Here’s a Dutch TV show I was on. It’s in English with subtitles.
In this interview I say something that I’ve been saying in a lot of my talks and interviews for the past couple of years. I might have even put this in There is No God and He is Always With You. I can never remember my own books…
Anyway, the idea is this. When I was younger I thought that life was very mysterious and very brief. I wanted to know if there was a reason for all of this. I heard people talk about God and I heard people talk about atheism. But what I wanted was an answer for myself.
I wanted to know concretely if there was a God or if there was an Answer.
Or, if there was no Answer or no God, I also wanted to know that for myself.
I can’t accept that there is a God just because the Pope and Pat Robertson say there is. But, in exactly the same way, I can’t accept that there is no God just because Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens say there isn’t.
This is where I part ways with most of the prominent atheists out there. I am in full agreement that the scientific method is a better way of learning about the history of the Earth than reading the Bible. I see the logic in accepting logic over superstition.
My problem is that both the major spokespeople for religion and the major spokespeople for atheism seem to be working from the same criteria. Most of us believe the only way to learn the truth is to receive wisdom from outside. The religious believe it will come from the words of religious figures or via a direct message from a divine source, a personal revelation from God. The non-religious think it must come in the form of sense data as interpreted through the intellect. So it becomes a fight over which interpretation of the available data is better.
If that’s what you’re arguing, then the atheists win. No question about it. When asked to choose between ancient fables and modern science, I’ll choose modern science every time. When asked to believe something someone says God told him and something someone else can show me actual data about, I’ll go with the data.
The trouble for me was, that was not the question I was asking. At first I thought it was. But even after I’d decided that science made better sense than religion, I was still left in the dark about what actually mattered most to me.
It took a long time to understand that sense data as interpreted by the intellect was not going to do it for me. Even if the interpretation of that data was as logical as it could possibly be. And even if that sense data was a divine revelation from God on High.
It took a lot of sessions of sitting without seeking for answers before I got a sense that seeking for answers wasn’t the way to go.
I’ve heard a lot of ways of trying to describe what ultimately worked. Dogen wrote about turning the light around and shining it inward. But I tend to picture it more like taking a step to one side.
It’s kind of like there’s an argument. One guy is shrieking, “Chocolate is better than peanut butter!” Another is screaming, “Peanut butter is better than chocolate!” For a while you listen to them, trying to evaluate their claims.
Then one day, you notice that there is a whole world outside that argument. There is real chocolate and there is real peanut butter. So you step to one side and try some peanut butter and some chocolate for yourself. And then you try some pad thai and some curry, then maybe a bit of bicycle riding and feeling sand between your toes…
After a while the argument those guys are having ceases to be important anymore. It rages on, but you’re no longer listening.
Or something like that.
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm I lead zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 am I lead zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
UPCOMING EVENTS
May 16-17, 2015 Nashville, TN 2-DAY RETREAT AT NASHVILLE ZEN CENTER
July 8-12, 2015 Vancouver, BC Canada 5-DAY RETREAT at HOLLYHOCK RETREAT CENTER
August 14-16, 2015 Munich, Germany 3 DAY ZEN RETREAT
August 19, 2015 Munich, Germany LECTURE
August 24-29, 2015 Felsentor, Switzerland 5-DAY RETREAT AT STIFTUNG FELSENTOR
August 30-September 4, 2015 Holzkirchen, Germany 5-DAY RETREAT AT BENEDIKTUSHOF MONASTERY
September 4, 2015 Hamburg, Germany LECTURE
September 6, 2015 Hamburg, Germany ZEN DAY
September 10-13, 2015 Finland 4-DAY RETREAT
September 16-19, 20015 Hebden Bridge, England 4-DAY RETREAT
September 26-27, 2015 Glastonbury, England 2-DAY RETREAT
November 6-8, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY RETREAT
* * *
Your donations to this blog mean a lot. Thank you!
Hi brad,
i wanted to ask somthing about this. i read your book about god, and this post, and i still dont get it…. is there or isnt there a god!
thanks,
T.B
Answer: there is no God, and she is always with you.
Sort of like the empty hand holding the hoe handle, and the bridge is moving and the water is still.
Or Knowing for Yourself Even If There’s Nothing to Know, and there’s No Knower to Know It.
Or paying my college tuition bills!
Isn’t this the point where Zen teacher hits you on the head with his stick?
TB- on behalf of St. Brad- have you considered the possibility that there both is and is not a God?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e0/62/49/e06249088698ab94ea522afcb76a9ec4.jpg
No , but i will!
No…….but i will!
Are you the proof that God exists or does not exist, or not?
[Replying to Alan Sailer’s reply to me at the end of the last thread – because the same question comes up in the film Brad’s linked here.]
Hi Alan,
“Zen at it’s purest” sounds pretty…purist…to me. Is there a pure from of Zen as opposed to a baser, defiled form of Zen? Maybe. But who gets to say which is which?
If there’s truly no purpose to Zen then why bother?
If the purpose of sitting zazen is – as you suggest – to clearly see the world as it is, the implication is that that’s better than seeing the world as it isn’t.
And a person who’s beyond liking and disliking reality has got to be a better person – a person in a happier place – than a person who likes and dislikes reality a lot. No?
Sometimes, someone says something and I go, “That’s not Zen,” or, “Right on!” When I say what has shifted over time, but not much. If a person is close enough, I don’t contradict them. Hell, if they are way off, I don’t, either.
Perhaps I could be a purist if I put more effort into it.
I’m an impurist. And that takes all the effort I can muster.
I like the comparison of a fish swimming around in the ocean in search of water to a human being walking around this earth in search of truth or God. Well maybe that’s not a valid analogy because I’m not saying air is God but whatever. But people search for answers not realizing they are existing within the answer itself. I think sitting is a way to practice totally letting go of any search. What’s left when the mind isn’t searching for answers or thinking at all is nothingness which is also everything. That’s what I want familiarize myself with through sitting.
Alan Sailer and Anon108 discuss the idea of “…the purpose of sitting zazen…to clearly see the world as it is…,” in the post just above this one. This is just a bit off the mark. We already see the world clearly, as it is. There is no purpose of zazen; our practice is just to do zazen, without any gaining idea. Following this practice, we may be able to let go of our habitual preferences for ‘this’ or ‘that.’ Having let go of preferences, we are able to enjoy a cup of tea.
“To see the world as it is” – that’s not all that was discussed, sri b.
The context is whether there is a point to practising zazen at all. You seem to confirm that there is: “Following this practice, we may be able to let go of our habitual preferences for ‘this’ or ‘that.’ Having let go of preferences, we are able to enjoy a cup of tea.” That chimes with my “And a person who’s beyond liking and disliking reality has got to be a better person — a person in a happier place — than a person who likes and dislikes reality a lot. No?” No?
anon108,
“And a person who’s beyond liking and disliking reality has got to be a better person — a person in a happier place — than a person who likes and dislikes reality a lot. No?”
I’d have to answer that two ways.
First, it’s certainly what I hope for. It’s my beloved zen valium fantasy…
Second, I can’t see any logical reason why that should be true. I don’t believe that reality exists to make me happy. If reality is that a truck will come along tomorrow and flatten me, I won’t be at all happy with that…and that truck is going to come sooner or later.
As far as a point to practicing zazen, that was Dogens burning question wasn’t it? I’m sure trying to answer it. The question itself may be much more important than any possible answer.
sri_barence,
“We already see the world clearly, as it is. ”
I sure don’t.
One thing my sitting practice has shown me very, very clearly is that I dodge “seeing the world clearly” to an amazing degree. Planning, fantasizing, worrying, regretting, you name it, I will do whatever it takes to keep from seeing what is going on around me.
By the way, I am one of the people whose connection to this “new” site takes many minutes. So I can’t really engage in any kind of real time conversation. Maybe that’s a good thing…
Cheers.
Re; your inevitable truck…(straight outta some web acct:) Veteran New York punk rocker Stiv Bators met his end on June 3, 1990 when he struck by a taxi while crossing the street in Paris. Bators, best known for his stint playing with Dead Boys, was reportedly taken to a Paris hospital after the incident but left before receiving any treatment. The rocker claimed that he was fine, but then passed in his sleep later that evening.
Bators’ girlfriend later claimed that she spread some of his ashes across Jim Morrison’s Paris grave, but also saved some ashes to snort in an attempt to be closer to her late lover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4YB3Kmf0U
Alan:
By the way, I am one of the people whose connection to this “new” site takes many minutes.
————————————————————————————————-
Aha! Another member of the “slow connection” club! You, me and Mumbles so far. It used to be instantaneous before the server move.
My strategy is to set it in motion, then go do something else (online or offline) for 3 minutes and when I come back, the pages are up.
Hello All,
I just disabled a couple plugins that may not be doing anything. Maybe that will speed up the site…
For me it is fast, most of the time. Occasionally it hangs.
FYI it’s still waaay slow for me to: Open the Bradblog (about 4 min), then more time to: open the post/comments (about 2-3 min), then: more time to post a comment (1-2 min).
Consistently slow, but as Alan said above, it may not be such a bad thing, I’m not in a hurry.
I’ve said it before, and I’m saying it again now… Dogen never said nothing about “turning the light inward” … that makes no sense in the context of the rest of his writings. It’s a really bad translation of the line from fukanzazengi that nishijima/cross translate better as, “learn the backward step of turning light and reflecting”. The analogy is hui neng’s (non) mirror where no dust can alight, not some flashlight being aimed at the brain.
This metaphor goes way back in east asian culture: Confucius say ‘the mind of a sage, like the mirror, reflects all things without being sullied’.
Western culture is used to the idea of ‘soul searching’, ‘navel gazing’ and introspection, because we thought the immortal soul was everything and the phenomenal world was valueless. So Cleary et al naturally assumed that silent illumination meant holding a light up to examine the self.
But Dogen is interested in “the myriad things arising and confirming the self” as enlightenment. It’s a backward step, because the self stops going out looking to “confirm the myriad things”, and distorting them with its delusions.
When things are reflected as they are, the subject of experience is no longer mistaken for an object: no-self; the ‘back of the mirror’ can’t be seen; “when one side is illumined, the other is darkened”.
Well, that’s my take on it anyhow! 😉
And I’d add, at the risk of controversy, that if you are “turning the light inward”, you’re still looking for the Answers, and not doing Zen.
Gregory Wonderwheel on Zen Forum International
( concerning turning the light inward):
“This Paravritti, according to the Lanka, takes place in the Alaya-vijnana or All-conserving Mind, which is assumed to exist behind our individual empirical consciousnesses. The Alaya is a metaphysical entity, and no psychological analysis can reach it. What we ordinarily know as the Alaya is its working through a relative mind The Mahayana calls this phase of the Alaya tainted or defiled (klishta) and tells us to be cleansed of it in order to experience a Paravritti for the attainment of ultimate reality.
Paravritti in another sense, therefore, is purification (visuddhi). In Buddhism terms of colouring are much used, and becoming pure, free from all pigment, means that the Alaya is thoroughly washed off its dualistic accretion or outflow (asrava), that is, that the Tathagata has effected his work of purification in the mind of a sentient being, which has so far failed to perceive its own oneness and allness. Being pure is to remain in its own selfhood or self-nature (svabhava). While Paravritti is psychological, it still retains its intellectual flavour as most Buddhist terms do.”
Furthermore, peanut butter is infinitely superior to chocolate. 😉
The point of Zen moves beyond doubt …or not.
The Stanford project translations, such as their translation of the Fukanzazengi, were originally meant to become the official English translations of the Sotoshu; I don’t know if that’s still on, or if the project has stalled in that regard:
“Therefore, put aside the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing phrases, and learn to take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward.”
(from the Project, here)
Nothing to do, nothing to do; put some peanut butter in my shoe.
How to practice proprioception without losing track of where I am: all fall down. I discover my housemate also calls to mind the sensation of the tide moving in and moving out around the body, but she thinks of it lying down, and I think of it standing. That’s how I am when I’m at the beach to experience it, and it’s been awhile. Gravity breathing in and out.
but really, the muscles and ligaments talk, the snowflakes only fall here, and my lack of vision has me paying with spasm in my back but I’m all right.
Remember how when Suzuki nearly drowned he emphasized counting the breath again? That doesn’t do anything for me. I’m built different, my bottom rib sticks forward about a half inch. Maybe that’s why I keep coming back to my sides, but too much sides is too much. Proprioception is interesting, consciousness from sources other than the mind, consciousness that originates with all six senses was Gautama’s thing.
Activity around the fluid ball is the long and the short of breath, maybe I don’t have to be kicked in the butt to find the gluts after all. Or maybe I do.
Chocolate and peanut butter is so superior to Trader Joe’s Carob Gelato. ugh.
from fukan zazengi:
回 -turn around
å…‰ – light
è¿” – return
ç…§ – reflect/illuminate
ã® – of/to
退 – retreat/withdraw
æ© – step
ã‚’ – the
å¦ – school/study
ã™ã¹ã— – ought to / necessary
Where’s the “inwards”? Why would Dogen have said “turn the light inwards”? That would espouse mind-body dualism and self-other dualism, not Buddhism.
____________________
@Mark F: “my bottom rib sticks forward about a half inch”
Is it one of the floating ribs Mark, or the last one that attaches to the sternum? If it’s a floater, any semi-competent chiropractor should be able to pop it back into place… IME.
Hey Shinchan — this is an interesting argument you’re making, but I think you’re leaving out some important points that aren’t obvious to people without the background.
If “turn the light inward” is a bad translation, it’s not a bad translation from Chinese/Japanese to English – it’s a misunderstanding in Japanese AND Chinese that goes back hundreds of years. 回光返照 is a set phrase and the standard interpretation (in dictionaries, including specialist Buddhist dictionaries) amounts to “look [‘turn the light’] inwards”. It’s often linked with 脚下照顧, “look at [‘illuminate’] your own feet.” (It also has a more specialised meaning in Pure Land Buddhism apparently but that doesn’t seem relevant here.)
> Where’s the “inwards”?
The understanding is that the “inwards” is implied by the è¿” – if you want to be really word-for-word, you might say “Turn the light, illuminate reflexively.” Of course “illuminate” here is ç…§ which doesn’t literally mean a flashlight for the brain as you put it. It’s the same character used to describe what AvalokiteÅ›vara does in the first lines of the Heart Sutra, for example.
So, while I’m not saying that you must be wrong because the dictionary disagrees with you (it’s totally possible for a phrase to be misinterpreted and for that misinterpretation to become orthodoxy over centuries), I think you need more of an argument than a naive character-by-character reading + a complaint that this implies self-other dualism. For example, can you show some early texts that would support your reading of åç…§ in contexts like this, and not the “look within” meaning?
(I’m not trying to turn this into a dictionary-measuring contest, by the way — I’m genuinely hoping to learn something.)
Hi Matt, thanks for this. I’ll reply at you at the bottom of the thread, because a lot of the folks here prefer that to jumping back and forwards.
It seems as if Brad STILL does not understand what the word “atheist” means and what it does NOT mean. If he understood, he would probably realize that he is an atheist.
Speaking of data…
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
“Taking a step to one side”
“Pravritti pravrtti (Sanskrit) [from pra forth, forwards + the verbal root vrit to roll, turn, unfold] Evolution or emanation; the process of unwrapping or unfolding-forth, as of spirit entities into matter or, conversely, of matter-lives back into spirit entities”
Re Fred’s earlier post re paravRtti: Mr Wonderwheel was quoting D T Suzuki on the Lankavatara Sutra.
DTS’s reading of parAvRtti as ‘The turning back’ or (later in his commentary) ‘conversion’ is, for GW and many other Satori fans, important evidence that THE significant event of Zen practice is a ‘turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness’, ie, kensho/satori.
Whether the character(s) Dogen uses in Fukanzazengi represent the Sankrit parAvRtti as used in the Lankavatara Sutra, I’ve no idea.
Just BTW, beware of Gregory Wonderwheel apparently super-informed interpretations of Chinese and Sanskrit. The Venerable Huifeng – a guy who usd to contribute regularly to Zen Forum International and who does know what he’s talking about, has a pretty poor opinion of GW’s linguistic skills.
Also – parAvRtti and pravRtti are different words, with different meanings. If you want more reliable, less fancy definitions copy/paste the words as I’ve transliterated them into the box here: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/ (make sure to select ‘Harvard-Kyoto’ input).
Gregory represented himself as self-taught in Chinese, dictionary in hand, at the Rocks and Clouds Zendo when I met him. Now, who does that remind us of?
Nevertheless, I like some of his translations of the Blue Cliff cases, so I appreciate his work. At the same time, I’ve never had a use for Buddhist philosophy. Angels on the head of a pin, to me.
pravRtti: n. The exudation from the temples of a rutting elephant.
lol
Yep. That’s the real truth of the matter. But it’s a secret.
“Why would Dogen have said “turn the light inwards”?’
A couple of quotes on opening the hand of thought to consciousness that originates in the senses, with no consciousness left out:
‘It is just a matter of the person concerned having faculties that are bold and sharp– then it wouldn’t be considered difficult even to transcend the cosmic buddha Vairocana or go beyond all the generations of ancestral teachers. This is the real gate of great liberation.”
(‘Zen Letters: Teachings of Yuanwu’, trans. Cleary & Cleary, pg 79)
‘So he abides fully conscious of what is behind and what is in front.
As (he is conscious of what is) in front, so behind: as behind, so in front;
as below, so above: as above, so below:
as by day, so by night: as by night, so by day.
Thus with wits alert, with wits unhampered, he cultivates his mind to brilliancy.’
(Sanyutta-Nikaya, text V 263, Pali Text Society volume 5 pg 235, ©Pali Text Society)
“turn the light inwards”– I agree, advice to do something or not do something seems misguided (an error both teachers above avoid), but Dogen is standing on the head of some Chinese meditation text (or maybe even older?) in his instruction. Bielefeldt’s ‘Dogen’s meditation manuals’ is really all about how almost all of Dogen’s instructions were based on Chinese texts.
We have from Blanke and Mohr that the senses principally involved in the feeling of self are the senses of equilibrioception (consciousness that originates in the vestibular organs), of proprioception (consciousness that originates in muscles and ligaments), and of sight. They make this claim based on their study of out-of-body experience, where, they say, a failure of one of these senses in the coordination of the three is causal.
The sense of gravity (consciousness that originates in the otoliths), coming from organs that are adjacent to the vestibular organs, I would say is also intimately involved.
And how does one discover the coordination of the three (or four)? Right away, if I trip over something, and hopefully action that is the actualization of the fundamental point as well.
I think your view of atheism is skewed a bit Brad.
Atheism is not a claim that there is no god(s).
What atheism is, is the lack of belief in claims for god(s).
Googled ‘paravritti’, and found this. Dukes says:
Wow! Really? I always thought the phrase “Dropping off body and mind” was an invention of Dogen’s teacher Tendo Nyojo. Has anyone here heard of abhisanditakayacitta, or of something like that attributed to Bodhidharma?
This reference (same book), fingers crossed, seems even more Dogen-like: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_dx7AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Abhisanditakayacitta&source=bl&ots=CG_2a022Rz&sig=cWbyh9U_76J-dNCQr83_zkaHwpI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0EpSVfvFLKvU7AbVjIGwCg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Abhisanditakayacitta&f=false
“The doctrine of mind-body inseparability was technically termed Abhisanditakayacitta* – the ‘dropping away’ of ‘being’ from the sense of duality that centered upon the mind and body”.
Answer’s no. No one’s ever heard of it. I kid. I’ve not heard of it, but I haven’t read much Buddhist literature in Sanskrit. I checked Monier-Williams and Edgerton’s Buddhist Hybrid Sanskir Dicionaries and couldn’t find it, or any shorter form of it. I’d say Huifeng’s is your man. Site and email coming up.
* more properly transliterated as abhi-saM-dita-kAya-citta (hyphens show the separate parts of the compound).
Huifeng’s site: http://www.nantien.edu.au/academic_staff/venerable-dr-huifeng-%E9%87%8B%E6%85%A7%E5%B3%B0
Hmm. Don’t know if that’ll work…
His email: shihuifeng@gmail.com
Hi Brad. Great post. I went through something similar when I was young, exploring both Christianity and pure (well, what I thought was pure, anyway) rationalism, and found both wanting for pretty much the same reasons you describe. Up until a couple of years ago, I considered my viewpoint to be agnostic (as opposed to atheistic in the sense that, as I understand it, atheism claims an unprovable negative to be absolutely true and asserts that science backs this up), and I was cool with basically “not knowing” for many years.
Then, I happened to read Hardcore Zen on a lark, mainly because the title sounded cool and iconoclastic, never dreaming that it would actually make an impact. Although I was not (to my knowledge) seeking anything other than a light, enjoyable read, I found your approach to be eminently sensible and accessible, and your downright self-deprecating style lent (to me, at least) that much more credibility to what you had to say. In short, I found my experience and outlook to be largely congruent with yours.
Since then, I’ve begun to sit zazen almost every day, sought out a Zen teacher locally, and sat a few zazenkais with the MKZC sangha, to which I guess I belong, as much as one can belong to any organization, anyway. I’ve also read and re-read most of your books (among many others. I really dig Kodo Sawaki). I have indeed drunk deeply from the Kool-aid as you have commanded, O Master (just kidding–couldn’t resist).
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to lionize you or blow smoke up your ass–far from it–and I know you’re uncomfortable with anything that even remotely smacks of putting you on some kind of pedestal. I’m not doing that. But It’s important for me to express my gratitude, and whether you are comfortable with it or not, I do consider you to be my teacher, in a way, so there you are.
Please forgive the lengthiness of my post, and if you’re ever around Dallas (I couldn’t make the trip down to Austin last year), I’d sure like to come see you and maybe even get you to sign my books like some sort of pathetic fanboy. By the way, any idea when your new book will be finished?
“By the way, any idea when your new book will be finished?’
As soon as ” turning the light around to get illuminated ” gets sorted out.
“the samÄdhi of accepting and using the self” is the turning of the light around.
This self which was created by family, school and culture is the vehicle through which the universe sees itself
Q: How many selves does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No self, but the light bulb has to want to change.
“…as I understand it, atheism claims an unprovable negative to be absolutely true…”
Your understanding of atheism, like Brad’s, is incorrect.
Why do so many people seem to have so much difficulty understanding such a simple concept? Is it because Christian apologist propagandists popularize straw man versions of atheism?
Possibly, but I don’t know. What is your understanding?
Dog Star said:
“Possibly, but I don’t know. What is your understanding?”
Atheism is simply the disbelief of god claims.
Atheism is NOT the claim that no god(s) exist.
The best example I have heard is this – you know the game they have where you have to guess the amount of jellybeans in a mason jar? The theist is saying “the number of jellybeans in the jar is EVEN.”
The atheist is saying “i don’t believe you.”
What the atheist is NOT saying is “the number of jellybeans in the jar is ODD.”
Oh. If that is the case, then I stand corrected.
To extend the analogy, what then does one call those who insist that the number of jellybeans in the jar is odd? Because there seems to be quite a few folks who say that who refer to themselves as atheists.
“what then does one call those who insist that the number of jellybeans in the jar is odd?”
Mistaken. 😉
🙂
The confident declaration that “there is no God” is mainstream. I don’t think it helpful to deny this.
My dictionary has “Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” Which is a weaker definition than how I’ve always thought of Atheism. I always understood it as, “Positive assertion that there is no god(s)”, (but not necessarily with absolute certainty).
I think the common understanding is that an agnostic is someone who lacks belief in God, but isn’t willing to say there is none. An atheist would be someone who’s willing to go further, and positively assert that there is no God. So ordinary usage (as I’ve always known it) seems to be different from the dictionary definition.
So what? Is there some identity politics going on in the atheist community, who are trying to subsume the agnostics? Or is it just that most people are using the word ‘wrongly’?
Personally I don’t give a toss whether there’s a God. I’m way too hung up on the optical metaphors of dead bald japanese men to waste time on such trivia.
“I always understood it as, “Positive assertion that there is no god(s)”, (but not necessarily with absolute certainty).”
mmm… sounds more like positive-explicit atheism.
It basically boils down to the meaning of the words “Atheism” and “Agnostic”.
Theism, belief in god(s)
A-Theism, no belief in god(s)
Gnosticism, (as we are using it) has knowledge of god(s)
A-Gnosticism, doesn’t have knowledge of god(s)
One is about belief and the other is about knowledge.
As for myself, I’m an agnostic atheist, I don’t believe in god and i don’t know a god exists… I don’t know so I don’t believe, and i don’t believe because I don’t know. 😉
Oops. I missed this post before I asked the question above that you just answered. Sorry for any redundancy. Thanks for the information.
I suppose it also depends on what one means by the word, “God.”
The common understanding–in ordinary usage as you say–is how I’ve always thought of it, but Shodo seems to have quite a specific take on it and seems to have thought a great deal about it.
It’s sure easy to get caught up in the minutiae of semantics when talking about this kind of thing, and very easy to give (or take) offense.
Shodo is right, in terms of etymology and precision and philosophy.
Brad is right, in terms of writing for a general audience.
As a committed pedantic nitpicker, I’m backing Shodo!
Well, to quote the great philosopher, Delmar (O Brother Where Art Thou) when confronted with the intractable dilemma of choosing between his buddies, Pete and Everett,
“I’m with you fellers!”
Well, to quote the great philosopher, Delmar (O Brother Where Art Thou) when confronted with the intractable dilemma of choosing between his buddies, Pete and Everett,
“I’m with you fellers!”
Yes, but Brad was concerned with the existence of God for a good part of his life, thinking about Her, writing about her, etc.
So he was immersed in the hard problem of God consciousness, living it on different continents rather than just looking at words in a book.
Fred Said:
“Yes, but Brad was concerned with the existence of God for a good part of his life, thinking about Her, writing about her, etc.
So he was immersed in the hard problem of God consciousness, living it on different continents rather than just looking at words in a book.”
Is that what you think really?
To me, Brad could have looked at the words in a few more books before tackling the God question.
RE: Finding out for yourself —
I am reading “Zen Teachings of Homeless Kodo” and found the section discussing Kodo’s “What is Zen good for? Nothing!” to be very interesting.
Kosho Uchiyami talks about becoming Kodo’s disciple in 1941, and asking Kodo if Zazen could eventually help him with his timidity problem, to which Kodo of course said No, it won’t. Kodo said he was the same sort of person before he started zazen, and hadn’t changed at all.
But does Kosho listen? Of course not! He figures well, I bet I’ll become a better person and be maybe a tiny bit more like Kodo if I keep at my zazen practice. 24 years later, Kodo dies, and Kosho realizes”zazen really is good for nothing. I’m still a coward and never became even a little bit like Sawaki Roshi.
Finally I came to a conclusion. A violet blooms as a violet and a rose blooms as a rose. For violets, there’s no need to desire to become roses.”
Kosho wouldn’t have learned that lesson had he been convinced. He really needed to find out for himself, and it took a long time to find out.
Sometimes I think we spend too much time worrying about what people have said in the past about zen and zazen, and maybe misreading their reports of their experience as statements of dogma.
I love this book! And I find your last sentence to be true for me sometimes.
Oh. And in kind of contradiction to this is this from Kosho elsewhere in the book — “The other day, someone visited me and asked, “I wish to practice zazen under your guidance. But because I live far away, I can’t come to Antaiji very often. I’d like to practice zazen at home. What should I keep in mind to avoid doing zazen in a mistaken way?” I responded, “If your wife and children say, ‘Daddy has become nicer since he began to do zazen,’ then your practice is on the right track.””
this is the only reason I am doing this practice– to be nicer to my kids and wife.
Not a bad reason, especially if it works. I think it helps me in that regard, but I’m still an asshole sometimes, as my wife and kid would surely agree.
There will always be confusion around the goallessness of zazen, it seems. Having a desire to benefit from Buddhist practice is natural. It’s the point of the third and fourth Noble Truths, after all.
However, desiring to end suffering, in Zen at least, is recognized as a hindrance, as it perpetuates a dualistic stance, and strengthens the defenses of the ego-self. So in zazen we let go of any desire to be other than we are. Also, any desire not to be other than we are. But why would we do any of that, anyway, since that still implies a desire to be some way or other?
Something to sit with, no? 😤
It’s just a step to the side, and an in-turn of light
Put your hands in your lap
And erect your spine
But it’s the pelvic stre-etch
That really drives us insa-a-a-a-ane!
Let’s do the zen warp agaaaaain!
Let’s do the zen warp agaaaaain!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-vgGuTD8A
Zen hurts, Zen scars, Zen wounds
And mars, any heart
Not tough or strong enough
To take a lot of pain, take a lot of pain
Zen is like a cloud
Holds a lot of rain
Zen hurts……ooh, ooh Zen hurts
Some fools think of happiness
Blissfulness, togetherness
Some fools fool themselves I guess
They’re not foolin’ me
‘“the samÄdhi of accepting and using the self” is the turning of the light around.’
Funny use of the word self, don’t you think? Sort of Advaitan, self as Atman, maybe?
I’m assuming the practice is like this:
“To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things.”
(Genjo Koan, trans. Robert Aitken and Kazuaki Tanahashi revised at SFZC, from the Zensite)
Then there’s the grand old man:
“…making self-surrender (one’s) object of thought, (one) lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness of mind.”
(SN V 200, Pali Text Society V 176)
But say, is this one-pointedness of mind the same as Dogen’s “fundamental point” (also from Genjo Koan)?
“When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.”
(“Genjo Koan” by Eihei Dogen, trans. by Aitken and Tanahashi)
Finding the place where I am- one-pointedness?
“Moshe Feldenkrais observed that people often hold their breath slightly when they get up out of a chair, and he saw the restriction of the movement of breath as a failure to realize proper support of the lower spine in standing. Feldenkrais taught three simple movements to help realize support for the lower spine while seated on a chair: first, he said, lean the upper body forward and backward; second, tip the upper body from side to side; and third, with the torso, neck and head held in a straight line, circle the top of the head around the base of the tailbone. ”
About 30 minutes into my morning sit, it was all about forward and back, side to side, and turn left, turn right for me, but not like Moshe described it; the stretch gets tight, impermanence and equanimity come forward, and the three motions are in one-pointedness, here.
Moshe didn’t mention support from the fluid ball of the abdomen in the long and short of inhale and exhale, but I’m guessing that’s why folks hold their breath, for pressure in the fluid ball. Same pressure, activity around the fluid ball realized right here as the long or short of inhalation and exhalation. A lot like counting breaths, no counting, seems pretty natural. Mind like a cloud in front of a wall!
Moshe Feldenkrais observed that people often hold their breath slightly when they get up out of a chair, and he saw the restriction of the movement of breath as a failure to realize proper support of the lower spine in standing.
————————————————————————————————
In my 15 years of doing hatha yoga, I can categorically state that this not only happens when getting up out of a chair, but under myriad circumstances! Holding your breath is a way of avoiding reality instead of paying attention to what’s in front of you. Giving yourself permission to breathe naturally under all circumstances as the practice of hatha yoga encourages, helps diminish compulsive thinking and encourages a more flow-like quality to one’s experience. Just sayin’
————————————————————————————————
Moshe didn’t mention support from the fluid ball of the abdomen in the long and short of inhale and exhale, but I’m guessing that’s why folks hold their breath, for pressure in the fluid ball.
———————————————————————————————–
Maybe so. If I understand your use of the phrase “fluid ball” correctly. My understanding of it is that holding the breath is an aid to contracting the core
abdominal muscles which is necessary when moving from lying down to sitting, from sitting to standing etc.
In addition, I’ve noticed that unconscious breath-holding is related to promoting a more unconscious and subjective state of mind. I believe that all humans engage in unconscious breath-holding much the same way that all humans have imaginary conversations! And when you allow yourself to see just how often this happens throughout the course of a day and then allow yourself to not do that, (in much the same fashion as you let go of arising thoughts during meditation)
you return to a state of….well, better left unsaid, but it what’s everbody is after, ‘cept that you can’t really be “after” anything, cuz that’s what stirs the muck up in the first place.
I’ve said quite enough for now – tally ho.
If a place that you call you has a locus that no longer clings to aspects of you, then there is no clinging to timidity.
‘“the samÄdhi of accepting and using the self” is the turning of the light around.’
Funny use of the word self, don’t you think? Sort of Advaitan, self as Atman, maybe?”
The first time I read the words it seemed funny, but yesterday I saw it.
1. accepting the self operating in everyday life.
2. noself-upon-the-absolute manifesting through this self
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Talk of epistemology could get bogged down in a 500 response discussion.
You or someone says that 2 plus 2 = 4 and that it is some type of knowledge. I say that it is merely an agreement between human beings.
“Talk of epistemology could get bogged down in a 500 response discussion.”
When was that ever a problem in this benighted place?
Until some feedback from reality, is there any qualitative difference between belief and knowledge? And should a belief accord with reality, is there any difference because that belief was arrived at by rational thought, by intuition, by adoption from authority, or by lucky guess? If a person believes something that conforms to reality but was arrived at through bad logic and faulty thinking, is that knowledge?
Should be a comma after “And” in the second sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Have you been justified? I don’t want to waste my time with a figment. Or a sinner.
Tnx for the pointer.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Epistemology#/media/File:Classical_definition_of_Kno.svg
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion
Philosophy is pure bullshit illusion.
An opinion is just an opinion. Arguing with a philosopher may be entertaining for you, but that is all it is – entertainment.
Overdue.
However, for each individual, there is only one ultimate judge of what is credible evidence and what is “bulldust.” With a dollop of humility, a person can learn to think critically and to accept their own possibilities of error.
But it’s far less effort to simply choose an authority to believe. Ever notice how such authorities tend to conform to what their believers expect of them?
Furthermore, some parts of experience simply do not give themselves to argument with objective evidence, yet may be true. Other methods of consideration are available.
I trust those who consider to revise more than those who consider to confirm.
minkfoot,
“Furthermore, some parts of experience simply do not give themselves to argument with objective evidence, yet may be true. Other methods of consideration are available.”
I firmly believe that the majority of the experiences that we find most important in our lives are not verifiable by objective evidence.
Cheers.
Re: Matt’s reply, @ 5.57am
Hi Matt, thanks very much for your response. It’s really helpful. I’m by no means a great scholar of Chinese or Japanese: I’ve got just about enough knowledge to be a danger to myself! My original post may have looked like a statement of fact: that wasn’t the intent. “Where’s the ‘inwards’?” was a genuine question: a character-by-character translation proves nothing, I agree… it’s just a way of opening up discussion. I know this whole topic must seem pretty fatuous to a lot of people here (apologies), but it feels significant to me, so I’ll harp on at it a bit longer.
My original confusion was mainly hermeneutic (ooh, fancy!), rather than linguistic: I can’t see how “turn the light inwards” makes sense in the context of the fukanzazengi text, or other writings from the same period like genjokoan and bendowa. But of course, if there’s evidence that the phrase in question (回光返照 or 迴光返照) had a clear connotation of ‘introspection’, or ‘self-examination’ at the time – then it’s likely I’m just plain wrong… which happens! Let’s talk about the linguistics for now, if you’re willing? The philosophical point – that “turning the light inwards” would imply un-dogen-like dualism, so it can’t be what he meant – will only be worth discussing if the text supports it.
Can you give me an example of relevant uses of 迴光返照 that you’re referring to (or a dictionary definition, either Chinese or translation)? Or an example of how “It’s often linked with 脚下照顧, ‘look at [‘illuminate’] your own feet.'” Or of how it’s used in Pure Land Buddhism (is it about doing nembutsu at the time of death, or the western paradise being beyond the setting sun)? I’ll research online myself, but pointers would be helpful, if you have the time.
All the instances of 迴光返照 I’ve found so far are as modern uses of a proverbial expression: meaning something like “swansong” and “indian summer” do in English. Things like: “The last rays of the setting sun. It’s a chengyu (a four character proverb) used to describe when a dying person or failing institution rallies for a while…”; “short-lived reflection of one’s existence”; “moment of clarity before death”. But I can’t find anything that goes as far back as Dogen, or clearly suggests self-reflexivity… they are all about an outburst: an outward release of energy, against the general trend.
Matt, you also wrote: “The understanding is that the “inwards” is implied by the è¿”” … But why? Looking at various uses of this character alone and in compounds, it has a general sense of return/reflect/come back, but it seems to be much more ‘-back-to-its-source’, than ‘-back-towards-oneself’.
“Therefore, reverse the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing after talk; take the backward step of turning the light and shining it back. Of themselves body and mind will drop away, and your original face will appear. If you want such [a state], urgently work at zazen.”
The backward step is to the original face, and the shining it back is the radiant light shining everywhere. There is no inside or outside, just the light shining as the fundamental point is realized.
That’s what I would have said too, Fred. But it looks like Matt is onto something
http://www.drbachinese.org/online_reading/dharma_talks/kaishrlu-4/volume4-ce-02.htm
“The backward step is to the original face…”
Ouch. Please pay attention to where you are walking.
body and mind dropping away
into a bottomless canyon
the light turning inward
is nowhere to be found
Baby I wanted to see your face
In the sun
The day that you won
The only desirable race
But after it all, nobody cheered
The sun set
The dew made us wet
And you just disappeared
They wanted to hand out the prize
To the one
Unmade and undone
Whomever the mist brings to eyes
With defenses undeployed
At the sea –
Ledge of eternity –
The foaming breakers of the void
Where are those happy days, they seem so hard to find
I tried to reach for you, but you have closed your mind
Whatever happened to our love?
I wish I understood
It used to be so nice, it used to be so good
So when you’re near me, darling can’t you hear me
S. O. S.
The love you gave me, nothing else can save me
S. O. S.
When you’re gone
How can I even try to go on?
When you’re gone
Though I try how can I carry on?
You seem so far away though you are standing near
You made me feel alive, but something died I fear
I really tried to make it out
I wish I understood
What happened to our love, it used to be so good
So when you’re near me, darling can’t you hear me
S. O. S.
The love you gave me, nothing else can save me
S. O. S.
When you’re gone
How can I even try to go on?
When you’re gone
Though I try how can I carry on?
OK, I found this: http://www.drbachinese.org/online_reading/dharma_talks/kaishrlu-4/volume4-ce-02.htm … which very clearly has 迴光返照 as “look within [self]”, in the context of koan/hua tou practice . So Matt’s main point is valid… and mine’s looking a bit shaky.
BUT… I’ve still got my doubts about what’s intended in this context: I’ll go off and reconsider.
Matt’s right, I’m wrong… as this shows.
I still find something strange about that sentence, coming where it does in fukanzazengi, but this does prove that those characters mean ‘look within’ when talking about koan/hua tou practice. I’ll go away now, and reconsider.
[btw, I tried to post this comment already, and it didn’t show… apologies if it duplicates]
soap dropped in the bathtub
slipping backward falling
lights out nobody home
inward dwelling lost forever
Soap dropping backwards in the bathtub
Sway, heave, and surge in a bottle
‘In my 15 years of doing hatha yoga, I can categorically state that this not only happens when getting up out of a chair, but under myriad circumstances!’
That’s so, for me.
Bartilink on the fluid ball.
I thought he was including the transverse thoracic muscles along with the transverse abdominals and pelvic floor muscles in the set that create the pressure in the fluid ball, but I see now in the PDF he only alludes to them being in the same family.
‘It is suggested that the abdominal fluid ball can exert a longitudinal force only if there is no contraction of the longitudinal muscles (at least anteriorly). Electromyographic studies of the abdominal muscles during weight lifting showed that the transverse and possibly the oblique abdominal muscles contract, but not the recti.’
This, also, I think is interesting:
‘The position of the lungs outside the fluid ball is an obvious advantage. Breathing can go on even when the abdomen is used as a support and cannot be relaxed. This means that the range of flight of an animal having the lungs outside the fluid ball is greater than that of an animal who has its lungs in the single body cavity, which can just make a spurt and then has to stop to breathe. Could it be that it is for this reason that the mammals have developed a diaphragm?’
Gracovetsky, Farfan, and Lamay (not available without fee online) developed a model for fascial support of the lumbar spine; they surmised that the fascial tissue behind the lower spine (thoracolumbar fascia) could be somehow displaced, forward or backward they didn’t say, and that even a tiny displacement with the appropriate spinal geometry could result in a significant amount of pressure being transferred through the fascial tissue.
The geometry they had in mind was bent forward, as though to pick up a barbell. Likewise, Bartilink is talking about abdominal pressure in a bent body:
‘In the upright position, whatever the load in the hands, the pressure is usually very low and never significant.’
I myself find that in the lotus, there is pressure in the abdomen, and activity around the fluid ball of the abdomen and throughout the body, seemingly in support of the spine. Also in standing poses, and in walking, depending on the sink.
‘I believe that all humans engage in unconscious breath-holding much the same way that all humans have imaginary conversations! ‘
Yup, yup. Yet the inbreathing and outbreathing activity will be equally unconscious when the breath is not held, when the length of the breath in or breath out is comprehended. Proprioceptive consciousness enters into the experience of place with all attendant gravity, and it’s only natural.
‘The philosophical point — that “turning the light inwards” would imply un-dogen-like dualism, so it can’t be what he meant — will only be worth discussing if the text supports it.’
I’ll just be discussing it anyway, then. The dualism is in the instruction to do something, isn’t it?- if everyone has Buddha nature, then why is it necessary to practice?
This, however, I feel is elegant:
“When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.”
No hurry. If you look for it, you can’t find it, they all agree. Is this the sudden coordination of equalibrioception, oculoception (new word), and proprioception, which is the sense of self we all know and love after all?
“To unfurl the red flag of victory over your head, whirl the twin swords behind your ears–if not for a discriminating eye and a familiar hand, how could anyone be able to succeed?”
(“The Blue Cliff Record”, trans. T. and J.C. Cleary, case 37 pg 274)
I think I’m leaving the transverse thoracic muscles in “Fuxi’s Poem”. There’s a kind of twist, a ripple and twist, that’s important to me.
Rock and roll, twist and _____.
Hanging on by my toenails.
“1. accepting the self operating in everyday life.
2. noself-upon-the-absolute manifesting through this self”
grasping at air, I come up empty
stumbling at the top of the stairs, the ox takes every other one
how to get the ox on the log, without an ox of the opposite sex on the other side
this log floats underwater, the falls are up ahead- what, me worry?
I did some more research. Matt is right. I am wrong. Dogen said “turn light inward”
” learn to take the backward step that turns the light and shines it inward”-
If you look for it, you can’t find it- how does one learn something like that?
Or maybe I’ll be stubborn and go with, “Stop practicing knowledge, chasing words and speech. Consider the retreating rays of the western sun. Body and mind drop away, and the original features appear. To reach just-so, practice just-so.”
It might just about make sense: 囘光返照 can mean “last rays of the setting sun”.
And why might Dogen say that? Because for those last rays, there is not “a hundredth or a thousandth of a gap between heaven and earth”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTen8-LmXfM
Brad, why don’t you ever comment on Japanese whaling and the eating of whale meat?
These animals are very self-aware. They have high encephalization quotient, high degrees of brain folding and neocortical complexity, psychological experiments validating strong self-awareness in other cetaceans that point to similaritis, and the strong possibility of “theory of mind”, then there is strong reason to believe their brains have a high capacity for integration and complexity, meaning they deserve to be called “non-human persons”.
Yet the Japanese eat them like crazy:
i.imgur.com/twOnhxA.jpg
i.imgur (dot) com/xE2n331.jpg
i.imgur.com (dot) OvpR41O.jpg
i.imgur.com (dot) 3me6nE7.jpg?1
You need to quit with your Japanophile hard-on.
“esearchers found that the neocortex of the Minke whale was surprisingly thick. The whale neocortex is thicker than that of other mammals and roughly equal to that of humans (2.63 mm). However, the layered structure of the whale neocortex is known to be simpler than that of humans and most other mammals. In particular, whales lack cortical layer IV, and thus have five neocortical layers to humankind’s six. This means that the wiring of connections into and out of the neocortex is much different in whales than in other mammals. The researchers’ cellular census revealed that the total number of neocortical neurons in the Minke whale was 12.8 billion. This is 13 times that of the rhesus monkey and 500 times more than rats, but only 2/3 that of the human neocortex. What can account for the fact that whales have bigger brains — and similarly thick neocortexes — but fewer neurons? Eriksen and Pakkenberg found that there were 98.2 billion non-neuronal cells, called glia, in the Minke whale neocortex. This is the highest number of glial cells in neocortex seen in any mammal studied to date. The ratio of neocortical glial cells to neocortical neurons is 7.7 to 1 in Minke whales and only 1.4 to 1 in humans. This finding may indicate a tendency for larger glia/neuron ratios as brain mass increases to support the growing neurons. But when one considers other recent research revealing that glia play an important role in information processing (see “The Other Half of the Brain,” fromn Sci. Am. April 2004), one is left to wonder. Is the whale brain intellectually weaker than the human brain, or just different? They have fewer neurons but more glia, and in traditional views of the glia, the neurons count for much more. But if glia process information too, does the different ratio in Minke whales mean they think not more weakly but just much differently?”
source: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/are-whales-smarter-than-we-are/
“similaritis” … the disease of feeling not quite oneself, but nearly?
I made a typo. There’s no need to mock me.
Here’s what I meant more concisely:
Even though there isn’t as much research on whales, given certain limitations, we can still deduce they have high metacognition; their brain anatomy seems just as complex as bottlenose dolphins.
http://www.whalefacts.org/are-whales-intelligent/
Bottlenose dolphins were able to pass a nonverbal false-belief task, so their self-awareness is about our own, possessing a “theory of mind”.
We can make deductions based off the encephalization quotient, that other cetaceans are likely as self-aware as the species of cetacean that have a lot of research on them.
Sorry, I wasn’t mocking, I just found it amusing. I make typos too.
Great apes (e.g., chimpanzees+orangutans), elephants, dolphins, whales, and corvids are established to possess a “theory of mind” (i.e., capable of modeling the thinking of others and attribute mental beliefs, desires, and intentions to both oneself and others). It is highly probable they can link each instance of a mental state sequentially and continuously in their thought. It is highly probable that they suffer to a comparable level as us and communicate grief to one another. The evidence points strongly to this.
I’m starting to feel the numbing pain in my left knee. I’m considering to sue my Zen center because my dumb-ass teacher would say to sit through the pain, and he would give advice on how to endure the pain. He would say “distribute the pain”.
Yeah, quit mocking me.
I’m talking about whaling and you’re creating drama over inconsequential, trivial crap.
Quit making it so tempting.
Shinchan–
Tnx for opening an interesting discussion.
I’ve mentioned before the conversation between a student and teacher, both ordained priests, that I listened in to. The gist of it was:
“Eschewing duality creates a new duality with non-duality.”
“Then how can one escape duality?”
“By completely embracing duality!”
I believe the latter is meant in a non-grasping way.
Since much of the problem is our tendency to search outwardly for the scratch to our itch, the remedy many spiritual teachers give is to search inwardly. (Poison and medicine cure each other.) After all, that bit of reality with which we are most familiar, and is most direct, is our heart/mind; thus looking inwards is likely the best venue of our investigation.
But is it really the dualistic opposite of our usual outward focus? In zazen, when we “look inwards,” what do we see. We become more aware of both inner and outer, until we no longer see such as separate realities. “Looking inwards” is more meta than inwards or outwards, I think.
Introspection is just part of the backward step. A further part is disinvolvement. So a change of attitude, as much as a change of direction.
A switch in the direction of attention from the object of passion to the passion itself automatically shifts attitude, lessening the ego-cling. Still dualistic, mayhap, but the direction is toward the release of dualism.
Thanks, minkfoot … no arguing with that.
My little rant about the “turning inwards to reflect on the self” thing was just based on the phrase not “sounding right” in its context. The obvious interpretation – stop thinking about philosophy, retreat inwards and examine yourself, and hey presto, original face – seemed too trite and pat for Dogen, who usually goes to great lengths to avoid one-sided statements. …and I’m like an aspie dog with a burst ball when something doesn’t make sense to me, just won’t let go.
But the way you put it makes sense.
…
Anyway, this is my fave joke ever:
Q: What’s the difference between a duck?
A: One of its legs are both the same.
I’ll remember that one!
Still dualistic, mayhap, but the direction is toward the release of dualism.
—————————————————————————
Dualism-lite?
Or McDualism?
Dualism is EVIL!!! Whatever you do, you must get rid of it immediately!!!
FREE THE SAMSARA TWO!
I don’t think it’s completely out there that early Chinese Ch’an may have had some Manichean influence, considering its spread to vast parts of China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBmZiOdt8Y8
If I ever open up my own spiritual center like Toni Packer, I will have people read poetry more, walk in natural scenery in seclusion, make their own artwork (whether poetry, fiction, or painting), and watch artistic films. The emphasis would be more on one’s own personal understanding and expression rather than endless Zazen.
Hi, Sock!
Actually, you can do all that stuff without any zazen at all! But there’s many of us here involved in the zazen project; more power to you regarding your center, but that’s pretty irrelevant.
He’s just posting my old texts as a way to mock me.
I have no idea why. I honestly didn’t start anything besides asking Brad Warner to comment on whaling and talk about some real problems in the world.
At the Spring Retreat at one of Brad’s talks we somehow ended up discussing a Zen and Writing retreat, and there was a lot of interest.od.
I didn’t do too much writing at the retreat, but I did find myself able to express thoughts that I would probably not have on a regular day.
Notice how I didn’t say I would eliminate Zazen.
So it is your sock puppet. You just owned it.
Hi Shinchan (@10:21 am),
I can’t find anything good and free to all, but for example the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten sez in their definition of 回光返照:
(1)禅宗ã§ã€è‡ªå·±ã®æ™ºæ…§ã®å…‰ã‚’ã‚ãらã—ã€è‡ªã‚‰ã‚’çœã¿ã‚‹ã“ã¨ã€‚å照。
“In Zen, to turn the light of one’s own wisdom and examine the self. [Same thing as] åç…§.”
They have an example from Ikkyu which does not necessarily imply ‘examine the self’ but then this really unambiguous example from å¤æ–‡å‚åŒå¥‘集解 (a text I’m not familiar with, but it apparently dates from the 17th century):
＊å¤æ–‡å‚åŒå¥‘集解”上・ä¸ã€Œé公挙日月以喩陰陽之相資ã€è€Œæ‹³æ‹³æ–¼æ™¦æœ”è–„è•ã€å…¶æ„蓋有在矣ã€å¦è€…能ä¸æ³¥æ–‡åŸ·è±¡ã€è€Œå›žå…‰è¿”照以求身ä¸ä¹‹æ—¥æœˆæ™¦æœ”ã€å§‹ä¿¡å…¶è¨€ä¹‹ä¸æˆ‘欺也ã€
I would interpret 而回光返照以求身ä¸ä¹‹æ—¥æœˆæ™¦æœ” as “… and by doing 回光返照, seek the sun and moon, the morning and evening *inside your self/body*.”
Incidentally the NKD also gives the Pure Land meaning:
(2)転ã˜ã¦ã€æµ„土教ã§ã€é˜¿å½Œé™€ä»ãŒæ•‘ã„ã®å…‰ã‚’ã‚ãらã›ã¦ç…§ã‚‰ã—出ã™ã“ã¨ã€‚ã¾ãŸã€æµ„土往生者ãŒã“ã®ä¸–ã«å¸°ã£ã¦äººã€…ã‚’æ•‘ã†ã¨ã„ã†é‚„相（ã’ã‚“ãã†ï¼‰ã®å›žå‘ã‚’ã„ã†ã€‚
So it’s either Amida Buddha turning the “saving light” outwards, or, the practice of people residing in the Pure Land returning to this world to save others (this is what 還相ã®å›žå‘ means). If you don’t see how this comes from meaning 1, well, neither do I…
Iriya Yoshitaka’s 禅語辞典 (Dictionary of Zen Words) has an entry for 回光返照 on p33 in which he says it is “also called” 廻光内照 (turn light interior illuminate) and 廻光返本 (turn light return base/root), both of which seem to suggest a “turn the light inward” style reading. He defines it as “自らã®å†…ã‹ã‚‰æ™ºæ…§ã®å…‰ã§è‡ªã‚‰ã‚’照明ã™ã‚‹ã“㨔: “To illuminate the self with the light of wisdom from within the self”.
If you look up 回光返照 in the index f the 1989 Iwanami ä»æ•™è¾žå…¸ (Dictionary of Buddhism) (I think there’s a newer edition but I don’t own it), you’re directed to the left column of page 168, where you will find the entry for 脚下照顧, and at the end of this it says “『臨済録ã€ç¤ºè¡†ã«ã„ã‚ゆる「回光返照ã€ã‚‚åŒæ„” – “‘回光返照’ in the 示衆 (teaching the masses) [part of the] Rinzai-roku means the same thing.”
(I don’t think the chengyu is directly related, by the way — I assume it just happens to be built of the same parts.)
I’m not qualified to argue the philosophical point, but in terms of philology it seems pretty clear to me that the standard *interpretation* of this phrase involves some sort of “self examines self” model. I wouldn’t argue that just because a bunch of dictionaries say that now, it must be what Dogen meant in that passage — but I do think it’s fair to take that as the default assumption, and place the burden of proof on people who argue differently. (Even if for example as you say it doesn’t make sense in the context of the rest of Dogen’s philosophy, it seems to me that the Occam’s Razor interpretation would be that Dogen said something inconsistent with other stuff he said. The guy said an awful lot, after all, and much of that in the forms of paradox and wordplay…)
Incidentally, if you look up just 返照 in the NKD, the first definition is “light shining back, especially the light of the setting sun” (obviously that chengyu). The second definition is specifically marked “Buddhist” and has two parts:
(イ)自分ã®å¿ƒã®é¡ã«ç…§ã‚‰ã—ã¦å†…çœã™ã‚‹ã“ã¨ã€‚ã¾ãŸã€æ˜”ã®ä¾‹ã«ç…§ã‚‰ã—ã¦è€ƒãˆã‚‹ã“ã¨ã€‚
(ãƒ)（「ãˆã“ã†ã¸ã‚“ã—ょã†ï¼ˆå›žå…‰è¿”照）ã€ã®ç•¥ï¼‰ç¦…å®—ã§ã€è‡ªå·±ã®æ™ºæ…§ã®å…‰ã‚’ã‚ãらã—ã€è‡ªå·±ã‚’åçœã—ã¦ã€çœŸå®Ÿã®è‡ªå·±ã«æŽ¥ã™ã‚‹ã“ã¨ã€‚
“i. Illuminate the mirror of one’s own heart/soul (自分ã®å¿ƒã®é¡) and self-examine (内çœ). Or, think about old examples.
“ii. (Short for 回光返照) In Zen, to turn the light of the wisdom of the self [in order to] critically examine the self (自己をåçœ) and connect to the true self (真実ã®è‡ªå·±).”
Thanks Matt, I’ve already concluded that I was mistaken, and Dogen said what he said, which was “turn the light inwards”. What you’ve said here adds to that.
Found some info that might interest you though. See below. Cheers
Dualism is not evil.
*it is “also called” 廻光内照 (turn light interior illuminate) and 廻光返本 (turn light return base/root), both of which seem to suggest a “turn the light inward” style reading. He defines it as “自らã®å†…ã‹ã‚‰æ™ºæ…§ã®å…‰ã§è‡ªã‚‰ã‚’照明ã™ã‚‹ã“㨔: “To illuminate the self with the light of wisdom from within the self*
“turn light return base/root” is the illuminating original face
There is no inside to turn the light inward. It’s all One
Examine the words in terms of insight, satori, kensho.
Einstein had a lot of glia. More than most non-genius humanoids. But he said that God didn’t play dice with the universe. His exceptional computer didn’t lead to zen insight.
Brad said
” I’ve heard a lot of ways of trying to describe what ultimately worked. Dogen wrote about turning the light around and shining it inward. But I tend to picture it more like taking a step to one side”
Did you not find when standing on the bridge over the Japanes River, that It did not come from inside, that there was no inside, that there was no Brad, that nothing was happening to the old Brad, that the thought of the old Brad wasn’t even there.
So saying taking a step to oneside may be a useful metaphor for explaining to others, but even that didn’t happen
Standing on a mountain top
She’s looking to the sea above her
Dream within a dream
And it twice removes her will to wonder
I’m home, my soul, my soul, newborn baby cries
Stepping off this mortal coil will be my pleasure
Giving the gift that giving brings to be my pleasure
Sitting in a room of wood
Rainbows pouring through the laughter
Dream within a dream
It recalls the sound of younger laughter
I’m home, my soul, my soul, newborn baby cry
Stepping off this mortal coil will be my pleasure
Giving the gift that giving brings to be my pleasure
I see what you did there.
Hi again, thanks to Matt and Fred for continuing my wild goose chase right back to the t’ang dynasty.
The earliest use of the phrase I can find is from the “Transmission of the Lamp”. A couple of Chinese phrase dictionaries online, plus a Buddhist site from Taiwan give this as the source. Sad thing is, I can’t find an English translation of the particular koan anywhere. I can kind of make it out, but not fully. Has anyone heard this before or can do a translation?
　　洪州雲居山義能禪師(第ä¹ä¸–ä½)å¸«ä¸Šå ‚æ›°ã€‚ä¸ç”¨ä¸Šä¾†ã€‚å ‚ä¸æ†é™³å¦‚上座為諸上座轉
第一義法輪。還得麼。若自信得å„自æ¸å ‚åƒå–ã€‚å¸«ä¸‹å ‚å¾Œã€‚å´å•ä¸€åƒ§ã€‚åªå¦‚山僧é©ä¾†
教上座åƒå–è–僧。è–僧還é“箇什麼。僧曰。特è¬å’Œå°šå†èˆ‰ã€‚å•å¦‚何是佛。師曰。å³å¿ƒ
是佛。曰å¸äººä¸æœƒä¹žå¸«æ–¹ä¾¿ã€‚師曰。方便呼為佛迴光返照看身心是何物
(from http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/sutra/chi_pdf/sutra20/T51n2076.pdf pg 396)
What I can make out is that… blah,blah…
a monk asks the master (yunju?) :”What is buddha?”
Master: “This very mind is Buddha”
Then some smart alec scholar who’s there says: “That’s an easy answer to give”
And the master replies: “It’s easy to call out the buddha’s name, but [迴光返照], you’ll only find mind and body.”
Which doesn’t help much, because it could equally be “at the moment of death, there’s only mind and body” or “reflecting inwardly there’s only mind and body”
… I’m kind of favouring the first one, because it’s a more dramatic conclusion. Thoughts, anyone?
Also, Matt, the Chinese dictionaries are giving 迴光返照 as the phrase meaning “rally before death” or “last rays of setting sun”, and 返照迴光 as the buddhist introspection. (Although I found a webpage where modern Ch’an teacher Hsuan Hua uses the first one, clearly talking about koan/hua tou introspection)
So I’m still lost really :/
So was Dogen:
“In any case, if he too felt the need to modify the teachings of the Tso-ch’an i and introduce some of the more elevated language and ideas of Ch’an literature, Tsung-tse’s work still forms the core of Dogen’s manual. Nearly a third of his first version of the Fukan zazen gi–including all of its actual account of zazen–is lifted directly from the Chinese text, and much of the rest is clearly derived from it.”
(“Dogen’s Manuals of Zen Meditation”, Carl Bielefeldt, U of CA press 1988, pg 106)
From Bielefeldt’s book, pg 174:
The Tenpuku version of the Fukan zazen gi:
“Therefore reverse the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing after talk, take the backward step of turning the light and shining it back.”
Koroku Fukan zazen gi:
“Therefore, step the intellectual practice of investigating words and chasing after talk, study the backward step of turning the light in and shining it back.”
humbleone, on Dao Bums:
Hi Mark, so I tried your practice last night. My ideal sleep time should be from 10PM-6AM
I woke up at 4:30 AM, after a quick drink of water. returned to bed and tried your practice.
I hope I did it correctly, I was somewhat surprized that my mind moved around quite a bit. not fast, but in slow motion the awareness would shift, from left cheek to right side of torso etc. The end result was a light sleep state, but I was glued to the bed and then woke up exactly at 6AM, feeling refreshed like I had a complete 8 hours of sleep.
If I am able to gain control over my sleep that would be very significant step for me indeed. Could you please provide some feedback if I did it correctly?”
Foote-so, on Dao Bums:
“Hi, humbleone,
Great to hear that you had some success with what I’m describing as “waking up and falling asleep”. Yes, that sounds like the practice; I’m grateful that you tried it at that hour of the morning, as in my experience that’s a very good time to see the mind moving.”
would be “stop“, of course…
What I’m saying is, the mind moves, but you have to be waking up or falling asleep to be that, not see that.
If God is real I’m going to have fire him because he’s doing a shitty job.
Don’t do it before you’re ready to take over.
Everything is illuminated.
Hi Shinchan,
Thanks for the info!
My translation of the part you quote would be:
A monk asked the master: “What is Buddha?”
The master said: “This very mind is Buddha.”
[The monk] said, “I do not understand. Please, master, [explain using] expedient means (方便).”
The master said, “[Using] expedient means, it is called Buddha. 迴光返照 and see: what [kinds of things] are your body and mind?”
Sure seems to imply looking within to me… of course there is the “there is no inside” issue as Fred says, but I don’t know — I guess I assume that this 迴光返照 business is meant to work on a different level. The proverbial finger pointing at the moon rather than the moon itself. Same as how we (generally) accept that Dogen said to spread out a mat and put a cushion on top, without worrying that this implies mat-cushion dualism.
Mat-cushion dualism haha, good point well made.
As I said, I’ve given up on the dualism thing. But still a bit confused as how this koan can have been the source of a proverb meaning to make a false recovery, then die?
I’m all about dualism because I know people such as you and myself don’t share a fundamental equality or anything at all. We are forever separated by an infinite gulf, and it’s best for one of us to simply fade away.
I wish I were a whale, dolphin, corvid (such as crow), or elephant living during a time without man.
You may be no longer listening, but that is because you think for yourself now that “Peanut butter is better than chocolate” or vice versa or that they give the same pleasure. And if you deny that you have a taste which tells you so, it would only be precaution not to give away the normality behind a zen-adept.
Depends on a lot of factors such as the way the peanut butter and chacolate were prepared, whether it’s organic or not, and so forth, but based off its qualities we can determine which is healthier and none of your nondual crap can ignore that.