Zen Buddhism Dogen and the Shobogenzo

One Bright Pearl

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 18:47:00 +0000

Fortunately, the true potential of mythopoeism as well as the limitations of literalism continues to be disclosed and communicated at an exponential rate, thanks to ongoing efforts in the fields of psychology and comparative mythology, as well as related developments within the spheres to the biological and cognitive sciences, which continue to enjoy a great increase of interest.

Even in the absence of these advances, however, most of us can recognize a clarifying, enlightening capacity is intrinsic to metaphoric language if we simply devote a little time considering the plain facts. For

instance, when a friend informs us that sunrise was at 0615 we naturally grasp the truth of the expression, even though it is literally nonsense; we know the sun does not literally rise, yet we understand the truth of ‘sunrise.’ We constantly use similar literal fallacies, contradictions, and paradoxical expressions to accurately communicate in nearly every area of our everyday lives.

It is usually only when we try to verify or refute the products of abstract speculation – hence subtracted from their actual context – that we get entangled in arguments confined by the limitations of dictionary

definitions. The expressions of poetry, koans, and myth are informed by wisdom concerning the true nature of reality, thus by wisdom of the true potential of language.

The Zen master Shibi once said, ‘The whole universe is one bright pearl.’ According to dualistic or literal standards, Shibi’s assertion is unequivocally false, irrational, meaningless nonsense. In accordance with

Zen or nondual standards however, Shibi’s statement is not only true, rational, and infused with ultimate meaning, it is charged with liberating potential. The power of such a metaphor is often precisely due to its paradoxical quality – the fact that it is ‘literally false.’ For instance, upon hearing Shibi’s assertion the Zen practitioner immediately grasps the truth that the whole universe is and is not ‘one bright pearl.’ Nobody is foolish enough to think Shibi means the whole universe is literally one bright pearl, thus the actual truth (real knowledge) communicated by the expression must abide at a deeper level.

If we fail to grasp the truth communicated by the word ‘sunrise’ the failure does not rest with the word or the person that expresses it, but with our ability to discern its true meaning. The truth that ‘the whole universe is one bright pearl’ is not rendered false by our failure to grasp it – nor is it rendered true by subjecting it to a literal definition; its actual truth endures as it is, and only as it is – even if only one being understands it.

Some scholars, by attempting to subject the language of Zen to (dualistic) literal standards, have cited isolated passages from Shobogenzo in support of their claims that the work is ‘inconsistent.’ To charge Shobogenzo with inconsistency based on such standards is about as reasonable as charging our friend with lying for saying that sunrise occurred at 0615. We do not need linguistic expertise or a degree in postmodern philosophy to recognize that ‘sunrise’ is not its reality and still recognize the truth actually communicated. As Dogen says:

This ‘One Pearl’ is still not Its name, but It can be expressed so, and this has come to be regarded as Its name.

Shobogenzo, Ikka Myoju (Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross)

Excerpt from, Zen Cosmology: Dogen’s Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview pp.120-121

Buddha alone together with Buddha

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:19:00 +0000

Buddha alone together with Buddha

According to Dogen reality is actualized by ‘Buddha alone together with Buddha’ (Yui Butsu Yo Butsu). Huike, the second ancestor of Zen in China, described the experience of this vision in these words:

For those who find this body of reality [dharmakaya], the numberless sentient beings are just one good person: the one person who has been there in accord with This through a million billion aeons.

Zen Dawn: Early Zen Texts from Tun Huang, translated by J.C. Cleary, pp.39-40

Zen Cosmology: Dogen's Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview

Dogen's Criticism of False Dharma

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:33:00 +0000

Tommy Bonn - in the comments section of http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.com/ asked:

1. How do you feel about Dogen's contempt for followers of other religions, or people who take up views he finds heretical? It's at least shockingly opposed to the modern spiritual trope that all paths point in the same direction, no? To tip my hand here, whenever I read the Shobogenzo, I find Dogen's extreme contempt for, say, Taoists or lazy people very upsetting and mostly discordant with the profound wisdom evident throughout so much of the text.

2. All sayings of Buddhas are expressions of truth, and all true statements are sayings of Buddhas? I think most Buddhists would assent to the first proposition, but I imagine many would at least be suspicious of the second. If this is the case, is Buddhism a form of philosophy? (Or perhaps ~all~ of philosophy ~plus~ something else?) Could you perhaps expand on the equivalence between true statements and words of Buddhas?

Hello Tommy,

In response to the first point you raise, I would suggest that from the perspective of Dogen’s address there were really only two ‘religions’ – the Way, Tao, or Truth, and Not the Way, Tao, or Truth. His primary intention, I think, was emphasize the futility, more, injurious nature of sectarian bickering – the truth is the truth, if some Buddhist teaching or expression is true it is the ‘authentic Buddha-Dharma’ if not it isn’t; in either case it has nothing to do with a particular (i.e. exclusive, superior, etc.) ‘sect’ or ‘school.’ In short I think Dogen’s criticism is less directed at ‘heresies’ (as opposed to ‘correct doctrines’) and more directed at ‘deluded views’ (as opposed to ‘enlightened understanding’). In other words I think Dogen would say all authentic (true, right, accurate) paths point in the same direction, while all inauthentic (false, wrong, distorted) paths are truly inauthentic.

Also most of Dogen’s enthusiastically fiery criticisms or ‘extreme contempt’ (not uncharacteristic in Zen literature generally) seem to me to be directed at truly pernicious views and practices – views and practices that have actually demonstrated the ability to divert genuine aspirants from authentic practice-enlightenment. The use by Dogen of such harsh language, in my experience, seems to signal the delineation of wrong views that are either particularly harmful, particularly widespread, or both – they are ‘shockingly’ virulent for good reason; to get our attention and make a strong impression.

Along similar lines, his ‘contempt’ of Taoism, for instance, when seen in the context wherein it appears, is less directed at Taoism itself than it is at misrepresentations of Taoism (e.g. the practice of equating Taoism and Buddhism – that is, suggesting that their doctrine and methodology are indistinguishable). Indeed, in one such criticism in Shobogenzo Dogen says that such practices not only distort the Buddha-Dharma, they do a disservice to Taoism as well – and his writings clearly demonstrate his obvious admiration for and influence by Taoism.

The best way I can think of to respond to the second issue you raise is to paste in some excerpts from my (as yet unpublished) Zen Cosmology. The points here should also add some details to the reasoning informing my response to your first issue.

Begin excerpts:

… I want to recall the reader’s mind to some relevant points previously observed.

· To exist is to be experienced, to be experienced is to exist.

· All experience is experience of particular dharmas.

· The true nature (real form/essence) of dharmas is their normality, thusness, whether it is seen ‘as it is’ or ‘as it is not.’

· To experience anything is to experience reality as it is.

· To experience reality as it is as it is (i.e. to clearly see), is to be normal (enlightened, Buddha).

· To experience reality as it is as it is not (i.e. not to clearly see), is to be abnormal (deluded, ordinary being).

To accept the validity of these points is to accept the implication that:

· To clearly see reality, is to see truth as truth and see falseness as falseness.

This is what Zen means when it speaks of seeing with the eye to read scriptures, the Buddha-Eye, the normal eye, or the Dharma-Eye.

…

To realize the koan (genjokoan) is, in Dogen’s terms, to ‘increase the sacred life of Buddha;’ in Zen this is inclusive of all ‘good.’ Not to realize the koan is not to increase the sacred life of Buddha… In Zen this encompasses all that constitutes ‘evil.’

… consider Dogen’s expression, ‘Buddhas are greatly enlightened about delusion.’ To see the true nature of a particular dharma is to see its one true reality; its normality or ‘as is-ness’ – thus to be wholly enlightened in/as that particular place-time. One is wholly enlightened in/as that ‘here-now’ because in seeing the one true reality at that place-time, one is thereby ‘equipped with the eye’ to see any and all untruths at that place-time. ...seeing any untruth about a dharma as true (i.e. to see a dharma ‘as it is not’) is to be wholly deluded in/as that particular place-time. …to see any untruth about a dharma as true is obviously to fail to see its one true reality.

In light of this reasoning (dori) it is accurate to say that there is only one true Dharma (Buddha-Dharma, Tao, Path) and only one false Dharma. Total existence-time is Buddha – whatever is, is Buddha. Every particular dharma is an expression of Buddha. To see, read, or understand any expression as it is, is to see, read, or understand the one true Dharma. To see, read, or understand any expression as it is not, is to see, read, or understand the one false Dharma.

Each moment of the ceaseless advance of existence-time is an opportunity for enlightenment or not-enlightenment, the true Dharma or not-the-true Dharma, Buddhahood or ordinary being – one or the other; never both or neither…

Zen practice-enlightenment… ‘transforms experience into events,’ …fashions passive, random experience into ordered, significant realities. In this sense, ‘sole-sitting’ is a mode of ‘active alertness’ or ‘mindfulness’, an informed intentionally applied capacity to discern and actualize Buddha… Such active mindfulness makes all the difference between passively… ‘living one’s life in vain’ and intentionally ‘actualizing the universe’ (genjokoan).

What matters most in religion, as Dogen saw it, is not a deferred realization of immortality in an after-life, nor an eternal recurrence of rebirths, but the realization of enlightenment here and now. Hence, this present birth-and-death is the only absolute locus—discrete from before and after—in which we can speak of religion, that is, our liberation. In short, birth-and-death is the very locus in which the two possibilities of enlightenment and delusion are offered to every one of us. Thus, “in the midst of birth-and-death, an ordinary person wanders about in delusion, whereas a great sage is liberated in enlightenment.” Life can either be a blessing or a curse; hence, we must choose either enlightenment or delusion, but not both. Dogen’s view of religious life bore strictly on this life—no more, no less.

Hee-Jin Kim[i]

The ‘curse’ of ‘wandering about in delusion,’ whether… passive dullness… or… cultivated detachment, does not actually constitute the actualization of something, but rather the… absence of actualizing anything… regardless of whether the deluded condition… is the result of… ignorance or timidity, or the result of intentionally turning away from the world, it amounts to the same thing; a reduction… or decrease of experience/existence. To the extent a sentient being is… in harmony with reality as it is, their experience… increases the sacred life of Buddha. To the extent a being is deluded… their experience… fails to increase the sacred life of Buddha.

Accordingly, from the perspective of Zen, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ does not… amount to a thing, being, or event (i.e. a dharma) but… an absence or lack of a thing, being, or event… murder, for example, is an obstruction or restraint of the experience/existence of Buddha… rather than the realization of an activity or form… robbery is the hindering of another’s security… lying hinders another’s wisdom, etc.

…

From the nondual perspective this is obvious; if every actual instance of reality is Buddha (hence ‘good’), there can be no such a thing as ‘a realization of evil’ or ‘a manifestation of wrong.’ Here is a Zen koan that presents this point directly:

Yunmen, addressing his assembly, said, ‘I do not ask about before the 15^th day of the month, come and give me a word about after the 15^th day.

The assembly was silent.

Yunmen, answering for them, said, ‘Every day is a good day.’

Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), Case 6[ii]

From the perspective of enlightenment (after the 15^thday) every place-time (every day) is Buddha (good). … If ‘good’ is to have any validity in a nondual cosmology it needs to be understood as a mode of ‘affirmation’ – ‘every day’ is a dharma as it is; a real manifestation of Buddha; if every day is a ‘good’ day, it is because it is a reality, a dharma as it is. Thus, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ can only be valid as a mode of ‘negation.’ ‘Evil’ is a dharma as it is not – more, it is not a dharma as it is, … an absence of reality (good)… as Dogen says, ‘its essence is just nonappearance.’

In regard to the ‘wrongs’ that we are discussing now, among ‘rightness,’ ‘wrongness,’ and ‘indifference,’ there is ‘wrongness.’ Its essence is just nonappearance.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[iii]

Thus, the essential meaning or significance of ‘good’ is ‘manifestation as it is,’ ‘appearance as it is,’ ‘form as it is,’ actuality, reality – every real thing, being, and event is a good, thing, being, and event; every day is a good day.

This does not mean that all is rosy or that all evils serve some great good purpose. Every genuine Zen practitioner is intensely aware of the truth that suffering, tragedy, and horror abound, but they are also fully cognizant of the fact that they abound because of the failure to adequately actualize enlightened thought, speech, and action.

…the sole task of genuine Zen teachers and practitioners is to realize the koan (genjokoan), to actualize (make actual) ‘every day is a good day’ which consists in discerning all things as they are (from the enlightened perspective), and thereby, actualizing things as they should be (‘enact that vision amidst this world of duality’)…

Again, this is not at all to be understood as denying the value of moral or ethical training, behavior, and commitment or the significance of teachings concerning ‘good and evil’ or ‘right and wrong’ conduct. Such training and teachings are, like all actual dharmas, nothing less than self-expressions of Buddha-nature.

…Sentient beings are capable of being sentient of the things, beings, and events they encounter because the things, beings, and events they encounter are what make beings sentient…

As it is normal to see a horse as a horse, and thus distinguish it from what is not a horse, it is normal to see the ‘right’ conduct called for at any given place-time, and to distinguish it from the ‘not right’ (i.e. wrong) conduct (i.e. everything ‘other than’ the ‘right’ conduct).

We are capable of responding ably here-now because here-now is what enables us to respond. After all, here-now is us – the significance of which shines forth from this remarkable expression by Dogen:

Remember, [teaching] that sounds like ‘Do not commit wrongs’ is the Buddha’s right Dharma. This [teaching] ‘Do not commit wrongs’ was not intentionally initiated, and then intentionally maintained in its present form, by the common person: when we hear teaching that has [naturally] become the preaching of bodhi, it sounds like this. What sounds like this is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in words. It is bodhi-speech already, and so it speaks bodhi. When it becomes the preaching of the supreme state of bodhi, and when we are changed by hearing it, we hope ‘not to commit wrongs,’ we continue enacting ‘not to commit wrongs,’ and wrongs go on not being committed; in this situation the power of practice is instantly realized.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[iv]

What looks like a horse is form which is the supreme state of bodhi (i.e. Buddha) in/as horse-form, and what “sounds like ‘Do not commit wrongs’ is speech which is the supreme state of bodhi in (and as) words.” A particular form or sound (e.g. horse, preaching) was not previously manifest and thereafter abiding (‘intentionally initiated, and then intentionally maintained’) in its present state…

For example, what is heard as a sound preaching ‘Do not commit wrongs,’ is Buddha manifesting as an ‘understandable explanation’ of the truth of enlightenment (‘preaching of bodhi’).

It goes without saying that we should avoid falling into a literal (one-sided; biased) understanding, thus losing sight of the mythopoeic significance of ‘wrong’ (i.e. an absence of ‘normality’ or ‘good’

…In other words, ‘not to commit wrongs’ does not mean to abstain from something; to refrain, desist, or avoid some form or forms of conduct. On the contrary, ‘not to commit wrongs’ means to ‘commit right,’ to conduct oneself appropriately, to continuously ‘respond with ability’

…To ‘not commit’ is to engage activity, not restrain activity, thus Dogen says, “we continue enacting ‘not to commit wrongs’…”

… as Buddha is only and always ‘good’ or ‘right’, Buddha is also only and always a particular here-now of a particular sentient being. …the ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of today is not the same ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ of yesterday, and his ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference’ is not the same as her ‘rightness, wrongness, and indifference.’ Thus Dogen points out:

At the same time, at each concrete place these three properties include innumerable kinds of dharmas. In ‘wrongs,’ there are similarities and differences between wrong in this world and wrong in other worlds. There are similarities and differences between former times and latter times. There are similarities and differences between wrong in the heavens above and wrong in the human world. How much greater is the difference between moral wrong, moral right, and moral indifference in Buddhism and in the secular world. Right and wrong are time; time is not right or wrong. Right and wrong are the Dharma; the Dharma is not right or wrong. [When] the Dharma is in balance, wrong is in balance. [When] the Dharma is in balance, right is in balance. This being so, when we learn [the supreme state of] anuttara samyaksambodhi, when we hear the teachings, do training, and experience the fruit, it is profound, it is distant, and it is fine.

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[v]

Right and wrong are time (hence, existence-time), are the Dharma (i.e. Buddha Way), time is not right or wrong, Dharma is not good or evil. To ‘hear the teachings, do training, and experience the fruit’ is… to engage practice-enlightenment; thus, good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted is the Dharma, the ‘balance’ or ‘equilibrium’ realized in/as authentic practice-enlightenment. To maintain such equilibrium is to be ‘solely-seated’ at the hub… or Bodhi-seat, the here-now from which existence-time ceaselessly springs forth. In Zen this is sometimes called, ‘Taking up with one hand and setting down with the other,’ or ‘Walking straight on a path with 99 curves.’ This is the actualization of the universe (genjokoan).

Real actualization is only and always the actualization of some particular dharma, at some definite place-time, by some specific individual being – actualization is good-conducted/wrong-not-conducted; ‘wrong’ is only ‘not-conducted’ in/as actualization-conducted. All that is actualized is Buddha; to conduct-good/not-conduct-evil is to realize Buddha, when Buddha is not realized, not-conducting-evil/conducting-good is not realized.

…Not to meet one’s responsibility is to suffer selfishness; to be self-centered (egocentric), hence to deny, restrict, or constrain one’s self, which, being nondual with ‘other,’ is also to deny, restrict, or constrain others. To deny, restrict, or constrain one’s self and others is to hinder or obstruct the experience/existence of self and other – to stem or obstruct the advance of realization…

[i] Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, pp.167-168

[ii] Ted Biringer – as learned verbally

[iii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[iv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[v] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

End Excerpts

I hope this is helpful.

Please treasure yourself.

Ted

Dogen on Sectarianism

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:51:00 +0000

Dogen on Sectarianism

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[i]

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

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

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[ii]

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

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[iii]

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

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[iv]

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

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

Shobogenzo, Butsudo[v]

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

[i] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[ii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[iii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[iv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[v] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Dogen On Great Delusion and Great Enlightenment

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:57:00 +0000

1. The Nonduality of Enlightenment and Delusion

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

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

2. The Nature and Dynamics of Enlightenment and Delusion

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

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

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

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

Great Delusion and Great Enlightenment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shobogenzo, Daigo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Enlightenment, from Dogen’s perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 01:03:00 +0000

Enlightenment, from Dogen’s perspective, consists of clarifying and penetrating one’s muddled discriminative thought in and through our language to attain clarity, depth, and precision in the discriminative thought itself. This is enlightenment or vision.

Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, p.63

If anything demands ‘clarifying and penetrating one’s muddled discriminating thought’ it is an accurate appreciation of Dogen’s Zen masterpiece, Shobogenzo.

Fortunately, like other comprehensive literary expressions, the work itself provides its own key, or rather, eye – the True Dharma-Eye – through which ‘clarity, depth, and precision’ are attainable. Two significant points clearly seen through the True Dharma-eye are

· Everything that is accurate or meaningful can be expressed.

· Anything that cannot be expressed is neither accurate nor meaningful.

From the perspective of Shobogenzo (hence Zen), accurately expressing truth has less to do with seeing the limitations of language and more to do with seeing through false presuppositions about language.

The widespread notion that Zen is antithetical to language is, from Shobogenzo’s viewpoint, a serious delusion based on a false assumption; specifically, the dualistic assumption that the reality of verbal expressions (spoken or written) is separate and independent of the reality of what the expressions concern. Of the host of fallacies about Zen spawned by dualism, the delusion that the reality of Zen somehow exists independently of the expressions of Zen is the most pernicious. It is to this distortion that we owe all the vulgar claims that Zen is some kind of mysterious or ineffable reality, condition, or experience that is somehow transcendent to, thus independent of, the normal human capacities of communication.

Here it is worth stating the obvious; since claims asserting that the truth about Zen cannot be communicated through language, are themselves constituted of language, they thereby refute their own validity!

On Reading Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 05:21:00 +0000

On Reading Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo

Despite all this, systematic study of Dogen in the West today is virtually nonexistent. As a result, Western knowledge of Zen is painfully fragmentary, not only in quantity, but more important, in quality. In recent years, some sporadic attempts have been made to acquaint the West with Dogen, but these cover only a tiny portion of the entire corpus of his religion and philosophy. It is my hope that the study of Dogen’s Zen will remedy the situation and will lead to a more complete understanding of Zen.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that it is high time for Western students to deal with Zen as a historical religion in its concrete historical, philosophical, moral, and cultural context—not to isolate it from that context. After all, Zen is a cultural and historical product. I feel strongly that such an approach to Zen is imperative to the maturity of Western Zen (or any Zen for that matter), and my work endeavors to apply it seriously to the study of Dogen. It might surprise many readers that such a historical consciousness is actually in accord with Dogen’s belief that maintaining a fidelity to history was the way to transcend it.

Hee-Jin Kim1

Despite the obvious incoherency of such views, this distorted notion has plagued Zen throughout the greater course of its history.

Concerning Dogen’s Intentions and the Form of Shobogenzo

The uncertainty concerning which particular fascicles actually constitute Dogen’s Shobogenzo merits attention. For example, depending on which proponent’s view is taken, the ‘true’ form of Shobogenzo consists of eighty-four fascicles, or twelve fascicles, or twenty-eight, or seventy-five, etc. Further, besides controversy about how many and which fascicles should be included, there is disagreement as to their order of arrangement, the extent of their posthumous alteration, their relation to Dogen’s koan collection of the same title, and other similar questions.

Here I won’t debate these issues, but briefly note my own view on several points:

· At least four of the advocated versions of Shobogenzo demonstrate sufficient credibility to merit serious consideration.

· There is good evidence that Dogen ultimately intended Shobogenzo to consist of one-hundred fascicles.

· There is good evidence that Dogen engaged in revising and reediting fascicles of Shobogenzo throughout his career.

· There is good evidence that one of Dogen’s last contributions to Shobogenzo was a revision of the key Genjokoan fascicle (one of its two earliest fascicles, chronologically as well as structurally).

The interested reader is referred to the excellent detailed account of the particular issues involved, the historical evidence, and the present state of scholarship on these issues by Steven Heine in his remarkably comprehensive study of Dogen’s writings, Did Dogen Go To China? What He Wrote and When He Wrote It.2

Now, I want to emphasize that, in my view, the precise details and historical evidence concerning what Dogen intended concerning the final form of Shobogenzo is of little ultimate import. For the Zen practitioner the only significance of Shobogenzo is what it actually expresses. For one thing it would be impossible to verify Dogen’s true intentions even if there were universal agreement. More importantly, Dogen’s personal intentions are finally irrelevant to the truth of Shobogenzo. The truth of Shobogenzo, like the truth of any dharma, exists nowhere but in and as its actual form. From the nondual perspective, the reality of a dharma and its form are not-two – the truth of Shobogenzo can only abide in and as its form here-now – and nowhere else.

The Unity of Shobogenzo

An issue related to the variety of fascicles constituting Shobogenzo merits attention; the tendency to misunderstand individual fascicles as independent writings rather than parts of a unified work. Despite the universal recognition of Shobogenzo as a unified work (e.g. a masterpiece, the work, etc.), accounts and studies frequently discuss particular fascicles of Shobogenzo in terms only appropriate to distinct texts. There is really no justification for ignoring the unity of Shobogenzo – the very reason for arguing about which fascicles belong presupposes the unity of Shobogenzo – if not for their place in that unity, such controversy would obviously be superfluous.

Question of the Consistency of Shobogenzo and Dogen’s View

Related to the questions as to the unity and precise constituents of Shobogenzo, there is controversy concerning the integral consistency of its vision. The prevalence of the false notion that inconsistency has been confirmed is evinced by the frequent inclusion of generalizations about ‘inconsistencies’ (and contradictions) among the fascicles of Shobogenzo within both academic and traditional works on Dogen.

None of the particular examples of inconsistency singled out by proponents offer anything like confirmation – the ‘inconsistency’ within Shobogenzo is speculative, not demonstrable. The only certain inconsistencies I am personally aware of are between the significance of Dogen’s expressions and the understanding of them expressed by some commentators. Most examples offered in support of the notion are clear misunderstandings resulting from attempts to read Dogen’s works according to rules inapplicable to his writings; specifically, attempts to read mythopoeic expression as literal description. Such attempts are inappropriate for approaching any sacred text or literary masterpiece, and in this case only exacerbate the already widespread fallacies about the labyrinthine or esoteric complications of Dogen’s symbolism.

Unfortunately, the reasoning of this speculative theory is carried over to support another common misnomer; the notion that Dogen’s view as to the nature of the authentic Buddha-Dharma underwent a significant changes during the course of his career. This notion presupposes the accuracy of the claims of inconsistency, and amounts to an explanation for their presence. According to this latter notion, the fascicles of Shobogenzo are inconsistent because Dogen’s views changed during the time between which the fascicles were written. This notion is also the source of the frequent, unqualified allusions to an ‘earlier Dogen’ and a ‘later Dogen’ encountered in contemporary Dogen studies.

For clarity, I want to articulate the implications inherent to the adoption of this notion. To accept this notion is to grant that the apparent inconsistencies are not mistakes in reading or understanding, or mistakes of transcription; one must grant that the apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies. To grant this is to affirm that Dogen expounded one view as the authentic Buddha-Dharma at one place and time, and expounded another, incompatible view at a different place and time. In short, to accept this notion is to accept that the ‘later Dogen’ would have considered some views of the ‘earlier Dogen’ as wrong views (false Dharma) and vice versa.

I want to emphasize that none of the actual evidence suggests, much less demonstrates that Dogen’s views of the Buddha-Dharma changed during his career. I find Dogen’s written views as to the constitution of authentic Buddhism to demonstrate a remarkable consistency throughout. Granted, there are uncertain points concerning some of Dogen’s expressions, there are no certain points that can or should be regarded as demonstrating inconsistency.

For the Zen practitioner, fortunately, it is ultimately irrelevant whether or not there is any validity to the various theories of inconsistency in Dogen’s works. However, in light of the influence this notion has on contemporary works on Zen and Dogen, I would like to offer the reader a few salient points to keep in mind.

First, Dogen’s writings are composed in the same medium as all sacred texts; mythopoeic expression. Any attempt to read them from a literal, historical, biographical, philosophical, metaphysical, or other non-mythopoeic perspective can only result in confusion. Next, completing a revision of the Genjokoan fascicle was evidently one of Dogen’s last contributions to Shobogenzo. Genjokoan is one of the earliest fascicles Dogen composed for Shobogenzo. His revision demonstrates his continuing involvement with the earliest fascicles of Shobogenzo. This in itself undermines any attempt to discern changes in Dogen’s views based on the evidence of ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ writings.

Rather than being indicative of changes in Dogen’s understanding, I would suggest that such revisions demonstrate sincere endeavors to improve the communication of his knowledge. It is far more reasonable to see Dogen’s reworking of earlier writings as demonstrating an ongoing effort to refine and elaborate his vision, than to speculatively assume they indicate attempts to correct or expunge earlier viewpoints.

Further, ordinary common sense suggests that if our understanding of an expression by a Zen master fails to harmonize with our understanding of another expression by that master we would do well to inquire into the accuracy of our understanding before concluding it is the Zen master that is inconsistent. This is especially true if that master is, like Dogen, widely recognized as a master of language with an unusual gift for creative expression.

In conclusion I want to notice that regardless of Dogen’s views, the true nature of reality is the true nature of reality. Regardless of Dogen’s ‘true’ view, it is only our view of reality that has any practical effect on us or the world. Thus, the only relevant measure with which Dogen’s writings can be effectively gauged is the actual impact they have on bringing our own vision into greater harmony with the true nature of reality.

Issue of Misplaced Authority

Among other unfavorable outcomes, the narrow focus of specialization characteristic of scholarship and the generalization characteristic of traditional accounts has tended to provide support to the authority of an effectively biased version of Shobogenzo. That is, they have contributed credibility to views that identify Shobogenzo with what actually amounts to an ‘abridgement’ of Shobogenzo.

To clarify, a handful of apparently ‘easier’ fascicles along with a handful of fascicles commonly regarded as ‘philosophically profound’ have appeared in numerous anthological versions of Dogen’s work, exclusive of the majority of Shobogenzo fascicles. Many readers naturally assume such selections provide an accurate and balanced, if general account of Dogen’s vision of Zen.

Obviously, any understanding of a literary work arrived at exclusive of the bulk of its content would be unreliable at best. If the excluded bulk happens to be the more complex content, as has commonly been the case with ‘selected’ translations of Shobogenzo, misunderstanding can be the only result.

Dogen’s True Mission

In my view, Dogen’s Shobogenzo was intended as – and successfully achieved – a complete exposition of the essential doctrine and methodology of authentic Buddhism inclusive of everything necessary for sincere students to directly and personally realize full and perfect enlightenment. By that, I mean that Dogen fulfilled the ‘mission’ he set down in Bendowa, one of the first writings he undertook upon his return from China. After describing how his journey to China led him to, ‘accomplishing the task of a lifetime,’ Dogen described his experience upon returning to his native land and how he came to decide ‘to spread the Dharma and save living beings’:

‘…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.’

Shobogenzo, Bendowa (Italics mine)3

Before proceeding I would point out that the method Dogen chose for providing ‘true practitioners’ with a vehicle to ‘know the right Dharma’ (i.e. written records) is a method disparaged by many contemporary Zen representatives as unreliable, ineffective, or even misleading. Many within the Soto Zen sect (which claims Dogen as its founder) claim the only way practitioners can ‘know the right Dharma’ is through transmission from a living representative (i.e. a formally certified ‘Dharma-heir’). Such claims commonly suggest that such a ‘transmission’ is not only required, but solely sufficient, that is, no ‘records,’ whether of ‘customs and standards’ or ‘profound instruction,’ are necessary. For those claiming to be ‘heirs’ of Dogen, this is convenient; the record Dogen left so people could ‘know the right Dharma of the Buddha’s lineage’ was all but lost to the world for about 700 years. It should be noted that such ostentatious claims are usually not intentionally malicious or insincere, but simply the results of the usual competition and power struggles common to sectarian institutions.

Shobogenzo: Intelligible and Accessible

In the nation of Great Sung China today, there is a certain type of unreliable person that has now grown to be quite a crowd. They have gotten to the point where they cannot be bested by the few true people. This bunch says such things as the following:

Just like the comments about Eno’s walking on water or the one about Nansen’s buying a scythe, what is being said is beyond anything that reason can grasp. In other words, any remark that involves the use of intellect is not the Zen talk of an Ancestor of the Buddha, whereas a remark that goes beyond anything that reason can handle is what comprises a ‘remark’ by an Ancestor of the Buddha. As a consequence, we would say that Meditation Master Obaku’s applying a stick to his disciples or Meditation Master Rinzai’s giving forth with a loud yell go far beyond rational understanding and do not involve the use of intellect. We consider this to be what is meant by the great awakening to That which precedes the arising of any discrimination. The reason why the ancient virtuous Masters so often made skillful use of verbal phrases to cut through the spiritual entanglements of their disciples was precisely because these phrases were beyond rational understanding.

Fellows who talk like this have never met a genuine teacher, nor do they have an eye for learning through training. They are foolish puppies who are not even worth discussing. For the past two or three centuries in the land of Sung China, such devilish imps and ‘little shavers’ like the Gang of Six have been many. Alas, the Great Way of the Buddha’s Ancestors has become diseased! This explanation of those people cannot compare even with that of the shravakas who follow the Lesser Course; it is even more confused than that of non-Buddhists. These fellows are not laity nor are they monks; they are not gods or humans. And when it comes to exploring the Buddha’s Way, they are more befuddled than beasts. The stories which the ‘little shavers’ refer to as going beyond anything that reason can grasp only go beyond anything their reason can grasp: it was not that way for any Ancestor of the Buddha. Just because they said that such stories are not subject to rational understanding, you should not fail to learn through your training what the intellectually comprehendible pathways of the Ancestors of the Buddha are. Even if these stories were ultimately beyond rational understanding, the understanding that this bunch has cannot hit the mark. Such people are in great number everywhere in Sung China, as I have personally witnessed. Sad to say, they did not recognize that the phrase ‘the use of intellect’ is itself a use of words, nor realize that a use of words may liberate us from the use of our intellect. When I was in Sung China, even though I laughed at them for their foolish views, they had nothing to say for themselves; they were simply speechless. Their present negation of rational understanding is nothing but an erroneous view. Who taught them this? Even though you may say that they have not had someone to teach them of the true nature of things, nevertheless, the fact remains that, for all intents and purposes, they still end up being offspring of the non-Buddhist notion that things arise spontaneously, independent of any form of causality.

Shobogenzo, Sansuikyo4

Shobogenzo is profound, complex, and multifaceted, but it is not cryptic or obscure, much less ‘beyond rational understanding.’ The only real obstacle to an accurate perception of the vision of Shobogenzo is the failure to study it.

Despite the images evoked by common characterizations of Dogen’s language as ‘complex,’ ‘difficult,’ ‘archaic,’ etc., the vision of Shobogenzo is no less accessible than that of many (if not most) literary masterpieces, the Iliad, the Upanishads, or the Inferno for instance. Indeed, Shobogenzo is almost certainly more accessible than some texts that are widely considered to be standard reading for all educated persons, Virgil, Aristotle, or Kant for example. In short, it is true that Shobogenzo is a complex work that requires active reading, intensive and extensive study, and sustained, focused effort, but it is not written in esoteric terms, or secret code.

Shobogenzo in Light of Shobogenzo

An approach to Shobogenzo that begins from a perspective provided by established presuppositions concerning its form, content, or significance begins from a biased (partial) perspective – thus can only end in a biased conclusion. To initially approach a literary work after having already accepted the conclusions of traditional, scholarly, sectarian, or institutional authorities is to demonstrate a distrust of, if not contempt for the work itself, one’s own critical capacities, or both.

According to the Buddhist principles of nonduality, the essence (reality, truth, significance) of a literary work, like that of any dharma, exists only in and as its actual form and is, therefore, the only place it can be accurately discerned. Treatises, commentaries, interpretations, references, and other sources or aids to study can, at best, clear away particular technical obstructions to our vision by providing us with details or contextual information. Thus, the only reliable authority as to the true nature, significance, and value (i.e. essence) of Shobogenzo is the very form of Shobogenzo itself.

Approaching the Expression of Shobogenzo from Shobogenzo’s Vision of Expression

Whether we agree with Shobogenzo’s vision concerning the true nature of language or not, that vision itself is very clear; language is Buddha-nature, expressions of truth – expressions of Buddha. Expressions and Buddhas are nondual – Buddha is expressions, expressions are Buddha. This only appears extravagant when viewed apart from the totality of Dogen’s vision; from that grand perspective, all Buddhas and ancestors constitute a sole ancestor: Shakyamuni Buddha. I mention this here to emphasize why Shobogenzo needs to be approached with the same attitude used to approach scripture, or to meet Buddha (kenbutsu).

According to its own perspective, Shobogenzo is not a treatise on Buddhism, or instructions about the Dharma – it is an expression of Buddhism, an exemplification of the Dharma itself. We may reject Shobogenzo as such, but that would not change the fact that this view is advocated by Shobogenzo, thus is the view it is expressed from. Clearly, any understanding achieved by approaching Shobogenzo as if it were expressed from a view other than the one it is expressed from can only lead to an understanding other than the one expressed by Shobogenzo.

The Vitality of Zen Practice-Enlightenment in Shobogenzo

In Shobogenzo’s vision of Zen, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an unceasing advance into novelty, an ongoing creative activity – not a fixed system, dogmatic formula, or absolute truth. Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho) is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – not the actualized, actual, or actualize of past, present, or future, but the ceaseless actualization of here-now which fully includes and transcends past, present, and future. Zen practice-enlightenment is only and always an ever-ongoing creative discernment-and-realization of Buddha here-now – the presentation (making present) of one’s true self ‘as it is.’ In short, practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing (accurately discerning, understanding, etc.) the true nature of reality, dharmas as they are here-now, thereby conducting one’s thoughts, words, and deeds in harmony with that truth in and as the self/world here-now.

Notes

1 Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, pp. xxix -xxx

2 Steven Heine, Did Dogen Go To China? What He Wrote and When He Wrote It
3 Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross
4 Hubert Nearman

Zen, Dogen, and Existence-Time (Uji)

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:03:00 +0000

Observations on Zen’s vision of existence-time (uji).

(Excerpts from my [unpublished] book [tentatively titled, Zen Cosmology: Dogen’s Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview]. Post inspired by Tommy Bonn).

Begin Excerpts

…

In short, total existence is the Buddha-nature, and the perfect totality of total existence is called ‘living beings.’

Shobogenzo, Bussho[i]

In Zen cosmology time and existence are not two different things; time is always existence-and-time, existence is always existence-and-time. This view is most clearly and comprehensively demonstrated in Shobogenzo’s development and use of the term ‘uji.’ Dogen fashioned this term by combining two terms; ‘u’ (existence) and ‘ji’ (time) into the single term ‘uji’ (existence-time, or time-being).[ii] The significance of the unity of existence and time will become clearer as this study progresses. The point I want to stress here is that existence and time are never separate from each other; each is an essential element of the other – no dharmas exist independent of time, and there is no time independent of dharmas. This notion of existence-time is central to Zen’s vision of reality, thus is presupposed in all Zen expressions.

Hee-Jin Kim brings the crucial significance of this notion to light in a comment from his discussion of the aptly titled ‘Uji’ fascicle of Shobogenzo:

Dogen’s whole thesis in this regard was crystallized in the following: “As we realize with the utmost effort that all times (jinji) are all existence (jin’u), absolutely no additional dharma remains.” In other words, existence-time subsumed space and time totally and exhaustively.

Hee-Jin Kim[iii]

The most significant implication of this point (i.e. the unified nature of existence and time) is that each and every particular thing, being, and event (i.e. dharma) is an intrinsic and essential element of total time, and each and every moment or duration of time is an intrinsic and essential element of total existence – hence each and every particular dharma is a manifestation of the whole universe, and the whole universe is manifest in and as each and every particular dharma. In Dogen’s words:

Let us pause to reflect whether or not any of the whole of existence or any of the whole universe has leaked away from the present moment of time.

Shobogenzo, Uji[iv]

…

Briefly, Shobogenzo reveals a universe wherein each and all things, beings, and events are clearly recognized as autochthonous spatial-temporal forms. The essence of all such forms, which constitute the totality of reality, is seen as interdependent – coessential and coextensive – with the forms themselves. These forms, or form/essence units, primarily referred to in this study as ‘dharmas,’ actualize existence-time (uji) in and as a ceaseless, dynamic ‘advance into novelty’, to borrow A. N. Whitehead’s phrase.[v] This ‘advance’ is presented by Shobogenzo as an ever-ongoing self-generation wherein each unique particularity and the whole universe are simultaneously ever-realized and ever-transcended – at once totally exerted and totally cast-off – in and as particular location-moments or space-times manifest in and as here-now.

…

Shobogenzo’s vision of dharmas as the fundamental elements of reality, the primary and primordial constituents of existence-time (uji), which Hee-Jin Kim has characterized as ‘radical phenomenalism,’[vi] follows from Dogen’s radical application of the Buddhist principles of nonduality, thus the insistence on the phenomenal nature of (all) dharmas.

…

The reasoning for Zen’s rejection of dualism is most comprehensively presented by the corollary Buddhist teachings of emptiness (sunyata) and interdependence (dependent origination; pratitiya-samutpada). Briefly, the primary insight of these teachings is the nondual nature of reality – that is the interdependence of all things, beings, and events in and of space-and-time (existence-time; uji). Of the many implications revealed by these teachings, I want to notice three points of particular relevance here:

· There is no independently existent objective reality.

· There is no independently existent subjective reality.

· The world (objective reality) and the self (subjective reality) are coessential elements of a single unified reality.

…

1. Dharmas are the fundamental constituents of reality, the ultimate/primordial fabric (ontology) of existence-time (uji), the essence and form of self and not-self.[vii]

2. The experiential verification of reality (enlightenment) is the experiential verification of dharmas.

3. Apart from dharmas nothing exists and nothing is experienced.

4. The myriad dharmas (i.e. all dharmas) constitute the totality of reality.

5. A dharma is a particular instance of reality.

6. A dharma is a phenomenon in and of existence-time (uji); all dharmas possess/display spatial-temporal (phenomenal) form.

7. The appearance of a dharma (i.e. the form in which it is experienced) and the reality of a dharma (its existential essence, or true nature) are nondual.[viii]

8. Dharmas are the content (ontology) and the means of experience (epistemology); dharmas are ‘what’ are experienced, and dharmas are ‘how’ experience occurs.[ix]

9. Dharmas are autochthonous; dharmas originate/inhabit (appear/exist) at/as the location-time (uji) they are experienced; dharmas are identical to the location-time (dharma-position) of their appearance (in/as experience).

10. Dharmas are empty (sunya); void of independent existence; dharmas are empty (sunya), emptiness (sunyata) is dharmas, therefore, dharmas are dharmas, emptiness is emptiness.

11. Dharmas are interdependent;[x] each dharma and all dharmas exist at/as each location-time and all location-times.

…

To recognize the truth of the autochthonous (i.e. originating in/at the location they are encountered) nature of dharmas is to recognize the fallacy of nominalism;[xi]no dharma can be a mere representative, symbol, or signifier of a reality independent of itself. All dharmas, including words, names, ideas, perceptions, signs, mental images, and anything else that can be experienced, described, pointed to, or particularly singled out in any way is – as it is – an essential element of the universe, an integral instance of (total) existence-time (in Zen ‘an expression of Buddha’). Being autochthonous by nature means dharmas are their own cause and effect, their own meaning and reason. Further, as the essential, and only, constituents of the universe, each and all dharmas are of intrinsically universal significance and value. The universal significance and value of dharmas is discerned by seeing them through the normal (i.e. enlightened) eye (in Zen, seeing them through ‘the eye to read scriptures’ or ‘the True Dharma-Eye’).

…

In light of Shobogenzo’s (hence Zen’s) vision of existence-time (uji), existence (ontology; being) and time are not-two (nondual); dharmas are not simply existents in time, they are existents of time, and (all) time is in and of existents (i.e. dharmas). In short, dharmas do not exist independent of time, and time does not exist independent of dharmas.

On a corollary note, since (all) existence demonstrates the quality of ‘impermanence,’ time too is impermanent. In Zen the nonduality of impermanence and time is treated in terms of ‘ceaseless advance’ or ‘ever passing’ – ‘ceaseless’ and ‘ever’ connoting ‘permanence’ or ‘eternity,’ ‘advance’ and ‘passing’ indicating ‘impermanence’ or ‘temporal’ (temporary). Accordingly, ‘impermanence’ is ‘permanent’ and ‘change’ is ‘changeless’ – existence-time ever-always (eternally) advances (changes).[xii] Dogen’s vision of reality exploits the significance of this to the utmost, unfolding its most profound implications with his notion of ‘the self-obstruction of a single dharma’ or ‘the total exertion of a single dharma’ (ippo gujin). This notion reveals a number of important implications concerning the nature of existence-time; here I want to mention two:

· Each and all dharmas reveal, disclose, or present the whole universe (the totality of existence-time).

· Each and all dharmas are inherently infinite and eternal.

…

I want to notice also the reason Zen expressions are not concerned with the existence or non-existence or the superiority or inferiority of dharmas; all such issues are clearly verified as irrelevant by the genuine Zen practitioner. Zen practice-enlightenment involves – thus can only begin with – discerning the true nature (thus, actual significance) of reality. One thing this entails is the experiential verification of the ceaseless becoming of reality, that is, seeing that each and all the particular dharmas ever-advancing here-now in a continuous stream of ever-novel experience constitutes the very fabric of existence-time. This is, in Shobogenzo’s terms, ‘actualizing the universe’ (genjokoan). The process, pattern, or arrangement whereby this actualization is performed is recognized in Zen cosmology as the normal activity of the self (individual being/universal Buddha), and therefore as exemplifying the normal configurations, dynamics, and reason (dori) of existence.

…

Experiencing the world through the perspective presented by the Diamond Sutra, the practitioner is made intimately aware of the fact that reality only and always consists of particular (part-icular) instances of total existence-time – apart from specific manifest phenomena (i.e. dharmas) there is no existence or time.

Because [real existence] is only this exact moment, all moments of existence-time are the whole of time, and all existent things and all existent phenomena are time. The whole of existence, the whole universe, exists in individual moments of time. Let us pause to reflect whether or not any of the whole of existence or any of the whole universe has leaked away from the present moment of time.

Shobogenzo, Uji[xiii]

…

The universe spoken of by Shobogenzo as ‘this mind,’ ‘Buddha,’ ‘one mind,’ or ‘all dharmas’ is not merely the sum of all things or the totality of everything throughout space and time; it is the very things and events you are experiencing right here-now (soku), it is the very you right here-now experiencing things and events. The very things, events, and you that right here-now is ‘this mind’ are not arbitrary miscellany or various generalities; but the actual mountains, rivers, and earth you see here-now, the sun, the moon, the stars here-now.

…

…whether we know or do not know ourselves, our ‘self’ is total existence-time, not one dharma of the myriad dharmas is other than ourself.

To seek to know ourself is the inevitable will of the living. But those with Eyes that see themselves are few: buddhas alone know this state. Others, non-Buddhists and the like, vainly consider only what does not exist to be their self. What buddhas call themselves is just the whole earth. In sum, in all instances, whether we know or do not know ourselves, there is no whole earth that is other than ourself.

Shōbōgenzō, Yui-butsu-yo-butsu[xiv]

…

From the nondual perspective it is obvious that the true nature of an object experienced and the true nature of the subject experiencing it are not two different things. Thus where the prevailing epistemology sees the sense organs as keyboards, conveyors, interpreters or translators of objective reality to subjective reality, Zen sees the sense organs as bridges, channels, or joints connecting/separating objective reality to/from subjective reality. The sense organs do not convey signals from an alien (independent) realm to the mind of an isolated self; the sense organs are integral aspects of the ‘actualization of the universe’ (genjokoan) itself which is experienced/exists as the world/self unity a human being calls ‘myself.’ ‘What we experience’ – dharmas – is ‘what we are.’ And since experience is ever active, never static, ‘what we are’ is an ‘activity,’ a ‘doing.’ And this ‘doing’ that ‘we are’ is a continuous ‘ordering,’ ‘fashioning,’ or ‘arranging’ of dharmas – the particularities or ‘bits and pieces’ we experience as ‘myself.’

In a similar manner, we are continually arranging bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion them into what we call ‘a self ’, which we treat as ‘myself ’: this is the same as the principle of ‘we ourselves are just for a time’.

Shobogenzo, Uji[xv]

The point here is that in Zen’s view, the actual existence of ‘objects’ is the actual experience of ‘subjects.’ In other words, besides what appears in/as consciousness, there is nothing that can or could have any influence on us whatsoever.

…

As a tradition, activity, or institution of human civilization, ‘Zen’ denotes a path, manner, or way of life, rather than a particular structure or form. To revere a ‘Zen’ that consists of an authorized version, exclusive sect, prescribed method, formal practice, dogmatic code, or any other fixed form is to exalt a lifeless idol. In Zen’s vision, reality itself consists of the expression of Dharma, an unceasing advance into novelty, an ongoing creative activity. Zen practice-enlightenment (shusho) is genjokoan, ‘actualizing the fundamental point’ – not the actualized, actual, or actualize of past, present, or future, but a ceaseless actualization of existence-time here-now which fully includes and transcends past, present, and future. More particularly, practice-enlightenment consists of clearly seeing the true nature of reality and, thereby, actualizing one’s thoughts, words, and deeds harmoniously with that truth in and as the self/world here-now.

…

To clarify, ‘essence’ means ‘reality as it is,’ ‘the true nature of reality,’ or ‘thusness’ (i.e. ontology; what is the actual material or fabric of existence-time). ‘Form’ means ‘reality as it appears,’ ‘phenomena,’ or ‘dharmas’ (i.e. epistemology; what is known or encountered by sentient beings, i.e. sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts). ‘Essence and form are nondual’ means all reality is dharmas and all dharmas are real. Therefore, the ‘essence of existence’ is ‘knowing-dharmas’ (i.e. seeing, experiencing, or understanding appearances, for example, appearances of ‘understandable explanations’). Likewise, ‘knowing-dharmas’ is the ‘essence of existence’ (i.e. the true nature, reality, or ‘fabric’ of appearances, for example, appearances of ‘understandable explanations’).

In sum, because essence and form are nondual, the ‘enlightened perspective’ (i.e. the ‘essence’ of normal seeing; kensho, kenbutsu) can be activated by dharmas, for example, ‘understandable explanations’ of techniques to focus consciousness on dharmas here-now (i.e. Zen’s ‘skillful means’). For the place-time (reality, essence) dharmas are known is the place-time dharmas exist, and the place-time dharmas exist is the place-time dharmas are known. This place-time being only and always here-now, nothing (i.e. no dhama) in the universe is concealed.

In the great truth of the Buddha-Dharma, the sutras of the great-thousandfold [world] are present in an atom, and countless buddhas are present in an atom. Each weed and each tree are a body-mind. Because the myriad dharmas are beyond appearance, even the undivided mind is beyond appearance. And because all dharmas are real form, every atom is real form. Thus, one undivided mind is all dharmas, and all dharmas are one undivided mind, which is the whole body. If building stupas were artificial, buddhahood, bodhi, reality as it is, and the buddha-nature, would also be artificial. Because reality as it is and the buddha-nature are not artificial, building images and erecting stupas are not artificial. They are the natural establishment of the bodhi-mind: they are merit achieved without artificiality, without anything superfluous.

Shobogenzo, Hotsu-mujōshin[xvi]

…

To clarify, utilizing the Dharma-eye the self sees its true nature – thus sees its all-inclusiveness and its fathomless infinity. In light of its all-inclusiveness, total existence-time (the myriad dharmas) is seen as a particular form – this dharma here-now and no other. In light of its fathomless infinity, a particular form – this dharma here-now – is seen as total existence-time. This capacity of the Dharma-eye to see ‘beyond the many and the one’ is graphically presented in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan as, ‘When one side is illumined, the other side is darkened.’ Seeing total existence-time as a particular form is seeing what ‘is illumined’; seeing a particular form as total existence-time is seeing what ‘is darkened.’

…

Every flowering and fruiting has endured while they have waited for their opportunity, and every opportunity has endured while it has waited for a flowering and a fruiting. Thus, all the hundreds of things that sprout up have their time of flowering and their fruiting, just as all manner of trees have their time of flowering and their fruiting. All manner of trees—such as those of gold, silver, copper, iron, coral, or crystal—have their flowering and their fruiting. Trees of earth, water, fire, wind, and boundless space have their flowering and fruiting. Human trees have their blossoming, human flowers have their blossoming, and withered trees have their blossoming.

Shobogenzo, Kuge[xvii]

The measure of the normality of an individual’s sentience or consciousness is the measure of that individual’s Buddhahood or Buddha-nature. All sentient beings, by nature, possess some consciousness of self and other (i.e. dharmas). An individual’s experience of reality (i.e. consciousness) is only and always actualized at a particular place-time, and only and always in one of two ways; as it is, or as it is not. Insofar as existence-time is discerned as it is – seen through the Dharma-Eye – Buddha is actualized. Insofar as reality is discerned as it is not – not seen through the Dharma-Eye – Buddha is not actualized. The former describes the actualization of the universe (genjokoan); the latter describes the lack, absence, or failure of the actualization of the universe (genjokoan).

…

Each here-now of an individual’s experience in/of the activity/expression of existence-time is inherently endowed with the potential to realize (make real) Buddha (or enlightenment), or to not realize Buddha. There are no other possibilities. If one realizes enlightenment here-now, enlightenment is totally realized in/as this place-time (i.e. dharma position). If one does not realize Buddha here-now, Buddha is not realized in/as this place-time at all. Each moment of the ceaseless advance of existence-time is an opportunity for enlightenment or not-enlightenment, the true Dharma or not-the-true Dharma, Buddhahood or ordinary being – one or the other; never both or neither.

…

Shobogenzo, Shoaku-makusa[xviii]

Right and wrong are time (hence, existence-time), are the Dharma (i.e. Buddha Way), time is not right or wrong, Dharma is not good or evil.

…

To understand that we move from birth to death is a mistake. Birth is a state at one moment; it already has a past and will have a future. For this reason, it is said in the Buddha-Dharma that appearance is just nonappearance. Extinction also is a state at one moment; it too has a past and a future. This is why it is said that disappearance is just non-disappearance. In the time called “life,” there is nothing besides life. In the time called “death,” there is nothing besides death. Thus, when life comes it is just life, and when death comes it is just death; do not say, confronting them, that you will serve them, and do not wish for them.

This life and death is just the sacred life of buddha. If we hate it and want to get rid of it, that is just wanting to lose the sacred life of buddha. If we stick in it, if we attach to life and death, this also is to lose the sacred life of buddha.

Shoji[xix]

The activity of Buddha is expressing truth, the preaching of Dharma. When the here-now of saving all beings calls for meditation, Buddha manifests the body of meditation; when the here now calls for digging a ditch, Buddha manifests the body of digging a ditch. Whatever existence-time calls for here-now, the authentic practitioner (i.e. Buddha) ably responds (responsibility) with an expression of truth, a manifest body, a preaching of Dharma.

…

Now, let us inquire, at the time when ‘bad has not yet occurred,’ where is it? To say that it will exist in the future is to be forever a non-Buddhist of nihilism. To say that the future becomes the present is not an insistence of the Buddha-Dharma: the three times would have to be confused. If the three times were confused, all dharmas would be confused. If all dharmas were confused, real form would be confused. If real form were confused, buddhas alone, together with buddhas, would be confused. For this reason, we do not say that the future will, in future, become the present. Let us inquire further: what thing does ‘bad that has not yet occurred’ describe? Who has known it or seen it? For it to be known and seen, there must be a time of its nonoccurrence and a time of something other than its nonoccurrence. In that case, it could not be called something that had not yet occurred. It would have to be called something that has already vanished. Without studying under non-Buddhists or śrāvakas and others of the Small Vehicle, we should learn in practice ‘the prevention of bad that has not yet occurred.’ All the bad in the universe is called ‘bad that has not yet occurred,’ and it is bad that does not appear. Nonappearance means ‘yesterday preaching an established rule, today preaching an exception to the rule.’

…because all dharmas are particular instances of existence-time that occur here-now, the actual form/essence of ‘extinguishing bad that has already occurred’ is, as it is, ‘extinguishing bad that has already occurred’ – and since all actual instances of ‘bad’ are ‘bad that has not yet occurred’ and ‘bad that does not appear’, extinguishing ‘bad that has already occurred’ is ‘extinction’, which means ‘springing free from extinction and getting clear of it’ (i.e. the truth of ‘extinction’ is liberation or ‘springing free’ from the restraint or hindrance of [the false view of] extinction [the notion of extinction as a ‘real nonentity’] and clearly seeing through it [getting clear of it]).

…

This is why the experiential encounter is the standard in Zen; it is the only standard that completely reliable. Theoretical knowledge, systems of thought, concepts, generalizations, and so on can and should be effectively employed and utilized – which means, in accordance with what they are; theories, systems, concepts, generalizations, and so on. Seen as they are, they are seen as (thus fashioned as) intrinsic qualities of existence-time itself, reliable characteristics of existence that, when treated in harmony with their normality, contribute to the normal human capacity for the realization of universal liberation and fulfillment that Zen calls ‘genjokoan’ (i.e. the actualization of the universe).

…

Clearly, if reality can be considered as constituted of any kind of ‘substance’ or ‘material,’ that material must first and foremost be identified as sentient experience. For the ‘material’ of the self and the world is only and always encountered as particular instances of subjective experience; specific objects of consciousness actualized in and as definite place-times here-now. Just as any and all actual instances of consciousness are only and always encountered as particular forms at specific place-times of total existence-time.

…

As each instance of experience is a unique instance of existence-time, every expression is a novel expression – including the expression being recited from memory for the ten-thousandth time or read from an ancient scripture for the ten-millionth time. The words presently being formed in your mind, are neither entities that have endured from the past nor representations; they are novel realities coming into being – becoming – particular instances of existence illuminating your particular mind at this particular here-now; instances of Buddha being born in and as your experience/existence here-now.

…

To experience sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts is to fashion sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts. Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts exhaust the modes in which reality manifests. A Zen practitioner is one that continuously strives to increase their capacities to fashion these six ever-advancing streams of novel existence-time into a Buddha within a Buddha realm.

…

In light of this reason, it is worth noticing why those that describe the ‘great Bodhisattva vows’ or ‘annuttara-samyak-sambodhi’ as ‘ideals’ of Buddhism misrepresent the Buddha-Dharma. Expressions are phenomena, instances of existence-time, not ideals, actualizations, not potentials. To accurately express the Buddha-Dharma, one must accurately see (understand, think) the Buddha-Dharma, to accurately see the Buddha-Dharma is to accurately fashion the Buddha-Dharma.

This reasoning also harmonizes with the fact that authentic aspiration for enlightenment (bodhicitta) only manifests as particular instances of genuine desire to deliver all beings from suffering, realize liberation from all greed, hatred, and ignorance, awaken to all truths, and fully embody the Buddha Way. In short, a person who genuinely aspires for enlightenment must ‘already be a person who is it.’

In failing to clearly see that our mythopoeic capacity embodies our thinking mind or intellect, rather than being embodied (or produced) by our mind or intellect, we thereby obstruct our genuine desire (bodhicitta) by subjecting it to the realm of abstract speculation thus confining it to the limitations of literalism and generalization.

…

The myriad dharmas are not arbitrary occurrences, but instances of existence-time – expressions of Buddha – to be ordered and arranged actively by the enlightened mind or passively by the deluded mind. The enlightened mind is the normal human capacity to intentionally discern and distinguish, hence concentrate and unify, the ceaseless-stream of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts ever-advancing into the novelty that has never been hidden:

Total Existence is the Buddha's words, the Buddha's tongue, the Buddhist patriarchs' eyes, and the nostrils of a patch-robed monk. The words "Total Existence" are utterly beyond beginning existence, beyond original existence, beyond fine existence, and so on. How much less could they describe conditioned existence or illusory existence? They are not connected with "mind and circumstances" or with "essence and form" and the like. This being so, object-and-subject as living beings-and-Total Existence is completely beyond ability based on karmic accumulation, beyond the random occurrence of circumstances, beyond accordance with the Dharma, and beyond mystical powers and practice and experience. If the Total Existence of living beings were [ability] based on karmic accumulation, were the random occurrence of circumstances, were accordance with the Dharma, and so on, then the saints' experience of the truth, the buddhas' state of bodhi, and the Buddhist patriarchs' eyes, would also be ability based on karmic accumulation, the occurrence of circumstances, and accordance with the Dharma. That is not so. The whole Universe is utterly without objective molecules: here and now there is no second person at all. [At the same time] "No person has ever recognized the direct cutting of the root"; for "When does the busy movement of karmic consciousness ever cease? [Total Existence] is beyond existence that arises through random circumstances; for "The entire Universe has never been hidden."

Shobogenzo, Bussho[xx]

This yellow flower, that melodious bird-song, this particular doubt, that specific memory – this very life-and-death – as it is here-now is the sacred life of Buddha; thus Shobogenzo presents and elucidates the nondual nature of aspiration and realization, desire and fulfillment. The conceptual division of aspiration and rationality is as dualistic – hence, as untenable – as the independent existence of form and essence, appearance and reality, self and not-self, and every other dualistic notion exhibited by the hesitant, fearful, and repressed forms of passivity, often in the guise of scientific rationalism or radical skepticism.

…

True nature continuously rises and continuously sets here-and-now as here-and-now. Here-and-now is the ceaseless advance of the universe into novelty, the ever-becoming of self-and-other, enlightenment-and-delusion, form-and-emptiness, existence-and-time. This is the infinite and eternal actualization of the whole universe, the sentient-being that is the ever-becoming Buddha. Total Existence, Buddha-nature, True Self, and sentient-being are synonymous with the experience of existence here-and-now solely becoming, the existence of experience here-and-now solely becoming.

End excerpts……

Please treasure yourself.

Ted

[i] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[ii] Hee-Jin Kim explains Dogen’s coining of the term thus:

He quoted the statement of Yueh-shan Wei-yen (745-828), but modified it in such a way that “a particular time” (arutoki), from Yueh-shan’s original, was interpreted as “existence-time” (uji).

Hee-Jin Kim, Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, p.149

[iii] Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, p.150

[iv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[v] Process and Reality, Alfred North Whitehead, p.28 (Simon & Schuster 1979)

[vi]From this standpoint, Dogen deeply imbibed hongaku discourse as radical phenomenalism, which became the crux of his soteriological vision. In fact, his entire religion may be safely described as the exploration and explication of this radical phenomenalism in terms of its linguistic, rational, and temporal dimensions, as well as the endeavor to overcome its ever-threatening religio-ethical perils.

Hee-Jin, Kim, Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, p.xx

Contrary to the conventional view that language is no more than a means of communication, it is profoundly internal to an individual’s life as well as to the collective life. Language flows individually and collectively through the existential bloodstream, so much so that it is the breath, blood and soul of human existence. Herein lies the essence of Dogen’s radical phenomenalism.

Hee-Jin, Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.64

[vii] While accounts of Zen commonly portray emptiness (sunyata) as the fundamental essence of reality, the notion of emptiness presupposes a prior recognition of dharmas (i.e. thus dharmas, not emptiness, are primary and primordial). Indeed, the very reason and value of the notion of emptiness exists in/as its capacity to adequately account for the experience/existence of dharmas. It is worth noticing that the same reasoning applies to the Zen/Buddhist notion of ‘no-self’ or ‘anatman’; the notion of no-self presupposes a prior recognition of self; the reason and value of no-self exists in/as its capacity to adequately account for the experience/existence of self.

[viii] ‘Appearance’ and ‘form’ denote the ‘total appearance’ of dharmas experienced by sentient beings (i.e. the total influence of dharmas on human experience), thus is not confined to visual experience, but applies to every mode in which dharmas are present, consciously and unconsciously, in/as/to human experience; sight, sound, taste, smell, tactile sensation, thought – the reality [ontological existence] of a dharma and the experience of a dharma are nondual.

[ix]As phenomenal forms, dharmas can generally be understood as appearing/manifesting as one or more of the six ‘objects of consciousness’ – sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts – recognized in traditional Buddhist notions of sensation, perception, mental formulation, and consciousness.

[x] The existence of each dharma is dependent on the existence of ‘all dharmas’ [the totality of all dharmas] and the existence of ‘each other dharma’ [each particular dharma ‘other than’ it]; all dharmas are dependent on each dharma).

[xi] ‘Nominalism’ is commonly used in one of two distinct ways, one in which the existence of abstract objects is denied, and one in which the existence of universals is denied. My usage conforms more with the latter than the former – though not exactly (due to the difference between the dualistic world view in which the term originates and the nondual world view being presented here). More particularly, my usage closely coincides with its meaning in archetypal psychology, for example, with James Hillman’s explanation here:

This is nominalism which too has been instrumental in de-personifying our existence. Nominalism empties out big words; nominalists consider universal laws and general types to be only names (nomina). Words have no inherent substance of their own.

Re-Visioning Psychology, James Hillman, p.5

[xii] In this, Zen’s vision of existence-time is remarkably similar to Alfred North Whitehead’s notion of the ‘ceaseless advance into novelty’ (of the universe). See Process and Reality, Alfred North Whitehead

[xiii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[xiv] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[xv] Hubert Nearman

[xvi] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[xvii] Hubert Nearman

[xviii] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[xix] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

[xx] Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Emptiness and the Sentient Nature of Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:18:00 +0000

Emptiness and the Sentient Nature of Reality

Among the vast number of characteristics Dogen’s Shobogenzo attributes to emptiness, are these six, decidedly positive, characteristics:

Emptiness is present in/as existence-time

Emptiness is differentiated

Emptiness is active

Emptiness is sentient

Emptiness is intelligible

Emptiness is communicable

Even after a short foray into Dogen’s treatment of emptiness in the first fascicle written for Shobogenzo –Maka-hannya-haramitsu – it is clear that his vision of emptiness cannot be understood as negative or apophatic. This point merits emphasis; the meticulous attention to, and refutations of negativistic views of emptiness in Shobogenzo testifies to the pervasiveness of such distortions in Dogen’s era. The distorting power of negativistic views of emptiness can and does obstruct practitioners from clearly seeing any aspect of Zen, not to mention actualizing its wisdom.

The Sentient Nature of Reality

I meet with a human being, a human being meets with a human being, I meet with myself, and manifestation meets with manifestation.

Shobogenzo, Uji, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

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

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Dogen’s treatment of emptiness, in his (altered) citation of the Heart Sutra followed by the series of affirmative expressions on the nature of the self, the world, and the myriad dharmas presents (makes present) a glimpse into the grand vision of Shobogenzo. Right there, in the very first fascicle of Shobogenzo, the common thread that binds together and runs throughout the whole of Dogen’s masterpiece is prominently evident. That thread is the reason (dori) of the nonduality of duality, and the duality of nonduality.

In short, experience, existence, and liberation (epistemology, ontology, and soteriology) are nondual; the experience of clear seeing, the existence of prajna, and the actualization of liberation are three, but are not three different things. The nature and dynamics of the actualization of the universe (genjokoan) advanced by the nonduality of experience, existence, and liberation is creatively brought into relief in numerous ways and from a great variety of perspectives throughout Shobogenzo. To clearly see (i.e. know, experience, encounter) is to be (i.e. appear, exist, manifest), thus to clearly see liberation (Buddhahood, enlightenment, deliverance) is to be liberation. More precisely, the continuous activity of seeing Buddha (kenbutsu) is the continuous activity of becoming Buddha (gyobutsu). Your life (sentient existence) is what you clearly see (sentient experience), what you clearly see is your life.

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

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The Sentient Nature of Zen Expressions

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:33:00 +0000

In Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Dogen emphasizes a significant implication concerning Buddhist sutras (scriptures) in light of Zen's vision of the nondual nature of reality; the experience of (i.e. subjective encounter with) ‘this sutra’ and what is experienced (i.e. objectively encountered) as ‘this sutra’ are coessential elements of ‘this sutra’ itself – the subject and object of this ‘sutra’ are ‘this sutra’ as it is:

The subject of “belonging” and the object of “belonging” are both “this sutra.”
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

This truth is so alien to central tenets of the common worldview it can fail to register without close attention. Because the independence of subjective and objective reality is taken as self-evident in the common view , it is easy not to notice that if both the subject and object of ‘this sutra’ are ‘this sutra,’ then the one experiencing ‘this sutra’ and what is experienced as ‘this sutra’ are nondual. This truth is an inevitable conclusion of the reason (dori) intrinsic to a nondual cosmology. From the perspective of a nondual cosmology not only are expresser and expressed interdependent, all subjects and objects are interdependent.

At this very moment, ‘this sutra’ really experiences ‘all bodhisattvas.’
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

With this it is obvious why Zen teachings about the true nature of reality cannot be understood from the perspective of dualism. Any understanding of Zen that is arrived at from an approach grounded in dualism will inevitably be a wrong understanding. Dogen's discussion on this includes the observation:

The sutra is not sentient, the sutra is not insentient, the sutra is not the product of doing and the sutra is not the product of nondoing.
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The gist of this should be clear in light of our discussion of emptiness and interdependence. Briefly, ‘this sutra’ being nondual, cannot be understood to be sentient or insentient. Sentient and insentient are two foci of a unified (nondual) reality; they are interdependent, coessential and coextensive – the way up is the way down, ‘sentient’ is meaningless in the absence of ‘insentient’ and vice versa. Likewise, ‘this sutra’ cannot be produced by doing or nondoing – if it were a product of ‘doing’ it would equally be a product of ‘nondoing.’

Notice that ‘this sutra,’ insofar as it is real, must be a dharma. In light of this we can see numerous other things ‘this sutra’ is not. This sutra is not ‘confined to a special realm, state, or condition,’ is not ‘indescribable,’ is not ‘incommunicable,’ is not ‘transcendent to language,’ and is not ‘inaccessible to normal human experience and understanding.’

In harmony with the principles of nonduality, when Zen expressions explicitly assert something ‘is not’ they implicitly assert that same something ‘is.’ Thus, to explicitly assert that this sutra ‘is not sentient,’ ‘is not insentient’ is to implicitly assert that this sutra ‘is sentient,’ ‘is insentient.’ Therefore, Zen teachings are definitely not confined to only pointing out what ‘Zen’ or ‘true nature’ is not. Thus Dogen does not only assert that ‘this sutra’ is ‘not this’ and does ‘not this,’ but also points out ‘this sutra’ is ‘this’ and does ‘this’:

Even so, when it experiences bodhi, experiences people, experiences real form, and experiences “this sutra,” it “opens the gate of expedient methods.” “The gate of expedient methods” is the supreme virtue of the Buddha’s ultimate state, it is “the Dharma abiding in the Dharma’s place,” and it is “the form of the world abiding in constancy.” The gate of expedient methods is not a temporary artifice; it is the learning in practice of the whole universe in ten directions, and it is learning in practice that exploits the real form of all dharmas.
Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

What 'Enlightenment' actually means

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:57:00 +0000

It is crucial to understand what ‘enlightenment’ actually means; an actual manifestation of truth, realized by a particular sentient being at a specific place-time. It is for this reason that individual practitioners are instructed in the teachings and methods that recognize the nonduality of ‘practice’ and ‘enlightenment.’ Practice is ‘practice-grounded-in-enlightenment’ and enlightenment is ‘enlightened-practice.’ Again, practice means ‘actualizing (making actual) enlightenment’ and enlightenment means ‘enlightenment actualized.’ Practice does not ‘cause enlightenment’ and enlightenment does not ‘exist independent of’ practice; practice is practice-enlightenment, enlightenment is practice-enlightenment. Dogen calls this ‘distinct’ yet ‘coextensive’ characteristic of practice-enlightenment “untaintedness.”

If we failed to recognize the feature of the moment of being in this truth, that might be stupid. That feature, namely, is untaintedness. Untaintedness does not mean forcibly endeavoring to be aimless and free of attachment and detachment; nor does it mean maintaining something other than one’s aim. Actually, without being aimed at, or attached to, or detached from, untaintedness exists.

Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Human Being or Buddha?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:55:00 +0000

‘A Buddha’ is what we call it when enlightenment is manifest by a human being. ‘Enlightenment’ is what we call it when an enlightened being is actualizing enlightened conduct (enlightened thoughts, words, or deeds).

When the supreme state of bodhi is a person, we call it “buddha.” When buddha is in the supreme state of bodhi, we call it “the supreme state of bodhi.”

Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Karma is Activity

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:53:00 +0000

Karma is activity. Activity is ever and always the conduct (a particular thought, word, or deed) of a particular sentient being at a particular location-time. When the conduct of a sentient being harmonizes with reality (truth, Buddha-Dharma) as it is here-now, that is enlightenment (‘Buddhahood’). When the conduct of a sentient being diverges from the truth here-now, that is delusion (‘ordinary being’). To be deluded is to be ‘bound to suffering’, to be enlightened is to be ‘liberated from suffering’ – the former ‘suffer’ the consequences of here-now of their actions (karma), the latter ‘utilize’ the liberating potential of action (karma) here-now. For karma is never some ‘general’ reality that exists separate from actual distinct actions of particular beings here-now; ‘karma itself’ (as an independent thing or entity) does not exist. Likewise, the only real ‘delusion’ in the universe are the particular ‘deluded thoughts, words, or deeds’ of actual sentient beings here-now; the only ‘realization’ is that manifest as particular thoughts, words, or deeds of sentient beings here-now.

Delusion, remember, is something that does not exist. Realization, remember, is something that does not exist.

Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Not 'Aiming' for Enlightenment does not mean Not 'Aiming' for Enlightenment

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:52:00 +0000

The Zen/Buddhist teaching instructing students not to aim for (a fixed notion or idea of) enlightenment has often been reduced to distorted teachings that proclaim practitioners should have no goals whatever, that they should not aim for anything at all. Such assertions are commonly accompanied with comments about how efforts and attempts to realize enlightenment or Buddhahood obstruct practitioners from realization. The truth is, if we do not aim for and make effort to realize enlightenment, we are very unlikely to do so. As long as we learn, and remain mindful of the fact that ‘enlightenment’ cannot be accurately envisioned ahead of time, we will not make the mistake of aiming for a reified concept. Thus, even though our thoughts and ideas about enlightenment fail to perfectly harmonize with enlightenment, our efforts will nevertheless be accurately empowered –in a nondual reality all activity is interdependent, hence even ‘wrong thinking about realization’ is realization itself. As Dogen says:

When we have attained realization, we do not know what the reasons were for our being [now] in the state of realization. Let us reflect on this. To have thought, prior to realization, that it will be like this or like that, was not useful for realization. That it was different from how we had supposed it to be, in all our miscellaneous prior thoughts, does not mean that our thinking, being very bad, had no power in it. Even the thinking of that time was realization itself, but because we were then directing it the wrong way round, we thought and said that it was powerless.

Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Recognizing Enlightenment and Delusion

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:50:00 +0000

According to the Zen records it is useless for practitioners to aim for a reified (imagined, envisioned) concept of ‘enlightenment’ or ‘Buddha’ – anyone that is not here-now enlightened or here-now Buddha must be here-now deluded or here-now ordinary; anything they ‘envision’ or ‘imagine’ will be off the mark. Thus Dogen says:

When we perfectly realize it, while still as we are, we would never have thought previously that realization would be like this. Even though we had imagined it, it is not a realization that is compatible with that imagining. Realization itself is nothing like we imagined. That being so, to imagine it beforehand is not useful.

Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The point, then, is that practitioners need to recognize delusion as delusion. Enlightenment is one possible form of activity (reality), and delusion is the other possible form of activity. To be deluded is to be ‘fashioned by activity’ (to be ‘turned by the sutra’, to be the ‘subject of causation’); to be enlightened is to be the ‘fashioner of activity’ (to ‘turn the sutra’, to be ‘causation’ itself).

The ‘myriad dharmas’ are the ‘one Buddha,’

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:48:00 +0000

As the ‘myriad dharmas’ are the ‘one Buddha,’ there is only and always ‘Buddha alone’ (al-one; all-one); as the ‘one Buddha’ is the ‘myriad dharmas,’ there is only and always ‘together with’ (to-gather with) Buddha. Accordingly, ‘Buddhas alone’ is the normality of ‘together with Buddhas’ and ‘together with Buddhas’ is the normality of ‘Buddhas alone.’

‘Buddha’ means ‘enlightened sentient being’

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:47:00 +0000

If we misunderstand ‘Buddha’ to mean something other than ‘an enlightened sentient being’ then it will be difficult to recognize the difference between ‘enlightened conduct’ and ‘deluded conduct’ (i.e. karmic activity).

As Zen/Buddhism recognizes the ceaseless-passage of reality, thus there can only be ‘enlightened conduct’ or ‘deluded conduct’ at any given moment of a particular sentient being’s existence. When a sentient being thinks, speaks, or acts inconsistently with reality as it is (i.e. Buddha-Dharma), they are an ‘ordinary being’ (deluded). When the conduct of a sentient being is in harmony with reality as it is, they are a ‘Buddha’ (enlightened). To be in harmony with the truth (Buddha-Dharma, reality, thusness, etc.) about anything here-now, be it karma, causation, meditation, compassion, is to be Buddha – to diverge from the truth here-now is to be ordinary (i.e. deluded). Accordingly, the Yui-butsu-yo-butsu fascicle opens with this point:

The Buddha-Dharma cannot be known by people. For this reason, since ancient times, no common person 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.”

Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The Coordination of Understanding and Verification

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:33:00 +0000

The Coordination of Understanding and Verification

While the true nature of the self must be experientially verified before it can be actualized, it can be accurately understood prior to verification. Indeed, accurate understanding is almost always a prerequisite to verification. For example, the basic dynamics of the ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ aspects of experience/existence can be accurately understood by learning and applying the methodology presented in the Buddhist scripture known as the Diamond Sutra.

Basically, this method is applied by clearly envisioning a threefold process. First, in focusing attention on our experience we come to recognize that ‘I’ is ‘not-I’ – what we experience as ‘I’ is actually constituted of the world, in particular, sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts. Second, we come to recognize that ‘not-I’ is ‘I’ – everything (the world) we experience is ‘I’. Third, we come to recognize that ‘I’ is both ‘I’ and ‘not I’, and ‘not-I’ is both ‘I’ and ‘not I’ – ‘I’ is the subject of existence/experience, ‘not-I’ is the object of existence/experience.

The third recognition is the crucial point, getting stuck at the first or second phase of this process is not uncommon. In the second phase we accurately recognize that ‘everything we experience is us’ – but only with continued attention do we recognize the ‘subjective aspect of us’ has certain characteristics that are entirely different from those of the ‘objective aspect of us.’ When we encounter a sheep, for example, the experience itself constitutes the whole of our existence, the sheep is the ‘objective’ aspect of us, and is ‘enacted’ by us, but insofar as we exist (thus are enabled to enact the sheep), ‘we’ are ‘objective’ aspects of the sheep. The point to get is that our capacities as ‘subjective’ aspects of existence are limited – we have the capacity to enact a sheep as a sheep or not enact it, but we do not have the capacity to enact a sheep as a cat.

An expression of Buddha (i.e. a dharma) is the manifestation of the ‘creative striving’ of the self (the subject of the individual body-mind that is ‘you’). Because the creative striving of a subject can only be enacted by striving with something (i.e. a dharma), manifesting an expression of Buddha as it is (i.e. true Dharma) can never be achieved by a subject that denies or detaches from the world, but only by one that strives creatively with it (i.e. clearly discerns and actualizes it). To authentically strive creatively one must accurately recognize and understand the material they are working with and apply the skills and techniques that are effective for working with it. A Zen practitioner, then, is one that strives creatively, employing the skills and techniques developed and refined through systematic study, practice, and verification to fashion a Buddha realm from the ceaseless advance of experience that constitutes the world as it is.

The Mutual Actualization of the Self and the World

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:32:00 +0000

The Mutual Actualization of the Self and the World

The state that is visited by brightness and by color may be present in this learning in practice. “I entrust effects to effects themselves”: this expresses “natural realization.” “Natural realization” means enacting causes and accepting effects. The world has causes, and the world has effects. We enact the cause-and-effect that is this world, and we accept the cause-and-effect that is the world. “The [natural] self” is “itself,” and the self is inevitably just you, in other words, the four elements and five aggregates.

Shobogenzo, Kuge, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

We (the subject we call ‘myself’) ‘enact… this world.’ The actualization of consciousness is an object enacted by a subject; a subject enacts, an object is enacted. Notice that in the case that we think, speak, or act in regard to a ‘subject’ enacted (e.g. ‘I felt myself falling,’ ‘I made myself go,’ ‘I reminded myself of my vow,’ etc.) we think, speak, or act in regard to what is actually an ‘object.’ Further, to regard a subject as an object, or to regard an object as a subject is, in either case, to regard an object – for ‘that which regards’ is the subject in either case. And despite my objectification of the subject with ‘that which regards,’ my meaning should be clear enough; to treat an object as a subject does not make an object a subject. The subject is the enactor, the object is the enacted. For example, consider this expression of Dogen:

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

Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

In the first clause, ‘life’ is the object and ‘I’ is the subject; in the second clause, ‘life’ is the subject and ‘I’ is the object. Subject and object are nondual not one and the same, interdependent not interchangeable, coessential not undifferentiated, coextensive not homogenous. The subject is always the enactor, maker, or fashioner; the object is always the enacted, made, or fashioned.

I am belaboring the point because without a firm grasp it is easy to confuse the limitations and potentials of our actual capacities, our true abilities to respond (hence our responsibilities) to the world. For, while it is true that, in harmony with the principles of nonduality, our (subjective) ‘self’ is all-inclusive (of ‘self/other’) and our (objective) ‘world’ is all-inclusive (self/other), each, ‘self’ and ‘world,’ possesses unique qualities and characteristics. That is, if we fail to clearly distinguish which qualities and characteristics belong to our self (enactor) and which to the world (enacted) we will be unable to think, speak, or act normally (from the enlightened perspective). In short, we will be confused about what we actually can and cannot do in regard to ‘making life what it is.’

For example, according to the doctrine and methodology of certain pseudo-Zen groups, individual beings (subjects) are largely, or wholly enacted or fashioned by the (objective) world, hence efforts to enhance the world are largely, or wholly futile, thus regarded as symptoms of delusion. At the other extreme, for instance among some ‘New Age’ movements, individual beings are supposed to fashion the world so completely that their worldly circumstances (e.g. health, financial status, intelligence, etc.) are largely, if not entirely of their own making. The ‘way’ to peace, happiness, or liberation advocated by the former species is either to accept the world as it is, or else to cultivate detachment or ‘goallessness’ and cut off desire and aversion. The ‘way’ of the latter species is to transform the world into a horn of plenty by rooting out negativity by cultivating positive thoughts or ‘vibes’ with affirmations of health, abundance, and happiness. In both of these ‘ways’ the nature of subjective and objective reality, the truth of existence/experience is seen as it is not, hence can only obstruct their followers from the true Dharma.

The unity and differentiation of consciousness

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:30:00 +0000

The unity and differentiation of consciousness

Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it.

David Bohm, Statement of 1986, as quoted in Towards a Theory of Transpersonal Decision-Making in Human-Systems (2007) by Joseph Riggio, p. 66

Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.

Erwin Schrödinger, As quoted in The Observer (11 January 1931); also in Psychic Research (1931), Vol. 25, p. 91

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary...

Erwin Schrödinger, "The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

It is generally understood that all knowledge or experience (epistemology) of the world arrives through the sense organs. This is accurate, even obvious, as far as it goes. But, like all generalizations, it is only useful as a starting point for inquiring into particular knowledge; in this case particular knowledge concerning the true nature of knowledge. Some of the particular knowledge about knowledge that Zen regards as significant, is that the sense organs – eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind – are components of consciousness. Thus, while experience or knowledge of the world arrives through the sense organs, it is realized (made real) by and as consciousness. In this, then, we come to see; the known/experienced world is – exists as – consciousness itself.

The nondual perspective presupposes both a subject and an object are present in/as all instances of consciousness; in the absence of either, consciousness cannot exist. All knowledge/experience is the realization of a sentient being (subject; conscious existent) and a being of sentience (object; existent of consciousness). One thing this illumines is Zen’s recognition of the Buddha nature or wisdom of the human capacities for reasoning (dori) and discrimination – that is, Zen’s affirmation of the essential nature and role of the discriminating mind.

Contrary to the views commonly asserted in certain contemporary Zen circles, discrimination is an essential element of authentic Zen practice-enlightenment. Based on superficial notions of nonduality – notions confuse ‘nonduality’ with ‘oneness’ and/or ‘duality’ with ‘dualism’ – the negative or delusional nature of discrimination is commonly suggested, even explicitly asserted in popular accounts of Zen. Naturally, if one misunderstands ‘nonduality’ as meaning ‘oneness,’ one can only regard distinctions to be unreal or illusory. Similarly, to confuse ‘duality’ with ‘dualism’ can only lead to distorted views of plurality and variety. ‘Nondual’ means ‘not two,’ it does not mean ‘one.’ That ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ are nondual means they are interdependent, not that they are inter-changeable, much less indistinguishable.

Zen distinguishes between subjects and objects because subjects are not objects, and objects are not subjects. In the context of knowledge, subject and object are coessential, coextensive foci; two distinct, mutually dependent elements of consciousness. The subject of an object has its place (dharma-position) in the universe which is not the same as the place as the object of the subject – consciousness, knowledge, or experience is a subject realizing an object and an object realized by a subject. In other words, the normality of subjects and objects is for subjects to be subjects and objects to be objects; objects exist as ‘what is realized’ by subjects, and subjects exist as ‘what realizes’ objects.

Not “mountains” are “mountains”, rather, mountains are mountains

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:28:00 +0000

Not “mountains” are “mountains”, rather, mountains are mountains

Knowledge can be either accurate or inaccurate; To clarify Zen’s view of what is it that makes ‘knowledge’ knowledge, consider this passage from Dogen on what makes ‘mountains’ mountains:

An eternal buddha says, “Mountains are mountains. Water is water.” These words do not say that “mountains” are “mountains”; they say that mountains are mountains. This being so, we should master the mountains in practice. When we are mastering the mountains in practice, that is effort “in the mountains.” Mountains and water like this naturally produce sages and produce saints.

Shobogenzo, Sansuigyo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The difference between saying ‘mountains’ are ‘mountains’ and saying ‘mountains are mountains’ is, first, a difference between words or concepts about mountains and actual mountains and, second, a difference between seeing mountains as they are and seeing mountains as they are not. For example, to see a mountain from the perspective of the representational theory – as an objective independent reality re-presented in the mind/brain – is to see it as it is not. To see a mountain as a coessential element of the experience of a mountain – an experiencer of mountain/a mountain experienced – is to see it as it is. To clearly see mountains, then, is to ‘master mountains in your practice,’ which is ‘your effort in mountains.’ Mountains are ‘what’ (normal; healthy) eyes see as mountains, and mountains are ‘how’ eyes see mountains. In Zen to see mountains as mountains is to naturally (normally) produce mountains as mountains thus to be produced naturally by mountains – hence, mountains ‘naturally produce sages.’

Two Significant Insights Verified by Normal Human Experience

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 20:26:00 +0000

Two Significant Insights Verified by Normal Human Experience

1. You do not and cannot know anything beyond your knowledge (i.e. experience; epistemology).

While this is a simple truism, it warrants close attention; what you know as ‘you’ is delineated by your experience of ‘you.’ What you know as ‘other’ (than you) is delineated by your experience of ‘other.’ Thus, apart from your experience of ‘you’ and ‘other’ you do not and cannot know anything at all. For you, your knowledge is all that exists in the whole universe – that is, for you, your knowledge exists as the whole universe. This is true for every individual ‘you’ throughout the whole universe.

2. Existence (i.e. being; ontology) is equivalent to knowledge (of self and other).

What exists (as both ‘you’ and ‘other’) is delineated by your knowledge. No ‘you’ or ‘other’ exists beyond your experience. This too is true for every individual ‘you’ throughout the whole universe. In sum, reality – the totality of the existence (ontology) of you and other – consists entirely of your knowledge (epistemology); knowledge – the totality of your experience (epistemology) of you and other – consists entirely of your existence. This is true for every individual ‘you’ throughout the whole universe.

“The body learning the truth” means learning the truth with the body, learning the truth with a mass of red flesh. The body derives from learning the truth, and what derives from learning the truth is, in every case, the body. “The whole universe in ten directions is just the real human body.” “Living-and-dying, going-and-coming, are the real human body.”

(Shinjitsu-nintai, the words of Master Chōsha Keishin. See Chapter Thirty-seven (Vol. II), Shinjin-gakudō; Chapter Forty-seven (Vol. III), Sangai-yuishin; Chapter Fifty (Vol. III), Shohō-jissō; Chapter Sixty-two (Vol. III), Hensan; and Chapter Ninety-one (Vol. IV), Yui-butsu-yo-butsu.)

…

“The human body” is the four elements and the five aggregates. Neither the great elements nor the smallest particles can be wholly realized by the common person, but they are mastered in experience by the saints. Further, we should clearly see the ten directions in a single particle. It is not that the ten directions comprise single particles. In some instances a monks’ hall and a Buddha hall are constructed in a single particle, and in some instances the whole universe is constructed in a monks’ hall and a Buddha hall. On this basis [the whole universe] is constructed; and construction, on this basis, is realized. Such a principle is that “the whole universe in ten directions is the real human body.” We should not follow the wrong view of naturalism. That which is beyond spatial measurement is not wide or narrow. “The whole universe in the ten directions” is the eighty-four thousand aggregates of Dharma preaching, it is the eighty-four thousand states of samādhi, and it is the eighty-four thousand dhāraṇīs. Because the eighty-four thousand aggregates of Dharma preaching are the turning of the wheel of Dharma, a place where the wheel of Dharma turns is all the world and is all of time. It is not a place without directions or boundaries: it is “the real human body.” You now and I now are people of “the real human body” that is “the whole universe in ten directions.” We learn the truth without overlooking such things. As we continue, moment by moment, to give up the body and receive the body—whether for three great asaṃkheyas of kalpas, for thirteen great asaṃkheyas of kalpas, or for countless great asaṃkheyas of kalpas—the momentary state of learning the truth is always to learn the truth in forward steps and backward steps. To do a prostration and to bow with joined hands are the moving and still forms of dignified behavior. In painting a picture of a withered tree, and in polishing a tile of dead ash, there is not the slightest interval. The passing days are short and pressed, but learning the truth is profound and eternal. The air of those who have given up their families and left family life may be bleak, but we are not to be confused with woodcutters. The livelihood is a struggle, but we are not the same as peasants. Do not compare us in terms of deludedness or of good and bad. Do not get stuck in the area of wrong and right or true and false. “Living-and-dying, going-and-coming, are the real human body”: These words “living-and-dying” describe the aimless wandering of the common person and at the same time that which was shed by the Great Saint. The effort to transcend the common and transcend the sacred is not simply to be described as “the real human body.” In this effort there are the two kinds and the seven kinds [of life-and-death]; at the same time every kind, when perfectly realized, is totally life-and-death—which, therefore, we need not fear. The reason [we need not fear life-and-death] is that even before we are through with life, we are already meeting death in the present. And even before we are through with death, we are already meeting life in the present. Life does not hinder death, and death does not hinder life. Neither life nor death is known to the common person. Life may be likened to a cedar tree and death to a man of iron. Cedar trees are restricted by cedar trees, but life is never restricted by death, for which reason it is the learning of the truth. Life is not the primary occurrence, and death is not the secondary one. Death does not oppose life, and life does not depend on death.

Zen Master Engo says:

Life is the manifestation of all functions,

Death is the manifestation of all functions.

They fill up the whole of space.

The naked mind is always moment by moment.

We should quietly consider and examine these words. Although Zen Master Engo has spoken like this, he still does not know that “life-and-death” is beyond “all functions.” When we learn going-and-coming in practice, there is life-and-death in going, there is life-and-death in coming, there is going-and-coming in life, and there is going-and-coming in death. “Going-and-coming,” with the whole universe in the ten directions as two wings or three wings, goes flying away and comes flying back, and with the whole universe in the ten directions as three feet or five feet, steps forward and steps backward. With life-and-death as its head and tail, “the real human body” that is the whole universe in ten directions can turn somersaults and turn around its brain. In turning somersaults and turning around its brain, it is as if the size of a penny, or like the inside of an atom. The flat, level, and even state is walls standing a thousand feet high. And the place where walls stand a thousand feet high is the flat, level, and even state. Thus the real features of the southern continent and the northern continent exist; examining their [real features], we learn the truth. The bones and marrow of non-thought and non–non-thought exist; resisting this [idea], we solely learn the truth.

Shobogenzo, Shinjin-gakudō, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Look Deeply Into Your Own Mind

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:33:00 +0000

Once, before a talk, Charles asked, “Which spiritual tradition is the closest to the truth?”
.

Louie Wing said, “The spiritual guides and awakened teachers of all the great traditions did not preach and demonstrate the reality of awakening because they had something they could give you. They simply directed you to look deeply into your own mind and perceive its true nature. How could there be any difference of superiority or inferiority among the awakened teachers within the various styles? All that is important is to awaken to the one true reality of your own mind.”

The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

As It Is

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:29:00 +0000

As it is...

Reality has never fluctuated; things are as they are. How could they be different from what they are? Everything is as it is. Even if it were possible to understand reality through conceptualization, it would not change a thing.

The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

Talking of Mind, Talking of Nature

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Biringer) — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:55:00 +0000

Talking of Mind, Talking of Nature

A Commentary On Dogen's Shobogenzo, Sesshin sessho
Translation (in Bold) by Carl Bielefeldt
Commentary by Ted Biringer.
(adapted from The Flatbed Sutra Newsletter. Dec. 2014)

Once, when the Chan Master Shenshan Sengmi was traveling with the Great Master Dongshan Wuben, the Great Master Wuben pointed out a cloister beside [the road] and said, "Inside, there's someone talking of the mind and talking of the nature."

Elder brother Sengmi said, "Who is it?"

The Great Master Wuben said, "Questioned once by my elder brother, and he's immediately doomed."

Elder brother Sengmi said, "Who is it that's talking of the mind and talking of the nature?"

The Great Master Wuben said, "In death, he lives."

[Note: "Great Master Dongshan Wuben" (Tozan Gohon Daishi) is Dongshan Liangjie (807-869), founder of the Caodong (Soto) lineage of Chan (Zen); Chan Master Shenshan Sengmi (Shinzan Somitsu Zenji) was his brother in the Dharma (i.e. both were disciples of the same master, Yunyan Tansheng); source, notes by Carl Bielefeldt]

As he often does, Dogen begins his teaching by citing a koan (case 62 of Dogen's 300 koan collection of: Shinji, Shobogenzo). "Inside" means inside the cloister (or temple) the two masters are beside. "Someone" means a person inside that cloister. The fact that this dialogue is a mythopoeic expression (as are all sacred and artistic expressions) tells us these terms also illumine something more essential. In the present context the significance of these terms is similar to the "inside" and the "someone" of Zen Master Shitou's Song of the Grass-Roof Hermitage:

I've built a grass hut where there's nothing of value.

After eating, I relax and enjoy a nap.
...

The person in the hut lives here calmly,

Not stuck to inside, outside, or in between.
...

Though the hut is small, it includes the entire world.

In ten square feet, an old man illumines forms and their nature.
...

Perishable or not, the original master is present,

not dwelling south or north, east or west.
...

If you want to know the undying person in the hut,

Don't separate from this skin bag here and now.

From, Song of the Grass-Roof Hermitage,Shitou Xiqian (700-790), translated by Daniel Leighton in his, Cultivating the Empty Field

"Talking" is the activity of language. As Dogen clearly elucidated, and contemporary cognitive scientists are beginning to reveal, language is not only what facilitates the human ability to communicate from mind to mind; it is what facilitates the human ability to think and reason. Indeed, language is what allows human beings to experience life as human beings.

"The mind" and "the nature" are nondual foci (i.e. coessential elements) of experience, that is, life itself (i.e. the actual experience of being alive). "The mind" is what experiences life itself; "the nature" is what is experienced as life itself. Experience is only and always constituted of both foci; an "experiencer" ("the mind" that experiences) and an "experienced" ("the nature" that is experienced). As experiencers it is easy for humans to personally verify this truth; apart from an experiencer there is no experienced, apart from an experienced there is no experiencer. Thus it is self-evident that "the mind" and "the nature" are nondual (not-two).

"Talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is the activity of language itself; the communicating, thinking, and reasoning experienced as life itself.

Here Dongshan initiates the dialogue by expressing that inside there is someone engaging language; expounding, thinking, and reasoning on experience. When Shenshan identifies the "someone" as "Who?" ("Who is it?" i.e. "Who?" is the "someone" engaging language), he thereby reveals the absence (emptiness) of the "someone." For, to truly mean "who?" is to truly question - thus truly not know - the identity of someone (i.e. to ask "who?" when one knows is not truly to ask "who?").

Dongshan verifies the emptiness of the "someone" with "immediately doomed" - if "Who?" (i.e. someone not known) is known, they are not truly "Who?" The moment "Who?" is "John" or "Jane," "Who?" is absent (i.e. immediately doomed, empty).

Having reached agreement this far, Shenshan brings the right view to completion with, "Who is it that's talking of the mind and talking of the nature?" As in the methodology most familiar from the Diamond Sutra - A is not-A, therefore A is A - Who? (the "someone inside") is not-Who? ("immediately doomed"), therefore Who? is Who? ("Who is it that's talking...").

Dongshan's, "In death, he lives" not only approves the point, it emphasizes its ultimate import: "...he lives." The fact that "A is not-A" is not only insignificant in the absence of, "therefore A is A", it is wrong, delusional - demonstrating why "half-truth" is a synonym for "lie." The "reconstructionist" aspect of the doctrine of emptiness (therefore A is A) is not only as crucial as the "deconstructionist" aspect (A is not-A), it is the key point - to recognize that particular things are empty (lack a separate, independent self) is to see their absence (doom, darkness), only by seeing that emptiness is particular things do we see their presence (is-ness, life).

"Talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is the great origin of the way of the buddha; from it are caused to appear buddha after buddha and ancestor after ancestor. Without "talking of the mind and talking of the nature," there would be no turning the wheel of the wondrous dharma; there would be no production of the thought and cultivation of the practice; there would be no "the great earth and sentient beings simultaneously achieved the way"; there would be no "all living beings lack buddha nature."

Here Dogen clearly articulates the implication of recognizing language ("Talking of the mind and talking of the nature") as the fundamental activity of life itself. It is more fundamental than Buddhism itself - "it is the great origin of the way of buddha," "from it" Buddhas and ancestors "are caused to appear." Without the activity of language "there would be no turning the wheel" (Buddhist teaching), no aspiration for or realization of enlightenment.

"Holding up a flower and blinking" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"; "breaking into a smile" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"; "making a bow and standing there" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"; "the ancestral master entering the Liang" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"; "transmitting the robe in the middle of the night" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." Taking up the staff is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature"; laying down the whisk is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature."

To emphasize the point Dogen clearly articulates his meaning by applying it to a number of widely recognized (in Zen) basic elements of Zen history and practice. Each of the particular activities he lists is a simple truism of Zen life. "Holding up a flower..." and "breaking into a smile," for example, refer to the Buddha's transmission of Dharma to Mahakayshyapa with an expression as recognizable in Zen as, "Let there be light" is in Christianity. Thus, "Talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is not a generalization; it does not mean "Everything is reducible to 'talking of the mind and talking of the nature.'" It means "Each particular thing, each specific action is 'talking of the mind and talking of the nature.'"

In sum, every virtue of buddha after buddha and ancestor after ancestor is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." There is the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "the ordinary"; there is the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles." The realization of the principle, "when the mind arises, the various dharmas arise," and the realization of the principle, "when the mind ceases, the various dharmas cease," are in either case occasions of "talking of the mind," occasions of "talking of the nature."

Every actual manifestation of Buddha, every particular form of reality is an expression of Buddha, is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature."

Yet, mediocre types, who have not penetrated the mind, who have not reached the nature, without knowing "talking of the mind and talking of the nature," without knowing "discussing the dark, discussing the subtle," say that these must not be the words of the buddhas and ancestors, teach that they should not exist. Because they do not know "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" as "talking of the mind and talking of the nature," they think of "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" as "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." This is particularly because they have not been critical of the passage and obstructions of the great way.

Because they do not know "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" as "talking of the mind and talking of the nature," they think of "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" as "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." This is because they have failed to wholeheartedly apply themselves to the language, thinking, and reason ("not been critical of") of the Buddha Dharma ("the passage and obstructions of the great way").

* * * * *

Of late, there was a certain Zonggao, the Chan Master Dahui of Jingshan, who said,

People today, because they like "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" or "discussing the dark and discussing the subtle," are slow to attain the way. When, you have thrown away both "mind" and "nature" and forgotten both "dark" and "subtle," so that the two do not arise, you will verify and accord.

Whether or not Dahui actually said this is beside the point - it is what these words express that demands our attention. The notion that words or ideas like "mind," "nature," "dark", and "subtle," can be "thrown away" or "forgotten" so as not to "arise" can only be entertained from a perspective grounded on dualism, hence a non-Buddhist perspective. If words or ideas like "mind," "nature," etc. are true hindrances, causing people to be "slow to attain the way," they must be realities (i.e. have true existence). It would only be possible to "throw away" or "forget" realities if separate, independent realities existed - that's dualism. And obviously, if such words or ideas are unreal they cannot be true hindrances.

This saying does not know the pale yellow silk of the buddhas and ancestors, has not heard of the monarchal line of the buddhas and ancestors. Consequently, he says this because he knows that the mind is merely consideration, knowledge, thought, and perception, and does not learn that consideration, knowledge, thought, and perception are also the mind. Mistakenly figuring only that the nature is pure, deep, quiescent, and still, he does not know about the existence or non-existence of the buddha nature or dharma nature. Because he has never seen "such a nature" even in his dreams, he has this biased view of the buddha dharma.

Dogen points out that this "biased view" is grounded on the false assumption that "mind" is a reality more fundamental than the reality of "mentality" ("consideration, knowledge, thought, and perception") and that "nature" is a reality more fundamental than the reality of "appearance" or "form." Again, for a reality to be less real than another reality, there would have to be separate, independent realities - dualism. To hold any such view is to hold a false view - to "not know about the existence or non-existence of the buddha nature or dharma nature."

The "mind" spoken of by the buddhas and ancestors is "skin, flesh, bones, and marrow"; the "nature" maintained by the buddhas and ancestors is "the bamboo truncheon and staff." The "dark" that the buddhas and ancestors verify and accord with is "columns and lanterns"; the "subtle" that the buddhas and ancestors take up is "knowledge and understanding."

One American Zen master (who probably never heard of Zen) offered a similar insight:

Is it not curious, that so vast a being as the whale should see the world through so small an eye, and hear the thunder through an ear which is smaller than a hare's? But if his eyes were broad as the lens of Herschel's great telescope; and his ears capacious as the porches of cathedrals; would that make him any longer of sight, or sharper of hearing? Not at all. Why then do you try to 'enlarge' your mind? Subtilize it.

~Herman Melville

"The 'mind' spoken of by buddhas and ancestors" ("talked of" by "someone") is "skin, flesh, bones, and marrow," is "consideration, knowledge, thought, and perception." The "nature" talked of by "someone" is "the bamboo truncheon and staff," the pantry, the gate. The "dark" that Zen practitioners "verify and accord with" is recognized as "columns and lanterns" illumined. The "subtle" that is expressed by Buddhas is not realized by throwing away, forgetting, or enlarging but by subtilizing "knowledge and understanding."

The buddhas and ancestors who are truly buddhas and ancestors, from the beginning, hear this "mind and nature," teach it, practice it, and verify it. They maintain this "dark and subtle," and they study it. Those who are like this are called the children and grandchildren studying the buddhas and ancestors. Those who are not like this are not students of the way.

Buddhas and ancestors "hear this..., teach it, practice it, and verify it," they maintain and study it. Those called "the children and grandchildren studying the buddhas and ancestors" are like this, i.e. are Buddhas and ancestors. Those who do not hear this, teach it, practice it, verify it, maintain it, and study it are not like this.

Therefore, [Dahui's] "attaining the way" does not attain the way; when it does not attain the way, it is not that it does not attain the way. It misses the occasions of both attaining and not [attaining]. While, to say, as you say, "forget both mind and nature," may be a part expressing the talking of the mind, it is a small part, a hundredth, a thousandth, ten thousandth, a hundred millionth part. To say, "discard both dark and subtle," is a part forming the discussion of discussing of the dark.

The meaning of "attaining the way" presupposed in the above statement attributed to Dahui fails to harmonize with the reality of "attaining the way," thus is contrary to the authentic Buddha Dharma. Dogen is not like that. Not only does Dogen recognize consideration, knowledge, thought, and perception as real, nondual, coessential elements of mind, he recognizes that even erroneous utterances about the mind are not independent of talking of the mind. Even if saying "discard both dark and subtle" is erroneous, it is nevertheless talking of dark and subtle.

Not having studied this pivot, if you stupidly say, "forgetting," you think [it is] leaving the hand, you know it as escaping the body. You are not yet liberated from the confines of the Small Vehicle; how could you reach the innermost darkness of the Great Vehicle, let alone know "the higher pivot"? It is difficult to say that you have tasted the tea and rice of the buddhas and ancestors.

To think that "throwing away" or "forgetting" something can somehow make something into nothing is to have a seriously distorted view - a view that "you" and "something" are two separate realities. You are what you experience (i.e. see, hear, smell, taste, feel, think). When you harbor a false view, a false view harbors you. When you discard a false view and take up a true view, the false view does not become the true view nor does it become nonexistent - the false view is still the false view, the true view was ever already the true view.

To study with a teacher and be diligent in your work is just to investigate physically "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" at the very moment of body and mind, to investigate it before the body and after the body. There are not two or three other ways.

There is no body apart from mind, no mind apart from body. The very moment of "body" is the very moment of "body and mind," the very moment of "mind" is the very moment of "body and mind." To "investigate physically" is to "physically investigate" - here-now is now-here, there are not two or three other ways.

* * * * *

At that time, the First Ancestor said to the Second Ancestor, "Externally, put a stop to conditions; internally, the mind will be without panting. With the mind like fences and walls, you will enter the way."

The Second Ancestor talked of the mind and talked of the nature, but did not verify and accord [with them]. One day, he suddenly understood.

Subsequently, he addressed the First Ancestor, saying, "Your disciple has this time finally put a stop to conditions."

The first ancestor recognized that he had awakened and did not further press him, saying only, "Haven't you achieved severance and extinction?"

The Second Ancestor said, "No."

The First Ancestor said, "How is the 'master'?"

The Second Ancestor said, "Clear, clear, always knowing; therefore words can't reach it."

The First Ancestor said, "This is the substance of the mind transmitted down from the buddhas and ancestors. Now you've got it; protect it well."

There are those who doubt this episode, those who take it up. One episode among the episodes of the Second Ancestor's service under the First Ancestor is like this. When the Second Ancestor was persistently talking of the mind and talking of the nature, at first he didn't accord with it. Finally, piling up merit and accumulating virtue, he attained the way of the words of the First Ancestor. The mediocre fools think that, [if] the Second Ancestor failed to verify and accord when he was first talking of the mind and talking of the nature, the fault lay in his talking of the mind and talking of the nature; subsequently, having discarded talking of the mind and talking of the nature, he verified and accorded. They say this because they have not penetrated the words, "when the mind is like fences and walls, you will enter the way." This is particularly ignorant of distinctions in studying the way.

Notice first Dogen's careful emphasis on the import of discerning the actual significance of the "words" that form the present koan. "Finally... he attained the way of the words of the First Ancestor," "...fools think that... the fault lay in his talking of..." "...because they have not penetrated the words..." The reason "mediocre fools" arrive at such distorted conclusions, according to Dogen, comes down to an ignorance of "distinctions in studying the way."

Why is this? After we have produced the thought of bodhi and turned to the practice of the way of the buddha, when we are wholeheartedly performing the difficult practices, though we may be performing them, we do not have one hit in a hundred practices. Still, "whether from a friend, whether from a scripture," eventually we hit it. This one hit in the present is [due to] the power of a hundred misses in the past, is the "one maturation" of a hundred misses. Hearing the teachings, cultivating the way, attaining the verification are all like this. Yesterday's "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" may be a hundred misses, but yesterday's hundred misses of "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are suddenly today's one hit.

Dogen's reasoning here is pretty straightforward. If we employ a raft to cross a body of water in order to arrive at the other shore we would not irrationally conclude that the time and effort on the raft was inessential to, or independent of our arrival at the other shore. The Second Ancestor's "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" when he was not in "accord with it" is time and effort not in accord with-the way of Buddha. The Second Ancestor's "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" when he "attained the way" is time and effort in accord with-the way of Buddha. Arriving at the other shore is dependent on employing a raft - only a "mediocre fool" would suppose the "time of employing a raft" would be eradicated by the "time of arriving at the other shore." At the "time of employing a raft" the "time of arriving at the other shore" is not-yet; at the "time of arriving at the other shore" the "time of employing a raft" is already.

When we have the beginner's mind in the practice of the way of the buddha, if [we think that], since we are untrained and have not mastered it, we might discard the way of the buddha and take another path, then we cannot attain the way of the buddha. Those types who have not mastered the beginning and end of the practice of the way of the buddha have difficulty clarifying the fact that this passage and obstruction is reasonable.

When one initially resolves to be pianist one sets out on the path of a pianist. All pianists travel the path of a pianist, all that travel the path of a pianist are pianists - to be a pianist and to travel the path of a pianist are coessential elements of the same reality.

The way of the buddha is the way of the buddha at the time of the first production of the thought; it is the way of the buddha at the time of attaining true enlightenment. It is the way of the buddha throughout beginning, middle, and end. For example, for one walking ten thousand ri, one step is within a thousand ri; the thousandth step is within a thousand ri. The first one step and the thousandth step may be different, but the thousand ri are the same.

The path of a pianist is the path of a pianist at the time of "a pianist's initial resolution"; it is the path of a pianist at the time of "attaining the true status of a pianist." It is the path of a pianist throughout beginning, middle, and end. The 1^st yard, 10^th yard, and 100^th yard are all essential elements of the 100 yard dash, each yard is different and distinct, but the 100 yard dash is equally dependent on each of the 100 yards.

Yet, an extremely stupid bunch thinks that, when we are studying the way of the buddha, we have not reached the way of the buddha; only when we attain the fruit is it the way of the buddha. They do not understand "taking up the way and practicing the way." They [talk] like this because they do not understand "taking up the way and practicing the way," they do not understand "taking up the way and verifying the way." Those who talk like this are the bunch who learn that only the deluded practice the way of the buddha and have the great awakening; they do not know, and have not heard, that the non-deluded also practice the way of the buddha and have the great awakening.

It would be "extremely stupid" to think that when a pianist was studying piano and learning to play she was not on the path of a pianist - that she was only on the path of a pianist when she arrived at the status of pianist. To think that would demonstrate that one did not understand the nonduality of "taking up piano and practicing piano," did not understand the interdependent nature of "taking up piano and realizing piano." To think like that would be to wrongly assume that only non-pianists take up piano and become pianists; it would wrongly assume that pianists do not take up piano and become pianists.

Though we say that "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" before verification and accord is the way of the buddha, we verify and accord through "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." We should not learn that "verification and accord" refers only to the deluded initially having the great awakening: the deluded have the great awakening; the awakened have the great awakening; the unawakened have the great awakening; the undeluded have the great awakening; those who have verified and accorded verify and accord.

While "studying piano and learning piano" before arriving at the status of pianist is the path of a pianist, a pianist is realized through "studying piano and learning piano." We should not imagine that a "realization" refers only to non-pianists realizing the status of a pianist: non-pianists are realized as non-pianists; pianists are realized as pianists; the unrealized are realized as unrealized; the realized are realized as realized; those who have realized do realize.

Thus, "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is the direct [approach] of the way of the buddha. Mister Gao's saying, without his having mastered this principle, that we should not "talk of the mind and talk of the nature" is not the principle of the buddha dharma. In the present land of the great Song, there is no one who even reaches Mister Gao.

"Studying piano and learning piano" is "a pianist" - the "studying piano and learning piano" that is not "a pianist" is not true "studying piano and learning piano." Saying that a pianist does not "study piano and learn piano" is not in accord with reality. In the contemporary world of Zen few verify that talking of the mind and talking of the nature is (the) talking of the mind and (the) talking of the nature.

* * * * *

The Eminent Ancestor, the Great Master Wuben, the single most honored among the ancestors, mastered the principle that "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." The ancestral masters everywhere who have not mastered it have no sayings like this present episode.

The ancestral masters who have mastered it do have sayings like this present episode. For instance, a monk asked a master, "How does the original pure essence manifest itself?" The master said, "How does the original pure essence manifest itself?" Consider this carefully - it is truly lovely.

When elder brother Sengmi and the great master were traveling, [Dongshan] pointed out a cloister beside [the way] and said, "Inside, there's someone talking of the mind and talking of the nature."

Ever since the eminent ancestor appeared in the world, his dharma descendants have always correctly transmitted this saying [as] the ancestral style. It is not something other traditions have seen even in their dreams; still less have they known, even in their dreams, how to understand it. Only those who are legitimate heirs have correctly transmitted it. How can one who does not correctly transmit this principle reach the origin on the way of the buddha?

While this passage is clear, it is worth noting that it exemplifies one of the universal "acid tests" provided by sages in all places and times for discerning sages (from non-sages or false prophets). One of Jesus' versions, for example, is "By their fruits ye shall know them." Since Dogen considers verbal expressions to be as real as other "fruits," his "By their utterances ye shall know them," can be seen as equivalent.

The principle in question here is: whether "inside" or "surface," "there's someone" and "someone's there" "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." Within the surface, the mind is talking; within the surface, the nature is talking. We should investigate and work at this. There has not yet been "talking" that is not "nature"; there is no "mind" that is not "talking."

Inside depends on outside, outside defines inside. If it is true that "there's someone" it must be true that "someone's there" - if there is "talking of the mind" there is "the mind of talking."

"Buddha nature" means all "talking." "Lacking buddha nature" means all "talking." Though one studies the nature of the buddha nature, [those who] do not study "having buddha nature" are not studying the way; [those who] do not study "lacking buddha nature" are not studying the way. [Those who] study that "talking" is "the nature" are the legitimate descendants of the buddhas and ancestors. [Those who] believe and accept that "the nature" is "talking" are the buddhas and ancestors of the legitimate descendants.

"Buddha nature" is existence; "lacking Buddha nature" is nonexistence. Existence depends on nonexistence, nonexistence defines existence. "Talking" is the activity of language; the communicating, thinking, and reasoning experienced as life itself. That "'Buddha nature' means all 'talking'" affirms that existence is language. That "'Lacking buddha nature' means all 'talking'" affirms that language is existence. While it is necessary to discern the true nature (reality, essence) of Buddha nature (thusness, actual existence), there is more to authentic Zen practice-enlightenment. One must discern the significance of "having Buddha nature" as well as "lacking Buddha nature."

On one occasion a monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Joshu said, "Mu" (no, is without, lacking). Language, thinking, and reason is Buddha nature.

On another occasion a monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Joshu said, "U" (yes, has, exists). Buddha nature is language, thinking, and reason.

When the significance of both these expressions is discerned simultaneously it is clear that language, thinking, and reason is language, thinking, and reason.

To say that the mind is rattled and the nature is composed is the view of other ways; to say that the nature is clear and deep and the form shifts and moves is the view of other ways. The study of the mind and study of the nature on the way of the buddha are not like this. The practice of the mind and practice of the nature on the way of the buddha are not equivalent to the other ways. The clarification of the mind and the clarification of the nature on the way of the buddha, the other ways have no share in.

Since the experiential truth verifies the nonduality of mind and nature (i.e. when the mind is rattled the nature is rattled, when the nature is clear and deep the form is clear and deep), any view that presupposes otherwise can reliably be dismissed as erroneous.

On the way of the buddha, there is the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "someone"; there is the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "no one." There is the "not talking of the mind and not talking of the nature" of "someone"; there is the "not talking of the mind and not talking of the nature" of "no one." There is "talking of the mind and not talking of the mind; there is "talking of the nature and not talking of the nature." When one has not studied "talking of the mind" at the time when there is "no one," then "talking of the mind has not reached the field." When one has not studied "talking of the mind" at the time when there is "someone," then "talking of the mind has not reached the field." We study "no one who talks of the mind"; we study "no one talking of the mind"; we study "this one who talks of the mind"; we study "this one talking of the mind."

The "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "someone" depends on the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "no one." The "not talking of the mind and not talking of the nature" of "someone" defines the "not talking of the mind and not talking of the nature" of "no one," etc. To have learned about the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "someone" but not yet learned about the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "no one" is not yet to understand (even) the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "someone" - to have discerned that A is not-A, but not yet discerned that therefore A is A, is not yet to have truly discerned (even) that A is not-A. Thinking that "the moon pointed out by a finger" exists independent of "a finger pointing out the moon" is thinking that "has not reached the field."

Linji's total power to say something is just "the true person without rank," but he still has not said, "the true person with rank." He has not realized what remains to be studied, what remains to be said; we can say he has not reached the ground of penetration. Because "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are talking of the buddhas and talking of the ancestors, we meet them in the ear, we meet them in the eye.

If we meet "the true person with rank" but do not meet "the true person without rank" we have not yet truly met (even) "the true person with rank." To truly meet the true person with rank is to truly meet the true person without rank. Because "talking of the Buddhas and talking of the ancestors" is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" we realize the true person, the true person realizes us.

The elder brother Sengmi said, "Who is it?"

When he expresses this saying, elder brother Sengmi should previously avail himself of this saying and should subsequently avail himself of this saying. "Who is it?" is the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" of "that inside." Therefore, when "who is it?" is said, when "who is it? is thought, this is itself "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." This "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" is something that those of other quarters have never known. They have forgotten their child and taken it for a thief; so "they recognize the thief as their child."

When (i.e. that location-time; that here-now) Sengmi expresses, "Who is it?", "Who is it?" expresses Sengmi - that "When" (that expression: Who is it?/Sengmi) completely exerts the whole universe; the totality of the past-present-future of existence/nonexistence is exerted as previously, here-now, and subsequently. When (and only when) "Who is it?" is expressed here-now "previously" and "subsequently" are immediately realized (i.e. made real). "Previously" and "subsequently" are realized as "Who is it?" expressed here-now. To recognize the thief is actually one's child means (previously) mistaking one's child for an actual thief. Clear-eyed vision sees a thief as a thief, one's child as one's child.

The great master said, "Questioned once by my elder brother, and he's immediately doomed."

When mediocre types of students hear these words, they think that the "someone" who is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature," upon being asked, "who is it?" is "immediately doomed." The reason is that they are facing the words, "who is it?" without recognizing them, without any view of them at all; hence, [the words] are "dead words." This is not necessarily the case. Those who have penetrated this "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are rare. To be "doomed" a hundred percent is not to be "doomed" ten or twenty percent; hence "doomed" is a hundred percent. At the very moment of "questioned," who would hold that this is not "shielding the heavens and covering the earth"? Reflection of the past is cut off; reflection of the present is cut off; reflection of the future is cut off. Reflection of this very moment is cut off.

"Mediocre types of students" mistakenly understand "immediately doomed" as meaning that the "someone" is doomed when "Who is it?" is expressed because they mistake "Who is it?" for "immediately doomed" (their child for a thief). When "doomed" is exerted the whole universe is "doomed," when "questioned" is exerted there is only "questioned" in the whole universe. When "reflection here-now" is exerted "reflection then-there" (past, present, future) is "not-reflection then-there" - it is "reflection here-now."

The elder brother Sengmi said, "Who is it that's talking of mind and talking of the nature?"

The previous "who is it?" and this "who is it," though the name is "Zhang's third," the person is "Li's fourth."

When John is who, who is not-Jane, when Jane is who, who is not-John; John is Jane's previous, Jane is John's subsequently.

The Great Master said, "In death, he lives."

In regard to this "in death," [we should not] think that it is directly referring to the "immediately doomed"; he is not directly referring to [the one who is] "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" and arbitrarily saying, "who is it?" "Who is it?" arranges the "someone" who is "talking of the mind and talking of the nature." There should be a study holding that he does not wait forever to be a hundred percent "doomed." The Great Master's words, "In death, he lives," are the voices and forms of "someone talking of the mind and talking of the nature" right before us. Again, they are also one or two parts of completely "doomed." Life may be fully alive, but it is not death changing to appear as life: it is just the sloughing off of "he lives" that is "true at the head and true at the tail."

The Great Master's words; "inside," "someone," "doomed," "dead," "alive," etc. are faces of the omnipresent "undying person inside the hut." While "inside" depends on "outside," when "inside" is right before us "outside" is-not, is-darkened, is "inside." "Who?" digests our food, beats our hearts, arranges our oxygen-blood levels, manages our toxin filtering. "Who?" facilitates "someone" with the organization of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts and the coordination of language, thinking, and reason.

In general, there is this kind of "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" that is investigated on the way of the buddha and the way of the ancestors. When we go further, by dying a complete death, we realize the way of life of "he lives."

When "life" is exerted "death" is-not, when "death" is illumined "life" is dark (present as eclipsed). "Life" does not transform into "death," "death" does not become "life." Life here-now is the face of the whole universe, death here-now is the face of the whole universe.

We should realize that, from the Tang period till today, there have been many pitiable types who have not clarified the fact that "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are the way of the buddha, who are in the dark about the "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" in teaching, practice, and verification, and who talk rashly and speak wildly. We should save them "before the body and after the body." What I say to them is this: "talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are the essential functions of the Seven Buddhas and the ancestral masters.

The Seven Buddhas and the ancestral masters are the normal (healthy, enlightened) mind, the Tao, the Zen Way, the supreme supreme. "Talking of the mind and talking of the nature" are the essential functions of the normal mind.

Shobogenzo, Sesshin sessho (Talking of the Mind and Talking of the Nature)