Buddhas

[Bansho]

Re: Buddhas

Hi Chet,

If you keep talking like this, the pretty soon we'll be talking about 'your' truth and 'my' truth - and at that point, we might as well not talk at all.

Well, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. I enjoy talking with you.

If you really think Dogen was being literal when he said 'two sides', well, I think you're still filtering your experience through thought.

Everyone goes crazy with Nagarjuna's 'two realities' doctrine, but the reality of the matter is, there are not really two realities! One can approach from either of these two sides conceptually, but neither of these 'two sides' exists. If Dogen was adamantly claiming any 'reality' to either of these 'two sides' (dude, the duality is right there!), then he is, in fact, an idiot.

I do not think Dogen was an idiot.

Neither do I, Chet. Which is why I think that he sincerely means what he says here. To stay in keeping with your reference to the Madhyamika doctrine of 'two realities': Dogen isn't contrasting conventional (Skt. samvrti) with absolute (Skt. paramartha) reality here. The 'sides' he's referring to here are both samvrti. However, each 'side' is, at the same time, an expression of ultimate reality, paramartha. This is why, as you correctly say, there are utimately no two realities. Both 'sides' are equivalent in their emptiness and, as such, are manifestations of ultimate reality, both are affirmed and neither is given preference over the other. This is why we needn't seek.

Ah! Both illusion. Equally empty. I see. As long as you must at some point conceive - better to realize that your conceptions are empty. Is that what you're driving at?

Yes! Both equally empty (but also not 'illusion' in a derogatory sense). As an aside, I suspect that Dogen Zenji was also thinking along these lines when he proclaimed that there was only one Buddha-Dharma, as this is precisely the point at which all sectarian differences collapse in emptiness. We can see by this that tolerance towards other sects, views, religions is not only a 'nice-to-have' in Buddhism, but rather directly results from the above as a necessary consequence.

Gassho
Bansho

[disastermouse]

Re: Buddhas

Yes! Both equally empty (but also not 'illusion' in a derogatory sense). As an aside, I suspect that Dogen Zenji was also thinking along these lines when he proclaimed that there was only one Buddha-Dharma, as this is precisely the point at which all sectarian differences collapse in emptiness. We can see by this that tolerance towards other sects, views, religions is not only a 'nice-to-have' in Buddhism, but rather directly results from the above as a necessary consequence.

Gassho
Bansho

I always think of it as a movie or a dream. It is real, but it is not what you think it is. There's no denying that a movie is real, it's just not what it depicts. In that way, even an 'illusion' is 'real'. It is a real illusion.

Chet

[will]

Re: Buddhas

Ponder these words for a while, if you like:

"Practice is enlightenment."

Neither statement of fact nor fiction.

W

[Jundo]

Re: Buddhas

Yes! Both equally empty (but also not 'illusion' in a derogatory sense). As an aside, I suspect that Dogen Zenji was also thinking along these lines when he proclaimed that there was only one Buddha-Dharma, as this is precisely the point at which all sectarian differences collapse in emptiness. We can see by this that tolerance towards other sects, views, religions is not only a 'nice-to-have' in Buddhism, but rather directly results from the above as a necessary consequence.

Gassho
Bansho

I always think of it as a movie or a dream. It is real, but it is not what you think it is. There's no denying that a movie is real, it's just not what it depicts. In that way, even an 'illusion' is 'real'. It is a real illusion.

Chet

[NOTE FROM JUNDO]:

I think that some of this is just Buddhist semantics, and some folks who disagree on the meaning of "real" and "illusion". But this also goes to the question of what is the ultimate point of practice.

For Dogen (unlike for many in Eastern religions, including Buddhism), the light from the projector and the blank white screen of the theatre were not "Truth", in contrast to which the movie was an "illusion". Not in the least.

Instead, the film is the theatre realized, the very meaning and fruition of the show. The light and screen are made "real" by the story, and find their true function in the performance, for otherwise they are but blank and empty and colorless. One might even say that one cannot separate one from the other without killing the whole thing! So, you cannot realize the "illusion" of the film, because there is nothing without the film ... only a cold, dead, meaningless room with empty seats. Thus, we can even forget about the white screen, forget that the actors are actors much or most of our day ... which may even be the best way to appreciate the spectacle!

Now, that being said, in our practice we do need to realize that this "film" is, in whole or part, a creation of the mind ... so that: change the mind, change the film. Angry mind, angry film ... calm mind, calm film (I simplify here, because the epic story is more complicated than just that!). Resist the film (i.e., wish it were a different film, and that one were sitting in a different theatre), and it will be a rough experience to sit through it. Embrace and act out and fall into the film, and the viewer is "at one with the story" with all of body and mind.

Now, Bansho, a question for you from me:

I still feel that encouraging folks to practice with "mountains are mountains /mountains are not mountains / mountains are mountains again" and "relative and absolute" (as in our bookclub selection) still is very worthwhile. That's why I like to use the "jazz" analogy with Dogen, as I see him playing a beautiful variation on the original "classical" and structured theme. In other words, as opposed to some who teach that "one must learn to taste the absolute in the relative" (one must learn to see the movie as an "illusion"), Dogen was expressing that "one can only encounter that which is the absolutely alive right there" (savor the film, grab some popcorn and jump right in, for it is the reason and absolute expression of the whole show brought to life).

Or, in the music analogy, don't listen for the silence behind the music, or think the music a fiction ... but realize that the music is the silence is the whole point of the gig! Man, grab a horn and start blowing!

Practice is enlightenment. The playing of the music is enlightenment. The watching/acting of the film is enlightenment.
(granted that how you play or act makes all the difference. As Bansho said, act like a heroin junkie ... that is your film and show. Act like a peaceful Buddhist ... that is your film and show)

But before you get to the point where one can thoroughly appreciate the complicated existential Jazz of Dogen's variations on "samsara is nirvana", one should first start with the basic chords of "mountains are not mountains" and "there is an absolute, there is a relative". Like starting to learn the piano with black keys and white keys. Knowing that there is light and a white screen and actors doing a performance has some value too ... although perhaps not even the most important perspective in encountering the whole show.

What do you think?

(Bill too, any perspective on this as our in-house Jazz guy?)

Gassho, Jundo

PS - Here is another analogy I like to use, if some folks don't see the point. Imagine a garden, in which some Eastern teachings teach that the "flowers and weeds" are an illusion, and the purpose is to "see the source" (see the naked soil) from which they arise. Or, slightly different , those that teach "always see the soil when viewing the flowers and weeds", because the soil must be seen.

Well, to do so kills the garden! Seeing the "flowers and weeds" as an illusion like that, or always having to "see the soil when you see the flowers and weeds" kills the garden.

Because the "flowers and weeds" are the whole reason and life of the garden, the garden (including the soil) brought to fruition. The soil is just dirt without that. You can even forget about the soil much or most of the time (although it is good to bring it back to mind from time to time ... when mulching and such! )

So, appreciate and be "at one with" the garden, each flower and weed ... perfectly a jewel in its way. Such is Liberation!

And that being said, nothing to stop us from also nurturing flowers and picking weeds! (Water the weeds, neglect the flowers = the "garden of the heroin junkie". Water the flower and pull the weeds = the "garden of the Buddhist practitioner").

[disastermouse]

Re: Buddhas

From that I got: Do not demonize thought or form and do not idealize space or emptiness because they are the same thing.

And come to think of it, preferring the nondual to dualism is a sort of dualism onto itself.


Gassho!

Chet

[Tb]

Re: Buddhas

Hi.

From that I got: Do not demonize thought or form and do not idealize space or emptiness because they are the same thing.

An old quote comes to mind
"Same, same. But different."
Don't know where i got it though...

And come to think of it, preferring the nondual to dualism is a sort of dualism onto itself.

Yes.

Mtfbwy
Tb

[Tobiishi]

Re: Buddhas

Jundo, that description certainly shoots some color into the whole thing. Definitely contradicts any thoughts of nihilism in our practice (for me)

gassho

[Bansho]

Re: Buddhas

Hi Jundo,

I think that some of this is just Buddhist semantics, and some folks who disagree on the meaning of "real" and "illusion". But this also goes to the question of what is the ultimate point of practice.

Yes, absolutely (relatively speaking ). As you often point out, we mustn't forget that when differences arise, these aren't necessarily to be attibuted to 'knowledge' of one person vs. 'ignorance' of another. Buddhist philosophy itself is full of ambiguities and contradictions amongst the various schools. For example, in the Madhyamika school, emptiness is negative, non-being. The Yogacarins, on the other hand, criticized this as being nihilistic. For them, emptiness was not only non-being, but rather the existence of non-being. Of course, the Madhyamikas criticized this in turn as being an idealistic misinterpretation...

Just to be clear, though: I personally do not take the view that all of reality is illusion and something to be discarded in favor of something superior which lies beyond it. For me, the projector, the screen, the film and the audience all have their place. The screen is no more 'real' than the film. So gimme some of that popcorn, please!

Now, Bansho, a question for you from me:

I still feel that encouraging folks to practice with "mountains are mountains /mountains are not mountains / mountains are mountains again" and "relative and absolute" (as in our bookclub selection) still is very worthwhile. That's why I like to use the "jazz" analogy with Dogen, as I see him playing a beautiful variation on the original "classical" and structured theme. In other words, as opposed to some who teach that "one must learn to taste the absolute in the relative" (one must learn to see the movie as an "illusion"), Dogen was expressing that "one can only encounter that which is the absolutely alive right there" (savor the film, grab some popcorn and jump right in, for it is the reason and absolute expression of the whole show brought to life).

Or, in the music analogy, don't listen for the silence behind the music, or think the music a fiction ... but realize that the music is the silence is the whole point of the gig! Man, grab a horn and start blowing!

Practice is enlightenment. The playing of the music is enlightenment. The watching/acting of the film is enlightenment.
(granted that how you play or act makes all the difference. As Bansho said, act like a heroin junkie ... that is your film and show. Act like a peaceful Buddhist ... that is your film and show)

But before you get to the point where one can thoroughly appreciate the complicated existential Jazz of Dogen's variations on "samsara is nirvana", one should first start with the basic chords of "mountains are not mountains" and "there is an absolute, there is a relative". Like starting to learn the piano with black keys and white keys. Knowing that there is light and a white screen and actors doing a performance has some value too ... although perhaps not even the most important perspective in encountering the whole show.

What do you think?

Yes, I agree with that. We all have to learn to walk before we can run. (I'm somewhere between crawling, propping myself up, stumbling and skinning my knees...). The Buddhadharma is big, very big. It would be a grave error to develop a superficial understanding and stop there, thinking we've seen all there is to see. Kinda like reading the last page of a good mystery novel and thinking we can do without the rest. We should start at the beginning, go slowly, and enjoy the story. And, even if we're on page 20 and have convinced ourselves that the butler did it, we should be prepared to abandon this conviction if the evidence on page 100 doesn't support that theory any more.

So... how are we to handle this at Treeleaf? Some people are on page 10, some are on page 150, others are reading the book for the third time and still others haven't even ordered their copy yet. (Have I understood your question?) Well, it is something of a dilemma, but you can also look at it like one of those Pixar films ('Toy Story', 'Finding Nemo', 'The Incredibles', etc.). For those who may not be familiar with them, they are computer animated films which often appeal to both young and old. The kids find the action cool and the story easy enough to follow, and the adults find them to be full of subtle humor and references to things which the kids won't pick up on until they're older. So, the great thing about it is, we can all watch it together and everyone enjoys taking in what they're able to. Geez, I hope that makes some sense...

Gassho
Bansho

[Tobiishi]

Re: Buddhas

I'd just like to step in here and put Sponge Bob on the list...

[will]

Re: Buddhas

Geez, I hope that makes some sense...

In a way. Yes.

Gassho

[will]

Re: Buddhas

Geez, I hope that makes some sense...

I'm going to phrase what you said a bit differently:

Each moment we are beginners. Sitting for 30 years gives you no more right to Dharma than sitting 3 days. A beginner is not really a beginner. Separating beginner and Buddha, although it is useful in a sense, is not at the heart of it. The big pie includes it all. Having attained nothing, a Buddha bows.

Gassho

[Jundo]

Re: Buddhas

Now, Bansho, a question for you from me:

I still feel that encouraging folks to practice with "mountains are mountains /mountains are not mountains / mountains are mountains again" and "relative and absolute" (as in our bookclub selection) still is very worthwhile. That's why I like to use the "jazz" analogy with Dogen, as I see him playing a beautiful variation on the original "classical" and structured theme.

Yes, I agree with that. We all have to learn to walk before we can run. (I'm somewhere between crawling, propping myself up, stumbling and skinning my knees...). The Buddhadharma is big, very big. It would be a grave error to develop a superficial understanding and stop there, thinking we've seen all there is to see.

Now (and what I am about to say may not please pure Dogen supporters), I am going to say clearly that I don't think Dogen's vibrant vision is "right", in contrast to which the more classical image of "mountains are not mountains / mountains are mountains again" and "relative and absolute" etc. are either "wrong" or somehow inferior. Not any more than one can say that the Jazz music of Miles Davis is superior to the classical music of Mozart, or even to the original "standard" tune that Miles based his wild compositions upon. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" or "superior/inferior" views so much.

If you read any of the works by Hong-zhi or the other Silent Illumination teachers in China from whom Dogen sprang, they were the "classical" musicians (Here is a very very good article on the subject

http://www.ancientdragon.org/dharma/art ... st_sitting

and Taigen Leigton's whole book is worthwhile for anyone interested in the "roots" of this practice ...

http://www.amazon.com/Cultivating-Empty ... 0804832404 )

Anyway you look at it, Dogen was playing variations on these original themes (he "cubed" the '5 Ranks'), not in order to prove them "wrong" by any means, but to pull out new meaning and vibrancy ... the way Miles could pull new meaning and vibrancy out of "Somewhere over the Rainbow" by twisting it all up, reassembling the pieces in unexpected ways, making the harmonies into disharmonies and the disharmonies harmonious (same thing Picasso did to a picture of a guitar). Granted, in doing so, both Miles and Dogen found time and again beautiful sounds that were not in the original way of playing. But I do not think that he ever really rejected the classical, more structured way of looking at these things.

What is more, if you read some of Dogen's other writings (from later periods, and even larger in page volume than Shobogenzo) such as Eihei Koroku, Dogen turns again into something of a "Zen Square" (at least as "square" as a Zen guy can get talking about Koans. But his style of speaking is pretty traditional, although with his special flourishes too).

Personally, I find Dogen's way of seeing things kind of a "way of seeing things" or expressing things ... like Miles "expresses" and sees the music. But the classical view is also a useful and powerful way to express things, and we should not discard that. I kinda switch back and forth in looking at things, depending on which sound is more appropriate and useful to the circumstances.

So, I a little disagree that Dogen is for "adults" while the others are for "beginners" ... although an appreciation for Dogen, like an appreciation for Jazz, usually only comes later in our life of practice. You really have to understood the roots of music, and the old standards, before you can appreciate his sound and intent.

On the other hand, if you stay with just the basic tunes, and miss what Dogen was saying ... if you can't "dig" Dogen ... then I do think you are missing out on the richest face of this Practice. Dogen really 'got' some things that a lot missed ... the reason being that life and this universe is as wild and tangled and upside-down and convoluted as his tune ... and that power, vibrancy and "right here-ness" of life was not quite captured so well by the beautiful, yet more rigid structure of the Zen "Bachs" and "Mozarts".

Each moment we are beginners. Sitting for 30 years gives you no more right to Dharma than sitting 3 days. A beginner is not really a beginner. Separating beginner and Buddha, although it is useful in a sense, is not at the heart of it. The big pie includes it all. Having attained nothing, a Buddha bows.

Oh, this is so right! Thank you for the reminder, Will.

I am going to compare this process to gardening again: One can be a darn good gardener, with many seasons under one's belt, able to catch those weeds early and keep the flowers in bloom. However, there is always a new angle, a new flower, something new to see or grow or learn to do.

And the new gardener, seeing the garden with fresh eyes, can always make the old gardener see things in the garden she never noticed.

Gassho, J

PS - My point does --not-- mean that every teacher and teaching are of equal worth. Some are Mozart, Beethoven, Miles and John Coltrane ... while others are Hannah Montana, the Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears. Others are in the middle, like Metallica and Bon Jovi and U2.

[Jundo]

Re: Buddhas

Somebody just wrote me to ask how to know the "good" from the "not so good" teachers to listen to ...

Well, definitely, the best teachers are the ones with the best hats ...

[Bansho]

Re: Buddhas

Hi Jundo,

So, I a little disagree that Dogen is for "adults" while the others are for "beginners" ... although an appreciation for Dogen, like an appreciation for Jazz, usually only comes later in our life of practice. You really have to understood the roots of music, and the old standards, before you can appreciate his sound and intent.

Indeed. Dogen Zenji himself also had to understand the roots and the old standards, without which none of his works as we know them would have been possible. We can be thankful that he had the 'unfair' advantage of being born in the 13th century and not a thousand years earlier.

Gassho
Bansho

[Tb]

Re: Buddhas

Hi.

There's a story about a village, where they measure how good you are at fighting by the width of your belt.
Some had normal belts, some had wide belts.
Some had belts that went from the ankles up to the elbows.
They could hardly walk, but they were VERY GOOD.

One day a young man came along.
He had only an rope to hold up his trousers.
The people laughed at him who had such a small belt.
He finally challenged the village to a fight, asking for their best fighter.
The crowd parted, and their best fighter tiptoed out.
His belt was so very broad, he could hardly move, but he was A VERY GOOD FIGHTER.

The fight began and the young man ran behind the figther and gave him an gentle nudge.
The fighter fell like an log, and couldn't move and had to give up the fight.
It's not about the belt.

Mtfbwy
Tb