Zen: Emptiness, Interdependence, and the True Nature of Skil

An Eternal Now SG

Zen: Emptiness, Interdependence, and the True Nature of Skillful Means

For a variety of reasons, traditional and scholarly accounts have tended to portray the “skillful means” (upaya) of Zen one-sidedly – that is as mere provisional devices, temporary expedients necessary only for guiding novices to the “real” goal that is more significant than and distinct from the means employed. Meanwhile, the intrinsic, enduring aspect of skillful means has been largely neglected.

Here, then, let us consider this “intrinsic, enduring aspect” of skillful means, beginning with a passage from the Zen masterpiece Shobogenzo where this essential nature of skillful means is identified by Dogen as the “fruits of Buddhahood” and “form of the world,” and not “some momentary skill.”

A Buddha’s discourse is beyond the sentient and the non-sentient; it is beyond the relative and the absolute. Even so, when He became aware of bodhisattvas, of ordinary humans, of the Real Form of things, and of this discourse, He opened the Gate of Skillful Means. The Gate of Skillful Means is the unsurpassed meritorious functioning of the fruits of Buddhahood. It is the Dharma that resides in the place of Dharma and It is the form of the world as it constantly manifests. The Gate of Skillful Means does not refer to some momentary skill.

Shobogenzo, Shoh? Jiss?, Hubert Nearman

The nondual, interdependent, essential nature of skillful means illumined here by Dogen has been vastly overshadowed by the partial, instrumentalist, analogical aspect “skillful means” – which is commonly discussed by contemporary teachers in terms of the traditional analogy of using a raft; upon reaching the other shore (the end), the raft (the means) is discarded, or the favorite Zen analogy of a finger pointing to the moon; the finger likened to means, the moon to ends.

This overemphasis of the “analogical” (theoretical) and near total neglect of the “nondual” (true nature) has resulted in the skillful means of Zen to be widely misunderstood as only means, separate from and nonessential to ends, which are alone regarded as possessing intrinsic value. Fortunately, the classic Zen records, as well as some Zen scholars, notably Hee-Jin Kim, have underscored the folly of identifying the Zen view with such a superficial notion.

Dogen’s assertion that a Buddha’s discourse is “beyond the relative and the absolute” and “real form” (i.e. a dharma) clearly reveals that any attempt to divide Buddhist expressions into means and ends would be violation of the Buddhist principle of nonduality. If a Buddha’s discourse is “beyond relative and absolute” its means and ends must be coessential and coextensive – not “momentary skills” but instance of Buddha-nature eternally abiding in/as dharma-positions – residing “in their place of Dharma” that “is the form of the world as it constantly manifests” in/as the here-and-now (existence-time; uji).

That “expressions of Buddhas” are the “Dharma that resides in the place of Dharma”, and the “form of the world as it constantly manifests” means the truth or reality of Zen and the form or appearance of Zen are nondual. This not only establishes that the essence of Buddhism and the form of Buddhism reside in/as a common location, it discloses the whereabouts of that location; the “world as it constantly manifests” – thus revealing its immediate accessibility.

To truly appreciate the implications of Zen expressions as form/essence unities we need to understand the basic principles of nonduality revealed by the Buddhist teachings on emptiness and interdependence. Zen regards emptiness (shunyata) as the “true nature” or “essence” of all dharmas – without exception. The well known formulation of this axiom states, “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.”

“Form,” here, is short for all five skandhas (constituents of the body-mind, the other four are; feeling, perception, mental formulation, and consciousness) – in fact, “form” here is short for all dharmas.

The “emptiness” of dharmas means that dharmas are without “selfhood” (i.e. dharmas are empty of an independent self). To put it another way, there are no such things (dharmas) as independent entities – all dharmas are interdependent.

The Buddhist teachings on interdependence reveal and account for the truth that the existence (ontology) of each and all particular dharmas is dependent on the existence of all dharmas other than themselves. For example, the existence of a particular flower depends on the existence of the sun, of the earth, of water, time, seeds, oxygen, bacteria, etc. In this sense, then, a flower is not the manifestation of a particular independent entity; a particular flower is an interdependent manifestation of sun-earth-water-time-seeds-oxygen-bacteria-etc.

A more comprehensive account of interdependence would show that the various dharmas on which a flower is dependent go beyond the obvious ones listed (e.g. sun, earth, water, etc.) to be inclusive of the subjective experience of sentient beings, and finally every dharma throughout space and time, except for one – itself (its self).

Because a flower is “empty” of selfhood (independent existence), all the myriad dharmas of the universe are able to manifest – as that particular flower. A particular flower is a particular experience of the sun, earth, time, and so on up to all dharmas throughout space and time – except for that particular flower – for a particular flower (like every particular dharma) is a manifestation of all the myriad dharmas; all dharmas are its “ingredients,” and a flower does not contain it-self as a an “ingredient” of it-self any more than “chocolate cake” is an ingredient of chocolate cake. In sum, each and all dharmas are interdependent, meaning each dharma depends on every dharma other than itself, and is depended on by every dharma other than itself.

Thus, the true nature of the nondual existence of all things, beings, and events is accounted for in Buddhism by the teachings of emptiness and interdependence. And, in truth the teachings of emptiness and interdependence reveal the same truth, only from two different perspectives. The one significant implication of that truth we are concerned with here is that the doctrines of interdependence and emptiness do not deny the reality of the existence of dharmas, as is too often suggested by superficial interpretations, but rather these doctrines affirm (and account for) the real existence or “true nature” of dharmas.

Here then, is a summary of the primary points; “form is emptiness” means the true nature of forms (dharmas) is their emptiness (of an independent self); the reality of a form is its lack of independence. “Emptiness is form” means the true nature of emptiness is its appearance as form. The significance of this is that the “outward form” of a thing (dharma) and the “essential nature” of that thing (i.e. its “ingredients”; the myriad dharmas) are a unity. Thus, a “form” and its “emptiness” are coessential; neither exists in the absence of the other – both exist in the presence of either.

The true nature of Zen expressions (sutras, koans, teachings, etc.)?

Nowhere else but in their phenomenal forms (sutras, koans, teachings, etc.).

Peace, Ted