Definitive Zen doctrines, absolute Zen truths...
Excerpt from The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing
A visiting student said, "It seems to me that your teaching is sometimes contradictory. One time you say, ‘There is nothing to seek.’ Then, at other times you say, ‘Arouse your determination to cease conceptualization.’ I am confused."
Louie Wing said, "That is because you are looking for some definitive doctrine in my words. There are no definitive doctrines, no absolute truths. In fact, there is nothing to attain. You should not allow my words or anyone’s, to come between you and your own fundamental awareness. The best you can hope for from any so-called teacher, are clues and hints about which direction to turn.
If you want some guidance, the best I can do is to tell you this; do not allow yourself to be caught up in perceptions, feelings, and thoughts. Stop indulging in making useless discriminations between this and that, self and other. Whenever you notice that you are caught up in discrimination, step back into your own fundamental awareness. Do not waste your time comparing differing ideas and notions about this teaching and that teaching. Cease all this futile conceptualization and step back into the clear and pure awareness of your own mind. Only after you have experienced it directly will you be able to accurately discern the teachings"
From The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing
by Ted Biringer
Labels: doctrines, The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing, zen, zen teachings
posted by Ted Biringer @ Friday, September 19, 2008
18 comments
18 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Allow me to elaborate/ rephrase that a bit:
Hi Ted,
Re. content: its all been said before, right?
Do you accept that this book can be seen as a thinly veiled attempt to portray yourself as a Zen teacher/ Master?
If you appear to speak with authority people may mistake you as someone who has authority.
A true teacher merely does not understand theory but has 'mastered' him/herself and in doing so understands our condition all the better and is able to really help real people directly. True Masters have mastered this aiding process.
This is the real authority that I see so little of sometimes.
Do you see yourself, Louis Wing, as a Zen Patriarch? On *what* authority (not *whose* authority) do you teach these things?
Regards,
Harry.
Hello Harry,
Thank you for your comments.
Concerning your question about the book, it clearly portrays me as Buddha, along with you and every other thing, time, and and event - in other words, it pretty much sticks to the most fundamental teaching of Zen Buddhism. This might seem almost too basic, but it seems that many people have been led to believe that Buddhas and Zen teachers/Masters are outside of their own true nature.
As for authority, it is an interesting concept as is its cousin, authenticity...
In any case, it seems to me that it is authoritarianism that we should be wary of. To be involved in an authoritarian situation requires one to submit their own judgement to that of another. This is often encouraged by fostering ideas of self-doubt, or self-mistrust (as in, "I am enlightened and you are deluded", or other such nonsense). The Zen records offer a plethora of information warning about the dangers of this. And of course many western "Zen Centers" have demonstrated the disasterous results of falling into the cultic practice of "adding a head above their own" (i.e. putting someone else's "authority" ahead of our own). For a thorough examination of this subject, check out "The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power" by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad.
While I don't really think of myself as a teacher, at least not any more of a teacher than anybody else, what I share with others is simply my own understanding, be it about Zen or boat handling. If I had to name a source for any kind of authority, I guess it would be the authority of my own experience.
While I have learned from many teachers, both living and dead, the one teacher that has had the most impact on me is Dogen (followed closely by William Blake). I have found his teachings to be very reliable, at least for me. For instance, I trust and agree with his teaching that on the path of Zen we must always try to share whatever little bit of Dharma that we can with others. As he says:
"Thus, having heard a verse whilst in eastern regions, when we come to some western region, we should give expression to it for someone’s sake. This means that we do our utmost, first and foremost, to listen to it and give expression to it in our own way and that we simultaneously practice and experience our eastern self and our western self. In any case, we should delight in having our own body and mind keep close company with the Buddha’s Teaching and with the words and ways of the Ancestors, to say nothing of our hoping and intending to do so, and to our putting Them into practice...
At the same time, if you have not yet fully clarified the Matter, do not think that you cannot express It for someone’s sake. Were you to wait until you had fully clarified It, you would not be equal to the task even for immeasurable eons."
Shobogenzo, Jishō Zammai (Hubert Nearman)
Thanks again for the comments.
Gassho,
Ted Biringer
Ted,
Its just that I find your need to teach via Louie Wing while at the same time broadly criticising 'Dharma Heirs' a little strange.
I hardly think that Dogen's quote below can be taken as an invitation to recognize and portray ourselves as Zen Patriarchs. I think that would be quite a distortion of Dogen's teaching. But, everyone to their own and all that.
Regards,
Harry.
Hello Harry,
Thanks for your comments.
Harry wrote:
"Its just that I find your need to teach via Louie Wing while at the same time broadly criticising 'Dharma Heirs' a little strange."
I really think of myself as more of a student than a teacher. However, I guess we are all teachers in a way... And certainly, all of the great teachers are students too.
I like Zen Master Joshu's take on the whole student/teacher thing:
"If I meet a 100 year old man I can teach, I will teach him; if I meet a 7 year old child that can teach me, I will become that child's disciple." ~ Joshu
I was not aware that I was "broadly criticising 'Dharma Heirs'." As I have said before, some of my teachers (including my present teacher of 15 years) are Dharma Heirs.
I do, however, take the teachings of Dogen, Hakuin, Yuanwu, and other classic masters to heart in regard to Dharma Heirs. Having put their teachings into practice as best I can for awhile, I have come to trust them a great deal. So when they repeatedly insist on the vital importance of discerning true teachers from false, I do my best. For example, they say things like:
What he calls ‘distinguishing a Buddha’ means being clear in realizing what the merits of a Buddha are, both as to their cause and as to their result. It is being able to clearly distinguish between the genuine and the fake, the mundane and the saintly. When it comes to demons and Buddhas, if you are not clear about the difference, you will sacrifice your practice of the Way, regressing or turning away from it.
Shobogenzo, Shukke Kudoku, Huburt Nearman
Even more, you should not regress or wander away from your vow to practice helping others to awaken before awakening yourself. Should you consider going against your vow to help others to awaken before
you do, you must realize that this is the preaching of demons, the preaching of non-Buddhists, the preaching of wicked companions. So do not follow it.
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin, Huburt Nearman
I mean, obviously, this applies even to someone that is a 'certified Dharma Heir' doesn't it?
I mean, the classic masters spend almost as much time warning us about fake teachers as they do about the need to experience genuine awakening. For example:
When I was journeying, I didn’t choose communities on the basis of whether or not they had material provisions; I was only concerned with seeing whether their perception indicated some capacity. If so, then I might stay for a summer or a winter; but if they were low-minded, I’d leave in two or three days. Although I called on more than sixty prominent teachers, barely one or two had great perception. The rest hardly had real true knowledge—they just want your donations.
Ta-Sui, Teachings of Zen, Thomas Cleary
There is another type of Zen teacher who tells people not to make logical assessments, that they lose contact the minute they speak, and should recognize the primordial. This kind of “teacher” has no explanation at all. This is like sitting on a balloon—where is there any comfort in it? It is also like the croaking of a bullfrog. If you entertain such a view, it is like being trapped in a black fog.
Foyan, Instant Zen, p.46
How sad is the aridity of contemporary Zen schools! They laud unintelligent ignorance as transcendental direct-pointing Zen. Considering unsurpassed spiritual treasures like Focusing the Precious Mirror and the Five Ranks to be worn-out utensils of an antiquated house, they pay no attention to them. They are like blind people throwing away their canes, saying they are useless, then getting themselves stuck in the mud of the view of elementary realization, never able to get out all their lives.
Hakuin, Kensho, p.68-69
“There are a bunch of bald-headed monks who tell students of the Way that the Buddha represents the ultimate goal, and that one must spend three asamkhya kalpas carrying out and fulfilling all the religious practices before one can gain complete understanding of the Way. Followers of the Way, if you say that the Buddha represents the ultimate goal, then why after living just eighty years did the Buddha lie down in the grove of sal trees in the city of Kushinagara and die? Where is the Buddha now? From this we know clearly that he was no different from us in the realm of birth and death.”
Lin-chi, The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-chi, Burton Watson
Haven't you seen, read, or heard so called "Dharma Heirs" that fit these descriptions? I sure have, and I have been grateful for the teachings of the classic masters for helping me avoid falling prey to such quacksalvers.
Harry wrote:
"I hardly think that Dogen's quote below can be taken as an invitation to recognize and portray ourselves as Zen Patriarchs. I think that would be quite a distortion of Dogen's teaching. But, everyone to their own and all that."
Absolutely! What do you think he means?
I think he means just what he says, which also is in accord with what I quoted above:
"Even more, you should not regress or wander away from your vow to practice helping others to awaken before awakening yourself."
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Bodai Shin, Huburt Nearman
Do you think he means something other than he says?
Yet, even if we have not actually awakened to the fact, even beginners know that whatever a 'Zen Patriarch' is, it is not something apart from us, and we will never 'get it' from someone else, not a Dharma Heir--or even a Buddha:
"There is a name that is not received from one’s father, not received from one’s ancestors, not inherited from Buddhas, not inherited from Zen masters; it is called the buddha nature, or essence of buddhahood. Zen study is basically to reach the fundamental and clarify the essence of mind."
Keizan (4th generation Dharma Heir of Dogen, Transmission of Light, Thomas Cleary
Thanks again.
Gassho,
Ted Biringer
This comment has been removed by the author.
In other words: I think we can be very presumptuous re what teachers are teaching at times and I think that it is very clear that we are not as qualified as Master Dogen to criticize, maybe we are not even as qualified as those teachers whom we criticize.
I think the correct emphasis for us bozos is to practice what Master Dogen pointed to, not to practice criticism as he did because, in the old terminology, maybe 'we're not worthy'.
That's not to say that we should not criticize; but that we should not think our criticism the eqaul to, or the same as, a Buddhist Patriarch and Dogen Zenji.
If we criticise exactly as Dogen Zenji did using just his words and assuming that we know his experience in doing so then we are likely the ones practicing false Dharma, making assumptions, distorting the teachings.
So, Ted, whom exactly do you wish to criticize and how can you, Ted Biringer, qualify this criticism please?
(please, please don't make a dead man speak again, its spooky and Halloween is still a ways away).
Regards,
Harry.
Hello Harry,
Thank you for your comments.
I agree with what you wrote here:
"...we are not as qualified as Master Dogen to criticize, maybe we are not even as qualified as those teachers whom we criticize."
Because they have so often proven true for myself, I have come to trust Dogen's teachings a great deal, including his qualification to criticize. I don't think I have yet to find his critisism of wrong views, wrong practices, or wrong teaching to be faulty. As it has proven so accurate and helpful for me, I often share his teachings on how to discern right views, right practices, and right teachings from wrong ones.
Harry wrote:
"I think the correct emphasis for us bozos is to practice what Master Dogen pointed to, not to practice criticism as he did because, in the old terminology, maybe 'we're not worthy'."
While I might quibble with your choice of words about us 'not being worthy', I agree with you that what Dogen pointed to is more reliable than anything we could come up with. Personally, I don't think there has been anyone since Dogen that is more reliable. I have not yet discovered any kind of 'Zen' teaching, practice, or teacher that manages to slip between the cracks of Dogen's critisism. As I often (some say too often) say, I believe that if we apply the standards that Dogen urged us to apply, we can discern the genuine from the phony.
As you wrote:
"That's not to say that we should not criticize; but that we should not think our criticism the eqaul to, or the same as, a Buddhist Patriarch and Dogen Zenji."
I think it would be seriously arrogant to assume equal status with Dogen or any of the classic masters. Clearly, there has not been an equal to Dogen since his day--and, in my view, there have been very few equal to him in the history of Zen. That is why I have come to use his standards as my guide along the ancient way. If a contemporary teacher says one thing, and Dogen says something else, I don't spend much time wondering which one to listen to. Until a teacher manages to demonstrates a more profound expression than Dogen's Shobogenzo, I will probably choose to follow Dogen's teaching first--even if the other person has some kind of certificate.
Harry wrote:
"If we criticise exactly as Dogen Zenji did using just his words and assuming that we know his experience in doing so then we are likely the ones practicing false Dharma, making assumptions, distorting the teachings."
Exactly! To use his words assuming we know his experience would be an utter display of foolishness! He would not have wasted his time recording his words for people that knew his experience--why would they need such things?
It can only be chalked up to his great compassion that he recorded his words, as he says in Bendowa, so that students would not be led astray by false teachers and, "So that students could know the True Dharma." Hence, before we go off submitting ourselves to some enlightened master, we might want to follow Dogen's suggestion and "carefully study the sagely teachings." Which is an enlightening experience in itself. Ha!
Harry wrote:
"So, Ted, whom exactly do you wish to criticize and how can you, Ted Biringer, qualify this criticism please?"
I would critisize those that would slander the Dharma as revealed by Dogen and the classic records of Zen. I would qualify it as I always do, based on the classic records of Zen.
Do you think there is a better method?
Harry wrote:
"(please, please don't make a dead man speak again, its spooky and Halloween is still a ways away)."
As I have suggested before, for me, Dogen (and the rest of the classic masters) don't seem all that 'dead' to me. In fact, strange as it may sound, I am convinced that sometimes when I lose my pillow at night, Avalokiteshvara herself puts it back under my head with one of her many arms.
Thanks again!
Gassho,
Ted Biringer
Ted/ Some Dead Guys Wrote:
"I would criticize those that would slander the Dharma as revealed by Dogen and the classic records of Zen. I would qualify it as I always do, based on the classic records of Zen.
Do you think there is a better method?"
Yes, I certainly do. It is a real process that is not overly concerned with the perceived correctness of our selves and the perceived wrongness of others. It's just an expression of reality in other words.
If you were on the receiving end of Dogen's criticism (and I think you are) you would probably find it, or make it, "wrong", or cleverly try to interpret yourself as being "right". But that's not the point at all: in seeing his teaching as pointing to 'right' or 'wrong' at all we make it unreliable. Its simply not a case of what you or I or Dogen thinks is 'right' or 'wrong'. We defile Dogen's teaching with our 'right' and 'wrong' as Dogen defiled his teaching with his 'right' and 'wrong'. That's just the way it goes.
"Slander the Dharma"...? what Dharma worth an idiot's practice can be slandered? What 'Dharma' is this that thinks it issues from dusty old books that may be confirmed textually?
What necromancy is this? You make Dogen Dead. He is dead.
Why do you think we can be fooled by others, Ted?
Regards,
Harry.
“Ted Wrote:
"I would criticize those that would slander the Dharma as revealed by Dogen and the classic records of Zen. I would qualify it as I always do, based on the classic records of Zen.
Do you think there is a better method?"
Harry replied:
“Yes, I certainly do. It is a real process that is not overly concerned with the perceived correctness of our selves and the perceived wrongness of others.”
As I have often noted, so far, Dogen’s teachings have proven effective and reliable for me—however, I am willing to try your ‘better method.’ Could you please offer an outline of how this process is carried out? I am interested to see how correctness and/or wrongness are aspects that we should not be overly concerned with. I wonder why all of the classic masters insisted that it was of the utmost concern? I see no reason to disagree with Dogen on his many urgent pleas in this regard, for instance:
Those folks who are unclear about such things may indeed encounter the words and ways which Buddha after Buddha has correctly passed on, yet they do not have the slightest clue as to what they have heard… Sad to say, even though such people may bear a superficial resemblance to the progeny of Buddhas, they are not disciples of the Buddha, nor are they Buddhas who have disciples.
Shobogenzo, Shisho, Hubert Nearman
As disciples of the Buddha, you need to know that whatever was not authentically Transmitted directly to Kānadaiba is not the word and Way of Nāgārjuna. This is the correct belief that will make it possible for you to reach your goal. Even so, there are many who have accepted those spurious works... This foolish thickheadedness of human beings who insult great enlightened Wisdom is sad and pitiful indeed.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman
Whatever deviates from this is not the Buddha’s Way, nor is it the Buddha’s Teaching, nor is it the Way of the Ancestors.
Shobogenzo, Semmen, Hubert Nearman
Harry wrote:
“It's just an expression of reality in other words.”
Okay, what expression of reality is it? Where did you learn it? Or, did you invent it yourself?
Harry wrote:
“If you were on the receiving end of Dogen's criticism (and I think you are) you would probably find it, or make it, "wrong", or cleverly try to interpret yourself as being "right".”
First, is there something specific that causes you to think that I am “on the receiving end of Dogen's criticism”, or just some thought that entered your mind. If you base your thinking on something ‘real’, what exactly do you think I would earn Dogen’s criticism for?
Second, how could I possibly “make” it wrong, or “interpret” myself as being right? Do you have something specific in mind, or is this just a “feeling” you get? And, if I could “make” Dogen wrong, why would I? He has given me more than I could ever possibly repay, why on earth would I want to make him wrong?
Harry wrote:
“But that's not the point at all: in seeing his teaching as pointing to 'right' or 'wrong' at all we make it unreliable. Its simply not a case of what you or I or Dogen thinks is 'right' or 'wrong'. We defile Dogen's teaching with our 'right' and 'wrong' as Dogen defiled his teaching with his 'right' and 'wrong'.”
I am afraid you lost me here… First, what do you mean by “seeing his teaching as pointing to 'right' or 'wrong'”? Right or wrong what? Certainly he points out the basic Buddhist teachings concerning right views, right livelihood, right meditation, etc., but is that what you are talking about?
Second, how did Dogen, as you say, ‘defile’ his own teachings?
Harry wrote:
“That's just the way it goes.”
It is? How did you come to this opinion? Did you learn it from someone, or discern it yourself?
Harry wrote:
“"Slander the Dharma"...? what Dharma worth an idiot's practice can be slandered?”
Perhaps you know something that I don’t, and I will keep an open mind if you will share it. In the meantime, I agree with Dogen on the “Slander” issue. For instance, if I witnessed someone disrespecting supreme enlightenment, I would consider that to be ‘slander’ as Dogen does:
Should any of you possibly fail to respect supreme enlightenment, you would be a foolish and befuddled being who slanders the Dharma.
Shobogenzo, Raihai Tokuzui, Hubert Nearman
After all, the point of the needle of zazen includes seeing that it is not good to slander the Ancestors of Buddha—like Ancestor Dogen says:
The point of this needle of seated meditation is the Great Function which manifests before our very eyes. It is our everyday behavior when we look beyond words and forms. It is our glimpsing That which existed ‘before “father” and “mother” was born’. It is our seeing that it is good not to slander Ancestors of the Buddha.
Shobogenzo, Zazen Shin, Hubert Nearman
And even if a ‘certified Dharma Heir’, or as Dogen says, those that “call themselves the very bones and marrow of the Buddhas and Ancestors” insult the Buddhist Scriptures (of which I include Shobogenzo), I would consider it slander, as does Dogen:
Even though you may hear others call themselves the very bones and marrow of the Buddhas and Ancestors, when we look with straightforward eyes at those who speak this way, we see that they are simply present-day trainees who are stuck on words. While some of them may be as good as those who accept and keep to a single phrase or a single verse, there may also be those who do not measure up to them. Do not insult the Buddha’s True Teaching by relying on this superficial understanding of theirs. Nothing in the world of sound and form is more spiritually meritorious than the Buddhist Scriptures. Sounds and forms may delude you if you are still greedily chasing after them. However, the Buddhist Scriptures will never delude you, so do not mistrust or slander Them.
Shobogenzo, Bukkyo, Hubert Nearman
Like all genuine Zen masters, Dogen has little patience for ‘little shavers’ that simply can’t grasp the Zen stories or those that negate rational understanding:
The stories which the ‘little shavers’ refer to as going beyond anything that reason can grasp only go beyond anything their reason can grasp: it was not that way for any Ancestor of the Buddha…
Sad to say, they did not recognize that the phrase ‘the use of intellect’ is itself a use of words, nor
realize that a use of words may liberate us from the use of our intellect. When I was in Sung China, even though I laughed at them for their foolish views, they had nothing to say for themselves; they were simply speechless. Their present negation of rational understanding is nothing but an erroneous view. Who taught them this?
Shobogenzo, Sansuikyō, Hubert Nearman
Harry wrote:
“What 'Dharma' is this that thinks it issues from dusty old books that may be confirmed textually?”
I don’t know what path you follow, Harry, but in Zen Buddhism we consider the Buddhist sutras, and the Zen records to be the teachings of Buddhas and Ancestors. As Dogen says:
Being too dull-witted, they can hardly clarify for themselves what the heart of the Buddha’s Teaching is, so they go about arbitrarily slandering the Buddhist Scriptures, ignoring altogether the part about putting Them into practice and studying Them. Such people should be called non-Buddhist fishy folk. They are not the offspring of the Buddhas and Ancestors, much less have they reached the realm of having seen a Buddha!
Shobogenzo, Kembutsu, Hubert Nearman
As a student/practitioner of Zen Buddhism, I heed Dogen’s teachings concerning the Buddha’s words:
However, those folks who have not yet discarded their commonplace, sentimental feelings treat the Buddha’s Dharma lightly and do not trust the Buddha’s words. They aim at following where others have gone based on commonplace, sentimental feelings, and we should certainly speak of them as non- Buddhists who have latched onto the Buddha’s Dharma. They are a bunch that would demolish the True Teaching.
Shobogenzo, Den’e, Hubert Nearman
Harry wrote:
“Why do you think we can be fooled by others, Ted?”
Again, it is not me that figured this out, it is Dogen who thinks people can be fooled by others. In fact all of the Zen records warn of it, I am just saying that is a teaching of Zen Buddhism, not my teaching. Even Dogen did not invent it, the reason he taught was so that others would not be fooled, or led astray by false teachers—and I am thankful, as he said:
However, it occurred to me that there might be some who, by their very nature, were genuinely seeking to study the Way with no regard for fame and gain, as they tried to treat mindfulness as their prime goal, but perhaps they were unfortunately being led astray by some false teacher so that the correct understanding of the Truth was needlessly being kept from them. As a result, they may have fruitlessly let themselves become stupefied with self-satisfaction, having been too long immersed in the realms of self-delusion.
Shobogenzo, Bendowa, Hubert Nearman
That is why he warns us about the non-buddhist teachers of naturalism:
Grasping the spiritual import of what the National Teacher has pointed out, you should take it as the model for your training and study. When you detect the discriminatory view of the non- Buddhist Shrenikans, do not follow it.
Shobogenzo, Soku Shin Ze Butsu, Hubert Nearman
Harry wrote:
“What necromancy is this? You make Dogen Dead. He is dead.”
As I mentioned before, Dogen is not ‘dead’ to me. While I do not deny your view that he is dead, I simply disagree. For, once again, I would have to side with Dogen on this issue—as his teachings are the ones that have proven most reliable to me. Not only does Dogen transcend extinction, the Great Way transcends it:
The Great Way which Buddha after Buddha has correctly Transmitted transcends extinction, and
the underlying principle that one lets go of ‘being beyond both beginning and ending’ has been correctly Transmitted by the Buddha’s Way, and by It alone. This is a meritorious behavior of the Buddha that others do not necessarily comprehend or even hear about.
Shobogenzo, Gyōbutsu Iigi, Hubert Nearman
Although you say that you have discovered a better method than Dogen’s Shobogenzo, I will have to wait until you express it before I can offer a fair opinion.
Until then, please treasure yourself.
Gassho,
Ted Biringer
Good luck in learning to be wrong, Ted.
And good luck learning to be right.
And good luck in learning to be right and wrong.
Regards,
Harry.
"Certainly he points out the basic Buddhist teachings concerning right views, right livelihood, right meditation, etc., but is that what you are talking about?"
Yes, what, in reality, makes these things 'right'?
Regards,
Harry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Second, how did Dogen, as you say, ‘defile’ his own teachings?
Harry wrote:
“That's just the way it goes.”
It is? How did you come to this opinion? Did you learn it from someone, or discern it yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ted, do you beleive that Dogen Zenji was a perfect human being?
Regards,
Harry.
"you say that you have discovered a better method than Dogen’s Shobogenzo, I will have to wait until you express it before I can offer a fair opinion."
Ted,
Shobogenzo is not a method in itself.
Regards,
Harry.
"Again, it is not me that figured this out, it is Dogen who thinks people can be fooled by others."
But its not the only view expressed on the matter in Shobogenzo (via Master Gensa: "In the end I just cannot be deceived by others")... and so you are wrong again, and you are right again but, overall, you are wrong on the matter.
Regards,
Harry.
...and so we're back to my general criticism:
In quoting Dogen narrowly and out-of-context (out of that very, very broad context which he pointed to) just to bolster our one sided, one-dimensional views of what we think represents the truth (our truth/his truth) we are doing his teaching a great disservice.
Dogen's teaching employed to affirm our little ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' Buddhism is like using a 1000 dollar bill to clean the toilet (assuming that we would put the 1000 dollar bill to 'good' use otherwise!).
People can be practicing the essence of what Dogen was pointing to and be completely 'wrong', or completely 'right' or both 'right' and 'wrong'. The practice doesn't mind.
The essence of Buddhism is far beyond 'right' and 'wrong'. Small Buddhism will always be limited.
As stated, this conduct wouldn't concern me if you were not advancing yourself as a teacher in writing (and while you may have rationalised this to the contrary I urge you to look at your real actions) while at the same feeling the need to criticise the legitimacy of 'Dharma Heirs' in a strange manner.
'No big deal' in other words.
Feel free not to address any more Dogen quotes to me, because I'm not going to read them any more. Its tiring reading them out of context; he comes across like a bore.
"I don’t know what path you follow, Harry, but in Zen Buddhism we consider the Buddhist sutras, and the Zen records to be the teachings of Buddhas and Ancestors."
Yes, and Master Dogen considered mountains and rivers, when actualized as mountains and rivers, as supreme teachers of the Dharma. Dusty books, when they are just dusty books or are used as the vehicle of our own Small buddhism, are just dusty books.
Maybe we need to get out more?
Regards,
Harry.
Dogen is dead or is not dead.
Dogen never lived.
Dogen lived and died.
Dogen lived and died, but Dogen is still here.
Which is the true Buddhist view, Ted?
Regards,
H.
Hello Harry,
Thank you. You may be right, this is just my present understanding, I will try to remain open minded. I am pretty sure that my understanding of Dogen will continue to change - it has continued to so for over 20 years, I have no reason to think it will ever stop (in fact, I hope it never does, what a ride!).
Please treasure yourself,
warmly,
Ted Biringer
Post a Comment
<< Home