- Quoting -

- In an earlier post I said I might relate to a certain quote from Master Dogen. - It is the part you can see marked in yellow at the end of the longer quote here.

I said [there] I intended to call the post “the Master’s Intention”. - As you can see, I did not. - The main part is really the part marked in yellow as I said. The marks in gray are for what appears in the original text in Chinese characters only, - unlike the most where there are Japanese characters too. - Nishijima says this stands out in the original text and so he had it italicized in his translation of the Shobogenzo. Here I had a light gray background used instead.

- However, - the point is about what Master Dogen is saying in the part I marked in yellow. - I added the rest too because it seems nicer this way and perhaps keeps things somewhat more in some context. It is not essentially necessary. I might have had just the last section alone.

- As for what Dogen is saying, - you can check the older post I mentioned. - Kalo goes somewhat further in what he is saying but still the cation is not about a different issue. It is very tempting sometimes to speak of what you don't know.
Tao Te Ching says (Kalo's translation to Hebrew which I here translated to English, - not the same as the source) “he who knows does not speak; - he who speaks does not know”. - Master Sensu said to Master Kasan (90^th story in book 1 of the Shinji Shobogenzo) to erase his footprints in the place where he conceals his body. (- but not to conceal his body where he has erased his footprints)
- Some don't care about these things at all. - Unaware of their meaning.

- Here's the text: -

- “In general, a beginner’s sentimental thinking cannot imagine the Buddha’s truth—[the beginner] fathoms, but does not hit the target. Even though we do not fathom [the truth] as beginners, we should not deny that there is perfect realization in the ultimate state. [Still,] the inner depths of the perfect state are beyond the beginner’s shallow consciousness. [The beginner] must just endeavor, through concrete conduct, to tread the path of the ancient saints. At this time, in visiting teachers and seeking the truth, there are mountains to climb and oceans to cross. While we are seeking a guiding teacher, or hoping to find a [good] counselor, one comes down from the heavens, or springs out from the earth. At the place where we meet him, he makes sentient beings speak the truth and makes non-sentient beings speak the truth, and we listen with body and listen with mind. Listening with the ears is everyday tea and meals, but hearing the sound through the eyes is just the ambiguous, or the undecided, itself. In meeting Buddha, we meet ourselves as Buddha and others as Buddha, and we meet great buddhas and small buddhas. Do not be surprised by or afraid of a great buddha. Do not doubt or worry about a small buddha. The great buddhas and small buddhas referred to here are recognized, presently, as the form of the mountains and the voices of the river-valley. In this the Wide and Long Tongue exists, and eighty-four thousand verses exist; the manifestation is far transcendent, and the insight is unique and exceptional. For this reason, secular [teachings] say “It gets higher and higher, and harder and harder.” And a past buddha says, “It pervades the sky and pervades the meridians.” Spring pines possess constant freshness, and an autumn chrysanthemum possesses sublime beauty, but they are nothing other than the direct and concrete. When good counselors arrive in this field of earth, they may be great masters to human beings and gods. Someone who randomly affects the forms of teaching others, without arriving in this field of earth, is a great nuisance to human beings and gods. How could [people] who do not know the spring pines, and who do not see the autumn chrysanthemum, be worth the price of their straw sandals? How could they cut out the roots?”.

It is from the chapter Keisei-sanshiki in the Shobogenzo. For footnotes you can refer to the link to Book 1 on the right.


And here's just the last central part again: -

- “Spring pines possess constant freshness, and an autumn chrysanthemum possesses sublime beauty, but they are nothing other than the direct and concrete. When good counselors arrive in this field of earth, they may be great masters to human beings and gods. Someone who randomly affects the forms of teaching others, without arriving in this field of earth, is a great nuisance to human beings and gods. How could [people] who do not know the spring pines, and who do not see the autumn chrysanthemum, be worth the price of their straw sandals? How could they cut out the roots?”.

- The term “arriving in this field of earth” is of dual meaning, but I will not get to it here.

Miracles

This world was not created for the sake of miracles taking place. This is why in “Zen” one speaks of the miracle of chopping wood and carrying water. Ramana Maharshi said the only miracle is in purifying a person's mind. - We attain the physical body for a purpose. Things are not accidental. - Jesus performed a lot of miracles, but this was not the centre of his teaching.

- It seems people think spirituality has to do with performing things contemporary science is still unable to explain. I recall I read in some Yoga book - before I got interested in the issue, - I think, - that spirituality does not have to do with psychic phenomena, and it seemed strange to me. I don't know how old I was. - Things here are not aimed at us moving mountains from place to place, or flying up in the air. - Working on one's inherent character is much more significant. - Though I don't think any working on improving one's character even if successful could be said to be on the spiritual level. Though again it does get you somewhere, related or unrelated, - as it seems.

Our abilities here on Earth are as they were meant to be, - we might guess. - We live our lives. Some live in a monastery or a temple or some other place of training. - Some have more significant lives and some less. - We learn in our lives. Master Dogen was continually using the term learn in practice. (At least in Nishijima's translation) The practical fact is this world enables us to achieve what can not be achieved in the same manner in higher worlds. - Whichever powers beings there might have, (and I really don't know this much about what exactly those will be) without a human body a most essential aim is fundamentally unattainable. (There is a most extraordinary story about a cow who has arrived at it, in the ashram of Ramana Maharshi mentioned above - as far as I know, - but this is quite off the issue here and probably far more extraordinary than many might even guess) It may be natural to assume that for plants it is natural to be plants and for animals natural to be animals, - but it is not them that we are discussing here. - My point is that attaining miraculous powers for our everyday lives is not to be considered what our lives are to be aimed at and not what guided spiritual practice will view as its aim either.

Whatever we get here might contribute to our abilities subsequently after we leave this this world for good, - but attaining supernatural abilities here and now is fundamentally beside the point. - The abilities we do have enable us to strive toward what is meaningful. - It may have been very convenient if I could just pop myself in a flash from Israel to whichever place I would like in Japan, - but still this not our thing. - Some stories in Buddhism emphasize this point. Jesus walked on water but it is not walking on water that makes him Jesus. Ignorant people could be prompted to believe through viewing miracles. Kalo, more or less, - relates to two incidents where he did what he did at a time a student of his was in a danger of life. - Generally centring on such things as gaining abilities as referred to here in what claims to be spiritual practice may be a good reason to keep off. Some abilities will be gained, - light or significant, - but not understanding this is not what the school teaches is a fundamental mistake. I am trying not to just say you should merely improve your mentality but this is the most central and significant route, - I guess. - I know “Zen” - as much as I do, - and I have some familiarity with Kalo's teaching, (DAT) and what Jesus says in the Bible is open to all. - I sometimes wondered as for what Jesus is saying in Matthew 17:20 and Mark 11:23, - what use is it moving mountains as referred to there, - but he didn't recommend to do so, - he just mentioned what he did. - Compare to Matthew 20:20-23, - where the most significant true achievement is what is requested, - and in contradiction with the emphasised ease where no more than as much faith as a mustard seed is said to be in need, - here the greatest of men proved unable unless conditions are ready.

I thought this post would be easier. - I thought it would be easier to explain. - An inherent significant attainment is not necessarily manifested as those unfamiliar with things might childishly assume. - Though no doubt some might have abilities even beyond what some ignorants might assume or expect, - but those would not use them.

Working on something within yourself is different from getting those things this post is to refer to. - Improving your own character is not necessarily always on the same level. - In secular circles it is likely to be shallow. Though people going through the holocaust might obviously have gone through a very meaningful experience without spiritual practice. - Some refer to drugs as something spiritual. I find it ridiculous. - Yoga practice is for example different from what I know. I could not refer to this Kundalini issue, - I don't know about it. - But inherently and significantly deepening into yourself and purifying your being under the guidance of a true teacher is meaningful. Need it be said? - Thinking becoming able to move things without touching them or predict the results of a coming lottery are what a person's worthwhile aim as designated in human life could be, - is going all the wrong way and missing the point most of humanity does miss anyway. So far.

Physics

In physics they have the law of preservation of matter (mass) and energy. First they had the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy, and then Einstein came and merged them. They have several other conservation laws as it seems.

Quite obviously, - these principles were only relying on experiments done in dead matter. - No one has ever thought it necessary to perform physical research in particular in living organisms. - The assumption is that it would be utterly pointless.

- Here on Earth there are minerals - ;inanimate things - which I related to here as dead matter, - plants, animals, and humans. - Though physics is supposed to relate to them all it practically deals with the inanimate alone for obvious reasons. - No one can accurately measure the energy produced by chemical reactions and tell if this is really exactly what the muscle got in actuality in order for its functioning. The same is of course true elsewhere too. - Such things are not considered or tested.

- The contemporary prevailing materialistic view believes there nothing else than physical matter. This is altogether untrue. - Plants have a higher element unknown to so called materialistic “science”. - This element is also said to consist of two parts. - Without this they would not be plants, - they would be dead matter, - inanimate things. - Animals also have this and another one above it, - and humans also have what they have above this too. - “Death” is the departure of this element all three of them (- plants, animals and humans) have as I said - in collaboration of course with the other ones above it (as mentioned) too if these are there. - (That is is the case of animals and man) Contemporary science may its own definitions of death which will apparently ever miss the point.

The first element I referred to is supervising the physical body. No physical living being here on this plain can be a living being without it. - It is what discriminates living matter from dead matter. - It ever affects your body. you could not perform a single action living here on Earth as you do without it. - For this purpose it must obviously affect the physical plain (your body, or the body of an animal or a plant) from outside the physical plain. - That is to cause something to be different than it was within the physical plain (the physical world) while not being part of it.

In other words, - as it seems - we could say energy has somehow been affected as to alter its level or route. The changes are likely to be fine, - perhaps very fine, - I guess. - But the law of conservation of energy (or of conservation of mass and energy) could not be said to hold, - in its relating to the physical plain alone assuming its exclusive existence which would mean a system closed in the physical plain is closed altogether. It could be true when not relating to effects originating in what you might call higher worlds - but there is not half a second when - relating to a living organism - (- a plant, an animal or a human) it would be possible for such effects not to take place, - unless it is no longer a living being. - So in a way this is all rooted in a misunderstanding.

Of course this is not easy to examine. Not with the common tools used today by those calling themselves “scientists”. There is the question of how to investigate. If you initially negate the possibility of existence of all that is outside of what you imagine to be all of reality you seem to deprive yourself of the possibility to become knowledgeable about it. - Since the tools you would be willing to use would be altogether meaningless for this purpose. The ability to gain what is necessary here lies within man. - External tools thought of as generally the exclusive means for the scientific investigation involved are not expected to do here. - It is much harder to attain the necessary abilities than to sit in a university and listen to what they teach. Far more worthwhile too. - But it is not like academic studies, - no one can tell you that if you sit and learn for so and so years you will get this or that. - It is not like this. - One practices but the results might appear when they would, - or they might not, - perhaps. - It is altogether different. - But this is the true way. - Contemporary science, - at its current state, - with all the obvious benefits it might bring us - which are not to be put away, - is much of a waste of time and seems to be running severely in a ridiculous and wrong way. - I got quite further than what this post was to be about, - but it was necessary to relate to the means by which knowledge is to be attained. - This world is generally going all the wrong way. - And since resources will not be dedicated to bring us to see what is necessary in order to change the path - things seem to continue as everyone might expect.

Accept what you will. - But the means by which science attempts to gain its knowledge ought to be considered, - in a truly rational way, - and not relying on prejudices. - This is not all and this is not enough, but this post is not aimed at changing the world. Just notice what I said about the law of conservation. This was the intended issue here.

Written on October 6^th 2024

Compassion

This post is about compassion. In 1988 Nakagawa kyudo Roshi said “if you become flexible you find out compassion is your nature”. - But this not what this post is about. - He also said, - I think in 1987, - (- April) “some people say they don't like compassion”, - “such people don't know what compassion is”. (- The last quote is not necessarily fully exact, - it is just off my memory)

I can understand people mentioned. I quite dislike being emotional. - But again this is not what this is about here.

Also, - if you ask - are compassion and love the same or different? - What would be the answer? - I think in order to say it is necessary that the person asking would clarify his or her intention. - I don't think it can be answered just like that. - You would get contradicting answers I think. - It doesn't seem you could get it off a dictionary. - One has to tell what does he or she has in mind or what lies in the background of the question in order to achieve a real clarification. To get an actual worthwhile idea relating to the question. - Fwiw.



- But still again this is not what I was coming to write about here.



- If you look at animals, - they are utterly without any ability of consideration. - Mothers can care about their offsprings, - fathers can possibly too, - but else than that care is altogether absent when relating to organisms lower than man here on our known planet on the physical plain. - It is quite obviously worse in a way with insects or generally all of the invertebrates. - But this is not necessary for us at first at least, - in observing what I am relating to.

if you look at a dog or a cat, - you can see how incapable it is of sharing the pain or the joy of another. - If there would be another dog or cat or human deeply suffering next to it you would see no reaction as with a human being. I am not relating even to the choice of whether or not to offer any assistance, - I am relating to the initial mental reaction you would find in people - in human beings, - quite unrelated to their moral views or tendencies. - A human would in the most natural way have a natural tendency reacting to the seen mental state of another person or animal. - Not necessarily an insect or something of the sort but put that aside. - Us humans shall in the most natural manner at first at least experience pain at the view of the deep suffering before our very eyes of another, - and naturally too a positive feeling at another's joy, or as well some sort of a favourable incident. - Exceptions are irrelevant here. One might rejoice at the fall of an enemy. Put this aside. It will not affect the outcome.

The point is that if you take the trouble of observing a dog or a cat or any other animal in relation to things here, - see for yourself the described phenomenon, - then due to the natural and immediate contrast with general human behaviour as referred to here, - you would be able to tell or notice what compassion is. - It is the most natural thing.

- By this way as I have written here I believe one can see and notice for one's self what is meant by “compassion”. - It is this idea and line of thought I noticed which have lead me to write this post. What appears earlier are a kind of remarks. - If you will observe an invertebrate (it is not necessary to actually find one, - you can just watch on YouTube, or some similar site) such as an octopus, assuming you are a sensitive person, - you might notice some perhaps even shocking existing mentality revealing inherent inconsiderateness of severe harsh characteristics, - but this is beyond the issue here, - and does not necessarily contribute to the revealing of the nature of compassion which is the purpose of things here.

- So far.

           (- You might also check this page or this page if interested in things generally)

מימדי החשיבה

כתבתי כבר, אבל בכ״ז, - חכם, - אם יראה תמונה, - הכוונה לא לתמונה על הקיר, - תמונתם של דברים - מצב קיים שלנגד עיניו, - יכול להבינו. לא מובטח שיבין. לא כל החכמים שווים. וספק אם ניתן להגדיר ”חוכמה“, - כבעניינן של תכונות אחרות קיימים שזכו לה יותר וקיימים שזכו לה פחות.

החשיבה מהי? - מהי החשיבה? - ידוע לנו x, וממנו מסיקים y. קיימת תמונה שלא את מלואה אנו רואים, ומסיקים באשר לנסתר מהגלוי. למה אני מציין? כי הממשות אין נסתר ממנה. אין דבר נסתר ממנה. לכן אינה נזקקת לחשיבה. לדעתי. החכמה מיותרת לדידה. - אבל אנחנו לא הממשות. אנחנו כן, אבל...

- בכ״א, - במצב האולטימטיבי לא יהיה צרך בחשיבה כלל. לא יהיה צרך בחכמה. אבל מתחת קיימים מצבים שונים. - ולעניין הזה התייחסתי בפסקה הראשונה.

- בכ״א שוב, - אדם חכם, בהביטו במציאות, - לעיתים לכל הפחות, ובתלוי במידת חכמתו כמובן ובמצב הדברים שלפניו גם הוא כמובן, - יוכל לבוא לידי מסקנות או הבנה מתוך עצם התבוננותו במצב או ראייתו אותו. לעניינו של פקח מצב הדברים שונה. - פקח לא כך. - לעניינו של פקח תוכל להציג בפניו דברים, מ-א' נובע ב'. זאת יוכל להבין. - לעניינה של תמונה כאמור, - יהיה מצב הדברים שונה, - אדם אינטליגנטי שאינו חכם, - תדרש (אם בכלל ניתן) להציג בפניו מסקנות הגיוניות בזו אחר לעניינו של הדבר: - מ-א' נובע ב', מ-ב' נובע ג', מ-ד' נובע ה', ו' גורר ז', ג', ה' ו-ז' גוררים את ח', - וכן הלאה. אז יוכל להשתכנע בשמשנהו יראה מיידית. לעיתים לא רחוקות כמובן גם לא ניתן יהיה לשכנעו בדברים כלל. גם לנוכח העובדה שבני אדם הגיוניים לעיתים הרבה פחות משמדמים בנפשם. לא מעט נספג מן הסביבה, - ולעניין זה נדרש עומק של האישיות ע״מ להבחין בכך ולא פקחות. (אינטליגנציה) - דווקא המגלים עניין רב בעניינים שכלתניים הנדרשים לפקחות ככלי מובהק לעניינם הם הרחוקים במקרים רבים מן העומק האמור והדבר אינו מתמיה. - אבל כעקר הדברים בפוסט הזה הנקודה היא בעניין ההבדל בין מי שיבין או יקלוט דברים אינטואיטיבית אולי בלא צרך בפירוק למבנה של מסקנות לוגיות כאמור לעיל ומתוך התמונה הכוללת לבין מי שיכולתו מצטמצמת לכדי היכולת לעקב אחרי פרטים בודדים שהבנתו של כל אחד מהם קלה לכשעצמה ולהרכבת השרשרת המתקבלת. (או גם לאיתור מבנה מסוג זה בעצמו)

לעניין הפוסט המקושר בתחילה ראו גם תגובה ראשונה שם.

יתכן ויש משמעות גם לזה.