Must Reads ↑ Top
Showing posts with label Zen Master Dogen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zen Master Dogen. Show all posts
Soh

2/5/2026 三校版白话:

《普劝坐禅仪》白话修订版

— 道元禅师

版本说明:本页白话以《普勧坐禅儀》流布本的汉文/kanbun 为主,并参考日本语训读(読み下し)与 SOTOZEN 英译。英文译文只作为辅助对照,用来提醒可能的误读;遇到差异时,以汉文原文及其训读逻辑为准。本文不是根据天福本/真笔本重译。个别字形如「辨/辦」「竽/竿」「羅/籮」在不同底本中有异文,本版在校订说明中列明,不把它们简单处理成“必错/必对”。

究起来,道本来圆满通达、无所不周,哪里还需要借助修行与证悟来成就它呢?宗乘本来自在,哪里还需要另外费什么功夫呢?何况这全体本已远超尘埃,谁还会相信另有拂拭尘垢的手段呢?大抵它从不离开当下这个所在,哪里还需要向外行脚求道呢?

然而,只要有毫厘之差,就如天地般悬隔。违逆与顺从的分别才一生起,心便纷然迷失。即使你见解足以自负,悟境丰厚,获得一瞥即通的智慧,乃至已经得道明心,并发起冲天的志气;纵然在入门的边际已能自在逍遥,仍然几乎亏缺那条真正出身透脱的活路。

更何况,祇园那位生而知之的世尊,仍然端坐六年,至今还可见其修行的踪迹;少林那位传持心印的达摩祖师,仍然面壁九年,其声名至今仍被传闻。古代圣贤既然尚且如此,今日的我们又怎能不切实办道呢?

所以,必须停止那种寻逐言句、追逐文字的知解功夫,必须学习回光返照这一退步功夫。身心自然脱落,本来面目自然现前。若要得到这样的事,就要急切地实行这样的事。

参禅者,以安静的室内为宜,饮食要节制适中。放舍诸缘,让万事休息。不思量善恶,也不要管是非。停止心、意、识的运转,止息念、想、观的测度计量。不要图作佛;这又岂是拘限在坐相或卧相中的事呢?

平常坐处,应厚厚铺设坐具,上面再放蒲团。可以结跏趺坐,也可以半跏趺坐。所谓结跏趺坐,是先把右脚安放在左大腿上,再把左脚安放在右大腿上。所谓半跏趺坐,只是把左脚压在右大腿上即可。衣带要宽松系好,并整理齐整。

接着,将右手安放在左脚上,左手手掌安放在右手手掌上,两手大拇指相对相触。然后端正身体,端身正坐,不可向左偏侧、向右倾斜,也不可向前弯曲、向后仰靠。要使耳朵与肩膀相对,鼻子与肚脐相对。舌头抵住上颚,嘴唇与牙齿相合。眼睛必须常开,鼻息微微通畅。

身体姿势既已调好,便作一次“欠气一息”:微微张口,缓缓深长地呼出一口气;然后左右摇动身体数次,再兀兀然安住,端坐不动。此时,思量那个“不思量”。“不思量”如何思量?——非思量。这就是坐禅的要术。

所谓坐禅,并不是学习禅定技巧;它只是安乐法门,是究尽菩提的修证。公案现成,罗笼笼罩不到。若能得此意,就如龙得水,似虎靠山。应当知道,正法自然现前,昏沉与散乱先自扑落。

若要从坐中起身,应徐徐动身,安详而起,不可仓促粗暴。

试看古来超越凡圣、或坐脱或立亡的事例,也都是全凭这坐禅之力。何况那些以手指、幡竿、针、槌而转动机缘的事,以及以拂子、拳头、棒、喝声而证契的事,本不是思量分别所能理解的,又岂是凭神通或修证上的造诣所能知晓的呢?这可说是超出声色之外的威仪,岂不正是先于知见的轨则吗?

既然如此,不论是上智还是下愚,都不要分别利根与钝根。只要专一用功,这正是办道。修证本来自不染污,向前趣行也更是平常之事。

总的来说,无论自界他方、西天东土,都同样持守佛印,各自独擅宗风。唯一应当专务的,就是打坐,兀兀地坐定,安住不移。虽说有万别千差,也只管参禅办道即可。

为什么要白白抛却自家的坐床,徒然往来于他国尘境之中呢?若错了一步,便当面错过了。

既然已经得到人身这一修道的关键机缘,就不要虚度光阴。应当保任佛道的要机。谁会徒然贪乐那击石火花般一闪即逝的光景呢?更何况形质如草上露水,运命似闪电光影,刹那便空,须臾即失。

希望各位参学的高流,既已长久习惯于摸象,便不要惊怪真正的龙。请精进于这直指端的之道,尊崇那绝学无为、自在脱落的人,契合佛佛菩提,嫡嗣祖祖三昧。久久如此行持,必定与此相应、成为如此。宝藏自然开启,受用自在如意。


校订说明 / Source and Translation Notes

  • “今人盍辨 / 今人盍辦”:不同底本有异文。大正藏/SAT 与日本 Wikisource 作「盍辨」,部分流布本资料作「盍辦」。即使取「辨」,此处也应按日文「弁ずる」及后文「辨/辦道」的语境理解为“切实办道/修办”,不宜白话为单纯“辨明此理”。因此白话作“今日的我们又怎能不切实办道呢?”
  • “辨道 / 辦道”:这也是异体/异文问题。汉文底本可见「辨道」,现代汉语白话为了避免误会,宜译作「办道」或「切实修办佛道」。
  • “竽 / 竿”:大正藏与日本 Wikisource 有「竽」,但若按禅林典故和「指竿针锤」条目,可读为「竿」,尤其关联「刹竿 / 幡竿」一类机缘。白话用「幡竿」以显示其禅宗公案语境。
  • “直饶……得道明心”:这是让步句,不是否定悟境。白话不应加「似乎、看似、自以为」等无依据的贬义限定。道元的意思是:即使已有深悟、得道明心,若停在入门边际,仍亏缺出身活路。
  • “欠气一息”:不是普通“吸一口气”而已。按曹洞宗坐禅作法,是调身后作一次深长呼气,通常微微张口、缓缓吐尽,再回到自然鼻息。
  • “凡夫自界他方”:这里“凡夫”应按训读理解为「凡そ夫れ」(大凡、总而言之),不是“凡夫众生”。因此白话作“总的来说”。
  • “被礙兀地”:不是负面“被障碍”,而是专务打坐、兀兀坐定、安住不移;英文的“totally blocked in resolute stability”可作辅助参考。
  • “原文翻译”:旧帖末尾的“(《普劝坐禅仪》原文翻译”标签不准确且括号未闭。这里改为“汉文原文(流布本校订版)”,因为该段是原文,不是翻译。

Original Chinese / 汉文原文(流布本校订版)

下列汉文原文采用流布本系统,并以 sybrma / Terebess 所列版本为主要显示底本,同时参考 SAT 大正藏与日本 Wikisource。相较旧帖原文,已校正若干明显讹误或不佳字形,如「生地」校为「生知」、「诸缘崩舍」校为「放捨诸缘」、「若坐立」校为「若从坐起」、「修证锁」校为「修证之所能知」、「便孔」校为「便空」等。遇到底本异文,如「辨/辦」「竽/竿」「羅/籮」,已在上方校订说明中交代。

普勸坐禪儀 觀音導利興聖寶林寺沙門道元 撰

原夫道本圓通、爭假修證。宗乘自在、何費功夫。況乎全體逈出塵埃兮、孰信拂拭之手段。大都不離當處兮、豈用修行之脚頭者乎。

然而毫釐有差、天地懸隔。違順纔起、紛然失心。直饒誇會豐悟兮、獲瞥地之智通、得道明心兮、擧衝天之志氣、雖逍遙於入頭之邊量、幾虧闕於出身之活路。

矧彼祇園之爲生知兮、端坐六年之蹤跡可見。少林之傳心印兮、面壁九歳之聲名尚聞。古聖既然、今人盍辦。所以須休尋言逐語之解行、須學囘光返照之退歩。身心自然脱落、本來面目現前。欲得恁麼事、急務恁麼事。

夫參禪者、靜室宜焉、飲飡節矣。放捨諸縁、休息萬事。不思善惡、莫管是非。停心意識之運轉、止念想觀之測量。莫圖作佛、豈拘坐臥乎。

尋常坐處、厚敷坐物、上用蒲團。或結跏趺坐、或半跏趺坐。謂、結跏趺坐、先以右足安左髀上、左足安右髀上。半跏趺坐、但以左足壓右髀矣。寛繋衣帶、可令齊整。

次右手安左足上、左掌安右掌上。兩大拇指、面相拄矣。乃正身端坐、不得左側右傾、前躬後仰。要令耳與肩對、鼻與臍對。舌掛上腭、脣齒相著。目須常開。鼻息微通。

身相既調、欠氣一息、左右搖振。兀兀坐定、思量箇不思量底。不思量底、如何思量、非思量、此乃坐禪之要術也。

所謂、坐禪非習禪也、唯是安樂之法門也、究盡菩提之修證也。公案現成、羅籠未到。若得此意、如龍得水、似虎靠山。當知、正法自現前、昏散先撲落。若從坐起、徐徐動身、安祥而起、不應卒暴。

嘗觀、超凡越聖、坐脱立亡、一任此力矣。況復拈指竿針鎚之轉機、擧拂拳棒喝之證契、未是思量分別之所能解也、豈爲神通修證之所能知也。可爲聲色之外威儀、那非知見前軌則者歟。

然則不論上智下愚、莫簡利人鈍者。專一功夫、正是辦道。修證自不染汙、趣向更是平常者也。

凡夫自界他方、西天東地、等持佛印、一擅宗風。唯務打坐、被礙兀地。雖謂萬別千差、祗管參禪辦道。何抛卻自家之坐牀、謾去來他國之塵境。若錯一歩、當面蹉過。

既得人身之機要、莫虚度光陰。保任佛道之要機、誰浪樂石火。加以、形質如草露、運命似電光。倐忽便空、須臾即失。

冀其參學高流、久習摸象勿怪眞龍。精進直指端的之道、尊貴絶學無爲之人。合沓佛佛之菩提、嫡嗣祖祖之三昧。久爲恁麼、須是恁麼、寶藏自開、受用如意。


Japanese Kundoku / 日本語訓読(読み下し・参考)

注意:道元此文原本是汉文体/kanbun;下列不是另一个“现代日语原文”,而是日本语训读(読み下し),用来帮助辨明汉文句读、语法与训法。


English reference:

https://www.sotozen.com/eng/zazen/advice/fukanzanzeng.html

Fukan Zazengi (Universally Recommended Instructions for Zazen)

The way is originally perfect and all-pervading. How could it be contingent on practice and realization? The true vehicle is self-sufficient. What need is there for special effort? Indeed, the whole body is free from dust. Who could believe in a means to brush it clean? It is never apart from this very place; what is the use of traveling around to practice? And yet, if there is a hairsbreadth deviation, it is like the gap between heaven and earth.

If the least like or dislike arises, the mind is lost in confusion. Suppose you are confident in your understanding and rich in enlightenment, gaining the wisdom that knows at a glance, attaining the Way and clarifying the mind, arousing an aspiration to reach for the heavens. You are playing in the entranceway, but you are still short of the vital path of emancipation.

Consider the Buddha: although he was wise at birth, the traces of his six years of upright sitting can yet be seen. As for Bodhidharma, although he had received the mind-seal, his nine years of facing a wall is celebrated still. If even the ancient sages were like this, how can we today dispense with wholehearted practice?

Therefore, put aside the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing phrases, and learn to take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward. Body and mind of themselves will drop away, and your original face will manifest. If you want to realize such, get to work on such right now.

For practicing Zen, a quiet room is suitable. Eat and drink moderately. Put aside all involvements and suspend all affairs. Do not think "good" or "bad." Do not judge true or false. Give up the operations of mind, intellect, and consciousness; stop measuring with thoughts, ideas, and views. Have no designs on becoming a buddha. How could that be limited to sitting or lying down?

At your sitting place, spread out a thick mat and put a cushion on it. Sit either in the full-lotus or half-lotus position. In the full-lotus position, first place your right foot on your left thigh, then your left foot on your right thigh. In the half-lotus, simply place your left foot on your right thigh. Tie your robes loosely and arrange them neatly. Then place your right hand on your left leg and your left hand on your right palm, thumb-tips lightly touching.

Straighten your body and sit upright, leaning neither left nor right, neither forward nor backward. Align your ears with your shoulders and your nose with your navel. Rest the tip of your tongue against the front of the roof of your mouth, with teeth together and lips shut. Always keep your eyes open, and breathe softly through your nose.

Once you have adjusted your posture, take a breath and exhale fully, rock your body right and left, and settle into steady, immovable sitting. Think of not thinking, "Not thinking --what kind of thinking is that?" Nonthinking. This is the essential art of zazen.

The zazen I speak of is not meditation practice. It is simply the dharma gate of joyful ease, the practice realization of totally culminated enlightenment. It is the koan realized; traps and snares can never reach it. If you grasp the point, you are like a dragon gaining the water, like a tiger taking to the mountains. For you must know that the true dharma appears of itself, so that from the start dullness and distraction are struck aside.

When you arise from sitting, move slowly and quietly, calmly and deliberately. Do not rise suddenly or abruptly. In surveying the past, we find that transcendence of both mundane and sacred, and dying while either sitting or standing, have all depended entirely on the power of zazen.

In addition, triggering awakening with a finger, a banner, a needle, or a mallet, and effecting realization with a whisk, a fist, a staff, or a shout --these cannot be understood by discriminative thinking; much less can they be known through the practice of supernatural power. They must represent conduct beyond seeing and hearing. Are they not a standard prior to knowledge and views?

This being the case, intelligence or lack of it is not an issue; make no distinction between the dull and the sharp-witted. If you concentrate your effort single-mindedly, that in itself is wholeheartedly engaging the way.

Practice-realization is naturally undefiled. Going forward is, after all, an everyday affair.

In general, in our world and others, in both India and China, all equally hold the buddha-seal. While each lineage expresses its own style, they are all simply devoted to sitting, totally blocked in resolute stability. Although they say that there are ten thousand distinctions and a thousand variations, they just wholeheartedly engage the way in zazen.

Why leave behind the seat in your own home to wander in vain through the dusty realms of other lands? If you make one misstep, you stumble past what is directly in front of you.

You have gained the pivotal opportunity of human form. Do not pass your days and nights in vain. You are taking care of the essential activity of the buddha-way. Who would take wasteful delight in the spark from a flintstone? Besides, form and substance are like the dew on the grass, the fortunes of life like a dart of lightning --emptied in an instant, vanished in a flash.

Please, honored followers of Zen, long accustomed to groping for the elephant, do not doubt the true dragon. Devote your energies to the way of direct pointing at the real. Revere the one who has gone beyond learning and is free from effort. Accord with the enlightenment of all the buddhas; succeed to the samadhi of all the ancestors. Continue to live in such a way, and you will be such a person. The treasure store will open of itself, and you may enjoy it freely.

Soh

My opinion only. Feel free to refute me if you believe Shurangama Sutra does not preach a substantialist view. I'm all ears.


2018:

Soh Wei Yu: Actually I suspect Shurangama Sutra (which experts say is a Chinese invention, and I don't think its found in Tibetan canon) is really only I AM and One Mind. Which is why many Chinese masters including the one I just visited that came to Singapore got stuck.. he was using Shurangama Sutra to explain I AM as the host. But I need to read more. Shurangama Sutra, "All beings need to understand that whatever moves is like the dust and, like a visitor, does not remain. Just now you saw that it was Ananda's head that moved, while his visual awareness did not move. It was my hand that opened and closed, while his awareness did not open or close." The whole host and dust that all those masters are talking about including Jax comes from Shurangama Sutra teachings.. it just reaffirms their substantialist views. Shurangama Sutra, "Your Majesty, your face is wrinkled, but the essential nature of your visual awareness itself has not wrinkled. What wrinkles is subject to change. What does not wrinkle does not change. What changes will perish. But what does not change neither comes into being nor perishes. Then how could it be affected by your being born and dying? So you have no need to be concerned with what such people as Maskari Gosaliputra say: that when this body dies, you cease to exist." "Clearly then, the mind that experiences these conditioned phenomena is not what is fundamentally you. But what is not these conditioned phenomena must be what is fundamentally you. If it is not you, what else could it be?" "And since you cannot see my awareness when you and I are looking at different things, clearly my visual awareness cannot be an object. Therefore, how could your own visual awareness not be what is fundamentally you?"

Soh Wei Yu: "Since beings have allowed their attention to be drawn to the sights and sounds and have allowed themselves to be carried along in their streams of thought, as it has been since time without beginning, they have not yet awakened and do not yet understand the purity, the wondrousness, and the permanence of their own essential nature. Instead of attending to what is everlasting, they attend to what comes into being and perishes, and as a result, in life after life, they are mired in impurity and are bound to the cycle of birth and rebirth. But if they turn away from what comes into being and perishes and hold fast to what is true and everlasting, then the light of the everlasting will appear, and as a result the faculties, their objects, and the sense-consciousness will fade away and disappear." "We're capable of hearing sounds and silence both; They may be present to the ear or not. Though people say that when no sound is present, Our hearing must be absent too, in fact Our hearing does not lapse. It does not cease With silence; neither is it born of sound. Our hearing, then, is genuine and true. It is the everlasting one." "People say that hearing comes about because of sounds, Not on its own. If that's what you call 'hearing,' though, Then when you turn your hearing round and set it free from sounds, What name are you to give to that which is set free? Return just one of the perceiving faculties Back to its source, and all six faculties will then be free. For what we hear is mere illusion, like the objects of our vision - like what is seen by one whose eyes are covered by a film. The Threefold Realm is like those flowers in an empty sky, But turn the hearing inward, and the faculties are cured. Their objects vanish, and awareness is completely pure. In perfect purity, the brilliance of awareness shines Unhindered and in still illumination of all space, In contemplating worldly things as the events of dreams. The young Matanga woman was a figure in a dream. Just who was really there with power to entice you?"

Soh Wei Yu: The whole focus on Shurangama is really to realize True Self, revert back to the Source, and subsume all objects to be merely illusory displays of the Source. IMO no different from Advaita Vedanta or Upanishads. It's no surprise the majority of Chinese Mahayana is stuck at I AM and one mind. "All that you need to do is not allow your attention to be diverted by the twelve conditioned attributes of sound and silence, contact and separation, flavor and the absence of flavor, openness and blockage, coming into being and perishing, and light and darkness. Next, extricate one faculty by detaching it from its objects, and redirect that faculty inward so that it can return to what is original and true. Then it will radiate the light of the original understanding. This brilliant light will shine forth and extricate the other five faculties until they are completely free. If your six faculties are freed from the objects that they perceive so that the light of your understanding is not diverted into one or another of the faculties, then the light of your understanding will manifest through all the faculties so that all six of them will function interchangeably."

Soh Wei Yu: All moving objects are subsumed into the unmoving space of awareness - "Given that the fundamental natures of visual awareness, awareness of sounds, and cognitive awareness are all-pervasive and do not change, you should know that the real natures of what we may consider to be the six primary elements - our visual awareness; infinite, motionless space; and earth, water, fire, and wind, which are in motion - are completely interfused with one another. In their fundamental natures, all are within the Matrix of the Thus-Come One, neither coming into being nor ceasing to be." The description is no different from one mind: "All you good people! I have often said that all phenomena with physical form, all phenomena of mind, the conditions under which they arise, as well as the phenomena that interact with the mind and all other conditioned phenomena, are mere manifestations of true mind. Your bodies and your minds appear within the wondrous light of the true essence of that wondrous mind." "What you do not know is that the true, wondrous, luminously understanding mind contains the body and everything outside the body - mountains, rivers, sky, the entire world. You are like someone who fails to see a boundless ocean a hundred thousand miles across and is aware only of a single floating bubble." I flipped through the whole Shurangama Sutra. Quite convinced now it is only about I AM and one mind.


7 JUNE 2019

John Tan: Dogen view is very anatta and non-dual.

Soh Wei Yu: Yeah.. and He doubts Surangama like me.

John Tan: Surangama is not wrong. It is the over emphasis of 主 (Soh: host). Instead of understanding the relationship of host and guest as empty conventions. Dogen's expressions also prone to expressions of experience (more towards anatta no mind) but the clarity of "why" such view isn't valid isn't there. In other words, he is expressing experience is such as such and therefore he rejected object and subject duality...not even a hairline difference is allowed in that expression. But the "why" isn't clear. However once we understand the conventional relationships among entities and their empty nature, it becomes clear. In Surangama if I am not wrong, such relationships are explored, outlined but somehow the host is being over emphasized, that is the only issue. Is Surangama the 7 asking by Buddha where is mind?

Soh Wei Yu: You mean dependent designation? I think it is an affirmative negation. Like shentong. Not anatta or Madhyamika. Hmm but Greg Goode said even at his I Am phase he realized non locality, rather than emptiness. Means I think inherently existing mind that is not located anywhere. I think Shurangama is like that. This is not the same as no mind or anatta. It affirms an eternal unchanging mind that is not this and not that. And nondual. "Therefore, Ananda, you should know that when you see light, the seeing is not the light. When you see darkness, the seeing is not the darkness. When you see emptiness, the seeing is not the emptiness. When you see solid objects, the seeing is not the solid objects." Indistinguishable from advaita. Going through all the analysis in the end just to affirm awareness. Self inquiry is more direct IMO.

Soh Wei Yu: "Therefore, you should know that in fact the colors come from the lamp, and the diseased seeing brings about the reflection. Both the circular reflection and the faulty seeing are the result of the cataract. But that which sees the diseased film is not sick. Thus you should not say that it is the lamp or the seeing or that it is neither the lamp nor the seeing." "If you can leave far behind all conditions which mix and unite and those which do not mix and unite, then you can also extinguish and cast out the causes of birth and death, and obtain perfect Bodhi, the nature which is neither produced nor extinguished. It is the pure clear basic mind, the everlasting fundamental enlightenment." But the part about the five skandhas are Buddha nature is good but I think can be one mind sort of understanding, I don't know. I just saw an excerpt in Shurangama Sutra about whether light and seeing is different.. if seeing is different from light then there has to be a boundary.. but I think is more on nondual and seeing how all the skandhas are falsely imputed only.

John Tan: This is different. Means conventional reality and the power of conventions to alaya consciousness is not understood. Seeing self as truly existing but non-local is different.

Soh Wei Yu: [image omitted] [image omitted] [image omitted]

John Tan: Yes they over emphasized on the host. Means 闻性 the hearing nature is permanent. Instead of empty.

Soh Wei Yu: I see..

John Tan: Why when you look at what originates in dependence and even it is explained as such, it can be misunderstood as 实性 [real nature] instead of 空性 [empty nature]? By the way Dogen is good for you because Dogen's expressions and practice are to be about full engagement -- being time.


Update, February 2019

Lopon Malcolm wrote that the Chinese Shurangama Sutra is a "Chinese Pseudographia", "and these ten Xian realms do not exist in Indian Buddhist cosmology at all."

Had a conversation with Thusness:

15 FEBRUARY 2019

Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm just said Shurangama is a Chinese 伪经 (pseudipigrapha, falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author). As I thought. Because it sounds very advaita.

John Tan: Not exactly. How many is from Buddha's own mouth?

Soh Wei Yu: It says seeing is eternal, awareness doesn’t age but body ages.

John Tan: I know it emphasizes a lot on host and guest. I mean the issue of 伪经.

Soh Wei Yu: It is an invention of Chinese because it mentions Taoist immortals. It tries to integrate Chinese thought. I think it’s developed in China and there is no such sutra in tibetan Canon.

John Tan: In fact most Mahayana sutras have this flavor. It is just how it presents. So it is not an issue of Wei jin (Soh: apocryphal sutra). It is the wisdom in it (Soh: this issue is also discussed in Yogacara vs Madhyamaka, Authorship of Mahayana Sutras and Sūtra of Definitive Meaning vs Sūtra of Provisional Meaning).

Soh Wei Yu: If a sutra is not Wei Jing it should have a Sanskrit counterpart and a tibetan counterpart which is not the case for Shurangama. I see. Actually most Mahayana sutras lack mention of clarity aspect. Just purely emptiness.. I think.

John Tan: Nen yen jing (Soh: he later clarifies he was referring to Leng Jia Jing - Lankavatara Sutra, as mentioning clarity but he is 'not sure' [whether the sutra talks about it]). Emptiness is the nature of mind and phenomena.


Update by Soh, 25/11/2020:

The commentaries by Ven. Hui Lu 慧律法师 on Shurangama Sutra (and all other sutras) are very clear and good, due to his deep insights. Regardless of whether the original texts fall into the extremes, Ven. Hui Lu's explanations steer clear of the extremes (eternalism/nihilism/existence/non-existence/etc).

See: True Mind and Unconditioned Dharma


Update by Soh, 20/06/2021:

Just saw this post by Malcolm in 2020:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=33106

There is a claim that a Sanskrit manuscript of this text exists somewhere in China.

Li Xuezhu (李学竹) (2010). “Zhōng guó zàng xué — Zhōng guó fàn wén bèi yè gài kuàng” 中国藏学-中国梵文贝叶概况 [China Tibetan Studies — The State of Sanskrit Language Palm Leaf Manuscripts in China]. Baidu 文库. Vol. 1 №90 (in Chinese). pp. 55–56. Retrieved 2017–12–06. ‘河南南阳菩提寺原藏有1函梵文贝叶经,共226叶,其中残缺6叶,函上写有“印度古梵文”字样,据介绍,内容为 《楞严经》,很可能是唐代梵文经的孤本,字体为圆形,系印度南方文字一种,被国家定为一级文物,现存彭雪枫纪念馆。’(tr to English: Henan Nanyang Bodhi Temple originally had one Sanskrit language manuscript sutra, consisting in total 226 leaves, of which 6 were missing… according to the introduction, it contains the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and is most probably the only extant Sanskrit manuscript dating from the Tang Dynasty. The letters are roundish and belongs to a type used in South India and has been recognized by the country as a Category 1 cultural artifact. It is now located in the Peng Xuefeng Memorial Museum.

https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/the-endurance-of-lies-the-perfidy-of-slander-the-treason-of-translation-7c3f77086c3d

The notion of 55 stages is a Chinese Buddhist misreading of the chapters on the powers, dedications of merit, and so of the bodhisattvas on the ten stages in in Avatamska Sutra, embedded in a couple of Chinese authored texts posing as sutras.

"Conceptuality is great ignorance,
causing one to fall into the ocean of samsāra."
—Māyājālamahātantra


Update, 2021:

Also, to be fair, I think there are chapters in Shurangama Sutra that refutes Brahman view:

Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness

Also on a sidenote, there is another sutra called Surangama Samadhi Sutra that is of Indian origin, which Malcolm considers to be authentic. I believe it is this one http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/Pratyutpanna_and_Surangama_Samadhi_Sutras,1998,BDK25.pdf


Update 9th June 2019:

Found some passages where it's explained how Dogen shares the same view as me regarding Shurangama Sutra:

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 bright jewel) 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 includes 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 sutras even 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 Zongmi said, “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 from 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.

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?”

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 suffering 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 bright8jewel,” 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.


Update 2025:

Nafis shared:

2025

Nafis: Japan. The Japanese Zen Buddhist Dōgen held that the sutra was not an authentic Indian text.[8] But he also drew on the text, commenting on the Śūraṅgama verse "when someone gives rise to Truth by returning to the Source, the whole of space in all ten quarters falls away and vanishes" as follows: This verse has been cited by various Buddhas and Ancestors alike. Up to this very day, this verse is truly the Bones and Marrow of the Buddhas and Ancestors. It is the very Eye of the Buddhas and Ancestors. As to my intention in saying so, there are those who say that the ten-fascicle Shurangama Scripture is a spurious scripture, whereas others say that it is a genuine Scripture: both views have persisted from long in the past down to our very day [...] Even were the Scripture a spurious one, if [Ancestors] continue to offer its turning, then it is a genuine Scripture of the Buddhas and Ancestors, as well as the Dharma Wheel intimately associated with Them.

Soh: Yes i agree. Ven hui lu gave many lectures on shurangama sutra also. But he does not turn it into advaita.

Nafis: There's a newer commentary on the Shurangama sutra that was published in 2022, the quality seemed better than Hsuan Hua but I haven't had the opportunity to go through it. The foreword is by Norman Fischer who is post-anatta: https://www.amazon.com/That-Not-Your-Mind-Reflections/dp/1645470792/ Also endorsed by Barry Magid and Joan Halifax. I checked his biography just now, it seems that he received dharma transmission from the same teacher as Shinshu Roberts.

Soh

This is a draft version from an upcoming book by John Tan. Will continued to be updated before final release.

Dogen Total Exertion -- totality beyond whole and parts

Total Exertion: The Whole in Every Part

Introduction: Seeing Dependent Arising in Action

In much of contemporary Buddhist discourse — especially within Tibetan traditions — pratītyasamutpāda, or dependent arising, is often approached primarily as a deconstructive view. It is skillfully wielded to dissolve the mistaken belief in intrinsic existence, pointing the mind toward emptiness. Its purpose is to clarify the non-arising nature of phenomena, to refine our understanding of śūnyatā, and to sever clinging to appearances as real.

While this analytical orientation is invaluable for dismantling substantialist assumptions, it also tends to leave dependent arising as something abstract or theoretical — a view to adopt, a logic to follow, a doctrine to internalize.

But what is rarely emphasized is how dependent arising is not merely a framework of negation, but also the very language and function of the world in action. In East Asian traditions such as Huayan and Dōgen's Zen, dependent arising is not only what deconstructs solidity, but what constructs the living immediacy of things. It is the formative, expressive, and radiant unfolding of reality in its full responsiveness.

Here, dependent arising is not something we merely analyze — it is something we witness, taste, and embody. Each moment, each phenomenon, each gesture is seen as the complete exertion of all conditions — not metaphorically, but functionally and luminously.

This chapter explores this dimension through the lens of Dōgen’s “Total Exertion” — a view where nothing exists on its own, and yet everything exists with utter immediacy and power. In this vision, the insight of emptiness does not erase the world, but reveals it to be seamlessly active, boundlessly intimate, and fully alive.

What follows is not a metaphysical theory, but an invitation to see and feel the radical interdependence of all things — not from the distance of conceptual analysis, but from the inside of living experience.

The Unfolding of the Whole in Each Thing

A bell rings — and in that single sound, the sky, the earth, the trees, and the listener all resound. It is not that the bell causes the world to respond. Rather, the world itself rings as the bell.

This is the meaning of total exertion: that in each moment, each phenomenon, each arising — the whole of interdependent existence is fully present, exerting itself as that appearance.

A grain of sand is not just part of a desert. It is the entire cosmos exerting itself in the form of a grain. A passing breeze is not merely moving air — it is the totality expressing itself as motion, temperature, sound, and touch. It is not that the breeze has meaning because of the sky or because of weather patterns. It has meaning because it cannot be anything apart from all that is.

This is not poetic exaggeration. It is a radical intimacy that becomes clear when the illusion of independently existing parts dissolves. When we no longer see the world as made of discrete, self-standing pieces, we realize: each thing is not merely in relation to the whole — it is a totality that transcends both whole and parts, in its current expression.

Just as in the previous example of left and right — where neither can be without the other, and both arise in a single conceptual movement — so too does each appearance arise not from itself, but from the exertion of all things.

This is not the unity of substance. It is the inseparability of display. It is not that all things collapse into one, but that all things arise as the living pattern of all others. Each part, therefore, is a holographic flash that presents infinity and totality — nothing excluded, nothing needing to be added.

To realize this is to live in suchness without leaving behind ordinary life. Walking is total exertion. Drinking tea is total exertion. Responding to a stranger’s gaze is total exertion. There is no center from which actions arise — they are the universe acting through and as you, yet without a ‘you’ apart from it.

Beyond Parts and Wholes

To speak of “parts” and “wholes” is already to enter the realm of conceptual division. We imagine a whole composed of smaller elements — a sum greater than its pieces — or we think of parts as fragments waiting to rejoin some unified source. But this thinking already presupposes something broken, something divided and in need of mending.

Total exertion cuts through this paradigm entirely.

It is not that the part belongs to a whole, nor that the whole contains the part. Rather, in the moment of its appearance, each so-called part is fully exerting the whole — not symbolically, but functionally and vividly.

When you raise a hand, this is not your hand acting alone. It is time, gravity, earth, breath, and sky — all exerting themselves as this gesture. There is no “hand” apart from all these. Nor is there a “whole” somewhere outside coordinating it. There is only this: the arising of this gesture as the complete manifestation of infinite conditions.

This is why Dōgen never said “wholeness is in everything,” but that each dharma-position is the total manifestation of the entire dharma realm. He was not pointing to a collective container but to the immediacy of a flower blooming as the exertion of ten thousand things.

The trap of substantialism lies in believing that parts must build up to a whole, or that wholes must somehow transcend parts. But both views assume that something real stands behind what appears.

Total exertion shows otherwise: there is no base behind what appears — appearance is the function of the base being absent. Emptiness is not a lack but a release from the need for any foundation. It is this very freedom that allows each phenomenon to shine fully, responsively, and luminously — without reduction, without residue.

When one sees through this, there is no longer any need to gather parts or preserve a whole. The sound of the bell, the opening of a door, the stillness between breaths — all are complete as they are, because they are everything, appearing just so.

The Time-Being of Total Function

Time is often mistaken as a backdrop — a neutral flow in which events occur, ticking forward moment by moment like beads on a string. But this is the view of time as a container, as something separate from what happens within it.

Dōgen overturns this with a startling insight: each thing is time, and each time is being. This is uji — the Time-Being. A mountain is not in time; the mountain is time. Your breath is not happening in a moment — it is that moment. A single thought, a bird in flight, the opening of a hand — each one is the full exertion of time as that event.

What appears as sequence — past, present, future — is not a movement across a line. It is the dynamic presence of all interdependencies exerting themselves now, as this appearance. The past exerts itself not from behind, but through this moment. The future does not lie ahead, but opens right here, as readiness. The present is not a dot between two unknowns, but the entire functioning of the ten directions as immediacy.

This insight liberates time from linearity and self from continuity. You do not persist through time — you are the total function of conditions arising now. There is no fixed self moving through changing time. There is only time-being, expressing as this movement, this thought, this silence.

Even what appears as delay, stagnation, or waiting is total function.

A still pond is not outside of time — it is time appearing as stillness.

A long pause in a conversation is not absence — it is the full flowering of mutual responsiveness without words.

When time is no longer seen as background but as full participation, each moment becomes infinitely alive, never repeated, never partial. Nothing is just “happening” — everything is acting. And this action is not your own, yet nothing can exclude you from it. You are time, just as the bell is time, the sky is time, and even this sentence is time fully being itself.

The Language of Dependent Arising in Action

When the Buddha spoke of dependent arising, he was not offering a theory of causation. He was revealing the nature of experience itself — fluid, co-arising, ungraspable — where nothing comes into being by itself, and nothing stands alone. In the light of total exertion, dependent arising is no longer seen as a passive structure of interrelation, but as the very voice of reality in motion.

Each thing appears because everything else exerts itself as that thing. A bell rings, not because of a sequence of isolated causes, but because the world is configured to ring now, as that moment. The hand does not reach because a mind commands it, but because the sky, gravity, flesh, memory, and breath all converge as reaching.

This is dependent arising as action — not the metaphysics of how things come to be, but the expressive nature of being itself. Every appearance is a functional articulation of the whole, not static or symbolic, but alive. Each word spoken, each leaf that falls, is not just caused — it is spoken by the whole web of reality.

This is why in the experience of total exertion, function and meaning arise simultaneously. You do not reflect and then act. You act, and in that movement, reflection is already present. You do not observe and then understand. You respond, and understanding dawns within that responsiveness.

The clarity of this is not found in abstraction, but in presence. When you listen deeply to the world — to a tone, a movement, a pause — you hear dependent arising not as a doctrine, but as the immediacy of luminous function. It is the bell ringing as your hearing. It is the path unfolding as your step. Nothing causes anything from outside. All is the self-exertion of interdependence appearing in real time.

This is the language of the world — not grammar or concept, but the way everything speaks everything else.

Total Responsiveness Without Self

In total exertion, there is action, there is clarity, there is seamless responsiveness — but there is no self behind any of it. There is no agent orchestrating the unfolding, no observer watching from behind the eyes. The world moves, and that movement includes you, but not as a fixed center — as a participatory openness.

The reflex to claim “I am doing” is strong. It arises from the habit of placing a self at the hub of experience. But in the lived insight of total exertion, there is only the doing, the arising, the manifesting — no one apart from it.

You speak, and speech comes from conditions far beyond your control: breath, language, context, emotion, and the sound of the other’s voice. You act, and action flows from hunger, wind, footsteps, memory, and mood. And yet, there is full presence, full clarity — not because you are controlling it, but because there is no separation to interfere.

This is not a loss of agency, but the liberation of responsiveness.

When the fiction of the independent self falls away, what remains is not passivity but intelligent, vivid response — unfiltered, unburdened, and natural. Like a mirror reflecting without effort, like a valley echoing a sound — the world expresses itself through your body-mind, yet nothing inside claims ownership.

This is why Dōgen said: “To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be verified by all things.” When the self is forgotten, all things shine — not as objects over there, but as this very intimacy of expression.

And so, when you bow, it is not you who bows. The entire world bows. When you listen, the whole sky listens. When you breathe, it is not your breath, but the breath of the universe exhaling just so.

This is the freedom of selfless function. It is the pathless path where walking, speaking, silence, and stillness are all acts of total exertion — complete, intimate, and without residue.

Interlude: Total Exertion in Science and Phenomenology

To appreciate the depth of Dōgen’s view, we may look across traditions. In physics, Ernst Mach famously proposed that inertia—the resistance of objects to acceleration—is not due to some intrinsic essence, but arises from the entire mass-energy configuration of the universe. This became known as Mach’s Principle: that every local event reflects the total relational structure of the cosmos. The spinning of a star or the swing of a pendulum cannot be isolated from the whole.

Likewise, Dōgen’s “Total Exertion” declares: there is no such thing as an isolated event. Each thing is all things functioning in concert. When you lift a spoon, the whole universe lifts with you—not poetically, but functionally, relationally, and intimately.

In philosophy, Maurice Merleau-Ponty argued that perception is not the reception of pre-given data by a separate subject, but a lived intertwining of body and world. His notion of “flesh” (la chair)—neither mind nor matter—describes a shared medium where perceiver and perceived co-emerge. There is no gap between world and awareness; they are always already folded into one another.

This echoes Dōgen’s insight that the world and the practitioner are not two. To see, hear, and feel is not to stand apart from things but to participate in their arising. Each moment of perception is total exertion: the eye, light, object, intention, and conditions all functioning as one.

In both science and phenomenology, as in Dōgen’s Zen, we find a powerful overturning of the myth of isolation. Nothing arises alone. No action is autonomous. And no moment lacks the fullness of the all.