Instantaneousness of Human Action at the present moment
When we think about the Human Freedom in idealistic philosophy, we can think that we, human beings, are perfectly free in our Action at the present moment.
But when we think about the Rule of Cause and Effect in materialistic philosophy, we, human beings, can never be free because of being governed by the Rule of Cause and Effect at all.
Therefore generally speaking we, human beings, are always perfectly free, but at the same time we, human beings, are always governed by the Rule of Cause and Effect.
However such a kind of contradictory situation of Human Freedom and the Rule of Cause and Effect can never exist really together actually at all. And so if we want to solve the such kind of contradictory situations, it is necessary for us to leave the intellectual considerations, and we should enter into the Philosopuy of Action itself.
In Euro-American Civilization it is impossible for us to find the Philosophy of Action, but in the Buddhist Philosophy, which Gautama Buddha has found in the Ancient India, has the theory of Philosophy of Action clearly, and if we rely upon the Philosophy of Action, the contradictory situations between Human Freedom and the Rule of Cause and Effect, can be solved exactly and clearly.
In the Philosophy of Action, our Action is always done at the present moment, and the Real Action is never done at any time other than the present moment at all. Therefore all human Real Action is always inevitably done at the Real Preasent Moment, and such a Real Present Moment is always so short as the edge of the width of razor-edge.
And relying upon such a fact that the Real Action is always done at the so short length of the Present Moment, and so Human Beings can select their freedom just at the present moment of Aeal Action.
But when we think about the Rule of Cause and Effect in materialistic philosophy, we, human beings, can never be free because of being governed by the Rule of Cause and Effect at all.
Therefore generally speaking we, human beings, are always perfectly free, but at the same time we, human beings, are always governed by the Rule of Cause and Effect.
However such a kind of contradictory situation of Human Freedom and the Rule of Cause and Effect can never exist really together actually at all. And so if we want to solve the such kind of contradictory situations, it is necessary for us to leave the intellectual considerations, and we should enter into the Philosopuy of Action itself.
In Euro-American Civilization it is impossible for us to find the Philosophy of Action, but in the Buddhist Philosophy, which Gautama Buddha has found in the Ancient India, has the theory of Philosophy of Action clearly, and if we rely upon the Philosophy of Action, the contradictory situations between Human Freedom and the Rule of Cause and Effect, can be solved exactly and clearly.
In the Philosophy of Action, our Action is always done at the present moment, and the Real Action is never done at any time other than the present moment at all. Therefore all human Real Action is always inevitably done at the Real Preasent Moment, and such a Real Present Moment is always so short as the edge of the width of razor-edge.
And relying upon such a fact that the Real Action is always done at the so short length of the Present Moment, and so Human Beings can select their freedom just at the present moment of Aeal Action.
posted by GUDO NISHIJIMA | 10:30 AM
16 Comments:
Thank you. I wish I could think of a question.
Dear Nishijima Roshi,
thank you very much for your wise words. I agree that Buddhism is Action and like you're teaching, Action is wholehearted action where we as human beings and as Buddhists try to do the best to help ourselves and others to practice Gautama Buddha's True Buddhism and to live realistic life what is based on Action in every moment.
Thank you, sensei.
Yours,
Markus
Dear Sensei,
I think it can be said unequivocally that the rule of cause and effect is part of us, - so there is no question of us being ruled by it or not.
Also - If we investigate the matter - it seems to me we eventually find out the word (or more correctly – the concept) “redemption” does not have any meaning at all.
(Other than practical-relative meaning - we might use in one way or the other – but which is actually empty.)
Else - the concept of redemption in itself seems to be completely idealistic. And so – I don’t think it is exact to say that materialistic philosophy negates it. Materialistic philosophy just discards it. When materialistic philosophy discusses the matter of the rule of cause and effect it does not raise the matter of redemption at all. Only later would idealistic philosophy ask about the matter of freedom and realistic philosophy would answer that it does not exist.
So I do not think it is necessary to rely upon the fact that we can only act in the ever changing moment of the present in order to resolve this seeming contradiction.
By the way – I remember once reading that one Yoga Swami has said that contradictions do not exist in reality. - Only (I would say seemingly) in our mind or our thoughts. I would say contradictions do not exist at all. If we seem to have come upon one it would mean we must have had committed a mistake beforehand.
As you would know, it is would not be clear to me what you mean by “to leave the intellectual considerations, and ... enter into the Philosophy of Action”.
Though it is true that we do seem to imagine the present moment being a few seconds long – which it is not.
Best Wishes,
So far,
Ran
Nishijima Sensei,
I was wondering what we as Buddhist should do when we encounter a situation during the day that takes us out of the balanced state of the ANS?
Is it the case that the more zazen we do as the years go by the more difficult it becomes to knock us out of the balanced state. In other words, does the balanced state become more of a permanent trait the more years we do zazen for?
Regards,
Al
Dear rgn San,
Thank you very much.
Dear Uku San,
Thank you very much for your interpretations, and I completely agree with your idea at all.
Dear Ran K. San,
I am sorry, but it is impossible for me to understand why you understand that the rule of cause and effect is part of us.
Anyway it is completely impossible for me to understand your whole questions, which you have shown me.
Dear Al San,
When we encounter a situation during the day that takes us out of the balanced state of the ANS, it is always necessary for us to do some Action.
For example we should begin to practice Zazen, to begin some job, to play some sports, and so forth.
And in another method, we practice Zazen everyday without worrying whether our ANS balanced, or not, and then we can find ourselves, who are impossible to get out of the balanced state of ANS after about 3 months.
Anyway it is usually impossible for us to recognize whether our ANS has been balanced, or not. Because the balanced state of our ANS is our originally natural state, and so it is rather difficult for us to recognize our balanced state by ourselves.
"Anyway it is usually impossible for us to recognize whether our ANS has been balanced, or not."
Dear Roshi,
I think this points to a problem which many people (such as myself) have with zazen where we may try to organise it and make it 'better' and more effective with various types of thinking. This way is doomed to failure and frustration. Dogen Zenji pointed out that this was not neccesary or correct of course.
Your quote above reminded me of this nice image from Uchiyama Roshi's commentary on Bendowa called "The Wholehearted Way":
"To sit zazen is to be in the profound sleep of enlightenment. Therefore, to think that I am enlightened is the same to think that I sleep well within sound sleep. This is sham sleep. When we sleep really well, we cannot think that we sleep well. In the same way, within zazen, we cannot see if we are enlightened or not."
I believe that there is a tendancy in the West to equate zazen with the process of certain types of psychotherapy and therefore we may tend to rationalise it and quantify its effectiveness in the same way.
Regards,
Harry.
Dear Sensei,
We are just the reality which is the whole universe, and the rule of cause and effect is part of the universe, so it is part of us.
Also - the part of the rule of cause and effect which acts within our body and mind - is also a part of what we may be seen as as individuals.
- So - in that way too - the-part-of-the-rule-of-cause-and-effect-which-is-relevant-to-the-question - (i.e. - of whether we are free or not) is part of us.
(- Or of what we may consider ourselves to be as individuals.)
- Sorry if I have troubled you,
With best wishes,
Ran
Roshi,
Thank you. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that we should do a round of zazen before something that requires our utmost attention, such as baseball?
I have a question about the eyes during zazen. I often find myself drifting off when sitting and notice that my eyes have been closed. I notice this quite frequently and then open them. Would you recommend focusing the eyes on a particular spot on the wall to alleviate this?
Regards,
Al
Dear Harry San,
Thank you very much for your questions.
First of all do you always recognize that you are always living in the air and you are always breathing? But you are always breathing without recognizing it.
What is "The Wholehearted Way"? Are they an arrangement of Roman characters? Are they some kind of Human Hope?
You said that "To sit zazen is to be in the profound sleep of enlightenment." But you should never say any kind of lie!
Your belief is perfectly wrong in Buddhism.
Dear Ran K. San,
Your words that "We are just the reality which is the whole universe," are true, but your words that "the rule of cause and effect is part of the universe, is wrong. The rule of cause and effect are just the rule of the Universe.
What you wrote in your 2nd paragraph, is not clear in the series of logics.
Dear Al San,
I never say what you wrote in your question, but I say that we human beings are always keeping our human duty to maintain our ANS balanced, but unfortunately we, Human Beings, are prone to lose the balance of ANS sometimes, and so we should come back to our original state of balanced ANS by our plactice.
I do not think that when we are practicing zazen, it is necessary for us to focus our eyes into some small point, but we can keep our sight to rather wider area as usual.
Dear Roshi,
Sorry if my message was not clear.
"The Wholeherated Way" is a published book in English which was made from Uchiyama Roshi's commentary on Shobogenzo Bendowa.
The section I quoted on "the profound sleep of enlightenment" is directly from that book.
I thought it was an interesting reversal of the usual image of "awakening".
I do not think that Buddhism is a question of belief at all.
Best Regards,
Harry.
Thank you Sensei,
Actually I have thought myself - I think after I posting my comment - that - (- seeing the Dharma as a law) the rule of cause and effect is just the Buddha-Dharma.
(Though perhaps from a slightly different point of view - you might say existentialists would know the rule of cause and effect but would not recognize it to be the Buddha-Dharma.)
As for the second paragraph - I mean that if we see ourselves as cut-outs of the universe,- as extracts of the universe - that which is true of the universe is also true (I mean - regarding the matter discussed here) of the part of it. (Which we seem to imagine to be ourselves.)
I have written to you before that I don't understand the identity between subject and action. - Rather it would seem to me that there is just one essence which includes (true - inseparably) both matter and the action it performs.
So far,
You know who
(Ran)
I have a question about your interesting post.
Is it really balance considering that none of the opposing philosophies are right? If I understand correctly, the middle way is not necessarily the "middle" between two extremes like Aristotle's Golden mean.
Middle, in this sense means no free will and no determinism. Whatever is left is the middle.
Am I correct in understanding this?
Does a balance ANS reveal this to be true?
Thank you, Nishijima.
Dear Harry San,
I would like to have a talk, which is much more Realistic as Buddhism, which is completely different from idealistic thoughts.
Dear Ran K. San,
I agree that the rule of cause and effect is the rule of the Universe, therefore it is just the Buddha-Dharma.
I do not have anything to say about existentialists at all.
Therefore your second pragraph does not have any meaning for me, and the 3rd paragraph does not have also any meaning for me.
I have never say anything about the identity between subject and action. Therefore I never agree with your idea that "it would seem to me that there is just one essence which includes (true - inseparably) both matter and the action it performs."
Dear Jiryu02 San,
Thank you very much for your valuable questions.
The considering that none of the opposing philosophies can never be right, is true.
The middle way is necessarrily to be the same as the "middle" between two extremes like Aristotle's Golden Rule.
And the Japanese Buddhist monk Master Dogen explains that the reason why Human Beings can be free perfectly in their Action at the present moment comes from the fact that a human Action is inevitably always done just at the present moment, which is so short as if it were no time.
The present moment, at which a Human Action is inevitably done, is so short as if it were no time. And because the presnt moment is so short time as if it were like a width of edge in the case of razor-edge, and so when we put actually a piece of pearl on the edge of the razor, it might be possible for us to have the piece of pearl, as if it might be possible for us to decide the side, to which the piece of pearl will fall down between right or left.
This explanation can be read in Shobogenzo by Master Dagen, translated by Gudo Nishijima & Chodo Cross, Chapter 70 Hotsu-Bodaishin, P. 267 ~ 269.
Dear Roshi,
I believe my original message was criticising overly idealistic thinking (based in my own considerable experience of it). In this case I was criticising the tendency in the West for zazen/zen to be seen as a type of therapy or as a cure. In practice this idea might manifest as an idealistic effort to control zazen, to make zazen and ourselves better. This sort of effort seems contrary to Master Dogen's instructions. In my case such thinking/striving made practicing zazen rather frustrating for a time, and it was unnecessary.
To be honest, many of the instructions for zazen I see taught in Western sanghas seem contrary to Master Dogen's advice on zazen (such as where practitioners are taught that there is a perfect state of mind or a perfect bodily posture to attain, or some other such goal-based contrivance).
I agree that we should talk realistically about Buddhism, and that we should base our discussions of things in realistic thinking and a realistic perception of thought.
Thanks & Regards,
Harry.
Dear Harry San,
Thank you very much for your opinion.
But it is never bad for us to criticise idealistic thinking
Of coure Zazen can never be seen as a type of therapy or as a cure, but it is just to come back to our own original condition.
Therefore it might be wrong for people to interpret Zazen as a kind of therapy, but it is just our efforts to come back to ourselves directly, or to become Human Beings directly.
In Zazen, there is just its ultimate state, that is, the balanced ANS.
After the 20th Century, Zazen can never be spoken without knowledge of ANS.
Without the balanced situation of ANS, even in the Age, when Gautama Buddha lived, it is perfectly impossible for anyone to become Buddha at all.
Therefore in any age, Buddhism should be discussed, not in realisic thinking, or a realistic perception of thought, but just in Real Action, or at the present moment perfectly.
Thank-you for your comments, Roshi.
Regards,
Harry.
Post a Comment
<< Home