Remember, as the established [method of] investigation in learning the truth, we pursue the state of truth in zazen. The point, in manifest form, is that there is acting buddha which does not expect to become buddha. Because acting buddha is utterly beyond becoming buddha, the universe is realized.  ~Shobogenzo, Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The Dharma (Buddhist Teaching) of “enlightenment” and the Dharma of “practice” are (both) the “Dharma.” This principle is most radically represented in Dogen’s teachings in his expressions about zazen. In these expressions Dogen makes clear the teaching that practice-enlightenment is the Buddha activity of humans, the human activity of Buddha. For Dogen, as for all the classic Zen masters, “Buddha” is the “true self.” And, as Dogen emphasizes in his instructions on zazen, Zen practice-enlightenment is the self-actualization of Buddha.

This sitting in zazen is not learning Zen concentration. It is simply the peaceful and joyful gate of Dharma. It is the practice-and-experience which perfectly realizes the state of bodhi.  ~Fukanzazengi, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The world of zazen that Dogen reveals is not a world of subject and object, self and other, perceiver and perceived, or practice and enlightenment. It is the continuous manifestation of Buddha– the moment to moment total exertion of “the whole universe in ten directions,” advancing, casting off, advancing, casting off, now this, now this, now, now, now. To understand the Dharma (Buddhist Teaching, or Way) of practice-enlightenment is to be the Dharma of practice-enlightenment. In authentic zazen a human actualizes Buddha; and as Buddha is all beings, “the zazen of one person, even if only for one instant, is the zazen of all beings throughout time and space.”

Once this principle is personally verified, Dogen’s teaching concerning the significance of continuous, ongoing practice-enlightenment, as well as his recognition of deeper and shallower levels of enlightenment becomes clear. A human being, insofar as he or she “actualizes (or, realizes) the universe” (genjokoan) is Buddha, and Buddha is him or her. Buddha is the true self and actualizing Buddha is the activity of the true self. Therefore, to the extent that one’s zazen is authentic one’s zazen is the activity of Buddha. All existence, according to Dogen, is Buddha nature; thus, the extent to which one realizes (makes real, actualizes) this is the extent to which one is the “true self.”

This is one reason Dogen cautions us not to confuse the ”sitting meditiation” (zazen, shikantaza) that he (and all Buddha ancestors) teaches with the usual human notions of  ”sitting meditation” - to authentically ”sit in meditation” as Dogen means it can only be done by, and to the extent that one is a Buddha.

With this in mind, we can see the significance of Dogen’s comment on his teacher’s saying here (also mentioned in Part 1 of another series on this blog):

My late Master was constantly saying:

Here in my temple, you should simply sit in meditation without having recourse to burning incense, making bows, reciting the name of Buddha, confessing your shortcomings, or reciting Scriptures. Just do your utmost to practice the Way and drop off body and mind.

Few are the folks who understand a remark like this. And why? Because if they were to take the phrase ‘reciting Scriptures’ literally, they would be violating its intention, and if they were not to take the phrase ‘reciting Scriptures’ literally, they would be turning their back on his words. We cannot have words for It and we do not lack words for It. So, quick, quick! Speak, speak! You must explore this fundamental principle through your training! Because this principle exists, a Master of long ago said, “To read Scriptures, you will need to be equipped with an Eye for reading Scriptures.” –Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman

Even with this clear teaching by Dogen, many still confuse “sitting meditiation” with the mere act of sitting in the proper posture and applying themselves to a method (or to no method). So, Dogen says that taking his teacher’s saying literally violates its intention, and that not taking it literally is to turn their back on his words. As should be clear (or at least clearer) now, what this means is:

Taking the saying literally violates its intention if we take it as the ”descriptive accuracy” of ordinary human understanding, that is the “Human Eye” rather than the “Buddha Eye.” Recall:

The sitting that is performed only as the sitting and reclining of human beings is not this state of sitting buddha.  ~Shobogenzo, Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross (emphasis added)

Conversely, we “turn our backs on the words” by not taking the saying literally if we fail to hear its ”mythological truth”–the truth heard with the “Buddha Ear” or seen with the “Buddha Eye” (The Right Dharma-Eye). This is the “Eye for reading Scriptures” mentioned in numerous texts of Zen and Buddhist literature. In the classic literature this “Eye” is said to have the capacity for “discerning” the “actual meaning” which is the real “literal truth”- the spiritual, or mythological truth.

Now if we apply this to the Buddhist teaching on Buddhahood which, for instance, Dogen expresses in Genjokoan as, “When Buddhas are Buddhas they are not conscious of being Buddha,” we can discern the teaching about not having “recourse” to the aforementioned list of “practices.” Remember, being Buddha is described as “dropping off body and mind.” Thus, it should be obvious that if our zazen is authentic, we (as Buddha) will have “dropped off body and mind” and thus will not even “sit in meditation,” much less engage in ”burning incense, making bows, reciting the name of Buddha, confessing our shortcomings, or reciting Scriptures…”

At the same time, sitting in meditation, burning incense, making bows, reciting the name of Buddha, confessing your shortcomings, and reciting Scriptures will certainly be actualized, as will raking leaves, taking out the garbage, and drinking tea. To state the “literal truth” of the matter, this is what Dogen calls “Actualizing the fundamental point” (genjokoan).

Yes, yes!

What he is saying now is that zazen is zazen, not sitting or lying down. After we have received the one to one transmission of [the teaching] that [zazen] is beyond sitting and lying down, unlimited instances of sitting and lying down are ourself. ~Shobogenzo, Zazenshin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross (emphasis added)

I hope this is helpful to someone.

Peace,

Ted

In Dogen’s teachings the apparent conflict between “original” enlightenment and the requirement of “practice” is resolved with his highly regarded teaching on the unity of practice and enlightenment. This unity of practice and enlightenment is most radically symbolized in Dogen’s interpretation of zazen (seated meditation) and its sister, shikantaza (sole sitting). In his treatment of zazen (and shikantaza) Dogen reveals the unity of practice and enlightenment (practice-enlightenment) by indicating the unity of “Buddha” and “Dharma” (Buddha-Dharma).

Of course, the terms Buddha and Dharma, like zazen and shikantaza have numerous meanings in Buddhist literature depending on their context and the manner in which they are used. Dogen’s writings are certainly no exception. His use of even the most common terms can be charged with astonishing creativity, and often connote multiple meanings in a single usage. For the sake of clarity we will limit our use of these terms to their main significance on this topic. Thus, for this discussion “Buddha” means Shakyamuni (the historical Buddha) who, for Dogen, represents ultimate reality which is the one “true self” of all the myriad beings. “Dharma” means the expression, teaching, or way of Buddha, that is, the essence of Buddhism.

Throughout his works, Dogen is intent on burning the fact of the unity of Buddha and Dharma deep into our consciousness. He clobbers us with expressions of this unity that are clearly designed for impact, that is, with expressions that are pure blood and guts Zen. In Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, for instance, Dogen writes:

Buddha preaches Dharma, and Dharma preaches Buddha. Dharma is [naturally] preached by Buddha, and Buddha is [naturally] preached by Dharma.  ~(Trans, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross)

If “Buddha” and “Dharma” are in fact united in the way Dogen contends they are, then we can see that the apparent conflict between “practice” and “enlightenment” is not only resolvable, it never existed in the first place. In order to clarify this, consider Dogen’s comments from Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu, on a quote by Shakyamuni Buddha. In the quote Buddha says that, “One who is able to keep this sutra, Is already meeting me,” to which Dogen asserts:

Clearly, if one is meeting buddha one is keeping the sutra, and one who is keeping the sutra is one who is meeting buddha.  ~Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Just to drive home the significance of this, in the same fascicle Dogen reminds us of what “all the Buddhas say” about what it means to “meet” Buddha:

In general, all the buddhas say that “to meet Sakyamuni Buddha” and to realize the state of Sakyamuni Buddha is to realize the truth and to become buddha.  ~Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The connection should be pretty clear now; to truly understand and apply the Dharma (keep the sutra) is itself, authentic practice-enlightenment. Let’s examine this step by step: to truly “practice” the Dharma one must first learn of it (read it or hear it preached). Now Dogen, like all Zen masters, draws an unbridgeable gap between “hearing (or learning) words,” and “hearing the Dharma”; practice based only on hearing words is not Zen practice. In Zen, truly “hearing the Dharma” means actually “realizing the Dharma,” that is to “meet” the Dharma. The inference is clear; to truly hear the Dharma is to truly practice the Dharma. To meet the Dharma is to meet the Buddha, to meet the Buddha is to become Buddha, which is called “enlightenment.”

So how did the apparent “conflict” between practice and enlightenment arise? Just as the Zen masters asserted, we constructed it. According to Dogen’s teaching, seeing a conflict in the teaching (Dharma) on practice and enlightenment means we obviously have not yet encountered the authentic teaching on practice and enlightenment; if there is no conflict between practice and enlightenment in the Dharma, to see a conflict indicates not seeing the Dharma.

Understanding Dogen’s view that realizing the true Dharma is itself, authentic practice-enlightenment, we come to see the irrefutable logic of his rhetorical statements in Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, like, “How could those who do not open their eyes to these [teachings] be descendants of the Buddhist patriarchs?” (Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross) and:

How could those who do not take up these [teachings] receive the one-to-one transmission of the right eye of the Buddhist patriarchs? Those who do not physically realize the right-Dharma-eye treasury are not the Dharma successors of the Seven Buddhas.  ~Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Obviously they could not.

Peace,

Ted

~William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Peace,

Ted

As we think of words, it is only metaphor that can express in language the sense of an energy common to subject and object.

~Northrop Frye, The Great Code

Shakyamuni Buddha, once said, “The snowcapped Himalayas are a metaphor for the great nirvana.” You need to know that He is speaking metaphorically about something that can be metaphoric… When He uses the term ‘snow-capped Himalayas’, He is using the actual snowcapped Himalayas as a metaphor, just as when He uses the term ‘great nirvana’, He is using the actual great nirvana as a metaphor. –Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujo Shin, Hubert Nearman

Peace,

Ted

Our Highest Ancestor in India, Shakyamuni Buddha, once said, “The snowcapped Himalayas are a metaphor for the great nirvana.” You need to know that He is speaking metaphorically about something that can be metaphoric. ‘Something that can be metaphoric’ implies that the mountains and nirvana are somehow intimately connected and that they are connected in a straightforward manner. When He uses the term ‘snow-capped Himalayas’, He is using the actual snowcapped Himalayas as a metaphor, just as when He uses the term ‘great nirvana’, He is using the actual great nirvana as a metaphor. –Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujo Shin, Hubert Nearman

This passage, like most of Dogen’s writings, has a number of subtle points, but the gist is clear enough; to use terms ‘metaphorically’ is to use the actual things indicated. This seems to contradict the Zen dictum about the “finger and the moon.” The significance of that dictum is usually interpreted as a caution not to mistake ‘terms’ (a finger pointing) for the ‘actual things’ they indicate (the moon pointed to). Fortunately, the language of Zen is the language of myth and metaphor and thus, is not subject to the limitations of ‘descriptive accuracy.’

What I mean by the language of ‘descriptive accuracy’ is the type of language that presupposes (among other things) that “actual truth” is objective and unified. That is to say, that the “reality” of this world exists independently of the existence of sentient beings, and that it is substantially the same for any and all beings in it. With slight qualifications, this is the basic notion underlying most fields of modern science. Science makes certain claims about the world and, by showing how these claims repeatedly and accurately predict outcomes in observational experiments, demonstrates their “truth.” Language, in keeping to this ‘scientific’ mind set, presupposes that descriptive accuracy is achieved when and if words (or other forms of communication) correspond to objective reality or represent actual things or events in the ‘real’ world. The highest achievement of ‘descriptively accurate’ language, in this sense, would convey an exact copy of its subject to the reader or listener, a perfect imitation of the truth it transmitted.

As progress in linguistics, psychology, neurobiology, philosophy, and other fields began to seriously examine the implications of these suppositions numerous fallacies became apparent. Since at least the time of Wittgenstein, it has been extremely obvious that the nature and function of language is not that simple. Not by a long shot. Today, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of theories vying to replace the ‘standard’ views of what language is, as well as what its real limitations and potentials are. While many of these remain grounded in the continuing deluded, dualist notions of subjective and objective divisions, others are beginning to speak openly (and convincingly) about nondual possibilities. I would like to suggest that much about the true nature, limitations, and potential of language has been discerned, articulately explained, and meticulously recorded in Dogen’s Shobogenzo.

Aside from Dogen’s head-start on those mired in centuries of dualistic sidetracks (by his acceptance of Buddhist nonduality), a number of other factors contributed to his unique authority concerning language. For instance, as Zen and Buddhist scholars have proclaimed worldwide, Dogen’s writings, whatever their “truth,” testify to an astonishing mastery of expression and an exceptionally brilliant mind. As Shobogenzo is the result of this brilliant mind’s attempt to transmit the authentic teaching of Zen Buddhism to Japan for the first time in the native Japanese language. The significance of this has been largely overlooked. The fact that Dogen was not only transmitting Buddhism from China to Japan, but was also translating and interpreting it has a number of very significant implications. Dogen’s effort to transmit Buddhism, which he speaks of as “a sense of mission,” was performed in the role of a true Buddhist master; the foremost task of all authentic masters is the alleviation of suffering and the liberation of all beings. Perhaps, as the evidence suggests, Shobogenzo is the “record” that this uniquely gifted Zen master spoke of at the beginning of his teaching career:

I decided to compile a record of the customs and standards that I experienced firsthand in the Zen monasteries of the great kingdom of Song, 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. –Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

As a prelude to the next part of this examination of the language of ‘myth and metaphor’, which we hope to take up in detail soon, for now consider the ideas that often surround this whole question concern “differences” between what words (and other means of expression) “say,” and what words “mean.” With that in mind, what do you make of Dogen’s comment on his master’s words here?

My late Master was constantly saying:

Here in my temple, you should simply sit in meditation without having recourse to burning incense, making bows, reciting the name of Buddha, confessing your shortcomings, or reciting Scriptures. Just do your utmost to practice the Way and drop off body and mind.

Few are the folks who understand a remark like this. And why? Because if they were to take the phrase ‘reciting Scriptures’ literally, they would be violating its intention, and if they were not to take the phrase ‘reciting Scriptures’ literally, they would be turning their back on his words. We cannot have words for It and we do not lack words for It. So, quick, quick! Speak, speak! You must explore this fundamental principle through your training! Because this principle exists, a Master of long ago said, “To read Scriptures, you will need to be equipped with an Eye for reading Scriptures.” –Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman

This post is in honor of those that have managed to trudge through the various “Dogen” posts of the last month or so. Those posts attempted to explore some of Dogen’s teachings on ”expressions”, “language”, “perception”, and the reality of “all thoughts and things.” In this post, I will simply offer a brief overview of some of the highlights of Shobogenzo, Sansuikyo in relation to the recent posts. I encourage everyone to take a look at the entire  Sansuikyo for context. (Translations here by Hubert Nearman).

The first line of Sansuikyo reads:

The ‘mountains and water’ of which I am speaking at the present moment are a manifestation of the words and ways of former Buddhas.

Dogen immediately makes his meaning clear as to what he means by “mountains and water”–they are “a manifestation” (a creation, actualization, realization) of the “words and ways” of former Buddhas. Here we see Dogen’s view that words and language (expressions) do not just “point to” mountains and water” (or other “thoughts and things”)–they manifest them.

Thus, we can see the significance of this line:

People do not know that they must scrutinize and clarify what ‘verdant mountains’ means if they are to measure all the existent worlds about them.

Dogen flatly asserts that if we truly want to understand our own realm, we must scrutinize and clarify what (the words) “verdant mountains” means.  This stress on understanding the meaning of “verdant mountains” makes sense if, as Dogen asserts, “words and ways” manifest the world.

Also, as we observed, for Dogen, mountains and water are not the only real, particular ”things” that physically manifest in this process:

The fully visible manifestation of each and every thing is the physical body of each and every thing along with the environment in which it exists.

How do all such “things” manifest from Shunyata? Dogen offers an astonishingly illuminating metaphor:

The statement “The Stone Maiden, in the dark of night, gives birth to Her Child” refers to the time when the Stone Maiden gives birth to Her Child as ‘in the dark of night’…

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

Lovely, I am sure you will agree. When the child “manifests” as a child, a parent “manifests” simultaneously. To assert that the parent manifests the child is only half of the coin–the child manifests the parent, further, the child (in manifesting the parent) manifests the child. Thus, how about words, if a real mountain manifests a word, how could a word not manifest a mountain? How about a perception? If you see water, does water see you? Of course–water sees water!

Dogen goes on to say:

Great Teacher Ummon Bun’en once said, “Eno went walking upon the Water.” The meaning of what is fully manifested through these words is that all mountains are Eno, and every Eno goes walking upon the Water…

If this fails to blow your mind, you are not getting the point.

Dogen goes on to indicate some awesome implications:

As for the Water, It is neither strong nor weak, nor is It wet or dry, nor does It move or stay still, nor is It cold or hot, nor does It exist or not exist, nor is It deluded or awakened. When frozen solid, It is harder than a diamond, so who can smash It? When melted, It is more yielding than diluted milk, so who can tear It to bits? This being so, we cannot doubt the qualities of the various forms of existence that manifest before our very eyes.

Ha! Cool hey? Obviously, if we do not trust our own perceptions we will never find certainty anywhere. As Blake says:

He who Doubts from what he sees – Will ne’er Believe, do what you Please – If the Sun & Moon  should doubt, – They’d immediately Go out. ~William Blake

Whenever we posit a real division between subject and object we cannot but fall into speculation. Dogen encourages us not to spend time speculating on what he means here–but to verify it in study and practice:

For now, just concentrate on learning to recognize, through your training, the moments when you are able to open your eyes and see the Water in the whole universe as the Whole Universe.

Can we see, actually see the water in the whole universe as the Whole Universe? If so, what do we realize? Dogen says:

Because the Water puts the Water into practice in order to realize what the Water is, there will be your thorough investigation of the Water’s expressing through words what the Water is. In this way, you will manifest the pathway upon which we ourselves meet our Self.

Holy sheeet! Does anyone think that Dogen is talking nonsense, lying, or trying to fool us? If not, then he must mean that this is an authentic means to meeting our true self…

Now, remember how Dogen’s teaching indicated that each one of us creates (fashions) a unique universe, and creates a unique self. Dogen acknowledges this here saying:

To speak in general, what people see as a mountain or as water differs in various ways.

While Dogen affirms the same “material” world for all of us, the way in which we fashion that material, our effective use of this material (our skills in painting, so to speak) in creating that world varies widely. While the sage and the fool see the “same” material, one creates a “Mountain” and the other a mere “reflection.” As there are as many levels and ways of “seeing” or “creating” this world as there are individuals, there are no “one-size-fits-all” Ways, or Methods of practice. For one person, authentic ”zazen” is performed by taking up the lotus posture and sitting still; for another, authentic ”zazen” is performed by composing music. As Dogen points out:

If what I have just been saying is so, then, likewise, there cannot be just one or two ways for training to realize the Truth and for assiduously practicing the Way, and the realm of the Ultimate can be of a thousand kinds and ten thousand sorts.

Of course many purists (even among those claiming Dogen as their “founder”) will say Dogen is wrong, that “their” method of “just sitting” is literally “just sitting”, and is the only authentic method of zazen. Sadly, as Dogen frequently indicates concerning the nature of “someone’s expression” as revealing their realization, such an expression is a clear indication that the person has yet to realize what authentic zazen is all about. In Dogen’s terms:

You cannot really perceive what a mountain is by means of the standards used by those who wander in ignorance.

Mountains and water, however, are only two of the myriad real thoughts and things. There are an infinite amount of them, all of which are Dharma-gates through which we can meet our true self. As Dogen points out, even railings and pillars offer a way in. Those content to stay at the threshold of Dharma, or what Dogen calls, the “borderline expressions” will never realize their own birthright as Buddhas and ancestors:

Further, it may be possible to maintain that a similar assertion can be made about the railings, steps, and pillars of palaces and mansions. Calmly consider this principle and keep turning it about in your mind, for if you do not learn how to go beyond these borderline expressions, you will not let go of the body and mind of one who wanders in ignorance, or fully realize what the domain of the Buddhas and Ancestors is, or fully realize what the domain of those who wander in ignorance is, or fully realize what the palace of one who wanders in ignorance really is.

But those that want to reach beyond their trivial wants, and personal ambitions–that is, those with true aspiration, true zeal for the Dharma, Dogen has some advice. Don’t be fooled by everyday human views about “Sitting down and shutting up.” Stand up! Speak out! Only you can discover the truth of enlightenment. Buddha can’t give it to you. Dogen can’t give it to you. Though both of them can be relied upon as guides to finding our own paths. If you like some contemporary teacher, great–but if they say one thing and Buddha and Dogen say another, I would not think too long about where to put your money… If you want to “just sit” and let things come and go. Or just “don’t seek” any goals. Or sit down and shut up, great, go for it–just do your best to keep shutting up when you are in the presence of students that are opting to take Dogen’s guidance instead:

Now, when we Buddhist trainees learn about the Water, we should not blindly cling to just the everyday, human view of water; we need to go on and investigate through our practice the Water of the Buddha’s Way. How we view the term ‘Water’ as used by the Ancestors of the Buddha is something we need to investigate through our practice.

Strive, investigate, put it to the test, practice it. The way Ancestors and Buddhas do it may not sound as easy as Roshi Joe-Bob, but it is probably more effective. It is not Roshi John-Boy’s fault, they just can’t see the mountains in the same way as Dogen and Linchi and Bodhidharma and Hakuin. As Dogen says:

When someone with the perspective of the secular world encounters a mountain, and when someone with the perspective of one amongst mountains meets this mountain, how their minds think of this mountain or how their eyes see this mountain will be vastly different.

How can we know when we truly enter the mountains? When we realize its love has inspired us to stay late after work and help our co-worker who is dragging due to the awful divorce he is going through. Dogen, like all those old worthies, may seem tough on the outside, but there is a kind old grandmotherly heart throbbing away in his breast. Listen to the sappy old guy:

Generally speaking, we say that mountains belong to some country or region, but it is to those who love mountains that they really belong. Invariably, when a mountain loves its Host, the lofty virtues of the saintly and wise enter the mountain. When those who are saintly and wise dwell in the mountains, the mountains belong to them; as a result, the trees grow luxuriant and boulders abound, the birds are wondrous and the animals are surpassing fine. This is because they are under the influence of the virtues of one who is saintly and wise. You need to recognize that the truth of the matter is that mountains are fond of those who are wise, and that they are fond of those who are saintly.

Keep it up! Just focus on this one drop of water today–it is a way in:

As soon as you penetrate through your practice both the flowing of a single drop of water and its non-flowing, the complete penetration of all thoughts and things will immediately manifest before your very eyes.
Shobogenzo, Sansuikyo, Hubert Nearman

Peace,

Ted

Of course this message may be of little help to those on paths other than Zen, but for those on the Zen path it will always have some positive effect.

This is because the only reason anyone is really on the Zen path is because something about the teachings of Zen resonated with them, rang true to them, evoked something in them. I often recommend that all Zen practitioners take the time to carefully read as much of the classic Zen literature as they can. One thing this will reveal is the universal agreement of the classic masters on a number of definite things. With a grasp on those points with which all the masters agree, we will find some solid ground to stand on as we study and practice those teachings which may not appear to be so universally accepted.

The teaching that the real Buddha is never apart from our own true self is one of the most universal Zen teachings of all. Enjoy this small sample of encouraging reminders of what Zen is all about:

The Zen founder did not come from India to China because there is something to be transmitted.  He just pointed directly to the human mind for the perception of its essence and realization of awakening.  How could there be any sectarian style to be valued?

~Fa-yen, The Five Houses of Zen, Thomas Cleary

The Master ascended the hall and said, “Here in this lump of red flesh there is a True Man with no rank. Constantly he goes in and out the gates of your face. If there are any of you who don’t know this for a fact, then look!  Look!

~Lin-chi, The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-chi, Burton Watson

I will settle something for you right now: the ultimate rule is to see your own mind clearly. This is what Buddhism is, as far as I am concerned.

~Foyan, Instant Zen, Thomas Cleary

When he came from India, he transmitted only Mind-Buddha. He just pointed to the truth that the minds of all of you have from the very first been identical with the Buddha, and in no way separate from each other.

~Huang Po, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, John Blofeld

The wondrous path of the enlightened ones is straight and direct. They just pointed directly to the human mind so we would work to see its true nature and achieve enlightenment.

~Yuanwu, Zen Letters, Thomas Cleary 

Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, perceiving, arching your brows, blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, it’s all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the buddha. And the buddha is the path. And the path is zen. But the word zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not zen.

~Bodhidharma, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, Red Pine 

Learned Audience, the wisdom of enlightenment [bodhiprajna] is inherent in every one of us. It is because of the delusion under which out mind works that we fail to realize it ourselves, and that we have to seek the advice and the guidance of enlightened ones before we can know our own essence of mind. You should know that so far as buddha-nature is concerned, there is no difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one. What makes the difference is that one realizes it, while the other is ignorant of it.

~Hui-Neng, The Diamond Sutra & The Sutra of Hui-Neng,  A. F. Price & Wong Mou-lam

There is no other task but to know your own original face. This is called independence; the spirit is clear and free. If you say there is some particular doctrine or patriarchy, you’ll be totally cheated.

~Yen-t’ou, Teachings of Zen, Thomas Cleary

The way of Zen began without the establishment of any sect. It is simply a religion which points to the one original mind of all Buddhas and ordinary people. This mind is nothing other than Buddha nature. To see this nature is what is meant by religious practice.

~Bassui, Mud and Water, Arthur Braverman

Peace,

Ted

You should understand that, in Buddhism, we have always spoken not only of body and mind as being inseparable, but also of the nature of something and the form it takes as not being two different things.

Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Hubert Nearman

The so-called ‘mind which has been correctly Transmitted’ refers to the whole mind being synonymous with ‘all thoughts and things’, and all thoughts and things are what constitute ‘the whole mind’.

Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Nearman

Peace,

Ted

In light of recent posts and comments, I would like to look a little deeper into the nature and quality of the “thoughts” and “things” that Dogen refers to as the reality of “all thoughts and things.”

Here is a brief summary of the main points previously observed. All real “things” exist only as “perceivable things.” Other than “thoughts and things,” Dogen often refers to these elements of mental reality as “images,” “forms,” “expressions,” “scriptures,” “fences, walls, tiles, and pebbles,” “mountains and waters,” and “pictures” (or paintings). For Dogen, each of the “myriad things” is absolutely real, distinct, precise, lucid, concrete, and unique. Dogen abhors every kind of obscurity, muddiness, cloudiness, generality, or mysteriousness.

Now, to look a little deeper at the significance of things as “perceivable things,” we need to look closer at what perception is. Because the experience of perception is widely misunderstood, terms and ideas about it are often based on misunderstandings. Dogen’s writings contain many cautions concerning hindrances involving these common notions of perception, not perception itself. Shallow understanding has led some to think his cautions refer to true perception. This, however, is as fallacious as the view that “not aiming for Buddhahood” means not making diligent effort in practice-enlightenment.

More confusion about perception commonly arises in its relation to knowledge, understanding, comprehension, and conscious awareness. This can be minimized by trying to be mindful of Zen teachings not conceptualize, but to verify. The first axiom of Zen Buddhism is that every practitioner must verify the truth themselves. Zen masters cannot give someone enlightenment—not even Buddhas can do that. The Buddhas and Zen ancestors have furnished us with reliable teachings and practical methods of practice, and have clearly indicated the common pitfalls. It is our task, and ours alone, to actualize it in practice-enlightenment.

Of course it would be silly to assume that we could practice Zen without learning what it was and how it worked, but learning it, while no small task, is not enough. An accurate understanding of Zen (based on the teachings of authentic Buddhas and ancestors) always includes the understanding that “it must be experienced to be realized” (made real). Thus, the masters urge us not to develop views about anything, including their teachings, but to verify them in practice-enlightenment. To imagine we “know” the truth otherwise, can only be due to not having heard, or understood reliable teaching.

When we hear or read some Zen teaching that makes a profound impact on us, it is easy to think we have fully grasped its significance. The same think can happen when we hear a teaching from someone we deeply respect, admire, and trust. Yet, even if our understanding is accurate and the teaching is reliable, without actual verification in practice-enlightenment it will never be more than a concept, an idea, an intellectual notion. When we then abstract or infer more views based on this concept, then more on those, etc. etc., we can easily get lost in a huge web of speculation. This is one reason why regular contact with teachers as well as the classic literature is so important. While it is true that all the Zen masters affirm that “this very mind is Buddha,” until we actually verify it in practice-enlightenment, it is nothing more than a concept, even if we fully accept it. As Dogen points out:

Hearing talk of ‘your very mind’, those befuddled by doubts speculate that the intellective, cognitive, and perceptual functions of sentient beings are synonymous with ‘the Mind of enlightenment before someone has awakened to It’, and accordingly fancy themselves to be a Buddha…

Thus, “Your very mind is Buddha” refers to all Buddhas, that is, to Those who have given rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood by practicing and training until They awaken to Their enlightenment and realize nirvana. Those who have not given rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood by practicing and training until they awaken to their enlightenment and realize nirvana are not those whose very mind is Buddha.  –Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Neaman

Verifying in practice-enlightenment that “this very mind is Buddha” can be realized however, and has been by all the Buddhas and ancestors. There is no secret about this, not esoteric doctrine we must learn, or special posture we must take up. The records of the Zen masters lay it all out there. Buddhas and ancestors were just like us once. We, each one of us, can awaken and be just as those Buddhas and ancestors.

Before the Buddhas of the past had awakened to the Truth, They were just like people today. Once they have completely awakened, people today will be as those Buddhas of the past.” You should take time to study and investigate this principle, for this is what all Buddhas have guaranteed us will take place. –Shobogenzo, Keisei Sanshoku, Hubert Neaman

What Dogen teaches as true perception, sometimes includes knowledge, understanding, comprehension, and conscious awareness; sometime it does not. In fact, true perception is the keystone of Zen doctrine and methodology. This is what Dogen generally refers to as zazen and more specifically, “nonthinking.” This, Dogen says is “the essential art of Zen practice-enlightenment.” Nonthinking does not mean “not thinking”, nor does it exclude “thinking.” Nonthinking is a type of thinking, specifically, “nonthinking is thinking not-thinking.”

This type of perception then, should not be confused with what we typically mean by perception; nonthinking is a vastly different way of perceiving than usual, ordinary perception. Truly understanding what Dogen means by perception can only be authentic by verifying it in practice-enlightenment. If we listen to authentic teaching, learn how to apply it, and put it into practice then, we will, Dogen assures us, realize what true perception is.

If you have a realization of That which really moves, you will realize what true perception and comprehension are. –Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Neaman

Yes, there is work to do—hard work. How could it not be otherwise? If it were easy, who would not have realized it? Some are attracted to teachings or teachers that promise fast, easy liberation; but consider those Zen masters you have heard about. Which of them did not make great efforts? What classic master of Zen ever claimed to realize something without making effort? Thus Dogen makes this point:

There are those who hear the phrase ‘that which is beyond birth’ without ever clarifying what it means, acting as if they didn’t need to make any effort with their body and mind. This is a dullard’s foolishness in the extreme. They must be some kind of beast who has not even reached the level of discussing the gradual awakening of one who practices with faith and the sudden awakening of one who quickly grasps the Dharma. If you ask why, the reason is that even if they hear the phrase ‘that which is beyond birth’, they still need to explore what the intent of this statement is. Further, they make no effort to inquire into what ‘beyond Buddha’, ‘beyond the Way’, ‘beyond mind’, and ‘beyond annihilation’ might mean, or what ‘being beyond that which is beyond birth’ might mean, or what ‘beyond the realm of thoughts and things’ and ‘beyond one’s Original Nature’ might mean, or what ‘beyond death’ might mean. This is because they sit idly by, like creatures that live in the water or in the vegetation. –Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Iigi, Hubert Neaman

What is it that those Zen masters claim to be worth all this effort? What is the main task the foremost thing?

You clearly need to realize that what this is saying is that, in learning the Truth of the Buddhas and Ancestors, awakening to enlightened Mind is unquestionably foremost. This is the continual Teaching of the Buddhas and Ancestors. ‘To awaken’ means to have something fully dawn on you. –Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin, Hubert Neaman

What does Dogen say that such an awakening will do?

Truly, there will be merit that will boggle the mind in your awakening to the Radiance, just as all the Buddhas have done. –Shobogenzo, Kuyo Shobutsu, Hubert Neaman

Alright! Anyone else interested in having their mind boggled? WWWeeeeee!!!

Peace,

Ted

After discussing the “loop” process in Shobogenzo, we digressed to discuss the Soto Zen master Taigen Dan Leighton and his excellent books and translations…

See: Dogen’s Zen Expressions & Shobogenzo’s Loops – Part 1

We were about to notice how the inherent “loop” process reveals one good reason why studying Shobogenzo, like any work of literature, should begin with extensive, rather than intensive study. Familiarity with the overall form and content of Shobogenzo reveals subtle connecting threads that are unnoticeable in a partial reading. Studying 10, 20, or even 40 fascicles of Shobogenzo, regardless of intensity, cannot yield an understanding as accurate as a much less intensive study of the whole.

To better understand the reasoning here, consider Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Someone whose knowledge of Hamlet was based on only 15 scenes, even if memorized, could not understand the play as accurately as someone who was moderately familiar with all 20 scenes—in fact, the latter’s understanding of each particular scene would be more accurate than the former’s. Each “part” of a whole determines, and is determined by the whole, as well as every other part. If even 1 scene were subtracted from Hamlet, it would completely transform the whole play as well as each of the remaining scenes.

While Shobogenzo is certainly not as “unified” or “unity dependent” as Hamlet, the basic principle is applicable. Admittedly, Dogen’s original intentions as to the content and order of his masterpiece are more than a little uncertain. There is, in fact, a great deal of dispute in this regard—with arguments for everything from a 12 fascicle edition to a 95 fascicle edition. My own personal view leans with the majority of those that know more than I; the 75 fascicle version (though I would make a few minor substitutions). For truly dedicated Dogen students, however, all of this is moot, at least for the first several years of study. There is no way to even offer a legitimate stand on the issue until one has become familiar with all 95 fascicles; and these as they read in at least the 3 or 4 most probable versions.

In any case, even allowing for a great “handicap” to the comparison with Hamlet, it would be presumptuous to assume anything like an accurate understanding of any single fascicle of Shobogenzo without, at the very least, a moderately “working knowledge” of the 75 fascicle version—and it would be a demonstration of utter absurdity to presume an air of authority on the subject based on the familiarity of 30 or 40 fascicles; how much more so on the 8 or 12 fascicles that have been hacked out of the living whole to represent the “popular anthologies” of “Dogen’s Zen.” The choice is clear, either follow it through all the way, or keep your “understanding” of Dogen and the “Shobogenzo” between yourself and your teacher—and maybe, just maybe your best friend (the one that already knows all about you, but likes you anyway.

Peace,

Ted