Smuggled Hinduism—From Dōgen’s Viewpoint

Abstract

The central question of this paper is what kind of view Dōgen had about Mazu. At first glance, this may seem completely irrelevant to the theme of this issue. In fact, however, Dōgen’s view points to a subtle relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism in an interesting way. Dōgen seems to regard Mazu as an ambiguous figure, standing on the borderline between Buddhism and Hinduism. However, Dōgen’s intention was to save Mazu and keep him on the side of Buddhism. So how can Mazu be saved? To answer this question is to trace the fundamental boundary between Buddhism and Hinduism according to the outstanding Zen master. In this study we adopt the usual method of textual analysis. Our discussion proceeds in the following order. (The steps do not correspond exactly to the section breaks.) (1) First, the argument of a person called Senni is presented from Dōgen’s Bendōwa, where Dōgen severely criticizes him as a non-Buddhist heresy. At this step we will confirm that Senni is a Sāṅkhya theorist (hence, a Hinduist). (2) We take up a parallel to the above passage from Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō, Chapter “Sokushinzebutsu”. It becomes clear that the true target of Dōgen’s criticism was Mazu, the great Chinese Chan master. (3) The above operation shows that Dōgen was trying to position Mazu as someone on the borderline between Hinduism and Buddhism. (4) We try to reconstruct from the text what in Senni angered Dōgen, or, in other words, from what he wanted to save Mazu. As a result, the borderline as seen by Dōgen will be visible to us. The main findings of this paper are as follows: (1) The mark that distinguishes Buddhism from Hinduism, according to Dōgen, is the presence of the never-ending Bodhi-mind. This is in fact what TSUNODA Tairyū suggested in his 1985 article. Dōgen implemented this idea as an endless loop of Bodhi-mind, which makes the goal unreachable. (2) The implicit object of Dōgen’s criticism is not the Japanese Tendai or the Darumashū, but Mazu, as HE Yansheng indicated in his 2000 book. The so-called Critical Buddhism movement began on the basis of a misunderstanding. The large amount of secondary literature that has resulted is also indirectly based on this error.

Dōgen (道元) is a Japanese Zen1 master from the 13th century. In this paper2, we are going to talk about his observations about an Ātman theory. We attempt to reconstruct a comprehensible picture of his view by adjusting the focus of several previous studies and reconsidering the interrelationships between them. This reveals how he thought about the boundary between Buddhism and Hinduism.

1. The “Non-Buddhist Heresy” Senni

Below is a passage from his Bendōwa (弁道話), where he presents his idea in the form of a Q&A for a novice. (For the translation of Dōgen’s text I use the study of Hubert NEARMAN with some corrections. The original Japanese text from the Iwanami Bunko version is added in Notes Section.)

Question: There are some who say, “Do not grieve over birth and death, since there is an extremely quick method for freeing yourself from them, namely, by understanding the principle that it is the innate nature of one’s mind to be ever-abiding, to persist without change … Thus, this body is but a temporary form, being born here and dying there, ever subject to change, whilst this mind is ever-abiding, so there is no reason to expect it to vary over past, present, and future. To understand the matter in this way is what is meant by being free from birth and death. For the one who understands this principle, his future births and deaths will come to an end, so that when his body expires, he will enter the ocean of real existence. When he flows into this ocean of being, he will undoubtedly possess wonderful virtues, just as all the Buddhas have done… The person who does not yet understand this principle will be ever spun about through successive births and deaths …” Such a statement as this truly corresponds to the Way of all the Buddhas and the great masters, don’t you think?3

Dōgen answers to this question as follows:

Answer: The view that you have just expressed is in no way one of Buddhism, but rather the non-Buddhist view of Senni. This erroneous view may be stated as follows: “In our bodies there is a soul-like intelligence. When this intelligence, or intellect, encounters conditions, it makes distinctions between good and bad as well as discriminating right from wrong. It is conscious of pain and itch, and suffering and pleasure. All such responses are within the capacity of this intelligence. However, when this body of ours perishes, this soul-like nature sloughs it off and is reborn somewhere else. As a result, even though it appears to perish in the here and now, it will have its rebirth in another place, never perishing, but always abiding unchanged.”. So this erroneous view goes.4

The name Senni (先尼 or 仙尼, Chin. xian ni) corresponds to Sanskrit Śreṇika, Pāli Senaka (Hosoda 1993, p. 63). Senni’s doctrine discribed here seems to be a Hinduistic one, which especially looks like one of Sāṅkhya’s. First, I briefly present the grounds for this assertion.

While the name of Senni appears in several Chinese Buddhist sūtras including the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras and the Saṃyuktāgama, it is presumed that Dōgen’s description above is mainly based on a passage from the Mahāyāna-Parinirvāṇasūtra, in which Senni presents his Ātman (or Puruṣa5) theory (Hosoda 1993, p. 63). This seems to be a nice starting point for us. Our questions in the preliminary query are: (A) Is the Senni in the Mahāyāna-Parinirvāṇasūtra depicted as a Hinduist? And (B) Did Dōgen identify him as a Hinduist? My observations are: (1) Senni claims Ātman’s omnipresence (我遍一切處) in the relevant passage6, which matches with the Sāṅkhya doctrine of Hinduism. We can even find almost the same statement “自性及我遍一切處” in the Gold-Seventy (Chn. Jin-qui-shi-lun, 金七十論), a Chinese translation of a commentary of the Sāṅkhyakārikā7. (2) Senni claims that every individual has its own Ātman, while Ātman is omnipresent. This somewhat curious idea is found in Sāṅkhyakārikā 18 and discussed by many commentaries8. (3) Senni in the Mahāyāna-Parinirvāṇasūtra uses the term “慢” (Chn. man) to mean ahaṃkāra (I-consciousness). This is a Sāṅkhya term.

From the points 1, 2 and 3 above, we can answer the above question A: Senni in the Mahāyāna-Parinirvāṇasūtra is depicted as a Sāṅkhya theorist, therefore a Hinduist. Then, we proceed to the question B: (4) The passage “Ātman is omnipresent” (我遍一切處) mentioned in my first observation above is reproduced as Dōgen’s statement “This Spiritual Intelligence permeates all living beings far and wide” (此霊知、ひろく周遍せり) in Shōbōgenzō, in a parallel passage of the above Bendōwa citation9. (5) Senni in the Mahāyāna-Parinirvāṇasūtra says “Gotama, it is like you cannot say ‘the resident is burnt when the house is burnt’ if the resident has escaped from the house when the house was burnt down by an accidental fire.”. This is reproduced in the sentence “It is like the resident escapes while his house is burnt down by an accidental fire” (たとへば人舎の失火にやくるに、舎主いでてさるがごとし) in Shōbōgenzō10. From the points 4 and 5, we can answer the question B: It is probable that Dōgen’s description of Senni’s doctrine is at least partly based on the Mahāyāna-Parinirvāṇasūtra, as has been claimed by some scholars. So, we have a good reason to presume that Dōgen identified Senni as a Hinduist.

Let us go back to the Bendōwa passage. According to Dōgen, the questioner is trying, unknowingly, to smuggle Hinduism into Buddhism. Indeed, Senni’s “soul-like intelligence” seems incompatible with the no-self doctrine, which Buddhism has been claiming since a considerably early period. The negativity of Dōgen’s answer looks rather natural in this context. However, earlier research about this passage suggests that his gaze caught a certain problem which is deeper than the stereotypical self/no-self dispute. Below, I first set up the viewpoints “who is being criticized” and “what is being criticized” and observe how Dōgen’s eyes are working here.

2. Who Is Being Criticized?

It is HAZAMA Jikō (硲慈弘) who first focused on the above passage in his 1942 article. Quite interestingly, he associates the questioner’s idea to the Original-enlightenment thought (天台本覚思想, jpn. Tendai hongaku shisō), which is, roughly speaking, a Japanese implementation of the Tathāgatagarbha thought11. Hazama cites the passage, which follows the text above.

Be that as it may, your learning this view and regarding it as the Buddha’s teaching is more foolish than clutching onto a roof tile or a pebble in the belief that it is gold or some precious jewel. The shamefulness of such befuddled ignorance and delusion beggars comparison. National Teacher Huizhong（慧忠）in Great Sung China has strongly warned us about such a view. Now, you equate the wondrous Dharma of all the Buddhas with the mistaken notion that your mind will abide whilst your physical features perish, and imagine that the very thing which gives rise to the cause of birth and death will free you from birth and death. Is it not being foolish? And how deeply pitiable! Be aware that this is the mistaken view of one who is outside the Way, and do not lend an ear to it.12

Here, Hazama takes notice of Dōgen’s curious excitement. Is it not too emotional for someone talking about the opinion of hundreds of years ago in a foreign country? Dōgen is completely losing his temper here. Hazama presumes that this criticism might actually not be directed at Senni, but at someone of his era, namely the people of Original-enlightenment thought which was quite popular at that time. In other words, he thought that Dōgen’s true enemy was not Hinduism itself.

Hazama, then, quotes the following passage among others, from Gobukechimyaku (五部血脈), a representative Original-enlightenment literature.

I consider with deep respect as follows. Birth and death are ingenious functions of the One Mind. Being and non-being are attributes of the original enlightenment. The reason is that the Mind is something that never comes or leaves, and that the soul is the principle which surrounds and pervades the whole universe. Therefore, you are not coming from anywhere when you are being born, and you are not leaving when you are dying. When the Mind, which never comes and nor leaves, does the work of being, it makes a human body with six sense organs appear. They call it birth. When the soul, which surrounds and pervades the whole universe, applies the attributes of non-being, it extinguishes the body which consists of five aggregates. They call it death… Life and death are one thing, and being and non-being are not different. If you think like this, the body of the Mind-Buddha will be revealed and you will get freedom at your birth and death13.

This text advocates the existence of the immortal soul, which is the subject of reincarnation. Indeed, it looks like Senni’s idea. Hazama’s claim might not be baseless.

Hazama’s article did not get much attention until HAKAMAYA Noriaki took up his argument in his 1986 paper to present his new image of Dōgen as a fighter against Original-enlightenment theory (Hakamaya 1986). His ideological movement, which was called Critical Buddhism (批判仏教, jpn. hihan bukkyō), gained considerable support from the people who had doubts about the current situation of the modern Japanese Buddhism, but lost its influence quickly after his former ally MATSUMOTO Shirō withdrew his claim14. However, apart from the politics of ideology, it seems me important to me to discuss to whom Dōgen’s criticism is actually directed in this passage.

In fact, an excellent answer to this problem has already been given by HE Yansheng (何燕生), while it has not yet received the attention it deserves. It is widely known that there is a parallel to the above Bendōwa passage in Dōgen’s Shōbōgenzō (正法眼蔵). Hazama and Hakamaya both mentioned it, but have not paid enough attention to it. As He Yansheng correctly poins out, this parallel passage is embedded as a whole in the discussion about the famous statement “Your very mind is Buddha” (即心是仏, chn. ji xin shi fo, jpn. sokushinzebutsu), which is very typical to the teaching of Mazu Daoyi (馬祖道一), the great Chinese Chan master. Therefore, it is basically a discussion about the Chinese Chan, rather than the Japanese Tendai (He 2000, pp. 262–67, especially p. 266). He Yansheng further compared Senni’s claims cited by Dōgen with Chinese literature of the Hongzhou school (洪州宗) and the Heze school (荷澤宗), of which Mazu belongs to the former, and showed their striking coincidences (He 2000, pp. 267–74, especially p. 274).

He Yansheng carefully avoids assertions, but his argument has drawn Mazu to center stage. Dōgen himself is not referring to him by name either. At the beginning of Shōbōgenzō’s chapter “Sokushinzebutsu”, he starts to talk about the man on the gloomy stage.

What the Buddhas and great masters, without exception, have traditionally maintained and entrusted to us is, simply, that this very mind of ours is Buddha. Even so, the statement “Your very mind is Buddha” (即心是仏, chn. ji xin shi fo, jpn. sokushinzebutsu) did not come from India, but was first heard in China. Many people who learn Buddhism have misunderstood what it is, and did not put another misunderstanding on the misunderstanding. Because they do not put another misunderstanding on the misunderstanding, they have wandered off onto non-Buddhist paths.15

It is not difficult to see that Dōgen considered Mazu to be a highly ambiguous figure. As he admits, Mazu’s statement “Your very mind is Buddha” has a great heuristic potential. However, if you took it literally, you would not be a Buddhist anymore, but a Hinduist. So, you need to add a twist to put it back to a right direction. Here, in fact, he suggests that Mazu’s teaching is in itself Hinduism.

3. What Is Being Criticized?

The second question is: What is wrong with the statement “Your very mind is Buddha?” To answer this question, I would like to present a passage from Bendōwa again. This is a continuation of the part already quoted.

You should understand that, in Buddhism, we have always spoken not only of body and mind as being inseparable, but also of the nature of something and the form it takes as not being two different things. As this teaching was likewise well known in both India and China, we dare not deviate from it. Even more, in Buddhist teaching that speaks of persistence, all things are said to have persistence without there ever being separated into categories of “body” and “mind”. In teaching that talks about cessation, all things are said to be subject to cessation without differentiating whether they are of some particular nature or have some particular form. So why do you risk contradicting the correct principle by saying that the body ceases whilst the mind permanently abides? …16

Think about it. the principle of the oneness of body and mind is something constantly being talked about in Buddhism. So, how does the mind, on its own, apart from the body, keep from arising and disappearing as this body of yours arises and perishes? Furthermore, were they inseparable at one time and not inseparable at another, then what the Buddha said would, naturally, be false and deceiving …17

You must understand that the Buddhist teaching which asserts “The nature of Mind is the common feature of things” takes in the whole universe, without dividing it into innate natures and their forms or ever referring to things as “coming into existence” or “perishing”. Nothing, up to and including realizing enlightenment and Nirvāṇa, is excluded from the innate nature of your mind. Each and every thing throughout the whole of the universe is simply “the One Mind” from which nothing whatsoever is excluded. All these teachings are equally teaching this One Mind.18.

This rather long passage was once cited by MATSUMOTO Shirō to show a singular point in Dōgen’s thought (Matsumoto 2000, pp. 26–27). Indeed, it appears to contain a curious contradiction. As Matsumoto correctly indicates, “the Buddhist teaching which asserts ‘The nature of Mind is the common feature of things’” (心性大総相の法門) in the third paragraph (underlined) is based on a passage from Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna (大乗起信論 chn. Dasheng Qixin Lun, jpn. Daijōkishinron)19, which is, as is well known, a representative work of Tathāgatagarbha-theory. Obviously, Dōgen is watching the problem from the perspective of Tathāgatagarbha. However, on the other hand, the criticized Senni’s idea, too, is in fact quite the same as Tathāgatagarbha-theory. Then, it looks as if Dōgen is criticizing Tathāgatagarbha-theory by Tathāgatagarbha-theory.

Matsumoto proposes a radical solution. He assumes two types of Tathāgatagarbha-theory. One is called “Buddha-nature Immanence theory” (仏性内在論, jpn. busshō-naizairon), according to which Buddha-nature is immanent in each person. The other is called “Buddha-nature Manifestation theory” (仏性顕在論, jpn. busshō-kenzairon), according to which Buddha-nature wholly manifests in phenomenal things. Note that the former corresponds to what we usually call Tathāgatagarbha-theory, while the latter is a quite new concept, which has never been expressed within the Buddhist tradition as far as I know. Let us call Matsumoto’s two types “Immanence theory” and “Manifestation theory”, respectively, for brevity. If we apply Matsumoto’s typology, we can understand the above passage as a criticism from Dōgen’s Manifestation theory to Senni’s Immanence theory. Immanence theory distinguishes “soul-like intelligence” and body, of which the former is immanent to the latter. Manifestation theory does not distinguish soul and body and regards all of the world as one Mind.

While Matsumoto’s solution ensures the integrity of the text, his terminology sounds novel and somewhat awkward, which might be the reason why it is not readily accepted by everyone. However, in fact, we do have a pair of categories available within the traditional Buddhist terminology that present similar articulation to that of Matsumoto, namely “能摂蔵” (chn. neng zhe zang, jpn. nōshōzō) and “所摂蔵” (chn. suo zhe zang, jpn. shoshōzō)20. These concepts appear in the Chinese translation of Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Buddha Nature (仏性論 chn. Fo-xing-lun, jpn. busshōron)21, of which the Sanskrit text has not yet been found. For the ease of our discussion, I would like to use the word “subsumer-theory” for the former, and “subsumed-theory” for the latter. Subsumer-theory is the theory according to which a sentient being subsumes Buddha in him/herself, while Subsumed-theory is the theory according to which sentient beings are subsumed in Buddha22. Although this articulation resembles that of Matsumoto, they are not exactly the same. I prefer to use Vasubandhu’s terms, because they exist within the Buddhist tradition. It is, after all, not imaginable that Dōgen used Matsumoto’s coordinate system to construct his thought about Buddha-nature, while it seems highly probable to me that he knew Vasubandhu’s terms and used them implicitly.

Let us go back to Dōgen’s passages cited above. The questioner advocates Subsumer theory (Matsumoto’s Immanence theory). In other words, he believes that each person has “a soul-like intelligence”, which is equivalent to the immortal Buddha-nature, within him/herself. On the other hand, Dōgen advocates Subsumed theory. He thinks that we are all subsumed in the cosmic “One Mind”, which subsumes all. Dōgen criticized the people who took the statement “Your very mind is Buddha” as Subsumer theory.

4. Why Did Dōgen Need to Deny Subsumer Theory

From the discussions above, the contour of Dōgen’s criticism has become clear enough. Now, we can go back to Hazama’s question: Why did he have to reject Subsumer theory so fiercely? Subsumer theory, as represented by Senni, must have something which conflicts with his most important principle.

The reason I think is because your mind—not Buddha’s but your mind—would stand still within the scheme of Subsumer theory. This is suggested in the following passage, which follows the already cited part of the “Sokushinzebutsu” chapter.

Hearing talk of “your very mind”, those befuddled by doubts speculate that the intellective, cognitive, and perceptual functions of sentient beings, even when they have no Bodhi-mind yet in themselves, are identical with Buddha. This is due to their never having encountered a genuine Teacher of Buddhism.23

The sort of non-Buddhist view I am referring to is that of Senni in the western part of India. The following is in accord with that viewpoint: … Although physical things come and go, and conditions arise and disappear, this Spiritual Intelligence forever exists, unchanging … It is also referred to as “the True Self”, “the Source of Enlightenment”, “One’s Original Nature”, and “One’s Fundamental Substance”… Such is the view of the non-Buddhist Senni.24

Here, Dōgen is digging up the root of Mazu’s ambiguity. As TSUNODA Tairyū correctly points out, the key is Bodhi-mind, your enthusiasm to follow the Buddhist way. In fact, Dōgen is suggesting that your mind is Buddha only when your mind is on the way (Tsunoda 1985, pp. 383–86). Once it has reached its goal and stands still, it is not a Buddha anymore. Therefore, if you say “Your very mind is Buddha” while your mind is not on the way, you are not a Buddhist, but a Hinduist, whatever your intentions are. In such a conceptual structure, the eternal mind in yourself as presupposed by Senni would hinder you to reach Dōgen’s paradoxical goal. His goal is never reaching a goal25.

Thus, the notion “our internal Buddha-nature”, which is presupposed by Subsumer theory, conflicts with Dōgen’s architecture. Actually, I do not even know whether Mazu himself was a Hinduist or a Buddhist. However, in any case, Dōgen tries to save him by placing his possibly Hindustic idea within the boundary of Buddhism. But how he did it? Let us listen to Tsunoda further. He associates the above paragraphs of Shōbōgenzō to the following sentences near the end of the chapter.

Thus, “Your very mind is Buddha” refers to the Buddhas called “Religious awakening”, “Practice”, “Enlightenment”, and “Nirvāṇa”. If you have not experience religious awakening, practice, enlightenment, or Nirvāṇa, you are not the one whose very mind is Buddha.26

The phrase “Religious awakening, Practice, Enlightenment, and Nirvāṇa” is Dōgen’s favorite. For him, these terms did not form a straight line starting from Religious awakening and ending with Nirvāṇa, but a circular process called the cycle of ceaseless practice (行持道環, gyōjidōkan). After you have reached Nirvāṇa, you have to go back to Religious awakening. If you look for related passages in Shōbōgenzō, you will find the following, for example.

The Great Way of Buddhas and great masters invariably involves unsurpassed ceaseless practice. This practice rolls on in a cyclic manner without interruption. “Religious awakening”, “Practice”, “Enlightenment”, and “Nirvāṇa”. occur seamlessly. This is the cycle of ceaseless practice27.

On the contrary, if you understand that giving rise to Bodhi-mind is a one-time thing, after which one does not experience the rising of Bodhi-mind again, that one’s training and practice continues for an immeasurably long time, and that the fruits of awakening are a one-time event, you are not hearing the Buddha Dharma, you are not comprehending the Buddha Dharma, you are not encountering the Buddha Dharma.28

Thus, Dōgen reinterpreted Mazu’s “your mind” as the mind which has entered into an endless cycle, and prevented readers from becoming a Hinduist unknowingly.

5. A Story of Eternity

Interestingly, according to Dōgen the ceaseless practice of humans and that of Buddhas interact with each other.

As a result, owing to the ceaseless practice of all the Buddhas and great masters, our own ceaseless practice clearly manifests, and the Great Way of ours rolls on. And, owing to our ceaseless practice, the ceaseless practice of all the Buddhas clearly manifests, and the Great Way of the Buddhas pervades everywhere. The merits of this cycle are owing to our ceaseless practice29.

Therefore, Dōgen’s endless loop has a cosmic character.

Due to this ceaseless practice, there is the sun, the moon, and the stars. Due to ceaseless practice, there is the great earth and the vast expanse of space. Due to ceaseless practice, there is body and mind as the internal and external effects of our past karma. Due to ceaseless practice, there are the four great elements and the five aggregations30.

As a result, the endless loop becomes something outside of empirical reality, outside of “now”.

The word “now” does not refer to something that existed prior to ceaseless practice. What is called “now” is the manifestation of ceaseless practice31.

Following the above statements, Dōgen’s infinite loop does not appear to exist within a single human life. On the contrary, life and death are within the infinite loop of “Religious awakening”, “Practice”, “Enlightenment”, and “Nirvāṇa”. This point might be important in considering Dōgen’s thought. That is, he is not striving for his own salvation. It is an eternal loop without salvation, at least, of oneself.

Such a way of thinking perhaps reflects the thoughts of the Lotus Sūtra, which he loved32. In any case, his ideal was opposite to that of Senni and other typically Hinduistic thinkers. They are trying to escape from the endless reincarnation, while Dōgen was trying to get into it.

However, even though his ideal is noble, it will be a nightmare for the people who are not Übermensch. After all, it was something from which Gotama is said to have been trying to escape, is it not? Do you really want to live in an endless suffering? How is it different from the eternal hell?

Buddhism started from a common problem with Hinduism, “how to escape from eternal reincarnation”. After one thousand and several hundred years of development, it came back to its starting point and declared from Dōgen’s mouth, “Now, it is time to go to hell. Come with me”. This is the essence of the opposition between Senni’s Sāṅkhya doctrine and Dōgen’s ideal. Mazu stands on the borderline. Dōgen is watching him, saying nothing about his real identity.

POSTSCRIPT: You might have had the feeling that you have missed something, after reading this article. Indeed, I have not discussed Subsumed theory in detail. I will deal with a subtype of Subsumed theory, which I call Sūtra-World theory (説法世界論 jpn. seppōsekairon), in my forthcoming book about the chapters “Bukkyō” (仏経) and “Mujōseppō” (無情説法) of Shōbōgenzō (in Japanese).