- | -

True            הרמוניה         Natural          צלילות       Noble          שלמות           A*

We are here with no time and no place and no self control never aiming at what we can not see. כאן אנו בלא זמן ובלא מקום ובלא שליטה עצמית לעולם לא מכוונים לשלא נוכל לראות.

Prize and punishment

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.

          - “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.

Evolution, - one other point

I have written two posts about evolution but I have not related to this one point: - Obviously there are two lines of plants and animals. - Animals could not have appeared simultaneously with plants because they can not feed off minerals like plants but need plants (or other animals) to feed on. - So the two lines as I said couldn't have appeared together. That is to say at first only plants appeared. Then what? - Could have animals developed off plants? As it seems - obviously not.

- So should we assume some time after plants have already been present again an altogether different line appeared independently? - Neither one of the possibilities appears to be acceptable. Why has this not been mentioned earlier? Perhaps it has.

One other point, - quite clearly, - man too is a different line from the animals. It is not so easy to prove this to contemporary so called “scientists” so mentioning it does not seem to be so useful, - but still I believe off those who arrive at my blog relatively many will understand this point too.

So far.

Returning to where we come from (following an earlier post)

I have earlier written a post related to evolution. - I there mistakenly used the term “natural choice” instead of “natural selection”. In translating “natural selection″ to Hebrew - as the Hebrew term I knew, - and then translating it back to English, - you would normally get “natural choice”. It was only years later that I found out about the mistake.

- This post will somewhat repeat what I said there. - I do not see a point in writing it differently.

The older post is at https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html. - The comments I added there are to be considered a part of it. - This one I believe will be more complete.

- Some time ago (April 28 2022) I was in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As I was walking out of there I saw three people walking out of one of the buildings I was passing next to. - Judging by the building they came out of I could guess they were biologists or at least had to do with the issue. - And apparently at least one or two of them were. We had a short conversation, - about as long as it took them to pass from the building they came out of to the one next to it, - and subsequently one of them - Prof. Tamar Keasar, normally related to Haifa University I think, - sent me an e-mail message. She sent me a file of this book, and a link to this page.

- Sometime later I sent her a reply message. (May 19) It included the following:

«לעניין תהליך הברירה הטבעית, - הרעיון הפשוט ביותר עשוי לומר שאם צבי מסויים ירוץ במהירות גבוהה יותר מאחרים סיכויי הישרדותו גבוהים יותר ולכן עם הזמן נמצא צבאים מהירים יותר משהוו קדם לכן.

- אבל אם נניח שמהירותו (כ-) 100 קמ"ש, ואם נניח כמו"כ שמהירותו של טורף פוטנציאלי (- נאמר צ'יטה) עשויה להגיע ל-100 או 115 קמ"ש, - אז אם תגיע מהירותו של הצבי ל-150 או 200 קמ"ש, (כדוגמא מובהקת) כל עוד לא תגדל מהירותם של הטורפים הפוטנציאליים, - לא ימשך התהליך ולא יוסיפו הצבאים להיות מהירים יותר משהינם. לא נמצא צבאים שמהירותם תגיע ללמעלה מ-200 קמ"ש, ל-300 קמ"ש.

- כדוגמא אחרת צוארה של הג'ירפה לא יגיע למעלה מהגובה בו תוכל למצא עלים למאכל.

אבל: - לעניין האדם, - ברור ומובן שתהליך הברירה הטבעית אינו פועל מזה זמן. אינני מציין פרק זמן מתוך הבנה שתוכלי את להעריכו טוב ממני. - אם נתייחס לתקופה שבה עדיין היה ה-"מנוע" של תהליך הברירה הטבעית פעיל לעניינה של האנושות, - אז לעניין היכולות המנטליות המתפתחות על-ידו ניתן להעריך שלא היה בידו (של התהליך) להעמיד או ליצור הכרה (mind) המסוגלת ללמעלה מבניית אי-אילו בקתות קש או יצירת כלים כלשהם בעלי-מידת-מורכבות דומה. שום דבר שמתקרב ליכולות הנדרשות ליצירת רשת האינטרנט, לעיסוק במתמטיקה גבוהה או בפיזיקה גרעינית, לבניית גורדי שחקים, או לבניין כלים כחלליות וטילים הקיימים היום. - הדבר דומה למצב שבו מהירות ריצתו של צבי כבדוגמא מקדם תגיע ל-700 או 800 קמ"ש אם לא הרבה למעלה מכך.».

(In English:

“As for the process of natural selection, - the simplest idea may say that if a certain deer will run at a higher speed than others his chances of survival are higher and therefore with time we will find quicker deers than [those who] had been before.

But if we will assume its speed is (about) 100 km/h, and if we will assume as well that the speed of a potential predator (- say a cheetah) might arrive at 100 or 115 km/h, - than if the speed of the deer will arrive at 150 or 200 km/h, (as a clear example) as long as the speed of potential predators will not increase, - the process will not continue and deers will not further become quicker than they (presently) are. We will not find deers the speed of will reach higher than 200 km/h, - 300 km/h.

As another example the giraffe's neck will not reach higher than where it could find leaves to eat.

But: - As for man, - it is clear and understood that the natural selection process is not active for a period of time. I am not denoting a period out of an understanding that you will be able to estimate it better than myself. - If we relate to the period in which the ‘engine’ of the natural selection process was still active regarding humanity, - than as for the mental abilities developed by it it is possible to estimate that it (the process) was not capable of establishing or creating a mind capable of more than building a number of straw huts or creating any tools of a similar measure of complexity. Nothing coming near the abilities needed for creating the Internet, dealing with high math or nuclear physics, building skyscrapers, or constructing devices like spaceships and missiles existing today. - It is like a situation in which the speed of a deer as in the previous example will reach 700 or 800 km/h if not much further.”)

I never got an answer. Though it did say at the end I will be waiting for one. - What did happen is that the possibility to add comments on the page she had sent me a link to (on a site of the Weizmann Institute in Israel) disappeared. The whole comments section there disappeared.

- The page is entitled “the Scientific Answer to Arguments Countering Evolution”. (In Hebrew) Perhaps here I ought to clarify I don't oppose the idea of evolution itself. I didn't even know about the opposition so much else than having found out off the site of the Weizmann Institute subsequent to the link Prof. Keasar has sent me as I said.

- I don't see reasonability in negating the idea of evolution itself. But the theory of “natural selection” is a joke. - Things which may be often referred to are the development of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and insects being able to become immuned to insecticides. But these are cases in which the attempt is to eliminate the relevant population. - Suppose we put to death every person whose height is below 170 cm in a reasonably or relatively isolated surroundings. - In consistent repetition this would obviously lead to an obvious change in the general distribution there. - Does this prove the reasonability or validity of the theory of natural selection? I do not think an answer is necessary. - Similarly with the bacteria and the insects.

- I think it is a historical matter. - As far as I know before Darwin the view generally has been in accord with the story told in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. - Then Darwin came and following observation he conducted presented his well known idea.

It has been initially most controversial and faced great opposition. Subsequently findings seem to have affirmed the idea of evolution in an unquestionable manner. - But this never proved the idea of what was supposed to have been what was standing behind the evolution. - Darwin referred to evolution and to his idea of natural-selection which were both new then to all, - and saw no need to separate his presentation. So the two were wrapped together as far as relevant interested individuals may have generally noticed, - be those materialistic scientists or conservative men of religion.

- Therefore when apparently the idea of evolution has gained heavy support off finding of fossils, continually, - quite absent-mindedly perhaps - the notion was as if this verifies Darwin's idea of natural selection as well.

I am not learned in the issue or the subject, - but the general idea seems somewhat inevitable.

- Else - I might mention one quote from the book mentioned earlier - I did not read the book and I don't suppose I will, - I came across this reference off which I am quoting: (- …) “We shall keep in mind the fact that these very same ingredients, at least in some rudimentary form, must have arisen spontaneously on the early Earth, otherwise cumulative selection, and therefore life, would never have got started in the first place“. - It seems the author initially assumes the rightness of his idea he wishes to support, - considering its truth inevitable, - and - probably somewhat absent mindedly - practically relies on this supposed inevitability in order to prove what he wishes. I will return to this book in the end. Here the issue he wishes to deal with is the development of the initial tools prior to the possibility of natural selection which are necessary in order to make it possible. It is also what the first point in the main part of this post is about.

However, - after this long passage following my assertion that I don't have an issue with the idea of evolution in itself, - let's get back to where we were. - I said the possibility to comment on the Internet page I mentioned disappeared. Here you can see the page as it was before I sent the e-mail message to Prof. Keasar. (The capture is from January 26, it is the last capture of this page on the Wayback Machine before May 19 when I sent the message) Here you can see the page as I found it subsequently. (Here the capture is from September 19, - the first after the same date of May 19)

Obviously this is not a coincidence. The e-mail message I sent and quoted here has led to this consequence. - Is this the way of science? The reason is obvious, - the learned individuals involved are so certain of their ideas that the point I referred to in the quote above is merely considered a hindrance in their eyes. - They can't answer it, and never will be able to, - but such a thing they think is just an accident where their inability to respond would mislead innocent readers causing them to assume I am right.

- Materialistic people often refer to countering ideas as irrational. - The views negating brute materialism are considered so. - An attitude such as described here causing the disappearance of the comments section on the Internet page so that I will not be able to present what I did in the e-mail message there too, - is not always wrong. - But we should consider it concretely. - What does it display? - What does it reveal?

I dare say the person having written the book referred to here seems like a very stupid one to me. Off reasons not mentioned here. But I can not tell really, - St. Paul was a fanatic persecutor of Christians up to a certain point. - However, - I think this occurrence is quite significant. Particularly since one can really see the point brought [- in the e-mail message quoted here] cannot be bypassed. - It is an actual negation of the common assumption. - And while at the side of other points brought here it obviously stands stronger and clearer.

- Are those imagining themselves to be scientists really rational? Do they follow pure logic? - Or are they sunk in their nearby surroundings where they and their fellow men and women mutually absorb each other's sentiments and ideas? - I might say, at the time I studied math, - (one of the most foolish things I ever did) one time the teacher (in Tel Aviv University) made a mistake in proving a theorem. Out of, I guess, about 300 students - I was the only one who noticed it. I tried to mention it, but I was not sure I was right, so I hesitated, and things went on. - At the end of the course on a special class added then intended as a preparation for the exam I again referred to the matter. - I was right and the proof was not valid. (The course was of set theory) The teacher having made a mistake may certainly be reasonable, - it is known that brilliant mathematicians make mistakes too. - But the practical case where about 300 students have read the proof twice, - first just after the class in which it was presented, and second at the end of the course while preparing for the exam, - and not one of them notices it does not really prove what it is supposed to, - raises questions regarding science in general. - And math is supposed to be just the most solid science of all. - Actually the mistake was not very serious and very easy to correct so the proof would be valid then; - but still - one might ask as for the way things really are. - Regarding the matter we have began with here, - how reasonable are those engaging in life science and biology investigating the issue? - And are they people of independent thought, or somehow somewhere in the vicinity of sheeps in a herd?

Time will tell, inevitably. - But we are here in the present, deeped in ignorance and blindness of selected humans of shallow personality and their own chosen materialistic means.

- Before going to what was supposed to be the main part of this post I wish to make another comment: -
Quite obviously without having particular knowledge about the subject one may assume it is possible to have an estimation of how frequent would mutations occur. Further it is also quite obvious it would be possible as well to estimate how often would these mutations be of use, - contribute to the suggested process of natural selection - have any weight in this sense that is. Then as well it could be estimated how many of these practically useful mutations ought to be necessary for the purpose of the development of any particular organ, or appearance of any new species, or perhaps any other detectable change in a living being as well.
This means it is possible as well to calculate what would be the reasonable pace or speed of such a phenomenon. How long would it take for such things to happen, how much time would it demand or require. Such results - however possibly somewhat inaccurate, - should be compared to what has been found off the findings of fossils. - Assuming the numbers will be at reasonable agreement, - at an acceptable correspondence, - than this would render the theory some support. - Either greater or less significant, - but anyway some reasonability could be claimed. - I have never come across any reference to such a thing, - either on the Weizmann Institute site, or anywhere else. Without such an examination the attitude could not be said to be serious. - It does seem quite obvious too. - It seems it could easily be guessed those involved are simply so sure of the rightness of their theory the need hardly occurs to them, or that for the same reason they find it unnecessary.


- Next is what I referred to as the main part here:


1. - Obviously the theory of natural selection relies on the existence of a mechanism which needs to be in place before it begins to operate. This is unquestionable. - The appearance of such a mechanism of course can not rely on the idea by which the evolution is supposed to take place. - The reasonable possibility of the appearance of such a mechanism does not merely rely on the fundamental possibility of chemical reactions needed for the spontaneous construction perhaps assumed. The actual chances for a random continual process as thought of are most significant for a real actual estimation of the reasonability of the theory. Here, as it seems, - one needs not have professional knowledge of biology or chemistry in order to say that the complex structure of the DNA and whichever other elements necessary accompanying it are such that it would be most unreasonable to think that they would come to be by mere random occurrences as assumed.

I have not thoroughly investigated the matter but I never came across any reference to the matter of the chances. Of the probability. Putting this aside makes no sense. - Again, not relating to this I do not think the engagement could even be called serious. I am quite sure there would be mathematical means today which could serve the purpose.

- One other comment about this matter: - If we accept the idea, we must inevitably assume that all has begun with one single cell. - Assuming the process would have taken place more than once, - than obviously we would get two different mechanisms unable to mutually correspond and which could not (practically) be of the same structure or somewhat even of the same principle. - But the DNA, as far as I know, - is the same everywhere. - All works by the same principle. - Further: - If one wishes to assume that the living cell and the DNA within it did come to be by utter random reactions in a primeval world, it seems that than it would be natural to assume as well that such a process would take place more than ones. - If such a thing could happen once, - than why would it be the only unique occurrence throughout the life of the Earth? - If it could happen by chance, - within a surrounding existing at the time described today by contemporary scientists, - common sense would generally imply we should expect that such an occurrence would not be one which will never be repeated or occur in a similar manner. Unless you assume the period in which conditions enabling the process or convenient for the process was just long enough so that we might expect about a single occurrence of this kind. A funny assumption, I believe all will agree. - If you accept the probability for the event is reasonable you can hardly expect at the same time that only one event will take place altogether. You must guess an event would generally appear in an average every suitable period of time. Unlike that it seems - if one excepts the theory in question, - that all life on Earth came to be through one and only unique occurrence in which a living cell randomly has been constructed through no intention or guiding mechanism. - This also means all life here, including all it has brought, - might as well have not appeared at all, if it had not been for this only happening unintended where pure lifeless matter just fell into place somehow through the mere laws of physics and chemistry.

One thing one should say still is that an idea may be raised of various similar beginnings of which only the one we know today survived. I don't think it is of much worth but still it ought to be mentioned.

2. - Next there is the point I wrote about to Prof. Keasar which made Dr. Garti (of the Weizmann Institute) cease the ability to post comments on the relevant web page. - Clearly no one could argue that natural selection is active within humanity today. - This is also true for a period of time earlier. - Since our survival does not depend on our inherited features the process is not relevant to us. - If we look back and consider when has the situation not been like that, as for human beings that is, - the period we would be thinking of would be such that in particular ways at least the possible development would be most limited.

- This would refer to man in a time when the conditions within which he had lived could no-doubt only contribute in certain ways. - Put aside the physical issue, - as for the mental features there was nothing around which would promote or cause advancement beyond a most initial and fundamental level. - If man was living in a rather primitive situation still any mental capacities which could in any way develop through natural selection would be of course in accord with this. But we do know the mental abilities of humans are far beyond that, - particularly in recent time the evidence is clear and unbreakable: - The construction of buildings including skyscrapers including the engineering work necessary, - the construction of vehicles from sport cars to jets and spaceships, - regarding math - even the work done centuries ago in ancient Greece is unexplainable, but high math today and modern physics go much further. - All computer work including the internet is most obvious today too. The above is most easily noticed and understood, - but actually there are also the abilities as displayed by Master Dogen, Goethe, or Mozart, - art may not be as easy to use as an example which would form solid evidence in the eyes of all, - but in truth is not less significant. However, - inevitably, - the theory discussed sucks heavily in an irreversible manner. There is no doubt there is another force acting in the matter. - And if so, obviously, - there is not a reason to think it could not act elsewhere. Then all is different and the so called “scientists” are similar to the people of clergy having convicted Galileo Galilei asserting that his views are wrong and absurd. (- https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/)

3. - Next, - there is the phenomenon of the mind itself. - Off where is its existence?

- Obviously, clearly, doubtlessly, - no materialistic theory dealing with physical matter only could reason this phenomenon.

As for contemporary “scientific” attitude, - it might just ignore it. It might just relate to bodily and/or physical things while assuming the mind is nothing but some kind of a manifestation of these. But I would say anyway the existence of the mind is undeniable. - We witness its existence as we do this of physical phenomena, even prior to those. - Could science escape supplying any reasoning or explanation for this actual fact we closely know? - Whichever ideas or suggestions may be brought up, - it will never supply the slightest progress toward the understanding of the phenomenon. - It doesn't matter what physical processes (chemical included) you will suppose - it will not bring forth any reason for an appearance of what we know as mind, consciousness, actual consciousness. - The tendency is to not consider this fact meaningful. Why? There is no real reason.

- The matter is not to be ignored. - And if you accept views other than those so common today there is an explanation. - Other spheres existed prior to the existence of the physical plane, our physical world. Mind has existed there already. - Life means other factors entering physical elements here in our world. Different factors for plants, something added for animals, and something again added for man. - Thus the mind is an expression of a different element undetectable through our physical senses. Is this irrational? Dummies will thoughtlessly claim so. But why?

Anyway, - contemporary materialistic “science” may be said to for ever not be able to do. Another explanation exists. If you accept it it again changes the whole picture. - If you accept the existence of “higher” spheres than things you may have considered as a must will no longer be so. - Influence from spheres we do not know (or at least most do not) may have taken place in the development of life on Earth too. - You know your mind. - In order to explain its existence and origin it is inevitable to accept there is something (- ! -) else than just physical matter as we know it here, - otherwise it could not have come to be. - At least this.

- You need not accept what I say beyond that. But you do need to realize the existing theory here too faces a barrier it is eternally unable to pass. You must think further. The suggested explanations today supplied by those considered to be authorities are inevitably unable to create an acceptable model.

4. - The fourth point is about the wing. Again it is not just something contemporary “science” has not yet found a reasoning to, - but a point which one can see could not be explained through the idea the aforementioned “science” wishes to adopt. - It is about the development of the wing. Someone has pointed to the fact that (in some cases) the development of the wing means at first degeneration of the limb off which it develops. - The arm or leg off which the is supposed to develop, - quite clearly and inevitably loses its ability to function as one, while the wing has not yet come to be. - No one would argue the process is short, - it is clear this means a situation being carried on for a very long period of time, - while the being supposed to be in the intermediate period is not only not making progress in a way which could move the process of the natural selection, - but also is in a deplorable state unrelated to this. - Two of its arms or legs are useless and fundamentally just a burden to it. - It is a being we would expect to be extincted even unrelated to the theory of the natural selection.

- But not relying on this too: - Just considering the development of the wing itslef: - The wing is a flat surface needing to be wide enogh in order to be useful as what it is. - As long as it has not acquired the necessary measurements it could not be useful. How could its development begin? - The theory related to here could never suggest an actual line of progress.

- The wing has appeared four times: - In pterosaurs, birds, bats, and insects too. - Each time it appeared independently. - This means of course the above repeated itself four separate times. - There is no coincidence by which it could have come to be according to the existing view in the common scientific establishment, - but even if you would wish to assume one - you would have than to assume it took place four times, or that some alternations of it did anyway.

- As I said at the beginning of this fourth fascicle, - it again is not just something an answer has not been found to yet, - it is, apparently, - a proof the theory could not be valid. - And, as I already mentioned, - if we do know a different force or factor or element was active in creating and shaping the different forms of living beings here on our planet, - than all is different because there is no reason not to allow the possibility it was active elsewhere too, - unlike the common attitude assuming nothing else is possible other than mere physical random occurrences of lifeless matter first, and then through the principle of the natural selection.

So far for this.

- Else I would like at the end to refer to some things off the book I mentioned at the beginning Prof. Keasar sent me. - One reasonable thing said there is that relating to odds - odds of life or particularly a living cell appearing in the ocean here on Earth, - one could not necessarily think of just our “Earth” we know alone, - but of chances of this occurring generally in the universe we know, - on any of the planets thought of as possibly suitable for such an occurrence. - One could not say this does not make any sense. However, - dealing with numbers, - this will not necessarily bring things into reasonability.

- If we wish to relate to a concrete number indicating the estimated probability - it may be so low that even multiplying it by the great number Dawkins implies would still leave it far off what would be thought of as reasonable.

Else, - I wanted to relate to some quotes off the book, - but I will only settle for one: - “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer”. - Here one might need to relate to a quote to which Dawkins relates in the title of his book:

- “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive -- what we could not discover in the stone -- that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts and of their offices, all tending to one result; we see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavor to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain -- artificially wrought for the sake of flexure -- communicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in and apply to each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the balance and from the balance to the pointer, and at the same time, by the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion as to terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass, in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed -- it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood -- the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker-that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.”.

- This is from a book I don't know called Natural Theology by a person called William Paley. - Never mind this. - There may be the question of how stupid could a person be. - I mean Dawkins himself picked this idea. - Now suppose you find a watch on the beach, - and suppose you consider the question of how did it come to be; - and then suppose you happen to meet the watchmaker who made it - or come to know him - or come to know of him: - Does it explain nothing?

- Precisely nothing?

...

- It does seem the most significant difference between quite meaningless dry intellectualism unable to actually relate to reality and true realistic thinking capturing pictures rather than just mere chains of conclusions put together mechanically is to be considered here.

- Unlike what this apparently extreme idiot might say watches are not living beings. - We do not - looking at our surroundings, - wonder how did rocks and stones, sand and water, - minerals in general - come about. - Put aside what contemporary ideas might say about this. - The Appearance of plants and animals, and human beings, - is initially or intuitively baffling. - This is naturally questioned.

Materialists will not deny this too. - They would assume explanations they reject will arise off this phenomenon. - However we have no immediate idea of how did living organisms come to be at first in the same way that our mineral surrounding is natural to us.

Now to the main point here: - For one who is familiar with the higher spheres of existence - for one who knows them - those spheres off which our physical plane has derived its existence, - questions as harsh materialists may be troubled by do not practically arise. - The view is natural and reasonable. You need not accept this. But saying anyway even if you do accept this route it leads nowhere is not acceptable. This is dry materialism.

This is the stupidity of Richard Dawkins. - By the way, - his definition of what living beings are is entirely off course. I never read his book. I do not intend to. - But I did have a look at it, and read a bit here and there. - Very little. - At the beginning he seems to define living beings including manmade objects as such too. - This might tell you of the nature of his mentality. - But I will not proceed. - He is not the subject and I am truly not familiar with him.

I will end at this. There is one other point in a post I have already written which will be on on February. - I started writing this long ago. It could have been finished quite long ago too. But things happened. Never mind. I would have scheduled it to the same date anyway.

- So far. -

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.

Knowledge

Normally in our day to day life today we seek knowledge. - We learn and we study. You are even reading this right now. - People are practically as if stuffing their head into a tube.

- It is very easy to ruin your mind with excessive study.

But my intention here is not about this extreme. (- Btw, - if you check the link do note it was written back in 2012)

Idiots would always think the more things you know the better. Which is of course true in a way. Idiots are not always wrong.

- But there is the question of what it does to your mind.


- One other thing: - Back in the 80’s I studied math. I didn’t much want to, but this is how it was. It took courage to leave the university. Though I knew it was a place of idiots before I got there. - Not all of them though, and not in every way, of course, - but anyway this is just by the way. - In math of course, - you prove stuff. - Step by step. This is the nature of what you do there.

- Calculation. Proving theorems too has the nature of calculation. - This is limited. This is a proof, or an evidence, - of the limitations of your mind, - or our mind. - The inability to see things as a whole.

Intuition today is put aside in mathematics. I mean obviously one has to use it, - but in a way it is in principle ignored.

- Looking at the ancient Greek, - their attitude was that what they called “axioms” were to connect their practice to reality. It is quite simple, - they can not start off nothing, - so they pick up some of what they could see as undeniable truths, - ones they could peacefully assure themselves are true and correct, - and questioned what could be then constructed subsequently.

- I think every child in primary school knows that. - Though not in such an explicit manner.


- It seems about a 100 years ago a group of mathematicians adopted a different attitude: -

The Greek’s adoption of axioms is based on intuition. - But they say “fuck intuition”. They don’t give a shit if axioms are true or not. - Their attitude is we just pick up whichever set of axioms and see what comes up. - Does it reflect reality? - Does it not reflect reality? - These are not mathematical questions in their view.

- I had some correspondence with a professor (emeritus) of math in an American university and she explicitly had expressed her opinion that math is not about exploring reality. This is the way things are seen today. - But my point (- here) is about the view in which intuition is considered a thing to be put aside. - Actual seeking to develop our mind would to a great extent take an opposite course: - We ought to aspire to be able to view things in an integral manner. - In Math, as long as you have a proof, (or a solution, or a calculation) it doesn’t matter at all whether you are able to see the entirety of the different steps - in your mind, - in one integral picture. - Of course one who does have such an ability might sometimes at least prove himself capable in fields noticed, - but the ability itself is never considered as one which has to be developed.

- Still this is not the subject. - But the point indicating the inferiority of our step by step manner of thinking is essential.

- We should always aspire to see the whole picture. Of course step by step thinking is practical, - but this might mean our [human] mind is not in the best state. I’m not saying we should abandon it. But as a matter of principle we would be more than considerably wrong if we imagine this is what we should look up for.

- What made me write this piece, or start writing it, - is - the thought of what would be the manner of thought of the reality itself. - In order to come to the best we can hope for we ought to let go. - it is quite the opposite of what we do in math, - or - quite clearly, - in intellectual study at all. - This manner of thinking ties our mind. This may be quite irrelevant to most people, - but if you relate to meditators, - or to those persevering in treading the path, - this is not a thing of no interest.

- In a way, it is just letting go, - learning how not to hold on to those bits of thinking we are accustomed to grasp like a monkey grasps a tree, - or like having our shirt being caught in the thorns of a bush or some other plant, - which is essential for getting our mind developed.

- It is these unclear and unclean graspings which interfere with the possibility of our mind’s eye seeing things otherwise. I am not saying I got to that. - But the situation does seem clear. - Being unable to see that pursuing immediate possible easy to reach details as a matter of course and continually unaware of the eye lying within you capable of a view independent of that, - hinders - quite clearly - the integral ability which might otherwise come to be and function, - however so slow, - within you - again. It is the contrast between an unclear vision and a clear one. - For the need existing all the time in everyday life for most people it is inevitably, practically, - impossible to follow what I say; - but as a matter of principle I believe the understanding standing at the root of this post, - has a significant meaning, - where we live in a society running the opposite direction. Completely blind - in general, - to such ideas, - and ever ready to mock at them with the full confidence of the herd of intellectuals herding in the dry deserts of shallowness of mind. - There is further this I wrote about three months ago. - It might add to what I said here. - There is the ability to see things undisturbed far beyond what we are accustomed to, - as it seems, - untroubled and relaxed, - with an actual minimum of an intended effort, - putting aside our so-common desire to assure and double-check things in our conscious mind, - and there is the degraded state we are presently in (- most of us that is) grasping as-if-by-hand wherever-we-can in-the-most-untidy-manner every bit of information or data, - [- thus] disabling our mind to come to its potential through natural functioning.

בסיעתא דשמיא.

Common sense II

There is this post I have written some time ago. - I did not relate to the point then (there) but there is also a very significant point which - as it seems, - follows what is pointed out there.

(Do note, - as for the post itself, - there is there another point added in the comments section strengthening the idea referred to there)

- If you accept what is said or brought up there - in the post linked - that is, - it means life on Earth did not develop as most assume. - Obviously it had to appear somehow. - If you reject the common explanation following the attitude appearing there it would obviously mean you are supposed to come up, - generally, - with some idea of how things came to be, - some other idea.

- If the theory of natural selection is viewed or seen as almost (- generally speaking practically not just almost) void, useless, stupid, - unrealistic, - than it would naturally follow that all living things on Earth have appeared some other way, - plants, animals, humans. - How?

- As it seems in the absence of this theory we are unable to find another reasoning making sense which would replace the existing idea most of humanity follows at present. - Other than if we accept the idea of higher spheres responsible for the development and appearance of existing species here on our planet. This has a more significant value even! - I mean the very acceptance of the fundamental idea of higher - occult, - spheres and beings - an idea most intellectuals today would not even find worthy of [generally] relating to. If you follow common sense it practically leads you to the conclusion. Not easy to accept, for so many accustomed to see things otherwise. But if a majority will accept others will too, - easy to see. - And if the scientific establishment will admit its mistake (quite a ridiculous actually, - viewed retroactively) than it will be corrected, - though as you can see [in the post] it doesn’t really take academic education or great proficiency in order to be able to tell, - just free thinking and an unbiased mind.

(- Written - 8.1.2021 -)

What Man is

 It has been said, some time ago, - that the difference between man, the human being, - and animals, - is his ability to create tools. (And use them)

- Later I believe this idea has been dropped.

- I think after chimpanzees have been observed making a simple tool.

- Now, I think, - it is thought man is different in his ability to think. I do say, - if a dog is able to find his way back home in a neighbourhood it knows this inevitably reflects thinking processes.

- So obviously thinking processes exist in other beings too.

- Therefore, - what is the difference? - Man is able to disconnect himself from a situation he is in. - Man is able to think not only as a natural process involved in the situation he is in at the moment but also to stop and have things run independently in his “mind” not in real time.

- To consider a situation not only while it’s running as an outcome of the stimulus coming through right then but to think of it in a way similar to watching a movie filmed earlier or seeing a view in a mirror. - To bring up things relating to the past or future as off the computer’s hard disc and relate to them then in a way similar to the way of thought in real time.

- This is the difference. Animals are unable to do that. They are slaves of the present moment.

So far.

the Aim

As I happened to send a link to this post to someone I came across some things he’s written about the four principles of Buddhism (known as “the four noble truths”) and subsequently I made this reference to another facet of the four world views as referred to here: -

On the materialistic plain one wishes to avoid unpleasant things, pain, suffering. - Perhaps seek happiness, but mainly, as it seems to me, - first, - to be free of the unenjoyable, - that is - I mean, - of what causes what he experiences as a negative experience - as said here first.

On the idealistic plain it is the attachment to a self image which determines the direction. - This would mean one seeks self improvement. The field in which one would seek this could vary a lot from person to person. - It could generally be any field, any sort of improvement, - any way of becoming better.

One may wish to become wiser, one would wish to become brave, some value moral virtue, - the point it is rooted in the wish to become better, to see yourself as better, - but I am not referring to self deceit, - but to the actual wish or attempt to make oneself better for the sake of making oneself better. If it is about gaining an ability for the purpose of getting some outcome, given that this outcome itself would be of the materialistic plain, - than this would be of the materialistic plain, and not of the idealistic.

- In the realistic plain things are different. - You might say there one seeks [to come as close as possible to] an ultimate “good”.

- What this would practically mean is extension of abilities. - Being more capable is “better” than having less abilities. Happiness, pleasance, - is nothing. - They have no value of themselves and so would count to nothing. - But it is not about one’s personal abilities, - rather it is about the abilities of all. - This would be the aim sought in the realistic plain. - While there is no reason why all possible routs of gaining any qualification should be considered equal: - Naturally some would be more valuable, - as in our everyday life. - But the most valuable ability would be the one leading us to understanding we have no reason to actually to prefer one thing to the other, - being capable to being incapable, - this would be the most refined one; - not seeking to become almighty, - though we might gain this too if we do come to this understanding.

The fourth phase Nishijima calls “the ineffable” or “reality”. It is essentially different from the other three. - We can not speak of what one wishes or seeks or aims for in the same way we did so far.

- Here I would say action is not different from no action. - All is an integral whole. - So we could not speak of this wish (we have discerned for the other three phases) one has. All action is completely natural, - there is no separate motive or intention or inducement separate from the action itself. The aim, if any, is so inherent it doesn’t exist. - There isn’t any mind either. - So, I mean, - there isn’t any place to accommodate the wish or aim. But this is not the primary point, - the primary point is in my view here that all is one, there is no separation between mind and matter or perceived objects, - there is no separation between perception and consideration (or thought) and action (or will) and the “external” results left as objective facts in the world which could [then] be perceived again, there is no separation between inside and outside. - So there is no aim which could be isolated or even traced, - there is only one way, if any, one route, - one line, - so to speak, - perhaps extremely complex, perhaps simple, - along which everything goes. Or not. But there is no need for a motive. Nothing is exhausting, harmony is maintained, - the universe is a perpetuum mobile.

Written on May 4^th 2020.

(- Plus a few minutes, - as it seems, - into the next day (- May 5^th that is))

A phenomenon (Written March 31st 2019)

There is almost no teacher, no true enlightened teacher I mean, - who presents things always in all fields exactly as they are. Since I was looking for a teacher, I happened to meet several. It seems to me unequivocally this is the situation.

The reasons are two: - The limitations of the listeners’ faith and understanding. People will not hear, sometimes, what they may not believe or what they would be unable to understand. The practical situation, may be, - that in reality one might not hear what basically he should, because another, who is also there, lacks in his trust of what is being said or in his spiritual ability of grasping certain things. For me personally this situation is sometimes terribly annoying. Sometimes not. Osho, for example, is terribly different from Yakusan. (Yakusan Igen, Yueshan Weiyan) And times are different too, today many things are difficult to say, and the further the audience a teacher wishes to address, - the narrower may be the limitations implied.

So far. I’ll drop it at that. I might just mention this post. And say the face of things may sometimes seem terribly ugly, particularly when things get emotional, even when true teachers spread their teaching in this world, - where ignorance is apparently incomparable and the emotional state of many (particularly today) touching ridiculousness.

So far.

Dōgen’s structure of presentation and the Buddha’s structure of the four fundamental principles

Nishijima noticed a correspondence between a pattern he noticed in Master Dōgen’s expression in the Shōbōgenzō and Gautama Buddha’s four principles (known as the “Four Noble Truths”) preached, in case I’m not mistaken, - in his first talk after having become the Buddha. - This is of course correct. - I don’t know if anyone has pointed to this correlation earlier (before Master Nishijima) but given that Master Dōgen, however famous in Japan, - is not as renowned as Śākyamuni Buddha in the world, - I might guess not. - However, there is a certain mistake with Nishijima’s presentation of the issue, - and this is the matter here.

- Nishijima’s scheme is presented, as far as I know, - in this collection of talks published, as it seems, first in a booklet and later as a PDF. - I did not know of it at the time I was in his Dojo in ’96. - What I know of the thing is mainly, I guess, - from the time I was there, and not from the text mentioned. I, myself, have brought a presentation of the framework in my blog. There I referred to the third phase unlike Nishijima’s reference. He was relating to realism as a synthesis of idealism and materialism. I presented things differently, I believe more correct and exact relating to this point. (You can check at the link) But this is not the point here.

- In Gautama Buddha’s presentation he naturally follows the essential order of the four principles. With Master Dōgen the situation is different. - Dōgen does not - as far as I came across, - give a structured presentation of the sort the Buddha did or like a scholastic study. Rather, he picks up different issues and relates to them - first perhaps as the usual way, - and through various means follows the path to expound the Buddha Dharma. - The natural order, - as in the Buddha’s lecture, - would be materialism first, idealism second, realism third, and the fourth phase - sometimes related to as “reality” and sometimes as “the ineffable” - fourth. But in Master Dōgen’s system he does not work through mere logical explanation, as I related before. - He starts off people’s minds, - he wishes for them to pick up what he is saying or to absorb it in a harmonious way. - Therefore he begins with where most people’s mind is most times, - i.e. idealism. He takes off where your mind is at first, - presenting first the picture you naturally have in your mind, - as a place to start off. - He wants the understanding to be full, as much as possible of course, - not just intellectual, rational. So he has to work this way, - starting with your picture and then moving on, - relating to your integral functioning of the mind (and body) including imagination and intuition. Working as they do in university would be pointless, - leading to mere intellectual understanding, - if any, - which is most clearly not the aim in any spiritual practice.

Nishijima seems to have overlooked this fact. - When relating to the correlation he spotted, - he relates the first principle (Duhkha-satya) to idealism, the second (Samudaya-satya) to materialism, the third (Nirodha-satya) to realism, and the forth to the fourth phase. - The mistake is in the order of the first two, - the first with Buddha’s (Śākyamuni Buddha’s) would be the second with Dōgen, and the second with the Buddha the first with Master Dōgen. - As I referred, - Dōgen starts off idealism, then takes a step back to materialism, - and subsequently moves on to realism. This is the mistake I wanted to point to here in these words.

- Nishijima is no longer with us, - I do not doubt he would accept my idea. - Such people (who have attained to the ultimate) are not concerned with personal issues irrelevant to the truth itself. He would find being offended irrelevant, beside the point, but since this is not altogether obvious to some this last note here is not necessarily unnecessary. - One other thing I wanted to mention: - In the introduction - by Michael Luetchford - to the lectures entitled “Three Philosophies and One Reality” I referred to above, - he relates to the issue of the appropriate translation of Sanskrit “satya”. - I dare say, that although only other words (mainly “truth”) have been used in English for that purpose, - relating to the context and the actual meaning “principle” would be the best choice. - Not Perfect, - English is English and Sanskrit is Sanskrit, - but better, all things considered, - than other alternatives. I believe “truth” is picked due to an attitude relating to the words themselves and not to their particular meaning and use in the concrete case. So far.