Lankavatara Sutra, 2.31 (tr. Suzuki):
"there is no gradual nor simultaneous rising of existence. Why? Because, Mahamati, if there is a simultaneous rising of existence, there would be no distinction between cause and effect, and there would be nothing to characterise a cause as such. If a gradual rising is admitted, there is no substance that holds together individual signs, which makes gradual rising impossible."
However, none of the above is the denial of everyday common reality where we see causes generating results. I have mentioned this because you said that Dogen believed in simultaneous cause and result, which doesn't actually match normal reality where the cause must always precede the result.
I shouldn't say that I believe that Dogen said that, but the scholars that I have come across who are involved with Dogen studies, who are hip to Critical Buddhism, have implied that that was his view.
I still don't understand how simultaneous arising of cause and effect could be false, especially in lieu of emptiness. In emptiness, there is neither a distinction between cause and effect/anthing to characterize a cause. Likewise, in emptiness, there is nothing that holds together individual signs.
I might be deluded, and though I thank you very much for the citation, it does not deter me at this point from taking such a view. Though I hope you would elaborate in such a way that challenges my (hopefully humble-seeming) understanding.
Thank you, though now I can definately understand why contemporary Zen scholars/practitioners seem to think that Zazen should be the be-all end-all of practice.
But your citation doesn't make me think that there is any doctrinal, set-in-stone, or else logically-sound emphasis on sudden enlightenment. Like I said, "gradually sudden."
Astus wrote:It is not true in Zen that non-grasping is "the only practice." That is a gross oversimplification and comes nowhere near explaining the practices of Shikantaza, or Kinhin.
Neither is it true that simple "non-grasping" constitutes "enlightenment" from a zen perspective.
"If you recognize your fundamental mind, this is the fundamental emancipation. And if you attain emancipation, this is the samādhi of prajñā, this is nonthought.
Good friends, to be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is for the myriad dharmas to be completely penetrated. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to see the realms of [all] the buddhas. To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood."
(Platform Sutra, ch. 2; tr. McRae)
True. I in reading this, I think I simply projected my own context of how the phrase "non-grasping" was being used. Especially now that we're using "non-thinking" (as different from "not-thinking" or "no-thinking").
Still, that does not incorporate an understanding of analysis in Zen meditation, specifically on dependent origination, which I feel is key to any and all buddhist practices. That's why I brought up the distinction between "the buddhism of meditation" and "the buddhism of wisdom."
Thank you again for indulging, or at least humoring me.