In my second episode reflecting on Dogen’s “Bussho,” or “The Buddha-Nature,” I discuss how Buddha-Nature is a teaching about our existential koan as human beings. I also talk about how Dogen says we have already got Buddha-Nature, and then explore more fully his teaching about “Total Existence.”
Quicklinks to Article Content:
Bussho: This Is About YOU
Bussho: You Have Already Got It
Bussho: Wrestling with “Total Existence”
Not Giving Up on Understanding “Total Existence”
This episode is a continuation of my reflection on Dogen’s fascicle, or essay, called “Bussho,” or “The Buddha-Nature.” If you haven’t already listened to/read Episode 251, the first part of my reflection, be sure to do that before listening to this one. A reminder that I will be reading and primarily relying on a translation by Nishijima and Cross (if I talk about another translation, I will mention the translator).
Bussho: This Is About YOU
In the passage I read and talked about last time, there was one phrase I skipped over:
It is the words “This is something ineffable coming like this” turning the Dharma wheel.[i]
“This is something ineffable coming like this” is in quotations. “Turning the Dharma wheel” means to teach and manifest the Dharma, which at one level is the Buddhist teachings and at another level is truth itself. Apparently “This is something ineffable coming like this” is a quote from a Chan koan story. Carl Bielefeldt’s translation of this phrase is, “What is it that comes like this?” (Note: I have been able to find a few of Bielefeldt’s translations online, but it appears online versions have mostly been taken down due to the publication of the Soto Zen Translation Project’s full Shobogenzo, an 8-volume set only available from the Japanese Soto Shu, for $350 plus shipping.)
Bielefeldt explains in a footnote (to his translation of another fascicle where the phrase is used):
A question famously put by the Sixth Ancestor, Huineng 慧能 (638-713), upon greeting Nanyue Huairang 南嶽懷讓 (677-744), from a dialogue often cited by Dōgen:
Chan Master Dahui of Mount Nanyue visited the Sixth Ancestor. The Ancestor asked him, “Where do you come from?”
The Master said, “I come from the National Teacher An on Mount Song.”
The Ancestor said, “What thing is it that comes like this?”[ii]
When I read this exchange, I picture the student (in this passage, “the Master,” because he later becomes a teacher himself) answer the teacher’s question in a literal way. The student is coming from another monastery to visit the teacher, presumably to deepen his understanding of Chan. The teacher then asks a question asking about something much more fundamental, “What thing is it that comes like this?” In other words, “Do you know your true nature, and why seeking arises in you?”
This is our first clue that Dogen’s text, and by extension the teaching of Buddha-Nature itself, is about our very own existential crisis. This is not about metaphysical speculation. It’s not about a transcendent view you can obtain through hard practice. It’s not about leaping free from the confines of the small self. Buddha-Nature is about us, in all of our humanness. When we long for authenticity, redemption, completeness, and non-separation, the Dharma wheel is turning and we come up against the question, “What is my true nature?” The answer ends up being closer than your own nose. It ends up being what you manifest when you walk, eat, and speak in your everyday life.
When you study Buddhism or Zen, you may conclude that the essence of what we’re trying to awaken to is impersonal. After all, we’re meant to see the “emptiness” of self, and to let go of our limited, self-centered narratives. We’re ultimately not separate from the rest of the universe and along the independent dimension there is no distinction between self and other.
However, the Buddha Way is not impersonal, even if some of the ways we talk about it may be impersonal. Twentieth-century Zen master Hakuun Yasutani Roshi said, “In Buddhism, ‘Buddha-nature’ is an intimate expression and ‘Dharma-nature’ an impersonal one. But whether we say Buddha- or Dharma-nature, the substance is the same.”[iii] As I have been discussing in my Reality-with-a-Capital-R series, there’s only on Reality but it has many aspects. Buddha-Nature points toward the personal aspects of the truth. It’s about our embodied, human experience of the Dharma.
The last sentence in the paragraph I have been discussing is, “At just this moment, the inside and outside of living beings are the Total Existence of the Buddha-nature.” This points us, I think, toward radical non-dualism – toward the complete lack of conflict or contradiction between Total Existence and individuality. When you add “inside of living beings” to “outside of living beings,” you get everything. Reality-with-a-Capital-R is one seamless reality with no boundaries. And yet Dogen does not say, “There are no living beings,” or, “Inside and outside are an illusion,” even though along the independent dimension these statements are true. To pit the independent dimension against our embodied, lived experience simply reintroduces dualism. Radical nondualism points to the fact the reality of inside-and-outside and the totality of existence are simultaneous.
Bussho: You Have Already Got It
Finally, then, on to a few more sentences of Bussho!
At just this moment, the inside and outside of living beings are the Total Existence of the Buddha-nature. The state is more than only the skin, flesh, bones, and marrow that are transmitted one-to-one, because you have got my skin, flesh, bones, and marrow.[iv]
The transmission of skin, flesh, bones, and marrow refer to a famous Zen story about Bodhidharma.[v] He had four close disciples, and it came time to officially transmit the Dharma to one or more of them so they could pass it on to others. Bodhidharma asked each one of them to demonstrate their understanding of the Dharma. They did so, and he told the first one, “You have attained my skin,” the next one, “You have attained my flesh,” the next, “You have attained my bones,” and the last one, “You have attained my marrow.” According to the story, Bodhidharma then transmitted Huike, but it is generally understood in Zen that all four of his students were worthy students of Zen.
Here Dogen says that the Total Existence of the Buddha-Nature is more profound than some conscious understanding, expression, or manifestation, whatever the level of such attainment. The transmission of the teaching is essential and very real, conscious realization is valuable, and there are indeed deeper and shallower levels of understanding and manifestation, but the Buddha-Nature is not dependent on your awakening. Not only that, you have already got the essence of such awakening. Dogen says, “You have got my skin, flesh, bones, and marrow.” Not, “It doesn’t matter if you get my skin, flesh, bones, and marrow, the Buddha-Nature a vast and ineffable reality that exists anyway.” Instead, he suggests you already have what Bodhidharma’s four accomplished disciples had.
What do you already have that is the essence of realization even if you are not yet conscious of it? When we hear about something wonderful that we supposedly already have, our inclination is to sort through our views and recall experiences we’ve had, looking for what Dogen is referring to. How about this? Is it this? This is a profound thought! That was a transcendent experience! I already know that everything is interconnected. I know that the small self is changeable and can’t be relied upon, and that I am supported by the rest of the universe at every moment. That must be it!
Anything we think or recall is not it, however, although certain experiences we’ve had may indeed be important entry gates for further inquiry. We need to remember that our being is much more than we think or remember. Our conscious narrative is only a shallow slice of who we are. When we sit in meditation, or when we expand our minds through Dharma study, we aim to explore our direct experience in a way that opens up new aspects of ourselves. We challenge our sense of “I” and explore different ways of being.
At some point we may see in what way we are no different than Bodhidharma’s four disciples. Such a realization is deeply personal and intimate. It requires hard work and profound healing to achieve it, but not because it is so difficult to comprehend. It is difficult to see because it’s obscured by our self-doubt and sense of incompleteness, or by our determination to succeed and master it.
Bussho: Wrestling with “Total Existence”
On to the next few sentences, discussing various views of existence.
In the Shakespeare play, Hamet says, “To be or not to be, that is the question.” Like Hamlet, we are naturally very concerned about the matter of life and death. We wonder whether our loved ones continue, in some way, to exist after death, or whether we ourselves will someday not exist, and what that will feel like. We can only conceive of two alternatives: Existing, or not existing. We may be ready to accept the idea that we are composed of parts, some of which have always existed, or will always exist, while other parts come into and pass out of existence.
Whatever our view or human life and death, our very concept of existence is tied to the presence or absence of discreet things or beings – real manifestations with boundaries or characteristics that set them apart from other things or beings. The word “exist” is meaningless without something to exist. For example, if we say, “space exists,” we’re just using the word to indicate empty distance between things that actually exist. Space, being void, doesn’t get the privilege of existing.
Our usual ideas about existence are also closely tied to the passage of time. As soon as something can be said to exist, the question arises as to when it began to exist, how long it has existed, and how long it may continue to exist. Either something has existed since the beginning of time, or it came into existence at some point. It will either cease to exist at some point in the future, or it will continue eternally. Of course, all my observations about our usual ideas about existence are very limited. Dogen challenges our limited thinking, writing:
Remember, the Existence [described] now, which is totally possessed by the Buddha-nature, is beyond the “existence” of existence and non-existence. Total Existence is the Buddha’s words, the Buddha’s tongue, the Buddhist [ancestors’] eyes, and the nostrils of a patch-robed monk. The words “Total Existence” are utterly beyond beginning existence, beyond original existence, beyond fine existence, and so on. How much less could they describe conditioned existence or illusory existence?[vi]
In the first sentence, Nishijima and Cross capitalize the first occurrence of “existence” (the Existence [described] now, which is totally possessed by the Buddha-nature). They do not capitalize existence when they say, “beyond the ‘existence’ of existence and non-existence.” The capitalized Existence, which usually occurs as part of Dogen’s “Total Existence,” is the subject of our investigation. Whatever it is, it is not constrained by space or time. It does not depend on differentiating something discreet, which has boundaries or characteristics that set it apart.
Dogen says Total Existence (capitalized and italicized, the great matter) is “utterly beyond” all the kinds of existence we can imagine. By exploring this list, we can try to deconstruct some of our views. After all, Buddhist study is not about accumulating more ideas, but about challenging the ones we already have – ideas and assumptions we’re often not even aware we are holding on to. In a footnote to his translation of Bussho, Carl Bielefeldt explains:
“Initial being” (shi’u 始有); “original being” (hon’u 本有); “marvelous being” (myō’u 妙有); “conditioned being” (en’u 縁有); “deluded being” (mō’u 妄有): A series of terms expressing modes of existence discussed in Buddhist thought. The first, “initial being,” while not itself particularly common, is here contrasted with the familiar “original being,” a term used to express the fundamental reality from which the phenomenal world emerges. The expression “marvelous being” is probably best known in the phrase “true emptiness and marvelous being” (shinkū myō’u 眞空妙有), where it expresses the ultimate emptiness of phenomena. The term “conditioned being” suggests that which exists as a result of conditions — i.e., the conditioned dharmas of dependent origination (engi 縁起; pratīya-samutpāda); “deluded being” suggests that which exists as a result of deluded thoughts — i.e., the false objects of our misguided discrimination (funbetsu 分別; vikalpa).[vii]
As you can see, Dogen’s list of types of existence, or being, which do not capture Total Existence is quite exhaustive. What other kinds of being, or existence, are there? What is Total Existence if it’s not conditioned existence, or the fundamental reality from which the phenomenal world arises, or the suchness apparent because of the emptiness of all phenomena? I don’t know about you, but Dogen just listed a couple of my favorite Zen concepts! Some part of my mind has been thinking, “Ah yes, he’s talking about the Suchness I’ve gone on about before! You know, when there’s no sense of separation between you and everything else and life looks all sparkly?”
Not Giving Up on Understanding “Total Existence”
Okay, so maybe we get the point that Total Existence isn’t any kind of existence we can understand or grasp with our minds. Doesn’t that mean it’s impossible to know? Doesn’t that mean we should give up trying to understand – that whenever we encounter this kind of teaching in the future, we can just say, “Oh, that can’t be put into words, and we can’t grasp it with our minds,” and just leave the teaching alone to concentrate on stuff we can understand?
However, if Total Existence is simply unknowable and not worth contemplating, why would Dogen emphasize it so much? If the Existence-with-a-Capital-E he’s talking about is so boundless and vague it can’t be differentiated from any other concept or experience, why even write about it? Dogen may be difficult to comprehend, but he is not sloppy with language or generating words just for the sake of being verbose. Despite taking away all our usual ideas about existence, he’s asking us to carefully investigate Total Existence.
Unfortunately, of course, I can’t just define Total Existence. If I could, I would be more masterful than Dogen, and I’m definitely not. However, it may help if we think of Dogen’s words as pointing toward an important truth in an apophatic way. That is, apophatic as opposed to cataphatic. An apophatic (negative) approach to theology involves describing something by stating characteristics it does not have, while a cataphatic (positive) approach involves trying to describe or celebrate the characteristics of the divine.
As we grasp at an understanding of Total Existence using all of our usual mental tools, Dogen tells us, “No, not that. No, not that either. No, not even that.” We are pushed back into a state of befuddlement. What are we supposed to do? Before we can give up even trying to understand, Dogen pulls us forward by repeating Total Existence over and over and doing the Japanese equivalent of capitalizing it and italicizing it. He tells us it is our Buddha-Nature, and that, by extension, it is us. We can’t proceed in our usual manner, and – if we want awaken to our true nature – we can’t stop. What shall we do?
Until we reach this state of wholehearted and frustrated engagement, we won’t discover another way to be. Or, more accurately, the way forward is not a new way to be, but falling back on a more fundamental way to be – a way we have been functioning since the beginning but have rarely trusted to guide us. Ironically, beautifully, this “way of being” is our Buddha-Nature. So, we can’t discover our Buddha-Nature until we rely on our Buddha-Nature! Then we know, “What is it that comes thus?”
There is so much more to Dogen’s Bussho, of course… these last two episodes only took us through the first paragraph or so! I would just keep going but I don’t want to bore my listeners who don’t care for Dogen or textual study. I hope to – plan to – return to Bussho, but I’ll be back in a week or two with a new and unrelated episode.
Endnotes
[i] Nishijima, Gudo and Chodo Cross. Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo (in four volumes). London: Windbell Publications, 1994. Volume 2, chapter 22.
[ii] https://villagezendo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Gabyo-Painted-Cakes-SZTPtrans.pdf
[iii] Kapleau, Philip. The Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, and Enlightenment. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1965, 1989.
[iv] Nishijima, Gudo and Chodo Cross. Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo (in four volumes). London: Windbell Publications, 1994. Volume 2, chapter 22.
[v] Ferguson, Andy (2000) Zen’s Chinese Heritage: the masters and their teachings, Wisdom Publications
[vi] Nishijima, Gudo and Chodo Cross. Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo (in four volumes). London: Windbell Publications, 1994. Volume 2, chapter 22.
[vii] Footnotes to Carl Bielefeldt’s translation of “Bussho,” available in print from the Japanese Soto Shu. Thankfully, I found these valuable footnotes archived online. I hope no one will mind my quoting from them seeing as I have ordered my own copy of the Soto Zen Translation Project Shobogenzo
