Abbreviations

Jpn. – Japanese
MN – Majjhima Nikaya
Skt. – Sanskrit

Dogen (1200-1253), celebrated Zen master and founder of the Soto Zen school of Japanese Buddhism, is one of the most famous Japanese thinkers and one of the most influential figures in Buddhist thought. The patriarch developed subjects of the Buddhist doctrine such as Buddha-nature (Skt. tathagatagarbha, “tathagata-embryo/womb”) and the theory behind zazen, the main meditation technique of Japanese Zen Buddhism. Most of his intellectual contribution to Buddhism is compiled in the Shobogenzo, his collected works translated as The Treasure House of The Eye of The True Teaching by Hubert Nearman, and in the Eihei koroku, a compilation of verses and sermons.

One of the elements that highlights his teachings as well as his role in Zen Buddhism is his attitude regarding spiritual awakening and meditation, in which he takes a radical non-dualistic position. As David Putney puts it: “The practitioner does not engage in meditation in order to obtain enlightenment in the future. For (...) Dogen, meditation is enlightenment” (Putney 1997, 26). In this essay, I will study and analyse the presence of non-dualism as a philosophical doctrine in Dogen’s Zen teachings across his works: the Shobogenzo, the Eihei koroku, his poetry and his koans.[1]

Before establishing the meaning of “non-duality,” it might be useful do understand “duality” first. Although its meaning can change with context, it most often refers to the dualism inherent to the way consciousness generally perceives reality. As Mike Sayama wrote: “Dualism structures experience into mutually exclusive categories such as subject and object, good and bad, cause and effect, and past, present, and future” (Sayama 1986, 1). Duality can be seen as an erroneous and dangerous perspective on reality, as an “ontological error with widespread consequences” that  “(...) has led us to believe in a universe consisting of independently-existing, mechanistically-interacting elementary particles” and “(...) to identify the Self with an ego in a dying body alienated from the rest of life” (Sayama 1986, 1).

So, what does one mean by non-dualism or non-duality? Non-duality is a broad philosophical doctrine present in many Asian traditions such as some forms of Hinduism and Daoism. Its is commonly translated from the Sanskrit word advaita (Śarmā 1996, 1), meaning “not-two,” or “non-duality” (Watts 1966, chap. 4, para. 19). It generally refers to spiritual doctrinal systems that, in one way or another, reject duality, be it between microcosm/macrocosm, such as the unity of atman, the individual soul or self, and brahman, the cosmic absolute, in Advaita Vedanta; polar opposites, such as the complementarity between the cosmic essences yin-yang in Daoism; subject/object, as the Indian Upanishads describe dreamless sleep lacking (Thompson 2015, 5); in the practice of the some meditation disciplines, such as jhana (Skrt. dhyana), which ultimately leads to a state of “neither-perception-nor-non-perception” (Bodhi 1998, 89); or the separation between apparently different entities, among and many other examples.

In Buddhism, one of the main thinkers famously dedicated to non-duality is Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyakima, or “Middle Way,” school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism. He based his teachings on the Two Truths Doctrine, a metaphysical model which splits existence into conventional reality (Skt. lokasamvrtisatya), equivalent to samsara,[2] and ultimate reality (Skt. paramarthasatya), equivalent to nirvana.[3] He also leaned considerably on Dependent Origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada), a teaching regarding causality and interdependence. He practiced complex analytical deconstructions of phenomena and helped to revolutionized Buddhism by systematizing the concepts surrounding the emptiness (Skt. sunyata) between conventional and ultimate reality, turning existence into a “middle path” between essentialism and nihilism, neither one nor the other, a vision in which it is considered that phenomena exist, not by themselves, but in relation with each other in harmonious non-duality (Williams 2009, 63-83).

Equally important is the doctrine of “consciousness-only” (Skt. cittamatra) of the Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism. Their teaching of the Three Essences (Skt. trisvabhava) defends the existence of a non-dualism between mind and phenomena (internal and external), claiming that every phenomena, including matter, is “consciousness-only” (Williams 2009, 84-102).

These are not the only cases of non-duality in Buddhism, just the most celebrated in the Mahayana tradition, alongside the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras (Skt. Prajnaparamita), a set of scriptures dedicated to the Buddhist wisdom of understanding the emptiness of phenomena, that is, their lack of an independent, permanent and singular essence.

The most important Perfection of Wisdom sutra in Zen Buddhism is the Heart Sutra, or Prajñaparamita Hrdaya Sutra (Hahn 2012, “The Heart Sutra”). Dogen writes of this text in his Shobogenzo, in a section titled Makkahannya-haramitsu, or “On the Great Wisdom That Is Beyond Discriminatory Thought” (Dogen 2007, 25-30). The difference between discriminatory and non-discriminatory thought is particularly important regarding Buddhist non-duality, since to discriminate is to separate and, to some extent, to split reality by discrimination is to further strengthen duality and to stay oblivious to existence as unity or non-duality. As the Daoist master Zhuang Zi said: “As the idea of right and wrong prevailed, Dao was being eclipsed” (Zhuang Zi 2008, 44). That is, when the discrimination between right and wrong prevailed, the truth, called Dao, in this context, was obscured.

The Heart Sutra dedicates primarily to the doctrine of reality phenomena’s emptiness of essence. This implies that each process of reality does not exist by itself, but rather in connection to other entities and to reality as a whole. It is important to emphasize that the Buddhist concept of emptiness is not nihilistic in nature. As Zen master Thich Nhat Hahn puts it: “Emptiness here does not mean nonexistent as opposed to existent. It means signless, free from all imprisonment by concepts—birth/death, existent/nonexistent, increasing/decreasing, pure/impure. (...) It says in the Prajñaparamita Heart Sutra, ‘All dharmas [phenomena] are marked with emptiness; they are neither produced nor destroyed, neither defiled nor immaculate, neither increasing nor decreasing’” (Hahn 2012, “Subject Seven: Looking Deeply in Order to Shed Light on the True Nature of all Dharmas” para. 10).

In this text, the bodhisattva[4] Avalokiteshvara explains to Shariputra, Buddha’s wisest disciple, that the five skandhas, the psychophysical components or aggregates that compose the illusory individual personality, are empty (Hahn 2012, “The Heart Sutra”), and “as pure and unbounded as space” (Dogen 2007, 25). On this short sutra there is a celebrated statement that encapsulates very well Buddhist non-dualism: “Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form” (Hahn 2012, “The Heart Sutra”).

Dogen is one of the Buddhist thinkers who has written most about non-duality in Japan. Dogen’s zazen practice of sitting without goals considers enlightenment as already present, and it is extremely simple, especially if we compare it with techniques from Early Buddhism such as the sixteen steps of mindful breathing described in the Anapanasati Sutta of the Pali Canon or the elaborate esoteric practices of the many schools of Vajrayana Buddhism. It is important, however, to be aware that this simplicity seems to be present in terms of internal contemplative mental steps, for in practical terms there is a lot of complex ritual involved in Japanese zazen meditation. It can be extremely short-sighted to portray Zen as the non-dogmatic, liturgy-free practice it is frequently presented as (Grifith 2008, 12-82; Ryuken 2005). Nevertheless, the internal simplicity of Dogen’s zazen should not be denied.

But who was Dogen? In 1200 Kyoto, a woman of the powerful Fujiwara family gave birth to a child that would be later known as the monk Dogen (Tanahashi 2013, “Chronology of Dogen’s Life”; Dumoulin 1963, 152). Orphaned from a young age, the death of his parents made Dogen realize the impermanence of reality. As requested by his mother in her deathbed, Dogen became a Tendai Buddhist monk in 1213 (Dumoulin 1963, 152-153).

One of the main questions that occupied the newly ordained monk’s mind regarded the Buddha-nature (Skt. tathagatagarbha). Buddha-nature is a concept understood as the base of raw existence in some Buddhist traditions (Williams 2009, 116). It is the idea that awakened consciousness is the ground of reality, and that spiritual awakening (or buddhahood) is the innate (although not realized) nature of all beings. It means enlightenment or non-dual consciousness is the ground of reality in which the world of phenomena stands. This more radical interpretation was developed in texts such as the Awakening of Faith (Dasheng qixinlun). For other Buddhist traditions, the tathagatagarbha is simply the “seed” that enables all sentient beings the possibility to achieve Buddhahood.

This teaching raises some difficult questions: if all sentient beings are endowed with a Buddha-nature, why is there ignorance regarding the true nature of reality? And why is there suffering? Why seek liberation from that suffering? Why engage in spiritual practice in the first place if everything is already an expression of the awakened state, of buddhahood?

After visiting many masters and monasteries in Japan and China without getting a satisfying answer, it was under the Chinese master Ju-ching’s guidance that Dogen awakened (Dumoulin 1963, 153-156). It is said that Dogen achieved awakening when he heard Ju-ching describing “the nondual practice of zazen-only ([Jpn.] shikan-taza) as ‘dropping off body and mind’” (Foshay 1994, 552). Upon returning to Japan, the awakened monk started writing treatises and teaching in temples throughout Japan (Dumoulin 1963, 156-158). He died in 1253 with a pulmonary disease in Kyoto (Dumoulin 1963, 158-159; Tanahashi 2013, “Chronology of Dogen’s Life”).

Non-duality was an fundamental perspective for Dogen to solve many of the questions that haunted him as a young monk. In the following renowned waka poem, Dogen “conveys the interpenetration of sound and listener” (Heine 1997, 61), or the non-duality between object (sound) and subject (listener):

Because the mind is free—
Listening to the rain
Dripping from the eaves,
The drops become
One with me. (Heine 1997, 62)

This is not a conventional or, at least, not a common state of consciousness. Everyday consciousness is usually split into a witness or experiencer that senses and interacts with objects and entities understood as exterior and different from the observer: “I am the subject; it is the object” (Austin 1998, 294). Here, Dogen describes a state of mind that deletes the space between the two opposites of dualistic experiences. This kind of non-dual thought is rather common in the teaching of Zen Master Dogen. It is quite admirable how this waka poem achieves this, since conceptual language and thinking function trough a dualistic mechanism of subjects that act upon objects, which can be obstacles to the non-dualistic view of reality. Non-duality transcends the innate duality of language, making it hard to express non-dualist experiences using conventional speech or writing.

This kind of experience described by Dogen, in which subject becomes one with object, is not unknown to Buddhism and other spiritual traditions. These states are related to the quality of samadhi. The meaning of this Sanskrit word varies with context, and its meaning changes slightly (or not so slightly) between the various Indian and Buddhist traditions. However, it is generally connected with the discipline of stabilizing the mind on a meditation object or even on itself. In Pali, the prefix sam- means “together” and the root dha “to put” or “place” (Shankman 2008, 3). So samadhi is quite literally “to put together” the subject, experiencer or witness and the object of the experience, as did Dogen with his mind and the dripping rain.

As previously mentioned, one of the main questions that worried the Japanese master was the problem regarding Buddha-nature and the doctrine of original enlightenment, or hongaku, in Japanese (Putney 1997, 28). As Gerhard Faden puts it: “we are all primordially enlightened here and now in this body-mind existence―then why do we have to exert ourselves at all?” (Faden 2011, 46).

One of the ways Dogen solved this problem was to reflect on impermanence (Dogen 2007, 256-257). In the “Bussho” (“On Buddha Nature”) chapter of the Shobogenzo, the Zen patriarch, quoting Gyosho, identifies impermanence with Buddha-nature, not unlike what Nagarjuna did with samsara and nirvana (Faden 2011, 46). As Dogen wrote: “Impermanence is, of course, Buddha-nature, and permanence is, in fact, the mind dividing up all things into good or bad. (...) For the one who would (...) realize impermanence as being impermanent in itself, all will be impermanence” (Dogen 2007, 256-257). What Dogen means by this statement is that the conditioned world of phenomena – that from the perspective of conventional or relative truth, is impermanent – is itself Buddha-nature (Williams 2009, 121). The separation between the impermanent relative phenomena and the absolute Buddha-nature is purely conventional. If one contemplates impermanence “long enough,” one will watch the Buddha-nature revealing itself:

(...) If you wish to know the meaning of Buddha-nature,
Watch temporal relations;
When the “time” arrives,
Buddha-nature will manifest itself before you. (Putney 1997, 33)

The way Dogen wrote about time hints at it as a construct, an illusion. In a typically Buddhist fashion, past, present and future are considered just concepts. All that really exists is “now,” the present moment, and that “now” seems to share a non-duality with the Buddha-nature. David Putney wrote: “As Dogen points out in his ‘Bussho,’ this is not a dualism of potentiality and actuality. (...) There is nothing to wait for that is not ‘already here’ to be seen. Just look!” (Putney 1997, 33-34). Furthermore, there is another kind of non-dualism in this argument: “Here the phrase ‘watch’ (...) has no relation to the distinction between ‘the watcher’ and ‘what is watched’” (Putney 1997, 33).

For Dogen, it is not that sentient beings have a Buddha-nature; everything is Buddha-nature. In the words of Paul Williams: “For Dogen, therefore, it is not that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature (...). Rather, the expression ‘sentient being’ refers to everything, and everything is the Buddha-nature (...). It is dualistic to think of beings possessing the Buddha-nature. All beings, sentient and insentient, literally are the Buddha-nature” (Williams 2009, 120). This whole idea comes from Dogen’s reinterpretation of a passage from the Nirvana Sutra which originally says: “All sentient beings, without exception, have the Buddha-nature; the Tathagatas [the Buddhas] abide constantly, without change” (Putney 1997, 31). Dogen reinterpreted it as: “All is sentient being; all being is [all beings are] Buddha-nature; the Tathagata [the Buddha] constantly abides as non-being, being, and change” (Putney 1997, 31). To say that “sentient being” refers to everything also seems to imply a non-dualism between individual subject (sentient being) and absolute (everything).

However, this doctrine can be dangerous and slippery, and Eihei Dogen himself cautioned about it because one can erroneously identify the illusory individual self with Buddha-nature (Putney 1997, 32). This interpretation, known as Srenika Heresy, was explained by Dogen in the following way: “They mistakenly think that their own consciousness, which is but the movement of wind and fire, is the enlightenment and awakening of Buddha-nature” (Putney 1997, 32). To say everything is Buddha-nature is not to say that every single phenomenon is itself individually awakened; it is to say that awakening is the ground on which everything exists. To attribute innate awakening to single entities is to ignore emptiness as a fundamental law of existence, as well as the interdependence that binds all phenomena expressed through Dependent Origination. Putney wrote: “(...) enlightenment would be unique to the specific causes and conditions that give rise to any particular thought” (Putney 1997, 32-33).

In regards to the problem of the Buddha-nature―if buddhahood is innate, why do we have to practice? ―there is not a satisfying logical, conceptual answer: the nature of the answer is paradox, and its focus is on practice (Putney 1997, 39-40). For Dogen, this problem itself seems to be both the Buddhist practice and its goal (spiritual awakening) at the same time. As Putney puts it: “(...) the question/quest (...) is the positive quest for the Way. (...) Indeed, for Dogen, the quest is itself the Way” (Putney 1997, 31).

As mentioned earlier, there is a simplicity in Dogen’s Rules for Zazen (Zazengi) that cannot be denied. In this instructional text, the Zen master dedicates vastly and meticulously to the particularities of proper location and body position for the practice of zazen. The only instruction that points directly to the internal dynamics of meditation does so quite vaguely: “Sit solidly in samadhi and think not thinking. How do you think not thinking? Nonthinking. This is the art of zazen (...)” (Dogen 2004, “Rules for Zazen,” para. 7). If we take into account Dogen’s position regarding Buddha-nature, it becomes clear why.

In contrast, the mindful breathing meditation in the Anapanasati Sutta from the Pali Canon (Early Buddhism) is very brief in regards do location and position: “Here a bhikkhu [a monk], gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty hut, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, and established mindfulness in front of him, ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out” (MN 118 [Ñanamoli 1995], 943). The rest of the instructional section of the sutta is dedicated to specific instructions regarding inner meditative dynamics organized in sixteen complex steps (MN 118 [Ñanamoli 1995], 943-948), split into four tetrads (Amaro 2013, 109-111), each corresponding to one of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Amaro, 2013, 111-113). I insist on this contrast between Mahayana and Early Buddhism meditation because it tells us a lot about the evolution of Buddhist thought and Zen’s (and Dogen’s) place in the development of non-duality. We could say that Theravada anapanasati still understands awakening as something to achieve through progressively refining the mind, while in zazen it is understood it is not possible to grasp what has always been here, so there are no clear goals, stages, or progress. As Paul Williams wrote: “Dogen does not consider anyone should strive to become a Buddha. In reality (...) there is nothing to be attained. Practice and enlightenment are the same thing. (...) Practice is itself the manifestation of an intrinsic realization” (Williams 2009, 121-122).

Another interesting question in Dogen’s views on non-duality takes into account his opinion regarding language and how it can stimulate dualistic views. Toby Avard Foshay wrote that Takasaki Jikido considered the possibility that Dogen misunderstood his master when he talked about “casting off body and mind” (Jpn. shinjin-datsuraku), since that expression does not appear in Ju-ching’s works (Foshay 1994, 553). An expression that does appear, homophonous (in Japanese) to the previous one, is “casting off the mind’s dust” (Jpn. njin-datsuraku) (Foshay 1994, 553). Expressions regarding ignorance as dust seem common in Chan/Zen Buddhism, and easily reminds one of Hui-neng’s famous poem used to refute Shen-hsiu:

The Bodhi is not like a tree,
The clear mirror is nowhere standing.
Fundamentally not one thing exists;
Where, then, is a grain of dust to cling? (Dumoulin 1963, 82)

Foshay argues that the inter-signification of these two expressions as well as the meaning of “the mind’s dust” itself might have sparked an insight in Dogen regarding non-duality. He stated: “‘Mind’s dust’ may be seen to signify not only a metaphoric state of dullness, but also an actual state of dividedness of the mind and, as such, a mind-body dualism. The ‘mind’s dust’ as metaphor is itself ‘mind’s dust,’ because it signifies and enacts the dividedness of body and mind. (...) ‘Dropping off the mind’s dust’ is (...) ‘dropping off [the difference of] mind and body’” (Foshay 1994, 553-554).

Besides treatises and poetry, Dogen also wrote many koans, some of which express the negation of duality. One of which, clearly based on Yogacara doctrine, points at the rejection of the separation between consciousness and phenomena.

Dizang was once asked by his teacher, Xuansha, “How do you understand that the three worlds are just one mind?”
Dizang pointed at a chair and said, “Master, what do you call this?”
Xuansha said, “A chair.”
Dizang said, “You don’t understand that the three worlds are just one mind.”
Picking up a stick, Xuansha said, “I call this a bamboo stick. What do you call it?”
Dizang said, “I also call it a bamboo stick.”
Xuansha said, “It’s impossible to find a single person in the entire world who understands the Buddhadharma [the Buddha’s teaching].” (Dogen 2005, “112 The Three Worlds are Mind”)

The “three worlds” seem to be a reference to the trisvabhava teaching of the Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism. Also known as three natures, these are the three dimensions that make reality, according to this doctrine (Williams 2009, 90). They are: conceptualized nature (Skt. parikalpitasvabhava), the illusory “realm of words”; dependent nature (Skt. paratantrasvabhava), the causal stream of phenomena (Skt. dharmas) which seems to possess ontological existence; and perfected nature (Skt. parinispannasvabhava), the “true nature of things,” or tathata (Williams 2009, 90-91). Even though three different natures are identified, they are the same thing seen through different perspectives―“(...) the dependent nature is conceptualized nature in one part, and perfected nature in another. The first part is samsara, the second nirvana” (Williams 2009, 92) ―and in the end, that threefold entity is mind. It is not that the universe is produced inside one’s individual mind; existence itself is mind. Since the three natures are one with one another and with mind (and, in the end, with existence itself), this question is incomprehensible through conceptual dualistic language, which, naturally, splits existence into different entities and subjects that act upon objects. That is why Xuansha does not understand that the three worlds are just one mind. In the words of Alan Watts: “(...) Language can no more transcend duality than paintings or photographs upon a flat surface can go beyond two dimensions” (Watts 1966, chap. 6 para. 19). The capping verse of this koan may offer some clearer understanding. It states the following: “(...) The three worlds, mind, and things are without separation. Therefore, how can it be spoken of or understood?” (Dogen 2005, “112 The Three Worlds are Mind”). There is a strong Daoist influence in Zen Buddhism, and this kind of statements strongly resemble some reflections regarding language found in Lao Zi’s Tao Te Ching―“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao” (Laozi 2011, 1) ―and in Zhuang Zi, as mentioned above―“As the idea of right and wrong prevailed, Dao was being eclipsed” (Zhuang Zi 2008, 44).

Other vivid instance in which Dogen may remind one of Daoist non-duality is in his Eihei koroku. The Zen master seems to take heavy influences on the Chinese naturalist doctrine of yin-yang (incorporated in Daoism) and its visual contrast of black and white:

A white heron perches in a snowy nest; in sameness there is difference. A crow alights on a black horse; within difference there is sameness. (Heine 2004, 268).

When these birds stand on the mentioned surfaces, a monochromatic blur is seen. However, in a conventional, dualistic perspective, there are two different entities in the same white or black silhouette, even though the two entities blend so perfectly. Here, it seems, a complementary non-dualism is created between sameness and difference, a kind of non-duality between non-duality (sameness) and duality (difference) themselves.

As one can infer from this article, Non-duality is a staple of Dogen’s writings. It is easy to understand why this philosophical concept is commonly considered one of the most iconic attributes of his works. In the context of meditation practice, the simplicity of the meditation techniques presented by Dogen is unmatched.

There is, however, a considerable hindrance to this article: the full implications of this doctrine of non-duality become lost in purely theoretical papers such as this one. To quote Alan Watts yet again, “(...) language can no more transcend duality than paintings or photographs upon a flat surface can go beyond two dimensions.” To fully understand Dogen’s points explored throughout this paper, one should not limit oneself to theoretical reflections on the ontology of a Buddha-nature or of the world of phenomena. To be fully understood, a in-first-person phenomenological investigation is necessary, and non-duality is to be experienced through altered consciousness induced by intuition, insight, contemplation, or even by mere chance. “Buddha-nature” is simply a word, a concept from Buddhist thought. It describes a vaster reality that has been spoken and written about by thinkers and mystics from all the philosophical and spiritual traditions of the world: the raw, ineffable, limitless and attribute-less true nature of reality that can be experienced by consciousness in non-dual states of awareness.

As mentioned before, the philosophical question of non-duality and Buddha-nature raise some pertinent ethical dilemmas. These might be quenched from a non-dualistic view of the absolute unconditioned reality that integrates every phenomena and encompasses even the most apparent contradictions as harmonious complementarity and perfect paradox. However, they still need to be addressed in relative reality, the conventional truth of the conditioned world of phenomena and its inherent societal living among sentient beings. In accepting a non-dualistic view or reality there is the risk of conforming to suffering and malice, in ourselves and in the world, and of masking it as a legitimate part of buddhahood. There is the risk of staying in the same erroneous patterns due to lack of effort and motivation. Since all beings are already innately awakened, does it matter what one does? Does it matter if one acts skilfully or unskilfully, ethically or unethically? Is there a difference at all? The doctrine of Buddha-nature is not supposed to excuse unethical and unskilful behaviours and patterns. Even though, from this perspective, self-centred unethical behaviours might be seen as emanations from the Buddha-nature and ultimately inseparable from it by non-duality, these are not to be legitimized in a societal context. In Buddhism, even though relative reality is seen as an erroneous perspective of the deluded consciousness, absolute reality and relative reality are given a balanced importance, because the relative world of conditioned phenomena is simply an inescapable part of human experience. Therefore, duality also has its role: as a sentient being living among others, it is fundamental to understand the difference between good and bad, benevolence and malevolence, selflessness and egoism. Even though, in the end, these are just conventions deeply rooted in universal delusion, they still hold and important role in the conditioned world of conventions and relative phenomena. From the Buddhist perspective, a Buddha understands that every phenomena is pure emptiness, inseparable from the universe as a whole and with no absolute solidity. But a Buddha is also infinitely compassionate, so he/she understands that that same empty phenomenon might not be aware of its own emptiness, and hence identifies with and believes absolutely in its deluded identity as a specific set of conditions and processes, that is, as a specific being, and its suffering is therefore very real and needs to be respected. This is the virtue of understanding duality through non-duality.

Although, from this perspective, ultimately everything is an expression of the ultimate reality that is Buddha-nature, some behaviours are more directly or indirectly emanated from it. For Dogen, it seems, as one practices a spiritual discipline, one becomes gradually awakened to non-duality, to the non-separation and interdependence of all things, and by understanding that the difference between “I” and “other,” between “right,” and “wrong,” is purely conventional and conceptual, one will therefore want to live harmoniously with respect for all beings and within oneself. By recognizing that the difference between good and bad is also purely conventional in the eyes of non-duality, one can strive to accept one’s own complex personality with self-compassion and without guilt, to integrate all aspects of one’s beings, even the “bad” ones, without repressing them, always recognizing the need to avoid the proliferation and externalization of harmful and unethical emotions and behaviours that have very real and negative consequences in the relative world of conditioned phenomena, conventions, and human experience.

[1] A koan is a brief story or question, in some ways like a riddle, that has no logical conclusion, at least conceptually. Koans are used in Zen Buddhism (specially Rinzai Zen) in order to overload the practitioner’s thinking mind to its limits and to free the meditator from the bounds of conceptual thought. One of the most famous koans is “what is the sound of one hand clapping”?

[2] The wheel of birth and death, a state of being characterized by perpetual suffering or dissatisfaction.

[3] Spiritual awakening or liberation in a Buddhist context; the liberated state of being.

[4] In Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is a personification of compassion, in some ways very similar to a Buddha. It is not the same as a Buddha, however. It is a being with some spiritual achievements that is on the path to become one fully-awakened Buddha, but it is not one yet. Generally, it is considered that bodhisattvas reject full-awakening out of compassion, in order to stay in samsara and help to soothe the suffering of all beings.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Dogen, Zen Master. Beyong Thinking: a Guide to Zen Meditation. Edited by Kazuaki Tanahashi and Norman Fischer. Boston, Shambhala Publications, 2004.

Dogen, Eihei. Shobogenzo: The Treasure House of the Eye of the True Teaching: A Trainee’s Translation of Great Master Dogen’s Spiritual Masterspiece. Translated by Hubert Nearman. Mount Shasta: Shasta Abbey Press, 2007. 

Dogen. The True Dharma Eye : Zen Master Dogen’s Three Hundred Koans. Translated by John Daido Loori and Kazuaki Tanahashi. Boston: Shambhala, 2005.

Hanh, Thich Nhat. Awakening of the Heart: Essential Buddhist Sutras and Commentaries. Berkeley, California: Parallax Press, 2012.

Laozi. Tao Te Ching: Annotated & Explained. Translated by Derek Lin. Woodstock, Vermont: SkyLight Paths Pubishing, 2011.

Majjhima Nikaya 118. “118 Anapanasati Sutta Mindfulness of Breathing”. In The Middle Lenght Discourses of The Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, translated by Bikkhu Ñanamoli and Bikkhu Bodhi. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995, 941-948.

Zhuang Zi. The Wisdom of Zhuang Zi on Daoism. American University Studies. Translated by Chung Wu. New York, Peter Lang Publishing, 2008.

Critical Bibliography

Austin, James H. Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

Amaro, Ajahn. For the Love of The World. Hemel Hempstead, Herfordshire: Amaravati Publications, 2013.

Bodhi, Bikkhu. The Noble Eightfold Path: The Way to the End of Suffering. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, 1998.

Dumoulin, Heinrich. A History of Zen Buddhism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1963.

Faden, Gerhard. “No-Self, Dōgen, the Senika Doctrine, and Western Views of Soul.” Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011): 41–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41416529.

Foshay, Toby Avard. “Denegation, Nonduality, and Language in Derrida and Dōgen.” Philosophy East and West 44, no. 3 (1994): 543–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1399740.

Foulk, Grifith T. “Ritual in Japanese Zen Buddhism”. In Zen Ritual: Studies of Zen Buddhist Theory in Practice, edited by Steven Hein and Dale S. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 21-82.

Heine, Steven, and Dale S. Wright. The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Heine, Steven, and Dale S. Wright, eds. Zen Classics : Formative Texts in the History of Zen Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Heine, Steve. The Zen Poetry of Dogen: Verses from the Mountain of Eternal Peace. Boston, Tuttle Publishing, 1997.

Putney, David. “Dōgen: Enlightenment and Entanglement.” Buddhist-Christian Studies 17 (1997): 25–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1390396.

Sayama, Mike K. Samadhi: Self Development in Zen, Swordsmanship, and Psychotherapy. Suny Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986.

Shankman, Richard. The Experience of Samādhi: An in-Depth Exploration of Buddhist Meditation. 1st ed. Boston: Shambhala, 2008.

Śarmā, Candradhara. The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy: A Study of Advaita in Buddhism, Vedānta and Kāshmīra Shaivism. 1st ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1996.

Tanahashi, Kazuaki, and Peter Levvit, eds. The Essential Dogen: Writings of the Great Zen Master. Boston, Shambhala Publications, 2013.

Thompson, Evan. Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015.

Watts, Alan. The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are. New York: Pantheon Books, 1966.

Williams, Duncan Ryuken. The Other Side of Zen : A Social History of Soto Zen: Buddhism in Tokugawa Japan. Buddhisms, Princeton University Press Series. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009.