As I happened to send a link to this post to someone I came across some things he’s written about the four principles of Buddhism (known as “the four noble truths”) and subsequently I made this reference to another facet of the four world views as referred to here: -
On the materialistic plain one wishes to avoid unpleasant things, pain, suffering. - Perhaps seek happiness, but mainly, as it seems to me, - first, - to be free of the unenjoyable, - that is - I mean, - of what causes what he experiences as a negative experience - as said here first.
On the idealistic plain it is the attachment to a self image which determines the direction. - This would mean one seeks self improvement. The field in which one would seek this could vary a lot from person to person. - It could generally be any field, any sort of improvement, - any way of becoming better.
One may wish to become wiser, one would wish to become brave, some value moral virtue, - the point it is rooted in the wish to become better, to see yourself as better, - but I am not referring to self deceit, - but to the actual wish or attempt to make oneself better for the sake of making oneself better. If it is about gaining an ability for the purpose of getting some outcome, given that this outcome itself would be of the materialistic plain, - than this would be of the materialistic plain, and not of the idealistic.
- In the realistic plain things are different. - You might say there one seeks [to come as close as possible to] an ultimate “good”.
- What this would practically mean is extension of abilities. - Being more capable is “better” than having less abilities. Happiness, pleasance, - is nothing. - They have no value of themselves and so would count to nothing. - But it is not about one’s personal abilities, - rather it is about the abilities of all. - This would be the aim sought in the realistic plain. - While there is no reason why all possible routs of gaining any qualification should be considered equal: - Naturally some would be more valuable, - as in our everyday life. - But the most valuable ability would be the one leading us to understanding we have no reason to actually to prefer one thing to the other, - being capable to being incapable, - this would be the most refined one; - not seeking to become almighty, - though we might gain this too if we do come to this understanding.
The fourth phase Nishijima calls “the ineffable” or “reality”. It is essentially different from the other three. - We can not speak of what one wishes or seeks or aims for in the same way we did so far.
- Here I would say action is not different from no action. - All is an integral whole. - So we could not speak of this wish (we have discerned for the other three phases) one has. All action is completely natural, - there is no separate motive or intention or inducement separate from the action itself. The aim, if any, is so inherent it doesn’t exist. - There isn’t any mind either. - So, I mean, - there isn’t any place to accommodate the wish or aim. But this is not the primary point, - the primary point is in my view here that all is one, there is no separation between mind and matter or perceived objects, - there is no separation between perception and consideration (or thought) and action (or will) and the “external” results left as objective facts in the world which could [then] be perceived again, there is no separation between inside and outside. - So there is no aim which could be isolated or even traced, - there is only one way, if any, one route, - one line, - so to speak, - perhaps extremely complex, perhaps simple, - along which everything goes. Or not. But there is no need for a motive. Nothing is exhausting, harmony is maintained, - the universe is a perpetuum mobile.
On the idealistic plain it is the attachment to a self image which determines the direction. - This would mean one seeks self improvement. The field in which one would seek this could vary a lot from person to person. - It could generally be any field, any sort of improvement, - any way of becoming better.
One may wish to become wiser, one would wish to become brave, some value moral virtue, - the point it is rooted in the wish to become better, to see yourself as better, - but I am not referring to self deceit, - but to the actual wish or attempt to make oneself better for the sake of making oneself better. If it is about gaining an ability for the purpose of getting some outcome, given that this outcome itself would be of the materialistic plain, - than this would be of the materialistic plain, and not of the idealistic.
- In the realistic plain things are different. - You might say there one seeks [to come as close as possible to] an ultimate “good”.
- What this would practically mean is extension of abilities. - Being more capable is “better” than having less abilities. Happiness, pleasance, - is nothing. - They have no value of themselves and so would count to nothing. - But it is not about one’s personal abilities, - rather it is about the abilities of all. - This would be the aim sought in the realistic plain. - While there is no reason why all possible routs of gaining any qualification should be considered equal: - Naturally some would be more valuable, - as in our everyday life. - But the most valuable ability would be the one leading us to understanding we have no reason to actually to prefer one thing to the other, - being capable to being incapable, - this would be the most refined one; - not seeking to become almighty, - though we might gain this too if we do come to this understanding.
The fourth phase Nishijima calls “the ineffable” or “reality”. It is essentially different from the other three. - We can not speak of what one wishes or seeks or aims for in the same way we did so far.
- Here I would say action is not different from no action. - All is an integral whole. - So we could not speak of this wish (we have discerned for the other three phases) one has. All action is completely natural, - there is no separate motive or intention or inducement separate from the action itself. The aim, if any, is so inherent it doesn’t exist. - There isn’t any mind either. - So, I mean, - there isn’t any place to accommodate the wish or aim. But this is not the primary point, - the primary point is in my view here that all is one, there is no separation between mind and matter or perceived objects, - there is no separation between perception and consideration (or thought) and action (or will) and the “external” results left as objective facts in the world which could [then] be perceived again, there is no separation between inside and outside. - So there is no aim which could be isolated or even traced, - there is only one way, if any, one route, - one line, - so to speak, - perhaps extremely complex, perhaps simple, - along which everything goes. Or not. But there is no need for a motive. Nothing is exhausting, harmony is maintained, - the universe is a perpetuum mobile.
Written on May 4th 2020.
(- Plus a few minutes, - as it seems, - into the next day (- May 5th that is))
(- Plus a few minutes, - as it seems, - into the next day (- May 5th that is))
No comments:
Post a Comment