Treasury of the True Dharma Eye

by Zen Master Dogen

  How sad, none of those in China, laity or home leavers, have taken Nagarjuna’s words seriously or understood Kanadeva’s statement! How, then, can they become intimate with Nagarjuna’s manifestation of the body? This is to be ignorant about the circular moon while missing the full moon. This is because they have neither studied the past nor longed for the past. Old buddhas and new buddhas, you should meet the true manifestation of the body instead of admiring a painted rice cake.

  Know that when you paint the manifestation of a full moon, do it on a dharma seat. Raising an eyebrow and blinking are just this. The treasury of the true dharma eye—skin, flesh, bones. and marrow—is just sitting solidly. Breaking into a smile is transmitted, making a buddha and making an ancestor.

  Without a moon shape, your painting will have no shape of thusness, no expounding of dharma, no sound or form, and no use. When you express the manifestation of the [buddha] body, paint a circular moon shape. When you paint a circular moon shape, paint a circular moon shape, actualize a circular moon shape, because the manifestation of body is a circular moon shape. When you paint a circular moon shape, paint a full moon, actualize a full moon. Thus, unless you paint the manifestation of the body, a circular moon shape, a full moon, and buddha bodies, you are not embodying the expression and painting the expounding of dharma, but merely creating a piece of painted rice cake. What’s the use of it? Look quickly. Who will be satisfied or not satisfied right at this moment? The moon is circular. The circle is the manifestation of the body. When you study the circle, don’t regard it as a coin or a piece of cake. The manifested body is a circular moon. It has the shape of a full moon. See the circle in a coin or in a rice cake.

  When I was wandering, I arrived at Great Song China. In the autumn of the sixteenth year of the Jiading Era [1224], I visited the Ayuwang Mountain Guanli Monastery for the first time. There on the walls of the western hallway, I saw paintings of the thirty-three ancestors of India. I did not have understanding at that time. Later, during the summer practice period of the first year of the Baoqing Era [1225], I visited the monastery again. I walked along the hallway with Guest Coordinator Chenggui from the western district of Shu. I asked him, “What is this painting?”

  Chenggui said, “Nagarjuna manifesting his body in the shape of a full moon.” He had no nostrils on his face and no wisdom in his explanation.

  I said, “Truly it looks like a piece of painted rice cake.”

  Although Chenggui burst into laughter, he had no sword in his laughter and no ability to tear off the painted rice cake. We exchanged a few words on our way to the relic hall and the six excellent places, but he did not even come up with any doubts. Other monks who spoke to us had no idea.

  So I said to Chenggui, “I will ask the abbot.” The abbot of the monastery at that time was Priest Daguang.

  Then, Chenggui said, “He doesn’t have nostrils. He cannot answer. How can he know?” So, I decided not to speak with Daguang.

  Although Chenggui spoke in this way, he did not seem to have realization. Those who joined the conversation did not have any remarkable expressions. The abbots of this monastery in the past and present did not question them and correct their views.

  Never paint what cannot be painted. Paint straightforwardly what needs to be painted. Yet, [Nagarjuna’s] manifestation of the body in the shape of a full moon had never been painted.

  In fact, as people are not awakened from the assumption that buddha nature is thought and consciousness, they seem to miss the expressions of “have buddha nature” and “have no buddha nature.” Those who learn that the point needs to be expressed are rare. Know that this negligence is due to giving up the subject. Among the abbots of various monasteries there are those who never mention buddha nature throughout their lifetimes.

  Some of these abbots say, “Those who listen to the [Buddha’s] teachings discuss buddha nature. Monks who practice Zen should not talk about it.” Those who say such things are truly beasts. What kind of demons attempt to mix with and defile the way of our Buddha Tathagata? Is there listening to the teaching in the buddha way? Is there practicing Zen in the buddha way? Know that there is nothing like listening to the teaching or practicing Zen in the buddha way.

  Yanguan, National Teacher Qi’an of Hang Region, who was a dharma heir of Mazu, once said to his assembly, “Living beings all have buddha nature.”

  Immediately investigate these words. All living beings have their own karma, practice, body-mind, and environs; their views vary. Ordinary people, those outside the way, those in the Three Vehicles and the Five Vehicles, are all different.

  What are called living beings in the buddha way encompasses all those who have heart. All those who have heart are living beings. Those who have no heart are also living beings. All living beings are heart. Thus, heart is all living beings.

  All living beings have buddha nature. Grass, trees, land, and earth are heart. As they are heart, they are living beings. As they are living beings they have buddha nature. Sun, moon, stars are all heart. As they are heart, they are living beings. As they are living beings, they have buddha nature. The statement of Yanguan have buddha nature means this. If not, it is not have buddha nature taught in the buddha way.

  The meaning of Yanguan’s words is that living beings alone have buddha nature. Those who are not living beings do not have buddha nature. Now, ask him, “Do all living beings have or not have buddha nature?” In this way, question and examine his understanding.

  Study that Yanguan did not say, “Living beings all are buddha nature,” but rather: “Living beings all have buddha nature.” Drop off the have of have buddha nature. Dropping off is one solid rail of iron. One solid rail of iron is the bird’s path.

  Thus, living beings all have buddha nature. These words not only penetrate living beings but penetrate buddha nature. Although Yanguan could not find a thorough expression, he did not miss the mark. It is not that his expression has no valuable teaching. But he may not have understood the deep meaning of his own words that embody the four great elements and the five skandhas, as well as skin, flesh, bones, and marrow. Thus, an expression is sometimes the result of a lifetime. Also, birth after birth can depend on an expression.

  Guishan, Zen Master Dayuan of Mount Gui, once told his assembly, “Entire living beings have no buddha nature.”

  Among the humans and devas who have heard his words, some have had a great capacity to rejoice. But it is not that there has been no one who was shocked or suspicious.

  Shakyamuni Buddha’s expounding of the way was Living beings all are buddha nature. What Guishan said was Entire living beings have no buddha nature. These two statements—all are and have no—are far apart. Whether Guishan’s statement is right or wrong can be questioned. However, Entire living beings have no buddha nature stands high in the buddha way.

  Yanguan’s statement have buddha nature can be likened to joining hands with an ancient buddha, or two people holding one walking stick. But Guishan’s statement is not like that; it is a single stick swallowing both people.

  Yanguan is an heir of Mazu, and Guishan is a descendant of Mazu. However, the descendant is advanced in Mazu’s way and the heir is not yet mature. Guishan makes an essential statement by saying, Entire living beings have no buddha nature, which does not fall off the straight line. This is how he maintained the sutra in his own house.

  Inquire further about how it is that living beings all are buddha nature or all have buddha nature. If living beings all have buddha nature, they must be a group of demons. It is covering all living beings with demons.

  As buddha nature is buddha nature, living beings are living beings. It is not that living beings originally possess buddha nature. Even if they beckon to buddha nature, it will not come. Do not say that Zhang drinks wine and Li gets drunk [that the two are not separate]. Those who originally have buddha nature are not living beings. If they are living beings [who have buddha nature], they are not [separately] buddha nature.

  Th
us, Baizhang said, “To say ‘Entire living beings all have buddha nature’ is to slander buddha, dharma, and sangha. To say ‘Living beings have no buddha nature’ is also to slander buddha, dharma, and sangha.”

  In this way, have buddha nature and have no buddha nature are both slandering. Although it is slandering, you can still inquire about it. Ask Guishan and Baizhang, and hear their responses: “Slandering is not out of the question. But does buddha nature expound dharma?” If buddha nature expounds dharma, it must be immersed in expounding dharma. If it expounds dharma, it must go together with hearing it.

  Also, ask Guishan: “Even if you say, ‘Entire living beings have no buddha nature,’ you are not saying, ‘Entire buddha nature has no living beings’ or ‘Entire buddha nature has no buddha nature.’ Furthermore, you have not yet dreamed of ‘Entire buddhas have no buddha nature.’” Look into this.

  Baizhang, Great Master Dazhi, said to his assembly:

  The Buddha is the supreme vehicle. He is established in the buddha way as the one who has wisdom that is the highest of the highest. The Buddha has buddha nature. He is the guiding master who has attained unobstructed wind, unobstructed wisdom. Thus, he is the master of cause and effect, and freely uses happiness that comes with wisdom, transporting cause and effect on this cart. Abiding in birth, he is not held up by birth. Abiding in death, he is not obstructed by death. Abiding in the five skandhas, he is not obstructed by the five skandhas. He comes and goes freely with no difficulty, just like passing through an open gate. Thus, he brings every being, regardless of position or capacity, even an ant, into the inconceivable pure and wondrous land.

  This is Baizhang’s point. The so-called five skandhas are the indestructible [buddha] body. The [Buddha’s] work is like going through an open gate unobstructed by the five skandhas. Engaged in birth, do not be held up by birth. Engaged in death, do not be held up by death. Do not be attached to birth. Do not groundlessly fear death. Already there is buddha nature.

  Those who are shaken by death and try to avoid it are outside the way. Those who realize pressing conditions and utilize them as unobstructed wind are buddhas of the supreme vehicle. Where these buddhas abide is the pure and wondrous land.

  Huangbo was sitting in the tea room while visiting Nanquan’s monastery.

  Nanquan asked, “What is the meaning of clearly seeing buddha nature by practicing samadhi and wisdom equally?”

  Huangbo said, “It can be done by not depending upon a single thing for twelve hours.”

  Nanquan said, “Isn’t that another elder’s view?”

  Huangbo said, “Not really.”

  Nanquan said, “Putting aside for the moment the money for the gruel you have eaten, whom should I reimburse for the straw sandals?”

  Huangbo stopped.

  The words practicing samadhi and wisdom equally do not mean that clearly seeing buddha nature is possible by equally practicing samadhi and wisdom. Instead, where there is the cultivation of wisdom, there is practicing samadhi and wisdom equally. What they mean is that samadhi and wisdom are practiced equally when buddha nature is clearly seen. Nanquan was asking the meaning of this principle. It is just like asking, “Who clearly sees buddha nature?” It is also like asking the meaning of “buddha nature is clearly seen by equally cultivating buddha nature.”

  Huangbo’s words It can be done by not depending upon a single thing for twelve hours mean that even though the twelve hours abide in the twelve hours, they are not depending. Not depending upon a single thing is clearly seeing buddha nature because not depending is twelve hours.

  At what moment and to which land do these twelve hours arrive? Are the twelve hours spoken of here twelve hours of humans? Are there twelve hours somewhere else? Is it that the twelve hours in the silver world have arrived temporarily? Whether the twelve hours are in this land or in another realm, they are not depending. They are just twelve hours, they are not depending.

  Nanquan’s words to Huangbo, Isn’t that a view of another elder? are like asking, “Is this really your own view?” Even if you are asked whether this is your own view, don’t turn around and say it is. Even if this view fits you exactly, it may not fit Huangbo. Huangbo is not limited by you. The view of another elder is vastly revealed all the way through.

  Huangbo’s words Not really are based on a custom in Song China of not saying so even if one has a clear view. Therefore, not really does not mean “not really.” Do not assume that these words mean what they seem to mean. Even if the view of another is that of the elder, even if the view of another elder is that of Huangbo, what you should say is not really. A water buffalo comes out and bellows; to say it like this is to say it completely. Say the meaning of saying, the saying of saying it completely.

  Nanquan said, Putting aside for the moment the money for the gruel you have eaten, whom should I reimburse for the straw sandals? It means that although he wasn’t concerned about what Huangbo had contributed to the monastery for gruel, he wanted to return Huangbo’s money for the sandals.

  Study the meaning of this, life after life. Investigate why Nanquan wanted the matter of the money for gruel to be set aside for the moment. How do you understand the money for straw sandals? It means wearing out countless pairs of sandals in way-seeking travels.

  Speak! “If you don’t return the money, I won’t be wearing sandals.” Or say, “A couple of pairs of sandals.” This is a complete expression. This is an essential response.

  Huangbo stopped. He was silent. It does not mean that he stopped because he was not approved by Nanquan, or that he did not understand. A monk of true color is not like that. Know that speaking by not speaking is like a sword hidden within laughter. This is sufficient gruel and sufficient rice for clearly seeing buddha nature.

  Regarding this dialogue, Guishan asked Yangshan, “Is it that Huangbo did not harmonize with Nanquan?”

  Yangshan said, “That’s not the case. Huangbo had the power to trap a tiger.”

  Guishan said, “Your way of seeing has grown.”

  In this way Guishan questioned whether Huangbo understood Nanquan or not. Yangshan’s reply Huangbo had the power to trap a tiger means that trapping a tiger is grabbing the head of the tiger. To trap and grab a tiger is to walk in the midst of a variety of beings. Clearly seeing buddha nature is opening a single eye. Clearly seeing buddha nature is letting go of the single eye.

  Say it quickly! Clearly seeing buddha nature is seeing how large it is. Neither half a thing nor an entire thing is to be depended upon. One hundred things, one thousand things, are not depending. One hundred times, one thousand times, are not depending.

  So it is said: “Baskets and cages are one. Within time there are twelve hours to depend upon or not to depend upon. It is like the way twining vines depend upon a tree. Within heaven and throughout heaven, latecomers have no words.”

  A monk asked Zhaozhou, Great Master Zhenji, “Does a dog have buddha nature?”

  Clarify the meaning of this question. A dog is a dog. It is not that this monk was asking whether a dog has buddha nature or not. He was asking whether an iron person still practices the way. To happen to encounter Zhaozhou’s poisonous hand may look unfortunate for this monk, but it is like the lingering trace of seeing half a sage after thirty years.

  Zhaozhou said, “No.”

  When you hear this word, a direction for study emerges. The no that buddha nature itself calls forth must be like this. The no that the dog itself calls forth must be like this. The no that bystanders call forth must be like this. This no holds the moment that dissolves a rock.

  The monk said, “All sentient beings have buddha nature. How come a dog has no buddha nature?”

  He meant that if sentient beings have no buddha nature, buddha nature must be no and a dog must be no. The monk asked the meaning of that. How is it that a dog’s buddha nature depends upon no?

  Zhaozhou said, “Because it has total ignorance.”

  He meant that it has is total ignorance. In the light
of total ignorance and of it has, the dog is no, buddha nature is no. If total ignorance has not yet merged with a dog, how should a dog meet buddha nature? Even if both dog and buddha nature are let go of and taken in, still it is nothing but total ignorance all the way through.

  Later another monk asked Zhaozhou, “Does a dog have buddha nature?”

  This question indicates that the monk knew Zhaozhou’s teaching. To speak of or inquire about buddha nature in this way was an everyday matter for buddha ancestors.

  Zhaozhou said, “Yes.”

  This yes is not that of the commentators in the scriptural schools or the theorists of the Sarvastivada School. Go beyond and study the buddha yes. Buddha yes is Zhaozhou yes. Zhaozhou yes is dog yes. Dog yes is buddha nature yes.

  The monk said, “If it [buddha nature] already is, how does it get into the dog’s skin bag [body]?”

  What he meant was: When we ask whether it is being now, being past, or already is, the already is, although it looks like all beings, is all-inclusive and clear. Does “already is” get into or not? The practice of get into the dog’s skin bag should not be ignored.

  Zhaozhou said, “It intentionally obstructs.”

  Although it has spread widely as words in the common world, this is Zhaozhou’s statement. What he meant was knowingly committing. There are few who question these words. Aside from being difficult to clarify the words get into, they are not relevant.

  In fact, “If you want to know the person of no death in the hut, how can you leave this skin bag right now?” Whoever the person of no death might be, when does that person not leave the skin bag?