The True Dharma Eye is Not a View
The True Dharma Eye is a means of liberating the body from blind reaction. In other words, it is an instrument of consciousness. It is not a viewpoint. A person's viewpoint is always liable to be wrong. Even a buddha's viewpoint is liable to be wrong. But the True Dharma Eye is always true. So, no, the True Dharma Eye cannot be a person's viewpoint.
On January 17th, Gudo Nishijima sent me the following email, cc to all his Dharma-heirs.
Dear Mr. Mike Cross,
I hope that you will not change the serious problem into a small kind of theory. You have proclaimed that you are not a Buddhist in your own email to me. It might be a Freudian mistake. But I think that such a kind of Freudian mistakes usually suggest his or her own honest mind. I have clearly noticed that you have intention to change Dogen Sangha into a part of the group of Alexander Technic after my death. I do never permit your such kind of evil plan at all.
With best wishes
Gudo Wafu Nishijima
Whether Gudo Nishijima has been a true teacher to me or not, I honestly do not know. Witnessing my reactions to Gudo Nishijima over the past several years, Pierre Turlur has described me as being like a yo-yo. But reading this and other recent emails, I have no doubt that Gudo Nishijima's viewpoint has become wrong.
I first shaved my head and wore the Buddhist robe in 1986. So it is 20 years now that I have been sitting in Zazen every day, shaven headed and wearing the robe, endeavoring to follow as truly as possible the instructions Master Dogen set out in Fukan-zazengi. I wanted to train as an Alexander teacher for one reason only: because I sensed that what FM Alexander discovered might be vitally important, if I were ever to grasp the intention that Master Dogen described in Fukan-zazengi, thereby becoming "like a dragon that has found water."
So when I read Gudo Nishijima's email, I find the content disturbing and I find it difficult not to react. But, on reflection, what is new? When has it ever been easy for me not to react blindly to the various stimuli that Gudo Nishijima has presented to me over the years? So, yes, I doubt myself. But I have always been prone to doubt myself. Nothing has changed there.
What I have realized over the past few days is that I don't doubt the truth of my practice, at all. The True Dharma Eye is always true, and I am just a Buddhist who, for 20 years or so, has devoted himself to it. This is my confidence, and not even the buddhas can shake it.
On January 17th, Gudo Nishijima sent me the following email, cc to all his Dharma-heirs.
Dear Mr. Mike Cross,
I hope that you will not change the serious problem into a small kind of theory. You have proclaimed that you are not a Buddhist in your own email to me. It might be a Freudian mistake. But I think that such a kind of Freudian mistakes usually suggest his or her own honest mind. I have clearly noticed that you have intention to change Dogen Sangha into a part of the group of Alexander Technic after my death. I do never permit your such kind of evil plan at all.
With best wishes
Gudo Wafu Nishijima
Whether Gudo Nishijima has been a true teacher to me or not, I honestly do not know. Witnessing my reactions to Gudo Nishijima over the past several years, Pierre Turlur has described me as being like a yo-yo. But reading this and other recent emails, I have no doubt that Gudo Nishijima's viewpoint has become wrong.
I first shaved my head and wore the Buddhist robe in 1986. So it is 20 years now that I have been sitting in Zazen every day, shaven headed and wearing the robe, endeavoring to follow as truly as possible the instructions Master Dogen set out in Fukan-zazengi. I wanted to train as an Alexander teacher for one reason only: because I sensed that what FM Alexander discovered might be vitally important, if I were ever to grasp the intention that Master Dogen described in Fukan-zazengi, thereby becoming "like a dragon that has found water."
So when I read Gudo Nishijima's email, I find the content disturbing and I find it difficult not to react. But, on reflection, what is new? When has it ever been easy for me not to react blindly to the various stimuli that Gudo Nishijima has presented to me over the years? So, yes, I doubt myself. But I have always been prone to doubt myself. Nothing has changed there.
What I have realized over the past few days is that I don't doubt the truth of my practice, at all. The True Dharma Eye is always true, and I am just a Buddhist who, for 20 years or so, has devoted himself to it. This is my confidence, and not even the buddhas can shake it.
posted by Mike Cross at 5:53 PM
2 Comments:
Mike, You have found the Alexander Technique and it has helped you with your Buddhist Practice. That is great. Maybe in your excitement to share it's benefits with others you are alienating some people and causing yourself problems. Everyone knows how you feel about it. Some of us will look into it. Maybe it is time to give your proselytizing a rest. Allow others to discover their own ways of improving their practice.
You shouldn’t worry about being prone to doubts about yourself. That self-examination is good for you if you do it honestly. You say you have no doubts that Gudo Nishijima's viewpoint has become wrong. It would be healthy to have some doubt about that too. You better think about that one long and hard. Having no opinion on whether his viewpoint has become wrong is better than having the wrong one.
In "Crooked Cucumber", David Chadwick reports the following story about his teacher:
" Suzuki was a little harder on Grahame now that he was a novice priest. One saturday morning Grahame arrived late for the beginning of the day-and-a-half sesshin. After breakfast Suzuki took him to task in his office saying:" Priest don't arrive late! You are not a priest! You have no right to wear that Okesa!" Grahame was mortified and started to take off his Okesa. "What are you doing?" said Suzuki."NO one has the right to tell you to take off the Okesa."
It just rings a bell, doesn't it? Nobody, not even Buddha ( even an eternal Buddha like Nishijima roshi) has the right to take this Okesa from our-your-mine-their shoulders. We are all foolish deluded creatures led by blind-reaction and yet, this sitting, this is the supreme allowing of it, in spite of this.
So is Johndoe and the likes and me.
Johndoe, your understanding of the Buddhist path seems coloured by your Christian background: we have got to be very kind to each other. Mike Cross, Pierre Turlur, johndoe can tell bullshit, so can Nishijima. Your reverence is sheer stupidity. What is my way to respect Nishijima?... Not kissing his arse... But: Singing the Busso rai, sitting shikantaza, wearing and sewing the kesa, shaving my fucking head. DO YOU DO THAT? That's the way, Johndoe, not your wishful thinking.
True reverence, respect, kindness and compassion are to be found in Buddhist practice as it is. Not sentimental judgements or sweet intentions.
Do you know Shobogenzo? Are you aware that the Buddhist path as experienced in our lineage is not necessarely a family reunion or a haapy and merry Christmas party. Sometimes very crude and rude words do fly. READ IT, please.
The dialogue between Nishijima and Cross is not the conversation between a saint and a fool ( swap them around, same stuff). It is about two Buddhas talking in a deluded language.
Mike's attitude may appear very offensive to the guru-worshipers. It has a huge merit beyond its inherent shortcoming: to remind the good old Gudo that IT cannot be taken away from anybody, that IT is nobody's point of view. It is beyond our hopes and fears.
Wake up, Johndoe. Please, wake up.
Post a Comment
<< Home