Harry

More (slightly edited) ruminations from Brad's blog comment section:

Loss is good! We should revel in its real meaning cos its going to catch up with us for sure.

I love this shit, two totally unique and diverse moments [two people] trying to come into accord and harmonise with each other... that effort, when it's sincere, is already it: Real/realising time.

The past is just a memory inside our individual heads, the future's just a thought (there must then be myriad diverse pasts and futures, one for each head). Time, then, is not what we think it is, or rather it is, but not how we think it is. Looked at from the perspective of real time (that is, the only real time that we have in which we can actually effectively do something substantial: a doing more direct than thinking/acting in accordance with our own thought up, past/future based, time), things may be more complicated than we like to think...

...Actually "loss" is really an excellent word to consider.

The real meaning of loss is how we are really losing at this moment in time... Are we really losing something? Are we gaining something in really/realised losing? Both? Neither? Is it simple? Is it complicated...?

Regards,

Harry.

From Brad Warner's blog. A meandering post about talking/meaning etc etc:

Yeah, our words only suck because we sometimes suck.

They, just like [the object of our speech], are already free of themselves while we're speaking (regardless of what we mean, or think we are saying/meaning). But we don't generally recognise the fact... because we can never hope to recognise it in terms of meaning, or rather, in terms of the sort of very limited self referential meaning that we generally suck from the real situation of what the words are actually doing before we understand and interpret what we have said or are about to say. This limited understanding of the meaning of speech is based on our wanting things for our self.

Things in the real situation are always already their own meaning. To make matters more confusing, a manifest 'unreal' situation is effectively just as real, and the 'unreal' meaning is therefore real and manifest too.

Realisation, to put a Buddhist slant on it, is already a manifest reality before we do it... as long as we are doing it. Delusion is also effectively a reality. It's substantially a matter of which reality we want to do, but to uncover the fact that we have a choice in any given moment of our life may take a lot of clarifying given the persistent and pervasive nature of our conditioning.

...Just to add that people like to think that they definitively know the meaning of words on some sort of on-going basis (this is one of the many habitual things we do to give us an idea of constancy and autonomous existence). But actually the real effective and manifest meaning is contained only in the present moment when the word is used/expressed/intentionally evoked in memory, where it's a seamless element of the whole, real situation which, of course, is never the same twice.

Regards,

Harry.

Master Dogen continues his commentary on the 'tile polishing koan':

[13] Nangaku then picks up a tile and starts to polish it on a stone. Daijaku
eventually asks, “What is the master doing?” Truly, who could fail to
see that he is polishing a tile? But who can see it as polishing a tile?

Clearly the master is actually just polishing a tile, but to really know polishing a tile we have to do it ourselves, and, just when we're doing it, what can we say about the real act of it?

Rather, the polishing of a tile has [always] been questioned like this: “What are you doing!” The “doing” of “what” is always the polishing of a tile.

The 'doing of what' suggests doing something ineffable, in this case 'polishing a tile' or sitting as sitting/ our actions as real action.

This suggests that 'polishing a tile', or real effort/conduct, is the standard across relative differences in diverse places. It's more than a matter of not being fooled and led about by our own viewpoints, it is a tangible conduct, such as physical work and other acts, which are manifest in the world.

Master Dogen clarifies that, in conducting ourselves in the state of practicing buddha, we don't come to know or understand the state intellectually in terms of some simple, wonderful and thoroughly satisfying principle, say (it's referred to elsewhere as 'non-buddha' or 'ascending buddha'), but at the same time this concrete and manifest 'not knowing/not understanding' is itself a tangible understanding that can always be clarified and penetrated and refined. There's a school of thinking within Soto Zen, for example, which is often quick to 'conclude' that, because there is 'nothing to attain', 'no goal', 'no method' etc, we should do nothing but just sit and non-think and that's it, the whole story (and they cherry pick Shobogenzo and Fukanzazengi etc for choice quotes to back their position up!)... but Master Dogen kindly points out here (and elsewhere) that, rather than being content with our own such 'conclusions', we should make efforts to penetrate 'nothing to attain', 'no goal', 'no method' in all manner of studies and conduct.

Regards,

Harry.

Hi,

I took down the blog that I'd started about the home Ango effort I'm currently involved in. I found that blog to be a bit, well... lame.

I might post a message about the Ango from time to time here but, the more I do it, the less of a deal it is, so maybe not!

There you go now, that's the latest excitement.

Regards,

Harry.

If I have 'learned' anything at all from the small bit of Buddhist practice that I've done it is to distrust certainty; that includes other peoples' certainty, but especially my own.

It seems all too easy to take up Buddhism and act in 'Buddhist' ways and adopt the 'Buddhist' view and become engaged in 'Buddhist' efforts. The internet is choc full of it; we seem so sure of it all ('satori is this or not that', 'when this person said that he meant this', 'the Buddha said this', 'Master Dogen said this and/or meant that', 'this is the Buddhist thing to do in that situation' etc etc etc etc...

In answer to the obvious question 'Are you certain in your distrust of certainty?' I would say 'Yes; but that sort of certainty is cold comfort'. It seems that 'certainty' in the Buddhist practice mode is much more substantial, much more inclusive, but much less convincing.

Regards,

Harry.

Next, Master Dogen discusses Kōzei's response as to what he is doing from the famous 'tile polishing' koan:

[11] Kōzei says, “Aiming to become buddha.” We should clarify and master these words. When he says “becoming buddha” just what does he mean? Does “becoming buddha” describe becoming buddha being done by a buddha? Does “becoming buddha” describe becoming buddha being done to a buddha? Does “becoming buddha” describe the manifestation of one instance and the manifestation of two instances of “buddha”? Is “aiming to become buddha,” being the dropping off [of body and mind], “aiming to become buddha” as dropping off? Does “aiming to become buddha” describe that even though “becoming buddha” is of myriad kinds, it continues to be entangled with this “aiming”?

It might be tempting to discount Kōzei's answer as simplistic and idealistic (i.e. based on the effort to become some idealised 'buddha'), but Master Dogen encourages to look at it more closely than this. Again the theme of clarifying effort, and the right sort of effort, comes forth here. As noted by Nishijima/Cross, the last line of questioning suggests that the nature of the 'aiming' that Dogen is indicating is complicated: Practicing being without intention and goal is itself a very real and tangible type of effort that we can realise with our own being, it's a sort of 'aiming'.

Remember, the words of Daijaku are that to sit in zazen is, in every case, “aiming to become buddha.” To sit in zazen is, in every case, “becoming buddha” as “aiming.”

This clearly expresses Master Dogen's value on zazen as its being an expression of the state of buddha. The practice ('aiming') is itself the becoming of the non-goal.

The “aiming” may be before the “becoming buddha,” may be after the “becoming buddha,” and may be just the very moment of “becoming buddha.”

This indicates that the effort, or 'aiming', and the 'becoming buddha' do not necessarily occur at the same time. Noticing the effect of sitting zazen may happen before or after the event. This recalls Dogen's point that although we become realised in zazen we might not necessarily recognise the fact at that time.

Let us ask for a while: How many instances of “becoming buddha” does one such instance of “aiming” entangle? This entanglement is further entwining with entanglement. At this time, all cases of entanglement—as totally “becoming buddha” in separate instances, and as totally “becoming buddha” always being exactly itself— are individual instances of “aiming.”

Master Dogen indicates the complicated relationship between our own efforts in practice and its manifest results in our life. He presents both single instances of totally 'becoming buddha', and totally 'becoming buddha' as an on-going reality, as instances of our own effort/ 'aiming' in practice-conduct.

We cannot flee from a single instance of “aiming.” At a time when we flee from a single instance of “aiming,” we lose body and life. [But even] the time when we lose body and life is an instance of entanglement as “aiming.”

A moment of practice is a moment of real effort that, unlike daydreaming or talking idle poop, is not a type of zoned-out 'escape'. Even so, a moment of such habitual activity, when we notice that we're doing it in zazen, say, is an essential element of our 'aiming'.

Regards,

Harry.

I get the sense, in keeping with the above theme, that 'the eyes' here means things we 'see' and understand ourselves, while 'the ears' refers to what we hear of Buddhist teachings from others. Again it suggests a balanced, clarifying relationship between theory and our own practice-experience avoiding the rejection of either, and/or the idealistic adoption of either as 'supreme' values.

Regards,
Harry.

Shobogenzo Zazenshin continues:

The one-to-one transmission to Yakusan in the state like this
is the thirty-sixth, already, in a line of direct descent from Śākyamuni Buddha;
and when we trace upward from Yakusan, there is, after thirty-six generations,
the Buddha Śākyamuni. Having been authentically transmitted like this, “thinking the concrete state of not thinking” is present already.

Master Dogen presents the state of practicing zazen (in the manner outlined at the start of this chapter) as the authentic transmission in the lineage stemming from Śākyamuni Buddha.

In recent years, however, stupid unreliable people have said, “In the effort of zazen, to attain peace of mind is everything. Just this is the state of tranquility.” This opinion is beneath even scholars of the Small Vehicle. It is inferior even to the vehicles of humans and gods. How can we call such people students of the Buddha- Dharma? In the great kingdom of Song today, people of such effort are many. It is lamentable that the Patriarch’s truth has gone to ruin.

This is a clear rebuttal of the view that the point of zazen is to stop or suppress thinking, or to calm the mind. As pointed out in the previous section, the zazen that Dogen proposes is not an action performed in reference to thinking or a lack of it: As a real act it is already 'transcendent' (into actuality) over both.

There is another group of people [who say]: “Sitting in zazen to pursue the truth is an essential mechanism for beginners and late-learners, but it is not necessarily the action of Buddhist patriarchs. For them, ‘walking also is Zen, and sitting also is Zen. In talking and silence, movement and rest, the body is at ease.’ Do not associate [Buddhist patriarchs] exclusively with this effort [of zazen].” Many who call themselves followers of Rinzai are of this opinion. They speak like this
because they have been remiss in receiving the transmission of the true life of
the Buddha-Dharma. What is “a beginner”? Which [sort] is not a beginner?
At what place do they locate a beginner? 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.

Master Dogen refutes this view of zazen by pointing out that, even a beginner who sits zazen without the expectation or intention of becoming buddha, is already acting/expressing buddha. He sees zazen as an indispensable aspect of expressing buddha.

Because acting buddha is utterly beyond becoming buddha, the universe is realized. The body-buddha is utterly beyond becoming buddha, [but] when nets and cages are broken, sitting buddha does not hinder becoming buddha at all.

Our act of sitting zazen is never hindered by some fixed state of 'buddha', it's a real thing being manifested and it allows things to manifest directly as they are before we interfere with them. At the same time, when we can practice and see this clearly, when 'buddha' is not a hindrance or a contrivance or a source of confusion and intention, then we can be said to be becoming buddha. Here Master Dogen has negated 'buddha' as a fixed state and affirmed it as a dynamic action that is not caught by any fixed state.

This suggests the pivotal importance of each moment when we have clarified that we have a choice in how we act: At any instant we can realise the state of practicing buddha, or we can act in accordance with our deluded habitual reactions. To emphasise the importance of our own conduct in any given moment Master Dogen indicates that our various types of such activity have very real accumulative effects across all of time in that we effectively make reality when we act.

Regards,

Harry.

Nishijima/ Cross note in their intro to this chapter that 'shin' refers to the curative needle employed in acupuncture. The term came to be used to express the essential gist of something, the real important 'points' that clear it up and express it. A Zazenshin then was a short, to-the-point verse explaining the essentials of zazen.

While Great Master Yakusan Kōdō is sitting, a monk asks him, “What are you thinking in the still-still state?” The master says, “Thinking the concrete state of not thinking.” The monk says, “How can the state of not thinking be thought?” The master says, “It is non-thinking.”

This is a traditional koan that Master Dogen employs repeatedly. He uses it in his universal instruction for zazen Fukanzazengi. He seemed to really like it!

[4] Experiencing the state in which the words of the great master are like
this, we should learn in practice “mountain-still sitting,” and we should receive
the authentic transmission of “mountain-still sitting”...

Master Dogen encourages us to clarify and realise the words of the great master in our own practice of sitting. 'Receiving the authentic transmission of mountain-still sitting' suggests that we should seek out the right instruction and that we personally may become realised in doing it.

...this is the investigation of “mountain-still sitting” that has been transmitted in Buddhism.

This line suggests that the sitting Master Dogen is describing is not simply the passive, 'zoned out', calm abiding of sitting to chill out or clear the head. To 'investigate' sitting in sitting is to investigate and clarify our self vividly.

“Thinking in the still-still state” is not of only one kind, but Yakusan’s words are one example of it. Those words are “Thinking the concrete state of not thinking.” They include “thinking” as skin, flesh, bones, and marrow, and “not thinking” as skin, flesh, bones, and marrow.

Master Dogen points out that Yakusan's words are an expression of his state of practice (he says it while sitting zazen). This suggests to me realised thought, or thinking which expresses practice-realisation and is not limited by the habitual activity of limited habitual "me/mine" thinking activity. Dogen seems keen to avoid setting up some thinking/not thinking duality and affirms that both thinking and not thinking can express the truth when 'both' are realised for what they are in direct practice. Again this line suggests a state of vivid activity, 'thinking not thinking' albeit not what we might generally regard 'thinking'.

The monk says, “How can the state of not thinking be thought?” Truly, although “the state of not thinking” is ancient, still it is “How can it be thought about!”

This suggests that the state of not thinking discussed is prior to intentional thought, it cannot be 'thought about' in that way. So we are talking about another sort of 'thinking' activity.

“In the still-still state” how could it be impossible for “thinking” to exist?

Master Dogen seeks to avoid an extreme interpretation of 'not thinking'. He does not see 'the still-still' state as a means of stopping or negating thinking, he seems rather to present it as a state of thinking more fundamental than what we might generally consider 'thinking' and which allows for thinking.

And why do [people] not understand the ascendancy of “the still-still state”? If they were not the stupid people of vulgar recent times, they might possess the power, and might possess the thinking, to ask about “the still-still state.”

The 'ascendancy of the still-still state' suggests a type of conduct/thinking not confined to what we generally consider thought/thinking or a lack of it. He is critical of people who might passively accept some notion of what the 'still-still state' is and seeks to encourage us to enquire about it.

The great master says, “It is non-thinking.” This use of “non-thinking” is brilliant; at the same time, whenever we “think the state of not thinking,” we are inevitably using “non-thinking.”

Non-thinking, letting thoughts come and go without getting involved with them, does not create any additional thinking and clarifies our habitual intentional thinking activities as we gradually come to realise that we are doing it and can stop doing it (to whatever small extent on any given day!) Sitting down and intentionally trying to 'not think', on the other hand, would probably just prove very frustrating, and it probably wouldn't work because trying to 'not think' is already a type of intentional thinking activity!

In “non-thinking” there is someone, and [that] someone is maintaining
and relying upon me. “The still-still state,” although it is I, is not only “thinking”:
it is holding up the head of “the still-still state.”

This affirms that there is effectively a real actor who is performing the activity of zazen. There is an actor performing the sitting who is "me" but is also more than just the thinker of "me" as can be clarified in sitting zazen.

Even though “the still still state” is “the still-still state,” how can “the still-still state” think “the still-still state”?

This points out that our real action of sitting is always a fact before we think about or perceive it, so we can realise that we needn't limit it with our usual "me" type thinking and by claiming our thoughts/ perceptions as "mine" etc.

This really drives the message home. My state of sitting is already not "mine" and is already not in reference to "me" or the Dharma, or realisation, or Buddha, or understanding... it is a real action, a real function in reference to no limitation (including whatever I think about it).

Regards,

Harry.