To view the diacritics on this page, you must install the
Indic Times font on your machine and have a browser capable of
displaying the Unicode (utf-8) character set.
Hee-jin Kim
has returned to his book on Dōgen, first published in 1975, and given it
new and contemporary life. Thirty years ago the corpus of literature on
Dōgen was scant. In the interim there has been a great increase in
English expositions on Dōgen. As such, Kim decided to revisit his text
and release it anew to an audience with greater sophistication not only about
Dōgen, but Zen as well. Kim adds to this edition an analysis of the
scholarship on Dōgen that has taken place over the past thirty years, and
then recasts his interpretation in relation to these new ideas. This rich
summary of Dōgen studies is in and of itself a wonderful introduction to
this outstanding book.
Eihei Dōgen
– Mystical Realist is a journey into the deepest facets of Dōgen’s history and
philosophical analysis of Buddhadharma. The previous statement may seem
contradictory because of the overwhelming emphasis in the West on Dōgen as
a practitioner of zazen and rebel against intellectualism. However, Kim
clarifies the impact of the Japanese socio-historical context on Dōgen’s
views and delves into his analysis and interpretation of previous Zen masters,
as well as other matters of Buddhist philosophy. Kim shows us Dōgen’s
personal attempt to recreate a relevant Dharma while at the same tackling the
various Buddhist ideas of his time. At the same time, he enlivens our
understanding of Dōgen by showing the interpenetration of Dōgen’s
intellectual life and practice.
After a
discussion of current debates in Dōgen studies, Kim analyzes Dōgen
through his socio-historical context. This part of the book is a true gem and
could exist alone as a significant contribution to Dōgen studies. Rather
than simple hagiography, Kim investigates Dōgen the man as he struggles
with the meaning of genuine Dharma in the Buddhist environment of his day. Kim
includes the controversies within Japanese Buddhism and secular politics of the
time, which eventually led Dōgen to feel contempt for the secular,
fatalistic, ingenuine devotion and shallow piety common to the Japanese
Buddhism of the period.
This led to
an internal conflict for Dōgen, in that he had to use the material of his
time to deliver a new message. Kim notes, "What was taking place in
Dōgen’s mind was a radical demythologizing and in turn, remythologizing of
the whole Buddhist symbol-complex of original enlightenment, Buddha-nature,
emptiness and other related ideas and practices" (37). Kim asserts that
Dōgen, rather than being simply a critic of the Buddhism of the period,
took hold of contemporary interpretations and set them in a new direction. This
new course led to a vision that "…lay in his realistic affirmation and
transformation of what was relative, finite, and temporal within a
non-dualistic mode of existence…" (37). Kim remarks that this was Dōgen’s
"final solution," and that "[h]is remaining life consisted of his intellectual,
moral and cultic efforts to enact and elucidate this vision in the specific
historical and social conditions of his time" (37).
The analysis
of Dōgen’s soteriological approach in relation to his historical context
draws us into the rich philosophical life of Dōgen, and refutes the
commonly-held idea of Dōgen as anti-intellectual, anti-conceptual, and
anti-language. Kim starts by noting that Dōgen’s existential quest led him
to review a variety of philosophies and analyze their underlying or implicit
assumptions. "His willingness to learn from a variety of sources was indicative
of his moral courage and intellectual openness, and revealed his
'intersectarian' approach to Buddhism, which would later revitalize the
religion in his time" (24). Ultimately, while Dōgen would reject
syncretism between Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, which he felt diluted
and distracted people from pure Dharma, he would retain the intersectarian
acceptance of Buddhist ideas as he formulated his views on awakening.
Dōgen
would eventually come to focus on the "body-mind cast off" philosophy of his
Chinese teacher, Ju-ching. With his understanding set in this direction,
Dōgen returned to Japan and attacked, deconstructed, or, integrated and
reinterpreted contemporary and inherited views of Dharma. Kim notes that this
did not lead Dōgen to withdraw from the contemporary Buddhist activities
that focused on language, sutras, or kōans, but rather to reinterpret them
for the purposes of his soteriology. On the matter of language, Kim asserts
that "Dōgen’s view was neither a derogation nor an idealization of
language, but simply an acknowledgement of the legitimate place of language in
the spiritual scheme of things"; and with regard to sutras, he quotes
Dōgen: "Hearing and seeing should not be regarded as more meritorious than
reading the sutras" (82).
Dōgen’s
engagement in the reinterpretation of ideas, rather than a retreat, allowed him
to penetrate all aspects of life, including philosophy. For Dōgen, Kim
asserts, "The philosophic enterprise was as much a practice of the bodhisattva
way as zazen" (98). Philosophic enterprise is rife with language and symbols,
something Dōgen well understood. According to Kim, however, Dōgen
also realized the reinterpretation of symbols "was possible only when symbol
was mediated, liberated, and reinstated by the symbolized" (84). Thus,
Dōgen asserted that all parts of life were practice; to ignore philosophy,
sutras, kōans, or symbolic language would be another error of
dualism.
The above
gives the general flavor of Kim’s approach to Dōgen. His discussion of
Dōgen’s views continues on a plethora of subjects including creativity,
activity, body and mind, Buddha-nature, existence, time, nature, phenomena,
morality, Buddhahood, good and evil, and the religious life. Additionally, Kim
writes extensively about Dōgen’s reconciliation of the above to his view
of non-duality. Kim richly supports his arguments with quotes from Dōgen’s
writings, providing a good overview of Dōgen’s thinking as a whole. Indeed,
another gem in this book is Kim’s inclusion of Dōgen’s reinterpretation
and utilization of Buddhist technical nomenclature. The inclusion of quotes from
various sources written at different periods in Dōgen’s career makes this
book not only an academic commentary but also part anthology.
One thing
that is particularly engaging about Kim’s explanation of Dōgen’s religious
thought is that it spontaneously generates reflection in the reader. Kim points
out that, "Religious thought, like any other intellectual endeavor, employs
concepts and symbols bequeathed from particular religious and cultural
traditions created by our inner aspirations and cultural socioeconomic
conditions of a given age" (10). This remark is useful fertilizer for Western
Buddhists currently struggling to define a conceptual framework for their own
time and place. Kim’s analysis additionally brings forth useful parallels. For
example, he describes the decadent, hedonistic period of Kamakura Japan as the
backdrop from which Dōgen’s emphasis on simplicity arises. It could be
said the current hedonism of American life, much like in the time of
Dōgen, is responsible for the yearning on the part of many modern
Americans for simplicity and calm as a stepping stone to freedom.
There are
other good points aside from the textual analysis. Kim brings attention to how
Dōgen’s early training in classical literature, particularly poetry,
influenced his expositions both verbal and written. Historical notes are an
added bonus, such as his comment that Dōgen’s journey to China may have
been as much an escape from the execution of members of his clan, as it was for
the more commonly romanticized version of his quest for pure Dharma. Further
enriching parts of the book, for scholars, is Kim’s inclusion of Sanskrit,
Chinese and Japanese words in parenthesis next to terms translated into
English. Also, in the back of the book are extensive notes and several
appendices including a chronology of the life of Dōgen.
There are,
it must be said, some challenges to the text. Those who are purely interested
in a commentary on Dōgen, or who already have a thorough background in
Buddhist philosophy and history will have to be patient with Kim’s deep and
sometimes tedious review of Buddhist philosophical movements. As well, Kim
sometimes comes across as pleading his case. However, it is, as noted in the
book, a ‘comprehensive introduction,’ with all the merits and limits such a
categorization includes.
One of the
qualities of a good book is it leaves the reader intellectually stimulated, and
also encourages them to follow up on ideas presented in the book. Eihei Dōgen
– Mystical Realist prompts you into reading more Dōgen if you haven’t
already, or re-reading him from another perspective. It also intrigues the
reader into investigating other avenues not fully explored in the book. For
example, Kim tangentially mentions some intriguing similarities between
Dōgen’s thought and Vajrayāna.
Overall the
book is a good read both aesthetically and intellectually. Kim awakens in us a
sense of Dōgen as a person who was as much an intellectual as he was an
ascetic. Moeover, though the author spends a great deal of time discussing
intellectual matters, he always brings us back to the pragmatism of Dōgen,
stating that it is "crucially important [to our understanding] that Dōgen
claimed that authenticity or inauthenticity of practice, that is, of activity –
rather than inferiority or superiority of doctrine, or the profundity or
shallowness of teaching – was the sine qua non of Buddhist truth" (75).
The 'activity' of Dōgen’s life and thought continues to be an inspiration
to practitioners today. This newly revised edition of Hee-jin Kim’s book is a
wonderful testament to Dōgen not only as the staunch 12th-century man of zazen,
but also introduces us to a whole side of Dōgen that has been ignored by
many Zen practitioners. As such, this work encourages the reader to reflect
deeply not only on Dōgen, but on their own practice.
