Because of this deference to tradition, Dogen teaches that ascetics should practice under the direction

of an eminent teacher. "By practicing asceticism in a group, one attains the Way. It is like boarding a
boat without knowing how to row. Since one trusts a good boatman, it makes no difference whether
one knows how to row; one gets to the other side. Thus one should follow a good teacher and practice
in a group. Then, since one is not relying on one's own resources, one naturally attains the Way."123
However, the one who decides who is an "eminent teacher" is the ascetic himself. The basis of this value
judgment is the consciousness or experience of universal law within the ascetic himself. It is a rational
consideration within the subjectivity of the ascetic which operates here. Thus, when we analyze Dogen's
advice to follow a good teacher without regard for any further rational considerations, one ends up in a
vicious circle. Dogen, however, never touched upon this question. He simply ordered that one was to
devote himself absolutely to a venerated person. It may be objected at this point that absolute devotion
to a teacher is merely one of the social phenomena of a feudal society and that we simply have here a
reflection of the feudal character in Dogen's attitude. This is, perhaps, a plausible explanation, but I
hesitate to dispose of the question so simply. One hardly finds, in the feudal societies of India or China,
this advocacy of absolute devotion to a specific person. One does, to be sure, often come across the
phrase "become intimate with a zenchishiki" in the scriptures composed in India, but here zenchishiki is
a translation of kalyanamitra* which means "good friend" or "intimate friend." In Japan, on the contrary,
zenchishiki is taken in the sense of "religious teacher." It is Previous Released By -TSJ5J- Next Previous
Released By -TSJ5J- Next Page 454 the Japanese way of thinking which we find in this socio-hierarchical
interpretation. For the Indians (and for most Chinese Buddhists) the "law" in the religious sense was not
something transmitted to the pupil by the teacher as a specific individual, but rather something which
the ascetic himself mastered *. Indians would never dream of making such a statement as "I would not
mind being cast into hell if I were led astray by Saint Honen*." Thus this characteristic of the thought of
Shinran and Dogen* is not attributed to traditional Indian or Chinese Buddhism, and it is, furthermore,
difficult to attribute this attitude to feudalism in general. In the case of Dogen, one cannot say that he
acquired the characteristic in question from his Chinese master Ju-ching (1163–1228). The latter, in fact,
teaches the opposite of Dogen. Ju-ching was very prone to heap scorn on authority. He called Yuima
(Vimalakirti*, the wealthy gentleman) a "bandit" and Lin-chi (?–867) an "ass"; of Bodhidharma's
expression "Nothing can be called holy," he says, ''He himself created it, he himself destroyed it." He
even goes so far as to say, "To practice true Zen, one does not think about the masters."124 Moreover,
in keeping with the general tendency of Chinese Zen Buddhism, he denies the authority of specific
doctrines. For example, he says, "Atop Mt. Grdhkrakuta*, there are no words of the Master; at the foot
of Mt. Shaolin no mysteries are transmitted."125 (Mt. Grdhrakuta* is the place where the Buddha
explained the Lotus Sutra*: Mt. Shaolin is the place where Bodhidharma sat for nine years in meditation,
facing a wall.) Dogen himself claims to have transmitted very faithfully the teachings of his master Ju-
ching, but the fact is that Dogen opposes him when it comes to the question of the authority of
tradition.