Posts tagged ·

Meditation & Zazen

·...

Because it is so very clear, it is hard to see

Now you know clearly: what is called ‘mind’ is the great earth with its mountains and rivers; it is the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Nearman

It really is that simple – the eyes are horizontal, the nose is vertical. There is nothing cryptic or esoteric about this, it is very easy to understand; if we read the Mahayana and Zen literature we will “know clearly” that Buddha is our mind, and this mind is the mountain, the wall, or whatever it is we are experiencing here and now. There is nothing hazy or obscure about the true Dharma; what could be less clear than the taste of this tea, or the sun before our eyes?

The mind that is sun, moon, and stars is simply sun, moon, and stars: there is no fog nor is there any mist to obscure its clarity.

Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted

Comments Off

The Skin, Flesh, Bones, & Marrow of Emptiness

The Skin, Flesh, Bones, & Marrow of Emptiness

Dogen goes to great lengths to show that nonduality is only meaningful and effective if it fully embraces duality as coessential in the nonduality of duality/nonduality. In his commentary following this “wrong view,” Dogen makes it clear that his main concern here is to expose the fallacy about language, thinking, and reason as inessential to authentic practice-enlightenment. Dogen claims that the above expression verifies an absence of enlightenment in Daie by his presumption that the “various functions” of mind (dualities, like talking and discriminative thinking) are separate from Buddha nature (true nature). The Buddhist teachings on nonduality, emptiness, and interdependence clearly deny the existence of separate entities (dharmas) of any kind; certainly the view that talking and discriminating are separate from Buddha nature is incompatible with these Buddhist tenets. In fact, as Dogen clearly explains, the very notion of “forgetting about dualities” is itself a form of dualism, or pseudo-nonduality.

These remarks of his show that he was still unaware of the silken thread that binds the Buddhas and Ancestors together, nor had he comprehended what the lifeline of the Buddhas and Ancestors is. Accordingly, he only understood ‘mind’ to refer to discriminative thinking and consciousness, so he spoke this way because he had not learned that the various functions, such as discriminative thinking and consciousness, are what the intellective mind is. He wrongly viewed ‘nature’ to mean something that is abundantly clear and peacefully inactive, and did not understand whether Buddha Nature and the nature of all thoughts and things existed or did not exist. And because he had not seen his True Nature as It is, not even in his dreams, he had a false view of what Buddha Dharma is. The ‘mind’ that the Buddhas and Ancestors spoke of is the very Skin and Flesh, Bones and Marrow. And the ‘nature’ that the Buddhas and Ancestors have preserved is a monk’s traveling staff and the shaft of a bamboo arrow. The Buddhas and Ancestors have profoundly realized the Buddhahood promised Them by the Buddha, and this is what is meant by being a pillar of the temple or a stone lantern. How wondrous it is that the Buddhas and Ancestors hold up and offer to us Their wise discernment and understanding!

Shobogenzo, Sesshin Sessh?, Hubert Nearman

With this forthright assertion, Dogen emphasizes that there is nothing vague about the Buddhist teaching of nonduality; the “mind” is not some invisible reality behind the appearance of things, the mind is the sum of the very things themselves, it is the totality of all the real, concrete things of the universe (Skin and Flesh, Bones and Marrow). Nor is the “nature” some pure, inactive, peaceful essence underlying all the various, distinctive myriad things; the nature is the particularity of the things themselves; it is a house, a bowl (a traveling staff and a bamboo arrow).

Peace,

Ted

Comments Off

Seeing Buddha’s Face with Shakyamuni’s Eyes – Face-To-Face Transmission

As in all the great spiritual and literary traditions, in Zen Buddhism the experience of awakening, realization of nirvana, Buddhahood, or satori (enlightenment) are described in terms of vision (rather than hearing). To hear the Buddha Dharma is to learn about it and to study it, to see the Buddha Dharma is to experience it directly; to see it face to face — to see Shakyamuni Buddha’s face with our eyes, to see our face with Shakyamuni Buddha’s eyes.

Dogen wrote:

By bowing down in respect to the Face of Shakyamuni Buddha and by transferring the Eye of Shakyamuni Buddha to our own eyes, we will have transferred our eyes to the Eye of Buddha. Ours will be the very Eye and Face of Buddha. Without even one generation’s break, that which has been conferred face-to-face right up to the present by the mutual Transmission of this Buddha Eye and Buddha Face is this very Face-to-Face Transmission. These successive heirs over some dozens of generations are instances of face after face being the Face of Buddha, for they have received the Face-to-Face Transmission from the original Buddha Face. Their bowing down in respect to this conferring of the Face as the genuine Transmission is their respectful bowing down to the Seven Buddhas, including Shakyamuni Buddha, and it is their bowing in respect and making venerative offerings to the twenty-eight Indian Ancestors of the Buddha from Makakasho on down. This is what the Face and Eye of an Ancestor of the Buddha is like. To encounter this Ancestor of the Buddha is to meet Shakyamuni Buddha along with the other Seven Buddhas. It is the very instant when an Ancestor of the Buddha personally confers the Face-to-Face Transmission upon himself: it is a Buddha of the Face-to-Face Transmission conferring the Face-to-Face Transmission upon a Buddha of the Face-to-Face Transmission.
Shobogenzo, Menju, Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted

Comments Off

Ever already enlightened, ever already deluded

Ever already enlightened, ever already deluded

It is axiomatic to Zen that Buddha can never be found “outside” our own mind or nature. As Dogen asserts, there is not one “objective molecule” in the whole universe; the human body-mind (shinjin) is the whole universe in the ten directions. There is no Buddha in the “outside,” “natural,” or “external” world – except perhaps in the mind of a deluded being. According to Dogen, the universe exists as the world we produce (fashion) from our selection of experiential material (bits and pieces) which is manifest as the here and now that is presented (present-ed), arrayed, or demonstrated (arranged). In a word, it is genjokoan (actualization of the immediate experiential universe). The real, everyday world we experience here and now is not a separate realm in which we exist nor is it an outside or external aspect of our “self.” The world, in Dogen’s Zen, is not something that we are to passively accept, submit to, detach from, or conform ourselves to; the world is always and already us.

In Dogen’s Zen, demonstrating passive acceptance of the status quo or acquiescing to the authority of an “other” is an unequivocal demonstration of ignorance of true nature. Ignorance, like enlightenment, is both specific and bottomless (i.e. there is no such thing as “general ignorance,” thus its appearance in particular dharmas is not limited by any boundary), and Dogen’s assessment of the ignorance of humans is qualified by the specifics of individuals. Even Buddha and Zen ancestors are “ever deluded,” and it is the very definition of “beginners” to be unaware of their true nature; but when it comes to wanton ignorance – apathetic or indolent attempts to evade the necessary exertions of thoroughgoing study and wholehearted practice – Dogen’s contempt is unabashed. Indeed, we can all be grateful for the existence of apathetic and indolent beings; for it is to them that we owe, for one thing, some of the most humorous passages in the whole corpus of Dogen’s writings. For instance, check out these examples:

I say: We do not tell our dreams before a fool, and it is difficult to put oars into the hands of a mountaineer; nevertheless I must bestow the teaching.

Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

But if we learn this view as the Buddha’s Dharma, we are even more foolish than the person who grasps a tile or a pebble thinking t to be a golden treasure; the delusion would be too shameful for comparison.

Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

[Those who exclude women] are just very stupid fools who deceive and delude secular people. They are more stupid than a wild dog worrying that its burrow might be stolen by a human being.

Shobogenzo, Raihai-tokuzui, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

The great master has never shown to the assembly any fist or wink of an eye that advocated the use of the name “Soto sect.” Furthermore, there was no flotsam mixed in among his disciples, and so there was no disciple who used the name “Tozan sect.” How much less could they speak of a “Soto sect”? The name “Soto sect” may be the result of including the name Sozan. In such a case, Ungo and Doan would have to be included too. Ungo is a guiding master in the human world and in the heavens above, and he is more venerable than Sozan. We can conclude, in regard to this name “Soto,” that some stinking skinbag belonging to a side lineage, seeing himself as equal [to Tozan], has devised the name “Soto sect.” Truly, though the white sun is bright, it is as if floating clouds are obscuring it from below.

Shobogenzo, Butsudo, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Peace,

Ted

Comments Off

Superior & Inferior Aspects of Zen Practice-Enlightenment?

In reality, reading and studying the teachings of Buddhism and engaging in the physical activity of Buddhism (including seated meditation) are not two separate things. All aspects of the Buddha Dharma are the Buddha Dharma. For Dogen it is meaningless to talk about the Buddha Dharma in terms primary and secondary or superior and inferior aspects and methods; authenticity is simply authenticity.

Dogen writes:

I say: Remember, among Buddhists we do not argue about superiority and inferiority of philosophies, or choose between shallowness and profundity in the Dharma; we need only know whether the practice is genuine or artificial.
Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross

Peace,
Ted

Comments Off

Bodhicitta – Enlightened Thinking, Bodhi (enlightenment) Citta (thinking mind)

Dogen on Bodhicitta (the mind, or thought of enlightenment).

In general there are three kinds of mind. “The first, citta, is here called thinking mind. The second, hrdaya, is here called the mind of grass and trees. The third, vrddha, 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. To establish the bodhi-mind means to vow that, and to endeavor so that, “Before I myself cross over, I will take

across all living beings.” Even if their form is humble, those who establish this mind are already the guiding teachers of all living beings. This mind is not innate and it does not now suddenly arise; it is neither one nor many; it is not natural and it is not formed; it does not abide in our body, and our body does not abide in the mind. This mind does not pervade the Dharma world; it is neither of the past nor of the future; it is neither present nor absent; it is not of a subjective nature, it is not of an objective nature, it is not of a combined nature, and it is not of a causeless nature. Nevertheless, at a place where there is mystical communication of the truth, establishment of the bodhimind occurs. It is not conferred upon us by the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and it is beyond our own ability. Establishment of the mind occurs during mystical communication of the truth, and so it is not inherent. Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodaishin, Gudo Nishijima & Mike (Chodo) Cross

Comments Off

Does a Falling Tree make a Sound When Nobody is there to Hear it?

Does a Falling Tree make a Sound When Nobody is there to Hear it?

As it presupposes dualism (between “things” (dharmas) in themselves and “things” as represented) the representational view of knowledge and experience is definitely rejected in Zen Buddhism, as it is in Mahayana Buddhism generally. In Zen, all real dharmas (things, beings, instances, events, etc.) are actualized (not re-actualized, or represented) insofar as they are experienced by sentient beings.

So then, the falling tree makes no sound if no one experiences it, and in fact, there is no such thing as a falling tree that no one experiences. A tree, a human being (or any dharma) is only a real dharma if someone (a “self” or an “other”) experiences it. One obvious implication of this is that whatever (or whoever) does experience beings (or other dharmas) must also be real. This aspect of reality is one of the central topics of Dogen’s Shobogenzo.

When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.
Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

In Buddhism, as we know, experience and experiencer are nondual, and each is (like all dharmas) one with the whole universe. But the Zen masters certainly do not let matters rest there; they constantly exhorts us to look deeply and come to understand how the myriad dharmas differ, relate, and interact with each other and the rest of the world. Dogen’s Shobogenzo, for example, is a marvelous demonstration of how this task is accomplished.

Comments Off

Fashioning Buddhas, Fashioning Human Beings – Dogen’s View

Dogen on creating, fashioning, and concocting

Since we human beings are continually arranging the bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion ‘a whole universe’, we must take care to look upon this welter of living beings and physical objects as ‘sometime’ things… In a similar manner, we are continually arranging bits and pieces of what we experience in order to fashion them into what we call ‘a self ’, which we treat as ‘myself ’: this is the same as the principle of ‘we ourselves are just for a time’.

Shobogenzo, Uji, Rev. Hubert Nearman

 

Thus, entering into the depths of the mountains to ponder the Buddha’s Way may well be easy, whereas to fashion a stupa or fashion a Buddha is ever so hard. 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. Time after time, giving rise to the enlightened Mind in this way makes the Buddhas and Ancestors manifest.

Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujo Shin, Hubert Nearman

 

‘The branch of Right Effort’ is the daily conduct of dredging out your whole being. And through dredging out your whole being, you fashion a truly human countenance…

It is one’s Eye creating the morning star.

Shobogenzo, Sanjushichihon Bodai Bumpo, Hubert Nearman

 

Because ‘simply our mind’ is not simply our mind, so ‘the tiles and stones of our walls and fences’ are not the tiles and stones of walls and fences. This is the everyday behavior of a Buddha doing His practice, and it is the principle of leaving things to the mind and leaving things to things even while we are creating both a mind and things.

Shobogenzo, Gyobutsu Iigi, Hubert Nearman

 

By relying on the principle of ‘turning to the next’, you should, by all means, thoroughly investigate both your creating circumstances and your not creating circumstances. And by relying on the principle of ‘turning to the next’, you should thoroughly investigate both what you are concocting and what you are not concocting.

Shobogenzo, Juki, Hubert Nearman

Comments Off

What is Wrong with Duality?

What is wrong with duality?

Posted some weeks back was a quote from Hee-Jin Kim which merits a little more exploration. Here is the quote: 

In the Shobogenzo, “Bendowa” (1231), Dogen succinctly enunciates his Zen: “The endeavor to negotiate the Way (bendo), as I teach now, consists in discerning all things in view of enlightenment, and putting such a unitive awareness (ichinyo) into practice in the midst of the revaluated world (shutsuro).” This statement clearly sets forth practitioners’ soteriological project as negotiating the Way in terms of (1) discerning the nondual unity of all things that are envisioned from the perspective of enlightenment and (2) enacting that unitive vision amid the everyday world of duality now revalorized by enlightenment. Needless to say, these two aspects refer to practice and enlightenment that are nondually one (shusho itto; shusho ichinyo).  ~Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen On Meditation and Thinking, p. 21

[Note: The qualifying terms “revaluated” and “revalorized” serve to emphasize the fact that the “everyday world” here means the true everyday world—the “normal” world as seen in view of enlightenment, not the “normal” (i.e. mundane) world as understood by unawakened beings.]

As clearly conveyed in the classic Buddhist literature, when duality is conceived apart from the experience of nonduality all kinds of delusions ensue. One delusion that is so common among Zen Buddhists it is almost typical, is the notion that Buddhism opposes or denies duality. In less extreme (but just as damaging) cases, many Zen Buddhists that have not experienced nonduality have demonstrated a tendency to privilege nonduality over duality. As is the case with all nondual foci (nondual relationships) duality and nonduality are coextensive and coessential—thus to imagine that duality is bad, wrong, problematic, or any way inferior to nonduality is delusional. Duality without nonduality is dualism, the basis of delusion, confusion, obscurity, chaos, and ignorance. Nonduality without duality, if it were possible, would be sterile and dead. Thus, “discerning all things in view of enlightenment,” and thereby, experiencing nonduality, in Hee-Jin Kim’s words, “within, with, and through duality,” is to revaluate the world (shutsuro).

In, Dogen On Meditation and Thinking, Hee-Jin Kim clarifies the implications of this in relation to Dogen’s teachings. For instance, in the context of Dogen’s teaching on the unity of practice and enlightenment (shusho) Kim points out:

A crucially important point here is, namely, “that which verifies” and “that which is verified” are inseparably intertwined via the body-mind… Thus, in speaking of enlightenment (sho), Dogen always presupposes the process of verification in which enlightenment entails practice, and vice versa. To put it differently, enlightenment (nonduality) makes it incumbent upon practitioners to put the unitive vision of all things into practice, in terms of duality of the re-visioned world.  ~Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen On Meditation and Thinking, pp. 21-22 (italics in the original)

To emphasize the difference between “nonduality” and what is ordinarily thought of as “oneness,” in terms of Dogen’s teachings on the nonduality of practice and enlightenment, Kim writes:

This unity does not mean that practice and enlightenment, though originally two different realities or ontological antitheses, are merged into one, or are reduced to one or the other in a mystical union of numerical oneness or an uneasy alliance… To put it another way, the unity is not the nullification of differences between the two, nor is it a transformation of one into the other, or a fusion of one with the other. Practice and enlightenment are different, yet not two. ~Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen On Meditation and Thinking, p. 24

It is vitally important for Zen practitioners to avoid making the mistake of confusing “duality” (a vital and necessary aspect of Zen practice-enlightenment) with “dualism” (a delusional view). The enormous capacity of such delusional views to obstruct practitioners from authentic realization is well attested to by the classic literature of Zen. The great Zen masters literally devoted thousands of pages to emphasize and clarify this crucial point. Therefore, one more comment by Kim seems merited.

Nonduality is not privileged or transcendantalized metaphysically any more than duality. It is simply one of the soteric foci within the process of realization… in its liberating process, nonduality embraces duality rather than abandons it. Consequently, nonduality is not extra-, trans-, pre-, post-, or antiduality. It is always necessarily rooted in duality. Therefore, nonduality functions within, with, and through duality.  ~Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen On Meditation and Thinking, pp. 33-34 (italics in the original)

Now then, we can understand that the “revaluated world” means the world of duality as revaluated through the experiential realization of nonduality. Thus, the implications of “valuation” should be clear; the duality (all things) of the world as conceived in view of delusion is the “normality” of the “ordinary mind” of unawakened beings. The unawakened “valuate” the world of duality as conceived apart from nonduality; that is, as obscure, chaotic, miscellaneous, boring, and mundane. This deluded “valuation” is inevitably the “normality” they see as the “ordinary mind” and the “everyday” world. From this perspective, “nothing special” is understood dualistically, that is, as obscure, chaotic, miscellaneous, boring, and mundane.

We can now understand Dogen’s (and Zen’s) reason for constantly, and vehemently insisting that the first and foremost task for practitioners is to “cast off body and mind of self and other.” The body and mind of “self and other” is inclusive of all traces of “self” and all traces of “other” (than self). “Without” (Japanese; “mu”) traces of self and other there is no-discrimination (mu-discrimination) no-things (mu-things). Dogen asserts that when Buddhas are experience Buddhahood they are not conscious of being Buddhas; to be conscious of being a Buddha one would have to be conscious of an “other” (than Buddha). As Dogen says:

When speaking of consciousness of self and other, there is a self and an other in what is known; there is a self and an other in what is seen.  ~Shobogenzo, Shoaku Makusa, Hubert Nearman

To cast off the body and mind of self and other is to “discern all things” in view of enlightenment (i.e. nonduality); discerning all things in this manner can just as accurately be expressed as being discerned by all things. In other words, it is to experientially realize the nonduality of duality. This “unitive awareness” is the realization that the real forms of the myriad things (duality) are, as they are, the actualization of nonduality itself (Buddha nature, the one mind, the true self, etc.). In Dogen’s terms:

To be actualized by the many things is to allow the body-and-mind of your self and the body-and-mind of other than your self to fall away.  ~Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Ted Biringer

 

Peace,

Ted

Comments Off

Dogen fans?

Dogen fan? If so, here are some links to a recent series of posts on our sister blog (Dogen and the Shobogenzo)

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Your Mountain and My Mountain – The Same Mountain?

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Comments Off