are certainly worthy of our close and attentive study, but that study should not be regarded as complete with their “final” articulation in works like the Lankavatara and Awakening of Faith. Having arrived at a solid grasp of these Buddhist doctrines in their “formal” culminating expression, let us turn to the records of Zen where they continued to be refined at the forge of the ancestors – here is where the purity of their gold truly shines. Stripped of their nonessential speculative elements, these teachings have become direct pointers in the hands of the masters – these direct pointers rank with the best of the myriad “ways” employed by the masters to help students overcome the false view of “self” with the Zen skill of directly pointing to the identity of the human body-mind and Buddha. From the first Zen ancestor in China, Bodhidharma, to the contemporary Vietnamese Zen master, Thich Nhat Hanh, the “way” of liberation advocated is direct and personal:

Seeing your nature is zen, if you don’t see your nature it’s not zen.

~Bodhidharma, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, Red Pine

Seeing into one’s own nature is the goal of Zen.

~Thich Nhat Hanh, Zen Keys

Peace,

Ted

Letting Things Be vs Wholehearted Effort

Practical experience tells us that some aspects of our experience (hence, our existence) are subject to our control while others are not. We feel that we can choose to sit, stand, walk, or lie down, but not that we can choose to breathe, digest our food, circulate our blood, or grow new skin cells. In fact, the real “us,” that is, our “true self” does actually manage all of this and more; but the point we want to get at here concerns a frequent target of Dogen’s criticism: the presupposition that the “natural” or “unintentional” processes of experience are inclusive of our thoughts, speech, and actions. The worshiper of emptiness presupposes that hearing, for instance, occurs unconsciously as random sounds impress themselves upon the mind through the ear, rather than, as Dogen contends, that hearing is actualized by the mind conducting itself through the ear to the “objects” of sound. The former (false) view is based on the same principle that divides “appearance” from “reality” or “form” from “emptiness” – such a view “presupposes” that the mind is uniform, passive, pure, unmoving “consciousness” or “essential nature,” and that hearing (and seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking) are automatic, involuntary processes. Such distorted views lead to dead end doctrines and practices advocating “having no goals,” “letting things be as they are,” “just sitting in pure awareness,” etc. – of such notions Dogen says:

As to the phrase ‘when the right moment arrives’, folks in both the past and the present have frequently held the view that this means one simply waits for some future time when Buddha Nature will manifest before one’s eyes. They believe that while doing their training and practice in this way, the time will arrive when Buddha Nature will spontaneously manifest before their eyes. They say that until that time comes, It will not manifest even by visiting one’s Master and inquiring into the Dharma or even by doing one’s best to practice the Way. Looking at the Matter in this manner, they uselessly return to worldly ways, vainly waiting for It to fall down upon them from the heavens. Folks like this, I fear, are that type of non-Buddhist who believes that things just happen to happen, independent of any cause.

Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

Here Dogen clearly illustrates the ordinary (unawakened) inactive mind of “letting things be.” Realizing the reality of Buddha nature is not something that just happens. Authentic liberation requires wholehearted, accurately directed, intentional effort. Those that “just sit” and passively experience whatever happens to “spontaneously manifests” before their eyes cannot even see the true nature of grass and trees, much less Buddhas. Truly, it is immediately accessible to all, but none access it without informing themselves of the details concerning how to access it – and wholeheartedly applying themselves to it. On the significance of this Dogen quotes the Buddha’s words, then comments that we “need to be clear” that to give rise to this intention is to “wholeheartedly seek enlightened wisdom.”

The Tathagata said in the Avatamsaka Scripture:

When Bodhisattvas give rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood and make birth-and-death the foremost issue, they wholeheartedly seek enlightened Wisdom and, being steadfast, they will not waver. The meritorious functioning of that single-mindedness is deep and vast, knowing no bounds. If I were to analyze and explain it, I would be unable to exhaust the topic, even if I had eons to do it.

You need to be clear about this: using the issue of birth-and-death to give rise to your intention to realize Buddhahood is to wholeheartedly seek enlightened Wisdom.
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujō Shin, Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted

New List of Zen Books With Links

New List of Zen Books With Links

Posted on sister blog (Flatbed Sutra Zen Blog)

More coming soon...

Peace,
Ted

Dharma Transmission

Dharma-transmission

According to one “certified” master of the official Soto Zen school (which claims Dogen as their founder):

The term “Lineage” refers to an unbroken chain of “masters” having received “Dharma-transmission”, going all the way back to the historic Shakyamuni Buddha. This authentic lineage is said to insure that the Buddha’s original teaching (Dharma) is preserved and transmitted in its original.

Ryofu Pussel, Dharma-transmission in Dogen's Zen-buddhism

This definition generally agrees with the common understanding of the term as it is used in contemporary Zen communities.

As with most Buddhist teachings the tradition of Dharma-transmission should not be hastily understood; it is one expression of truth concerning the significance of the transmission of enlightened wisdom (prajna). Whenever sacred literature is reduced to biographical or historical fact it becomes susceptible to dogmatism and legalism. To regard such as the formulation of absolutes, rather than expressions of truth is to bring it down to mere idolatry.

While the evidence incontrovertibly refutes the historical possibility of “an unbroken chain of masters” going all the way back to the historic Shakyamuni Buddha, the Zen masters have never been overly concerned with historical facts; their business concerns the great matter of life and death. Master Yuanwu (1063-1135), compiler of the classic Zen text, The Blue Cliff Record, demonstrates one example of how Zen masters handle discrepancies between “matters of fact” and “expressions of truth.” Noticing just such a discrepancy in the first case of the Blue Cliff Record, Yuanwu commented:

According to tradition, Master Chih died in the year 514, while Bodhidharma came to Liang in 520; since there is a seven year discrepancy, why is it said that the two met? This must be a mistake in the tradition. As to what is recorded in tradition, I will not discuss the matter now. All that’s important is to understand the gist of the matter.

Blue Cliff Record, Thomas Cleary & J.C. Cleary

About a century later, Dogen came to a similar conclusion in relation to an issue concerning the Zen tradition of Dharma-transmission. Noting certain discrepancies among the variety of the lineage charts he saw while he was in China, Dogen questioned a senior monk about it:

The veteran monk Shugetsu, while he was assigned to the post of head monk on Tendo, showed to Dogen a certificate of succession of Unmon’s lineage… Mahakasyapa, Ananda, and so on, were aligned as if [they belonged to] separate lineages. At that time, Dogen asked Head Monk Shugetsu, “Master, nowadays there are slight differences among the five sects in their alignment [of names]. What is the reason? If the succession from the Western Heavens has passed from rightful successor to rightful successor, how could there be differences?” Shugetsu said, “Even if the dif­ference were great, we should just study that the buddhas of Unmon-zan mountain are like this. Why is Old Master Sakyamuni honored by others? He is an honored one because he realized the truth. Why is Great Master Unmon honored by others? He is an honored one because he realized the truth.” Dogen, hearing these words, had a little [clearer] understanding.

Shobogenzo, Shisho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

This monk’s comments were later supported by Dogen’s Chinese master and finally led Dogen to accept “for the first time, the existence of Buddhist patriarchs’ succession of the Dharma.”

My late Master, the eternal Buddha, the great Master and Abbot of Tendo, preached the following: “The buddhas, without exception, have ex­perienced the succession of the Dharma. That is to say, Sakyamuni Buddha received the Dharma from Kasyapa Buddha, Kasyapa Buddha received the Dharma from Kanakamuni Buddha, and Kanakamuni Buddha received the Dharma from Krakucchanda Buddha. We should believe that the succes­sion has passed like this from buddha to buddha until the present. This is the way of learning Buddhism.” Then Dogen said, “It was after Kasyapa Buddha had entered nirvana that Sakyamuni Buddha first appeared in the world and realized the truth. Furthermore, how could the buddhas of the Kalpa of Wisdom receive the Dharma from the buddhas of the Kalpa of Resplendence? What [do you think] of this principle?” My late Master said, “What you have just expressed is understanding [based on] listening to theories. It is the way of [bodhisattvas at] the ten sacred stages or the three clever stages. It is not the way [transmitted by] the Buddhist patriarchs from rightful successor to rightful successor. Our way, transmitted from buddha to buddha, is not like that. We have learned that Sakyamuni Buddha defi­nitely received the Dharma from Kasyapa Buddha. We learn in practice that Kasyapa Buddha entered nirvana after Sakyamuni Buddha succeeded to the Dharma. If Sakyamuni Buddha did not receive the Dharma from Kasyapa Buddha, he might be the same as a naturalistic non-Buddhist. Who then could believe in Sakyamuni Buddha? Because the succession has passed like this from buddha to buddha, and has arrived at the present, the individual buddhas are all authentic successors, and they are neither arranged in a line nor gathered in a group. We just learn that the succession passes from bud­dha to buddha like this. It need not be related to the measurements of kalpas and the measurements of lifetimes mentioned in the teaching of the Agamas. If we say that [the succession] was established solely by Sakyamuni Buddha, it has existed for little over two thousand years, [so] it is not old; and the successions [number] little more than forty, [so] they might be called recent. This Buddhist succession is not to be studied like that. We learn that Sakyamuni Buddha succeeded to the Dharma of Kasyapa Buddha, and we learn that Kasyapa Buddha succeeded to the Dharma of Sakyamuni Buddha. When we learn it like this, it is truly the succession of the Dharma of the buddhas and the patriarchs.” Then Dogen not only accepted, for the first time, the existence of Buddhist patriarchs’ succession of the Dharma, but also got rid of an old nest.

Shobogenzo, Shisho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Having “got rid of an old nest” allowed Dogen to see through the “idol” (i.e. external fact) of Dharma-transmission to the mythological truth of the expression; such truths are never “arranged in a line nor gathered in a group.” In a commentary on the Dharma-transmission between Shakyamuni to Mahakasyapa, Robert Aitken Roshi wrote:

The story of the Buddha twirling a flower before his assembly, like the story of the baby Buddha taking seven steps in each of the cardinal directions , need not be taken literally. The first account of his transmitting the Dharma to Mahakasyapa is set forth in a sutra of Chinese origin that is dated A.D. 1036, fourteen hundred years after the Buddha’s time. This was the Sung period—a peak in the development of Chinese culture when great anthologies, encyclopedias, and directories were being produced. Myth, oral tradition, and sectarian justification all played a role in this codification. The fable of the Buddha twirling a flower filled a great need for connection with the founder, and it was picked up immediately and repeated like gospel. The “Four Principles” attributed to Bodhidharma were also formulated during the Sung period, some six hundred years after Bodhidharma’s time, using some of the same language attributed to the Buddha: “A special transmission outside tradition—not established on words or letters.” The Sung teachers were making important points with their myths.

During World War II, I asked a Catholic priest who was interned with us, “What if it could be proved that Jesus never lived?” He replied, “It would destroy my faith.” That priest was very young at the time. I wonder what became of him, and what he might be saying on the subject now. Something a little different, I would suppose. I too was young at the time, but I felt there was something wrong with his answer. I still think so. I don’t believe it is very important whether Jesus and Buddha and Moses were historical figures. True religious practice is grounded in the nonhistorical fact of essential nature. “The World-Honored One Twirls a Flower,” “Pai-chang's Fox,” and all the other fabulous cases of Zen literature are your stories and mine, intimate accounts of our own personal nature and experience.

Robert Aitken Roshi, The Gateless Barrier

While the “literal” fact of formal Dharma-transmission can be used as guidance for the intermediate student (e.g. a student that has come to trust a teacher may find some assurance in that teacher’s sanction of another), a Dharma-transmission certificate, even in a “trusted lineage,” should not be regarded as guaranteeing a legitimate teacher. When we do find an authentic teacher, we can usually trust their ability to recognize others who have the skills and character needed to teach others. Nevertheless, we still need to check it out for ourselves; after all, it is the great matter of life and death.

In any case, the true significance of Dharma-transmission is not about lineage charts or certificates; it is about the transmission of wisdom (prajna) by wisdom, to wisdom. In Shobogenzo, Inmo, Dogen describes the significance of transmission in the context of the sixth ancestor of Zen, Huineng (Eno Daikan). After reminding us that Huineng, though never exposed to the “eternal teachings” was “suddenly illuminated” upon hearing a Buddhist scripture recited, Dogen goes on to say:

This is just the truth of Those who have wisdom, if they hear [the Dharma]{truth}, Are able to believe and understand at once. This wisdom is neither learned from other people nor established by oneself: wisdom is able to transmit wisdom, and wisdom directly searches out wisdom ... It is beyond coming and beyond entering: it is like the spirit of spring meeting springtime, for example. Wisdom is beyond intention and wisdom is beyond no intention. Wisdom is beyond consciousness and wisdom is beyond unconsciousness. How much less could it be related to the great and the small? How much less could it be discussed in terms of delusion and realization? The point is that although [the Sixth Patriarch] does not even know what the Buddha Dharma {Buddhist teaching} is, never having heard it before and so neither longing for it nor aspiring to it, when he hears the Dharma, he makes light of his debt of gratitude and forgets his own body and; such things happen because the body-and-mind of those who have wisdom is already not their own. This is the state called able to believe and understand at once. No-one knows how many rounds of life-and-death [people] spend, even while possessing this wisdom, in futile dusty toil. They are like a stone enveloping a jewel, the jewel not knowing that it is enveloped by a stone, and the stone not knowing that it is enveloping a jewel. [When] a human being recognizes this [jewel], a human being seizes it. This is neither something that the jewel is expecting nor something that the stone is awaiting: it does not require knowledge from the stone and it is beyond thinking by the jewel. In other words, a human being and wisdom do not know each other, but it seems that the truth is unfailingly discerned by wisdom.

Shobogenzo, Inmo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Dogen’s words, “wisdom is able to transmit wisdom, and wisdom directly searches out wisdom”, are a direct expression of Dharma-transmission itself. Wisdom (prajna) is Buddha-Dharma (Buddhist truth); wisdom transmits wisdom and is received by wisdom. Huineng heard the wisdom transmitted by wisdom (from the Diamond Sutra), his innate wisdom was “able to believe and understand at once.”

The jewel (wisdom) has been in the rock (body-mind) all along; the “rock” realizes the “jewel” has been embodied all along. “[When] a human being recognizes this [jewel], a human being seizes it.” Dharma-transmission is really the activation of inherent wisdom by expressed wisdom. To “grasp” the truth expressed in a sutra or a koan, is to actualize the fundamental point (genjokoan). That is Dharma-transmission. Thus, Dogen says, “a human being and wisdom do not know each other, but it seems that the truth is unfailingly discerned by wisdom.”

In Shobogenzo, Yui-Butsu-Yo-Butsu, he writes:

The Buddha-Dharma cannot be known by people. For this reason, since ancient times, no common man has realized the Buddha-Dharma and no-one in the two vehicles has mastered the Buddha-Dharma. Because it is realized only by buddhas, we say that buddhas alone, together with buddhas, are directly able perfectly to realize it.”

Shobogenzo, Yui-Butsu-Yo-Butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

This is Dharma-transmission. The Buddha-Dharma (wisdom) is transmitted by Buddha (wisdom) and realized (made real) by Buddha (wisdom). The “common man” is the “rock” (in Dogen’s earlier analogy); when the jewel is revealed, the “rock” is already a “jewel” – when the Buddha-Dharma is realized, the “common man” is already “Buddha.”

Peace,

Ted

Clear Demonstration of Buddha-Nature...

The Clear Demonstration of Buddha-Nature...

The fourteenth patriarch, the Venerable Ryuju, called Nagarjuna in Sanskrit, and called either Ryuju, Ryusho, or Ryumo in Chinese, is a man from western India, and he goes to southern India. Most people of that nation believe in karma for happiness. The Venerable One preaches for them the subtle Dharma. Those who hear him say to each other, “The most important thing in the human world is that people possess karma for happiness. Yet he talks idly of the buddha-nature. Who can see such a thing?”

The Venerable One says, “If you want to realize the buddha-nature, you must first get rid of selfish pride.”

The people say, “Is the buddha-nature big or is it small?”

The Venerable One says, “The buddha-nature is not big and not small, it is not wide and not narrow, it is without happiness and without rewards, it does not die and it is not born.”

When they hear these excellent principles, they all turn from their original mind. Then the Venerable One, from his seat, manifests his free body, which seems like the perfect circle of a full moon. All those gathered only hear the sound of Dharma; they do not see the master’s form. In that assembly is a rich man’s son, Kanadeva. He says to the assembly, “Do you know what this form is or not?”

Those in the assembly say, “The present [form] is something our eyes have never before seen, our ears have never before heard, our minds have never before known, and our bodies have never before experienced.”

Kanadeva says, “Here the Venerable One is manifesting the form of the buddha-nature to show it to us. How do we know this? It may be presumed that the formless state of samadhi in shape resembles the full moon. The meaning of the buddha-nature is evident and it is transparently clear.”

After these words, the circle disappears at once, and [the master] is sitting on his seat. Then he preaches the following verse:

[My] body manifests the roundness of the moon,

By this means demonstrating the physique of the buddhas.
The preaching of Dharma has no set form.
The real function is beyond sounds and sights.

(Quoted from Shobogenzo, Bussho, translated by Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross)

This is a wonderfully rich Buddhist story. Anyone that takes the time to memorize it and carry it around with them probably find many subtle layers here… Let us simply consider one of these for now.

The great Buddhist ancestor Nagarjuna, the story goes, preaches the “subtle Dharma.” Those that hear him are surprised that his preaching fails to support their own presuppositions about the Dharma. According to the “common” view (in that place and time) the “most important thing” in the world was assumed to be good karma. Then, along comes Nagarjuna preaching about something as insignificant (in their view) as Buddha-nature.

Presuppositions – in a certain sense, the whole nature and function of authentic Buddhist practice-enlightenment is the undoing of presuppositions.

It is sometimes easy to dismiss or ignore words, thoughts, and deeds that fail to agree with our own presuppositions. Fortunately, “the people” in this story did not simply dismiss Nagarjuna and go home or back to their own temples; they questioned themselves (“What does he mean about Buddha-nature?”), and they questioned the master. What’s he saying? Is our own view about what is of greatest importance mistaken? Excellent Zen practice!

Nagarjuna said, ““If you want to realize the buddha-nature, you must first get rid of selfish pride.”

To get at the reality of “Buddha-nature” requires one to “first get rid of selfish pride.” That selfish pride can be very stubborn (and subtle) – the fact that “the people” did not simply dismiss Nagarjuna in the first place, but instead were willing to seriously inquire into his teaching (and thus their own views) seems to suggest that they were a little less attached to “selfish pride” than many of us are today.

What else can you reveal Nagarjuna? Let’s say that we are willing and able to rid ourselves of selfish pride and “realize” this “Buddha-nature” you speak of, what exactly will we be “realizing”? What is the Buddha-nature?

Nagarjuna said, “The buddha-nature is not big and not small, it is not wide and not narrow, it is without happiness and without rewards, it does not die and it is not born.”

Interesting, at first glance the Buddha-nature seems to NOT be a lot of things, and to be WITHOUT many qualities, and also does NOT DO various things – in short, it is NOT big and NOT small, NOT wide and NOT narrow, it is WITHOUT happiness and WITHOUT rewards, it does NOT die and it is NOT born.

Is this the same as “neti, neti” (not-this, not-this)? Certainly, some would argue thus. Just as the Buddhist teachings of emptiness are often used to support certain presuppositions about uniformity and non-differentiation, about non-existence and void oneness…

But does that account for the whole of Nagarjuna’s statement? Can we also read it like this:

“THE BUDDHA-NATURE IS not big AND not small, IT IS not wide AND not narrow, IT IS without happiness AND without rewards, IT DOES not die AND IT IS not born.”

If we can realize it like this the wisdom of this story may shine through and be as clear and present as a piece of fruit held in the palm of our hand. And why wouldn’t it be? The Buddhas and ancestors reveal and express the Dharma – they never conceal or begrudge. To realize what the Buddha-nature IS, and DOES we must first be rid of selfish pride – and then we realize, as Dogen says, “the buddha-nature is ‘transparently clear’ and is ‘evident.’”

The ancestral master does not begrudge them [the teaching], but their eyes and ears are shut and so they cannot see or hear it. Never having established body-knowing, they cannot make out [the teaching]. As they watch from afar “the formless state of samadhi” whose “shape resembles the full moon,” and as they do prostrations to it, it is “something their eyes have never before seen.” “The meaning of the buddha-nature is evident and it is transparently clear.” So the state in which the body manifesting itself preaches the buddha-nature is “transparently clear” and is “evident.” And the state in which the preaching of the buddha-nature is a body manifesting itself is “demonstration, by concrete means,” of “the physique of the buddhas.” Where could there be one buddha or two buddhas who failed to realize as “the buddha-physique” this “demonstration by concrete means”?

~Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

It seems as if this was the reason that only Kanadeva (Nagarjuna’s successor) was able to see the Buddha’s body (physique of Buddha) at that time. Fortunately, this event was recorded and there have certainly been many beings that have been able to meet with Kanadeva and Nagarjuna since. This story is exerted by the liberating potential of the whole Buddha Dharma – carry it around and see if you don’t find the bare fact of the Buddha-nature shining right before you. Check in with Dogen’s commentary on the story from time to time (in Shobogenzo, Bussho) for a little help clearing your vision; there you will find many clues, like this gem for example:

Remember, at this time the Venerable One is simply seated upon his high seat. The manner in which his body manifests itself is just the same as in the case of any person seated here now.

~Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
 

Peace,

Ted

In Loving Memory – Jade Alexendria Biringer – April 27, 1993 – July 13, 1993

In Loving Memory – Jade Alexendria Biringer – April 27, 1993 – July 13, 1993

In Grateful Thanks to Bodhisattva Mahasattva

Jade Alexandria Biringer

April 27, 1993 – July 13, 1993

Parent and Child - Stones and Flowers

In response to the interesting comment by David H-T, I thought it might be appropriate to post a couple of creatively expressive Dogen quotes that I think offer a remarkably clear vision of nonduality. See what you think:

The monk Dokai of Mount Daiyo, in instructing his assembly, said, “The verdant mountains are constantly moving on, and the Stone Maiden, in the dark of night, gives birth to Her Child.” The mountains are never lacking in the spiritual merits with which they are undoubtedly endowed. This is why they constantly reside at ease and are constantly moving on. By all means, you must examine in great detail the spiritual merits of their moving on. The moving on of a mountain will be just like the moving on of those who wander through life in ignorance, so, even though you may think that it seems the same as the human activity of walking, nevertheless, do not doubt ‘the moving on’ of mountains.
...
The statement “The Stone Maiden, in the dark of night, gives birth to Her Child” refers to the time when the Stone Maiden gives birth to Her Child as ‘in the dark of night’. Generally speaking, there are stones that are male and stones that are female, as well as stones that are neither male nor female, and all of these quite nicely fill up the heavens and fill up the earth. And there are heavenly stones and there are earthly stones, which those who wander without a preconceived goal speak of, though persons who really know them are rare indeed. One needs to understand the principle of Her ‘giving birth to a Child’.

At the time of Her giving birth to the Child, are Parent and Child made separate? You must devote yourself to exploring through your training not only that ‘the Child becoming the Parent’ is the full manifestation of ‘giving birth to the Child’, but also that ‘the time when the Parent becomes the Child’ is the full manifestation of ‘giving birth to the Child’. You must thoroughly penetrate what is being said here.
Shobogenzo, Sansuikyo, Hubert Nearman

Generally speaking, the time of the Dharma’s flowering is inevitably one in which, as the Lotus Scripture puts it, “The parent is young and the child is old.” This does not mean that the child is not a child, nor does it mean that the parent is not a parent: you should simply explore this as “The child is the one who is old and the parent is the one who is young.” Do not follow worldly disbeliefs and thereby be disconcerted, and that which is a worldly disbelief is also a time of the Dharma’s flowering. On account of this, we should make our turning of the Dharma Flower be ‘that singular time when the Buddha was dwelling in the world’. We come pouring forth from the earth when we are aroused by opening up to, manifesting, awakening to, and entering It, and we come pouring forth from the earth when we are aroused by what a Buddha knows through direct experience. At this time of turning the Flower of the Dharma, there is the mind’s awakening due to the Flower of the Dharma, and there is the flowering of the Dharma due to the mind’s awakening.
Shobogenzo, Hokke Ten Hokke, Hubert Nearman

 

Peace,

Ted

Perceiving the Buddhas Expressions of Truth

Perceiving the Buddhas Expressions of Truth

If we can manage to see through and beyond our own presuppositions (or those espoused by popular Zen books and teachers) about the nature of Zen and the significance of the Buddha Dharma, the Mahayana sutras and shastras (treatises, or commentaries) as well as the classic records of Zen can be seen in the clarity with which they are expressed. When Shakyamuni Buddha saw the morning star (which he had seen many, many times before) and realized enlightenment he said, “How wonderful, all beings are the Tathagata (Buddha), it is only their delusions and preoccupations that keep them from testifying to the fact.” The moment before, the moment of, and the moment after his enlightenment, the human being Shakyamuni was the human being Shakyamuni, and the morning star was the morning star; yet each of these three moments present some vastly distinct differences. How was Shakyamuni’s experience of the morning star on this instance so different from all his many previous experiences?

Just as seeing through his delusions and preoccupations allowed Shakyamuni to experience the true nature of the morning star (and himself) for the first time, when we manage to see through our own conditioned views, beliefs, and presuppositions we will find his teachings (and those of his authentic heirs) to be clear, accessible reliable guides along the ancient Way. The nature, dynamics, and nondual interaction (inclusive of and transcendent to both nonduality and duality) of Buddha and human beings is profoundly and clearly elucidated by Dogen in many direct expressions of truth throughout Shobogenzo. Shakyamuni truly saw the morning star when he forgot everything he already “knew” about it; we will truly see his expressions of truth (the Buddha Dharma) only when we forget everything we know about Zen and Buddhism. Cast off all your pre-occupations and pre-conceptions and consider this passage from Shobogenzo, Sangai Yuishin:

The threefold world of the here and now is what we see as the threefold world. ‘What we see’ means our seeing the threefold world as a threefold world. ‘Seeing it as a threefold world’ refers to the threefold world as it manifests right before us, as we manifest it right before us, and as our spiritual question manifests right before our very eyes. We all innately have the ability to make the threefold world be the vehicle for the arising of our spiritual intention, our practice and training, our realizing enlightenment, and our experiencing nirvana. This is why our Great Master Shakyamuni once said in verse:

These three worlds, right now,
Are what we all innately have,
And all sentient beings within them,
Without exception, are My children.

Because these three worlds here and now are what the Tathagata innately had, the whole universe was His threefold world, because the threefold world is the whole universe. ‘Here and now’ encompasses the past, present, and future. The occurring of past, present, and future does not obstruct the here and now, but the occurring of the here and now does obstruct past, present, and future from arising.

That which ‘we innately have’ refers to the whole universe in all ten directions being our real, true Body. It refers to the whole universe in all ten directions being a mendicant monk’s Eye. ‘Sentient beings’ are real, true bodies of the whole universe in all ten directions. Because each and every sentient being is born sentient, they are called ‘sentient beings’.

‘Without exception, they are My children’ means that children are also manifestations of the ceaseless operation of Buddha Nature. Even so, of necessity, children receive their bodies, along with their hair and skin, all unharmed and unbroken, from a compassionate parent. Parents regard this as the child’s fully manifesting. Yet, at this present moment, since there is no parent who is before and no child who is after, nor a child who is before and a parent who is after, nor a parent and child being lined up beside each other, we call this the principle of ‘My children’. Although the body is not something that is given, we receive it; although it is not something that we snatch, we acquire it. It is beyond the characteristics of coming and going, beyond the measure of large and small, beyond discussions of old and young. We should hold to it like the ‘old’ and ‘young’ of the Buddhas and Ancestors. Sometimes there is a parent who is ‘young’ and a child who is ‘old’, or a parent who is ‘old’ and a child who is ‘young’, or a parent who is ‘old’ and a child who is ‘old’, or a parent who is ‘young’ and a child who is ‘young’. One who makes a study of his parent’s ‘agedness’ would not be a child; one who has not seen through the ‘youthfulness’ of his child would not be a parent. The ‘age’ and ‘youth’ of a child, as well as the ‘age’ and ‘youth’ of a parent, must be fully explored, in detail, and without haste.
Shobogenzo, Sangai Yuishin, Hubert Nearman

Zen or Buddhist teachings don’t get much more straightforward than this. The truth expressed here is as obvious as the morning star in the sky. The only confusion we might experience here would be that confusion concocted by our own efforts to try to force this teaching into our previously constructed conceptual notions. As soon as we try to make Dogen (or other Buddhas) say what we mean, rather than what they are expressing, we inevitably subvert truth to falsity. The unity of Buddha and human beings revealed in Dogen’s expressions on practice and enlightenment and Buddha nature and no-Buddha nature are as lucid and straightforward as the parent-child relationship is to parents and children. For those still unclear about his meaning, immediately following his elucidation Dogen breaks it down even further and expresses the truth in terms we cannot fail to understand (provided we drop our presuppositions).

There are parents and children for whom the parent-child relationship emerges at the same time, and there are those for whom the parent-child relationship disappears at the same time, and there are those for whom the parent child relationship emerges at different times, and there are those for whom the parent-child relationship disappears at different times. Without standing against the compassionate parent, one has brought forth ‘my child’, and without standing against ‘my child’, one has brought forth the compassionate parent. There are sentient beings who are mindful, and there are sentient beings who are not mindful; there is my child who is mindful, and there is my child who is not mindful. In this manner, my child and I —and I am also a child—are both the true heirs of our Compassionate Parent Shakyamuni. All beings of the past, present, and future in the whole universe—every last one of them—are the Buddhas of past, present, and future in the whole universe. The children of all Buddhas are sentient beings, and the Compassionate Parents of all sentient beings are Buddhas. Consequently, the flowering and fruiting of the hundreds of things that arise are what all Buddhas have as Their own, and the rocks and stones, large and small, are what all Buddhas have as Their own as well. Their peaceful places are the forests and fields, for They are already free of attachment to forests and fields. Be that as it may, the main point of what the Tathagata said was simply the phrase ‘My children’. You need to thoroughly explore that He never spoke of His being their parent.
Shobogenzo, Sangai Yuishin, Hubert Nearman

Finally, as Buddha is all existence everything we can possibly experience is Buddha. Moreover, the only possible experiencer must also be Buddha. And indeed, this exactly corresponds to Dogen’s teaching about Buddha nature, no-Buddha nature, and the unity of practice and enlightenment. These are only a few examples of the many ways that Dogen illumines that the significance of expressions of truth (the Buddha Dharma) are the significance of the dynamic interaction of Buddha and human beings. Every expression of truth is an expression of the one mind (Buddha, existence-time, the true self, etc.), while every instance of experience is a wholly unique, real, particular thing, being, or event (dharma). Buddha is the universal expression, the total existence of/as human beings; each individual human being is a real, particular instance of Buddha...

Peace,
Ted

Zen and the Perfection of "As It Is-ness" - Dogen's take

The Perfection of Zen's "As It Is-ness"...

---

To see and hear that the living are inevitably mortal is the small view. To be of the opinion that the dead are without thinking and perception is small knowledge. In learning the truth, do not learn such shallow knowledge and small views. There may be those among the living who are immortal, and there may be those among the dead who have thinking and perception.
Shobogenzo, Gyoji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The timidity of those inflicted with self-doubt or attachment to dualistic views causes some to see teachings that refer of human “perfection” as irreverent. From the self-centered perspective perfection can only be envisioned as a kind of super-ego. In contrast, Buddhism views perfection as the authentic actualization of the whole body-mind rather than a particular aspect or specific quality of reality. A willow is perfect insofar as it is a willow “as it is” – that is the whole of space and time exerting itself as a particular willow here and now. Attempting to find the perfection of a willow by isolating and abstracting the “best,” “highest,” or “most essential” quality of willows only defiles the perfection of a willow “as it is.”

The same thing is true of trying to define the perfection of Buddha nature. From the ego-centric standpoint, reality is divided into "subject" and "object", "self" and "other than self." From such a dualistic perspective, perfection can only be envisioned in contrast to, and separate from imperfection, that is, as a conceptual abstraction.

As an abstract concept, perfection lacks reality - it cannot be pictured, experienced, or expressed (perceived, known, or communicated). Lacking real form (thus, real nature), perfection can only be discussed in negative terms such as “inconceivable,” “incommunicable,” “ineffable,” etc. Attempting to substantiate speculative notions theorists sometimes insinuate esoteric knowledge by substituting negative terms and obscure generalizations such as “undifferentiated-oneness,” “undefiled-goodness,” “pure-awareness,” etc. This kind of perfection only succeeds in eradicating the reality of particularity and differentiation – the “skull littered field” of Zen parlance. In contrast to this, Shobogenzo portrays perfection in a vision that harmonizes with the classic Zen records.

Thus it was that Shakyamuni Buddha once addressed His great assembly, saying, “I, on My own, have come to know how It appears, as every Buddha in the ten quarters has also done.” You need to know that the appearance referred to in His statement “I, on My own, have come to know how It appears” is the appearance of That which is fully perfected. The appearance of perfection is, as the saying goes, “This cane of bamboo is on the tall side whereas that cane of bamboo is on the short side.” The Way of the Buddhas in the ten quarters is synonymous with giving full expression to the saying, “I, on My own, have come to know how It appears, which was the same for Shakyamuni Buddha.” It is “I, on My own, have awakened to this appearance, and Buddhas in Their own domains are also like this.” It is the way ‘I’ appears, the way ‘knowing’ appears, the way ‘this’ appears, the way ‘all’ appears, the way ‘this ordinary worldly country of ours’ appears, the way ‘Shakyamuni Buddha’ appears.

The underlying principle of this is what the Buddhist Scriptures give voice to. The Buddhas, along with Their Buddha lands, are beyond duality, beyond being sentient or nonsentient, beyond being deluded or enlightened, beyond being good, bad, or neutral, beyond being pure or sullied, beyond being something created and beyond being something permanently abiding, beyond yearning for things and beyond there being nothing to yearn for, beyond permanence and impermanence, beyond existence and non-existence, and beyond self. They are apart from the four phrases—there is existence, there is no existence, there is both existence and nonexistence, and there is neither existence nor non-existence—as well as apart from the one hundred ways of negating. They are simply nothing other than the ten quarters, nothing other than the Buddha lands. Thus, the ten quarters are nothing other than what they are, just as we humans are: we have heads but no tails.
Shobogenzo, Jippo, Hubert Nearman

As humans “we have heads but no tails,” stones have color but no leaves, bamboo has joints but no legs; each is perfect “as it is.” Clear seeing “as it is” is perfect clear seeing, which Dogen calls “prajna itself.” To exist “as is” is to “exist as experienced.”

In sum, “perfection” in Buddhism has less to do with the quality of a thing (dharma) and more to do with the whole actuality of a thing; perfection is the measure to which a dharma is “as it is.” Perfection is not “purity,” “uniformity,” “cleanliness,” etc., “it is beyond being pure or sullied, good or bad,” the perfection of a thing is the total exertion of the “as it isness” of that thing.

In grateful thanks to Master Dogen once again - Nine Full Bows

Peace,

Ted

The Homeland of the Self

There has never been any real division

Nic asked, “How do we cease conceptualization and become one with the unnamable void?”

Louie Wing said, “First of all, you do not ‘become one with the void’. You are the void. Awakening is just realizing the fact. The unnamable void is your own mind. When you conceptualize, you are abstracting partial aspects from the whole. That is, you are dividing the one true reality into this and that, self and other. This can be done skillfully only when you realize that in reality, there are no such divisions.

“When you cease conceptualizing, you realize that your own awareness is pure, clear, and luminescent, that it is the unnamable void. You then grasp the fact that all the myriad things are not separate from the void, but are in fact the void itself. All the myriad things are nothing other than your own miraculous awareness, which is infinitely vast and eternally present.

“Once you realize your own identity with the unnamable void, you realize that there has never been any real division between things and times, self and other-than-self. All such divisions are merely delusions based on conceptualization. Then, knowing your own unity with all things and events, you enter any environment and participate in any activity without ever leaving what Dogen called, ‘the homeland of the self’.”

~The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing Peace, Ted

Emptiness is Form; Self is Other

As Dogen students quickly realize, Dogen’s writings are brim full of references to a “state” or “condition” that he calls “the body and mind of ‘self’ and ‘other’ falling away.” In fact, this phrase is so frequently repeated one can become desensitized to its profound significance. For this reason I would like to suggest a few points that may be helpful to be attentive to when meeting this expression in Dogen’s works.

First, in Dogen’s usage, “the body and mind of ‘self’” is always inclusive of “the body and mind of ‘other’ than self” (i.e. the myriad dharmas). To hold a view that it would be possible to let our own body-mind fall away but not the body-mind of the external world would be inherently dualistic (it would be similarly dualistic to suppose the body-mind of the external world could fall away apart from the body mind of self). Being dualistic, such view are regarded by Dogen as being non-Buddhist.

We stated that Dogen’s allusions to the “falling away of body-mind” always implies the context of the self and the external world; we now want to underscore that point by extending this to include all his references to the body-mind of individuals, or the “self” of human beings. The reason this is significant is that it clarifies the important distinction between the ego-centric “self” (unawakened human beings commonly called “ordinary beings”), and the universal or true “self” (commonly called “Buddhas”).

When Dogen speaks of the personal “self” (shinjin; the individual body-mind), It is important to understand that this is the “self” of “self and other” (self and world). The personal body-mind “self” is only and always an inherent aspect of the nonduality of “self and other than self.”

As the two nondual “aspects”, or (to adopt Hee-Jin Kim’s suggestion) “foci,” self and other are coessential; if one is raised, both are raised, of one is eliminated, both are eliminated. At the same time, each maintains its own distinct characteristics; that is, although each always the other, neither of them alters or interferes with the particularity of the other – “self” and “other” are mutually inclusive and nonobstructive. Thus, the Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa fascicle, for example, tells us:

The many kinds of right are “good doing” but they are neither of the doer nor known by the doer, and they are neither of the other nor known by the other. As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other, and thus individual vigorous eyes exist in the sun and in the moon. This state is “good doing” itself. At just this moment of “good doing” the realized universe exists but it is not “the creation of the universe,” and it is not “the eternal existence of the universe.”
Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The point concern the present discussion is illustrated by the line, “As regards the knowing and the seeing of the self and of the other, in knowing there is the self and there is the other, and in seeing there is the self and there is the other…”

Thus, to experience (know or see) a “self” or an “other” – there must be both a “self” and an “other” experienced (seen or known). A “self” cannot be experienced alone, an “other” cannot exist independent of a self – therefore, when Dogen says “self” he means “self/other,” when he says “other” he also means “self/other.”

Peace,
Ted