Dogen Sangha Blog

  by Gudo NISHIJIMA

Japanese / German

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

3. The Schientific Research.

The original sentences were deleted, therefore only comments were maintained.

8 Comments:

Blogger GUDO NISHIJIMA said...

Fame and Profit with Buddhism,

The reason, why we are pursuing Buddhism, is just to graps the Truth. I think that nowadays almost all people in the world are doubting whether there is the Real Truth actually existing in the Universe, or not.

But as a Buddhist I believe the Real Existence of the Truth in the Universe absolutely.

And I actually believe that Fame and Profit can never be the aim of Human Life, because Fame and Profit are very important tool to get the Truth, but I think that what is important is never Fame and Profit, and I think that what is the most important in Human Life, is just the Truth itself.

3:19 PM, July 30, 2009  
Blogger Harry said...

Hello Roshi,

Can you please explain how Fame and Profit are an important tool in getting the truth?

Thanks & Regards,

Harry.

4:29 AM, August 03, 2009  
Blogger GUDO NISHIJIMA said...

Dear Ven. Harry San,

I am very sorry, but I have never said that "Fame and Profit are an important tool in getting the truth," at all.

Oppositely in Shobogenzo, Master Dogen proclaimed that "People who have the will to the truth and who discard fame and gain may enter." (Ju-Undo-Shiki, or Rules for the Hall of Heavy Cloud.)

12:03 PM, August 03, 2009  
Blogger Harry said...

Dear Roshi,

Excuse me, I have misunderstood your first message about fame and profit.

Regards,

Harry.

7:19 PM, August 03, 2009  
Blogger Honiahaka said...

Dear Roshi,

you say, that the reason, why we are pursuing Buddhism, is just to grasp the Truth. I seems that the word Truth among other words in this sentence is the most difficult to understand. Therefore the whole sentence is not understandable for the people who did not have good experience with Zen for example.

So it seems to me, that there will always find such persons which will believe, that they need to get the meaning of the word Truth from the other persons, which "know" this meaning. And also there will always find persons, which will say, that they really know, what the word Truth means. An they can suggest very different things. So this word can for some people become a tool to make other people doing very different things. With other words, the word Truth seems relatively easy to misuse.

But can anybody really "know" the "meaning" of this word?
I think it is so impossible, like to know, what "I" means. What is only one and unique can not be explained through other things.

But what can be a motivation to begin the praxis, if one never can know, what the Truth is?

If we would say, that the discovering of what the word Truth means is the reason to praxis, then one could ask, why it is worth to do. If it can not be explained, then only the direct experience of the praxis can be the evidence for it. Isn't it?

If one beautiful woman (men) appears and deals friendly with other mens (women), than there will find a very lot of people (mens and women) which will gladly attempt to become closer with this beautiful woman or man. The beauty does not need any explanation for to get the people to follow it. Can the praxis experience, the proof (I spoke about) be like this beautiful woman? Can it have only an average beauty or no beauty at all?

Is it would not good to use the word "Happiness" (in distinction of joy) together with the word Truth?

It seems to me, that this word can be understood by the main part of people on Earth more easily and with it also the value of praxis. If the Truth does not make me and other person (and so indirectly me) happy, for what I need to grasp it?

Buddha said the desires are the main problem. Can the existence of desires in us be also useful for the praxis, like the energy of the wind can be useful for the ship?

In Zen they often say that if "one just eat, when eat, sleep, when sleep..." so it is Zen.
Many good ideas we get making other things. For example if we are eating. If we eat, when we eat - does it mean, that we do not think when we eat?
If we can think eating and it is still Zen, what is then the difference to a normal case?

Thank you very much for your attention.

With best regards!

Honiahaka

10:01 PM, December 12, 2009  
Blogger Honiahaka said...

Dear Roshi,

I would like to add some question, which has crystallized now in my mind, to the questions above. For me it is probably the most important in the moment regarding praxis of Zen. In my understanding basically Zazen is not different from classical Yoga meditation described in Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (http://hrih.hypermart.net/patanjali/spanish.htm). It is namely: koncentration → meditation → samadhi. The difference is only in the object of concentration. The object of Zazen is not the traditional object used in Yoga praxis. But the object is free to choose. There are no limitation. The object of Zazen is the "action of siting". To sit one needs to concentrate one's mind and senses at the same time - just like during every other action, which we consciously perform. This concentration can have different quality and with Zazen one strive to get the best possible.

The siting is the real thing, the reality, it is not imagination, not memory. So the attempt to do something, what is (a part of reality) is Zazen.

But I think in this attempt there seems to be some element, which may be worth to be questioned, if it really so good. It seems, that the person, which does Zazen intent to surrender itself to part of reality, to melt with something, which is already here. But it is the part of reality and not the whole reality. So it seems after all to be a kind of resignation a kind of luck of critical attitude. The whole thing seems like a search for the thing (the Truth?) which is worth to dedicate the own senses and mind. But during the praxis the person is not continuing the search, but already dedicating to it own senses and mind in action. It has the similarity to a traditional Yoga meditation approach which is also consist in dedication (even if mostly not to the real, but for divine things). Therefore I tend to believe, that in this point the Zazen seems to distance itself from (not limited) mindfulness taught by Buddha. What do you think about it?

Thank you for your attention!

7:09 PM, December 15, 2009  
Blogger Honiahaka said...

Dear Roshi,

I would like to add some question, which has crystallized now in my mind, to the questions above. For me it is probably the most important in the moment regarding praxis of Zen. In my understanding basically Zazen is not different from classical Yoga meditation described in Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (http://hrih.hypermart.net/patanjali/spanish.htm). It is namely: koncentration → meditation → samadhi. The difference is only in the object of concentration. The object of Zazen is not the traditional object used in Yoga praxis. But the object is free to choose. There are no limitation. The object of Zazen is the "action of siting". To sit one needs to concentrate one's mind and senses at the same time - just like during every other action, which we consciously perform. This concentration can have different quality and with Zazen one strive to get the best possible.

The siting is the real thing, the reality, it is not imagination, not memory. So the attempt to do something, what is (a part of reality) is Zazen.

But I think in this attempt there seems to be some element, which may be worth to be questioned, if it really so good. It seems, that the person, which does Zazen intent to surrender itself to part of reality, to melt with something, which is already here. But it is the part of reality and not the whole reality. So it seems after all to be a kind of resignation a kind of luck of critical attitude. The whole thing seems like a search for the thing (the Truth?) which is worth to dedicate the own senses and mind. But during the praxis the person is not continuing the search, but already dedicating to it own senses and mind in action. It has the similarity to a traditional Yoga meditation approach which is also consist in dedication (even if mostly not to the real, but for divine things). Therefore I tend to believe, that in this point the Zazen seems to distance itself from (not limited) mindfulness taught by Buddha.

What do you think about it?


Thank you for your attention.

With best regards!

7:09 PM, December 15, 2009  
Blogger GUDO NISHIJIMA said...

Dear Ven. Honiahaka San,

Thank you very much for your very interesting Euro-American philosophies.

In the Euro-American philosophy, they do not agree with the existence of only one Truth, because in the Euro-American Civilization they usually affirm the two Truths, Idealism and Materialism.But I think that the affirmation of existent two Truths might insist the denial of only one Truth.

I hope that many people do not run away trom the Truth. In other words, I would like to say that please run away from Reality, or Real Truth.

Action at the present moment is just Reality, that is the Truth.

Even though a woman is beautiful, or not, she is just a woman.

I think that "Happiness" and "Truth" are very similar.

I think that a person, who doubts the existence of the Truth, might doubt the existence of the Universe.

Gautama Buddha said that Desire is just the Truth.

To think eating, can never be Action, but to eat something is just Action.


Dear Ven. Honiahaka San,

I am very sorry, but I haven't studied Yoga almost at all, and so it is completely impossible for me to say anything about Yoga at all.

3:46 PM, February 17, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home