[MD] Dogen (Part 1)

[Heather Perella]

I think this is worth reading for those that find S/O
valuable, yet, with MoQ freshness.  Apparently, S/O is
also parsed by Toshihiko Izutsus' commentaries upon
Dogen in "Toward a Philosophy of Zen Buddhism" as
follows:


     "But the actual - ie conscious - point at which
the balance is maintained is found to be constantly
moving through the entire Field, from the point of
pure subjectivity to the point of pure objectivity.

     Four major forms are clearly distinguishable in
this structure.

     1.  Sometimes it is as though the Field maintains
perfect stability, without there being any particular
salient point in the entire Field as the center of the
stability.  then the whole Field maintains itself in a
state of extreme tension, a state of absolute and
universal Illumination, an Awareness where the is
nothing whatsoever for man to be aware of.  There is
in this state neither the 'subject' [I] nor the
'object' [THIS].  Both I and THIS disappear from the
surface of the Field.  This is a state about which Zen
often says:  'In the original state of Reality6 there
is absolutely nothing whatsoever'.  It is also often
referred to as Oriental Nothingness in the
philosophies of the East.
     2.  But, sometimes, out of this eternal
Stillness, there suddenly arises a glaring
consciousness of the Subject.  The energy that has
been evenly saturating the entire Field is now aroused
from the state of quietude, gushes forth toward the
'subjective' sphere of the Field, and ends by being
crystallized into the Subject.  Then, the Field in its
entirety is actualized in the luminous pint of I. 
Nothing else is visible.  The whole world is nothing
other than I.  In such a state, the Zen master would
say:  'I alone sit on top of the highest mountain', I
alone; nothing else, nobody else.  The important point
here, however, is that the 'I' is not an empirical
ego.  The 'I' is a subjective crystallization of the
entire Field.  Thus the dictum:  'I alone sit on top
of the highest mountain' implies that the whole
universe is sitting on top of the mountain with the
man, or in the form of an individual man.
     3.  Sometimes, again, the energy aroused from its
stability flows toward the 'objective' sphere of the
Field.  Then it is the Object that is alone visible -
the stately Cypress Tree towering up in the midst of
the limitless Void - although the same amount of
energy that could at any moment be crystallized into
the Subject ct is also being mobilized in the
appearance of the Object.
     4.  Finally the Field may go back again to its
original state of Stillness, with the difference that
this time both the Subject and the Object are given
their proper places in the Field.  Superficially we
are now back to our old familiar world of empirical
experience, where 'the flower is naturally red and the
willow is naturally green'.  With regard to is inner
structure, however, this old familiar world of ours is
infinitely different from the same world as seen
through the eyes of the purely empirical ego.  For our
old familiar world, this time, reveals itself in its
pristine purity and innocence.  The empirical world
which has once lost itself into the abyss of
Nothingness, now returns to life again in an unusual
freshness.  'Here we realize', Dogen observes, 'that
the mountains, the rivers, and the great earth in
their original purity and serenity should never be
confused with the mountains, rivers, and the great
earth (as seen through the eyes of the ordinary
people)'.


     Part 1 is longer than Part 2, but I will get to
that later.  Also, I'm not dependent upon
commentaries, yet, all discussion is a commentary
about 'something'.  We all have our own way of
noticing the in's and out's of understandings.  What
we value, of course, translates into what we focus
upon.  Quiet is a way upon which I understand what I
do.  I have found this above commentary by Toshihiko
Izutsu insightful into the whole 'don't throw the baby
out with the bath water', which I believe, if not
mistaken, has to do with not thinking S/O has nothing
to do with our current perspective.  How the Field
(the universe; reality; ultimate reality, quality,
etc...) has particulars for instance?  How the Field
has Focus, which is to also say, has static patterns? 
I believe Case might call focus, wrinkles, if not
mistaken.  S/O are wrinkles, are particulars, are
focuses upon a Field.  What of these levels?  I think
the levels are more distinct than plain S/O.  The
levels define more upon the Field.  So instead of
Subject and Object, the levels talk about inorganic,
organic, social, and intellectual.  The latter is more
distinct and definite.  
     Well, this was something I wanted to share, no
big deal I guess, just another discussion that
involved S/O and Zen.  What I find interesting is
Toshihiko Izutsu commentary refreshes S/O with Zen,
and the refreshed version is MoQ.  Yet, what Pirsig
did, and I think mentions somewhere, is to provide
this refreshed version with a new language, MoQ, so
old baggage of the S/O doesn't confuse the refreshed
version.

Any thoughts.

thanks.

night now,
SA      

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com