Conclusion

Finally, I will offer a brief conclusion, though it will not be quite satisfactory for you.

　Dogen had a major opportunity to establish the true transmitted Chinese Zen/Chan monastery system in Echizen in central Japan. I think his shift in writing and dharma discourse style-from the Shobogenzo to the Eihei-koroku-definitely indicate the scope of this opportunity.
As you know, the Chinese Wu-shan system was obviously a political system. However, Dogen refused to have any relationship with political affairs. At the same time, Dogen imported just part of this system, for the inside structure of the individual monastery system.
His monastery also needed another foundation to operate-economic support. I think that for this purpose Dogen adopted a Japanese monastic style. As I mentioned earlier, his monastic style is quite close to that of the Kenmitsu Buddhist system.

　At first, Dogen did not adopt such a strategy. He depended on the Hatano clan, the vessel of the Kamakura Shogunate, to construct the architecture of Eihei-ji (Daibutsu-ji). But later, after renaming the monastery Eihei-ji, he began to forge a relationship with lay believers around Eihei-ji.
To build this relationship, he held "repentance meetings" and recommended that lay people make offerings to the Tripitaka. Of course, the sanga is one of the three treasures in Buddhism. Dogen emphasized that through the virtue of making offerings, during this ritual lay believers could achieve the same religious stage as monks.

　This structure resembles Kenmitsu Buddhism, a monastic system that was not dependent on government support.

　In this sense, Dogen's strategy for establishing his community was quite Japanese. However, as I briefly mentioned above, his monastic or community system was definitely incomplete, compared to the Kenmitsu system. Dogen had never attempted to control lay believers or citizens in Shibi-no-sho (the name of the town where Eihei-ji is located). Moreover, he did not set up a monks' hierarchy among his disciples.

　One reason for this attitude might be that most of his disciples, who belonged to Daruma-shu, were inferior monks (kanjin-hijiri). That is, I suppose that at Eihei-ji there was no monk who came from noble origins, except Dogen.

　On the other hand, there was another reason. That is, Dogen basically aspired to establish a pure Zen monastery like those of the Tang dynasty in China. But as I mentioned earlier, he adopted a Japanese monastic style to realize this ideal.

　Dogen attempted to merge the Chinese Chan monastic system with the Japanese independent community system. Hence, his system differed slightly from the Kenmitsu monasteries. Therefore, he never wanted to control his adherents, the monastic supporters. He just recommended their spontaneous participation in supporting Eihei-ji.
When they made offerings to the monastery, they could attain the same stage as the monks, who practiced continually. That is to say, lay believers could attain the enlightened state when they joined in monastic rituals as supporters of the monastery. Of course, their enlightened state was temporal, just for the short term, but it was still considered to be the same as the monks' state.
I think Dogen supposed that this virtue would attract lay believers, and help form his ideal community.

　In this sense, we have to reconsider Dogen's "doctrine only for clergy" point of view. Dogen did not reject the notion of lay people attaining Buddhahood. Rather, I would like to say that even a clergy is not guaranteed the stable enlightened state described in Dogen's doctrine. His definition of the enlightened state is, as you know, quite strict for every adherent.

　I published this idea ten years ago, and now I am reconsidering Dogen's definition of "practice and enlightenment" centering on the Shobogenzo Genjokoan (Manifestation of Reality, or Koan of Realization). The Reverend Shohaku Okumura adopted my idea and discussed it at his workshop held at the SFO Zen Center last month. I appreciate his treatment of my article. However, my article has also been criticized by Shiro Matsumoto, one of the "critical Buddhists." Of course, I am sure that I am right. But I want to present this notion again at a later date, after I have more evidence.

　Anyway, Dogen's conception of his community has a complicated construction. This aspect stirs controversy among Dogen scholars. One might see his monastic system as directly imported from China, while another might adhere to the traditional theory that Dogen was a reformer of Heian Buddhism. Finally, there is Kukroda's theory that Dogen's doctrine was heresy.
For instance, Taira Masayuki, a follower of Kuroda's theory, says in his book:

道元はやや微妙だが、出家至上主義を掲げ、在家成仏を否定して世俗・民衆との関係を放棄し孤絶してゆくことによって、異端的論理を獲得している。」(p.482)
Though Dogen was in delicate situation, he acquired the logic of heresy with declaring出家至上主義 and isolating from secular world by breaking off the relationship with it."

註113「ただし親鸞や日蓮とは異なり、世俗・民衆からの孤絶の中でしか思想の自立性を確保できなかった点に、道元の思想家としての脆弱性がある。」(p.503)
However, the vulnerability of Dogen as a Buddhist thinker exists in the point that he kept up the independence of his thought just in the isolation from secular world and lay people." (note no.113, p.503)

This is one example of a scholar struggling to define Dogen's position. He, Taira, surely makes an excuse at the highlighted part.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this talk, Taira tried to define Dogen's community just on the traditional interpretation. Therefore, his comment become sounds ambiguous.

　However, as I suggested earlier, his monastic system did not go against the Kenmitsu Buddhist system, but merged it with the Chinese system. If we understand his monastery in this way, we can clearly understand his position within Kamakura Buddhism.

*

　Finally, I would like to comment on Professor Carl Bielefeldt's "participatory Buddhism" from the above perspective. This is because I am calling the virtue of Tripitaka offering "the virtue of participation" in my essay. Professor Bielefeldt's "participatory Buddhism" looks similar in concept to my "virtue of participation."

　My "virtue of participation" means "to attain Buddhahood by spontaneously making offerings to the Tripitaka." Hence, lay believers attained benefits through their own behavior. This is the basic doctrine of Zen Buddhism. The Tripitaka is just its instrument. Lay believers attain temporal enlightenment through spontaneous offerings.

　I am sure that this point is quite important to understand not only Dogen's community but also his essence of thought. Hence, I expected to make detailed comparison of Carl's 'participatory Buddhism' with my 'the virtue of participation'. However, I would like to postpone it some day since Prof. Bielefeldt did not come today.
In the present, I propose just the possibility how operated Dogen's community in his days as my last (and first) talk in Stanford.

Thank you.

(03/02/2001)

Back to Chapter 3 __ __ ___ _Go to introduction _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bibliography