Genjokoan, chosen by Dogen Zenji to be the first chapter of his Shobogenzo, stands as the cornerstone of the man's maddening and penetrating philosophy. Okumura has spent much of his life chewing over the subtleties of Dogen's prose and in the process has offered, I hear, many fine translations. This book, the first by Okumura I have read, proposes to translate and discuss Genjokoan section by section, untangling its many semiotic knots and showing how even such an abstruse text can be focused entirely on practice and the life of sustained, unrelenting zazen. In the process we learn something about its connection to the other chapters of Shobogenzo, the relationship between the early and late periods of Dogen's thought-- the latter exemplified by the Extensive Record (translated, at least in part, by Okumura I believe)-- and the effect other streams of Mahayana philosophy had on the development of Dogen's ideas.
Because Genjokoan itself is so difficult "Realizing Genjokoan" is at times quite dense and academic in tone. this is especially true at the beginning when a great deal of linguistic explication, designed to give us some idea of the sophistication and poetic brilliance of Dogen's prose, takes place. Because of this, though not so much at the beginning for me, I found myself utterly lost at certain points while transfixed at others. This is, of course, a result of my own novice understanding of the material and no fault of Okumura's. But nonetheless, it's worth pointing out that at some points this book is very difficult.
One interesting facet of "Realizing Genjokoan" is Okumura's discussion of the place of "Enlightenment" (or, anyway, Kensho) in Dogen's thought. Taking the orthodox Soto position, Okumura denies Kensho is in any way important to the practice of Zen-- or to Dogen's understanding of Zen-- as opposed to the common belief that the Rinzai sect fetishizes it. Normally I find such debates too close to the doctrinal squabbles of Christian theology for my taste-- they are both intractable and uninteresting at the same time, and it's better not to waste your time on them. However, Okumura's texts presents the Soto argument with a certain good-natured force so its hard to ignore it in this case, and anyway Dogen's entire project during his years before moving to Eiheiji was to provide his followers a kind of pheonomenology of the awakened person (sorry for the pretentious verbiage) so it's kind of the central thing. What's more, some of the best sections (for me) were about this very topic. Okumura skillfully makes the case that for Dogen Realization or Enlightenment exists as a precise, open, and unsentimental moment-by-moment relationship with the universe. The person or self doesn't become "enlightened" because there is no separate individual to enlighten (we are talking about Buddhism after all). Rather, the universe itself is already perfectly enlightened and, since we are not different from the rest of the universe, we can take part of that any time through practice. As everything is already perfect, already enlightened, we don't discover our own "awakening." Instead we continually express the perfect awakening of the entire universe. This is inspiring stuff, and makes the striving for Kensho seem not only drab and selfish but, in the end, totally useless. Of course we know that Kensho is only the start of the journey in Rinzai and that, in the end, the whole purpose of striving is to, paradoxically, see in the bones how useless it is strive. This whitewashing of the Koan and Rinzai tradition is my only real criticism of an otherwise excellent book.
Another instance of this is Okumura's discussion of the recent scholarship concerning Dogen's own famous "Kensho" experience, the "Dropping away of Mind and Body" while at Rujing's monastery in China. If, the argument goes, Dogen is so dismissive of Kensho in his writings (which is what's being debated since he rarely made simple statements of fact and often made contradictory ones) then how come so much emphasis is made on his own Kensho? For Soto scholars and Okumura this specific account has been made-up. The whole thing is a lie designed to, somehow, rehabilitate the whole concept. One dissenting opinion on this is the teacher and writer Dosho Port [...]), a Dharma Heir of Dainin Katagiri. For Port, the scholarship suggesting malfeasance from later priests is unconvincing, which I can't comment on because I know nothing about it. But as to whether or not Dogen had an "Enlightenment Experience" Port makes the excellent point that in denying such things we are discounting a great deal of Buddhist and Zen history. Obviously Buddhists ever since Buddha himself have had opening experiences. And to deny this seems unwarranted arrogance. I like Port's take on the whole thing: "So ... did Dogen have a personal enlightenment? Yes, but he didn't take it personally."
But in the end, I can't say any of this matters to me when it comes to whether or not recommending the book is a good idea. Whatever the status of Kensho and the historical fact of Dogen's enlightenment, this book is an amazing piece of work. It's a good alternative if you don't have access to the entirety of Shobogenzo or want something meatier than, say, Brad Warner's "Sit Down and Shut Up" (Which I do recommend, by the way). It's also a great book if you enjoy an intellectual challeng. There's no doubt I'll be rereading "Realizing Genjokoan" again, and probably yet again.