Practice is for removing defilements

In light of the Buddhist canon, Zen master Dogen's belief that practice and enlightenment are one is just as paradoxical as the Tendai hongaku doctrine of original enlightenment that led to the mistaken belief that nothing further is required of the adept to perfect original enlightenment which is covered over with defilements.  Somehow, the defilements just disappear, or it doesn't matter!  It almost goes without saying that this view opens the door to all kinds of degenerate conduct.

Dogen no doubt was well aware of the flaw in hongaku that it inevitably led to immorality—after all his religious roots were no less than Tendai.  Dogen's solution was to make practice and enlightenment one.  In other words, if you did not do meditation, observe monastic rituals and the precepts, how could you be enlightened since enlightenment and such practices are the same?  We might even go so far as to say the moral life and enlightenment are exactly the same.  If you live like a Buddha, you're a Buddha!

Hongaku and Dogen, from what I have read, failed to distinguish between original enlightenment and its actualization that came when the defilements that obscured enlightenment were cleared away.  Going back to the Pali canon we find this passage that, if we grant that mind is intrinsically pure, seems to weigh against both Dogen and hongaku.

"Monks, this mind (citta) is luminous, but it is defiled by the adventitious defilements....Monks, this mind is luminous [when] freed from the adventitious defilements.  This the educated noble disciple understands as it really is" (A. i. 10).

If the mind is to become luminous, which is Buddha Mind, then to be such it must be freed from adventitious defilements. This is where study and practice come into the picture; they make up a significant part of the freeing process.  On the same track, if we are to actualize the original enlightenment or Buddha-nature it can only be actualized if we remove the defilements which make it seem unactualized and not present in our daily life.  Mere belief that we are already fully enlightened, a view which both hongaku and Dogen share, should be regarded as uncanonical—not the Buddha's teaching. 

"So-called Buddha-Nature is not something that has been made. Only, it is overspread by defilement. Only a person who thoroughly cuts it away, whether he be a Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaishya or Sudra sees the Buddha-Nature and attains unsurpassed Enlightenment" (Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

What hongaku and Dogen do not emphasize is the removal of the âsravas (defilements) which are sense desire, desire for continued existence, wrong view, and ignorance.  These âsravas are a positive impediment to realizing original enlightenment, or the same, our Buddha-nature; including the pure Mind.

Judging by this passage below from the Sandhinirmochana Sutra, Dogen’s belief that practice and enlightenment are one and the same appears not to be the case. 

“If ultimate truth and practices had no difference at all, everyone would already see the truth, and everyone would already have attained the highest expedient, tranquil nirvana, or they would have already attained supreme perfect enlightenment” (trans. T. Cleary, Buddhist Yoga).

Practice is only necessary to remove the defilements.  Accordingly, practice and enlightenment are neither the same (Dogen) nor are they unrelated (hongaku) in which case practice would be unnecessary. 

 

Comments

[Zenhg]

What arethe noble truths and the noble path prescribed if not to remove defilements? To deny that practice has purpose is to ignore the central teachings of the buddha himself. Without adhering to the way you will stumble about. I call that accepting ignorance, not following the way, most certainly not Buddhas way.

[anonymouse]

What if your already enlightened and THAT is your practice? Enlightenment just being free of delusion, and then maintaining that state of being. It is really not that difficult. What makes it difficult is redefining what it means to be enlightened and what it means to practice. That usually is just an old habit, so one must be aware of going over the old ground to raise the dead horse. :)

[Mark Rogow]

Buddha, in the Lotus Sutra, denied atman as separate from the skandas [absolute non-duality]. Hindus posit atman as pure and undefiled consciousness seperate from the skandas [duality]. Some buddhists, like Ken Wheeler, try to get around this by postulating a type of emanationism but, in the end, they deny their equality to the "greater atman." Your view too, fails to accord with the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, particularly those found in Chapter 19, The Merit and Virtue of a Dharma Master, for ewample:

"If, within the great assembly,
One speaks this Dharma Flower Sutra
With a heart free of fear,
Listen to me tell of his merit and virtue:
This person will gain eight hundred
Supreme meritorious virtues of the eyes,
And because of this adornment,
His eyes will be very clear and pure.
With the eyes given him from birth,
He will see throughout the three thousand great thousand world system,
Inside and out, Mount Meru,
Sumeru, and the Iron Ring Range;
As well as the other mountains and forests;
The waters of the great seas, rivers, and streams;
Below to the Avici hell;
Above to the Peak of Existence;
And all the living beings within All of this he will completely see.
Although he has not yet gained the Heavenly Eye,
His flesh eyes will have powers such as these."