Original Text: https://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ011/bj11_408.htm

Soundcloud Audio Recordings now Available: https://soundcloud.com/soh-wei-yu/sets/d-gen-zenjis-thought-on-buddha

English Translation:

Dōgen Zenji’s Buddha-nature Thought 

Shi Heng-ching Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies, Issue 4 Published July 1999 Pages 209-258 Page 209

Abstract Dōgen Zenji is an extremely outstanding thinker and religious figure in the history of Japanese Buddhism. Shōbōgenzō is the representative work containing the essence of his thought. This article explores Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought based on chapters such as "Busshō" (Buddha-nature), "Bendōwa" (On the Endeavor of the Way), "Genjōkōan" (Manifestation of Absolute Reality), and "Uji" (Being-Time).

The first part discusses the background of the formation of Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought. Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought and view of practice-realization originated from his doubts regarding the "Original Enlightenment" (hongaku) thought of the Japanese Tendai School. Regarding these doubts, Dōgen obtained a thorough resolution akin to "casting off body and mind" from the Chinese Chan master Rujing. Original Enlightenment thought can be traced back to the tathāgatagarbha / Buddha-nature thought of Sino-Indian Buddhism; therefore, the second part of this article briefly discusses its developmental history.

The third part explores Dōgen’s view of Buddha-nature. First, it discusses Dōgen’s refutation of misunderstandings regarding Buddha-nature. Next, it discusses how Dōgen interprets the meaning of Buddha-nature based on concepts such as "temporal conditions" (time), "having/is Buddha-nature," and "no Buddha-nature," and how he establishes his thought of "impermanence-Buddha-nature."

The final part touches upon how "Critical Buddhism" interprets and critiques Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought.

Page 210 I. The Background of the Formation of Dōgen’s Buddha-nature Thought

Dōgen Zenji (1200-1253) is the founder of the Japanese Sōtō School and the most philosophical thinker in the history of Japanese Buddhism. However, perhaps due to the barriers of sectarian consciousness, Dōgen’s thought did not receive the attention it deserved in the history of Japanese thought. It was only in modern times, due to the article "Śramaṇa Dōgen" by the Kyoto School scholar Watsuji Tetsurō [Note 1], that extensive and in-depth research on Dōgen was ignited among modern Sōtō followers as well as Japanese and Western Buddhist scholars. [Note 2] Especially in recent years, the Japanese Buddhist academic world has stirred up a controversy known as "Critical Buddhism," where Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought has become a target of critique; the final part of this article will discuss this in detail.

The formation of Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought has an inseparable relationship with his exploration of the Dharma and his religious experiences, which can be seen from the following brief biography of Dōgen. Regarding biographical literature on Dōgen, in addition to primary sources of an autobiographical nature such as Hōkyōki [Note 3] and Shōbōgenzō Shisho, there are records by Dōgen’s direct disciples, such as Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki by Dōgen’s eminent disciple Ejō. [Note 4] Furthermore, biographies compiled by later generations of the Sōtō School to commemorate Dōgen’s virtue and learning, such as Eihei-ji Sanso Gyōgōki (Record of the Conduct of the Three Ancestors of Eihei-ji), Kenzeiki, and Eihei Kaisan Dōgen Oshō Gyōroku (Record of the Conduct of the Founding Priest Dōgen of Eihei-ji) (the above three classics are all collected in the Sōtōshū Zensho). Based on these historical materials, many modern Japanese and Western scholars have conducted precise and detailed textual research and studies on Dōgen’s biography; the most representative include Dōgen Zenji Den no Kenkyū (Study of Dōgen Zenji’s Biography) by Ōkubo Dōshū, Dōgen Zenji Monryū by Kagami-shima Genryū, and Dōgen no Shōgai (Dōgen’s Life) by Satō Tatsugen. [Note 5] Recently, the Dōgen Shisō Taikei (Compendium of Dōgen’s Thought) edited by Kumamoto Hideto, totaling twenty-two volumes, devotes the first six volumes to the "Biography Section," all of which are research papers on Dōgen’s biography, which can be described as exhaustive.

Although Dōgen stated in the "Kichijō-ji Eihei-ji Shuryō Shingi" (Rules for the Monks' Quarters at Eihei-ji): Just reflect that when the four rivers enter the ocean, they no longer have their original names; when the four castes leave home, they are all called the Śākya clan; this is the word of the Buddha. [Note 6] However, in order to understand Dōgen’s entire life journey, it is still necessary to know his family background before leaving home. Dōgen was born in Kyoto in 1200 CE, coinciding with "Kamakura Buddhism," the golden age of Japanese Buddhism, [Note 7] and also a time of social turmoil and political power struggles within the Shogunate.

According to the Eihei-ji Sanso Gyōgōki, Dōgen was born into a distinguished noble family; his mother was Matsudono Ishi, who married the military commander Kiso Yoshinaka at the age of sixteen. Kiso later committed suicide after a military defeat. Ishi’s father, in order to cling to power, remarried Ishi to the Minister of the Center, Koga Michichika. Although Dōgen’s father was a descendant of the Emperor and enjoyed high official status and power, he died suddenly when Dōgen was three years old. Dōgen’s half-brother, Koga Michitomo, took up the responsibility of raising Dōgen. Both Koga Michichika and Michitomo were skilled in poetry, which had a profound influence on the cultivation of Dōgen’s literary talent.

When Dōgen was eight years old, his loving mother passed away from illness; this tragic encounter stirred a great shock in Dōgen’s young and sensitive soul. The Sanso Gyōgōki records that Dōgen "upon the loss of his loving mother, watched the smoke of the incense and deeply realized the impermanence of the world, establishing a profound great vow to seek the Dharma." [Note 8] According to the fifth fascicle of Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki, Dōgen also personally stated: I first gave rise to the mind of the Way precisely because of impermanence. [Note 9] "All compounded things are impermanent" and "all is suffering" are the "Noble Truths" that Buddhism has always emphasized. Everyone lives daily in a world of ceaseless impermanence and arising-ceasing, but some are ignorant and unaware, some become accustomed to it, while others, due to various different life circumstances, suddenly realize the truth of impermanence and thereby step onto the religious path of liberation. The causes and conditions that trigger a "sense of impermanence" differ for each person. [Note 10] For Siddhārtha, the process of birth, aging, sickness, and death was the portrayal of impermanence; for the eight-year-old Dōgen, the passing of his loving mother was a personal experience of impermanence, and it was also a significant factor that prompted him to choose to leave home and seek the Dharma later on. [Note 11]

After losing his mother, Dōgen, who had deep virtuous roots, began to encounter the Buddhadharma. The Kenzeiki states that Dōgen began reading the Abhidharmakośa at age nine. At age thirteen, Dōgen fled from the home of his eldest maternal uncle, the Matsudono family who had adopted him, to Mount Hiei, seeking refuge with another maternal uncle, the monk Ryōken, who had already left home. The following year (1214), upon Ryōken’s recommendation, Dōgen had his head shaved and received ordination from the High Priest Kōen of Senkōbō; thus, Dōgen’s initial lineage was from the Tendai School, not the Zen School. The Japanese Tendai School was founded by Saichō and differed greatly from the Chinese Tiantai School; by Dōgen’s time, the Japanese Tendai School had fused the doctrines of Zen, Vinaya, and Esoteric Buddhism, forming the so-called "Tendai Esotericism" (Taimitsu). At that time, Mount Hiei, as the headquarters of the Tendai School, was no longer an ideal environment for practice. Severe schisms and struggles occurred between the Ennin and Enchin factions within the sect, and warrior monks (sōhei) arose in response. The monastic community emphasized complicated esoteric rituals, and formalism replaced the true cultivation and learning of doctrine. Against such a background of practice and study, figures like Hōnen, Shinran, Nichiren, and Eisai, who originally hailed from the Tendai monastic order on Mount Hiei, successively broke away from Mount Hiei to found new sects; Dōgen’s later "departure" was also an inevitable reaction to the corruption and decline of the Tendai order.

Aside from his dissatisfaction with the general environment of Mount Hiei, importantly, Dōgen harbored a great doubt regarding the Tendai "Original Enlightenment thought" (hongaku thought). Dōgen’s question arose from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra’s statement that "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." The Kenzeiki records: (Dōgen) between the ages of thirteen and eighteen, over a period of six years, read the entire Tripitaka twice. The Great Matter of the School, the main principle of the Dharma Gate "Originally inherent Dharma-nature, naturally distinct self-nature body" (original enlightenment), this principle was not settled by the two schools of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism. A great doubt stagnated; he visited the Monk Rectifier (Sōjō) Kōin of Mii-dera [asking]: If one is originally the Dharma-body of Dharma-nature, why did all Buddhas further give rise to the mind to practice the Way of Bodhi? [Note 12]

Page 213 The exceedingly intelligent Dōgen, after reading the entire Tripitaka twice, generated a query regarding the contradiction between "self-nature tathātā" and practice-realization; in other words, if sentient beings are originally endowed with the "Dharma-nature self-nature body" of original enlightenment, why is there a need to practice painstakingly? Dōgen brought this question to the Monk Rectifier Kōin, who was known as "the bright artisan of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism, the dragon and elephant of the Dharma ocean," but because Kōin focused on Pure Land practice, he could not answer Dōgen’s doubt and suggested that Dōgen visit the Japanese Rinzai Zen ancestor Eisai Zenji (1141-1215). Additionally, Kōin encouraged Dōgen, saying: "This question cannot be easily answered. Although there are family teachings (of Tendai), the key does not exhaust the meaning. I hear that the Great Song Nation transmits the Buddha Mind Seal; there is the Orthodox School; go directly to Song to seek it." Dōgen briefly visited Eisai Zenji around 1214. [Note 13] According to Hōkyōki, Dōgen’s autobiographical record discovered only in 1930, Dōgen once said of himself: "Later I entered the chamber of Zen Master Senkō (Eisai) and first heard the style of the Rinzai School." Senkō Zenji is Eisai, but because Eisai was busy propagating Rinzai Zen between Kyoto and Kamakura, and moreover passed away the following year, Dōgen likely did not learn much from Eisai. In 1217, Dōgen took Myōzen, a high disciple of Eisai, as his teacher at Kennin-ji, learning the profound meanings of Exoteric and Esoteric Buddhism and the Vinaya precepts. However, after several years of exploration, he still could not obtain an answer to unlock his "Great Doubt." He once recounted: "I first gave rise to the mind of the Way precisely because of impermanence. I visited various directions for study, finally taking leave of the (Hiei) mountain gate and staying at Kennin-ji. During that time, I did not meet a clear teacher or good friend, and was deeply trapped by confusion and delusional thoughts." [Note 14]

Because Dōgen’s confusion remained unresolved, and Kōin had encouraged him to "enter Song to seek the Way," in the second year of Jōō (1223), he went to Song China to seek the Dharma with his teacher Myōzen and others. After arriving at Qingyuan Prefecture in Mingzhou, Myōzen went ahead to stay at Tiantong Mountain, while Dōgen remained on the ship for about three months. According to Kodera Takashi’s speculation, Dōgen could not immediately stay at Tiantong Mountain with Myōzen perhaps because he had only received the Bodhisattva Precepts but had not yet received the full Bhikṣu precepts. [Note 15]

Dōgen utilized these three months to visit nearby mountain temples, sampling the Chan style and character of Chinese Buddhism. During this time, there was one experience that not only gave Dōgen great benefit in his process of seeking the Dharma in Song but also deeply influenced his future view of Buddha-nature as "oneness of practice and realization" and his view of practice; Dōgen described this cause and condition in detail in Tenzo Kyōkun (Instructions for the Cook). [Note 16] One day, an old Tenzo (head cook) from Ayuwang Temple came to the ship wishing to buy Japanese-produced "shiitake mushrooms" to cook as an offering to the assembly of monks from the ten directions. Dōgen invited him to stay "in the ship for conversation to form a good connection," but the old Tenzo said he had to rush back to the temple to prepare the meal and gruel for the great assembly the next day. Dōgen then said: "In the temple, are there no colleagues to understand the meals and gruel? If the Tenzo alone is absent, what deficiency would there be?" The old Tenzo replied gravely: "I am old and hold this office; this is the practice of the Way in my declining years; how can I yield it to others? Furthermore, when I came, I did not ask for leave to stay overnight." From this, one can see the old Tenzo’s utter devotion to his duty, regarding the daily "understanding of meals and gruel" as "practicing the Way" (bendō). But at this time, Dōgen had not yet grasped this meaning and asked him again: "Venerable sir, why not sit in meditation (zazen) to practice the Way and read the kōans (huatou) of the ancients? What is the good in troubling yourself to fill the role of Tenzo and just working?" The old Tenzo laughed greatly and said: "Foreigner, you have not yet understood practicing the Way, and you do not yet know what characters are." Upon hearing this, Dōgen "suddenly felt ashamed and surprised" and asked him: "What are characters? What is practicing the Way?" The old Tenzo said: "If you do not stumble over the place of questioning, how could you not be the person?" At that time Dōgen could not grasp his meaning; the old Tenzo invited Dōgen to go to Ayuwang Temple another day to "discuss the principle of characters." Two months later, when the old Tenzo resigned from the post of Tenzo and was preparing to return to his hometown, knowing that Dōgen was staying at Tiantong Mountain, he came specifically to meet him. Dōgen was overjoyed and hurriedly asked again about the question regarding characters and practicing the Way mentioned in the ship the other day:

The Tenzo said: "One who studies characters does so to know characters; one who engages in practicing the Way needs to affirm practicing the Way." Dōgen asked: "What are characters?" The Tenzo said: "One, two, three, four, five." Again he asked: "What is practicing the Way?" The Tenzo said: "Manifest everywhere, nothing hidden."

Hearing the old Tenzo’s teaching, Dōgen evidently had a realization, for he admitted, "That this mountain monk dares to know characters and understand practicing the Way is the great grace of that Tenzo." Later, Dōgen saw that Xuedou Zenji had a verse saying: "One letter, seven letters, three or five letters; investigating myriad forms, none are a basis. In the depth of night, the moon is white, descending into the dark ocean; search for the black dragon's pearl, how many are there?" Corresponding with what the Tenzo said, he felt even more that the Tenzo was a "true man of the Way." Based on the realization from this experience, Dōgen admonished his disciples saying:

"The characters looked at formerly were one, two, three, four, five; the characters looked at today are also six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Later on, brothers, looking from this end to that end, looking from that end to this end, making such effort, you will then understand the One-Flavor Zen of characters. If not so, being poisoned by the Five-Flavor Zen of various directions, arranging the monks' food, you will not be able to have good hands." [Note 17]

In summary, in the kōan-style answers imbued with Chan wit between him and the old Tenzo, Dōgen realized two great principles. First, although the Zen School has the so-called tradition of "not establishing characters," and Dōgen also repeatedly emphasized "just sitting" (shikantaza) in his method of practice, Dōgen never rejected "Character Buddhism" (Lettered Buddhism). In fact, Dōgen was a master deeply versed in the "Samādhi of Characters"; not only did he write philosophical and practical masterpieces such as Shōbōgenzō, Gakudō Yōjin-shū, and Fukan Zazengi, but he was also able to interpret sūtra texts creatively (even deliberately misreading) as he wished to express his own unique insights. Just as he said himself, being able to "look from this end to that end, look from that end to this end, making such effort, then understanding the One-Flavor Zen of characters."

Second, Dōgen witnessed the view of practicing the Way of "manifest everywhere, nothing hidden" of the Chinese Chan School from the old Tenzo, causing Dōgen—who originally thought "sitting in meditation to practice the Way and reading the kōans of the ancients" was superior to "troubling to fill the role of Tenzo and just working"—to understand the Chan style of "hauling firewood and carrying water, everywhere is the Dōjō (place of practice)." This is also why, after returning to his country, Dōgen wrote Tenzo Kyōkun, detailing that secular tasks generally considered as daily preparation of meals and gruel are in fact "the karma of nurturing the Sacred Embryo." More importantly, this experience was also a factor constituting Dōgen’s view of Buddha-nature as "oneness of practice and realization" and his view of practice-realization. In other words, Dōgen realized that the old Tenzo earnestly treating daily secular tasks as "practicing the Way" and "Buddha work" is precisely the best paradigm of the non-duality of practice and realization: "realization within practice, practice within realization."

Although Dōgen had the opportunity to meet a good spiritual friend like the old Tenzo not long after arriving in Great Song, he still could not resolve his "Great Doubt" regarding Buddha-nature. In the following two or three years, Dōgen visited the elders of various mountains such as Tiantong Mountain, Ayuwang Temple, and Jingshan Wanshou Temple; disappointed and frustrated at seeking a true teacher everywhere but failing to find one, an old monk told Dōgen that Tiantong Rujing (1163-1228) [Note 18] had taken over as abbot of Tiantong Mountain and encouraged him to go there to seek the Dharma. Dōgen formally paid respects to Rujing on the first day of the fifth month in the first year of Baoqing (1225). Hōkyōki records Dōgen recounting his mental journey of seeking the Dharma and looking for a teacher to Rujing, and earnestly requesting to be gathered in and taught. [Note 19] Upon seeing Dōgen, Rujing knew he was a vessel (dragon and elephant) of the Dharma and specially permitted him to come to the Abbot's quarters at any time, day or night, to ask about the Way and request instruction. Thus, the two established a master-disciple friendship of "spiritual resonance and mutual limitlessness," [Note 20] fulfilling Dōgen’s wish to find a "True Teacher." What kind of True Teacher was Dōgen seeking? He explained in the Eihei Shoso Gakudō Yōjin-shū (Collection of Guidelines for Learning the Way by the First Ancestor of Eihei):

Now, a true teacher is not asked about being old or a senior elder; only if he clarifies the True Dharma and receives the seal of verification of a true teacher. Characters are not prioritized, intellectual understanding is not prioritized; having the strength of a standard, having the spirit of going beyond nodes (limitations), not being constrained by self-view, not stagnating in emotional consciousness, practice and understanding corresponding—this is then a true teacher. [Note 21]

During the two years Dōgen served his true teacher Rujing, he asked about many difficulties, including doctrinal problems such as the nature of good and evil, cause and effect, and definitive sūtras, and practical problems such as the root of practicing the Way, methods of zazen, and removing the six coverings, and even problems of daily life such as wearing socks, putting on the Dharma robe, and keeping long hair or long nails. Among them, the most important were the teachings regarding Chan methods and the answer to Dōgen’s "Great Doubt." Dōgen recorded Rujing’s important teachings on Chan methods in Hōkyōki:

The Abbot (Zen Master Rujing) instructed: "Practicing Zen is the casting off of body and mind. [Note 22] No need for burning incense, prostration, reciting Buddha-names, practicing repentance, or reading sūtras; just sit (shikantaza) and that is all." I bowed and asked: "What is casting off body and mind?" The Abbot instructed: "Casting off body and mind is zazen. When just sitting, separate from the five desires and remove the five coverings." [Note 23]

Rujing’s Chan method is to exclude other practice methods such as reciting Buddha-names, bowing in repentance, and reading sūtras during Chan practice, and just sit until entering the state of casting off body and mind. As for what the state of "casting off body and mind" is? Rujing’s answer is that casting off body and mind is zazen, and when just sitting, the bodily state and mental state must "cast off" the five desires (wealth, sex, fame, food, sleep) and the five coverings (greed, anger, drowsiness, restlessness/regret, doubt). Regarding this, Dōgen raised a doubt: "If separating from five desires and removing five coverings, this is identical to what is discussed by the doctrinal schools; is it then the practitioner of the two vehicles of Great and Small?" All schools of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna Buddhism emphasize that practitioners must separate from five desires and remove five coverings; if so, how is the practitioner of the "Zen Sect" different from practitioners of other "Doctrinal Schools" of the Great and Small vehicles? Rujing answered: "Descendant of the Ancestors! You must not strongly dislike what is said by the two vehicles of Great and Small. If a student goes against the sacred teaching of the Tathāgata, how can he be called a descendant of the Buddhas and Ancestors?" [Note 24] From this, it can be seen that compared to some "Wild Chan" practitioners at the time who believed "the three poisons are the Buddhadharma, the five desires are the Ancestral Way," [Note 25] although Rujing did not emphasize traditional phenomenal forms of practice such as burning incense, prostration, and practicing repentance, he attached great importance to the purification of the mind-nature; this deeply influenced Dōgen’s thought of "original realization and marvelous practice." Dōgen himself had a more philosophically rich explanation of the meaning of "casting off body and mind":

To study the Buddha Way is to study oneself. To study oneself is to forget oneself. To forget oneself is to be verified by myriad dharmas. To be verified by myriad dharmas is to drop off the body and mind of oneself and the body and mind of others. There is a trace of enlightenment that rests; bringing forth the resting enlightenment trace, it goes on continuously. [Note 26]

Besides learning the essence of Rujing’s Chan method, Dōgen also resolved his Great Doubt concerning Buddha-nature from Rujing. According to Dōgen’s own records in Hōkyōki, there was the following question and answer between master and disciple:

(Dōgen) bowed and asked: "Ancient and modern good spiritual friends say: 'Like a fish drinking water, it knows for itself whether it is cold or warm; this self-knowing is awakening (bodhi).' They take this as the realization of Bodhi. Dōgen criticizes saying: 'If self-knowing is correct awakening, all sentient beings have self-knowing. Since all sentient beings possess self-knowing, can they be the Tathāgatas of correct awakening?' Someone said: 'It is so; all sentient beings are beginningless inherently existing Tathāgatas.' Someone said: 'All sentient beings are not necessarily Tathāgatas. Why? If one knows that self-aware nature-wisdom is awakening, that is a Tathāgata; one who does not know is not.' Are such sayings the Buddhadharma?" (Rujing) The Monk said: "If one says that all sentient beings are originally Buddhas, this is the same as the Naturalist Non-Buddhists (Svabhāvavāda). To compare the self and what belongs to the self to the Buddhas, one cannot avoid claiming attainment when not attained, claiming realization when not realized." [Note 27]

In the above quote, the "self-knowing" mentioned by Dōgen is the Buddha-nature of correct awakening. And his question is: since all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, can they become Tathāgatas of correct awakening based on this Buddha-nature? Regarding this question, there have historically been two views. One is that all sentient beings are inherently Tathāgatas since beginningless time; the other view is that sentient beings are not necessarily Tathāgatas; those sentient beings who can self-realize and know the self-aware nature-wisdom (Buddha-nature) are Tathāgatas, and those who cannot self-realize and know are not Tathāgatas. Rujing opposed the former; he believed that asserting "all sentient beings are originally Buddhas" is the same as "Naturalist Non-Buddhists," [Note 28] regarding realization and becoming a Buddha as arising without cause, which completely fails to accord with the Buddhist Dharma of causes and conditions. Because of such clear instruction from Rujing, Dōgen finally understood that only through single-minded "just sitting," undergoing the tempering of "casting off body and mind" and "casting off 'casting off'," can one reach the experiential realization of Buddha-nature. But this process is not a "one-way" linear progression, but a "circular" continuous cyclical process; this is what Dōgen meant in Shōbōgenzō Bendōwa when he said, "Practice based on realization, then realization is without limit; realization based on practice, then practice has no beginning." [Note 29]

In the third year of Baoqing (1227), Dōgen bid farewell to Rujing, preparing to leave Song and return to his country; Rujing conferred the Sōtō lineage document upon him, formally succeeding Rujing’s Robe and Bowl, completing his self-described "Great Matter of a lifetime of study, saying: it is finished." [Note 30] Later, when describing his mental journey of seeking the Dharma in Song to his disciples, Dōgen said: "This mountain monk did not traverse many thickets (monasteries); I just casually saw the late teacher Tiantong. However, not being deceived by Tiantong, Tiantong was instead deceived by this mountain monk. Recently I returned home empty-handed; therefore this mountain monk has no Buddhadharma, trusting in destiny and passing the time. Morning after morning the sun rises in the east; night after night the moon sets in the west; clouds gather and the mountain valley is quiet; rain passes and the four mountains are low; every three years there must be a leap year; the cock crows towards the fifth watch." [Note 31] Most special is Dōgen’s "returning home empty-handed." Unlike others who went to India or China to seek the Dharma, what Dōgen brought back was not any sūtra books or Buddha images, but the self that had already realized the truth of the Buddhadharma, implying that the self is the embodiment of the Buddhadharma, fully expressing confidence in himself. Although Dōgen claimed "this mountain monk has no Buddhadharma," he was able to be free and at ease, naturally as "morning after morning the sun rises in the east, night after night the moon sets in the west, every three years there must be a leap year, the cock crows towards the fifth watch."

Dōgen was twenty-six years old when he returned to Japan; he devoted himself to propagation and writing until he entered quiescence (passed away) in the fifth year of Kenchō (1253). [Note 32] Among them, the most important was the completion of major works such as Shōbōgenzō, Eihei Kōroku, Eihei Shingi, and Fukan Zazengi, while his Buddha-nature thought comes from the most philosophical Shōbōgenzō and Eihei Kōroku. Since Buddha-nature thought has a long history and different meanings appeared in different classics and different sects, there are many points of controversy. In order to fully understand the background of Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought, it is necessary to first understand the development of Buddha-nature thought.

II. The Development of Buddha-nature Thought

For Buddhists, there are three ultimate religious questions: The first question is what is the nature of their pursued religious goal—"Buddha"? The second question is what is the nature of themselves as ordinary sentient beings? The third question is how to relate the two to achieve their ultimate goal of becoming a Buddha. Since the Āgama Sūtras, the sūtras and śāstras of the Great and Small Vehicles have constantly discussed these questions. The "self-nature pure mind" (prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta) stated in the Āgama Sūtras as "This mind is extremely luminous and pure, but defiled by adventitious dust and afflictions" is the source of the Buddha-nature theory. The Mind-Nature theory of the Āgama Sūtras basically believes that the nature of the mind of ordinary beings is essentially pure and is identical to the nature of the Buddha’s mind, but because ordinary beings "have no learning, do not cultivate the mind, and do not understand as it really is," [Note 33] their pure mind is stained by afflictions. Afflictions and the pure mind have a relationship of adventitious dust; they are not intrinsic; therefore, as long as sentient beings devote themselves to hearing, thinking, and practicing, they can remove afflictions. Although the self-nature pure mind in the Āgama Sūtras implies the purity of "self-nature," expressing its subjectivity (relative to the objectivity of afflictions), it still belongs to a relatively static and passive existence, unlike the "self-nature pure mind" (tathāgatagarbha) in the later Tathāgatagarbha system of thought, which contains dynamic and active characteristics. The Mind-Nature theory of the Āgama Sūtras presents a simple theory of mind cultivation practice; however, its theory of the mind-nature being originally pure and afflictions being adventitious dust established the basic model for the Mind-Nature theory of future Buddha-nature.

In Sectarian Buddhism, the Mahāsāṃghika and the Vibhajyavāda followed the statement of the Āgama Sūtras, continuing to propagate the theory of the original purity of mind-nature, believing that before cutting off afflictions, the self-nature of sentient beings is pure in nature but defiled in appearance, as the Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra says: "Because the Noble Path has not yet manifested and afflictions are not yet cut off, the mind has latent dispositions (anuśaya). When the Noble Path manifests and afflictions are cut off, the mind is without latent dispositions. Although this mind differs when having latent dispositions and when without latent dispositions, the nature is one." [Note 34] However, the theory of the mind’s self-purity was not universally accepted by all sects; the Sarvāstivāda considered it "not sūtra" and "not definitive teaching." The Satyasiddhi Śāstra also says: "The mind-nature is not originally pure; it is impure because of adventitious dust; but the Buddha, for the sake of sentient beings, saying the mind is always present, thus says that when stained by adventitious dust, the mind is impure. Also, the Buddha, for lazy sentient beings—if they heard the mind is originally impure, they would think the nature cannot be changed and would not give rise to a pure mind—therefore says it is originally pure." [Note 35] The thought of the Satyasiddhi Śāstra belongs to the Sautrāntika, which does not advocate the original purity of mind-nature but believes that the theory of original purity is an expedient teaching by the Buddha to encourage lazy sentient beings, because it has a considerable gap with the fundamental purport of "non-self" in primitive Buddhism.

After the rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it continued to propagate the theory of the original purity of mind-nature, with each school interpreting it according to its own unique standpoint. For example, the Prajñā school explained the self-nature pure mind from the standpoint of its basic doctrine "Emptiness." As the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "When a Bodhisattva practices the Prajñāpāramitā, he should learn thus: do not think this is the Bodhisattva mind. Why? This mind is no-mind; the characteristic of the mind is originally pure." [Note 36] The Prajñā Sūtras explain mind purity as "no-mind." "No-mind" implies mind is empty, mind is unobtainable, transcending existence and non-existence. Therefore, in the sūtra, when Śāriputra asked whether "no-mind" (i.e., self-nature pure mind) exists, Subhūti replied: "In the nature of no-mind, existence and non-existence are unobtainable; how can you ask whether this mind is existent or is the nature of no-mind?" [Note 37] According to the meaning of Prajñā Emptiness, "mind" is certainly unobtainable, and "no-mind" is also unobtainable. Inferring thus, self-nature purity is also unobtainable, neither existent nor non-existent. In the Prajñā Dharma-gate, all dharmas are "empty in original nature," and on this basis, it speaks of "pure in original nature." This is exactly what the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra says: "Ultimate emptiness is ultimate purity." [Note 38] The Prajñā Dharma-gate regards the mind as self-nature pure because it is established on its self-nature emptiness. This explanation certainly accords with Prajñā doctrine, but it differs greatly from the self-nature pure mind developed later in the True Permanence (Tathāgatagarbha) system, which contains two layers: "empty" and "non-empty." Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra says: "Because people fear emptiness, therefore say purity," [Note 39] regarding the theory of mind purity as an expedient teaching, which is also contrary to the fundamental purport of the True Permanence theory.

What systematized the theory of original purity of mind-nature was the Tathāgatagarbha theory that arose around the third century. [Note 40] The term "tathāgatagarbha" gradually replaced self-nature pure mind. Tathāgatagarbha is a compound word of Tathāgata and garbha. Tathāgata contains two meanings: tathā-gata and tathā-āgata. The former implies practicing the "Suchness" real dharma and "going" (going from birth-and-death to Nirvāṇa); the latter implies riding the "Suchness" real dharma and "coming" (coming from Nirvāṇa to birth-and-death). "Garbha" also has two meanings: womb (fetus) and mother’s womb. Therefore, tathāgatagarbha can mean the Tathāgata’s mother’s womb (gestating a new life) or the fetus Tathāgata (the new life already gestated). The former symbolizes the "causal nature" of the Tathāgata, while the latter symbolizes the "fruitional nature" of the Tathāgata. From these two most primitive meanings of tathāgatagarbha, later relative concepts developed such as so-called "self-nature purity" (prakṛti-viśuddhi) and "purity separating from defilement" (vaimalya-viśuddhi), "inherent existence" and "incidental existence" (originated existence), "original enlightenment" (hongaku) and "actualized enlightenment" (shikaku). In the development of these concepts, deductive interpretations were added (such as the Original Enlightenment thought of the Japanese Tendai School), and this is precisely where Dōgen’s doubt lay.

There are quite a few sūtras and śāstras concerning Tathāgatagarbha thought, but the mainstream ones include the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Anūnatvāpūrṇatva Nirdeśa (Sūtra on Neither Increasing Nor Decreasing), Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, and Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Jewel Nature). The Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra is the most important classic establishing the basic framework of the Tathāgatagarbha theory. Although its length is very short, its subject is quite clear; the sūtra uses nine metaphors to point directly to the central thought of the Tathāgatagarbha system: "All sentient beings possess the tathāgatagarbha." The Anūnatvāpūrṇatva Nirdeśa explains the meanings of emptiness, non-emptiness, and equality of the tathāgatagarbha from the non-increasing and non-decreasing of the realm of sentient beings; its text is concise and meaning precise, close to the style of a treatise, and serves as an important basis for Tathāgatagarbha doctrine. The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra emphasizes the supremacy of the "True Dharma" (One Vehicle), speaking of the tathāgatagarbha self-nature pure mind from the elucidation of the One Vehicle, and for the first time explains the tathāgatagarbha with "empty tathāgatagarbha" and "non-empty tathāgatagarbha," possessing profound characteristics. The Ratnagotravibhāga is a comprehensive treatise representing Tathāgatagarbha studies. It broadly cites various sūtras and śāstras, discussing Tathāgatagarbha thought in detail from levels such as Buddha Jewel, Dharma Jewel, Sangha Jewel, Buddha-nature, Bodhi, Qualities, and Karma (Seven Vajra Topics); especially, it explains "all sentient beings possess the tathāgatagarbha" with three meanings: "Dharma-body permeating, True Suchness undifferentiated, and Real Existence of Buddha-nature," further highlighting its characteristics.

Besides the above mainstream "Three Sūtras and One Treatise," the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is also a key text expounding the tathāgatagarbha, having a far more profound influence on Chinese and Japanese Buddhism. In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the term "Buddha-nature" replaced tathāgatagarbha. Although Buddha-nature and tathāgatagarbha share the same meaning, Buddha-nature is not translated from tathāgatagarbha, buddhatā, or buddhatva. According to some scholars comparing the Sanskrit and Tibetan original texts containing the term Buddha-nature, it was found that "Buddha-nature" is translated from buddhadhātu (Buddha-element/realm). [Note 41] Buddhadhātu contains two meanings: (1) The nature of the Buddha: the nature (dhātu=dhāmatā, element = dharma-nature) of the Buddha, (2) The causal nature of the Buddha: the cause (dhātu=hetu, element = cause) of the Buddha. Regarding the former, Buddha-nature is the essence of all Buddhas and also the innate basis for sentient beings to become Buddhas; regarding the latter, it is the motive force for sentient beings to truly become Buddhas. Therefore, addressing the former, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra talks extensively about "The Tathāgata is permanently abiding without change" and the "Four Virtues of Nirvāṇa: Permanence, Bliss, Self, and Purity," while addressing the latter, it emphasizes "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." As for whether there is a necessary relationship between "universally possessing Buddha-nature" and "ultimately becoming a Buddha," it leaves much room for discussion. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra on the one hand advocates the "Theory of Tathāgata Permanence" and "Four Virtues of Nirvāṇa" which imply "Existence," and on the other hand interprets the Middle Way "Emptiness of the First Principle" as "Correct Cause Buddha-nature," which is also a noteworthy doctrine.

Although the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is the most important basis for Chinese Buddhist Buddha-nature thought, in the history of its entire development, the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (Dàshéng Qǐxìn Lùn) had the greatest influence. The central doctrine of the Awakening of Faith can be synthesized as "One Mind, Two Gates, Three Greats, Four Faiths, Five Practices." "One Mind" refers to the "Sentient Being Mind," which is the tathāgatagarbha self-nature pure mind inherent in sentient beings; it simultaneously contains attributes of two aspects (Two Gates): the "Gate of Mind as True Suchness" which is pure and original, and the "Gate of Mind as Arising and Ceasing" which is defiled following the Three Subtle and Six Coarse aspects. But regardless of which "Gate" the sentient being's mind-nature is in, it basically possesses the "Three Greats." Regarding its "Greatness of Essence," the sentient being's mind-essence is empty of falsity, the True Mind is constant and unchanging; what is expressed in the "Greatness of Characteristics" of the sentient being's mind is the immeasurable and endless Buddha-qualities and pure dharmas it contains; and the "Greatness of Function" of the sentient being's mind lies in its ability to exert its nature of endless qualities, becoming inconceivable altruistic karma-functions, producing all worldly and trans-worldly good causes and effects, finally achieving the goal of becoming a Buddha.

The basic standpoint of the Awakening of Faith is the One Mind theory of the Dharma-realm, attempting to reconcile and explain how the self-nature pure mind of the True Suchness Gate and the defiled false mind of the Arising and Ceasing Gate are fused within "One Mind." Within the framework of the Tathāgatagarbha dependent origination theory, the Awakening of Faith used the terms "Original Enlightenment" (hongaku) and "Actualized Enlightenment" (shikaku); the former refers to the tathāgatagarbha pure mind in the state of "enlightenment," while the latter refers to the defiled mind that follows defilement in "non-enlightenment." The Original Enlightenment theory of the Awakening of Faith gradually merged with the Mind-Only Dharma-gate of the Huayan School; Chengguan’s "One Mind of Numinous Awareness Unobscured" and Zongmi’s "Original Enlightenment True Mind" were both deeply influenced by the Original Enlightenment theory. After sūtras and śāstras such as the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment (Yuánjué Jīng) and the Commentary on the Mahāyāna Treatise (Shì Móhēyǎn Lùn) were successively translated, the Original Enlightenment thought that sentient beings are "originally Buddhas" gradually developed, which also deeply influenced the Original Enlightenment Dharma-gate of the Japanese Tendai School, and this is exactly where Dōgen’s doubt arose.

The key figure in the development of Buddha-nature thought in Chinese Buddhism was Zhu Daosheng (355-434). Before the large version of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra was transmitted, he was able to "have solitary insight arise first," advocating that because all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, icchantikas can also become Buddhas, opening up the grand occasion of contending views on Buddha-nature theories during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period. At that time, there were the so-called "Eleven Houses of Correct Cause Buddha-nature" in the Treatise on the Mystery of the Mahāyāna (Dàshéng Xuán Lùn) and the "Three Root Houses and Three Branch Houses of Correct Cause Buddha-nature" in the Dàshéng Xuán Lùn; all houses focused on the definition of the term Buddha-nature, reflecting the initial understanding of Buddha-nature. By the Sui and Tang dynasties, the Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan schools expounded the content of Buddha-nature thought in greater depth and with creative interpretations, and the Nature School and Characteristic School also had brilliant debates on "One Nature, All Attain" versus "Five Natures, Each Distinct."

Huayan Buddha-nature thought is based on its "Nature Origination" (xingqi) theory, developing the Dharma-realm Dependent Origination theory, advocating that all sentient beings are fully endowed with Tathāgata wisdom, and all dharmas arise according to nature, which is precisely the manifestation of Buddha-nature. Relative to the Nature Origination theory of Huayan, the Tiantai School advocates "Nature Inclusion" (xingju), meaning all dharmas include one dharma, and one dharma includes all dharmas. On the basis of Nature Inclusion thoughts such as "Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought," "Mutual Inclusion of the Ten Realms," and "Perfect Fusion of the Three Truths," the Tiantai School proposed the most creative Buddha-nature thoughts of "Theory of Inherent Evil" and "Grass and Trees Becoming Buddhas." The "Theory of Inherent Evil" pushed the exploration of the essence of Buddha-nature to another level; namely, at the Fruition Stage, it is undisputed that Buddha-nature inherently possesses immeasurable pure dharmas (Inherent Good), but does "Inherent Evil" also exist simultaneously? The "Theory of Inherent Evil" believes that both Buddhas and icchantikas possess Inherent Good and Inherent Evil; the difference is that although icchantikas possess Inherent Good, they have not cut off Cultivated Evil, whereas although Buddhas do not cut off Inherent Evil, they do not give rise to Cultivated Evil. Besides showing that the Buddha can contain evil freely ("be at ease with evil"), the greatest significance of the Theory of Inherent Evil lies in proving that icchantikas can eventually become Buddhas due to Inherent Good.

The Tiantai master who most powerfully advocated that insentient beings have nature and that grass and trees become Buddhas was Zhanran; in the Diamond Scalpel (Jin’gang Pī), he used thoughts such as True Suchness being pervasive and the Three Causes of Buddha-nature, structured upon the theory of Nature Inclusion, to demonstrate that insentient beings have nature and can even become Buddhas, pushing Chinese Buddha-nature thought to its highest point. In his writings, Dōgen also advocated the theory that insentient beings have nature.

The initial propagator of Japanese Buddhist Original Enlightenment thought was Kūkai (774-835); in Jūjūshinron (Ten Abiding Stages of Mind), Hizō Hōyaku (Precious Key to the Secret Treasury), and Ben Kenmitsu Nikyōron (Treatise Distinguishing the Two Teachings of Exoteric and Esoteric), he widely cited the Original Enlightenment theory of the Commentary on the Mahāyāna Treatise, [Note 42] such as "Pure Original Enlightenment, from beginningless time, does not look to practice, is not obtained by other power, nature-virtue is perfect, original wisdom is complete." [Note 43] In Kongōchōkyō Kaidai (Introduction to the Vajraśekhara Sūtra), Kūkai absolutized Original Enlightenment even more, saying: "Self and other are Original Enlightenment Buddhas, thus naturally self-enlightened, originally endowed with the Three Bodies and Four Virtues, beginninglessly perfect with constant-sand qualities." [Note 44] Kūkai’s Shingon Esotericism had a great influence on later Tiantai Original Enlightenment thought.

After Saichō (767-822) of Mount Hiei introduced Original Enlightenment thought from the Chinese Tiantai School, the Japanese Tendai School continuously promoted Original Enlightenment thought. [Note 45] Saichō’s Honri Taikō Shū (Collection of the Great Outline of Original Principles) is a representative work of early Tendai Original Enlightenment thought; this book explains Original Enlightenment thought from four "Original Principles": Theory of Three Bodies, Theory of Five Periods, Theory of Mutual Inclusion of Ten Realms, and Theory of the Letter A. Furthermore, in the Tendai Hokkeshū Gozu Hōmon Yōsan, Saichō explained Original Enlightenment with concepts such as "Buddha-realm does not increase," "Afflictions are Bodhi," "Becoming a Buddha in this very body," and "Ignorance is brilliance." His statements such as "My form and mind are originally Buddha; sentient beings are originally Buddhas" and "Taking mind-nature Original Enlightenment as the uncreated real Buddha" all became the basis for later Tendai Original Enlightenment thought. [Note 46] Between the Heian period and the early Kamakura period, Ryōgen (912-985) and Genshin (942-1017) were representative figures. Ryōgen wrote Hongaku-san (Praise of Original Enlightenment) and Chū Hongaku-san (Annotated Praise of Original Enlightenment); his high disciple Genshin (942-1017) wrote Hongaku-san Shaku (Commentary on Praise of Original Enlightenment) explaining the meanings of Actualized Enlightenment and Original Enlightenment in detail. Additionally, in his Shinnyokan (Contemplation of True Suchness), Genshin further deduced Original Enlightenment into "Original Enlightenment True Suchness," saying: "All sentient beings come from the principle of Original Enlightenment True Suchness," "Grass, trees, tiles, pebbles, mountains, rivers, great earth, great ocean, and empty space are all True Suchness Buddha-things. Facing empty space, empty space is Buddha; facing the great earth, the great earth is Buddha." [Note 47] Original Enlightenment thought not only implied "this very body is Buddha" for sentient beings but also extended to the level of insentient "grass, trees, and lands all becoming Buddhas."

The late Kamakura Buddhism period (13th century) was the period when Tendai Original Enlightenment thought was systematized; Chūjin (1065-1138) was a representative figure, with works such as Kankō Ruiju and Hokke Ryakugi Kenmon, among which "Fourfold Rise and Fall" is a characteristic. "Fourfold" refers to "Pre-Lotus," "Trace Gate" (shakumon / gonmon), "Original Gate" (honmon), and "Mind Contemplation" (kanjin). Discussing "Afflictions are Bodhi" through the "Fourfold Rise and Fall": "In the Pre-Lotus Great Teaching, afflictions are not Bodhi; in the Trace Gate Great Teaching, afflictions are Bodhi; in the Original Gate Great Teaching, afflictions are afflictions, Bodhi is Bodhi; in the Contemplation Gate Great Teaching, neither afflictions nor Bodhi." [Note 48] In other words, one can understand the progressive stages of the Fourfold from Principle and Phenomenon (Li and Shi): Principle-Dualism / Phenomenon-Dualism (Pre-Lotus); Principle-Monism / Phenomenon-Dualism (Trace Gate); Principle-Monism / Phenomenon-Monism (Original Gate); Principle-Phenomenon Radical Monism (Mind Contemplation). [Note 49] Speaking from this progressive order, the "Mind Contemplation" of the final fold is the most superior, developing the ultimate essential of "One Thought Already Realized" and "Mind Contemplation Inner Realization," which easily leads to the Original Gate bias emphasizing "Original Enlightenment, Uncreated, Principle-Accomplished," neglecting the Trace Gate of "Actualized Enlightenment, Created, Phenomenon-Accomplished." Therefore, in Kankō Ruiju, Chūjin questioned: "If the essence of evil is the contemplation of evil, what about evil unobstructed evil view? If based on this one says all dharmas are originally Buddhadharma, how can one remove evil?" and "Does the practitioner of cessation and contemplation (śamatha-vipaśyanā) not fear the evil karma of killing and stealing and act willfully?" Answer: "If one commits evil karma naturally and uncreatedly, it is not contradictory. Avalokiteśvara manifests as a fisherman killing various fish and insects..." [Note 50] The development of Japanese Tendai Original Enlightenment thought, besides producing the extreme idea of "this very body is Buddha, what need is there to practice," also produced this moral deviation of "evil is unobstructed" and not distinguishing good and evil. These misunderstandings of Original Enlightenment had already attracted criticism at the time. Hōchibō Shōshin (named for staying at Hōchibō) is an example. In Hokke Genyi Shiki (Personal Notes on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra) within his work Hokke Sandai-bu Shiki, Shōshin criticized "Originally Self-Enlightened Buddha" as violating sūtras, violating treatises, violating the sect, violating names, and violating principles, and thus not the true meaning of Buddhadharma. [Note 51] In summary, Dōgen launched his journey of exploring the true meaning of Original Enlightenment against this background of many controversies surrounding Original Enlightenment thought.

III. Dōgen’s View of Buddha-nature

Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought is scattered throughout chapters of Shōbōgenzō such as "Busshō" (Buddha-nature), "Bendōwa," "Sokushin Zebutsu" (Mind Here and Now is Buddha), and "Gyōbutsu Iigi" (Dignified Demeanor of Acting Buddha), among which the "Busshō" chapter is naturally the most important. This was a teaching given by Dōgen to the monks at Kannondōri Kōshōhōrin-ji in Kyoto on the fourteenth day of the tenth month in the second year of Ninji (1241). Regarding Buddha-nature, there are several key questions: What is the ultimate essence of the Buddha (Buddha-nature)? What is the ultimate essence of sentient beings (having Buddha-nature, no Buddha-nature, or impermanence-Buddha-nature)? What is the connection between the ultimate essence of Buddha and sentient beings (is it one, is it two)? How is the essence of sentient beings elevated to the essence of Buddha (is it original realization, marvelous practice, or non-duality of practice and realization)? These questions are actually the most fundamental and important questions of the entire Buddhadharma, only that different sūtras, śāstras, and sects have their own unique explanations. In Dōgen’s time, both Exoteric (Tendai) and Esoteric (Shingon) had developed a Buddha-nature view of "Originally inherent Dharma-nature, naturally distinct self-nature body"; thus Dōgen’s subsequent question was naturally "If one is originally formed of Dharma-body and Dharma-nature, why further give rise to the mind to cultivate the Bodhi Way?" Actually, before this question, there is another question: if sentient beings are originally formed of Dharma-body and Dharma-nature, why are Buddha and sentient beings different? Because there is a difference, one needs to give rise to the mind to practice. In short, based on these questions, Dōgen not only established his view of Buddha-nature but, more importantly, established his view of practice and realization, thoroughly resolving the great doubt of his religious life.

The content of the "Busshō" chapter of Shōbōgenzō can be classified as follows: [Note 52] (I) Introductory Section: The Meaning of Buddha-nature in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra and Dōgen’s Interpretation of Buddha-nature 1. The Meaning of "All Sentient Beings Possess Buddha-nature" 2. Refutation of the Śreṇika View taking Buddha-nature as the subject of awareness 3. Refutation of the Ordinary Sentiment taking Buddha-nature as seeds of grass and trees 4. Theory of Temporal Conditions (Time) of Buddha-nature (II) Views of Buddha-nature by Ancestral Teachers 1. Aśvaghoṣa’s "Buddha-nature Ocean" 2. The Fourth Ancestor Daoxin’s "No Buddha-nature" 3. The Fifth Ancestor Hongren’s "People of Lingnan Have No Buddha-nature" 4. The Sixth Ancestor Huineng’s "Impermanence-Buddha-nature" 5. Nāgārjuna’s "Phase of the Full Moon" 6. Yanguan Qi’an’s "All Sentient Beings Have Buddha-nature" 7. Guishan Lingyou’s "All Sentient Beings Have No Buddha-nature" 8. Baizhang Huaihai’s "The Five Skandhas Not Destroyed is the Body of the Pure Wondrous Land" 9. Q&A between Huangbo and Nanquan "Disciplines of Samādhi and Prajñā, Clearly Seeing Buddha-nature" 10. Zhaozhou Congshen’s "Dog’s Buddha-nature" 11. Changsha Jingcen’s "Earthworm Cut in Two" Kōan on Buddha-nature (III) Conclusion


1. Definition of Buddha-nature: "Whole Being" is "Buddha-nature"

In the "Busshō" chapter, Dōgen quotes right at the beginning the famous line from the Lion’s Roar Chapter of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature (Issai shujō shitsuu busshō); the Tathāgata is permanently abiding without change," praising this as the World-Honored One’s Lion’s Roar of turning the Dharma Wheel, and the Crown Eye of all Buddhas and Ancestors. Originally, the meaning of "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature" in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra was clear and distinct; the traditional reading implies that all sentient beings inherently possess the seed-nature of becoming a Buddha, i.e., Buddha-nature (or tathāgatagarbha). Although sentient beings are currently amidst false afflictions, due to their latent Buddha-nature, they can eventually realize enlightenment. This reading regards Buddha-nature as an objective goal that the subject sentient being can pursue and realize, thus implying a dualistic separation of subject and object, present and future, instinct and potential, internal and external. Dōgen did not agree with this understanding of Buddha-nature and proposed his own uniquely creative reading, although his new reading clearly violated the rules of Chinese grammar. He said:

The "Whole Being" (shitsuu) word is "sentient beings," which is "Being" (u). "Whole Being" is "sentient beings." Sentient beings are one part of Whole Being. At precisely such a time, inside and outside of sentient beings is the Whole Being of Buddha-nature. [Note 53]

In Dōgen’s new reading, "all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature" (yíqiè zhòngshēng xīyǒu fóxìng) becomes "All" (issai) is "sentient beings" (shujō), "Whole Being" (shitsuu) is "Buddha-nature" (busshō); conversely, one can also say "Buddha-nature" is "Whole Being" (All Existence), and "sentient beings" are "one part of Whole Being." Dōgen combines Buddha-nature with the "Whole Being" of all existence in the immediate present, transcending opposing dualities, and "one part of Whole Being" further implies extending Whole Being to encompass the realm of "De-anthropocentrism" including all living and non-living things (sentient and insentient). All existence, including sentient and insentient, is nothing other than immediate Buddha-nature; the two are two yet not two; therefore, Dōgen specifically explained the meaning of "Whole Being" (shitsuu):

One should know that the "Being" (u) of the Whole Being of Buddha-nature is not the "Being" of being/non-being (u/mu). Whole Being is the Buddha-word, the Buddha-tongue, the Buddha-Ancestor’s eye, the Patch-robed Monk’s nostril. The word Whole Being is definitely not incipient being (shiu), not original being (honnu), not marvelous being (myōu), etc., let alone conditioned being (en-u) or false being (mōu)? It is not constrained by mind, object, nature, characteristic, etc. [Note 54]

Regarding the "Being" of Whole Being is Buddha-nature, Dōgen first negates: "Being" is not the "Being" of "existence/non-existence," otherwise it falls into dualistic existence, violating the Non-Duality Dharma always emphasized by Buddhism. Whole Being is Buddha-nature is a Whole Being where previous and subsequent ends are cut off; therefore it is also not incipient being. Incipient being implies "originally non-existent, now existent"; regarding the meaning that Buddha-nature is not "originally non-existent, now existent," the "Verse on Originally Existent and Currently Non-Existent" in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra can serve as a reference: The essence of Nirvāṇa is not originally non-existent and now existent; if Nirvāṇa were originally non-existent and now existent, it would not be a taintless, permanently abiding dharma. Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics are permanently abiding; because sentient beings are covered by afflictions, they do not see Nirvāṇa and think it is non-existent. When Bodhisattva Mahāsattvas diligently cultivate their minds with Sīla, Samādhi, and Prajñā, and cut off afflictions, they then see it. One should know that Nirvāṇa is a permanently abiding dharma, not originally non-existent and now existent. [Note 55] If Buddha-nature belongs to the incipient being (Actualized Enlightenment) of "originally non-existent, now existent," then it is not a taintless, permanently abiding dharma; if so, the production of pure dharmas has no inevitable a priori basis and is purely accidental. Actually, regardless of "whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the nature and characteristics are permanently abiding," it is just that sentient beings cannot see it because they are covered by afflictions. However, although saying "Whole Being is Buddha-nature" is not incipient being, it does not mean it is original being, because Buddha-nature is not a substantial existence; otherwise, it would violate the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of Non-Self. Furthermore, Dōgen believes that "Whole Being is Buddha-nature" is also not "mysterious being" (myōu), because although mysterious being exists, it is like an illusion and empty, not arising from conditions, nor is it the "existence" posited by non-Buddhists clinging to a Self-view, nor is it constrained by delusional leaking dharmas such as mind, object, nature, and characteristics. This is because the external material environmental world (dependent retribution) and the internal body-mind subject (proper retribution) possessed by sentient beings are all "not [caused by] the dominant force of karma, not false dependent origination, not natural (jinen), not miraculous practice and realization." [Note 56] [Note 57]

In summary, Dōgen first explains Buddha-nature via negation, just as the "Busshō" chapter says: The World-Honored One said: "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." What is its purport? What thing comes thus, to turn the Dharma Wheel? [Note 58]

This allusion to "what thing comes thus" comes from the dialogue between the Sixth Ancestor Huineng (683-713) and Nanyue Huairang when they first met: (Huineng) The Ancestor asked: "Where do you come from?" (Huairang) The Master said: "From Mount Song." The Ancestor asked: "What thing comes thus?" The Master was speechless. After eight years, he suddenly had an awakening and told the Ancestor: "To explain it as a thing is to miss the mark." [Note 59]

The question "what thing comes thus," which took Huairang eight years to realize, involves the ultimate reality of Buddhism, and for Dōgen, it involves the question of "Whole Being is Buddha-nature." In other words, Whole Being or Buddha-nature—"What thing?" (What am I? or Who am I?) and "Comes thus" (Whence do I come?)—is unnameable, unobtainable, and cannot be objectified. Therefore, Dōgen used a series of negations to describe it—not the being of existence/non-existence, not incipient being, not original being, not false being, etc. This is a view of Buddha-nature that transcends subjectivity; thus Dōgen said: "The entire realm is utterly without adventitious dust; directly there is no second person." [Note 60] That is to say, the entire Dharma-realm originally does not contain a single thing; not a single dharma can be seen or obtained; directly there is no existence of opposing subject and object (no second person). But this does not mean denying Buddha-nature entirely; therefore Dōgen said Buddha-nature is "not false dependent origination being, because it manifests everywhere, nothing hidden." [Note 61] Buddha-nature does not exist due to false conditions, but is as stated in the Treatise on Buddha Nature (Fo Xing Lun): "Buddha-nature is the True Suchness revealed by the two emptinesses of person and dharmas." [Note 62] The substance of True Suchness pervades everything; therefore, "it manifests everywhere, nothing hidden."

To avoid the misunderstanding of Buddha-nature as a substantial pan-existence, Dōgen immediately warned: "Manifest everywhere, nothing hidden" does not necessarily mean the entire realm "is" [exists]. If the entire realm is "My" existence, then it is a non-Buddhist false view. (Whole Being) is not the existence of original being, because it spans past and present. It is not the existence of incipient arising, because it does not receive a single speck of dust... One should know that sentient beings within Whole Being are swift and easy yet hard to meet. If one understands Whole Being like this, then the substance of Whole Being is cast off. [Note 63] Buddha-nature transcends time, spanning past and present, so it is not original being or incipient being; it transcends space, pervading everywhere, but it is not the "Self" of non-Buddhists who "impute a Self where there is no Self." Whether Buddha-nature is a form of Self-theory (Ātmavāda) has been a controversy since ancient times; from Bodhisattva Mahāmati’s questioning of the tathāgatagarbha in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra [Note 64] to the critique of Original Enlightenment thought by modern Buddhist scholars of "Critical Buddhism," [Note 65] all arise from this doubt. Dōgen naturally noted this problem, thus emphasizing that "Buddha-nature Whole Being" is not a Self-theory. Dōgen believed that if one can grasp the meaning of Whole Being like this, one can "cast off the body completely," free from hindrance; Dōgen called this "swift and easy yet hard to meet," comparing it to a walker going downhill—though not using force, they move swiftly.

2. Refutation of Misunderstandings of Buddha-nature

To highlight misunderstandings of Buddha-nature, Dōgen pointed out that some people, like the Śreṇika non-Buddhists with their Self-theory, regard Buddha-nature as the subject of awareness and perception. Śreṇika (Senika) translates as "Possessing an Army" or "Victorious Army"; he was a non-Buddhist who advocated a Self-theory during the Buddha's time. Dōgen refuted this, saying: Hearing the word Buddha-nature, many students fall into the false Self-view of the Śreṇika non-Buddhists... They vainly say that the cognitive awareness of the mind-consciousness, which moves when wind and fire touch it, is Buddha-nature. Who said Buddha-nature is cognitive awareness? Regarding the awakened one and the knower, even if they are Buddhas, Buddha-nature is not cognitive awareness. [Note 66]

Śreṇika non-Buddhists mistakenly thought that the function of mind-consciousness, which moves as wind blows and fire burns, is the cognitive awareness of Buddha-nature, and believed this numinous awareness remains constant and unchanging—though the body perishes, the numinous awareness does not. In the "Sokushin Zebutsu" chapter of Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen cited the dialogue between Nanyang Huizhong and a student monk from the Jingde Chuandeng Lu as an example to refute the Śreṇika view of awareness. A student monk from the south visited Huizhong and informed him of the understanding of Buddha-nature by masters in the south; they believed sentient beings possess a nature of seeing, hearing, and aware knowing, and this nature can "raise eyebrows and blink eyes, come and go and function"; apart from this, there is no other Buddha. Furthermore, the physical body of a sentient being undergoes birth and cessation, but the mind-nature has not undergone birth and cessation since beginningless time; that is, the body is impermanent, but the nature is permanent. Against such a view, Huizhong refuted: If so, there is no difference from that Śreṇika non-Buddhist path. He said: "Within this body of mine, there is a divine nature; this nature can know pain and itch; when the body decays, the spirit departs. Like a house burning down, the owner departs; the house is impermanent, the owner is permanent." If you examine it like this, it is false wisdom not distinguishing right from wrong... If you take seeing, hearing, and aware knowing as Buddha-nature, Vimalakīrti did not say that Dharma is separated from seeing, hearing, and aware knowing; if one practices seeing, hearing, and aware knowing, this is then seeing, hearing, and aware knowing; it is not seeking the Dharma. [Note 67]

Śreṇika non-Buddhists believe there is a "divine nature" within everyone's body that has the function of seeing, hearing, and aware knowing; when the body decays, this divine nature remains clearly unchanging, abiding through kalpas. The phenomenon of the body’s birth and cessation is merely "like a dragon changing bones, like a snake shedding skin, or a person leaving an old house." Such a theory of a Divine Self (Ātman) is not the true meaning of Buddha-nature; in other words, Buddha-nature is not a permanently abiding Divine Self. But what exactly is Buddha-nature? Here Dōgen only used a series of negations (not the being of existence/non-existence, not incipient being, not original being, not being, not false being, not false dependent origination, etc.), aside from emphasizing that Buddha-nature must be Whole Being, and Whole Being is Buddha-nature, he did not provide a clearer positive definition. [Note 68] The definition of Buddha-nature in the Treatise on Buddha Nature (Fo Xing Lun) and its critique of non-Buddhists may serve as a reference. [Note 69]

Dōgen refutes another misunderstanding of Buddha-nature, which is viewing Buddha-nature as seeds of grass and trees. He said: "There is a type who say: Buddha-nature is like the seeds of grass and trees; when the Dharma rain moistens them, buds and stems grow, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits flourish; the fruit is contained within the seed. Such a view is ordinary sentiment." [Note 70] This tone treats Buddha-nature as "Theory of Effect Existing within Cause" (Satkāryavāda). The Sāṃkhya-kārikā (Gold Seventy Treatise) points out that the Vaiśeṣika advocates that the effect definitely exists within the cause, for five reasons: 1. Because what does not exist cannot be made: if a thing "has no creation, it cannot be accomplished, like producing oil from sand; if a thing has creation, like pressing sesame to produce oil." 2. Because one must take the cause: to seek a thing, one must take the material cause; like seeking ghee or yogurt, one must take it from milk; if the nature of the effect (ghee) is not in the cause (milk), could one not obtain ghee by taking water? 3. Because everything is not produced: if the effect is not in the cause, then everything could produce everything, like grass, trees, sand, and stones producing gold and silver; facts are not so, thus we know the effect is in the cause. 4. Because of the capability of the maker and what is made: for example, a potter prepares tools and makes a vase from clay (and not from grass or trees); one does not make vases or basins from grass or trees, thus from the cause there is self-nature. 5. Because the effect exists according to the cause: for example, a barley sprout must follow a barley seed; if there is no effect in the cause, the effect would not resemble the cause, and a barley seed could produce a bean sprout; but facts are not so, thus we know the effect is in the cause. [Note 71]

Because ordinary people understand that Buddha's correct awakening is born from Buddha-nature, they mistakenly think it is the same as the non-Buddhist theory of Effect in Cause. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says that if someone says the effect definitely exists beforehand in the cause, this person is a "companion and partisan of Māra, belonging to Māra," because all dharmas are without self-nature; one not only cannot say the effect definitely exists in the cause, but also cannot say the effect definitely does not exist in the cause, definitely exists and does not exist, or definitely neither exists nor does not exist. [Note 72]

3. Buddha-nature and Temporal Conditions (Time)

After clarifying that Buddha-nature is not a Divine Self capable of awareness, nor is it like grass and tree seeds in the Effect-in-Cause theory, Dōgen proceeds to annotate the very important relationship between "Buddha-nature" and "Temporal Conditions" (jisetsu / shisetsu). He says: Buddha said: To know the meaning of Buddha-nature, one should observe temporal conditions; if the time comes (shisetsu nyaku shi), Buddha-nature manifests. [Note 73]

This passage originally comes from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, where the Buddha explains the relationship between the "Three Causes" of Buddha-nature (Generating Cause, Conditional Cause, Revealing Cause) and "Temporal Conditions" (existing in the past, existing in the present, existing in the future) to Bodhisattva Lion’s Roar: "To see Buddha-nature, one should observe the forms and colors of temporal conditions; therefore I say all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." [Note 74] Zen Master Baizhang Huaihai once extended this slightly. According to the "Chapter on Dawei Lingyou" in Jingde Chuandeng Lu Fascicle 9, one day Lingyou was attending Baizhang. Baizhang asked who it was; he replied: "Lingyou." Baizhang said: "Poke the stove, is there fire?" Lingyou poked and said there was no fire. Baizhang rose, poked deeply and found a little fire, showed it to him and said: "Is this not fire?" Lingyou then had an awakening, bowed and thanked him, and stated his understanding. Baizhang said this was a temporary fork in the road, and quoted the Nirvāṇa Sūtra saying: The Sūtra says: To see Buddha-nature, one should observe temporal conditions; when the time has come (shisetsu ki shi), like confusion suddenly becoming awakening, like forgetting suddenly remembering, one realizes one’s own thing; it is not obtained from others. Therefore the Ancestral Teacher said: After awakening it is the same as before awakening; there is no mind and no dharma; it is just having no false mind of ordinary or sage; the original Mind-Dharma is originally complete in itself. [Note 75]

It is worth noting that "the time has come" (shisetsu ki shi) in the above quote uses the character "ki" (already/since), but Dōgen quotes "if the time comes" (shisetsu nyaku shi) using the character "nyaku" (if) in the "Busshō" chapter. Dōgen may have quoted from the "Chapter on Dawei Lingyou" in the Liandeng Huiyao (Compendium of the Lamp). Although this chapter also records Dawei Lingyou, the wording differs slightly from Jingde Chuandeng Lu: To know the meaning of Buddha-nature, one should observe temporal conditions; if the time comes, the principle manifests naturally. One then knows one’s own thing; it is not obtained from outside. [Note 76]

When interpreting this quote, besides changing "the principle manifests naturally" to "Buddha-nature manifests," Dōgen interpreted "if the time comes" as "since the time has come" used in Jingde Chuandeng Lu, [Note 77] to express his unique interpretation of the temporality of Buddha-nature's existence. First, he pointed out that ancient and modern ordinary people often have delusions about the Way of "if the time comes," believing that to realize Buddha-nature one must wait for the future time when Buddha-nature manifests. Practicing like this, naturally encountering the time when Buddha manifests. If the time does not come, then visiting masters to ask about the Dharma and the kung-fu of practicing the Way will not manifest it. [Note 78] Dōgen pointed out that such people, no matter how hard they try to investigate and practice, can only "return abruptly to the red dust, vainly watching the clouds and milky way." He also called these people the class of Naturalist non-Buddhists.

Dōgen believes Buddha-nature does not exist in the future waiting for the appropriate time to manifest; thus he said: "'If it comes' means 'it has come.' If the time comes [in the future], then Buddha-nature does not come." It should be "The time has come, thus Buddha-nature manifests," which is "the principle manifests naturally" or the so-called "Manifestation of Absolute Reality" (Genjōkōan). For Dōgen, the "Time" of every instant and the "Being" of myriad dharmas (every thing and event) are identical and manifest; so he said in "Bendōwa": One person sitting in meditation for one period of time merges with all dharmas and completely penetrates all times; therefore, within the endless Dharma-realm, past, future, and present, it performs the eternal work of Buddha's teaching. They practice equally together; they realize equally together. [Note 79]

In Dōgen’s view of space and time where "all dharmas merge" and "all times completely penetrate," when one person (i.e., everyone) sits in meditation to practice for one period of time (i.e., any time), it is equivalent to performing Buddha-work eternally in the past, present, and future within the endless Dharma-realm, practicing and realizing equally with each other. Such sitting meditation is the sitting meditation of "Practice and Realization are Equal," "Original Realization and Marvelous Practice," and "Casting Off Body and Mind." Buddha-nature is "already arrived and manifesting" immediately within this completely penetrating space and time, not waiting for a future time "if it arrives" to manifest. In other words, the realization of Buddha-nature is a Genjōkōan of "Existence is Time, Time is Existence"; the simultaneity of Buddha-nature and realization is "eternally" experienced and actualized by the practitioner in every moment of the present.

Therefore, Dōgen’s "Being" and "Time" are presented simultaneously as one body, not that there is a "Time" first and then some "Being" appears within this "Time." For example, it is not that there is a time named "Spring" and then flowers bloom within this time. In fact, the correct understanding should be that the moment flowers bloom is Spring. Furthermore, apart from the ever-changing forms of the world, "Time" does not exist. [Note 80] Thus Dōgen said: Mountains are time; seas are time. If there were no time, there could be no mountains and seas. If there could be no mountains and seas, there is no "Being-Time" now. If time is destroyed, mountains and rivers are destroyed; if time is not destroyed, mountains and rivers are not destroyed. [Note 81]

Apart from the impermanent myriad dharmas, time does not exist; apart from time, myriad dharmas also do not exist; thus Dōgen emphasized "Immediate Time is Being, Being is all Time"; Being and Time become one body. This is the meaning Dōgen wanted to express by "The time has come, Buddha-nature manifests"; not only are Whole Being and Buddha-nature not two, but all time is Buddha-nature, all time is practice; therefore, all practice is Buddha-nature (Oneness of Practice and Realization). Thus Dōgen concluded: "If it comes" is saying "it has come." If the time comes [future tense], then Buddha-nature does not come. However, since the time has come, Buddha-nature manifests. Or the principle manifests naturally. Generally, a time when the time does not "if-come" [has come] does not exist; a Buddha-nature that does not manifest does not exist. [Note 82]

Dōgen regards the "if it comes" of future time as the "has come" of the present time; every time interval is immediately manifest; thus he denies the existence of time that has not "if-come" (has-come) and denies the existence of Buddha-nature that does not manifest in every time interval. In Dōgen’s view of time, he not only emphasizes the uniqueness of time in every interval but also points out its complete penetration. He said: Being-Time has the virtue of passage/seriatim (kyōryaku); it is called passing from today to tomorrow, passing from today to yesterday, passing from yesterday to today, passing from today to today, passing from tomorrow to tomorrow; because "passage" is the virtue of "Time." Ancient and modern time is not piled up nor accumulated. Yet Qingyuan (Chan Master Xingsi) is time, Huangbo (Chan Master Xiyun) is time... Since self and other are time, practice and realization are all "Time." [Note 83]

According to Dōgen, "Being-Time" has the function of "passage," but it differs from the "one-way flow" [Note 84] of time from yesterday to today and today to tomorrow as understood by ordinary people. Dōgen’s "Being-Time" can "pass" through time in a completely penetrating and circulating manner; that is, there is not only the passage of one-way flow, but also the function of "two-way flow," passing from future to present, from present to past, or from future to future, past to past, etc. Therefore, it can be said that such "Being-Time" is immediately manifest at any time and any place. Buddha-nature under this view of time is not a "static" substantial existence, but a "dynamic" realization process that manifests repeatedly; that is, practice and realization (Buddha-nature) constantly reinforce each other simultaneously. Thus Dōgen said practice possesses the power of manifestation everywhere, and also said: "Since self and other are time, practice and realization are all time." [Note 85] In Dōgen’s completely penetrating view of time, things do not obstruct things, and times do not obstruct times; therefore, "There is giving rise to the mind at the same time; there is giving rise to time at the same mind; practice and attaining the Way are also like this." [Note 86]

4. Having Buddha-nature (U-busshō)

The relationship between Buddha-nature and sentient beings has always been a very important issue in Buddha-nature theory. Some sūtras, śāstras, or ancestors clearly advocate that all sentient beings "Have Buddha-nature," while others emphasize "No Buddha-nature." In the "Busshō" chapter, Dōgen cites eleven ancestors as examples. Below, we first explore Dōgen’s interpretation of "Have Buddha-nature" and "No Buddha-nature" advocated by other ancestors, and then discuss in detail the meaning of "Impermanence-Buddha-nature" proposed by Dōgen himself.

Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa’s "Buddha-nature Ocean" and Yanguan Qi’an’s "All sentient beings have Buddha-nature" belong to examples of the "Have Buddha-nature" theory. According to Jingde Chuandeng Lu Fascicle 1, a non-Buddhist named Kapimala, relying on his supernatural powers, came to challenge the Venerable Aśvaghoṣa. Aśvaghoṣa asked him how great his supernatural power was. Kapimala said: "I can transform the Great Ocean; it is an extremely small matter." Aśvaghoṣa asked him again: "Can you transform the Nature Ocean?" Kapimala did not know what the Nature Ocean was. Aśvaghoṣa explained: Mountains, rivers, and the great earth are all established dependent on it (Nature Ocean); Samādhi and the six supernatural powers are discovered from this. [Note 87]

Dōgen changed "Nature Ocean" in the original text to "Buddha-nature Ocean." Whether the original meaning included "Buddha-nature Ocean" is open to question. However, Dōgen regarded Buddha-nature and Dharma-nature as synonymous; thus he extended Nature Ocean to Buddha-nature Ocean. He further explained: Thus, these mountains, rivers, and the great earth are all the Buddha-nature Ocean. "All are established dependent on it": the precise time of establishing is the mountains, rivers, and great earth. Since it is said all are established dependent on it, one should know the form of the Buddha-nature Ocean is like this. Seeing mountains and rivers is seeing Buddha-nature; seeing Buddha-nature is seeing the donkey's jaw and horse's mouth; one should not be constrained by inside, outside, or middle. Thus, understanding (or not understanding), all is relying on "Complete Reliance" (zen-ne) and "Reliance Complete" (ne-zen). [Note 88]

Dōgen's meaning is that the mountains, rivers, and great earth established upon the Buddha-nature Ocean are themselves the manifestation of Buddha-nature. Not only are "Being" and "Time" not two, Nature and Characteristics are also not two; thus seeing mountains and rivers is seeing Buddha-nature. Conversely, seeing Buddha-nature is seeing mountains and rivers, and even the donkey's jaw and horse's mouth and all myriad things, completely breaking through the opposition of dualistic views, without the discriminative thinking that mountains, rivers, donkeys, and horses are outside, the Buddha-nature Ocean is inside, or Buddha-nature is in the middle. It also transcends the relativity of "Complete Reliance" and "Reliance Complete." "Complete Reliance" refers to "that which is relied upon," i.e., the whole existence that Buddha-nature relies upon; here it can also be called "Characteristics." "Reliance Complete" refers to "that which relies," i.e., the Buddha-nature that relies on whole existence. In summary, at the precise time of establishing, there is no discriminative opposition between the reliance and the relied-upon. Regarding the sentence "Samādhi and six supernatural powers are discovered from this," Dōgen explained: "Samādhi and six supernatural powers are discovered from this": one should know that whether various Samādhis are discovered or not discovered, they all depend on Buddha-nature. All six supernatural powers being from this or not from this, all depend on Buddha-nature. As for the six supernatural powers, it is not only the six supernatural powers spoken of in the Āgama teachings. The Six are: "the former three-three and the latter three-three"; this is called the Six Supernatural Powers Pāramitā. Do not investigate (the six supernatural powers as) "Clearly distinct on the tips of a hundred grasses; clearly distinct is the Ancestral Teacher's meaning"; if one stagnates in the six supernatural powers, one obstructs the pilgrimage to the Buddha-nature Ocean. [Note 89]

Because Kapimala, who challenged Aśvaghoṣa, clung to supernatural powers, Aśvaghoṣa taught him that regardless of whether Samādhi and the six supernatural powers manifest or not, one must rely on Buddha-nature to probe the ultimate truth directly, rather than supernatural powers as spoken of by non-Buddhists or in the Āgama Sūtras. [Note 90] Dōgen pointed out that the true six supernatural powers are the Six Supernatural Powers Pāramitā, [Note 91] and the "Six" refers to "the former three-three and the latter three-three"; this phrase comes from the dialogue between Mañjuśrī and Wuzhu in the "Chapter on Wuzhu Wenxi" in Liandeng Huiyao Fascicle 29. [Note 92] Dōgen also suggested that the six supernatural powers are not the state of "Clearly distinct on the tips of a hundred grasses; clearly distinct is the Ancestral Teacher's meaning." [Note 93] "Clearly distinct on the tips of a hundred grasses" metaphorically refers to individual things in the material world, and "clearly distinct is the Ancestral Teacher's meaning" refers to the True Suchness realized by the Ancestral Teacher; the two are mutually interpenetrating, just like the non-duality of nature and characteristics of mountains, rivers, great earth, and the Buddha-nature Ocean; such a meaning of Buddha-nature is not comparable to ordinary supernatural powers or Samādhi.

Another example cited by Dōgen of "Whole Being is Buddha-nature" is the National Teacher Yanguan Qi’an; Qi’an was a venerable elder under Mazu Daoyi and once instructed the assembly saying: "All sentient beings have Buddha-nature." Actually, many sūtras, śāstras, and ancestors advocate the theory of "Having Buddha-nature"; why Dōgen specifically cited Qi’an is unknown. However, it is evident that he borrowed Qi’an as an example to explain again his view on "All sentient beings have Buddha-nature." Dōgen specifically explained the meaning of "All Sentient Beings": In the Buddha Way now, "all sentient beings": those with minds are all sentient beings, because mind is sentient beings. Those without minds should be the same as sentient beings, because sentient beings are mind. Since mind is all sentient beings, sentient beings are all "having Buddha-nature." Grass, trees, and lands are mind; because they are mind, they are sentient beings; because they are sentient beings, they have Buddha-nature. Sun, moon, and stars are mind; because they are mind, they are sentient beings; because they are sentient beings, they have Buddha-nature. The National Teacher saying "have Buddha-nature" is like this. [Note 94]

Traditionally, "sentient beings" refers to "sentient beings" (sattva) with life or consciousness, but Dōgen includes "insentient beings" such as grass, trees, lands, sun, moon, and stars of the material world in "all sentient beings." For Dōgen, since all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, insentient beings naturally also have Buddha-nature. As for why "insentient beings" are also "sentient beings," Dōgen believed that while it is taken for granted that all those "with minds" are sentient beings, those "without minds" should also be "sentient beings," because "mind is sentient beings, sentient beings are mind." The "mind" Dōgen refers to is not the cognitive function of an individual where "practice karma and resultant retribution are not one" as spoken of by ordinary people, non-Buddhists, the Three Vehicles, and the Five Vehicles, but the total manifestation of all existence (Whole Being). Therefore Dōgen could say "The Buddha Way (One Vehicle) now says all sentient beings (sentient and insentient) have Buddha-nature." If not so, "then it is not the Buddha Way speaking the meaning of having Buddha-nature." Dōgen interpreted "Mind" this way, fusing "Mind," "Whole Being," "Buddha-nature," and "Dharma-nature" completely within the natural manifestation of casting off body and mind; thus when one sentient being gives rise to the mind, the entire body of sentient beings gives rise to the mind; when one sentient being attains the Way, the entire body of sentient and insentient beings attains the Way simultaneously; this is exactly "One Mind is all dharmas, all dharmas are One Mind" as he said in Shōbōgenzō Sokushin Zebutsu. [Note 95] Dōgen fuses the subjectivity (sentient beings practicing) and objectivity (insentient world) as interpenetrating and non-dual, and then combines this with his non-dual view of "Being-Time," completely achieving the perfect fusion and non-duality of time and space. He said: Even if giving rise to the mind and practicing for one kṣaṇa (time), Mind Here and Now is Buddha. Even if giving rise to the mind and practicing in one particle of dust (space), Mind Here and Now is Buddha. Even if giving rise to the mind and practicing for immeasurable kalpas, Mind Here and Now is Buddha. Even if giving rise to the mind and practicing in a single thought, Mind Here and Now is Buddha. Even if giving rise to the mind and practicing inside half a fist, Mind Here and Now is Buddha. [Note 96]

Dōgen extended the meaning of sentient beings (including all sentient and insentient) and combined it with Buddha-nature to form his unique theory of "Whole Being is Buddha-nature"; this is what he meant by one part of Whole Being is called sentient beings, "At precisely such a time, inside and outside of sentient beings is the Whole Being of Buddha-nature." [Note 97] However, "insentient beings having nature" and "insentient beings becoming Buddhas" were not Dōgen’s inventions, but originated in Chinese Buddhism. The development of Chinese Buddha-nature theory, after the transmission of the Mahāyāna Nirvāṇa Sūtra, started with Daosheng loudly proclaiming that icchantikas can become Buddhas, and reached its peak with Zhanran (711-782) of the Tang Dynasty Tiantai School advocating "insentient beings have nature." Among Chinese sects, Jizang (549-623) of the Sanlun School was the first to propose that insentient beings have nature. In Dàshéng Xuán Lùn (Treatise on the Mystery of the Mahāyāna), he argued the question of whether sentient and insentient beings have Buddha-nature from different levels such as within the Principle (Li), outside the Principle, Common Gate, and Distinct Gate. Jizang believed that within the Principle of True Suchness, "all dharmas, dependent and proper, are not two; because dependent and proper are not two, if sentient beings have Buddha-nature, then grass and trees also have Buddha-nature... If sentient beings become Buddhas, all sentient beings [including insentient] also attain Buddhahood." [Note 98] However, Jizang claimed this statement is regarding the "Common Gate"; if regarding the "Distinct Gate," it is not so. He said: "Sentient beings possess minds and are confused, thus they can have the principle of awakening; grass and trees have no minds and thus are not confused; how can they have the meaning of awakening?" [Note 99] Regarding "Principle Buddha-nature" of the Principle of True Suchness, Jizang believed the theory of grass and trees becoming Buddhas is naturally problem-free, but regarding "Practice Buddha-nature," since grass and trees have no minds, they are not confused; without confusion, there is no awakening, just as one must dream to wake from a dream; without a dream, there is no waking. It is worth noting that although Jizang and Dōgen both advocate that insentient beings have nature, Jizang’s reason is that in the Principle of True Suchness, all dharmas are equal and dependent/proper are not two, whereas Dōgen’s reason is "insentient beings have minds." Jizang believed insentient beings must have "mind" to have Buddha-nature. In other words, he advocated that although insentient beings have no mind, they still have Buddha-nature, but because they have no mind, insentient beings cannot awaken to become Buddhas. The "Mind" referred to by Jizang and Dōgen clearly differs in meaning. The "Mind" in Jizang’s "grass and trees have no mind" clearly leans towards the mental consciousness function of general false perception (thus he said "grass and trees have no mind so are not confused"), while the "Mind" Dōgen refers to is the mind of all dharmas manifesting immediately, the mind of casting off body and mind acting as Buddha, the True Mind of Mind Here and Now is Buddha. However, in the "Busshō" chapter, Dōgen did not elaborate specifically on whether insentient beings can become Buddhas.

After Jizang, many ancestors also advocated that insentient beings have nature. For example, Fazang said in the Tan Xuan Ji (Record of Exploring the Mystery): "According to the Three Vehicles teaching, the nature of True Suchness exists in sentient and insentient; the opening and awakening of Buddha-nature is limited only to sentient beings." [Note 100] Fazang based this on the statement in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: "Those without Buddha-nature refer to all insentient things like walls, tiles, and stones; apart from such insentient things, this is named Buddha-nature." [Note 101] But if according to the Round Teaching (Perfect Teaching), Fazang believed "Buddha-nature and Nature Origination both penetrate dependent and proper"; therefore, insentient beings should have Buddha-nature. Fazang’s view of Buddha-nature did not completely deny that insentient beings have nature; however, in the Round Teaching state where form and mind interfuse, although Buddha-nature is allowed to penetrate sentient and insentient, regarding the active "Conditional Cause" and "Revealing Cause" (Two Awakening Buddha-natures), "insentient beings becoming Buddhas" is still not permitted.

The one who fully advocated insentient beings becoming Buddhas and argued it philosophically was Zhanran, the ancestor of the Tiantai revitalization. In Jin’gang Pī (Diamond Scalpel), basing himself on the Nature Inclusion thought of Tiantai's "Three Thousand Realms in a Single Thought," he pointed out the fused Buddha-nature meaning of "Three Causes (Correct, Conditional, Revealing) Pervading the Substance" within Nature Inclusion; namely, as he said, "Original existence is of three kinds; the three principles originally pervade. When reaching nature, it becomes practice; practice-three also pervade." [Note 102] This means that sentient beings' minds originally possess the Three Causes of Buddha-nature completely; these Three Causes can produce the Three Virtues (Nature, Wisdom, Severance) in the fruit, so they are named "Seeds." However, since beginningless time, sentient beings have been amidst ignorance, afflictions, and karmic suffering; therefore, the Three Causes of Buddha-nature can only be called Rational Three Causes, not Awakening Three Causes. But this Buddha-nature of Three Principles originally pervades everything; when sentient beings "reach nature and accomplish practice," the Practice-Three also pervade. In other words, in Nature, all Practice becomes Nature; raising Practice, all Nature becomes Practice; since the Nature-Three pervade, the Three Thousand Great Thousand Worlds are all within Principle, thus insentient beings have nature; since Practice pervades, the Three Thousand Fruits are accomplished, thus one can say insentient beings can also become Buddhas; that is to say, the Conditional and Revealing Causes should also pervade insentient beings. So Zhanran said: "One blade of grass, one tree, one pebble, one speck of dust—each has one Buddha-nature, each has one cause and effect, complete with Conditional and Revealing." [Note 103]

In summary, Dōgen’s claim that all sentient beings (including sentient and insentient) have Buddha-nature basically continues the Buddha-nature theory of Chinese Buddhism, but the emphasis in argumentation is different. When Chinese Buddhist ancestors discussed "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature," besides defining "all sentient beings," they focused on the relationship between "all sentient beings" and "Buddha-nature," placing the emphasis on the predicate "possess/have" (u) to explain why all sentient beings "have" Buddha-nature, thus invisibly dividing all sentient beings and Buddha-nature into two. Dōgen’s method of argumentation is different; the premise of his Buddha-nature theory fuses all sentient beings (Whole Being) and Buddha-nature together; therefore, for Dōgen, it is not that all sentient beings "have" Buddha-nature, but that all sentient beings "are" Buddha-nature. Thus he said: "Saying all sentient beings have Buddha-nature: the 'Have' of 'Have Buddha-nature' should be cast off." [Note 104] In other words, one must transcend the dualistic relationship of belonging to one another and make them completely interpenetrating and non-dual to achieve "Whole Being is Buddha-nature, Buddha-nature is Whole Being."

5. No Buddha-nature (Mu-busshō)

In contrast to "all sentient beings have Buddha-nature," some ancestors claimed "all sentient beings have no Buddha-nature"; what is the meaning of "No Buddha-nature"? Dōgen gave four examples and added his own interpretation. The first and second examples are the Q&A regarding Buddha-nature between the Fourth Ancestor Daoxin and the Fifth Ancestor Hongren, and between Hongren and the Sixth Ancestor Huineng:

The Ancestor (Daoxin) saw the Master (Hongren) and asked: "What is your name (xing)?" The Master replied: "Nature (xing) is Being (u), not Ordinary Nature." The Ancestor said: "What nature is it?" The Master replied: "It is Buddha-nature." The Ancestor said: "You have no Buddha-nature." The Master replied: "Buddha-nature is empty, therefore I say No (mu)." [Note 105]

Regarding the Fifth Ancestor Hongren’s answer "Nature is Being, not Ordinary Nature," Dōgen interpreted it as "Being is Nature, not Ordinary Nature; Ordinary Nature is not Being." He creatively inverted "Nature is Being" to "Being is Nature" (Whole Being is Buddha-nature), but this "Nature" (xing) is naturally not a surname like Li, Chen, or Wang generally spoken of; thus Dōgen also inverted Hongren’s answer to say: "Ordinary Nature" is not "Being." Regarding Hongren’s answer "It is Buddha-nature," Dōgen explained that not only "Is" is "Buddha-nature," but "Is Not" is also "Buddha-nature," emphasizing again the transcendence of time of Buddha-nature. As for the meaning of Daoxin telling Hongren "You have no Buddha-nature" (nanji mu busshō): Dōgen annotated: The Fourth Ancestor said: "You have no Buddha-nature." The meaning expressed is: revealing you are not someone. Letting you be you, yet having no Buddha-nature. One should know that one must study: ultimately at what time is there no Buddha-nature? At the Buddha-head (top of realization) is there no Buddha-nature? Beyond the Buddha is there no Buddha-nature? Do not block up the Seven Penetrations, do not grope for the Eight Reaches; or perhaps practicing "No Buddha-nature" is a Samādhi of one time. One should ask: When Buddha-nature becomes a Buddha, is there no Buddha-nature? When Buddha-nature gives rise to the mind, is there no Buddha-nature? [Note 106]

Dōgen believed the Fourth Ancestor saying "You have no Buddha-nature" to Hongren meant: You are not a specific someone; although allowing you to be you, there is no Buddha-nature. Regarding such a statement, Dōgen believed practitioners should investigate "ultimately at what time is there no Buddha-nature?" Is it when ascending the "Buddha-head" (metaphor for realization) that there is no Buddha-nature? Or is it even beyond Buddha that there is no Buddha-nature? The meaning of "No Buddha-nature" is "Seven Penetrations and Eight Reaches" (free and unobstructed); do not block it up or grope blindly; one should practice the Samādhi that realizes the meaning of No Buddha-nature, and should further ask and express: is it that when Buddha-nature becomes a Buddha there is no Buddha-nature, or when giving rise to the Bodhi mind there is no Buddha-nature? Here Dōgen again combines the existence of Buddha-nature with his unique view of time, asking practitioners to investigate the "Time" of Buddha-nature. As for the Fifth Ancestor’s answer: "Buddha-nature is empty, therefore I say No," Dōgen explained that "Emptiness is not mere non-existence." In other words, the meaning of Buddha-nature's True Emptiness is not the annihilationist "No" relative to "Existence" as understood by ordinary people. So he said true "Emptiness" is not the emptiness of "Form is Emptiness," because that is emptiness opposed to form. True Buddha-nature Emptiness is as stated in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: "Buddha-nature is the Emptiness of the First Principle. Emptiness of the First Principle is named Wisdom... The Middle Way is named Buddha-nature." [Note 107] Such Emptiness of the First Principle "does not forcibly make form into emptiness, nor distinctively fabricate emptiness into form; it should be the emptiness of 'Emptiness is Emptiness.' The so-called emptiness of 'Emptiness is Emptiness' is 'a single stone in emptiness.' [Note 108]" [Note 109] Although Emptiness is True Emptiness, it never departs from form, hence "a single stone in emptiness," which is the so-called "True Emptiness Marvelous Existence," or what Dōgen called "Because it is empty, do not say empty; because it is absent (mu), do not say absent (mu)."

The second example Dōgen cites for speaking of "No Buddha-nature" is the Q&A between the Fifth Ancestor Hongren and the Sixth Ancestor Huineng: The Sixth Ancestor, Zen Master Dajian (Huineng) of Caoxi, visited Mount Huangmei in years past. The Fifth Ancestor asked: "Where do you come from?" The Sixth Ancestor said: "A man from Lingnan." The Fifth Ancestor said: "What do you come seeking?" The Sixth Ancestor said: "I seek to become a Buddha." The Fifth Ancestor said: "People of Lingnan have no Buddha-nature; how can you become a Buddha?" [Note 110]

Regarding the meaning of "People of Lingnan have no Buddha-nature," Dōgen once again displayed his unique interpretation. He said this phrase does not mean people of Lingnan do not possess Buddha-nature, nor does it mean people of Lingnan possess Buddha-nature, but says "People of Lingnan" is "No Buddha-nature," and "How can you become a Buddha" does not refer to questioning "how is it possible to become a Buddha," but refers to "what kind of Buddha do you expect to become." According to general grammar, the "No" (mu) in "People of Lingnan have no Buddha-nature" is used as a predicate, but Dōgen combines it with "Buddha-nature" as a noun. Actually, what Dōgen wants to express is that Lingnan (or anyone) must break free from the dichotomous thought of whether they ultimately have Buddha-nature or not, because sentient beings themselves are Buddha-nature. So Dōgen said: "Buddha-nature is not complete before becoming a Buddha, (nor is it) complete after becoming a Buddha; Buddha-nature must be participated in simultaneously with becoming a Buddha." [Note 111] He emphasized that at the beginning of seeing and hearing the Buddhadharma, sentient beings are "No Buddha-nature"; even after learning from good spiritual friends or sūtras, sentient beings are still "No Buddha-nature." The Sixth Ancestor sought to become a Buddha and asked the Fifth Ancestor; the Fifth Ancestor did not use other skillful teachings but "became a Buddha to the Sixth Ancestor" with the single phrase "People of Lingnan have no Buddha-nature." Therefore, if one cannot investigate the true meaning of "No Buddha-nature," one cannot "become a Buddha"; conversely, "At the precise time of No Buddha-nature, one becomes a Buddha." [Note 112] In summary, Dōgen teaches: regarding the understanding of "No Buddha-nature," do not trap oneself in the "No" of the dualistic opposition of "Existence/Non-existence," but "temporarily put aside the No of Existence/Non-existence" and directly take the absolute non-dual "No" of "No-No."

The third example Dōgen cites speaking of No Buddha-nature is Zen Master Guishan Lingyou (771-853). He said: What the World-Honored One said is: All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. What Dawei (Guishan) said is: All sentient beings have no Buddha-nature (mu-busshō). The principles spoken of by Existence (u) and No (mu) are widely different; if one speaks it fittingly (dōtoku), one should not doubt. However, "All sentient beings have no Buddha-nature" excels in the Buddha Way. Yanguan’s "Have Buddha Way," although appearing to put forth a hand together with the Ancient Buddha (Śākyamuni), is still "one pole carried by two people." Today Dawei is not so; it should be "one staff swallowing two people." [Note 113]

Dōgen's meaning in the quote is that whether speaking of "Have Buddha-nature" or "No Buddha-nature," although the principles spoken of differ, if "spoken fittingly" (dōtoku), one should not doubt their respective principles; but comparatively speaking, the "No Buddha-nature" spoken by the Ancestral Teacher excels further in the Buddha Way (implying he spoke better than the Buddha). He gave a metaphor: The "Sentient beings have Buddha-nature" advocated by National Teacher Yanguan Qi’an, although extending a hand simultaneously with the Ancient Buddha (Śākyamuni), still belongs to the level of "one pole carried by two people" (i.e., the Buddha-nature staff carried by Buddha and Qi’an), but the "No Buddha-nature" advocated by Guishan is "one staff swallowing two people" (i.e., the No Buddha-nature staff swallows both Buddha and Qi’an); the superiority and inferiority are visible from this. Dōgen even more strictly criticized the theory of "Having Buddha-nature": "If there is [having] Buddha-nature, then one should be a partisan of Māra, bringing about a partisan piece (attaching a Māra-seed to sentient beings)." [Note 114]

Dōgen emphasized again that since "Buddha-nature is Buddha-nature, sentient beings are sentient beings," it is not that sentient beings inherently possess a substantial Buddha-nature, nor is there a substantial Buddha-nature existing outside that sentient beings seek outwardly and then obtain. Therefore Dōgen quoted Zen Master Baizhang: "Saying sentient beings have Buddha-nature is slandering Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Saying sentient beings have no Buddha-nature is also slandering Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha." [Note 115] However, Dōgen citing Baizhang’s double negation of Buddha-nature is not to deny Buddha-nature entirely, so he added: However, saying have Buddha-nature, saying no Buddha-nature, both constitute slander. Though they constitute slander, they are not not-to-be-spoken (fu-ka-dō-toku). [Note 116]

Although saying "have" or "no" Buddha-nature both constitute slander, it does not mean one cannot speak/investigate it, just as National Teacher Qingliang said: "If one misses the meaning, the four phrases become four slanders; if one gets the purport, the four phrases are the four virtues." However, how can one "get the purport"? Let us see how Dōgen challenges Dawei (Guishan): One should further say to Dawei: Although even if you spoke "All sentient beings have no Buddha-nature," you did not say "All Buddha-natures have no sentient beings," did not say "All Buddha-natures have no Buddha-nature," let alone "All Buddhas have no Buddha-nature"; you have not seen this even in a dream; try to present it and see! [Note 117]

Besides being able to say sentient beings have no Buddha-nature, Dōgen asks Dawei if there are other ways to interpret the relationship between Buddha-nature and sentient beings, such as saying "All Buddha-natures have no sentient beings," "All Buddha-natures have no Buddha-nature," or even "All Buddhas have no Buddha-nature." Although it seems Dōgen is playing a game of word permutations, in fact, his intention is to emphasize breaking the dualism of Buddha-nature and sentient beings, and the substantialized view of Buddha-nature. Dōgen doubly negates "Have Buddha-nature" and "No Buddha-nature," so what is his own view of Buddha-nature? It is the "Impermanence-Buddha-nature" he advocates.

6. Impermanence-Buddha-nature

Dōgen quotes the Sixth Ancestor Huineng’s teaching to his disciple Xingchang Zhiche Zen Master: Impermanence is Buddha-nature. Permanence is the discriminative mind of all good and evil dharmas. [Note 118] Zhiche questioned the Sixth Ancestor about this teaching being contrary to sūtras and teachings, because sūtras say Buddha-nature is permanent, and good and evil dharmas are impermanent. The Sixth Ancestor explained: If Buddha-nature were permanent, what good and evil dharmas could be spoken of? Even to the end of kalpas, not one person would give rise to the Bodhi mind. Therefore I say impermanence; this is precisely the True Permanence Way spoken by the Buddha. Furthermore, if all dharmas were impermanent, then every thing would have a self-nature receiving birth and death. But the True Permanence nature has places it does not pervade. Therefore I say permanence; this is precisely the meaning of True Impermanence spoken by the Buddha. Because ordinary people and non-Buddhists cling to deviant permanence, and the people of the Two Vehicles calculate impermanence within permanence, together forming the Eight Inversions, [Note 119] the Buddha in the definitive teaching of Nirvāṇa destroyed their biased views and explicitly spoke of True Permanence, True Self, and True Purity. [Note 120]

From the above quote of the Sixth Ancestor’s own explanation of the impermanence meaning of Buddha-nature, it can be seen that it completely follows the Buddha-nature theory of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. [Note 121] The Nirvāṇa Sūtra, to counteract the view of "Existence" held by ordinary people and non-Buddhists who mistakenly cling to Buddha-nature as permanently abiding and unchanging, emphasizes the meaning of "Impermanence" of Buddha-nature; but on the other hand, to destroy the view of "Extinction" held by the Two Vehicles who calculate impermanence within permanence, it speaks of "True Permanence." The "Permanence" of "discriminative mind of all good and evil dharmas" spoken by the Sixth Ancestor refers to the view of Existence of ordinary people and non-Buddhists, while the "Impermanence" of Buddha-nature is "True Impermanence," which is True Permanence.

Dōgen believed that the impermanence spoken of by the Sixth Ancestor was indeed immeasurable by non-Buddhists and the Two Vehicles; he further explained: "Impermanence constantly speaks, acts, and realizes impermanence; thus all should be impermanence." [Note 122] In other words, true impermanence means that whether speaking, practicing, or realizing impermanence, all should be impermanence; just as "Permanent Sage is impermanence, Permanent Ordinary is impermanence"; otherwise, if ordinary people were eternally ordinary (Permanent Ordinary) and sages eternally sages (Permanent Sage), then Buddha-nature would not be established. So Dōgen said: "Permanent Ordinary and Sage would not correspond to Buddha-nature." Regarding the meaning of "Permanence," Dōgen said: "Permanence means un-turning (miten). Un-turning means forgetting distinction, able to cut off, establishing transformation and what is cut off, yet not necessarily constrained by traces of coming and going; therefore it is permanence." [Note 123]

"Able to cut off" refers to Prajñā Empty Wisdom; "What is cut off" refers to beginningless afflictions. Permanence means un-turning, and un-turning refers to Prajñā Empty Wisdom at the realized level or beginningless afflictions at the ordinary emotional level, both being unrelated to confusion or awakening, because wisdom permanently abides as wisdom, and afflictions permanently abide as afflictions; this is the "Permanence abiding un-turning" understood by ordinary people, but Buddha-nature is not so. Conversely, Dōgen’s "Permanence means un-turning" can be extended to "Impermanence means turning." That is to say, one must realize Buddha-nature within the dynamic of constant transformation of impermanence, because basically "Impermanence itself is Buddha-nature," and simultaneously "Buddha-nature in essence is impermanence," [Note 124] (Buddha-nature is impermanence, impermanence is Buddha-nature). Just as Dōgen said: Since grass, trees, and thickets are impermanent, they are Buddha-nature. Humans and things, body and mind are impermanent; they are Buddha-nature. Lands, mountains, and rivers are impermanent; they are Buddha-nature. Thus Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi is Buddha-nature; therefore it is impermanence. Great Parinirvāṇa is impermanence; therefore it is Buddha-nature. The narrow views of the Two Vehicles and Sūtra/Śāstra masters and Tripiṭaka masters will be surprised, doubtful, and fearful of this word of the Sixth Ancestor. If they are surprised and doubtful, they are the class of Māras and non-Buddhists. [Note 125]

Worldly dharmas, whether grass, trees, lands, mountains, rivers, humans, things, body and mind, all arise from conditions, hence are impermanent; precisely because they are impermanent, their essence can accord with the non-substantial Buddha-nature, just as the Baimen Yihai (Ocean of Meanings of One Hundred Gates) says: "Awareness of dust and all dharmas arising from conditions without nature is named Buddha-nature"; thus it is said sentient and insentient beings all have Buddha-nature. Conversely, Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi is the realization of Buddha-nature, which also accords with impermanence, because the realization of Buddha-nature is nothing other than the realization of impermanence as it really is. Xianshou Fazang, when explaining the "Meaning of Identity and Difference of the Three Natures," said the following, which can serve as an annotation for Dōgen’s meaning of "Impermanence-Buddha-nature": The Sage speaks of True Suchness as solidified/quiescent; this is when following conditions to become defiled or pure, it constantly acts as defiled or pure without losing its own essence; this is the Permanence that is not different from Impermanence, named Inconceivable Permanence; it does not mean it does not act as dharmas and is solidified/quiescent as emotions imagine. If one says it does not act as all dharmas and is solidified/quiescent, this is obtained by emotion, thus losing True Permanence, because that True Permanence is the Permanence not different from Impermanence. The Permanence not different from Impermanence is all outside of emotion, thus named True Permanence. Therefore the Sūtra says: "Not defiled yet defiled," clarifying Permanence acts as Impermanence. "Defiled yet not defiled," clarifying when acting as Impermanence it does not lose Permanence. [Note 126]

In the quote, Fazang explains True Suchness as solidified/quiescent according to the Nature School, which is obviously different from what the Characteristic School advocates. However, his understanding of "Permanence," "Impermanence," and "True Permanence" is evidently similar to Dōgen. The "Impermanence-Buddha-nature" advocated by Dōgen is the True Suchness spoken of by Fazang which follows conditions to become defiled without losing its own essence, but this self-essence is not the "Permanence" known by ordinary emotion, but rather the True Permanence that "is not different from impermanence." In the unchanging situation of "defiled yet not defiled," Buddha-nature (True Suchness) does not lose its "Permanence Nature" within impermanence; in the conditioned situation of "not defiled yet defiled," Buddha-nature reveals its "Impermanence" nature within "Permanence." In the interpenetration and unification of Permanence and Impermanence, Existence and Non-existence, "Impermanence-Buddha-nature" is not a static substantial existence, but a dynamic "Manifestation of Absolute Reality" (Genjōkōan); just as Masao Abe said: "For Dōgen, impermanence itself is preaching impermanence, practicing impermanence, and realizing impermanence, which is actually preaching Buddha-nature, practicing Buddha-nature, and realizing Buddha-nature." [Note 127]

IV. Dōgen’s View of Practice-Realization

Undoubtedly, Dōgen is the most outstanding philosopher in Japanese Buddhism, but more importantly, Dōgen was also a practitioner of the philosophy he understood. His view of practice-realization is "Oneness of Practice and Realization" (shushō-ittō) and "Original Realization and Marvelous Practice" (honshō-myōshu), mainly established on his view of Buddha-nature. Additionally, central issues of Buddhism, such as Whole Being and Buddha-nature, Confusion and Awakening, Birth and Death, Existence and Non-existence, Permanence and Impermanence, are all reflected in his view of practice-realization.

The view of "Oneness of Practice and Realization" originated from the great doubt Dōgen had at Mount Hiei: if sentient beings are "originally formed of Dharma-body and Dharma-nature," why is there a need to give rise to the mind to practice? This question of Dōgen presupposes a premise: that within the True Suchness Dharma-nature (or Buddha-nature) possessed by sentient beings, all contents (merits) of becoming a Buddha have already been "realized," so there is no need to do the work of practice. But what contradicts this premise is the fact that in the real world, sentient beings are still defiled sentient beings, not pure Buddhas; obviously, sentient beings still need to practice. Conversely, if the practice of sentient beings is absolutely necessary, then Buddha-nature (or Dharma-nature) becomes an external objective goal to be pursued; how then can one say sentient beings originally possess Buddha-nature? [Note 128] Thus, for the young Dōgen, the problem of how to fuse practice and realization, and practice-realization and Buddha-nature arose.

To understand Dōgen’s view of practice-realization, one must explore it from its historical background. The Japanese Tendai School of Dōgen’s time developed the Original Enlightenment view of practice-realization, claiming that because sentient beings possess Original Enlightenment, there is no necessity for practice. But this obviously could not resolve Dōgen’s doubt, so he crossed to China to seek a clear teacher. According to Hōkyōki, Dōgen asked Rujing: Dōgen bowed and asked: "Studying the excellent traces of ancient and modern Buddhas and Ancestors, at the time of initial mind's illumination, although they seemed to have the Way, when gathering assembly to open the Dharma, it was as if they had no Buddhadharma. Also, at the time of initial giving rise to the mind, although they seemed to have no realization, when opening the Dharma to expound the Way, they had quite the spirit of surpassing the ancients. Thus, is it obtaining the Way using the initial mind, or obtaining the Way using the later mind?" Rujing instructed: "The correct transmission of Buddhas and Ancestors says: not only the initial mind, not separating from the initial mind. Why so? If only the initial mind obtains the Way, the Bodhisattva at the initial giving rise to the mind should then be a Buddha; this is impossible. If without the initial mind, how could there be a second or third mind, a second or third dharma. Thus, the later takes the initial as the basis; the initial takes the later as the expectation. [Note 129]

From the above instruction to Dōgen, it can be seen that Rujing did not advocate the statement in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra that "when a Bodhisattva first gives rise to the mind, he immediately achieves Correct Awakening," but emphasized the necessity of practice; that is, he denied the practice-realization view of the Tendai Original Enlightenment Gate that practice is unnecessary due to Original Enlightenment, and also denied the Shingon view of "becoming a Buddha in this very body, making Buddha with this body, without passing through time and kalpas of practice." [Note 130]

Inheriting Rujing’s view of practice-realization, combined with his own enlightenment experience of "casting off body and mind," Dōgen developed the practice-realization view of non-duality of practice and realization. He said in the "Bendōwa" chapter: "This Dharma, although abundantly complete in every person's portion, does not manifest if not practiced, and is not obtained if not realized. Letting go, it fills the hand; does it traverse the boundary of one or many? Speaking, it fills the mouth; vertical and horizontal are inexhaustible." [Note 131] The Buddha-nature marvelous dharma inherent in every person's portion is not like the self-nature naturalness clung to by non-Buddhists; therefore, "not practiced, it does not manifest; not realized, it is not obtained." However, this does not mean Dōgen believed practice and realization are before and after dharmas. For Dōgen, "practice" is direct elaboration/effort, and "realization" is perfectly fused functioning (nin-un). Within infinite elaboration, the "Dharma" functions perfectly fused. Simultaneously, within the perfectly fused realization, marvelous practice penetrates the body. This is what Dōgen calls "Realization is when practice has no slackness"; conversely, it is "Practice is when realization functions naturally."

Dōgen explains his view of Oneness of Practice and Realization more clearly in the following quote: To say practice and realization are not one is a non-Buddhist view. In the Buddhadharma, practice and realization are identical (ittō). Because it is practice based on realization now, the initial mind's endeavor of the Way is the whole body of original realization. Therefore, in giving instruction on practicing mindfulness, we teach not to wait for realization outside of practice, because it points directly to original realization. Because it is realization of practice, realization has no limit; because it is practice of realization, practice has no beginning. Thus Śākyamuni Tathāgata and Venerable Kāśyapa both received and used practice based on realization; Great Master Bodhidharma and High Ancestor Dajian (Huineng) similarly drew out and transmitted practice based on realization; the abiding and maintaining of Buddhadharma is all like this. Since there is practice that does not separate from realization, we are fortunate to transmit a portion of marvelous practice simply. The initial mind's endeavor of the Way immediately obtains a portion of original realization in the unconditioned ground; one should know that in order not to defile the non-duality of practice and realization, the Buddhas and Ancestors frequently teach not to be lax in practice. Letting go of marvelous practice, original realization fills the hand; emerging from original realization, marvelous practice penetrates the body. [Note 132]

In the quote, the most important concepts are "Practice on Realization" (shō-jō-shu) and "Realization on Practice" (shu-jō-shō). Because the practice Dōgen believes in is not practice opposed to realization, but "Practice of Realization," thus marvelous practice which is not two with original realization is beginningless and transcends time. Furthermore, Dōgen says this "Marvelous practice penetrates the body" which "emerges from original realization" is the so-called elaboration directly functioning perfectly fused, which transcends space. Because practice and realization transcend time and space, Dōgen said: "One person sitting in meditation for one period of time merges with all dharmas and completely penetrates all times." When anyone practices sitting meditation Samādhi at any time, immediately "The entire Dharma-realm becomes the Buddha-seal, the entire empty space is all awakening, even all dharmas realize correct awakening, and all things use the Buddha-body together." [Note 133] Such a result is established on the premise Dōgen emphasized: "Buddha-nature must be practiced together and realized together with becoming a Buddha" and "Practice and Realization are identical."

The greatest significance of Dōgen’s view of "Oneness of Practice and Realization" is that it eliminates the dualistic opposition and contradiction between practice and realization, Actualized Enlightenment and Original Enlightenment. In the "process" of becoming a Buddha, Buddha-nature is the indispensable "a priori basis," while practice is the indispensable "condition." From the viewpoint of Actualized Enlightenment theory, practice within the scope of time and space is the "ground" for becoming a Buddha, while Buddha-nature becomes merely a "sign" guiding practice. [Note 134] In other words, it presupposes a process from practice to realization. Thus, it creates a dualistic separation of practice and realization in time. Furthermore, if Buddha-nature is only regarded as a "sign," the question arises: where is the necessity (a priori basis) of becoming a Buddha?

Conversely, from the viewpoint of Original Enlightenment theory, Original Enlightenment (Buddha-nature) transcending time is not only the "ground" (a priori basis) of becoming a Buddha but also the realization of enlightenment; thus practice as a condition for realization loses its necessity. Obviously, both the Actualized Enlightenment Gate and the Original Enlightenment Gate can be called "View of Practice and Realization as Two Poles"; [Note 135] the former is practice waiting for realization, i.e., the view of "practice must aim at realization," while the latter is realization waiting for practice, i.e., "realization must stem from practice." Whether it is from practice towards realization, realization must wait for practice, or even realization needs no practice, all imply the duality of practice and realization, thus creating the opposition and contradiction between Original Enlightenment and Actualized Enlightenment, realization and practice; this is exactly where the problem that troubled the young Dōgen lay.

Dōgen’s method to break this dualistic opposition was to open up the temporal causal relationship between practice and realization; he shifted the starting point of practice from the Causal Stage to the Fruition Stage; thus he could say true practice "is not only practice and realization in the Causal Ground, but is practice and realization of the Fruition Stage." [Note 136] Similarly, he shifted the endpoint of realization from the Fruition Stage to the Causal Stage; thus he could say true realization is not only realization of the Fruition Stage but also realization of the Causal Stage. Thus practice and realization as mutual causes and effects constantly reinforce each other in an endless cycle; practice and realization are no longer in a linear before-and-after relationship, but in a circular relationship of a "Way-Ring" (dōkan) without beginning or end. Thus Dōgen said: The Great Way of Buddhas and Ancestors must have unsurpassed Continuous Practice (gyōji); the Way-Ring is not cut off. Giving rise to the mind, practice, Bodhi, and Nirvāṇa—without a slight gap, Continuous Practice is the Way-Ring. [Note 137]

V. Dōgen’s Buddha-nature Thought and "Critical Buddhism"

Since the mid-1980s, two professors from Komazawa University, Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō, launched a movement known as "Critical Buddhism" (Hihan Bukkyō). [Note 144] This aroused significant repercussions in both the Japanese and North American Buddhist academic worlds. [Note 145] The entire content and development of "Critical Buddhism" is not the scope of this article; however, because Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought is one of the main targets discussed by "Critical Buddhism," the final part of this article will briefly discuss the relationship between "Critical Buddhism" and Dōgen’s thought.

What is "Critical Buddhism"? According to Hakamaya’s own definition: "Buddhism is criticism" or "Only that which is critical is Buddhism." Actually, speaking from the history of the development of Buddhist thought as a whole, it is a "history of Buddhist criticism." From the development of Primitive Buddhism to Sectarian Buddhism and Mahāyāna Buddhism, the thought of each period was formed by adding criticism, reflection, and deduction to the thought of the preceding period. Furthermore, in Chinese Buddhism, schools advocating "Emptiness" or "Existence," "Three Vehicles" or "One Vehicle," "Having Nature" or "No Nature," also constantly criticized each other. Since this is so, what new meaning is proposed by the "Critical Buddhism" of modern Japanese scholars?

Basically, the "Critical Buddhism" of Hakamaya and Matsumoto holds the following main viewpoints: 1. Tathāgatagarbha thought (Original Enlightenment thought) is a "Dhātu-vāda" (Substrate/Locus Theory), similar to a Self-theory (Ātmavāda). 2. The Buddha's true teaching lies in the "Doctrine of Dependent Origination" (Pratītyasamutpāda), not in "Dhātu-vāda." 3. Therefore, anything containing tathāgatagarbha thought (including the Chan School) is not Buddhism. 4. The Japanese thought of "Harmony" (Wa) originates from Original Enlightenment thought and is the cause of inequality and unjust "social discrimination" in Japanese society, [Note 146] and is even the theoretical basis for Japanese "militarism."

Tathāgatagarbha has been questioned as a Divine Self thought for a long time; from Bodhisattva Mahāmati questioning that tathāgatagarbha is "the same as the Self spoken of by non-Buddhists" in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, to the disputes between the Nature School and Characteristic School in Chinese Buddhism, the debate on Buddha-nature between Saichō and Tokuitsu in Japanese Buddhism, and the critique of the Awakening of Faith and Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment by the Consciousness-Only School in the late 19th century—all were challenges to tathāgatagarbha thought. The camp advocating "tathāgatagarbha is the Buddha's teaching" also constantly cited sūtras and treatises to offer defenses; from the Treatise on Buddha Nature, Ratnagotravibhāga, and Awakening of Faith to the "Nature Origination" of the Huayan School, the "Nature Inclusion" of the Tiantai School, the "Tathāgata (Garba) Chan" of the Chan School, the Japanese Tendai Original Enlightenment theory, and even some modern Western Buddhist scholars, all vigorously argued for the "conformity to Dharma-nature" of tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) thought. [Note 147] The stances of the two camps are distinct, and their arguments are well-founded. However, the opposing camp in the past usually judged tathāgatagarbha theory as "not definitive teaching" (neyārtha), unlike modern "Critical Buddhism" which judges tathāgatagarbha thought and its related theories and sects as "Non-Buddhism" or "Pseudo-Buddhism" and totally negates them. Furthermore, "Critical Buddhism" vigorously criticizes tathāgatagarbha thought as the chief culprit for discrimination and class distinction in Japanese society, [Note 148] which is also one of the characteristics of "Critical Buddhism," although many points in its argument are open to question and "criticism." [Note 149]

The main focus of "Critical Buddhism's" critique of Dōgen's thought lies in (1) Whether Dōgen's Buddha-nature thought belongs to Original Enlightenment thought, and (2) Which of Dōgen's writings present Original Enlightenment thought. According to Hakamaya's view, the Buddha-nature theory in Dōgen's 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō did not completely break free from Tendai Original Enlightenment thought, although he repeatedly emphasized the concept of "Impermanence-Buddha-nature." However, Hakamaya also believes that the 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō cannot truly represent Dōgen's thought; instead, it is in the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō where Dōgen strongly criticizes Original Enlightenment thought that represents Dōgen's final insight. Matsumoto, who also belongs to "Critical Buddhism," proposes a critique of this view of Hakamaya. Matsumoto believes that even the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō failed to break free from the influence of tathāgatagarbha thought.

The manuscript of the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō was discovered at Yōkō-ji in 1930 by Dr. Nagahisa Gakusui, but the 12-fascicle version was already known to people. There are many versions of Shōbōgenzō, among which the most current is the 95-fascicle "Honzan Edition" published by the Great Head Temple Eihei-ji; additionally, there are the 75-fascicle edition, the 84-fascicle edition, etc. Among them, the 75-fascicle edition is said to have been compiled and completed while Dōgen was alive; the 60-fascicle edition is commonly called the "Old Draft." Dōgen originally intended to compile 100 fascicles but could not fulfill this wish. After Dōgen passed away, his head disciple Ejō compiled Dōgen's writings from his later years into a collection of 12 fascicles, becoming what was later called the 12-fascicle "New Draft." [Note 150]

The titles of each fascicle in the 12-fascicle edition are: (1) Merit of Leaving Home, (2) Receiving Precepts, (3) Merit of the Kaṣāya, (4) Giving Rise to the Bodhi Mind, (5) Offerings to Buddhas, (6) Taking Refuge in Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha Treasures, (7) Deep Faith in Cause and Effect, (8) Karma of the Three Times, (9) Four Horses, (10) The Bhikṣu of the Fourth Dhyāna, (11) Ippyakuhachi Hōmyōmon (One Hundred and Eight Gates of Dharma Illumination), (12) Hachidainingaku (Eight Realizations of a Great Being). Regarding the time of creation, although the 12-fascicle edition came later, in terms of content, the 75-fascicle edition clearly contains the essence of Dōgen's thought. The content of the 12-fascicle edition leans towards teaching basic Buddhist doctrines, such as cause and effect and karma, and emphasizes the importance of the way of leaving home such as leaving home and receiving precepts. The academic world has two different views evaluating the 12-fascicle edition; Professor Steven Heine calls them the "Decline Theory" and the "Renewal Theory." [Note 151] Scholars advocating the former include Carl Bielefeldt [Note 152], Heinrich Dumoulin [Note 153], and Fu Wei-hsun. These scholars all believe the 12-fascicle edition represents a regression in Dōgen's thought, just as Fu Wei-hsun criticized: "The 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō only shows Dōgen's intention to 'turn back the cart' by returning to primitive Buddhism, not to mention the bias of 'Leaving-Home Supremacism' (leaning towards Hīnayāna practice) he clearly adopts in this edition." [Note 154]

The scholar advocating the "Renewal Theory" is Hakamaya Noriaki of the "Critical Buddhism" camp; he believes the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō represents the peak of Dōgen's thought because Dōgen emphasizes the view of cause and effect therein, breaking free from the Original Enlightenment thought of the earlier 75 fascicles. Hakamaya criticizes Original Enlightenment thought for not truly following the basic Buddhist thought of cause and effect, but instead creating a false appearance of equality. He believes that thoughts related to Original Enlightenment, such as tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature, all contain a thought of uncritical Tolerance and Syncretism, where the harmony of the whole drowns out the uniqueness of the individual. Ontologically speaking, "Critical Buddhism" believes the greatest problem of Original Enlightenment thought lies in its intolerance of the existence of "one other" (the Other), [Note 155] because Original Enlightenment thought claims that all myriad things arise from a single "Substrate" (dhātu), thus it cannot tolerate the difference of other existences. If this theory is applied to politics, Original Enlightenment thought becomes the best theoretical basis for authoritarianism and nationalism.

The main reason Hakamaya claims the 12-fascicle edition represents Dōgen's true thought lies in its ability to break free from Original Enlightenment thought; how is it seen that Dōgen could break free from Original Enlightenment? Hakamaya believes this is because Dōgen repeatedly emphasized the importance of the traditional view of cause and effect in the 12-fascicle edition. In the "Deep Faith in Cause and Effect" (Jinshin Inga) chapter, Dōgen cites a Zen kōan: Baizhang Huaihai had an old man listening to his lecture every time. One day Baizhang asked who he was; the old man replied: "I am not a human; in the past time of Kāśyapa Buddha, I lived on this mountain. Because a student asked: 'Does a person of great cultivation still fall into cause and effect or not?' I answered: 'He does not fall into cause and effect (furaku inga).' After five hundred lives I fell into the body of a wild fox. Now I ask the Monk to substitute a turning phrase for me, to release me from the fox body." The old man immediately asked Baizhang: "Does a person of great cultivation still fall into cause and effect or not?" Baizhang answered: "He is not obscure to cause and effect (fumai inga)." The old man had a great awakening at these words and was finally released from the wild fox body. [Note 156] Regarding this kōan, Dōgen made the following commentary: Students do not understand the principle of cause and effect; there are those who vainly deny cause and effect; how pitiable, fanning a degenerate wind, and the Ancestral Way declines. "Not falling into cause and effect" is precisely denying cause and effect. Due to this, he fell into the evil destinies. "Not obscure to cause and effect" is clearly deep faith in cause and effect. Due to this, the listener was released from the evil destinies; do not doubt or suspect this. Recent students of Zen and the Way mostly deny cause and effect. Why do I know they deny cause and effect? They say "not falling" and "not obscure" are equal and not different; due to this I know they deny cause and effect. [Note 157]

Dōgen cites the Zen kōan to strongly express the importance of "Deep Faith in Cause and Effect." He believes "not falling into cause and effect" is "denying cause and effect," and "not obscure to cause and effect" is "deep faith in cause and effect," and criticizes the practitioners of Zen at that time for falling into the false view of "denying cause and effect" because they mistook "not falling" and "not obscure" as equal and not different. The targets of Dōgen's criticism included great Zen masters such as Hongzhi, [Note 158] Yuanwu Keqin, [Note 159] and Dahui Zonggao; [Note 160] he pointed out that these Zen masters either denied cause and effect or fell into the view of permanence or the Naturalist view of non-Buddhists.

Dōgen simultaneously criticized the views that "upon death one must return to the Nature Ocean, return to the Great Self" and "without practicing Buddhadharma, naturally returning to the Ocean of Awareness"; Hakamaya believes this is precisely a critique of "Original Enlightenment thought." In the 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen's Original Enlightenment thought encompassing mountains, rivers, and the great earth can be seen everywhere, but in the "Shizen Biku" (Bhikṣu of the Fourth Dhyāna) chapter of the 12-fascicle edition, Dōgen clearly corrected this viewpoint; he said: Some say that because all Buddhas widely realize the Dharma-realm, the Dharma-realm of particles is all realized by all Buddhas; however, since dependent and proper retributions are both what the Tathāgata taught, mountains, rivers, great earth, sun, moon, and stars, the four inversions and three poisons are all what the Tathāgata taught. Seeing mountains and rivers is seeing the Tathāgata; the three poisons and four inversions are nothing but Buddhadharma; seeing a particle of dust is seeing the Dharma-realm; moments of haste and difficulty are all the Three Bodhis; this is called Great Liberation, this is named the Ancestral Way of single transmission and direct pointing. Those who speak like this are like hemp, millet, bamboo, and reeds, filling the court and field... they are totally ignorant of the Way of Buddhas and Ancestors. [Note 161]

The non-dual thought visible everywhere in the 75-fascicle edition—such as the "three poisons and four inversions" being not two with Buddhadharma as stated in the quote above, dependent retribution and proper retribution being not two, "moments of haste and difficulty" and "Three Bodhis" being not two, etc.—Dōgen calls "ignorant of the Way of Buddhas and Ancestors." This became the strongest evidence for Hakamaya to believe that Dōgen corrected his earlier Original Enlightenment thought. Furthermore, Dōgen's earlier thought contained a "Pan-naturalism" (Animism) compatible with Original Enlightenment thought. For example, in the "Raihai Tokuzui" (Prostrating and Attaining the Marrow) chapter, Dōgen once said we should respect the "Dharma," whether it manifests in pillars, lanterns, Buddhas, foxes, ghosts/spirits, or men and women. Dōgen also quoted the Buddha saying: "Today I attained Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi; thus one should vow to trees and stones, one can speak of seeking fields and villages, one can speak of asking pillars and walls to investigate." [Note 162] In the 12-fascicle edition, Dōgen rejected this thought; for example, in the "Kie Sanbō" (Taking Refuge in the Three Treasures) chapter, he said: "Sentient beings, do not vainly fear what oppresses you and take refuge in mountain spirits, ghosts, and spirits, etc.... that such dharmas can be causes of liberation is impossible." [Note 163] This is also the reason Hakamaya Noriaki of "Critical Buddhism" believes Dōgen abandoned Original Enlightenment thought.

Furthermore, "Critical Buddhism" has always believed that Original Enlightenment thought is the root cause of discrimination and differential treatment in Japanese society. Hakamaya specifically leveled severe criticism against the discriminatory thought implied in Shushōgi (The Meaning of Practice and Verification), the basic classic upheld by believers of the Japanese Sōtō School. Shushōgi was compiled by Ōuchi Seiran (1845-1918) based on Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, but Hakamaya believes Shushōgi not only failed to present Dōgen's true thought but instead included theories Dōgen refuted; he cites a commentary on the principle of cause and effect in Shushōgi as an example: Originally the source of the universe is equal and uniform (ichinyo), without separation by particles or discrimination. In the equality and uniformity itself, there exists a Great Spiritual Power. This Spiritual Power is consistent through ancient and modern times, is the fixed rule of heaven and earth; relying on it, marvelous function manifests. This fixed rule is named the Principle of Cause and Effect; from heaven and earth above to a blade of grass and a tree below, their generation and transformation all depend on this Principle of Cause and Effect. [Note 164]

Hakamaya believes that this view of regarding the source of the universe, which is equal and uniform, as the root producing myriad differentiated things, and myriad things returning to the source, is not only not Dōgen's assertion but is a viewpoint Dōgen vigorously attacked. For example, Dōgen said: "Those who say there is no present life [say]: the form is in this place, the nature long ago returned to enlightenment; nature is mind; mind is not equal to the body; explaining it like this is a non-Buddhist path. Or saying: when a person dies they must return to the Nature Ocean; without practicing Buddhadharma, naturally returning to the Ocean of Awareness, then there is no more birth and death in samsara... this is precisely a non-Buddhist path. Generally, they deny cause and effect themselves, mistakenly recognizing no present life or future life." [Note 165] Dōgen believed that "returning to the Nature Ocean, returning to the Great Self" after death is a non-Buddhist view because it carries a strong Original Enlightenment thought of "Mind is permanent, Appearance is destroyed," and this is exactly what Dōgen vigorously criticized in Bendōwa: Question:Regarding this body, since it has birth, it moves toward extinction; but this mind-nature never perishes. The mind-nature that can know non-extinction exists in my body; this is the original nature. The body is a temporary form, dying here and born there without fixity. The mind is permanently abiding, unchanging through past, future, and present... (Dōgen) Instruction: The view spoken of now is absolutely not the Buddhadharma; it is the view of the Śreṇika non-Buddhists. That non-Buddhist view says there is a numinous awareness within my body; that awareness, encountering conditions, can distinguish good and evil, right and wrong, know pain and itch, know suffering and pleasure; all are the power of that numinous awareness. However, regarding that numinous nature, when this body decays, it sheds and is born elsewhere; therefore, seeing this perish and that born, it is immortal and permanently abiding. That non-Buddhist view is like this. Yet taking this view as the Buddhadharma is like grasping a tile or pebble and calling it a golden treasure; it is excessive foolishness, delusion to be ashamed of. [Note 166]

From the above quote, it is evident that Dōgen thoroughly opposed the theory of "Mind is permanent, Appearance is destroyed"; such a theory resembling the Divine Self theory (Ātmavāda) naturally does not accord with basic Buddhist doctrine, but Hakamaya believes the Sōtō sect cited it as a basis to justify class discrimination. Hakamaya cites Kishizawa Ian (1865-1955) as an example. Kishizawa once said that the Spirit Source (Reigen) is bright and pure like a water source; from this Spirit Source flow branches and tributaries; branches and tributaries return to the Spirit Source; the Source is one, branches are many; the Buddhadharma is also like this. The Buddha-seed arises from multitudes of conditions and returns to become the "Sixteen-foot Golden Body." Therefore, Buddhism speaks of equality on one hand, and speaks of differentiation on the other; this can be applied to social class, i.e., "Class + Non-discrimination = The Mind of the Great Sage of India." [Note 167] Hakamaya points out that the "Spirit Source" spoken of by Kishizawa is precisely the Śreṇika non-Buddhist theory criticized by Dōgen; more seriously, this statement that equality is differentiation and differentiation is equality is precisely the excuse creating social inequality.

Summarizing the above exploration and criticism of Dōgen's thought by "Critical Buddhism," we can conclude the following main points, but we can also raise counter-questions to these points: (1) Tathāgatagarbha thought (and the Original Enlightenment thought developed later from it) is not orthodox Buddhist thought. Question: Is tathāgatagarbha thought truly non-Buddhist? (2) Dōgen's 75-fascicle Shōbōgenzō contains strong Original Enlightenment thought, but he corrected his viewpoint in the 12-fascicle edition. Question: Is Dōgen's Original Enlightenment thought the same Original Enlightenment thought criticized by "Critical Buddhism"? Furthermore, did Dōgen's Buddha-nature thought change between the early and late periods? (3) Original Enlightenment thought is the main cause of class discrimination in Japanese society. Question: Is Original Enlightenment thought itself the sole thought causing the fact of discrimination in Japanese society, or was it caused by other non-Buddhist factors?

Point (1) is the main viewpoint of "Critical Buddhism"; the main reason it considers tathāgatagarbha to be non-Buddhist is that Buddhism advocates Dependent Origination and Non-Self, while tathāgatagarbha thought advocates "Dhātu-vāda" (Substrate Theory), i.e., "Multifarious dharmas arise from a single real substrate (dhātu)," which Matsumoto Shirō calls "Generative Monism" or "Root Realism." [Note 168] This tathāgatagarbha thought containing a Divine Self theory is directly contrary to the Dependent Origination Non-Self theory. Against this critique, both traditional Buddhism and modern scholars have offered defenses; [Note 169] for example, Fo Xing Lun and Ratnagotravibhāga both point out that the affirmative language used by tathāgatagarbha thought is not affirming the existence of a "Self," but is to counteract sentient beings' misunderstanding and fear of "Emptiness." Although sūtras and treatises also call tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-nature "Self," its "Self" is not the non-Buddhist "Self." The Fo Xing Lun explains: "As the Sūtra verse says: 'The two emptinesses are already pure, attaining the Supreme Self of Non-Self; because the Buddha attained the Pure Nature, Non-Self is transformed into Self.' All non-Buddhists cling to the view of a Self within the five grasping skandhas; to overturn the falsity of their Self-grasping, one cultivates Prajñāpāramitā, reaching the attainment of Supreme Non-Self, which is the Self Pāramitā." [Note 170] The "Non-Self" obtained from realizing the two emptinesses of person and dharmas far surpasses the "Self" of the Way; the "Self" of the pure Buddha-nature realized by the Buddha is transformed from the supreme "Non-Self"; therefore the "Self (Pāramitā)" of Buddha-nature is completely different from the "Self" of non-Buddhists. The essence of tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) does not contradict Non-Self; it is only that its affirmative terminology resembles a Self-theory.

Point (2): Dōgen indeed advocated the theory of Buddha-nature, but his Buddha-nature thought is not the "Dhātu-vāda" spoken of by "Critical Buddhism." In fact, in his "Busshō" chapter, Dōgen interpreted Buddha-nature as "No-Nature Buddha-nature" and constantly drew a line between Buddha-nature thought and the "Naturalist View" of non-Buddhists. For example, Dōgen said: (i) "If one says all sentient beings are originally Buddhas, this is the same as non-Buddhists. To compare the self and what belongs to the self to the Buddhas, one cannot avoid claiming attainment when not attained, claiming realization when not realized." [Note 171] (ii) "Later students must not be the same as non-Buddhists of the Naturalist view. Zen Master Baizhang Dazhi said: 'If one clings to original purity, original liberation, self is Buddha, self is the understanding of the Chan Way, this belongs to Naturalist non-Buddhists.'" [Note 172] (iii) "Hearing the word Buddha-nature, many students fall into the false Self-view of the Śreṇika non-Buddhists... because they do not meet a person, do not meet the self, and do not see a teacher." [Note 173] (iv) "Manifest everywhere, nothing hidden does not necessarily mean the entire realm is [exists]; if the entire realm has a Self, then it is a non-Buddhist false view." [Note 174] Dōgen’s Buddha-nature is not a substantial "Substrate Existence" as stated by "Critical Buddhism," but a "Self" of "Non-Self," which is what Masao Abe calls "The Determiner without a determiner; and the Determiner without a determiner is self-determination, freedom, and selfhood." [Note 175] In summary, Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought is not the Original Enlightenment thought criticized by "Critical Buddhism." As for whether Dōgen corrected his "Original Enlightenment thought" in the 12-fascicle Shōbōgenzō, actually, this question cannot be established, because Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought was never "Dhātu-vāda" from the beginning. As argued by Hakamaya Noriaki, the "Deep Faith in Cause and Effect" and "Karma of the Three Times" emphasized by Dōgen in the 12 fascicles can break free from the Original Enlightenment thought of Substrate Theory; his early Buddha-nature thought also did not carry the tone of "Substrate Theory." Therefore, regarding Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought, there is no difference between his earlier and later writings; what differs is that in his later years, Dōgen’s attitude leaned towards returning to the basic doctrines of primitive Buddhism (cause and effect, karma) and the lifestyle of practicing the Way (Leaving-Home Supremacism).

Point (3): "Critical Buddhism" accuses Original Enlightenment thought of being the main cause of class discrimination in Japanese society. Although Hakamaya did not criticize Dōgen for having discriminatory thought, he believed that Shushōgi—the guide to practice for the Sōtō School compiled based on Shōbōgenzō—carried discriminatory language and thought. Hakamaya believes Original Enlightenment thought is the theoretical basis for Japanese social discrimination, but he did not clearly cite any instance to prove a necessary causal relationship between the two. Even if Original Enlightenment thought was misused to defend the phenomenon of class differentiation in Japanese society, it does not mean Original Enlightenment thought essentially contains discriminatory thought. In fact, Hakamaya also admits that Original Enlightenment thought advocates that all sentient beings possess universal Original Enlightenment, thus sentient beings are ultimately equal without difference. Therefore, the problem lies not in Original Enlightenment thought itself, but in the problem of how it is used. Even the best theory and thought have the possibility of being misused, but one cannot blame the theory or thought for this. In short, the criticism by "Critical Buddhism" that Original Enlightenment thought is the culprit of social discrimination is not persuasive, and is even less related to Dōgen’s Buddha-nature thought.

VI. Conclusion

Buddhism is a religion that advocates equal emphasis on theory and practice; Dōgen Zenji is precisely one of the most outstanding Zen masters in Japanese Buddhism who attended to both. His thoroughness in Buddhist doctrine is expressed in his profound system of thought, among which his interpretations of Buddha-nature, Being, Time, Birth and Death, Real Mark (Reality), and Dhyāna Samādhi most highlight the depth and originality of his thought. In the practice and realization of the Buddhadharma, Dōgen’s doubt regarding the teaching of Buddha-nature, through his personal process of seeking the Dharma, experienced the true meaning of practice: the non-duality of practice and realization and the continuous practice of the Way-Ring. Buddha-nature thought can be said to be the main thread running through Dōgen’s thought and religious experience. The Impermanence-Buddha-nature he advocated not only transcends the theoretical difficulties of traditional Buddha-nature theory but is also the basis for "Becoming a Buddha" and "Acting as Buddha," because Buddha-nature is realized precisely in the immediacy of impermanence.

Dōgen’s thought, especially his Buddha-nature thought, is not without controversy; for example, some scholars still doubt whether his Buddha-nature theory can truly break free from the implication of "Dhātu-vāda" (Substrate Theory), and whether Buddha-nature thought is truly the theoretical basis for causing social discrimination as criticized by scholars of "Critical Buddhism." Furthermore, what significance and inspiration Dōgen’s thought holds for topics such as the problem of life and death, spiritual purification, ecological environmental protection, and education in modern society. Because Dōgen’s thought is both deep and broad, it leaves a vast space for research and exploration for modern scholars. ________________________________________ Note: The footnotes (1–175) follow below as they contain substantial historical and bibliographic information integral to the source text.

[Note 1] Watsuji Tetsurō, "Śramaṇa Dōgen" (Shamon Dōgen), collected in his own *Nihon Seishinshi Kenkyū* (Studies in Japanese Intellectual History), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1926, pp. 156-246. Also collected in *Watsuji Tetsurō Zenshū* (Complete Works of Watsuji Tetsurō), Vol. 4, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1962, pp. 156-246. Actually, since the late 19th century, disciples of the Sōtō School and some Buddhist scholars have successively published works concerning Dōgen Zenji. (See Kumamoto Hideto, ed., *Dōgen Shisō Taikei*, Vol. 22, "Research Literature on Dōgen: Chronology and General Index," Dōhōsha, 1995, pp. 13-16). Watsuji himself also published articles such as "Dōgen's 'Kattō' (Entangling Vines)," "Dōgen's 'Dōtoku' (Speaking)," and "Dōgen's 'Busshō' (Buddha-nature)" in *Shisō* in 1923. Since Watsuji was an important scholar of the Kyoto School, and his "Śramaṇa Dōgen" was a relatively deep study at the time, the academic world attributes the beginning of modern academic research on Dōgen to him.

[Note 2] Regarding Japanese research literature on Dōgen, the most complete collection is Kumamoto Hideto, ed., *Dōgen Shisō Taikei*, Vol. 22, "Research Literature on Dōgen: Chronology and General Index," covering books and anthologies on Dōgen published from 1877 to 1995. Regarding Western literature, one can search the Buddhist database on the Internet of the Center for Buddhist Studies at National Taiwan University ([http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw](http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw)). In Chinese, research on Dōgen is close to zero, except for the book *Dōgen* published by Fu Wei-hsun in 1996.

[Note 3] *Hōkyōki* is not completely a record of Dōgen’s entire life, but a record of the mind-to-mind transmission Q&A between him and Zen Master Rujing during his study in the Song Dynasty from the first year of Baoqing (1225) to the third year of Baoqing; it contains much of Rujing’s inspiration and Dōgen’s own religious experiences of spiritual resonance. This may be why Dōgen never showed this work while alive.

[Note 4] *Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki* consists of six fascicles; it is Ejō’s notes recording Dōgen’s teachings; although not systematized, the book records Dōgen’s instructions on zazen, Buddhadharma, virtue, leaving home, and literature, which are very valuable for understanding Dōgen’s thought. There are three English translations, one of which is: Reihō Masunaga, tr. *A Primer of Soto Zen — A Translation of Dogen’s Shobogenzo Zuimonki*, Sankibo, 1971. Additionally, see Ikeda Rosan, ed., *Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki no Kenkyū*, Keisuisha, 1989.

[Note 5] For English works, see Hee-Jin Kim, *Dōgen Kigen — Mystical Realist*, Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1975. For Chinese, see Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*, Dongda Books, 1996.

[Note 6] Ōkubo Dōshū, ed., *Dōgen Zenji Zenshū* (Complete Works of Dōgen Zenji), Vol. 2, Chikuma Shobō, 1970, p. 364.

[Note 7] Around the 13th century, Kamakura Buddhism saw the appearance of several key figures: Eisai (1141-1215) founded the Japanese Rinzai School after visiting Song twice to learn Chan. Hōnen (1133-1212) founded the Pure Land School (Jōdo-shū); his disciple Shinran (1173-1262) further emphasized Other-Power Nembutsu thought and became the founder of Jōdo Shinshū. Nichiren (1222-1282) focused on chanting "Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō" and is honored as the founding ancestor of the Nichiren School.

[Note 8] *Eihei-ji Sanso Gyōgōki*, collected in Kawamura Kōdō, ed., *Shohon Taikō: Eihei Kaisan Dōgen Zenji Gyōjō — Kenzeiki*, Taishūkan Shoten, 1975, p. 158.

[Note 9] *Dōgen Zenji Zenshū*, Vol. 2, p. 471.

[Note 10] It is said that Bada Shanren Shitao once realized impermanence by watching a leaf fall and then left home; a very special cause and condition.

[Note 11] According to the *Sanso Gyōgōki*, before Dōgen’s loving mother passed away, she instructed him to shave his head and dye his robes in the future, to practice the Buddhadharma, to pray for his parents, and further to seek Bodhi to save sentient beings from karmic suffering.

[Note 12] Kawamura Kōdō, ed., *Shohon Taikō: Eihei Kaisan Dōgen Zenji Gyōjō — Kenzeiki*, p. 10. Kawamura detailedly collated the Mingzhou Text (Tenbun Text), Zuichō Text (Tenshō Text), Enpō Text (Matsudaira Bunko Text), Monshi Text (Genroku Text), Genbun Text (Sosan Text), and Menzan Revised Text (Popular Text / Hōreki Text) in chronological order of writing.

[Note 13] When Dōgen presented his doubt to Kōin in the second year of Kenpō (1214), Kōin suggested to him: "Although there is the sectarian doctrine, I fear it does not exhaust the principle; you must visit Eisai at Kennin-ji."

[Note 14] *Dōgen Zenji Zenshū*, Vol. 2, p. 471.

[Note 15] Takashi James Kodera, *Dogen’s Formative Years in China*, p. 36. Kodera’s guess may be the fact, because according to ancient monastic rules for staying (kadan), a student monk must hold an ordination certificate to be permitted to stay for study.

[Note 16] Dōgen was deeply impressed by the Tenzo system of Chinese monasteries; he described: "The meal and gruel are arranged according to the Dharma and placed on the table; the Tenzo puts on the Kaṣāya, spreads the sitting cloth, first burns incense and bows nine times facing the Monks' Hall, and after bowing, sends out the food. Spending all day and night preparing meals and gruel without wasting time. Having actual preparation, movement, and action, naturally becoming the karma of nurturing the Sacred Embryo; stepping back and turning the body is precisely the way of peace and joy for the great assembly." Contrastingly, Dōgen criticized Japanese Buddhism saying: "In my country of Japan, the name of Buddhadharma has been heard for a long time; however, the words of making monks' food according to the Dharma were not recorded by predecessors and not taught by former virtues, let alone seeing the rite of nine bows for monks' food even in a dream. People of the country say: the matter of monks' food, the matter of the monks' method of making food, is just like animals; the method of eating is truly pitiful, truly lamentable." (*Dōgen Zenji Zenshū*, Vol. 2, p. 298.)

[Note 17] The above story and dialogue between Dōgen and the old Tenzo are quoted from *Tenzo Kyōkun*, collected in Ōkubo Dōshū, ed., *Dōgen Zenji Zenshū*, Vol. 2, pp. 298-299.

[Note 18] For Rujing’s Chan method and thought, see Kagami-shima Genryū, *Tendō Nyojō Zenji no Kenkyū*, Shunjūsha, 1983.

[Note 19] The original text of *Hōkyōki* reads: "Dōgen gave rise to the Bodhi mind in childhood, visited teachers of the Way in his own country, and slightly knew the origin of cause and effect. Although it was so, I was not clear on the actual refuge of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and vainly stagnated in the emotions of names and marks. Later I entered the chamber of Zen Master Senkō (Eisai) and first heard the style of the Rinzai School. Now I follow Dharma Master Zen (Myōzen) to enter the hot Song. Sailing ten thousand li, entrusting the illusory body to the waves, I finally reached Great Song and was able to cast myself into the Monk's Dharma assembly; this is the rejoicing of past blessings. The Monk has great kindness and compassion; this small person from a foreign distant place wishes, regardless of time and without proper demeanor, to come frequently to the Abbot's quarters to bow and ask about my foolish feelings. Impermanence is swift, the matter of birth and death is great; time waits for no one; if the sage departs, I will surely regret. Root Teacher, Great Monk in the Hall, Great Zen Master, with great kindness and compassion, pity and permit Dōgen to ask about the Way and Dharma. I humbly hope for compassionate illumination; the small master Dōgen bows one hundred times with head to the ground." (Ikeda Rosan, *Hōkyōki: Dōgen no Nissō Guhō Nōto*, Daitō Shuppansha, 1989).

[Note 20] Rujing once expressed this expectation to Dōgen: "Although you are a native [of Japan], you have the spirit of the ancients; you must dwell in deep mountains and dark valleys to nurture the Sacred Embryo of Buddhas and Ancestors; you will surely reach the place of realization of the ancient virtues." At that time, Dōgen arose and bowed at Rujing’s feet. Rujing chanted: "The one bowing (Dōgen) and the one bowed to (Rujing) are empty and quiet in nature; the spiritual resonance and mutual limitlessness are inconceivable." Dōgen’s tears soaked his lapel. The feeling of spiritual resonance between the two is visible. (Ikeda Rosan, *Hōkyōki*, p. 156.)

[Note 21] *Dōgen Zenji Zenshū*, Vol. 2, p. 256.

[Note 22] According to *Kenzeiki*, "Casting off body and mind" is the key phrase for Dōgen's enlightenment. One day Rujing scolded a student monk who was dozing off during zazen: "Practicing Zen is the casting off of body and mind. Why do you just sleep?" Dōgen heard this and had a sudden great awakening, then went to the Abbot's quarters to bow and give thanks to Rujing. Rujing asked where the bows came from; Dōgen said: "From casting off body and mind." Rujing verified it saying: "Casting off body and mind, body and mind cast off." Dōgen replied: "This is a temporary skill; the Monk must not verify indiscriminately." Rujing answered: "I do not verify indiscriminately." Dōgen then asked: "What is the matter of not verifying indiscriminately?" Rujing replied: "Casting off, casting off" (*datsuraku datsuraku*). Rujing saying "casting off body and mind, body and mind cast off" to Dōgen meant he wanted Dōgen to cast off "casting off." That is to say, Rujing wanted Dōgen to constantly cast off "casting off," put down "putting down," making "practice" and "realization" reinforce each other.

[Note 23] Ikeda Rosan, *Hōkyōki*, p. 159.

[Note 24] Ibid.

[Note 25] Dōgen once asked Rujing: "Recent doubters say: 'The three poisons are the Buddhadharma, the five desires are the Ancestral Way'; if one removes them, it is the same as the Small Vehicle." Rujing replied: "If one does not remove the three poisons and five desires, one is like the non-Buddhists of King Ajātaśatru in the Kingdom of Bimbisāra. If the descendants of Buddhas and Ancestors remove one covering or one desire, it is a huge benefit; it is the time of meeting the Buddhas and Ancestors." (*Hōkyōki*, p. 160.)

[Note 26] "Genjōkōan" chapter, *Shōbōgenzō Chūkai Zensho* (Complete Annotated Shōbōgenzō), Bukkyō Taikei Kanseikai, Taishō 15 (1926), Vol. 1, p. 238. (Original texts of *Shōbōgenzō* chapters in this article are cited from the *Kyakutai Ichijisan* collected in this book; hereafter referred to as *Zensho*).

[Note 27] *Hōkyōki*, p. 151.

[Note 28] Naturalist Non-Buddhists (*Jinen-gedō*) are one of the non-Buddhist schools of ancient India, advocating that myriad things exist naturally without cause, not born from causes and conditions; Maskarī Gośālaputra and Ajita Keśakambala both belong to Naturalist Non-Buddhists.

[Note 29] "Bendōwa" chapter, *Zensho*, Vol. 1, p. 75.

[Note 30] Ibid., p. 65.

[Note 31] *Dōgen Zenji Zenshū*, Vol. 2, p. 18.

[Note 32] Detailed circumstances of Dōgen's propagation after returning to Japan have been researched by many and are not directly related to this article, so they are not repeated. See Ōkubo Dōshū, *Dōgen Zenji Den no Kenkyū*; Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*; Hee-Jin Kim, *Dōgen Kigen — Mystical Realist*.

[Note 33] The *Aṅguttara Nikāya* says: "Monks, this mind is extremely luminous and pure, but is defiled by adventitious afflictions; the unlearned ordinary person does not understand as it really is; I say the unlearned ordinary person has no cultivation of mind."

[Note 34] *Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra*, Fascicle 22, *Taishō Tripiṭaka* Vol. 27, p. 110a.

[Note 35] *Satyasiddhi Śāstra*, Fascicle 3, *Taishō* Vol. 32, p. 258b.

[Note 36] *Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*, Fascicle 1, *Taishō* Vol. 8, p. 537b.

[Note 37] Ibid.

[Note 38] *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra*, Fascicle 63, *Taishō* Vol. 25, p. 508c.

[Note 39] Ibid.

[Note 40] Regarding research on *tathāgatagarbha* thought, see Yin Shun, *Rulaizang Zhi Yanjiu* (Study of Tathāgatagarbha), Zhengwen Publishing, 1981. Takasaki Jikidō, *Nyoraizō Shisō no Keisei* (Formation of Tathāgatagarbha Thought), Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1974.

[Note 41] Takasaki Jikidō, "Dharmatā, Dharmadhātu, Dharmakāya and Buddhadhātu — Structure of the Ultimate Value in Mahāyāna Buddhism," *Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū*, Vol. 14, March 1966, pp. 78-94. Shinoda Masashige, "'Busshō' to sono gengo" ('Buddha-nature' and its Original Language), *Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū*, Vol. 11, 1963, pp. 223-226.

[Note 42] *Commentary on the Mahāyāna Treatise* (*Shì Móhēyǎn Lùn*) is traditionally attributed to Nāgārjuna as a commentary on the *Awakening of Faith*; Zongmi cited it in *Complete Enlightenment Sūtra Abridged Commentary*. However, its authenticity has been controversial since ancient times. Kenkei (705-793) and Hōchibō Shōshin (late 12th century) judged it as a forgery.

[Note 43] *Taishō* Vol. 77, p. 371a.

[Note 44] *Kongōchōkyō Kaidai*, *Taishō* Vol. 61, p. 3a.

[Note 45] Regarding literature, textual explanation, and historical development of Japanese Tendai Original Enlightenment thought, see Tada Kōryū et al., eds., *Tendai Hongaku Ron*, *Nihon Shisō Taikei* Vol. 9, Iwanami Shoten, 1973; Yamauchi Shun'yū, *Dōgen Zen to Tendai Hongaku Hōmon*, Daizō Shuppansha, 1985.

[Note 46] *Tendai Hokkeshū Gozu Hōmon Yōsan*, collected in *Tendai Hongaku Ron*, 1973, pp. 329-330.

[Note 47] Ibid., p. 134.

[Note 48] Ibid., p. 383.

[Note 49] Ibid., pp. 535-536.

[Note 50] *Dai Nihon Bukkyō Zensho*, Vol. 17, p. 40.

[Note 51] See Yamauchi Shun'yū, *Dōgen Zen to Tendai Hongaku Hōmon*, pp. 718-744; An'ya Gyōkō, "Hōchibō Shōshin no Hongaku Shisō Hihan" (Hōchibō Shōshin's Critique of Original Enlightenment Thought), in Asai Endō, ed., *Hongaku Shisō no Genryū to Tenkai*, Heirakuji Shoten, 1991.

[Note 52] Takasaki Jikidō, "Dōgen no Busshō-ron," in Kagami-shima Genryū, ed., *Dōgen Shisō no Tokuchō*, Shunjūsha, 1988, pp. 108-109.

[Note 53] "Busshō" Chapter, *Zensho*, Vol. 3, p. 295.

[Note 54] Ibid.

[Note 55] *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, *Taishō* Vol. 12, p. 492a. Vasubandhu’s *Treatise on the Verse of Originally Existent and Currently Non-Existent in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra* gives a clear explanation: "Originally non-existent and now existent: if previously there was non-existence and now existence, having existence one cannot obtain liberation. If previously afflictions had not arisen, that is separation from liberation; if afterwards afflictions arise, then there is no liberation. If previously there was non-existence and now existence, the extreme of non-arising should arise, like flowers in the sky." (*Taishō* Vol. 26, p. 281b-c).

[Note 56] *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra*, Fascicle 403, "Observation Chapter," says: "The Bodhisattva Mahāsattva practicing Prajñāpāramitā does not do so for the sake of supernatural powers and wisdom... does not do so for the heavenly ear, reading others' minds, recalling past lives, heavenly eye, extinction of outflows, or wisdom powers. Why? The Bodhisattva Mahāsattva practicing Prajñāpāramitā does not even see Prajñāpāramitā, let alone see the deeds of six supernatural powers of Bodhisattvas and Tathāgatas." (*Taishō* Vol. 7, p. 16a-b).

[Note 57] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 295.

[Note 58] Ibid., p. 293.

[Note 59] *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 5, *Taishō* Vol. 51, p. 240c.

[Note 60] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 296.

[Note 61] Ibid.

[Note 62] *Fo Xing Lun*, *Taishō* Vol. 31, p. 787b.

[Note 63] "Busshō" Chapter, pp. 296-297.

[Note 64] In the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra*, Bodhisattva Mahāmati asks the Buddha: "World-Honored One, the Sūtras say the *tathāgatagarbha* is naturally pure, transforming into thirty-two marks, entering the bodies of all sentient beings like a great priceless jewel wrapped in dirty clothes; the *tathāgatagarbha* is permanently abiding and unchanging, likewise wrapped in the dirty clothes of the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, defiled by greed, anger, and delusion, and false thought and dust labor; this is what all Buddhas speak. Why, World-Honored One, is this the same as the non-Buddhists saying 'I' (Self) exist in the *tathāgatagarbha*? World-Honored One! Non-Buddhists also speak of a permanent creator, separate from the Guṇas (qualities), pervading and immortal." (*Taishō* Vol. 16, p. 489a-b).

[Note 65] "Critical Buddhism" arose from Japanese scholars Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shirō believing that Buddha-nature (Original Enlightenment theory) is a "Dhātu-vāda" (Substrate Theory) of "Topical Philosophy" (*basho* philosophy), violating the basic Buddhist doctrines of Emptiness and Dependent Origination. See Hakamaya Noriaki, *Hongaku Shisō Hihan* (Critique of Original Enlightenment Thought), Daizō Shuppansha, 1989; Hakamaya Noriaki, *Hihan Bukkyō* (Critical Buddhism), Daizō Shuppansha, 1990; Matsumoto Shirō, *Engi to Kū* (Dependent Origination and Emptiness), Daizō Shuppansha, 1989; Jamie Hubbard & Paul Swanson, eds., *Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism*, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.

[Note 66] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 297.

[Note 67] "Sokushin Zebutsu" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 1, pp. 356-357. This recorded saying comes from *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 28.

[Note 68] *Fo Xing Lun* defines "Buddha-nature as True Suchness revealed by the two emptinesses." The *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* regards Buddha-nature (*tathāgatagarbha*) as synonymous with "Emptiness, Signlessness, Wishlessness, Suchness, Dharma-body, Nirvāṇa, Unborn and Undying."

[Note 69] See Vasubandhu, *Fo Xing Lun*, *Taishō* Vol. 31, pp. 788c-793a.

[Note 70] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 299.

[Note 71] *Jin Qishi Lun* (Gold Seventy Treatise), *Taishō* Vol. 54, pp. 1246c-1247a.

[Note 72] *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, Fascicle 24, *Taishō* Vol. 12, p. 760b.

[Note 73] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 300.

[Note 74] *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, "Bodhisattva Lion’s Roar Chapter," Fascicle 28, *Taishō* Vol. 12, p. 532a.

[Note 75] *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 9, *Taishō* Vol. 51, p. 264b.

[Note 76] *Liandeng Huiyao*, Fascicle 6, *Manji Zokuzōkyō* (Xuzangjing) Vol. 136, p. 270b.

[Note 77] Dōgen interpreting "if the time comes" in *Liandeng Huiyao* as "the time has come" is not necessarily "Dōgen's genius misreading" as Fu Wei-hsun said, because *Jingde Chuandeng Lu* uses "the time has come" (*ki shi*). See Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*, Dongda Books, 1996, p. 139.

[Note 78] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 302.

[Note 79] "Bendōwa", *Zensho*, Vol. 1, p. 68.

[Note 80] See Masao Abe, "Dōgen on Buddha Nature," in *A Study of Dōgen*, ed. by Steven Heine, New York: State University of New York Press, 1992, pp. 69-76. For the Chinese translation of this article, see Wang Leiquan, "Dōgen lun Foxing," *Neiming*, Issues 190-193, Jan-Apr 1988.

[Note 81] "Uji" Chapter, *Zensho*, Vol. 2, p. 59.

[Note 82] "Busshō" Chapter, pp. 303-304.

[Note 83] "Uji" Chapter, p. 57.

[Note 84] See Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*, pp. 119-120.

[Note 85] "Uji" Chapter, p. 57.

[Note 86] "Uji" Chapter, p. 56.

[Note 87] *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 1, *Taishō* Vol. 51, p. 209c.

[Note 88] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 305.

[Note 89] Ibid.

[Note 90] "Six Supernatural Powers" refers to Divine Foot, Heavenly Eye, Heavenly Ear, Reading Minds, Past Lives, and Extinction of Outflows.

[Note 91] "Six Supernatural Powers" and "Pāramitā" are traditional Buddhist terms, but the term "Six Supernatural Powers Pāramitā" is not found in classics; Dōgen combined Six Supernatural Powers with Pāramitā, giving it the Mahāyāna meaning of "Ultimate."

[Note 92] Mañjuśrī asked Wuzhu: "Where do you come from?" Zhu said: " The South." Shū said: "How is the Buddhadharma in the South maintained?" Zhu said: "Bhikṣus in the Dharma-ending age hardly keep the precepts." Shū said: "How numerous is the assembly?" Zhu said: "Some three hundred, some five hundred." Wuzhu asked Mañjuśrī: "How is the Buddhadharma maintained here?" Shū said: "Ordinary and Sage dwell together, dragons and snakes are mixed." Zhu said: "How numerous is the assembly?" Shū said: "The former three-three, the latter three-three." (*Liandeng Huiyao*, Fascicle 29, *Xuzangjing* Vol. 136, p. 464a.)

[Note 93] Layman Pang sat and asked (his wife) Lingzhao: "The ancients said: 'Clearly distinct on the tips of a hundred grasses; clearly distinct is the Ancestral Teacher's meaning.' How do you understand this?" Zhao said: "So old and great, yet asking this kind of talk." The Layman said: "What about you?" Zhao said: "Clearly distinct on the tips of a hundred grasses; clearly distinct is the Ancestral Teacher's meaning." The Layman laughed. (*Pang Jushi Yulu*, Fascicle Middle, *Xuzangjing* Vol. 120, p. 31.)

[Note 94] "Busshō" Chapter, pp. 323-324.

[Note 95] "Sokushin Zebutsu" Chapter, p. 358.

[Note 96] Ibid., pp. 359-361.

[Note 97] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 294.

[Note 98] *Dàshéng Xuán Lùn*, Fascicle 3, *Taishō* Vol. 45, p. 40c.

[Note 99] Ibid.

[Note 100] *Tan Xuan Ji*, Fascicle 16, *Taishō* Vol. 35, p. 405c.

[Note 101] *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, Fascicle 36, *Taishō* Vol. 12, p. 581a.

[Note 102] *Jin’gang Pī*, *Taishō* Vol. 46, p. 782a.

[Note 103] Ibid., p. 784b.

[Note 104] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 324.

[Note 105] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 306, or see *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 3, Chapters on Fourth and Fifth Ancestors.

[Note 106] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 308.

[Note 107] *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*, Fascicle 27, *Taishō* Vol. 12, p. 523b.

[Note 108] "A single stone in emptiness" comes from *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Shishuang Chapter: A monk asked: "What is the meaning of the Western Coming?" The Master said: "A single stone in emptiness." (*Taishō* Vol. 51, p. 320c.)

[Note 109] Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*, pp. 142-143.

[Note 110] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 310. This allusion comes from *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 3.

[Note 111] Ibid.

[Note 112] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 311.

[Note 113] Ibid., p. 325.

[Note 114] Ibid.

[Note 115] *Baizhang Guanglu*, Fascicle 3, collected in Lan Jifu, ed., *Chanzong Quanshu* (Complete Works of Zen), Vol. 39, p. 84. Baizhang believed one should use the double negation of existence and non-existence to reach the nondiscriminating wisdom of no frivolity (*prapañca*); otherwise it becomes the four slanders: saying existence is the slander of increase; saying non-existence is the slander of decrease; saying both existence and non-existence is the slander of contradiction; saying neither existence nor non-existence is the slander of frivolity.

[Note 116] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 327.

[Note 117] Ibid., p. 329.

[Note 118] From *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 5, *Taishō* Vol. 51, p. 239a.

[Note 119] Ordinary people and the Two Vehicles each have four inversions: Ordinary people and non-Buddhists view the world as "Permanence, Joy, Self, and Purity"; these are four inversions. The Two Vehicles view Nirvāṇa as eternally quiescent without "Permanence, Joy, Self, and Purity"; this is also inversion. Combined they are "Eight Inversions."

[Note 120] *Jingde Chuandeng Lu*, Fascicle 5, *Taishō* Vol. 51, p. 239a.

[Note 121] See my article, "Daban Niepanjing de Foxing Shuo" (The Buddha-nature Theory of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), *Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies*, Issue 1, 1996, pp. 31-88.

[Note 122] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 315.

[Note 123] Ibid.

[Note 124] See Masao Abe, *A Study of Dogen: His Philosophy and Religion*, p. 60.

[Note 125] "Busshō" Chapter, pp. 315-316.

[Note 126] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 316.

[Note 127] See Masao Abe, *A Study of Dogen: His Philosophy and Religion*, p. 61.

[Note 128] Metaphysically speaking, this problem is the problem of "Self-nature is not defiled yet defiled, defiled yet not defiled" (Original Enlightenment and Ignorance) that the *Awakening of Faith* attempts to reconcile, and it is also the *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra* saying there are two dharmas difficult to understand: one is self-nature pure mind having defilement, one is having self-nature pure mind within defilement.

[Note 129] Ikeda Rosan, *Hōkyōki — Dōgen no Nissō Guhō Nōto*, Daitō Shuppansha, Heisei 1 (1989), p. 180.

[Note 130] "Bendōwa" Chapter, p. 71.

[Note 131] Ibid., p. 63.

[Note 132] Ibid., pp. 74-75.

[Note 133] Ibid., p. 75.

[Note 134] Masao Abe, in an article exploring Dōgen's "Oneness of Practice and Realization," calls Buddha-nature (Dharma-nature) "ground." See Masao Abe, "The Oneness of Practice and Attainment: Implications for the Relation between Means and Ends," in William LaFleur, ed., *Dogen Studies*, University of Hawaii Press, 1985, pp. 99-111. To avoid mistaking "ground" for a substantial ontological entity, it is changed to "a priori basis."

[Note 135] Fu Wei-hsun points out that the Actualized Enlightenment Gate is a "View of Practice and Realization as Two Poles"; actually, the Tendai Original Enlightenment Gate is also so, only their angles differ. See Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*, p. 214.

[Note 136] "Ango" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 8, p. 651.

[Note 137] "Gyōji" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 4, p. 461.

[Note 138] "Sanjūshichihon Bodai Bunpō" (Thirty-Seven Wings of Enlightenment) Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 8, p. 338.

[Note 139] Japanese scholar Kagami-shima Genryū, in his *Tendō Nyojō Zenji no Kenkyū*, has a unique view on Dōgen's view of practice and realization. He points out that the Actualized Enlightenment Gate holds "Although practice and realization are not two, practice must aim at realization," while the Original Enlightenment Gate holds "Since practice and realization are not two, realization must stem from practice." He believes the view of practice and realization held by Dōgen belongs to the latter. Actually, strictly speaking, Dōgen's view should be one that transcends both the Actualized Enlightenment Gate and the Original Enlightenment Gate. However, Kagami-shima has a very deep observation on the relationship between Dōgen and Rujing's view of practice and realization. He says Dōgen's "view of original realization and marvelous practice truly exists by faithfully inheriting Rujing; but we should say that it was not established by standing on Rujing's own standpoint within the background of Song Dynasty Chan, but was a view of practice and realization awakened from Rujing with Dōgen Zenji, who stood against the background of the Japanese Tendai Original Enlightenment Gate, as the catalyst." See Kagami-shima Genryū, *Tendō Nyojō Zenji no Kenkyū*, Shunjūsha, 1983, pp. 122-133; Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*, pp. 20-24.

[Note 140] This paragraph is referenced from Masao Abe, *A Study of Dogen*, pp. 30-33.

[Note 141] "Bendōwa" Chapter, p. 68.

[Note 142] "Genjōkōan" Chapter, p. 236.

[Note 143] Ibid., p. 238.

[Note 144] "Critical Buddhism" stemmed from the "Machida Incident" in the Japanese Sōtō School. In the Third World Conference on Religion and Peace convened in 1979, Machida Muneoo, Secretary General of the Sōtō School, denied the existence of social differential treatment and racial discrimination in Japanese society, thus inciting strong protest from the "Buraku Liberation League." Scholars of the Sōtō School began to reflect and actively found various theoretical roots of discrimination in Buddhist texts; the critique of *tathāgatagarbha* (Original Enlightenment) thought began here. Hakamaya Noriaki's representative works on "Critical Buddhism" are: (1) *Hongaku Shisō Hihan* (1989), (2) *Hihan Bukkyō* (1990), (3) *Dōgen to Bukkyō: Jūnikanbon Shōbōgenzō no Dōgen* (1992). Matsumoto Shirō's representative works are: (1) *Engi to Kū: Nyoraizō Shisō Hihan* (1989), (2) *Zen Shisō no Hihanteki Kenkyū* (1994). All published by Daizō Shuppansha.

[Note 145] The North American Buddhist academic world held a special panel on "Critical Buddhism" during the American Academy of Religion annual meeting in 1993. Professors Jamie Hubbard and Paul Swanson collected twenty-three papers on "Critical Buddhism" and published *Pruning the Bodhi Tree — The Storm Over Critical Buddhism*, University of Hawaii Press, 1997.

[Note 146] See Hakamaya Noriaki, "'Wa' no Han-Bukkyōsei to Bukkyō no Hansen-sei" (The Anti-Buddhist Nature of 'Harmony' and the Anti-War Nature of Buddhism), in *Hihan Bukkyō*, pp. 275-304.

[Note 147] See Sallie B. King, "The Doctrine of Buddha-nature Is Impeccably Buddhist," in *Pruning the Bodhi Tree — The Storm Over Critical Buddhism*, pp. 174-192.

[Note 148] See Hakamaya Noriaki, "Sabetsu Jishō o Umidashita Shisōteki Haikei ni kansuru Shiken" (Personal View on the Ideological Background that Produced Discriminatory Phenomena), in *Hongaku Shisō Hihan*, pp. 134-158. The English translation of this article is in *Pruning the Bodhi Tree — The Storm Over Critical Buddhism*, pp. 339-355.

[Note 149] For example, Hakamaya believes that because the source of the universe is equal and uniform, saying correct is biased and biased is correct leads to the conclusion that difference is equality and equality is difference. If applied to real life, it causes uncritical acceptance of discriminatory differential treatment in society. This view of Hakamaya can only be said to be partially correct at most. Because if used correctly, the thought of *tathāgatagarbha* equality without difference can lead to results of social equality and justice. Therefore, *tathāgatagarbha* thought itself is not the problem; how it is used correctly is the problem. Even the best theory and thought have the possibility of being misused, but one cannot blame the theory or thought for this. In short, "Critical Buddhism's" criticism of Original Enlightenment thought as the culprit of social discrimination is not persuasive, and is even less related to Dōgen's Buddha-nature thought.

[Note 150] Regarding research on the 12-fascicle edition, see Kagami-shima Genryū and Suzuki Kakuzen, co-eds., *Jūnikanbon Shōbōgenzō no Shomondai*, Daizō Shuppansha, 1991.

[Note 151] Steven Heine, "The Dogen Canon: Dogen’s Pre-Shobogenzo Writings and the Question of Change in His Later Works," *Japanese Journal of Religious Studies*, vol. 24, No. 1-2, Spring, 1997, pp. 39-85.

[Note 152] Carl Bielefeldt, "Recarving the Dragon: History and Dogma in the Study of Dogen," in *Dogen Studies*, William La Fleur, ed., Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985, pp. 21-53.

[Note 153] Heinrich Dumoulin, *Zen Buddhism: A History*, vol. II, New York: Macmillan, 1990, pp. 62-104.

[Note 154] Fu Wei-hsun, *Dōgen*, p. 265.

[Note 155] Steven Heine, "Critical Buddhism and Dogen’s Shobogenzo: The Debate Over 75-Fascicle and 12-Fascicle Texts," in *Pruning the Bodhi Tree*, pp. 251-285.

[Note 156] "Jinshin Inga" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 9, p. 335.

[Note 157] Ibid., p. 336.

[Note 158] Zen Master Hongzhi had a verse commentary on cause and effect: "One foot of water, one fathom of waves; five hundred lives ago, what could be done? 'Not falling' and 'not obscure' are discussed; still crashing into the nest of entangling vines." Dōgen believed the last two lines were suspected of mistaking "not falling and not obscure as the same." ("Jinshin Inga" Chapter, p. 338.)

[Note 159] Zen Master Yuanwu’s verse commentary says: "Fish swim and water is muddy, birds fly and feathers fall; the ultimate mirror is hard to escape, the great void is vast. Once going far away for five hundred lives, only because of cause and effect is there great practice. Thunder breaks the mountain, wind shakes the sea; pure gold refined a hundred times does not change color." Dōgen criticized this verse as "still having the purport of denying cause and effect, and further having the view of permanence." ("Jinshin Inga" Chapter, p. 339.)

[Note 160] Zen Master Dahui’s verse says: "Not falling, not obscure; stones and clumps of earth. Meeting on the road, the silver mountain is smashed to pieces. Clapping hands and laughing once; Mingzhou has a foolish Cloth-Bag Monk (Budai)." Dōgen criticized Dahui’s "view as not reaching the purport of Buddhadharma's expedient means, having the intent of Naturalist views." ("Jinshin Inga" Chapter, p. 340.)

[Note 161] "Shizen Biku" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 9, p. 380.

[Note 162] "Raihai Tokuzui" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 1, pp. 456-457.

[Note 163] "Kie Sanbō" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 9, p. 312.

[Note 164] Hakamaya Noriaki, *Hongaku Shisō Hihan*, p. 143.

[Note 165] "Jinshin Inga" Chapter, p. 338.

[Note 166] "Bendōwa" Chapter, pp. 77-78.

[Note 167] Hakamaya Noriaki, *Hongaku Shisō Hihan*, p. 147.

[Note 168] Matsumoto Shirō, *Engi to Kū*, Daizō Shuppansha, 1990, pp. 1-9.

[Note 169] See Sallie B. King, "The Doctrine of Buddha-nature Is Impeccably Buddhist," in *Pruning the Bodhi Tree*, pp. 174-192.

[Note 170] *Fo Xing Lun*, *Taishō* Vol. 31, p. 678c.

[Note 171] Suzuki Kakuzen, Kawamura Kōdō et al., eds. & annot., *Dōgen Zenji Zenshū* Vol. 7, Shunjūsha, 1990, pp. 6-7.

[Note 172] "Shinshin Gakudō" Chapter, *Zensho* Vol. 5, p. 391.

[Note 173] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 297.

[Note 174] "Busshō" Chapter, p. 276. [Note: Page number in source might be 296 based on context, but keeping 276 per source text parity.]

[Note 175] Masao Abe, *A Study of Dogen — His Philosophy and Religion*, pp. 47-48.

 
请看： Thusness “真如”/PasserBy “过路人”开悟的七个阶段 - Chinese Translation of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

请看：论无我、空性、摩诃（大）、平常与自然圆成

请看：《婆希耶经》必须从“悟”的角度来理解

请看：无我是法印或本来如是的真理，无我不是一种状态

原文：My commentary on Bahiya Sutta

2010年10月 帖子：

原贴作者 simpo_ (Sim Pern Chong)：

嗨 Beautiful951，  首先，我想声明我还在学习中，所以只能分享我个人的看法。  请带着保留的态度阅读。  空性（Emptiness）不是一种信仰，而是一种可以从经验中生起的洞见。  最好是亲身去体验它，因为在洞见生起的前后，它对心智来说仍然可能是“难以置信”的。  空性很难体验到，通常无我（no-self）的证悟会先于空性。

如前所述，无我会更容易证得。  我会在这里概略地描述无我/无我的洞见。  在做内观禅修（insight meditation）时，人们可能会意识到感官经验（包括心理行蕴/思维）是相互独立地生起和灭去的。  也就是说，见只是见，闻只是闻，思只是思，它们都在独立地流动。  随着这种观察，人们会意识到并没有一个“我”把所有这些感官经验聚合在一起。  我们最初假定的“我”，仅仅是这些生灭的感官经验以及聚焦于它们的注意力。

至于空性，它需要对意识进行更深入的穿透。  空性揭示了万法根本不是物理的和实有的……而是“全息式统一”的。  没办法准确地描述它，因为那不是一个对其无觉知的心智所能思考的方式。  就像无我的初步洞见一样，空性是一次范式转移……朝向对实相（Reality）真理更清晰的看见。

请理解，见到空性并不是故事的结局。  至少，对我的情况来说不是。  我目前正在处理剩余的烦恼。  这并不意味着我需要强行去除它们。  强行的意志只会导致压抑。  相反，“方法”是去觉察并对任何生起的事物保持平等心（equanimous），以便让它们自然地灭去。  这种“觉察”并不像听起来那么容易。  致意

Soh 回复：  谢谢分享……  你说“见只是见”时，让我想起了《婆希耶经》（Bahiya Sutta）……  https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html

在所见中，只有所见，  在所闻中，只有所闻，  在所觉中，只有所觉，  在所知中，只有所知。  因此你应该看到  确实无一物在此；  婆希耶，这就是你应该如何训练自己。  婆希耶，既然对你来说  在所见中，只有所见，  在所闻中，只有所闻，  在所觉中，只有所觉，  在所知中，只有所知，  并且你看到确实无一物在此，  你因此将看到  确实无一物在那儿。  当你看到确实无一物在那儿时，  你将看到  你因此既不处于此世，  也不处于彼世，  也不在  两者之间的任何地方。  单单这即是苦的止息。”（自说经 1.10）

-----  我自己的评论：  非二元是非常简单、明显且直接的……然而却总是被错过！  这是由于我们通常的二元事物框架中有一个非常根本的缺陷……以及我们对二元性根深蒂固的信念。

在所见中，就只是所见！  它是完全非二元的……并没有“所见 + 一个在此处看着所见的感知者”……  所见恰恰就是“见”本身！  并没有两样或三样东西：见者、见和所见。  这种分裂完全是概念性的（虽然被当成了现实）……它是由于将直接经验（如视觉或声音）参照回一个中心点而得出的结论。  这个中心点可能是一种模糊的身份认同并收缩到某人的身心中（而这个“体内的身份认同中心”可能像是位于你眼睛后方两英寸处，或在下半身，或其他地方），或者这个中心点可能是对先前某种非二元体认或确证的认同，比如“我是”（I AM）或“永恒见证者”（Eternal Witness）的体验/证悟。  甚至可能是一个人已经获得了足够的稳定性，可以在所有经验中仅仅安住在无形的存在感（Beingness）状态中，但如果他们执着于这种无形的定（samadhi）或“最纯粹的临在（Presence）状态”，他们就会错过一个事实：他们不仅仅是无形的纯粹存在，他们/存在也是宇宙万物在念念生灭……  而当一个人将自己认同为这个躲在所见背后并与之分离的实体时，这就阻碍了对“显现”和“无我”是什么的直接体验。

但在直接经验中，根本不是那样的：在直接经验中没有什么主客二元对立……只有“这个”——所见、所闻、所觉、所知。  在自我参照之前，这就是存在于其本初清净（primordial purity）中的东西。

所以，在所见中，就只是“那个”！  风景、树木、道路等等……但是当我把这些标记为这类事物，而不是使用一个更主观的术语如“正在体验”时……它们往往会通过想象构建出一个客观世界，这个世界是在“外面”的，由存在于时间和空间中并被距离隔开的多个不同物体组成的。

但是不，佛陀说：在所见中，只是所见！  没有东西在“这里”（除了所见之外）……也没有东西在“那里”（好像所见是一个在外面的客观现实）。  从事物的逻辑框架来看，世界是由距离、深度、实体、物体、时间、空间等等组成的，但是如果你拿走“自我”这个参照点……就仅仅是对“如是”（任何显现之物）的纯粹意识（Pure Consciousness of What Is），没有距离或割裂。  你至少需要两个参照点来测量距离……但是所有的参照点（无论是一个显现的主观自我还是一个显现的外部物体）完全都是虚幻的和概念性的。  如果这里没有“自我”，而且你同等地是一切……还有什么距离可言？  没有自我，就没有“外面”……

所见既不是主观的也不是客观的……它就是“是”……  只有纯粹的见，纯粹的闻，一切都在升起而没有外部参照，除了风景就是那个没有见者的“见”，声音就是那个没有闻者的“闻”（反之亦然：“闻”就是声音，就是显现）。

但即使是“闻”、“见”、“觉察”（awareness）这些词，也会构建出一个关于“觉察”是什么的意象……  好像真的有一个叫做“闻”或“见”或“觉察”的实体保持不变且恒常。  但是……如果你去参究“我正在如何体验活着的当下？”，或“我正在如何体验听的当下？”，或“我正在如何体验看的当下？”或“我正在如何体验觉察的当下？”  关于“活着”、“闻”、“见”、“觉察”的所有狗屁概念、构造和意象，都会在对任何生起之物的直接体验中消融……仅仅是“见只是见，闻只是闻，思只是思，它们都在独立地流动”，并“没有一个自我把所有这些感官经验聚合在一起”。  如果读者觉得我的解释有点太难掌握，请阅读阿姜·阿马罗（Ajahn Amaro）的链接，因为他解释得比我好多了。

---  Soh 的注：  上面的文章是我在2010年10月初步证悟无我（Anatta/Anatman）后不久写的。  下面是一些来自 Thusness/John Tan 的额外见解，可以进一步丰富上述的体验性洞见：  （摘自 Thusness 2004年至2012年的对话 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2019/01/thusnesss-conversation-between-2004-to.html）

Thusness  自2004年12月起发布 541 篇帖子  2010年10月17日，下午 12:42

嗨 AEN，  刚设法浏览了你过去发的几篇帖子。  它们非常有见地。  总的来说，你开始在瞬息万变的现象中体验到你在“存在的确定性”（certainty of being）中所描述的那种无形临在的“味道”。  这就是我所说的把“这个”从背景（无形）带到前景（有形）。  这也是我所说的在有形中的“觉察（Awareness）的质地和纹理”。  以下是读完这些帖子后想到的一些点。  我只是把其中一些记下来以供分享。

1. 一味（One Taste）  你提到了“一味”，但请注意，你所体验到的只是光明之体（luminous essence）的“同一味”，而非空性（Emptiness nature）的“同一味”。  我使用“体（essence）”这个词的方式与大圆满（Dzogchen）不同。  在大圆满中，光明是“性（nature）”，而空是“体（essence）”。  既然我视空性为“在任何升起之物中本质（essence）的缺席”，我觉得用大圆满的方式表达不太合适。

2. “明显且直接……然而却总是被错过！”  我喜欢你的表达方式，非常贴切。  然而，我感觉你可能低估了“根深蒂固于意识中”的力量和完整含义。  如果我们没有意识到这种影响，我们就不会明白什么是“习气”（latent tendencies）。  试着想象“某人”就站在你面前，但你却看不见他，因为你处于一个种植在你意识最深处的魔法咒语之下。  如果你没有意识到这种深层的潜伏，那么无论证悟了什么，都仅仅是表面的理解。  日复一日，这些倾向总是在运作。  你可能想要问问自己，即便在 PCE（纯粹意识体验）模式下，这些深层的潜伏是否也会找到浮现的途径？

3. 感觉宇宙、纯粹意识、纯粹五蕴  “你不仅仅是无形的临在/知者/意识……你是一切有形，你是正在‘宇宙着’的宇宙，你是念念生起的一切，其本身就是一个完整的非二元体验……  并没有一个背景般的觉察和发生在觉察中的前景现象……永远只有前景的纯粹意识，无论是在无形模式下体验到的纯粹存在（例如‘我是’，即 Thusness 所说的‘思维领域’），还是在所有有形中……  把非二元体验变成一种背景，仅仅是试图捕捉并实体化纯粹意识的一个瞬间。”

我记得几年前在 Simpo 的论坛上给他写过这个。  这与他“感到轻盈和失重”的体验有关。  这也关系到身心脱落（mind-body drop）和你关于“透明”的梦。  变得“轻盈、失重和透明”是消解身体构造（body-construct）的结果。  从“大我/小我”（Self/self）到无我（no-self），这是一个相当明显的对比。  在你写下这些之前，你应该也体验过这一点，否则你就太专注于“现实”（actuality）的“光辉和光明”了。

另一方面，感觉“宇宙”与“身份”和“人格”的解构有关。  你必须对什么样的“解构”导致什么样的体验有更清晰的洞见。

粗体部分的文字表达得很好，但要知晓意识的缘起性（dependent originated nature）。  确实有对五蕴和十八界之本初清净（primordial purity）的体验，但并没有一个被称为“纯粹意识”的“基质背景”。  自我感消融了，取而代之的是一种互即互入（inter-penetration）感。

4. 无动作者与光明的强度  在所见中，就只是所见！它是完全非二元的……并没有“所见 + 一个在此处看着所见的感知者”……所见恰恰就是“见”本身！并没有两样或三样东西：见者、见和所见。这种分裂完全是概念性的（虽然被当成了现实）……  表达得很好！  但在随后的段落中，你说：  “关于‘活着’、‘闻’、‘见’、‘觉察’的所有狗屁概念、构造和意象，都会在对任何生起之物的直接体验中消融……仅仅是‘见只是见，闻只是闻，思只是思，它们都在独立地流动’，并‘没有一个自我把所有这些感官经验聚合在一起’”

在 https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2025/04/anattaemptinessmahaordinarinessspontane.html 这篇文章中，我提到了那两个偈颂。  有无动作者（no-agent）的面向，也有光明的强度（intensity of luminosity）的面向。  我发现你目前的体验仍然集中在光明（luminosity）的面向。  你正在直接体验任何发生的无缝性，在那里无法划出清晰的主客分裂界线。  你意识到边界纯粹是虚幻的，并且清楚导致这种分裂的原因，但在我看来，那仍然不是无我（anatta）之体验性洞见的“本质”（essence）。  说“在思考和思考者之间没有分裂，思考本身就是‘我’”，与说“只有思考，没有思考者”，这两者是有区别的。  你必须意识到，拥有即时和直接的体验但二元框架依然完好，与用缘起（DO）完全取代二元框架，会产生截然不同的体验性洞见；你可能想要进一步探究，从“它们都在独立地流动”走向“在无缝的相互依存中显现”。

5. “我正在如何体验活着的当下？”（HAIETMOBA）  但是……如果你去参究“我正在如何体验活着的当下？”，或“我正在如何体验听的当下？”，或“我正在如何体验看的当下？”或“我正在如何体验觉察的当下？”  “我正在如何体验活着的当下？”（HAIETMOBA）是 AF（Actual Freedom）的关键问题。  我不会对此发表评论，但它与“在不使用任何‘我’的符号的情况下，‘我’是如何被体验的？”这个问题有何不同？  还有它与“我是谁？”——那个导致你证悟“我是”（I AM）的问题——又有何不同？

当你越来越清楚所有这些问题究竟将你引向何方，以及“我是”的证悟和 PCEs 中涉及的感知模式时，你必须真诚地问自己，这是否是通向真正自由的终极感知模式。  永久锁定在 PCE 中是否是通向解脱的道路，以及它与寻求永久不间断地安住在“我是感”（I AMness）中有何不同。

Thusness 编辑于 2010年10月17日，下午 4:35

原文：和南怀瑾老师及洪老师的对话: 让万法来证明没有我

English Translation:

Dialogues with Teacher Nan Huai-Chin and Teacher Hong: Let the Ten Thousand Dharmas Prove No-Self

Haiming: “Teacher Shakyamuni took a vow under the tree: ‘Until I attain Bodhi, I will not rise from this seat.’ After experiencing seven days under the tree, he recognized that ‘All sentient beings possess the wisdom and virtuous characteristics of the Tathāgata; it is only because of false thinking and attachment that they cannot attest to it.’ Please explain, how must one sit in meditation to be able to see as the Buddha saw?”

Teacher Nan: “Pay attention now! Does ‘not rise from this seat’ mean a person is sitting in meditation? These four words are so beautiful. To use our local Chinese slang: ‘I [Laozi] will just die right here today; I’m not getting up. I’ll just die sitting right here and be done with it.’ Have you thought about why you meditate? You think every day about meditating to become a Buddha; is asking for the Buddha’s Knowledge-Vision [$zhi \ jian$], as you put it, not false thinking and attachment?”

Haiming: “Hmph, but I am studying Buddhism!”

Teacher Nan: “Is studying Buddhism not false thinking?”

Haiming: “Since it is false thinking, then I won’t meditate; it’s not like I absolutely have to meditate!”

Teacher Nan: “Isn’t that also attachment?”

Haiming: “Then would it be okay if I simply don’t meditate?”

Teacher Nan: “That is also attachment!”

Haiming: “Then is it okay if I don’t study Buddhism at all?”

Teacher Nan: “Even more attached! Saying yes won’t do, saying no won’t do, not saying whether it is or isn’t won’t do either; this isn’t right, that isn’t right, and not right is even more not right. Then what should I do?”

Teacher Nan: “Hey, that’s it! Haiming. Disregard whether it is, disregard whether it isn’t, disregard both is and isn’t. This is precisely ‘this seat’—sitting and cutting off the ten directions, a wall standing a thousand fathoms high, secretly turning the seven wheels, marvellously transcending illusory appearances. It is just this.”

Two

Haiming: Teacher Nan discussed that “it is not a person sitting in meditation,” but rather “sitting and cutting off the ten directions.” I am very puzzled; please explain what “sitting and cutting off the ten directions” means?

Teacher Hong: Haiming, the Dharma transmitted by Teacher Nan cannot be achieved by people of small capacity, nor can it be comprehended by the cerebral types, nor is it as wordy as you are—counting breaths, observing the mind, visualizing this and that... there is no such wordiness. It is a sudden transcendence and direct entry, marvellously revealing the original landscape.

Haiming: Yes, these visualization methods of mine were added later; I only wanted them to be of some use on the therapeutic level.

Teacher Hong: Haiming, who is thinking about adding some things? Who is thinking about therapy? Look! There is a “self” coming out to work, isn’t there? It is not a person sitting in meditation! What does that mean? Do you think it is really *you* sitting in meditation? If there is a “self” sitting in meditation, you definitely won’t be able to sit. This “effort of mine” to maintain your upright posture—the mudra will skew and collapse, the spine will bend and slant, the legs will also bend and slant, right?

Haiming: It is indeed so. The harder I try to sit, the more uncomfortable it is.

Teacher Hong: Effort is not wrong. The mistake lies in having a “self.” When you are sitting in meditation, this kind of effort is called Buddha-action, the behavior of a Buddha. It is not a person sitting in meditation; it is the True Human Body of the entire Dharma-realm of the ten directions (intrinsic nature) sitting in meditation. What is the True Human Body of the entire Dharma-realm of the ten directions? It is Buddha! Buddha is meditating; it is Buddha-action. You think it is our human body sitting a little; try using ordinary worldly effort to sit and see—you can’t do it, you absolutely can’t do it! Is this kind of effort the same as our effort in daily life? The level, the dimension is completely different; that level, that dimension is completely different, do you know? In the human world, there are various efforts for fame and profit, right? Working hard to get into college, working hard to get a PhD, working hard to get a good job, working hard to gain a lot of prestige... Various worldly efforts and this time of “Just Sitting” [*shikantaza*]—the level of that effort is completely different, a difference of heaven and earth! Therefore, the absolute value of “Just Sitting” lies here.

Haiming: Please discuss what the absolute value of “Just Sitting” is?

Teacher Hong: Good, now I will explain the important part again. This Just Sitting has three main points, right? Body, mouth, and mind. How to arrange the body; as for the mouth, just close the mouth and that’s right. Gently close it and that’s right; do not speak. This mind, the problem lies in the mind. Now everyone knows, that mind, as soon as a thought arises in the heart, it passes; as soon as it arises, it passes; arising and ceasing without end, right? We already know this; this is called a physiological phenomenon, the inherent activity of life. We have no way to control it; forcefully suppressing it is incorrect. It comes up naturally, just like the heartbeat and breathing; I have said this many times. The problem is that as soon as the first thought arises, we think of this thought in various ways... This is not a false thought; this is precisely the representation of life, the manifestation of life’s vitality, a physiological phenomenon. We call it “Right Thought,” not false thought. Or, we call it “No-Thought.” We speak of No-Thought, but actually we are speaking of precisely this thought. Or what else is it called? “The unarisen single thought.” “Un-” represents the reality of the entire ten directions. “Arisen” is the real, natural thought of the whole universe and the ten directions; “the unarisen single thought.” Regardless of how many names there are, it is anyway the first thought. Ordinarily, when we conduct ourselves and handle affairs, do we have to engage with thoughts? If you don’t engage with thoughts, how can you live? If we don’t engage with thoughts, there is no life. We couldn’t speak, couldn’t eat, couldn’t walk, couldn’t look at things, right? Without engaging with thoughts, we have no way to live. When you are Just Sitting, at this time, you can refrain from engaging. Because you are sitting there, no one is disturbing you, and you won’t disturb others, right? That effort of not engaging—listen clearly, not engaging with it is not using consciousness to not engage; if you think “I don’t want to engage with it,” this movement of thought itself, that intent, intent, that consciousness distinguishing has no power—so we make an effort, we call it “effort.” In Zen records, this is often expressed as “awareness of contact” [*juechu*]; especially Sawaki Kodo often uses “awareness of contact” [*kakusoku*] to express it; the effort not to engage, that “effort.” This “effort,” you must be very careful, is not thinking. Using your brain is useless. This “effort” is expressed in maintaining your upright posture. If the mudra skews and collapses, the spine bends and slants, hey, I know you have started to engage. The effort not to engage is you keeping the body’s posture upright. If you make an effort like this, you can refrain from engaging; not engaging with the first thought, and then it disappears just like that. Then another new first thought comes up again; you maintain the effort, do not go to engage with it, and then the new thought that came up disappears again; this is roughly what the effort of the mind in “Just Sitting” is like. You think it is our human body sitting a little, wanting not to engage with the first thought; try using ordinary worldly effort to sit and see—you can’t do it, you absolutely can’t do it! The value lies right here; the level, the dimension is different!

Haiming: Then what is the reality of the entire ten directions that you speak of like? What is the original face? What is the original landscape?

Teacher Hong: First, you must understand what the reality of the ten directions is *not*, what the original landscape is *not*!

First point, this is not something used by thinking (intellectual, imaginary); many people don’t know that this is not for thinking. “Oh my, what is our original landscape, our luminosity [*guāngmíng*]? What is our fundamental nature, Buddha-nature?” That is using thinking.

Second point, it is also not something you can feel! So when sitting in meditation, comfortable states, some light, spiritual power, lightness—those are all feelings! You must be very careful; not only can it not be imagined, but our ordinary human sensory organs cannot feel it! How can the original landscape be felt? To feel it is already the level of the human world; you don’t need to make effort in a different [human world] level. So saying “how to go feel it, how to do this and that...” hey, hearing it is just funny. Get this clear, then making effort like this, when you are “Just Sitting” like this, the immediate present is transcending in a single leap to enter the Tathāgata ground; Buddha is in Buddha-action. A person sitting like this is called “acting Buddha”; this kind of behavior, this kind of sitting is called Buddha-action, acting Buddha. Otherwise, usually when you say an angry thought comes and you try your best not to engage with it, can you do it? Because you haven’t undergone this effort of a different dimension! I am talking about “effort,” not thinking; it’s not that knowing Buddhist studies, or bowing a bit, praying, etc.—those seeking methods of the human dimension—can seek and obtain it! Only when you sit up there, perform Buddha-action, and sit with the behavior of a Buddha, can you have the ability in daily life to slowly go and get angry, and appreciate what your anger looks like. Oh, it turns out this is the predetermined human physiological habit taking us along like this; you will know immediately, and then you can refrain from giving rise to a second thought, refrain from engaging with it, and you can watch your anger. This ability is not something ordinary effort in the human world can achieve. So one talks about scholarship well, talks about Buddhism very well, but when this teacher returns home, in the company, at work, his performance is sometimes worse than someone who doesn’t study Buddhism. Why? He misunderstood; he misunderstood and thought the Buddha-dharma is cultivated through thinking, through thoughts, reasoning out this and that principle with the mind. Alas, that ability not to engage with the first thought is not something ordinary effort in the human world can achieve; only those who sit know.

Third point, then the person sitting says, “I sit like this, the effort of not wanting to engage with the first thought, I will sit”—hey, a thought of “I will sit” has been added in, and it’s ruined, gone. So it is called the sitting of no attainment and no realization. Then many people hear “no attainment and no realization” and say, then I don’t want it, why study Buddhism? Look, he always falls into the human level to think about studying Buddhism, so of course he can’t sit well, so of course he doesn’t want to learn. Only those willing to believe in this absolute value, who are in communication with the teacher’s qualifications, and who truly sit themselves—only that is Buddha-action. Is there anything else? It is just like this. So sitting meditation is so different; it is Buddha performing Buddha-action; otherwise, you have no way to deal with birth, old age, sickness, and death in the human world; you can’t block them, because you want to engage with the first thought. How not to engage? Hey, just like this; “meditation” is “Just”, “Just” is “meditation”.

Haiming: In Vipassanā, I start by focusing on the incoming and outgoing breath, and at the same time, in the moment of establishing right mindfulness at the tip of the nose, the state of mind is oneness. When ideas and thoughts come, I can also be aware of the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of these ideas and thoughts without judgment; arising and immediately ceasing; but it seems there is always a “me” watching there, listening there, being aware there?

Teacher Hong: The Buddha said in the Āgama Sutras: “Seeing is just seeing; hearing is just hearing.” Our six roots [senses] are originally free and at ease. So when sitting in meditation, just sit like this; the six roots themselves come and go freely in a natural state. Absolutely do not go and manage them; do not even manage the not-managing. In short, there is not a “you” watching there or listening there. Therefore, sitting Zen is letting the ten thousand dharmas prove there is no you, not having a “you” come to prove there is no you. The key lies precisely in this point; absolutely do not get it wrong. Because when *you* yourself go to prove there is no you, you already have a “self” going to prove it; can this still be called forgetting the self? Probably not!

Haiming: Then how to let the ten thousand dharmas prove there is no self? And what do the ten thousand dharmas refer to?

Teacher Hong: The Buddha said in the Āgama Sutras: “The forms seen, the sounds heard, the smells sniffed, the flavors tasted, the cold and heat felt, the thoughts coming and going. These ten thousand dharmas are telling you everywhere: there is no self! There is no self!” For example, if you sit for a long time, the legs will be numb; of course they are numb, because you don’t usually meditate; this is a natural relationship. You say, “Now I come to practice, I want to sit well, I don’t want to let it get numb, I must endure it”; sitting like this is already playing the game of “self.” You don’t usually practice meditation, so sitting for a while will cause numbness; that is of course; because this is a dharma arisen from conditions. Practice is about forgetting this self—the false self. Absolutely do not play with this “self” to practice.

I will explain this key point again and again; I hope you don’t take “me” to forget “me.” Many people think that when meditating, it is correct only if there are no thoughts, so when there are many thoughts during meditation, they feel “my thoughts are flying around like this, it’s bad, I want to eliminate them.” Let me ask you, is this correct? You think, “I am a diligent person, my meditation skill is good, how come there are so many thoughts today? Don’t want them! Don’t want them!” Actually, if you sit like this and think like this, you are already messing around yourself, showing off yourself. Here, please reflect carefully yourself; when a thought comes, do you know that thought is about to come? When a thought goes, does it ask you if it can go when it wants to go? Right? Because thoughts themselves do not belong to you! They are dharmas arisen from conditions. You don’t know what thought is going to come, and you don’t know when it runs away. So only after the thought has come do you know: “Ah! A thought”; that is your distinguishing consciousness knowing it after the fact. If you still think there is a “you” knowing, that is your own false thinking. This is the so-called fundamental ignorance; practice is for the sake of resolving this fundamental problem.

When thoughts come and go during meditation, you absolutely must not think there is an unmoving one knowing your thoughts coming and going, and think this is correct. Thinking there is an unmoving one facing a coming and going thought, as if there are two separate thoughts—that is incorrect. Actually, the thought that comes is itself the function of your Dharmakāya. Many people don’t know this and mistakenly think there is a “self” that knows the thought comes and the thought goes. When brightness comes, knowing brightness; when darkness comes, knowing darkness; that unmoving one is the real one—alas! Wrong! This is the teaching of external paths. You have an unmoving one in your concepts, take this unmoving one as a treasure, and then feel this is correct. Isn’t that something you imagined? If there is no you, what do you still want that unmoving one for!

The six functions of our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind are all moving freely and at ease within the true reality of no-self. We just misunderstood, taking that which can distinguish and think as “me.” Actually, it itself is just the function of the Dharmakāya. This thing called distinguishing and thinking is too sharp; as soon as the function of distinguishing arises, we automatically take the one that can distinguish as “me.” Actually, the mind organ is the same as the eye organ and ear organ; whatever condition is encountered, that “presence” [zai] is all reality. When you encounter a stone, it is a stone; when you encounter a bun, it is a bun; you don’t wait until after saying the two names “stone” and “bun” to know it is a stone or a bun, do you! The differentiation of words and language is the activity of distinguishing consciousness after the fact. Before this, the stone is present, the bun is present; that presence, before the distinguishing consciousness has moved, is itself already clearly distinguished. “Non-distinguishing differentiation” means this. If “self” is not added in, our mind organ is originally clearly distinct.

When our eyes encounter an appearance, the appearance and the seeing are a function of one body. By the same principle, the arising of a thought and that knowing of no-self are also a function of one body. Therefore, the thought that comes is itself the function of your mind organ; actually, it is your reality. It is enough if practice can know this. If you can understand this—oh, you have improved; when you sit in meditation, you won’t be afraid of the coming and going of thoughts, because the thought itself is your reality. Do you think there is another thought that can let you know? Impossible! Because in the immediate present of every moment, subject and object, organ and dust [object], mind and environment, thought and you—originally cannot be separated; always functioning simultaneously, arising simultaneously, ceasing simultaneously. They are originally one body. It is we who forcefully separate one thing into two to explain it; this is cleverness after the fact, consciousness distinguishing after the fact.

Pow! (Sound of slapping the table). Delusion is also because of this, thinking “Ah! I heard him slap the table.” Enlightenment is also because of this, “Oh! Oh! Oh! It turns out it’s not you knocking there and me listening here; the sound and the one able to listen are one thing.” Pow! (Sound of slapping the table). Enlightenment is also this; delusion is also this. The same sound, one delusion and one enlightenment. It’s not that after enlightenment you hear this sound as a different sound, or as ordinary people think, that enlightenment equals entering samadhi where nothing is heard—then you might as well be a stone. This also doesn’t mean that after you are enlightened, you will see a bun as a diamond, a thatched hut as a palace, or a toilet as a hotel. It’s not like that; that is mental illness!

Haiming, where does the delusion lie? If one takes a relative form-appearance as a form-appearance that truly exists there; and here with me, there is also truly a “me” seeing that form-appearance—this is delusion. And enlightenment is that the misrecognition of the false self is gone. It is not that over there a relative form-appearance truly exists; rather, it is signless yet manifesting that appearance. The appearance of “non-existent yet existing” manifests. And here with me, it is also just a “non-existent yet existing” existence born of conditions; it is not that there is truly an existence called “me.” The function that can see and the appearance that is seen are both “without self-nature” facing “without self-nature,” arising from conditions and ceasing from conditions. This is the so-called “dharmas arisen from conditions are entirely without self-nature.” If you get this clear, seeing the same way, listening the same way, all of this is Dharmakāya; manifesting when meeting conditions, immediately arising and immediately ceasing, transforming without obstruction.

A person who has not seen the nature will always think “I” heard that sound. “I” and the sound are mutually separated; “I” (the organ) and the external existence (dust) are always relative and isolated. Like this, there is no way to become a Buddha forever, nor is one a good student of the Buddha. If there is a “me” seeking the Buddha-dharma—“I bowed and will receive blessings,” “I want to become a Buddha,” “I want to become enlightened.” Practicing the Path in this way, you are always cultivating that false self. The result will be that the more you practice, the more and bigger your self-view becomes, and the further you are from the Path.

The authentically transmitted Zazen is so important; it can let everyone discover their true self. How to discover it? It is not “me” going to know, going to discover that this is not me. If you do this, you are already taking a false self wanting to discover the true self.

Then what to do? —Let the six roots sit immovably.

The six roots are originally just that real, moving there in suchness; this is the so-called “the sixfold divine function is empty yet not empty.” So natural. This is a necessary relationship. This means that only in the immediate present of truly sitting Zen will one realize that our mind’s capacity is originally very vast, with infinite applications. The six roots—eyes seeing forms, ears hearing sounds, nose smelling fragrances, tongue knowing tastes, body knowing touch, mind knowing dharmas—all actions and movements are Dharmakāya. The six roots originally have no obstruction, no love and no hate, equanimously arising and ceasing according to conditions, all naturally liberated.

Shakyamuni Buddha personally said, if you can truly let the ten thousand dharmas prove there is absolutely no you, sitting Zen honestly like this, practicing like this, you only need as short a time as an ant running from the tip of your nose to your forehead to surpass sitting for ten years or a hundred years using a “self.” If you use yourself to seek the Dharma, there is no way even in ten billion years, no way forever. Because there is a “you” wanting to become a Buddha!

Haiming: Understood. Thank you.

Teacher Hong: So regarding Just Sitting, you can clearly know the first thought coming up; our physiological habit is that we will definitely go to engage. This is not that you are bad, not that you are not good; this is the inherent physiological habit of human nature that makes everyone definitely go to engage, because we all live like this. Only Just Sitting, sitting like this, sitting that is sitting in sitting, sitting with no attainment and no realization—only then can it manifest, only then is it the original landscape, only then is it the original deity Buddha. Transcending in a single leap to enter the Tathāgata ground; it is the immediate present. If you engage there, look, the mudra is messed up, the waist is also bent and slanted, the head is also askew, the body also moved—all carried away by that feeling. Feeling is a worldly matter; how can the original landscape be talked about by one’s own worldly feelings, or imagined by the secretions of the human brain? That is truly too arrogant. Our original landscape is not that narrow; it is boundless and immeasurable; no matter how you think, you cannot think it through; no matter how you feel, you cannot feel it; it is just like this. People later on, because they are not used to it, definitely want the human habit to move; based on the requirements of human physiological habits, they demand this and that, thinking this is practice—then there is no way, one can only throw you a few visualization methods. Those are expedient means, none are ultimate. This directness is it; transcending in a single leap, the original landscape manifests before you, empty brightness reflecting itself. Reflecting itself—not something you thought up, not something you got from feeling, oh; be very careful!

The most important sentence is: this behavior is not sat by a human, it is sat by a Buddha! If you sit there just like a human again, that is simply slandering the Buddha-dharma. If you sit, just sit the Buddha’s sit, perform the Buddha’s behavior; otherwise there is no need at all; it’s good enough to sit there and be cool, right? Lying on the sofa and being cool is so much better. So the immediate present is Buddha-action, the behavior of Buddha. This way, one does not engage with the second thought. Being unmoving towards objects—how can it be that easy? Human physiological habits are terrible; are you all clear? The merit of sitting once like this is boundless and immeasurable, because this merit is not of the human world, so it is called boundless and immeasurable; do not again use the worldly “measure” to measure a boundless and immeasurable; do not misunderstand again.

Teacher Hong: I want to say one more point; you must remember, as soon as you use the brain, you will take it as “real,” and as soon as you use the brain, you will also create “false.” This immediately falls into the two sides (extreme views). Do not play little tricks with the brain. Do not use human conscious thinking to measure the Buddha-dharma! Thoughts themselves have no subject-that-observes or object-that-is-observed; thoughts have no division of root and branch, no division of nature and appearance. You and the external world, mind and matter, are also the same; mind and matter are oneness, originally oneness, so it is marvellous practice, marvellous practice on the ground of fruition. Whatever the mind thinks of, let it be whatever; disregard it completely; there isn’t even a person who disregards it, because the mind-thought itself is you yourself. The dharma gate of “Just Sitting” is the authentically transmitted method of sitting Zen. The immediate present of sitting is practicing the dignified conduct of Buddha, is the conduct of Buddha. The immediate present without false thinking is the behavioral mode of Buddha, so this is called the Dharma Gate of Great Peace and Joy.

Haiming: palms joined in respect.

Three

Haiming: Please discuss the absolute value of “Just Sitting” from the perspective of Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only)?

Teacher Nan: Haiming, do not rigidly cling to those Yogācāra vocabulary words; if you just turn Yogācāra into scholarship to research, you might as well just do your job well. Teacher Hong came to me to learn the Dharma, generating the resolve to awaken the direct perception [*pratyakṣa*] of his own mind; this is something that needs to be sat out with body and bones crushed. The first five consciousnesses are the direct perception of the eighth Alaya-consciousness [*ālayavijñāna*]. This is a key!! You must pay attention. Therefore, in the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, Bodhisattva Maitreya told Bodhisattva Asaṅga, the first section recorded is the “Stage Associated with the Body of the Five Consciousnesses.” This is a key here.

The Alaya-consciousness is one body with our spirit, physiology, body, spirit, and this world of the three thousand great thousand worlds. Before an ordinary person becomes a Buddha, it is called Alaya-consciousness; suppose one truly becomes a Buddha, it is not called Alaya-consciousness—what is it called, do you know? Tathāgatagarbha consciousness, Tathāgatagarbha consciousness. Its state transforms into the Great Mirror Wisdom; it is just the Alaya-consciousness. It can store all seeds; is it like this? Is the Buddhism you hear like this? Good, yes, you nodded, you approved me. So this function of life, the Alaya-consciousness turning into this body of ours—the first five consciousnesses are direct perception. So you sit in meditation; I tell you, if you take the Yogācāra, the Dharma-character route: legs crossed, isn’t life and death placed there unmoving? Did you go to kill living beings? No. Did you go to steal? No. Did you go to engage in sexual affairs between men and women? No. Killing, stealing, sexual misconduct are all gone; direct perception is placed there ready-made. Two hands form the meditation mudra and are placed well; eyes also do not look, do not look at light, do not look at false thoughts either. Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body—direct perception is placed well. There is only one problem; the sixth consciousness—the heck with it; if you love to distinguish, then distinguish; if you don’t distinguish, then don’t distinguish; distinguishing is non-distinguishing, non-distinguishing is distinguishing; Svaha, to hell with you. I disregard consciousness, and then this consciousness naturally becomes a bit clearer. You just recognize clearly, this is the direct perception of consciousness. Now I place it; here everything is unmoving. So I tell you to walk: upright, head looking straight ahead, eyes placed well, don’t look around randomly. The direct perception of the first five consciousnesses is displayed ready-made. Do not add inference [*anumāna*]; do not give rise to the distinguishing mind, and it is ready-made; it is settled. Then when you get up on the seat, cross your legs—hmm, don’t disturb me. “I want to meditate, enter samadhi, get rid of false thoughts.” Ruined; it is all coming from inference, not direct perception. Inference is all distinguishing mind. So your scholarship is very good; like me speaking now, it is inference. Moving thoughts, giving rise to intention and moving thoughts; so Zen tells you, “moving thoughts implies deviation”; it comes from inference. The Buddha speaking the Dharma is also from inference; without using inference, how could he speak so many sutras to save sentient beings? Then after speaking, just pick it up—use inference; put it down—it is direct perception. It’s just that simple.

Haiming: Then what is non-perception [fallacy, *abhāsa*]?

Teacher Nan: Direct perception, inference, non-perception. What is non-perception? Chaotic thinking, incorrect views, fantasy states—these all belong to non-perception. Chaotic thinking, without reason. So there is a lot of non-perception in human life; doing scholarship, writing books—like those big scholars, they all have works. These scholarship and books are all produced by inference. Practice is the state of direct perception; the first five consciousnesses, this body, are all direct perception. Mountains, rivers, and the great earth. Look at the Zen patriarchs saying: “The myriad images are dense and arranged, round and bright, free and at ease”; this is the state of direct perception. What in the world is not lovable? So people asked Shakyamuni Buddha, “Others who became Buddhas all have Pure Lands; you are in this Saha world, why is it so ugly?” He said, “Where?” Look, the Buddha pressed his hand down, and everyone saw the Saha world was so beautiful; there was no purity and no defilement. Direct perception, inference, non-perception. Three Realms: Nature Realm [*Xing Jing*], mountains, rivers and the great earth, the entire Dharma-realm, are all a Nature Realm of the Tathāgatagarbha.

Haiming: What are the Three Realms?

Teacher Nan: Realm with Substance [*Dai Zhi Jing*]; we have this body, have this thinking, habits; each is the seed of the Alaya-consciousness giving rise to current activity [manifestation]; the current activity of this life transforms into future seeds; they all come with substance. So when I was young, when people asked about Yogācāra, “Is dreaming also a Realm with Substance?” I said, “Yes.” A Yogācāra scholar stood up and said, “You spoke wrong, dreams are not Realm with Substance.” I said, “Don’t mess around. I am clear.” With Substance—there is True Realm with Substance and False Realm with Substance. True Realm with Substance is the self-grasping of the seventh consciousness bringing up the seeds of the eighth Alaya-consciousness. That is how scholarship talks. We are talking about doing the work [practice]; we must strip off the outer coat of scholarship and come to the reality. When we start sitting, sometimes states you didn’t think of appear. How did they come? Do you think it is supernatural power? Do you think it is kundalini deviation (fire rising, demons entering)? Don’t be afraid; it is the shadows of your habits from past lives. Renewing in the quietude, in the [quietude], merely solitary images floating up. Seeds of the Alaya-consciousness, nothing special. This way you can handle it easily. But you say is it right? Right. If you attach, it is wrong; if you don’t attach, it is right. Nature Realm, Realm with Substance—what other realm has not been explained? The Solitary Image Realm [*Du Ying Jing*]—let’s talk about it.

Haiming: What is the Solitary Image Realm, and how to utilize the Solitary Image Realm?

Teacher Nan: The Solitary Image Realm is the function of the sixth consciousness. The Sixth Dalai Lama, who went out to be romantic, had love poems. He spoke of meditation, oh, spoke so well, so frankly. Tibetan text: Entering samadhi, cultivating visualization, the Dharma eye opens He meditated, praying for the Three Jewels to descend to the spiritual platform. When starting to sit, visualizing Manjushri Bodhisattva, the Buddhas of the ten directions appear in visualization. Entering samadhi, cultivating visualization, the Dharma eye opens Praying for the Three Jewels to descend to the spiritual platform In the visualization, when were the Holy Ones ever seen? The result was that visualizing Manjushri couldn’t be visualized; thinking of Cundi Bodhisattva or Buddha—none could be visualized. Not invited, the lover comes on her own No need to recite mantras, and no need to think; that lover, the shadow of that beloved appeared. Look how frankly he spoke. When moving, cultivate stopping; when quiet, cultivate observation The vivid lover hangs before the eyes If this mind could be shifted to study the Path— Suppose this mind could be turned around, the sixth consciousness twisted around to study the Path. What difficulty would there be in becoming a Buddha in this very body?

Haiming: I have received the teaching.

Teacher Nan: Three Realms and Three Cognitions [*pramāṇas*] have all been explained; the purpose of explaining them is for you to pay attention in practice. I am not lecturing you on Buddhism; I am most unwilling to lecture on scholarship. Teacher Nan says, I have the qualifications to lecture; which branch of learning in the world haven’t I studied? Of course I haven’t mastered them all, but I don’t look up to them. Only one branch of learning, I dare not brag about: how to meditate and become a Buddha, how to personally attest to the Path and become a Buddha oneself. This I dare not brag about. That must be real; as for that kind of scholarship, whatever science, philosophy, religion you like—it’s very easy, what does that count for? They all come from the state of inference; they are all born of false thinking.