The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

second ancestor of zen

Article by Ted Biringer

On Zazen (Zen Meditation) June 17, 2008 EzineArticles.com As Featured On Ezine Articles

Shunyata [Emptiness] in Zen Buddhism – Part 4 (The Shunyata of Shunyata)

Shunyata: Part 4 – The Shunyata of Shunyata

See Also: Shunyata [Emptiness] in Zen Buddhism – Part 1   -  Shunyata [Emptiness] in Zen Buddhism – Part 2  -  Shunyata [Emptiness] in Zen Buddhism – Part 3a Shunyata [Emptiness] in Zen Buddhism – Part 3b

In the last post in this series we further explored how the constructive (or re-constructive) perspective of Shunyata reveals the “reality of all thoughts and things.” To summarize that, and lead us into the next section, check out this passage from Dogen’s Shobogenzo, Bussho, notice especially the line about “being devoid of being devoid” (emptiness of emptiness):

The ‘being devoid’ of which he speaks is not the ‘being empty’ in the statement from the Heart Scripture that “Material form is the same as being empty.” Although in the statement, “Material form is the same as being empty,” material form is not being forced into becoming empty, and emptiness is not being split up to manufacture material form, the ‘being devoid’ of which he spoke is that of ‘being devoid is what emptiness means’. The ‘being devoid’ of ‘being devoid is what emptiness means’ is synonymous with Master Sekiso Keisho’s calling it “a stone in space.” So, this is how the Fourth and Fifth Ancestors inquired into and talked about the non-possessing of Buddha Nature, about the emptiness of Buddha Nature, and about the existence of Buddha Nature. (Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman)

So far we have seen that one perspective of Shunyatathe Shunyata of Things (form is emptiness)—reveals that there are no independent entities (things, beings, times, etc.). Another perspective of Shunyatathe Things of Shunyata (emptiness is form)—reveals that things, beings, times, etc. are interdependent, which opens the way to the revelation of another perspective of Shunyatathe Shunyata of Shunyata (emptiness of emptiness). What does this reaveal?

Dogen gives us a glimpse in his words in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, “When one side is illumined, the other side is dark.” Seeing the moon, for instance (even if full) we see only the illumined side. Nevertheless, we are aware that there is more to the moon than that part which we actually see. We understand that the part we see—the “illumined” side—is dependent on the part we don’t see (the “dark” side). If the dark side ceased, the illumined side would cease.

If we follow the significance of this through, perhaps we can get a glimpse of the Shunyata of Shunyata.

First, remember that the illumination of any particular thing, time, or event can only be achieved by “darkening” all other things, times, and events. This kind of illumination and darkening is similar to how we utilize consciousness in everyday life.

Recalling a phone number, for instance, can only be accomplished by ignoring (or darkening) a vast amount of the whole of our memories. If we were aware, all at once, of every phone number in our memory (not to mention all the other numbers, like addresses, birthdays, PINs and so on, or the non-number contents of our memories) it would be impossible to discern a particular phone number. We “illumine” a single phone number by ignoring (“darkening”) those aspects of our memory not-it. Yet, the other contents continue to be integral to the whole of our memories.

The same is true of Fluffy the T-Rex (see previous posts). When Fluffy is “illumined” (focused on, discerned from the whole of existence-time), the rest of the universe (“the other side”) is not absent—it is “there” even though it is “dark” (consciously, or unconsciously ignored).

Keep in mind that Zen is interested in truth—the true nature of reality. Zen has no use for generalities; it deals only with real specifics. When Zen indicates the universe or things of the universe, it means the real universe and real things. Thus, in this example ”Fluffy” must be understood as a real dinosaur that actually lived and died in this universe. In such a case, suggesting Fluffy could exist apart from the existence of Abraham Lincoln (or any other real aspect of this universe) would not be a valid suggestion–it is not the actual situation. If Fluffy and  Abraham Lincoln are real aspects of this universe, then if either or both were subtracted it would not be this universe.

Now, let us examine what was said in the last post (Part 3b) about Fluffy consisting of every element of the universe except one. Remember, from one perspective of Shunyata “Fluffy” is multitudinous; her existence is dependent on food, water, sun, her parents, great grand-parents, the Earth, the expanding universe, etc. Her existence is a real aspect of the same existence-time of Lincoln, Dogen, Mount Everest, and you. Fluffy is one real aspect of everything that has ever existed and ever will exist the universe – except for one thing: Fluffy.

To focus on, or “illumine” Fluffy, is to focus at the whole of existence-time as Fluffy. Because each abstract “bit” of the whole universe is dependent on relative to every other aspect of the universe, Shunyata is Shunya (emptiness is empty). The term “other” is the key here. The one element that Fluffy lacks is “Fluffy.” In other words, because Fluffy’s existence is totally dependent on or relative to every non-Fluffy element of existence-time, Fluffy’s existence is not dependent on or relative to Fluffy elements

At the same time (or existence-time), as soon as  any non-Fluffy element, or thing (dharma) is illumined, Fluffy is darkened (it contains the element “Fluffy”). Abraham Lincoln lacks any real independent “Abraham Lincoln”, but contains every other element of existence-time, including Fluffy.

This message comes through clearly in the prajnaparamita sutras which present this aspect of reality in the Buddhist terms of “self” and “not-self.” They do so by first showing how Shunyata reveals that “self” is “not-self” (i.e. is dependent on “non-self” elements), then by showing how Shunyata reveals that ”not-self” is the oneness, or whole of existence-time, then by revealing that Shunyata itself is subject to its own rule (i.e. it is dependent on “non-Shunyata” elements), finally, this reveals that the one element lacking in each “self” is precisely “its-self.”

Some of you are no doubt familiar to the Diamond Sutra’s formulation of this doctrine which states: X is not-X, therefore it is X. This is an extremely useful formulation and can accurately be applied to any individual, or specific particularity (e.g. Fluffy is not-Fluffy, therefore Fluffy is Fluffy). Here is one example of Dogen’s use of this formulation:

“Because right here in this place there are no ‘ten directions’, the ten directions are this very place right here.” (Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Hubert Nearman)

[Breakdown: "Because right here ["X"]… there are no ‘ten directions’ [is not-X]… the ten directions are… right here [therefore it is X].

To summarize, all thoughts and things are Shunya (all things lack a “self”), Shunyata is all thoughts and things (this “lack of a self” is what things are), Shunyata is Shunya (Shunyata lacks a “self”—Shunyata too, is dependent. Dependent on what? On real thoughts and things.

Now consider these words of Dogen:

By looking at the various forms of the flowers of Unbounded Space, we can estimate that the flowers of Unbounded Space are boundless. By looking at the opening and falling of the flowers in Unbounded Space, you should investigate the spring and autumn of the flowers in Unbounded SpaceThose who have been taught that the flowers of Unbounded Space are not real, though other flowers are real, are persons who have not encountered or heard what the Buddha taught. Upon hearing the Buddha’s Teaching that Unbounded Space originally had no flowers, if one were to study this as meaning that there are now flowers of Unbounded Space where originally there were none, this would be narrow-minded and short-sighted. We need to step forward and take a more broadminded view. (Shobogenzo, Kuge, Hubert Nearman)

The Ultimate Reality described as being ‘like water reflecting the moon’ may also be expressed as ‘the Water and Its Moon’, ‘the real Water’, ‘the real Moon’, ‘being within Reality,’ or ‘the Reality within’. It goes beyond expressing what things appear to be like as Reality, for Reality is what is.

The real Dharma Body of the Buddha is just like unbounded space. And because this ‘unbounded space’ is the real Dharma Body of the Buddha, the whole earth, the whole of all realms, all thoughts and things—that is, all things that manifest—are, in themselves, unbounded space… Even in places where there is no sun or moon, there will be day and night, for the sun and moon do not exist for the sake of day and night. And because the Sun and Moon are, both together, what is ultimately real, there is not just one or two Moons, nor just a thousand or myriad Moons. (Shobogenzo, Tsuki, Hubert Nearman)

Here are some juicy excerpts from the fascsicle in which Dogen’s deals with this most extensively; Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, (translation by Hubert Nearman):

‘All thoughts and things are undoubtedly all thoughts and things’ is realized by each Buddha, and ‘all thoughts and things are reality’ is realized by every Buddha.

Hence, there are forms just as they are and there is the True Nature just as It is, wherein all thoughts and things exist as thoughts and things of their own accord. And forms are, precisely, forms: there are their forms just as they are and there is their True Nature just as It is…

If we ourselves were different from the Buddhas in the ten directions, how could we possibly realize what the Buddhas in all the ten quarters have taught? Because right here in this place there are no ‘ten directions’, the ten directions are this very place right here. As a result, when Real Form encounters all thoughts and things, the Spring dwells within Its flowers, human beings encounter the Spring, the Moon illumines the moon, people come face-to-face with their True Self and see It reflected in Water, and all of these alike are the principle of a mutual encountering

By making use of the intention to train, training and practice, the attaining of Wisdom, and nirvana, we thoroughly explore that the human body really is birth-and-death and coming-and-going, and, in protecting what we have received, we now hold firm and we now let go. With this as our bloodline, the flower opens and bears its fruit; with this as their bones and marrow, Makakasho and Ananda existed. The forms, just as they are, of wind, rain, water, and fire are what Makakasho and Ananda fully realized, and the innate natures, just as they are, of blue, yellow, red, and white, are what they fully realized as well. By relying upon our physical body and spiritual abilities, we turn the mundane into the sacred, and by relying upon their effects and consequences, we surpass Buddha and transcend Ancestor. By relying on these causes and conditions, we take hold of dirt and transmute it into gold

The Gate of Skillful Means is the unsurpassed meritorious functioning of the fruits of Buddhahood. It is the Dharma that resides in the place of Dharma and It is the form of the world as it constantly manifests. The Gate of Skillful Means does not refer to some momentary skill. Trainees take up the Real Form of all thoughts and things, and explore It thoroughly through their training with a Master…

‘To open the Gate of Skillful Means’ means to point to the genuine Real Form of things. Even though we chop time up into moments of beginning, middle, and end, pointing to the genuine Real Form of things covers the whole of time. The underlying principle of momentarily opening the Gate of Skillful Means involves opening It by opening the whole universe. At the very moment when you catch sight of the opening of the whole universe, it will be something that you have never encountered before. By our grasping once or twice at an intellectual concept of what opening of whole universe is and then grasping at it for a third or fourth time as something real, we cause the Gate of Skillful Means to open

‘To point out the authentic Real Form’ means to keep hearing the phrase ‘the Real Form of all thoughts and things’ throughout all worlds and to realize enlightenment throughout all worlds. It is to help all humanity understand the underlying principle that Real Form is what all thoughts and things are and to help manifest the whole of the Dharma…

Meditation Master Engo once said, “Birth-and-death and coming-and-going are a person’s true Real Body.” By exploring this expression, we will come to know ourselves and we will give our consideration to the Buddha Dharma.

Chosa once said, “The whole universe in all ten directions is a person’s true Real Body. The whole universe in all ten directions lies within the radiant brightness of one’s own True Self.”

But, in general, even veteran trainees in present-day Sung China still do not know that they need to explore a saying like this through their training. Much less do they know how to put it into practice! Were we to quote this saying to them, they would simply go red in the face and be left speechless…

Keep in mind that Real Form is the genuine Lifeblood which has been passed on from rightful heir to rightful heir, that all thoughts and things are what each and every Buddha has completely and thoroughly explored, and that each and every Buddha manifests His characteristic marks, just as they are. (Shobogenzo, Shoho Jisso, Hubert Nearman) Emphasis added by me.

Should we go on to post something about “Buddha Nature”? Or maybe “Existence-Time?”

Let me know what you think…

I hope this is helpful.

Peace,

Ted

9 comments to Shunyata [Emptiness] in Zen Buddhism – Part 4 (The Shunyata of Shunyata)

  • [...] the rest here:  FLATBED SUTRA » Shunyata [Emptiness] in Zen Buddhism – Part 4 (The … By admin | category: zen | tags: baron, buddhism, circle, first-ever, gain-access, [...]

  • Harry

    Happy New Year to you & yours, Ted.

    Regards,

    Harry.

  • Hello Harry,

    Thank you.

    And a Happy New year to you too!

    Peace,
    Ted

  • Jamie G.

    Wow… thank you so much for this series of posts. I’m having to go back and read read all of them slowly several times… lots of meat in them. Gassho, JG

  • Hello Jamie,

    You are welcome. Thank You!

    Peace,
    Ted

  • stereo

    Hi! I enjoyed your series about Shunyata. I seem to have a different understanding of the subject, though. First, you explain emptiness of things as them being dependent on all the other elements. I explain emptiness of things as them being dependent on the process of thinking. There are no ‘things’ unless you think them. Also, there is no time unless you think about past or future… My direct experience tells me that there is always and ever only this moment right now. Every thing is a concept, which exists only as long as the process of thinking is going on (in the present moment). There are no things, there is only One (non dual). The mind can work only with images, so it seemingly divides the One.

    You give reality to ‘things’, which those images point to. I say there are no such things. They are not existing at all. What is real, is the pointing (thinking). It is a real process going on presently in the brain and I am aware of it in my direct experience. Therefore emptiness (concept) is a form (brain activity). Consciousness is a mirror. We can see only reflections. Reflections are real images, but they are not the things they reflect. We only see and work with reflections. That is why you cannot talk about nonduality. The moment you start thinking, you already seemingly divided the non dual.

    Right now I am looking at a brick wall in front of me. Is it real, or is it an image in my head? The moment I think about it, I am working with an image created in my mind. Therefore I am not talking anymore about the thing which that image refers to. I can only talk about images. Reality itself is a concept and can be the property of concepts only. I find this explanation of shunyata to be very practical – it gives focus on the awareness of the process of thinking going on in the present moment rather than the content of it…

  • Hello stereo,

    Thank you for your comments, and your encouraging words.

    First, let me say that your comments make it clear that you are sincerely commited to right understanding. Your points are clear and your manner of expression is articulate.

    While I am uncertain about your precise meaning of some of the terms you use (thinking, conciousness, and reality), I think I get the gist of your position. I do have a couple of questions though.

    You write of the “difference” between our viewpoints, saying, “I explain emptiness of things as them being dependent on the process of thinking.” Do “not-thinking,” and “nonthinking,” have position in your viewpoint?

    Where does “duality” fit in with your understanding of “nonduality”?

    In order to clarify some of the issues concerning what seem to be some important points between us. These seem mainly to center on the absence of any role for “duality” (other than providisional) in your view. I will try to clarify some of my views, and to offer a bit of an explanation of my present understanding.

    Buddhism asserts that there is no eternal, unchanging self, no fixed, invariable, objective reality—reality flows. Examined in light of nonduality, the self’s “fashioning” of things from the material world reveals the dynamic interaction of the self and the world. The manifestation of “things” by and through the “self” is exactly proportionate to the manifestation of the self by and through things. Perceiving the forms and images (the myriad things) of the world via sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, and thought actualizes the self. That is, the forms and images produced by the continuously ongoing activity of perception animate the self. The role of temporality, or time is essential to this process–that is, the “true self” is realized activity, in Dogen’s terms, the active Buddha. The “active Buddha” is the moment to moment “arrival” of “now” as the entirety of existence-time totally exerted, cast off, exerted, cast off in the never-ceasing ever-changing actualization of the self.

    It is in keeping with this that “each thing, time, and event” is at once a real, particular, dharma (thing, being) and “the one.” Moment by moment particular “things” are exerted (manifest) and are cast off (cease). This is what gives each particular “thing”—including reflected mental images—its true significance. At the moment of its coming to light (exertion) everything else is “dark” (unseen, yet established). This is illumined, for example, in the Huayen teaching, “Non-Obstruction of Concealment and Disclosure, by the Huayen ancestor, Ch’eng Kuan. A passage from the prologue on this teaching reads:

    On the eighth day of a [lunar] month, half of the moon is bright and the other half is dark; the very appearance of the bright part [the disclosed] affirms but does not negate the existence of the hidden part. Likewise, the manifestation of something always implies the existence of the unmanifested or concealed part of the same thing (italics mine). At the moment when the bright part of the moon is disclosed, the dark part also “secretly” establishes itself. This is the reason for the so-called simultaneous establishment of concealment and disclosure… (Trans. Garma C. C. Chang)

    It seems to me that you are leaving out the “duality” side of the nonduality of “nonduality/duality.” In other words, the outline you give of your position accounts for the “emptiness” of “form is emptiness” but does not account for the emptiness is emptiness. Here is how Dogen puts it (quotation as Hee-Jin Kim translates it in his “Dogen On Meditation and Thinking”):

    The “emptiness” in question is not the “emptiness” of “form and emptiness.” [The true meaning of] “form is emptiness” is not that you forcibly make “form” into “emptiness” or that you split “emptiness” so as to fabricate “form”; it is the “emptiness” of “emptiness is emptiness.” This “emptiness” of “emptiness is emptiness” is a single piece of rock in emptiness.
    Hee-Jin Kim, DOMT p.71

    This elucidation on how the realization of emptiness illumines the true existence of particular things (dharmas).

    Another issue concerning your post is that it seems to proclaim a view of Solipsism. This difficulty is overcome by Buddhism’s recognition of “not-thinking”, and “nonthinking” as well as “thinking.” Also, in Buddhism’s recognition of more than one “kind” of mind. “Reality,” in Buddhism, at least in my understanding, does not hold “One Mind” above, beyond, or as more essential than “Many minds.”

    In this vein, I would add that, in my understanding, “thinking” is not somehow less valuable than an absence of thinking. For example, Dogen writes:

    In general there are three kinds of mind. The first, citta, is here called thinking mind. The second, hridaya, is here called the mind of grass and trees. The third, vriddha, is here called experienced and concentrated mind. Among these, the bodhi-mind is inevitably established relying upon thinking mind. Bodhi is the sound of an Indian word; here it is called “the truth.” Citta is the sound of an Indian word; here it is called “thinking mind.” Without this thinking mind it is impossible to establish the bodhi-mind. That is not to say that this thinking mind is the bodhi mind itself, but we establish the bodhi-mind with this thinking mind.
    ~Eihei Dogen, Shobogenzo, Hotsu-Bodaishin, Nishijima & Cross

    What I have been trying to say that ‘non-dual’ in Buddhism means, empty of duality, which does not mean that “the particular” and “the universal” are one (undifferentiated). The particular and the universal in Zen are always two real aspects of one reality. It is important to understand that though they always go together, they each maintain their distinctive qualities.

    Okay, I hope that helps clarify my own understanding a bit.

    Thanks again! I look forward to hearing from you again, and to future discussions.

    Three Full Bows.

    Peace,
    Ted

  • stereo

    Hi Ted, thanks for reply.

    Well, I understand duality as dividing nonduality and naming, labeling and assuming relationships between named objects for the purpose of practical thinking and planning… It is both very useful and important in daily life. In fact, we would be animals without it. The problem arises when we believe those names to be true and assume ourselves to be an independent entity – a thing among things – which is simply false…

    You wrote: “Perceiving the forms and images (the myriad things) of the world via sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, and thought actualizes the self.”

    I would say that what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell, is nondual. We live in nonduality, it is our direct experience in every moment. We do not see forms and myriad things. We have to label them first for forms to arise. We have to ‘think them’. Originally, there are no things, only a big chunk of stuff, coming in through senses. When we analyze it and focus on some particular portion of it and name it, only then the ‘dual thing’ manifests.

    Of course the moment I assume one thing as being separate, the assumption of myriads of separate things arises with it. But that one thing is not empty because it is dependent on others, but because it is only an image in my head. The image is real, because there is an awareness of it in the moment of thinking.

    You wrote: Another issue concerning your post is that it seems to proclaim a view of Solipsism. This difficulty is overcome by Buddhism’s recognition of “not-thinking”, and “nonthinking” as well as “thinking.”

    Actually I don’t find Solipsism to be an issue… I am not familiar with those other terms (“not-thinking”, and “nonthinking”), I will try to learn about them. Maybe you could write something about it or point out possible sources for study?

  • Hello stereo,

    Thank you for writing.

    I think I understand your position on this. If so, it seems to be pretty much in accord with western philosophical Idealism (with a leaning toward Solipsism). My own experience with the great philosophers of these various schools of thought have been and continue to be inspirational.

    There are a number of important differences between them and Zen. While there are some contemporary individuals, teachers, and communities that identify themselves as “Zen” Buddhists, that do seem to hold similar positions, these are relatively new off-shoots and diverge widely from the classic Zen records.

    I hope to post something soon on the “thinking, not-thinking, and nonthinking” teachings of Dogen. I hope you continue to participate and share your experience and viewpoints here; I have found you comments to be sincere, thoughtful, and insightful.

    Thanks again.

    Peace,
    Ted

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>