We Already Have Everything

[Omoi Otoshi]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Omoi-Otoshi,

Thank you. Don't use your head though. Lots of :? . Out of the heart-being-just-this, move and be in stillness.

Yes. Lots of :? :? :? in that head! Idle chatter in the form of conceptualising :lol: ops: . Such is the Way of a deluded mind. :wink:

Fifteen years ago I chose the Koan Mu (Joshu's Dog). After a hundred conceptualisations and definitions I'm still working on it! :evil: I admit it has been out of my mind for extended periods of time though. Now I feel I'm getting closer, but I still don't feel it in my marrow. Maybe I never will. But it doesn't matter. I have read many other koans, but I seem drawn back to this one and for now it is enough. Maybe it always will be.

Chew my stupid words a bit more longer, and those of Dogen even longer. Learn from children, small things, useless things. Open the open.

Stupid words from the heart and I thank you for them. I need to read more of the stupid words of Dogen too! :wink: So much to read and... Infinite time!
After Zazen, my one-year-old son is my most venerable teacher.
Every day I try to quit trying to open the open, but it's hard. I try to just practice opening the hand of thought and see what comes out of it.

[Taigu]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Pontus,

Just a simple pointer: as you endlessly tried to swallow MU, you may let MU swallow you up. As we try to unfold in the world, we often use the good old rusty tools of conceptualization. As we sit, MU swallows us up in one big gulp, no need to think about it.

gassho

Taigu

[Omoi Otoshi]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Thank you Taigu Sensei.

I have almost managed to quit trying to conceptualize it, which I guess is a good thing. At the same time, I don't want to drop it from thought completely, but continue to chew on it subconsciously (and sometimes even consciously, but then looking at it from different angles instead of trying to analyse it).

I have answered the Koan several times already...
Because I didn't have a teacher to tell me if my understanding was correct, I did search for the 'correct' answer. I found that several of my answers were in fact traditionally 'correct'. But I didn't feel it in my marrow, so I kept looking! :wink: There are so many different layers and dimensions to it. I suspect I will only say I have answered it fully after I have attained Satori. Which is something I'm not trying to attain. And since Zazen is Satori and Satori is Zazen I am in a way answering it every time I sit... Swallowed by it in one big gulp as you say! :lol:

The funny thing is that Dogen Zenji conceptualizes quite a bit around it!
From Shobogenzo:

A monk asks Great Master Shinsai of Joshu, “Does even a dog have the Buddha-nature or not?”

We should clarify the meaning of this question. “A dog” is a dog. The question does not ask whether the Buddha-nature can or cannot exist in the dog; it asks whether even an iron man learns the truth. To happen upon such a poison hand may be a matter for deep regret, and at the same time the scene recalls the meeting, after thirty years, with half a sacred person.

Joshu says, “It is without.” When we hear this expression, there are concrete paths by which to learn it: the “being without” with which the Buddha-nature describes itself may be expressed like this; the “not having” which describes the dog itself may be expressed like this; and “there is nothing,” as exclaimed by an onlooker, may be expressed like this. There may come a day when this “being without” becomes merely the grinding away of a stone.

The monk says, “All living beings totally have the Buddha-nature. Why is the dog without?” The intention here is as follows: “If all living beings did not exist, then the Buddha-nature would not exist and the dog would not exist. How about this point? Why should the dog’s Buddha-nature depend on ‘non-existence.’?”

Joshu says, “Because it has karmic consciousness.” The intention of this expression is that even though the reason it exists is karmic consciousness and to have karmic consciousness is the reason it exists, the dog is without anything, and the Buddha-nature is without anything. Karmic consciousness never understands intellectually what the dog is, so how could the dog meet the Buddha-nature? Whether we cast away duality or take up both sides, the state is just the constant working of karmic consciousness.

A monk asks Joshu, “Does the Buddha-nature exist even in a dog or not?”

This question may be the fact that this monk is able to stand up to Joshu. Thus, assertions and questions about the Buddha-nature are the everyday tea and meals of Buddhist patriarchs. Joshu says, “It exists.” The situation of this “It exists” is beyond the “existence” of scholastic commentary teachers and the like, and beyond the dogmatic “existence” of the Existence School. We should move ahead and learn the Buddha’s Existence. The Buddha’s Existence is Joshu’s “It exists.” Joshu’s “it exists” is “the dog exists,” and “the dog exists” is “the Buddha-nature exists.”

The monk says, “It exists already—then why does it forcibly enter this concrete bag of skin?” This monk’s expression of the truth poses the question of whether it is present existence, whether it is past existence, or whether it is Existence already; and although Existence already resembles the other “existences,” Existence already clearly stands alone. Does Existence already need to force its way in? Or does Existence already not need to force its way in? The action of forcibly entering this concrete bag of skin does not accommodate idle heedless consideration.

Joshu says, “Because it knowingly commits a deliberate violation!” As a secular saying these words have long since spread through the streets, but now they are Joshu’s expression of the truth. What they discuss is deliberate violation. Those who do not doubt this expression of the truth may be few. The present word “enter” is difficult to understand; at the same time, the word “enter” is itself unnecessary. Moreover, If we want to know the immortal person in the hut, How could we depart from this concrete skin-bag here and now? Even if the immortal person is anyone, at what moment is it [necessary to say] “Do not depart from your skin-bag!”? A deliberate violation is not always entry into a skin bag, and to have forcibly entered a concrete skin bag is not always to knowingly commit a deliberate violation. Because of knowing, there can be deliberate violation. Remember, this deliberate violation may contain the action of getting free of the body—this is expressed as “forcibly entering.” The action of getting free of the body, at just the moment of containment, contains self and contains other people. At the same time, never complain that it is impossible to avoid being a person before a donkey and behind a horse. Still more, the founding Patriarch Ungo says, “Even to have learned matters on the periphery of the Buddha-Dharma is to have adopted a mistaken approach already.” That being so, although we have been making the mistake for a long time—which has deepened into days and deepened into months—of half-learning matters on the periphery of the Buddha-Dharma, this may be the state of the dog that has forcibly entered a concrete skin bag. Though it knowingly commits a deliberate violation, it has the Buddha-nature.

[Taigu]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Nice to hear from you Pontus,

Let me clarify a few points here.

Although I am not trained in koan and have no authority whatsoever to tell a student if he gets it right (as I belong to the Soto school, the one that stresses silent sitting), koans pop at every corner of my sometimes simple, sometimes complicated life.There is a big debate around koan or not koan in Dogen's original tradition. Both views seem extreme to me, and I think Dogen had a very lively and dynamic perception of koan practice. Trained in koan practice himself in his early days, he was very familiar with them and when he brought the teaching of shikantaza to Japan he had to deal with koan and reach people through koan study in Shobogenzo. You haev to understand that Shobogenzo was a book written at a certain time in japanese and Buddhist history with people in Dogen's mind. In doing so he gave koans, old stories and many other aspect of Buddhism a real twist that still , up to this very day, thought provoking. In our Soto school, we don't entertain the mind with thoughts about this and that, and I think that true Rinzai practice is about becoming one with the koan and spitting an answer which has nothing to do with

wording

but much more with being. That's what I meant by allowing the koan to swallow you.

The path of koans is a very different one from what we pratcice at Treeleaf. Please be aware of this.

gassho


Taigu

[JohnsonCM]

Re: We Already Have Everything

This is just my opinion, but koans are important only because they are "direct pointing" at a different way of seeing. They are not the only way to see differently though, not the only method of "direct pointing" so to me they are important, but no more important than any other teaching. They are no more important than the sutras, or discourses. One thing I am beginning to think about lately is that, it seems, that our Way is less of a Way and more of a way to clear away all the ways that are in the way. Koans, sutras, discourses, teisho, all are there for one purpose, to point the way on this Way of No Way, so that we can clearly see that "we already have everything". That's one of the reasons I so enjoy the Genjokoan. It is the koan of life itself, the koan that is life, which is the life of the koan.

Hope that made sense..... ops:

[Omoi Otoshi]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Thank you Taigu Sensei,

Although I am not trained in koan and have no authority whatsoever to tell a student if he gets it right (as I belong to the Soto school, the one that stresses silent sitting)

Don't worry, it's not why I came here. I don't even consider it an important part of my practice. I started on this Koan when I first got interested in Zen after having read a meditation manual fifteen years ago and when the Way found me again, so did the Koan. The book wasn't specifically about Zen and the author didn't specify his Zen teachers lineage, but I would guess from his writing that he belonged to the Yasutani-Harada lineage, which has a strong Rinzai influence.

There is a big debate around koan or not koan in Dogen's original tradition. Both views seem extreme to me, and I think Dogen had a very lively and dynamic perception of koan practice. Trained in koan practice himself in his early days, he was very familiar with them and when he brought the teaching of shikantaza to Japan he had to deal with koan and reach people through koan study in Shobogenzo. You have to understand that Shobogenzo was a book written at a certain time in japanese and Buddhist history with people in Dogen's mind. In doing so he gave koans, old stories and many other aspect of Buddhism a real twist that still , up to this very day, thought provoking.

Ah, very interesting! The next two books in my reading pipeline is "Dogen, Mysterious Realist" and "Realizing Genjo Koan". I hope I'll have a better view of Dogen's life and teachings after that. Then it's time to go through the Shobogenzo, but all in good time!

In our Soto school, we don't entertain the mind with thoughts about this and that, and I think that true Rinzai practice is about becoming one with the koan and spitting an answer which has nothing to do with wording but much more with being. That's what I meant by allowing the koan to swallow you.

Yes, that was what I meant when I said I didn't feel the answer in my marrow. I came up with several answers that could be considered 'correct', but I have yet to be Mu, as you say. Maybe I will, maybe not. Zazen is my most venerable teacher and Shikantaza is the core of my current practice.

The path of koans is a very different one from what we pratcice at Treeleaf. Please be aware of this.

Yes, I'm aware of it. I came to Treeleaf because I felt I identified most with Soto Zen, especially the teachings of Kodo Sadowaki and Uchiyama. On the other hand, if I have understood things correctly, there's no rule against Koans in the Soto tradition. In fact I believe some Soto Roshis use Koans as a way of explaining difficult concepts or make a particularly dense student look at something from a different angle, rather than aiming for the sudden realization of the Rinzai school.

Thank you again for your reply and I promise I will tell you if I suddenly become Mu in the marrow of my marrow!

Gassho,
Pontus

[disastermouse]

Re: We Already Have Everything

This is just my opinion, but koans are important only because they are "direct pointing" at a different way of seeing. They are not the only way to see differently though, not the only method of "direct pointing" so to me they are important, but no more important than any other teaching. They are no more important than the sutras, or discourses. One thing I am beginning to think about lately is that, it seems, that our Way is less of a Way and more of a way to clear away all the ways that are in the way. Koans, sutras, discourses, teisho, all are there for one purpose, to point the way on this Way of No Way, so that we can clearly see that "we already have everything". That's one of the reasons I so enjoy the Genjokoan. It is the koan of life itself, the koan that is life, which is the life of the koan.

Hope that made sense..... ops:

One can trounce merrily to hell girded in teachings, koans, discourses, and cherished experiences - at least this is something to which I've found myself quite prone.

[JohnsonCM]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Holy Hell!

Chet! It's good to see you again my friend!

[disastermouse]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Holy Hell!

Chet! It's good to see you again my friend!

Thanks!

[Ankai]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Just a simple pointer: as you endlessly tried to swallow MU, you may let MU swallow you up.


Big bow, Taigu... that's a GREAT way to put it. This is why I moved away from Rinzai toward Soto in a nutshell.

[Risho]

Re: We Already Have Everything

Welcome back Chet!

Cyril