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