Refraining From
Refraining From
An Ancient Gatha, the Three Pure Precepts, and Dogen’s Shoaku Makusa
The following is an approximate transcript of the Dharma Talk I offered on June 16th as part of O-An Zendo’s Sunday program. You can also listen to a live recording.
Enjoy.
Last week, we explored one way of relating to the precepts. As a way of complementing Roshi’s admonishment to “forget the precepts,” I suggested that we can also see the precepts as “invitations to exploration.” I said asking questions is part of being a Zen practitioner. We also looked at the precept that encourages supporting life in its many forms to illustrate that sort of relationship.
I want to continue this effort today and discuss a group of precepts we have yet to focus on: the Three Pure Precepts.
Sometimes, we find the Three Pure Precepts presented in the following way:
First, to embrace and sustain right conduct. Second, to embrace and sustain every good. Third, to embrace and sustain all beings.
You will see this way of expressing them next week during Jukai (Lay Ordination Ceremony) for three of our Dharma Sisters.
This presentation has its roots in an ancient gatha—a short verse or prayer—shared by all Buddhist practitioners, and I learned that, in Japanese, the gatha is called Shichi Butsu Tsukai (no) Ge or “The Gatha of the Commonly Held Precepts of the Seven Buddhas.” The gatha is:
Refrain from committing various evils Carry out all sorts of good actions Personally clarifying this mind This is the essential teaching of all the buddhas.
Well, that sounds simple—does it not?
If you spend time with this gatha, you will see how it and the Three Pure Precepts provide a foundation for the Ten Clear Mind Precepts.
We can notice the Clear Mind Precepts’ prohibitory form in the gatha: no killing, stealing, abusing sexuality, lying, misuse of intoxicants, dwelling on past mistakes, praise or blame, hoarding teachings or materials, harboring anger, and abusing the Three Treasures. Collectively, these are ways in which we embody the essential teaching, “refrain from committing various evils.”
Also, there is the “positive form” of the Clear Mind Precepts in the gatha: cultivating and encouraging life, honoring the gift not yet given, remaining faithful in relationships, communicating truth, polishing clarity, creating wisdom from ignorance, maintaining modesty, sharing understanding and freely giving of self, dwelling in equanimity, and respecting the Buddha, unfolding the Dharma, and nourishing the Sangha. These are ways in which we embody the essential teaching of “carrying out all sorts of good actions.”
Finally, we call this group of precepts the Clear Mind Precepts, which implies that by refraining from various evils and carrying out all sorts of good actions, we also “personally clarify this mind.” Thus, we embody the essential teaching of all the buddhas.
The matter is not so simple, however. You may have seen this gentle turn coming if you have been around for a while. Or perhaps the matter is as simple as I said it is, but not in the way you think it is simple. Whatever the case, we are going to change direction presently, and I leave it to you to decide (or not) how simple (or not) what we find as we walk together is.
So far, it might seem to you that the ancient gatha and the Three Pure Precepts state general rules, while the Ten Clear Mind Precepts offer specific rules. Yet, for a few weeks now, Roshi and I have said that the precepts are not rules according to our best and shared understanding of the teachings.
But if these precepts are not rules, then what are they? What is the essential teaching of all the buddhas if it is not a collection of rules?
Dogen describes the essential teaching as the same as “awakening to the living reality” and “responding to each matter” in Shobogenzo Shoaku Makusa (Treasury of the True Dharma Eye, Refraining from Evil). That is where I want us to begin—and with a story.
Haku Kyoi was a high-ranking government official and unparalleled poet. Dogen tells us that he was
[…] sometimes referred to as the Manjusri of literati or the Maitreya of poets. There was no one who had not heard of his poetic artistry. The influence of his verse spread everywhere. However, when it came to the Buddha Way, he was just a beginner and was not yet mature.
One day, Kyoi called on Dorin Choka, a Master whose “Dharma-voice,” says Dogen, “was louder and clearer than a roll of thunder.” The story goes that
Kyoi asked Dorin, “What is the gist of the Buddhadharma?” Dorin replied, “Refrain from committing various evils and carry out all sorts of good actions.” Kyoi responded, “If that were the case, even a three-year-old child could say that.” Dorin replied, “Although a three-year-old child may be able to express it, not even an eighty-year-old can actually carry it out.” Hearing the reply, Kyoi thanked him gratefully, bowed, and left.
“Although a three-year-old child may be able to express it, not even an eighty-year-old can actually carry it out,” says Dorin. We can glean from Dorin’s reply that Kyoi’s impression of the essential teaching of all the buddhas is not quite right. “Even a three-year-old could say that,” says Kyoi—meaning, how could “refrain from committing various evils and carry out all sorts of good actions” be the gist of the Buddhadharma? Surely, the essential teaching of all buddhas is something else, something not utterable by a three-year-old, something profound. Only it is—“refrain from committing various evils and carry out all sorts of good actions” is the essential teaching of all the buddhas, and it is profound—but not in the way that Kyoi supposes that it is.
Dogen continues:
Kyoi probably speculated that Dorin earnestly encouraged people to refrain from various evils and carry out acts of good at the conscious level. […] Make no mistake, even if we are cautioned to intentionally avoid various evils and, with every intention, encouraged to carry out good deeds, the actuality takes place in absolute refraining.
This essential teaching of all the buddhas is not embodied at the conscious level; it is not found in the intention that arises before action or the general intention set at a day’s or week’s beginning. It is not what “people ordinarily conjure up in their minds.” It is something altogether different.
What could that something be? Dogen calls it “absolute refraining,” “refraining from,” and again, “awakening to the living reality” and “responding to each matter.” At what are these expressions pointing? Where is the moon?
A response—it is tempting to say, “the answer”—is emptiness. Emptiness is absolute refraining; emptiness is refraining from. Awakening to the living reality is absolute refraining; awakening to the living reality is refraining from. The living reality to which we awaken through zazen is an empty one. All things are empty; there is only one living reality, and there is only refraining from.
Now, let us return to the beginning once more.
I spoke about the Heart Sutra last week, using it to illustrate Karuna, the “intention and capacity to transform suffering and lighten sorrows.” Avalokiteshvara had the desire and the means to do this. Notably, they had the insight and capacity to share with Shariputra that “form is emptiness, emptiness is form, form is not separate from emptiness, emptiness is not separate from form […]” and so on. But it is not just form that is emptiness; it is also sensation, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness. It is also eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; it is also shape, sound, smell, taste, touch, feeling, and thought. Nothing, it turns out, is that is not also empty.
So Avalokiteshvara says:
Here, Shariputra, all dharmas are defined by emptiness not birth or destruction, purity or defilement, completeness or deficiency.
All dharmas, including, although not found in the Heart Sutra’s list of things for which the expression “X is emptiness” is true, good and evil. In fact, we can include “good and evil” in two ways. First, we can say that “good and evil” are defined by emptiness, not birth or destruction, purity or defilement, completeness or deficiency. Second, we can say that all dharmas are defined by emptiness, not birth or destruction, purity or defilement, completeness or deficiency, or good or evil.
Dogen is explicit about this, writing:
In different societies, that which is considered evil or unwholesome sometimes appears to be the same, sometimes it does not. In former and later times, sometimes evil appears to be identical, sometimes it does not. Evils in the heavenly realm may or may not be the same as evils in the human realm. Much less, looking at the Way of the buddhas and the ways of the conventional world, there are enormous differences concerning what is good [and evil]. Good and evil occur in time, although time is neither good nor evil. Good and evil take the form of dharmas, although the dharmas are not of themselves good or evil.
If you feel uncomfortable, that is all right. That discomfort arises, perhaps, because we are starting to let go of what feels certain. Namely, this sense that we know what is good and what is evil. Or if it seems too much to say that we “know what is good and what is evil,” we sometimes feel that we have a partial grip on what is good and what is evil. “I cannot define ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for you,” you might say, “but I can identify specific instances of them. Cultivating and encouraging life, honoring the gift not yet given, and communicating truth—these are good things. And killing, stealing, and lying—these are bad things.”
By the essential teaching of all the buddhas, however, this is not quite right. Why not? When the function and power of refraining from are entirely revealed, “we cannot say definitely that various evils are necessarily evil; not even a weapon can be said to be intrinsically evil! It is a matter of picking up and putting down.”
It is not that various evils do not exist, but rather that all there is, is […] refraining from. Nor is it a matter of evils existing; again, all there is, is refraining from. Neither are evils empty; there is only refraining from. Nor do they have a substantial form; all there is, is refraining from. Evils are not of themselves refraining from; for all there is, is refraining from.
Now, let us return to the beginning for a third time.
I started this talk by raising some questions about the essential teaching of all the buddhas and the Three Pure Precepts. Namely
If these precepts are not rules, then what are they? What is the essential teaching of all the buddhas if it is not a collection of rules?
I wonder if you are starting to see why they are not rules.
As we move with the world, we observe various behaviors, their consequences, and how sentient beings (others and ourselves) are affected by various behaviors. Based on our observations, we declare that particular behaviors are necessarily “good” and others necessarily “evil.” Moreover, we come to believe that “good” and “evil” are substantial things “out there,” instantiated in specific behaviors. Then, we establish rules to regulate our behaviors. Specifically, we prohibit the performance of “evil behaviors” and prescribe the performance of “good behaviors.”
Refrain from committing various evils Carry out all sorts of good actions No stealing Honor the gift not yet given
Yet, the Heart Sutra teaches that all dharmas—all phenomena—are empty. No dharma, that is, is any thing or any kind of thing all on its own, but is what it is owing all and only to the totality of relations at a specific time, and only at that time. Therefore, no behavior is necessarily good or evil, nor are good and evil substantial things “out there” capable of instantiation in specific behaviors. Nowhere to be found is the firm foundation necessary for the entire enterprise of rule-building and behavior-regulating by way of rules.
And so we return once more to our questions:
If these precepts are not rules, then what are they? What is the essential teaching of all the buddhas if it is not a collection of rules? What does it mean to refrain from committing various evils, carry out all sorts of good actions, and personally clarify this mind?
Dogen uses the expressions “absolute refraining,” “refraining from,” “awakening to the living reality,” and “responding to each matter.” I want to take up the last expression by returning to the exchange between Kyoi and Master Dorin.
Kyoi asked Dorin, “What is the gist of the Buddhadharma?” Dorin replied, “Refrain from committing various evils and carry out all sorts of good actions.” Kyoi responded, “If that were the case, even a three-year-old child could say that.” Dorin replied, “Although a three-year-old child may be able to express it, not even an eighty-year-old can actually carry it out.” Hearing the reply, Kyoi thanked him gratefully, bowed, and left.
I wonder if you can see that so much of our life is present in this exchange. Question. Response. Response. Response. Bow. There is a pattern here, but not a “contentful” one.
What do I mean by this? There is no presence in the pattern until that time when it becomes embodied by a pair of sentient beings. What is someone’s question before they ask it? What is the other person’s response before they hear the question? What are the responses that follow before the ones that they follow appear? To what is there bowing before an exchange has happened?
Master Dorin was awake to the living reality and so he could respond to the matter of Kyoi’s question with a Dharma-voice as loud and clear as a roll of thunder. “Refrain from committing various evils and carry out all sorts of good actions,” says Dorin, is the gist of the Buddhadharma. Kyoi could not hear the thunder nor see the bright lightening and dismissed Dorin’s response with, “If that were the case, even a three-year-old child could say that.” How could Dorin meet Kyoi’s dismissal but by responding to it as it appeared right then, right there? “Although a three-year-old child may be able to express it, not even an eighty-year-old can actually carry it out.” How could Kyoi understand when and to what he was bowing until Dorin tried again to open Kyoi’s ears and eyes?
Responding to each matter as it appears, with immediacy, with full-presence, happens when we are awake to the living reality, the emptiness of all phenomena, of all dharmas. Being awake to the living reality takes place only through absolute refraining. And absolute refraining is the same as “refraining from.”
So, I want to leave you with the question: What is refraining from?
Thank you very much.
If you benefitted from this offering, you might read or listen to the following:
