Nishijima noticed a correspondence between a pattern he noticed in Master Dōgen’s expression in the Shōbōgenzō and Gautama Buddha’s four principles (known as the “Four Noble Truths”) preached, in case I’m not mistaken, - in his first talk after having become the Buddha. - This is of course correct. - I don’t know if anyone has pointed to this correlation earlier (before Master Nishijima) but given that Master Dōgen, however famous in Japan, - is not as renowned as Śākyamuni Buddha in the world, - I might guess not. - However, there is a certain mistake with Nishijima’s presentation of the issue, - and this is the matter here.
- Nishijima’s scheme is presented, as far as I know, - in this collection of talks published, as it seems, first in a booklet and later as a PDF. - I did not know of it at the time I was in his Dojo in ’96. - What I know of the thing is mainly, I guess, - from the time I was there, and not from the text mentioned. I, myself, have brought a presentation of the framework in my blog. There I referred to the third phase unlike Nishijima’s reference. He was relating to realism as a synthesis of idealism and materialism. I presented things differently, I believe more correct and exact relating to this point. (You can check at the link) But this is not the point here.
- In Gautama Buddha’s presentation he naturally follows the essential order of the four principles. With Master Dōgen the situation is different. - Dōgen does not - as far as I came across, - give a structured presentation of the sort the Buddha did or like a scholastic study. Rather, he picks up different issues and relates to them - first perhaps as the usual way, - and through various means follows the path to expound the Buddha Dharma. - The natural order, - as in the Buddha’s lecture, - would be materialism first, idealism second, realism third, and the fourth phase - sometimes related to as “reality” and sometimes as “the ineffable” - fourth. But in Master Dōgen’s system he does not work through mere logical explanation, as I related before. - He starts off people’s minds, - he wishes for them to pick up what he is saying or to absorb it in a harmonious way. - Therefore he begins with where most people’s mind is most times, - i.e. idealism. He takes off where your mind is at first, - presenting first the picture you naturally have in your mind, - as a place to start off. - He wants the understanding to be full, as much as possible of course, - not just intellectual, rational. So he has to work this way, - starting with your picture and then moving on, - relating to your integral functioning of the mind (and body) including imagination and intuition. Working as they do in university would be pointless, - leading to mere intellectual understanding, - if any, - which is most clearly not the aim in any spiritual practice.
Nishijima seems to have overlooked this fact. - When relating to the correlation he spotted, - he relates the first principle (Duhkha-satya) to idealism, the second (Samudaya-satya) to materialism, the third (Nirodha-satya) to realism, and the forth to the fourth phase. - The mistake is in the order of the first two, - the first with Buddha’s (Śākyamuni Buddha’s) would be the second with Dōgen, and the second with the Buddha the first with Master Dōgen. - As I referred, - Dōgen starts off idealism, then takes a step back to materialism, - and subsequently moves on to realism. This is the mistake I wanted to point to here in these words.
- Nishijima is no longer with us, - I do not doubt he would accept my idea. - Such people (who have attained to the ultimate) are not concerned with personal issues irrelevant to the truth itself. He would find being offended irrelevant, beside the point, but since this is not altogether obvious to some this last note here is not necessarily unnecessary. - One other thing I wanted to mention: - In the introduction - by Michael Luetchford - to the lectures entitled “Three Philosophies and One Reality” I referred to above, - he relates to the issue of the appropriate translation of Sanskrit “satya”. - I dare say, that although only other words (mainly “truth”) have been used in English for that purpose, - relating to the context and the actual meaning “principle” would be the best choice. - Not Perfect, - English is English and Sanskrit is Sanskrit, - but better, all things considered, - than other alternatives. I believe “truth” is picked due to an attitude relating to the words themselves and not to their particular meaning and use in the concrete case. So far.
- Nishijima’s scheme is presented, as far as I know, - in this collection of talks published, as it seems, first in a booklet and later as a PDF. - I did not know of it at the time I was in his Dojo in ’96. - What I know of the thing is mainly, I guess, - from the time I was there, and not from the text mentioned. I, myself, have brought a presentation of the framework in my blog. There I referred to the third phase unlike Nishijima’s reference. He was relating to realism as a synthesis of idealism and materialism. I presented things differently, I believe more correct and exact relating to this point. (You can check at the link) But this is not the point here.
- In Gautama Buddha’s presentation he naturally follows the essential order of the four principles. With Master Dōgen the situation is different. - Dōgen does not - as far as I came across, - give a structured presentation of the sort the Buddha did or like a scholastic study. Rather, he picks up different issues and relates to them - first perhaps as the usual way, - and through various means follows the path to expound the Buddha Dharma. - The natural order, - as in the Buddha’s lecture, - would be materialism first, idealism second, realism third, and the fourth phase - sometimes related to as “reality” and sometimes as “the ineffable” - fourth. But in Master Dōgen’s system he does not work through mere logical explanation, as I related before. - He starts off people’s minds, - he wishes for them to pick up what he is saying or to absorb it in a harmonious way. - Therefore he begins with where most people’s mind is most times, - i.e. idealism. He takes off where your mind is at first, - presenting first the picture you naturally have in your mind, - as a place to start off. - He wants the understanding to be full, as much as possible of course, - not just intellectual, rational. So he has to work this way, - starting with your picture and then moving on, - relating to your integral functioning of the mind (and body) including imagination and intuition. Working as they do in university would be pointless, - leading to mere intellectual understanding, - if any, - which is most clearly not the aim in any spiritual practice.
Nishijima seems to have overlooked this fact. - When relating to the correlation he spotted, - he relates the first principle (Duhkha-satya) to idealism, the second (Samudaya-satya) to materialism, the third (Nirodha-satya) to realism, and the forth to the fourth phase. - The mistake is in the order of the first two, - the first with Buddha’s (Śākyamuni Buddha’s) would be the second with Dōgen, and the second with the Buddha the first with Master Dōgen. - As I referred, - Dōgen starts off idealism, then takes a step back to materialism, - and subsequently moves on to realism. This is the mistake I wanted to point to here in these words.
- Nishijima is no longer with us, - I do not doubt he would accept my idea. - Such people (who have attained to the ultimate) are not concerned with personal issues irrelevant to the truth itself. He would find being offended irrelevant, beside the point, but since this is not altogether obvious to some this last note here is not necessarily unnecessary. - One other thing I wanted to mention: - In the introduction - by Michael Luetchford - to the lectures entitled “Three Philosophies and One Reality” I referred to above, - he relates to the issue of the appropriate translation of Sanskrit “satya”. - I dare say, that although only other words (mainly “truth”) have been used in English for that purpose, - relating to the context and the actual meaning “principle” would be the best choice. - Not Perfect, - English is English and Sanskrit is Sanskrit, - but better, all things considered, - than other alternatives. I believe “truth” is picked due to an attitude relating to the words themselves and not to their particular meaning and use in the concrete case. So far.
No comments:
Post a Comment