Showing posts with label Ted Biringer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Biringer. Show all posts
    Tyler Jones
    André I don't think this is completely correct, but hits on an important and subtle point that I am not particularly qualified to address. JT talks about +A and -A expressions of emptiness, and the importance post-anatta of both the non-conceptual development of realization and the integrating with arising concepts development, that is, investigating how concepts of self arise in real time (I guess one could call this post equipoise) is a development independent of resting in non-conceptual equipoise. He has also said the closest thing in Tibetan Buddhism to total exertion is Tsongkhapa's view, which emphasizes the conventional existence of things arising according to dependent origination, so this is related to Tsongkhapa vs Freedom From Extremes territory. Seeing as you favor Freedom From Extremes, it doesn't surprise me that you make the above point 😉. Soh, do you have anything to say about this matter?
    2

  • Reply
  • 1d
  • Edited

Soh wrote:

Yes, as John Tan basically said before, Dogen's experience of just sitting is not just anatta but require dependent origination.

So if we just remain non conceptual and do not penetrate into the view of dependent origination, it is not easy to experience the Maha total exertion.

Ted Biringer is able to bring this out, the +A aspect, quote:

"To clarify, and emphasize the crucial point, since the existence of ‘A’ can only be discerned by its contrast with the existence of ‘not-A’, the existence of ‘A’ is dependent on the existence of ‘not-A’ – therefore, the existence of ‘A’ is inclusive of the existence of ‘not-A’ and vice versa. In other words, the whole of existence-time (uji) that is not explicit in/as ‘A’ is and must be implicit in/as ‘A’ – hence, the reality of ‘A’ is constituted of both what is ‘A’ and what is ‘not A.’ Therefore, ‘A’ (and by extension, any particular dharma) is a manifestation of the whole universe, total existence-time. This vision of dharmas – as particular forms of/as the totality of space-and-time (uji; existence-time) – is explicitly asserted and graphically presented by Dogen’s teachings on the ‘self-obstruction’ or ‘total exertion’ of ‘a particular dharma’ (ippo gujin)."

 


.............

More recent writings by Ted Biringer (the only thing I could criticize about Ted Biringer is that he seems to focus exclusively on the +A aspect and not the -A aspect, so he does not seem to appreciate the 'unreal', 'illusory' understanding of the emptiness of phenomena, which ironically is also taught in Diamond Sutra):


Ted Biringer
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:27 am
Contact:

Emptiness and the Diamond Sutra


Post by Ted Biringer »

If there is one teaching that is peculiar to Buddhism alone among all the world’s religions, I would say it is the principle of sunyata (Voidness or Emptiness). If I were to choose one doctrine among others that best represents the core of Buddhism, I would also choose the principle of sunyata. If someone were to further ask me what is the Buddhist doctrine that is most difficult to explain and comprehend, most misunderstood and misrepresented, I would again say it is the principle of sunyata.
Garma C.C. Chang, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, p.64


The vast significance and central importance of emptiness in Zen can be seen in two of its often repeated axioms, ‘All things are essentially empty’ and ‘Emptiness is the true nature of all things.’ ‘All things are essentially empty’ means all things are empty of selfhood, all dharmas lack independent existence. ‘Emptiness is the true nature of all things’ means emptiness is the reality or essential nature (ontology) of all the various things, beings, and events (i.e. the myriad dharmas).

Contrary to widespread notions, to be empty does not mean to be unreal, nonexistent, or provisional, nor does it mean that variety, plurality, and uniqueness are delusory or illusory, as if the myriad dharmas were ‘made up of’ or ‘reducible to’ one uniform or homogeneous essence or substance. I stress this point because prospective Zen interpreters have historically demonstrated a tendency for presenting distorted notions about emptiness. Such distortions usually amount to a privileging of emptiness (essence, reality) over form (appearance, manifestation). Such privileging is caused and perpetuated by false presuppositions consistent with dualism. Briefly, this happens when the form (appearance) and emptiness (reality) of dharmas are conceived and treated as independent realities. When form and emptiness are conceived of as separate, distinct realities, they become subject to comparisons of superiority and inferiority. Naturally, emptiness, being envisioned as uniform, universal, and pure is seen and treated as superior to form, which is envisioned as variable, particular, and disparate. Such fallacies concerning emptiness and form spawn teachings and practices that foster quietism and detachment, many of which can be seen thriving in the present day.

From at least as early as its Sixth Ancestor, Huineng (638-713 C E), Zen has been closely associated with the prajna-paramita sutras – the most comprehensive treatment of emptiness (sunyata) in the Buddhist literature. According to Zen lore, Huineng realized enlightenment simply upon hearing a prajna-paramita scripture, the Diamond Sutra, recited in the street. Huineng’s record, the Platform Sutra, proclaims the supreme vision of the Diamond Sutra, promising enlightenment not only to those that practice its teachings, but even to those that simply memorize it.

Numerous subsequent Zen records make frequent use of the Diamond Sutra’s methodology to present the wisdom of emptiness, that is, insight into the nondual nature of reality. The gist of the Diamond Sutra’s methodology can be expressed by the formula A is not-A, therefore A is A; not-A is A, therefore not-A is not-A. In other words, form is emptiness (i.e. not-form), therefore form is form; emptiness is form (i.e. not-emptiness), therefore emptiness is emptiness.

The basic reasoning of this can be understood by envisioning ‘A’ as a particular dharma, and ‘not-A’ as everything else in the universe. With this it can be seen that thinking, speaking, or acting in relation to ‘A’ requires one to distinguish what is ‘A’ from what is ‘not-A’ – thus it is seen that the existence of ‘A’ presupposes (i.e. is dependent on) the existence of ‘not-A.’ By the same reasoning, the existence of ‘not-A’ is seen to presuppose the existence of ‘A.’

To clarify, and emphasize the crucial point, since the existence of ‘A’ can only be discerned by its contrast with the existence of ‘not-A’, the existence of ‘A’ is dependent on the existence of ‘not-A’ – therefore, the existence of ‘A’ is inclusive of the existence of ‘not-A’ and vice versa. In other words, the whole of existence-time (uji) that is not explicit in/as ‘A’ is and must be implicit in/as ‘A’ – hence, the reality of ‘A’ is constituted of both what is ‘A’ and what is ‘not A.’ Therefore, ‘A’ (and by extension, any particular dharma) is a manifestation of the whole universe, total existence-time. This vision of dharmas – as particular forms of/as the totality of space-and-time (uji; existence-time) – is explicitly asserted and graphically presented by Dogen’s teachings on the ‘self-obstruction’ or ‘total exertion’ of ‘a particular dharma’ (ippo gujin).

The Zen practitioner that focuses their attention on dharmas in accordance with the Diamond Sutra’s methodology is enlightened to (i.e. sees, knows, experiences) the truth that dharmas are dharmas by virtue of their being particularities – that is, by their existing as some-thing differentiated from every-thing. Experiencing the world through the perspective presented by the Diamond Sutra, the practitioner is made intimately aware of the fact that reality only and always consists of particular (part-icular) instances of total existence-time – apart from specific manifest phenomena (i.e. dharmas) there is no existence or time.

Thus, it is accurate to say that, to experience (epistemology) existence (ontology) is to distinguish something from everything; if something is not distinguished from everything, nothing can be experienced. By applying ourselves to the Diamond Sutra’s methodology we first come to discern that the existence of a particular dharma is dependent on the existence of everything ‘other than’ that dharma. Next, we come to discern that the existence of everything ‘other than’ that dharma is dependent on the existence of that dharma. Proceeding along these lines, we come to discern how each dharma inherently presupposes (contains, includes) every ‘other dharma’ and all ‘other dharmas.’

In sum, the Diamond Sutra presents (makes present) the dynamic interdependence of form and emptiness by demonstrating that ‘form’ is essential to, therefore inclusive of ‘emptiness’ (and vice versa).

Peace,
Ted

  • ..........

    Ted Biringer
    Posts: 12
    Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:27 am
    Contact:

    Seeing your nature is Zen


    Unread post by Ted Biringer »

    Bodhidharma said:

    Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen.
    ~Trans. Red Pine


    In Zen ‘seeing your nature’ is initiated and realized through practice-enlightenment grounded in Zen/Buddhist doctrine and methodology. Doctrine and methodology are nondual (not-two). Doctrine informs methodology, methodology authenticates doctrine. Zen doctrine presents (makes present) the truth of our nature, Zen methodology allows us to experientially verify that truth.

    Zen/Buddhism employs myriad teachings and practices in its mission to save all beings – to help them see their nature. All these doctrines and methods have one thing in common; they direct us to our own experience here and now. They do so because beside our experience nothing exists – experience is existence, existence is experience. Understanding this truth through teachings allows us to verify it in practice. To verify the nondual nature of experience and existence is to know (i.e. be enlightened to the truth) that whatever is true of experience is true of existence (and vice versa).

    To clarify the nondual nature of experience and existence, Zen commonly employs the traditional system of examining the nature of consciousness (experience) in ‘six modes.’

    Briefly, this traditional system recognizes consciousness as functioning in six distinct modes, each of which is constituted of a sense organ, a sense field, and a sense capacity.1 The six sense organs, together with the six sense fields, and the six sense capacities constitute the elements or realms of the human sensorium,2 which Buddhism calls the ‘eighteen dhatus’ (realms). From the Zen/Buddhist perspective the sensorium constitutes the totality of existence-time.

    The six modes of consciousness are eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness. Each of these consciousnesses is recognized as an inherent capacity to discern – thus actualize (i.e. make actualize)3 – the ‘type’ or ‘kind’ of phenomena (i.e. dharmas) belonging to its particular mode. For example, dharmas that are discerned/actualized visually are ‘objects of eye-consciousness,’ dharmas that are experienced/appear audibly are ‘objects of ear-consciousness,’ and so on. In this manner each and all the myriad dharmas are experienced/appear in/as one or more of six types of phenomena; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts. Thus each and all dharmas are recognized as ‘objects of consciousness.’ In other words, ‘the myriad dharmas’ is everything experienced and ‘everything experienced’ is the myriad dharmas – existence only and always consists of particular sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts that are seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, and thought by particular sentient beings in/as existence-time.

    Thus the traditional Buddhist division of consciousness into six modes clearly and simply reveals how all things, beings, and events are and must be phenomena, spatial-temporal forms of consciousness. When dharmas are seen as ‘objects of consciousness’ dharmas are recognized as both ‘what’ sentient beings are sentient of, and ‘what’ makes sentient beings sentient. Seen as what makes sentient beings sentient, dharmas are seen to be the very source and fabric of sentience, consciousness itself, life itself. Again, Zen affirms, to exist is to be experienced; to be experienced is to exist.

    By assimilating the truth of this (through learning, practicing, verifying, and actualizing it), we naturally enhance and refine our capacity for the transmission of wisdom. By clearly seeing that our self (i.e. our existence) is our world (i.e. our experience), we recognize the universe (the totality of self/other) is an unceasing activity of self-expression – one’s self is realized by one’s world, and one’s world is realized by one’s self:

    So life is what I am making it, and I am what life is making me.
    Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    In sum, ‘what’ a sentient being is (ontology) is ‘what’ a sentient being is sentient of (epistemology). Sentience is consciousness, consciousness is only and always someone (self) conscious of something (other) – apart from a self and an other ‘consciousness’ is meaningless:

    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, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    As long as we are not hindered by the wrong view that thought is independent of reality the nondual nature of thought is easy to verify. Verification is only and always realized through our own seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking here-now. Therefore, we needs only to simply, but sincerely, focus on our own experience – of a self and a world here-now – to recognize that all ‘objects of consciousness,’ not only thoughts, are our nature. Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, as well as thoughts are only and always experienced in, as consciousness (our nature here-now).

    In practice-enlightenment you see that just as no thoughts are experienced/appear independent of your mind, no forms, sounds, flavors, fragrances, or feelings are experienced/appear independent of your mind. In making the effort to sincerely observe this over time, you cannot fail to suddenly or gradually awaken to the truth that the crash of thunder and barking of a dog (objects of ear consciousness) are no more or less ‘objects of consciousness’ than are imagined train whistles and voices in dreams (objects of mind consciousness) – ‘you’ are your sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations and your thoughts, and they are you.

    Seeing (experiencing) your nature (existence) is Zen (being awake to reality). Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen.

    Peace,
    Ted

    Notes: 1. The six sense organs are eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body (tactile sense), and mind. The six sense fields are sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects (touchables), and thoughts. The six sense capacities are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking.
    2. sensorium
    noun sen•so•ri•um \sen-ˈsȯr-ē-əm\
    : the parts of the brain or the mind concerned with the reception and interpretation of sensory stimuli; broadly: the entire sensory apparatus
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensorium
    3. In Buddhism, sensing and actualizing are not two different things – we do not have sense capacities because there are things to sense, there are things to sense because we have sense capacities. For a good overview of this see Buddhist Phenomenology, Dan Lusthaus, pp.52-82


    ..............
    Ted Biringer
    Posts: 12
    Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:27 am
    Contact:

    The Role of Criticism in Zen


    Unread post by Ted Biringer »

    After the Socratic aphorism, we might say that an unexamined Zen is not worth living—but then, in the same breath, add that an unlived Zen is not worth examining.
    Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking: A Reflection on His View of Zen, p.10


    Do not misunderstand Buddhism by believing the erroneous principle ‘a special tradition outside the scriptures.’
    Eihei Dogen, Shobogenzo, Bukkyo


    Clyde’s recent post – in defense viewtopic.php?f=69&t=34161 – got me thinking about the place and significance of criticism within the realm of learning and study in Zen practice.

    In recent decades our knowledge of Zen has greatly improved – and greatly altered – our understanding of it. New discoveries, advances in technology and methodology, and more extensive research have revealed much that was formerly unsuspected. As a result, whole new avenues of study have opened up. For example the scholarship confirming the continuity between the Zen koan literature of China and the works of Eihei Dogen (until recently explicitly denied) has led to new understandings of both the koan literature and Dogen’s works.

    While newly established facts are crucial, of perhaps even greater significance are the toppling of fallacies – some of which had been sustained for decades or even centuries. For example, both eastern and western scholarship has obliterated the nearly universally accepted fallacies postulating Zen’s anti-literary, anti-philosophical stance. In contradiction to longstanding notions of Zen as aloof from, or even disparaging of literary and philosophical pursuits, scholarship has shown that such pursuits are and have been essential elements of authentic Zen practice. Learning and study, it turns out, is as integral to Zen practice as is meditation (zazen). As the great Dogen scholar Hee-Jin Kim puts it in one place:

    The issue was not so much whether or not to philosophize as it was how to philosophize… [The] philosophic enterprise was as much the practice of the bodhisattva way as was zazen.
    Hee-Jin Kim, Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, Wisdom Publications; 3 Revised edition (January 1, 2000), p.98


    Nevertheless, anti-literary, anti-philosophical fallacies concerning Zen continue to thrive not only outside the Zen community, but within it as well. Why is this? It seems to me that Thich Nhat Hanh offers us a clue:

    If we take something to be the truth, we may cling to it so much that when the truth comes and knocks on our door, we won't want to let it in.
    Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the
    Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra
    , Parallax Press (November 24, 1964), p.6


    We human beings seem to have a propensity to ‘cling’ or become attached to our own views. I think this is why the crucial importance of an accurate understanding of knowledge (epistemology), commonly treated in terms of the Buddhist notion of ‘right views’, has been a defining characteristic of Buddhist thought since its very beginning. It is no mystery why fallacies denigrating learning and study have been and continue to be so pernicious. By deliberately cultivating a disdain for knowledge and a distrust of language, those that ascribe to such views effectively bar themselves from its only remedy: learning and study. The significance of this is clear; our understanding of Zen teaching functions as the very foundation of our Zen practice – that is, the way we think, speak, and act in the world.

    The emphasis in Buddhism on accurate knowledge (or ‘right views’) harmonizes with the great insight from which Buddhism developed. Crystallized in the Four Noble Truths, this insight reveals that bondage to suffering (dukkha) has its cause in ignorance or delusion about the true nature of reality. To be deluded about reality is to be inherently incapable of thinking, speaking, or acting in a manner harmonious with reality. To think, speak, or act in conflict with reality naturally results in suffering. Accordingly, enlightenment – seeing the true nature of reality – is the Buddha Way or Way of Zen; the Way to liberation from suffering.

    Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Delusion is the presence of distorted knowledge. Ignorance is relatively easy to remedy – the ignorant need only be acquainted with right knowledge. Delusion, however, is more pernicious – the deluded must recognize and acknowledge the fallibility of their current views before they can even begin to be receptive to right knowledge. Accepting that one’s own views are invalid is inherently difficult. The measure of this difficulty is proportional to the depth of attachment with which a view is held. No beliefs are prone to deeper attachment than those concerning one’s own knowledge about the nature of reality.

    In sum, the presence of wrong views (delusion) is a great barrier to enlightenment; liberation from suffering. Accordingly, the great Zen scholars as well as the great Zen masters devoted much time and energy criticizing fallacies. Indeed, such criticism was part and partial to their practice of Zen.

    Peace,
    Ted

  • .............
  •  

    Existence-Time


    Post by Ted Biringer »

    Seems a bit quiet in here - let's see if anyone wants to talk about Existence-Time (uji)

    In Zen time and existence are not two different things; time is always existence-and-time, existence is always existence-and-time. This view is most clearly and comprehensively demonstrated in Shobogenzo’s development and use of the term ‘uji.’ Dogen fashioned this term by combining two terms; ‘u’ (existence) and ‘ji’ (time) into the single term ‘uji’ (existence-time, or time-being). The point that seems most significant here is that existence and time are never separate from each other; each is an essential element of the other – no dharmas exist independent of time, and there is no time independent of dharmas. This notion of existence-time is central to Zen’s vision of reality, thus is presupposed in all Zen expressions.

    Hee-Jin Kim brings the crucial significance of this notion to light in a comment from his discussion of the aptly titled ‘Uji’ fascicle of Shobogenzo:

    Dogen’s whole thesis in this regard was crystallized in the following: “As we realize with the utmost effort that all times (jinji) are all existence (jin’u), absolutely no additional dharma remains.” In other words, existence-time subsumed space and time totally and exhaustively.
    Hee-Jin Kim, Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist, p.150


    In short, each and every particular thing, being, and event (i.e. dharma) is an intrinsic and essential element of total time, and each and every moment or duration of time is an intrinsic and essential element of total existence – hence each and every particular dharma is a manifestation of the whole universe, and the whole universe is manifest in and as each and every particular dharma. In Dogen’s words:

    Let us pause to reflect whether or not any of the whole of existence or any of the whole universe has leaked away from the present moment of time.
    Shobogenzo, Uji (Trans. Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross)


    Accordingly, in Zen expressions the terms ‘existence,’ ‘time,’ and ‘existence-time’ are synonymous.

    Peace,
    Ted






  • “Buddha - mind - *is* (not, ‘is like’) mountains, rivers, and the earth, the sun, moon, and stars. Mind *is* houses and streets, animals, guns, plants, thoughts, bombs, corpses, laughter, and cancers. Mind *is* all particular dharmas as they are; *particular* dharmas. All particular dharmas *are* this mind *as it is; this* mind. This tree *is* the mind *as it is*, the mind *as it is*, is all dharmas, hence *is* this tree. That this tree is mind ‘as it is,’ means mind only exists *as mind* by virtue of this tree existing *as this tree*. Because this tree *is* mind ‘as it is,’ it actually goes too far to say ‘is mind,’ and is more accurate to simply say ‘this tree.’ 

    As Dogen puts it:


    ‘Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth. There are no additional waves or surf, no wind or smoke. Mind as the sun, the moon, and the stars is nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars.’

    Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu”

    From Zen Cosmology: Dogen’s Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview by Ted Biringer


    Also,


    Dogen:

    Mind is skin, flesh, bones and marrow. Mind is taking up a flower and smiling. There is having mind and having no mind... Blue, yellow, red, and white are mind. Long, short, square, and round are mind. The coming and going of birth and death are mind. Year, month, day, and hour are mind. The coming and going of birth and death are mind. Water, foam, splash, and flame are mind. Spring flowers and autumn moon are mind. All things that arise and fall away are mind.




    Comments:

    The quote above from Zen Cosmology is useful for those who are stuck in 'One Mind'. The urge to retain an image of the luminescence of mind is dissolved by realizing that mind is none other than the self-luminosity of the ten thousand things. Therefore "Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth." -- no more subsuming everything to be "contained by Mind" despite experiencing Mind as being nondual with everything (a subtle referencing back of non-dual experience to the source and substance underlying all), only ongoing actualization of myriad phenomena 'advancing into novelty'.

    Before birth, I AM - mere conscious-existence-bliss. Before ten thousand things, I AM, but that too is later seen to be simply one aspect of the ten thousand things. If one holds onto one 'face of Presence' (the formless, shining void aspect of mind) you fail to see the manifold textures, forms and colors are simply different faces of Presence. 


    Zen is about directly touching one's heart and mind, and that begins with the I AM realization. But soon it becomes a dead image of some static background. If instead we can penetrate by insight into anatta and forego all dead or 'ghostly' images and directly taste the Heart in every manifestation and exertion, everything reveals itself to be one seamless aliveness and intelligence.


    Also see: Exertion that is neither self-imposed nor imposed by others

    Taken from http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.sg/2011/02/zazen-polishing-tile-to-make-mirror.html

    Zazen-Only - Polishing Tiles, Making Buddhas
    ...
    The perfection of each person is unique; a particular human becomes a Buddha when that human wholly becomes that particular human. The Buddhahood of an individual being is the perfection of the “integral character” of that particular being “as it is.” Zazen-only is the perfection of the “normal mind,” that is, a particular body-mind that is fully seated in and as the wholeness of its particular existence ceaselessly advancing in harmony with the true nature of its own integral character. One of the clearest of Dogen’s numerous presentations of this aspect of the Buddha Dharma is revealed in one of his masterly commentaries on a classic Zen koan.

    One day when Nangaku came to Baso’s hut, Baso stood up to receive him. Nangaku asked him, “What have you been doing recently?”

    Baso replied, “Recently I have been doing the practice of seated meditation exclusively.”

    Nangaku asked, “And what is the aim of your seated meditation?”

    Baso replied, “The aim of my seated meditation is to achieve Buddhahood.”

    Thereupon, Nangaku took a roof tile and began rubbing it on a rock near Baso’s hut.

    Baso, upon seeing this, asked him, “Reverend monk, what are you doing?”

    Nangaku replied, “I am polishing a roof tile.”

    Baso then asked, “What are you going to make by polishing a roof tile?”

    Nangaku replied, “I am polishing it to make a mirror.”

    Baso said, “How can you possibly make a mirror by rubbing a tile?”

    Nangaku replied, “How can you possibly make yourself into a Buddha by doing seated meditation?”

    For hundreds of years now, many people have held the view that, in this story, Nangaku is earnestly endeavoring to encourage Baso in his practice. This is not necessarily so, for, quite simply, the daily activities of the great saintly teacher were far removed from the realm of ordinary people. If great saintly teachers did not have the Dharma of polishing a tile, how could they possibly have the skillful means to guide people? Having the strength to guide people is the Bones and Marrow of an Ancestor of the Buddha. Even though the tile was the thing that came to hand, still, it was just an everyday, household object. If it were not an everyday object or some household utensil, then it would not have been passed on by the Buddha’s family. What is more, its impact on Baso was immediate. Be very clear about it, the functioning of the True Transmission of Buddhas and Ancestors involves a direct pointing. We should truly comprehend that when the polished tile became a mirror, Baso became Buddha. And when Baso became Buddha, Baso immediately became the real Baso. And when Baso became the real Baso, his sitting in meditation immediately became real seated meditation. This is why the saying ‘polishing a tile to make a mirror’ has been preserved in the Bones and Marrow of former Buddhas.

    Thus it is that the Ancient Mirror was made from a roof tile. Even though the mirror was being polished, it was already without blemish in its unpolished state. The tile was not something that was dirty; it was polished simply because it was a tile. On that occasion, the virtue of making a Mirror was made manifest, for it was the diligent effort of an Ancestor of the Buddha. If polishing a tile did not make a Mirror, then even polishing a mirror could not have made a Mirror. Who can surmise that in this act of making, there is the making of a Buddha and there is the making of a Mirror?

    Further, some may wonder, “When the Ancient Mirror is polished, can It ever be polished into a tile?” Your state of being—your breathing in and breathing out—when you are engaged in polishing is not something that you can gauge at other times. And Nangaku’s words, to be sure, express what is expressible. As a result, in the final analysis, he was able to polish a tile and make a Mirror. Even we people of the present time should try to pick up today’s ‘tile’ and give it a polish, for ultimately it will become a Mirror. If a tile could not become a Mirror, people could not become Buddha. If we belittle tiles as being lumps of clay, we will also belittle people as being lumps of clay. If people have a Heart, then tiles too will have a Heart. Who can recognize that there is a Mirror in which, when a tile comes, the Tile appears? And who can recognize that there is a Mirror in which, when a mirror comes, the Mirror appears?
    Shobogenzo, Kokyo, Hubert Nearman


    The "ancient mirror" is the Buddha mind; more specifically, it is an aspect or quality of the Buddha mind that is traditionally referred to as the "universal mirror prajna." The “universal mirror prajna” is the first of the “four prajna's (or “cognitions”) of Buddhahood.” This prajna is described as the aspect of mind that, like a mirror, perfectly reflects the world as it is in the immediate present – the world in its ‘thusness.’ Unlike an ordinary mirror, this prajna is not only reflective, it is also luminescent. It is the initial realization of this “prajna” (or “cognition”) that is traditionally regarded as the practitioners entrance into awakening (often called "kensho" in Zen).

    Dogen’s commentary on the koan illumines the same principle informing his teaching that “clear seeing is prajna itself” – here the principle is formulated as “when the polished tile became a mirror Baso became Buddha.”

    A “tile” is only a tile by virtue of being experienced as a mind-form unity (dharma) as it is. In the koan, “Baso” is only Baso (his true self; Buddha) by virtue of experiencing mind-forms as they are. When “the tile became a mirror Baso became Baso” – Baso became Baso (his true self; Buddha) when the tile became a mirror (its true self; a mind-form). Moreover, because the mirror (that which verifies) is never separate from the tile (that which is verified), the mirror (Baso) was actualized as a real mirror (the real Baso) by virtue of experiencing the tile.

    In terms of the prajna paramita literature, tile and mirror (forms) is emptiness, Baso is Buddha, emptiness is tile and mirror, Buddha is Baso; therefore, emptiness is emptiness, tile is tile, mirror is mirror, Buddha is Buddha, Baso is Baso. When Baso is Baso the whole universe is solely Baso; when zazen is zazen, the whole universe is solely sitting.

    In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.
    ...
    Peace,
    Ted

    http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=10583

    Postby Ted Biringer on Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:44 pm

    If there is one teaching that is peculiar to Buddhism alone among all the world’s religions, I would say it is the principle of sunyata (Voidness or Emptiness). If I were to choose one doctrine among others that best represents the core of Buddhism, I would also choose the principle of sunyata. If someone were to further ask me what is the Buddhist doctrine that is most difficult to explain and comprehend, most misunderstood and misrepresented, I would again say it is the principle of sunyata. The importance of this remarkable Buddhist classic and its wide influence on Buddhist thought cannot be overstressed. This Sutra comprises only 262 words in the Chinese translation and can easily be printed on a single page. It is said, however, that the essence of the entire Mahayana teaching is contained therein. The text is both incredibly compact and pithy, and the reader should be alerted to its profuse and far-reaching implications.
    Garma C.C. Chang, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality, p.64


    “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” That is, form is form, emptiness is emptiness.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.61)


    According to Zen lore, the Sixth Ancestor realized enlightenment simply upon hearing the Diamond Sutra, being recited by a person in the street. Huineng’s record, the Platform Sutra, proclaims the supreme vision of the Diamond Sutra, promising enlightenment not only to those that put its teachings into practice, but even to those that simply memorize it. The central importance of emptiness in Buddhism can be seen in the Zen/Buddhist axioms, “All things are essentially empty,” and “Emptiness is the true nature of all things.”

    The Buddhist doctrine of emptiness is multifaceted (i.e. ‘complex’ not ‘complicated’). The truth of any facet of the doctrine is dependent on its context in the complete form. To be ‘empty’, as in the Buddhist axiom, ‘All things are essentially empty,’ means to be empty of selfhood, to lack independent existence. To be empty does not mean to be unreal, illusory, or nonexistent, as is commonly misunderstood.

    Historically, Zen/Buddhist students have demonstrated a propensity for giving rise to distorted notions of emptiness. Such distortions usually boil down to a privileging of emptiness (essence, nature) over and above the form (appearance, manifestation). Such privileging arises from and is maintained by the abstract speculation inherent to dualism. Briefly, the emptiness and form of dharmas are theoretically conceived of as two independent realities. Being regarded as two separate realities, emptiness and form become subject to comparative analysis and categorization. Naturally, the ‘reality’ of emptiness, which is conceived of as uniform, universal, and pure comes to be regarded as superior to the ‘reality’ of form, which is conceived of as variable, particular, and disparate. Such biased (one-sided) views have spawned distorted doctrines fostering pernicious practices of quietism, escapism, and detachment that have plagued Zen down to the present day.

    Dogen’s writings, like many Zen records, frequently appeal to and apply the methodology of the Diamond Sutra to present the intrinsic nonduality of emptiness and form. The gist of the central methodology demonstrated by the Diamond Sutra can be expressed: form is not-form (i.e. form is empty), therefore form is form; emptiness is not-emptiness (i.e. emptiness is form), therefore emptiness is emptiness.

    The basic reasoning here can be generally understood by envisioning ‘A’ as one particular dharma, and ‘not A’ as everything else throughout space and time. When we do this we can clearly see that to think of, speak about, or act on ‘A’ requires us to distinguish ‘A’ from everything that is ‘not A’ – thus, the existence of ‘A’ presupposes (i.e. depends on) the existence of ‘not A.’ By the same reasoning, the existence of ‘not A’ can be seen as presupposing the existence of ‘A.’

    Here we come to the crucial point, since the existence of ‘A’ depends on the existence of ‘not A,’ ‘A’ is and must be inclusive of ‘not A.’ Thus we see that the whole of existence-time that is not explicit in/as ‘A’ is and must be implicit in/as ‘A.’ In other words, the whole reality of ‘A’ is constituted of both what is ‘A’ and what is ‘not A’ – which is to say that ‘A’ (and by extension, any and every particular dharma) is, as it is, a particular phenomenal appearance of the whole universe. This vision of the nondual nature of dharmas – their reality simultaneously consisting of particular, unique instances of/at specific location-moments and the totality of all location-moments – is most explicitly elucidated in Dogen’s works through his expressions concerning the ‘total exertion of a single dharma’ (ippo gujin).

    Here it is worth touching on some of the implications exemplified by the methodology of the Diamond Sutra. The Zen practitioner that focuses attention on dharmas in accordance with this methodology is directly enlightened (i.e. clearly discerns and understands) to the truth that dharmas are dharmas by reason of their being particularities – that is, by their being some-thing differentiated from every-thing. Experiencing the world through the perspective enabled by applying the technique presented by the Diamond Sutra, the practitioner is made intimately aware of the fact that reality only and always consists of particular instances of total space-and-time – apart from specific manifest phenomena there is no space or time.

    Thus, to (epistemologically) encounter (ontological) reality is only and always to distinguish something from everything. If something is not distinguished from everything, nothing can be encountered. By applying the methodology of the Diamond Sutra we first come to discern that the existence of any particular dharma is dependent on the existence of everything ‘other than’ that dharma; advancing further, we discern that the existence of everything ‘other than’ that dharma is dependent on the existence of that dharma. As our application continues to advance, we come to discern that each particular dharma inherently presupposes (contains, includes) everything ‘other than’ that particular dharma (and vice versa). Thus, it is also accurate to say that, to encounter a dharma is to distinguish everything from something.

    In sum, the Diamond Sutra presents (makes present) the dynamic interdependence of form and emptiness by demonstrating that ‘A’ is essential to, therefore inclusive of ‘not-A’ (and vice versa). Thus, A is not-A, therefore A is A, or, in the terms applied by Shobogenzo; form is emptiness, emptiness is form, therefore form is form, emptiness is emptiness.

    While the Diamond Sutra continues to be highly revered in Zen, which remains deeply steeped in its methodology, the concise Heart Sutra came to be regarded as the definitive statement on emptiness in Zen, as in other Mahayana traditions. The Heart Sutra, as the title suggests, expresses the heart (the essential core) of Buddhism’s insight into emptiness. The key phrase, “form is emptiness, emptiness is form,” is the Heart Sutra’s succinct crystallization of this insight.

    In the earliest fascicle composed for Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Dogen employed the perspective provided by the Heart Sutra to illumine the reason (dori) of emptiness. This revered scripture was familiar enough by Dogen’s time (1200-1253) that he needed only cite its first line to indicate it as the perspective from which his commentary is addressed. The fact that he chose to alter that first line by adding a single word is significant. The very succinctness of the Heart Sutra makes Dogen’s slight alteration starkly apparent. The additional word initially jumps out as if misspoken; as its implication dawns, however, its purposeful intent becomes obvious. The actual first line of the Heart Sutra is:

    Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep Prajna Paramita, clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty, transforming anguish and distress.
    Translated by Robert Aitken Roshi of the Diamond Sangha Zen Buddhist Society


    The word Dogen adds is, “konshin,” which translates, “whole-body-mind” or “his whole-body-mind.” Although only one word, the significance of this addition is profound. To get this across in English, translators are compelled to get a bit interpretive. Here are the results of two creative attempts to translate Dogen’s altered citation of the line:

    When Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara practices the profound prajnā -pāramitā, the whole body reflects that the five aggregates are totally empty.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    When Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva practices the perfection of profound wisdom, his whole body is the five skandhas, all luminously seen as empty.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.61)


    “Five skandhas” (or aggregates) is a traditional Buddhist term for the elements that constitute the whole body-mind of a human being. To “reflect” or “luminously see” means to clearly see the truth of something, to experientially verify. The meaning of ‘prajna’ varies widely, generally connoting ‘wisdom,’ ‘intuitive insight,’ etc.; as “prajna-paramita,” the wisdom or insight of prajna is ‘perfect wisdom’ (i.e. the wisdom of emptiness).

    [Note: The five skandhas are: form, sensation, conception, volition, and consciousness. As characteristic of Buddhist categorizations, each of the five skandhas is interdependent with all and each of the other five skandhas. What is true of one is true of all five. Accordingly, Zen/Buddhist expressions frequently employ ‘form’ as an abbreviation for all five skandhas; for that matter, ‘form’ is often employed as an abbreviation for any and all phenomena.]

    In his commentary Dogen immediately follows his (altered) citation of the first line of the Heart Sutra with an expression presenting the reasoning (dori) of the Heart Sutra:

    The five skandhas are form, feeling, conception, volition, and consciousness, which are the five modes of wisdom. The luminous seeing is itself wisdom.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.61)


    ‘The luminous seeing is itself wisdom’ – the actual, particular manifest form or activity (i.e. dharma; thing, being, or event) of ‘luminous seeing’ is prajna itself, the reality of perfect wisdom. Hee-Jin Kim clearly articulates the implications of Dogen’s assertion thus:

    Avalokitesvara and wisdom are not the observer and the observed, but one reality. The luminous vision then is the working of Avalokitesvara/wisdom. Avalokitesvara sees Avalokitesvara; wisdom enacts wisdom. This reflexive mode of thinking comes from “practicing the perfection of profound wisdom.”
    Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.63 (note 5 to the translation of Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu)


    It goes without saying that when Dogen says, “clear seeing” he means right-understanding and right-views as well as accurate perception. Shobogenzo, in harmony with all the great Zen classics, frequently urges us to remain mindful of the fact that truly actualizing Buddhist liberation requires more than simply hearing, or even understanding the authentic teachings. The ‘clear seeing’ of practice-enlightenment is a process not a product, an activity not a resolution. Of course the Zen/Buddhist teachings have to be deeply and carefully studied, learned, and accurately understood, but accurate understanding is ineffectual without experiential verification (assimilation and application). Avalokitesvara ‘practices prajna-paramita’ by actively engaging in the ever-advancing process of ‘practicing prajna-paramita’ – liberation is not a fixed-form or static-state, but a flowing-form or continuous-activity of study, practice, and verification. Anyone can come to accurately understand authentic teachings, but only experiential verification can actualize authentic liberation. Next, Dogen elucidates these implications in relation to the key expression of the Heart Sutra, “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.”

    When this meaning is propounded in concrete expression, it is said: “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” That is, form is form, emptiness is emptiness. [This principle applies to] all things and all phenomena.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.61)


    When Avalokitesvara clearly sees Avalokitesvara is empty, Avalokitesvara clearly sees his/her body-mind (i.e. form) is emptiness itself – ‘form is emptiness.’ When Avalokitesvara clearly sees emptiness is Avalokitesvara, Avalokitesvara clearly sees emptiness is his/her body-mind (i.e. form) itself – ‘emptiness is form.’ Dogen points out that in light of the reasoning (dori) here, the Heart Sutra’s expression, “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form,” leads to the same conclusion arrived at by the methodology of the Diamond Sutra, namely, that “form is form, emptiness is emptiness” and that this applies to all the myriad dharmas.

    Here it is worth noticing that for there to be any experience of one’s form (body-mind) as empty necessarily requires one to have/be a form. Hence, it is inevitable that any and every actual experience (epistemological encounter, realization, verification, etc.) of emptiness is and must also be an actual experience of (epistemological encounter with) form. To clearly see, one must have/be a form with the capacity to clearly see – form must be real form. Also, to clearly see the emptiness of one’s form can only occur if one’s form is truly empty – emptiness must be real emptiness.

    This is the ultimate point of the Heart Sutra’s expression, “Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.” The import being the interdependence of emptiness and form; the reality (experience, existence, appearance) of form is only possible (meaningful, significant, valid) because of the reality of emptiness and the reality of emptiness is only possible because of the reality of form. Form is experienced when/as/by emptiness not-experienced; emptiness is experienced when/as/by form not-experienced. When/where form is, emptiness is-not; when/where emptiness is, form is-not. As Dr. Kim puts it:

    When form is verified, emptiness is “shadowed,” and there is nothing but form: “form is form.” The same holds true of emptiness: “emptiness is emptiness.”
    Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.64 (note 7 to the translation of Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu)


    This means the reality (true nature) of form is inclusive of the presence of emptiness (as “shadowed”); if not for the (“shadowed”) presence of emptiness, form could not appear. Likewise, the reality of emptiness is inclusive of the presence of form. This explains the emphasis of Zen/Buddhist expressions on the universal quality of emptiness (e.g. all things are essentially empty; emptiness is the true nature of all things, etc.). For only by being clearly aware of this universal quality of reality can we accurately discern and adequately treat any particular dharma (thing, being, or event). To think, speak, or act on a particular dharma without discerning the (“shadowed”) ‘presence’ of emptiness upon which it depends (thus demonstrates), is to think, speak, or act on a biased (i.e. one-sided; deluded) view. Any thought, word, or deed that fails to account for the emptiness of form not only demonstrates delusion about emptiness, but also delusion about form.

    After emphasizing that the ultimate principle of the doctrine of emptiness is that form is form, and emptiness is emptiness, the Maka-hannya-haramitsu fascicle underscores that this principle applies to all the myriad dharmas by explicitly identifying a large array of particular aspects and elements as ‘instances’ of ‘prajna-paramita’ or ‘prajna itself.’

    They are hundreds of things, and myriad phenomena. Twelve instances of prajnāpāramitā are the twelve entrances [of sense perception]. There are also eighteen instances of prajnā. They are eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind; sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and properties; plus the consciousnesses of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are a further four instances of prajnā. They are suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the Way. There are a further six instances of prajnā. They are giving, pure [observance of] precepts, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajnā [itself]. One further instance of prajnāpāramitā is realized as the present moment. It is the state of anuttara samyaksaṃbodhi. There are three further instances of prajnāpāramitā. They are past, present, and future. There are six further instances of prajnā. They are earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness. And there are a further four instances of prajnā that are constantly practiced in everyday life: they are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    This intentional dwelling on various and particular instances of reality further stresses the importance of understanding that form and emptiness are nondual, not identical. The doctrine of emptiness should not be understood as meaning that emptiness amounts to form or that form is reducible to emptiness. Nonduality denotes unity, not uniformity; emptiness and form are interdependent not indistinguishable. To raise one is to raise both; to eliminate one is to eliminate both – the term ‘both’ is key here. Emptiness cannot reciprocate or coordinate together with emptiness; form cannot cooperate or work in unison with form. ‘Both’ means the reality of form is contingent on the reality of emptiness; the reality of emptiness is dependent on the reality of form. To ‘clearly see’ this and therefore to enact it in our everyday conduct is ‘prajna itself.’

    Because dharmas (form/emptiness units) are ‘what’ we clearly see (i.e. experience) as well as ‘the means’ whereby we clearly see, dharmas are ‘clear seeing’ itself, which is, as Dogen asserts, ‘prajna itself.’ One’s true body-mind is identical to the actual dharmas one experiences, and the dharmas one experiences are one’s true body-mind (form/emptiness). This principle applies to all dharmas. Thus, the ‘form’ of each and all the myriad dharmas are us seeing prajna, prajna seeing us, prajna seeing prajna, us seeing us, seeing seeing seeing, prajna prajna-ing prajna, us us-ing us. This is the reason (dori) informing Dogen’s expression:

    “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” That is, form is form, emptiness is emptiness.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.61)


    Dogen’s (altered) citation of the Heart Sutra followed by the series of affirmative expressions on the nature of the self, the world, and the myriad dharmas presents (makes present) a glimpse of the grand vision of Shobogenzo. Here, in the first fascicle explicitly composed for Shobogenzo, the common thread that binds together and runs throughout the whole of Dogen’s masterpiece is prominent. That thread is the reason (dori) of the nonduality of duality, and the duality of nonduality. In short, experience, existence, and liberation (epistemology, ontology, and soteriology) are nondual; the experience of clear seeing, the existence of prajna, and the actualization of liberation are three, but are not three different things. The nature and dynamics of the actualization of the universe (genjokoan) advanced by the nonduality of experience, existence, and liberation is creatively brought into relief i from a variety of perspectives throughout Shobogenzo. To clearly see is to be, thus to clearly see liberation (Buddhahood, enlightenment) is to be liberation – more precisely, the continuous activity of seeing Buddha (kenbutsu) is the continuous activity of becoming Buddha (gyobutsu). My life is what I clearly see, what I clearly see is my life.

    So life is what I am making it, and I am what life is making me.
    Shobogenzo, Zenki, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    With this we come to a point where we can appreciate the full significance of the passage that serves as the pivot of Dogen’s Maka-hannya-haramitsu:

    In the order of Śākyamuni Tathāgata there is a bhikṣu who secretly thinks, “I shall bow in veneration of the profound prajnāpāramitā. Although in this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations of all precepts, all balanced states, all kinds of wisdom, all kinds of liberation, and all views. There are also understandable explanations of the fruit of one who has entered the stream, the fruit of [being subject to] one return, the fruit of [not being subject to] returning, and the fruit of the arhat. There are also understandable explanations of [people of] independent awakening, and [people of] bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the supreme right and balanced state of bodhi. There are also understandable explanations of the treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. There are also understandable explanations of turning the wonderful Dharma wheel to save sentient beings.” The Buddha, knowing the bhikṣu’s mind, tells him, “This is how it is. This is how it is. The profound prajnāpāramitā is too subtle and fine to fathom.”
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    The thoughts of this monk (bhiksu) go to the heart of the reason of emptiness demonstrated by the vision of Shobogenzo; because there is no self and there is no other in the true multitudinous-oneness of emptiness, true, effective, understandable teachings exist. Unlike those enamored by and attached to the sublime power of the ‘deconstructive’ capacity of emptiness (i.e. ‘form is emptiness’), this monk strives on, advancing to see through to the ‘reconstructive’ capacity of emptiness (i.e. ‘form is form, emptiness is emptiness’). Thus, the Buddha says; “This is how it is. This is how it is.”

    There are understandable explanations. There are understandable explanations of precepts, balanced states, wisdom, and liberation. The no-self of emptiness does not mean that things are not real, that distinctions are illusory, or that the reality of things is other than the appearance of things. Zen doctrine and methodology exists and is effective because particular Zen ancestors learned, understood, verified, and actualized understandable explanations of reality. Commenting on the monk’s thought that, “Although in this state there is no appearance and disappearance of real dharmas, there are still understandable explanations,” Dogen says:

    The bhikṣu’s “secretly working concrete mind” at this moment is, in the state of bowing in veneration of real dharmas, prajnā itself—whether or not [real dharmas] are without appearance and disappearance—and this is a “venerative bow” itself. Just at this moment of bowing in veneration, prajnā is realized as explanations that can be understood: [explanations] from “precepts, balance, and wisdom,” to “saving sentient beings,” and so on. This state is described as being without. Explanations of the state of “being without” can thus be understood. Such is the profound, subtle, unfathomable prajnā pāramitā.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    The very act of this monk’s “bowing in veneration” is a manifestation of prajna made real (realized) by and as “explanations that can be understood.” At the very moment a Zen practitioner encounters an explanation (say, in reading Shobogenzo) and thereby comes to an accurate understanding (i.e. is enlightened to a truth), an instance (i.e. dharma; a spatial-temporal form) of prajna is actualized (made actual). This newborn dharma is empty – the ‘explanation’ (Dogen’s writing), the ‘encounter’ (the practitioner’s reading), the ‘understanding’ (the practitioner’s insight), its ‘particular significance’ (the dharma’s truth), its ‘influence’ (on the practitioner’s conduct), and its ‘effect’ (on the world through the practitioner’s conduct) are not its ‘self’, nor are they ‘other than itself.’ Thus prajna is realized (made real). “This state” – in/of/as prajna being realized – is described as emptiness (i.e. mu: ‘being without’).

    Following the illumination of this monks “secretly working concrete mind” Dogen goes on to underscore how actual, concrete instances of prajna are realized in the everyday world through the body-mind’s of sentient beings. To do so, Dogen makes creative use of a traditional story from Buddhist mythology wherein one of the gods (Indra) asks Subhuti how the profound doctrine of emptiness (prajna-paramita) should be studied and learned. The Buddha’s disciple responds by saying it should be studied as ‘emptiness’ (koku; space). At this point Dogen states:

    So studying prajnā is space itself. Space is the study of prajnā.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    Apparently not totally confident in the reliability of this assertion, the god asks:

    “World-honored One! When good sons and daughters receive and retain, read and recite, think reasonably about, and expound to others this profound prajnāpāramitā that you have preached, how should I guard it? My only desire, World-honored One, is that you will show me compassion and teach me.”
    Then the venerable monk Subhūti says to the god Indra, “Kauśika! Do you see something that you must guard, or not?”
    The god Indra says, “No, Virtuous One, I do not see anything here that I must guard.”
    Subhūti says, “Kauśika! When good sons and daughters abide in the profound prajnāpāramitā as thus preached, they are just guarding it. When good sons and daughters abide in the profound prajnāpāramitā as thus preached, they never stray. Remember, even if all human and nonhuman beings were looking for an opportunity to harm them, in the end it would be impossible. Kauśika! If you want to guard the bodhisattvas who abide in the profound prajnāpāramitā as thus preached, it is no different from wanting to guard space.”
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    Dogen goes on to emphasize the significance of this exchange by summarizing and clarifying the main points:

    Remember, to receive and retain, to read and recite, and to think reasonably about [prajnā] are just to guard prajnā. And to want to guard it is to receive and retain it, to read and recite it, and so on.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross


    To conclude this survey of Dogen’s treatment of emptiness, I turn to Hee-Jin Kim’s translation and concluding notes of Dogen’s final passage, the first line of which Kim translates:

    Therefore is Buddha the Holy One perfect wisdom.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.62)


    Dr. Kim points out in a note on this line:

    In this paragraph Dogen expounds the nonduality of the Buddha and wisdom, of the personal and impersonal. He even boldly admonishes his disciples to honor and revere perfect wisdom.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.66)


    The translation of the rest of the final passage runs:

    Perfect wisdom is all dharmas. These dharmas are empty in their form – no arising or perishing, no impurity or purity, no increasing or decreasing. The realization of this perfect wisdom is the realization of Buddha the Holy One. Inquire and practice: To honor and revere [perfect wisdom] is indeed to respectfully meet and serve Buddha the Holy One; to meet and serve him is none other than to be Buddha the Holy One.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, pp.62-63)


    Dr. Kim’s note on this final passage reads:

    The very act of respectfully meeting and serving is the buddha. This is in accordance with the notion of the enactment-buddha (gyobutsu), wherein enactment and buddha are one.
    Shobogenzo, Maka-hannya-haramitsu, Hee-Jin Kim (Flowers of Emptiness, p.66)
    http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&p=132734

    Hello Gregory,

    Thank you for your comment.

    You articulate your position very clearly, and I follow what you are saying here.

    Thus, I suspect there is no misunderstanding on your part of my position. The notion of “emptiness” outlined by you is almost certainly the most common among informed Buddhists – not only practitioners but many scholars as well.

    Having acknowledged that, I will say that some practitioners (myself for instance) and scholars (Hee-Jin Kim, and Gadjin Nagao for instance) disagree – strongly.

    To try and indicate the central point where this disagreement rests, I will attempt to sum it up here by stating it in contrast to something you stated.

    You wrote: Emptiness in one sense is the final stage of practice that is the interval between the diving board and the ocean. One can not get to realization of the ocean until jumping off into emptiness.

    In contrast then, I would say – emptiness is the intermediary stage of practice-enlightenment realized upon entering the ocean “dying the great death” and “coming back to life” upon swimming all the way through.

    Here, then, follows a more comprehensive and precise treatment of my understanding.

    The central tenet of this doctrine; the Buddhist doctrine of “emptiness” (shunyata) is seen in the Buddhist axiom, “All things are essentially empty,” or “Emptiness is the true nature of all things.” From the perspective of emptiness all the various types of experience can be regarded as essentially the same. In other words, the various forms (i.e. dharmas) experienced as well as the various modes or types (objects of consciousness) of experience can be said to be constituted of/by the same true nature: emptiness. Indeed, “emptiness” is the primary metaphor for the “true” or “essential” nature of all things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas).

    Now, it is clear that this doctrine is commonly misunderstood as meaning dharmas are nonexistent, unreal, or as meaning that all dharmas are constituted of one and the same “substance” or “stuff” – that dharmas are “made up of” emptiness. Despite sectarian based Zen “assumptions” and “assertions” however such notions simply don’t wash with the teachings in the classic literature. In fact, it would be hard to see how Buddhism could be taken seriously outside of Buddhist sects if it did posit such an unsupportable view.

    When the classic literature, including the Zen records, is considered from a nonsectarian unbiased viewpoint, it is clear that the doctrine of emptiness was developed to adequately account for the actual existence of the myriad dharmas, not to deny their existence – it is the reality of dharmas that allows emptiness to function as emptiness. Buddhism says “all things are empty,” not “all things are unreal” or “non-existent.” What are all things empty of? All things are empty of selfhood, empty of a separate self.

    For example, let us apply the teaching of the Diamond Sutra to a particular “form” or “dharma” – a “goldfinch.” Now, a goldfinch is “empty” in that it lacks a “separate self.” The existence of a goldfinch can only be realized with the existence of water, food, air, and light – in the absence of these, the is no goldfinch; hence, a real existent goldfinch is water, food, air, and light, as well as feathers, beak, body, and wings. In short, a goldfinch is not the separate independent “self” that is identified as “goldfinch” – a goldfinch is empty of an (independent) self. What appears as “a goldfinch” is (totally inclusive of) “not-a goldfinch” (water, food, light, etc.), therefore it is a (real) goldfinch – in seeing the emptiness of a goldfinch, thus including “not-a goldfinch”; a goldfinch is seen as it is.

    1 + 0 = 1 only if “1” is really a 1 and “0” is really a 0. Now, as the actual existence of 1 presupposes the actual existence of 0; and the actual existence of 0 presupposes the actual existence 1, the actual existence of “this particular dharma” (object of consciousness) presupposes the actual existence of “not-this particular dharma,” therefore “this particular dharma” is “this particular dharma” and “not-this particular dharma” is “not-this particular dharma.” Thus: 1 goldfinch + 0 (not) goldfinch = 1 goldfinch. And 1 goldfinch = (the reality of) 1 goldfinch + (the reality of) 0 (not) goldfinch. This example, which by extension applies to all dharmas, could be expanded by listing more of the dharmas constituting a goldfinch including its parents, environment, time, space, and so on up to and including all dharmas of existence-time.

    In this way the prajna pararmita literature is clearly not advocating the “illusory” “temporary” or “unreality” of things, rather it demonstrates that it is actually the emptiness of selfhood that allows things to exist as they are (and allows emptiness to exist as it is). Thus Buddhism says, “Form (matter) is emptiness (the immaterial) and emptiness is form.” And the Zen masters elaborate on this pointing out that this verifies, “Form is form and emptiness is emptiness.”

    When this principle is preached and realized, it is said that “matter is just the immaterial” and the immaterial is just matter. Matter is matter, the immaterial is the immaterial.
    Shobogenzo, Mahaprajnaparamita, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

    To state the main points of this discussion in terms of the human experience of emptiness; all of the various “objects” of experience (i.e. sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and thoughts) are empty; meaning the sameness of all objects of experience is their emptiness. Thus, the true nature of all the myriad dharmas is emptiness (the absence of independent selfhood). What, then, is the true nature of emptiness? The true nature of emptiness is all the myriad dharmas. To put the whole thing into Zen terms (as in Dogen’s example above) dharmas are emptiness and emptiness is dharmas, thus dharmas are (really) dharmas, emptiness is (really) emptiness.

    Before moving on it is worth noticing that if all dharmas are empty, and all dharmas are objects of consciousness, then all dharmas are conscious subjects (upon which objects of consciousness are obviously inherently dependent). All subjects are subjects of objects, all objects are objects of subjects; objects are subjects, subjects are objects, therefore, objects are objects, subjects are subjects.

    Besides the Diamond Sutra, Dogen’s Genjokoan offers another clear demonstration of the nonduality of emptiness and form. Here, Dogen presents the ability to “realize the koan” (genjokoan) as being enabled by “normal vision” or the “Dharma-Eye” (the vision of Buddhas), the activation of which is portrayed as a threefold process.

    First is the ordinary view; the self sees dharmas as “other” (than the self). Second is the view from within the experience of emptiness; the self sees dharmas as “self” (i.e. dharmas as “other” vanish; self and other merge into oneness); herein “self” and “other” are experienced as lacking distinctness, hence there is “no self” and “no other” – only a uniform oneness. Third is the Buddha view; the self sees self as “other”; this occurs when, from the perspective of emptiness (i.e. the oneness of self and other) the self sees that despite their “oneness” the “other” (dharmas) appears and acts independently of the will/expectation of the “self.”

    Notice that only with this third phase of realization (the Buddha view) can the nature of emptiness (experienced in the second phase) be truly appreciated as the nondual reality of “self and others.” The Buddha view manifests when/as the experience of emptiness discloses the true existential (ontological) nature of the reality of the self and the other is not a void, absence, or illusion, but the reality of “self and other” as it is. Self and other are distinct yet not-two, sovereign yet interdependent. With this, the true significance of nonduality is experientially verified: the reality of nonduality is the interdependence of nonduality and duality; the reality of duality is also the interdependence of nonduality and duality – in the absence of nonduality there could be no duality, in the absence of duality there could be no nonduality.

    As duality and nonduality are coessential and coextensive, so too self and other are coessential and coextensive. To state the significant point in Dogen’s terms; emptiness is emptiness and form is form; the self is the self (not-self, therefore, self), the other is the other (not-other, therefore, other). In short, the distinct uniqueness of things, beings, and events (i.e. dharmas), far from being neutralized or negated by emptiness, is brought into relief and affirmed by it. Because emptiness is really emptiness as it is, dharmas (the particularities of the world/self) are really dharmas as they are. It is with clear insight into this aspect of reality, and a certain radical insistence on applying its implications in every facet of practice-enlightenment, that Dogen articulated his expressions on genjokoan.

    Thanks again.
    Ted

    PS - Relevant passages from Hee-Jin Kim follow:

    It is axiomatic in Zen Buddhism that delusion and enlightenment constitute a nondual unity (meigo ichinyo). For the sake of argument, let me formulate this dictum: Enlightenment is construed as seeing things as they really are rather than as they appear; it is a direct insight into, and discernment of, the nature of reality that is apprehended only by wisdom, which transcends and is prior to the activity of discriminative thought. In this view, delusion is defined as all that is opposed to enlightenment.

    The problem with this reading is manifold: (1) There is an inherent tendency to bifurcate between "things as they really are" and "things as they appear to be"; (2) its corollary is that there is an unbridgeable chasm between insight/discernment and discrimination; (3) "seeing" is conceived predominantly in epistemological, intuitive, and mystical terms; (4) the pre- or extradiscriminative state of mind is privileged in such a way that creative tensions between delusion and enlightenment are all but lost; (5) nonduality in the unity is virtually the neutralization of all discriminations and thus has little or nothing to encourage and nurture duality as such that is, discriminative thinking, intellect, language, and reason in the scheme of Zen's soteriological realization; and (6) the implications for Zen discourse and practice, especially ethics, are seriously damaging. What we see here is a formulaic understanding and misunderstanding at that of the nonduality of delusion and enlightenment.

    On the other hand, the ultimate paradox of Zen liberation is said to lie in the fact that one attains enlightenment only in and through delusion itself, never apart from it. Strange as that may sound, enlightenment has no exit from delusion any more than delusion has an exit from enlightenment. The two notions need, are bound by, and interact with one another. That said, the interface of delusion and enlightenment in their dynamic, nondual unity is extremely complex, elusive, and ambiguous. Since they are the two foci' of realization, we might ask how they interplay with one another...
    Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, pp.1-2

    Dualisms between dream and waking, reality and illusion… are now thoroughly dismantled and reconstituted in Zen discourse as (revaluated) dualities that intertwine and interpenetrate one another… Dream expands the scope, depth, and precision of awakening.

    …Dogen’s religious method firmly grounds itself in the conditions of existence—temporality.

    A dream in his view is not merely a necessary illusion or a necessary fiction that brings about a soteriological reality/truth; this would smack of dualism by implying a nonfictional or nonillusory reality that remains yet to be realized…Dogen’s commentary is closely interwoven with the notion of emptiness… the reconstructive aspect of the notion—in contrast to the deconstructive one.
    Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, pp.41-42

    The emphasis in Dogen’s Zen thus deepens the meaning of “seeing things as they are” by construing it as “changing/making things as they are.” This is precisely the point highlighted by “expounding a dream (or dream making) within a dream,” in terms of the dynamic dialectics of equilibration and equilibrium in the steelyard analogy. (3) The deconstructive use of emptiness, however potent it may be, is alone not enough. The reconstructive use must be incorporated into it so as to make emptiness soteriologically full-fledged. How can emptiness be serene while constantly challenged by the turmoil of worldly truth… From Dogen’s standpoint, even the “emptiness of emptiness” should be examined in the deconstructive and reconstructive contexts through perpetually ongoing critical scrutiny.
    Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, pp.52-53

    In these six short chapters, I have presented some salient facets of Dogen's thought on authentic practice, which was his paramount concern in his praxis-oriented Zen. In this regard, his emphasis was on the reconstructive use of such notions as duality in relation to nonduality and dependent origination in relation to emptiness. His thrust was as much on engagement in duality as it was on nonattachment to duality...

    Through such a highly unorthodox formulation of Zen method and hermeneutics, Dogen (1) offers a new direction in Zen praxis with a number of important implications, and (2) opens up new possibilities for creative dialogue between Zen and contemporary thought. By way of concluding this present work, I would like to make a few final observations on these two points.

    Dogen's instructions on seated meditation were brief and minimalist. He did not elaborate on meditation techniques or meditative experiences in any detail, nor did he attempt to guide his disciples through graduated stages of meditative and spiritual progression, as we often see in some religious traditions within and without Buddhism... Rather, his approach emerged from his foremost desire to provide them with fundamental principles spelled out in terms of language, thinking, and reason with which each could grapple with his/her individual soteric project, thereby realizing his/her own Zen. Dogen demonstrated this himself by writing the fascicles of the Shobogenzo.

    To illustrate, consider "enlightenment-by-oneself without a teacher" (mushi dokugo), the ultimate Zen principle that every practitioner had to actualize, even while studying under competent teachers and reading the sutras for a number of years.1 Dogen provided this well-known dictum with a specific methodological/hermeneutic key that allowed one to unlock the mystery of existence that is, to open the self and the universe. That key amounted, in essence, to critical, reflective thinking as an integral part of meditation. Without this key, it was impossible to attain one's own salvific independence…
    Hee-Jin Kim, Dogen on Meditation and Thinking, pp.121-122
    (Above: Ted Biringer's book)

    Like always, Ted Biringer have interesting and well written postings.

    Just like to add a short comment:

    Dogen here relates nyo (“like”), to ze (“this”), evoking the familiar Zen association nyoze (“like this,” “thusness”). He goes on to draw the implication that “like this” signifies not mere resemblance but the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. He thus rejects any dualistic notion of metaphor or simile (hiyi), whereby an image points to, represents, or approximates something other than itself. Rather, for Dogen, the symbol itself is the very presence of total dynamism, i.e., it presents.

    Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, note 8, p.251

    I could think of one example: people liken “Buddha-nature” to be “like the moon”.
    In actuality, the very appearance of the moon is buddha-nature, it is not that there is some hidden thing called buddha-nature which merely resembles the moon. The moon is buddha-nature, the buddha-nature is the moon, the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. Or as Dogen says, the moon-face buddha and sun-face buddha, the whole body is the whole moon. There is nothing hidden or latent about it, there is no hidden noumenon in which phenomenon or symbols can “point to” or “hint at”. The symbol, e.g. the moon, is itself the very presence of total dynamism. Furthermore, manifestation does not 'come from' Buddha-nature, nor does Buddha-nature 'contains' manifestation, Buddha-nature is empty of a self but conventionally imputed on the "myriad forms". Likewise for Truth, Awareness, etc.

    In fact everything is like this.

    Scent of a flower is not scent of “a flower”, the scent does not represent or approximate something other than itself but is a complete reality (well not exactly a 'reality' but rather a whole and complete manifestation/appearance which is empty and unreal) in itself: the scent IS the flower, wheel of a car is not wheel of “a car”, the car IS the wheel. Wheel cannot be said to "come from a car" or "be contained by a car". The word “car” is a mere imputation, not a true reality that can be established. “Self” and aggregates are likewise.

    Seen in such manner, all constructs are deconstructed and what's left is just the shimmering "dream-like" (coreless, empty, illusory), luminous appearances which is all there is, but not to be confused with a dreamy state.

    Anyway this is Ted's new post:

     http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.sg/2012/06/buddha-dharma-dream-in-dream.html

    Friday, June 01, 2012
    Buddha-Dharma: A Dream in a Dream

    On the True Nature of the Self...


    The final belief is to believe in a fiction, which you know to be a fiction, there being nothing else. The exquisite truth is to know that it is a fiction and that you believe in it willingly.
    Wallace Stevens


    The appearance of buddhas and ancestors in the world, being prior to the emergence of any incipient sign, has nothing to do with old, narrow opinions. This accounts for the virtues of buddha-ancestors, as of going beyond the Buddha. Unconcerned with time, the life-span [of buddha-ancestors] is neither prolonged nor momentary, as it is far from the comprehension of ordinary minds.

    The ever turning wheel of the Dharma is also a principle prior to the emergence of any incipient sign; as such, it is an eternal paragon with immeasurably great merit. [Buddha-ancestors] expound this as a dream in a dream. Because they see verification within verification, it is known as expounding a dream in a dream.

    The place where a dream is expounded in a dream is indeed the land and assembly of buddha-ancestors. The buddha-land and buddha-assembly, the ancestral way and ancestral seat, are all verification founded upon verification, hence all are the expounding of a dream in a dream. Upon encountering their utterances and discourses, do not think that these are not of the buddha-assembly; they are the Buddha’s turning the wheel of the Dharma. Because this wheel of the Dharma turns in all directions, the great oceans and Mt. Sumeru, the lands and buddhas are all realized. Such is expounding a dream in a dream, which is prior to all dreams.

    The entire world, crystal-clear everywhere, is a dream; and a dream is all grasses [things] clear and bright. To doubt the dream state is itself to dream; all perplexity is a dream as well. At this very moment, [all are] grasses of the “dream state,” grasses “in” [a dream], grasses“expounding” [a dream], and so on. Even as we study this, the very roots and stalks, leaves and branches, flowers and fruits, lights and hues [of our perception] are all a great dream. Never mistake this, however, for a dreamy state.

    Dogen, Shobogenzo, Muchu-setsumu (Expounding a dream in a dream), Trans. Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.279-280



    It’s a wonderful, wonderful opera. Only it hurts.

    Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (with Bill Moyers)



    Dogen here relates nyo (“like”), to ze (“this”), evoking the familiar Zen association nyoze (“like this,” “thusness”). He goes on to draw the implication that “like this” signifies not mere resemblance but the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. He thus rejects any dualistic notion of metaphor or simile (hiyi), whereby an image points to, represents, or approximates something other than itself. Rather, for Dogen, the symbol itself is the very presence of total dynamism, i.e., it presents.

    Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, note 8, p.251



    If the new empirical results are taken seriously, then people throughout our culture have to rethink some of their most cherished beliefs about what science and philosophy are and consider their values from a new perspective...

    If conceptual metaphors are real, then all literalist and objective views of meaning and knowledge are false. We can no longer pretend to build an account of concepts and knowledge on objective, literal foundations. This constitutes a profound challenge to many of the traditional ways of thinking about what it means to be human, about how the mind works, and about our nature as social and cultural creatures.

    George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, p.273



    Allegory and metaphor both start off saying one thing as if it were another. But where allegorical method divides this double talk into two constituents – latent and manifest – and requires translation of manifest into latent, the metaphorical method keeps the two voices together, here the dream as it tells itself, ambiguously evocative and concretely precise at each and every instant. Metaphors are not subject to interpretive translation without breaking up their peculiar unity... Since symbols and metaphors cannot be translated, another method for understanding dreams is needed, a method in which masks, disguises, and doubleness inherently belong, a method that is itself metaphorical.


    if the dream is psychic nature per se, unconditioned, spontaneous, primary, and this psychic nature can show a dramatic structure, then the nature of the mind is poetic. To go to the root human ontology, its truth, essence, and nature, one must move in the fictional mode and use poetic tools.

    James Hillman, Healing Fiction, pp35-36 [italics Hillman’s]









    Peace,
    Ted