- As for the blog's name: -


I was @ Gustav Ericsson's sight, - Anzenkai, and I was looking at Nishijima Roshi’s calligraphies over there. Particularly there is one - "seki shin hen pen" - about which Gustav has earlier said in a blog post that it is Nishijima's favorite phrase from Master Dogen.

This seemed strange to me. It was not what I would expect Nishijima Roshi's favorite phrase to be. It seemed it could be some Rinzai master's favorite quote, - it seems to express continuous and constant sincerity, - but it did not seem to fit my view of the way Nishijima Roshi saw things.

So - consequently - I tried to think what would I expect his favorite quote to be. But all phrases I could think of did not seem to fit just what I might have had in mind.

So I tried to come up with what I would see it as, - and what I have come up with - is - "this universe out here".

- And this seems to be the right name for this blog here too.


- Definitely.                                                 ________________________

Idiots LTD

I wrote some daring things here, - so I might add another one.

Here in Israel, and perhaps elsewhere too, - women and perhaps men too of some branch of Judaism, whatever it’s called, - believe in the idea of having women rabbis.

- It may be doubtful whether Judaism could be called a religion at all, - rejecting Christ. Quite foolishly people who believe themselves to be men of faith do not think the matter of whether Jesus is the messiah or not - as a matter of fact, - should be cleared. They just think Jews would be Jews and Christians would be Christians as if this is not an actual thing which ought to be true or untrue. I related to that somewhat in this post. - But here this is not the matter about which I am writing.

- However, putting aside the question of the room of Judaism as a religion rejecting the main figure related to it, (as Jesus is clearly more important than Abraham or Moses or Elijah) the issue here is about the idea of a woman rabbi.

Obviously the attitude reflected is rooted in some idea of equality, but it seems to reflect absence of wisdom. Not very surprising if we initially consider this is some branch where those advanced in their own view imagine they could shape their religion as they like according to secular ideas. - In Hindu or in Buddhism such an idea, - of a woman taking the place of a shephered of believers, is acceptable. Whatever the reason. - In Western religions, - Christianity, Islam and Judaism, - this is not the situation. - A woman can’t take the place as a man could after a mere qualification as the common standard is.

- It is not absolutely impossible for a woman to take leadership in the relevant field, - but it is not at all the same as it is for a man, - as ignorant or foolish reconstructors of religion would imagine in their materialistic views. - If a woman has attained to the level of a saint, which means the thinking of the heart of such a person has completed its developement, - than she could lead others in the field of spirit in the relevant communities. Not to speak of course if she is a prophet. But as for lower forms of guidance, - the reality in the fields of religion and spirit is not the same as in the secular world and its institutions. So far.

טובות השתיים

קיימים פסוקים י׳-יב׳ בפרק יב׳ בספר קהלת. - לפסוקים יא׳-יב׳ מופיע קישור מימין ברשימת הקישורים. בפרט קיים שם פסוק יב׳.



- ”בִּקֵּשׁ קֹהֶלֶת לִמְצֹא דִּבְרֵי-חֵפֶץ וְכָתוּב-יֹשֶׁר דִּבְרֵי-אֱמֶת. - דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כַּדָּרְבֹנוֹת וּכְמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים בַּעֲלֵי-אֲסֻפּוֹת נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. - וְיֹתֵר מֵהֵמָּה, בְּנִי, - הִזָּהֵר עֲשׂוֹת-סְפָרִים-הַרְבֵּה-אֵין-קֵץ וְלַהַג-הַרְבֵּה יְגִעַת-בָּשָׂר.“.



- עניינינו בפסוק האחרון, - השלישי. - השניים האחרים ע״מ להעמידו בהקשרו.


- לא שההקשר כל כך משמעותי כאן, - אבל אעפ״כ.


- ההבלים שהפרשנים המוסמכים בעיני רבים מסוגלים לכתב כאן עשויים להחשב כמהממים. מי שנחשבים לאורים ותומים בעיני תמימי דרך מלהגים בהעדר כנות מובהק לכאורה או - יתכן לחילופין - בטפשות ממשית גרידא, - בהתייחס לדברים המצוטטים. - רש״י למשל מוצא שהרועה האחד שבטקסט כאן הוא משה, אם כי אבן עזרא מציין בניגוד לכך את המובן מאליו.


לא שאני בקי או מתעניין בפסולת הזו, - בדקתי ככלל לצרך כתיבת הדברים כאן. - האטימות של אנשי הדת עומדת למכשול אולטימטיבי כמעט אל מול הבנת האזהרה של מי שלא זוהם בתלמודם המשובש (- ראו גם בהמשך) וברוחם האופיינית שאינה מתאפיינת בנקיון או בצלילות.


אבל, בכ״א, - מה שרציתי לכתב כאן כעקר הדברים הוא שעמנו (- עם ישראל) מוצא היה עצמו במצב שונה מאד בימים אלה, וזמן רב קודם לכן, - אילו הובנו הדברים (הפשוטים למדי) שבפסוק האמור.



קיימים גם פסוקים ה׳-יב׳ בפרק טז׳ בבשורה ע״פ מתי בברית החדשה.



- ”וַיָּבֹאוּ הַתַּלְמִידִים אֶל־עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְהֵם שָׁכְחוּ לָקַחַת אִתָּם לָחֶם. וַיֹּאמֶר יֵשׁוּעַ אֲלֵיהֶם רְאוּ וְהִשָׁמְרוּ לָכֶם מִשְּׂאֹר הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְהַצַּדּוּקִים. וַיַּחְשְׁבוּ כֹה וָכֹה בְּקִרְבָּם וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַל־דְּבַר שֶׁלּא־לָקַחְנוּ אִתָּנוּ לָחֶם. וַיֵּדַע יֵשׁוּעַ, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, קְטַנֵּי אֱמוּנָה מָה־תַּחְשְׁבוּ בִּלְבַבְכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־לְקַחְתֶּם אִתְּכֶם לָחֶם? - הַעוֹד לֹא תַשְׂכִּילוּ וְלֹא תִּזְכְּרוּ אֶת־חֲמֵשֶׁת כִּכְּרוֹת־הַלֶּחֶם לַחֲמֵשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וְכַמָּה סַלִּים נְשָׂאתֶם? - וְאֶת־שֶׁבַע כִּכְּרוֹת הַלֶּחֶם לְאַרְבַּעַת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וְכַמָּה דוּדִים נְשָׂאתֶם? - אֵיךְ לֹא תָבִינוּ כִּי לֹא עַל־הַלֶּחֶם אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם הִשָׁמְרוּ לָכֶם מִשְּׂאֹר הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְהַצַּדּוּקִים? אָז הֵבִינוּ כִּי לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם לְהִשָׁמֵר מִשְּׂאֹר הַלֶּחֶם כִּי אִם־מִלִּמוּד הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְהַצַּדּוּקִים.“.



- גם כאן הפסוק הראשון רק לצורך הקשר הדברים. - עניינינו באזהרה של קהלת מקדם (רק הפסוק האחרון בציטוט הראשון הלכה למעשה) ובאזהרה של ישוע מאוחר יותר. הטקסט השני - מתוך הברית החדשה, - אינו בהכרח מדוייק לחלוטין כתיעוד מילולי, - ישוע ותלמידיו לא דברו יוונית כמופיע במקור שם וכאן שוב מתורגמים הדברים לעברית. - מכל מקום לא נראה שחשיבות רבה לדברים לצרך הבנת האזהרה. כמו״כ, במקום שמופיע לעיל ”אמרתי אליכם“ מצאתי בטקסט ”אמרתי אליהם“ ותיקנתי כאן אבל זו מן הסתם שגיאה שם. - עוד לצרך הבנת ההקשר והטעם להתייחסות לאותם למדנים הנזכרים מפני תלמודם האזהרה, - ניתן לעיין בדברים שקדם לכן שם.


- אבל מכל מקום ואעפ״כ ביסודו של דבר והלכה למעשה די במופיע.


- אילו נשמעה האזהרה הראשונה לא באה השנייה. - שווה לבדק אילו שטויות רש״י כותב בעניין הראשון כאמור. - אבל אם אמרנו (אמרתי, ז.א, - כמובן) שאילו זכו דבריו של קהלת להתייחסות הראויה אז היה עמנו מוצא עצמו במצב שונה לחלוטין בהמשך לכך, - אז ניתן לומר גם שאילו זוכה הייתה האזהרה השנייה לתשומת לב ולהתייחסות כנדרש לא רק בקרב תלמידיו הנבונים של האיש מנצרת אלא גם בקרב העם בקרבו נולד המשיח ואליו פנה בתחילה, - אז היה גם המצב בארצנו ובמדינתנו שונה מהותית משהינו.


ניתן להסביר, - אבל לא בהכרח רצוי. העיסוק בפרטים הורג לעיתים את ההבנה שאינה תלויה בו דוקא. - מוטב, - נראה, - להותיר את הדברים כך. אם כי כל מי שעיניו בראשו יבחין כי שנעשה בפעל הוא בדיוק היפוכו של שמנחה קהלת לעשותו. - אבל היום החולין מושל בכל, - ככלל, - העיוות עדיין חי וקיים והפח יקוש כמו״כ אמנם לרגלי הנופלים בו לעיתים, - (ובפעל גם מבין מי שהיו חברי הקרובים) אבל מרבית האוכלוסיה כמובן שאינה עונה בדברים ואין הם בראש מעייניה.



- אישית, - אין הנצרות, ולא היהדות, (וגם לא האיסלם, - אם יש צרך לציין) תואמות את רוחי, נראה, - והעיסוק ב-”אב שבשמים“ לא זו בלבד שאינו מושך אותי אלא שגם נראה מבחינה מסויימת מוזר ביותר, - עניינו הראשון של כל אדם מן הסתם סביר שיהיה בשיוכל למצא בו עצמו ובשיוכל לעשות את עצמו לו, - או אם לא כן במהות הכל או במהות לכשעצמה, - כל חיפוש של אובייקט אחר או בקשה אחר כזה נראים ביסודו של דבר משניים בחשיבותם ואפילו נובעים ממידה של שטחיות. - לא בכך העניין כאן אבל יש שני שירים שכתבתי בהתייחס לאווירה דוחה למדי העשויה להמצא במקום שבו שונה הדרך מנתיבה התואם את דבריי האחרונים, קישורים מופיעים ברשימת הדפים; - במכוון לא הבאתי כאן ע״מ שלא להסיט את תשומת הלב משבקשתי להצביע עליו במופיע לעיל, - נניח את זה הצידה, - שתי האזהרות עומדות בכל מקרה, - וכלל קיים הוא שככל שאדם חכם פחות יותר כך קל יותר לשכנעו בהיותו חכם יותר. - לא תמיד אבל הכלל קיים.

עד כאן. - היה מי שהזהיר אותי מפני ה-”חזרה בתשובה“. אני לא מניח שהייתי יכול ליפול בפח הזה אבל בכל מקרה נחסכה רעה מובהקת. - מפתה מאד לנסות ולהבהיר את השיבוש העמוק שביהדות הנוהגת כמחרשה שראשה טמון באדמה ומשכך עיוורת לאור השמש, - ומנגד כמו״כ זרמים מתקדמים בעיני עצמם המדמים בנפשם שניתן ליצור דת כבקשתך ע״פ אמות מידה של חולין; - וכאמור כמובן ברקע הדברים החילוניים הגמורים שבעיניהם הכל הבל מוחלט ואינו ראוי לתשומת לב או להתייחסות כלשהי מצד בן אנוש משכיל ע״פ דרכם. אבל לא. עד כאן, כאמור.

1.10.2021

Just a thought which has occurred to me right now, - (see date above) just a question as said: - There is the story of Moses going up on Mount Sinai, there was some other post I wanted to write related to that but I just started and never got it finished, - (if I finish it I’ll add a link) but as for the matter here: - When Moses was up there his brother had the gold calf mask made and people who had been waiting for Moses to come down were worshiping it.

Was this at the will of God or was it not?
- Was this in accordance with the will of this one or was it not?
It is said all is at his will, - is it not? So how about this? Was this incident seemingly raising his fury at his will? - If so - what kind of fury is that?

- It is not complicated. - It is not a matter of many details. Is it refined? You judge. - Never mind. - But what might be said? - Either not all is at his will, - as some apparently claim and believe, - or this anger and disapproval may be quite ungraspable. Or maybe there’s a third answer. People generally believe, as it seems, - that “God”, and “the Lord”, and the “Father in Heaven”, - are one and the same, - merely synonyms expressing the same thing. Perhaps it is not so? All is in accord with the will of the Father, - provided there is any such thing, - but as for the others perhaps it is different.

Anyway, I did not intend to get into this wondering of the third possibility, - I did only intend to present the initial wondering referred to here. Plus I’d mention the wonderings of secular, of materialistics, - here in this issue, - are worthless. - This is not intended for those who think the whole issue is bullshit from the start, - though they might rejoice it in their stupid way.



the Four Elements of the Social Relations of the Bodhisattva

Chapter 45 in the Shobogenzo (in the Nishijima translation) is entitled “the Four Elements of a Bodhisattva’s Social Relations” - Bodaisatta-shishobo. Master Dogen lists them as free giving, kind speech, helpful conduct and cooperation. In the English translation that is. - “Free giving” is according to the footnotes the Sanskrit dana, - same as the first paramita, - that is just “giving” as it seems. - The “free” is quite clearly added by the translators just in order to clarify the meaning, to avoid some possible mistake in grasping what exactly it is about, - but essentially you might say the “free” is as if in square brackets. - Where the translation gives “kind speech” it says (in the footnotes) the expression Dogen was using is “loving words”. Helpful conduct is said to originate in Sanskrit where it was “useful conduct”. - (Also regarding the Japanese itself I got the impression “beneficial conduct” is a bit more exact in itself but has been altered to fit the text) As for “cooperation” - in Japanese (- that is in the text in the Shobogenzo) it’s “identity of task” and prior to that in Sanskrit “identity of purpose”.


- Fundamentally, - as it seems to me, - these would be giving, consideration, assistance and unity.


- “Unity” would be equal to love in a way perhaps, - but what has made me write this post was thinking of the fourth element as unity, - which seemed to have been better defined, - in the context at least.

Giving - as it seems to me, - would originate with not being too severely attached to things. - Not seeing possessions as too rigidly founded. - Than things would more easily be able to pass back and forth in accordance with necessities. - Their being “yours” or belonging to others has less weight and subsequently they can more freely shift in between different owners – who still, then, would not be holding them too tight.

- Consideration seems to be rooted in noticing the pain of others. - Then consideration would naturally follow. – Obviously you don’t go around inspecting in search of pain in hearts of others, - a natural tendency has to appear or be developed.

- Assistance seems to be on the path to unity. - It must originate with some sense of unity, - though not necessarily conscious or aware; where the needs of others in themselves are inevitably also notices - obviously, - otherwise how are you to assist them? - It is inevitably a form of giving, - and is motivated by consideration. - It is a more whole form while the other two may be somewhat of more preliminary factors. - Plus, if I said consideration is related to pain of others, - here joy too would take a more significant part in the process. Or so it seems.

- Unity may be only in the hands of Buddhas. The common phrase (- appearing repeatedly in the Lotus Sutra) of “a Buddha alone, together with Buddhas” might be in place. - It is what assistance is aimed at and inspired by, - and - you might also say - (if you don’t mind being corny, that is) its perfect and ultimate culmination. - “Love” is what us ignorant beings would observe as the outcome.


It would be about non differentiation, - about treating others equally as we would treat ourselves.

- Master Dogen also relates to a notion related to the aim (- purpose) rather than to the means: - “The sea does not refuse water”.

- Where a natural tendency of coming near the situation is attempted to be described.

But that is still just coming near. - Though it is not just about being concerned with the conduct, - as I referred; - it is about a fundamental notion of not being separate: - The sea not refusing water, - mountains not refusing earth, - and the enlightened rulers not having a remote dislike for the masses; - where the natural tendency brings about further progress of unity-having-been-come-closer-to, and actual submergence would be - even if slightly, - taking place.


(Written 31.8-10.9 2021) So far for this post. (Written 31.8-10.9 2021)

Buddhism as it is (18.7.2021)

 I did not relate to that earlier, - but it could explicitly be said, - that one who imagines that homosexuality of both males and females or what is referred to as “transgenderism” at the current time are healthy phenomena as fine as normal heterosexuality, - that there is no fault with these, - as the opinions evidently spreading most successfully throughout contemporary society - does not have the “eye”.

Only this. Now. Written at the date noted above.

A remark regarding the Shōbōgenzō

We know Master Dogen intended to rewrite the Shobogenzo and add new chapters (as far as I understand) as to come to 100 altogether. It is obvious that chapters such as Kesa-kudoku and Den-e, or both chapters titled “Shin-fukatoku”, - or Hotsu-mujoshin and Hotsu-bodaishin, - would not be included both in his final editing.

- Obviously he did not have such an intention. - He would only choose one of each of such pairs. - And, as I said, - would write this one again too. - (Koun Ejo writes this in addition to the last chapter - Hachi-dainingaku, - listed 95 in the Nishijima-Cross translation, - after the end of the chapter itself) Also he did not include Bendowa, though of course it is not possible that he did not know of it.

But my main intention is to his intention of rewriting all of what was to be included in what was apparently to be the final version of the Shobogenzo. Beside that there were to be new chapters and also it follows that the order was not going to be (as far as I understand) just the chronological order of the 95 or 96 chapters edition which seems to be most popular today.

- I generally thing the rhythm according to which such chapters may be arranged is important, - I guess it would be lost if you just arrange it all according to chronological order, - plus include these double chapters I mentioned above. What I wanted to say here is that realistically, - it seems wrong to relate to all we have in writing ignoring the facts. It was not a perfected work. - One example which seems very clear is in Sanjushichi-bon-bodai-bunpo. (- Chapter 73 in the translation I mentioned) I was looking for what Dogen would say about what “right action” (- known as the fourth lane of the eightfold path) would be. - What he says there generally is just that right action is becoming a monk. (- Paragraph marked 46 in the Nishijima translation) At the end of the chapter it says “Preached to the assembly”, not “written”. - I think at the time there must have been monks in his order, or maybe has been just one monk in his order, - who were or was getting ideas, - perhaps off the Vimalakirti Sutra, or perhaps some other text or texts I don’t know, - of leaving the order and becoming laymen. - I think Master Dogen saw a necessity to relate to that and have these ideas get off these people’s minds. - So, - the chapter may reflect, - in this place I am referring to here, - (which I do consider particularly important, - I mean right action may not be viewed necessarily as the no. 1 possible topic, - but it could not be viewed as unimportant. - Particularly I think we could say it would be what Master Nansen is talking about in his [second] answer in the story recorded in Shinji Shobogenzo 2/54.) a condition or a situation which may have occurred at the time and place when the things were preached, - and not necessarily the actual and exact view we might see of what the lane of right action would be in the field of the teaching of our Master Dogen. - I don’t know if this is the situation, but it does seem more than probable.



- So, I think, - particularly in the right spirit of the teaching of this unique teacher, - that when studying the Shobogenzo we ought to be aware that things may have not necessarily been expressed in the way he that would have ultimately wished had he had the time to complete his work, and subsequently be more cautious in reading, - if at times things might not seem exactly as we would expect, - being clear that this is no disrespect to him but rather an actual following of a realistic attitude.


- And, at the bottom line, - he said - “there are no innovations to be added to the Dharma at all”, (- Shobogenzo Butsudo) and I also linked Matthew 5:18 as the first link (list on the right) here at the blog; - (though the meaning there might be somewhat different) Master Dogen does not create the Buddha Dharma, - he expresses it, - as all teachers. - There aren’t two of these. - So we ought to aspire to understand the universe itself, - or the reality itself, - not cling to the words of anyone in a blind manner. True teachings are never dead, - and ever inexpressible, - so they say. - So we ought to try and figure out things ourselves, - as Master Gensa (- Shobogenzo Ikka-no-myoju) not finding himself eventually able to be deceived by others, as he says. (Paragraph 97 there, the first paragraph in the chapter)

Nobility vs. External Sensitivity

Buddhism is a religion of wisdom. Christianity is a religion of love. I am not interested in love generally. Some people are interested in love, altruism, morals, and possibly in things like grace or compassion. Some people are interested in truth and essence. Some people have an internal tendency and some people have an external tendency. - Obviously balance is necessary or at least useful and it may be natural for different abilities to complete each other. At the same time different people find different things appealing and have different qualifications they might follow in a natural way.

- My tendency has never been relating to the social facet. But this is not what the issue here is.

- It has been said that planets reincarnate like humans. Not just like humans but they generally incarnate. It has been said that in the last previous incarnation of our planet wisdom has developed. That its development has been completed there. On our present Earth love is to be developed. - It seems it still has a long way to go.

- In relation to this, Christianity is viewed, by some, who do seem to have a point in their ideas, - and that too may be an understatement, - as having an advantage over Buddhism. Kalo says in one of his books, about enlightenment, - “by means of the redemption it attains it is capable of attaining love and becoming its very self”. It seems to me only an enlightened could understand his words here. But in general his idea is that the phenomenon he is relating to only occurs in Christianity.

However, - as I said, - I find other things interesting. - In Buddhism, - absence of good and bad is revealed. - In Christianity it has no mentioning, - it is not emphasized, never it seems. - What makes you see one thing as better than another? Happiness is nothing. What is left then? An existence of an ability may be better than its absence. But here too, - it may be viewed as having no difference, - where one is not better than the other. I don’t think this ability, - to view this phenomenon of emptiness of any quality of goodness or its contrast, - is equally gained in Christianity.

- Certainly not in the same inherent manner. Acquiring this, not merely as an ability to be able to witness and be able to say it is so, - but as an inherent grasp going down to your most natural and spontaneous sight, - is a thing I would certainly like to gain. - It is not worthless. - Having been able to inherently and fully incorporate this understanding into your mind and being, - your action is different. - While in Christianity love is developed, - external sensitivity is valued and considered, - a person having been able to gain the virtue I am referring to here would act in a more refined manner, - more noble, - while still acting, still doing, - his natural behaviour would be freer of unwise concerns - his understanding relating to the absence of goodness and badness would naturally make his action more harmonious, more elegant, no doubt, - and this elegance is not devoid of value, as I tried to refer. I don’t know if it balances out love in its value, - but it is certainly more interesting for me, more appealing. No doubt more beautiful, but this is not necessarily the point to judge by. So far.