DraftforpublicationinDavidJones,ed.,BuddhaNatureandAnimality.

SanFrancisco:JainPublishers,2007,pp.14963.

ZenEyeHunter,ZenEyeHunted:
RevealingtheAnimalFaceofBuddhaNature

BrianSchroeder

There are no buddhas without facetoface

transmissionfromthebuddhaface.

Dgen1

To see the face is to speak of the world.

Transcendence is not an optics, but the first
ethicalgesture.

Levinas2

Theconceptoffaceandtheattendingthematicofthefacetofacehasreceivedoflate
considerableattentionincertaincirclesofcontemporarywesternphilosophy.Thisis,
however,farfrombeingarecentinterest.InZenBuddhistphilosophy,forinstance,the
face has been a central motif for well over a millennium. In addressing the relation
between buddhanature and animality, a proper understanding of the face is very
important. Few have expressed the concepts of buddhanature and the face as
forcefully and poignantly as the founder of St Zen, Dgen Kigen. This essay will
focus primarily on his writing, conjoining aspects of his thinking and that of
Emmanuel Levinas, the leading recent theorist on the significance of the face. Why
relateclassicalZenwithrecentEuropeanthought?Whatdoesonehavetodowiththe
other? Authentic Buddhist teaching has long realized that there is no such thing as
Buddhismperse.Inotherwords,theformofBuddhismisempty,whichinturnmeans
that the original interdependency of all things is not confined to a purely Buddhist
perspective. Despite its unwavering conviction of the primacy of practice to realize
1

Dgen,Shbgenz,Menju[FacetoFaceTransmission],trans.RebAndersonandKazuaki
Tanahashi, in Moon in a Dewdrop: Writings of Zen Master Dgen (New York: North Point
Press,1985),176.
2
Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity, trans. Alphonso Lingis (Pittsburgh: Duquesne
UniversityPress,1969),174.

awakening,authenticZenpenetratestheillusoryveilthatthereisbutonetruewayof
achievingthisaimlessgoal.Farfromnecessarilycloudingthedharmatruth,engaging
traditional Zen thinking with that which by all accounts is foreign to it opens rather
thepossibilityforspontaneityandfreshperspectivismtoemerge.Thisisessentialfor
seeing with the Zen eye. Also, unless one is deeply immersed in the tradition, and
eventhen,BuddhistandZenthinkingoftenremainopaquetothenonpractitioner.A
comparativeapproachisarguablyoftenthemosteffectivewayforthewesternthinker
tograsp,ifnotthesubtleties,themoreimportantfundamentals.
DgenwritesthatthefacetofaceisthelocusofdharmatransmissionintheZen
tradition.3 Similarly, according to Levinas, the face to face is the modality of
intersubjective being that conveys the absolute passivity of the ethical relation.
TransmissionofwhattheBuddhatermsthetreasuryofthetruedharmaeyerefersto
when the fundamental unity between the seer and the seen, buddha and nature,
humanandanimal,isestablished.Howeverandhereisanimportantpointthisisa
unitythatretainsandmaintainsanoriginarydifference,thatsignifiesathirdormiddle
way.Thiswaythoughisneitherthatofidealistmetaphysics,suchasinHegel,norof
traditional metaphysical transcendence. Rather, this unified difference/differential
unityiswhatDgenmeansbygoingbeyondbuddha.4
This essay proposes that correctly grasping the relation between buddhanature
andanimalitynecessitatesafundamentalexperienceoforiginalface(memmoku)of
theanimal,whichinturnispossibleonlybywayofadirectfacetofaceencounter.
Buddhanatureisnotsomethingthatcanbecognitivelyknown;itmustbeactualized,
thatistosay,transmitted,betweentwobeingsfullypresentandawareofeachotherin
the moment of transmission. This is one of the defining features of Zen that
distinguishes it from other approaches in Buddhism: awakening is a simultaneously
occurring activity between the one who attains realization and the one who
acknowledges it. While the relationship between the disciple and the master in this
regardisunquestionedintheZentradition,Iproposethatitalsocananddoesoccur
(though admittedly far less frequently) in the relationship between humans and
animals.

I shall begin and end this meditation with the following story to help exemplify my
above claim. There was once a hunter. Though he hunted for many years and could
3

Dgen,Shbgenz,Menju,17583.
Dgen,Shbgenz,Bukkjji[GoingbeyondBuddha],trans.MelWeitsmanandKazuaki
Tanahashi,inMooninaDewdrop,20310.

shoot well, he was by all accounts a very poor hunter, if success is measured by the
amountofgameonetakes.Hehadbeeneducatedsinceboyhoodtorespecttherules
ofhunting,totakenomorethanhecoulduseforfood,torespectthelandonwhichhe
hunted,and,mostimportantly,toacknowledgethesolemnityoftakinganotherlife.
Totellthetruth,hedidnotmindthathewasnotagoodhunter.Hewascontent
just to be in the wild, tracking animal movements and searching for other traces, or
merelysittingasstillaspossibleforextendedperiodsoftimelisteningtothebirdsongs
or for the distant movements of the different forest creatures, and imagining what it
musthavebeenliketobecontinuallyconnectedwiththenaturalworld.
One time, during deer season, the hunter seated himself against a large rock
lookingdowntheslopeofasmallmountain.Thedayslowlypassedandeveningdrew
nigh when he heard the faint retort of a gunshot from the other side of the knoll.
Several minutes later, the unmistakable sound of a running deer grew louder as it
approachedhimfrombehind.Asthedeerranpast,hecouldseethatitwaswounded.
Without thinking, the hunter raised his rifle and, without taking aim, shot at the
adrenaline driven creature while in a full run. Now a moving target is extremely
difficulttohit,buttohisastonishmentthehunterdownedtheanimal.Asthehunter
approached,thedeersprangupanddartedoffintothethickofthewoods.Thehunter
followed.Sometimelaterhefoundthedeerlyingontheground,stillalive.
Theanimalwasquietandraiseditsheadasthehunterdrewnear.Atthatmoment
theireyesmetandlockedoneachother.Thehunterknewexactlywhatheneededto
do,thougheveryfiberofhisbeingseemedtoresist.Hecouldnothelpbutthinkthat
the deer was also fully conscious of the situation. At that moment, the deer and the
hunterbecame as one,boundas such in theendlessroundoflifeand death. Atthat
moment, the hunter experienced the indescribable sense of becomingdeer. At that
moment,facetoface,eyetoeye,withthedyingdeer,apartofthehunterdiedashe
firedthenecessaryshottobothcompleteandcontinuethesamsariccycle.
Thehunterkneltforalongtimeintheredsnownexttothedeer,staringintoits
open now lifeless eyes. Night descended and he gazed fixedly at the luminescent full
moonthathadhunglowintheskyallday.Atthatmoment,hislifeforeverchanged.
Atthatmoment,herealizedthatnirvnaandsamsraareoneandthesame.
Thehuntereventuallyreturnedtothecampsite.Heputawayhisweapon,knowing
fullwellthathewouldnevertakeitupagain.Sometimelater,asheknewhewould,he
heardthefaintsoundoftheotherhunter,theonewhohadinitiallyshotthedeerand
trackeditfromtheothersideofthemountain,draggingthebodyofthedeeraway.

A famous kan records that when asked one day by a monk whether a passing dog
possessedbuddhanature,theChineseChanMasterZhaozhou(Jp.Jsh)repliedwith
ashoutMu(Chinese:Wu).Yetwhenaskedagainonanotheroccasion,heansweredU.
Muliterallymeansno,not,nothing,nonbeing,orhavenot.Itistheopposite
in meaning of u, which can be translated as yes, is, being, or have. In the
everyday context, mu and u are relative terms. Zhaozhous Mu, however, was not a
relativeanswerbutanabsolutereply.Theinquiringmonkwasnotonlyaskingabout
theparticulardogbutwhetherallsentientbeingspossessbuddhanature.Zhaozhous
responsewasanattempttoseverallattachmentthemonkhadtotheveryconceptof
buddhanature.
Tosaythatbuddhanatureeitheristhisorthat,orneitherthisnorthat,istoadopt
a standpoint that invariably falls into either a substantializing or essentializing
ontology. The Indian Buddhist philosopher Ngrjuna logically expressed this nearly
seven hundred years earlier in his classic work Mlamadhyamikakrik. The
Abhidharmist Sarvastivadin and Sautrantikan schools of his day committed this very
errorintryingtologicallydeterminethetruemeaningofbuddhanature.Ngrjuna,
whothroughouthislifeclaimedthathewasneverdoinganythingbutexplicatingthe
Buddhas original dharma, neither adding to nor subtracting from it, demonstrated
that all attempts to logically construe the meaning of buddhanature henceforth
invariablyfallintoparadoxicalabsurdity.Zhaozhouunderstoodthis.TheabsoluteMu
or U indicates the impossibility of all intellection to thoroughly comprehend the
dharmanature of reality. Buddhanature must be experienced. Only after the
experienceisitperhapspossibletorenderlinguisticallyitsmeaning,butsuchlanguage
willbenonsensicaltothosewhoarenotpersonallyexperienced.
To ask if a dog, or a deer for that matter, has buddhanature is tantamount to
asking whether all animals possess buddhanature. Before that question can be
philosophicallyanswered,however,oneneedsalsotoask,Whatisbuddhanature?But
tomakethatveryinquiryistoriskontologizingbuddhanature,renderingiteitherasa
conceptual object or something that exists. Buddhanature is neither. And yet
kyamuni himself speaks of buddhanature as that which must be affirmed. In his
masterwork,Shbgenz(TreasuryoftheTrueDharmaEye),Dgenbeginsthefascicle
on Bussh [Buddhanature] by quoting the Buddha: All sentient beings totally
possessbuddhanature.TheTathgataispermanentlyabiding,notsubjecttochange.5
5

Dgen,Shbgenz:TheEyeandTreasuryoftheTrueLaw,Vol.4,Bussh[Buddhanature],
trans.KosenNishiyama(Tokyo:NakayamaShobo,1983),120;modifiedslightly.Forthesakeof
consistency with other translations and the writing of the present essay, I have modified
Nishiyamas translation accordingly: lowercase letters are used throughout in the terms
buddha(s),buddhanature,andnature;thetermancestorhasalsobeensubstitutedfor

DgensconcerniswhatdoestheBuddhameanbyAllsentientbeingstotallypossess
buddhanature? To totally possess does not mean possession in the usual sense of
the term. First, there is no possession because there is no self who is the agent of
possession.Second,buddhanatureisnotathingthatcanbepossessed,ifonlybecause
it is not something. Dgen claims that if we grasp the true meaning of the phrase
totally possess, then we will see that these very words open us up to moksha,
completeliberationandnonattachment.
EventhoughDgenrecognizedthebuddhanatureofallbeings,hedidnotrefrain
from criticizing those who did not perceive, or especially teach, the true dharma.
Whenscholarshearthewordbuddhanature,theythinkitisakindofeternalself,
likethatexpoundedbythenonbelieverSenika.Thisisbecausetheyhavenevermeta
person of the way, nor clarified their self, nor met a master. They mistake the wild
movementsoftheirmindsfortheenlightenedwisdomofbuddhanature.Whocansay
thatthereisenlightenedwisdominbuddhanature?Eventhoughenlightenedpersons
arebuddhas,buddhanatureisnotenlightenmentorawakening.Theenlightenment
oftheenlightenedandawakenedbuddhasisnotthemisconceivedenlightenmentthat
mostpeoplespeakof.And,itiscertainlynottheenlightenmentofaconfusedmind.
Onlythefaceofeachbuddhaandancestorisenlightenment.6Itisimportanttonote
thatDgendoesnotsaythatthesefacesexpressorrevealenlightenment,orthatthey
areenlightened,butratherthattheyareenlightenment.
What is meant by only the face of each buddha and ancestor? Referring to the
philosophyofLevinasisperhapshelpfulhere.Enlightenmentcannotbethoughtapart
fromitsrelationtoethics.WisdomandcompassionarethetwopillarsoftheBuddhas
dharma on which the realization of dependent origination (prattyasamutpda)
stands. According to Levinas, the face is the trace of the passing of an absolutely
heteronomous past, a signification without a context.7 The face is not the mask of
the individual; it is the locus of the alterity that is social multiplicity. Likewise,
buddhanatureiswithoutbeingsomething,eternalbutnotsubstantial,intimebut
not synonymous with time. To be sure, Levinas philosophy is preoccupied with the
meaningofthehumanfacetofacerelation,whereintranscendenceandphenomenality
meetproducinginthewakeofthismeetingtheethicalsignification.Thiswouldseem
toruncountertoDgensinsistencethattheBuddhaincludesnotonlynonhuman,for
example, animal, but nonsentient entities in his understanding of buddhanature.
Levinas limitation here, however, does not preclude the pervasive ethical sense of
Patriarch; uppercase letters have been retained when referring to the Buddha or to a
particularAncestor.
6
Dgen,Shbgenz,Bussh,121.
7
Levinas,TotalityandInfinity,23.

compassion and responsibility found in the seemingly more inclusive Buddhist

thought and practice.8 Rather, his thought corroborates Buddhist thought and
practice.LiketheBuddha,Levinasteachestheparadoxicalrealizationthatthepower
ofthefaceisapassivitybeyondallpassivity.Yetthisisnotapassivitythatrefersback
to an unchanging substance or anything resembling an Aristotelian Unmoved Mover
or a Heideggerian ontotheological God. The Infinite, for Levinas, is beyond thought
andallpredication.Againparadoxically,hewrites:TheabsolutelyotheristheOther
(Labsolumentautrecestlautrui).9Inotherwords,transcendenceorthebeyond,while
notidenticalwithimmanence,isneverthelessunintelligibleandethicallymeaningless
apartfromit.Couldthesamebesaidofbuddhanature?
Dgen makes it clear that it is not the wild movements of the mind that
constituterealizationorawakening,orleadthewaytowardit.Yethesays,Ifyoucan
understand the real movement, you will understand true enlightenment and
awakening. If we can understand buddha, we can understand nature, since they
penetrate each other.10 Here one begins to have a glimpse of insight into what the
original face of the Buddha and the ancestors really is. Generally, the face is
understoodinaverylocalized,indeed,inaveryliteralsense,asthefrontofthehead.
Dgen, however, is not referring merely to the front of the head, but to the
interdependent phenomenality of all entities. In like fashion, Levinas writes that in
thefacetheexistentparexcellencepresentsitself.Andthewholebodyahandora
curveoftheshouldercanexpressastheface.11Inotherwords,thefaceandthebody
oftheotherareindistinguishable.Theimportanceofthesestatementsisparamountas
they indicate the necessity of leaving behind standard conceptions of the face that
inhibitthegoingbeyondbuddhathattherealizationofbuddhanatureentails.You
should know that going beyond buddha is neither causality nor fruition. However,
thereisrealizationthroughthebodyandcompleteattainmentofyoudonthearitat
the moment of talking.12 The significance of the face resonates throughout ones
being,bodyandmind,leadingonetoidentifyindifferenceallbeings.
8

Foranapplicationoftheethicalobligationofthefacetofacerelationshipoutsidethecontext
ofhumanintersubjectivity,forexample,withanimals,seeJohnLlewelyn,AmIObsessedby
Bobby?(HumanismoftheOtherAnimal),inReReadingLevinas,ed.RobertBernasconiand
SimonCritchley(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1991),23445.
9
Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 39. The convention established, with Levinas approval, in
translating autrui/Autrui (the personal other/s) as Other with a capitalized O and
autre/Autre(othernessingeneral;alterity)asotherwillbefollowed.
10
Dgen,Shbgenz,Bussh,122.
11
Levinas,TotalityandInfinity,262.
12
Dgen,Shbgenz,Bukkjji,203.

QuotingtheteachingofthetwelfthZenAncestortothethirteenth,Dgenaffirms
that the mountains, rivers, and the great earth are all the ocean of buddhanature
insofar as they all depend on buddhanature.13 This dependency is beyond all
understanding,yetitisallaroundus.Ifthisisso,writesDgen,toseemountains
and rivers is to see buddhanature. By extension, to see dogs and deer is also to see
buddhanature.However,seeingisnotnecessarilythinkingorunderstandingor
isit?Clearly,toseesomethingmeanstoperceiveitthroughthepowerofsight,which
inturnreferstotheeyesandtheface.Yet,wealsospeakofbeingabletoseewiththe
minds eye. The relation between a posteriori and a priori knowledge has been long
debatedinbothwesternandeasternthinking.Sincebuddhanatureissomethingthat
exists neither in the sense of being a phenomenal object nor as a purely conceptual
entity,howarewetointerpretDgenhere?
Onepossiblepathistoexaminethephenomenonofmind,whichhasarichand
complexunderstandinginBuddhistthinking.EarlyBuddhisminterpretedthedharma
primarily from what today we would term psychological standpoint, and this
understanding was carried into the later Mahyna. According to the Ratnamegha
Sutra, All phenomena originate in the mind, and when the mind is fully known, all
phenomenaarefullyknown....Thebodhisattva,thoroughlyexaminingthenatureof
things, dwells in everpresent mindfulness of the activity of the mind, and so he [or
she]doesnotcomeunderthemindspower,butthemindspowercomesunderhis[or
her] control. And with the mind under his control, all phenomena are under his
control.14 Certainly, this control is not that of a will exercising sovereignty over
another weaker will; rather, control refers to discipline in the sense of right action,
rightmindfulness,andskillfulmeans(upya).Theway(Dao),teachesthesage,issoft
and yielding. This is known from natures teaching of the way. Control here is the
disciplinedactivityofnotforcingthemindtoconstructreality,butratheryieldingto
its active passivity, so that the illusory distinction between the mind and the body is
abandoned,andwithitanyfalsesenseofinherentindependence.Thisisthebuddha
mind,whichisnomind(Ch.wushin;Jp.mushin),inthesenseofnotbeingpermanent.
Thereisofcoursealong,multifarioushistoryinBuddhismthatattemptedtograspthe
buddhamindinitstruenature,anditisbeyondthescopeofthisessaytoengagethis
historyinameaningfulway.SufficeittosaythatZen,withitspositionregardingno
mind, and Huayan (Kegon) metaphysics, with its emphasis on totality and the

13

Dgen,Shbgenz,Bussh,123.
CitedinWilliamTheodoreDeBary,TheBuddhistTraditioninIndia,ChinaandJapan(New
York:RandomHouse,1972),100.

14

traditionoftathgatagarbha(theseedorwomboftheBuddha)15whichdealswiththe
question of the original nature of the mind, were interrelated historically and
ideologically,andshapedthedevelopmentofDgensunderstandingofmind.
In characteristic fashion of the Mahyna tradition, Dgen employs mind in a
variety of ways. Following the Huayan interpretation, mind is the totality of all
psychophysical realities. Drawing on the Yogcra, or MindOnly, school, he also
identifiesmindwiththevariouseightlevelsofconsciousness,suchas,forexample,the
mental activities of intellect, feeling, and will. Dgen extends the notion of mind,
however,toincludetheexteriorworld.MindisalsoidentifiedbyDgenwithdharma
nature, buddhanature, tathat, and nyat. All things and all phenomena are just
onemindnothingisexcludedorunrelated.Itistaughtthatallthedharmagatesare
equally one mind, and there is no differentiation. This is how Buddhists understand
mindnature.16ForDgen,mindissimultaneouslyknowledgeandreality,subjectand
object, yet transcending these distinctions. Like the Advaita Vednta thinking of the
nonBuddhistIndianphilosopherakra(Shankara)fivecenturiesearlier,Dgentoo
stresses the nondual (which is not to say monistic) nature of mind as a way of
negotiatingtheproperunderstandingofwhateventuallybecametheprincipalposition
ofMahynaasawhole,thatofMdhyamika,ortheMiddleWay.Mindhereisthus
neithermonisticpantheismnornaturalisticpantheism;itisneitheranallembracing,
pervasive metaphysical principle nor is it an extension of the ordinary mind into a
greatercosmicrealm.Whilemindcomesintoandoutofexistence,asdoallthings,it
is not merely coextensive with the totality of beings but rather transcends them.
Neither is mind, however, to be indiscriminately identified with buddhanature,
though,inasense,theyareindeedone.WhereasesotericBuddhism,suchasTantrism,
holdsthepositionthatthebodyitselfisbuddha,Zenadoptsthepositionthatthemind
is buddha. But how is it that, if the mind is buddha, Dgen warns us not to identify
mindandbody?

15

IthaslongbeendebatedinBuddhistscholarshipwhetherthetathgatagarbhatraditionis
genuinely Buddhist on the grounds that it is actually closer to a substantialist position. For
recent considerations of this question in the context of Critical Buddhism, see Matsumoto
Shir,TheDoctrineofTathgatagarbhaIsNotBuddhist,trans.JamieHubbard,16573;Sallie
B.King,TheDoctrineofBuddhaNatureIsImpeccablyBuddhist,17492;YamabeNobuyoshi,
The Idea of Dhtuvda in Yogcra and Tathgatagarbha Texts, 193204. These essays are
found in Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism, ed. Jamie Hubbard and
PaulL.Swanson(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1997).
16
Dgen, Shbgenz, Bendwa [On the Endeavor of the Way], trans. Lew Richmond and
KazuakiTanahashi,inMooninaDewdrop,154.

Tostudythebuddhawayistostudytheself,writesDgen.Tostudytheselfisto
forgettheself.Toforgettheselfistobeactualizedbymyriadthings.Whenactualized
bymyriadthings,yourmindandbodyaswellasthebodiesandmindsofothersdrop
away.Notraceofrealizationremains,andthisnotracecontinuesendlessly.17Sinceall
thingsarecontinuallymovingandareimpermanent,theselfthatistosay,thewild
movements of the mindconsistently moves to find a place of nonmovement. The
wildnessofthemind,then,isnotthatofbeingeverchanginginthesenseputforthby
the phenomenologist Maurice MerleauPonty with his concepts of wild logos and
wildbeing.18Rather,thewildnessofthemindaccountsforthedesireorcravingfor
permanence in a world of impermanence. This is why kyamuni stresses that only
antman is the standpoint from which one (and not necessarily the individual one
either) realizes the truth of the dharma as dependent origination. Awakened beings
continuallypracticebecausepracticeisitselftheway.Todootherwise,thoughittoois
the way, is not to realize the way. Without the realization, the mind does not fall
away,andbuddhanatureisnotseen.
ReturningtotheopeningsentenceinthefascicleonbuddhanatureinShbgenz,
DgenisrereadingafamouspassagefromtheMahparinirvnaSutrathatreads:All
sentientbeingspossessbuddhanaturewithoutexception.ButinChinese,itcanalso
beread,andthisisDgensrendering,Allexistencesarebuddhanature.19Dgenis
here modifying both the notion of buddhanature and of sentient beings, liberating
both notions from anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives. All existences is
equatedwithbothbuddhanatureandsentientbeings.Inotherwords,itis,atleastin
part,amatterofconception,ofrealizingthetruenatureofmind.
EarlyBuddhistandAbhidharmistphilosophiesconfinedbuddhanatureinastrict
sensetosentientbeings,andtaughtthatsentientbeingsmovetowardenlightenment
as something to be possessed. Thus was attainment construed. Dgen rejects those
positionsandexpandstheconceptofbuddhanature,inaccordancewithhisexpansion
oftheconceptofmind,toincludebothsentientandnonsentientbeings.Howisthis
possible?Onepossibleanswerisbecausebuddhanatureisselfcreatingandthisself
creation is a perpetual recreation. From Dgens perspective, this is what kyamuni
meant by dependent origination. Thus Dgen neither adds to nor subtracts from the
original dharma, from his original standpoint. From Mahkshyapas smile when the
17

Dgen,Shbgenz,GenjKan[ActualizingtheFundamentalPoint],trans.RobertAitken
andKazuakiTanahashi,andrevisedattheSanFranciscoZenCenter,inMooninaDewdrop,
70.
18
Maurice MerleauPonty, The Visible and the Invisible, trans. Alphonso Lingis (Evanston:
NorthwesternUniversityPress,1968),esp.16570.
19
Dgen,Shbgenz,Bussh.

10

Buddha lifted the udumbara flower to his own realization of the buddhanature of
mountains,rivers,andtheearth,Dgenseestheendlesscontinuityofthedharma.In
this ontology all is transient. Human beings becomeanimal, becomeearth, become
cosmos, becomeotherand in so doing, becomeone. The aspired to adequacy of
metaphysically saturated language breaks apart, falls away, leaving only the
immediateexperienceofthisbecomingtoattestitsreality.
Dgen too is continually aware of the limitations of language and thus he warns:
We do not say all sentient beings are the buddhanature, but instead allsentient
beingsthebuddhanatureofexistence. This should be considered carefully.
Existence of the buddhanature of existence should indeed be cast off. Casting off
signifies absolute freedom. . . . The truth of the matter is that you elucidate and
transcendnotonlysentientbeingsbutalsobuddhanature.20Howdoesonetranscend
buddhanaturethough?Whatdoesthismean?Readingthefollowingwordsasrunning
togetherallsentientbeingsthebuddhanatureofexistenceindicatesthealluded
to transcendence in the sense of being beyond dualistic frameworks such as subject
and object, subject and predicate, buddha and nature, self and other, human and
animal,andsentientandnonsentient.Whatfallsawayistheaddedverbtobe.There
isnobeing.Thereisnonothing.Thereisnotimeapartfrombeing.Thereisonlythe
timebeing(uji).21Thereisonlybecoming,thatis,dependentorigination.Howdowe
knowthis?Howcanweexpressthis?MasterDgenteaches,Bothmindandwordsare
timebeing.Botharrivingandnotarrivingarethetimebeing....Mindisthemoment
of actualizing the fundamental point; words are the moment of going beyond,
unlockingthebarrier.22Awakeningtothisrealizationistheheartofenlightenment.
Mahyna Buddhism has long attempted to fully ascertain the meaning of the
difference between the teachings of original enlightenment (hongaku) and acquired
enlightenment(skikaku).Thenotionofacquired,orgradual,enlightenmenthasbeen
present since the earliest teaching of the dharma. The concept of original
enlightenment, however, is a later development, though its proponents claim that it
has always been present in the Buddhas teaching. Original awakening is eternal,
withoutbeginningorendintime.FollowingtheMdhyamikaofNgrjunasattempt
tologicallyexpressthroughthemethodofdidacticdialecticalnegationtheinsightsof
the Prajparamit Sutras regarding the emptiness of all form and the form of
emptiness, oppositions (such as enlightenment and delusion, being and nonbeing,
samsra and nirvna, life and death, the one and the many) are to be negated and
20

Ibid.
SeeDgen,Shbgenz,Uji[TheTimeBeing],trans.DanWelchandKazuakiTanahashi,
inMooninaDewdrop.
22
Ibid.,82.

21

11

thereby affirmed in their absoluteness. Dgen reiterates this.23 A position of original

enlightenment is consequently able to assert the unity of enlightenment and
practiceDgenprimaryconcernbyexpandingthenoticeofpracticebeyondthatof
merereligiousdisciplinetoincludethemuchbroaderrangeofeverydayactivity.This
pointisexpressedintheMahynapositionthattheDharmakya(therealityortruth
embodiment of the Buddha) is not something purely noumenal or out there (the
paranirvna of earlier Buddhism), but is rather the body itselfin other words, the
totalityofphenomenalexistence.
It is with this awareness of the everydayness of practice and hence the original
universality of awakened phenomenal existence that Dgen interprets the time
honored account of the first Zen transmission: kyamuni Buddhas eyes were
reflectedin[Mahkshyapas]eyes,andhiseyeswerereflectedinkyamuniBuddhas
eyes. This is the buddha eye; this is the buddha face. It has been transmitted face to
facewithoutagenerationsgapuntilnow.Thisisfacetofacetransmission....Aface
toface transmitting buddha transmits to facetoface transmitting buddha. It is
transmittedfromvinetovinewithoutbeingcut.Itistransmittedfromeyetoeye,with
the eye open. It is transmitted from face to face, with the face revealed. Facetoface
transmissionisgivenandreceivedinthepresenceofthebuddhaface.Mindistaken
up,transmittedtomindandreceivedbymind.Bodyismanifestedandtransmittedto
body.24
FundamentalaswelltoLevinasthinkingistherevelationoftheface.Initsvery
nudityanddefenselessnessliestheappealoftheOther(lAutrui)totheselftorespond,
to assume responsibility not only for itself, but for all others (autres) as well. In its
nonviolent transitivity the very epiphany of the face is produced.25 This epiphany or
revelation is precisely what opens the possibility of discourse, enabling not only the
self to respond, but also making theorizing itself possible, therein continually
producingtruth.
Priortospeechordiscourse,thefirstteachingoftheteacher,teachesLevinas,is
his [or her] very presence as teacher from which representation comes.26 The
irreversibleasymmetryofthisrelationisthelocusoftruth,theexerciseofegological
freedom, but made possible only when challenged by a Master who can invest it.27
Truth is fundamentally social; only between free beings does sociality thrive. This
thought resonates the Buddhas insistence that everything exists in a state of
23

Dgen,Shbgenz,Bendwa,154.
Dgen,Shbgenz,Menju,177;emphasisadded.
25
Levinas,TotalityandInfinity,51.
26
Ibid.,100.
27
Ibid.,101.

24

12

dependent origination. Karma is therefore not necessity in the sense of

predetermination, but is synonymous with freedom. This is the dharmatruth,
accordingtoBuddhism,thatsubtendstheteachingofnonego(antman)andallows
for the transmission of awakening. Levinas insistence on the asymmetrical
irreversibility of the ethical relation is not a refusal of the reciprocity of the
intercommunicative event between one being and another; rather, it indicates a
preoriginary or aboriginal transcendence or going beyond that is nevertheless
meaningless apart from its expression in immanence. What Levinas offers is a
phenomenologicallybasedlanguagetodelineatethefacetofacerelationthatparallels
the Zen recognition of the necessity of the master in transmitting the dharma to the
student.
Dgen Zenji writes, Masters and disciples always see one another when
transmittingandinheritingthedharma.Thisistherealizationoftheway,facetoface
transmission of the ancestral source. Thus, masters and disciples bring forth the
luminousfaceoftheTathgata....Evenwithoutknowingonewordorunderstanding
halfaphrase,theteacherseesthestudentwithinhimself,andthestudentlowersthe
topofhishead;thisisthecorrectfacetofacetransmission.28Isthistruealsoofthe
relationship between humans and animals? Is dharma transmission possible between
humans and animals, much less between sentient and nonsentient beings? One
cannotentirelyrefusethefaceofananimal,writesLevinas.Itisviathefacethatone
understands,forexample,adog.Yetthepriorityhereisnotfoundintheanimal,butin
thehumanface.29Perhapsthisisavitalcluefordeterminingwhetheranimalspossess
buddhanature, and whether that realization is transmittable. If the buddhaface can
be brought forth, as Dgen claims, it is only because it is already there, originally
existing. Dependent origination precludes the possibility of something arising out of
nothing,sincesuchathingwouldbeindependent.Thebuddhafaceisbuddhanature.
Yetthereisarelationalprioritythatexistsintermsofrealizingthis.InLevinaswords,
thehumanfaceiscompletelydifferentandonlyafterwardsdowediscoverthefaceof
ananimal.30Soitiswiththemasteranddisciple,teacherandstudent.Thefaceofone
awakened is different from that of one who is not. This difference is what allows for
recognition of awakening, and in this recognition the unitydifference between the
master and student is established. Dgen was long preoccupied with the question,
28

Dgen,Shbgenz,Menju,178.
Emmanuel Levinas, The Paradox of Morality: An Interview with Emmanuel Levinas,
conducted by Tamra Wright, Peter Huges, and Alison Ainely, in The Provocation of Levinas:
Rethinking the Other, ed. Robert Bernasconi and David Wood (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul,1988),169.
30
Ibid.,172.
29

13

Why do enlightened beings continually practice if they are enlightened?

Enlightenment is practice and practice is enlightenment. When realized, the
distinctionbetweenmasterandstudentfallsawayandtheoriginalfaceoftheBuddha
shinesforth.Atthismoment,goingbeyondbuddhameansthatyoureachbuddha,
andgoingfurther,youcontinuetoseebuddha.31

Do animals possess buddhanature? How would one know this? Not being a Zen
master, much less an awakened being, how then could I do anything more than
reiterate the question and rehash the traditional positions surrounding it? I am a
professional philosopher in the western tradition who has also studied Buddhist and
Zen philosophy; I try to practice zazen and follow the precepts as best as I am able.
Still, I know that I am far from attaining enlightenment. And yet, like many, I have
experienced moments that I cannot explain as anything other than profound flashes,
orglimpses,ofsnyat.Indeed,ithasbeenthosemomentsofexceptionalclaritythat
revealthedharmatruthofdependentoriginationandsustainmypractice.
OnesuchmomentoccurredwhenIwashuntingforthelasttimenowmanyyears
ago.Iwasthehunterinthestoryabove.WhenIlookedintothedyingdeersupturned
face and our eyes locked together, I experienced a moment of realization unlike any
other. The dharmawheel turned at that moment and I was overwhelmed by the
compassion(karun)thatattendsthebuddhaface.ThatoriginalfaceIsawintheface
ofthedeer,andwhileIknewthatIdidnotwanttokilltheanimal,IalsoknewthatI
must.AtthatverymomentIexperiencedanawakeningthathasneverleftme,andstill
coursesthroughmyentirebeing,bodyandmind,asitdidthen.Ifiredthefatalshot
the moment the deer lowered its head as if seeming to calmly acknowledge the
buddhafaceinmyown,justasIsawitinthedeersface.
Toseeafaceisalreadytohear:Youshallnotkill.32Thisistheheartofallethics.
Totakealifeisthemostseriousofactions.Itisnotonlytakingthelifeofaparticular
being, but the taking of all life. The face of the deer conveyed this command no less
than does the face of another person. In the deers face I saw my own. In killing the
deer,Ikilledapartofmyself.Inkillingapartofmyself,IalsokilledtheBuddha.Butin
killing the Buddha I paradoxically realized the original face of the Buddha. The
buddhafaceofthedeerconveyedthetruthofthedharma.Inthevertiginousmoment
of killing the deer I realized the profound truth of Levinas words, with which I was
31

Dgen,Shbgenz,Bukkjji,210.
EmmanuelLevinas,DifficultFreedom:EssaysonJudaism,trans.SenHand(Baltimore:Johns
HopkinsUniversityPress,1990),8.

32

14

alreadyfamiliar:Language,sourceofallsignification,isborninthevertigoofinfinity,
which takes hold before the straightforwardness of the face, making murder possible
and impossible . . . In the face, the Other expresses his eminence, the dimension of
heightanddivinityfromwhichhedescends.Inhisgentlenessdawnshisstrengthand
right.33

Transcending or going beyond buddhanature means becoming nonattached to

buddhanature. This is precisely what Zhaozhous Mu seeks to convey. In asking
whethertheparticulardoghasbuddhanature,themonkquestioningZhaozhouwas
in actuality asking whether buddhanature is. Zhaozhous reply cuts away the
ontologicalgroundtowhichthemonkisclinging.Buddhanaturecannotbeidentified
asthisorthatbecauseitpermeateseverythinginafundamentallyinterconnectedway,
thatis,absolutely,notrelatively.Ifthemonkcorrectlygraspedtheprofundityofthis
insight,thenthequestionwouldnothavebeenaskedinthefirstplace.Hewouldhave
seeninthepassingofthedogthepassingofhimself,andthereforethepassingofall
awakenedbeings.Themonkwouldhave,withoutthinking,seenwiththetruedharma
eyetheoriginalfaceofthedog.
The problem is not whether the dog, or any being for that matter, has buddha
nature.Thenondualstructureofmindknowsthattheanswerisbothyesandno,but
neitheronenortheotheransweralonesuffices.Andtosayyesandnoisnotsufficient
either. This is the standpoint from which Dgen is able to state that there is no
buddhanature. In the Diamond Sutra, the teaching is the attainment of no
attainment. Buddhanature is emptiness, and as emptiness it is form. Emptiness is
form,formisemptiness,expoundstheHeartSutra.Thisisthemahprajparamitof
thebuddhadharma.
Perhaps only when the interdependency of all entities is seen and recognized as
suchwilltheemptinessthatliberatesusallwillalsobeseenassuch.Thisrecognition
is the buddhanature that is not. The expression of buddhanature is the activity of
buddhanature. Knowing this relation between the expression and activity of
buddhanature, thinking like this, is a matter of realizing the timebeing (uji) of
buddhanature. And since time has already come, buddhanature is always
manifest.34 Thus the distinction between original and acquired enlightenment falls

33

Levinas,TotalityandInfinity,262.
Dgen,Shbgenz,Bussh,123.

34

15

away. Though distinct, they are simultaneously occurring. Impermanence is itself

buddhanature.35
Do not try to define buddhanature, writes Dgen, this just confuses. Rather,
think of it as a wall, a tile, or a stone, or, better still, if you can, just accept that
buddhanature is inconceivable to the rational mind.36 Do animals possess buddha
nature?
Absolutely...relativelyspeaking.

35

Ibid.,128.
Ibid.,140.

36