FREE Zen Newsletter!
Dogen, Using Zen Teachings vs Used by Zen Teachings, Koan
In the classic records of Zen, the masters sometimes point to the ’difference’ between Buddhas (or sages, Zen masters, etc.) and ordinary beings (common mortals) as the difference between using time (or teachings) and being used by time (or teachings). This is usually included in some dialogue or story where two individuals appear to, speak, or act in an identical manner, but one is approved as enlightened, and the other is dismissed as deluded.
Dogen uses similar language in a number of places in his teachings. Most often though, Dogen uses it in terms of “turning” and “being turned” (as in “turning the wheel of Dharma”) For instance:
The order of the Founding Patriarch Daikan is on Sokeizan in Shoshu district. Hotatsu, a monk who recites the Sutra of the Flower of Dharma, comes to practice there. The Founding Patriarch preaches for Hotatsu the following verse:
When the mind is in delusion, the Flower of Dharma turns.
When the mind is in realization, we turn the Flower of Dharma.
Unless we are clear about ourselves, however long we recite [the sutra],
It will become an enemy because of its meanings.
Without intention the mind is right.
With intention the mind becomes wrong.
When we transcend both with and without,
We ride eternally in the white ox cart.
So when the mind is in delusion we are turned by the Flower of Dharma; when the mind is in realization we turn the Flower of Dharma. Further, when we spring free from delusion and realization, the Flower of Dharma turns the Flower of Dharma.
Shobogenzo, Kankin, Hubert Nearman
While Dogen, as do all the great Zen masters, affirms that both “being turned” (or used) and “turning” (or using) are not apart from reality as it is, he certainly affirms a difference between them. For example:
Though both approaches are ripened by diligence and strenuous effort, the one makes use of the mind and the other is being used by the Mind, which is different by far.
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujo Shin, Hubert Nearman
What is Dogen (or the other Zen masters) getting at here?
I would like to suggest that it this is a way of pointing to the significance, or value of understanding a particular aspect of “reality as is.” More specifically, it is meant to direct us to deeply consider the nature of our true condition. That is, the reality, or ‘thusness’ of the human condition.
“Thusness” or “suchness” (immo) in Buddhism refers to “reality as is.” That is, the true nature of reality regardless of what we call it or think of it. According to Buddhism, thusness cannot be “grasped” by ordinary human means. When we try to “grasp” it, we only manage to divide it into thusness and not-thusness. These divisions often take form as “true” and “false”, or “real” and “apparent.” If we try not to grasp it, we also divide it, this time into “grasping” and “not-grasping.” In this way, any particular existence (even thusness) is divided into myriad forms.
Myriad forms mean; at least so far as our human capacity is concerned, infinite forms. As human beings are finite, human attention or awareness is limited to a finite number of things. In short, no matter how knowledgeable or attentive we are, we will always be unaware of some aspects of reality. It is simply the nature of the human condition; to be aware of some things we must ignore (be unaware of) other things. Such an infinitude of possibilities mean that the balance between the two (the known and the unknown) will, to some degree, differ for each and every individual. Even Siamese twins differ to some extent in their perspectives of reality.
Many only vaguely sense the reality of this ‘limitation’, others experience deep, but ultimately fleeting glimpses of it; few come to clearly discern it and achieve a profound appreciation for its significance. And its significance is certainly profound. For the way in which the infinite reality is divided into awareness and unawareness largely determines the individual’s life experience. Realizing that the experience of life greatly depends on the individual’s (finite) perception of reality, the sage actively chooses what to give their (finite) attention to. More commonly, an individual’s perception of reality is simply allowed to manifest by whatever captures their attention.
Actualizing freedom by choosing what to give our attention to, or remaining bound by whatever captures our attention is, I think, what the masters are pointing to as the difference between using time (or teachings) and being used by time (or teachings), respectively.
Peace,
Ted
Hola Amigo,
WOW!!!!
You surely have given us a lot to chew on here. I better take it slow or indigestion is sure to follow.
I find the assertions or implications of the this post to be quite unique, refreshing and stimulating.
Thank you for the gruel,
“Y”
Hello Yamakoa,
Thank you for your words.
Enjoy.
Peace,
Ted
“Actualizing freedom by choosing what to give our attention to, or remaining bound by whatever captures our attention is, I think, what the masters are pointing to as the difference between using time (or teachings) and being used by time (or teachings), respectively.”
Hi, Ted.
Oh dear, Heaven and Earth slavishly sliced in two and this called ‘freedom’.
Do you really think Buddhist freedom, or realised time-being, is a matter of human ‘choice’ or attention?
Just when we are realising it we can see clearly that there is actually no choice to trouble us and nothing to capture our attention whatsoever. This is not a matter of human choice or attention but of something much more substantial and real.
Regards,
Harry.
Hello Harry,
Thank you for your comments.
I am not sure if I follow your meaning here, so rather than responding directly to your view that, “…we can see clearly that there is actually no choice to trouble us and nothing to capture our attention whatsoever.” I will just try to explain my own view.
At the same time, I wonder if you could elaborate a little on what you mean by, “…something much more substantial and real.”
Anyway, my understanding of “freedom” (Buddhist or otherwise) is that freedom means, implies, consists of making deliberate choices. It is my experience that the amount of choices human beings have is infinite (there are an infinite number of things one could choose to do or not do at any given time). It is also my experience that the universe in which humans exist contains an infinite variety things, beings, perspectives, etc. “There are worlds there”, as Dogen says, “Even in a drop of water.”
It is my experience too that human perception is finite, thus humans the experience from which we, as Dogen says, “fashion a universe… and fashion a self” will be limited by what our actual human condition; that is, by what we choose to use our limited capacity to illumine.
Finally, as the band RUSH says, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” In other words, we can simply allow our human experience (life and death) to unfold as it will, OR we can choose to exercise our ability to deliberately participate in the creation of our world/self.
I am not sure what you mean by “human”, but my meaning is in accord with the Zen teachings on what the true nature of humans is. That is the, “Real human being”; or the “Whole universe in the ten directions.” In other words, for me, an “ordinary human being (like a Buddha, or Zen ancestor), as Dogen has it,
For instance, the Tathagata was a human being just like other human beings.
Shobogenzo, Bodaisatta Shishobo, Hubert Nearman
To meet my former Master face-to-face was to encounter an ordinary human being.
Shobogenzo, Gyoji, Hubert Nearman
The difference between the “sage” and the “common mortal” is that the sage chooses what to focus his/her limited capacities on. Choosing to explore the Buddhist teachings under an ancestral Zen master is what makes a Zen Buddhist a Zen Buddhist. Choosing not to do so (or simply “not choosing”) to do so would not be the action of a Zen Buddhsit. As Dogen puts it:
This is why all persons—every single one of them, past or present—who have explored the Truth of the Buddha Dharma have all decided to explore the Scriptural Teachings, and in doing so they have, without fail, explored the Matter by training under some Ancestor of the Buddha, and without seeking to train under anyone else. If they did not commit themselves to train with an Ancestor of the Buddha, theirs would not have been the right commitment.
Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman
As I said, I am not sure if I follow your reasoning, but if you mean that enlightened beings (Just when we are realizing it) are somehow “puposeless”, “aimless”, or “freed from having to make choices”, I would strongly disagree. I think Case 2 of the Mumonkan (Hyakujo and the Wild Fox) are the best illustration of the Zen position on this point. I also think that Dogen’s writings are very clear on this. For example:
When the unsurpassed enlightenment of a Buddha arises, we call this state ‘unsurpassed enlightenment’. Those who do not recognize how someone looks at the time of his or her being in such a state must surely be befuddled. This so-called ‘look’ is that of being untainted. ‘Being untainted’ does not mean being deliberately devoid of any purpose or refusing to make choices, nor is it being compulsively preoccupied with trying to be aimless or glossing over everything. How could there possibly be an untainted state in which someone is devoid of any purpose and refuses to make choices!
Shobogenzo, Yui Butsu Yo Butsu, Hubert Nearman
In any case, thank you for your comments.
Peace,
Ted
“Anyway, my understanding of “freedom” (Buddhist or otherwise) is that freedom means, implies, consists of making deliberate choices. It is my experience that the amount of choices human beings have is infinite (there are an infinite number of things one could choose to do or not do at any given time).
Hi Ted,
I don’t doubt that one can be free in deliberate choice, but freedom cannot be confined to deliberate choice and it is not in Buddhism.
Also, I think what people generally consider ‘free will’, or the freedom to act in whatever way they want, is very often conditioned by what they want and so it is not free of it. ‘Free will’ of this nature seems based on the usual comfortable assumptions that we limit ourselves with habitually.
In **your own experience of** ‘dropping body and mind’, is a moment of ‘dropping body and mind’ a matter of choice? How could each moment which arises be a matter of choice? Would that really be freedom?
Some such moments are certainly a matter of choice, but others? I don’t think so.
It seems to me that this moment already is not inhibited at all by what we choose and percieve, and is not contingent on that. Reality does not exist on the basis of human choice; our heart will not stop beating if we choose for it to do so. Thankfully.
You’re interpretation of the Wild Fox koan is one-sided…
“Do not ignore cause and effect”
Do you really think that ‘not ignoring’ something is always a matter of conscious choice? If so, what a restless life you must lead. I can hear the bird outside without listening to it (and what an interesting and intimate relationship this ‘non-listening’ can be!), and I can hear it too when I consciously, intentionally focus and listen to it, which is a different way of relating.
Why didn’t the master say ‘Observe cause and effect’?
…and, again, it seems that you are limiting yourself to a partial interpretation of the views expressed by Master Dogen:
1. There is freedom as opposed to inhibition.(Thinking)
2. There is no freedom nor inhibition.(Not thinking)
3. There is freedom that is a manifesting fact before 1. and 2.(view of *non-thinking*)
4. In our freedom we will be inhibited and vice versa (the situation of our life).
The last quote from Yui Butsu Yo Butsu is not saying what you are trying to make it say; of course when we are practicing then certain things will come up from time-to-time that will require our attention… otherwise we’d probably slip into daydreaming or a ‘zoned out’ state… but that’s a momentary situation, and it is certainly not the whole story of practicing-realising it and you should (although I doubt you will as you often fail to represent Master Dogen holistically) balance that with a statement about practice which is free of intention.
And, while you’re at it, try contrasting the ‘Zen teaching’ on ‘humans/people’ with the Zen teaching at the start of that chapter:
“The Buddha-Dharma cannot be known by people. For this reason, since ancient times, no common man has realised the Buddha-Dharma…” (Nishijima Cross).
I think Nearman’s translation of the last sentence is wide of the mark because, if you read Dogen’s explanatory image which follows, he is clearly pointing to something different (“Again, we should recognise that, just as it is inescapable for spring to be simply the spirit of spring itself, and for autumn likewise to be the beauty and ugliness of autumn itself, even if we try to be other than ourselves, we are ourselves. We should reflect also that even if we want to make these sounds of spring and autumn into ourself [i.e. intentionally], they are beyond us” (Nish/Cross)).
Here’s the next lines of that section of Yui Butsu Yo Butsu that you posted from Nishijima/Cross and, I think you can see, that your partial offering is a recipe for representing Master Dogen wrongly. I hope you’ll consider stopping doing this at some stage.
“…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.”
Please try harder to faithfully represent the teachings of this great Master, Ted.
Regards,
Harry.
Dear Harry,
Thank you for your comments.
-
You wrote, “You’re interpretation of the Wild Fox koan is one-sided… you are limiting yourself to a partial interpretation of the views expressed by Master Dogen… you should (although I doubt you will as you often fail to represent Master Dogen holistically) balance that with a statement about practice which is free of intention.
your partial offering is a recipe for representing Master Dogen wrongly…”
-
I admit that my comments on Dogen’s teachings do not presume to present the whole of his works — just as are yours and everyone else’s do not, and cannot — at least not without citing the entire Shobogenzo, Eihei Koroku, Zuimonki, and the rest of his writings.
-
Like members of all manner of communities, even Zen Buddhists must draw the line somewhere. That is, we must presuppose the “audience” being addressed is at least somewhat familiar with the material with which we use to outline a particular point.
-
For instance, Dogen frequently uses brief allusions to koans without actually citing the entire case (e.g. “skin, flesh, bones, marrow”, or “twirling a flower”, “raising a finger”, etc.)–he does not cite the entire case because he presupposes his audience, being Zen Buddhists, are familiar with the whole of the literature from which he is drawing to make a particular point. I don’t think he is being “one-sided”, or “partial” in doing so.
-
Dogen, like all the classic Zen masters never presumed to express every perspective at once—in fact, they usually express themselves very clearly by staying focused on some very specific aspect. On one occasion, Joshu said “Mu.” On another occasion, Joshu said “U.” Although each comes from opposite perspectives, each is a complete presentation — I would not suggest that Joshu was only presenting “one side”…
-
Thanks again.
Peace,
Ted
Ted, those dead men were, as you point, out Zen Masters, and they were responding to a real situation, to real people in their presence, in an inspired and intuitive way; they were not just trotting out rehashed literature in large, disembodied chunks.
No offence intended, but it is quite different to what you are doing here.
Regards,
Harry.
Dear Harry,
Thank you for your comments.
Peace,
Ted