I once read a “Zen” story, I don't know or don't remember where, - about a monk, - or maybe not a monk, asking his teacher, - “where will you go after you die?”.
In spite of what is said here, - none of the quotes here is necessarily supposed to be exact. I don't even remember when I read this.
- The master replied: - “Straight to hell”. – “How come?” - the student wondered. – “Otherwise, - who is going to be there to save lost souls such as yourself?” – replied the master whose name I don't remember.
- In the last answer I even wrote somewhat more freely, - but it does not seem to matter. – The point is about wages we get or are supposed to get from Heaven in accord with our good or bad deeds. - Essential it is not. – In a way they are treating us like a herd of cows. How should we relate to these? - I am not in Heaven. I do not have their view. But it does not seem pleasant. - In a way it might seem even ugly. Jesus speaks about it a lot. But Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago. Master Dogen speak about the reality of karma, - of these facts being real, - (as much as this world or any other are real) but he does not tell us we should not act in accord with them. Nishijima says Master Dogen [usually?] write four chapters about each issue. We know Master Dogen intended to add 25 chapters to those he has written for the Shobogenzo. So perhaps it would have been found there. As far as I remember there are only three relevant chapters in the Shobogenzo. We are never free of our individual karma as far as I know until enlightenment. Is this not disappointing? I think teachers should at least emphasize we should not act in a wish to get these rewards from Heaven. Suppose we would get a negative outcome off a good deed and a [personally] beneficial one for a good deed - how should we act? Would this justify evil or wrongness?
I am not in the place of Heaven. I have not acquired their wisdom or their knowledge. - But somehow this issue seems to suck.
I wish teachers, enlightened teachers that is, - would direct those following them or listening to them in accord with what I am saying here. Even If a teacher says once in a while you should not seek gain in this way but continually tells of these rewards and payments, as you might perhaps call them, - you would naturally wonder what it is really that he is pointing to. – I don't know the souls of all, - but actually you might say both positive and negative such implanted outcomes are bending our soul, our being, twisting it somewhat, - both for the worse that is. This world seems truly an unhappy one.
Enlightenment in the New Testament
This post is somewhat related to this post here. Still it stands on its own.
Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God. - Of the Kingdom of Heaven too.
There is no such place.
He says so himself.
Matthew 11:27 says:
So to speak.
- The expression is a manner of relating to what is known in Eastern paths as enlightenment. - Saying one has arrived at the kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven is a way of saying one has arrived at what elsewhere is related to as Buddhahood. - Knowing the Father is nothing else but knowing yourself. - Jesus was referring to that which is known in the school of “Zen” as “Satori” as arriving at the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. This is from Kalo but It seems quite clear any master who has come to it could equally affirm the fact.
- This is what this post is about. - In the Lord's Prayer (not quoted here) in particular asking for the Father's Kingdom to come (- in the second verse of the prayer) is about this. - Kalo relates to this somewhere. It is very clear.
- Subsequently I will bring various quotes off the Bible relating to the matter. - It is most clear that this is not always the meaning, - the expressions are very often used in a way where obviously this is not the meaning intended, - while as well else than this Jesus clearly and obviously was not intending for the meaning related to here in this post to be particularly or generally understood by those hearing his words or those hearing or reading them in any near future. - It is not like in Eastern paths. - Whatever the reason. - I have somewhat related to this in an earlier post.
- Here are the quotes:
Luke 16:16:
- Also compare to Kodo Sawaki Roshi saying that there is no way not to become a Buddha. - The allegory he is giving is of the night trains in Japan which carry you along even when you are sleeping.
Matthew 13:45-46:
I here used the Young Literal Translation. The first two quotes I translated myself. I usually translate myself Bible quotes here but this was clearly too much work. I don't know how good is the Young translation, or how well it delivers what is present behind the words of those who wrote the Gospels. Generally I recall relating to the Old Testament no translation seemed good to me. - Jewish translations seemed better than others, I thought because made by people actually able to speak Hebrew as a living language rather than scholars relying on dictionaries and written matter, - but I am not sure about this. You can see in King I 21:19 where the Hebrew word is “inherited” almost none of the translations gives this word. - Also for “murdered” [there] many give “kill”, - while the Hebrew words are clear and explicit. - As for things here, - in this post, - I don't know which translation is best or if there is any that is good. It seemed to me the Amplified Bible and the Message were better than others but this is of no thorough reading or anything close to it. - So it could most certainly be wrong. - Therefore I did not want to choose any translation in the links I supplied here but you can choose any one you like in the window which opens. - Luke 9:27 I did not include within the quotes above though the meaning of the Kingdom of God there is clearly that related to here in this post.
Since Young gives “the reign of God” instead of “the Kingdom of God” and “the reign of the heavens” rather than “the Kingdom of Heaven” I changed this everywhere. I might guess this has to do with the Greek translation of Hebrew or Aramic words while Young clings to the Greek ignoring the source. - I changed somewhat elsewhere too. - Me not being a native English speaker certainly was and is a barrier to being able to choose a translation. But as I said, - I am not even sure there is a good one at all. - So far about this.
- While writing this post I wrote another blog page which obviously has to do with the post I linked at the beginning. - Also the point about which this post is appears in this other post linked in the beginning too. - I do not ague about it. [Here]
One most clear thing relating to the translations again is that none of them of course is aware of the fact. The fact about which this is, of course, - that is.
If you want to be convinced go and ask. But you need to know who to ask, - whether you take it for granted or not. - Only one who is “there” will do, - and those are no doubt rare, - very rare, - and in our weird time they are not so widely acknowledged as those who have “arrived” at what nothing will match.
Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God. - Of the Kingdom of Heaven too.
There is no such place.
He says so himself.
- “The kingdom of God will not come with an eyes observation. - Nor will they say [- oh] here [it is] or [- oh] there [it is] for the kingdom of God is within yourselves.”.
Luke 17:20-21.Matthew 11:27 says:
(...) “None knows the Son apart from the Father and none knows the Father apart from the Son and he to whom the Son would wish to reveal to”.
He who knows the Father is he who has arrived at the Kingdom of God. - Or the Kingdom of Heaven.So to speak.
- The expression is a manner of relating to what is known in Eastern paths as enlightenment. - Saying one has arrived at the kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven is a way of saying one has arrived at what elsewhere is related to as Buddhahood. - Knowing the Father is nothing else but knowing yourself. - Jesus was referring to that which is known in the school of “Zen” as “Satori” as arriving at the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. This is from Kalo but It seems quite clear any master who has come to it could equally affirm the fact.
- This is what this post is about. - In the Lord's Prayer (not quoted here) in particular asking for the Father's Kingdom to come (- in the second verse of the prayer) is about this. - Kalo relates to this somewhere. It is very clear.
- Subsequently I will bring various quotes off the Bible relating to the matter. - It is most clear that this is not always the meaning, - the expressions are very often used in a way where obviously this is not the meaning intended, - while as well else than this Jesus clearly and obviously was not intending for the meaning related to here in this post to be particularly or generally understood by those hearing his words or those hearing or reading them in any near future. - It is not like in Eastern paths. - Whatever the reason. - I have somewhat related to this in an earlier post.
- Here are the quotes:
Luke 16:16:
“The law and the prophets [are] till John; since then the Kingdom of God is proclaimed good news, and every one doth press into it”.
Matthew 11:11-13:
“Verily I say to you, there hath not risen, among those born of women, a greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. And, from the days of John the Baptist till now, the Kingdom of the Heaven doth suffer violence, and violent men do take it by force, for all the prophets and the law till John did prophesy”.
Matthew 19:16-24:
“And lo, one having come near, said to him, ‘Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have life age-during?’ And he said to him, ‘Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God; but if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands.’ He saith to him, ‘What kind?’ And Jesus said, ‘Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and mother, and, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ The young man saith to him, ‘All these did I keep from my youth; what yet do I lack?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If thou dost will to be perfect, go away, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.’ And the young man, having heard the word, went away sorrowful, for he had many possessions; and Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Verily I say to you, that hardly shall a rich man enter into the Kingdom of the Heaven; and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.’”.
Mark 10:17-25:
“And as he is going forth into the way, one having run and having kneeled to him, was questioning him, ‘Good teacher, what may I do, that life age-during I may inherit?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God; the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Thou mayest not defraud, Honour thy father and mother.’ And he answering said to him, ‘Teacher, all these did I keep from my youth.’ And Jesus having looked upon him, did love him, and said to him, ‘One thing thou dost lack; go away, whatever thou hast -- sell, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, be following me, having taken up the cross.’ And he -- gloomy at the word -- went away sorrowing, for he was having many possessions. And Jesus having looked round, saith to his disciples, ‘How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the Kingdom of God!’ And the disciples were astonished at his words, and Jesus again answering saith to them, ‘Children, how hard is it to those trusting on the riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel through the eye of the needle to enter, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.’”.
Luke 18:18-25:
“And a certain ruler questioned him, saying, `Good teacher, what having done -- shall I inherit life age-during?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good, except One -- God; the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.’ And he said, ‘All these I did keep from my youth;’ and having heard these things, Jesus said to him, ‘Yet one thing to thee is lacking; all things -- as many as thou hast -- sell, and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, be following me;’ and he, having heard these things, became very sorrowful, for he was exceeding rich. And Jesus having seen him become very sorrowful, said, ‘How hardly shall those having riches enter into the Kingdom of God! for it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to enter, than for a rich man into the Kingdom of God to enter.’”.
Matthew 7:21:
“Not every one who is saying to me Lord, lord, shall come into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who is doing the will of my Father in Heaven”.
Matthew 23:13:
“Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven before men, for ye do not go in, nor those going in do ye suffer to enter.”.
Mark 4:30-32:
“And he said, ‘To what may we liken the Kingdom of God, or in what simile may we compare it? As a grain of mustard, which, whenever it may be sown on the earth, is less than any of the seeds that are on the earth; and whenever it may be sown, it cometh up, and doth become greater than any of the herbs, and doth make great branches, so that under its shade the fowls of the heaven are able to rest.'”.
Luke 13:18-19:
“And he said, ‘To what is the Kingdom of God like? And to what shall I liken it? It is like to a grain of mustard, which a man having taken, did cast into his garden, and it increased, and came to a great tree, and the fowls of the heavens did rest in its branches.’”.
Mark 4:26-28:
“And he said, ‘Thus is the Kingdom of God: as if a man may cast the seed on the earth, and may sleep, and may rise night and day, and the seed spring up and grow, he hath not known how; for of itself doth the earth bear fruit, first a blade, afterwards an ear, afterwards full corn in the ear’”.
- See also verses 21-22 in the same context.- Also compare to Kodo Sawaki Roshi saying that there is no way not to become a Buddha. - The allegory he is giving is of the night trains in Japan which carry you along even when you are sleeping.
Matthew 13:45-46:
(...) “The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a man, a merchant, seeking goodly pearls, who having found one pearl of great price, having gone away, hath sold all, as much as he had, and bought it.”.
Matthew 13:44:
(...) “The Kingdom of Heaven is like to treasure hid in the field, which a man having found did hide, and from his joy goeth, and all, as much as he hath, he selleth, and buyeth that field”.
Mark 12:28-34:
“And one of the scribes having come near, having heard them disputing, knowing that he answered them well, questioned him, ‘Which is the first command of all?’ and Jesus answered him -- ‘The first of all the commands [is], Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God [is] one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all of thy soul, and with all thine mentality, and with of all thy wishfulness -- this [is] the first command; and the second [is] like [it], this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; -- greater than these there is no other command.’ And the scribe said to him, ‘Well, Teacher, in truth thou hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He; and to love Him with all of the heart, and with all of the mentality, and with all of the soul, and with all of the endeavouring, and to love one's neighbour as one's self, is more than all the whole burnt-offerings and the sacrifices.’ And Jesus, having seen him that he answered with wisdom, said to him, ‘Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God;’ and no one any more durst question him.”.
Luke 13:20-21:
“And again he said, `To what shall I liken the Kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman, having taken, did hide in three measures of meal, till that all was leavened.’”.
Matthew 13:33:
“Another simile spake he to them: ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is like to leaven, which a woman having taken, hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.’”.
Mark 10:35-40:
“And there come near to him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying, ‘Teacher, we wish that whatever we may ask for ourselves, thou mayest do for us;’ and he said to them, ‘What do ye wish me to do for you?’ and they said to him, ‘Grant to us that, one on thy right hand and one on thy left, we may sit in thy glory;’ and Jesus said to them, ‘Ye have not known what ye ask; are ye able to drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized with -- to be baptized?’ And they said to him, ‘We are able;’ and Jesus said to them, ‘Of the cup indeed that I drink of, ye shall drink, and with the baptism that I am baptized with, ye shall be baptized; but to sit on my right and on my left, is not mine to give, but -- to those for whom it hath been prepared.’”.
Matthew 20:20-23:
“Then came near to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee, with her sons, bowing and asking something from him, and he said to her, ‘What wilt thou?’ She saith to him, ‘Say, that they may sit -- these my two sons -- one on thy right hand, and one on the left, in thy Kingdom.’ And Jesus answering said, ‘Ye have not known what ye ask for yourselves; are ye able to drink of the cup that I am about to drink? and with the baptism that I am baptized with, to be baptized?’ They say to him, ‘We are able.’ And he saith to them, ‘Of my cup indeed ye shall drink, and with the baptism that I am baptized with ye shall be baptized; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but -- to those for whom it hath been prepared by my Father.’”.
Mark 10:13-16:
“And they were bringing to him children, that he might touch them, and the disciples were rebuking those bringing them, and Jesus having seen, was much displeased, and he said to them, ‘Suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; verily I say to you, whoever may not receive the Kingdom of God, as a child -- he may not enter into it;’ and having taken them in his arms, having put [his] hands upon them, he was blessing them.”.
Luke 18:15-17:
“And they were bringing near also the babes, that he may touch them, and the disciples having seen did rebuke them, and Jesus having called them near, said, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; verily I say to you, Whoever may not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, may not enter into it.’”.
Matthew 19:13-15:
“Then were brought near to him children that he might put hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Suffer the children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven;’ and having laid on them [his] hands, he departed thence.”.
Matthew 18:1-14:
“At that hour came the disciples near to Jesus, saying, ‘Who, now, is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven?’ And Jesus having called near a child, did set him in the midst of them, and said, ‘Verily I say to you, if ye may not be turned and become as the children, ye may not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; whoever then may humble himself as this child, he is the greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. ‘And he who may receive one such child in my name, doth receive me, and whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged upon his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea. ‘Wo to the world from the stumbling-blocks! For there is a necessity for the stumbling-blocks to come, but wo to that man through whom the stumbling-block doth come! ‘And if thy hand or thy foot doth cause thee to stumble, cut them off and cast from thee; it is good for thee to enter into the life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast to the fire the age-during. ‘And if thine eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee; it is good for thee one-eyed to enter into the life, rather than having two eyes to be cast to the gehenna of the fire. ‘Beware! -- Ye may not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in the heavens do always behold the face of my Father in Heaven, for the Son of Man did come to save the lost. ‘What think ye? If a man may have an hundred sheep, and there may go astray one of them, doth he not -- having left the ninety-nine, having gone on the mountains -- seek that which is gone astray? And if it may come to pass that he doth find it, verily I say to you, that he doth rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray; so it is not will in presence of your Father in Heaven, that one of these little ones may perish.”.
I here used the Young Literal Translation. The first two quotes I translated myself. I usually translate myself Bible quotes here but this was clearly too much work. I don't know how good is the Young translation, or how well it delivers what is present behind the words of those who wrote the Gospels. Generally I recall relating to the Old Testament no translation seemed good to me. - Jewish translations seemed better than others, I thought because made by people actually able to speak Hebrew as a living language rather than scholars relying on dictionaries and written matter, - but I am not sure about this. You can see in King I 21:19 where the Hebrew word is “inherited” almost none of the translations gives this word. - Also for “murdered” [there] many give “kill”, - while the Hebrew words are clear and explicit. - As for things here, - in this post, - I don't know which translation is best or if there is any that is good. It seemed to me the Amplified Bible and the Message were better than others but this is of no thorough reading or anything close to it. - So it could most certainly be wrong. - Therefore I did not want to choose any translation in the links I supplied here but you can choose any one you like in the window which opens. - Luke 9:27 I did not include within the quotes above though the meaning of the Kingdom of God there is clearly that related to here in this post.
Since Young gives “the reign of God” instead of “the Kingdom of God” and “the reign of the heavens” rather than “the Kingdom of Heaven” I changed this everywhere. I might guess this has to do with the Greek translation of Hebrew or Aramic words while Young clings to the Greek ignoring the source. - I changed somewhat elsewhere too. - Me not being a native English speaker certainly was and is a barrier to being able to choose a translation. But as I said, - I am not even sure there is a good one at all. - So far about this.
- While writing this post I wrote another blog page which obviously has to do with the post I linked at the beginning. - Also the point about which this post is appears in this other post linked in the beginning too. - I do not ague about it. [Here]
One most clear thing relating to the translations again is that none of them of course is aware of the fact. The fact about which this is, of course, - that is.
If you want to be convinced go and ask. But you need to know who to ask, - whether you take it for granted or not. - Only one who is “there” will do, - and those are no doubt rare, - very rare, - and in our weird time they are not so widely acknowledged as those who have “arrived” at what nothing will match.
As for my self I see no doubt.
So far.
So far.
Faith
What is faith? Apparently, - the idea of belief seems to imply not knowing. What you know you know. As for what you don't you might assume this or that.
- However quite obviously in religion the idea feels different. - One might say the very idea is irrational because it does not make sense treasuring having assumptions about what you don't know. And quite correctly perhaps one might say too that if you do know, - you need not call it faith.
- A baby, - normally, - knows nothing. When it is born, - that is. - The speed in which learning seems to prove itself, - perhaps both in humans and in animals, - may seem funny, - much quicker than what may reasonably be expected, - but this is not of the issue here. - But as for the baby, - the newborn one, - right after its appearance it begins to accumulate what seems to be knowledge relating to its surroundings. - He (or she) learns slowly, - though as I said perhaps much quicker than what might have been natural according to materialistic assumptions or ideas, - and in order to function, - qualifies itself.
- This process of course goes on much further through a more advanced age. - When will one attain “faith”?
- Some might believe in God or something else simply because they have been told what they have been told since the youngest age. Could this be called faith?
Most obviously, - it is truly easy to find practical idiots who would seem to have faith if you are observing it on the shallowest plain. - Should those be called men and women of faith. I would say quite unequivocally they would better not. Though materialistic intellectuals would gladly think otherwise. Despising faith that is. - Faith is not at first about having this or that opinion. - Faith is a quality of the heart. – Fundamentally. I would say. - You might say otherwise too, - but it wouldn't lead us to meaningful understanding, here at least. - Why do we speak of faith? We don't speak of it equally relating to other issues. - Is there a “God”? Is there a Heaven? Does our mind really originate merely in random occurrences of physical matter? - If there is a “God” - what is it?
When Jesus speaks of the “Father in Heaven” - he is clearly relating to what may be known elsewhere (mainly in Eastern paths perhaps) as the original reality or the original mind. - But is it the same when we are hearing of “God” or “the Lord” earlier in the Jewish Bible? I don't know. – You thought you were going to find answers in these words. Perhaps you will.
But as for faith, - and back to the baby, - there is the learning. Thinking, - human thinking at least, - may be divided into three parts, - I would say. – There is the intellectual thinking, relating to the head I guess, which is the most shallow layer. - Next there is a second phase I don't think there is a word for in English, - (in Hebrew there is) related to the heart. And next there is wisdom, - having in a way at least to do with the body. - Intellectuality is like a pencil's drawing. It has no depth. - Wisdom, - I would say, - is about having a picture of reality. - Not just concluding A is true because of B and so on. - And faith, - how does it appear? It would be about an inner ability undefined (at first at least) through which a cleaner heart might gradually (at first) grasp the nature of things.
Had the materialistic ideas held by many these days been true there would be no room for these things to be spoken of.
But quite obviously, - one cannot convince all intellectual materialists of the truth related to here through the mere means they cherish. - Otherwise the world would be so much different. - I haven't explained so much. It is not easy. - But at a certain point one can say positively as a matter of fact that a certain ability of thinking is acquired. This is when one acquires true faith. True faith is not yet perfect faith. But it is no emotional thing.
In making progress through life, - in learning, - since the moment we are born, - we might also learn how to learn. - It is necessary - it seems - that this improves too.
Intellectuals are blocked somewhere relating to this. As Jesus said - he who has shall be given, - these guys are depriving themselves of progress since they have their views which will lead them all the wrong ways in relation to this. - But generally things change, - for them too, - when one matures. - Not all people are of the same starting point. Need this be said? - Again, - here - intellectuals will measure thing altogether wrongly. - But anyway a very shallow or dry-minded person initially without any inner substance or significance will at first advance very slowly. Through incarnations we can get better each time. - How does one come to faith? - It is not through the study of mathematics. (Though in ancient Greek such a path existed too) It is not through mere conclusion making based on what most assume they know today. - It is through some sort of a finer thing. An ability you might say is more refined. - And as for communicating it, - it much depends on where is this other one you want to speak to. - The closer this one is the better are the chances of the communication. You might check Mark 12:28-34 but it is not necessarily exactly fit for my discussion here. - Not knowing what wisdom is, - one will never have a sufficient understanding or view of what faith is. One can not be truly wise and have zero faith. The two come closer as they advance. - You can not expect to figure out what all this is about using merely intellectual thinking. You need to let go and look at your picture of the world. And this article here is not a magical one. It is not supposed to necessarily make a notable difference after one reads it. It's obvious. - One the intention is that it would make its contribution. - Even if an incomplete one. - So far.
Plus there are those who have got the perfect thing, - as they say, - ineffable achievement beyond any doubt, - but as for this you better get the message directly from such one, though quite clearly you will not understand it, nor will I.
Until the day comes, that is.
- However quite obviously in religion the idea feels different. - One might say the very idea is irrational because it does not make sense treasuring having assumptions about what you don't know. And quite correctly perhaps one might say too that if you do know, - you need not call it faith.
- A baby, - normally, - knows nothing. When it is born, - that is. - The speed in which learning seems to prove itself, - perhaps both in humans and in animals, - may seem funny, - much quicker than what may reasonably be expected, - but this is not of the issue here. - But as for the baby, - the newborn one, - right after its appearance it begins to accumulate what seems to be knowledge relating to its surroundings. - He (or she) learns slowly, - though as I said perhaps much quicker than what might have been natural according to materialistic assumptions or ideas, - and in order to function, - qualifies itself.
- This process of course goes on much further through a more advanced age. - When will one attain “faith”?
- Some might believe in God or something else simply because they have been told what they have been told since the youngest age. Could this be called faith?
Most obviously, - it is truly easy to find practical idiots who would seem to have faith if you are observing it on the shallowest plain. - Should those be called men and women of faith. I would say quite unequivocally they would better not. Though materialistic intellectuals would gladly think otherwise. Despising faith that is. - Faith is not at first about having this or that opinion. - Faith is a quality of the heart. – Fundamentally. I would say. - You might say otherwise too, - but it wouldn't lead us to meaningful understanding, here at least. - Why do we speak of faith? We don't speak of it equally relating to other issues. - Is there a “God”? Is there a Heaven? Does our mind really originate merely in random occurrences of physical matter? - If there is a “God” - what is it?
When Jesus speaks of the “Father in Heaven” - he is clearly relating to what may be known elsewhere (mainly in Eastern paths perhaps) as the original reality or the original mind. - But is it the same when we are hearing of “God” or “the Lord” earlier in the Jewish Bible? I don't know. – You thought you were going to find answers in these words. Perhaps you will.
But as for faith, - and back to the baby, - there is the learning. Thinking, - human thinking at least, - may be divided into three parts, - I would say. – There is the intellectual thinking, relating to the head I guess, which is the most shallow layer. - Next there is a second phase I don't think there is a word for in English, - (in Hebrew there is) related to the heart. And next there is wisdom, - having in a way at least to do with the body. - Intellectuality is like a pencil's drawing. It has no depth. - Wisdom, - I would say, - is about having a picture of reality. - Not just concluding A is true because of B and so on. - And faith, - how does it appear? It would be about an inner ability undefined (at first at least) through which a cleaner heart might gradually (at first) grasp the nature of things.
Had the materialistic ideas held by many these days been true there would be no room for these things to be spoken of.
But quite obviously, - one cannot convince all intellectual materialists of the truth related to here through the mere means they cherish. - Otherwise the world would be so much different. - I haven't explained so much. It is not easy. - But at a certain point one can say positively as a matter of fact that a certain ability of thinking is acquired. This is when one acquires true faith. True faith is not yet perfect faith. But it is no emotional thing.
In making progress through life, - in learning, - since the moment we are born, - we might also learn how to learn. - It is necessary - it seems - that this improves too.
Intellectuals are blocked somewhere relating to this. As Jesus said - he who has shall be given, - these guys are depriving themselves of progress since they have their views which will lead them all the wrong ways in relation to this. - But generally things change, - for them too, - when one matures. - Not all people are of the same starting point. Need this be said? - Again, - here - intellectuals will measure thing altogether wrongly. - But anyway a very shallow or dry-minded person initially without any inner substance or significance will at first advance very slowly. Through incarnations we can get better each time. - How does one come to faith? - It is not through the study of mathematics. (Though in ancient Greek such a path existed too) It is not through mere conclusion making based on what most assume they know today. - It is through some sort of a finer thing. An ability you might say is more refined. - And as for communicating it, - it much depends on where is this other one you want to speak to. - The closer this one is the better are the chances of the communication. You might check Mark 12:28-34 but it is not necessarily exactly fit for my discussion here. - Not knowing what wisdom is, - one will never have a sufficient understanding or view of what faith is. One can not be truly wise and have zero faith. The two come closer as they advance. - You can not expect to figure out what all this is about using merely intellectual thinking. You need to let go and look at your picture of the world. And this article here is not a magical one. It is not supposed to necessarily make a notable difference after one reads it. It's obvious. - One the intention is that it would make its contribution. - Even if an incomplete one. - So far.
Plus there are those who have got the perfect thing, - as they say, - ineffable achievement beyond any doubt, - but as for this you better get the message directly from such one, though quite clearly you will not understand it, nor will I.
Until the day comes, that is.
October 20, 2024.
I all the time schedule posts now.
I all the time schedule posts now.
- Quoting -
- In an earlier post I said I might relate to a certain quote from Master Dogen. - It is the part you can see marked in yellow at the end of the longer quote here.
I said [there] I intended to call the post “the Master’s Intention”. - As you can see, I did not. - The main part is really the part marked in yellow as I said. The marks in gray are for what appears in the original text in Chinese characters only, - unlike the most where there are Japanese characters too. - Nishijima says this stands out in the original text and so he had it italicized in his translation of the Shobogenzo. Here I had a light gray background used instead.
- However, - the point is about what Master Dogen is saying in the part I marked in yellow. - I added the rest too because it seems nicer this way and perhaps keeps things somewhat more in some context. It is not essentially necessary. I might have had just the last section alone.
- As for what Dogen is saying, - you can check the older post I mentioned. - Kalo goes somewhat further in what he is saying but still the cation is not about a different issue. It is very tempting sometimes to speak of what you don't know.
Tao Te Ching says (Kalo's translation to Hebrew which I here translated to English, - not the same as the source) “he who knows does not speak; - he who speaks does not know”. - Master Sensu said to Master Kasan (90th story in book 1 of the Shinji Shobogenzo) to erase his footprints in the place where he conceals his body. (- but not to conceal his body where he has erased his footprints)
- Some don't care about these things at all. - Unaware of their meaning.
It is from the chapter Keisei-sanshiki in the Shobogenzo. For footnotes you can refer to the link to Book 1 on the right.
And here's just the last central part again: -
- The term “arriving in this field of earth” is of dual meaning, but I will not get to it here.
I said [there] I intended to call the post “the Master’s Intention”. - As you can see, I did not. - The main part is really the part marked in yellow as I said. The marks in gray are for what appears in the original text in Chinese characters only, - unlike the most where there are Japanese characters too. - Nishijima says this stands out in the original text and so he had it italicized in his translation of the Shobogenzo. Here I had a light gray background used instead.
- However, - the point is about what Master Dogen is saying in the part I marked in yellow. - I added the rest too because it seems nicer this way and perhaps keeps things somewhat more in some context. It is not essentially necessary. I might have had just the last section alone.
- As for what Dogen is saying, - you can check the older post I mentioned. - Kalo goes somewhat further in what he is saying but still the cation is not about a different issue. It is very tempting sometimes to speak of what you don't know.
Tao Te Ching says (Kalo's translation to Hebrew which I here translated to English, - not the same as the source) “he who knows does not speak; - he who speaks does not know”. - Master Sensu said to Master Kasan (90th story in book 1 of the Shinji Shobogenzo) to erase his footprints in the place where he conceals his body. (- but not to conceal his body where he has erased his footprints)
- Some don't care about these things at all. - Unaware of their meaning.
- Here's the text: -
- “In general, a beginner’s sentimental thinking cannot imagine the Buddha’s truth—[the beginner] fathoms, but does not hit the target. Even though we do not fathom [the truth] as beginners, we should not deny that there is perfect realization in the ultimate state. [Still,] the inner depths of the perfect state are beyond the beginner’s shallow consciousness. [The beginner] must just endeavor, through concrete conduct, to tread the path of the ancient saints. At this time, in visiting teachers and seeking the truth, there are mountains to climb and oceans to cross. While we are seeking a guiding teacher, or hoping to find a [good] counselor, one comes down from the heavens, or springs out from the earth. At the place where we meet him, he makes sentient beings speak the truth and makes non-sentient beings speak the truth, and we listen with body and listen with mind. Listening with the ears is everyday tea and meals, but hearing the sound through the eyes is just the ambiguous, or the undecided, itself. In meeting Buddha, we meet ourselves as Buddha and others as Buddha, and we meet great buddhas and small buddhas. Do not be surprised by or afraid of a great buddha. Do not doubt or worry about a small buddha. The great buddhas and small buddhas referred to here are recognized, presently, as the form of the mountains and the voices of the river-valley. In this the Wide and Long Tongue exists, and eighty-four thousand verses exist; the manifestation is far transcendent, and the insight is unique and exceptional. For this reason, secular [teachings] say “It gets higher and higher, and harder and harder.” And a past buddha says, “It pervades the sky and pervades the meridians.” Spring pines possess constant freshness, and an autumn chrysanthemum possesses sublime beauty, but they are nothing other than the direct and concrete. When good counselors arrive in this field of earth, they may be great masters to human beings and gods. Someone who randomly affects the forms of teaching others, without arriving in this field of earth, is a great nuisance to human beings and gods. How could [people] who do not know the spring pines, and who do not see the autumn chrysanthemum, be worth the price of their straw sandals? How could they cut out the roots?”.
It is from the chapter Keisei-sanshiki in the Shobogenzo. For footnotes you can refer to the link to Book 1 on the right.
And here's just the last central part again: -
- “Spring pines possess constant freshness, and an autumn chrysanthemum possesses sublime beauty, but they are nothing other than the direct and concrete. When good counselors arrive in this field of earth, they may be great masters to human beings and gods. Someone who randomly affects the forms of teaching others, without arriving in this field of earth, is a great nuisance to human beings and gods. How could [people] who do not know the spring pines, and who do not see the autumn chrysanthemum, be worth the price of their straw sandals? How could they cut out the roots?”.
- The term “arriving in this field of earth” is of dual meaning, but I will not get to it here.
Miracles
This world was not created for the sake of miracles taking place. This is why in “Zen” one speaks of the miracle of chopping wood and carrying water. Ramana Maharshi said the only miracle is in purifying a person's mind. - We attain the physical body for a purpose. Things are not accidental. - Jesus performed a lot of miracles, but this was not the centre of his teaching.
- It seems people think spirituality has to do with performing things contemporary science is still unable to explain. I recall I read in some Yoga book - before I got interested in the issue, - I think, - that spirituality does not have to do with psychic phenomena, and it seemed strange to me. I don't know how old I was. - Things here are not aimed at us moving mountains from place to place, or flying up in the air. - Working on one's inherent character is much more significant. - Though I don't think any working on improving one's character even if successful could be said to be on the spiritual level. Though again it does get you somewhere, related or unrelated, - as it seems.
Our abilities here on Earth are as they were meant to be, - we might guess. - We live our lives. Some live in a monastery or a temple or some other place of training. - Some have more significant lives and some less. - We learn in our lives. Master Dogen was continually using the term learn in practice. (At least in Nishijima's translation) The practical fact is this world enables us to achieve what can not be achieved in the same manner in higher worlds. - Whichever powers beings there might have, (and I really don't know this much about what exactly those will be) without a human body a most essential aim is fundamentally unattainable. (There is a most extraordinary story about a cow who has arrived at it, in the ashram of Ramana Maharshi mentioned above - as far as I know, - but this is quite off the issue here and probably far more extraordinary than many might even guess) It may be natural to assume that for plants it is natural to be plants and for animals natural to be animals, - but it is not them that we are discussing here. - My point is that attaining miraculous powers for our everyday lives is not to be considered what our lives are to be aimed at and not what guided spiritual practice will view as its aim either.
Whatever we get here might contribute to our abilities subsequently after we leave this this world for good, - but attaining supernatural abilities here and now is fundamentally beside the point. - The abilities we do have enable us to strive toward what is meaningful. - It may have been very convenient if I could just pop myself in a flash from Israel to whichever place I would like in Japan, - but still this not our thing. - Some stories in Buddhism emphasize this point. Jesus walked on water but it is not walking on water that makes him Jesus. Ignorant people could be prompted to believe through viewing miracles. Kalo, more or less, - relates to two incidents where he did what he did at a time a student of his was in a danger of life. - Generally centring on such things as gaining abilities as referred to here in what claims to be spiritual practice may be a good reason to keep off. Some abilities will be gained, - light or significant, - but not understanding this is not what the school teaches is a fundamental mistake. I am trying not to just say you should merely improve your mentality but this is the most central and significant route, - I guess. - I know “Zen” - as much as I do, - and I have some familiarity with Kalo's teaching, (DAT) and what Jesus says in the Bible is open to all. - I sometimes wondered as for what Jesus is saying in Matthew 17:20 and Mark 11:23, - what use is it moving mountains as referred to there, - but he didn't recommend to do so, - he just mentioned what he did. - Compare to Matthew 20:20-23, - where the most significant true achievement is what is requested, - and in contradiction with the emphasised ease where no more than as much faith as a mustard seed is said to be in need, - here the greatest of men proved unable unless conditions are ready.
I thought this post would be easier. - I thought it would be easier to explain. - An inherent significant attainment is not necessarily manifested as those unfamiliar with things might childishly assume. - Though no doubt some might have abilities even beyond what some ignorants might assume or expect, - but those would not use them.
Working on something within yourself is different from getting those things this post is to refer to. - Improving your own character is not necessarily always on the same level. - In secular circles it is likely to be shallow. Though people going through the holocaust might obviously have gone through a very meaningful experience without spiritual practice. - Some refer to drugs as something spiritual. I find it ridiculous. - Yoga practice is for example different from what I know. I could not refer to this Kundalini issue, - I don't know about it. - But inherently and significantly deepening into yourself and purifying your being under the guidance of a true teacher is meaningful. Need it be said? - Thinking becoming able to move things without touching them or predict the results of a coming lottery are what a person's worthwhile aim as designated in human life could be, - is going all the wrong way and missing the point most of humanity does miss anyway. So far.
- It seems people think spirituality has to do with performing things contemporary science is still unable to explain. I recall I read in some Yoga book - before I got interested in the issue, - I think, - that spirituality does not have to do with psychic phenomena, and it seemed strange to me. I don't know how old I was. - Things here are not aimed at us moving mountains from place to place, or flying up in the air. - Working on one's inherent character is much more significant. - Though I don't think any working on improving one's character even if successful could be said to be on the spiritual level. Though again it does get you somewhere, related or unrelated, - as it seems.
Our abilities here on Earth are as they were meant to be, - we might guess. - We live our lives. Some live in a monastery or a temple or some other place of training. - Some have more significant lives and some less. - We learn in our lives. Master Dogen was continually using the term learn in practice. (At least in Nishijima's translation) The practical fact is this world enables us to achieve what can not be achieved in the same manner in higher worlds. - Whichever powers beings there might have, (and I really don't know this much about what exactly those will be) without a human body a most essential aim is fundamentally unattainable. (There is a most extraordinary story about a cow who has arrived at it, in the ashram of Ramana Maharshi mentioned above - as far as I know, - but this is quite off the issue here and probably far more extraordinary than many might even guess) It may be natural to assume that for plants it is natural to be plants and for animals natural to be animals, - but it is not them that we are discussing here. - My point is that attaining miraculous powers for our everyday lives is not to be considered what our lives are to be aimed at and not what guided spiritual practice will view as its aim either.
Whatever we get here might contribute to our abilities subsequently after we leave this this world for good, - but attaining supernatural abilities here and now is fundamentally beside the point. - The abilities we do have enable us to strive toward what is meaningful. - It may have been very convenient if I could just pop myself in a flash from Israel to whichever place I would like in Japan, - but still this not our thing. - Some stories in Buddhism emphasize this point. Jesus walked on water but it is not walking on water that makes him Jesus. Ignorant people could be prompted to believe through viewing miracles. Kalo, more or less, - relates to two incidents where he did what he did at a time a student of his was in a danger of life. - Generally centring on such things as gaining abilities as referred to here in what claims to be spiritual practice may be a good reason to keep off. Some abilities will be gained, - light or significant, - but not understanding this is not what the school teaches is a fundamental mistake. I am trying not to just say you should merely improve your mentality but this is the most central and significant route, - I guess. - I know “Zen” - as much as I do, - and I have some familiarity with Kalo's teaching, (DAT) and what Jesus says in the Bible is open to all. - I sometimes wondered as for what Jesus is saying in Matthew 17:20 and Mark 11:23, - what use is it moving mountains as referred to there, - but he didn't recommend to do so, - he just mentioned what he did. - Compare to Matthew 20:20-23, - where the most significant true achievement is what is requested, - and in contradiction with the emphasised ease where no more than as much faith as a mustard seed is said to be in need, - here the greatest of men proved unable unless conditions are ready.
I thought this post would be easier. - I thought it would be easier to explain. - An inherent significant attainment is not necessarily manifested as those unfamiliar with things might childishly assume. - Though no doubt some might have abilities even beyond what some ignorants might assume or expect, - but those would not use them.
Working on something within yourself is different from getting those things this post is to refer to. - Improving your own character is not necessarily always on the same level. - In secular circles it is likely to be shallow. Though people going through the holocaust might obviously have gone through a very meaningful experience without spiritual practice. - Some refer to drugs as something spiritual. I find it ridiculous. - Yoga practice is for example different from what I know. I could not refer to this Kundalini issue, - I don't know about it. - But inherently and significantly deepening into yourself and purifying your being under the guidance of a true teacher is meaningful. Need it be said? - Thinking becoming able to move things without touching them or predict the results of a coming lottery are what a person's worthwhile aim as designated in human life could be, - is going all the wrong way and missing the point most of humanity does miss anyway. So far.
Physics
In physics they have the law of preservation of matter (mass) and energy. First they had the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy, and then Einstein came and merged them. They have several other conservation laws as it seems.
Quite obviously, - these principles were only relying on experiments done in dead matter. - No one has ever thought it necessary to perform physical research in particular in living organisms. - The assumption is that it would be utterly pointless.
- Here on Earth there are minerals - ;inanimate things - which I related to here as dead matter, - plants, animals, and humans. - Though physics is supposed to relate to them all it practically deals with the inanimate alone for obvious reasons. - No one can accurately measure the energy produced by chemical reactions and tell if this is really exactly what the muscle got in actuality in order for its functioning. The same is of course true elsewhere too. - Such things are not considered or tested.
- The contemporary prevailing materialistic view believes there nothing else than physical matter. This is altogether untrue. - Plants have a higher element unknown to so called materialistic “science”. - This element is also said to consist of two parts. - Without this they would not be plants, - they would be dead matter, - inanimate things. - Animals also have this and another one above it, - and humans also have what they have above this too. - “Death” is the departure of this element all three of them (- plants, animals and humans) have as I said - in collaboration of course with the other ones above it (as mentioned) too if these are there. - (That is is the case of animals and man) Contemporary science may its own definitions of death which will apparently ever miss the point.
The first element I referred to is supervising the physical body. No physical living being here on this plain can be a living being without it. - It is what discriminates living matter from dead matter. - It ever affects your body. you could not perform a single action living here on Earth as you do without it. - For this purpose it must obviously affect the physical plain (your body, or the body of an animal or a plant) from outside the physical plain. - That is to cause something to be different than it was within the physical plain (the physical world) while not being part of it.
In other words, - as it seems - we could say energy has somehow been affected as to alter its level or route. The changes are likely to be fine, - perhaps very fine, - I guess. - But the law of conservation of energy (or of conservation of mass and energy) could not be said to hold, - in its relating to the physical plain alone assuming its exclusive existence which would mean a system closed in the physical plain is closed altogether. It could be true when not relating to effects originating in what you might call higher worlds - but there is not half a second when - relating to a living organism - (- a plant, an animal or a human) it would be possible for such effects not to take place, - unless it is no longer a living being. - So in a way this is all rooted in a misunderstanding.
Of course this is not easy to examine. Not with the common tools used today by those calling themselves “scientists”. There is the question of how to investigate. If you initially negate the possibility of existence of all that is outside of what you imagine to be all of reality you seem to deprive yourself of the possibility to become knowledgeable about it. - Since the tools you would be willing to use would be altogether meaningless for this purpose. The ability to gain what is necessary here lies within man. - External tools thought of as generally the exclusive means for the scientific investigation involved are not expected to do here. - It is much harder to attain the necessary abilities than to sit in a university and listen to what they teach. Far more worthwhile too. - But it is not like academic studies, - no one can tell you that if you sit and learn for so and so years you will get this or that. - It is not like this. - One practices but the results might appear when they would, - or they might not, - perhaps. - It is altogether different. - But this is the true way. - Contemporary science, - at its current state, - with all the obvious benefits it might bring us - which are not to be put away, - is much of a waste of time and seems to be running severely in a ridiculous and wrong way. - I got quite further than what this post was to be about, - but it was necessary to relate to the means by which knowledge is to be attained. - This world is generally going all the wrong way. - And since resources will not be dedicated to bring us to see what is necessary in order to change the path - things seem to continue as everyone might expect.
Accept what you will. - But the means by which science attempts to gain its knowledge ought to be considered, - in a truly rational way, - and not relying on prejudices. - This is not all and this is not enough, but this post is not aimed at changing the world. Just notice what I said about the law of conservation. This was the intended issue here.
Quite obviously, - these principles were only relying on experiments done in dead matter. - No one has ever thought it necessary to perform physical research in particular in living organisms. - The assumption is that it would be utterly pointless.
- Here on Earth there are minerals - ;inanimate things - which I related to here as dead matter, - plants, animals, and humans. - Though physics is supposed to relate to them all it practically deals with the inanimate alone for obvious reasons. - No one can accurately measure the energy produced by chemical reactions and tell if this is really exactly what the muscle got in actuality in order for its functioning. The same is of course true elsewhere too. - Such things are not considered or tested.
- The contemporary prevailing materialistic view believes there nothing else than physical matter. This is altogether untrue. - Plants have a higher element unknown to so called materialistic “science”. - This element is also said to consist of two parts. - Without this they would not be plants, - they would be dead matter, - inanimate things. - Animals also have this and another one above it, - and humans also have what they have above this too. - “Death” is the departure of this element all three of them (- plants, animals and humans) have as I said - in collaboration of course with the other ones above it (as mentioned) too if these are there. - (That is is the case of animals and man) Contemporary science may its own definitions of death which will apparently ever miss the point.
The first element I referred to is supervising the physical body. No physical living being here on this plain can be a living being without it. - It is what discriminates living matter from dead matter. - It ever affects your body. you could not perform a single action living here on Earth as you do without it. - For this purpose it must obviously affect the physical plain (your body, or the body of an animal or a plant) from outside the physical plain. - That is to cause something to be different than it was within the physical plain (the physical world) while not being part of it.
In other words, - as it seems - we could say energy has somehow been affected as to alter its level or route. The changes are likely to be fine, - perhaps very fine, - I guess. - But the law of conservation of energy (or of conservation of mass and energy) could not be said to hold, - in its relating to the physical plain alone assuming its exclusive existence which would mean a system closed in the physical plain is closed altogether. It could be true when not relating to effects originating in what you might call higher worlds - but there is not half a second when - relating to a living organism - (- a plant, an animal or a human) it would be possible for such effects not to take place, - unless it is no longer a living being. - So in a way this is all rooted in a misunderstanding.
Of course this is not easy to examine. Not with the common tools used today by those calling themselves “scientists”. There is the question of how to investigate. If you initially negate the possibility of existence of all that is outside of what you imagine to be all of reality you seem to deprive yourself of the possibility to become knowledgeable about it. - Since the tools you would be willing to use would be altogether meaningless for this purpose. The ability to gain what is necessary here lies within man. - External tools thought of as generally the exclusive means for the scientific investigation involved are not expected to do here. - It is much harder to attain the necessary abilities than to sit in a university and listen to what they teach. Far more worthwhile too. - But it is not like academic studies, - no one can tell you that if you sit and learn for so and so years you will get this or that. - It is not like this. - One practices but the results might appear when they would, - or they might not, - perhaps. - It is altogether different. - But this is the true way. - Contemporary science, - at its current state, - with all the obvious benefits it might bring us - which are not to be put away, - is much of a waste of time and seems to be running severely in a ridiculous and wrong way. - I got quite further than what this post was to be about, - but it was necessary to relate to the means by which knowledge is to be attained. - This world is generally going all the wrong way. - And since resources will not be dedicated to bring us to see what is necessary in order to change the path - things seem to continue as everyone might expect.
Accept what you will. - But the means by which science attempts to gain its knowledge ought to be considered, - in a truly rational way, - and not relying on prejudices. - This is not all and this is not enough, but this post is not aimed at changing the world. Just notice what I said about the law of conservation. This was the intended issue here.
Written on October 6th 2024
Compassion
This post is about compassion. In 1988 Nakagawa kyudo Roshi said “if you become flexible you find out compassion is your nature”. - But this not what this post is about. - He also said, - I think in 1987, - (- April) “some people say they don't like compassion”, - “such people don't know what compassion is”. (- The last quote is not necessarily fully exact, - it is just off my memory)
I can understand people mentioned. I quite dislike being emotional. - But again this is not what this is about here.
Also, - if you ask - are compassion and love the same or different? - What would be the answer? - I think in order to say it is necessary that the person asking would clarify his or her intention. - I don't think it can be answered just like that. - You would get contradicting answers I think. - It doesn't seem you could get it off a dictionary. - One has to tell what does he or she has in mind or what lies in the background of the question in order to achieve a real clarification. To get an actual worthwhile idea relating to the question. - Fwiw.
- But still again this is not what I was coming to write about here.
- If you look at animals, - they are utterly without any ability of consideration. - Mothers can care about their offsprings, - fathers can possibly too, - but else than that care is altogether absent when relating to organisms lower than man here on our known planet on the physical plain. - It is quite obviously worse in a way with insects or generally all of the invertebrates. - But this is not necessary for us at first at least, - in observing what I am relating to.
if you look at a dog or a cat, - you can see how incapable it is of sharing the pain or the joy of another. - If there would be another dog or cat or human deeply suffering next to it you would see no reaction as with a human being. I am not relating even to the choice of whether or not to offer any assistance, - I am relating to the initial mental reaction you would find in people - in human beings, - quite unrelated to their moral views or tendencies. - A human would in the most natural way have a natural tendency reacting to the seen mental state of another person or animal. - Not necessarily an insect or something of the sort but put that aside. - Us humans shall in the most natural manner at first at least experience pain at the view of the deep suffering before our very eyes of another, - and naturally too a positive feeling at another's joy, or as well some sort of a favourable incident. - Exceptions are irrelevant here. One might rejoice at the fall of an enemy. Put this aside. It will not affect the outcome.
The point is that if you take the trouble of observing a dog or a cat or any other animal in relation to things here, - see for yourself the described phenomenon, - then due to the natural and immediate contrast with general human behaviour as referred to here, - you would be able to tell or notice what compassion is. - It is the most natural thing.
- By this way as I have written here I believe one can see and notice for one's self what is meant by “compassion”. - It is this idea and line of thought I noticed which have lead me to write this post. What appears earlier are a kind of remarks. - If you will observe an invertebrate (it is not necessary to actually find one, - you can just watch on YouTube, or some similar site) such as an octopus, assuming you are a sensitive person, - you might notice some perhaps even shocking existing mentality revealing inherent inconsiderateness of severe harsh characteristics, - but this is beyond the issue here, - and does not necessarily contribute to the revealing of the nature of compassion which is the purpose of things here.
I can understand people mentioned. I quite dislike being emotional. - But again this is not what this is about here.
Also, - if you ask - are compassion and love the same or different? - What would be the answer? - I think in order to say it is necessary that the person asking would clarify his or her intention. - I don't think it can be answered just like that. - You would get contradicting answers I think. - It doesn't seem you could get it off a dictionary. - One has to tell what does he or she has in mind or what lies in the background of the question in order to achieve a real clarification. To get an actual worthwhile idea relating to the question. - Fwiw.
- But still again this is not what I was coming to write about here.
- If you look at animals, - they are utterly without any ability of consideration. - Mothers can care about their offsprings, - fathers can possibly too, - but else than that care is altogether absent when relating to organisms lower than man here on our known planet on the physical plain. - It is quite obviously worse in a way with insects or generally all of the invertebrates. - But this is not necessary for us at first at least, - in observing what I am relating to.
if you look at a dog or a cat, - you can see how incapable it is of sharing the pain or the joy of another. - If there would be another dog or cat or human deeply suffering next to it you would see no reaction as with a human being. I am not relating even to the choice of whether or not to offer any assistance, - I am relating to the initial mental reaction you would find in people - in human beings, - quite unrelated to their moral views or tendencies. - A human would in the most natural way have a natural tendency reacting to the seen mental state of another person or animal. - Not necessarily an insect or something of the sort but put that aside. - Us humans shall in the most natural manner at first at least experience pain at the view of the deep suffering before our very eyes of another, - and naturally too a positive feeling at another's joy, or as well some sort of a favourable incident. - Exceptions are irrelevant here. One might rejoice at the fall of an enemy. Put this aside. It will not affect the outcome.
The point is that if you take the trouble of observing a dog or a cat or any other animal in relation to things here, - see for yourself the described phenomenon, - then due to the natural and immediate contrast with general human behaviour as referred to here, - you would be able to tell or notice what compassion is. - It is the most natural thing.
- By this way as I have written here I believe one can see and notice for one's self what is meant by “compassion”. - It is this idea and line of thought I noticed which have lead me to write this post. What appears earlier are a kind of remarks. - If you will observe an invertebrate (it is not necessary to actually find one, - you can just watch on YouTube, or some similar site) such as an octopus, assuming you are a sensitive person, - you might notice some perhaps even shocking existing mentality revealing inherent inconsiderateness of severe harsh characteristics, - but this is beyond the issue here, - and does not necessarily contribute to the revealing of the nature of compassion which is the purpose of things here.
- So far.
מימדי החשיבה
כתבתי כבר, אבל בכ״ז, - חכם, - אם יראה תמונה, - הכוונה לא לתמונה על הקיר, - תמונתם של דברים - מצב קיים שלנגד עיניו, - יכול להבינו. לא מובטח שיבין. לא כל החכמים שווים. וספק אם ניתן להגדיר ”חוכמה“, - כבעניינן של תכונות אחרות קיימים שזכו לה יותר וקיימים שזכו לה פחות.
החשיבה מהי? - מהי החשיבה? - ידוע לנו x, וממנו מסיקים y. קיימת תמונה שלא את מלואה אנו רואים, ומסיקים באשר לנסתר מהגלוי. למה אני מציין? כי הממשות אין נסתר ממנה. אין דבר נסתר ממנה. לכן אינה נזקקת לחשיבה. לדעתי. החכמה מיותרת לדידה. - אבל אנחנו לא הממשות. אנחנו כן, אבל...
- בכ״א, - במצב האולטימטיבי לא יהיה צרך בחשיבה כלל. לא יהיה צרך בחכמה. אבל מתחת קיימים מצבים שונים. - ולעניין הזה התייחסתי בפסקה הראשונה.
- בכ״א שוב, - אדם חכם, בהביטו במציאות, - לעיתים לכל הפחות, ובתלוי במידת חכמתו כמובן ובמצב הדברים שלפניו גם הוא כמובן, - יוכל לבוא לידי מסקנות או הבנה מתוך עצם התבוננותו במצב או ראייתו אותו. לעניינו של פקח מצב הדברים שונה. - פקח לא כך. - לעניינו של פקח תוכל להציג בפניו דברים, מ-א' נובע ב'. זאת יוכל להבין. - לעניינה של תמונה כאמור, - יהיה מצב הדברים שונה, - אדם אינטליגנטי שאינו חכם, - תדרש (אם בכלל ניתן) להציג בפניו מסקנות הגיוניות בזו אחר לעניינו של הדבר: - מ-א' נובע ב', מ-ב' נובע ג', מ-ד' נובע ה', ו' גורר ז', ג', ה' ו-ז' גוררים את ח', - וכן הלאה. אז יוכל להשתכנע בשמשנהו יראה מיידית. לעיתים לא רחוקות כמובן גם לא ניתן יהיה לשכנעו בדברים כלל. גם לנוכח העובדה שבני אדם הגיוניים לעיתים הרבה פחות משמדמים בנפשם. לא מעט נספג מן הסביבה, - ולעניין זה נדרש עומק של האישיות ע״מ להבחין בכך ולא פקחות. (אינטליגנציה) - דווקא המגלים עניין רב בעניינים שכלתניים הנדרשים לפקחות ככלי מובהק לעניינם הם הרחוקים במקרים רבים מן העומק האמור והדבר אינו מתמיה. - אבל כעקר הדברים בפוסט הזה הנקודה היא בעניין ההבדל בין מי שיבין או יקלוט דברים אינטואיטיבית אולי בלא צרך בפירוק למבנה של מסקנות לוגיות כאמור לעיל ומתוך התמונה הכוללת לבין מי שיכולתו מצטמצמת לכדי היכולת לעקב אחרי פרטים בודדים שהבנתו של כל אחד מהם קלה לכשעצמה ולהרכבת השרשרת המתקבלת. (או גם לאיתור מבנה מסוג זה בעצמו)
לעניין הפוסט המקושר בתחילה ראו גם תגובה ראשונה שם.
יתכן ויש משמעות גם לזה.
החשיבה מהי? - מהי החשיבה? - ידוע לנו x, וממנו מסיקים y. קיימת תמונה שלא את מלואה אנו רואים, ומסיקים באשר לנסתר מהגלוי. למה אני מציין? כי הממשות אין נסתר ממנה. אין דבר נסתר ממנה. לכן אינה נזקקת לחשיבה. לדעתי. החכמה מיותרת לדידה. - אבל אנחנו לא הממשות. אנחנו כן, אבל...
- בכ״א, - במצב האולטימטיבי לא יהיה צרך בחשיבה כלל. לא יהיה צרך בחכמה. אבל מתחת קיימים מצבים שונים. - ולעניין הזה התייחסתי בפסקה הראשונה.
- בכ״א שוב, - אדם חכם, בהביטו במציאות, - לעיתים לכל הפחות, ובתלוי במידת חכמתו כמובן ובמצב הדברים שלפניו גם הוא כמובן, - יוכל לבוא לידי מסקנות או הבנה מתוך עצם התבוננותו במצב או ראייתו אותו. לעניינו של פקח מצב הדברים שונה. - פקח לא כך. - לעניינו של פקח תוכל להציג בפניו דברים, מ-א' נובע ב'. זאת יוכל להבין. - לעניינה של תמונה כאמור, - יהיה מצב הדברים שונה, - אדם אינטליגנטי שאינו חכם, - תדרש (אם בכלל ניתן) להציג בפניו מסקנות הגיוניות בזו אחר לעניינו של הדבר: - מ-א' נובע ב', מ-ב' נובע ג', מ-ד' נובע ה', ו' גורר ז', ג', ה' ו-ז' גוררים את ח', - וכן הלאה. אז יוכל להשתכנע בשמשנהו יראה מיידית. לעיתים לא רחוקות כמובן גם לא ניתן יהיה לשכנעו בדברים כלל. גם לנוכח העובדה שבני אדם הגיוניים לעיתים הרבה פחות משמדמים בנפשם. לא מעט נספג מן הסביבה, - ולעניין זה נדרש עומק של האישיות ע״מ להבחין בכך ולא פקחות. (אינטליגנציה) - דווקא המגלים עניין רב בעניינים שכלתניים הנדרשים לפקחות ככלי מובהק לעניינם הם הרחוקים במקרים רבים מן העומק האמור והדבר אינו מתמיה. - אבל כעקר הדברים בפוסט הזה הנקודה היא בעניין ההבדל בין מי שיבין או יקלוט דברים אינטואיטיבית אולי בלא צרך בפירוק למבנה של מסקנות לוגיות כאמור לעיל ומתוך התמונה הכוללת לבין מי שיכולתו מצטמצמת לכדי היכולת לעקב אחרי פרטים בודדים שהבנתו של כל אחד מהם קלה לכשעצמה ולהרכבת השרשרת המתקבלת. (או גם לאיתור מבנה מסוג זה בעצמו)
לעניין הפוסט המקושר בתחילה ראו גם תגובה ראשונה שם.
יתכן ויש משמעות גם לזה.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)