Welcome admin !

It is currently Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:39 am
Pathway:  Board index Zen Discussion Forum Zen Practice & Philosophy Zen Buddhism Sōtō

The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Discussion of Japanese Sōtō Zen / 曹洞宗

The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby Gregory Wonderwheel on Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:58 pm

Here's something I recently posted at my blog with the above title.

The oft quoted Dogenism, “Practice is enlightenment,” or its variation “practice and enlightenment are one,” appears to be a misnomer and misunderstanding created by translators and was never actually stated by Dogen as far as I can tell.

The original term is 修證, pronounced in Japanese as shusho, The first character shu 修 means cultivation, practice, to cultivate, to practice, etc.. The second term sho 證 means to confirm, evidence, testify, witness, and proof and also includes both the noun and verb forms such as the nouns confirmation, evidence, proof, verification, testimony, witness, etc., and the verbs to confirm, to give evidence, to prove, to verify, to testify, to witness, etc. Some accurate or valid translations when used as a single idea would be cultivation-confirmation, practice-proof, practice-evidence, etc. When used as two words of one phrase it could be translated as the confirmation of cultivation, the proof of practice, the evidence of practice, verification of practice, etc.

So the emphasis on the two being one is not at all a strange concept. Dogen is simply saying that practice and the confirmation of practice are one. It is nothing other then the commonly known example of a physician’s “practice” being the confirmation, proof or evidence of the physician’s “practice” as training. Thus for the physician, practice and the proof of the practice are one. Likewise Dogen is saying that for the follower of the Buddha way, the practice and the proof of the practice are one. To say it colloquially, we can say, “the proof is in the pudding.”

Dogen is emphasizing that practice is not something that is done just as a preliminary stage to be followed later by the evidence or confirmation of that practice. It is like saying learning to cook and what is cooked as the evidence of that learning one. When little kids learn how to make their first pancakes, their cooking practice and the evidence in the pancake that is cooked are one. Dogen is saying don’t denigrate a beginning cook or a beginning practitioner of the Buddha Dharma as just practicing to become cooks later because in their practice they are cooks today. Their practice and confirmation of their practice are one. If someone asks, “What it the proof of the Buddha way?”, Dogen is answering “The practice of the Buddha Way.” And if someone asks, “What is the practice of the Buddha Way?” then Dogen is answering “The proof of the Buddha Way.”

So how did this idea of “practice is enlightenment” or “practice-realization” come about? It is because translators decided to freely translate sho 證 as if it were one of two terms that are used interchangeably in Chinese Buddhism: “awakening” 悟, satori or go in Japanese (Ch. wu), or “enlightenment” 覺, kaku or gaku in Japanese, (Ch. jue). Sometimes the two terms are used together as the single word 覺悟, kakugo in Japanese (Ch. juéwù), and means to awaken or become enlightened. The cause of the confusion is that in Japanese-English or Chinese-English dictionaries all three terms share the minor connotation of “realization.” This is because English term “realization” can be used with the different connotations pointing to either “confirmation” (sho) with the sense of “to make real” (for example, a math equation is made real by its proof) or pointing to “awaken to” (satori or go) in the sense of “to grasp or understand clearly” (for example, to understand clearly what is real). So it appears that when translators read “realization” as a connotation of sho 證 they immediately loosely translated it as “enlightenment” or “awakening” rather than the more accurate “evidence,” proof,” or “confirmation” and when they use the word “realization” they use it with the connotation of enlightenment rather that the connotation of proof or confirmation.

For instance, this confusion is shown in the translation of Dogen’s famous short essay “Genjo Koan.” In the book Moon in a Dew Drop: Writings of Zen Master Dogen, edited by Kazuaki Tanahashi, the translation is attributed to Robert Aitken and Kazuaki Tanahashi and revised at San Francisco Zen Center. This translation begins strangely enough by translating the title as “Actualizing the Fundamental Point” thereby removing any reference to the word “koan” in the title. Thus, the term “koan” is very loosely translated as “fundamental point” and the term “genjo” 現成 is translated as “actualizing.”

Then in what is identified as section 2, the term sho 證 (evidence, proof, or confirmation) is translated as “actualized” twice, and the term 悟, satori (awakening or enlightenment) is twice translated as “realization.” In section 4 sho 證 is again translated as “actualized,” and 悟, satori, as “realization.” So between the title and the body, we see a confusion of the use of the term “actualize.”

Also the translation fails to acknowledge that when the term sho 證 is used by Dogen in that same section 2 that it is also in the combination form or 修證, shusho, but instead of being translated as the combination of “practice-realization” or “practice-enlightenment” it is translated simply as “experience.” However, when 修證, shusho, is used in section 11, it is translated as “practice-enlightenment” and when it is used in section 10 it is translated as two words of the sequence, “practice, enlightenment, and people.” There is just no basis for translating 修證, shusho, as “practice-enlightenment” in the “Genjo Koan” when “enlightenment” should be a translation for either 悟, satori or 覺, kaku or gaku. But apparently, since the translators of this version had already decided to use the English word “realization” for 悟, satori, instead of translating sho 證 as “experience” as they had done earlier, thus to make “practice-experience,” they substituted the word “enlightenment.” to make “practice-enlightenment.” By comparison, Thomas Clearly translates 修證, shusho, as “acting on and witnessing” in the earlier section, but as ”cultivation and realization” and “cultivates and realizes” in the later sections. So while Cleary first translates the word sho 證 as “to witness,” “to prove,” etc. he then later uses the connotation of “realize” and “realization” that leads to confusion with the connotation of enlightenment or awakening.

In 1890, the Soto School wrote a sort of introductory outline of excerpts from the Shobogenzo as a standard of faith for Dogen’s Soto teachings titled 修證義 Shusho Gi. In the book Zen Master Dogen, An Introduction with Selected Writings, Yuho Yokoi translates it as “The Meaning of Practice-Enlightenment,” while the Soto Zen Text Project translates it as “The Meaning of Practice and Verification.” We see here the two far different approaches to translating 修證 Shusho as either a single combination word or as two separate words. When viewed as two separate words, it becomes far more difficult to maintain with a straight face that 證 sho can be translated as “enlightenment” or “realization.”

So by means of this kind of interpolated translation the basic meaning of Dogen’s use of 修證, shusho, has become confused with a different concept entirely. Traditionally there are many kinds of oppositions, and two of them are the opposition of “delusion and enlightenment (or awakening)” 迷悟 and the opposition of “practice and proof” 修證. By translating “practice and proof” as “practice-enlightenment” the second half of the first pair has been transposed to the second pair. Each pair has its own corresponding declaration that the pair of opposites are one and not separate. For the first pair there is the saying “delusion and enlightenment are one thusness” 迷悟一如; and for the second pair there is the same declaration that “cultivation and confirmation are one thusness” 修證一如. The importance of these traditional pairs is that they go together and should not be mix-and-matched like items in a supermarket.

Dogen was trained as a Tendai priest, and the opposition of cultivation and confirmation 修證, shusho, comes from the Tendai teachings attributed to the Chinese Tiantai ancestor Zhanran Jingxi 湛然荆溪 (711–782 or 784). The phrase “the gate of the ten non-duals” or “ten gates of nonduality” (十不二門) refers to ten oppositions based on the Lotus Sutra and Zhanran’s teaching that the ten pairs of supposed oppositions are actually unified from the beginning. Each pair is thus “a gate to non-duality” (不二門). The ten pairs of apparent oppositions that are actually non-dual are: (1) 色心 matter and mind, (2) 內外 internal and external, (3) 修證 practice and proof, (4) 因果 cause and effect, (5) 染淨 impurity and purity, (6) 依正 objective and subjective, (7) 自他 self and other, (8) the three karmas 三業 of body action, speech action, and thought action, (9) 權實 provisional and real, and (10) 受潤 receiving and enriching.

For Dogen, the third pair of 修證, shusho, “preparation and proof,” “cultivating and confirming,” “doing and witnessing,” “practice and verification,” etc. was especially important because of his emphasis on the practical matter of Buddhist practice as the practice of the non-dual. Thus from Dogen’s perspective, anything that suggests a dualistic practice is to be eschewed from the outset, and that means especially a view of practice as a prelude to or merely a training for the real deal to come later on. In a non-dual view of practice, the practice itself is what is to be proven or confirmed, not something separate from the practice in the sense that a product or by-product is the end result of an assembly line. Practice does not produce anything separate from itself but is itself what is produced. But this is really no more of foreign or strange idea than the idea that the means and ends are not separate.

One can argue that this identity of practice and its proof are the demonstration of realization or enlightenment, that is, enlightenment is the end of practice to be proved. But this threatens to backslide into a dualistic view of both practice and proof. There is no need to insert the idea of enlightenment as an end in the standard formulation by Dogen, and so there is no basis to become confused about the actual words of Dogen who did not say “practice is enlightenment,” but rather “practice and proof are not two.”

_/|\_
Gregory
Why you do not understand is because the three carts were provisional for former times, and because the One Vehicle is true for the present time. ~ Zen Master 6th Ancestor Huineng
User avatar
Gregory Wonderwheel
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 4246
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:07 am
Location: Santa Rosa, California

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby desert_woodworker on Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:17 pm

Well, it never seemed too plausible to me, coming up. But I suspended judgement, thankfully. Good people were espousing it.

And the more I practiced, the more it seemed not only plausible, but natural, and entirely correct.

Still -- ya gotta admit -- awakening is a bit different from practice before awakening. :tongueincheek:

So, have at it, Gregory. I just dunno. Nor will I say.

tnx,

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby Nonin on Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:23 pm

In somewhat of the same vein, and in the light of no-self: either Suzuki-roshi or Uchiyama-roshi -- I forget whom -- said that "There are no enlightened people; there is only enlightened activity."

Hands palm-to-palm,

Nonin
Soto Zen Buddhist Priest. Transmitted Dharma Heir of Dainin Katagiri Roshi.
Abbot and Head Teacher, Nebraska Zen Center / Heartland Temple, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
http://www.prairiewindzen.org
User avatar
Nonin
Teacher
 
Posts: 4580
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:30 pm
Location: Omaha, Nebraska, USA

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby desert_woodworker on Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:05 pm

And, Gregory,

I think a "misnomer" is a mistake in naming. Whereas, it appears you mean to say that translators may have made a mistake in something else, like in "identifying" practice with awakening (I resist the 19th century translators' "enlightenment", sorry; it's not what Shakyamuni claimed).

Should not the thread title thus be updated to read something like, "Misidentification of Practice as Awakening?" Maybe leave Dogen out of it, too. It's enough to consider the subject. Master Dogen can't defend himself, in this overly-interactive age. Let's just talk turkey. Not people.

Definitely, too... put the question-mark in place.

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby TigerDuck on Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:37 am

So, what shall be the correct translation?

Through nonconceptuality, he is immovable.

[Nagarjuna]
User avatar
TigerDuck
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:38 am

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby Avisitor on Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:16 am

You are your intent and actions
It has always been this way
Nothing has changed
And yet, it all changes with the practice ....
Disclaimer: There is no intent to be offensive in my posts. None was intended and none should be interpreted as such.
Sorry, got a message that I was not being PC.
User avatar
Avisitor
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:43 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby Michaeljc on Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:02 am

We quote Dogen at our own peril

:)
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3637
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby desert_woodworker on Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:13 pm

Michael,

Michaeljc wrote:We quote Dogen at our own peril

Quoth he... . :tongueincheek:

BTW, I loved the way W. C. Fields mangled the English language -- or "re-purposed" it -- in movies, to good comedic effect.
Once, he said that something was "...fraught with eminent pearl".

Oops, O.T.

:Namaste:

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby cam101+ on Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:36 am

Have you tried it? It's true (as Suzuki and others expound on).

I know you're into the scholarly end of this, but Buddhism is about practice and action in the world, not book reading. Don't get hung up on words. No one ever got enlightened (whatever that is) by reading a book. To act as if one is enlightened is the key, which requires right view. Once one has that, everything falls into place. To sit in meditation properly, to carry it with you in mindfulness, this is enlightenment.

Some people think it is some special feeling or realization that lasts. It can be but a brief insight into life, and it still requires daily meditation and practice. It is not permanent, nothing is permanent. That is the real discovery of Buddha.

"You are your intent and actions". This is exactly the point. It could not be more clear and concise. Awakening is no different from practice (true practice), nor is it different than everyday mind. If it were, it would be dualistic, and not awakening. Or, "after the ecstasy, the laundry".
cam101+
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby desert_woodworker on Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:16 pm

cam,

cam101+ wrote: I know you're into the scholarly end of this, but Buddhism is about practice and action in the world, not book reading. Don't get hung up on words. No one ever got enlightened (whatever that is) by reading a book.

I think Gregory is steeped in practice.

Once a person is steeped in practice, then what the rest of the practice-family has ever said or written becomes like letters from home. This being so, one does not like to see the family's message and import misrepresented. It's a real service to make available certain corrections, if one's got what it takes. Gregory's doing this for himself, and sharing it with others at his 'blog'. Sometimes he pastes bits here too, but not too often.

I think Gregory has helped to clarify some twistings of the message, by straightening them. This is needed. For a very, very long time (hundreds of years), Western understanding of sutras -- for example -- has been compromised by misleading and mistaken translation of certain words to English. And Gregory has noted that the same sort of inadequacies exist in translations of parts of Dogen's writings.

I'm a practitioner, also, and above all I value and can recommend correct practice. I think a part of practice in the West can be to make the message from our Ch'an- and Zen-Buddhist ancestors as clear and accurate as can be, for our contemporaries and for those who follow us.

Since few words are needed or used in Zen Buddhist practice, it's all the more important that they be accurate.

Words that "point" askew can point practice askew.

Even one person sent off on a tangent is one too many, and infection or pestilence usually does not stay contained.

For those who have the mind and stamina and gumption to learn the original languages, and to clarify certain points in the literature for us by more accurate translation, I stand and remain grateful. I couldn't take on that work myself, and couldn't do that service, I don't think (I'm pretty sure!). But I can appreciate it when done, and given as a gift.

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: The Misnomer of Dogen's "Practice is Enlightenment"

Postby desert_woodworker on Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:06 am

Gregory,

It may be that the "sho" of shusho is the same "sho" as in "kensho", seeing nature, or seeing one's nature.

If so, then perhaps sho may have the connotation of "seeing" or to see (if it's the same "sho"). If so, then shusho may be the seeing of results of practice, or, yes, indeed, seeing or experiencing evidence of practice, which to me connotes "results" of those practices or that practice.

If all of this is so, then shusho may be seeing the results of practice, having evidence that practice is resultful. Of course, the results progress over time and as practice matures. Awakenings are possible, when in that awakened interval practice changes (has changed) for a time (weeks; months) in big ways.

But even as one first begins practice, or begins practice again after a hiatus, evidence of results of practice accrues at the very moment of practicing, in the very time, although perhaps the results are not strong, or are not self-sustaining, and must be brought to greater strength and longer persistence and a smoother longevity by continuous applied-practice.

To be sure, this isn't the same as saying (errantly, as you point out) that practice and awakening are the same, but it's instead to say that ...there is no space between practice and its results (I'd say).

Indeed, an informal old saying (sorry I have no attribution) goes something like:

"One hour of zazen, one hour of awakening; five minutes of zazen, five minutes of awakening; no zazen, no awakening".

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA


Return to Sōtō

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest