Just something about our mind

Nishijima used to say mind and matter are two facets of Reality. - I doubt people are (or were) aware that he meant the Reality and not just reality the way most usually use the word. - While perhaps on the other hand he did not find it necessary to separate these here since anyway the reality is the Reality. Nishijima was not always interested in making himself clear where things might be controversial or where clarification might lead to other confusion or ambiguity.

Anyway, this is not what it’s about. - When Nishijima said mind and matter are two facets of one reality, people would usually assume this means (the) Reality stands somewhere between mind and matter - as a sort of a middle way perhaps, or anyway that these two reflect two sides of the reality. This is not so, and this is what it’s (this post is) about. People are “prone”, as Nishijima’s favorite expression, - to mistake his intention here, which I wanted to relate to.

As Daikan says in his famous poem, - the clear mirror needs no stand. Similarly, the reality has no other side. There is no such thing as the other side of Reality, or something that is prior to it. - The situation is different. Mind and matter are both on the same side of Reality. Rather mind stands somewhere between the Reality and matter. That is mind is closer to the Reality, matter is not as close, as it seems to me. Therefore, you might say, we experience mind as mind and matter as matter. - This is the difference. So they are two facets of the Reality, (or of reality) as two different phenomena - as being different in their appearance, - but as I assume Nishijima Roshi was not aware of the mistake his words would seemingly lead to, - and therefore made no attempt to correct it.

As I said - this is what I wanted to refer to in this post.

- Just this. - Everything arises from Reality.

In accordance with what we might call its distance from it things might change in their nature or their appearance.

Science has practically nothing to say about the mind, that is materialistic so called “science” as we are familiar with it today.
- I mean no physical discovery could in any way give any sort of idea why is it that what we experience as awareness has to exist anyway. - Or how come that is has come into existence. I related to this in my “Time” post.
It (- science) might come up with some explanations as for its manner of functioning, - but the fact remains the same.

- And the attitude is somewhat ridiculous, - but this is beside the point.


We are Reality.
But as it seems else than Buddhas no one can see the fact. So we see ourselves as we do. And it seems, as close to Reality as we can get, is what we call our “mind”. - We don’t really know in what way we experience this, most of us at least. - What we grasp through our senses we call matter. But neither is as deep or as direct as the true reality, or as direct familiarity with it. - What is this reality? I don’t know. Not yet at least. - And those who “do” can not say, in most cases at least.

I mean with the exception of the cases where one has been able to actualize his humanity relying on words, as sometime does happen in the recorded stories of the Buddhas and patriarchs, - in China mainly of course.


- So far.

Fwiw.                                                                                                                     (Written on a “Word” (28.1.16) and copied off to the blog later.
                                                                                                                                     Not written directly on the blog.)

A Prayer I’ve Written

This post was also meant to be posted quite a long time ago. I felt there was meaning in the order of the posts, It is what Kalo would have called, justly, I am certain, - their rhythm. I am just saying I knew I was going to post this post here after the last one which has been delayed for so long, - and consequently this one is being written and published only now.


Since it has been so much time, I don’t so much remember what I was going to write here. The prayer itself I had, both English and Hebrew, but it has been in January 2011 that I wrote it, and it has been since 2012 that I wanted to write this post, so as for the circumstances or the intended content of the post, I don’t remember so much.

Perhaps it is of no meaning. Generally from an e-mail message I sent it tells I wrote it following a post Brad Warner wrote on HCZ. I don’t think I was going to mention this here but anyway. I sent it by e-mail (the message I mentioned above) to Gustav Ericsson. Later I translated it to Hebrew - which grew subsequently somewhat longer. - I sent this too to Nissim Amon, and asked him to pass it over also to Gil Alon. Gustav, Nissim and Gil are Dharma successors of Nishijima Roshi, as of course Brad is too. That is they received Dharma transmission from him. (It is totally irrelevant to this post but I have recently understood - reading Shobogenzo Shisho, - that Dharma transmission meant totally different at the time Master Dogen lived. I don’t know when was the change.) This is about all I have to say. I am mentioning the e-mail messages since I never made public of this else than that.

Anyway, obviously what matters is the prayer itself, in this post. So here it is, as I’ve written it in English:

        “You within which space and time dwell, grant me with that which may be considered most fortunate for my true existence, - not for that which I deludedly imagine myself to be”.

Explanations will not be supplied. - Anyway, as I said later I translated it to Hebrew. It is not literally the same. I intended to copy the spirit and it happened that with the change of language it became right to be written somewhat differently. If you don’t speak Hebrew you doubtly need be concerned. The Hebrew version is as follows:

        ”אבי המרחב והזמן אשר בו הם שוכנים, - הענק לי, אם תחפץ ואם תראה לנכון, - את המיטיב עם שהנני לאמיתו של דבר, הלכה למעשה, כאמת שלא נודעה לעולם בלתי אם לעצמה, - תחת עם המצטייר בעיני ראייתו החלקית והמוטעית של שמדמה אני את עצמי להיות כהוויתי אני.

      קרי - לא דבר שהוא. זולתי שיבוא לידיי ממילא. כטבע הממשות בעולם האשליה.“.

That is it.

Actually as far as I remember the post was to be called “Two Prayers I’ve Written", but I cannot see what might have been a second one. I think there was another one but no reasonable possibility seems to exist. It doesn’t seem this could be just because of the translation. If I ever remember I might revise.

So far.

(Written on a “Word” and copied off to the blog later. Not written directly on the blog.)

Time

I would like to refer to time with regard to the four world views as fundamentally expressed or presented in my second post here at the blog. One does not need to be familiar with that post in order to understand this one.

What I [will] say here might not apparently seem to correspond to the presentation of the four stages [as I see them] presented there. I do believe the seeming discrepancy can be sorted out, but it will most likely not be in this particular post.

- Perhaps sometime in the future.

- I assume these discrepancies might have gone unnoticed had I not mentioned them, - but in case they would I made my comment. - The matter does not seem significant and the integration (of the contents of this post into that of the older one) does not seem urgent.



- To the point: -


Materialism, - I would say, - seems to ignore time altogether. - It fundamentally notices a phenomenon disregarding its context.

Its relation to space is the same. It does not concern itself with a thing’s surroundings.

It is quite like a young child’s, or even a baby’s view, - noticing a thing of interest unable to simultaneously focus on its either close or further-remote surrounding as well.

It is like noticing a spot on a wall unable to be aware of the wall as well.

You might say materialism is not concerned with time or space. It is merely capable of viewing a phenomenon or an object disconnected from its related or unrelated close-or-remote fellow objects. - As the first, - it is the most primitive view. - The most incomplete one.


Idealism would roughly correspond to our usual view in our materialistic day-to-day life these times we are living in.

It views linear time and linear space. - Again, - as materialism, - it does not differ between them. - It has the same attitude toward both.- The difference between time and space is that we can control our movement in space, - but we are completely in absence of any means to control our ever-continuing motion through what we call time. - Further than that, - we define our movement (- in space, or any other thing we might call movement, - which would eventually also be in space as well, - as it seems) in relation to time. - By its very essence. - We can not speak of movement which is not measured by our incontrollable continuous and steady progress through the most fundamental dimension the nature of can not be examined - as it seems, - through the other more evident and noticeable dimensions we are familiar with.

Movement is defined through time. - It is meaningless to speak of controlling our movement through time, - since it seems to be time itself which enables our movement, (and if we would see the fourth phase as transcending time, - we would also see it as transcending movement) and by which it is measured and gains its meaning in the first place.

Idealism ignores this difference. Thus it still treats time and space equally.


Idealism is somewhat contrasted, - apparently, - with materialism as presented above.
- It notices the existence of the whole and sees its elements as parts of it, integrated within it.

Were we concerned with the mind and with the existence of what we may call “individuals” or “sentient beings”, - it would have been relevant, - it seems, - that idealism believes in the existence of individuals while realism is free of that view and aware of the unity of the whole as one unified integral ever-living inseparable being, - from which we merely might imagine what we believe to be ourselves to be separate.

- However, - discussing time as we do here, - this point will not take place, - and things can be said to be - in that way, - as I did above.

- Realism will as if take a step back, - after materialism making a start off one extreme and idealism as if stretching it counter its initial intention, - though in somewhat of a careless manner - overlooking that which realism will thereafter reestablish and develop.


Idealism ignores the fact that thought is not isolated from perception and action, - and also from the consequences of that action which could again be perceived by the individual, - thereby forming [part of] what we may call the objective universe.


It sees thought and world view as existing - idealistically - by their own and on their own, - disregarding, - in principle, - any practical value they might have. - This is a view based fundamentally on emotions rather than on clarity of eyes. - While of course those holding it are not aware of this fact.


Noticing the fact that our mind, - (which in principle, - as a sort of an independent picture of things in possesion of its own existence, - could be said not to exist at all, - but this refers to the mind somewhat differently and is irrelevant here) as a reflector of its objects and a designer of action, - is a link in a chain, - or more exactly a part of a circle or an ever-continuing coil, - does have an effect on the way we would view existence in general, - and time too - in particular.


Realism acknowledges three facts: - That thought and consideration exist within a circle of perception - consideration - action and external-result, - and that the functioning of our mental ability of sorting-and-putting-data-into-order known as “thought” - within that circle, - is for a purpose, - and does not idealistically exist in its own self-created-universe for the sole purpose of its very own mere existence, as idealistic feelings of shallow men and women might seemingly point; - (- second) that one can only perceive within the present moment, - that is to say, - when it arrives and before it takes its leave - which might by the way questionably allow anything in between, - but I’ll get to that - I guess, - when I get to the [fourth] phase of the ineffable; - (- and thirdly) that in the same way one can only act in the present moment.

Since I came across explanations for what it means that one can only act in the present moment more than once, on the Internet as well I guess, - I will not get into that point and I will assume that those who arrive here at my blog know and understand this, - fundamentally at least, - the idea and its framework.

- If you are unsatisfied you could make your comment in the comments section and I might give it a try, - but it most certainly won’t be right away.

The idea that one can only perceive in the present moment is the same as the idea that one can only act in it. - Though I do not recall ever coming across it anywhere before until now.

Either way (therefore) it does not seem to require any further explanation or clarification as for what it (fundamentally) is.

- The first [of the three facts mentioned above] grants the other two their meaning or significance.

- Had it not been for the first the other two would fundamentally imply nothing as for our view of time, or perhaps of anything in general.


- Though the first point, - as you might say any other true point [in philosophy] to a great extent, - is inevitable, - which does make this last statement here quite meaningless in itself.

- Either way, - what I mean is, - that if you notice the practicality of the functioning of your mind, - the second and third points would gather their meaning.


This is a point I referred to in my second post mentioned at the beginning, - the idea is that our gathering of data and sorting (or you might say processing, - which doesn’t make it more accurate) it is for a purpose. - Therefore the view established within the mind of ours should initially be in accordance with that purpose. - Not just to a certain extent but - in principle, - fully. As this is that for which our “mind” places itself and functions in the first place.

Idealistic incomplete views are a misunderstanding (- or, - more accurately perhaps, - simply a missing) of the above.


- Therefore the point I would see as the meaning of “Sangai Yuishin” (- “The triple world is the mind alone”, - in Japanese) would become relevant.


- The idea is that you can not speak of the universe as something different from the picture [of it] reflected in your mind. - At the same time you can not see the reflections within your mind, - its contents, - as something different or separate from the mind itself.

The ideas, the pictures, the intentions, - “within” your mind are just what your mind consists of.
- It is not like a picture painted on canvas (or on paper, or whatever) where you can say that there is the thing on which picture is painted and then there is the picture itself from which it has of course its separate existence.
- It is not even like an electronic media where there is the hard disc and then there is the information stored on it, which of course are not entirely the same thing.

The point which might be necessary here is that our mind is an unnecessary thing in a way in the first place: - Functioning does not require inner consciousness: - We can see that with computers and machines.

- Whatever the physical or spiritual mechanism you might assume would be in action - the outcome does still seem to be the same, - it does not require the existence of self-consciousness and it does not - initially - in principle - at least, - explain why is it that we find it or why has it come into existence.

- “Zen” in a way seeks the elimination of the mind. - A perfect situation of a completely spontaneous action. - It does not (of course) mean the inner processes of perception, thought and will do not - or would not - take place, - but they would not need to summon up another folded layer doubling the fundamental one which is truly necessary - thus creating the basically-excessive mental element us ignorant beings are familiar with as “self-consciousness”.

I would say the state of no consciousness is the normal state. Out of which self-consciousness arises and into which it disappears.

That is to say the appearance of [the conscious] mind is essentially and fully related and linked to the appearance of its contents.

It only appears in the company of its content like an excessive fold in our inner mechanism. There is no such thing as an empty self consciousness. When it is empty it is clean. - When it is clean it dies out, - it does not exist.

That is to say in its very appearance self-conscious-mind is one with its contents. The fact is not immediate. Otherwise I would not need to write all that. But the two are not two, - we simply imagine them to be two because of viewing them differently, - from different angles, - unaware of the profound nature of the substance, - but they are integrally and inherently one, - completely, - which as I mentioned before could be said to be in a way of no existence what so ever.

It may perhaps be said to be a little like an origami structure where the paper itself is not separate from the form created out of it, - but it does go beyond that.

Some reference can be made to the case of the picture too, or to that of various electronic media, - but I will not get into that. - In the case of the mind there is no separation between a contents and a substance which is supposed to carry or contain it. - This may be because our mind is unreal in the first place. Clear mind does not allow any [self-] consciousness. If we have a conscious picture in our mind it always means some sort of imperfection or what you might call impurity. There is no exception to that rule.

Your mind is just its contents. It may not be easy to see but it is not possible to actually find some substance of it else than what you would usually and normally call its contents.


Having come to notice the practical inability to differentiate between our mind and an external preliminary reality or world, - or between the mental picture held at a certain moment and the structure of the actual facts it is supposed to reflect, and - simultaneously - noticing also that our thought or consideration is not an undependent system or factor independent in its aims and ways, but a part of a longer line of a wider and more realistic purpose, - and - thirdly, - that in spite of the first fact mentioned here we may be said to be living within an incomplete and imperfect picture we are holding due to the faults of the systems by which we are creating this picture, - (or by which this picture is created, anyway) plus, the fact that this incomplete and distorted picture changes or alters unfailingly at every moment, - we might subsequently view or observe things as if time itself spreads - unfolds, - and is wrapped up again - continuously through every moment and in every point it makes its progress through.

We are as if living in darkness where we only have our picture at every moment like a single cinema frame, like a one dimensional line in a two dimensional plain, - or like a two dimensional curve in a three dimensional space, - while being completely blind to anything but it. - We only have our picture at each moment, we can not see the picture of other points in time from any other point but them, - it is like the universe continually flashes and at every point in time the past and future are born and die out, - or die and a new past and future are born for a flash there. - Since we are unable to break out of our picture, - since it is for us our universe, - we are bound to see it - to a certain extent or in a way at least, - as real. It is what we act according to, - It is our knowledge, - even if we may integrate into it the fact that we know our perception and consideration are faulted, - (that is to say our consequent data too of course) this is still ever within the picture or view too. There is no other way. Of course. - So in a situation where we are practically obliged to use our picture, - our mental picture, - the gathering of information sitting at the time in our mental systems of the individual as an organism, - as the sole tool and ground for practically everything: - for our practical action - which is the only thing we are using it for, of course, - in such a situation in a way we need to act as if the picture is real. - We would - practically - hopefully - relate to things as an array of probabilities, - that is to say noticing our faulted knowledge to the extent we can. - But this too, this view which does integrate or include the awareness of the possible wrongness - this too changes at every fraction of a second. - So inevitably, as it seems, one is living in a world or a situation where he only has his past and future for the absolute now only, with a new “now” there will be a new past and a new future, - neither of which is real, but nothing of a greater closeness to reality is available.

- Thus it could be said, - following the practical life hereby described, - that every moment in time, every point - every singular point, - in time, - has its own past and future, enfolded within it. - It is only revealed at that point, though of course it could be related to from elsewhere, - but subject to the ever existing distortion of the linking systems and means. - You might say perhaps that realism views as if a two-dimensional time, - the whole axis of time as-if spreads from every point in time. You cannot of a certain point in time, or relate to it, - ignoring the point from which you take your view. Point A observed from point B is different from point A seen from point C. This is what idealism has no concern for. - Thus idealism has a simple linear view most would find natural, while realism has a further complexed system arising from a reality where what we see is not what simply is. - The fourth view, the ineffable, would not be the same. Though Nishijima would often (as far as I remember) leave this point unmentioned, the fourth phase is not the same as the third phase. The fourth phase being ineffable, this point may sometimes be reasonably not related to, but here it seems different to me: - Though inexpressible, though ever beyond simple reasoning through common logic and thought, the fourth phase in the issue I am writing about here, is not only different from the third phase, which it might sometimes tangent, but is very different here. In realism, we are living as if ever viewing the universe through an ultimately narrow slits of zero width - through the moment of the present, and realism integrates this view and processes it. - Realism is aware of our limitations as individuals living in the universe, but the fourth phase, is not like this. The fourth phase, as it seems to me, is closer to the western view of God, an almighty, - it is not simply the view of the one Reality to which one might say perhaps the whole of time is accessible “simultaneously”, - since than it would not be ineffable, - but it is more like that. - It is altogether different from the view of the third phase, the realism as described here, - as I said. - Does it have practical value? Apparently doubtly. - Daikan did not understand Buddhism. He did not need to. Whatever. My main point in this post was to describe the third view. To present reasonable expounding where usually we might just encounter expressions many would assume are unable to follow the same trail as logic. I would quote Dogen here: - “At the present time in the great kingdom of Song, there is a group of unreliable fellows who have now formed such a crowd that they cannot be beaten by a few real [people]. They say that the present talk of the East Mountain moving on water, and stories such as Nansen’s sickle, are stories beyond rational understanding. Their idea is as follows: “A story which involves images and thoughts is not a Zen story of the Buddhist patriarchs. Stories beyond rational understanding are the stories of the Buddhist patriarchs. This is why we esteem Ōbaku’s use of the stick and Rinzai’s shout, which are beyond rational understanding and which do not involve images and thoughts, as the great realization before the sprouting of creation. The reason that the expedient means of many past masters employ tangle-cutting phrases is that [those phrases] are beyond rational understanding.” Those fellows who speak like this have never met a true teacher and they have no eyes of learning in practice; they are small dogs who do not deserve to be discussed. For the last two or three hundred years in the land of Song there have been many such demons and shavelings [like those] in the band of six. It is pitiful that the great truth of the Buddhist Patriarch is going to ruin. The understanding of these [shavelings] is inferior even to that of śrāvakas of the Small Vehicle; they are more stupid than non-Buddhists. They are not laypeople, they are not monks, they are not human beings, and they are not gods; they are more stupid than animals learning the Buddha’s truth. What the shavelings call “stories beyond rational understanding” are beyond rational understanding only to them; the Buddhist patriarchs are not like that. Even though [rational ways] are not rationally understood by those [shavelings], we should not fail to learn in practice the Buddhist patriarchs’ ways of rational understanding. If ultimately there is no rational understanding, the reasoning which those [shavelings] have now set forth also cannot hit the target. There are many of this sort in all directions of Song China, and I have seen and heard them before my own eyes. They are pitiful. They do not know that images and thoughts are words and phrases, and they do not know that words and phrases transcend images and thoughts. When I was in China I laughed at them, but they had nothing to say for themselves and were just wordless. Their present negation of rational understanding is nothing but a false notion. Who has taught it to them? Though they lack a natural teacher, they have the non-Buddhist view of naturalism.”. The quote is from Shobogenzo Sansuigyo. I intended to dedicate a blog page to it and I would have by now if I had the time. - I still will, when I can. Since I dropped the footnotes two remarks should, it seems, still be made: “tangle” in “tangle-cutting phrases” is the same expression used for the title of chapter 46 (47 in the Nearman translation) of the Shobogenzo - “Katto” - literally “arrowroot and wisteria”; and “shaveling” - the repeated expression in the text - means according to Nishijima and Cross “someone who becomes a monk in form but who has no will to the truth”. (- “Tokushi”, - literally “bald child”)

There is nothing which contradicts logic. - What is or may be ineffable is not ineffable due to a contrast with fundamental deduction. - Its ineffability is not there, - though it may be that logic is born in “earlier” grounds human thought would at the general and common situation of most people (and much further) find it very difficult to fathom. - It is much like the third phase and the fourth phase here. - There may be a field unlimited by restriction we might at most times find it unreasonable that it would be possible for them not to exist, - a field known only to Buddhas, ineffable - to those yet unfamiliar with it at least, - but this field, if so, - is not something that opposes the world as familiar to most common men. - There is apparently something prior to a shallower structure us ignorant majority see as reality, including our thought processes and their apparent foundation, - but it does not mean an alternative structure which stands at a 180° opposition to the natural and fundamental notion that reason makes sense.

This may take the affirmation of a Buddha, but I am quite certain it is correct.

So far for this post. I started it in 2012. I naturally thought I would complete it in reasonable time. It happened that I didn’t. - I had legal procedures running against me, this is the reason I said I was busy in 2012 in “Ran said…”. Criminal procedures. (Mind you 108, btw) I won’t write about it now. - I did not intend to write about it in this post at all. - My intention was not to relate to anything but what this post is about here. However it has been so much time. I have also been in jail for 10-11 months in 2012-2013. I wanted to complete this post eventually at least by the end of 2015, but I am writing these lines on the 1^st of January 2016. I usually wrote posts on the blog itself. Now I don’t have an Internet connection. I wrote the post as far as “the second and third points would gather their meaning” long ago. - Also as far as “what you would usually and normally call its contents” I did too, - but it seems this part what not yet fully written and I had to look it through. What is beyond that, I wrote on a “Word” and copied into the blog though some font adjustments need to follow of course. - I don’t think I wrote it the way I would have had it not been for all that happened. - The content may be the same, but I generally have always tried here to write relating to the manner of writing too, - in anything spiritual, perhaps, perhaps, the form too is not empty and proper presentation is called for by anyone who has a reasonable idea of what’s it about. So I might rewrite this sometime.

I don’t know when. If I do I’ll most likely drop this whole story then. - The thing is I am not now in the mental state to write this piece as I did when I started it. This is much of the reason why it has been delayed. I wasn’t working on it when I felt I could not do it as I intended. But I guess it could not wait no more. So I wrote it as I did - the remaining piece, - and am posting it here. I’ll probably have it on on Jan 10. I’m not that happy with it but it’s still OK. It’s not even “wtf” - it seems it has to be on. It happened that all that happened on a particular uneasy post, I mean a hard one, otherwise I would have probably been able to complete it long ago. But now I will be able to continue posting, it seems. I happened that I wrote 3 circumstantial post in between, since Shlomo Kalo died and then I found out that Nishijima too passed away already earlier, and there didn’t seem to be any point in delaying writing about this still. This post is apparently not just the way it should be, I am not in the best situation now and am never generally in the right mood even for writing this the way I did. But the general idea is there. People often relate to time in Buddhism as if it could not be related to rationally. I would dare too say that when Nishijima is speaking of “a new kind of logic” in his Preface to the translation of the Shobogenzo this is too wrong expression. There is no second kind of logic. I recall a Yoga Swami writing that there are no contradictions in reality, contradictions only exist in your mind. This is a very simple truth. Dogen may be using poetic means of expression, refined ones, practically say sometimes what is different from what would literally directly arise but neither Dogen nor Gautama himself could create a new kind of logic, a new kind of deduction or conclusion, since deduction merely tells you what things are: - “4” is just a new name for 2+2. Using a metaphor Dogen uses - one can not reach the country of Etsu by pointing a carriage toward the north, since it is a southern country. (Bendowa: “Trying to arrive at the Buddha’s state of truth [only] through action of the mouth, stupidly chanting thousands or tens of thousands of times, is like hoping to reach [the south country of] Etsu by pointing a carriage toward the north. Or it is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole.”) Common sense reflects a most fundamental feature of the universe, there are no two ways to tell us what things are. I could not in any way not view that Nishijima would agree with what I am saying here. He was a very logical person. And he could see just this truth more than others. Why did write what he did? It is beside the point, but while having a fine and skilled philosophical mind, he was not generally so exquisite in putting things in words, his ideas too, and he too was aware of that. Dogen might sometimes say things one needs to inwardly understand in order to get what he is saying. And it may be that the manner of speech is such that expresses itself in such a way that what it practically means to say is practically and considerably different from what the words would appear to say in the eyes of a person who is unable to fathom the bottom line. I thought today things could be expressed differently, explicitly and logically, and this is what I tried to do here. Buddhism represented, - i.e, - Buddhism re-presented. Hopefully to be revised later, when possible.

Nishijima

While writing the last two posts, - as ridiculous as it may apparently be, - I did not yet know that Nishijima is no longer with us.

On the 1^st of October I asked Nissim Amon [by e-mail, - that is] whether he knows where could he be found. - Then I learned that Gudo Wafu Nishijima Roshi is no longer residing on the physical plane.

Having checked Brad’s blog I came across this, which mentions the date January 28. I haven’t been reading Brad’s blog for a few years recently.


I recall at the time I was in the Dojo, Nishijima said sometime “If I die I just die”.

This has to do with something that was on Tricycle just at the time. Still he said that. I am quite sure someone there - then - was puzzled about something a “Zen” master said according to that article. I won’t get into it. This not what made me write this post.


I’ll bring some of what Brad said first. I didn’t originally intend to but he talks about what I was going to write about anyway. So here it is. It is not essential, - I’ll write quite the same I would otherwise, - but since he already did relate to the matter it seems more appropriate and also more serious that I do: -

“I talked to him about death on a number of occasions. Many people who have read my stuff are already familiar with the fact that he very strongly denied that the theory of reincarnation had any legitimate place in Buddhism. But I also know that his view of what happened after a person died was more nuanced than one might expect from knowing only that he denied reincarnation (as well as rebirth, transmigration, etc., it didn’t matter what you called it!).

Once we were talking about something I do not recall. We were in the room he stayed in during retreats at Tokei-in temple, just the two of us. He started to say “When I die,” but stopped himself before saying the word “die.” Instead, he paused and said, “When I… move on to another realm.” I thought that was fascinating. I’d never heard him describe death that way before and I never heard him say anything like that again.

...”.

- He relates to the subject in the two next paragraphs too, somewhat. But for here there is no need for the further quote. That which appears in small characters is not smaller originally.

Nishijima is known for denying the occult. He generally denied the existence of anything outside the physical plane. By “known” I don’t mean famous, - those who know him usually know that.

His successors, as far as I know, follow this line. Though there may be more of them I don’t know than those I do.

At the time I was in the Dojo, which means ’96, - Nishijima was not particularly looking for discussing these matters. Quite obviously - he did not want to lie and he did not want to affirm their existence on the other hand. He obviously too did not want to make his reluctance concerning this evident to many.

So when he was asked he would answer but he himself did not raise the subject.


Nishijima knew (and knows) the occult exists perfectly well. And so does Brad.

Nishijima knew that far better than all sorts of chatters who might talk about it endlessly, not knowing much about it for real. - He did not want himself, or his Dojo or Sangha or teaching-in-general, - or Buddhism-itself in general - to gain an image of being strange or eccentric. - Normality was in a way - you might perhaps say, - quite a central point in the spirit of his teaching. When I say “in the spirit” I mean it was something he did not necessarily relate to explicitly.
- But further than that he did not want the path itself, - in all ways mentioned just above, - to be hindered by such an image.

And there is another point: - Paying attention to the related issues and matters would not be what he would consider beneficial for the practice of his disciples and those who follow him (or might follow him) in general.
- Ramana Maharshi, - whom I mentioned earlier on the #9 post on this blog, - would not deny the existence of the out-of-the-physical elements or phenomena, but would still ask why do people prefer to find interest in them rather than in what I-might-call the true aim of the path.

- Nishijima preferred to lie. - Beside what has been said so far referring to the occult might have caused potential practitioners to keep away or flee off the way of what we refer to as the Dharma, or the spirit - the way is one whatever you call it - either way.


I’d say it would generally be wrong to just pick up his way without applying concrete consideration to the situation or particular state one is in. - He was not violating “right speech”, - but his attitude, - given that you accept what I’m saying here, - was definitely not the standard as for it.
- One who understands the matter I am generally relating to here will inevitably know that humanity will unavoidably recover from its present view as for the true form of the universe and its construction. Nishijima acted under certain conditions which gradually change as time progresses. - Plus: - in Japan.

- The Japanese are not always that adherent to the truth as it is in there manner of life.

- So what was right for him would not necessarily be right for his successors living in a different society or a different situation.

I do not criticize Nishijima, I do not even assume he was wrong, I do trust his judgment regarding this was better than mine, but I do not even - on the other hand, - doubt the rightness of the revealance I have made here.


Still - the question I would - as I had earlier thought - put to those particularly wise humans who apparently deny the existence of all-but-the-physical-plain as part of what is supposed to be spiritual (- that is to say, - or “Dharma”, - which is quite the same here) teaching or guidance, - is - how would they view the first lane of the eightfold-path?

- That is to say, - how could they consider - that by hindering a person’s structure and system of views in a way that would inevitably be misleading for him as for his understanding of his surroundings and familiarity with it, - they would still be practically performing an act of that which they are supposed to carry out within the duty they chose? - What [tf] do they think “right views” is?

I believe this point is generally not considered.


- Another matter: -

As for those who actually believe in all standard secular materialistic views, - and as for those who pretend to too: -

- And I mean (- of course) particularly among those who have chosen the path as instructed by Master Dogen and others within the school or the stream today generally known as “Zen”, running through Bodhidharma and his successors within that house: -

Master Dogen - how would they view him?

- Was he a fool who believed in all he referred to in the Shobogenzo (and generally) due to a primitive and undeveloped state corresponding appropriately to the time he lived in? Was his mental ability due-to-which-we-follow-his-tracks irrelevant to the depth-of-mind and ability-of-realistic-thinking necessary for the discerning of the actual facts with regard to which determining has to be made?

- I am not relating here to any matter of respect or esteem you might have or not have toward our beloved Eihei Dogen Zenji. - Disregard that. - That would be completely bending or ruining my point. - My intention refers to your common sense, - to its consistency of view. Intellectuals would say they only adopt the philosophical structure presented, which is true in itself, but does not answer the question. Master Dogen was a real person, not a fictional figure a writer made up, and not a computer software written somewhat-randomly-perhaps according to what the programmers might have in mind. - The question is whether it would have been possible for him to be such a man of inferior quality, and it is not him alone - of course. - And not “Zen” masters only - too, - it would be most great figures of humanity until sometime - I guess - during the 18^th century. Such figures were men (or women) of faith - both in East and west.

I won’t name, anyone can easily do that. I might relate to that some other time. My focus here is on master Dogen. Though the point would of course not be that considerably different. - Could he have been so severely mistaken as for his world view? - The truth is people to-a great-extent absorb their view off their surroundings, rather than rationally construct them as they quite obviously imagine they do. So both today and in older times everyone generally think the same. I won’t generally relate to that, [here] but the reason I am mentioning this is this is the reason why (in my view) many think it reasonable that a person of the stature of Dogen would still hold reasonlessly the same ideas held mistakenly within the general society during his time. Of course I don’t mean they analyze things and come to the conclusion consciously as presented here. - I’d assume this is the situation. Thus the great deal of humanity is able to believe or assume its evident highlights are simultaneously a bunch of idiots. As for Master Dogen you might try and consider yourselves - it depend on one’s depth of mind and thoroughness of attitude, among other things, - clarity mainly - never on intelligence alone which may be a misleading tool in the hands of the unable.

This was meant to be a short post. - However, - then I came across what Brad said, and also while writing there seemed to be points I had to relate to, - unexpectedly - somewhat at least. - That which brought me to the writing of this is the following. - The story I will bring here. This is what made me dedicate a post to Nishijima’s entering Nirvana - otherwise I would have not come to that.

No disrespect to Nishijima - of course, - just a matter of having nothing to say. Readers arriving at this blog would usually - I assume - know Nishijima and have read about his death elsewhere by now. So here is the main point and the ground or foundation of this post:


At the time I was at the Dojo, (Nishijima’s Ida Ryogokudo Zazen Dojo in Ichikawa, which no longer exists) ’96, - as I said earlier, - Nishijima would spend the weekends with us at the Dojo and midweeks with his family in Osaka, where he would also work. The weekends would not have been equal in length, - he might sometimes arrive on Thursday - evening or afternoon, - or sometimes on Friday. - He might leave on Sunday or he might leave on Monday morning.

One day I was talking with him in his room at the Dojo. As you will understand it inevitably had to be Monday. Though I don’t remember the day otherwise. He had to go out, since it was morning it had to be Monday, - he was leaving at the end of the weekend, as I wanted to continue the conversation I went out with him. We were talking about Buddhism, or somewhere in the vicinity, - I don’t remember exactly, - but it was generally about his teaching - I don’t remember at all where exactly was the conversation in particular at this point - but it was generally about matters of the spirit (though Nishijima naturally wouldn’t call it this in my place here) or the path. The train station - JR, - I don’t remember its name - was a few minutes from the Dojo as far as I am able to remember. I was wearing a samugi, which people in the Dojo didn’t usually, - but I had two and I’d were them sometimes. - I’m saying that because I did not have time to change, - obviously, - before going out, and I got the impression some people on the street found it a bit amusing that I was wearing it, - but it has really no importance in itself or anything to do with what I have to say here.

The station is underground. There is a stairway down and then, shortly after, there is the entrance where you can’t get in unless you get a platform ticket, - or an ordinary train ticket - of course.
We were still talking, - all the way, and after we got down the stairs we stoped about a meter or two before the gate were I can’t get in, - as I had no intention of getting a platform ticket which does cost a small sum.

- Just on our right was a massive concrete pillar, - about 40 centimeters wide in each way - (that is to say about 40 _cm wide by about 40 _cm deep, - square roughly) supporting the ceiling above us at the ground level.

There were some papers attached to it, I recall folding one of them in order to demonstrate the way I saw self consciousness - “divided mind” as it is known in the field of “Zen”.

At that time we were already talking about the phenomena exceeding the physical plain - beings or whatever may reside in other worlds, - never in such detail but in general reference to what would generally be called “the occult”, as the term I used in the beginning.

I can’t remember what I said but Nishijima - apparently - tried to deny the idea as he usually would - implicitly I suppose and not actually explicitly - imagining - it seems - that I might accept such an attitude.
And here we come to the actual point: - I tapped on the pillar with my hand and said “These things are just as real as this”. Nishijima was not at all resenting. - On the contrary, - he was very happy. He made no attempt of hiding that.

At that he said “So, you can talk to me any time”, - and then he added - “when I have time” - since he knew I might run sometimes at the vicinity of the rough borders of being a neg.

This is the point. He was very happy to find out I could not be misled in that way and that I actually knew what-I-expressed and had solid confidence in this matter which could not be shaken so easily in that silly manner as he knowingly attempted.


Nishijima never tried or had any attempt, - of course - to mislead or fool anyone who did know the truth about these matters. Even when denying what he did he did not intend for anyone who knows to take him seriously. I heard him speak these denials more than once.

I am not getting back to repeat what I said at the beginning. But this is clearly the situation.

And just a remark - as for the way I expressed myself: - I do not remember off where I recall that - but it is said that for those who are able to perceive the higher plains, - they are more real than our physical world with which most of us are familiar. That is to relate to the question likely put by many materialists, - how could one tell it is real and not imagination?


So far for that. The solidity and somewhat significant presence of the concrete pillar did make their contribution, I suppose.


The reason I put Nishijima’s picture above, which I cut off the video Brad put on his post, (clicking on the picture takes you there too) is that there you can see how amused he is off what he himself is saying there. It may evidently be - supposedly - that this is just due to the fact that it might have been amusing anyway. - But this is just why he is making no attempt to hide it. Since he expects the incapable will so assume. You can try and watch it and see for yourselves. It does tell, as far as I remember. (- Off watching it over a month ago, about the time I started writing this post)


I liked the picture Brad put on his post, - so I’m putting it here too.

Three Times “No”

          On the occasion of Kalo’s death, I wanted to relate to a certain story I heard of Kyudo Nakagawa Roshi, who also lived and taught in Israel, from 1970 to 1984.

          Kyudo Roshi is a “Zen” master from Ryutaku-ji, - Rinzai sect; - also mentioned here at the blog earlier.

          He was my first teacher, he lived and taught on the Mount of Olives, as I understood, - I only arrived after he left for NY.

          I started sitting on ’85.

          I heard the story from another member of his Sangha, - after that Sangha no longer existed actually - I think it was on in ’95. (- it could be either ’95 or ’96)

          It is about how Roshi came to come to Israel.

          One day, his master, Nakagawa Soen Roshi, (no family connection) came to him, at the monastery, - as it must have been, - and asked - [“Do you”] “want to go to Israel?”

          - “No”, - was the answer.

          A month later, again, Soen Roshi asked Kyudo Roshi the same question: - “Want to go to Israel?”. - Again, - “No” was the answer.

          Then, another month later, - a third time - Soen Roshi again asked our teacher this very same question - “Want to go to Israel?”. - Kyudo Roshi, - this time, - replied - “Yes”.

          Consequently, he came to Israel, and taught as I said, - until 1984, when he moved to New York (I think instructed by the Rinzai head council, or something of the sort) and established “Soho Zendo” there.

          However, - one day, when he was still teaching in Israel, - he told his Sangha this story. - Btw, - the Sangha was called “Dead Sea Sangha”. - As far as I understand the Dead Sea could be seen from up the Mount of Olives.

          Then they asked, - why did you reply two times “no” and the third time “yes”?

          Roshi replied - “Three times ‘no’ is a fix mind”.

          I might refer sometime further to that, - perhaps, - but this is the story as I heard it.

          Kyudo Roshi entered Nirvana in 2007. - 29^th of December 2007.
          I only heard of it much later.

          It seemed right to post this now, as it might tell something about Shlomo Kalo too, who started teaching about the same time, (I might assume) and continued in Jaffa until the day of the date heading the last post.