Posting as Practice

- Right speech, as an element, - or a lane, - of the Eightfold Path, - is usually fundamentally interpreted as an avoidance of being untruthful.

- Not telling lies, - that is.


This interpretation does make a lot of sense given the time and place in which Gautama - the historical Buddha - lived, - and actually taught his Sangha. - This may be as complicated as he could get, - reasonably - that is, - there and then.


Then a reference is made to being considerate; - sometimes, not always. I came upon a claim as if being considerate is more “deep” than not being untruthful. I couldn’t very much see it that way. ^{[- + : - btw]}

Only combining the two simultaneously would or could justify speaking of depth here in this context, - in my view.


However, - this is as far as it goes, it seems. ^{[- i -]}


There is a book by Rudolf Steiner originally called “Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?”. - (- 1904) In the sixth part of this book - “Veränderungen im Traumleben des Geheimschülers” - Steiner offers the following instruction to his students: -

“The student should utter no word that is devoid of sense and meaning; all talking for the sake of talking draws him away from his path. He must avoid the usual kind of conversation, with its promiscuous discussion of indiscriminately varied topics. This does not imply his preclusion from intercourse with his fellows. It is precisely in such intercourse that his conversation should develop to significance. He is ready to converse with everyone, but he does so thoughtfully and with thorough deliberation. He never speaks without grounds for what he says. He seeks to use neither too many nor too few words.”.

Though neither of the two fundamental earlier mentioned points is explicitly mentioned or demanded, - they would (- both - though not initially equally) naturally follow from the instructions handed (here above) by Steiner, - which to some degree, - views them as taken for granted or understood of themselves.

- However, - the seriousness and awareness, - plus maintenance of liveliness rather than its absence, which might sometimes follow from the attempt to stand up to the previous two, - plus the balance indicated, - would stabilize and nurture-the-essential-fundamental-outline of those two axises - (truthfulness and considerateness) which do - behind evident scene - form the structure of Steiner’s description, (- which in itself grows and develops around them as its initial (- rather skeletal) framework) even if not in the most evident and apparent manner - prior to the practice being enabled to permeate one’s being and become inherent in him.


- However again, - quite without regard to my words in the last two paragraphs, - the point I mainly wanted to relate to here this time is that in following the outline carefully introduced by Mr. Steiner, - (Rudolf) even in posting, - either a blog post or a comment, - on the Internet - one would be carrying out what may be said to be actual practice of the path.


I initially thought, (- I related to this matter some time ago on the comments section of Brad Warner’s blog - HCZ, - where I would sometimes express views before starting this blog, - but I was quite unlucky at the time as some troll who pretended to be me posted long copy-&-paste posts in which my initial intention seem to have got lost, - somewhat at least; - that is while Brad was (seemingly) having a quite strict non-deletion policy at the comments section at the time) that [in order] to have the text fit actual Buddhist running and spirit the word “deliberation” should be replaced by “mindfulness”.

- Anthroposophy is different from Buddhism at this point, - though since the text is translated [from German] I am not sure the word “deliberation” may not be somewhat of a mistranslation in itself.

I don't know German.


- During the writing of this post, - I have again observed Steiner’s words brought above, and I have rewritten them - all over again - as follows: -

       “The student should not speak else than in a sensible and meaningful manner, - all talking for the sake of talking draws him away from his path. - He should avoid the usual kind of conversation, with its random variety of rather arbitrary themes, and corresponding quite careless discussion. - This does not imply his withdrawal from human intercourse. - Rather it is just in such intercourse that his conversation would develop to significance and bloom into real contact with the actual reality.
       - He would fundamentally be ready to converse with anyone, - but his doing so is mindful and would bear appropriate (- though not necessarily evident) seriousness for the occurring facing moment. - He never speaks without grounds. - And as well he seeks to neither use too many words nor to employ too few.”.

This seems to be better in accord with the harmony I am familiar with in the house of Master Dogen, and in the larger house of Master Bodhidharma. Those treading other paths might differently adopt things according to their own conditions and circumstances.

Though I believe the harmony prevailing throughout the spirit of renowned Master Dogen (though not only) is unmatched.

The situation in the west might ridicule itself in comparison.

While at the same time other claims might be made vice versa, - but this is quite irrelevant here.


Anyway, - I have made my point.


Cheers.





_________
^{[- + : - btw]} - This considerateness is, to a great deal, - [- actually] the second of the four elements of the bodhisattva’s social relations, (- “Bodaisatta Shishobo”, - chapter 45 in the Nishijima-Cross translation (- Book 3) and 46 in the Nearman translation) but this is [- again, - actually] beside the point here in this post.
^{[- i -]} (- Steiner actually says otherwise: - “Students will recognize ... the instructions given by the Buddha to his disciples for the Path”. - That is to say his instruction is right speech. - The next post will tell you more of what this footnote is about. - Hopefully. - God only knows.
- Also I haven’t actually thoroughly checked so it may be that the common presentation [of “right speech”] is not as I imagine. - However, - the post’s main point will maintain itself, - I believe.)

Living and Dying, Coming and Going

I did not originally intend to make this post, - though I thought some of it might get integrated into the previous one. - As it didn’t - I have come to write this, I originally intended to go on to a different matter in the next post. - So this isn’t an independent post in a way, - but as if appended to the last one.


- As I got into the matter of our origination as human beings, of where this form of ours comes from, which has to do with the origination of the ground beneath our feet and the planetary system to which it belongs, - and very likely the universe itself - or the physical plain as we usually see it, - and what a religion is, or what religions are, - for the purpose of which I initially got involved in this matter in the last post, - plus - also - perhaps the most important here - within this frame of things - what is the explicit reason for our present existence in particular and for that of that which is here surrounding us, - as I got into all that - which is of course of greater importance than the actual line and intended-aim of the last post in themselves, - and that is without almost any reasonable support for the fantastic story many would consider altogether outrageous, - I thought I would try and provide some support or relate to it in some way. - Now for all those who imagine themselves wise but may not be so, - this is not to be a proof. - Very obviously not.
There are many who know (- however extremely few these “many” may be) but very reasonably keep silent. (- or sometimes even explicitly argue contrarily, and I do believe you might have come across them)
Has it all been [that easily] reasonably provable you would have very likely have heard of it far earlier.

(- Though there may be many [lit.] hard headed academics and the like whose inflexible abilities of thought and silly blind heart blocked with externally-absorbed self-esteem they imagine to be of their own grounding would keep them from being able to appreciate the value of  practical arguments even in case such are presented to them to a possible extent.
- However, - I am not about these now. - I’m just as fond of them as I might be of an unexpected gathering of coals and ashes I might find on my new and clean Persian living room carpet.
- Particularly just after it’s just been bought or cleaned.


I don’t really have a carpet; this is just for the purpose of illustration, but stupidity, - while fundamentally innocent in its nature, - can actually be terribly annoying when assertive and confident.)

- So this post is to be a just a grouping of several unrelated points, - you might make of what you will.

- The first: - In ’93, - (- I’m quite certain, - though there may be a chance it was ’92) it should have been April that year - I participated in a zazenkai in Nanzen-ji Monastery (Rinzai sect) in Kyoto.

- It was open to anyone, - as I guess zazenkais in Japan usually are, - though the hour it was scheduled was so early quite few would come.

It was either a Sunday or a Saturday morning - I can’t remember which. - I think when I walked there it was still dark. - There was Zazen, I can’t remember how many periods, - then there were the Heart Sutra and Hakuin Zenji’s song of Zazen, - (- chanting - that is, - each of them once) and then there was a short talk by Nanzen-ji’s Roshi, - (I don’t know his name) who conducted it all all by himself - as far as I can remember.

I was the only foreigner - again as far as I can remember. The talk was all in Japanese.

As we were afterwards walking away, - me and perhaps two or three of the other participants, - I asked them what did the Roshi say.

- In his talk - that is.

I can’t really remember exactly what they said, - and they probably didn’t think there was a reason to be so carefully exact about it, - but the general idea and the spirit were -

“The Sun shines, the trees grow, the birds are singing, - all so that we can come to realize our true nature”.

(- The words were very much like that too, - I guess)

- It didn’t occur to me at the time, - but what the Roshi was saying is just that which I was, - and am, - talking about. - Of course he didn’t make it explicit. - He didn’t even intend for anyone to understand what he was talking about; - unless he knew I knew something about these things - this is.


- But the fact - nevertheless - still stands.

- Second: - The “birth” mentioned in Job 38:21 is clearly Enlightenment. - It was known neither in Judaism nor in Christianity so the fact was completely missed.

Translations being so bad, - as - I assume - translators were not men who could actually speak Hebrew but merely had quite dry scholastic knowledge of it, - the inevident meaning of verses 18-21 has been almost completely lost. (- This is also why I don’t link, - though you might find the whole chapter, in the most reasonable translation I have come across, - (- though I haven’t searched that far) opposite the original Hebrew - here.)

Was I to try and translate it myself, - (- though my knowledge of English might be somewhat insufficient) I would try and present it as follows: -

“- Have you meditated onto the breadth of the land?

- Say, - have you known it all?


- Which is the way [in which] light shall dwell, -

And darkness, - its abode - where?


- As you will carry it to its borderline,

- And as you will understand its home routes.


- You have [indeed] known - (that) then you will be born, -

And the number of your days [is] great.”.

(- When it actually says “Where” - I translated “Which” - as to maintain the spirit; - and for the same reason when it actually says “place” I said “abode”; - and when it simply says “take” I wrote “carry”. - More significant, - where I used “meditated” the original Hebrew word means “looked” or “observed”, though it is somewhat different from these two, - and there is no exact English word for it. - At the same time, - it is the same word used today (- not without reason of course) for meditation in modern Hebrew.

I considered using “contemplated” but preferred as I did. - “Looked” might have done had it been the only possibility, - but I believe it is better as it is.

- However, - in verse 19 there is no “to” - which you might find in existing translations, - and it merely seems to be a rough and irresponsible interpretation.)

It does lose on translation, it’s quite inevitable in trying to convert the Biblical Hebrew to English, but it is still reasonably comprehensible.

- “then you will be born” does not relate personally to Job, - who has already been enlightened by that time, - but is a general reference. Since Job has already been enlightened by the time, - it says he does know a person will be “born” (- i.e. - will be enlightened) under the circumstances described.

As for the number of his days being great, - this again refers to the fact of us reincarnating throughout the history of the Earth, - toward enlightenment; - (I’ll try to cease using this word) while when we get there our horizons open. - This is - in a way at least - (that is to say - I’ll tell you when I get there) when we are truly born.

- In spite of the fact in Buddhism it is sometimes referred to as “death”.

- So in that birth the number of our days will truly be many.

It is possible to go somewhat further here, I prefer not to.

- Thirdly, - the John Lennon songs “Instant Karma” and “Whatever Gets You through the Night” are somewhat about this.

I won’t go over them word by word, I’ll just quote from “Instant Karma”: - “How in the world you gonna see? - Laughing at fools like me.”, - [- !] “Why in the world are we here?”, - and, - “Why on earth are you there?”, -^* and I will make a few references to “Whatever Gets You through the Night” too: -

“It’s your money or life”: - The money or your life implies materialistic pursuit, - no less common today - of course - than it was in 1974, - (when the album and single were released) versus spiritual development which is the natural and significantly-inherent purpose of our lives, as they are taking place here on Earth.

- That is, - it is of the choice of dedicating your life to worthwhile, living and reasonable aims - or to dead pursuit of material possession, - in following the common ways of a blind society.

- “Do it wrong or do it right” is similar to Sawaki Roshi’s “To know there is no way to fail in becoming a Buddha is issaichi^**. The night trains carry you along even when you are sleeping.”^***.

- “Don't need a watch to waste your time” is a dual meaning: - Else than the evident, immediate meaning, - “watch” (also) implies meditation, - which is perhaps the number one element in spiritual practice. - That is to say you don’t need meditation in order to waste your time, - or rather refers to the fact that if you completely ignore your life’s purpose for which you are here, - namely spiritual development or progress, - here generally implied by one of its primary tools - meditation - indicated by the “watch”, - then you are wasting your time.

- And your life.

(- though on the other hand there is another side to it Lennon doesn’t refer to, - but I’ll drop this here as well)

- It’s a bit like Master Seppo’s quote I’ll refer to next. (“Seppo Gison” is “Xuefeng Yicun” in Chinese, but I’m used to the Japanese pronunciations, so far at least.)

- “Out the blue or out of sight” refers to enlightenment (- explicitly so, - sorry to be using this word again) appearing out of the blue or being out of sight. - See the next line as well.

(The chorus is about how important the thing is, and the way people react when you try to tell them about it.)

Lennon evidently did not intend for the actual meaning of the song to be obvious to someone who knows nothing about all this. - And I need not expound about the reason. But in case of both songs, - the fact that this is what he was talking about is not in question for anyone who has a reasonable idea about the matter.

All my above (and below) references should be viewed in context of the songs and not independently. - I did not link but you can find the words very easily on the web. - Anybody in doubt who has a true teacher could inquire with his own teacher. - As I said it not open to interpretations, - though written in an inapparent way as to have only the acquainted comprehend.

Next is Master Seppo Gison’s quote you can find at the lower part of the blog page. The first part of the sentence again refers to the same matter I am here to support at this post. - Redemption is a facet of E often emphasized in the Eastern versions of the path.

The second part: - “people are not willing to enter even if they are dragged” - corresponds to what I said in my last post: - “humanity is not concerned about the way at all”.

- Last is Dogen’s quote I used as the title of this post. - It is a phrase appearing repeatedly in the Shobogenzo. Sometimes variated it seems.

- Living and dying implies reincarnation. - Nothing else. Teachers who claim otherwise either explicitly lie or know very little shit.

- But it is not only that, - but within the context I was talking about: - Life and death as enabling us to walk the path the Teaching of Master Dogen (- as many others, - that is) is about.

Coming and going implies ordinary daily actions within our lives. - But again, - it implies their value as contributing to the aim of creation. - As I said, - whatever we do here on Earth serves that purpose.^§ - Every action a human takes contributes to his inner being learning at least the slightest bit as a result of it. - And particularly in “Zen” its quiet and ordinary character has value in itself. - Noisy and obstructive outstanding actions might take you nowhere.

So it is about the value of simple everyday actions within the living structure of the far wider picture, - and suggesting their inherent significance minorically expressing it.

Here too, - this is not a subjective interpretation of the phrase. I can not see a way in which it could sincerely and seriously be interpreted otherwise.
At the time Master Dogen lived there was no problem. - Even though the story wasn’t generally told in full man has not yet lost his faith. Such a process was not even in its beginning.
So good old ever young Master Dogen Could express himself freely, - though this does not mean understanding was immediate to all.

I did not allow comments for this post. If you feel there is something you want to say you can do it under the previous one.
____________________________________________________________________

^* - Still, - I’d mention that “gonna knock you right the head” refers to intellectualism, - which is a barrier to spiritual development, - and that “what on Earth you tryinna do” implies the fact that that-for-which-we-are-here can only be achieved on here Earth, - not in higher realms.
^** The book from which the quote is explains “issaichi” as “the wisdom which understands the total aspect of phenomena”.
^***While the quote in the book says “train”, I changed it to “trains”. Japanese does not normally distinguish between single and plural, - and in the original text it seems quite obviously to mean both.
^§ This is an exact quote from the last post.

The gun at the picture above is the gun that killed John Lennon. It seems the asshole who took it imagined it to be of artistic value. - The stupidity of intellectuals can still be surprising, - apparently.

Genpo, Shimano etc

I don’t know much about the Genpo Roshi affair. - I read here and there, on the Internet, mainly on Brad Warner’s blog perhaps. I know almost nothing about Eido Shimano and the matters he’s been involved in, even though my first teacher (Rinzai sect) is a Dharma successor of Nakagawa Soen Roshi of Ryutaku-ji, - who has been Shimano’s teacher too.

I’d be interested to know and it’s quite easy on the web, but I can’t spare the time, - and the “head”, - as we say in Hebrew. (- today)

I’ve heard (actually - read) of other scandals following the mentioning of those of Dennis Merzel and Eido Shimano, and here too - very little. If you are reading this you are likely to be familiar with these things more than I am.

I don’t know the American scene. Quite thoroughly ignorant as for it.

And happily too, - btw.


- Still there might be a point I want to relate to.


- When I first had my first interest in the way - the spiritual path, - and for quite a while after, - several years at least, - I would see the way and religion as two different things - altogether apart. Unrelated.
I had no interest in religion.
- I assumed it to correspond to its appearance, - which I don’t even say it doesn’t.

- I recall when I met Kalo^* in 1990 (Tuesday, - October the 15^th) I was surprised at his (- unrequested) statement: (which I might still quite hate the sound of) “God exists”.

“God” was associated with religion. - I did not expect to hear anything about it.
(and I still do not see what’s the use of referring to the Reality by that name, or calling it that, - but perhaps there is still something to be learned)

- The point of “God” is irrelevant. I saw religion as people usually do. - Both secular and within the degenerated establishments.

I had no interest in religion. Actually it might be quite repulsive. I can certainly understand the way many intellectuals or extreme-materialists feel toward it.


- I suppose when I got to Nishijima’s Dojo in ’96 I still had this attitude, though I was familiar with the facts I intend to present here in this post already at this time.

It was sometime after that that my view changed. It doesn’t mean there were any facts I considered to be different. It’s somewhat like the way one feels toward things, - their interpretation. (- Still - such things can be quite real too - given that our mind at the outset is a practical tool.)

But then I didn’t think of religion as such a different thing from the way. - The path that aims at enlightenment or runs through it.

- It seems [- btw] this word is getting the status of a dirty one, in the house of Dogen, - as it presently extends to the west.

I don’t think this is correct. The situation in America today is greatly different from that in Japan 700 years ago. Things which may have been taken for granted then may be foreign to alien beings who are today joining the club.

I think this situation should be reconsidered.

Anyway - I suppose my change of view was much due to my stay at the Dojo, - though it only occurred sometime later. It seems to be that way for me not only then.


Again - anyway - now this seems to be strongly drawing us to what I tried to avoid in the last post. - Unavoidingly actually.

I might assume anyone trodding a spiritual path have a reasonable idea of what it is. “Zen” or Yoga or whatever. - Even with Sawaki Roshi’s “Zazen is good for nothing” people seem to parrot illogically taking it literally out of context.

However - as for religion, - in order to reasonably relate to what it is one can’t escape the questions of the existence of our planet and solar system, - and humanity - of what they are and how they came to be.

It is not that true teachers do not know this. It is easily understood why they avoid the subject. Some choose to explicitly lie. - While false teachers don’t even know they are supposed to know this, - in the non-dualistic schools at least - it seems, - so it doesn’t get heard at their places either.

Different religions have their stories of creation. This is not a new fact.

The pervading view today is of course that the whole physical plane - which is considered to be the whole of existence - is run by pure chance. - The appearance of everything within it is considered to be a consequence of completely random occurrences.
- The appearance of the Solar System, the Earth in particular, - and humanity which inhabits it - are merely the outcome of such processes and incidents.

I will not relate to how reasonable or unreasonable such an idea may be.

I will relate to the fact that it is untrue.

I do not expect anyone to take my word just because I say so.

At the same time I will not reasonably support my point at this point. Anyone interested can try and inquire for himself. It would be very difficult and probably far beyond anything I write here.

I will just state that our planetary system, including our home planet, - was brought into its present existence by intelligent beings who run the processes involved which are usually considered to be the fruit of pure coincidence. - That is - while humanity is a tool for individual beings who are born within it to attain to that which is known within Eastern religions as “Enlightenment”. - However shocking some may find this idea, - at least in the possibility of taking it to be true, - it can be said that that which the spiritual way is headed at - is originally the intentional aim of creation.

- I will here also refer to the fact that the statement in the Bible (Genesis 1:27) that God has created man in his own form refers to the fact that man is capable of “attaining” that enlightenment. (- I myself would have preferred not to use that word, - but I don’t want to leave room for absence of clarity.)

As for how things practically took place - the most reasonable description (in English at least) in my view you can find here. - It is not that I am saying it is all correct. I am quite confident it is not. - Contemporary materialistic so-called “science” as well changes its views once in a while. - Also the details are not relevant for the main point this post is to be about. - It doesn’t really matter for that. - And even among the writings or lectures of Mr. Steiner here you might find something which would be better than that. - That which I linked here is from a book I received years ago from a certain woman who doesn’t particularly seem to like Steiner very much, - which may very likely be the reason - in part - why she presented me with it after I initially borrowed it from her.

I prefer to relate to this point [here] as little as I can. It is an apparent fact that many will consider it ridiculous. And I am not (even) arguing as for its validity. - But without it it is generally impossible to practically make a correct assertion as for what a religion is, - here in this context, - and with my present (yet unfolded) intention, - at least.

And with the audience which might be reasonably assumed here at this blog.

- All [true] religions have been introduced by whoever they are - or whoever it is - who guide (- or guides - if you wish) humanity in its course of development, - whom of course do not [- or does not - that is] reside here at the physical plain as we ourselves do.^{[- i -]}

- That is - religions are to be a tool as for the primary cause and aim of creation. - Whatever we do here on Earth serves that purpose. But not in the same way. Our consciousness ever increases. [- else than when it doesn’t - that is] But religion is a sort of guide or stream as to promote this purpose. - Most would imagine today that the moral guidance introduced within religion is identical in principal to the moral rules, laws or attitude we encounter in secular culture. It is not. - I am not referring to the extent or magnitude of refinement, advancement, development, - or primitivity, - of the structure and content of the designated route. - The purpose is not the same purpose.

- I would say the interest of the Heavenly factors who source the vital stream lies primarily with its purifying effect and its creation of natural patterns within the action and mental-structure of individuals who accord with the guidance presented.

- It is not just about “justice” or rightness in themselves as we see it in the secular world.

Not only through moral guidance, - religions contribute to the development of men, women and humanity toward spiritual attainment their present form is created for the purpose of. - And toward what may easily be said to be its pinnacle or climax.

- This of course has to do with the Heavenly introduction of religion. - It does not mean every nonsense introduced through degenerated scholarship which develops with time is favorable in the first place.

- You might consider for example the words of Christ spoken to the [- Jewish] religious leaders of his time in Matthew 23.

(- Which might have - [- btw] particularly as having been delivered in public, - contributed to the addressees of these words having assisted their renowned severe criticizer in safely finding his way to the cross at the famous sight of Golgotha.)

This is as well true as for religions which have made or presently make no reference to anything of the sort of what I said, or apparently seem to just be altogether unrelated to it. - Which of course isn’t really a rare thing; - otherwise most of what I said might have been unnecessary. - Hindu might be quite clear about its objects. - In part at least. - But in Judaism, - which Christianity has acknowledgably sprang out of, - all you might be able to find is religious law, generally without any reasoning or elucidation as for. - Ancient religions too may seem altogether unrelated to the picture I present.

- As for the reason for this - you might generally speculate as I might, - or so it seems - to me at least.


My main point in the above discourse is that religion is an instrument as for the spiritual development of humanity - aiming at the point at which what we might call “the spiritual path” is aimed at and leads to. - The difference is religion is intended for the majority of humanity, - or reasonable portions of it at certain major zones, - while the path is intended for those who are ready to take a far more explicit trek.

- Humanity is all aimed at enlightenment. - That’s what it has been created for.
Through continuous reincarnations it moves steadily forward. - This is the purpose of reincarnation: - To allow repeated use of the human body in constant progress until it is no longer in need.         [- “it” here refers to reincarnation; - if you see it as referring to the human body, - though - it would still be correct]

The spiritual path, - or - “the way”, - (- which could also carry a far wider meaning, - far more inclusive which would also integrate religion [- as presented here, - that is] as well) may perhaps be seen as somewhat like a home stretch in the Earthly existence of an individual. - Though quite a long one in itself; - ranging - you might say - in most cases - it seems - beyond a single life span. - It is when one intentionally pursues the path, - not always recognizing it for what it is, - due to his own inclination, - or attraction, - or sometimes consideration too.

- And there may be those who imagine they follow it but actually don’t, - following the instruction of such silly cons as the notorious Andrew Cohen; - (- he does seem like the most classic example - though my knowledge of him is scarce) an instruction that is made easy and convenient as to suite the will of those who have never had true attraction to where they are suppose to and imagine to be aimed at.


- So, - as for what I was saying earlier: - Originally I saw religion and the way (- I will use this word hereafter in this post) as two different and unrelated things. - Originally, - perhaps, - because I knew nothing of what a religion is. - But after I did too: - I viewed the different as the significant or essential, - or somewhere around the vicinity of these.
- The fact is humanity is not concerned about the way at all.
- Almost, - that is. - These days especially, - or at least.
- So this was the point I tended to notice and evaluate. It is quite natural.

Somehow sometime after visiting Nishijima’s Dojo, - my view changed. I saw the identity of the purpose and the as-if-possible-continuous-link as meaningful. And I generally thought of the way and religion as one.

- Nishijima - like many others - does not relate to the difference at all, - you might say. - He speaks of Buddhism. - He does speak of the will to the truth. - He does not neglect its importance. - But he does not relate at all to the difference between Buddhism as offered to the great humanity, and its practice by those for whom the will to the truth does have (real) significance.

I could mention as well, - that in anything I came across on the net referring to the incidents the title of this post suggests - the difference I am referring to was never suggested, and its existence has never been implied. - Nor in anything else I came across on the web, - as far as I can remember. - There is just “Buddhism”, - no distinction.

After the incidents you might assume this post is to be about, - not right away, but after some (- not necessarily intentional) regarding thoughts have been [quite freely] crossing my mind, - I quite tended to return to my previous view.

- To value the differences and see them as significant.

Buddhism, Christianity, and contemporary scholarism

- The question of what does Buddhism have to offer to westerners in general and perhaps Americans in particular, - and perhaps generally speaking - to that society which originally was of Abrahamic religions, - is practically and essentially to be divide - to a great deal at least - into two separate questions.

- This is why I went into all that I did just above.

It is true that I may be happy to make all the references to the occult, - but I would have preferred to avoid them, - for now at least.


- One question would be what does Buddhism have to offer to the general public, - i.e., - to those of it who find interest in it, - of course.

And a second question would be what would it be able offer to individuals who find interest in the way, - to those who have an inner inclination to pursue or seek that which is described by those who have come to know it as ineffable.

- And my first main point in this lengthying post - is that these two questions are not the same.

I might quote from Shobogenzo Baike: -

“My late master, the eternal buddha, does not easily grant monks’ requests to stay at the temple. He usually says, “People who are accustomed to not having the will to the truth are not permitted in my place.” He sends them away at once. Having got rid of them he says, “Without being a genuine person, what do they want to do? Dogs like that disturb others. They cannot stay.””.^**

- It is not necessarily exactly what I am talking about, - I don’t know the situation in China, - at the time or generally. - Were we talking about Japan I could say it is not exactly the same. - But the idea is similar and the difference I am talking about is here evident: - Tendo would never dream - of course - of having any objection to these people being Buddhists in the first place.

- I’m not saying I like the quote. - It may be somewhat out of place here in this context. - But it does display some sort of difference nobody would doubt, - not seriously at least - I believe.

As for the second question: - (I am here altering the order, - it seems more convenient) Has a person established the will for the truth, or has it naturally arisen, - or is it perhaps - I guess - in some stages of developing too, - it may be somewhat insignificant which way would he choose.

- The fact that Christianity exists where it does, the fact that Buddhism exists where it does, the fact that Hindu and Islam have spread as they did and are available in the regions in which they are, - is not without reason. - This will be significant when we return to the first question. - But generally religions suit the population where they arise and spread. - I don’t necessarily mean this is true in the last decades too.

- But still - anyway - for an individual who is genuinely attracted to the spirit, or to the truth, or to his or hers actualization of being a living part of humanity, - such environmental background or characteristics are not that dominant. - One’s personal tendencies might be much more significant.

I have recently^* come across a post on Brad Warner’s blog where he refers to a woman asking him about the choice of her way. - In my view, - the most significant factor in such a case is which does one find more attractive. - Assuming we are talking about real paths and real teachers - not of the sort of the joker [- AC] I have mentioned earlier, - assuming we are referring to real ways, and the question is just which is better for a particular individual person - I would say in most cases the way one finds more appealing is the one that would actually suit him better.

I am not saying this is without exceptions. - But usually Rinzai would be better for a person who likes Rinzai and Soto would be better for a person who likes Soto. - It seems to me the main question this woman ought to consider is which [form of] meditation she is better found of. - As they are not necessarily at all alike. (- They may be quite alike compared to some altogether different stuff, - but then this does seem irrelevant here.)

Anyway - what I wanted to make a point of here is that with regard to the second question (discussed first here) it is true that Buddhism could be very suitable for men and women who find attraction to it.


However, - as for Buddhism taking its place as a religion in the occident - the situation may be quite different.

- This does not mean that there would not be individuals for whom the bargain would be right and in its correct place.

- The question is how small would the minority be and how insignificant.

I recall Papa-ji (- H.W.L Poonja, a Hindu Advaita teacher, picture on the right) once asked: - “Where do you find 500 people with the will for the truth?”. - Well, - of course, - he meant that you don’t. - Such a number is not reasonable.

- When I hear of a “Zen” center in the west with five hundred members it feels strange. - It doesn’t feel natural.

And this is where all that I have been bringing up here might link to the scandals you might expect me to be discussing here instead of all that you’ve had the chance to come across by now so far. - Sorry if you find it disappointing but you can always Google for sex. - Or Bing.


- If I think of such a center it seems the attendees were somehow misguided as for what they are coming for. - I don’t mean intentionally. - But the general idea might have been somehow misinterpreted for them: - As the whole picture I have been drawing is nothing near known to either humanity [of course] or to practitioners, - [- in most cases - it seems] the possibility of an occurrence of such a situation may be quite more realistic and common.

And it is not only due to that - of course.


The first question (here second) would have to do with the extent to which Buddhism could take its place as a religion in the west.

And this may be the place to mention - in case my - quite fantastic in the eyes of many I suppose - presentation, - is accepted - the true value that is reflected by such statements as that religion is “the opium for the masses”, (- or - “of the people” - as in the original quote) and thus also the true quality that is quite equally reflected - of the actual human material which produces such statements.

- And also - the wrongness of the view which sees religion - in part - as some sort of a primitive form of psychology.

- However, - as for the question itself - the question is how suitable is it for the people.

- Does the glove fit the hand?


And I don’t see room for analysis. - Perhaps somebody could. - But it seems quite impractical.

- But - then again - the feeling is quite clearly that it could not substitute Christianity. (- Nor could Christianity substitute Buddhism in its Eastern grounds - in case it makes anyone feel better; - and otherwise too, - btw.)


Here I might come upon another point which would differ than the view of many - and on different sides too:

- Many would take it for granted that Christianity is available in abundance in the world that is known to be Christian.

I would say that is not at all so.


- I don’t think that which any of the Christian churches today has to offer to the general public who would regard them as religious authorities is of the form Christianity should reasonably take on today, - or could actually justifiably even be called by that name. - Having been born and raised in Israel I have very little knowledge of the matter. - But I do imagine - still - I could say none of them reflects the true spirit of Christianity or its understanding. (I suppose Christianity did not rely upon understanding throughout the last 2000 years; I suppose the situation will not be the same in the next similar period.)

I could again refer to the state of Judaism at the time of Christ reflected in the chapter I linked above.


- There was Christianity. - It may be found here and there - today too. - But I don’t think any of the organizations known as churches does advertize it. - Again: - Suppose my story is true, - what would come a priest - in any of the churches you might know - who tries to advertize it, - or even generally just bring it up?

- I have recently come across news of an unknown Indian tribe traced in Brazil, - (see here too) completely detached from civilization - unless I got it wrong.

- They see airplanes. - They’ve been spotted by such.

- Now suppose they ask you what an airplane is. - Or perhaps you just want to tell them. - And suppose you tell them it’s a big bird. - Because practically they won’t understand better.

- Of course it isn’t. - It isn’t a living being at all.

And then your story goes down through the ages.

And suppose conditions change, and technology perishes, - as in some science fiction stories I might have read when I was a child, or a teenage.

- Airplanes don’t exist anymore, but the church insists on the story.

And then some wise scientist comes up and makes clear such a bird could never have existed.

Fools fight fools, - and those who do have a real and reasonable idea are wise enough to shut up.

(- As in the words of Lao Tse: - “He who knows does not speak; He who speaks does not know.”.)

And the image of religion may then be constructed according to misinterpretations of anachronistic fairy tales neither side really understands.

(+ : - btw - sometimes It’s not even that. - It seems some of the quotes the church used to rely on as to assert the Earth could not possibly be in motion simply do not say that. - It’s just bad translations.
- As I can read and speak Hebrew I can make that statement very unequivocally.)

The above parable is not meant to be perfect, - it is not 1:1, - if you get the general idea just forget it.

+ Back to the subject: - (sorry about the delay)


So, - it is that many, - both secular and religious - would imagine Christianity to be what the churches market or have to market.


In my view it was a great pity if this was about all there may be to it.


If you accept my account given earlier - again - the rerise of Christianity in particular and of religion in general is inevitable.

If you use your common sense and the most ordinary eyes every man normally has, - it will not appear overnight.

We can not expect it at present.


But if you take what you imagine to be Christianity to be what it actually is, - it doesn’t seem like anything we could expect anything much of in the future of humanity.

- It seems like a very poor glove.


- And then you’d say, - “- wtf, - this Christ thing is nothing, - It’s not even something we can take seriously”. - And you don’t see things in the actual perspective and framework or the way they are.


- I do say what the churches have to offer is not something you can plant.

It’s not even a tree.


But if you get what I’m trying to say you might notice Buddhism somehow doesn’t fit the ground.


I’m not saying it’s wrong. - Obviously. - It seems to be a way I follow though I’ve never chosen to receive precepts.


But the bottom line of this long road I’ve been leading through all the above words is: -

“Isn’t Buddhism trying to spread too wide?”.


These may have been somewhat of an expensive two cents, - but that’s it, - either way - here in this brief and light fifth blog post.
_________________
^* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Kalo
^{[- i -]} Steiner Speaks of beings who have completed their development on an earlier incarnation of this Earth of ours, who are at present the “leaders and guides” of humanity, - while beings who have not been able to complete their development at the same time and under the same circumstances are serving them for that purpose. (- as “angels”)
You might find some about that in the lecture previous to the one I’ve linked, (up at the post - that is) and in the one here too. - I suppose the natural place to look for it would mainly be in a book called “Occult Science, - An Outline” (- “Geheimwissenschaft im Umriss” ) but I don’t really know this book. - I’m not that versed in Anthroposophy.
^** The above quote is from the Nishijima-Cross translation. (Book 3)
- Nearman gives: -

“My late Master, the Old Buddha, did not readily allow new monks to stay in the monastery. He would often say, “Those who are unfamiliar with the mind that seeks the Way cannot dwell here with me,” and then he’d send them on their way. Once rid of them, he would say, “If they are not ‘such a one’, what, pray, do they want to achieve? Dogs like that are noisy beings. They are not permitted in the monastery.””.

<sup>* - Well it was recent when I wrote it. - It has taken me so long to write this post that it may no longer be. [that recent]
- But it is not really that important.</sup>

Religion: - My View (of a Certain Point)

- Many people seem to have an altogether wrong idea of what a religion is. - It seems generally in western religions it is not indicated at all. - Who-ever-it-is speaks to Abraham, and then he speaks to Moses, and he never indicates who is he or what is he, - or why should one actually do as he pleases or accept or follow his instructions in the first place.

- Then Jesus comes, and again he does not tell us who his father in heaven is, or what might he be, - or why should we be interested in according with the will of this unknown family member of his. (or ours)

- Further - he does not seem to generally intend for anyone to understand or figure out what the “Kingdom of Heaven” (or “Kingdom of God”) he repeatedly mentions actually is.

- Heaven or hell may be mentioned in different religions, - (and fortunate or unfortunate karma in the east) but that doesn’t seem to go anywhere beyond the persuasive attitude you might find with the mafia: - There too possibly presented with at least the pretention of a certain touch of good will. (- Of course it is not identical, but the principle does not reflect loftiness.)

- However: - I am not about what a religion is. - That would carry us far beyond the matter I wanted to discuss, and beyond this question itself, - onto further fundamental matters I don’t really give that much of a shit about. (- The last 10 words are merely intended to be humorous; - joking - that is.)

- Still: - One main point with regard to that still would be that various presentations presented by those who did have a true and clear idea [- of what a religion is] were suitable and appropriate for the time (and place) they were given.

(- which might also tell us something about why do religions tend to become as degenerated as they - apparently - sometimes do)

- Still again - as religions do often tend to become as degenerated as they practically do, - the general meaning and intention may be to a great deal lost.

- The situation would not be rare when those who do know would present a distorted and wrong view to their innocent audience - since otherwise they would not be believed. This may be especially true in case the very same audience has had the opportunity of listening to the same things off another who presented them similarly for similar reasons. - Though conversely those with (only) a scant (and emotional) idea might freely elaborate.

- Might be the nature of our planet. - Perhaps.

However, - again, - I said I am not about what a religion is. - Same is true for all of the above. - It is not yet what I’m at.

- In the past believing certain (religious) claims seemed to be considered as having moral value: - Having a certain opinion might have been considered morally “good”, while holding others would have been viewed as negative, - in the “moral” sense.

- I don’t know how beneficial might have such an attitude been in earlier times, - whichever ones you name or pick. - I suppose however seemingly stupid it existed for a reason and had its benefit, - however scant. - It does not mean it might be a way I’d choose, - at any time, - or that I could somehow see it as being for the better in an overall view in any sort of way.

Either way - I can not see a way in which it could be viewed as acceptable today. And I can not see how could any person - i.e. - not a sleeping one - view things differently. - Today of course.

Still this is not yet my point.

- One other thing before I get to what this post was originally intended to be about: -

Religious people might often be insincere. They feel obliged to believe certain “truths”, - and their surroundings might also expect it of them. It seems sincerity might sometimes be foreign to such surroundings. - I am not familiar with Christianity, - I live in Israel. Christianity and Judaism are not of the same character, - they feel different, and the people are different too. Not due to the religions themselves only - it seems. But I assume the idea, or principle, - is the same. - Individuals do not much like to be confronted with certain ideas, and at certain points would prefer to avoid logic or common sense.

- This of course does not apply to all. - But the phenomenon seems undeniable.

In olden days the situation has obviously been different. And materialistic men would only see the other side and imagine religions as a rule are nothing but the primitive empty thing they are quite simple mindedly in the habit of seeing them as. - But again this is a wide and serious matter in itself and I am not getting into it here in this post. - I have no plans for the future. I allow this blog to follow its course and I can’t always see where it leads. - No doubt it feels right.

- I assume the general line I have described would be able to prove typical in most major religions, today, - though some^(*) are just fanatics and aren’t even troubled by common sense, and some - on the other hand, - might have an open mind and question sincerely.

- That which brought me to write this - is - as I said - not yet all this.

Some religious men might consider themselves believers, - but when you ask them as for concrete facts this belief would or might relate to - you might get a considerably different picture.

That which I wanted to relate to in this post is that unlike some unawaringly do imagine - it seems - religion does not have its own quarters, or patio, or area - some sort of a private sphere the facts in which are not obliged to fully correspond to those of reality. - If you believe - you believe. - If you don’t believe - you don’t believe. There is no possibility to have a certain view as a religious man, - while seeing the same object (either a phenomenon or an elaboration of a phenomenon) in a view that would practically be contradicting to the first.

- It seems obvious, but it also seems there are those who favor forgoing their clear eyesight.

- It does not of course mean one has to know everything. - It’s fine if you don’t know. - Or your idea may be vague.

Clearly this is not what I am talking about.

Though of course it is not possible also to hold a certain opinion as-if-within-a-religious-sphere, - while claiming to be ignorant about the same matter in another context.

- Religion is fundamentally obliged to reality as science is. - Religion and science (and art as well) do not exist in separate universes. - It is a common view today as if religion and science are contradictory. - It is a stupid assumption. - On both sides. - Religion may be wrong or science may be wrong. - Practically today both would many times be severely wrong. - To the extent of ridiculing their own being according to the revered aim they are to be running themselves in accordance with. - Or not that far from that - anyway. - But in principle - they should fit each other and match and act in mutual assistance.

- If a man who holds the contemporary assumptions of now-a-days’ “science” sees religion as a ridiculous phenomenon in itself - this might make some sense, - but if accepting a religious or spiritual path would cause a person to reject what may be said to be the scientific principle - this would means this person is negating reality, - in which his aforementioned chosen path reside as well.

- - -

All this does not apply only to science and phenomenal facts. - It is also true of philosophy and its views. I have somewhat referred to this once in a comment on Brad Warner’s blog.

- Teachers or leaders of Buddhism might sometimes say - “In Buddhism we believe this or that”, - or - “Buddhism says so and so”. - In case this is merely a technique of avoiding controversy as for what they themselves know to be a solid fact, - this is acceptable. - But it seems this is often not exactly the case as it is.

- It seems to be a means of making a statement without actually making it - as if.

- As if Buddhism has its own sphere detached from reality just as I referred to before. - Plus, - beyond the question of the correctness of the idea in itself there is also the question of whether such an attitude contributes to the mind of the recipient, - and does it nurture it, - or does it contribute to the degeneration of this mind and it it nurtures.

- The point I think should be clear - and it does not only of course apply to Buddhism - though this seems to be an example I am more familiar with - is that Buddhism (- as any other religion or teaching) does not reside within itself, and does not have its own residence. - Many misunderstand this, - but all religions are means for existence within reality. - Though this statement could easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the contemporary materialistic line of thought.

- Buddhism describes reality. - Buddhism does not describe Buddhism.

- Christianity, Islam, Hindu, - the case is not different. No religion aims at itself. No religion is its own purpose. All religions lead you beyond themselves, - in my view - to the extent they are true religions. - As any decent school or academy would. - Though some, - both within the “religious” and academic establishments may have it severely wrong. - In most cases these may be revealed to be well educated - in their own [- conformative] view - blockheads, - self esteemed in a way which may permit very little point in communicating to their authoritative highness.

But this is another matter this article is not about.

I am saying one who teaches Buddhism or guides people in its path should dare speak about reality.^(†) - Same with any other path or spiritual system.

And it is of course only natural. - Otherwise the teaching would be pointless.

Attempting to avoid a point by a means as described above is not legitimate. - Not in my view.

- I’m saying it should always be remembered that religion describes reality and acts within it. - Not any other way.

. . . . .

- I once came upon a statement one can not master “Zen”.

- What is mastering “Zen”?

- “Zen” teaches us action in reality. - “Zen” does not teach “Zen”. - As long as one is living within “Zen”’s local hut one is still entrapped by the teaching, rather than freed by it, - it seems, - and it doesn’t seem it can be said to be fully embodied.

- Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t suppose anything can be mastered at all. - Rather one goes “beyond” mastering, - or rather - correctly - mines underneath - prior to it, - turning up with its meaninglessness.

- But that’s just beside the point.

. . . . .

I guess it was easier for religions in olden times.

Some lived in accord, - see Jonah 1:5-11, 14, 16,^(‡) - and for many, - perhaps in somewhat of a later time - the attitude must have been - “We are right, - and just fuck the rest” - [that’s when things do get somewhat degenerated] which must have considerably contributed to the simplicity of the teaching.

- Now a days, - living in accord - with materialism and secularity - seems to tend to ask for, - or require, - a price - I don’t think necessarily has to be paid.

I suppose I made my point.


__________________
^(*) I here mean “some” as “some individuals”, - not “some religions”. And same with the second “some” in the same sentence.
^(†) I do not mean here the [ultimate] Reality, - “God”, - the universe, - or whatever you may call it. - I’m just using the word in the common way.
^(‡) I did not verify the English translations. I read the (original) Hebrew. From reading a few verses here and there (mainly on BibleGateway) it seems existing translations of the Bible are not very good. But I assume as for the general idea at least, with regard to the chapter I mentioned, - whichever translation you may choose ought to be sufficient.

A Point about Math

- The following I have not read or come across anywhere.


I’d say in mathematics there are fundamentally three or four fundamental forms or structures.

[- We could say three. - The fourth would questionably be relevant for it.]

- Or perhaps I should say in geometry. - But it hardly seems to matter. - To me.


The first is the [single] point. - That would correspond to materialism.

- I am not looking for a definition, [for a single point] and I doubt whether one could be given or is necessary.


The second is the [- infinite, - i.e.] straight line.

Seeing it as reaching the infinite and piercing through it, - (- which is the way it is usually viewed in modern mathematics, - fwiw) would mean it is actually the same as a circle of an infinite radius. - For it is a closed line the convexity of never changes. [- That is to say - if you see it as able to connect to itself through the infinite. - The view is not as if there is a different infinite at each direction you might trod in, - but as if whichever direction you move in there is the same single one [point at the] infinite you encounter, - and cross - following this view - returning from the opposite side. [- i.e. - in the same direction]]

- Though again, - according to the common view - it does have any point you could call its center.^{[- * -]}

That would correspond to idealism.


- That is to say the point would be a geometrical symbol of materialism, - expressing its portion of the spirit in that way; - and the straight line would - in the same way - be an expression of idealism.


The third one would be the graphical description of the function e^x - in the mathematical system or structure known as the real quaternions.

- The real quaternions [- often just referred to as “the quaternions”, - as far as I can remember] form a four dimensional space.

Therefore the form regarded would be an eight dimensional form.

- Therefore, - of course - it can not be imagined. - Not in any way that I could manage to imagine, - at least. - And quite certainly not by very very nearly the whole of humanity.

- What I am about to say - as you might easily predict or expect - is that it corresponds to realism.

Still it might be somewhat meaningless if you haven’t got the faintest idea of what it looks like.

- Still - I will not try to describe.

Its form in the [single dimensional] real field may be quite well known. - However, - on the other dimensions of the quaternion space it might be quite different.

- One who could contribute a link on the comments section where partial views of it could be visualized it might be welcome. - I suppose a software by which 3, - or even 4, - dimensional cuts of it could be displayed could be easily fashioned - but I haven’t come across any such thing that seemed worthy of posting in my view.

- Anyway - I do say this form or structure is the third fundamental form - unique among all others no less than the two others here earlier mentioned - I believe, - and with equivalent importance - both for mathematics itself and as a symbol of philosophical ideas and systems, - and that it would correspond to realism and express it as the two other preliminary ones would express the other two matching views.

I do not know what its value for mathematics would or might be, - and I don’t wish to guess because if I’m wrong it might lead some to assume I was wrong altogether.


The fourth would not be very significant for mathematics, - it is beyond the field of mathematics, - it seems: - It would be just the whole universe as it is. - Simple and dry. - Beyond the sphere of all ideas and the embodiment and inherence of them all. - Not conforming to expectations, but in a way in full accord with them all.


So far as for that. I suspect that different parts of the exponential function (e^x - the third form I mentioned, - the eight dimensional one) might correspond to different parts of realistic philosophy, - but I could say nothing about that.

I can not rationally justify my idea. - Not in its entirety at least. Not for now anyway.

I rely mainly on an inner conviction. - But I believe some of the readers can - and will - grasp my notion and share my confidence.

- Even at the absence of an explicit illustration.


- Still - one other thing: -


- Christianity has its cross. - This is known to all. - Islam has its crescent moon. - Judaism - the Star of David. - Hindu might have its Aum symbol.

- But as far as I recall - from-I-can’t-remember-how-long-ago, - Buddhism did not have a sign or a symbol. - It seems the wheel used today to indicate Buddhism is rather a recent idea, - probably chosen artificially as to liken it to other religions; - perhaps seeing it as necessary - either in a trivial or in a somewhat essential way.

- However - what I want to point here - is - that the third form or shape I related to earlier - is the true [- i.e.: - natural -] sign of Buddhism.

Of course it cannot be drawn on a two dimensional paper. Or presented on a computer screen.


- I also suspect the eight dimensions of this form could be related to the eight lanes of the eight fold path.

- Again - I don’t know how. - Though it seems the four dimensions of the quaternions could easily fit “the four world views”, - or the four dimensions of the world we live in.


So far,
Ran.
_______________________
^{[- * -]} - If you observe the way a circle is usually (chosen to be) “defined”, - as the set of points at an equal distance from a certain one single point, - and if you then choose to examine what would a circle of an infinite radius than be - then for each-point-which-does-not-lie-at-the-infinite (as its center) it would give the point at the infinite exclusively itself alone, - which might still make some sense; - (- though than you would get a circle every-point-in-the-interior-of- which is a center of - a circle with an infinite number of centers - each qualifying for your chosen “definition”) but if we are still to ask what would a circle of an infinite radius be if its center is at the infinite, - than it would follow that such a circle would constitute of all other points in the plain: - the whole of the plain minus the point at the infinite which is said to be its center.

- Given that this is hardly what we would expect or want a circle to be, - it may certainly be that the common definition is faulted and does not reflect the correct and natural view.