Uji — Session 5

Will and words

Master Kisho … preaches to the assembly:

At one time-present will is present but words are absent. At one time-present words are present but will is absent. …^[1]

Sometimes we want to say something but it doesn’t come out; sometimes it comes out before we want to say it. So the poem describes a situation which we experience in our normal lives. Then Master Dogen makes his own commentary on this poem.^[2]

Both will and words are time-present. Both presence and absence are time-present. …^[2]

There is a state in which things happen naturally, and there is a state in which we feel forced to be quiet, or forced to speak. And Master Dogen says, it’s OK, all of those situations happen at time-present.^[2]

Before the moment of absence has ended, the moment of presence has come.^[3]

In the original, he illustrates that with a donkey and a horse: the donkey hasn’t left yet but the horse has come. It doesn’t have any kind of mystical significance. The way I have translated it suggests that moment where we just spontaneously speak the words: we’re not quite ready, but we’ve done it.^[3]

Before the will has left, the words arrive. To be present does not mean that something has arrived. To be absent does not mean that something has left.^[3]

Again he’s denying the process view: “I have words in my head, I want to speak them, so now I speak them”. But in fact he’s suggesting that another way to look at it is: just now we are quiet, just now we speak; the time to speak doesn’t arrive from somewhere. It’s like his description of Spring: just today it’s Spring, not a process of Spring coming and leaving.^[4]

Words restrict

The word “will” describes will itself, and depicts will as an object. …^[4]

When we describe something with a word, that word doesn’t exactly fit that object; in some way it restricts the object. When we describe something — “Mike” — I restrict or limit you, and in doing that, I don’t describe you. The concept “will” describes something real, and it also makes it into an object. This is what words do.^[4]

Descriptions describe things, but a description of a thing is never the thing itself.^[5]

Then he gives an example of a meeting:^[5]

When I meet a person, a “person” meets another “person”.^[5]

That’s an objective picture.^[5]

When I meet myself, a manifestation meets a manifestation.^[5]

We can’t objectify meeting ourselves, just something meets something.^[5]

The end of the chapter

At the end of the chapter he adds his own poem, based on Master Kisho’s poem:^[5]

Will and words half-present is also at time-present.^[5]

By using “half” here he wants to break our perfect picture.^[5]

The end. If you read the original, you might find that it creates clearer images for you, I don’t know; this is only my interpretation.^[6]

How speech comes out

Question: This idea of thinking of something, then we speak it, is connected with the process view. My real experience isn’t that at all.

I think actors know that if you just recite what you’ve learned, it doesn’t become vital. We do plan what we’re going to say, but it doesn’t actually come out like that; it’s a kind of guideline. My experience is the same. Daniel Dennett says that they can’t find a model that works if they calculate the time that nerve transmission takes to get from brain to mouth. They can’t make a model that fits the way that we think.^[7]

Buddhism doesn’t preempt what science is discovering, but it says that actually our real experience is often… nothing comes out, or something comes out that was different to what we thought. It’s a much more unusual, surprising situation than the way that we’re taught to think about it. If we think that we have to think what we say before we say it, we sometimes don’t say things. If we just let the words come if they are there, and not come if they’re not there, then it’s a simpler situation.^[8]

Out of nothing

Question: Isn’t there something else apart from time: what we say comes out of nothing?

Yes, that’s the point.^[9]

Question: So it’s impossible for a scientist to read that…

Yes, that’s really the direction that Daniel Dennett’s research is going in, but scientists can’t say that it’s impossible. They will look at it more closely and see a more detailed picture.^[9]

Something which comes out of nothing we don’t need to worry about at all. And this is Master Dogen’s point: although we have a process view, and human beings want to understand what they’re doing, actually, now I’m speaking. What Master Dogen says is, understanding is great, we should try to understand, but don’t forget we’re doing it. We’re doing it while we’re thinking about it, and doing it is a kind of miracle. We can say it comes out of nothing; we can’t say that scientifically, but we can say it.^[10]

No escape from the present

Question: What do scientists say about the big bang, because that came out of nothing?

Gautama Buddha said, according to Master Nagarjuna, the world has no beginning and no end. We may have to revise him. What he means by that is that the present is always here. To posit a time when there isn’t a present is to somehow deny time-present. Time-present never disappears, so time-present continues for ever.^[11]

I think that scientific achievement is absolutely amazing, but many of the theories started because a little line on a spectrogram moved one millimetre to the right. Not that the theories are wrong, but we should notice the basis of the theory.^[11]

In terms of Master Dogen’s philosophy, it’s an inappropriate pursuit, because he says just here, time is just present. The Universe is here, this is reality. And what we create as the time line going back to the beginning of the Universe only exists as a creation in all of our minds at this moment. However, because it exists in all of our minds, it has tremendous power. We create a whole history, as if it’s there. And he says it’s not, it’s all here, and shared. But that’s not a very popular thing to say.^[12]

Fortunately, whether we can find the answer or not, we’re all here. And this is what Master Dogen wants to say: people who think about previous lives or the past of the Universe, about the future, about other worlds, have always, without any exception, done it from the present. We can never escape the present is what Dogen is saying. That’s all he’s saying.^[12]

Question: Why does he explain what you’ve said, which is quite a simple statement, in such a massive tangle of knots?

The only reason that I can say this simple sentence is because I looked at everything he said. Some people are stupid, and they’re very lucky, because they often see things very simply and straightforwardly. But us poor people who are clever have to go through the tangle, on and on, until we can see something which points us out of the tangle into this place here and now.^[13]

Back to the ground

You can’t escape. It’s not a view that explains the whole of science and society, it’s just a view that explains something very fundamental. And it’s something that we need, because we’re all moving forward somewhere in a shared constructed world, and that puts a lot of pressure on us. Buddhism says that we’re making the pressure up, and we can continue to make it up, but let’s not forget that we’re just sitting here making it up; so let’s return to this ground where we are and take the pressure off. Then we go back in again. The constructed world is vital. But Buddhism says there’s a more fundamental basis: to notice where we are and what we’re doing, in a very simple way.^[14]

We don’t notice that this action of getting up and making a cup of tea saves us, our action through the day saves us and brings us back to reality. Society says the most important thing is to hammer away at the computer. Buddhism says, yes that’s important, but just as important is to go to the toilet. Having lunch rather than working through saves us. If we don’t, we’re on the conveyor belt which sweeps us away from the present.^[14]

Society has this hierarchy of values, so the guy in the big office typing numbers in is far more valuable than the person sweeping out the toilets. But Buddhism says no, it’s the same thing: press the key, press the key, push the broom. All of our simple actions are the grounds of our lives. We can say that little children, as long as they haven’t been disturbed too much, are buddhas, and parents who look after them are very realistic, because their children hold them in the present.^[15]

Question: When we get older, at what point does it change?

I don’t know. Society needs us to share its values, so everybody teaches us. Like the little girl at the front desk drawing little circles: I’m saying, “is that an eye, is that a pair of glasses?” I’m teaching her to interpret in a certain way, and we do it all the time. Without being socialised we can’t fit in. But there’s a price to pay for fitting in, and we all pay that price. No-one fits in perfectly.^[16]

Zazen and balance

One of the biggest tasks in our lives is how to regulate ourselves so we don’t do too much. Self-regulation is another word for zazen, I think. If we practise zazen every day, if only for a short time, it acts as a regulating mechanism.^[17]

Question: If you are doing sport to the extent that you are in the zone, it has a regulating effect.

Yes, sport does. But there’s something different about zazen, because it’s stripped of all the extras. For me it is the essence of all activity.^[17]

Question: Can you get into that same state with something intellectual?

No, I don’t think you can: it’s very difficult to be balanced just by using our intellect, so we need something to counter-balance it. But I can’t give you a complete answer. We ground ourselves in thousands of different ways. Master Dogen says in the first chapter of the Shobogenzo that zazen is not the only way to become balanced, but it’s the standard traditional way of Buddhists. We can say people who pursue their own field in a balanced way, very sincerely, are buddhas, but they don’t know they’re buddhas and they don’t have any way to find out. What Buddhism has is a way of teaching what it is that we’re doing.^[18]

Dogen says dropping off body and mind, so whenever we drop off body and mind we’re in the balanced state, whether we wipe the toilet bowl or leap over the high jump. Zazen has something special about it, I believe, since I started doing it. If people don’t like sitting, they can do something else; we’re all free to choose. We can only decide on our experience.^[19]

Making ourselves real

Question: What’s the difference between that and a realised buddha, or is it the same thing?

The same thing. Realised to us means something in our minds usually: “oh, I suddenly realised”. But in Master Dogen’s writing it means to act, to make real. To realise yourself means to make yourself real, and to make yourself real means to do something.^[19]

Sometimes we really want to make ourselves balanced. At other times we don’t particularly want to, but we’re in a situation that does it to us. Master Dogen says there’s another case: suddenly, spontaneously, we feel contented, and it’s true. We can become real just out of nowhere. We can wander down to the lakeside and sit and be completely contented, sometimes. That’s the Universe making the Universe real: there’s not an intention from the inside, or something imposed from the outside, but the two things meet. It’s difficult to explain, but we do experience things like that.^[20]

Question: When you say do something, do you mean something intellectual like reading, or something simple like making tea?

Yes, it’s very difficult; yes, you’re right. And the problem is language. We could say do something means enter the state where we drop off body and mind: anything where, when we do it, we’re not separating mind and body.^[20]

Question: Which is anything, sincerely?

Yes.^[20]