Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post Reply
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Hello. I am not a Soto practitioner, but I've spent much of this year wrestling with the Shobogenzo and associated commentary. I have found it a difficult but highly rewarding experience.

One facet I have never quite been able to unpack to my satisfaction is Dogen's conception of time, and specifically his use of the term uji (有時). My understanding is that he is positing the lack of any objective "river of time" that we exist "within." Rather he seems to be suggesting the unity of "being" and time, such that time is nothing more than the state of constant change that characterize various things and phenomena. Time seems to be inseparable from the dharmas that comprise reality.

However I feel my understanding is far from perfect. Does he posit the progression of what we experience as time as being somehow illusory? There seems to be a Hua-yen-like universal interpretation of all phenomena in his thought, but it's somehow different. He speaks of "flow" but also seems to be strangely resistant to a liner sense of time as progression.

Any thoughts? It seems to me the most challenging dimension of Dogen's thought in Shobogenzo, itself a singularity challenging work overall. I am also interested in how it compares to Rinzai models of reality. Any clarification or observations appreciated.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Aemilius »

Actually already Vasubadhu says "five skandhas are time" in AKB. I am sorry but I can't remember the page where it is, he just says it in passing and goes on with something else.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Dogen’s position expresses that everything happens right now, in a continuously unfolding present moment.
This doesn’t mean that a linear construct doesn’t exist conceptually in terms of memory or foresight. Rather, that nothing can be experienced except the present, right now, happening everywhere at once.
That includes all concepts.
Because of that, there is nothing to cling to.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Queequeg »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:11 pm Hello. I am not a Soto practitioner, but I've spent much of this year wrestling with the Shobogenzo and associated commentary. I have found it a difficult but highly rewarding experience.

One facet I have never quite been able to unpack to my satisfaction is Dogen's conception of time, and specifically his use of the term uji (有時). My understanding is that he is positing the lack of any objective "river of time" that we exist "within." Rather he seems to be suggesting the unity of "being" and time, such that time is nothing more than the state of constant change that characterize various things and phenomena. Time seems to be inseparable from the dharmas that comprise reality.

However I feel my understanding is far from perfect. Does he posit the progression of what we experience as time as being somehow illusory? There seems to be a Hua-yen-like universal interpretation of all phenomena in his thought, but it's somehow different. He speaks of "flow" but also seems to be strangely resistant to a liner sense of time as progression.

Any thoughts? It seems to me the most challenging dimension of Dogen's thought in Shobogenzo, itself a singularity challenging work overall. I am also interested in how it compares to Rinzai models of reality. Any clarification or observations appreciated.
Might back up a little and question assumptions of what "time" is that are brought to the reading.

Past is a present conception, future is a present conception. Now is just a present conception. None of these have reality that transcends the subjectively conceived subject-object construction (I/other; now/then). Time as a linear reality is just a conception built on memories (conceptions) and speculation (conceptions). In Buddhist discourse, moments are thoughts. Time, if anything, is just a conception of memories and speculations about a string of thought-moments. I suppose we can say they flow because there is nothing static that we could identify let alone grasp.

I am not familiar with Dogen but what you describe about what he says about time does not seem to be at variance from what, say, Nagarjuna says about time in MMK.
If the present and the future
Depend on the past
Then the present and the future
Would have existed in the past

If the present and the future
Did not exist there,
How could the present and the future
Be dependent upon it?

If they are not dependent upon the past
Neither of the two would be established
Therefore neither the present
Nor the future would exist

By the same method,
The other two divisions - past and future
Upper, lower, middle, etc.
Unity, etc. should be understood

A nonstatic time is not grasped.
Nothing one could grasp as
Stationary time exists.
If time is not grasped, how is it known?

If time depends on an entity,
Then without an entity how could time exist?
There is no existent entity
So how can time exist?
Seems it always goes back to emptiness and its implications.

Also important to remember these writings are meant as meditations that are supposed to be studied with a rigorous practice regimen under the guidance of a teacher. They're not really meant to stand alone as sort of philosophical texts. Its about the mind, the experience of being mind. Critical to have someone with insight who is acquainted with the teachings and the practices to guide one through it.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Genjo Conan
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:27 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Genjo Conan »

I don't have time (har har) to dive into this now, but will try to do so later. In the meantime (chortle) just realize that Uji is one of the knottiest, most confounding fascicles in Shobogenzo. I've read it many times and I don't feel like I've entirely grasped it.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Queequeg »

Having just read it and having no significant exposure to Dogen, it sounds like he's talking about ksana.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Thank you everyone for your input.

Dogen's conception of time is within the general scope of Mahayana but it is also somewhat unique, according to the scholarly and sectarian commentary I've been reading this year.

I wish I could explain it more clearly but, well, if I could do that I wouldn't have needed to start this thread to begin with.
:smile:
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Genjo Conan
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:27 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Genjo Conan »

Well, it's not just about time. "Uji" was a neologism that he coined, and means something like "being/time" or "existence/time." He's pointing at the inseparable nature of time and existence. So it means that existence cannot be said to occur outside of time, the present moment--OK, that's basic impermanence--but it also means that the present moment is the only moment that exists, AND moreover, that being/time encompasses past, present, and future. Each moment encompasses all other moments, and there is no essential difference between moments. Which also means that all dharmas fully express themselves in each moment.

There are at least two scholarly monographs on Uji (Heine and...someone else who I can't remember right now), and numerous essays and commentaries. It's a really difficult fascicle.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Genjo Conan wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:00 pm Well, it's not just about time. "Uji" was a neologism that he coined, and means something like "being/time" or "existence/time." He's pointing at the inseparable nature of time and existence. So it means that existence cannot be said to occur outside of time, the present moment--OK, that's basic impermanence--but it also means that the present moment is the only moment that exists, AND moreover, that being/time encompasses past, present, and future. Each moment encompasses all other moments, and there is no essential difference between moments. Which also means that all dharmas fully express themselves in each moment.

There are at least two scholarly monographs on Uji (Heine and...someone else who I can't remember right now), and numerous essays and commentaries. It's a really difficult fascicle.
:good:

Sounds very Huayan and kind of hongaku-shiso inspired the way you put it.

Dogen's language is very dense in these areas and I think they almost defy English translation.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Queequeg »

Genjo Conan wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:00 pm Well, it's not just about time. "Uji" was a neologism that he coined, and means something like "being/time" or "existence/time." He's pointing at the inseparable nature of time and existence. So it means that existence cannot be said to occur outside of time, the present moment--OK, that's basic impermanence--but it also means that the present moment is the only moment that exists,
What does it mean to "exist"? I get he's using the term 有, which I am aware is commonly used in Buddhist discourse to refer to reality as distinguished from principle 理. I quoted Nagarjuna on time above - I think we can safely assume that is the orthodox position on time in Mahayana. Is Dogen taking a position at variance with that? If he is consistent, then he is describing the conventional reality, not an ultimate reality.
AND moreover, that being/time encompasses past, present, and future. Each moment encompasses all other moments, and there is no essential difference between moments. Which also means that all dharmas fully express themselves in each moment.
What does it mean for the present to encompass past and future? I can't imagine that he reverted to a Sarvastivada view that the past and future actually exist in the present in some sort of unmanifest form - this would directly contradict madhyamaka - so then he means something more nuanced which actually says more about the nature of the present moment than the actual assertion about some linear notion of time.

In Tiantai, which Dogen was originally trained in, there is a teaching called the Ten Factors taken from the Lotus Sutra. "No one but the buddhas can completely know the real aspects of all dharmas—that is to say their [thus] character, [thus] nature, [thus] substance, [thus] potential, [thus] function, [thus] cause, [thus] condition, [thus] result, [thus] effect, and [thus] essential unity." BDK translation, with my insertions in brackets."

This passage describes the way Buddhas understand the present - as entailing effects (fruition of past causes) and causes (causes of future effects). Is Dogen's idea significantly different than this?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Genjo Conan
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:27 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Genjo Conan »

Yeah, this is partly why Dogen's concept of time is so tough. I'm sure I'm explaining it poorly. He definitely wasn't a Sarvastivadin or an eternalist. Because time and existence are inseparable, the present is the only moment in which being and time come together. Past and future don't come together as being-time. So there is a right now that is a complete moment, distinct from past and future. Yet there's also a continuity that includes past and future.

Rather than continue to mangle this, I'm going to quote Steven Heine, who can explain this better than I can. This is from Heine's 1983 paper "Temporality of Hermeneutics in Dogen's 'Shobogenzo'", which is available on JSTOR and also some...possibly less upright sources if you google around.

According to Heine, Dogen
reflects the two inseparable dimensions of being-time: the spontaneity of "right-now" (nikon), and the simultaneity of all temporal phases through "totalistic passage or process" (kyoryaku). . . .

Dogen points out the twofold identity of being-time in terms of its immediacy or spontaneity and its simultaneity or continuity embracing all temporal phases. First, he argues that the moment of ascent (nikon) has priority over the delusory future-it is ontologically more real and existentially more meaningful than the fabricated ruby palace. "Does or does not the very moment of ascending the mountain and crossing the river chew up and spit out the time of the palace made of rubies?" Being-time at once encompasses and underlies, overcomes and refutes conventional fixations and attachments.

The second dimension of being-time-totalistic passage (kyoryaku) refers to the continuously creative and regenerating element which occurs each and every moment. Dogen writes of kyoryaku: "There is [totalistic] passage from today to tomorrow, passage from today to yesterday, passage from yesterday to today, passage from today to today, and passage from tomorrow to tomorrow."
Nikon and kyiryaku are two interpenetrating and ultimately self-same, though provisionally distinguishable, standpoints for understanding the structure of being-time. Neither has priority; the difference between them is a matter of viewing either the topology (nikon) or the cross-section (kyoryaku) of a total temporal phenomenon. . . .

Totalistic passage encompasses all personal, social, and natural history, and conditioning and recollection, as well as all futural projection, outlook, and striving that both make possible and are contained within the concrete circumstances invariably and fully manifest here-and-now. At any given moment, the conditions and anticipation that have placed someone in his current position are ever-present. Each occasion is complete because it includes the full range of possibilities and perspectives extending and reverberating simultaneously throughout the three tenses.
To be sure, while Heine's commentary makes sense to me (at least intellectually; I can't say I've penetrated this on an experiential level), there are other commentaries on this aspect of Dogen's work that differ, sometimes in important ways.
ItsRaining
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by ItsRaining »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:32 pm
Genjo Conan wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:00 pm Well, it's not just about time. "Uji" was a neologism that he coined, and means something like "being/time" or "existence/time." He's pointing at the inseparable nature of time and existence. So it means that existence cannot be said to occur outside of time, the present moment--OK, that's basic impermanence--but it also means that the present moment is the only moment that exists,
What does it mean to "exist"? I get he's using the term 有, which I am aware is commonly used in Buddhist discourse to refer to reality as distinguished from principle 理. I quoted Nagarjuna on time above - I think we can safely assume that is the orthodox position on time in Mahayana. Is Dogen taking a position at variance with that? If he is consistent, then he is describing the conventional reality, not an ultimate reality.
AND moreover, that being/time encompasses past, present, and future. Each moment encompasses all other moments, and there is no essential difference between moments. Which also means that all dharmas fully express themselves in each moment.
What does it mean for the present to encompass past and future? I can't imagine that he reverted to a Sarvastivada view that the past and future actually exist in the present in some sort of unmanifest form - this would directly contradict madhyamaka - so then he means something more nuanced which actually says more about the nature of the present moment than the actual assertion about some linear notion of time.

In Tiantai, which Dogen was originally trained in, there is a teaching called the Ten Factors taken from the Lotus Sutra. "No one but the buddhas can completely know the real aspects of all dharmas—that is to say their [thus] character, [thus] nature, [thus] substance, [thus] potential, [thus] function, [thus] cause, [thus] condition, [thus] result, [thus] effect, and [thus] essential unity." BDK translation, with my insertions in brackets."

This passage describes the way Buddhas understand the present - as entailing effects (fruition of past causes) and causes (causes of future effects). Is Dogen's idea significantly different than this?
Nagarjuna is only the orthodox opinion in Indo-Tibetan traditions, he isn't studied much in East Asia past the Tang Dynasty. And in schools like Huayan and Tiantai the Madhyamaka is not considered a definitive teaching.

In regards to the the past and future well we can either see it as a Sarvastivada view that the past and future exist at least conventionally or we can we can view it from the Tiantai-Huayan perspective of non-obstruction that pervades East Asian Buddhism. In the Huayan analysis of relative time, ten rather than three times are found - there is not only the past, present, and future but also the past, present, future of each of those (past of the past, future of the future, etc) making 9 and then the 10th or the totality of all times. This totality and each separate relational time is not separate from each of the individual times since it exists in dependence on its parts and at the same time each instance is the totality and every other part since the totality exists only in relation to its parts. In addition, these parts only exist in relation to other parts so one part is said to contain every other part.

Regarding Nagarjuna, it should be noted this Huayan view can only be accepted with a base in prajna paramita or madhyamaka reasoning but Madhyamaka itself does not make it clear the definitive view of the perfect teaching. Since for Huayan in equating the parts with the whole or one thing to another they are in essence saying things are without a set nature which is what Nagarjuna set out to demonstrate. For Huayan to equate A with B, A cannot be A and B cannot be B, since if these things had intrinsic natures setting themselves apart and substantially defining themselves the Huayana "one is all and all is one" could not be possible nor could Dogen's being time.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Queequeg »

ItsRaining wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:24 am Nagarjuna is only the orthodox opinion in Indo-Tibetan traditions, he isn't studied much in East Asia past the Tang Dynasty. And in schools like Huayan and Tiantai the Madhyamaka is not considered a definitive teaching.
He may not be studied, but I don't know how one understands Tiantai without understanding Madhyamaka. The Perfect Teaching in Tiantai is defined in relation to the Distinct Teaching which is in turn defined in relation to Two Truths of Madhyamaka. I don't know about Huayan.
In regards to the the past and future well we can either see it as a Sarvastivada view that the past and future exist at least conventionally or we can we can view it from the Tiantai-Huayan perspective of non-obstruction that pervades East Asian Buddhism. In the Huayan analysis of relative time, ten rather than three times are found - there is not only the past, present, and future but also the past, present, future of each of those (past of the past, future of the future, etc) making 9 and then the 10th or the totality of all times. This totality and each separate relational time is not separate from each of the individual times since it exists in dependence on its parts and at the same time each instance is the totality and every other part since the totality exists only in relation to its parts. In addition, these parts only exist in relation to other parts so one part is said to contain every other part.
Perhaps, but its not particularly convincing stuff. Perhaps Dogen was rebelling against all this speculation. And I'm not convinced that past and future in the sense of linear time is accepted in Tiantai. The crowning teaching there is One Thought-Moment is Three Thousand with emphasis on the Thought-Moment - not The Past-Present-Future Thought Moment.
Regarding Nagarjuna, it should be noted this Huayan view can only be accepted with a base in prajna paramita or madhyamaka reasoning but Madhyamaka itself does not make it clear the definitive view of the perfect teaching. Since for Huayan in equating the parts with the whole or one thing to another they are in essence saying things are without a set nature which is what Nagarjuna set out to demonstrate. For Huayan to equate A with B, A cannot be A and B cannot be B, since if these things had intrinsic natures setting themselves apart and substantially defining themselves the Huayana "one is all and all is one" could not be possible nor could Dogen's being time.
If that's the case, if there really is some notion that past and future are real, its just unconvincing, and if that is what we're talking about here, I'll bow out.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
ItsRaining
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by ItsRaining »

Queequeg wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:45 am
ItsRaining wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 1:24 am Nagarjuna is only the orthodox opinion in Indo-Tibetan traditions, he isn't studied much in East Asia past the Tang Dynasty. And in schools like Huayan and Tiantai the Madhyamaka is not considered a definitive teaching.
He may not be studied, but I don't know how one understands Tiantai without understanding Madhyamaka. The Perfect Teaching in Tiantai is defined in relation to the Distinct Teaching which is in turn defined in relation to Two Truths of Madhyamaka. I don't know about Huayan.
In regards to the the past and future well we can either see it as a Sarvastivada view that the past and future exist at least conventionally or we can we can view it from the Tiantai-Huayan perspective of non-obstruction that pervades East Asian Buddhism. In the Huayan analysis of relative time, ten rather than three times are found - there is not only the past, present, and future but also the past, present, future of each of those (past of the past, future of the future, etc) making 9 and then the 10th or the totality of all times. This totality and each separate relational time is not separate from each of the individual times since it exists in dependence on its parts and at the same time each instance is the totality and every other part since the totality exists only in relation to its parts. In addition, these parts only exist in relation to other parts so one part is said to contain every other part.
Perhaps, but its not particularly convincing stuff. Perhaps Dogen was rebelling against all this speculation. And I'm not convinced that past and future in the sense of linear time is accepted in Tiantai. The crowning teaching there is One Thought-Moment is Three Thousand with emphasis on the Thought-Moment - not The Past-Present-Future Thought Moment.
Regarding Nagarjuna, it should be noted this Huayan view can only be accepted with a base in prajna paramita or madhyamaka reasoning but Madhyamaka itself does not make it clear the definitive view of the perfect teaching. Since for Huayan in equating the parts with the whole or one thing to another they are in essence saying things are without a set nature which is what Nagarjuna set out to demonstrate. For Huayan to equate A with B, A cannot be A and B cannot be B, since if these things had intrinsic natures setting themselves apart and substantially defining themselves the Huayana "one is all and all is one" could not be possible nor could Dogen's being time.
If that's the case, if there really is some notion that past and future are real, its just unconvincing, and if that is what we're talking about here, I'll bow out.
Well someone doesn't need to understand Madhyamaka by reading Madhyamaka texts to study Tiantai or Huayan since texts from those schools themselves provide the knowledge you need. When comparing the four teachings each teaching is described in Tiantai works so its not like reading Nagarjuna is necessary for understand on level before moving on to another.

Tiantai's One Thought-Moment is Three Thousand largely works of the same logic the Huayan's Ten Times are Subsumed in a Single Thought but instead of of focusing on material realms it focuses on realms of time. Both work with the cause including the result and result including the cause and so on where one realm is subsuming any other realm or one time subsuming any other time. If one is rejected the other cannot be accepted either.

Huayan and Tiantai assume and apply a basis in Madhyamaka so Sarvastivada views are already rejected at the basis. I don't know why you keep brining it up.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Queequeg »

Just curious because I need a basis to evaluate you as a source, IR. Do you study and practice in Tiantai or Tendai under a teacher, or are you authorized to teach?

The reason I ask is because your assertions are at variance from what I have learned. If I need to follow up on your assertions I want to know if it's worth my time and effort.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by FiveSkandhas »

When I reflect on what I've learned after about a year of studying the Shobogenzo and related commentary, several things stand out in general that make Dogen's conceptions particularly challenging.

The first issue is the way Dogen used language. He frequently and purposefully distorts classical Chinese, changing characters in well-known Buddhist vocabulary and quotes, often inverting meaning. He lends entirely new and sometimes diametrically opposite meanings to old stories and even sutra passages, completely flipping meaning around this way and that. In the next breath he will say something totally contradictory to what he had been arguing, followed by a seeming nonsequitor. His work appears a crazy-quilt of classical Chinese and then-vernacular medieval Japanese.

He seems to be performing a virtuoso linguistic high-wire act involving clever puns, inversions and replacements of characters that create counterpoints with the original material he is using as a basis, almost as if he were making a kind of endless series of "Jazz riffs" off of old standards. He allows you no place to rest, no conclusions or final messages.

In one passage, he just repeats variations of phrases involving the term "Buddha Nature" interspersed with other characters. Here he creates a kind of semantic lattice of juxtaposed phrases, each illuminating one facet of "Buddha nature." The reader is encouraged to wander around this collection of expressions, examining them all and pondering the way they counterpoint each other. This kind of writing is not the linear creation of "theory" or "doctrine;" it's like a topiary garden of connotations the reader can drift through that, after some time, seems to reval a sense of the scope of "Buddha nature" as a multivalent and open-ended concept, without ever tying to limit it's meaning, utilize it in a theory or argument, or even say anything about it at all. He is simply presenting the reader with a kind of verbal Rubik's cube of possible meanings for the reader to manipulate and get a feeling for the size and power of a certain conceptual space indicated but never strictly pegged down.

One thing that becomes increasingly clear is that translation into English of something like this is essentially impossible, because so much depends on relationships between sets of similar character configurations and connotations and virtuoso juxtapositions of many manipulated connotations.

Another thing that becomes apparent is that he is not setting up a "theory" of anything at all in the way that Tendai or Madhyamaka scholars did. He is doing a kind of "direct pointing" at the ultimate rather than cobbling together a theoretical model by stacking linear arguments.

At the same time, he is trying to express something specific...it's not nonsensical babbling. And it seems he is working to elucidate a type of Buddhist perspective that is more than a regurgitation of Nagarjuna or Tendai theory or Huayan interpretation.

So I feel his ideas of time, while no doubt compatible with earlier Mahayana truths, contain unique nuances that can't be elucidated solely by appeals to earlier theories or Mahayana conceptual systems. He is birthing something new into the world when he talks about time.

Unfortunately, while I can sense this about his ideas on time, the actual overall picture he wants to convey remains hazy, for me at least.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Queequeg »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:23 pm When I reflect on...
So he's an impressionist? LOL
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Queequeg wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:50 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:23 pm When I reflect on...
So he's an impressionist? LOL
That's actually not a bad metaphor for his relationship with words.

Dogen believes all verbal formations are inherently flawed and give a limited, distorted view. But by skillfully using this flawed form of communication and conceptualization, a person can sometimes get a flash of genuine insight, such as by perceiving the nonverbal "scope" that lies in the unarticulated space between and among contradictory or divergent statements.

Once perceived, however, this insight tends to quickly become reified, collapsed, and calcified into simply yet another flawed and distorted partial view. Thus one must always and continuously keep up a kind of ceaseless barrage of yet further contradictory formulations. It fits on with Dogen's view that practice and realization are one, thus meaning all that lies beyond realization is further practice.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Dogen's conception of time in the Shobogenzo

Post by Queequeg »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:15 am
Queequeg wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:50 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:23 pm When I reflect on...
So he's an impressionist? LOL
That's actually not a bad metaphor for his relationship with words.

Dogen believes all verbal formations are inherently flawed and give a limited, distorted view. But by skillfully using this flawed form of communication and conceptualization, a person can sometimes get a flash of genuine insight, such as by perceiving the nonverbal "scope" that lies in the unarticulated space between and among contradictory or divergent statements.

Once perceived, however, this insight tends to quickly become reified, collapsed, and calcified into simply yet another flawed and distorted partial view. Thus one must always and continuously keep up a kind of ceaseless barrage of yet further contradictory formulations. It fits on with Dogen's view that practice and realization are one, thus meaning all that lies beyond realization is further practice.
sounds exhausting. I think I'd rather just stand under a freezing waterfall. :rolling:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Post Reply

Return to “Soto”