The Emperor's New Robe.

Buddhist Sectarianism & My Koan Heresy.

2012-01-15T05:37:00.000-08:00

Hi, my name's Harry and I do koans.

I mean I do 'koan contemplation' as we might call it (not sure that term quite explains it, see below); or employing a koan in sitting as opposed to no-koan zazen... (to some, using a koan in this way precludes the act from even being called 'zazen').

This might be considered odd by some in that I sort of come at Zen from the Soto/Dogen Sangha side of things, and that raggle-taggle group more or less conform to the idea of Soto Zen as 'no-koan' Zen in the sense that they don't employ koans in a formal zazen practice way. But, as I continue to clarify my original intention in approaching Buddhism, the more I see that it is not about being part of a sect, pleasing a teacher or a group, or conforming to some orthodoxy or other. So, that's that right out the window for a start, and good riddance.

The reasons I got interested in koans in this way are numerous, but here's the main gist of it: I like words, and I like poetry, and I like humour and irony and insightful and expressive language, and I like to explore... and all that is in the koan literature in abundance.

Also, I wasn't happy to 'take people's word about' koan contemplation. I wanted to experience for myself what it was about and either adopt it or reject it, or whatever. This exploratory attitude took a while to arrive at because I had already made up my mind about koans in a way that was more-or-less consistent with what the Soto orthodoxy said about them and formal 'koan contemplation' (surprise, surprise!) Luckily for me I wasn't happy to loiter in that position for long as I have had some experience of sectarian assumptions: I come from Belfast, Ireland, where I could see only too well how such assumptions were formed, perpetuated, the effects they had, and how such notions were generally unrealistic and highly selective and/or misrepresentative in their portrayal of that 'other crowd'.

It turns out that some of the assumptions I had 'acquired' were pretty flimsy, erroneous, misleading, or are just straight-up constructs of the sectarian 'them and us' mindset.

Anyway, some things I have learned about koan introspection to date are:

1. It's not sitting around thinking or trying to solve a riddle intellectually: Of course our intellect is not excluded, as it is not in Soto-style shikantaza, but we are just 'dropping the koan in there' and seeing what it stirs up (if anything). Even to call it 'koan contemplation' seems a bit off, because I'm generally not sitting round thinking about something as that term may suggest.

2. The answers to koan are not really simple and conclusive 'Aha!' answers that sort everything out in my head and make me cleverer than everyone else: In my experience the answers to the koans (the answers which mean that I'll pass on to the next koan in the sequence) are not some 'be-all-and-end-all' revelations. They are generally some very tangible and practical affirmations of practice, of all valid practice.

3. Koans and shikantaza are only 'opposites' or 'seperate poles' if I make them thus: Koan practice (in my experience) is remarkably similar to shikantaza except that you 'drop in a koan' from time to time. I don't see the need for making a big inter-sect hullabaloo about it, and about 'who owns what' and what's 'pure' and what isn't... which is quite refreshing.

4. I'm a pretty crappy heretic: Because I still just do my usual half hour of zazen/shikantaza and then do a bit of koan contemplation afterwards. I don't sit 'koan zazen' all the time and don't want to, and I don't know how long I'll keep it going (I've just gone back at it after a longish break).

If any Zen Masters want to weigh in with their Dharmic 2 Cents on what a Bozo I am then feel free, but, do bear in mind that I won't 'take your word for it' for a moment: If the Lord Buddha himself came down on his golden lotus UFO to put me right on the matter then I wouldn't 'take his word for it' either - so it's really not personal.

Regards,

Harrytic.

The 'Emptiness of Emptiness'.

2011-12-08T05:31:00.000-08:00

Under a previous post Fred made the interesting comment:

Explain the emptiness of

emptiness to them Harry.

Well, the context I was talking in (a blog about different religions) was not a Buddhist forum; I don't think they are so interested in the finer points of Mahayana philosophy... And it can bore the shit out of me a lot of the time too as an awful lot of it is approached in a very redundant way.

But this concept of 'the emptiness of emptiness' is an interesting one I think *when we can put a sincere, practical slant on it*, and avoid making a philosophical dead weight of it to sling around our necks.

'Shunyata/Emptiness' is an invention of the human mind that seeks to describe the nature of our existence before we think about/conceptualise it. However, in zazen practice we can see clearly that our existence is not contingent on our thinking about or conceptualising it as 'shunyata/emptiness' or as anything else: That is to realise the 'emptiness of emptiness'. From this practical perspective, which acknowledges and realises the nature of our naming things, we can therefore say that it is empty (a constructive view), or that it is not empty (a deconstructive view), or both (...and we can say more, as Master Dogen did in his 'four views' as presented at the beginning of Genjo-Koan for example).

A lot of koan are about this: Such as where the hapless novice will come to the Master and say 'Everything is empty!' and the Master will agree and respond by grabbing the novice's nose and giving it strong yank, or kicking him in the shin, to remind him just how 'empty' empty is... that sort of thing. Zen often gets caught up in the deconstructive 'everything is empty' position it seems, which is a nice recipe for nihilism and anti-intellectual machismo.

As with all aspects of Buddhist philosophy, if we are really interested in doing what the Buddha is said to have done, then we should confirm it or refute it (or both!) through our own direct practice-experience of it.

Regards,

Harry.

"Buddhism is basically humanism".

2011-10-11T18:27:00.000-07:00

...So says Gudo Wafu Nishijima. I always liked this idea, and I think it's true.

However, I think there is a bit of practical context to be added as Master Nishijima very likely isn't just talking about 'humanism' as:

1.An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

...or...

2.A Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

(as defined at Dictionary.com)

Nishijima is also quite emphatic on the point that Buddhism is a philosophy of action, of really doing stuff first and foremost; not just thinking about it, or not thinking about the opposite of it, or agreeing or disagreeing with it... we have to encounter humanity directly in Buddhism, as opposed just thinking about it in a particular way.

In the stripped-down activities of zen practice, especially non-thinking zazen (in my limited experience at least), we have the opportunity to 'meet' our selves before we make our selves something other than what we already are, before we start thinking our selves up. We can sort of see how we come about, how we will ourselves into existence in response to various stimuli. We see how personality happens. In a sense we see how people are made, and it's a pretty similar process for everyone I reckon: So in a sense, when we 'meet our self' in this way, we meet everybody, and we can understand everybody in a very direct way. Maybe it'll soften our attitudes towards ourselves and others when we can identify with them in this more fundamental way even, if we can express it in our lives off the cushion or whatever.

I like to think that's the gist of what Master Nishijima was getting at when he said that Buddhism is basically humanism: It is direct humanism, more radical and insightful than any philosophy alone... a human meeting a human, meeting all humans.

...on the other hand maybe Gudo didn't mean that at all, in which case... it works for me for the time being!

Regards,

Harry.

Hey, hadn't heard about this...

2011-10-11T09:46:00.000-07:00

Upcoming release... nobody tells me these things. Click on the pic to check it out on Amazon:

What's Yer Man on About...?

2011-10-09T13:52:00.000-07:00

Someone interviewed me for their blog regarding my curious take on Buddhism (whatever that is). It's a blog consisting of many such interviews from people of various religions; an interesting project (if you're into that sort of thing).

You can read my bit if you promise not to quote me, or take it at all seriously! I'm a very lacklustre buddhism-ist at the best of times...

http://youmereligion.blogspot.com/2011/09/harry-buddhist-name-hanrei-banzan.html

Regards,

Harry.

Weekend Zen Retreat in Co Tipperary, Ireland, Jan 2012.

2011-09-27T15:02:00.000-07:00

Details HERE.

From Melbourne Zen Centre Via Antaiji Website...

2011-09-12T18:05:00.000-07:00

Air, and How Wind is Made.

2011-09-12T12:27:00.000-07:00

Very strong winds over here. The tail end of a hurricane blowing off the Atlantic.

Had occasion to look again at the old 'Hands and Eyes of Great Compassion' koan the other day:

Yunyan asked Daowu, “How does the Bodhisattva of Great Compassion (Avalokiteshvara) use so many hands and eyes?”

Daowu said, “It’s just like a person in the middle of the night reaching back in search of a pillow.”

Yunyan said, “I understand.”

Daowu said, “How do you understand it?”

Yunyan said, “All over the body are hands and eyes.”

Daowu said, “What you said is roughly all right. But it’s only eighty percent of it. “

Yunyan said, “Senior brother, how do you understand it?”

Daowu said, “Throughout the body are hands and eyes.” (Tanahashi trans.)

Daido Loori Roshi had a nice comment on this one:

"Don’t you see? Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva has never understood what compassion is."

Regards,

Harry.

Ikkyu's One Koan.

2011-08-12T09:41:00.000-07:00

only one koan matters
you

By Ikkyu (Ikkyu Sojun)
(1394 - 1481)

English version by Stephen Berg

Sozan and the Practice of "Not Two".

2011-07-08T04:55:00.000-07:00

Master Sozan is traditionally considered to be the third ancestor after Bodhidharma in the Ch'an lineage of China. He's an even less reliable figure historically than Bodhidharma though and may well have been assigned significance retrospectively so as to create the impression of a valid and coherent 'lineage' (as was very likely the case with Bodhidharma).

Despite all that, the poem 'Shin Jin Mei' ('Relying on Mind') dubiously accredited to him, is a masterpiece and a seminal expression of zen practice. Anyone familiar with Master Dogen's Fukanzazengi will recognise that Dogen borrowed heavily from the piece in writing his famous meditation instruction.

A section that stands out in my current reading of Shin Jin Mei is:

The Dharma-realm of true actuality

harbours neither self nor other.

To reach accord with it at once,

just say, "Not two!"

Without duality, all beings are the same,

not a single one excluded.

It is a very interesting and powerful observation to remember this "Not two!", particularly in times when we are very inclined to make 'two'... when we really want something, or want to change something in line with our will, when I can't generally see the situation beyond the references of my own wants and needs as opposed the object of my wants and needs.

"Not two" reminds me that, yes, I do want something, but the something is me as it is, and the want is already me too as it is, and the object is me as it is. Phased positively, I can say that everything happening is me: "This is me."

Even when I will have to change something and act according to circumstances with will and drive still I can remember that it is all an act within the broader "Not two" of the self that isn't confined to the edges I tend to put on it.

Still, it's not easily practiced sometimes in the molten chaos of early mornings, screaming kids and a 'Summer' of incessant rain that has us all confined to the pressure cooker of the house.

Regards,

Harry.

After Master Basho.

2011-07-01T04:50:00.000-07:00

The old pond;

weeds and water
quietly conspire
to forget each other
in mutual rendering

a shrimp, a dragonfly
and me
watching hungrily

A frog jumps in:

the sting
ripples throughout
faster than memory
flailing obscene in the drink

I am alive
before myself
warts and all
freshly wet in the pan

Plop!

It has been said
by the wise and the mad
that stones speak
water remembers

I have listened
to their talk
in light and in the dark
thirsty for nothing

but this one drop.

(based on the translation of Basho by Allen Ginsberg)

-----------------

Zazen and the 'Ego'.

2011-06-19T08:27:00.000-07:00

I was having a sort-of conversation on another blog on the matter of the 'ego' and the implications of this term in zen practice. This post is bits and pieces from my discombobulated efforts from that thread.

People use the term 'ego' in different ways. Generally, in Western terms, it's used to denote the 'selfish self', and in Buddhist circles it often seems to have strong negative connotations. I can't help feeling that there is much of our Western religious/spiritual heritage of guilt, self loathing and self denial tied up in this term. At the very least I think it may be useful to be clear about what I'm actually talking about when I use the term. It seems to be a sort of assumption that this thing called 'ego' exists, sort of like an organ of the mind. But no such thing exists at all. Even in the Freudian model of 'ego' it is just seen as a function of the mind, not an organ or anything like that. The implication for zazen may be that when we stop doing 'ego' then there is no ego to be found anywhere... and this, of course, says something very clear about the perceived existence of 'ego'.

Part of the problem of 'ego' reification in the West may be that we have no philosophical basis to negate it. Buddhism has direct practices and a philosophical basis to counter excess in this regard (anatman or 'no-self', shunyata/'emptiness' etc), but Western culture generally does not. Our culture accepts that the ego, for example, is a ‘thing’ as if it really exists, or as if it is an actual entity or reified, tangible organ of mind. This may be linked culturally to the Christian assumption of the existence of an enduring soul or spiritual essence, or some aspect of the self that is other to, or that is more permanent than, the constant flux of things that make up our being from instant to instant.

Even Freud’s model of ‘ego’ saw it as a function of the mind, not a ‘thing’. Interestingly, although ‘it’ gets a bad rap generally, Freud saw the ego as operating to a reality principle which mediates a practical path between our chaotic, selfish id drives and the unrealistic, guilt generating moral perfectionism of the super-ego.

As can be learned very directly in meditation, our thinking is only a problem when we make it one through our own willed actions (which are most often ingrained habits that we aren't even aware that we are doing… which may give the impression of some latent self or personality?)

So, what is this 'ego', where does it reside, what does it do, does it have edges and borders, is it me, am I it, am I other than it... who's even asking?

And, if the 'ego', or any aspect of our thinking, is not the self, then what is?

The question is already being answered!

Regards,

Harry.

Charlotte Joko Beck R.I.P.

2011-06-16T11:22:00.000-07:00

I was saddened to hear of the death on Wednesday of the renowned U.S. zen teacher Joko Beck.

Beck promoted a very sincere zen practice which embraced Western cultural values while avoiding the strict adherence to monolithic Japanese values and trappings that can tend to distract from the pivotal matter at hand. I'm very grateful for her pioneering efforts in this regards, albeit from afar.

Her teaching seemed realistic and inherently humanistic, based in an intimate understanding of, and acceptance of, our human condition: She seemed to avoid the excesses of idealism that have dogged all religions. Truly a remarkable woman, and I'm sorry that she has left the world.

"When we refuse to work with our disappointment, we break the Precepts: rather
than experience the disappointment, we resort to anger, greed, gossip,
criticism. Yet it's the moment of being that disappointment which is fruitful;
and, if we are not willing to do that, at least we should notice that we are not
willing. The moment of disappointment in life is an incomparable gift that we
receive many times a day if we're alert. This gift is always present in anyone's
life, that moment when 'It's not the way I want it!" — Charlotte Joko Beck (1917 - 2011)

Shobogenzo YUI-BUTSU-YO-BUTSU: 'Buddhas Alone, Together with Buddhas'.

2011-06-04T11:56:00.001-07:00

Brad Warner posted a nice section of this chapter to his blog recently, and it was referenced in one of my posts on the previous chapter, so I'm going to have a read at this one again.

Here's how Master Nishijima introduces it:

Yui means "only" or "solely," butsu means "buddha" or "buddhas" and yo
means "and" or "together with." Therefore Yui-butsu-yo-butsu means "buddhas
alone, together with buddhas." Yui-butsu-yo-butsu are very famous words in the
Lotus Sutra. The sentence of the Lotus Sutra which includes the words
yui-butsu-yo-butsu is "buddhas alone, together with buddhas are directly able to
perfectly realize that all dharmas are real form." In this chapter, Master Dogen
explained what buddhas are.

Shobogenzo Dōtoku XI: Friends in Expressing the Truth.

2011-05-23T03:23:00.000-07:00

Shobogenzo Dōtoku concludes with some more discussion of the hut master koan:

Truly, if Seppō and the hut master were not “buddhas alone, together with
buddhas,” it could not be like this. If they were not one buddha and two
buddhas, it could not be like this. If they were not a dragon and a dragon, it
could not be like this.

"Buddhas alone, together with buddhas" is a favourite phrase of Master Dogen's from the Lotus Sutra. It at once suggests the mutuality and Independence of someone in the act of realising buddha in practice/conduct: The person is an independent actor, but his/her conduct is the same as that of all buddhas across time and circumstances. Chapter 91 of Shobogenzo, Yui-butsu-yo-butsu, is dedicated to this phrase.

The black dragon’s pearl is tirelessly guarded by the black dragon, but it rolls
naturally into the hand of a person who knows how to take it.

The black dragon's pearl represents the realised truth. This sentence suggests natural effort without striving for a result.

Let us remember: Seppō testing the hut master, the hut master seeing Seppō,
expression of the truth, nonexpression of the truth, [the hut master] having his
head shaved, and [Seppō] shaving his head. So, in conclusion, there are ways for
good friends in the expression of the truth to pay unexpected visits. And
between friends who are unable to say anything, although they do not expect
[recognition], the means are already present for their selves to be known.

Master Dogen presents Seppō's words as an 'expression' of the truth and the hut master's real act of coming forward to have his head shaved as a 'nonexpression' of the truth. He's not saying that the hut master has not expressed the truth, but, positively phrased, that he has expressed the 'nontruth', the truth of real conduct that is not contained in words and meaning. He connects this to 'shaving' and 'being shaved' suggesting an intimate mutuality and balance between 'expression' and 'nonexpression': words/meaning and direct practice working in a friendly relationship. He indicates also that the means of knowing the self are already present in the absence of words.

When there is learning in practice of knowing the self, there is the reality of
expressing the truth.

Master Dogen concludes by presenting our own learning-in-practice of realising the nature of our self, the words and actions to that non-end, as the real stuff of expressing the truth.

Shōbōgenzō Dōtoku
Written and preached to the assembly at Kannondōrikōshōhōrinji
on the fifth day of the tenth
lunar month in the third year of Ninji.

Shobogenzo Dōtoku X: Further Close Shaves with the Truth.

2011-05-21T03:22:00.000-07:00

Master Dogen discusses the koan regarding Seppō and the 'hut master':

[204] This episode is truly like an appearance of the uḍumbara. It is not only
difficult to meet, it may be difficult even to hear. It is beyond the scope of
[bodhisattvas in] the seven sacred stages or ten sacred stages and is not
glimpsed by [bodhisattvas in] the three clever stages or seven clever stages.
Sutra teachers and commentary teachers, and adherents of mystical powers and
apparitions, cannot fathom it at all. “To meet the Buddha’s appearance in the
world” means to hear a story like this.

The uḍumbara is a mythical flower said to bloom only once in an age. Master Dogen presents this account as being beyond knowledge of sutras, the attainment of mystical powers, and all the traditional, gradual schemes of realisation.

Now, what might be the meaning of Seppō’s “Express the truth and I will not
shave your head.” When people who have never expressed the truth hear this,
those with ability may be startled and doubting and those without ability will
be dumbfounded. [Seppō] does not ask about “buddha,” he does not discuss “the
Way,” he does not ask about “samādhi,” and he does not discuss “dhāraṇī.”

Master Seppō doesn't talk in abstract Buddhist terms but is very practical and direct in his expression and his conduct generally.

Inquiry like his, while seeming to be a request, also seems to be an assertion.
We should research this in detail. The hut master, though, because of his
genuineness, is aided and abetted by the expression of the truth itself and is
not dumb founded. Showing the traditional style, he washes his head and comes
forward. This is a Dharma standard at which not even the Buddha’s own wisdom can
arrive. It may be described as “manifestation of the body,” as “preaching of the
Dharma,” as “saving of the living,” and as “washing the head and coming
forward.”

Seppō's inquiry seems like a question, but it is also a statement of the 'koan' of reality. Can we ever express reality directly in words and keep our flowing locks? The hut master recognises the truth in this question/statement and responds by coming forward. Master Dogen presents this straightforward expression as the essence of Buddhism.

Then, if Seppō were not the real person he is, he might throw down the razor and
roar with laughter. But because Seppō has real power and is a real person, he
just shaves the hut master’s head at once.

Master Dogen admires Seppō for following through and actually shaving the hut master's head. Seppō wasn't talking in abstract, philosophical terms or engaging in 'koan-speak': He was talking about really shaving the guy's head!

Shobogenzo Dōtoku IX: Bald Expression?

2011-05-19T02:49:00.000-07:00

The account of the koan regarding Master Seppō and the 'hut master' continues...

[203] So it is that one day Seppō suddenly sets off, telling an attendant monk
to bring a razor. They go directly to the hut. As soon as he sees the hut
master, Seppō requests, “Express the truth and I will not shave your head.” We
must understand this request. “Express the truth and I will not shave your head”
seems to say that not to have the head shaved would be to have expressed the
truth—What do you think? If this expression of the truth is an expression of the
truth, [the hut master] might finally go unshaved.

It's customary for a Buddhist monk to have a shaved head, but the hut master is wearing his hair long. Master Dogen suggests that if Seppō's potentially gnarly request is a true expression then it might result in his shaving or not shaving the hut master's head: The truth is not confined to one 'correct' course of action but is always substantially a matter of the current, real situation. The request could also be taken to mean that if the hut master has not understood the truth then he should have his head shaved like any other trainee monk.

Those who have the power to hear this expression of the truth should listen, and
should proclaim it to others who have the power to hear. Then the hut master
washes his head and comes before Seppō. Has he come as the expression of the
truth, or has he come as the nonexpression of the truth? Seppō shaves the
head of the hut master at once.

The hut master just washes his head and comes forward for shaving. In his straightforward response is the hut master expressing the truth, is he not expressing the truth, is he leaping free from expression and not expression and Seppō's snare?

In response Seppō just goes ahead and shaves the hut master's head.

Regards,

Shobogenzo Dōtoku VIII: Hut Mastery.

2011-05-17T15:43:00.000-07:00

Dōtoku continues with this old account of a hermit from Zen tradition:

In the order of Great Master Shinkaku of Seppō there was a monk who went to the edge of the mountain and, tying together thatch, built a hut. Years went by, but he did not shave his head. Who can know what vitality there was inside the hut?—though circumstances in the mountains were desolate indeed. He made himself a wooden dipper and he would go to the edge of a ravine to scoop water and drink. Truly, he must have been the sort who drinks the ravines.

Master Nishijima notes that 'drinking ravines' refers to the directness of the written version of the line 'going to the edge of a ravine, he scooped it and drank' which appears in the Chinese written source for this koan.

As the days and months came and went like this, rumors of his customs secretly
leaked out. Consequently, on one occasion a monk came to ask the master of the
hut, “What is the ancestral master’s intention in coming from the west?” The hut master said, “The ravine is deep so the dipper’s handle is long.” The monk was staggered. Without doing prostrations or requesting the benefit [of further teaching], he climbed back up the mountain and told Seppō what had happened. When Seppō heard the report he said, “Wondrous! Even so, this old monk will have to go and see for himself. By testing [the hut master] I will grasp [his situation] at once.” Seppō’s words mean that the excellence [of the hut master’s expression] is so excellent as to be wondrous, but the Old Monk himself had better go and investigate.

Master Dogen is simply explaining the Chinese characters of what has been said before at the end of this section. In response to the famous old question as to the ancestral master's (Master Bodhidharma's) intention in coming from the West (what is the essence/meaning of Buddhism?... in other words) the hut master simply replied with an appropriate practicality from his own life regarding his water dipper. The monk and Seppō are very impressed by his natural, straightforward attitude...

2011-05-02T04:19:00.000-07:00

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

Shobogenzo Dōtoku VII: Pushing Mute.

2011-04-19T11:34:00.000-07:00

Jōshū is saying that it is beyond even the buddhas to describe as “mute,” or to
describe as “non-mute,” that which “sitting in stillness without speaking”
expresses. So “a lifetime without leaving the monastery” is a lifetime
without leaving the expression of the truth.

'Sitting in stillness without speaking' isn't speaking, but it's a type of
direct expression, a real momentary action, that can't be expressed in words or
abstract meaning. A lifetime of such direct actions is a life expressing the
essence of Buddhism (regardless of where we are).

Sitting in stillness without speaking for ten years or for five years is
expression of the truth for ten years or for five years; it is a lifetime
without leaving nonexpression of the truth; and it is being unable to say
anything for ten years or for five years.

Master Dogen presents two views of time here. The first is the conventional view where 'ten or five years sitting' is just ten or five years as we generally understand it. On the other hand he also presents it as a lifetime: This is an instantaneous view of time where our whole life exists now and at no other time. 'Being unable to say anything' suggests sincerely practicing zazen where we engage our life directly without abstract meaning or language.

It is sitting away hundred thousands of buddhas, and it is hundred
thousands of buddhas sitting away “you.”

Master Dogen presents our own practice, where we allow our self referential thinking and
feeling to come forward and fall away, as a mutual expression of the practice of all buddhas.

In summary, the Buddhist patriarchs’ state of expressing the truth is a lifetime
without leaving the monastery. Even mutes can have the state of expressing the
truth. Do not learn that mutes must lack expression of the truth. Those who have
expressions of the truth are sometimes no different from mutes.

People who can't talk can express the truth indicated (they can practice zazen, for example) while people who can talk may just talk a load of useless old codswallop (I hear ya, Master D!), so they may as well be mute.

In mutes, on the other hand, there is expression of the truth. Their
mute voices can be heard. We can listen to their mute words.

This suggests 'listening' as something more than just listening with our ears for words and abstract meaning.

How can one who is not mute hope to meet with the mute or hope to converse with
the mute? Given that they are mutes, how are we to meet with them, and how
are we to converse with them? Learning in practice like this, we should intuit and master the state of a mute.

We have to practice as a mute to learn and understand the 'mute language' of zazen. This suggests an intuitive sort of learning, developing prajna directly in practice, and learning that is different to words and meaning.

Shobogenzo Dōtoku VI: Building A Monastery.

2011-04-16T04:49:00.000-07:00

[198] Great Master Shinsai of Jōshū preaches to the assembly, “If you spend a lifetime not leaving the monastery, sitting in stillness without speaking for ten years or for five years, no one will be able to call you a mute. Afterwards, you might be beyond even the buddhas.” So when we are “ten years or five years in a monastery,” passing through the frosts and flowers again and again, and when we consider the effort in pursuit of the truth that is “a lifetime not leaving the monastery”; the “sitting in stillness,” which has cut [all interference] by sitting, has been innumerable instances of expressing the truth.

This passage suggests that sincerely practicing zazen is the same as 'not leaving the monastery' for a lifetime, that it is an expression of the truth much more expansive than our ideas of time.

Walking, sitting, and lying down “without leaving the monastery” may be countless instances of “no one being able to call you a mute.”

To perform these acts sincerely anywhere is to 'enter the monastery' in that they are the same pivotal substance of Buddhism as practiced by people in monasteries. They are also forms of the timeless expression of existence.

Though we do not know where “a lifetime” comes from, if we cause it not to leave the monastery it will be “not leaving the monastery.”

This suggests a life of sincere actions even though we can never fully understand our origins or purpose.

[But] what kind of path through the sky is there between “a life time” and “a monastery”? We should solely intuit and affirm “sitting in stillness.”

This is to affirm that the state of realisation/expression ('a monastery') is expressed and affirmed through zazen.

Do not hate “not speaking.” “Not speaking” is the expression of the truth being right from head to tail. “Sitting in stillness” is “a lifetime” or two life times: it is not for one or two periods of time. If you experience ten years or five years of sitting in stillness without speaking, even the buddhas will be unable to think light of you.

Here Master Dogen asks us not to hate non-verbal expression of Buddhist practice. He connects zazen to real-time, our lifetime, as opposed some abstract notion of time.

Truly, even the eyes of Buddha will not be able to glimpse, and even the power of Buddha will not be able to sway, this sitting in stillness without speaking—because “you will be beyond even the buddhas.”

Being in a state of activity 'beyond the buddhas' is a theme that occurs quite often in Shobogenzo. It suggests that our actions are already a fresh expression of reality at any given time; that no eternal set principle or value or static 'state' of buddha persists which is anything extra to this. This 'buddha' can be quite a deep rooted assumption, because we may desperately want to believe that there is a magic state, a perfect state, or some such thing that we can eventually 'get', that will make it all better. What we can actually do, what we can practice, may be expressed by real things which are much more close to hand and familiar. . An underlying theme that occurs to me here is that, even though we don't know where tha hell we're coming from, still we create our existence, our world, with our own actions from moment to moment. So, what are we building?

Intimate Talk.

2011-04-14T17:27:00.000-07:00

Intimately speaking,
There's a word that's been said,
That doesn't mean a thing:

Can you say it for me?

Further Misadventures Here in the Realm of Hungry Ghosts.

2011-04-14T02:33:00.001-07:00

I've been having an interesting, if boisterous, exchange with someone on another blog about buddhist practice and 'hungry ghosts'. Basically, I was called a 'hungry ghost' for not toeing a perceived party line, or fulfilling some buddhist expectation or assumption, or whatever.

I took it as the mild insult it was meant to be, but I also found it strangely affirming. It reminded me that people, that I, think we can realise a buddha without realising a hungry ghost, that is, a real human with wants and desires and opinions and all that. It's so much easier to see and think about what other people, other ghosts, other Buddhismists, are doing that is so inferior. That we have long-practiced mechanisms to defend our pathology may be the operant element there.

Realising a buddha is just realising the fact that we are already the same as buddhas, and that involves realising that we are human beings, hungry ghosts, here in the realm of hungry ghosts. It's messy, we're messy. An awful lot of Buddhisty commentary seems to be about denying this fact, but realising a hungry buddha is about taking our inherent messiness and doing something interesting with it.

Feel free to dismiss this as the howlings of a hungry ghost... but not too quickly.

So, here's to hungry ghosts everywhere.

So, just what is this 'Compassion' thing?

2011-04-03T01:46:00.000-07:00

Slightly edited and built on from another blog I'm contagious to: Asking just what compassion is is a very good inquiry I think. It would help if we defined what we're talking about when we say 'compassion' because some people seem to think it's the same as empathy and/or sympathy (which are actually very different to each other) and such... nothing wrong with that, but others seem to think it's something different to that (personally I think it is something more than our own thoughts and feelings, something bigger than that). For all the talk about it in Buddhism, it's actually rarely clearly defined. I just looked in a few 'Intro to Buddhism'-type books and the 'C' word is all over the place, but it's not defined clearly at all really. It seems to sit there like an assumption or a sort of 'X' value. A thing that might be useful to consider and related is UPR (Unconditional Positive Regard) which is a quality (not just an emotion) that people in Social Care professions seek to develop through reflective practice, where practitioners critically reflect on their motivations and how their thinking and feelings might impact on their capacity to help others. ELSEWHERE 'compassion' is defined as a 'virtue' rather than an emotion. Do we even need to be clear on this, or are we doing okay without gilding the lily? Is 'compassion' a valid term to employ when it is denoting a process more characterised by sympathy (e.g. feelings for the other based on my own perceptions of the others' suffering) than empathy (e.g. one personally identifying with an others' suffering)? ...Lots of warm, fuzzy thinking around this one doing the rounds at any rate, I reckon. Regards, Harry.

Shobogenzo Dōtoku V: Sucking on Dry Old Bones.

2011-04-02T07:55:00.000-07:00

Dōtoku Continues:

Even if we have recognized expressing the truth as expressing the truth, if we have not experienced to the end the state of not expressing the truth as the state of not expressing the truth, ours are never the real features of a Buddhist patriarch nor the bones and marrow of a Buddhist patriarch.

We have to thoroughly understand our habitual delusion to understand the alternative to it. We have to understand our activity that is contrary to expressing the truth in order to appreciate what is true directly. This is reminiscent of Dogen's famous line 'Buddhas greatly realise delusion. Ordinary beings are greatly deluded about realisation'.

So how could the state that [Master Taiso Eka] was able to express, by doing three prostrations and standing at his place, be equal to the state that is able to be expressed by the “skin, flesh, bones, and marrow” brigade? The state that is able to be expressed by the “skin, flesh, bones, and marrow” brigade never touches, and is never furnished with, the expression of the truth that is to do three prostrations and to stand in place.

The 'skin, flesh, bones, and marrow brigade' are those who consider that 'obtaining the marrow' is superior to 'obtaining the skin' as if the marrow is more essential or superior in some way. This refers to the legendary transmission of the Dharma from Master Bodhidharma to his students ('you have attained my skin, you have attained my flesh, you have obtained my bones etc...' in recognition of their various expressions of the dharma). Master Dogen is using this piece of zen lore to present our real tangible actions as the essence of zen practice as opposed reified notions of different levels of realisation (the latter is the more conventional understanding).

Our meeting now with that lot, as if we are going among alien beings, is [Master Taiso Eka’s] meeting now with that lot, as if he is going among alien beings. In us there is the state of expressing the truth and there is the state of not expressing the truth. In him there is the state of expressing the truth and there is the state of not expressing the truth. In the state expressed by speaking there is us and them, and in the state expressed by not speaking there is us and them.

Our own sincere activity is the very same as Master Taiso Eka's sincere activity; and practice that is confined to/by relative perceptions of 'levels of insight/understanding' etc remains limited in comparison. The difference is a criteria that can be clearly discerned in our own practice.

Our capacity to not express the truth is causally linked to our ability to express it, as indicated above. This is as true for ancient Masters as it is for us today (they had to be just as thick and half-assed as us in order to sincerely realise it!) This recognition of the important relationship between delusion and realisation/ direct practice, or an ignorance of the relationship, is evident and discernible in people's practice of it ('not speaking') and in their resulting expressions regarding practice-realisation ('speaking'). BOTH 'speaking' and 'not speaking' are presented by Master Dogen as expressions of 'the state' itself.

The real guts of it is learned and expressed in thoroughly doing stuff like sitting zazen. Zazen is a very simple activity in many ways (when we get used to it a bit) and so it's a good place to start exploring the nature of our conduct and how it needn't be directed by our habitual 'stuff' including all the notions we might throw at it around 'getting enlightened' and 'attaining this', that or the other. This is, or should be, an ongoing thing I think. And, as Master Dogen is keen to have us do elsewhere, we should be able to say a few words about it!

Regards,

Harry.

Shobogenzo Dōtoku IV: Free as a Mountain.

2011-03-31T08:24:00.000-07:00

Dōtoku continues:

While we are endeavoring to get free, the skin, flesh, bones, and marrow are all equally intuiting and affirming freedom. National lands, mountains, and rivers are all intuiting and affirming freedom together.

All real material things are expressions of inclusive reality; this is the universal 'one human body' that Master Dogen refers to elsewhere. This expresses the state of practice where we let go of the thoughts and feelings which give the impression of what we usually think of as our self, and it counters the idea that the freedom indicated by Buddhism is just a personal mental state, for example.

At this time, while we continue aiming to arrive at freedom, as the ultimate treasure-object, this intention to arrive is itself real manifestation—and so, right in the moment of getting free there is expression of the truth, which is realized without expectation.

As to the mind: We can aspire to complete realisation even though we aren't currently completely realised. Master Dogen considered the will to realisation (bodhicitta) as essential, and also as awakening itself ,as to sit in zazen, even as a complete beginner, is to express realisation directly even though it might not be the realisation we imagine or expect! We can clarify the nature of it with continuing practice. This indicates right motivation, or right aspiration, as informed by direct practice.

It is beyond the power of the mind and beyond the power of the body, but there is naturally expression of the truth.

Sitting/non-thinking as zazen has been described as 'dropping of body and mind', which is a term that Master Dogen was fond of using. We don't have to make any special effort of body/mind to practice zazen; we just put our selves into a posture whereby we can let things come and go as they will when we stop interfering with them.

When expression of the truth is already happening to us, it does not feel unusual or strange. At the same time, when we are able to express this expression of the truth, we leave unexpressed the nonexpression of the truth.

Master Dogen is very explicit here regarding the manifest situation of practicing. In doing it, it does not feel special as that which is real is already an established fact (whether we recognise/realise it directly or not). When we don't express it, that situation is also the truth (the truth is totally inclusive), but we are not expressing it directly: we are then expressing the 'nontruth'.

This section conforms closely to the '4 Views' presented in Genjo-Koan which Nishijima Sensei indicates so clearly:

1. The material or objective view.

2. The idealistic or subjective view.

3. The view of action or directly practicing it.

4. The manifest, real situation.

Shobogenzo Dōtoku III: Time & Effort.

2011-03-26T10:15:00.000-07:00

When Buddhist patriarchs, through making effort to be Buddhist patriarchs, intuit and affirm a Buddhist patriarch’s expression of the truth, this expression of the truth naturally becomes three years, eight years, thirty years, or forty years of effort, in which it expresses the truth with all its energy.

The effort of acting like a Buddhist ancestor is the state of being a Buddhist ancestor. It's like getting caught in the way of being a Buddhist ancestor through the accumulative power of doing it on an ongoing basis. This suggests a type of intention to practice-realise the conduct of a Buddhist ancestor as ongoing realisation itself.

During this time—however many tens of years it is—there is no discontinuation of expressing the truth. Then, when [the truth] is experienced to the end, insight at that time must be true; and, because it confirms as true the insights of former times, the fact is beyond doubt that the present state is the expression of the truth.

The truth is always manifest, although we don't always experience its fullness directly ourselves. Interestingly, Master Dogen initially presents current practice-realisation as confirming the insights of the past (not the standard deferential model of evoking the realisation or superiority of some imagined Buddha, say). This puts the ball squarely in our court and is a reminder that it is substantially a matter of our own efforts. The truth has always been directly manifested and expressed now by people such as me and you...

So the present expression of the truth is furnished with the insights of former times, and the insights of former times were furnished with the present expression of the truth. It is for this reason that expression of the truth exists now and insight exists now.

...But there is a continuity in the nature of the individual insight-efforts. In a sense it is the same truth although it's realised and expressed across diverse circumstances. The fact that it has no set form to restrict it is a feature of its enduring transmission in the present.

Expression of the truth now and insights of former times are “a single track,” and they are “ten thousand miles” [apart].

This image expresses the unity-in-separateness of realisation/expression of the truth through practice-effort ('a single track') and of using every diverse thing as, and realising everything as, the truth ('ten thousand miles').

Effort now continues to be directed by the expression of the truth itself and by insight itself. Having accumulated long months and long years of holding onto this effort, we then get free of the past years and months of effort.

This continues the previous theme with attention to our practice throughout time: Insight through practice can be said to give our practice direction and clarify our motivations etc... However, Master Dogen indicates a situation after long years of practice where our effort is free of previous efforts. This is reminiscent of the 'traceless forgotten realisation' mentioned in Genjo-Koan; a state of practice where our effort is completely easeful and natural and is without design or hindrance. Contrary to some popular assumptions there is an accumulative effect of practice, and sudden insights arising from genuine effort do have real validity.

... That's the ideal at least, but a lot of longtime zazenists will tell you that it never really stops being a pain in the arse (literally, and otherwise!) in some very real respects. But even within that, from within whatever is arising, there is the possibility to practice it and not be pushed or pulled even as the arising pain-in-the-ass 'stuff' is acknowledged. Bringing this off the zafu (where it's relatively easy to practice really) and being able to express it in the rest of our life, is a long term project, and I get the sense that this is what Master Dogen is indicating: a fuller and more inclusive expression of it than just sitting zazen, say.

Shobogenzo Dōtoku II: Expressing a Buddhist Ancestor Always Happens Now!

2011-03-22T10:24:00.000-07:00

[193] The buddhas and the patriarchs are the expression of the truth. Therefore,
when Buddhist patriarchs are deciding who is a Buddhist patriarch, they
always ask “Do you express the truth or not?” They ask this question with
the mind, they ask with the body, they ask with a staff and a whisk, and they
ask with outdoor pillars and stone lanterns. In others than Buddhist patriarchs
the question is lacking and the expression of the truth is lacking—because
the state is lacking.

'The truth' indicated here isn't some abstract notion or remote mental sphere of understanding. The function of a Buddhist ancestor (I'm using the term 'ancestor' instead of 'patriarch' here for the obvious reason) is to recognise and actualise the truth of real things, to ask the question directly as a real thing ourself. The nature of the asking is to use the whole self, all selves, both our person and all the diverse objects. This suggests the intimate criteria of practice-realisation in both recognising our own direct practice of sitting/non-thinking zazen as that of an ancestor, and relying on our own practice-realisation to recognise our selves and others as Buddhist ancestors.

Such expression of the truth is not accomplished by following
other people, and it is not a faculty of our own ability. It is simply that
where there is the Buddhist patriarchs’ pursuit of the ultimate there is the
Buddhist patriarchs’ expression of the truth. In the past they have trained
inside that very state of expressing the truth and have experienced it to the
end, and now they are still making effort, and pursuing the truth, inside that
state.

The expression of this truth isn't bestowed on us by others and isn't wholly accomplished by our own power; it's a vigorous activity not confined to self or other that is expressed in pursuing it directly in practice. When we allow the hard edges of what we generally consider our self to fall away in zazen, we have the opportunity to train as Buddhist ancestors in experiencing and clarifying the truth here in this moment of real time (not in our own simple linear thoughts of past, present and future) where all Buddhist ancestors are already always realising it.

It all sounds very grand, but, as someone who has just returned home from a three-day sesshin (zazen retreat), the way it is pursued, learned and expressed can be characterised by things as familiar as burning pains in the buttocks, sore knees, the gurgling of gastric juices and the burps and farts of other people, crows, a passing tractor, an itchy nose, and thoughts as universal and transcendent as 'I wish to fuck that he'd ring that damned bell!'

Shobogenzo Do-toko I: 'Expressing the Truth'.

2011-03-21T15:26:00.000-07:00

Master Dogen clearly had a very special affinity with language. His gamut in composing what was collected to comprise the Shobogenzo was the traditional Chinese literature of past Zen ancestors - the koan cases and the mondo exchanges between master and pupil or master and master. He also employed colloquialisms and earlier Buddhist imagery, dialogues and tales to explore and expound the fundamental points of Buddhist practice-realisation. He didn't use all this material in a dry and stuffy way - his employment of it is often subversive, bordering on irreverent (sometimes openly irreverent!), inspired, humourous, radical and refreshing.

What comes across to me is a deep appreciation of, and a razor sharp analytical involvement with, language, expression, and conversation. He revels in the intimate turning words of practice and realisation. I've always been interested in this aspect of Master Dogen's works, and am concerned when Soto Zen is reduced to a few crusty old idioms, ideas, or ideals, because, while the language needn't be impenetrable to express it clearly, it should remain a fresh and ready resource for us to use freely in our own ways. Glum 'Zen' silence, or a few tired old one-liners, in response to some of the crucial and vivid matters of life and death just really isn't good enough I'm afraid.

It was put to me the other day that Dogen was writing as part of, and/or for, an educated literary elite, but I think that may be a simple way to look at it retrospectively. His means of exploring his subjects are sophisticated in places for sure, but I don't see that he was purposely being obscure or complicated: It seems more likely that he was just using the resources he had available to him (his own body-mind) to express what others were content to indicate with an equally obscure (or much more obscure!) 'nod-and-a-wink'... seems to me he was, well... playing... in his own wordy, nerdy Zen way.

Dogen is not for everyone, but I think there is something in his writings for everyone who wants to approach it as he did not have a narrow, exclusive or elitist view of expression: He acknowledges clearly that the truth is expressed in as many diverse ways as there are diverse things in this Big Life be they smart or stupid, wordy or silent, this or that... the 'language' of realisation isn't confined to just a few words, or one sect or religion, or one group of clever people: It's being spoken everywhere right now by mountains, rivers, fists, needles, stone lanterns, the whiff of shit, the tree in the garden... and everything else... and we can tune in and sing along!

So, I'm going to look at this chapter bit by bit: Here's to expression and to finding our own, unique true voice in this big cosmic choir!

Nishijima Sensei introduces the chapter like this:

Do means "to speak" and toku means "to be able," so do-toku literally means "being able to say something." But over time the meaning of do-toku changed to "expressing the truth" or "an expression of the truth." In this chapter, Master Dogen explained the meaning of do-toku, or expressing the truth, from his standpoint.

This chapter is no. 39 in volume II of the Nishijima/Cross translation.

Sesshin Moon

2011-03-20T07:47:00.000-07:00

The moon

Dazzled in its own radiance

Never finds refuge in darkness.

Springing out from light and dark

It gropes blindly through the night

Secretly touching

everything.

Freedom Beckons.

2011-02-25T14:41:00.001-08:00

In the very unlikely event that someone who is under attack tonight will read this:

We share your cries. Your freedom is our freedom.

We are humbled by your efforts and your sacrifices.

May Allah protect you and keep your people strong.

Harry.

Getting out of 'Emptiness' Alive?

2011-02-20T03:21:00.000-08:00

A post from a friend's blog:

Personally I think the idea of 'emptiness' is a sort of philosophical mistake in Buddhism, an inherent weakness of it that would better be forgotten or reworked. It seems to cause a lot of misunderstanding.

Joshu's 'Mu' explains it better, but only if I take it up and grab the point directly in practice, not if I just think about it. The fact that the the dog doesn't 'have' buddha-nature in no way makes it less of a dog (it can still bite my ass!), in fact it exists as a real dog because it doesn't have anything like buddha-nature or 'emptiness' or 'emptiness of emptiness' to block its way. In the same way, if we'd make a grand statement about emptiness the old zen Master would yank our noses hard or kick our shins to remind us where shunyata really is. There's always responsibility for someone to endure in 'emptiness', we're never free of our work or our intention.

IMO, when we're sincerely dropping off body and mind, or are performing various straight-up actions, we're making a living buddha and are making buddhism real. One does not negate the other really; but too often Soto Zen emphasises not-doing and throwing ourselves away in zazen without emphasising what we are really doing, and who it is who's really doing it. We're actually always doing something; there is always an intention there, and the intention we express, the person we express, directly in zazen is quite special.

In practicing it there's always 'a person who is holding up buddha's head' as Dogen put it so nicely.

Regards,

Harry.

Facing Life.

2011-02-17T06:38:00.000-08:00

This quote was header to an mailing list email from Black Mountain Zen Centre that I recieved the other day:

"The important point is not to try to escape your life but to face it - exactly and completely, beyond discussing whether or not your zazen or your situation is good or bad, right or wrong. This is all you have to do"
~ Dainin Katagiri Roshi

Early Irish Buddhist Trailblazing Hobo.

2011-02-14T15:46:00.001-08:00

Who was he really, this hobo, world traveller and finally famous Buddhist in the Orient who blazed a trail but died, it seems, ignored by history? The enigmatic, free thinking Dubliner who used different aliases, we now know to have been Dhammaloka, "the Irish Buddhist" who converted to his adopted religion around 1900. He became widely known throughout Asia and in the process, managed to fall foul of the colonial establishment as well as Christian missionaries.

Uncovering Dhammaloka's unique story has taken some inspired detective work on the part of UCC's Professor Brian Bocking, as well as other colleagues, and their efforts have not been in vain. The lost Irish Buddhist emerges after all these years as one of the earliest Western Buddhist monks, pre-dating many others who have claimed the title. Professor Bocking takes us through an amazing odyssey.

Don't Fucking 'Genpo Roshi' Me!

2011-02-12T16:36:00.000-08:00

.jpg labelled 'GenpoSatan' courtesy of Brad Warner's blog (taken without permission).

Okay, Bozo, what's your real stake in the Genpo Roshi debacle? What warrants your little rush or opinion or tickle or righteous feeling? I don't care what the rich Pointy Headed One did/does with his Dharma Mommas, I'm talking about YOU!

All versions of the Guru Game, including the insidious inverted versions of it, are really most often just an exercise in our own turd sniffing if we care to excavate a little (but do we?)

Yeah, I'm cranky today, but given all the disingenuous 'Buddhist' bullshit I'm reading on the net I'm not going to try to pretend otherwise this eve.

Regards,

Harry.

Pointed Poking at This Season's Sacred Cow.

2011-01-31T05:27:00.000-08:00

I don't know what it is about this topic, it just keeps popping up for me recently. This [slightly edited] from a response on another blog:

There's a big hue and cry about 'compassion' and being an 'Engaged Buddhist' coming out of the US. Now, I'm not going to say that there is not merit in that, that it's not a 'good thing', but the transmission of Zen truth is not of one flavour, is not of one point of view, value system, moral code, and is never yoked to a code or creed or accumulating merit. This is its nature and its standard is free action, free conduct, that is responsive to the real situation, not to some 'Engaged Buddhist' set of ideals or compassion club or other movement... don't make me dig out all the koans!

Here's a couple of touchstones about what Avalokiteshvara/ Kannon does that I like to keep about me. The first from Old Shak and Dogen:

Old man Shakyamuni said, "Avalokiteshvara turns the stream inward
and disregards knowing objects."

That is the meaning. Separation between the two aspects of activity
and stillness simply does not arise. This is harmonizing.

And...

Ungan Donjō once asked Dōgo Enchi, “What use does the Bodhisattva of Great Compassion make of his many hands and eyes?”

Dōgo replied, “He is like someone in the night who reaches behind himself, his hand groping for a pillow.”

In short, 'compassion' (if that is even what the buddha ancestors are indicating above... it seems more immediate and fundamental than that to me), or the real act/function of Kannon, is devoid of an actor and a receiver, or a bodhisattva and someone extra or exterior to be 'saved'. It's standard is certainly not conduct whereby middle class, college educated Westerners self consciously set about to save the world from 'The Man' in order to feel better about themselves.

Regards,

Harry.

What Avalokiteshvara Does...

2011-01-18T04:27:00.000-08:00

Employing a phrase from the Shurangama Sutra in Gakudo Yojin-Shu ('Guidelines for Studying the Way') Master Dogen indicates the nature of the function of Avalokiteshvara, or Kannon, the Bodhisattva of compassion:

Old man Shakyamuni said, "Avalokiteshvara turns the stream inward
and disregards knowing objects."

That is the meaning. Separation between the two aspects of activity
and stillness simply does not arise. This is harmonizing.

(Brown & Tanahashi trans.)

Making 'Sense' of Dogen (...whether he'd like it or not!)

2011-01-07T05:16:00.000-08:00

This is adapted from a comment to Brad W's Hardcore Zen blog:

...On reifying 'Dogen's View/Philosophy' on whatever and trying to make a consistent 'theory of Dogen' on something, or for everything:

Here's an interesting point that hopped out of the intro to Okumura's and Leighton's trans. of the Eihei Shingi (pg 17-18)...

"While some of Dogen's writings have rightfully earned him the modern reputation as a great philosopher, he was never concerned with producing a new, dogmatically consistent, philosophical doctrine along the lines of Western philosophical theories. Rather, his philosophy was always at the service of his main purpose: that of religious practitioner and spiritual guide.

The meaning of Dogen's words must be realized in their context of practical teachings for particular students. From the viewpoint of sincere spiritual practice, rather than the intellectual calculations and limited conceptualizations of consistency that are sharply criticized throughout Zen literature, Dogen's work can be seen as simply the natural unfolding of one person's awakened mind/heart."

Where we see Dogen as 'contradicting himself' or being inconsistent (from the particular perspective indicated above) maybe we should rather appreciate his fluidity and responsiveness to the current situation, and the absence of philosophical/intellectual stasis.

Regards,

Harry.

Turning Our Shit Into the True Treasure-Eye.

2010-12-11T15:04:00.001-08:00

I'm taking a little break from Shobo-blogging for a while. I have some college work to keep me busy, and I have some music stuff on too. I'm truly in love with an instrument called the uilleann pipes you see, and they take a bit of time. They require discipline and time. If anything is part of 'my practice' then they are. There are so many parallels between playing an instrument and zazen, but I won't go into it now (I keep sayin' that!)

Anyway, I'm noticing, or appreciating more, that practicing Shobogenzo is really about details. Not philosophical points, relative doctrines, good ideas, theories, Zen viewpoints etc etc etc... It's in the nitty-gritty, real stuff: The stuff that is much broader, much more significant, and much messier than how I like to theorize things to be. The stuff that is already really here. This here-now is where it pans out. Master Dogen wasn't pointing us up the Yellow Brick Road.

When I get back to it I'll be looking at Shobogenzo (looking with Shobogenzo?) more from this perspective of the nitty-gritty, from the truth realised by the smart of a niggling little particle of everything in my eye, from the ivory tower of my own stupidity, from the depths of ignorance and anger and greed, from the height of joy and the falls of sorrow and mortal despair... from the perspective of a human being, not a two cent philosopher, in other words.

It's a wonderful and fascinating world of stuff here, when I use it right.

Regards,

Harry.