At the time I was at the Dojo (Nishijima’s Ida Ryogokudo Zazen Dojo in Ichikawa, Japan, which no longer exists for quite a long time) people sometime asked what is the difference between Prajna and Prana, or something of the sort. - We were just a few people in the kitchen speaking and I referred to what Prana is as far as I could, - and mentioned that I don’t know what Prajna is. It is usually referred to as “transcendental wisdom” but it is quite unclear what this is supposed to mean, possibly to those using the term as well - as it seems to me.
Sometime after that Nishijima mentioned a few times that “Prajna” means Intuition. He was not present in the kitchen at the time but masters have their ways of knowing things they are not generally interested in revealing to us all these days. (not interested in revealing these ways that is, in our present materialistic era, as things are) - I don’t deny Nishijima’s words, - I don’t negate them, - his clarification or telling (informing) as mentioned above, - but unintentionally they may be somewhat misleading.
- It is normally said humans don’t have instincts. - That is contemporary “science”’s attitude without any exceptions, as far as I know.
I’d say it seems wrong. We don’t have instincts the way animals have, as it seems, (though if you had animals live the way humans do, get their food at the supermarket and their livelihood off sitting in an office all day, - I don’t know or am not sure what would practically be left of their instincts too, - would they not be practically degenerated and perhaps unnoticeable due to this way of living) but it seems we have instincts in thought. That is to say you might speak of what might be called “instinctive thought”. I do believe this exists.
- The thing is there are two separate phenomena, - instinctive thinking and intuitive thinking, - which are not told apart and are both ignorantly referred to as “intuition”. - This means when we are talking of “intuition” we are confusing two different abilities of a different nature and subsequently getting quite a wrong idea and notion of what we are talking about.
That is to say Nishijima is correct, - but unavoidably - in general - misinterpreted. “Intuition” raises an unclear impression based on an unexamined notion observing rough occurrences, quite mindlessly perhaps. - People generally have no reason or intention - I guess, - to pay attention and try to inspect the difference I am referring to. - Subsequently the present situation prevails. When speaking of “intuition” men and women refer to both true intuition which may be humans highest mental ability, in the field of thought and analysis at least, - and as well to a what-we-might-call a lower skill less reliable and of no-particular-need-for-a-refined-or-deep-mentality in order to obtain it.
It has been said the Shikantaza is the pinnacle of Buddhism. I suspect rather the Prajna Paramita is. However, I believe the observation brought here is in place and worthy of attention, - if I am not wrong. I am not sure my point is actually correct, therefore I said “it seems”. But chances of mistake are sufficiently scant in order for this post to be written and posted. So far.
2 comments:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U-mCchqRxXDpjvg14N5unVL487hz7pUn/view
Subsequently, recently perhaps, - having come across things here and there a bit, - it might seem to me - as for the concept “instinct”, - that one might doubt whether it has any meaning at all: -
I mean that the impression arises that the phenomenon is that generally speaking whenever those guys called “scientists” in the relevant fields come across something they can not understand or figure out, - they just call it an instinct. They don’t know any mechanism or any explanation, - they just make up a word and categorize, - creating the illusion there is something behind it, - but even if it is unintentional it is just a kind of deceit. They might as well say we can’t figure it out. It would actually be more serious.
Post a Comment