Anyone familar with "Prose Comments on the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye"?

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,


I was just looking at one of Steven Heine's books, Flowers Blooming on a Withered Tree: Giun's Verse Comments on Dogen's Treasury of the True Dharma Eye (link below). And the description mentions two commentaries from the Kamakura era. The first being Flowers Blooming on a Withered Tree and the second was "Prose Comments on the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye" otherwise called Distinguished Comments (Gosho). Does anyone know if there is an english translation available?


Gassho,

Hoseki
satoday/lah

[Jundo]

Hi Hoseki,

The book you are reading, "Flowers Blooming on a Withered Tree: Giun's Verse Comments" is the first of the two. About that:
.

This book provides a translation and critical bilingual edition on the Verse Comments on the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye. The Verse Comments by Giun (1253-1333), the fifth abbot of Eiheiji temple, is an important early medieval Japanese commentary on the 60-chapter edition of the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye (Shobogenzo), one of the main versions of the masterwork written by Eihei Dogen (1200-1253), the founder of the Soto Zen sect in Japan who established Eiheiji in the mid-1240s.

Giun's Verse Comments was one of only two commentaries of the Treasury written during the Kamakura era, with the other being a prose analysis of the 75-chapter edition, called Prose Comments on the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye, often abbreviated to Distinguished Comments (Gosho). While Distinguished Comments fell into disuse rather quickly and was only revived nearly three hundred years later, the Verse Comments was circulated widely from the time of its composition and read by many Soto monks over the next couple of centuries. Offering poems and cryptic expressions that seek to capture the spiritual flavor and essential meaning of Dogen's thought as suggested in each chapter, the Verse Comments is crucial for understanding how Dogen's Treasury was received and appropriated in the religious and literary context of medieval Japan.

In this book, Steven Heine's careful interpretations, historical investigations, and theoretical reflections demonstrate the significance of Giun's writings in light of the history of pre-modern and modern commentaries on Dogen's masterwork, the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye.

.
As to the other, the "Gosho" or ""Prose Comments on the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye," I once asked Steve Heine about it, and he said that, no, there is no full translation and it is so large and arcane, that he does not expect that there will be one soon. In his 2020 book, "Readings of Dogen's Treasury of the True Dharma Eye" (https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/trea.pdf), which is excellent, Steve does quote from the Gosho a little. He writes:
.

[T]here were two major commentaries [on Shobogenzo] produced by the end of the Kamakura era: one in prose by Senne-Kyōgō on the 75-fascicle edition, and the other in poetry by Giun on the 60-fascicle edition. Both are among the most influential interpretative materials in the history of the Sōtō tradition, although they have barely been introduced into the world of English-language scholarship on Dōgen. ... The 75-fascicle and 12-fascicle editions were both completed by Ejō and Gien in 1255. Less than a decade after that the monk Senne (n.d.), who attended and heard all the sermons as an early member of Dōgen’s assembly and left Eiheiji after the master’s death to open Yōkō’an temple in Kyoto, started to create a detailed line-by-line commentary on the 75-fascicle edition. Senne’s work began in 1263 and was completed twenty years later. A quarter century after this his main disciple, Kyōgō, finished the composition in 1308 by adding supplementary remarks. The combined effort, known as Distinguished Annotations (Kikigakishō, also known as Goshō), is usually studied as a single text, even though the respective sections by Senne and Kyōgō are sometimes read separately. Lost for several hundred years and rediscovered at the end of the sixteenth century, the Distinguished Annotations has remained the single most important traditional Treasury commentary that is examined carefully by interpretative specialists today. ...

.
Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan by Prof. Bodiford adds:

Kyōgō succeeded Senne as the second abbot of Yōkōan. Like Senne, Kyōgo had studied directly under Dōgen. Beyond this point, the only details we know about Kyōgō is that on the day of the full moon, fourth month of 1303, he began writing his commentary on the Shōbō genzō. Writing only seven or ten days during each month of the summer training period, in six years he wrote approximately twenty fascicles. On the twenty-second of the twelfth month of 1308, as snow swept through his garden, Kyōgō wrote the final postscript to his commentary, which he called a shō. His work is commonly known as Shōbō genzōshō. Kyōgō signed himself as a Sōtō monk, indicating his own sectarian awareness. Kyōgō appended a second commentary—approximately ten fascicles in all—at the end of each chapter of his own commentary, as a supplement to authenticate the accuracy of his interpretations. Kyōgō refers to this second commentary as gokikigaki. Therefore it is known as the Shōbō genzō gokikigaki. When both commentaries are referred to together, they are known as the Gokikigakishō, or Goshō for short. Although Kyōgō does not explain the origin of the Gokikigaki, because of the use of the honorific prefix go, it is assumed that this appended commentary must have been written by Kyōgō's predecessor, Senne. It is further assumed that Senne composed his kikigaki commentary sometime around 1263, because one chapter of the Gokikigaki contains an unsigned postscript with that date ... The oldest extant copy of the Goshō is found in the patriarch's hall (Yōshitsu) of Senpukuji, a temple in Kyushu (Oita Prefecture) that was not founded until 1376. Temple records contain no mention of the Goshō at all until 1586, when it was reportedly saved from a fire that destroyed the temple. Moreover, it was not mentioned in a 1457 account of the other contents of the patriarch's hall. Therefore, between the time Yōkōji fell into decline (prior to 1340) and the Senpukuji fire of 1586, the whereabouts of the Goshō is a mystery. Inspite of these difficulties regarding the history of the text, today no one doubts either the Goshō's authenticity or its importance.

...

Before examining the importance of the Goshō, let us note a few of its major characteristics. First, both Senne's Gokikigaki and Kyōgō's Shō were composed as formal commentaries. Because Senne's commentary is referred to as a transcription (kikigaki) by Kyōgō, traditionally it had been thought that Senne transcribed Dōgen's own lectures or explanations of each Shōbō genzō chapter and that Kyōgō then merely supplemented these lectures with his own comments. The word kikigaki, however, while literally meaning "transcription," in this case refers to a commentary that purports to convey accurately the traditional understanding of the text. It does not imply any recording of lectures or use of lecture notes. Both Senne and Kyōgō write of Dōgen in the familiar. Moreover, Kyōgō wrote his Shō as a separate work, able to stand independent of Senne's Gokikigaki. Close examination of the two commentaries reveals differences in concern and in interpretation of the Shōbō genzō.

The second major characteristic of the Goshō is that Senne and Kyōgō offer interpretations that could not be derived from any mere literal reading of the Shōbō genzō. This is a very important point. Both in terms of vocabulary (e.g., Kyōgō's stating that the words "kōan" and shōbō genzō are equivalent **) and in terms of exposition (e.g., the use of the principle that opposite statements express an identical truth ***), the Goshō employs the style of circular logic now associated with Dōgen's Shōbō genzō. Other Zen teachers are criticized repeatedly for their rejection of "words and letters." Therefore, the Goshō, by emphasizing the unique elements within Dōgen's idiom, forces one to attempt to interpret the Shōbō genzō on its own terms, rather than as one would read a traditional Buddhist or Zen text. The Goshō also displays a strong sectarianism. Senne and Kyōgō not only contrast Dōgen's teachings with those of traditional Japanese Buddhist schools, such as Tendai or Hossō, but also harshly criticize other Zen traditions. Dōgen himself, although critical of many trends in Sung dynasty Chinese Ch'an, refrained from explicitly criticizing Japanese Zen teachers. The Goshō, however, attacks the leading Zen teachers in Japan by name. In the Goshō, Dōgen's teachings are clearly differentiated from the Zen teachings then current in both China and Japan. On this point, Senne and Kyōgō stand apart from Dōgen's other disciples, who looked to China for the models on which to base their Zen. Some scholars have interpreted Senne and Kyōgō's severe criticisms of other Zen traditions and their having left Eiheiji as evidence that they must have had conflicts with the former members of the [originally Rinzai derived] Darumashū who became key members of Dōgen's community.

** [According to Kyōgō's interpretation, "kōan" refers to pure reality, in and of itself, free from delusion, while shōbō genzō refers to Buddhism. Therefore, Kyōgō is stating that reality itself is Buddhism.]

*** [This principle (expressed by Dōgen as ippō wo shōsuru toki wa ippō wa kurashi; "illuminating the one obscures the other") is cited often in Senne's and Kyōgō's explanations. Simply explained, this idea asserts that all viewpoints necessarily embody the totality of existence; no opposing reality could possibly exist. Therefore, two opposite positions can be affirmed because each expresses the same absolute truth.]

The fourth major characteristic of the Goshō is its use of Japanese Tendai terminology in interpreting the Shōbō genzō. There is little doubt that Senne and Kyōgō must have received thorough training in the doctrines of medieval Japanese Tendai before they converted to Dōgen's new Zen school. Moreover, Yōkōji must have had some nominal status as a Tendai temple in order to be allowed to exist in the capital. Kyōgō's closeness to the Tendai tradition is suggested by his having lectured on the text of the Bonmōkyō, especially its influential preface. This scripture hardly appears in Dōgen's writings but was frequently the subject of commentaries at Tendai temples. In light of these points, one must question to what extent the interpretations in the Goshō might have been influenced by the Japanese Tendai doctrines, such as original enlightenment (hongaku hōmon) and complete, one-step precepts (endonkai). There are two approaches to this question. On the one hand, if Tendai influences are already evident within Dōgen's own thought, then the Gosho cannot be guilty of misrepresenting Dōgen's intentions. Even though Senne and Kyōgō were well versed in Tendai doctrines, invariably Tendai vocabulary is mentioned in the Gosho only as negative examples of mistaken views. Many Sōtō scholars thus believe the Gosho must be a reliable guide to Dōgen's intentions. Yet, on the other hand, the Goshō goes beyond Dōgen's writings to quote Tendai statements, such as the assertion by the Japanese Tendai scholar Annen that for a good monk, desires, even sexual lust, are the activity of enlightenment. Such statements in the Goshō, emphasizing practice as the activity of inherent enlightenment (honshō myōshū), have been largely responsible for the gradual abandonment of systematic kōan training within the Sōtō school since the late Tokugawa period, even though clearly Dōgen himself had taught kōan. ...

... [When later rediscovered, the Gosho] ultimately proved convincing because it gave Edo-period Sōtō scholars a reference for interpreting Dōgen that not only provided a doctrinal basis for many of the unusual statements in the Shōbō genzō but also explained Dōgen's ungrammatical readings of scripture. In this way, the Goshō was absolutely crucial in creating two views among Sōtō school scholars: that Japanese Sōtō Zen practice must be judged against Dōgen's writings and that Dōgen's teachings transcend any other understanding of Zen practice and Buddhism. The Goshō ultimately has left an indelible stamp on the accepted orthodoxy of modern Sōtō by influencing Menzan Zuihō and Banjin Dōtan (1698-1775), the two monks whose scholarship has come to define the orthodox interpretation of Dōgen for modern Sōtō. ... Finally, the Goshō merely by its very existence has been key evidence in proving that Dōgen did author the Shōbō genzō and, more recently, that Dōgen himself compiled the eighty-seven (i.e., seventy-five plus twelve) chapter edition of the Shōbō genzō. Therefore, Senne and Kyōgō have continued influencing Japanese Sōtō Zen down to the present day, perhaps more than any of Dōgen's other disciples.

.
Thinking that I might try a translation, I looked at the Gosho once in Japanese, and its dense 13th century style and arcane subject makes it not easy reading, much like the Shobogenzo itself.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Hoseki]

Hi Hoseki,

The book you are reading, "Flowers Blooming on a Withered Tree: Giun's Verse Comments" is the first of the two. About that:
.

.
As to the other, the "Gosho" or ""Prose Comments on the Treasury of the True Dharma Eye," I once asked Steve Heine about it, and he said that, no, there is no full translation and it is so large and arcane, that he does not expect that there will be one soon. In his 2020 book, "Readings of Dogen's Treasury of the True Dharma Eye" (https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/trea.pdf), which is excellent, Steve does quote from the Gosho a little. He writes:
.

.
Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan by Prof. Bodiford adds:


.
Thinking that I might try a translation, I looked at the Gosho once in Japanese, and its dense 13th century style and arcane subject makes it not easy reading, much like the Shobogenzo itself.

Gassho, J
stlah

Thanks Jundo! Looks like I will have to add Sōtō Zen in Medieval Japan to my reading list.

Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah