Dōgen’s Texts Expounded by the Kyoto School – Religious Commentary or Philosophical Interpretation?

Abstract

This chapter focuses on modern commentators close to or from the Kyoto school. According to Müller, there have been two approaches within the so-called Kyoto school regarding Dōgen's work. Initially, there were philosophically ambitious interpretations, such as those by Watsuji Tetsurō and Tanabe Hajime. They were ambitious insofar as they attempted to bridge the gap between philosophy and religion. However, from the 1940s onwards, these seminal works tended to recede into the background since they were criticised for assimilating a medieval monk into modern secular thought. Müller discusses the second approach that was put forward by thinkers such as Nishida Kitarō (1870-1945), Nishitani Keiji (1900-1990) and Ueda Shizuteru (1926-2019). They furthered the questioning of religion and philosophy by developing a specific style of reading Dōgen.

Appendix

The appendix is included in NKZ 8: 512–514.

As the absolutely contradictory self-identity [j. zettai mujunteki jikodōitsu 絶対矛盾的自己同一] of the organic one and the distinct/independent manifold, the world is self-contradictory in its coming into being, and the self as the individual/particular of this world is, in every respect, self-contradictory. This is where the beginning and the end of the deep/profound quest/ion of human’s life is rooted. And this quest/ion is, at the same time, the quest/ion of the world. At the standpoint of the unity of contradictories, we penetrate the root [j. kongen 根] of this self-contradiction of the self and attain true life. This is religion. There must be absolute negation. We call this religious practice in which one renounces body and life.²⁶ This does not mean immersing oneself logically or acting morally. Therefore, it must rather be – Dōgen talks of sitting in meditation in which body and mind are dropping off²⁷ – religious practice (he says learn to take a step back and let the light turn inwards and shine/radiate²⁸). The standpoint of understanding in relation to objects which comprises representation, perception and discrimination²⁹ must be rooted differently. The Buddha-way is to learn the self, to learn the self is to forget the self.³⁰ Even if one speaks of negation, it is impossible to encounter/touch absolute negation through a moral act. This would be the same as looking for one’s head with one’s head or placing one’s head on the head.³¹ As it is said, it would be an illusion to confirm things by taking the self to them.³² Religious practice is not to alter/change something through the mediation of an acting subject; instead, it is the turning/reversal³³ of the subject through the unity of contradictories. Nevertheless, it does not mean attaining this turning/reversal at once and intending the whole world without mediation. It is an endless progression in this direction; Shakyamuni Buddha called this “being deeply in the midst of practice [j. shugyō saichū 修行最中].” In other words, religious practice does not mean leaving or transcending the world. In religious practice – truly as contradictory self-identity [j. mujunteki jikodōitsu 矛盾的自己同一] – one conceives a thing in becoming that thing, one practices a thing in becoming that thing. Enlightenment is things come forward to practice and confirm the self.³⁴ Science and morality must also be religious practice. The mere transcendence is not absolute; the mere nothingness is not an absolute nothingness. The dropping off body and mind is the body and mind dropping off³⁵ (the donkey looks at the well, the well looks at the donkey³⁶), the absolute must be one, it must be a contradictory self-identity. The absolute must be a force; it does not dissolve into the relative. What we call logic or ethics cannot be abstracted from religion. The true, the good, and the beautiful emerge from the standpoint of unity of contradictories. However, it would be wrong to think/consider religion from this standpoint. Concerning the Buddha dharma, one says that it is without effort, it is just this: ordinary and effortless. That is not to say that to shit, to take a piss, to wear clothes and to eat meals³⁷ is already enough. However, from the standpoint of the unity of contradictories, we cannot put it in other words. The mind is without form and penetrates all ten directions; is the mind present in the eye, one calls it vision, is it present in the ear, one calls it listening.³⁸ At this standpoint, the smart and the dumb, the tall and the little, must be one. There all things arise and return to. Everydayness is the root of all things. That is not to say that all things are indifferently/indistinguishably one. What it means is this: When the stranger comes, the stranger appears; when the barbarian comes, the barbarian appears.³⁹ It must be – contradictorily self-identically – an endless difference as “one is all, all is one.”⁴⁰ Some say it is impossible to conceive of the many and the one as the same in every respect. However, we are always contradictorily self-identical through our poiesis. What one calls the unity of body and mind⁴¹ must be a contradictory self-identity. From this, our self is never separated. Religious practice is to confirm this unity of body and mind. As it said to learn the self is to forget the self, to forget the self is to be confirmed by the ten thousand things. It must be a being confirmed in the sense of the unity of body and mind. The same holds for everyday activities. Our self encounters the absolute negation at the root of its coming into being. Where there is no light turned inwards to radiate/shine, there is no religious quest/ion of religion.