Dosho Port Says Dogen Didn't Practice Shikantaza

[Kyonin]

Hi,

All I can say is that I still have a long way to go to hold a discussion of this caliber!

For what I have read in several sources, Dogen indeed used koans as part of his practice and teachings. That's all I can really say since I am no scholar.

For now all I can do is read and sit.

Thank you for this, Jundo.

Gassho,

Kyonin
#SatToday

[Jundo]

I fully agree with Jundo.

However, let's (for fun's sake) assume Dogen did not practise Shikantaza...
So what?
The sky is blue, in autumn leaves are falling, things are as they are (as IT is).
Words...

Gassho,

Daitetsu
#sat2day

Yes, I described Nishijima's attitude toward Dogen this way in the Preface to the new book ...

Nishijima was thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Dogen, was a translator of Dogen’s complete Shobogenzo into modern Japanese and (with his student Chodo Cross) into English, and felt that Master Dogen had found ways to express the Buddhist teachings rarely heard until the modern day. Nonetheless, despite his profound trust in the teachings of Dogen, I would not describe Nishijima as a prisoner of Dogen. Among the many treasured teachings of Dogen that are timeless and survive the centuries, Nishijima knew that some were primarily the views and expressions of a man living amid the society and superstitions of 13th century Japan, words aimed directly at the needs of monastics pursuing a cloistered life. Those of Dogen’s writings directed primarily to his band of monks at Eihei-ji must be placed side by side with Dogen’s other pronouncements recognizing the possibilities of Zen practice for people in all situations of life. Buddhism, and Dogen’s teachings, can be brought forth and adapted for our situations and times.

I have no problem with Buddhism flourishing in 10,000 fine flavors, suited to different societies, times and individual people's needs. We do not blindly mimic Dogen. The historical question of what Dogen taught is apart from that, and I simply Prof. Foulk said, as well as Prof. Foulk's view that "Dogen did not teach Shikantaza" (because the Professor's definition of "Shikantaza" was so strange from the viewpoint of most Soto Zen teachers I know). I further challenged Dosho Port's further mischaracterization of what Prof. Foulk said.

The Teachers of the past (including even Nishijima, Dogen, even the Buddha himself) were men (mostly) of their societies and times. I remember once asking Nishijima, a then 85 year old Japanese man, about how we should do some things in a Zen Sangha in America (where I was planning to live at the time), and what was the "traditional" way. He said that the "traditional" way is fine, but sometimes we need to create "new traditions" to suit the West.

Gassho, Jundo

[michaeljc]

I have yet to read Dogen advocate sitting with koans as a method of zazen

Mmm. This topic has always interested me. I would be very surprised if Dogen did not include Koan Introspection in his arsenal. He has always appeared to be all things to all practitioners, to me. Back in mist of memory I recall him writing (according to translation) something like, "Find a teacher, get assigned a Koan, then work with it". It will take some time but I will dig this out. I am confident that there will be other examples.

What I don't understand is why should this be such a contentious issue? I know of no Rinzai Teachers who proclaim that Koan Introspection is the only legitimate method. I have never used Koan Introspection intensively myself but I have absolutely no doubt that it can be a very effective method for some. There is just too much evidence out there to ignore.

I do agree that when it gets to the point where students are wandering around outside at night at Shesshin calling out 'Mu' its gotten ridiculous.

m

Sat 2-day

[Jundo]

Hi Michael,

Koan Introspection is a very wonderful method for those who benefit, and Shikantaza is not (in my opinion) the only legitimate method. I happen to believe that Shikantaza is a wondrous method which can benefit most people who truly understand its power and pursue such practice, but I am not so stubborn as to insist it must be for everyone. The discussion is not (at least for me) anything to do with what is the best or one true Practice.

As I stated above (and as Dr. Foulk notes), Dogen did engage in "Koan Introsprection" in the sense of dancing and piercing Koans, but not (most historians including Dr. Foulk agree) in the manner of "Koan Introspection Zazen" in the way of Dahui, holding a phrase of a Koan in mind such as "MU" in search of a particular Kensho experience.

The passage you mention is from Eihei-Koroku Vol 8., Dharma Words 14. Those pages seem to be a letter by Dogen to some lay people. The entire passage is about these lay folks, probably outside a monastic setting and trying to maintain a practice on their own, finding a teacher. Once they do, they should ask the teacher to give them a Koan.

Good gentleman, when you meet a teacher, first ask for one case of a [kōan] story, and keep it in mind and study it diligently. If you climb to the top of the mountain and dry up the oceans, you will not fail to complete [this study].

Taigen Leighton, the translator of the Eihei Koroku and many other Dogen writings, says about the above passage, "Unlike in the formal Rinzai curriculum, or the Koan study of Dahui, Dogen does not explicitly recommend the koan stories as objects of formal meditation, but offers them for general contemplation and intent study." Actually, the entirety of what Taigen has to say about Dogen and Koans is very informative, so I will print most of it below (from his Introduction to the Koroku http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/defa...view/Dogen.pdf)

Gassho, J


-----------------

Dogen’s Use of Koans

Although Dogen claimed in Dharma hall discourse 48 that he returned
from China to Japan “with empty hands,” he brought with him an
extraordinary mastery of the extensive Chinese Chan koan literature. A
popular stereotype is that Japanese Rinzai Zen emphasizes koan practice
whereas Soto Zen emphasizes just sitting meditation, or zazen, and even
disdains koans. However, even a cursory reading of Dogen demonstrates
his frequent use of a very wide range of koans. Contrary to the stereotype,
as amply proved in Eihei Koroku along with his other writings, Dogen is
clearly responsible for introducing the koan literature to Japan, and in his
teaching he demonstrates how to bring this material alive.

One legend about Dogen is that on the night before he left China to
return home, with the help of a guardian deity he copied in one night the
entire Hekiganroku, or Blue Cliff Record, still one of the most important
koan anthologies, including one hundred cases with extensive commentary.
Whether or not he accomplished such a supernormal feat, Dogen
certainly brought to Japan not only that text but also an amazing encyclopedic
knowledge of the contents of many other such collections.

In the centuries after Dogen, koan study was often prominent in Soto
Zen history. But the modes of koan practice and study promoted by
Dogen, and in much of Soto Zen until the present, differ distinctly from
the modern Rinzai koan curriculum study, which emphasizes frequent
student interviews with the teacher after intent focus on the koan as an
object of formal meditation. This Rinzai koan system had its roots in the
teachings of Dahui, a Chinese Linji/Rinzai master in the century before
Dogen. The development of this koan system, especially as it was
informed by the great seventeenth-century Rinzai master Hakuin, has
often been seen in the West today, mistakenly, as the definition and limit
of “koan practice.” This has led to the erroneous belief that Dogen, or
Soto generally, does not use koan practice. Steven Heine’s excellent
detailed study, Dogen and the Koan Tradition, clearly elaborates the varying
modes of koan study and praxis employed by Dogen, as opposed to
the Rinzai approach.

Generally a koan—the word means “public case”—is a teaching story
primarily based on a dialogue or some other encounter between a teacher
and a student. The classic koan stories go back to the genres of the lamp
transmission anthology and the recorded sayings (Ch.: yulu; Jpn.: goroku),
mostly from the great masters of the Chinese Tang dynasty (608–907).
Many of these recorded sayings of individual masters were not actually
compiled until early in the Song dynasty (960–1278), which has led many
modern scholars to question their historical reliability. However, given
the strong monastic culture of memorization and oral transmission, we
cannot say definitively whether or not these stories are historically reliable.
But they have unquestionably served as useful tools for the realization of
awakening truth and spiritual development by generations of monks and
seekers throughout the past millennium.

…

In Eihei Koroku, Dogen follows and expands upon many traditional
modes of koan commentary. Volume 9, ninety koans selected by Dogen
with his own added verse comments, usually only four lines, features a
traditional poetic mode of commentary, patterned after the core of the
Blue Cliff Record and also followed in the Book of Serenity anthology.
This collection in Eihei Koroku, volume 9, is one of Dogen’s important
early efforts at koan commentary. Of course the many essays in Shobogenzo,
often with elaborated thematic responses to specific koans, display
one of Dogen’s distinctive approaches and major contributions to
koan commentary. ...

Informal meeting 9 features line-by-line interjected brief responses by
Dogen on Zhaozhou’s koan “The cypress tree in the garden.” This was
Zhaozhou’s response to a monk who asked what Buddha is. This case is
also cited by Dogen in his Dharma hall discourses 433 and 488. Such interlinear
commentary is a mode Dogen here adopts from similar responses
to the cases and primary verse commentaries in the Blue Cliff Record. In
the Dharma hall discourses, Dogen uses various other modes of comment
on this koan. In discourse 433 he praises Zhaozhou and questions his own
monks’ understanding; then, after a pause, he gives a poetic “capping
phrase,” another traditional mode of response to koans. In discourse 488
Dogen takes the same story and sharply criticizes common misunderstandings
of it, then offers the responses that he, Dogen, would give at
each part of the dialogue were he in the story, another traditional mode
of koan response from the Chinese Dharma hall discourses. This ends
with Dogen giving his own final response in the form of a four-line verse
comment, thereby mixing modes of commentary. In all these ways and
more, Dogen plays with these traditional Zen stories to bring forth fresh
teaching and enlivening awareness for his students.

One difference between Dogen’s use of koan study and a stereotypical
modern view of koan practice can be found in his critique of kensho as a
goal. This term, which means “seeing the nature,” has been understood
at times to refer to an opening experience of attainment of realization,
going beyond conceptual thinking. Dogen believes that this is a dualistic
misunderstanding and such experiences are not to be emphasized. For
Dogen, Buddha nature is not an object to merely see or acquire, but a
mode of being that must be actually lived and expressed. All realizations
or understandings, even those from Dogen’s own comments, must be let
go, as he stresses to a student in Dharma word 4: “If you hold on to a single
word or half a phrase of the buddha ancestors’ sayings or of the koans
from the ancestral gate, they will become dangerous poisons. If you want
to understand this mountain monk’s activity, do not remember these
comments. Truly avoid being caught up in thinking.”

Unlike in the formal Rinzai curriculum, or the koan study of Dahui,
Dogen does not explicitly recommend the koan stories as objects of formal
meditation, but offers them for general contemplation and intent
study. For example, in the last Dharma word, 14, Dogen says: “When
you meet a teacher, first ask for one case of a [koan] story, and just keep
it in mind and study it diligently…. Now I see worldly people who visit
and practice with teachers, and before clarifying one question, assertively
enjoy bringing up other stories. They withdraw from the discussion as if
they understand, but are close-mouthed and cannot speak. They have not
yet explained one third of the story, so how will we see a complete saying?”

In addition to study of the traditional koan stories, in Eihei Koroku
Dogen also emphasizes the approach of genjokoan, “full manifestation of
ultimate reality,” or attention to the koans manifesting in everyday activity.
In this approach, each everyday phenomenon or challenge arising
before us can be intently engaged, to be realized and fully expressed. “Genjokoan”
is the name of one of Dogen’s most famous essays, now thought
of as part of Shobogenzo. But he uses this term and expresses this
approach elsewhere in his writings, including in Eihei Koroku. For example,
in Dharma hall discourse 60 Dogen says: “Everybody should just
wholeheartedly engage in this genjokoan.What is this genjokoan? It is just
all buddhas in the ten directions and all ancestors, ancient and present,
and it is fully manifesting right now. Do you all see it? It is just
our…getting up and getting down from the sitting platform.”

...

[Ernstguitar]

Koan Introspection is a very wonderful method for those who benefit, and Shikantaza is not (in my opinion) the only legitimate method. I happen to believe that Shikantaza is a wondrous method which can benefit most people who truly understand its power and pursue such practice, but I am not so stubborn as to insist it must be for everyone. The discussion is not (at least for me) anything to do with what is the best or one true Practice.

Sometimes I ask myself , why are there so many books and interpretations if Shikantaza is so simple? Why are people discussing the way? If they went the way they should know how they went.
That is my idea of a teacher or Roshi. He experienced "the way".
If somebody from 12th century is the only knowledge of how to do it......I mean, that is like speaking with a person from Africa about snow (becourse he/she saw a film about snow). That looks a little like in many "churches": we have to have a certain opinion. But for me that is not the intention when I read a book or ask questions. I love to read about the real experiences and aproaches.

A discussion about Dogens idea of koans without having him here, isn´t it like reading the coffee-grounds?

Gassho, Ernst
sattoday

[Kokuu]

A discussion about Dogens idea of koans without having him here, isn´t it like reading the coffee-grounds?

I see your point, Ernst but Dogen left so many writings of a very specific nature that it is more like historical research than reading the grounds. When someone presents a controversial point of view that has implications for a whole school of practice, it is natural that it will lead to intense discussion.

We are fortunate to have teachers today with a long experience of shikantaza who can give good first hand accounts. However, since the practice originated with Dogen (and before that with Hongzhe) it is natural that we will still refer back to what he said. Especially since work such as Fukanzazengi are so straightforward and practical and grounded in Dogen's own experience. Why have one or the other when we can have both?

Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday

[Ernstguitar]

Dear Kokuu,

thank you for the answer. I can see what you mean. There are two possibilities: "we can have both"

Especially since work such as Fukanzazengi are so straightforward and practical and grounded in Dogen's own experience

For me that is a clear answer: my experience is in this kind of practice which is not communicatable. (I do not know, if there is a word like that :-)).
For example, everytime I ask Jundo about the evidences and how do I know.... his answers are like: "You have to find it yourself. The metaphors are becourse it is difficult to explain".
So I think, that Dogen is a historical experience. Yes. And there are "koans", which can help us to find certain ideas.

[Daijo]

Interesting discussion. I'll just say that I really believe a lot of this "koan vs. "Shikantaza" stuff is just a lack of understanding as to what the other camp is actually doing. The misunderstanding seems to predate Dogen too. There are countless examples from chans golden age with the koan teachers mocking the just sit guys "If you think you can attain enlightenment staring at walls...." etc. As if the practice is literally staring at walls. I think the same can be said for the misunderstanding of koan study. From my limited but continued experience working with koans, I can say this, when we are sitting zazen, we are sitting zazen. I don't take my seat on the cushion and contemplate my koan. Some koans require no contemplation, but warrant an immediate realization. Others may take a student years, but the koan isn't "done on the cushion". For example, one of my breakthrough koan experiences was with the koan: "How do you rake if you have no hands?" I experienced this koan completely while squatting 260 lbs at the gym. but it never came with me to the cushion.

Just my experience and observation. I'm sure there are practices that involve sitting and contemplating a koan, but I've yet to come across a teacher who advocates this method. And from working with a few of them, I can't see them working that way. If doing koan work, you're going to get it, when you get it. There's no forcing the matter.

Again, just the opinions and ramblings of a guy who sits zazen with no authority or real insight into any of this. Just minimal experience. so it should be taken as such.

Gassho,

sat today,

Daijo