Common sense

Simple logic can sometimes supply the answer to questions aimed totally elsewhere. There is the famous story about Master Tokusan, - who was not yet a master, - and the old woman selling rice cakes. - Tokusan was asked which mind he wants to refresh. (“Refresh”, of course, is an English translation, - but never mind that) Kalo says he should have said he wants to refresh the hungry mind, but then Kalo changes the story in his translation referring to “unreal” mind rather than to one that can not be grasped. However, - putting that aside, - well of course Tokusan wanted to “refresh” the future mind. He wanted to eat the mochi (“rice cakes”) in the future, how could it be otherwise? So without any understanding of “Zen” or Buddhism, and without any knowledge of the Diamond Sutra, - just a bit of common sense, - would have been enough.

So far.

the Pinnacle of modernism

Observing things retroactively, - for the historians of the future, - it may be that the Victoria Secrets fashion show would be viewed as the peak of degeneration prevailing in our times exceeding through the years and escalating up to the perverted norms having been accepted widely in society today. - Women’s underwear presented off a stage to a wide audience as a spectacular and unique event resembling a cultural one, where money talks and the atmosphere is supposed to come near an artistic presentation or a public assembly where spiritual or lofty words are heard. The situation is today that people are in general totally blind to the extent of wrongness being manifested through the common conception by which such a phenomenon is brought about. It is not about any harm being done or not being done there, - it is about the mentality pervading within society due to which the occurrence appears to be natural or acceptable. It is about the mentality it reflects. What is most important to people and held valuable is sexy underwear. - Such a tendency may be natural but the legitimacy gained for putting the culture upside down in a manner which would be seen as being on the verge of mental illness in earlier times (and again, as I said at the beginning, when the sickness will pass) reflects the depths of illness having penetrated human minds through intellectual concepts adopted off a warped authority. - Intellectualism, - unlike other layers of thought more profound or natural in their nature, may accept - in general, - anything, - through dry construction of childlike conclusions. - It is not only this, of course, - but the heavy pressure weighing throughout the structure of society motivated through greed of manufacturers and others, plus the newborn standards of the ignorant young imagining their views to be the true ones never before known, - is enabled to take effect through the situation in which intellectual thinking is considered reliable and trustworthy. Even if it would strongly contrast your intuition or common sense.

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.

Japan

I first travelled to Japan on April 6^th 1991. Arrived in Narita airport on April 7^th. Stayed overnight at the airport and arrived at Ryūtaku-ji the next day. I stayed there until January 27^th ’92 when I flew back to Israel.

- I travelled the second time arriving in Ryūtaku-ji on April 17^th (just at the beginning of the first sesshin) and stayed there until May 15^th I think, after which I went to Shinshō-ji Kokusai Zendō near Fukuyama, - I visited Sōgen-ji for a sesshin during that time and Zuiō-ji (Niihama) for just four days (as far as I remember) before that. - I returned to Israel sometime in August I believe.

My Zazen in Ryūtaku-ji was at first very bad. - Or so it seemed. - One member of the Sangha in Israel who was also as it seemed friendly with the Rōshi (Kyūdō Rōshi, the rōshi of Ryūtaku-ji at the time, has been to Israel from 1970 to 1984 (which is before I started practice) establishing the Dead Sea Sangha there) told me the rōshi said one can never tell if his Zazen is good or bad, - but I am not sure he was accurate, and now as it seems to me he might have been talking about single Zazen sittings. If you feel very good or most bad in a sitting it does not mean, as it seems, - the sitting was equally fruitful or beneficial. But observing your sitting over a period of time it seems quite obvious one can get - normally - quite a reasonable idea of what his sitting is like. It doesn’t mean you can’t be wrong but this is not what it’s about. - My Zazen got better at the second season (October to January) as it seems. - I don’t remember exactly but more or less it seems so. In between seasons (during the summer) the zendō was mostly closed as far as I remember and sitting by myself (at the hondō or somewhere) was quite easier, - my legs were very painful at first and sitting by myself at my own time was different from being obliged to the zendo sitting periods determined by the jikijitsu. (Zendo head monk) So it may be that during that time too already my sitting was getting improved.

- My posture got very good, I think. At the end of the second season, or perhaps sometime earlier, I can’t remember that good. - The January sesshin and the season end on January 25^th. I left two days after that, as I said, which surely was a mistake, - but regardless of the issue here. - In Israel my Zazen couldn’t stay the same. It didn’t really or just get bad, - but the posture could not have been continued as it was. It may have been roughly the same, but some quality was lost. It’s the posture, - it could not be the same as it was in Japan. It may have been about 3 days, - but after that something is different. It is clearly something about Japan. I don’t necessarily know what, I won’t speculate here, - but the phenomenon does exist. This is my point here.

The same happened the second time I returned to Israel. On returning to the Ryūtaku-ji in ’92 my Zazen, the posture, - got better again, it didn’t change when I left Ryūtaku-ji (see above) but on flying back home to Israel the phenomenon repeated itself. - It is nothing crucial, it is nothing extreme, I paid no great attention to it at first, - I think, - but the fact seems to be that a certain quality of the meditation - of the posture, - and I had quite a beautiful posture, - could not remain just the same as it was in Japan here too. - I recall after returning the second time, - around October ’92 to January or February ’93, - people seeing me didn’t believe I was an Israeli, - I didn’t encounter it myself but people working with me told me they were asked where am I from and when replying I was from Israel they were not believed. (We were working in the streets cutting trees there) I think it has to do with it. - Israelis are different from Europeans. One can tell by the eye. Certainly from Japanese. - In the same way Arabs are different too. As a general rule of course. If you live in England you might gain a sort of nobility they have. But as for the matter here, I made clear, - it is not a matter of education. It is not a matter of a culture. It is something else. Most would not believe its existence, - as it seems. It seems to negate what most would believe to be the rules of nature. Beside, - it is quite a delicate phenomenon, even on being able to witness it many would miss the observation. - But personally I could say (of my own experience) it is beyond doubt. - Does it mean one is better to go to Japan if one wishes to (seriously) practice “Zen”? I don’t know. I generally don’t think it is better to start practice in Japan, - it is quite obviously better to sit a while before going there. - Else? I suppose - as the Japanese say - “case by case”. - And if one meets a true master he will be able to advise better. So far for this one.

Dead grasp of contemporary zombies - June 29th 2019

People in general will never understand meditation as long as they will not understand that psychology and/or psychiatry are totally - generally - unable to understand it based on their contemporary knowledge and path. One who truly understands meditation understands how miserable and practically quite idiotic these paths of inquiry are. - They are roads leading nowhere. Their investigation of meditation would never be taken seriously by anyone who has real knowledge of it. - It is like a severely mentally retarded person trying to understand the mentality of a common reasonable one. - It is like trying to construct a trampoline while being able to use only the most rigid and dry materials, like old pieces of totally weathered wood of zero flexibility. - Or like trying to make a cloud off similar small bits of the same material. These people generally don’t know what they are doing. They’d be a joke in the eyes of any real person who can see the relevant things as what they are. Though not many speak since it is quite pointless.

- However, - if you think what these contemporary cute guys have to say about the matter is significant, or if you’d go to their words for finding out what it is or for finding out about it, - it means you know nothing about it. Their ability is like that of an animal-pathologist trying to find out about animals mentality off post mortem autopsy. Thing will be known, inevitably, - but I could not make a time estimation. As for now, - it is important, in general, - not to seek understanding of the field in turning to those considered authorized in the academic world - who use the most ridiculous tools in their fundamental ignorance regarding the matter.

I happened to write this following an article in a newspaper (“Haaretz”) by a person who says he is sitting but seems to understand nothing of the matter. (An additional to Friday’s paper on June 28 this year) Terrible newspaper in my view, - though I recall it used to be a good one years ago, - but I admit I never read the whole piece since it was far from enjoyable, but only several pieces of it here and there. (It was quite a long one)