Dogen's branding of Zen

Dogen (1200–1253) studied Zen in China for several years.  The Zen he studied was under the guidance of Zen master Ju-ching of the Ts'ao-tung tradition (J., Soto-shu).  After a few short years of study with him, he then brought the Zen he studied back to Japan in 1227 to disseminate it.  

 

Above all, the Zen tradition Dogen brought back to Japan he believed to be its highest form—even superior to the Lin-chi tradition.  (Noteworthy, Dogen criticized the following Zen masters: Lin-chi, Te-shan, Kuei-shan, Yün-men, Yüan-wu.)  

 

By and large, Dogen’s Soto school is not without certain important sectarian positions, the basis for which supposedly points to Dogen’s Chinese teacher, Ju-ching.  But when we look at Ju-ching’s sayings is there any solid evidence that the Zen teachings of Ju-ching are as extraordinary as Dogen makes them out to be in later works like Shobogenzo in which Dogen appears to exaggerate the spiritual character of Ju-ching?

 

Before 1240, the Ju-ching in Dogen’s early works according to Carl Bielefeldt,

,

 

[...] is mentioned only rarely and is hardly singled out for special praise, let alone held up as the sole living representative of the true dharma.  Nor does Ju-ching's Ts'ao-tung heritage have any particular claim to the transmission of that dharma.  On the contrary, as we shall see, the emphasis, if any, is on the more common notion that the shobogenzo [treasure chamber of the eye of true dharma] has been handed down in all the traditions of Ch'an" (W.R. Lafleur, Dogen Studies, p. 29).

 

It is more likely that later on Dogen found it necessary to make Ju-ching a vehicle by which to convey his own sectarian aims hopefully to add legitimacy his own brand of Zen.  When we take the plausibly real Ju-ching into account and compare it with the Ju-ching found in Dogen’s later works, the two are different.  Carl Bielefeldt offers us an interesting perspective on this.

 

“Whatever importance he [Ju-ching] may have had for Dogen, the fact remains that Ju-ching was not a significant figure in the history of Chinese Ch'an. Consequently, the standard histories of the school do not preserve his teachings. What is preserved, outside Dogen’s own writings, is limited to two brief records of his sayings, purportedly collected by his Chinese disciples but extant only in Japanese editions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Despite its late date, there is reason to believe that at least some of this material is authentic; and if it is, it raises serious questions about the historical adequacy of Dogen's presentation of Ju-ching's teachings. For the Ju-ching found here bears scant resemblance to Dogen’s “former master, the old Buddha” (senshi kobutsu). This Ju-ching never mentions the crucial doctrines of shikan taza and [just sitting] shinjin datsu-raku [cast off body and mind] and puts no particular emphasis on meditation practice, let alone on its identity with the shobogenzo. He does not assert his Ts’ao-tung heritage, nor is he critical of the Lin-chi tradition. He displays no marked dissatisfaction with current styles of Ch’an and, indeed, is rather difficult to distinguish from the bulk of Southern Sung abbots Dogen so despises” (Dogen Studies, p. 27).

 

It needs underscoring that one Ju-ching makes no mention of “just sitting” (shinkantaza) or the casting off of body and mind.  Nor does this same Ju-ching sound like a sectarian firebrand.  It is the other Ju-ching after 1240 whom Dogen writes about that is a charismatic character; who plays the role of one of China’s great Zen patriarchs.

 

 

Comments

[Alex]

Interesting. We should also keep in mind that the vast majority of Dogen followers where drop-outs from the Dharmua-shu.

The early days of Eihei-ji looked more like a hippie community turning sour.

Let’s imagine ourselves in the early 70’s, coming back from an intensive four years training in a Korean Zen/Son monastery, trying to teach Zen to an heteroclite group of pot smoking hippies who assumed that they knew everything about Zen and Buddhism because they had read a few book from Alan Watts and Jack Kerouac.

Dogen had to affirm his authority, arranging things to present a clear doctrine and a solid single practice.

[guido]

Thanks for those quotes, Bielefeldt is better than I thought (how long will their Shobogenzo translation at Stanford take, hmm). There is an "addiction to zazen" quite obvious in the European sanghas that follow Dogen adepts. If you don't do zazen enough, they can't imagine you got some insight. Personally, I learned a lot from Dogen and like to translate him, although I don't subscribe to some of his teachings. I believe in some way he betrayed Chinese chan - and probably even his teacher.

[minx]

First you mention that you are a practitioner of the rinzai tradtion (Lin-chi chan) and then you posit the question what bodhidharma was doing gazing at a wall for 9 years!? LOL!

I can understand that this blog with an intentional highly simplified version of the buddhadharma is essential after all. Reading comments like yours truly affirms that the american "zen" mind is swiftly heading towards the sad world of the movie "idiocracy" by Mike Judge.

The real "Bodhidharma" never stared at a physical wall. On the contrary he made amusing somersaults on the bony shoulders of a wide eyed zombie in a freezing cave in a certain mountain outside shao-lin.

[Mumon]

Thanks for this post. As a practitioner in the Rinzai tradition, though, I would note that Hakuin, too, doesn't come with the Good Zenkeeping Seal of Approval either.

I don't think that's the point.

But to the point, perhaps you could say what you think Bodhidharma was doing gazing at the wall for 9 years?

Ultimately, though it's not about Dogen, it's not about Lin-chi, Hakuin, Ju-ching, or Yün-men, and it's certainly not about "we've got it right and they don't."

I would only add that these words of Dogen, Lin-Chi, Hakuin, and others find their correlates in the early sutras.