Ted Biringer:
http://zenforuminternational.org//viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5490&p=73011#p73011
"A" is "not-A", "not A" is "A"
In
the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Buddha, speaking from within the enlightened
state, elucidates the nature of reality in an elaborately metaphorical
expression that envisions the totality of existence as an “ocean” in
which all the myriad dharmas are viewed as “reflections.” In his, Kaiin
Zammai (Ocean-reflection Samadhi), Dogen assimilates the traditional
account and, drawing on some unsuspected implications of the doctrine,
manages to push the whole vision to a new, more dynamic level.
In
the sutra, the Buddha describes his “body” as consisting of the
“arising” and “vanishing” of myriad dharmas. He also asserts that he
does not “speak of this body,” which is the arising and vanishing of
myriad dharmas, as “the arising and vanishing of an ‘I’.” Here, Dogen
quotes the Buddha as going on to explain that:
“A
preceding thought-moment and a succeeding thought-moment do not
anticipate each other; a preceding dharma and a succeeding dharma do not
oppose each other. This is known as the ocean-reflection samadhi”
Shobogenzo, Kaiin-zammai, Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.166
For
one thing, Dogen’s viewpoint differs significantly from the standard
Huayen model in his emphasis on the unity of existence and time (uji;
existence-time). This is seen in the present case by Dogen’s attention
to the fact that preceding and succeeding “moments,” and “dharmas,” do
not anticipate each other – thus the nondual nature of moments (time)
and dharmas (existent forms) are underscored.
Dogen explains that
although Buddhas and ancestors actualize various kinds of enlightenment
(e.g. original, acquired, initial, etc.), there is more to Buddhas and
ancestors than that. The “body” that the Buddha spoke of as consisting
of the “integrated form” of myriad dharmas should not be hastily
regarded as a “single unified form” (of undifferentiated oneness).
According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad
forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms
themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of
Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all
Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are
enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature
or mind. On that line from Gabyo, Hee-Jin Kim comments:
All
Buddhas and all things cannot be reduced to a static entity or
principle symbolized as one mind, one nature, or the like. This guards
against views that devaluate the unique, irreplaceable individuality of a
single dharma.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.257
In
Kaiin Zammai, the “arising” of dharmas, says Dogen, is the
actualization of a specific moment of time. “Existence,” being
coessential and coextensive with “experience,” the “arising of dharmas”
is synonymous with our experience here and now. The arising of myriad
dharmas is itself authentic practice-enlightenment.For Dogen, “zazen” is
the archetypal symbol of this “practice-enlightenment.”
Zazen is
“mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive
of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,” which is
described by Dogen as “direct experience.” This “direct experience” is
not only hearing, seeing, etc.; it is the arising of an ‘I’.” As in
Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, “The myriad things advance and confirm the self.”
Thus, the “arising of dharmas” (the myriad particular things of
experience) is itself “the one” totality of existence-time which is
itself the whole, real, ever advancing body-mind of Buddha at each (and
every) particular moment of existence-time. In other words, the totality
of “myriad” dharmas right now are - as they are - the “one” body-mind
of Buddha right now. This “body-mind” is immediately “cast off” and the
new totality of myriad dharmas is fully exerted as the one body-mind of
Buddha, which is immediately cast off as the “body-mind of Buddha”
ceaselessly advances into novelty – This! Now this! Now this! Now this!
The
“body-mind” of the Buddha (or Universe) that is manifested or
actualized with each now total exertion “contains” or is “inclusive of”
all previous total exertions (body-minds of Buddha) which, being “real
dharmas” occupy dharma-positions (specific coordinates of
space-and-time; uji, existence time), and therefore are “one of the
myriad dharmas” that constitute the body-mind of Buddha here and now
(i.e. their particular instance of existence forms part of the “fabric”
of this particular instance of existence). Also, the “body-mind” of the
Buddha here and now “contains” or is “inclusive of” all future total
exertions (body-minds of Buddha) which, being “real potentials” are, and
must be “real dharmas,” hence, actually present here and now. Thus,
Dogen’s teaching, “Nothing in the whole universe has ever been
concealed.”
One thing this means is that the body-mind of Buddha
is directly perceptible here and now. The Buddha (thus our “self”) is
nothing more, or less, than each and every particular thing and event of
our experience here and now. As the masters say, “Truly seeing a mote
of dust is truly seeing the whole universe.” In Dogen’s terms, “When one
side (a dust mote) is illumined, the other side (the totality of space
and time) is dark” (“dark” as in “shadowed,” or “eclipsed” – thus “dark”
denotes presence not absence).
This (and every) instant of
existence-time (dharma-position) is the “self” or the “I” which can be,
and is, confirmed in (and as) “zazen” (authentic
practice-enlightenment). Thus Dogen says: [Note: Nearman translates
“dharmas” as “elements”]
‘Arising’
invariably refers to the arrival of a specific moment, for time is what
arises. Just what is this ‘arising’? It must surely be arising in and
of itself. This arising is already a moment in time. Never did He say
that it fails to expose what Skin and Flesh, Bones and Marrow really
are. Because this is the arising of ‘being composed of ’, it is this
body of His that arises, it is an ‘I’ that arises, and it is ‘merely
being various elements’ that arises. It is not only hearing sounds and
seeing forms and colors; it is also the arising of an ‘I’. It is this
arising of an ‘I’ that one does not speak about. ‘Not speaking about
something’ does not mean ‘not expressing something’, for being able to
express something is not the same as being able to put it in words. The
time of arising is synonymous with the appearance of ‘these elements’;
it does not refer to the twenty-four hours of a day. These elements are
what the time of arising is, and they do not compete with each other
within the three worlds of desire, form, and beyond form. As an Old
Buddha once put it, “Suddenly, fire arises.” Through this expression, He
was saying that there is no waiting about for this arising.
Shobogenzo, Kaiin Zammai, Hubert Nearman
After
commenting on this, Dogen cites a Zen koan and asserts that “we need to
discern the real meaning” of the “ceaselessness of this process,”
underscoring that “the myriad dharmas” is “the one” body-mind (Buddha,
true self) – as it is - and “the one” body mind is “the myriad dharmas.”
Then he reminds us that nonduality indicates “unity” not
“identification” by describing this (inclusiveness of “A” and “not-A”)
as the “lifeblood” of Buddhas and ancestors, pointing out that, “the
‘you’ is the who that arises and vanishes.”
Another
Old Buddha once said, “What is this ceaseless time of arising and
vanishing?” Thus, in that this arising and vanishing is our experience
of the arising of an ‘I’ and our experience of the vanishing of an ‘I’,
the process is unceasing. In entrusting the Matter to Him, we need to
discern the real meaning of His stating the ceaselessness of this
process. We continually chop up this unceasing time of arising and
vanishing, which is the very lifeblood of an Ancestor of the Buddha. In
the unceasing time of arising and vanishing, who is it that arises and
vanishes? As to the ‘who’ that arises and vanishes, it is the ‘who’ that
is on the verge of being able to realize enlightenment within this
body. That is, it is the ‘who’ that manifests this body, the ‘who’ for
whom the Dharma is expressed, the very ‘who’ in the past who was unable
to grasp what Mind is. It is “You have gotten what my Marrow is,” and it
is “You have gotten what my Bones are,” because the ‘you’ is the who
that arises and vanishes.
Shobogenzo, Kaiin Zammai, Hubert Nearman
After
exploring and illuminating the significance of the implications of
this, Dogen concludes Kaiin Zammai, by citing and commenting on a Zen
koan that directly relates to our discussion on the unity of “A” and
“not-A” in the infinite and eternal nature of “existence-time.” Here is
the koan as translated by Hubert Nearman:
Sozan
Honjaku was once asked by a monk, “I have heard that it says in the
Scriptures that the great ocean does not give lodging to corpses. Just
what kind of an ocean is this?”
The Master responded, “One that contains all that exists.”
The monk then asked, “Then why doesn’t it give lodging to corpses?”
The Master replied, “What has ceased to breathe is not connected with It.”
The monk asked, “Given that it contains all that exists, why is something that has ceased to breathe not connected with it?”
The Master said, “The functioning of all that exists is something other than ceasing to breathe.”
Shobogenzo, Kaiin Zammai, Hubert Nearman
After
pointing out that the “great ocean” in the koan is the same as in the
Avatamsaka Sutra, Dogen defines “a corpse” as “dead ashes” and describes
this as a being (dharma) whose “mind does not change no matter how many
times it encounters springtime.” This is a remarkably creative
expression; Dogen depicts “a corpse” as a dharma (thing, being, etc.)
that seems to defy his own teachings on what “dharmas” are. First,
according to Dogen, all dharmas arise and perish ceaselessly. Second,
all authentic dharmas are said to be real insofar as they are
experienced by sentient beings, and thus undergo ceaseless change. But
here Dogen defines “a corpse” as a dharma that remains unchanged (no
matter how many times it encounters springtime). Saying “a corpse” is
unchanging, Dogen seems to contradict himself. However, this is actually
a beautiful example of Dogen’s unconventional use of convention – out
pops the rabbit:
What he called ‘a corpse’ is something that no one has ever experienced, and that is why they do not comprehend what it is.
Shobogenzo, Kaiin Zammai, Hubert Nearman
We
know that for Dogen, existence is experience and experience is
existence (i.e. to exist is to be experienced, to be experienced is to
exist). Thus, all real (existent) dharmas are “experienced dharmas.”
Thus, saying “a corpse” is something that “no one has ever experienced,”
in light of this teaching is the same as saying that “a corpse” is
something (a dharma) that “has never existed.” With this in mind, the
rest of Kaiin Zammai is fairly straightforward.
The
Master’s saying, “One that contains all that exists,” expresses what
the Ocean is. The point he is making is not that there is some single
thing that contains all that exists, but rather that It is all contained
things. And he is not saying that the Great Ocean is what contains all
existing things, but rather that what is expressing ‘all contained
things’ is simply the Great Ocean. Though we do not know what It is, It
is everything that exists for the moment. Even coming face-to-face with a
Buddha or an Ancestor is a mistaken perception of ‘everything that
exists for the moment’. At the moment of ‘being contained’, although it
may involve a mountain, it is not just our ‘standing atop a soaring
mountain peak’, and although it may involve water, it is not just our
‘plunging down to the floor of the Ocean’s abyss’. Our acts of
acceptance will be like this, as will our acts of letting go. What we
call the Ocean of our Buddha Nature and what we call the Ocean of
Vairochana are simply synonymous with ‘all that exists’.
Even
though the surface of the Ocean may not be visible to us, we never doubt
its existence in our daily conduct of ‘swimming about’. For example,
the monk Tafuku—one of Joshu’s Dharma heirs—once described a grove of
bamboo as, “One or two canes are crooked, and three or four canes are
aslant.” Although his daily monastic conduct led him to see all that
exists as a bunch of errors, why did he not say, “A thousand crooked
canes! Nay, ten thousand crooked canes!” Why did he not say, “A thousand
groves! Nay, ten thousand groves!” Do not lose sight of the underlying
principle that is present like this in a grove of bamboo. Sozan’s
expression, “One that contains all that exists,” is synonymous with ‘all
that exists’.
Although the monk’s question, “Why is something
that has ceased to breathe not connected with it?” might be viewed,
albeit mistakenly, as arising from doubt, it could have been just what
his mind was concerned with. When Master Rinzai said about Fuke, his
elder brother in the Sangha, “I have long had my doubts about that
fellow,” he was simply recognizing who ‘the person’ was about whom he
had long held doubts. In what exists, why is something that has ceased
to breathe not connected with It and how can It not give lodging to
corpses? Herein, why something that has ceased to breathe is not
connected with It is that It already contains all that exists. Keep in
mind that ‘containing’ does not mean ‘keeping’ and that ‘containing’ is
synonymous with ‘not giving lodging to’. Even if all that exists were a
corpse, it might well be that not giving lodging to it would forthwith
span ten thousand years, and it might well be that ‘not belonging to It’
is this old monk Dogen playing one stone in a game of Go.
What
Sozan said is, “The functioning of all that exists is something other
than ceasing to breathe.” In other words, whether all that exists ceases
to breathe or does not stop breathing, a corpse would still be
unconnected with It. Even though a corpse is a corpse, if it had
behavior that was in harmony with all that exists, it would contain
all—it would be containment. The journey before us and the journey
behind us, which is part and parcel of all that exists, each have their
own functions, and ceasing to breathe is not one of them. In other
words, it is like the blind leading the blind. The fundamental principle
of the blind leading the blind includes ‘one blind person leading one
blind person’ and ‘a mass of blind people leading a mass of blind
people’. When a mass of blind people are leading a mass of blind people,
all contained things contain all contained things. Further, no matter
how many Great Ways there are, They are beyond ‘all that exists’, for we
have still not fully manifested our meditative practice, which is the
meditative state that bears the seal of the Ocean.
Shobogenzo, Kaiin Zammai, Hubert Nearman
While
Dogen’s most articulate critiques are those refutations of the
non-Buddhist Indian teaching of Senika, his disparagement of all dualism
permeate his works. All so-called antitheses only become “antitheses”
when we fail to abide by the Buddhist principles of nonduality which
asserts that mind and matter, Buddhas and ordinary beings, delusion and
enlightenment, practice and realization, self and other, etc. are
united, not identical, they are not two, not one.
When we
conceptually posit a gap between existence and experience, we divide
existence from time. Authentic Zen practice requires us to perceive
existence (sees what we are seeing), thus to perceive existence-time.
Dogen frequently reminds us that we only experience (perceive) real
dharmas and at specific places (of existence) and definite moments (of
time). As “time” is inherent to all experiences, “place” (or space) is
inherent to all existences. This principle corresponds to Dogen’s
refrain about the unity of true form and true nature, activity and
expression, appearance and essence, emptiness and form. For Dogen, every
particular expression of Buddha nature is a manifestation of
existence-and-experience, thus of existence-and-time. More specifically
every dharma (thing, being, instance, etc.) is a particular
manifestation of the whole of existence-time (uji), not existence “plus”
time, but a singular unit of existence-time.
Dogen, like all
Mahayanists, firmly denied the existence of an eternal, unchanging self.
But Dogen also pointed out that the matter did not end there:
What
is constantly saintly is impermanent and what is constantly ordinary is
impermanent. The view that those who are just ordinary people and not
saintly ones, and thus must lack Buddha Nature, is a foolish opinion
held by some folks who are small-minded; such a view constitutes a
narrow perspective which their intellect has conjectured. For the
small-minded, ‘Buddha’ is a body and ‘Nature’ is its functioning, which
is the very reason why the Sixth Ancestor said, “What is impermanent is,
of course, Buddha Nature.”
What seems constant has simply not
yet undergone change. ‘Not yet undergone change’ means that, even though
we may shift our perspective to our subjective self or shift it to the
objective, outer world, in both cases there are no signs of change to be
found. In that sense, it is constant. As a consequence, grasses and
trees, as well as thickets and forests, are impermanent and,
accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. It is the same with the human body
and mind, both of which are impermanent and, accordingly, they are
Buddha Nature. The mountains and rivers in the various lands are
impermanent, so, accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. Supreme, fully
perfected enlightenment is Buddha Nature, and hence it is impermanent.
The Buddha’s great entry into nirvana was impermanent, and hence it is
Buddha Nature.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman
Hee-Jin Kim in his Flowers of Emptiness, elucidates this line thus:
That
is, permanence means the steadfast quality of the Buddha-nature which
exerts itself totally and drops itself off completely in each and every
situation. In this respect, the impermanent is permanent, the permanent
is impermanent.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.91
“A”
and “not-A” are the nondual actualization that is the (one) universe
ceaselessly exerting its totality (as the myriad dharmas), casting it
off, exerting, casting off, in and as each and every particular thing
time and event in and as the totality of existence-time. “A” is “not-A”,
“not-A” is “A.”
Peace,
Ted
Ted Biringer elucidates Zen Master Dogen's thought, and the insight of Anatta well in this article.
Thusness comments on this article:
Realization, Experience and Right View and my comments on "A" is "not-A", "not A" is "A"
"Although nondual realization is considered, in Asian spiritual traditions to be an advanced level of spiritual attainment, I have found that for many people it is easily accessible. It is important to understand that nondual realization is a process. Complete nondual realization is said to be extremely rare, if it is possible at all. But an initial realization requires between one and three years of consistent practice intention."
To mature this realization, even direct experience of the absence of an agent will prove insufficient; there must also be a total new paradigm shift in terms of view; we must free ourselves from being bonded to the idea, the need, the urge and the tendency of analyzing, seeing and understanding our moment to moment of experiential reality from a source, an essence, a center, a location, an agent or a controller and rest entirely on anatta and Dependent Origination.
"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."source: http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
Whatever arises dependently originates.
Life is so, Death is so.
This is so, That is so.
Here is so, Now is so.
Therefore no life, no death, no this, no that, no here, no now.
No Self to create the hierarchy to complicate matters.
Marvellously simple, primordially pure.
Diverse yet equal!
Zazen is “mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,” which is described by Dogen as “direct experience.” This “direct experience” is not only hearing, seeing, etc.; it is the arising of an ‘I’.” As in Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, “The myriad things advance and confirm the self.”
To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening.
….
….
To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.
24. RE: The mind and the watchersource : Emptiness as Viewless View and Embracing the Transience
Apr 7 2009, 5:46 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 7 2009, 5:57 PM EDT
"I AM: Paradoxically, one feels at the same time that one is both essentially untouched by all phenomena and yet intimately at one with them. As the Upanishad says "Thou are That."
1.a. Body and Mind as Constructs: Another way to look at this is to observe that all compound things -- including one's own body and mind -- are **objects to awareness.** That is to say, from the "fundamental" point of view of primordial awareness, or True Self, even body and mind are **not self.**"
Ha Gozen, I re-read the post and saw **not self**, I supposed u r referring to anatta then I have to disagree...:-). However I agree with what that u said from the Vedanta (True Self) standpoint. But going into it can make it appears unnecessary complex.
As a summary, I see anatta as understanding the **transience** as Awareness by realizing that there is no observer apart from the observed. Effectively it is referring to the experience of in seeing, only scenery, no seer. In hearing, only sound, no hearer. The experience is quite similar to “Thou are That” except that there is no sinking back to a Source as it is deemed unnecessary. Full comfort is found in resting completely as the transience without even the slightest need to refer back to a source. For the source has always been the manifestation due to its emptiness nature.
All along there is no dust alighting on the Mirror; the dust has always been the Mirror. We fail to recognize the dust as the Mirror when we are attached to a particular speck of dust and call it the ”Mirror”; When a particular speck of dust becomes special, then all other pristine happening that are self-mirroring suddenly appears dusty.
Anything further, we will have to take it private again. :-)
...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind.
The Buddha said, "It is just the dharmas that combine to form this body. When it arises, it is simply the dharmas arising; when it ceases, it is simply the dharmas ceasing. When these dharmas arise, [the bodhisattva] does not state, 'I arise'; when these dharmas cease, he does not state, 'I cease'." "In prior thought moments and subsequent thought moments, the moments do not relate to each other; in prior dharmas and subsequent dharmas, the dharmas do not oppose each other. This is called the the ocean seal Samadhi.
“A preceding thought-moment and a succeeding thought-moment do not anticipate each other; a preceding dharma and a succeeding dharma do not oppose each other."
I have seen quite alot of your post and I can say that its impressive, in terms of your buddhist knowledge,taking time digesting the words and also patience in read/compling them:) In this thread,I think you will get people confused just base on the thread title itself.maybe you can explain things in a more simpler and direct way?