Awakening to Reality: 01/2020

Dying to be Me by Anita Moorjani

-- I bought this book from a neighbourhood bookstore and have only glanced through it. Would recommend it. Not about Buddhism, anatta or emptiness, rather it is about a fascinating account of how someone got stage 4 cancer, died, had NDE (near death experience) and paranormal experiences such as accurately witnessing and being aware of what was said in other rooms and locations, entering other realms and visiting dead relatives, realized I AMness during the NDE, came back alive and was in a PCE-like state afterwards, and talked about how she healed herself (from stage 4 cancer to cancer being undetectable in 2 weeks) with cosmic energy (similar to Reiki), etc etc. Like I said I have only glanced through but it is quite fascinating that I bought it.

This is a New York Times Bestseller book.

Oh I also bought the Chinese version for my mom. I know she will like it.

https://www.amazon.com/Dying-Be-Me-Journey-Healing/dp/1401937535?fbclid=IwAR2lonTvYEqcRJiRKFHzDhonIpzDSlWiYr6xZ48j_GDzzx8HY9qVAtM7zbI

Labels: Anita Moorjani, Books and Websites Recommendations, I AMness, Near Death Experience (NDE) 0 comments | |

Meditation method suitable for those with chronic pain

Someone I know recently asked me for a suitable meditation method as that person is experiencing chronic pain and mindfulness of breathing and body have caused more awareness of that pain that is hard to bear. Although an advanced practitioner may choose to remain mindful of pain until one experiences a state of transcendence devoid of duality and fabrications, I do not think it is a suitable advice for beginners.

For someone with such conditions as chronic pain (and even those without may choose to practice this), I recommend that they practice Awareness Watching Awareness. Turn your attention away from body, mind and world towards Awareness being aware of itself as I AM alone. John Tan (Thusness) confirmed with me that this method is suitable for the person.

Basically, if one sense door is not suitable (say, bodily sensation) you may need to choose another sense door. The I AM door is the subtlest mind of clear light, formless and unperturbed by the pain and afflictions of other sense doors. It is therefore a suitable candidate for meditation and contemplation, for realization and developing mental stillness and stability.

Told that person to read this and get this book:

https://albigen.com/uarelove/

https://www.amazon.sg/Direct-Means-Eternal-Bliss/dp/1937995895/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?keywords=eternal+bliss&qid=1578027429&s=gateway&sr=8-5

This is also similar to the “turning the radiance around” of Shurangama Sutra and Zen Master Chinul, et al.

Labels: I AMness, Michael Langford 6 comments | |

How conventional is the ATR progression through the 7 stages?

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu Myriad Objects: "How conventional is the ATR progression through the 7 stages? Does it relate to any established Buddhist, (ex: Chan or Zen) training significantly?"

    Some correlation, maybe the details are different.

    For example, Dzogchen has many pointers to Awareness and descriptions that are no different from I AM. Which is not exactly 'bad', because IMO the I AM is important. Same for Zen. Same for Thai Forest. It is just that one should be pointed further than that in order not to get stuck there.

     For example, the Dzogchen teacher Malcolm Smith said that in the Dzogchen path, one is first introduced to recognise the clarity aspect of Rigpa, and realization of emptiness only comes much later. John Tan said more than 10 years ago that based on what he understands, Dzogchen practitioners also goes through the 6 phases. However it should be understood that this is just his opinion and may not apply to everyone. There are also some people who did not go through the I AM phase before anatta, as you know, people like Daniel M. Ingram, and Kyle Dixon ( https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/10/advise-from-kyle_10.html ).

     In Mahamudra teachings, different masters give slightly interpretations of maps, but Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's description (source, recommended: Clarifying the Natural State) of the first Yoga of One Pointedness roughly corresponds to the I AM as it describes certainty of Mind, and the descriptions are roughly similar, although not very long descriptions in that book. The rest of the four Mahamudra yogas are about further penetration into the nondual and empty aspect of Mind into non-meditation and spontaneous perfection, therefore many parallels with the Thusness seven phases. I AM realization is precisely the first time you have certainty about what Mind is and thus go beyond mere experiences and glimpses, therefore it is a very important breakthrough -- it is a realization that puts you beyond all doubts. Many years after Thusness wrote the 7 stages (first six in 2006, seventh in 2009), I found that Mahamudra books describe the phases of insights "All is Mind, Mind is Empty, Emptiness is Spontaneous Presence". You can see some kind of similarities to the 7 phases there as well. Of course, these Buddhist traditions do not necessarily go through a phase of reifying a universal consciousness like Vedanta or Kashmir Shaivism (however you might be surprised -- many Zen/Ch'an masters I have seen are stuck at reifying universal consciousness, holding views no different from Brahman), nonetheless many still goes through the I AM, nondual anatta, emptiness to spontaneous perfection. The problem of being stuck at certain phases applies to all traditions, people of any tradition can get stuck anywhere, something I mentioned in https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2018/12/different-levels-of-awakening-among.html

    In the five ranks of Tozan of Zen ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/02/tozan-ryokais-verses-on-five-ranks.html ), the I AM is the first rank (roughly thusness stages 1 to 3), while second rank is nondual and mind body drop (thusness stage 4 to 5), but still on the passive perceptual level. Further stages correspond to spontaneous arising and integration of anatta into activity and total exertion, and entering the marketplace.

    Many modern Zen teachers have also distinguished two distinct phases of I AM realization then nondual-anatta realization, such as Phillip Kapleau Roshi (he calls it Formless Self/Witness realization, and then the collapse of that into nondual anatta, I can't remember which book), Charlotte Joko Beck also spoke of these two stages (see: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Charlotte%20Joko%20Beck ), etc etc. However they do not write very elaborate maps.

    Soto Zen, due to influence of Dogen, is good at pointing to anatta and total exertion. However, most practitioners, even Buddhist practitioners, be it in Zen, Tibetan, or Thai Forest Theravada, are very often stuck at I AM stages, or up to one mind. Thai Forest Tradition's Ajahn Maha Boowa describes two distinct phase in his practice - the I AM/radiant center of being phase and the collapse of the Knower into nondual (One Mind), but still not quite anatta. My previous Buddhist teacher is very much I AM. But it is good that they have ways to point out, introduce Awareness in a direct way.

    Anatta and emptiness insights are rarer, but can be found in each tradition
    2

        Like

         · Reply

         · 3d

         · Edited

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu Also, on the different classes of Zen koans:

    “...In Zen tradition, different koan were meant for different purposes. For example the experience derived from the koan “before birth who are you?” is not the same as the Hakuin’s koan of “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The five categories of koan in Zen ranges from hosshin that give practitioner the first glimpse of ultimate reality to five-ranks that aims to awaken practitioner the spontaneous unity of relative and absolute.
    Similarly different techniques can also be devised to allow a practitioner to experience the different qualities of Awareness. The experience of “impersonality” is not the same as the experience of the “pristineness” of our nature; the experience of “oneness” is also not the same experience as spontaneity; the experience of non-dual without a subject and object split does not necessary result in the thorough insight of anatta; the experience of anatta is also not the same experience when a practitioner thoroughly sees the emptiness nature of phenomena. Thus, the master that prescribes the medicine must have deep clarity and wisdom of the view, path, fruition and conditions of the students. It is not a one for all sort of medicine...” - john tan/thusness 2009

     http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/01/syncing-of-view-path-and-fruition.html

    Strength of Bonds and the Syncing of View, Path and Fruition
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Strength of Bonds and the Syncing of View, Path and Fruition
    Strength of Bonds and the Syncing of View, Path and Fruition
    1

        Like

         · Reply

         · Remove Preview

         · 3d

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu Alan Watts, Way of Zen, on the classes of koans:

    Image may contain: text

        Like

         · Reply

         · 3d

         · Edited

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu

    Image may contain: text

        Like

         · Reply

         · 3d

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu

    Image may contain: text

        Like

         · Reply

         · 3d

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu

    Image may contain: text

        Like

         · Reply

         · 3d

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu The ten oxherding pictures, I have also commented before previously on how it relate to the stages

        Like

         · Reply

         · 3d

    Soh Wei Yu
    Soh Wei Yu Also I often recommend Ch'an Master Hsu Yun's writings for those practicing Self-Enquiry

        Like

         · Reply

· 3d

Labels: Stages of Enlightenment 0 comments | |

Dogen Criticising Eternalist Views

Okumura, Shohaku. The Mountains and Waters Sutra: A Practitioner's Guide to Dogen's "Sansuikyo" (p. 117). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.

"Here Dōgen says that this understanding is criticized by the Great Sage — actually, he said “scolded” — because it involves separation between mind and object. The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says, “From time without beginning, all beings have mistakenly identified themselves with what they are aware of. Controlled by their experience of perceived objects, they lose track of their fundamental minds. In this state they perceive visual awareness as large or small. But when they’re in control of their experience of perceived objects, they are the same as the Thus-Come Ones. Their bodies and minds, unmoving and replete with perfect understanding, become a place for awakening. Then all the lands in the ten directions are contained within the tip of a fine hair.”66 “Controlled by their experience of perceived objects” is more literally translated as “being turned by things”; “they’re in control of their experience of perceived objects” is “they turn things.” Here self (mind) and objects (things) seem separate; sometimes the mind is turned by objects and sometimes it turns them. So this sūtra says that people can actually see things as they are. Dōgen did not like the separation between mind and objects or between turning and being turned. As I said above, our view is created in the relationship between ehō and shōhō — we can’t have a view that is not subjective. Although
the Śūraṅgama Sūtra was valued in Chinese Zen tradition, Dōgen did not appreciate the sūtra.

In Hōkyōki, Dōgen asked Rujing: “Lay people read the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and the Complete Enlightenment Sūtra and say that these are the ancestral teachings transmitted from India. When I opened up these sūtras and observed their structure and style, I felt they were not as skillful as other Mahayana sūtras. This seemed strange to me. More than this, the teachings of these sūtras seemed to me to be far less than what we find in Mahayana sūtras. They seemed quite similar to the teachings of the six outsider teachers [who lived during the Buddha’s time]. How do we determine whether or not these texts are authentic?” Rujing said, “The authenticity of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra has been doubted by some people since ancient times. Some suspect that this sūtra was written by people of a later period, as the early ancestors were definitely not aware of it. But ignorant people in recent times read it and love it. The Complete Enlightenment Sūtra is also like this. Its style is similar to the Śūraṅgama Sūtra.”67

In Dharma Hall discourse 383 of Eihei Kōroku, Dōgen said, Therefore we should not look at the words and phrases of Confucius or Laozi, and should not look at the Śūraṅgama or Complete Enlightenment scriptures. [Many contemporary people consider the Śūraṅgama and Complete Enlightenment Sūtras as among those that the Zen tradition relies on. But the teacher Dōgen always disliked them.] We should exclusively study the expressions coming from the activities of buddhas and ancestors from the time of the seven world-honored buddhas68 to the present. If we are not concerned with the activities of the Buddha ancestors, and vainly make our efforts in the evil path of fame and profit, how could this be study of the way? Among the World-Honored Tathāgata, the ancestral teacher Mahākāśyapa, the twenty-eight ancestors in India, the six generations [of ancestors] in China, Qingyuan, and Nanyue [Huairang], which of these ancestral teachers ever used the Śūraṅgama or Complete Enlightenment Sūtra and considered them as the true Dharma eye treasury, wondrous mind of nirvāṇa?69

The two sentences between brackets are a note by the compiler of the volume. From these quotes,
it is clear that Dōgen was consistent in criticizing the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, from the time he was in China studying with Rujing until two years before his death when he gave this lecture from Eihei Kōroku. “[E]xplaining the mind and explaining the nature” is not affirmed by the buddhas and ancestors; “seeing the mind and seeing the nature” is the business of non-Buddhists. “Explaining the mind nature” and “seeing the nature” are essential points in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. In “explaining the mind and explaining the nature,” mind is shin (心) and nature is shō (性).70 The nature of mind is sometimes called true self, original face, true face, or even buddha nature. Some people have thought that mind-nature (shinshō, 心性) is within ourselves, hidden in this body and mind, and that discovering such mind-nature is seeing true nature or enlightenment. But Dōgen said that such an idea is not affirmed by buddhas and ancestors. The expressions “seeing the mind” (kenshin, 見心) and “seeing the nature” (kenshō, 見性) actually mean the same thing. Dōgen Zenji didn’t like the term kenshō: it implies that our self (our body and mind, the five aggregates) is separate from nature and that our (nonphysical) eyes can see it. In reality the nature cannot be seen; it cannot be the object of the subject, because the nature is ourselves. We cannot see ourselves; our eyes cannot see our eyes. There’s no way we can see the nature; that is Dōgen’s point. This word kenshō is important in Rinzai Zen and is the source of the long discussion between Sōtō and Rinzai. In Rinzai practice kenshō, “seeing the nature,” is identical with satori. But for Dōgen, satori is exactly this mountain self. The walking of the mountain is great realization, or satori. Satori is not something we can see as an object, and it’s not something we can attain.71 This actually does not disagree with genuine Rinzai teaching, only with superficial ideas of Rinzai teaching. I’ll talk about this later when Dōgen discusses incomprehensible enlightenment in the section about Yunmen Wenyan."

~ Okumura, Shohaku. The Mountains and Waters Sutra: A Practitioner's Guide to Dogen's "Sansuikyo" (p. 120). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.

Update 29/6/2019: Found another excellent passage by Zen Master Shohaku Okumura.

https://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/dharma/pdf/36e.pdf

Rujing said that authenticity of The Shurangama Sutra has been questioned from ancient times, therefore ancestral masters in the early times never read this sutra.

Anyway, Dogen has a doubt about the authenticity and quality of The Surangama Sutra and The Complete Enlightenment Sutra. Those are sutras I have introduced as the foundation of Zhongmi's and Xuansha’s usage of “one bright jewel”.

Dogen gives the question to his teacher. This is a very serious question. Dogen thinks that the teachings in these sutras are similar with the six outsider teachers. This means the sutras advocate non-Buddhist teachings such as Senika’s theory, which Dogen introduces in Bendowa. In this case, to be non-Buddhist means to go against the Buddha’s teaching of anatman (no permanent self). The teaching of the metaphor of the mani jewel (one bright8jewel) which is permanent and never changes, even though the surface color is changing is, according to Dogen, nothing other than atman. That is the problem in Dogen’s question. He is asking whether the theory included in these two sutras can be considered to be authentic Buddhist teaching or not.

This is a conversation that happened when Dogen was twenty-five years old. In China, it seems that the authenticity of these two sutras has not been questioned. However in Japan, in the 8th century, some Hosso School (Japanese Yogacara School) monks doubted whether The Surangama Sutra is an authentic sutra from India or not. Dogen and his teacher Rujing had the same question. In modern times, almost all Japanese Buddhist scholars think that The Surangama Sutra and The Complete Enlightenment Sutra were written in China.

The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism says the following about the authenticity of The Surangama Sutra:

Although Zhisheng assumed the Surangama sutra was a genuine Indian scripture, the fact that no Sanskrit manuscript of the text is known to exist, as well as the inconsistencies in the stories about its transmission to China, have led scholars for centuries to question the scripture’s authenticity. There is also internal evidence of the scripture’s Chinese provenance, such as the presence of such indigenous Chinese philosophical concepts as yin-yan cosmology and the five elements (wuxing) theory, the stylistic beauty of the literary Chinese in which the text is written, etc. For these and other reasons, the Surangama sutra is now generally recognized to be a Chinese apocryphal composition. 2

However, Chinese masters don’t agree. There is a Chinese temple in San Francisco named Golden Mountain Temple, and it has a big community called the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas in Ukiah, Northern California. The founder of that temple, Ven. Master Hsuan Hua, opposed those modern scholars:

“Where the Surangama Sutra exists, then the Proper Dharma exists. If the Surangama Sutra ceases to exist, then the Proper Dharma will also vanish. If the Surangama Sutra is inauthentic, then I vow to fall into the Hell of Pulling Tongues to undergo uninterrupted suffering.” 3 In a subsequent section of the introduction to the Surangama Sutra, Ron Epstein and David Rounds argue that it was written in India.4

So there is a controversy. Since I am not a Buddhist scholar, I cannot discuss which is right. Anyway, we are studying Dogen’s Shobogenzo, we need to hear what Dogen has to say on this point. We need to understand that Dogen questions not only about whether the Surangama Sutra was written in India or China but also whether the core teaching in the sutra is non-Buddhist theory.

Dogen’s criticism in Eihei Koroku

Not only when he was young, but also in his later years, he repeats the same opinion regarding the two sutras in his Dharma discourse number 383 in Eihei Koroku (Dogen’s Extensive Record), the collection that includes9 more than five hundred formal discourses by Dogen. Because this is a long discourse on Dogen’s disagreement with the theory of the identity of the three teachings (Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism), I will only quote one paragraph of just a few sentences:

Therefore we should not look at the words and phrases of Confucius or Lao Tsu, and should not look at the Surangama or Complete Enlightenment Scriptures. (Many contemporary people consider the Surangama and Complete Enlightenment Sutras as among those that the Zen tradition relies on. But the teacher Dogen always disliked them.) We should exclusively study the expressions coming from the activities of buddhas and ancestors from the time of the seven world-honored Buddhas to the present. If we are not concerned with the activities of the buddha ancestors, and vainly make our efforts in the evil path of fame and profit, how could this be study of the Way? Among the World-Honored Tathagata, the ancestral teacher Mahakashyapa, the twenty-eight ancestors in India, the six generations [of ancestors] in China, Qingyuan, and Nanyue [Huirang], which of these ancestral teachers ever used the Surangama or Complete Enlightenment Sutra and considered them as the true Dharma eye treasury, wondrous mind of nirvana? 5

The italic sentences in the parenthesis are a note made by Gien, a disciple of Dogen who compiled volume 5 of Eihei Koruku. It is clear that he continued to dislike these two sutraseven when he was past his youth.

Dogen criticizes not only the two sutras but Guifeng Zongmi’s essential points in Dharma discourse number 447 of Eiheikoroku:

I can remember Guifeng Zongmisaid, “The quality of knowing is the gateway of all excellence.”

Zen master Huanrong Shixin [wuxin] said, “The quality of knowing is the gateway of all evil.” Later students have recited what these two previous worthies said, without stopping up to today. Because of this, ignorant people have wanted to discuss which is correct, and for hundreds of years have either used or discarded one or the other thing. Nevertheless, Zongmi’s saying that knowing is the gateway of all excellence has not yet emerged from the pit of those outside the way. What is called knowledge is certainly neither excellent nor course. As for Huanlong [Shixin]’s saying that knowing is a gateway of all evil, what is called knowledge is certainly neither evil nor good.

Today, I, Eihei would like to examine those two people's sayings. Great Assembly would you like to clearly understand the point of this?

After a pause Dogen said: If the great ocean knew it was full, the hundreds of rivers would all flow upstream.6

It is clear that Dogen knows what Guifeng Zongmi wrote about the one bright jewel. Zongmi said that everything good came from10 this knowing (chi) or the spiritual intelligence that is nothing other than the one bright jewel. Dogen also quotes another Zen master, Huanrong Shixin. They said completely opposite things and Dogen made a comment about these two opposite sayings.

Dogen says Zongmi’s saying has not yet emerged from the pit of those outside the way. This “pit of those outside the way” means the trap of non-Buddhist theory. Dogen is saying that Zongmi’s saying is non-Buddhist teaching. This dharma discourse 447 was probably given when Dogen was around 50 years old, a few years before his death. Dogen still thinks Guifeng Zongmi’s teaching based on the two sutras was not Buddhist.

After a pause he said, “If the great ocean knew it was full, the hundreds of rivers would all flow upstream.” The ocean will never fill up, so water can flow from the mountains to the ocean continuously. However, if the ocean becomes full, water needs to flow towards the mountains. Such a thing can never happen. From these sayings of Dogen, it is clear to me that Dogen does not agree with what Guifeng Zongmi had written using the analogy of “one bright jewel”.

Dogen’s Comment on The Surangama Sutra in Shobogenzo Tenhorin (Turning the Dharma Wheel).

In Shoboenzo Tenhorin (Turning the Dharma Wheel) written in 1244, Dogen discusses several Zen masters’ comments on an expression from the Surangama Sutra as follows:

The expression quoted now, that “when a person exhibits the truth and returns to the origin, space in the ten directions totally disappears” is an expression in the Surangama Sutra. This same phrase has been discussed by several Buddhist patriarchs. Consequently, this phrase is truly the bones and marrow of Buddhist patriarchs, and the eyes of Buddhist patriarchs. My intention in saying so is as follows: Some insist that the ten-fascicle version of the Surangama Sutra is a forged sutra while others insist that it is not a forged sutra. The two arguments have persisted from the distant past until today. There is the older translation and there is the new translation; the version that is doubted is [not these but] a translation produced during the Shinryu era. However, Master Goso [Ho]en, Master Bussho [Ho]tai, and my late Master Tendo, the eternal Buddha, have each quoted the above phrase already. So, this phrase has already been turned in the Dharma wheel of Buddhist patriarchs; it is the Buddhist Patriarch’s Dharma wheel turning.7

The translation produced in the first year of the Shinryu era (Shenlong in 705 CE) is the ten fascicle version of the Surangama Sutra. The older ones are entitled Surangama-samadhi sutra, translated by Kumarajiva; this is a different sutra from the Surangama Sutra, which is a Chinese apocryphal scripture. Here Dogen doubts the authenticity of the Surangama Sutra, but he says that once a sentence from the sutra is quoted and used by ancestors to express the Dharma, the statement can be thought of as turning the Dharma wheel.11

Similar criticism in Bendowa, Question Ten

In Bendowa and Shobogenzo Sokushinzebutsu (The Mind itself is Buddha), Dogen criticized the theory that the mind-nature is permanent and forms are arising and perishing. This teaching is what Dogen thought came from the same ideas Zongmi wrote based on the Surangama Sutra and the Complete Enlightenment Sutra. I think that to clearly understand Dogen’s points in these two writings, it is important to know why Dogen does not appreciate these two sutras. Question ten in Bendowa is about the problem. First Dogen formulated the question, then he wrote the reply to the question.

[Question 10] Someone has said, “Do not grieve over life and death. There is an instantaneous means for separating from life and death. It is to understand the principle that mind-nature is permanent. This means that even though the body that is born will inevitably be carried into death, still this mind-nature never perishes. If you really understand that the mind-nature existing in our body is not subject to birth and death, then since it is the original nature, although the body is only a temporary form haphazardly born here and dying, the mind is permanent and unchangeable in the past, present and future. To know this is called release from life and death. Those who know this principle will forever extinguish their rounds of life and death and when their bodies perish they enter into the ocean of original nature. When they stream into this ocean, they are truly endowed with the same wondrous virtues as the Buddha-Tathagatas. Now, even though you know this, because your body was produced by the delusory karma of previous lives, you are not the same as the sages. Those who do not yet know this must forever transmigrate within the realm of life and death. Consequently, you need comprehend only the permanence of mind-nature. What can you expect from vainly spending your whole life doing quiet sitting? “Is such an opinion truly in accord with the way of buddhas and ancestors?”8

Life and death in this case refers to transmigration within samsara. In this teaching, we don’t need to grieve over suffering in samsara, and we don’t need to practice. This mind nature is shinsho (心性), shin is “mind;” sho is “nature.” This is one of the expressions Guifeng Zongmi used. We should see the permanence of mind-nature. Even though phenomenal body and mind are impermanent, this mind-nature is permanent. Just to see the permanence of mind-nature is an instantaneous method to become free from suffering. If this is true, it’s pretty easy to be released from samsara. We don’t need to practice.

This theory says that our life with this body is like a river. Until the river reaches the ocean, we are living as individual persons and experiencing different things and we attach to certain things and we hate certain things and we suffer. But once we return to the ocean, we become free from the body. The body is the source of delusions, but this mind nature is always pure. When this mind-nature returns to the ocean of original nature, we are free from the suffering12 of samsara and become like buddhas. Why do we have to go through a difficult practice such as zazen?

According to this theory, we don’t need to practice. We just need to know that mind nature is permanent and undefiled, and even if we don’t practice at all, when we die we become buddhas. This is an interesting teaching. As long as we are living, we’re no good, and our practice doesn’t work. What we have to do is wait until we die. Then we become buddhas. It seems easy. However, this means that as long as we are alive we are deluded and we have to suffer. I don’t think this is an easy way of life.

Bendowa: reply to Question Ten

Dogen makes up this question and replies by himself as follows:

The idea you have just mentioned is not Buddha-dharma at all, but the fallacious view of Senika.

This fallacy says that there is a spiritual intelligence in one’s body which discriminates love and hatred or right and wrong as soon as it encounters phenomena, and has the capacity to distinguish all such things as pain and itching or suffering and pleasure. Furthermore, when this body perishes, the spirit nature escapes and is born elsewhere. Therefore although it seems to expire here, since [the spiritual nature] is born somewhere, it is said to be permanent, never perishing. Such is this fallacious doctrine. However to learn this theory and suppose it is buddha-dharma is more stupid than grasping a tile or a pebble and thinking it is a golden treasure. Nothing can compare to the shamefulness of this idiocy. National teacher Echu of Tang China strictly admonished [against this mistake]. So now isn’t it ridiculous to consider that the erroneous view of mind as permanent and material form as impermanent is the same as the wondrous dharma of the buddhas, and to think that you become free from life and death when actually you are arousing the fundamental cause of life and death? This indeed is most pitiful. Just realize that this is a mistaken view. You should give no ear to it.9

Senika is one of the non-Buddhist teachers that appears in the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra. What Dogen says here in Bendowa is the same as what he says in Eihei Koroku; this theory that insists that mind-nature is permanent is the same as the non-Buddhist teaching.

This spiritual intelligence is a translation of reichi (霊知) and that is exactly the same word that Guifeng Zongmi used to describe “one bright jewel” in his writing when he compared the four lineages of Zen in the Tang Dynasty. When this spiritual intelligence encounters a certain object, it creates some discrimination. This spiritual nature escapes from our body when we die as the owner of a house goes out when the house is burned and gets a new house.

Dogen repeats exactly the same discussion in Shobogenzo Sokushin-zebutsu (The Mind Itself is Buddha). There he quotes a long conversation between Nanyan Huizhong (Nanyo Echu,13675-775) regarding the same theory of Senika. The expression “mind itself is Buddha” is by Mazu (Baso), a disciple of Nanyan’s Dharma brother Nanyue Huairang (Nangaku Ejo,677-744). Dogen does not agree with the teaching of Guifeng Zongmi written in his text.

If we interpret Xuansha’s saying, “The entire ten-direction world is one bright jewel,” according to the same usage of the analogy that appeared in Zongmi’s writing, then probably Dogen didn’t agree with it. What is Dogen’s understanding of Xuansa’s statement? Is there any difference between what Xuansha said and Dogen’s interpretation of Xuansha’s saying? This is the point of studying Shobogenzo Ikkamyoju (One Bright Jewel). What I have been discussing is a kind of preparation before starting to read Dogen’s insight about this analogy of “one bright jewel”.

Dogen is really a difficult person with whom to practice. In a sense, he’s so stubborn and picky. Many Zen texts agree with this theory in these sutras and Zongmi’s. Dogen is a very unusual and unique Zen master. To be his student is a difficult thing.

Shodoka, a poem by Yongjia Xuanjue

I pointed to the examples of usage of this analogy of “one bright jewel” in Zen Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty. I think Dogen didn’t agree the theory behind the expressions. He needed to make his own interpretation of what this bright jewel is. Obviously this bright jewel is a metaphor of Buddha nature, bussho in Japanese. We need to understand what Dogen’s understanding of Buddha nature is.

Before I start to read the text, I’d like to introduce one more example of the same kind of idea in one of the famous pieces of Zen literature written in the Tang Dynasty. This is a very well known and important poem written by Yongjia Xuanjue (Yoka Genkaku, 665-713). This person was another disciple of the Sixth Ancestor Huineng (Eno, 638-713), and yet he stayed with Huineng only one night. On the day he visited the Sixth Ancestor, he attained enlightenment and he left. He is a Dharma brother of Nanyan Huizhong and Nanyue Huairang. He used to be a Tendai monk, a great scholar and also a very skillful poet. He wrote a long poem entitled Shodoka (Song of Enlightenment of the Way).

I found a translation by D. T Suzuki. In this poem Yongjia Xuanjue wrote about this metaphor of mani jewel as follows:

The whereabouts of the precious mani-jewel is not known to people generally, Which lies deeply buried in the recesses of the Tathagata-garbha;

The six-fold function miraculously performed by it is an illusion and yet not an illusion,

The rays of light emanating from one perfect sun belong to the realm of form and yet not to it.10

As it is generally said, people don’t see this bright jewel. It is something hidden deeply within us. In this translation it says “the sixfold function miraculously performed by it…” Six-fold function refers to the function of the six sense organs when they encounter the six14 objects of sense organs. This refers to what we do every day, the things happening between subject and object such as seeing, hearing, sensing and knowing. All these things we do are done by this hidden bright jewel, Buddha Nature. This bright jewel is the subject of seeing, hearing, etc.

D.T. Suzuki translates, “…is an illusion and yet not an illusion.” I’m not sure if this is the right translation or not. The original word Xuanjue used is ku (􀀄) and fuku (􀀇􀀄). Ku is“emptiness” and fuku is “not emptiness.” This means that the conditioned color of blackness is empty but the bright jewel itself is not empty but substance as Zongmi said.

The next line, “The rays of light emanating from one perfect sun belong to the realm of form and yet not to it,” is like this in Chinese:􀀂􀀈􀀃􀀅􀀆􀀇􀀆􀀁􀀂􀀈 is the same word as ikkain ikka-myoju, which means “one piece”. Even though D.T. Suzuki translated it as “perfect sun,” I think this “one-piece” refers to the mani jewel. 􀀆􀀇􀀆(shiki fu-shiki) is form and not form. I would translate this line : The perfect light of the one [bright jewel] is both form and not-form.

Of course ku and shiki came from the Heart Sutra, “shiki soku ze ku, ku soku ze shiki”. That is what this means. “Not ku” means shiki and “not shiki” means ku, so ku and shiki interpenetrate each other. That is what is said in the Heart Sutra. Form is nothing other than emptiness and emptiness is nothing other than form. The function between subject and object are performed by this hidden bright jewel. And these are at the same time emptiness (conditioned color) and not emptiness (bright jewel) and the light of the bright jewel is both form and yet not-form. That is what is written in this poem. So here we can see a kind of a combination between the teaching of emptiness and the theory of tathagata-garbha (buddha nature). The author of this poem or the theory in the Surangama Sutra and the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra combined these two. In a sense, this theory is an integration or mixture of theory of emptiness, Yogacara’s consciousness only, and tathagata-garbha.

Dogen’s Understanding of the Bright Jewel

This poem is still considered as a classic of Zen Buddhism and no one thinks that this is a heretical teaching. This is considered an authentic Zen teaching. Probably Dogen is a rare Zen master who didn’t like this idea. The interactions of our six sense organs and the six objects of the sense organs are something we carry out day-to-day. Yet this poem says that there is something which is hidden and that that hidden thing called tathagata-garbha (buddha nature) is the subject that performs these day-to-day things. Here are two layers of reality; one is phenomena and another is probably, in Western philosophical world, called noumenon. Buddha Nature in this case is noumenon and things happening between subject and object are phenomena, and these phenomenal things are a function of the noumenon. That is the basic structure of this idea. I think this is what Dogen didn’t like, probably because viewing it from his practice of zazen, this theory is dualistic. There is the duality of phenomena and noumenon, or Buddha nature15and our day-to-day activities or one bright jewel and its conditioned black color. That is, I think, the basic problem for Dogen; thus he thinks this theory is not in accord with Buddhist teaching.

Then, in the case of Dogen, what is this bright jewel? I think, the bright jewel in Dogen’s teaching is like a drop of water that is illuminated by moonlight. In the case of the structure of the theory of noumenon and phenomena, there’s no relation between phenomenal things. But as Dogen defines delusion and realization in his Genjokoan, delusion and realization are only within the relationship between self and myriad dharmas. In Genjokoan, Dogen used the word jiko(􀀂􀀁) and banpo(􀀄􀀃), and he said that conveying the self toward myriad things and carry out practice-enlightenment is delusion, and all myriad things coming toward the self and carrying out practice-enlightenment through the self is realization.

In Shobogenzo Sokushinzebutsu (The Mind is itself Buddha), Dogen quotes Nanyan Huizong’s conversation with a monk from the south who criticizes the Zen teaching in the south, saying that the theory is the same as Senika’s, the non-Buddhist. Then the monk from the south asked Huizong, “Then what is the ancient Buddha mind?” Huizong replied, “Fences, walls, tiles and pebbles.” Dogen quotes this saying in Shobogenzo Kobutsushin (The Ancient Buddha Mind) and says at the end of Sokushinzebutsu, “The mind that has been authentically transmitted is one-mind is all things and all things are one-mind.” Here there is no duality between noumenon (the bright jewel) and phenomenal things (black color). I think Huizong and Dogen mention the interconnectedness of phenomenal things within the network of Indra’s Net.

It’s not a matter of there being Buddha nature that is like a diamond inside the self and to find this diamond is realization. Dogen doesn’t like this idea. If this is the case, our practice is to find something inside ourselves, and we would be able to attain so-called realization or enlightenment when we’ve found this inner diamond. Then it would have nothing to do with our relationship with others. But in the case of Dogen, practice-enlightenment is to transform the way of our life. Transformation of our life can be only within the relationship between self and myriad things.

In the same writing (Genjokoan), he says that the self is like a drop of water; it’s a tiny thing, and it is impermanent. The moonlight is the light of myriad dharmas. The self is a part of the network of interconnectedness of myriad things. This way of existing is the bright jewel. The bright jewel is not a permanent noumenon. We and all myriad things are born, stay for a while, and disappear; nothing is permanent. And yet this tiny drop of water is illuminated by all dharmas. There are numerous things and they are all interconnected with each other. Without this connection, this tiny drop of water cannot exist even for one moment. This bright jewel is like a knot of Indra’s net and each knot is a bright jewel. This bright jewel or drop of water is illuminated by everything, and this bright jewel or drop of water also illuminates everything. In this case,16this self is a part of the moonlight. This is like five fingers and one hand. One hand is simply a collection of five fingers. One hand is not a noumenon of five fingers. Practice-enlightenment or delusion and realization exist only within this relationship between self and all other beings. There is the difference of framework between the one bright jewel as noumenon and as a part of interdependent origination. I think this is the point Dogen wants to show us.

When Dogen interprets Xuansha’s saying, “This entire ten-direction world is one bright jewel,” he is talking about the relationship between self and myriad things within the structure of the network of interdependent origination.

Everything is reflected in one thing and, because this is a net, when we touch the one knot we touch the entire net. There is no separation between self and myriad things. It’s really one seamless reality. And yet within our views it seems subject and object are separate. Unless we understand this point and interpret the title “One Bright Jewel,” we don’t really understand what Dogen is talking about and why he had to say it in this way. Dogen’s interpretation might be different from what Xuansha expressed with this expression as I interpreted in the last issue based on Zongmi’s comparison of the four lineages.

Labels: Anatta, Zen, Zen Master Dogen 0 comments | |

Sleep

“Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:08pm UTC+08

Greg Goode Soh, this description according to Advaita would not be something that happens in deep sleep, but in a subtle dream, "I have experienced Clear Light in a dreamless sleep before many times. It was pure presence/beingness and bliss without consciousness of any sort of object (or subject), and no other sensory or mental experiences whatsoever." Note the emphasis on "other .. experiences." So this was itself an experience. According to Advaita, it may seem too uneventful to be a dream, so we like to think of it as deep sleep. Even Ken Wilber has misinterpreted the deep sleep teachings by saying that he had developed a witness that was able to witness deep sleep. But in the Direct Path, deep sleep itself is the witness. It is awareness with no objects whatsoever. So the appearance of clear light, according to those teachings, is sufficient to make it a dream. A helpful one to be sure, but a dream. From the perspective of the Advaita teachings on deep sleep, not even clear light or I AM or any imputation or phenomenon appears, no matter how impressive or subtle. What is instructive about deep sleep is that there is no arising whatsoever, yet awareness ... IS. When we try to look back on deep sleep, (we can't literally look back on it - this is a provisional teaching only), but when we look back at it, we are led to several significant insights: 1. There was no evidence of mind, body or world. 2. Yes I was not absent. That is, I didn't disappear, only to reappear when I woke up. 3. I slept happily. It is taught in the direct path as an alternative to the need to develop nirvikalpa samadhi. Faster and more direct..... 2 minutes ago · Like

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:08pm UTC+08

what do you think about this

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:09pm UTC+08

to me this is like an inferential realization

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:09pm UTC+08

lol

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:09pm UTC+08

and not exactly right since the 'I was not absent' is merely an imputation

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:17pm UTC+08

I agree with what Greg said.

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:17pm UTC+08

i wrote back:

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:17pm UTC+08

To me that is like an inferential understanding. A direct realization that 'Awareness IS' is direct realization... no doubt at all, but pure apprehension of Awareness as the essence of mind... without any inference at all, only a direct non-conceptual certainty. But to see it as changeless Self throughout all states is an imputation and precisely is self-view. It is a 'view' or 'understanding' derived from an inherent view and subtle referencing. As I was telling Jax, I differentiate I AM realization with I AM imputation. I AM imputation is a result of referencing. During my I AM days I also had the view that Awareness is changeless throughout waking, dream and deep sleep. That sort of view is seen through in anatta. As I wrote based on what Thusness wrote back in 2007: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2007/07/spell-of-karmic-propensities.html ...So when momentum is in action, we cannot help but react with our karmic patterns. If we were to ask, "If you lost your shoe, are you still you?" or "If you lost your hands, do you still exist?". It almost seems certain to say "Yes, of course I am still I." because we always assumed there is a truly existing "Self" experiencing changes. This momentum can continue even after experiences of transcendental Presence, and distorting the experience. Dharma Dan calls this the "fundamental knot of perception"...

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:18pm UTC+08

In fact you must have deep sleep as I told u

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:18pm UTC+08

ic.. but isnt that 'I am still there in deep sleep' a result of inference?

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:18pm UTC+08

instead of direct realization?

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:18pm UTC+08

its like saying 'if you lost your shoes are you still u'

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:19pm UTC+08

i dont see any difference.. that sort of derived understanding

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:19pm UTC+08

That is because you infer

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:19pm UTC+08

U are not seeing sleep and waking as one

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:20pm UTC+08

i mean this: but when we look back at it, we are led to several significant insights: 1. There was no evidence of mind, body or world. 2. Yes I was not absent. That is, I didn't disappear, only to reappear when I woke up. 3. I slept happily.

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:20pm UTC+08

greg said that

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:20pm UTC+08

isnt that inference?

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:20pm UTC+08

It is like causes and conditions and awareness not understood as front and back of the same palm

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:21pm UTC+08

I do not see Deep sleep as the Awareness itself but the gist is quite the same.

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:22pm UTC+08

i dun understand you.. what exactly are you agreeing with greg lol

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:23pm UTC+08

isnt greg saying that by inference you see that "I" remains unchanged throughout sleep?

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:23pm UTC+08

Lets say how do you know you will not die the next moment now?

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:24pm UTC+08

but i do agree that awareness is not a witness so of course it is not a witness of deep sleep... in deep sleep just deep sleep

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:24pm UTC+08

is this what you mean?

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:24pm UTC+08

Answer me first?

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:24pm UTC+08

i can't know for sure i wont die next moment

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:24pm UTC+08

i can only guess

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:25pm UTC+08

How do you know you have to breathe out after you breathe in?

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:25pm UTC+08

hmm... this is like a spontaneous reflex..

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:26pm UTC+08

Have you play table tennis before?

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:27pm UTC+08

yea

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:27pm UTC+08

Good?

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:27pm UTC+08

no not good lol

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:27pm UTC+08

Lol... Ok...there is knowledge being one with the flow

U can say you infer. Then you just missed the point. It is the knowledge that arises from being the flow

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:30pm UTC+08

ic.. so you mean one can have knowledge with regards to deep sleep like that?

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:30pm UTC+08

So deep sleep and waking state to you is a form of inference but for one that is in the flow...there are an inseparable whole phase

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:31pm UTC+08

So from the freeness and clarity they understand deep sleep

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:31pm UTC+08

Greg Goode Soh, what post are you answering here? Deep sleep? "But to see it as changeless Self throughout all states is an imputation and precisely is self-view. " It is not at all like this in Advaita. The states are themselves deconstructed. In direct experience one finds nothing other than awareness. And even that is not found like we find a penny on the floor. Not objectively, but in a mystical combination of knowing and being. Of course anatta is going to differ from this!!!!! No surprise. It differs from anatta too.

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:31pm UTC+08

oic..

Soh Wei YuFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:31pm UTC+08

u mean is like from the after effects of sleep?

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:32pm UTC+08

Yes but you are seeing it as an after effect using thought

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:33pm UTC+08

Just like for some ancient tribe life, death and afterlife are one seamless whole...so it means something very different

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:34pm UTC+08

To them it is like walking out to your dad's room

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:35pm UTC+08

But because your mind sees it as something very distinct you see it differently

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:36pm UTC+08

For awareness practice, awareness is maintained throughout. That is the state free of object and that is what it is supposed to b.

John TanFriday, February 14, 2014 at 11:37pm UTC+08

Awareness with object in the waking state is non-dual and objectless is supposed to be just like deep sleep. Get it?