- As for the blog's name: -

I was @ Gustav Ericsson's sight, - Anzenkai, and I was looking at Nishijima Roshi’s calligraphies over there. Particularly there is one - "seki shin hen pen" - about which Gustav has earlier said in a blog post that it is Nishijima's favorite phrase from Master Dogen.

This seemed strange to me. It was not what I would expect Nishijima Roshi's favorite phrase to be. It seemed it could be some Rinzai master's favorite quote, - it seems to express continuous and constant sincerity, - but it did not seem to fit my view of the way Nishijima Roshi saw things.

So - consequently - I tried to think what would I expect his favorite quote to be. But all phrases I could think of did not seem to fit just what I might have had in mind.

So I tried to come up with what I would see it as, - and what I have come up with - is - "this universe out here".

- And this seems to be the right name for this blog here too.

- Definitely.                                                 ________________________

Inviting Furious Attacks off the Light of Day and the Eyes of the Blind

I wrote this on 7.7.16. - I posted it first on September 8th, but deleted it on the 18. I initially intended to delete it then after a few days. I think the title makes the reason obvious. It is again posted today - October 30, - and I also initially intended to have it again on about that time, though I was unsure.

So if you have not read it then, do now. If you like.

(the rest is unchanged) As follows: (the rest is unchanged)

There is no clearer example of how could human thought be corrupted in our times and in contemporary society than the existing view having appeared in the last decades of homosexuality and neighbouring phenomena. - What is called LHTB is practically sickening humanity. Not through existence - I don’t mean that, - but through preaching. This could only be compared to the preaching of Nazism in the ’30, as it seems. Of course they do not preach violence or hatred but the wrongness and severe twist (to say the least) of reality is matching. - The extent to which some of what may be the most distorted phenomena of human mentality - putting aside some odd extremes we may always be able to find, - has been able to gain legitimacy and even be viewed by many as an expression of an actual sort of enlightenment, is truly unbelievable. There is no other matching testimony today to the miserability and poverty of human minds. Observing the Nazis, - for example - again, - one might have been easily able to present the positive features of individuals - their casual family life and their care for their close ones, - upholding of values some would believe in, - and create an apparently lovely picture of a pleasing person agreeable to all expectations of the general public. In other words, - showing you how LHTB’s could live in such a nice manner as to allegedly deny older existing views considering the phenomenon as a perversion and a corruption of human life - is bullshit. Nothing less. In principal it means nothing. A homosexual and a paedophile are fundamentally equally wrong in their existing tendencies. No paedophile is going to tell you of how the actualization of his fault is the correct fulfilment of his life being lived fully following its true aim. Same with other similar phenomena. - The LHTB group seems to have been able to twist and turn humanity and its thought in a manner unrevealed (naturally) to most today. Personally, - I have never come across even a single reasonable or relevant argument. People just think x, - and the common view is that x is correct, - and further that one who does not (explicitly stupidly) accept x and continues to hold views held previously before the rise of the popularity of x - is of a dark or a retarded mind unmatching with the pseudo observed view of the alofted masses.

As I said the change in view (in contrast with that held not so long ago) does not seem to be supported by any
(rational) practical arguments, it is just that when one expresses existing [new] views it is as if understood - goes without saying, - that those opposing these are dark and far (or somewhat) behind - and the attitude is accepted by surrounding fellows who never seem to notice, in general, - that nothing has practically actually generally been said. - But this is not the main point. - The main point is the extent to which this view newly prevailing does severely and completely violate reality. It is as if someone has been able to convince humanity that when coming to very large numbers (whatever the scale) the rules of addition no longer hold. It is as if someone has been able to present things as if iron is not a metal but some sort of a crystal or plastic. - It is as if we were told children need not be kept away from any sort of corrupting influence (perhaps particularly residing on the Internet) just in the same way our chairs and tables, furniture, would not suffer corrupting influence under any similar conditions. As a matter of fact, we are practically able to tell and learn, - that humanity does severely suck. - The shallowness and superficiality of modern man is - as it seems, - nowhere as strikingly evident as here. I know many will respond these words do not present opposing arguments denying their stance. Human intuition and natural simple fundamental notions have told humanity for most of its existence what these issues are. I won’t argue further than that. It is not easy to explain to a 15 years old teenager what it means to be 50 years old. Some people are stupid. However polite one may try to be the fact is not affected. - Some have got the eye to see things others don’t. This is the world. You can’t explain high math to someone who does not know basic calculation and you can’t necessarily explain some things to those whose personality is shallow or unclean. This is not a matter of the intellect. - Thinking otherwise would be about the deepest mistake. - It is never possible to put everything into figures which would be “objectively” comprehensible to all. - The fact many can’t fathom does not mean things are untrue. Some might blame me of conceit, but they do not even consider the possibility that I may simply be right. - There is no gain in continuing in this line.

I do think the Nazis are the best example. - It is because at the time view we may be able to quite easily see correctly today were held true in a manner quite unequalled. - It would have been pointless to try and speak at the time. The elimination of the Jews could not have been thought of as an undesirable result. The supremacy of the state or nation was not only not questioned, - but such questioning would have been practically considered immoral by many. - Blockheadedness could not be more easily viewed. And now again similar conditions arise. - Though of course in a different stage, - otherwise it could not be unnoticeable. - Seeing things is a matter of a mental state, of a mental situation, - the shallower a person, the more dull or faded his mind is, - the rougher intellectually is his mind restricted more obvious conclusions apparent on the surface, - the easier will he discard all that is said with typical confidence easily seen through. But the situation is quite hopeless. These words will only move those who are anyway somewhat nearby. Better than nothing. And together with other efforts elsewhere - with time, - some slight further progress may be achieved. This is all. “Even though two sparrows are sold for a penny, not one of them falls to the ground apart from the will of the Father”.

The “X” in Search of the Past behind your Back

In Shōbōgenzō Shunjū Nishijima’s footnote number 31 refers to a “story of a man who dropped his sword from a boat on a river, and tried to mark the place by putting a notch in his boat. He stubbornly searched under the notch, even though the boat had moved downstream”. (- The link is on the right, - Book 3 there of the Nishijima-Cross translation)

- Today’s religion is like this. - I mean those who originally leave the marks are not at all necessarily this foolish man off the story. - And the boat doesn’t move in a flash and the boat doesn’t move in a rush. - The situation humanity’s in doesn’t change overnight. - But it does change. - No one can deny that.

Judaism may be the worst. - Countless writings aimed at just the opposite of what Master Dogen means when he is saying about Master Nan’yo Echu (Nanyang Huizhong) that his “elucidation” “is never one truth or two truths”. (- Or, - “one way or two ways”, - Nishijima translates the Japanese “dō” as “truth" but this is clearly not the only way to have it, to say the least. - Chapter 53 (54 in Nearman’s translation) in the Shobogenzo, - Mujo-seppo.)

The allegory is very exact, in a way, - and this is what made me come to write this. - The unreasonability of the person in the story is so obvious while similar phenomena are ever escaping judgement of reason by eyes seeing them for what they are. - The nature of the spirit is not as the nature of physical matter in this rigid and rough world we are living in. - Still this is where we are. - It may be natural to write down instructions and directions received on the path. - And as well descriptions by those who know of what we don’t.

When a child is 3 years old he is told certain things. When he is 5 he is told certain things. When he is 6. - Parents would tell their children legends. A young child would not, of course, in many cases, - be aware that these stories do not reflect direct reality. He believes fairies, magic, witches, or whatever contents of these tales to be perceptible objects he might witness under possible circumstances. - I recall myself, at an older age, being concerned by questions such as who is stronger, - Batman or Spider-Man? - A friend trying to point to the fact that they do not in practice exist did not end my concern. I did not think at the time that abstract ideas (as these figures children uphold) do not have real features enabling us to relate to them as we might to real objects. But this is beside the point. - The point is of legends - as mentioned before that, - is it a lie a father is telling his son? Or is it not? Parents, of course, - are not unaware that young children at the appropriate age take what they are told as truth. Is it wrong? Obviously not many would think so.

- But if, - due to some distorted circumstances, - a child at 12 is still positively convinced his views of an earlier age are valid and true, - and further, - he can certify himself since he knows there is no doubt he was explicitly told so by those he trusts, - his reliable parents, - than there is undeniably something evidently wrong here.

- Of course wronger at 15 and worse if one is at an older age - possibly even an adult. Thinking of religion the situation is many times, as it seems, - about as bad as that. - It ever goes unnoticed because religion and faith are usually and normally taken to be nothing by most people today. Most would consider the issue pointless. - And in many cases the spirit itself is twisted in a way which makes things practically undetectable. - Due to a materialistic attitude within religious groups too. Materialistic attitude means they don’t know what understanding is and rely intellectually on written words. - But it is not only and merely about this.

It is not just about description of facts. - You might expect a child of 3 to behave in a certain way. You might give him according directions accordingly. - You would tell an older child of 5 or 12 different things. The two criteria would be the correct way for the child to act or behave according to his level of development and the appropriate means of presenting things regarding his ability of comprehending what you present him with.

Rules the Buddha gave over 2,000 years ago are not necessarily what he would order today. Some would still be in place, but it takes a certain kind of inner understanding to be able to tell. And this is of course never achieved through any form or kind of mere intellectual study. It takes more than that. And Jesus too, equally, - might have spoken somewhat different in accordance with humanity’s current level of development today two millenniums after the time he spoke his words we know. He somewhat related to that too, - changing earlier instructions and referring to the reason of that too. Things are much worse still. - It is not only that. There is the situation that scholars or learned men (or women, though not so frequently) imagine that after learning and becoming familiar with mere words and letters and acquiring knowledge the acquiring-of demands no inner or unique particular ability, they are able to “enrich” the existing contents of the religious or spiritual writings or customs, and on the basis of their materialistic familiarity with the external form of the issues and matters they may be dealing with, - they would expand and reform the field within which believers and practitioners innocently seek their path and way.

If scholastic knowledge as acquired and gained in the academic institutes would have been enough in the field of spirit, - (and understanding of the Dharma explicitly demands spiritual abilities, construction of the spirit, whatever anyone might say) practice as we know it would never have been necessary.

It is not about mere empty knowing of this or that. - The situation is different than in the secular field. - There it is just about features or abilities we already know being perhaps sometimes somewhat improved. - Here practitioners are to acquire gradually something they are initially ignorant as for the nature of. The main point is to change yourself. Master Dogen might object to the expression in contexts existing at his time, but here the situation is - as it seems, - just calling for this point. I don’t know if he would find a better way of putting it, he very likely would, - but it does not in any way negate what I am saying. He somewhat refers to the point too but it would not be useful for us here as it seems.

- Anyway, - one needs to become able to understand, then he will. It is not about how much you heard or read as it may be in other shallower fields. Those unfamiliar with the field would normally be blind to the fact. - There is no inner change people are familiar with normally in adult life in the lives of most people today. - Spiritual development roots out some rigidity inside your guts enabling gradual changes to occur in your personality with time as you practice or live. There are other changes. People of course sometimes changes in ways that are not generally mysterious, - but it is not the same.

- It is not easy to explain. - Anyway, - through practice, sometimes, - the ability to bring about changes is introduced, - and actual changes too are brought about. - It is not the same as things that happen sometimes in the secular field. You might say psychiatry and psychology are idiotic, - but I won’t get into that.

As for the effect of “Zen”, - there is an idea I thought of long ago, - and I will present it here: -

      Suppose you live in a neighbourhood where houses are generally 3-4 stories high. - As is a great part of Tel Aviv. - And let’s say you wake up one morning, - and step out to the porch, - and you see in front of you, - where there was an empty yard yesterday, - between two houses just across the street as it sometimes happen, - a new building 8 or 9 stories high - fully completed, - there are even tenants living there, - as you can see from the windows half open or laundry hanging off porches there. The building is brand new, it is obvious it has just been completed, - but a few tenants at least have already moved in. - As you can see through the building’s general appearance, - As I said.

      Now let us suppose also that you speak to no one about it.

      First you would obviously - perhaps at least, - think you might be dreaming. Let us assume you live alone. - So you have no one to talk to at home, and let’s say you passed the ideas saying (if so) you might be dreaming and this might not be real and know this is just a fact.

      Now you go off to work. And I said let us suppose that you speak to no one about it. Here is the point: - Your view, - that day, - seeing things, - whatever you see and come across that day, - will be different. - Your mind will be somewhat more open. Things will enter you differently. The soft shock you received creates a different situation where your inner systems work in a different manner. All this is assuming you talk to no one about what you experienced. Otherwise your mental situation will be different. - But this is necessary for our story here, - to make it able to clarify and expound what it is designed to. - Thing enter your mind deeper, but not violently. - After a while the mood will fade. It does not last for ever. But through Zazen you enter a mental state, - very slowly and gradually, and not everyone will come to it, - but after years of practice you get a steady state which becomes your normal one, - where the virtue I was talking about is inherited within your being through practice.

There is no way to get to that through any new form of prescriptions by the ignorant professionals living and ruling the scene today.

It is not possible to bypass the spirit.

- Those blind to it are ever living in a somewhat 2-dimensional reality. - It is like a person living in world made up only of rigid solid cubes. You can’t tell him of other things unmatching phenomena his rigid mind is unaccustomed to. I related to a similar idea in an earlier post. - The Spirit is not something that could be devised by those who don’t know it by means of guessing. - I doesn’t work that way. Common men and scientists today take the spirit and all that may be in general associated with religion or faith or occultism to be reamains of a primitive attitude we have - in their view, - moved beyond. - It will not get serious attention. And even if it would, - they would not see it reasonable to apply the tools necessary to get anywhere in the field. - The main point I wish to make here is that there is something of a different nature, in the way clouds are different from plastic toys or robotricks, - which the materialistic rulers of our contemporary miserable society - in the cultural way I mean, - can not and will not fathom, - and the possible results the enabling-of-which they miss, - are unequal to whatever they may be able to construct through their materialistic means.

In other words, - materialism means superficiality. - But the post was supposed to be about another thing. - It is about how religious ideas stagnate and remain as a shell empty of its contents. - A dead sea creature could be a good allegory too.

These words observed for themselves devoid of the real context and meaning may be much like a clam where only the shell is left, - or some similar creature, - and where those dealing with it don’t get there was a living creature inside and the dead thing they are holding misses fundamentally the essential thing.

This is why I brought the story at the beginning. - Had things been so easy to present all that I am saying, or trying to say, - would have been already known. There are many who are aware of the funny situation. Even if these many can be very few. It depends what you call it. And it doesn’t matter. - Strict adherence to religious texts unaware of their living contents can mislead like a blind camel in the desert. The essence is not easily brought into words. If you take the words relying on which “Zen” students have been able to become “Zen” masters, - they may be the best examples: - They meant everything to the right person at the right time, they might mean very little or nothing at all otherwise. You can’t cling to words out of context.

This was intended to be one post. But I’ll cut it off here, I don’t know why, - and I’ll complete it some other time.

It will be on in October, I believe. Cheers.


In the field of education a lot of things are heard. – The importance of the matter is not – of course – altogether lost or missed. – Though, still, - I believe, - most would naturally perhaps be blind – to a great extent, - to the core of the living issue. – This may be quite natural, perhaps, - in times almost worshiping the thin intellectual layer of thought, considering the spiritual irrational by nature as a preliminary assumption, - and where and when human abilities are continually corrupted and degenerated through newborn-prejudices and corresponding dry and lifeless shallow atmosphere in which incapable immature humans could satisfy themselves with accepted approval through existing norms born through doubt. The ability to see is not appreciated while the construction of somewhat complicated structures reflecting the outcome of the view of those of mediocre abilities is considered the standard by which society should measure its standards and norms creating its being in contemporary times.

However, the issue is education, and not why the points I am about to relate to are not [so far] seen or raised in general.

The first point to observe in the field of education in general as it seems to me at the times we are living in is of a person’s ability to tell which of the views he imagines to be his own are actually so. – We are living in a time in which the intellect is greatly considered. I have related to it just above. – Wisdom, at the same time, with the utmost ease escapes procedural and formal tests and exams and could not be detected with measures the objectivity of would considerably rely on the question of whether they [the measures] would be verifiable by all – regardless of their own abilities as individuals. The practical situation is that many view themselves according to their intellectual-abilities, and here too, not much is demanded. (In most cases) – Depth of character, - liveliness of thought, anything that goes beyond the mere abilities which as-a-matter-of-principle could practically be those of an outstanding child of seven, - are underestimated and due to their-own-absence the ability to appreciate them is lost too.
– In this situation, - the ability to be able to tell what of a person’s overall view is truly of his own creation and of his own critical-filtering and what – on the other hand, - is absorbed off the society he (or she) lives in – is diminished and to a great extent lost with-regard-to-partial-points within his (or hers) world picture held by the person.

There are other situations too where other factors – of a rough character alternatively in many cases, - or an unclean mentality, - would lead to that result.

Unlike what people seem to believe in general, rendering their mind rational as a mathematical equation, practically human views held are sometimes absorbed, at some level, off what is common to believe around them. Depth of consciousness may very well be the main question here. And of course, many – particularly of shallow minds and a self esteem which does not correspond, - would not enjoy the comment regarding the issue and would react with typical insincerity attacking the commentator.

Consider Nazi Germany, now it is quite easy to see where the views generally held at the time originated, to a great degree. – But supposed you were at the time there, or that you were able to go there, - could you point and clarify that to a person at the time? – Quite obviously you might have preferred not to try. There may be rare individuals who might have the eye to glimpse your truth, but in most cases, - it seems, - failure is close to being guaranteed. – The situation is not identical. It is not merely about making individuals notice they are blindly absorbing issues off society and their surroundings but also, it is true, - about pointing to some emptiness or wrongness of views in themselves. – But thinking of the issue makes it easier to notice the phenomenon I-am-trying-to-relate-to today too.

With young children it might be easier. – Perhaps around the ages of 5 to 12. Children do have a lot of views or opinions or thoughts which they of course never have deeply considered. – They have been told this and they have been told that. Some may be right and some may be wrong. – Due to this situation it may be easier for them to come to notice the fact that they do not really know (many times) why they actually really think what they do. – With age the situation changes. Around 15 the situation would be different and again around 18 or 21. But anyway, - relating to the point at an early age would create consciousness of the related phenomenon in itself which would still exist at a later age too. – It is of course not wrong as-a-matter-of-principle to accept authority. Are we aware that we do? Are we aware of the reasoning? This is of course a different matter. – Very young children would of course believe everything their parents tell them is true. – This situation is not changed at once but gradually. As for adults, - when they live in a society where the standard is not to examine the issue they would very well absorb this too if they are absorbing the surrounding-of-their-ideas in general as referred to earlier. – But talking about children – if you question them about several elementary issues it might be quite easy for you to show them that they are not really aware of why they believe this or that. – Further, - though for this at a too-young-age this might not be so, - you might be able to make them notice that at certain points what they imagine to be simply what-they-think quite independently they don’t really know (unless particularly thinking about it) any rational justification to but simply have been told.

A child who has come to notice it as a child, - even though the nature of the phenomenon changes with age, - having become familiar with it at a stage when it is so easy to see, - would hold the awareness of the possibility of the phenomenon basically throughout his life later. Of course it is not guaranteed. If it is merely pointed out one day in school he might forget it the next. – But if he does come to the simple awareness at this age it is an understanding which will hold.

The issue is not particularly important with children. It is important with adults. Mainly, I’d say, - perhaps – after their mid 20’s. It is merely considerably easier to deal with at a younger age. Advancing with age, until 28, a deeper attitude is (or may be) required in order to display it. – Since the phenomenon itself becomes accustomed to the development in one’s personality and is accordingly better hidden (or otherwise of course gone) and further complexed. – Trying to make it clear how to deal with it then would be far less easy. – However, - for example – we do know that in most cases those born in religious families remain religious and those born in secular families remain otherwise too. Does this make sense? Of course not. The religious are often not interested in rational examination due to feelings of guilt and the modern-common-materialists a lot of times possess common baseless confidence due to which they would underestimate it and imagine they have generally performed it [quite unconsciously] anyway. Even if you point to a religious person that the fact that he or she were born where they were does not conclude that the religious beliefs held there are correct, - it is very hard for them to accept this.

Hatred for others which is acquired through “education” at home is a lot similar. While beliefs considered to be enlightened in modern ages could be of the issue too. Uchiyama Roshi speaks of that very nicely in his commentary of Bendowa. Though he is not that explicit. He speaks of people stopping thinking – in the past, - when they heard the word “Buddha”, and later, correspondingly, - when hearing of the Emperor and later “Democracy”. But this might drift somewhat off my intended line here. I have not summed the subject but I will here leave it at that. – What I am saying is that it is important for people to be aware of when ideas they hold true are actually derived by their own mental-means through reason (including reasonable trust in others, this is not faulted) and whenconverselythey [the ideas] are merely the outcome of an unconscious habit they are unaware of since they see it generally everywhere around them. (– So to speak, - “everywhere” – considerably among others, that is to say)

Andthat this would be the first point to relate to when coming to dedicate your thought to the issue of education.

Second, - would be the matter of being aware how far could one’s abilities exceed. To what extent could one rely on his (or hers) mental-abilities and where – conversely, - one should know that his (...) judgment would be insufficient and that he would practically better trust that of some others, - if possible.

This would of course somewhat contrast – though not just at 180° – with the first point brought here just above. – Some might say perhaps it would (somewhat) balance it. I don’t find these observations particularly important. What is important is to note reality as it is and notice the practical tools in need. Sometimes they might be at one direction and sometime they might be at another.

However, - while the first point is to be aware of when your views are actually your views, and you might say consequently making sure that they are, - since you would not naturally want to hold opinions which found their room in your mind simply as some matter of random appearance through what would not be valid as-for assuring their truthfulness and realism as a picture of what-ever-you-observe, - the second point is about when conversely you might imagine yourself capable of coming to conclusions as for some issue while actually the real picture is more complex or complicated or refined then your natural assumptions, - or while it requires some unique or special expertise relating to some connection you are somewhat-unaware-of. I don’t see a way to make things clear as for the second point like it seems to be possible for the first. – The second phenomenon originates with an unclear mind, underestimation of an issue due to somewhat of a rough sight, - as it seems. – I don’t think it could be pointed to [– as a concrete incident, - that is] as the first could. – The matter is not as easy, - it mainly requires a change in a person’s personality, as it seems. Still, - when relating to actual people facing one who wishes to relate to the matter, - ones who are also willing to listen, - things are a bit different. – Success is not guaranteed, but real people are not abstract ideas, - and observing them, - in case you understand the issue itself related-to here, - you might find what to grasp and/or hold on to in order to clarify the second-phenomenon-I-find-importance-with here.

That would mean of course somewhere relating to concrete examples, adapting yourself to the audience – and I could hardly expect success with a crowd of more than a few dozens, - but there are those whose abilities I could not easily estimate.

This could be explained to an actual person, and as I made clear it need not be one, - but giving an explanation here in a written blog that would do the trick just as well, - I could not see as possible. There are always those whose abilities exceed expectations, - but given that Buddha or Christ would not give it a try I do not see it as practical.

Some would of course see what I mean, I would be a fool to write this otherwise. – But generally speaking the ability to clarify the second point relies on the talent or the inner capabilities of a person. – The reason we are sunk in materialism is to a great extent this issue. I recall Steiner somewhere saying or writing that the rise of materialism has to do with the popularization of science. As long as it was in possession of few it found no conflict with faith. – I don’t see a direct issue of humility, though it may be my limited sight, - but many – particularly when so habited in society, - (see of course first issue) would easily miss the fact, - (supported by the fact that this missing is joyfully performed by many) that their mental abilities are insufficient for the determination of certain matters, simply accepting existing standards blindly and dryly (again this is somewhat of the first matter, but here it might hardly seem they could tell themselves) as for what-they-could-determine-themselves and what-they-would-need-to-accept-authority-as-for.

This is all.
I wrote this on May 26th, May 29th, and June 16th 2015.
I don’t know when I will come to publish it.
My blog is stuck due to the “Time” post I can not complete because of fucking matters I don’t know if I get to write about.

A Story

The following is a story I’ve written on 22.8.14. - “In one take”, - as far as I can remember; - all in Hebrew, apparently. Apologies to all who do not speak the language. - Normally this blog is in English, - but my first language is Hebrew, and living in Israel this is what I speak every day here, - no other choice generally.

I do not intend to translate it, and I do not see a point in it. There may be such one or two posts in the future, - but in general of course thing will be as they are. The story is titled “Attention Deficit Disorder” and would not be, I guess, - anything you might expect coming across its name. Some of the readers here do understand Hebrew, even if a few, - and the blog is free of charge, as you know.

- Others, - see you next time - hopefully.

הפרעת קשב

בארץ רחוקה, לפני שנים רבות, חי לו מלך. ולו ממלכה, - אותה ארץ, ומלכה. ולהם בן – נסיך, - אשר הגיע לפרקו וטרם נישא.

וביום מן הימים, הגיעה – נתדפקה על דלת הארמון, - בריה צנועה. נסיכה – לדבריה, - מאחת הממלכות השכנות, - אשר נתגלגלה לאשר נתגלגלה ובקשה מחסה ללילה – ובבקר – תמשיך את דרכה, אם בשובה לביתה ולארמונה ואם למחוז חפצה בדרכה זו – יהיה אשר יהיה.

והנסיך, - נראה – אשר לא מוטרד היה ככלל מהעדר רעיה דווקא ואפילו לנוכח מעמדו כיורש העצר, - דומה היה, או יתכן ניכר – כי עלתה בדעתו האפשרות, - ולו קלות, - בעניינה של האורחת המזדמנת וגלה עניין, - אף אם קל – בדמות החדשה אשר הופיעה בארמון, שם הדמויות – ככלל – מוכרות כולן - וידועות, - והחדשות אינן רבות, והדברים ידועים ושגורים.

והמלכה, - אשת המלך, אם הנסיך, - בקשה – יתכן משום כך, - לעמד על אם אמנם נסיכה היא אשר נזדמנה כאמור לארמון, - או אם – יתכן – תרמית כאן, - ונוכלת היא הטוענת לשאינה ולשלא תהיה ואף שאינו מוכר לה – ניתן לומר – לאמיתו של דבר.
הילכך, - הורתה להציעה את יצועה של האורחת באין-ספור מצעים, זה על גבי זה, - עד כי נדרשה לסלם על מנת לטפס ולנוח שם. ובאין רואה, נגשה המלכה, - והניחה – תחת לאלה – גרגר אפונה.

וירד הלילה ועלו דרי הארמון על יצועם, איש ואשה, - ואותה נסיכה – אם נסיכת-אמת ואם לאו ומתחזה – בהם. וישנו. רובם, - כמסתבר.
ובקר, - ונשאלה זו באם ישנה כהלכה – בידי מארחיה, - כטבעם של מארחים החפצים לדעת אם יצאו ידי חובתם ככאלה, - והנסיך ואמו המלכה בהם, בין השואלים. ותשובתה, - לאחר דברים הבאים להפיס לב יושבי הארמון בדבר איכות מצעיה וטיבם, - כי אעפ"כ נתהפכה ושבה ונתהפכה מלוא כל הלילה כולו מטעם לא-ידוע ולהרדם לא עלה בידה. ובקשה המלכה לומר – נוכח כך, - "נסיכה אמיתית" – כשהניחה דעתה כאמור, אלא שלא כך היה ולא כך נסתיימו הדברים.

בכעין טירה, המרוחקת כמטווחי קשת ואולי אף מעט למעלה מכך מן הארמון, חיה קבוצה של בריות חסרות דעת אף אם פקחיות, שוטות אך מלומדות, מבטן קודר ומצער ונעוץ עיתים בקרקע, אשר באותם ימים נסתגרה במשכנה ולא רב נזקה לעולם המאיר עדיין דאז. שכלתנים היו שוכני אותו מקום – מבנה כאמור, - ומוזרה תורתם, - וכל עולמם מחשבות יבשות כקורי עכביש ומסובכות כמוהם – חכמה אחרת לא נודעה להם, - "פסיכיאטרים" יקרא להם וכך נודעו.

ובארמון אחד היה בן שיחם, - שר המדינה. איש אחר לא השיח עמם, ואף לא מבקשים היו – ככלל – בני שיח בעניין רב מחוץ למשכנם האפל והמסוגר עדיין באותם ימים ומסתפקים היו זה בזה בלבד ולא יוצאים היו ובאים רבות בדרכים ובמקומות בהם בני אדם. ונשמע – כמסתבר – באזניהם המקרה אשר בא את בית המלוכה, וענין היה לאלה בכגון דא. והודיעו בדאגה רבה לשר המדינה – כי רופאים היו בעיני עצמם, - כי סובלת הנסיכה משהם בלבד יודעים ומכירים טיבו, - "הפרעת קשב". – "הפרעת קשב" – הודיעו לשר המדינה, - ורציני צליל קולם וחמור כמעה. ואף אם לא ברור לנו כיצד נמצא הספק בידי שר המדינה החרוץ והישר להזדרז במידה הדרושה, - הרי שטרם הביאה המלכה דבריה – שכן באה על סיפוקה ונחה דעתה – ועמדה להביע אמונה באמת-היותה של הנסיכה אשר היא, - הקדימה שר המדינה – אדם רציני ושקדן אף אם לא חכם במידה החורגת מן הממוצע, - והודיע – כמאמר אותן בריות שוכנות-טירתן-האפלה – כי נגועה האורחת הנכבדה – "הפרעת-קשב" – כאמור. ושאלה המלכה, - מטבע הדברים, - שכן אותו צרוף מילים לא נשמע באזניה קדם לכן, - הפרעת קשב מהי? – ושקל שר המדינה דבריה, - ושב ושקל, - ושוב שב ושקל, - וחשב ושב וחשב, - והשיבה דבר – כי אין הוא יודע. אם כך, - הקשתה המלכה – מה פשר דבריך? ומובן, - כי באין פשר אין משמעות. וספר שר המדינה עקב כך אודות שוכני הטירה הנושנה האפלים והמתייגעים, - אשר ידועים היו, לא נסתר קיומם, - אלא שלא אבה המלך, - ככלל, - במידה של חכמה – כדרכם של מלכים, - להטריח עצמו בענייניהם ולהטות אוזן להגיגיהם הפקחיים וחסרי הדעת. ולא נדרשה המלכה לומר דבר, - ושב שר המדינה אל אלה ושאלם לפשר שיאמרו.

והשיבוהו דבר, והשיב את המלכה.

דברים מתמיהים, - ולא ידעו אלה אודות נסיכות-של-אמת ורעיונות מעין אלה, אלא שהבהירו דרכם ודבריהם. ריטלין טרם נודע באותם ימים ולא היה בידם. תרופה אחרת ידעו – חמורי סבר – וקודרי מבע, - למום שמצאו בנסיכה ממנו סובלת היא בעיניהם ועל פי מומחיותם. תשכן הנסיכה חדש ימים – ואם ידרש עד לרפויה המלא אף למעלה מכך, - בדיר החזירים המלכותי. עד אם אינה מוטרדת עוד מצחנה כלשהיא שבמקום, - או מנחרות שוכני-המקום בימים כתיקונם – שאז נדע כי נרפאה והוכחה לכך שימצא תיפקודה כזה של אחד האדם. אדם בריא אשר גרגר אפונה יחיד לא יוכל – רחמנא ליצלן, - להטריד מנוחתו ולהפריע שנתו.

נזדעזעה המלכה, - אך טרם עמדה על אווילות מרעיו של שר המדינה, כילדים המדמים עצמם בשלים אשר חשיבתם בוסר כולה, - שכן מלומדים היו, - וככל מארחת המכבדת עצמה – חפצה בטובת אורחתה. וחרצה – כי יבואו אלה בפני זו, - ויביאו דברם בפניה.
ובאו לארמון, - מקום שלא מורגל היה בהם, - ולחדרה של נסיכתנו גיבורת סיפור זה. והבהירו, - כיודעים ומביני-דבר, - או בקשו להבהיר, - את שהיה בידם לומר, - מתוך שיחורו המובהק של טובתה – כמובן מאליו אשר למותר לציין. אלא שזו נסיכה הייתה. ובמבט עמדה על טיבם של הלמדנים המחוכמים אשר נזדמנו – דרך הפתעה גמורה – לחדרה שם, ובקשו להבהיר – כאמור, - טובתה הידועה אך להם. ואספה חפציה, המעטים, כמובן מאליו במצב האמור, - ושמה פעמיה משם ולחוץ. ואל בני שיחה – או אל שבקשו להמצא כאלה, - לא נתנה דעתה – ולא השיבתם מלה וחצי מלה, - ואף במבט לא זכתה את אותם בני אדם ידענים ומשכילים, חרף נסיונותיהם הבהירים לבוא עמה בדברים, - כדרכם של בני אדם. נוהג תמוה מדי, - בעיניהם של אלה לכל הפחות, - אשר אף אותו ישכילו לפרש על-פי מומחיותם באופן העשוי לעורר דאגתו הכנה של כל אדם בר דעת, - קרי לא הפרעת-קשב בלבד כאן, כי אם אף "פראנויה" או "סכיזופרניה" – מצב שצריכה הדעת להנתן בעניינו – כמובן, - ויש לברך על כי נזדמנו לאותו מפגש ונתגלה הדבר. – והנסיכה – כאמור, - מתוך התעלמות גמורה מן המבקשים לבוא עמה בדברים – פנתה אל דלת החדר, - ומשם אל המסדרון, ואחר אל מסדרון אחר, ואף מבלי ליטול ברכת שלום ממארחיה הנאמנים, - אל שער הארמון, ואל הגן, ואל השער החיצון, - ואחר – אין איש יודע לאן.

והנסיך, - קדר. ואבל. – ואין דרכו כמקדם ונעלמו דרכיו ונפלו פניו ואין עניינו בדבר.
ורע המצב מיום ליום. וקדרו המלך והמלכה, - ותרופה אַין.

עד כי אין עוד לשאת כזאת. היה הנסיך כלא היה ויגון דמותו וצער נפשו. ומרפא – כאמור – אַין. שנה, וחדש, ועוד חדש, וחדש נוסף – וכל הנחלים באים אל הים ודברים כשהיו ושינוי אינו נודע.
עד כי צווה המלך, - כי יועלה באש משכנן של אותן בריות משונות ומתות-מבע, כי ישרף ביתן על יושביו, - וכי יוחרב המקום אף אחרי כן וימחק מן העולם עד כי לא נודע כי עמדו שם אבנים זו על גבי זו. וכך נעשה. וטירה שם אין ואבן אין ואף הקדרות חלפה ושב הצומח לאיטו. כאן עץ ושם צמח ועשב בר כבכל מקום.

והאם שבה הצעירה אל הארמון לאחר מכן – ביום מן הימים? לא נדע. כאן תם סיפורינו. האם שבו פניו של הנסיך? האם נמצאה אחרית הדברים כבכל האגדות? אם חיו באשר ועשר מניין שנים זה או אחר? אין מענה. והחפץ לדעת דבר יבוא באותה ממלכה, ויבקש דברי ימיה, - ויודיע אף אותנו דבר. מוסר ההשכל – די בו. ואחרית הדברים, - לא הובאה בפנינו.

(אף כי עדיין הולכים הנחלים אל הים) סוף (אף כי עדיין הולכים הנחלים אל הים)

| - x - H i < > * - * - * - * < > i H - x - |


Following the last post

I came across this video not so recently. - Several years ago, I don’t know when.

Recently I had, - naturally, - a thought about integrating it into a post, here on the blog.

- That is using it on the blog. - During the writing of the last post I did not think about it, - the idea of using it in that post or adding it there did not occur to me - but anyway it seems it would not fit in there.

Now that the post is written and scheduled, (not yet posted) I remembered it. - As you can understand the “recent” thought I mentioned is not so recent. - Obviously I like the video, - but it has its point if you have some idea of what the theory I was writing about in the last post is really worth. - Though this was not obviously the clear intention of the piece in the first place. Of its creator. - Anyway - now that you have read the previous post of June 30, - this video here will be better able to speak for itself.


Natural Choice Examined

Among common men observing things as most do today the view accepting and affirming the spheres of reality outside the physical plain where we reside here on Earth is normally presented as irrational.

The truth would be rather contrary. - A person only familiar with solid objects whose thought has been accustomed only to them would find difficulty in relating to liquids he has never seen, - when hearing about them due to his own limited ability of a rather harsh mind he might find or suspect the idea irrational. - A person only familiar with solids and liquids - living in a theoretical world (though of course impossible) where only these two exist, - would find it hard to understand - initially at least, - what gas is. - Unless a person of perhaps unusual abilities - assuming he himself lives in a worlds where all his fallow men too share the same reality and the same conditions, - he would most likely reject as idea of such a state if this is the custom taught in the described society in which he lives.

If a person to whom liquid is totally foreign - as in the first example, - hears about it at first, - it might be very difficult to convince him - describing it to him, - that it is something different from sand. Particularly if it is an intellectual person confident in his inferior abilities of inflexible thinking.

Further, - if one is familiar only with lifeless matter, never having seen any plant or any form of a living organism, - particularly not any living flesh bearing a mind and motion, - his mental processes and particularly those of thought would naturally not be accustomed in a reasonable way to dealing with it.

His mind would not be one of accordance with such a reality as external surroundings. - His mental abilities would practically not be naturally able to match such perception and deal with it in a full and sufficient manner. - Needing to relate to the occult being only familiar with ordinary life as usually faced in ordinary society today is somewhat similar to the above examples.

This is not the direct subject of the post, but it seems in place to preface it. - Other examples might be brought in other posts. Here I will relate to the renowned theory as the title implies.

Charles Darwin, - 1884
It is particularly amazing, as it seems, after all I will say here, - that this theory has been able to persevere and sustain itself until today. The faults I intend to relate to are apparently so obvious and severe, - that it seems difficult to understand how could this idea not only have been accepted as reasonable - but also have been so widely viewed as more-or-less the sole explanation for the existing reality. People simply see it as a fact. Both common men and scientists. This is obviously no secret and has not been.

First, - the main idea of this theory is of a fruit of a need. Or of a fruit of a natural chance, - I mean here “chance” in the sense of an opportunity. - Obviously it is not active today within humanity. So for at least several hundreds of years.

The need or the chance is the engine. - It could, - supposedly, - improve the features of animals through its proposed mechanism, - giving them higher abilities either in the mental or physical fields. - That is to say - the level or amount of improvement would be in accord with the conditions in the environment and the possible achievements useful for the organism at the relevant time.

I will not try to define exactly what would be reasonable improvement for various organisms such as bacteria, sea weed, plants, fish of different sizes, and animals ranging from whichever low forms to monkeys and apes. One reason may sufficiently be that the theory is unreasonable anyway, - and as a general rule is unequivocally not any significant engine behind evolution, - which means that in most cases - as it seems, - this amount to be estimated simply does not exist. Apart from that anyone can use his common sense.

I do not intend to try and make an exact definition for humans either, similarly.

The obvious will be enough. - Given that the process was supposed to have acted a considerable time ago, as for humanity, we can very easily get some reasonable estimation which might be shocking. - Let us try and consider what mental abilities might have been able to develop through this process: - Consider the conditions under which humanity might have been and what or which benefits arising from mutations could have been possible. - How high could this have lifted the human mind? - Today we are familiar with the abilities of the human mind, no doubt, at least to some extent. - Sky scrapers are one result manifesting its abilities. The Internet is another. The genius of artists and men of spirit such as Mozart, Goethe, Dogen, Gauss and of course a considerable number of others is one other exquisite example. - The potential lying  in the human mind is already known to be enormous. The examples here are enough. We need not go beyond that.
What situation in a primitive surroundings as man has been in during the foremost line of his development could have been promoting in a way which would lead to such achievements?


This is utterly impossible. However far we would like to choose to extend or pull the limits of random chance, with any probability which could by any view be considered reasonable, - it would be impossible. The fact is so extreme that it does seem explicitly and considerably silly it could have been overlooked - as it has been, - beforehand.

I could continue with further explanations, but I am quite certain anyone interested with reasonable common sense could observe the reality for himself and see the more complete picture. - What real conditions might have produced might have been at most a mind capable of building a few huts or using primitive language. - Perhaps constructing the simplest levels of society, even democracy as an idea would have been too complicated. - The spring - the apparent spring, - off primitive society where and when these processes (of natural choice) would have been still active, - to what we know lives in potential in the human mind, - would have been practically amazingly off limit.
- This bounce could never have taken place.

The reason the theory has been taken as it has, it seems, is that - roughly thinking at least, - the only alternative considered to exist was the Biblical story of creation. In western society of course. - And through eliminating the other alternative, stupid humans came to imagine there is no other way and Darwin’s theory is inevitable. - This is not a central issue here, but it does seem to a great deal this is what happened.

A second point: - The theory begins with a mutation. Else than some point I will relate to in the end. - This is a mistake in copying a file. The occurrence is very rare. I don’t know how rare. Then there is the question of whether the mutation has been useful or harmful. (or just useless anyway) Obviously, - in the great majority of cases, - it will be of no use. Then the process does not begin. - Only on occasions when a mutation, by pure chance, - has been such that is of aid in some way to the organism, - is it included in the process of natural choice. - But this is still far from being enough.

Consider an organ such as an eye. - It would take a terribly great number of mutations to bring about its appearance. - It could of course never have been constructed by a few mutations. - But this is not all: - the question here would be after how many such mutations would the organ beginning to form, - the organ in its initial appearance and development, - begin to bring any sort of use to the organism it is part of. - Only at the point it is beginning to be of any real use and benefit, - is the process beginning to work. Is the wheel of Darwin’s supposed idea beginning to slowly turn. - Now the question would be the chance of a consequent line of a considerable number of mutations all occurring consequently one after the other before the process has been able to come into action. What would be the chance, - the probability, - of such a series of mutations taking place under such conditions? - Zero, - approximately. - In addition to the rarity of mutations in general, and to the rarity of those of them which would initially be of any relevance to the process, - there would be the impossible probability of the necessary line or chain of consequent mutations in need for the development and appearance of organs absent in the organism beforehand. This is a stupid and impossible theory. Mind you. And mind all.

If you find the general presentation intuitively insufficient, you might relate to practical calculation. - If the probability for the occurrence of a mutation is x, the probability for the occurrence of two would be x2. - The probability of the occurrence of 6 mutations would be x6 and for the occurrence of 50 of them x50. - It doesn’t take much to thrust the chances high into nowhere. - It explodes exponentially.

If you need the mutations to appear in a certain order this would diminish the probability further, if we need n mutations to appear in full order - this would mean the probability would not be xn as before but would be further divided by the factorial - [(xn)/(n!)]. - This would be for example for 5 consecutive mutations x5/120 instead of just x5. - This additional point isn’t really necessary or very important but it still seems to be worth mentioning.

This post is mainly about these two points, - the attainment of humans being far above anything which might have been achieved through the proposed theory, and the need - in many cases, - for a continuous series of a considerable number of independent occurrences of a distinct deformation which would be to appear before the operation of the natural process is beginning to take its place, - a need which would make the relevant probability fade into nothing like a senseless mosquito trying to battle a basketball on its way to score down the loop or a football flying gracefully into the top right corner of the rectangular goal set in the game’s field.
There is a third point though, not less important as it seems.

Some time ago I came across an article in a magazine called Epoch Times related to the subject. - My mother is getting it for free. - It is about three scientists - James TourJohn Walton and David Berlinski who disagree with the theory of natural choice on grounds irrelevant to my two points above. They are mainly concerned with questions in the field of chemistry of how could the DNA develop beforehand. This is where the “some point” I said I will relate to in the end comes in. - I am not a chemist. It doesn’t seem to me it is possible to take a serious stand as for the subject without knowledge in the field. One can only generally obtain an impression off what others are saying. You can guess who seems serious but you can’t discuss the issues themselves off common normal acquaintance with general issues widely known.

However, - as I thought, prior to reading this article, such knowledge does not seem necessary: -The DNA is a complex structure. - This fact is not secret and not controversial. - It is obvious that the process of the natural choice does not take place in the construction of the DNA itself. This means this complex, very complex, structure was supposed to have come to existence basically (or completely) through mere random chance. The DNA was not yet known when Darwin lived. - So the theory started off not relating to the matter. I don’t know the historical facts but I guess it was already accepted before the additional piece of information referred to here came about.

I don’t think one should consult biologists. I think one should consult mathematicians. This seems quite obviously to be a third severe fault with the idea all contemporary intellectuals in general would imagine to be an obvious sign of advance and progress. Fuck those idiots, frail minded and childishly confident.

I even wonder why have the scientists I mentioned above thought the particular chemical process itself so important in that light.

So far.

This is all for this post.

- I would be happy for comments. (- almost completely absent on this blog)

But I can’t see any way in which what I say could possibly be either rejected or declined.

- Common sense wins the lot.

                                                                                    (Written initially on a “Word”, and modified and completed on the blog later (- 28.2.16))

Three phases of thinking

It has occurred to me today (23.9.15) that there are three phases in human thought: This does not correspond to the thinking of the head, the thinking of the heart and the thinking of the body, - but is another way of seeing things.
As for these - the thinking of the head, the thinking of the heart and the thinking of the body, - I suppose I might generally assume the readers of this blog would know what it’s about, (- or perhaps I would just like to think so, and at present - the audience - as much as there is any, - may be somewhat different than it was at first) but anyway it is not necessary for understanding my point here. I just mentioned it since if one hears about “three phases in human thought” one might easily imagine it is what I just clarified about it is not.

Now to continue with the matter I am about: -

- The first phase is that of mere deduction.

2 + 2 = 4

If a b and b c than a c

That is to say logical conclusion, - nothing beyond.

One may no doubt be very intelligent, but still remain fundamentally within this phase. - It does not touch reality, - it has to do with ideas in the most abstract way.

- If I know John is 70 years old, and I know Jim died 103 years ago, I can conclude they never met here on Earth through their relevant incarnations as Jim and John.
If I know you are reading this blog, and if I know you are American, I can tell there is (at least) one American reading the blog.
- If I know all black men have green eyes, and if I also know John Lennon is a black man, - I can conclude John Lennon has green eyes.

- And so on.

Any child is capable of it, - and it could of course be extended and expanded creating a complex structure consisting of nothing but deductions, as the ones presented above here.

- The second phase would include perspective as well.

- The first supplies you with a map like perhaps a train or a bus map. It tells you which stops are on which line but does not give you any real description of the area, or at least not one compatible with a reasonable description in many ways. - In the second phase one would be relatively aware of how relatively important issues are. - You don’t only know that X means Y and that Z means P, - but you are also simultaneously capable of estimating how important or unimportant issues are in relation to each other.

- Practically - in real life, - we - normal men and women, (I do not of course mean children here) do not live in these first or second phases.

In simple everyday life or situations we are not naturally limited in this way, and have no reason to fall into a trap of carrying such a restricted route of thinking.

- The trouble is with intellectual education. - When people are taught and told in what is supposed to be an instruction for a professional or specialized manner of doing a particular or general work they are to be capable in the field of, - while thereby practically guiding them to use their thought in a manner resembling the representation of reality by a black and white 12" TV, or somewhat degraded even further to the rough area of the fine art of form filling - as practiced in supreme excellence in the developing society we are living in. I am of course not relating to children’s education in these words.

The guidance would generally be supposed to serve a purpose of establishing a possibly lofty, elevated, - or advanced means of special understanding, or subsequent utilization in accordance with it, - but it may be that sometimes it would create an attitude that is very empty relying on guidance which does no more than to tell you to act in a certain way in situation X and in a certain different way or manner under conditions Y or Z.

It doesn’t really matter if a computer technician or a washing machine technician has full knowledge of what he’s working on as long as he does his work well. - But in other fields this is not the case.

- It is fine if your TV technician does not have full knowledge of how the instrument works as long as he knows which parts he has to replace, - but in certain fields adopting a similar attitude might be, - as it seems, - no less than stupid.

- Particularly in dealing with humans, and most reasonably as it seems in dealing with society as well.

In places where an actual ability is necessary, an inner one which has to be developed, - mere instructions and acquired knowledge are eventually viewed as what will or could do.
- The practical reality is that the sillier a person is the higher will he view himself due to the image he holds of the esteemed qualification he receives.

- And times, - as in the legal system, - which I have come to some acquaintance with quite unfortunately, - out of an intention to speed up procedures - as a general rule, - a standard emerges, as the heir of a habit, of a manner of thinking limited in reality somewhat to the initial first and second patterns of thought as being referred to here in this post you are reading now.
And here too, the greyness and lifeless-disconnected-thought, complying with the dogmatic and formalistic atmosphere and routined lane of procedure prevailing in the surrounding circles, are as a matter of fact practically imagined to be wisdom by those individuals dwelling within them and daily involved.
(Practically the situation is that due to an expertise undeniably necessary for familiarity with somewhat subtle formalities the general framework of thought is viewed as if bearing some sort of essential value beyond mere intellectualism. This phenomenon is not shared by all, and some of course are more aware of the reality.)
Practically the situation is more of the opposite. - It carries more of a degeneration of thought than of any real, essential or vital virtue or ability of independent value. - You might say it pads your heart with dust. Liveliness is diminished.

- Lawyers are of course skilled with adopting this attitude, - but what it actually seems to mean is using only a limited part of your mental ability as a human; - and it would also mean many whose abilities would not fundamentally exceed - in certain ways, - the lifeless manner of the first and second phases, - this incomplete manner or style of viewing and determining, - would find their way into the system. - Since it initially requires according qualifications - for the better and worse, - as its main standards.

The third phase would include life or essence as well. - As I said I don’t necessarily mean some outstanding manner of mental functions or an extraordinary state of mind unfamiliar to most.

It would generally be our usual phase of action in daily life. - Unlike the situation in the other two it goes beyond absolute abstractions and also exceeds the situation in which we can also be aware of a reasonable relationship of perspective, - (- telling us how relatively big or small, or valuable or perhaps weightless, - each thing is or would be) but still nothing more. - The first would be somewhat like some list of details or textual data arranged in a table or a diagram. - The second perhaps like an initial sketch or an outlining drawing in basic lines of a rather geometrical orientation still, - unlike a real picture where objects do not generally fit geometrical forms in their clean simplicity. - Or perhaps the first might be viewed as a black and white picture or drawing while the second would be monochromatic, - including further nuances but still - at the same time, - limited as it is in other dimensions. - The question would be whether adding colour would be a good way to allegorize our third phase. - It would be natural to think of it at first but reality has taste and smell too, - a colourful picture is still a dead picture, - even if taste and smell could synthetically be added to it. There is something beyond, merely speaking of colour would miss the point here, would be of the second phase in itself, as it seems. You may find it funny, but relating to computers might be helpful here:

- A file which includes only text or numerical data may be light in size. One which includes a sketch or a plan or a diagram in an according file type would be or could be somewhat heavier. A picture takes more space. A real picture unlimited to the fundamental characterizations of a working plan or to black and white or monochromatic or some limited set of poster colors would demand of course much more space as a resident occupier of your computer’s hard disc or memory. Working with such files or data would similarly be differently demanding for the computer. It would apparently be a different kind of task and would require a different track of dealing with it as it is so. - It would require a different amount or a different measure of resources and time.

- So this would, or might, give us some idea as for the place of the three phases of thought I am talking about here. - Wisdom could only fundamentally have to do with the third. Intelligence has to do with the first. - “Zen” might wish to bring us to deeper and closer acquaintance with reality, - but this does not mean the third phase here only relates to that. - In everyday life, in the simplest situations having to do with fundamental everyday things and direct meeting with other, - we most normally think (- when necessary) in full, - in the third phase. We do not intellectualize or sophisticate departing from the situation itself. - And, - unintentionally - we relate spontaneously to the living factors of the immediate situation we are in as it is.

True wisdom, would mean applying the same practice elsewhere too. - It does not mean anyone can do that. - It does not mean it doesn’t take any qualifications. But humanity has a tendency of walking the other way. The intellect is the shallowest layer of human thought. I recall Nishijima Roshi’s spontaneous comment to something I said once: - “Intellectual thinking is nothing”. - And he is absolutely right, the way he meant it.

- This fact is scarcely understood today, perhaps, one might say.

The third phase would include what we may intuitively perceive but deny or neglect due to degenerated norms in society. - We have notions as for things where we could not so easily analyze and present organized findings rationally and neatly. - One clear and easy example would be about our inevitable ability to pick up the difference between a human and an animal, - spontaneously. - But contemporary so called “science” would tell us this or that as for the matter so that when we intellectualize on the basis of that we lose what we easily see and note. - A better example may be of the difference between living and lifeless matter. - It is fundamentally seen immediately (in most cases) without any need for conscious thought processes, but intellectualization draws you away from it. - The immediate or intuitive fundamental notions are taken today to be silly, primitive in the eyes of intellectuals, - while the third phase is neglected by those only able to appreciate complexity rather than true depth.

It is about capturing the living reality of the moment, and about not limiting one’s self to only those faculties of one’s mind one is able to retroactively analyze and fully understand. - This may be the fundamental mistake leading to the distorted place we are in today. We can not reverse engineer every step of our mental processes in real time. This is to a great extent where stupidity lies. We can not do it not in real time either, - we can sample but we can not reprocess all in this way. - Ignoring the subtle functioning of the more refined abilities of the human mind because it could not be analyzed or comprehended by the rather rougher abilities of the intellect of particular incapable esteemed individuals who are unable to appreciate what is valuable and what is not so, - is practically idiotic. Our abilities to act in the third phase in real time and to try and understand our understanding in a retroactive analysis are not the same. - Most people would not at all posses the ability to extend their view as-if in another dimension to not only view what they view in a real time situation but also to appreciate their thought itself as well as if externally, - in the third phase as related to here. - The practical fact is that in such a situation the thought would be reduced to the lower paths - and therefore the whole worth of the analysis could not help but be in accordance.

- When in normal daily action we do not limit ourselves to the mere features of the situation which are those that could be expressed easily to another person through verbal speech and written words, or any other reasonable aids such as pictures and diagrams. - We just act in response to what we face, we do not try to analyze beforehand. Such analysis would mean practically thereby dropping part of the relevant knowledge and perceived notions, - (which are intellectually - heedlessly - so dropped in a retroactive remote consideration, when missing the point here, - more than often, - as it seems) unaware of what we really process in real time.
- In such an ordinary situation we naturally include the more refined features of what we encounter, not necessarily fully conscious of it. - The more living and inner factors corresponding to some similarly matching ones within our own human being. So far for this issue.

It is not so essential that the third phase is what we apply in daily life as I referred here, for the main issue I intended this post to be about, - that is, - it makes it easier to explain. I initially just wanted to use the fact for making clear what I meant by the three phases, - what I meant by the third one, - and then it carried me elsewhere too. As I found the other matter important in itself. - This post was supposed to be just about presenting my idea I referred to in the first line. - Other issues rather came by, and are fundamentally welcome too. - Anyway I’m just saying the fact I repeatedly related to that the third phase is what we apply normally in daily life is not such an inherent feature of what it is. It is not a superficial remark either, on the other hand, too, of course. - The third phase would grasp the living elements and those characteristics which make a thing into a real concrete particular situation or object, - not just an abstract one one might have made up or any general idea similar to many unclear or vague or simplified others. From here it is possible to deepen, but anyway otherwise too, regardless of that, - this would be the right attitude touching reality unlike the previous two where some preliminary sketch or design was actually what is being dealt with.

So far for what I had to say here, generally. - I suppose the general idea of what the three patterns are is in the least clear in itself. The three phases seem to fit three of Nishijima’s four phases or world views: - Materialism, - idealism, and realism. - It is not so clear how this would also comply with my relating to these earlier in this blog, - but this might come up too with time. - Fitting Nishijima’s pattern might mean there should be a fourth phase, - but this could hardly have real importance here - as it seems. - It would be some perfect or ineffable state of oneness with what you encounter, - or a state of a mindless mind as that of the Reality itself, - I see no point in relating to it here. - Might be of supreme importance elsewhere.

As I have not had the chance to experience this state, I will not relate to it.
(Though it apparently could not fundamentally be experienced, - since you can only experience anything when having a mind, consciousness, - and if the state is fundamentally of being rid of that, - no divided consciousness or unnecessary double action leading to what we call our mind, - experience could not take place)

I would mention one other thing. - In Korea, I heard, - on arriving in a “Zen” monastery, - they place a glass of water before one, half filled, roughly, - and ask him whether the glass if half full or half empty.

A person’s tendency, - most persons, - would be to intellectualize. - Suppose they ask you nothing, suppose the glass is just there, - you’d most time relate to it correctly. - If it doesn’t concern you, you’d ignore it, if you’re thirsty, you might drink the water, or ask to do so, in a normal situation. - As you relate to any other object in your surrounding. - But the moment they ask you the question, - if you don’t get what it is about, they screw your mind. - Most people don’t get that. - This is “Zen” wisdom, - as far as I get it. - It would relate more to the thinking of the head the thinking of the heart, and the thinking of the body I said at the beginning this post was not about, - than to the three phases as described here, but anyway. - One’s inability to utilize his mind in a realistic manner when relating to a situation while not-being-part-of-it, - is what is being examined in the Korean trick. But you can be confident that a true “Zen” master, - a Buddha, - could not be deceived through any silly artificial attitude arising from an immature mind. He can see you, this is not a computerized test where you can fill in correct answers while being ignorant. Anyway, I hope the idea is clear.

OK. Here it ends. Fwiw.

(I started Writings this post on a “Word” at a time I did not have an Internet connection on the date as it appears at the beginning. - I did not change that. I later continued on February this year several times still in this way. Later I continued and it happened that much was somewhat changed and revised, particularly when working on it in the blog itself. Things are somewhat different this way.)

Just something about our mind

Nishijima used to say mind and matter are two facets of Reality. - I doubt people are (or were) aware that he meant the Reality and not just reality the way most usually use the word. - While perhaps on the other hand he did not find it necessary to separate these here since anyway the reality is the Reality. Nishijima was not always interested in making himself clear where things might be controversial or where clarification might lead to other confusion or ambiguity.

Anyway, this is not what it’s about. - When Nishijima said mind and matter are two facets of one reality, people would usually assume this means (the) Reality stands somewhere between mind and matter - as a sort of a middle way perhaps, or anyway that these two reflect two sides of the reality. This is not so, and this is what it’s (this post is) about. People are “prone”, as Nishijima’s favorite expression, - to mistake his intention here, which I wanted to relate to.

As Daikan says in his famous poem, - the clear mirror needs no stand. Similarly, the reality has no other side. There is no such thing as the other side of Reality, or something that is prior to it. - The situation is different. Mind and matter are both on the same side of Reality. Rather mind stands somewhere between the Reality and matter. That is mind is closer to the Reality, matter is not as close, as it seems to me. Therefore, you might say, we experience mind as mind and matter as matter. - This is the difference. So they are two facets of the Reality, (or of reality) as two different phenomena - as being different in their appearance, - but as I assume Nishijima Roshi was not aware of the mistake his words would seemingly lead to, - and therefore made no attempt to correct it.

As I said - this is what I wanted to refer to in this post.

- Just this. - Everything arises from Reality.

In accordance with what we might call its distance from it things might change in their nature or their appearance.

Science has practically nothing to say about the mind, that is materialistic so called “science” as we are familiar with it today.
- I mean no physical discovery could in any way give any sort of idea why is it that what we experience as awareness has to exist anyway. - Or how come that is has come into existence. I related to this in my “Time” post.
It (- science) might come up with some explanations as for its manner of functioning, - but the fact remains the same.

- And the attitude is somewhat ridiculous, - but this is beside the point.

We are Reality.
But as it seems else than Buddhas no one can see the fact. So we see ourselves as we do. And it seems, as close to Reality as we can get, is what we call our “mind”. - We don’t really know in what way we experience this, most of us at least. - What we grasp through our senses we call matter. But neither is as deep or as direct as the true reality, or as direct familiarity with it. - What is this reality? I don’t know. Not yet at least. - And those who “do” can not say, in most cases at least.

I mean with the exception of the cases where one has been able to actualize his humanity relying on words, as sometime does happen in the recorded stories of the Buddhas and patriarchs, - in China mainly of course.

- So far.

Fwiw.                                                                                                                     (Written on a “Word” (28.1.16) and copied off to the blog later.
                                                                                                                                     Not written directly on the blog.)

A Prayer I’ve Written

This post was also meant to be posted quite a long time ago. I felt there was meaning in the order of the posts, It is what Kalo would have called, justly, I am certain, - their rhythm. I am just saying I knew I was going to post this post here after the last one which has been delayed for so long, - and consequently this one is being written and published only now.

Since it has been so much time, I don’t so much remember what I was going to write here. The prayer itself I had, both English and Hebrew, but it has been in January 2011 that I wrote it, and it has been since 2012 that I wanted to write this post, so as for the circumstances or the intended content of the post, I don’t remember so much.

Perhaps it is of no meaning. Generally from an e-mail message I sent it tells I wrote it following a post Brad Warner wrote on HCZ. I don’t think I was going to mention this here but anyway. I sent it by e-mail (the message I mentioned above) to Gustav Ericsson. Later I translated it to Hebrew - which grew subsequently somewhat longer. - I sent this too to Nissim Amon, and asked him to pass it over also to Gil Alon. Gustav, Nissim and Gil are Dharma successors of Nishijima Roshi, as of course Brad is too. That is they received Dharma transmission from him. (It is totally irrelevant to this post but I have recently understood - reading Shobogenzo Shisho, - that Dharma transmission meant totally different at the time Master Dogen lived. I don’t know when was the change.) This is about all I have to say. I am mentioning the e-mail messages since I never made public of this else than that.

Anyway, obviously what matters is the prayer itself, in this post. So here it is, as I’ve written it in English:

        “You within which space and time dwell, grant me with that which may be considered most fortunate for my true existence, - not for that which I deludedly imagine myself to be”.

Explanations will not be supplied. - Anyway, as I said later I translated it to Hebrew. It is not literally the same. I intended to copy the spirit and it happened that with the change of language it became right to be written somewhat differently. If you don’t speak Hebrew you doubtly need be concerned. The Hebrew version is as follows:

        ”אבי המרחב והזמן אשר בו הם שוכנים, - הענק לי, אם תחפץ ואם תראה לנכון, - את המיטיב עם שהנני לאמיתו של דבר, הלכה למעשה, כאמת שלא נודעה לעולם בלתי אם לעצמה, - תחת עם המצטייר בעיני ראייתו החלקית והמוטעית של שמדמה אני את עצמי להיות כהוויתי אני.

      קרי - לא דבר שהוא. זולתי שיבוא לידיי ממילא. כטבע הממשות בעולם האשליה.“.

That is it.

Actually as far as I remember the post was to be called “Two Prayers I’ve Written", but I cannot see what might have been a second one. I think there was another one but no reasonable possibility seems to exist. It doesn’t seem this could be just because of the translation. If I ever remember I might revise.

So far.

(Written on a “Word” and copied off to the blog later. Not written directly on the blog.)


I would like to refer to time with regard to the four world views as fundamentally expressed or presented in my second post here at the blog. One does not need to be familiar with that post in order to understand this one.

What I [will] say here might not apparently seem to correspond to the presentation of the four stages [as I see them] presented there. I do believe the seeming discrepancy can be sorted out, but it will most likely not be in this particular post.

- Perhaps sometime in the future.

- I assume these discrepancies might have gone unnoticed had I not mentioned them, - but in case they would I made my comment. - The matter does not seem significant and the integration (of the contents of this post into that of the older one) does not seem urgent.

- To the point: -

Materialism, - I would say, - seems to ignore time altogether. - It fundamentally notices a phenomenon disregarding its context.

Its relation to space is the same. It does not concern itself with a thing’s surroundings.

It is quite like a young child’s, or even a baby’s view, - noticing a thing of interest unable to simultaneously focus on its either close or further-remote surrounding as well.

It is like noticing a spot on a wall unable to be aware of the wall as well.

You might say materialism is not concerned with time or space. It is merely capable of viewing a phenomenon or an object disconnected from its related or unrelated close-or-remote fellow objects. - As the first, - it is the most primitive view. - The most incomplete one.

Idealism would roughly correspond to our usual view in our materialistic day-to-day life these times we are living in.

It views linear time and linear space. - Again, - as materialism, - it does not differ between them. - It has the same attitude toward both.- The difference between time and space is that we can control our movement in space, - but we are completely in absence of any means to control our ever-continuing motion through what we call time. - Further than that, - we define our movement (- in space, or any other thing we might call movement, - which would eventually also be in space as well, - as it seems) in relation to time. - By its very essence. - We can not speak of movement which is not measured by our incontrollable continuous and steady progress through the most fundamental dimension the nature of can not be examined - as it seems, - through the other more evident and noticeable dimensions we are familiar with.

Movement is defined through time. - It is meaningless to speak of controlling our movement through time, - since it seems to be time itself which enables our movement, (and if we would see the fourth phase as transcending time, - we would also see it as transcending movement) and by which it is measured and gains its meaning in the first place.

Idealism ignores this difference. Thus it still treats time and space equally.

Idealism is somewhat contrasted, - apparently, - with materialism as presented above.
- It notices the existence of the whole and sees its elements as parts of it, integrated within it.

Were we concerned with the mind and with the existence of what we may call “individuals” or “sentient beings”, - it would have been relevant, - it seems, - that idealism believes in the existence of individuals while realism is free of that view and aware of the unity of the whole as one unified integral ever-living inseparable being, - from which we merely might imagine what we believe to be ourselves to be separate.
- However, - discussing time as we do here, - this point will not take place, - and things can be said to be - in that way, - as I did above.

- Realism will as if take a step back, - after materialism making a start off one extreme and idealism as if stretching it counter its initial intention, - though in somewhat of a careless manner - overlooking that which realism will thereafter reestablish and develop.

Idealism ignores the fact that thought is not isolated from perception and action, - and also from the consequences of that action which could again be perceived by the individual, - thereby forming [part of] what we may call the objective universe.

It sees thought and world view as existing - idealistically - by their own and on their own, - disregarding, - in principle, - any practical value they might have. - This is a view based fundamentally on emotions rather than on clarity of eyes. - While of course those holding it are not aware of this fact.

Noticing the fact that our mind, - (which in principle, - as a sort of an independent picture of things in possesion of its own existence, - could be said not to exist at all, - but this refers to the mind somewhat differently and is irrelevant here) as a reflector of its objects and a designer of action, - is a link in a chain, - or more exactly a part of a circle or an ever-continuing coil, - does have an effect on the way we would view existence in general, - and time too - in particular.

Realism acknowledges three facts: - That thought and consideration exist within a circle of perception - consideration - action and external-result, - and that the functioning of our mental ability of sorting-and-putting-data-into-order known as “thought” - within that circle, - is for a purpose, - and does not idealistically exist in its own self-created-universe for the sole purpose of its very own mere existence, as idealistic feelings of shallow men and women might seemingly point; - (- second) that one can only perceive within the present moment, - that is to say, - when it arrives and before it takes its leave - which might by the way questionably allow anything in between, - but I’ll get to that - I guess, - when I get to the [fourth] phase of the ineffable; - (- and thirdly) that in the same way one can only act in the present moment.

Since I came across explanations for what it means that one can only act in the present moment more than once, on the Internet as well I guess, - I will not get into that point and I will assume that those who arrive here at my blog know and understand this, - fundamentally at least, - the idea and its framework.
- If you are unsatisfied you could make your comment in the comments section and I might give it a try, - but it most certainly won’t be right away.

The idea that one can only perceive in the present moment is the same as the idea that one can only act in it. - Though I do not recall ever coming across it anywhere before until now.

Either way (therefore) it does not seem to require any further explanation or clarification as for what it (fundamentally) is.

- The first [of the three facts mentioned above] grants the other two their meaning or significance.

- Had it not been for the first the other two would fundamentally imply nothing as for our view of time, or perhaps of anything in general.

- Though the first point, - as you might say any other true point [in philosophy] to a great extent, - is inevitable, - which does make this last statement here quite meaningless in itself.

- Either way, - what I mean is, - that if you notice the practicality of the functioning of your mind, - the second and third points would gather their meaning.

This is a point I referred to in my second post mentioned at the beginning, - the idea is that our gathering of data and sorting (or you might say processing, - which doesn’t make it more accurate) it is for a purpose. - Therefore the view established within the mind of ours should initially be in accordance with that purpose. - Not just to a certain extent but - in principle, - fully. As this is that for which our “mind” places itself and functions in the first place.

Idealistic incomplete views are a misunderstanding (- or, - more accurately perhaps, - simply a missing) of the above.

- Therefore the point I would see as the meaning of “Sangai Yuishin” (- “The triple world is the mind alone”, - in Japanese) would become relevant.

- The idea is that you can not speak of the universe as something different from the picture [of it] reflected in your mind. - At the same time you can not see the reflections within your mind, - its contents, - as something different or separate from the mind itself.

The ideas, the pictures, the intentions, - “within” your mind are just what your mind consists of.
- It is not like a picture painted on canvas (or on paper, or whatever) where you can say that there is the thing on which picture is painted and then there is the picture itself from which it has of course its separate existence.
- It is not even like an electronic media where there is the hard disc and then there is the information stored on it, which of course are not entirely the same thing.

The point which might be necessary here is that our mind is an unnecessary thing in a way in the first place: - Functioning does not require inner consciousness: - We can see that with computers and machines.
- Whatever the physical or spiritual mechanism you might assume would be in action - the outcome does still seem to be the same, - it does not require the existence of self-consciousness and it does not - initially - in principle - at least, - explain why is it that we find it or why has it come into existence.

- “Zen” in a way seeks the elimination of the mind. - A perfect situation of a completely spontaneous action. - It does not (of course) mean the inner processes of perception, thought and will do not - or would not - take place, - but they would not need to summon up another folded layer doubling the fundamental one which is truly necessary - thus creating the basically-excessive mental element us ignorant beings are familiar with as “self-consciousness”.

I would say the state of no consciousness is the normal state. Out of which self-consciousness arises and into which it disappears.

That is to say the appearance of [the conscious] mind is essentially and fully related and linked to the appearance of its contents.

It only appears in the company of its content like an excessive fold in our inner mechanism. There is no such thing as an empty self consciousness. When it is empty it is clean. - When it is clean it dies out, - it does not exist.

That is to say in its very appearance self-conscious-mind is one with its contents. The fact is not immediate. Otherwise I would not need to write all that. But the two are not two, - we simply imagine them to be two because of viewing them differently, - from different angles, - unaware of the profound nature of the substance, - but they are integrally and inherently one, - completely, - which as I mentioned before could be said to be in a way of no existence what so ever.

It may perhaps be said to be a little like an origami structure where the paper itself is not separate from the form created out of it, - but it does go beyond that.

Some reference can be made to the case of the picture too, or to that of various electronic media, - but I will not get into that. - In the case of the mind there is no separation between a contents and a substance which is supposed to carry or contain it. - This may be because our mind is unreal in the first place. Clear mind does not allow any [self-] consciousness. If we have a conscious picture in our mind it always means some sort of imperfection or what you might call impurity. There is no exception to that rule.

Your mind is just its contents. It may not be easy to see but it is not possible to actually find some substance of it else than what you would usually and normally call its contents.

Having come to notice the practical inability to differentiate between our mind and an external preliminary reality or world, - or between the mental picture held at a certain moment and the structure of the actual facts it is supposed to reflect, and - simultaneously - noticing also that our thought or consideration is not an undependent system or factor independent in its aims and ways, but a part of a longer line of a wider and more realistic purpose, - and - thirdly, - that in spite of the first fact mentioned here we may be said to be living within an incomplete and imperfect picture we are holding due to the faults of the systems by which we are creating this picture, - (or by which this picture is created, anyway) plus, the fact that this incomplete and distorted picture changes or alters unfailingly at every moment, - we might subsequently view or observe things as if time itself spreads - unfolds, - and is wrapped up again - continuously through every moment and in every point it makes its progress through.

We are as if living in darkness where we only have our picture at every moment like a single cinema frame, like a one dimensional line in a two dimensional plain, - or like a two dimensional curve in a three dimensional space, - while being completely blind to anything but it. - We only have our picture at each moment, we can not see the picture of other points in time from any other point but them, - it is like the universe continually flashes and at every point in time the past and future are born and die out, - or die and a new past and future are born for a flash there. - Since we are unable to break out of our picture, - since it is for us our universe, - we are bound to see it - to a certain extent or in a way at least, - as real. It is what we act according to, - It is our knowledge, - even if we may integrate into it the fact that we know our perception and consideration are faulted, - (that is to say our consequent data too of course) this is still ever within the picture or view too. There is no other way. Of course. - So in a situation where we are practically obliged to use our picture, - our mental picture, - the gathering of information sitting at the time in our mental systems of the individual as an organism, - as the sole tool and ground for practically everything: - for our practical action - which is the only thing we are using it for, of course, - in such a situation in a way we need to act as if the picture is real. - We would - practically - hopefully - relate to things as an array of probabilities, - that is to say noticing our faulted knowledge to the extent we can. - But this too, this view which does integrate or include the awareness of the possible wrongness - this too changes at every fraction of a second. - So inevitably, as it seems, one is living in a world or a situation where he only has his past and future for the absolute now only, with a new “now” there will be a new past and a new future, - neither of which is real, but nothing of a greater closeness to reality is available.

- Thus it could be said, - following the practical life hereby described, - that every moment in time, every point - every singular point, - in time, - has its own past and future, enfolded within it. - It is only revealed at that point, though of course it could be related to from elsewhere, - but subject to the ever existing distortion of the linking systems and means. - You might say perhaps that realism views as if a two-dimensional time, - the whole axis of time as-if spreads from every point in time. You cannot of a certain point in time, or relate to it, - ignoring the point from which you take your view. Point A observed from point B is different from point A seen from point C. This is what idealism has no concern for. - Thus idealism has a simple linear view most would find natural, while realism has a further complexed system arising from a reality where what we see is not what simply is. - The fourth view, the ineffable, would not be the same. Though Nishijima would often (as far as I remember) leave this point unmentioned, the fourth phase is not the same as the third phase. The fourth phase being ineffable, this point may sometimes be reasonably not related to, but here it seems different to me: - Though inexpressible, though ever beyond simple reasoning through common logic and thought, the fourth phase in the issue I am writing about here, is not only different from the third phase, which it might sometimes tangent, but is very different here. In realism, we are living as if ever viewing the universe through an ultimately narrow slits of zero width - through the moment of the present, and realism integrates this view and processes it. - Realism is aware of our limitations as individuals living in the universe, but the fourth phase, is not like this. The fourth phase, as it seems to me, is closer to the western view of God, an almighty, - it is not simply the view of the one Reality to which one might say perhaps the whole of time is accessible “simultaneously”, - since than it would not be ineffable, - but it is more like that. - It is altogether different from the view of the third phase, the realism as described here, - as I said. - Does it have practical value? Apparently doubtly. - Daikan did not understand Buddhism. He did not need to. Whatever. My main point in this post was to describe the third view. To present reasonable expounding where usually we might just encounter expressions many would assume are unable to follow the same trail as logic. I would quote Dogen here: - “At the present time in the great kingdom of Song, there is a group of unreliable fellows who have now formed such a crowd that they cannot be beaten by a few real [people]. They say that the present talk of the East Mountain moving on water, and stories such as Nansen’s sickle, are stories beyond rational understanding. Their idea is as follows: “A story which involves images and thoughts is not a Zen story of the Buddhist patriarchs. Stories beyond rational understanding are the stories of the Buddhist patriarchs. This is why we esteem Ōbaku’s use of the stick and Rinzai’s shout, which are beyond rational understanding and which do not involve images and thoughts, as the great realization before the sprouting of creation. The reason that the expedient means of many past masters employ tangle-cutting phrases is that [those phrases] are beyond rational understanding.” Those fellows who speak like this have never met a true teacher and they have no eyes of learning in practice; they are small dogs who do not deserve to be discussed. For the last two or three hundred years in the land of Song there have been many such demons and shavelings [like those] in the band of six. It is pitiful that the great truth of the Buddhist Patriarch is going to ruin. The understanding of these [shavelings] is inferior even to that of śrāvakas of the Small Vehicle; they are more stupid than non-Buddhists. They are not laypeople, they are not monks, they are not human beings, and they are not gods; they are more stupid than animals learning the Buddha’s truth. What the shavelings call “stories beyond rational understanding” are beyond rational understanding only to them; the Buddhist patriarchs are not like that. Even though [rational ways] are not rationally understood by those [shavelings], we should not fail to learn in practice the Buddhist patriarchs’ ways of rational understanding. If ultimately there is no rational understanding, the reasoning which those [shavelings] have now set forth also cannot hit the target. There are many of this sort in all directions of Song China, and I have seen and heard them before my own eyes. They are pitiful. They do not know that images and thoughts are words and phrases, and they do not know that words and phrases transcend images and thoughts. When I was in China I laughed at them, but they had nothing to say for themselves and were just wordless. Their present negation of rational understanding is nothing but a false notion. Who has taught it to them? Though they lack a natural teacher, they have the non-Buddhist view of naturalism.”. The quote is from Shobogenzo Sansuigyo. I intended to dedicate a blog page to it and I would have by now if I had the time. - I still will, when I can. Since I dropped the footnotes two remarks should, it seems, still be made: “tangle” in “tangle-cutting phrases” is the same expression used for the title of chapter 46 (47 in the Nearman translation) of the Shobogenzo - “Katto” - literally “arrowroot and wisteria”; and “shaveling” - the repeated expression in the text - means according to Nishijima and Cross “someone who becomes a monk in form but who has no will to the truth”. (- “Tokushi”, - literally “bald child”)

There is nothing which contradicts logic. - What is or may be ineffable is not ineffable due to a contrast with fundamental deduction. - Its ineffability is not there, - though it may be that logic is born in “earlier” grounds human thought would at the general and common situation of most people (and much further) find it very difficult to fathom. - It is much like the third phase and the fourth phase here. - There may be a field unlimited by restriction we might at most times find it unreasonable that it would be possible for them not to exist, - a field known only to Buddhas, ineffable - to those yet unfamiliar with it at least, - but this field, if so, - is not something that opposes the world as familiar to most common men. - There is apparently something prior to a shallower structure us ignorant majority see as reality, including our thought processes and their apparent foundation, - but it does not mean an alternative structure which stands at a 180° opposition to the natural and fundamental notion that reason makes sense.

This may take the affirmation of a Buddha, but I am quite certain it is correct.

So far for this post. I started it in 2012. I naturally thought I would complete it in reasonable time. It happened that I didn’t. - I had legal procedures running against me, this is the reason I said I was busy in 2012 in “Ran said…”. Criminal procedures. (Mind you 108, btw) I won’t write about it now. - I did not intend to write about it in this post at all. - My intention was not to relate to anything but what this post is about here. However it has been so much time. I have also been in jail for 10-11 months in 2012-2013. I wanted to complete this post eventually at least by the end of 2015, but I am writing these lines on the 1st of January 2016. I usually wrote posts on the blog itself. Now I don’t have an Internet connection. I wrote the post as far as “the second and third points would gather their meaning” long ago. - Also as far as “what you would usually and normally call its contents” I did too, - but it seems this part what not yet fully written and I had to look it through. What is beyond that, I wrote on a “Word” and copied into the blog though some font adjustments need to follow of course. - I don’t think I wrote it the way I would have had it not been for all that happened. - The content may be the same, but I generally have always tried here to write relating to the manner of writing too, - in anything spiritual, perhaps, perhaps, the form too is not empty and proper presentation is called for by anyone who has a reasonable idea of what’s it about. So I might rewrite this sometime.

I don’t know when. If I do I’ll most likely drop this whole story then. - The thing is I am not now in the mental state to write this piece as I did when I started it. This is much of the reason why it has been delayed. I wasn’t working on it when I felt I could not do it as I intended. But I guess it could not wait no more. So I wrote it as I did - the remaining piece, - and am posting it here. I’ll probably have it on on Jan 10. I’m not that happy with it but it’s still OK. It’s not even “wtf” - it seems it has to be on. It happened that all that happened on a particular uneasy post, I mean a hard one, otherwise I would have probably been able to complete it long ago. But now I will be able to continue posting, it seems. I happened that I wrote 3 circumstantial post in between, since Shlomo Kalo died and then I found out that Nishijima too passed away already earlier, and there didn’t seem to be any point in delaying writing about this still. This post is apparently not just the way it should be, I am not in the best situation now and am never generally in the right mood even for writing this the way I did. But the general idea is there. People often relate to time in Buddhism as if it could not be related to rationally. I would dare too say that when Nishijima is speaking of “a new kind of logic” in his Preface to the translation of the Shobogenzo this is too wrong expression. There is no second kind of logic. I recall a Yoga Swami writing that there are no contradictions in reality, contradictions only exist in your mind. This is a very simple truth. Dogen may be using poetic means of expression, refined ones, practically say sometimes what is different from what would literally directly arise but neither Dogen nor Gautama himself could create a new kind of logic, a new kind of deduction or conclusion, since deduction merely tells you what things are: - “4” is just a new name for 2+2. Using a metaphor Dogen uses - one can not reach the country of Etsu by pointing a carriage toward the north, since it is a southern country. (Bendowa: “Trying to arrive at the Buddha’s state of truth [only] through action of the mouth, stupidly chanting thousands or tens of thousands of times, is like hoping to reach [the south country of] Etsu by pointing a carriage toward the north. Or it is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole.”) Common sense reflects a most fundamental feature of the universe, there are no two ways to tell us what things are. I could not in any way not view that Nishijima would agree with what I am saying here. He was a very logical person. And he could see just this truth more than others. Why did write what he did? It is beside the point, but while having a fine and skilled philosophical mind, he was not generally so exquisite in putting things in words, his ideas too, and he too was aware of that. Dogen might sometimes say things one needs to inwardly understand in order to get what he is saying. And it may be that the manner of speech is such that expresses itself in such a way that what it practically means to say is practically and considerably different from what the words would appear to say in the eyes of a person who is unable to fathom the bottom line. I thought today things could be expressed differently, explicitly and logically, and this is what I tried to do here. Buddhism represented, - i.e, - Buddhism re-presented. Hopefully to be revised later, when possible.