FREE Zen Newsletter!
Dogen’s Zen Expressions & Shobogenzo’s Loops – Part 1
What do you think Dogen means by his frequently repeated line, ““Nothing is concealed in the whole universe”?
While understanding Dogen’s view on the unity of the meaning and form of expressions (discussed in the post for Jan. 18th) helps us understand his teachings, the light it sheds on the reasoning behind some of the techniques and key phrases that permeate his works may be of even more significance.
For example, the phrase, “nothing is concealed in the whole universe,” appears time and time again in many of the fascicles of Shobogenzo. If the meaning of an expression is the same thing as its form, as Dogen contends, then it becomes obvious why “nothing is concealed”—nothing can be concealed. For, as observed previously, for Dogen all things are expressions that exist only by virtue of their capacity to be perceived; thus, nothing is concealed because the only “things” that exist are perceivable things. The reader probably sees some of the implications this has for the nature of perception, which will be examined later; for now the focus is on expression.
The example above demonstrates how understanding one thing (the unity of meaning and form) can clarify and expands our understanding of something else (nothing concealed). Although the example is not extended to detail how it also works in reverse, it is easy enough to infer that each of the two serve to clarify and expand the other. The specifics of these particular teachings, however, are less significant than seeing the process that is illustrated here. The “interaction” (process) of these two teachings is merely one of many, many instances in which two or more aspects of Shobogenzo mutually modify (expand) each other…
To be continued…
Peace,
Ted
[...] The last post left off in Part 1 of this series talking about the mutual interaction between two or more teachings in Dogen’s Shobogenzo. See: Dogen’s Zen Expressions & Shobogenzo’s Loops – Part 1 [...]
Hola Amigo,
You stated “for Dogen all things are expressions that exist only by virtue of their capacity to be perceived; thus, nothing is concealed because the only “things” that exist are perceivable things.”
Do you care to clarify, because I have found this not to be true in my experience. I am looking at this from a “science” viewpoint. If one follows any phenomena far enough, one will reach a stage where we truly do not and thus are not perceivable, yet we experience are experienced by the many phenomena.
Thanks
“Y”
Sorry, I meant to say,” where we truly do not know.”
Hello Yamakoa,
Thank you for writing.
You wrote: “If one follows any phenomena far enough, one will reach a stage where we truly do not know and thus are not perceivable, yet we experience are experienced by the many phenomena.”
You nailed the key question here, for this whole point depends on how we understand “perception.” I am not sure if I am reading you correctly here, but if I follow you then I think that there may just be a little “obscurity” with the terms here; more specifically, with the term “perceive.” It is a an ambiguous term (probably because the actual experience of perceiving has been, and continues to be the subject of widely divergent notions in many schools of philosophy, religion, science, art, etc.). In a previous post (Dharma Transmission in Dogen’s Zen – Part 4) I suggested “prehend” as an alternative term:
“As expressions of true nature, all thoughts and things are “words” that “say” something. That is, every dharma (thing), form, or image that we can perceive (“prehend,” may be a better word) through eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind is a form of communication. True nature “communes” with us (“you” and “I”) through and as thoughts and things.”
The main thing to get here is that “percieving” is not limited to (self) awareness of perception. Perception, in this sense, does not mean “discerning an object of knowledge” (as in “comprehending”, or “understanding”). “Perception,” in other words, is different than “Conception.” — A “concept” may be “percieved”, but “perceiving” cannot be a “concept.”
It is, no doubt, a difficult experience to discuss with clarity. There are multiple ways in which “perceive” is used and defined–and its more “common” use and definition (which is not how I am using it) can throw us off. For example, Webster’s has, for its first two definitions:
1. To obtain knowledge of through the senses; to receive impressions from by means of the bodily organs; to take cognizance of the existence, character, or identity of, by means of the senses; to see, hear, or feel; as, to perceive a distant ship; to perceive a discord.
2. To take intellectual cognizance of; to apprehend by the mind; to be convinced of by direct intuition; to note; to remark; to discern; to see; to understand.
(Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary)
These definitions lean decidely to some type of “subjective awareness” which is not what I mean (or what I think Dogen means). The “BOLDED” text, however, does hint in the direction. For a better meaning of how I mean it, we have to go all the way to Webster’s 3rd definition:
3. To be affected of influented by.
(Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary)
To use your example, perhaps it would not be too far off to say, “In the experience of “truly not knowing”, “truly not knowing is perceived.” See? To truly “perceives not knowing” is one thing; to “perceive that ‘I’ perceve not knowing” is something else. In short, in the experience of “perceiving not knowing”, “not knowing” is the whole universe, it is the totally exerted.
This is close, I think, to Whitehead’s use of the term “prehend” in his ‘philosophy of organism’:
Prehensions are physical or mental representations of actual entities. Objects of prehension may also include eternal objects, propositions, and the nexus of relations between conceptual objects.
Thus, he describes prehensions, or concrete facts of relatedness, as fundamental to our experience of reality. Concrescence is a process by which prehensions become more concrete. Prehensions bring evidence of concrete actual entities, which are the final realities.
–from an outline of his philosophy at: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/whitehead.html
In these terms we might say that, “to prehend ‘not knowing’ is to experience it fully (for to “bring evidence of concrete actual” entity of ‘not knowing’, “which are the final realities”—one would really not know.)
In an interesting article on “Ontology of Organization as System, by Joel Slayton and Geri Wittig, http://www.c5corp.com/research/ontology.shtml they offer some interesting suggestions on prehension:
Prehension
In that a discrete data object (datum) can be considered a (unity), it is a unity having parts (or the potential for parts) and yet is simultaneously a part. The datum is a prehension of its antecedents and concomitants and, by degrees, acts to prehend a larger system which prehends itself. Like the eye is a prehension of light or the body a prehension of person, the discrete datum is a prehension of its own organization and the domain to which it belongs, a domain constituted within a network of consensual relations.
In a unique twist of semiotic fate, to be a data object implies that the unity of another datum, must therefore prehend it (if A prehends BCDEFG then BCDEFG prehends A). In other words, datum expect other datum, data classes expect other data classes, unities other unities, domains other domains, networks other networks. This notion is critical, for prehension based systems illustrate the reciprocal and self-referencing nature of data unities. As is implied, these unities tend to evolve in complex, self-organizing and auto-catalytic class systems which exhibit behaviors which can be understood as code relations resulting from their actions as attributes or predicates, including echoes, reflections, iterations, traces, deformations, thresholds, and folds.
Did you notice the example, “if A prehends BCDEFG then BCDEFG prehends A”? Let’s put a “Zen” spin on it “if A is BCDEFG then BCDEFG is A”?
Hmmm… “A” could stand for apple, axle, or Alex—let’s try it that way, “”if Alex is not-knowing then not-knowing is Alex.”
Maybe…
Peace,
Ted
Hola Amigo,
Whew!!!!
Dogens perceiving (prehending) takes perceiving beyond an act or response by one of the senses and shows that “IT IS,” a “thing in itself (I do not wish to use Kant’s nuemenon).” Not-knowing implies the perception/prehension of not-knowing. Since not-knowing “IS,” we could say: “not-knowing, Alex, Alex, not-knowing.” Even more to the point, there “IS” = NOT-KNOWING.
If I am following correctly, according to Dogen, the very capacity for me to perceive or prehend even “not-knowing” something reveals it to be “something” very real. If this is the case, we have a working model on how Dogen saw phenomena. If phenomena is defined as the appearance of something through the mind. I think the next logical question would be, “What is Mind?” I have a sneaky suspicion, I would hear; mountains, birds, keyboards, honking, blue, NOT-KNOWING, etc…
“Who Knows”
“Y”
Hello Yamakoa,
Thanks for your comments.
Now try not to be so enthusiastic about the True Dharma-Eye Treasury that Dogen so freely offered anyone that might be interested. Haven’t you heard that Zen is “nothing special”? Don’t you understand everything is “just as it is”? Just sit, stare at the wall, and don’t allow those nasty old “words” of Dogen to distract you from simple peace and quiet–and whatever you do, do not let those old koans distract you—Didn’t you know that Dogen discouraged his students from introspecting koans while they dwelled in “pure awareness.” I know that in just about every writing, Dogen urges us to “get inside these words”, “penetrate this saying,” “engrave these words on your bones,” “investigate this saying for lifetime after lifetime,” and on and on. And while he said to “verify them in practice,” he must have meant some kind of practice other than zazen—at least that is what I have been told by a number of “certified” Zen masters, so it must be true… Just like seeing something on TV — how could you ever doubt it? Remember, Zen does not have any use for words and language, for thinking, reason, and certainly not enlightenment! That word is such a lie, most of us are afraid to even say it out loud—if you are forced to say something about it, it is best just to allude to it by saying, “The ‘E’ word…” Actually uttering the whole word might result in 7 years of bad luck, or cause your mother to experience a broken back—others seem to think saying it will cause hair to grow on the palms of your hands, or even make you go blind! Of course, Zen students aren’t superstitious, but you can never be too careful. Yes, we must play it very safe or we might get hurt… maybe hurt badly! Or, dare I say it? We might even die! Yes die! Wait a minute, what’s that? We will die anyway? Oh no! Well, maybe they will have a cure for death soon… Let’s play it safe! Forget about risks! Forget about fun! Happiness, adventure, discovery, love, sex, ice-cream, fighting, playing, laughing, crying, sorrow, joy—don’t get caught up in all that human life stuff–play it safe, maybe you will get an extra 10 or even 30 years! Who cares if those years are about as constructive as the life of a mushroom…
If, however, you happen to demonstrate the freak-like qualities of someone that actually enjoys, relishes, or even takes great pleasure in immersing themselves in Dogen’s True-Dharma-Eye Treasury, then be warned: you may look up one day and notice that 2 decades have elapsed. Then, you might see that, yes indeed, you have mined your own mountain of treasure—and though you may have some recall of giving it all away, it may still lay in heaps everywhere you look!!! We may recall with horror, all the “bad” things you did, like skydiving, smoking that pipe, quiting a secure job to start your own business, and getting drunk with a guy you met on the bus whose wife just died of cancer. There may be a momentary sense of alarm—have you mined it all!?!!? Oh no, now what are you going to do!!?? Then you may look at the heavy tome in your hands and realize you have not yet even scratched the surface of Dogen’s treasury—then a sense of tranquility may fall over you and may you settle back into the zafu and realize that as long as breathing continues, Joshu’s Oak Tree has a million more experiences it would like to explore—come to think of it, maybe that motorcycle for sale that you saw on your way home from work is in your budget after all…
So be warned, leaping off of 100 foot poles is much riskier than dwelling in peaceful bliss between healthy whole grain meals and a nice little chanting session followed by organic tea and sugarless, fat-free cookies. Play it nice and safe, and even if you don’t actually live any longer of a life it will certainly seem longer.
Peace,
Ted
[...] See: Dogen’s Zen Expressions & Shobogenzo’s Loops – Part 1 [...]