Our Mind - Second Post

I suppose a human being, - or any other - in general - can be seen as acting in a sort of a coil, or circle: - First impressions of its “externity” are reflected within it, to the extent it has this ability of reacting in this way to its surroundings. It might then be said to have a “picture” of whatever it has managed to capture features of in this way.

- This would be the most primitive picture of the surroundings, in my view. I would refer to this manner of seeing things as the materialistic view.

- Second - one might reflect on the possible error within the process here described. Given that this is a realistic process there would undoubtedly be some. Then such data would be integrated into the first. - While the first phase would give an unequivocal single possibility picture, - though perhaps dim or unclear at places, - the second would fundamentally give as if an array of possibilities. - Possible wrongness is recognized and several possibilities may be related to a certain phenomenon, - in awareness of the impossibility of a definite-single-one pointed-out as corresponding to the actual reality originally reflected.

- I would refer to this as the idealistic view. - I intend to clarify the reason for using this word in just a couple of paragraphs: - This is still a limited and incomplete view, - though quite unmistakenably not as obviously as the first one.

- Further, - as one is always in continuous action, - and to the extent one sees purposes and objectives in his life, - and most [people] certainly do, - according to the picture perceived and processed as above, - one may see or view the data received and moderated in its relation to a possible action taken [in the future] according to it.

No longer are things viewed in a dumb manner unrelated to any consideration, - or idealistically - (- which would undeniably actually be to say emotionally) as if their knowledge is of its own value - devoid of its use and unrelated to it, - but - one might dare say - their value would be seen in a way as a derivative of their actual possible effect - in reality, - and on it.

(- Many might imagine this to be a materialistic attitude. - But this is not the way intended. - It is not meant in a short sighted way but as a matter of principle. It is in no way meant to be intellectual.

- But I will leave it at this with regard to this point now.)

However, - this sight - which would see phenomena - or - rather - its knowledge of it, - [- for - anyway - all you know of any phenomenon is your knowledge of it, - never further and never beyond] as content within its possible application, - and further, - even absorbed in it, - that is to say - goals would be viewed primarily, - and knowledge of facts would only be integrated into their structure and follow their course; - this form of management I would refer to as the realistic view.

Still this is incomplete.

Further there is still the recognition that this reality you originally reflected - however rightly or wrongly, - plus all the additional data regarding its possible wrongness, - plus all the goals of action you may or may not consider worthwhile - according to whichever standards existing and being manufactured within your personal and arbitrary mind, - all of these - this universe out here - as being revealed to whichever extent moment by moment, - are just yourself: - Master Tendo Nyojo’s bottle gourd vine continually entwining with a bottle gourd.

And a bottle gourd being entwined with a bottle gourd vine.

- This closes a circle. - So to speak. - Or rather ties up all sides of reality.

I’m sorry I can’t speak of experience.

Still there is not a man whose day will not come.

- At this final stage one is not separated from that which he perceives, from the ideas arising and noticed throughout the action of his faculty of thinking, from his intentions, - and from the action he ever carries out. It could be defined as full integration, - I might guess.

So far as for the main structure I wanted to present in this post.

Still I might make a few remarks:

First I would assume this would correspond to what is usually referred to as “the Four Noble Truths”. I would even assume this is the principle which lies behind them and a clearer and purer version of the natural structure of their constitution. - The Buddha at his time was of course interested in the convenience of understanding of the audience present at the time and place of his teaching.

Of course this is Nishijima’s idea, - not mine. - Though undoubtedly my presentation is different from his.

- Still, - one teacher you have probably never heard of, - [else than by me, - that is] by the name of Kalo, - refers to those - more correctly I believe - as “the Four Principles of Buddhism”.

- I have once written to Nishijima Roshi about that.

As for his statement that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy - it sure seems to make more sense if you view it that way. (I don’t know if my comment about Kalo’s terminology effected his view or gave rise to it, - but it seems to have effected his translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika - as the little I’ve glanced at it at his blog at the time)

Viewing it that way it is not some arbitrary, - however wise, - means someone has picked for a particular religion he established for whatever reason, - but universal principles of absolute natural existence - independent of one’s choice of a path, or of one’s so called “religious beliefs”.

It is to be remembered in Greece philosophy was a thing to be practiced. And viewing things as suggested Buddhism seems to be the natural and complete philosophical system aimed at nothing but the one true purpose of all religions.

I would also mention Kalo refers to the Six Paramitas as the Six Loftinesses, and to the Three Treasures as the Three Pillars of Buddhism.

Second, - I am not versed in physics, - far from it - but I imagine the first phase described would correspond to classical physics, - while the second would correlate to quantum physics. - I tend to believe a third model - which might relate in its complexity to quantum physics as it (- quantum physics) does to classical physics - might or could be in accord with the third one, - while the fourth of course will or could never be described by the existing or future tools of science.

- Thirdly, - at the beginning I mentioned a coil or a circle, and I never made myself clear as to what I was referring to, - it seems: - So my idea is as follows: - First we perceive, - second we sort the perceived information according to what we consider to be our needs - i.e. - “think” - as we normally call it and see it. - Thirdly, - we act upon whatever or whichever objects we may, - and fourthly, - the independent existence of the consequences of our action has its own place in reality, - and could again of course be perceived by us, - as the coil, or circle, - I was referring to earlier takes its place.




Thus the second post is complete.




So far.




Ran.