Here's the flier for the gig in Israel. I can't read it. But I'm guessing the complete location and suchlike are contained here.
Yasser Marrowfat and the Peas Process!Don't forget!H.
You tease. I'm still waiting for that "why I don't quote Buddha" so you must not be a real Buddhist essay you promised.
Damned! Third!Harry, do you have a palantir or what?Oh! Yes! Now I know!You must be the avatar of Brad.Shalom and Alu akbar,Gerald
On Sunday Brad wrote:This may be my last posting for a while.Since then we've seen TWO posts. That proves he is not qualified to teach Zen. Or something.
You tease. I'm still waiting for that "why I don't quote Buddha" so you must not be a real Buddhist essay you promisedMaybe Brad doesn't quote Buddha because he's never read any sutras.Maybe he doesn't quote Buddha because he does not believe the Buddha spoke any of the words attributed to him.Maybe he doesn't quote Buddha because Brad's version of soto zen is more like a cult that worships Dogen.Maybe he doesn't quote Buddha because if you quote the Buddha on a blog you should kill him.
Uhn, Jinzang, I think there's been THREE posts since then unless this cough syrup just kicked in and I cain't count anym
Christ! Just look at the length of the the headless Elvis guy's arms in the picture from the previous post. Sweet sister of Jesus! What a great capture!CAPTCHA : lumberer : I kid you not
I just called them on the phone. [PD]They said the it's limited to 40 people and is already full.
Sir Monier Monier-Williams, in his Sanskrit-English Dictionary (1899?), reckons:haMsa -a goose, gander, swan, flamingo (or other aquatic bird, considered as a bird of passage; sometimes a mere poetical or mythical bird, said in Rg Veda to be able to separate soma from water, when these two fluids are mixed, and in later literature, milk from water when these two are mixed; also forming in Rg veda the vehicle of the ashvins, and in later literature that of brahmA; ifc. also = "best or chief among") Rg veda....the soul or spirit (typified by the pure white colour of a goose or swan , and migratory like a goose; sometimes "the Universal Soul or Supreme Spirit", identified with virAj, nArAyaNa, viSNu, shiva, kAma, and the Sun; [when] dual "the universal and the individual Spirit"; accord. to sAyaNa resolvable into ahaM sa, "I am that").Fascinating! captcha = cohin, as in cohen/Kohen?And so on and so forth, for ever and ever. Amen.
Nice, Malcolm.Ramakrishna was known as Parama Hamsa, "Great Swan."&The book by Nisargadatta (available online in its entirety) entitled I AM THAT is a must read IMHO.
Hamsa [that's not really the exact word but that’s as close as you can get in English] simply means “five” in Arabic.Would we have six fingers SM would have linked it to Sita. (i.e. - six in Arabic)I kind of regret having mentioned the possibility that I might miss ykw.Stupidity doesn't seem to have any limits.It's like a child giving you a detailed account about sex based on things other children have written. [- I mean those who are yet unable to experience sexual desire or attraction]However detailed and meticulous you might immediately discern its worthlessness.Intellectuals are stupid. By nature and by definition.And of course they can’t figure out what “intellectual” means. - Otherwise they wouldn’t be ones.Sorry Mysti, but it’s really annoying ignorance, not because I want to believe something, but because you’re so obviously and stupidly (- am I using this word too much, - lately?) wrong. It’s kind of squeaking in its dry sound, and it’s troubling as it might mislead others.
That was a (non)objective objection. [maybe "pseudo objectivity" instead of real "objectivity".] - else [In someone’s possible non-humble opinion.] And - with regard to M. - I am afraid that what might be might also not be. I love the smell of my own farts as [you] do. But then these get things tend to be (over) discussed so often. I might remove this later.
It should be a "these things get" after "But then".and [as you do] was not to imply that you like the smell of my farts.
Yo Brad, Hello from Finland.... check this out:http://laughterlife.tumblr.com/post/732005362/heavenly-combination-the-one-on-the-left-imYou are coming with me through Europe. Thanks!
Hi John e, Heard you mention "I am That" a few times. I've found a pdf, and I'll check it out. Thanks.
Mysterion,what the hell is your profession?Sometimes I imagine, you are the allwise, whitebearded man, whom some people called God or so...A fan,Gerald
Ma108colm, I'm pleased you are giving I AM THAT a look.After my Sufi teacher of 20 some years died, I considered Nisargadatta to be my root guru. He was able to elucidate so many points that had remained obscured in Ramana Maharshi's Advaita teachings, and really just cut the crap and get to the heart of the matter.Eventually (thanks to him) I learned that you have to leave all teachings and teachers and go with your own direct experience.
Love the Bros. Grimm, as well, M.What say you of James Hillman?Spring Pubs??
I'm not that.
Give Hillman's A BLUE FIRE a look sometime, Mysterion.The PRS library is (or was, perhaps its been pilfered) famous for Manley Hall's col of rare alchemical (and other) manuscripts. Never been there myself, though.I gave ESOTERICA online mag (Michigan State U.) one time rights to a painting to use for their 3rd issue (10 years ago?), later a few issues down the line they ran that Omnipotent Oom paper you have something from posted on your blog, I recall.My favorite flakes are probably hands down the URANTIA book peeps... Brad doesn't seem to have any real "followers," -just a few "readers."
Anonymous Mysterion.. He is a funny man.
[again] @ 12:32 & 12:37 pm is AB's girl friend's son.But then I guess that's clear.
I do like the smell of my own farts.I guess that's why R wouldn't date my mom.But I can understand Bob now.
I won't date your mom cause I think that's inappropriate.I think she intentionally lets you play around so the bothered ones would grant her the favor.But then that’s just an assumption, - that's true.For now.
Wow, with all that fiction, ie; Tripitaka, Mahabharata, Zend Avesta, QBL, the Setuagint, the Torah, Talmudh, Tanach, the Byzantine Bibles, the Alexandrian Bibles, the 27 current (a.k.a. modern) biblical versions, and the Qur'án, research, where's time for fun?I prefer Faulkner, Lowry, Nabakov...
- to Mysterion - @ 2:23: [am](I missed it at first)An intellectual in not a person possessing intellectual ability.An intellectual is a person who is unable to see what true wisdom is. - The intellect - without denying its value - is the shallowest form of thought. An intellectual is one who blindly relies on it - unable to see it for what it is. [*]Such a person may be very intelligent, - but often is not.I really don’t see a way of further clarifying this here, [**] this is one thing zazen is for, - but I might quote Nishijima, - once - quite spontaneously - replying to something I (wrongly) said: -“Intellectual thinking is nothing!”.- I did not state the quote you quoted as to imply it’s true because I say so, - or seeing myself as an authority you ought to accept.- I thought, and still am confident, - that some - on coming upon these words, will see things for themselves; that some can notice the facts, in the same way I did.This is why I wrote them.I am not the only one who knows this – though many might consider it unworthy of trying to express.However, - It is not surprising you don’t, but assuming you do have a teacher whom you can see face to face, you might ask him.Or you might ask anyone you consider worthy, among your acquaintances, though if you do ask another intellectual – [- sorry] you should be able to see for yourself that this would be of little worth. [- sorry again]Else - I am also getting the impression (and also seem to be expressing myself very careful here) that your reactions (not here only) might verify – in part – the truth in my words right after those you quoted.[I believe dictionary definitions might also be wrong here. I can guess how some will respond to that. - … the eye of the plum blossom … (… - vs. the freedom of speech …) [***]]- With regard to your last words - Some fundamentalists can be extremely intelligent. Especially in Judaism. Though their sincerity is limited. They don’t always want to see reason. - It is not possible for a fundamentalist to know what true faith is. - Though he might speak of it from here to eternity. - Their idea of faith is quite close to yours.But this isn’t what it’s about. I notice you mentioned it in another post. I might relate to it later.Also – among the intellectually unable there may be many who have nothing to do with fundamentalism.Though the phenomenon you mentioned does exist.- I think the great majority of republicans are Americans, Aren’t they?[;)]___[*] - due to his shallowness of mind[**] though I might ask what is the difference between intelligence and wisdom, in your view[***] I’m not sure everybody are meant to get the joke here.
Somebody just shoot me.
I seriously had a dream in which I was first to comment on Brad's latest post. Then I forgot it was a dream and logged in this morning to see what I wrote, and there's Harry! natch :/
Anon,Don't feel so bad. I had a dream this morning that I missed first place, and that I sucked. Then I logged in and... Fonzy! Mirror! Comb moment!!!I hereby dedicate the merit to you and yours.Regards,Harry.Captcha: subsoak
... as the entire sky believes he is viewing the frog.Harry: Aaaaayyyyyy !
A population of frogs in a well, living on a basis which seem to be permanent, might doubt the existence of the sky altogether.(Some wells might have a roof above them, - let us assume ours may be such.)- And as some frogs who do manage to climb out and have a look at the sky, [or otherwise attain this or that knowledge of its existence] and try and let their fellowfrogs know about the existing world outside, - Mysterion the savior will rise, and point to the similarity in their reports: - They all describe the same color, [not only they speak of blue - they all speak of light blue, and if you carefully examine their scriptures you notice they all reflect the same hue] they all speak of those funny things they call “clouds"; their reports are also suspiciously similar in many other details with regard to so the called “world” they imagine to exist under the their brutally senseless sky.Whence we can clearly conclude that one senseless man is copying what another has poorly imagined.Existence out side the well is only for fools to consider.Let us not point our thoughts in such a futile manner.- Not only that - but while one would assert the colour of the sky is unchangeable light blue, which could slightly resemble that of the water, (in our rationally existing universe, within our familiar well brick walled well – that is, - of course) in another report we unmistakably find the sky being described as black, [!!!] sometimes with bright [mythical] elements referred to as “stars” which are clearly and undoubtedly distinguished from the “clouds” [- ???!!!, I mean, - really …] the first claims the existence of. (- as many of his reminiscents)Also religious followers might [actually] be as stupid as M describes them. - Some frogs don’t believe because they have any wits - but simply because they’ve been so told. -Sons of religious usually remain religious and sons of secular usually remain secular. - Do they not?- Such mild unwitty men who imagine themselves men of faith while not actually knowing what it is, might try and conclude that stars are clouds.While religion is ruled by such men - this is what it would look like and this is what it would come to be. And if a stupid man of a different kind might notice the ridiculousness they might be laughed at. After generations of degeneration nobody even imagines the system could be different.- Further than that, the situation is such, - in our world today, that people like Brad or Nishijima, or any other master, - would not tell their followers or audience the truth, in general, about these things, - as the response would be as we might easily expect, and the result may be that people would no longer have any interest in listening and would flee from practice.- So many hear what they are willing to believe, and with time, zazen, or some other practice, will get them to know the rest, or prepare them to hear it.The Hindu have a story about God Indra who has (somehow) been transformed into a pig, - and decisively and consistently refused to believe in any existence of gods, Indra himself included, - perhaps particularly; - (- I don’t remember) not to mention the idea of he himself being just it.His views (as a swine) seem to have been quite similar to those of Mysterion, assuming believers fool themselves.This story is somewhat similar; though basically seems to be meant to imply that the frog is in itself the entire sky, which means it’s OK if you sit Zazen at the bottom of your well, whatever you believe. [*]Mysterion says he does not believe anything - I doubt that.___[*] Dogen says something about that somewhere, as far as I remember, - about the unimportance of one’s views since zazen relies on direct experience, but I haven’t been able to find that.
Yes, Buddhism has evolved in many forms but what of Buddha Dharma?I like your form with your dog, so great, Mysterion, you remind me of Mr. Hulot sometimes, hanging out with us young whippersnappers here. Have you seen Mon Oncle?Peace Mr. Eon :)
placed there by an accident of nature...
Stop boring up the place.
1ti @ 4:42 am: Par. 4, line 2 - replace "man" for "frog".
51Nun Vau Aleph --- to be nothing, naughty, or wicked.To make effort, to labor, to toil.To be exhausted, to suffer; to earn by one's work.ROFLMAO
Dogen says something about that somewhere, as far as I remember, - about the unimportance of one’s views since zazen relies on direct experience, but I haven’t been able to find that.And if mr. dogen said it, it has to be Truth. Forget mr. buddha and his silly idea that Right View is important. According to mr. buddha and the zillion other (non dogen) zen masters right view is important because without it, zazen itself does not work correctly. Some of you are like fundie christians quoting st. paul endlessly while being ignorant of what Jesus himself taught. It isn't zen dogenism, it's zen buddhism.
- I'd try and put one question to the last anonymous: - If my view of views is as you imagine, - why would you think I went to the trouble of posting my three long posts, to the last of which you are referring?
Hi 12.16am - Is Ran's recollection and interpretation of what Dogen wrote about "right view" correct? Maybe not, as he admits himself. But whatever...What do you think G. Buddha really meant by samma-ditthi? The attraction of Dogen, for me, is that he wrote a great deal - more than any other zen master - examining and trying to understand and explain what explanations like this:"And what is right view? Knowledge with reference to suffering, knowledge with reference to the origination of suffering, knowledge with reference to the cessation of suffering, knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering: This is called right view."...might possibly mean in our real lives - not what meaning they have as abstract philosophical positions. Because he wrote such a lot, and because his insights into G Buddha's teaching were profound, he gets quoted. Suggesting that if it ain't in the tipitaka, then G Buddha didn't say, didn't mean it, and doesn't want us to think or do it...that's fundamentalism. Anon - What is "Right View"?All fingers pointing, no?
Testing one two.
4.47am was me, on foot.
I don't think right view is an intellectual position to be plotted and followed.. Just like wisdom isn't a precisely followed series of plans. Right view is not the starting point. It is slowly approached.
A-Bob I'm with you. I experience wisdom as a resultant. It's the difference between contemplating and knowing. Bhikku Bodhi spelled it out in a way that worked for me in his essay on the eight fold path. Something about Right View in the beginning being contemplation in the right direction to get you going, but Right View at the end being the fulfillment of the path - a knowing of the three characteristics of experience from experience.
- just crossed my mind: - with regard to right views, and the eight fold path: (which I don't think right views should be generally here considered outside the context of)- mine as “The whole eight” @ 6:46 am & as “tWE II (corrections by Ran)” @ 9:24 am here.(or here)You can see to what extent I've been misunderstood. Though I think I expressed myself quite fine.I still want to refer a lot. I hope I will have the time.
Lots of the “Ran K.” over there is trollin.Note.
SM - he never said wisdom is the difference between contemplating and knowing.It’s funny part of what you are saying is true, this time, - but w is something you get and normally keep. - It is a product and not a process.I think when the B said a fool who considers himself wise is indeed a fool, he still never imagined the likes of you.11:40 is much more right than you. You never seem to get beyond reading assignments.
Yes'M, I read you expressing the same thing as I did. You're just hung up on my use of the word knowing to be a mental factor deriving from experience versus reading (assignment?).
Right View shouldn't be confused with a conceptual understanding. Obviously we all start with a conceptual understanding of Buddhism, which is good as far as it goes, but right view is something that comes through the practice of meditation. But it would be un-Buddhist to say you can believe anything you want as long as you practice meditation and meditation will eventually get you to the right place.I don't know where Dogen stands on this question, but it's hard to understand Doge and easy to misunderstand what he means.
In Buddhism wisdom is the ability to see things as they actually rather than how they appear to be.
Perplexity sometimes arises over an apparent inconsistency in the arrangement of the path factors and the threefold training. Wisdom — which includes right view and right intention — is the last stage in the threefold training, yet its factors are placed at the beginning of the path rather than at its end, as might be expected according to the canon of strict consistency. The sequence of the path factors, however, is not the result of a careless slip, but is determined by an important logistical consideration, namely, that right view and right intention of a preliminary type are called for at the outset as the spur for entering the threefold training. Right view provides the perspective for practice, right intention the sense of direction. But the two do not expire in this preparatory role. For when the mind has been refined by the training in moral discipline and concentration, it arrives at a superior right view and right intention, which now form the proper training in the higher wisdom.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch2
With apologies to folks annoyed by quotes (you don't have to read them} - - Reading Dogen's Mitsugo (Secret Talk), I came across these passages (in order but not consecutive), which I think are interesting in light of the discussion here; whether Dogen dismisses study of the Buddha's words in favour of some magic process.There are more relevant passages from other chapters of Shobogenzo, and these selections are by no means a comprehensive summary of his views on...anything, but they caught my eye as I was reading.The chapter is a discussion, mainly using the story of Mahakashyapa, the flower and the wink/smile, of the notion of some secret, mysterious transmission - or perhaps, channeling - of the Buddhist Truth not reliant on words. Dogen says this is a simplistic, mistaken view."Studying something is considering hundreds of thousands of times in detail without intending to understand at once and to make sincere efforts as if we were cutting through something hard. We should not think that we should easily understand it…[Some people] usually and quite unfoundedly say that Gautama Buddha’s secret whisper refers to the moment when he picked a flower on Vulture Peak and winked at his audience of millions. They say this is because the words Gautama Buddha used when teaching are not so profound because of the preconceptions we have associating the words with certain concepts and form, but that when he picked a flower and winked silently, he was expressing his secret whisper... They say that because Master Mahakashyapa changed his face into a smile when Gautama Buddha winked - as if to say that he had understood his Master’s conduct - he was concealing nothing... The people who hear these theories and believe them... Very regrettably, these theories are the source of the degeneration of the truth of Gautama Buddha. A man who has clear eyes can criticise and disprove each of these theories in detail. If Gautama Buddha’s speech was shallow, then was his picking a flower and winking also not shallow? If anyone thinks that Gautama Buddha’s words are just a matter of concepts and form, then he is certainly no student of Buddhism. For although he knows that words are concepts and forms used to talk about ideas, he does not know that Gautama Buddha transcended the philosophies of concepts and form… How could an audience of millions not recognise picking a flower and winking as simply picking a flower and winking?..We meet buddhas and listen to buddhas with our intellectual thoughts and we meet buddhas and listen to buddhas with no intellectual thoughts.At a later time, Gautama Buddha said, “I have the essence of Buddhism, the serene and peaceful mind. I transmit it to Mahakashyapa.” Is this speech expressed with words or without words? If Gautama Buddha had disliked words and liked picking flowers, he would have picked a flower at this later occasion too."
So, although Dogen doesn't mention zazen in these excerpts, it's certain that he considered zazen the indispensable, even paramount aspect of the Buddhadharma. But he also recognised that we understand and communicate through words and concepts - that they too are indispensable. But just what is really communicated, or understood by words and concepts - and how we 'understand', is something Dogen tries again and again to locate, examine and demonstrate - using words. What can it be?
My Hebrew is rusty, but here goes..."Invitation to meet with the unconventional Zen Buddhism teacher - Bre... Bra... Bread Varnish?... (somebody, anyway). Connect his zen books with [?]forget about punk[/?], sex, and Zen Buddhism. date and time. House of Psycho(?) Dharma. Something about students.Hope that helps.
#108 pre-empted with:"With apologies to folks annoyed by quotes (you don't have to read them} - -"Perhaps those folks you are referring to are discerning enough to tell the difference between an irritatingly egotistical use of quotes and a genuine offering used as part of a discussion.I'm sure you'd play lip-service to the effect that your posts have sometimes, maybe, perhaps, had a tinge of the former.Either way, I'm sure they also understand in various ways, when they are choosing to scratch the itch and when they are choosing to leave it alone.(No rhetorical apologies provided)Maybe you've got a quote of Dogen's about living sincerely in the moment or whatever it was he wrote that we all have the resources to realise without Dogen.
Dogen on right view."Right view as a branch of the path is the inside of the eyes containing the body. At the same time, even prior to the body we must have the eye that is prior to the body*. Though the view has been grandly realised in the past, it is realised now as the real Universe and is experienced immediately. In sum, those who do not put the body into the eyes are not Buddhist patriarchs."(from Shobogenzo Sanjushichi-Bon-Bodai-Bunpo, 'Thirty Seven Elements of Bodhi'. Nishijima/Cross trans.)*Nishijima/Cross suggest that 'the eye prior to the body' is prajna or the intuitive understanding that is a result of practice not, for example, just a belief or conceptual understanding. It's developed in 'dropping off body and mind' and so can be said to be 'prior to the body'.Regards,Harry.
Hey 1.32am -So you don't like harmless, maybe unnecessary apologies? OK, I'll live sincerely in the moment, just for you:Instead of being a pompous judgmental smartarse - analysing the motives of people you don't know who post here in perfectly good faith - like ME - why don't YOU say something useful?"Egotistical use of quotes?" What the fuck have I got to do with it? You think I'm showing off that I read Dogen? What are you showing off about?What did you make of the Dogen quoted, anonymous? Where's your "genuine offering" to the discussion?"Hypocritical Prick.
Hey #108, by the looks of it 1.32 am posted something very useful to you
#108 where did the anon 1.32 write that you were showing off that you read Dogen - the point made about you sometimes using quotes egotistically may not be referring to your posts in this comments section, which might have been in good faith. Let's face it, you did open that post by referring to folks who must have criticised your use of quotes before. Why do that if you weren't insecure about it - your reply seems to underline the point. As if you haven't posted picking up on something someone's written!
WTF? Do you mean to tell me that Dogen quoted the Buddha? That Dogen maybe thought the sutras were the transmitted words of the Buddha? That Dogen thought the Buddha had something to teach besides sit in the correct posture? OMFG! This Dogen dude may have been a Buddhist too.I think we should expel him from our cult. He doesn't even sound like an authentic Dogenist.
Hi Mysti,"Experience" is what's communicated by words and concepts? I don't understand that.Hi Harry,Thanks. I've never got a handle on what that brief mention of right view in 'Thirty Seven Elements of Bodhi' means, and have kinda passed it over - 'right view' is not something I worry about. But, in the context of this discussion, particularly whther right view is 'arrived at' or mometarily experienced, it makes a little more sense: perhaps the answer (to that question) is both.Hi anon(s) @3.32/3.34 - same guy, two of you? three of you? Whatever...Ok, I'll listen. What is an "egotistical post"? How does posting a quote from someone far better at communicating something valuable than I am amount to "egotism", any more than anyone posting anything? I don't understand. Please explain. "Let's face it, you did open that post by referring to folks who must have criticised your use of quotes before." The 'apology' was a light-hearted response to this, in THIS comments section: "Some of you are like fundie christians quoting st. paul endlessly while being ignorant of what Jesus himself taught. It isn't zen dogenism, it's zen buddhism." (at 12.16am).And no, strangely enough, I don't recall being criticized for quotes before. Please explain what an 'egotistical quote post' is.And while you're still there, what DO you think of what Dogen has to say? I'm really not that important.
you are really not that important
Hi 3.32 am (all the same guy),"Hey #108, by the looks of it 1.32 am posted something very useful to you" Why? Coz I spoke my angry mind? Is that what ad hominem attacks and trolling are all about? Expedient means - from wiser folks, seeking to reveal to the deluded their true selves? To force us into the moment? Gimme a break.It was fun though. Cheers.4.05am - chickened out huh?
#108 "And no, strangely enough, I don't recall being criticized for quotes before."I found this which I think you found really spiteful "anon #108 scurries behind Dogen like a kid behind his dad! If you've managed to put the effort into misinterpreting Dogen, why not have a go at what a poster has written? Bah! What was I thinking about... Well done #108, have a gold star. "
If you cared about the discussion you were having, you'd have been able to take your own advice and not bother with the other shit. Looks like you enjoy one thing more than the other.More fun?
Oh! - you're right 4.16am. So that was you as well...Of course!! I'd forgotten. But you may be right; that ignorant post of yours may've been in the very back of my mind. Clearly in the very front of yours - coz you posted it.Look, mate. It's very simple. If you have something to say about the Dogen stuff, or Buddhism, or whatever's being discussed (on that occassion you completely misread what I posted, insisted I'd misunderstood Dogen, but didn't say how, what or why, then I'd be very interested to hear it. But I doubt you read it. Just like this one. But you never deal with the content of what's being said, do you? Never...you always attack the poster. And so I'll respond. Where did I advise myself not to? So you don't like me. Smashing. I don't like you. What now?
You know who has the cutest clerks in the Tel Aviv airport? No. Al Italia! YEAH! About to board. Made it thru Israeli security. It's as tough as they said.
Not same guy. And reading back from that discussion, 'misinterpreting Dogen' read in context like a playful reference to how all reading is a process of mis-reading, and that you hid behind a quote from Dogen instead of replying directly to the points a poster made - and 'mis-read' those instead.If one poster causes a ripple you don't have to splash back.
I just got back from Dallas (not Tel Aviv), but guess what, no security check! No lines, no waiting, just lots of fun: private jet. Not mine, but loaned along with the pilot. Sometimes the music biz (had a few gigs in Texas) IS all about who you know... Oh, and the cuteness was Everywhere!
Hi 108,"But, in the context of this discussion, particularly whther right view is 'arrived at' or mometarily experienced, it makes a little more sense: perhaps the answer (to that question) is both."What moment hasn't arrived or isn't experienced?Regards,Harry.
"And reading back from that discussion..."Give me the link - I'm willing to learn. No better - tell me WHAT of that Dogen passage I misundertood, coz however subjective and faulty my memory might be, I'm SURE you/whoever didn't tell me at the time. Then we might be able to move this on to a discussion about something useful and of interest, perhaps, to others."If one poster causes a ripple you don't have to splash back."Well...I don't know how many anon posters are taking part in this ping-pong, do I? It would REALLY help if you guys could find some way of establishing continuity from post to post. You can still remain anon, can't you?...I'm 'splashing' out of frustration - because NOT ONE of you is telling me what you think about these "misunderstood", "egotistical" Dogen quotes. I'm starting to think you haven't read or considered them and really don't have an opinion at all - that you're just trolling. Prove me wrong, and lets' talk.Hi H,Well...yes lol. But two ways of looking at these things - as a process and an instantaneous experience That's what I was getting at, which I'm sure you understand. But have I misunderstood you?brb - gotta snak!
Hi, 108.What moment hasn't arrived or isn't experienced?We can quickly answer this question from the perspective of our viewpoint of time, and from the viewpoint of our experience of the present moment, but I think Dogen's buddhism requires us also to answer by dropping off some very fundamental assumptions, by 'dropping off body and mind', or dropping off experience/experiencer and time.Regards,Harry.
Hi H,So three perspectives/viewpoints? 1)Time, interpreted (subjectively) as process.2)No time - no subject to 'experience' it.3)No 'process' Only this moment.4)The real situation. Is that where "dropping off experience/experiencer and time" occurs, For example, in zazen? Is that what you're saying? If so, does it only occur in zazen? Is reality only experienced in zazen? Is it only in zazen that 'right view' is experienced?...Trying to square Gudo's 4 views - which I guess inform your understanding, too - with what you wrote. Not that squaring anything with anything else is required, but it can be helpful when we're using words and concepts.I'm a far more literal guy than you, I think, and I often find it hard to understand you. I get lost in the words, the poetry, and often find the meaning hard to tease out. Have I misunderstood? Or wanna have another go ;) ?
And/or perhaps we 'drop off body and mind, or drop off experience/experiencer and time' whenever we act wholeheartedly?
Hi 108,So three perspectives/viewpoints? 1)Time, interpreted (subjectively) as process.2)No time - no subject to 'experience' it.3)No 'process' Only this moment. As I understand it, and applied here, the second phase is just the negation of the concept of time, such as a philosophy/concept of negation or 'emptiness' (which people approaching Buddhism often get stuck on I think... which is possibly a reason why Master Dogen made the distinction).In the third phase of actual practice/action time is real, and is made real by us. This is 'real-time', 'existence-time' or 'time-being' as explained by Master Dogen in Shobogenzo Uji where existence and time are seen in a way that is different to our usual assumptions of what 'time' is (i.e. just thoughts of 'past', 'present' and 'future' that we are making now in real-time but generally accept as a projected linear progression from past through present to future). This third phase, again as I see it, can be said to be a real process of really acting in accordance with real-time, or realising (as in actualising) real-time as opposed, say, not actually doing it ('...and so there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings').4)The real situation. Is that where "dropping off experience/experiencer and time" occurs, For example, in zazen? Is that what you're saying? If so, does it only occur in zazen? Is reality only experienced in zazen? Is it only in zazen that 'right view' is experienced?The real situation is what is actually happening despite what we think and percieve and experience. Master Dogen emphasises that human experience is the real situation ('despite knowing all this flowers fall and weeds grow') that we have to deal with. I take this as his pointing out the pretty common sense, humanistic thing that we can only realise the reality of our lives and not some abstract 'reality' that is seperate, extra to, or outside of this. This realisation, however, is a reflection of every other real thing. An intuitive understanding of this right view is promoted and refined in regular zazen practice.Regards,Harry.
Thanks H,You put it very well. That's pretty much how I see it, too. What you say about 4) is much clearer now. As much as some people can get stuck in 2) as the negation of our experience and conceptual understanding - "emptiness" being a state to aspire to and somehow inhabit, so I think some people get stuck in seeing our experience in zazen as the only the "real" experience. This:"...we can only realise the reality of our lives and not some abstract 'reality' that is seperate, extra to, or outside of this. This realisation, however, is a reflection of every other real thing. An intuitive understanding of this right view is promoted and refined in regular zazen practice....is very nice. Also nice - and reassuring - to know that understandings of such fundamental matters can be shared and understood, with words.Bloody hot aintit!
Hi 108,...as the negation of our experience and conceptual understanding - "emptiness" being a state to aspire to and somehow inhabit, so I think some people get stuck in seeing our experience in zazen as the only the "real" experience.Yes, that would be problematic. What shunyata/"emptiness" describes is not a viewpoint, but is realised in dropping off viewpoints... and experiences.Avalokiteshvara was, after all, "practicing the profound prajna paramita" when s/he delivered the Heart Sutra, not pondering on some topic.Regards,Harry.
p.s.... it's not so hot here, and it's pissing rain of course!H.
Suggesting that if it ain't in the tipitaka, then G Buddha didn't say, didn't mean it, and doesn't want us to think or do it...that's fundamentalismYep yep yep. No disagreement. The same thing applies in spades to dogen. Most people posting here grasp what you said about G Buddha. Not sure if they grasp that the same applies to Dogen.It's one thing to quote because some dead ancestor expressed what you are talking about clearly, it's another to quote to show authority. Nobody quotes the G man to show authority here, they do it ad nauseum on other sites. But even Bradster quotes Dogen, not to elucidate, but as an appeal to authority or finality. Naturally his dittoheads follow suit. In Anguttara XVII the Buddha says that he knows of no other thing so conducive to the arising of wholesome states as Right View. In one of the frequently occurring formulas of Right View, as for example in Majjhima 41, the Buddha defines it as, among other things, a belief in karma and in this world and the other world. An acceptance of karma is central to the very definition of Right View.The Buddha on speculation on existence:This world, Kaccana, is generally chained up by involvement, clinging & attachment to various views! But one of right viewneither becomes engaged nor cling to such rigid commitment,clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, nor underlying tendency!He does not take a stand about 'My Self' nor has he any perplexityor doubt about what arises is only Suffering arising, & what ceases is only Suffering ceasing! His assurance about this, is independentof others... In this way, Kaccana, is there advanced right view !!!'All exists': Kaccana, this is the one extreme.... 'All does not exist';this is the second extreme !!! Without veering towards either ofthese extremes, the Thus-Come-Thus-Gone One teaches Dhamma from this Middle.cheers
Ha! I was just about to PS the same thought re shunyata. Spooky.Not hot? Rain you say?...Wanna swap? Nah, the sun's nice. It's just the shvitzing! Enough already!
The understandings seem, and seem to be shared, because the patterns of the signs are similar. Attempting to agree in language is attempting to agree in language. Feeling reassured about this situation will bottom out and the raft will sink into disillusionment and disagreement, inter and intra personal. A nice distraction. There are misunderstandings based on the attachment to signs that are actualisation of the understandings based on the attachment to signs.
Hi 7.51am,Thanks for the response. Yes, quoting, in a debate, to demonstrate "I say it. Dogen says it. I am right QED" is a pretty cheap, vacuous thing to do. I'm not sure that's what Brad does, though. I'd need to be reminded of examples. But to feel reassured by a sense of agreement with an old master can't be a bad thing - or to quote inviting debate.Re your G Buddha Right View quote - great stuff. Thanks. But if I find something that he, as the teacher of what's become known as the Buddhadharma, is quoted as having said, and with which I disagree, or which I haven't yet found to be true, can I call myself a "Buddhist"? Does it matter what I call myself? Should it matter to anyone else? (I'm not saying that you necessarily care what I believe or call myself...)And Hi 8.07am,Yes. Understanding words is only understanding words. And the reassurance, like everything, is momentary. No need to get despondent about it though :) Be reassured, then do the next thing.
But to feel reassured by a sense of agreement with an old master can't be a bad thingI disagree. I think it can be a bad thing. Christians feel this reassurance when they quote the bible. They must be right because Solomon thought the same thing.Jihadists quote the quran and feel reassured that it's ok to kill infidels. What if the authority that you find reassuring is also mistaken? At first, Gautama did not want to admit women into the order. It was only at the insistence of Ananda that he finally changed his mind. What if Ananda never made the argument at all? To this day Buddhists would assume women were incapable of being real Buddhists. Sexist Buddhists could rightly "quote" Gautama to feel reassured. I think it can be bad to need this reassurance from authority.Question Authority....especially our own.
But to feel reassured by a sense of agreement with an old master can't be a bad thing.I disagree.Ha! Yep. As soon as I'd posted I thought, "hmm..lots to disagree with there!"I was trying to suggest that we shouldn't beat ourselves up for needing confirmation and reassurance. It's human. But, sure those things can be dangerous.
But to feel reassured by a sense of agreement with an old master can't be a bad thing.Can it be (1) either a good thing or a bad thing... or (2) neither a good nor a bad thing... or (3)both a good and a bad thing?Instance 1: The old master says something affirmative to a student. What the student does with this affirmation determines whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.Instance 2: The old master says something affirmative to a student who is too stupid to understand what is being said or is not ready to understand and, therefore, it doesn't really matter either way.Instance 3: The old master says something affirmative to a group of students some of whom take it as encouragement to practice sincerely and some of whom take it as an invitation to get big headed and, possibly even, some of them might take it resulting in both sincere practice and big headedness...Regards,Harry.
Can it be (1)...(2)...or(3)?One/the other/both/neither?Yes I do believe it can, Harry!
"Yes. Understanding words is only understanding words. And the reassurance, like everything, is momentary. No need to get despondent about it though :) Be reassured, then do the next thing."I wrote disillusionment not despondent. I was not expressing my despondency. Nor a negative view on attachment. But a situation that cannot be avoided, though you may unconsciously (or semi-consciously strive to)."be reassured, then do the next thing." and with attachment the next thing surfaces as the disillusionment that made the desire for reassurance, the desire for reassurance. Despondency is the misery about the disillusionment. This is how the next thing manifests as the same old, same old, we don't want to recognise.Doing the next thing is doing this thing. Making the difference, and in doing so, making it again - the same difference.Genuflection to the 'boss' is patronisation of those 'below', for example.
Thanks for clarifying, 9.08am.
Well Right View certainly kicked up a neat looking dust storm. How about Right Intention?1. Good Will2. Harmlessness3. RenunciationNumber tHree looks chock full of discussatory yumminess to me ;)
Eh, so why then is Renunciation a Right Intention? Or what is renounced in this context to begin with?
Hi Mysti, Regardless of how we got there, thanks for your thoughts on practice and experience.
I kind of wanted to display M's S with regard to his @ 6:54 pm, But didn't have the time, and this blog runs quicker than I can read. (which I seem to normally not)However - (perhaps I still will) first with regard to what I said @ 4:42 [am] which seem to have stirred most of the text the pouring of which followed: - I do stand behind what I said - Zazen (as taught by Dogen) is not dependant on once views. - That is its action does not. I can’t see what other meaning this could possibly have.That is 12:16 [am] is explicitly wrong if he wishes to claim that “right view is important because without it, zazen itself does not work correctly”. And I find it impossible to believe those he claims said that. Still it may be important to remember the meditation taught is not the same in all branches of Buddhism, and also (at least) if one does not sit as much as the custom is in the “Zen” sect, his practice is likely to be (better) supported by other means.I think if you read my stuff in full and not just take one paragraph out of context things are quite clear.Else – I came upon M being wrong again [11:07 pm] and 108 taking him seriously [4:02 am] for some reason I might voluntarily choose not to fathom.- 1st – (to 108) Nishijima has somewhere answered your question [@ 6:06 pm] but I won’t relate to it. Needless to say it does not correspond to SM’s.Experience is of course a tool and not an aim.And of course explanations don’t point you to experience.Of course Master Dogen expresses his experience in his words [I like Master Tendo’s words “We cause the great truth authentically transmitted by the Buddhist patriarchs to cover the mind and to cover the body again and again”] but one can not - of course [does that need to be said?] gather experience by listening to others.(- and I know I’m using the word “experience” in two different ways, Jinzang, - it’s just too long to get into, I could refer to this too, but I don’t want to go beyond mumbles mental abilities, in case he does read my stuff.)Note 108’s original query.- Then 108: “Hi Mysti,"Experience" is what's communicated by words and concepts? I don't understand that.”.And emptiness strikes again:Sitting is not experience.Sitting is sitting and experience is experience.Experience is not “doing the thing”. Experience results from practice.I think most of this could be easily understood by a 7 years old who has never sat zazen.And Nishijima does lately seem to emphasize the difference between action itself (as simple as that) and the experience. (of it)- “It THAT all there is?” - I wouldn’t answer that. M does. It takes wisdom to see wisdom. Stupidity does not bestow you its own sight.One more thing - I also used to like to sit during sunrise. One 20 minutes sitting seems quite meaningless to me. I used to like to sit from full darkness to full light. Which takes about one hour. And the same (i.e. - the opposite) during sunset too. I liked the time before dawn too. It’s very quite. There used to be a time I’d get up at 2:30 and sit until 6:20 cause I liked that time. The time (from some time) after dawn and perhaps (from some time) after dusk seems like a not-so-good time for zazen, for a while, but that’s not significant.I think if you continually sit during sunrise you notice it's a good time for Zazen.
3. Renunciationthere are some things you need to give up - detach from.Greed being one.Perhaps lust [PDF] - as in instant gratification - being another.And AUTHORITY [PDF] being a tough one. You are your own authority. There is no other authority that can ow will answer your questions.And IGNORANCE is a biggie. You are responsible for your own learning or fetchin' up.*****************************The Twelve Causes of SufferingIgnoranceUnnecessary Activity based on IgnoranceMistaken perception arising from ignoranceDeceptive Objects of Consciousness (e.g. I want one of those too.)Six Points of Entry for Deception (eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and intuition)Unnecessary Contact with Marginal Objects (e.g. beyond the realm of food, water, shelter, clothing)Unnecessary Sensation (e.g. thrills)Hedonism and HatredClinging to material things (a BMW 325i)State of Transmigration (Wanting to 'do it all over.')Birth and Illness (our rebirth reflects cause and effect)Old Age and Death (the law of causation means that humans must grow old and die) ******************************I could go on and on, but to no avail. I am certainly no authority. Nor should I be. And you are most certainly not my students - nor are you students of me (I am seriously nothing to any of you). Work out your own salvation - or don't. Whatever rings your bell - or doesn't.
Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism
by the time I was about to post this 108 added his lastand I liked M's humor @ 11:07 pm, though I didn't read it all throughtwo more by now, over and out.
Bhikku Bodhi again, on Right Intention:The Buddha explains right intention as threefold: the intention of renunciation, the intention of good will, and the intention of harmlessness. The three are opposed to three parallel kinds of wrong intention: intention governed by desire, intention governed by ill will, and intention governed by harmfulness. Each kind of right intention counters the corresponding kind of wrong intention. The intention of renunciation counters the intention of desire, the intention of good will counters the intention of ill will, and the intention of harmlessness counters the intention of harmfulness.The Buddha discovered this twofold division of thought in the period prior to his Enlightenment (see MN 19). While he was striving for deliverance, meditating in the forest, he found that his thoughts could be distributed into two different classes. In one he put thoughts of desire, ill will, and harmfulness, in the other thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. Whenever he noticed thoughts of the first kind arise in him, he understood that those thoughts lead to harm for oneself and others, obstruct wisdom, and lead away from Nibbana. Reflecting in this way he expelled such thoughts from his mind and brought them to an end. But whenever thoughts of the second kind arose, he understood those thoughts to be beneficial, conducive to the growth of wisdom, aids to the attainment of Nibbana. Thus he strengthened those thoughts and brought them to completion.
That is 12:16 [am] is explicitly wrong if he wishes to claim that “right view is important because without it, zazen itself does not work correctly”.You need look no further than Gempo roshi himself. Hasn't he practiced zazen for many years? Ken Wilber also sat (soto) zen for over 20 years followed by years of Vajrayana practice.How about the many zen masters (and students) that sat zazen for years but were strong supporters of Japan's war of aggression? Or those embracing the Japanese master race mentality? Simply sitting zazen didn't clear their delusions. You could argue that it was defective zazen on some level. Many other factors besides lack of Right View can render zazen less effective or ineffective, but it is surely one. Even sitting with the overt intention of becoming a Buddha can be an impediment to zazen. Isn't this also an example of sitting without Right View? Remember that the Buddha did not just prescribe 'meditation' as one of the 8 fold path, but 'right meditation'.Master Dogen himself said that 'if you practice with right trust you will attain the way.' Isn't right trust also a type of right view?I am explicitly wrong because you disagree? Why do so many in this neck of soto zen find it so difficult to just disagree with another's view of Buddhism without resorting to labeling them wrong, mistaken, inauthentic or engaging in ad hominem attacks? Or assuming that anyone that disagrees with you must not be sitting zazen enough? We just disagree. It's ok. I don't hate you or think you are an idiot or feel I need to denigrate you or your practice.
"Why do so many in this neck of soto zen find it so difficult to just disagree with another's view of Buddhism without resorting to labeling them wrong, mistaken, inauthentic or engaging in ad hominem attacks?"That might not be an ad hom attack, but it is a gross generalization. I think all the regular 'names' here, and even one or two anons, are respectful of different views and respond respectfully unless personally attacked.Ran, however, rarely agrees with anybody and has made an art of being dismissive.
Anonymous Anonymous said..."Why do so many in this neck of soto zen find it so difficult to just disagree with another's view of Buddhism without resorting to labeling them wrong, mistaken, inauthentic or engaging in ad hominem attacks?"it's their weenies. they have small weenies and have never overcome that failed first (and last) attempt at sexual intercourse.Freud
Actually Soto guys are known for their huge schlongs. Except for the Irish of course.
Hardcore Zen Podcast
That might not be an ad hom attack, but it is a gross generalization. I think all the regular 'names' here, and even one or two anons, are respectful of different views and respond respectfully unless personally attacked.I've been reading here off and on since this blog's inception and again, I emphatically disagree. I will agree that many of the regular commenters here are more respectful of different views than some of the teachers in this lineage. If you can't see this, I can only assume it's some sort of sectarian blindness akin to the Catholic clergy's blindness towards the sexual misconduct of their own priests.
Anon @ 3:46 pm: (the only one I’ve read)I don’t know Genpo Roshi but if you claim he said something - quote.As for K Wilber - he has been for many years (correct me if I’m wrong) Andrew Cohen’s right hand, who is simply a fraud. He has been either stupid enough or dishonest enough to sit with this charlatan as “the pandit” who either can not tell real from false, or doesn’t want to.It does not matter how many years one has sat Zazen. The first thing that matters is whether he has experienced the effect or not. The question is whether one has got the Dharma. Otherwise, - even if he sat for a million years – he is not a master.As for the war stories – they don’t prove your point and I understand (from things Brad has written) their trustworthiness is at doubt.Without regard to the actual facts, - your statement that “Simply sitting zazen didn't clear their delusions” is much of an evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about.I don’t argue that anything was “defective Zazen”.Of course correct or incorrect instructions for zazen are valuable.But that’s about what one does (or does not) during zazen. How could this not have an effect? Of course one’s actions are consequenced by his views. But we are only talking here about the views that effect the actual way one would sit zazen. If one would "sit" zazen standing on his head or lying down, or (intentionally) think about some particular subject - of course this would have an effect on his zazen. If you drive a car and you have the view that the gear should be in reverse while you want to move forward of course this would have an effect on your driving. To conclude from here that right views have an effect on the working of zazen is ridiculous.As I know the last lane of the EFP it is “right body” and not “right meditation” but I have never gone deep into this. If I would I’d use Steiner’s instructions for his own students I posted sometime ago and again mentioned and linked up here. I can’t think of a better way for that.Though zazen seems as a mean to attain “right body” here - even would it have been as you see it – it wouldn’t matter.As for the Dogen quote - you don’t give the reference so I don’t know the context, - but as it seems Dogen’s words here could refer to every way what so ever.As for Zazen, if one just sits zazen correctly trust [or faith] will arise. If you recall where this whole thing began it was just about that. If Mysterion will sit zazen sufficiently (and of course 1 or 2 20 minutes sitting a day will not do) at the bottom of his well, he will one day awaken to the extremity of his stupidity and the wrongness of his materialistic views.So Dogen is not in any way saying that one’s (taught) views would effect his zazen.There is one reluctance I should perhaps express here - as one’s view is so inner that it would be the same as the effect of zazen itself - it is the same as if one has performed zazen earlier and in that sense you might see it as perhaps effecting.Also if one’s personality is cleaner or purer it is easier for zazen to do its thing.Remembering the quote in question that does not mean that 12:16 [am] was not explicitly wrong.Still - I would mention that many here seem to not understand that following [correct] lines of conduct [under the guidance of a true teacher] throughout daily life has a purifying effect similar to that of zazen.Finally:People are sometimes explicitly wrong. As Mysterion so often is.- Did I engage in an ad hominem attack?- Sometimes one can merely say he disagrees, sometimes he can unequivocally declare the wrongness of another, and sometimes it may be right to point to the foolishness of opinions or arguments having been made or expressed. (Though if you’re talking to mysti you’re going to exhaust yourself.)And compare the criticism at the end of your last post to the manner of your speech in the previous one.
When I said - "If Mysterion will sit zazen sufficiently ... at the bottom of his well, he will one day awaken to the extremity of his stupidity and the wrongness of his materialistic views" - I meant unless he dies first, of course.
I do not call the truth what the foolish confront each other with; they make their own view the truth; that is why they treat their opponents as fools."- G. Buddha. I don't know the origin of the quote - I'm quoting from Stephen Batchelor's book, "The Awakening of the West" (page 9).When confronting each other's views we are all prone to foolishness, much of the time.
Remember the way Master Dogen addresses various men when severely criticizing them in the Shobogenzo.I have found for example:- “We should not call [the author] Chisō, which means “Wise and Clear”; we should call him Gumō - “Stupid and Dark”.”.(Shobogenzo Butsudo)Be careful using quotes when you don't know what they’re about.
Is your computer running slow? It could be due to exploit.pdf virus.According to Google, 1 in 1000 Web pages is delivering some kind of malicious code, mainly in the form of exploits delivered by drive-by downloads. That translates to something like 70,000 poisoned pages ready and waiting to infect visitors on any given day. So use caution when clicking on one of mysterion's numerous links.
Hi Ran,I didn't say, or suggest, that disagreeing in strong terms was always foolish. I said "When confronting each other's views we are all prone to foolishness, much of the time." Thats all.
Also if one’s personality is cleaner or purer it is easier for zazen to do its thing.anon129, the above is an excellent point and I agree. We disagree about much. You want many quotes and facts to support my views. They are available but would consume much time and space here. I may be mistaken, but I think Brad merely suggested that Kodo Sawaki's inclusion in the zen at war book is mistaken due to translation error. I don't think Brad has suggested that mr. victoria's entire book is mistaken about zen's involvement in the war. Thank you for your response.
"If you understand the cause of conflict as some fixed or one-sided idea, you can find meaning in various practices without being caught by any of them. If you do not realize this point you will be easily caught by some particular way, and you will say, "This is enlightenment! This is perfect practice. This is the best way."This is a big mistake. There is no particular way to true practice. You should find your own way, and you should know what kind of practice you have right now."
@ Ran K - Why is it that you go "anonymous" when you want pay someone a compliment? Like yourself? Like at 7.25am?
7:25 am:My name is Ran. (as you can see 108 recognizes)Brad suggested intentional mistranslation, I don't know the book, - but not merely an innocent mistake.And by the time I had written this I noticed 7:52. Should he be called wise and clear or should he be called dark and stupid?Should fools be granted the freedom of speech or should they grant us freedom of their worthless words?You might drop a word - 7:25 - for what it's worth.I guess I'm out for the day. [by now I see Brad's there before me too. and that's roughly what he's saying. seems like a nice observation. as I said.]
SEE! Brad is talking about angels now. I knew he'd find Jesus eventually. Praise the Lord!
Brad said, "I'll call him Gummo." - HCZ blogJundo Cohen said... Oh my gosh. I am Gummo! :-) - HCZ blog"we should call him Gumō - “Stupid and Dark”. - (Shobogenzo Butsudo)"I'm sure this is just a coincidence..
Anonymous Anonymous said..."I knew he'd find Jesus..."Oh no, did that wandering Jew wander off and get lost AGAIN?
read it again..."If you do not realize this point you will be easily caught by some particular way..."The little Suzuki was clearly stating: 'some particular way' is not necessarily your way.'Literally everything falls into that statement, Hindu, Jain, Buddhism, Judahism, Israelism, Christianity, Catholicism, Calvinism, Muhammadism, Rastafarianism, &c.Consider this hypothetical teaching:"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now."'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him."'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him."'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him."'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him."The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."source
“If you tell the truthyou don't have to rememberanything” - Mark Twain
Dogen’s works, for the most part, seem not to show that he ever completely resolved the earlier problem between innate enlightenment (potential Buddha-nature) and accomplished Buddha-nature, i.e., enlightenment. Dogen, who never lost his faith in Tendai Buddhism, seemed to accept its cardinal notion that the appearances of things are the attributes of the Buddha which to be frank, is nonsense. In the Avatamsaka Sutra, for example, it says that “The Buddha’s body is formless, free from all defilements” and “The Buddha-body is inconceivable.” It is more plausible that the first two years Dogen spent in China looking at five transmission documents was to gain enough information about their construction and composition to be able to eventually forge one when he got back to Japan. Dogen even claimed that he returned literally “empty-handed” (kûshu genkyo) except with the ashes of Myozen. Dogen returned to Japan with no Sutras, sacred images—and certainly no transmission document. It has now been determined that Dogen's transmission document “most certainly is a medieval forgery” (Steven Heine, Japanese Journal of Religious studies 30.102 [Spring 2003], p. 32).
"...that the appearances of things are the attributes of the Buddha...is nonsense."Do you mean doctrinally incorrect? For only in some corner of doctrinal Buddhism can the phrase "attributes of the Buddha" mean something so definite that disagreement with the definition can be dismissed as "nonsense".For my part, I'm not at all bothered if Dogen had no transmission document. The guy left some wonderfully insighful writing and was without doubt a great thinker, writer and - if I must - "Buddhist".If Dogen doesn't float your boat - fine. But don't be disappointed if attempts to discredit him by exposing heterodox views or fraudulent transmission documents fail to disillusion those of us who are educated and inspired by his efforts and writing.Perhaps I'm misreading your intent, and your just passing on information. If so, thanks :)
Edit "...those of us who are educated and inspired by his efforts and writing." (like Steven Heine).
I would concur that Dogen was one of the ten most influential writers in the Japanese Buddhist traditions.The Kana Shōbōgenzō was written between 1231 and 1253 - the year of Dōgen's death. Unlike earlier Zen writings which were written in Chinese, the "Kana Shōbōgenzō" was written in archaic Japanese.Shōbōgenzō contain ninety-five fascicles, or seventy-five, or sixty, or twenty-eight. They are each based on informal 'sermons' attributed to Dogen. He was revising the lot when he died (having revised only 12).The Nishijima/Cross translation, "Master Dogen's Shobogenzo", and "Shobogenzo, The Eye and Treasury of the True Law", by Kosen Nishiyama and John Stevens, are the only English translations of the complete "Kana Shobogenzo".The reason for the variations in fascicles is thus explained: Of those writen in the hand of Dogen, there are 28 known; recorded in the time of Dogen's life, there are sixty; scribed by Dogen's disciples, there are said to be seventy five; attributed to Dogen a few generations after his death, there are ninety five.Whatever the number, that detail doesn't matter. Dogen is no more the Buddha than Paul is the Christ Jesus.Soto is said to be Rinzai Buddhism sans koans. It isn't. The Shinji Shōbōgenzō is a collection of 301 koans written in Chinese by Dogen.
Dogen a forger? Come on!Dogen arrived at a port in central China in April of 1223. In June of 1225 Dogen meets his teacher Ju-ching (1163–1228). Dogen studied with Ju-ching for just over two years. He eventually receives shisho zu (document of transmission) from Ju-ching in the spring of 1227. Dogen spends a little more than four years in China, returning to Japan in 1227. Before Dogen met Ju-ching he traveled through the Five Mountains (Wu-shan) area. He was permitted to look at five Zen transmission certificates. All this took about two years, from the fall of 1223 to 1225 when he met his teacher, Ju-ching.So why did Dogen feel the need to look at five Zen transmission certificates, spending perhaps two years doing so? Judging from the fact that one transmission document is smuggled out so Dogen might look at it, it would seem that these documents were of great importance to Dogen. It strikes me odd, however, that Dogen, on a spiritual quest, would elect to spend half of his time in China looking at transmission documents!Supposedly what spurred Dogen to go to China was the question that if all beings have the Buddha-nature, then why do Buddhas and Bodhisattvas arouse the longing for enlightenment and engage in ascetic practice? In other words, Dogen couldn’t resolve the problem of innate versus acquired enlightenment. Dogen did not realize that even though all beings possess the Buddha-nature, it is only potentially so, in the way cream is potentially butter—through not actually butter. While all beings potentially have the Buddha-nature, according to the Buddha, sentient beings are “reigned over by greed, lust, anger, and ignorance” which means they don’t know what this nature looks like. It follows from this, they need help in uncovering it which must begin with manifesting the Bodhi Mind (bodhicittotpada) and its development by means of the Bodhisattva path. Can’t we say that Dogen hoped to find someone to help him with his journey to Buddhahood?Again, it seems odd that Dogen spent so much time looking at transmission documents when, during this time, there was no guarantee that he would find a suitable teacher—which could take many years. If anything, Dogen from the moment he set foot in China, should have been trying to find the right teacher one who might help him to understand why sentient beings must first arouse the Bodhi Mind then engage in the practices of a Bodhisattva even though they are potentially Buddhas.Dogen’s works, for the most part, seem not to show that he ever completely resolved the earlier problem between innate enlightenment (potential Buddha-nature) and accomplished Buddha-nature, i.e., enlightenment. Dogen, who never lost his faith in Tendai Buddhism, seemed to accept its cardinal notion that the appearances of things are the attributes of the Buddha which to be frank, is nonsense. In the Avatamsaka Sutra, for example, it says that “The Buddha’s body is formless, free from all defilements” and “The Buddha-body is inconceivable.” It is more plausible that the first two years Dogen spent in China looking at five transmission documents was to gain enough information about their construction and composition to be able to eventually forge one when he got back to Japan. Dogen even claimed that he returned literally “empty-handed” (kûshu genkyo) except with the ashes of Myozen. Dogen returned to Japan with no Sutras, sacred images—and certainly no transmission document. It has now been determined that Dogen's transmission document “most certainly is a medieval forgery” (Steven Heine, Japanese Journal of Religious studies 30.102 [Spring 2003], p. 32).
Get real...Try a more scholarly paper: HERE.Frightened little people need not click on the above link. It's not a rope, it's a snake! RUN!
Thank you, Oiled Fish for exposing the plagiarism of "Dogen Fraud", who apparently copied the last two paragraphs of someone else's blog but neglected to attribute it. Not, perhaps, such a terrible thing to do, but, considering the subject matter...LOL!And thanks Mysti for that link to a different perspective on Dogen and Dharma Transmission.But damn! When deciding what to believe, just who can you trust?- Cue ancient Zen Buddhist story...- Or, if you prefer, quote from ancient kalama sutta...
"Dogen did not realize that even though all beings possess the Buddha-nature, it is only potentially so, in the way cream is potentially butter—through not actually butter."Hi,Please see Dogen's masterful Shobogenzo Bussho for a thorough treatment of this primitive belief.He both affirms and denies the potential position, but not in the way consistent with simple belief.Regards,Harry.
It seems like the essence of Brad's post has been truly fully discussed this time in the comment section here, - has it not?
All views and angles.
And a few angels as well.
Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to enter them.
"You can take Dogen out of ancient samurai Japan, but you cannot take the ancient Japanese samurai out of Dogen. He was a man of his time and culture, writing Zuimonki for "all boy" monks in a 13th century monastery in the boondocks. I find him sometimes obsessive, sometimes grumpy, sometimes naive and ill informed, downright wrong in his advice (as in the sections to a prospective monk leaving his old infirm mother to fend for herself."
http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=36969captcha: supine - truly (as in 1 lying on one's back. 2 passive. 3 lazy).
Why do so many of you guys obsess so much about context? Again, like a bunch of born-again fundies. If someone wants to quote Dogen must they quote the entire Shobogenzo to avoid someone accusing them of taking it out of context? I don't see how the piece from the blog or Jundo's post is changed at all by the full article or post.
"When deciding what to believe, just who can you trust?"Nobody."[There are] two types of thinking errors: Type 1 Error: believing a falsehood and Type 2 Error: rejecting a truth." sourceTherefore believe nothing and keep fluidity in your thinking.Where believing starts, thinking stops. Would you prefer concrete in your head, or a brain?
But damn! When deciding what to believe, just who can you trust?Trust in Me
Dark lord - No need to panic. No one's obssessing. Context usually gives a more complete and accurate picure of what someone's saying and why they're saying it. Certainly in this case. I just gave a link to the full thread, in case anyone wants to read it.
we have, long ago, established that a 'samurai' is a noble man's attendant. he carries suitcases and accepts the sword strike intended for his master.see my comment here
Trust cannibalism!Eat the body, drink the bloodand then call yourself "normal."or Mithraic.
Brad, you Zen guys are pretty cool. In Poland we rock out hard and fast too. Check out this video of the Polish Punk Rock scene.
"Would you prefer concrete in your head, or a brain?"You mean - like yours?I'd take concrete.
imitation is the crux of perversion.
- ""[There are] two types of thinking errors: Type 1 Error: believing a falsehood and Type 2 Error: rejecting a truth."".- Funny enough this is quite true.Though it isn't "believing a falsehood" but is simply making a mistake.And it isn't exactly two kinds of thinking errors, - but the first is a thinking error and the second is an emotional interference.[in thinking]There are intellectuals and there are emotionals.The first are disconnected from reality, and the second do not [necessarily] want to know about it.- "Rejecting a truth" is correct.To a great extent this is what materialism and idealism are about: - Materialism originates in being intellectual and idealism in being emotional.And “faith” is simple conclusion [though of course not an intellectual one] from gathered knowledge - though [here too] either true or false - just like any other. Only some people are better than others.Mysterion lives by grace only.
Post a Comment