Zen Without Koans Like Christianity Without Christ

Zen without koans is like Christianity without Christ

A visiting Zen monk asked, “In the Rinzai School of Zen they introspect koans. In the Soto sect we are taught that introspecting koans in meditation only leads to intellectual understanding and diverts us from true, objectless meditation. Do you think that koans are even necessary in Zen?”

Louie Wing said, “Zen without koans would be like Christianity without Christ. The koan literature and practice methods are really the only major factor that distinguishes Zen from the other Mahayana Buddhist schools. If you are attracted to a path that does not utilize koans, fine, but why call it Zen?”

The monk said, “We don’t disregard koans; we just don’t use them for objects of meditation.”

Louie Wing said, “If you distinguish meditation from no meditation then you turn meditation itself into an object.”

.

The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing by Ted Biringer, p.151

Experience, The True Self, & The Individual Self

Experience, The True Self, & The Individual Self

.

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

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

Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

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

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

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

.

I hope this is helpful.

Peace,
Ted

Dharmas and the Self (or Not-Self; Anatman)

Dharmas and the Self

.

[This article was revised and adapted from the Flatbed Zen Newsletter – available at our sister blog, The Flatbed Sutra Zen Blog]

 .

Our usage of the term “dharma”

.

In Buddhist literature the term "dharma" has many meanings; its meaning in a particular instance is usually most clearly discerned by its context. The meaning of the term "dharma" concerning us here is one of the most common –– that is as a general signifier for distinct particularities, occasions, or entities; any specific datum that can be singled out, pointed to, imagined, etc. Thus, a human being is a dharma, so is a minute, a century, a unicorn, a flower, a phone call, a rock, a dream, a universe, and an imaginary friend. In short, the usage of the term “dharma” in this post is confined to its indication of particular things, beings, and instances.

.

Dharmas: The Fundamental Constituents of the Self

.

Dharmas (particularities) are the first thing with which Zen doctrine and methodology must be concerned. The Buddhist doctrine of emptiness (shunyata) is commonly regarded as the starting point for Buddhist study. The Buddhist teachings on emptiness elucidate the truth that all dharmas are empty of self (own being); thus, these teachings presuppose an understanding of the Buddhist notion of dharmas. It is the insight of dharmas as the most fundamental constituents of reality that the doctrine of emptiness accounts for; Buddhism affirms dharmas as the true nature of the world and self, and appeals to the teachings of emptiness to account for the reasoning thereof.

The self, or non-self (anatman), has been identified with dharmas since the earliest Buddhist teachings. This identification remains central in all Buddhist traditions. While details and emphasis regarding the nature of dharmas often varies widely among schools the fundamental insight is the same – the self is constituted of dharmas and is actualized by dharmas. In short, dharmas are not only what the world and the self is, they are the means whereby the world and the self manifest.

In experiencing the world of dharmas the self experiences itself; in truly recognizing this, the self verifies that she is of dharmas, and abides within dharmas – when dharmas are truly seen as dharmas the division between “self” and “other than self” is absent (i.e. reality ceases to be conceptually divided into “self” and “not-self”).

As the essence and form of the self and the other, dharmas are autochthonous; that is, dharmas originate in and inhabit the location and time in which they are experienced. The source of the self, then, is also its homeland; the myriad dharmas. The dynamics of the self-luminous, self-generating (autochthonous) nature of dharmas is comprehensively treated by Dogen’s teaching of “self-fulfilling samadhi.” The focus of the present post is that all dharmas are real and all realities are dharmas – thus dharmas are their own reason (dori), their own cause and effect, their own meaning, their own value.

This is, of course, inconsistent with the prevailing world view which has an inherent propensity to regard all manner of dharmas as mere representatives of a reality rather than reality itself. This is most apparent in notions about language; words, names, teachings, etc., which are commonly viewed as symbols that only represent, stand for, or point to “realities,” but lack intrinsic value in themselves. The same reasoning, however, is central in nearly every arena of human interest. This results from the almost universal acceptance of the “representation” theory of knowledge presupposed in nearly every field of modern science as well as those of the arts. Just as words, names, reports, etc. are regarded as mere representatives for “real” things, beings, or events (i.e. dharmas) in the (objective) world, so too perceptions of the world are regarded as representatives – reconstructions – of the “actual” objects (i.e. dharmas) that exist in the “real” world.

For example, according to the common view the flower seen is not the “real” flower but a re-presentation of it created by the mind (or brain) with data provided to by the senses, in addition to the mind’s own capacity to “fill in” gaps not provided by the senses due to inherent limitations of the sense organs (e.g. the eyeball’s limited peripheral range, physical blind spots, etc.).

There is no account offered for why it is that the mind (or brain) is “smart enough” to fill in the “rest of the picture,” but is not smart enough to “get the picture” without going through the effort of filling in gaps… And, for whom does the mind make all this effort to provide the “representation” to? Well, according to the scientific theory, the mind creates the representation to provide it to itself.

When, in addition to this naïve, irrational conception of knowledge, we consider the widely accepted notions about the nature of thought (and emotion), it is easy to see the reasons for the massive intellectual, emotional, and spiritual poverty of modern civilization. Where Buddhism regards thoughts as dharmas perceived by the mind (which is regarded by Buddhism as a sense organ), the common view regards thoughts as unique, even vastly different from other perceptions – where the common view regards the perception of a flower as not the “real” flower but at least a representation of a real flower, thoughts are not even considered as representing anything real. Further, in the modern world view the reality and reliability of thought is commonly subjected to serious doubt, and often regarded and treated as inherently misleading.

Now, if thoughts are unreliable, and language and perception do not present reality to us, what means could reliably provide any knowledge of the “real” world? Notice also; if thought were truly unreliable then any notion (i.e. thought) about our inability to perceive reality could not be trusted – moreover, if such a notion could be verified, it would, thereby, render itself unreliable!

The common world view misses the mark by presupposing that an “objective” world or universe exists independent of (and generally impervious to) subjective experience. The “representation” theory implies that human beings are forever barred from any direct experience of “reality” and therefore inexorably confined to speculating about the true nature of a world. The reality of the “objective” world, according to this notion, can only be inferred through the analysis of perceptions, assumed to “re-present” real objects of that world, constructed by the mind (or brain) from impressions that are assumed to be after-effects of the “real” world’s influence on the sense organs.

The Zen perspective is diametrically counter to the common view. Zen refuses to engage in mere hypothetical speculation, much less accept it as first principle of truth. More, Zen discourages such speculation by deriding the folly of unnecessarily entertaining conceptual notions that are inherently unverifiable, thus irrelevant. Recognizing that any “reality” existing independent of human perception would, by definition, have no influence on human existence, Zen exhorts us to focus on the one reality that is actually relevant to human existence. Zen calls our attention to the myriad dharmas – the sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts – constituting the only reality that has ever actually been experienced; the world and the self being experienced here and now.

To recognize dharmas as the source, manifestation, and destination of the self and the world is to see the ultimate significance of even the most prosaic things, beings, and events. Corollary with this recognition is an intimacy of kinship with each and all dharmas – a natural identification with the world, a certain understanding that the self and the myriad dharmas are of one family.

In recognition of the primacy of dharmas, we strongly encourage practitioners to follow the guidance of the classic Zen masters who frequently return to, emphasize, and insist on the importance of maintaining awareness of the nature of dharmas and the implications of that nature. To this end, we now summarize the main points here observed concerning dharmas, and follow this with a few clarifications.

A dharma is a fundamental constituent of reality apart from which nothing exists; if it exists, it must be a dharma, and if it is a dharma, it must exist.

A dharma is an actual and particular instance of reality, an observable (i.e. intelligible) phenomenon in/of space and time.

A dharma is autochthonous, its origin is precisely the location and time (uji; existence-time) of its appearance; all things (i.e. the world and the self) have their source in dharmas, a dharma is its own source.

Some Clarifications Concerning the Nature Dharmas

To preclude some of the more common misunderstandings related to the points discussed, a few brief clarifications on the nature of dharmas is merited here.

First, the description of dharmas as the fundamental constituents of reality is meant unconditionally, thus, it does not leave open the possibility for the existence of a “force,” “essence,” or “nature” more fundamental than dharmas. Because dharmas are always particular, they are usually referred to in terms of “elements,” “constituents,” or “units,” rather than “natures,” “forces,” or “essences.” This usage of terms, however, should be regarded as undermining the primary significance qualifying dharmas as being “most fundamental.” The primary purpose of pointing out dharmas as the most fundamental elements of reality is to clarify that dharmas are not constituted of anything more fundamental than themselves. In short, dharmas are not “made up of” more basic elements or any subtler essence, nature, or force. Insofar as any essence, nature, or force is existent, it too must have its source in, and thus, be qualified as a particular dharma. The significant implication here is that as fundamental instances of reality, dharmas cannot be understood, explained, or defined by, or according to any “other” constituent whatsoever, elements or essences. In sum, dharmas are not made of anything other than what they are – dharmas are dharmas through and through.

Next, recognizing every phenomenon (i.e. every form, sound, smell, taste, feeling, and thought) as a dharma, and every dharma as an actual and particular instance of reality has several crucial implications. One, it makes it incumbent to regard every dharma as of equal status concerning the authenticity of its actuality (true nature); the import being a total absence of superiority and inferiority among dharmas concerning their true nature. Two, it renders as unnecessary any obligation to account for any evolutionary or developmental process whereby dharmas experience some form of progression or sophistication from a primordial or elementary condition; being “as they are” from the beginning, dharmas are impervious to reductionism from the start. Three, it puts an end to any and all debates involving speculative notions of unknowable realities or unverifiable laws and forces; if something really exists, it is a dharma, hence, an observable, intelligible phenomenon.

Finally, to acknowledge the truth of the autochthonous nature of dharmas is to recognize the fallacy of all forms of nominalism; no dharma can be the mere representative, symbol, or signifier of a reality other than itself. Every dharma, including words, names, ideas, perceptions, signs, mental images, and anything else that can described, pointed to, or singled out in any way is – as it is – an instance of existence-time, a manifest expression of Buddha. The import here is that dharmas are their own reason (dori), their own cause and effect, their own meaning, their own value.

I hope this is helpful.

Peace,

Ted

Zen is not Obscure, Incommunicable, or Esoteric

.
Nothing in the whole universe is hidden or obscure...

Nothing is hidden or obscure. The teachings of authentic Zen masters is straightforward and easy to understand; Buddha is our body-mind, and this body-mind is the mountain, the wall, or whatever things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas) constitute our experience here and now.

The mind that is sun, moon, and stars is simply sun, moon, and stars: there is no fog nor is there any mist to obscure its clarity.

~Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Nearman

Is it really that simple? The eyes are horizontal, the nose is vertical.

Now you know clearly: what is called ‘mind’ is the great earth with its mountains and rivers; it is the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Nearman
.

There is nothing hazy or obscure, much less "incommunicable" or "unknowable" concerning the true nature of the self and the world. Look, look! Listen, listen!

Peace,
Ted

Dogen: Existence-Time and Dharma-Transmission

Existence-Time and Dharma-Transmission

To fully appreciate of Dogen’s view of Dharma-transmission it needs to be understood within the context of the nonduality of the temporal and the eternal as presented by the essential doctrine of “existence-time” (uji). “Uji” or “existence-time” is Dogen’s uniquely dynamic vision of the nondual nature of existence (ontology, being, place [space, location]) and time (temporality, chronology, temporology).1

Many, if not most Zen students are familiar with the Dogen’s unique teaching about existence-time due to the fact that the Shobogenzo fascicle of the same name – “Uji” – was one of the earliest, and has proven to be one of the most numerous, translations made available.2 “Knowing of” Dogen’s teaching on existence-time, however, is not the same as accurately understanding it, much less verifying it in experience and incorporating it in practice-enlightenment.3

Briefly then, the significance of “existence-time” (uji) is given a central position in Dogen’s vision of Zen cosmology. This means, for one thing, that all of the implications of Dogen’s view of existence-time are presupposed as intrinsic to all his teachings.

Now, the point we want to get at is this; Dogen’s teaching on “Dharma-transmission” – when seen from within his view of existence-time – presents a remarkably dynamic vision of the universe as an ever-present activity of becoming Buddha. In short “becoming Buddha” is not something limited to the present time, not something that will cease in the future, nor something that will vanish in the past – becoming Buddha now (i.e. in the present) is not independent of becoming Buddha then (i.e. in the past or future). For Dogen then, “Dharma-transmission” describes the coordinating activity of becoming Buddha as the inherent “virtue of ascending and descending” (the up and down, or forward and back flow of “time”) of each and all things, beings, and events (dharmas) exist.

In short, the Dharma is not merely something that Buddhas and ancestors “pass on” from the past, to the present, and into the future; Dharma is also transmitted from the present to the past, and from the future to the present and the past. Thus Dogen is able to express this astonishing vision for instance:

The succession of the Dharma by ancestral patriarchs is forty patriarchs from the Seven Buddhas to Sokei and forty buddhas from Sokei to the Seven Buddhas. Because each of the Seven Buddhas has the virtue of ascending and of descending, they extend to Sokei and extend to the Seven Buddhas. Because Sokei has the virtue of ascending and of descending, he receives the authentic transmission from the Seven Buddhas, he receives the authentic transmission from Sokei, and he passes the authentic transmission to later buddhas. But it is beyond only former and later. At the time of Sakyamuni Buddha, all the buddhas of the ten directions are present; at the time of Seigen, Nangaku is present; at the time of Nangaku, Seigen is present; and so on—at the time of Sekito, Kozei is present. Their not hindering each other may be different from having no connection. We should investigate the presence of such virtue. Each of the forty Buddhist patriarchs mentioned above is an eternal buddha. At the same time, each has a mind, a body, a state of brightness, and a national land. Each has passed away long ago and has never passed away at all. It may be that both never having passed away, and having passed away long ago, are equally the virtue of an eternal buddha. Those who learn in practice the truth of eternal buddhas realize in experience the truth of eternal buddhas; they are the eternal buddhas of each age. Although the “eternal” of “eternal buddhas” is exactly the same as the “old” in “new and old,” [eternal buddhas] have completely transcended past and present; they belong directly in eternity.

Shobogenzo, Kobusshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Notes

1.      “Temporology” is the term applied to the “science of time” inspired by Dr Kozyrev and under active investigation at Moscow State Univeristy, which offers this brief definition on their website: “In our understanding, the ‘nature’ of time is the mechanism [that brings about] appearing changes and occurring newness in the world. To understand the ‘nature’ of time is to point to … a process, a phenomenon, a ‘carrier’ in the material world whose properties could be identified or corresponded with those of time.”

2.      The “Uji” fascicle of is probably second in popularity only to “Genjokoan” – the other popular Dogen work, “Bendowa” is not a Shobogenzo fascicle.

3.      Even the first step of incorporating the reality of existence-time (i.e. achieving an accurate understanding) cannot really be accomplished with the “Uji” fascicle alone – for “Uji” is but one chapter (fascicle, part, section) of a single, complex, literary expression consisting of (at least) seventy-four other chapters.

Peace,

Ted

The Dharma-Eye: Seeing Clearly, Clearly Seeing

Our world view is not simply the way we look at the world. It reaches inward to constitute our innermost being, and outward to constitute the world.

~Richard Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche, p.16

So life is what I am making it, and I am what life is making me.

...

What has been described like this is that life is the self, and the self is life.

~Dogen, Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


Peace,
Ted

Meeting An Eternal Buddha

Meeting An Eternal Buddha

[Excerpt from the newsletter – Flatbed Sutra Zen News, Dec. 2011

If, as Buddhism contends, self and other are nondual (not two) then regarding the other as self and self as other is normal, and doing otherwise is abnormal (the "other" is not only other people, but everything "other than" the self).

One practical implication of seeing (thus regarding) the other as self would be the great diminishment of greed and fear; there would be nothing to covet as everything would already be "ours" (true self) and there would be nothing to fear but our self. This would liberate us from a great deal of anguish, but the even greater result would be the opening of a vast new dimension of existence wherein our life experience would be enormously expanded and enhanced.

Awakening to a world in harmony with the vision of Shobogenzo would be to awaken to a world populated with an infinite number and diversity of conscious beings, all capable, even desirous, of intimate embrace. Thus, there is no need to go to India or Japan to meet an "eternal Buddha" - look, that pebble! There she is! Here, this tile! Here he is!

If we want to inquire into this mind, it is present in visible fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles; and if we want to experience this mind, it is present in the realization of fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles. Now, though these fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles are produced by human beings, at the same time they are words and deeds of Dharma.

...
In sum, fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles on this side are illuminating us as yonder objects; and we on this side are being illuminated by fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles as yonder objects. The fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles that exist like this as the mind of eternal buddhas are conspicuous in their brightness and in their merits, and so we can enumerate those [merits] that are numerable and we can remember those that are knowable.
Himitsu-shobogenzo, Butsu-kojo-no-ji

Peace,

Ted

Zen Language, Thinking, and Reason

Zen Language, Thinking, and Reason

Contrary to certain popular anti-intellectual notions espoused by some within the contemporary Zen community, language, thinking, and reason – being dharmas as they are – are as essential to practice-enlightenment as every other actual element of Zen, including the practice of meditation (however that may be defined). Thinking people that have dismissed Zen because of popularized images of Zen's irrationality and antithetical attitude toward conceptual and intellectual endeavors are encouraged to reconsider Zen teachings - as expressed in its classic literature, rather than as “interpreted” by contemporary representatives. For genuine Zen masters are no different than the sages of any tradition sincerely interested in truth; thus, the classic records of Zen insist that authentic wisdom is only discovered (or evoked) by those with the true aspiration (bodhicitta) necessary for the sustained, wholehearted – and whole-minded – effort to grasp “the whole universe” (a dharma) as “a concept” (a dharma) once, twice, and a “third and fourth time” causing it to open here and now.

When, at this very moment, we glimpse the whole universe in ten directions, the situation is one that we have never experienced before: by grasping the whole universe in ten directions once and twice as a concept and a third and fourth time as a concrete thing, we cause it to open the gate of expedient methods.

~Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

In this sense, the classic Zen masters are in full agreement with Blake:

Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained; and the restrainer or reason usurps its place & governs the unwilling.

And being restrain'd it by degrees becomes passive till it is only the shadow of desire.

~William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Only a sincere desire to settle one’s own doubts, a genuine aspiration for personal certainty can furnish us with the energy and skill to “investigate it three times over” – and once this is truly actualized, there is no doubt that cannot be resolved.

Now, without directing a question to anyone else, imagine your own doubt to be a statement. Treat it as the assertion of another person and investigate it three times over, and you may find that you are rid of it already. The aforementioned thought is not an evil thought; it is just a thought at a time before clarification. And at the time of clarification, there is no effort to get rid of this thought. Opening flowers and falling leaves are naturally opening flowers and falling leaves. Thinking in which it is thought that in the Dharma-nature there can be no “opening flowers and falling leaves, is the Dharma-nature itself.

~Shobogenzo, Hossho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Obviously, one cannot find something that one does not look for, and it is equally obvious that one cannot look for something one does not know exists. Attempting to apply Zen methods without understanding the reason (dori) one is doing so (not as infrequent as one might imagine) is not likely to result in anything more injurious than a strained knee. However, as the history of Zen in the “West” demonstrates, the outcome of attempting to apply Zen methods with deluded, simplistic, or distorted understandings of the reason for doing so (as is often encouraged by pseudo-Zen teachers) is not always so benign. While the mental, psychological, and financial torments suffered at the hands of exploitive teachers and sectarian cults have been extensively publicized and remarked upon to be familiar to even the casual reader, a number of subtler occurrences even more destructive and pernicious has gone largely unchallenged.

The “subtler occurrences” I speak of are the promotion of doctrines and methods that foster views and practices that lead to antinomian behavior at one extreme and quietist escapism at the other.  As the very nature of these destructive elements make them insensitive to language, thinking, and reason, they are inherently resistant to detection and, more significantly, extremely unresponsive to curative treatment.

The nearly universal ignorance of the nature of mythical language inherent to the common world view in combination with the prevalence of nominalism is particularly revealing in this case. A number of metaphorical (mythical) Zen expressions have proven to be extremely effective “sound-bites” when ripped out of their living, mythological context, melted down, and cast into golden calves.

For example, consider the Buddhist teaching of “practical wisdom.” The Buddhist notion of practical wisdom involves the cultivation of “responsibility” (the ability to respond) wherein practitioners develop and refine the knowledge and skill to respond appropriately and naturally (rather than according to fixed codes or formulas) in the ceaseless unfolding of reality here and now. Some (metaphorical) Zen expressions designating practical wisdom (or aspects of it) are, “as it is” and “just this” (seeing things as they are, rather than assigning them to a category), “not knowing” and “don’t know” (avoiding the preconceptions and prejudices of fixed codes, dogmas, narrow-views, and biases). Stripped of their mythical significance such expressions (or variations of them) have become literal platitudes mouthed by whole communities of “Zennists.”

Other examples include “nothing special” and “everyday mind” (metaphors indicative of the sacred or divine nature of even the most prosaic dharmas), “just sitting” (a mythic image depicting the self non-dually seated in/as the world; self/world), “no goal” and “letting be” (metaphors presenting the entangling potential of preconceived notions and unmerited expectations). We stated that the combination of factors involved in these destructive elements were “particularly revealing” because the actual result achieved by those practitioners that literalize these mythic expressions is literally “as it is” (i.e. literal) – thus, “not knowing” is literally not knowing (sheer ignorance), “just sitting” is literally just sitting (a mere physical posture), and “nothing special” is literally nothing special (average, typical, mundane, and mediocre).

Peace,
Ted

Deconstructive and Reconstructive aspects of Emptiness

Deconstructive and Reconstructive aspects of Emptiness

Characteristic of Dogen’s unrelenting commitment to “right-views” or the “true-eye” is his frequent, unequivocal insistence that “authenticity” of practice-enlightenment is the only criteria for gauging the Buddha-Dharma.

Dogen’s own adherence to this maxim is clearly demonstrated by his refusal to avoid complex challenges, sidestep unpleasant aspects, or water-down unpopular implications of Buddhist truths. If the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness is authentic, as Dogen contends, it must be applied universally (i.e. to all dharmas), which means, for one thing, that it must be applied to the doctrine of emptiness itself. And, while an intellectual understanding of emptiness is “not enough” – even this necessary first step cannot be considered complete prior to the “experiential verification of emptiness” which is itself only the beginning of the authentic wisdom of emptiness according to Dogen’s standards.

It would be no stretch to suggest that Dogen would view total ignorance of emptiness as preferable to wrong or partial (biased) notions of emptiness. As the works of Hee-Jin Kim demonstrate, for Dogen the liberating potential of emptiness is only actualized with the transcendence of the “deconstructive” experience of emptiness and advance into the “reconstructive” experience of emptiness – and even this actualizes only the potential of liberation. Thus it is that the reconstructive aspect of emptiness – which itself is continuously “cast-off” and “totally exerted” – as the only aspect of emptiness with  practical liberating potential, is what Dogen directed his energy to transmitting.

The terms “deconstructive” and “reconstructive” (aspects of emptiness) designate two foci (focal points) of a single experiential process. This process can be envisioned as beginning from the common (unawakened) perspective wherein the self and the other are misperceived as separate entities, from here it proceeds to the initial experience of emptiness (i.e. the deconstructive mode) -often referred to in Zen as the “great death” - wherein self and other “drop away,”  then, advancing through the “great death,” proceeding to the enlightened (awakened) perspective wherein self and other are experienced as they are (thusness): nondual (not two).

Here, then, one experientially realizes the truth that self and other are not different realities, but rather distinct foci of one (nondual) reality (i.e. nonduality/duality). From the enlightened (reconstructive) perspective one perceives the same reality that is perceived from the common perspective - but now in context of the insight actualized through the (deconstructive) experience of emptiness.

Peace,

Ted

Koans, Zen Cosmology, and Practice-Enlightenment Here and Now

Koans, Zen Cosmology, and Practice-Enlightenment Here and Now

To be adequate for authentic practice-enlightenment in our everyday world here and now our vision of Dogen’s cosmology requires us to bring his vision forward (and westward) by seeing it through the accumulated insights of the “grand discussion” (and seeing them through it). So too our vision must extend backward (and eastward) through Dogen’s predecessors within the various Buddhist traditions, as well as those among the great eastern traditions of Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism and others.

Most importantly our vision through Dogen’s predecessors must be inclusive of the Zen Buddhist tradition as presented in the classic records of the Zen ancestors from the prehistoric “seven Buddhas” through the historical Shakyamuni Buddha and his Indian successors, beginning with Mahakashapa and continuing through Bodhidharma, then to Bodhidharma’s Chinese successors, beginning with Huike, then down through the sixth Chinese ancestor, Huineng and his successors, then on through the five major ancestral lines. From among the voluminous literary production of the Zen tradition, the “koan” related literature, the most distinctive element of Zen as an independent tradition, is far and away Dogen’s greatest influence, thus is of particular importance to our understanding of his Zen cosmology.

The special significance of the koan literature is its powerful capacity to cut through barriers of conceptualization and make bodhi-prajna (enlightened wisdom) an immediate, intimate experience, rather than conveying a teaching that must then be verified or worked out practically – resolving a koan, in contrast to learning through study and cultivation, begins with the true nature of things and works out the implications from there, whereas conventional learning begins with implications and works toward the true nature of things. This does not mean that koan training can replace ordinary conventional study, both are essential to authentic practice-enlightenment, and in fact since koan training is an exacting method requiring accurate understanding and skill, conventional study and cultivation must necessarily precede successful koan training – as well as supplement that training in the past, present, and future that is only and always here and now.

Peace,

Ted

The Dharma-Eye: Buddhas and Ordinary Beings

The Dharma-Eye: Buddhas and Ordinary Beings

According to Dogen, "Buddhas" and "ordinary beings" are distinct insofar as the former are "enlightened about delusion" while the later are "deluded about enlightenment." This distinction recognizes the real differences between awakened and unawakened beings; it does not, however, imply a real separation between Buddhas and ordinary beings.

To see reality with the Dharma-Eye is to see through it (by means of it). Dogen quoted the Buddha and commented as follows:

Shakyamuni Buddha once said in verse:

If any people give voice to this Discourse

Then they will surely be able to see Me.

But to express It for the sake of even one person

Is indeed something difficult for them to do.

So it follows from this that to be able to express the Dharma is to see Shakyamuni Buddha because, when 'such a one' comes to see 'Me', he is Shakyamuni Buddha.

~Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Iigi, Hubert Nearman
 

From the unawakened perspective, Buddhas and ordinary beings are separate entities, from the awakened perspective, Buddhas and ordinary beings are nondual (not two). According to Dogen the apparent gap between the reality experienced by Buddhas and the reality experienced by humans is but a misperception of reality.

Even if we misunderstand that it might be beyond the triple world, that is completely impossible. Inside, outside, and middle, beginning, middle, and end; all are the triple world. The triple world is as the triple world is seen, and a view of something other than the triple world is a mistaken view of the triple world. While in the triple world, we see views of the triple world as old nests and see views of the triple world as new twigs. The old nests were visions of the triple world, and a new twig is also a vision of the triple world.

~Shobogenzo Sangai-yuishin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

In contrast to some contemporary Zen teachers, Dogen says the (triple) world (the world we inhabit) is as it is seen. He does not say that the real universe is not as it is seen, or that it is "as it is" regardless of how it is seen - the real universe is as it is seen. If a being sees a body of water, the real universe is a body of water; if another being sees the same aspect of the material world as a palace, the real universe is a palace.

To speak in general, what people see as a mountain or as water differs in various ways. There are those who, upon catching sight of what I am calling 'the Water', see It as a string of pearls, but they fail to see such a necklace as the Water. They undoubtedly consider the form in which we humans perceive something as what the Water is. What they see as a pearl necklace, I see as the Water. And there are those who see the Water as a wondrous flower, but this does not mean that they are using an actual flower for the Water. Hungry ghosts, upon encountering the Water, may see It as a raging inferno, or as thick, congealing blood. Dragons and other denizens of the deep may see It as a palace or as a stately mansion. Some may see It as the Seven Treasures or as the Wish-fulfilling Jewel, and others as various sorts of trees, or as fences and walls, and others as the immaculate, liberated Dharma Nature, and others as someone's True Body, and others as someone's physical appearance along with that person's mental nature. When humans see the Water via any of these means, this can be the cause of their liberation from commonplace 'life'.

~Shobogenzo,Sansuikyo, Hubert Nearman

The reality of the universe is not something inherent in "what is seen," the reality of the universe is "as it is seen.” There is no reality of the universe existing behind what is experienced by us.

Therefore, to see something as "other than" the real universe (the triple world) is to see a real mistaken view of the world; that is, to see the real universe as a "mistaken view" of the real universe as it is. If a being mistakenly sees Buddha, for example, as "other than" their self, the real universe is truly seen as a mistaken view of Buddha (as well as self). A Buddha ancestor is "enlightened about delusion" because she "clearly sees" the real universe as the real universe, the unawakened being is "deluded about enlightenment" because she "mistakenly sees" the real universe as something other than the real universe.

The distinction between awakened beings and unawakened beings is the distinction between the "normal (healthy) mind" and the “abnormal (deluded) mind.” The mind of the Buddha is normal because it harmonizes with the true nature of reality. When Zen masters say the Buddha cannot be found outside our minds, they are transmitting the truth that Buddhas and demonstrate (or exemplify) the liberating potential inherent in all beings – as Buddha can only be realized within ourselves, so only through the demonstration of Buddhas can we see how Buddha is realized.

A person who has got the Dharma is one individual true eternal buddha here and now, and as such should not be met as someone from the past... As regards attainment of the truth, both [men and women] attain the truth, and we should just profoundly revere every single person who has attained the Dharma. Do not discuss man and woman. This is one of Buddhism's finest Dharma standards.

~Shobogenzo, Raihai-tokuzui, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

According to Dogen, Buddha-nature is the totality of existence-time, it is each dharma and all dharmas; no element, experience, or being lacks Buddha nature. Thus, attempting to stifle, dampen, cut out, or eradicate specific aspects, elements, or qualities of the world or the self is not only a denial of humanity, but a denial of Buddha-nature. Such denial can only be achieved by an avoidance of reality – much better, according to the Zen masters, to achieve “normality” by activating the Dharma-Eye that sees, experiences, expresses, and actualizes the wisdom and compassion of Buddhahood.

Peace, Ted

Encouraging Words from Dogen

Encouraging Words from Dogen

Realization in practice like this is just “mind here and now is buddha” picking itself up and authentically transmitting itself to “mind here and now is buddha.” Authentically transmitted like this, it has arrived at the present day. “The mind that has been authentically transmitted” means one mind as all dharmas, and all dharmas as one mind.

Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Let us quietly consider whether our own present life, and the miscellaneous real dharmas that are coexisting with this life, are part of life or not part of life. . . . There is nothing, not a single moment nor a single dharma, that is not part of life. There is nothing, not a single matter nor a single state of mind, that is not part of life.

…
So life is what I am making it, and I am what life is making me. While I am sailing in the boat, my body and mind and circumstances and self are all essential parts of the boat; and the whole earth and the whole of space are all essential parts of the boat. What has been described like this is that life is the self, and the self is life.

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Peace,

Ted