The four noble truths - book recommendations?

[pthwaites]

Thanks all for your comments and suggestions. It's hard to articulate exactly what I hoped to get from a book about the four noble truths. I think that behind my request is a sense that although I can easily identify dukkha in my life, and I intellectually understand the teachings on the cessation of dukkha, somehow I feel that I'm not able to connect the two. I retain my bad habits and I struggle to see how my dukkha is the result of a desire to see things as permanent and inherently existing. Perhaps I'm asking too much of my practice, but I was hoping to find a book which helped me to see the roadmap for this process, to help me to see it when it appears in my meditation.

(Perhaps roadmaps are not very zen [emoji5]).

Gassho

Sat today

Peter

Sent from my SM-G935L using Tapatalk

[Shokai]

Hi Peter;

There comes a point where one more book doesn't make it. one needs to sit with the intimacy to gain insight. Best advice at that point is to Just sit; shikantaza

gassho, Shokai

stlah

[Mp]

I struggle to see how my dukkha is the result of a desire to see things as permanent and inherently existing

Hey Peter,

If we see all things in life as permanent, we can come to a place of attachment - attachment then leads to dukkha/suffering. Accepting all conditions in life including dukkha just as they are, is accepting that all things in life are impermanent and do change. The best way to understand this is through experience, is through sitting Shikantaza, as Shokai has already mentioned. Yes there is a time when we need to intellectually understand things, but realization of those things comes through just sitting. =)

Gassho
Shingen

Sat/LAH

[Enjaku]

i like the book of Thich Nhat Hanh, the heart of Buddha's teaching, very much.[ATTACH=CONFIG]4907[/ATTACH]

I would second this suggestion. Wonderful book and definitely has a good summary of the four noble truths

Gassho,
Enjaku
Sat

[pthwaites]

Thanks all for the recommendations and for the more general advice!

Gassho

Sat today

Peter

Sent from my SM-G935L using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

Hi Peter,

I have been rerreading for you the book I recommended on memory ...

Buddhism Plain and Simple: The Practice of Being Aware, Right Now, Every Day is Steve Hagen
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804843368/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

He definitely bases the whole book on the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. He does tend to use each Truth as the starting point for his own, easy to read essay on Practice related to Dukkha and "being aware of the moment" (as he puts it), rather than a deep philosophical discussion of history and meaning Dukkha and the like. So, it is almost as if he uses the Four Truths etc. as just a kick-off point.

He is also (if this is possible) more radically "down to earth" in his interpretation of Buddha and Buddhism than even me! He is really extreme on that point, insisting that the Buddha had a completely rational and scientific world view back in the Iron Age, for example. I think it is not historically accurate to say so. He seems to be Teaching some kind of "mindfulness" `Practice more than Zazen sometimes.

In any case, good book however. Easy to read and thin.

Gassho, Jundo

SatTodayLAH

[pthwaites]

Thanks Jundo!

Gassho

Sat today

Peter

Sent from my SM-G935L using Tapatalk

[Meitou]

Hi Peter,
This arrived in my inbox this morning and I thought of your thread here. Not about books as you requested but a very helpful article on suffering itself. https://www.lionsroar.com/the-real-path/

Gassho
Meitou
satwithyoualltoday/lah

[pthwaites]

Thank you Meitou!

Sat today

Peter

Sent from my SM-G935L using Tapatalk

[Rad_Ahemn]

Sorry for rebirthing a thread,

I would recommend Three Philosophies and One Reality by Nishijima Roshi.

As mentioned above, the Four Noble Truths are part of the deep connecting tissue between all branches of Buddhism but one rarely approached from a singular Zen perspective.

Nishijima Roshi's perspective helped me bring the more intellectual and academic sides of this old Buddhist idea into something I can see and interact with in my daily life.

It also doesn't hurt that this view was clarified by someone as dear to Treeleaf as Nishijima Roshi!

It's also quite informative to see Nishijima examine the parts of the Shōbōgenzō from this perspective in Understanding the Shobogenzo.

Again, sorry for an unskillful rebirth - I was just a little surprised not to see this suggested already.

Sat Today
Adam

[Jundo]

Sorry for rebirthing a thread,

I would recommend Three Philosophies and One Reality by Nishijima Roshi.

As mentioned above, the Four Noble Truths are part of the deep connecting tissue between all branches of Buddhism but one rarely approached from a singular Zen perspective.

Nishijima Roshi's perspective helped me bring the more intellectual and academic sides of this old Buddhist idea into something I can see and interact with in my daily life.

It also doesn't hurt that this view was clarified by someone as dear to Treeleaf as Nishijima Roshi!

It's also quite informative to see Nishijima examine the parts of the Shōbōgenzō from this perspective in Understanding the Shobogenzo.

Again, sorry for an unskillful rebirth - I was just a little surprised not to see this suggested already.

Sat Today
Adam

Hi Adam,

Thank you for mentioning this. Nishijima Roshi believed in the "standard" interpretation of the Four Noble Truths, but he also had an alternative interpretation that was his own. I have not really found it shared by any other Teacher, so I have not mentioned it here. I find it quite valuable, and it does provide insights in Buddhist Teachings, although I don't really feel that it is historical and it is very personal to Nishijima Roshi. They are based on what Nishijima Roshi called the "Four Views" or "Three Philosophies & One Reality" which I once summarized as follows:

Some people (almost all people in some way) dream of an idealized world (or "heaven" or "enlightenment" or a "purified society after the revolution comes" ... whatever) that is always good by our little human standards ... candy cane trees and ice cream mountains. Or, they feel lack between how the world "is" and how they wish it "should be" in their ideals. At least, they dream of some state much better than the present state. In contrast, this world of ours is less than ideal. That is an "idealistic" view. There is also a sense in most religions of some "ideal" world that is the world of the spirit, which is the world we need to get to by escaping this world of the "flesh".

On the other hand, some other people think of this universe as just blind processes, dead matter that happened to come alive as us, going no place in particular. (I really abbreviate the description ... but this is generally a materialistic view of the world). Although seemingly dispassionate and "coldly objective" about the world, this view will often cross the line into asserting that the world is "meaningless" or "pointless" or "survival-of-the-fittest cruel" or just "we are born, we work, we die" ... some such bleak thing. He also sometimes uses "material" to mean the "world of the flesh, this sometimes disappointing and hard life" as opposed to the above idealized "world of the spirit" found in most religions.

Both those views tend to judge that there is something lacking in the present state.

However, Buddhism is an existentialist way of being in and as this life-world-just-as-it-is, meaning the world and this life before we impose our judgments and dreams upon it. We neither judge the world lacking in comparison to another ideal world, nor do we judge it cold and pointless and hopeless. We just let the world be as it is, and we go with the flow ... to such a degree that we can no longer see perhaps the divisions between ourselves and the world in the flowing. In that way, as Nishijima describes it, it swallows whole both materialism and idealism by finding this world, just going where it goes, to be ideally just what it is. And that way of seeing beyond "beautiful" or "ugly", "peace" and "war" is .... pretty darn Beautiful and Peaceful! Material and Ideal merge into each other and are transcended. This is Nishijima's view of Buddhist "realism", his third philosophy.

However, theory alone is not enough. More than words describing this "realistic" perspective, we must actually taste it in the practice-experience of Zazen. So, Zazen is the pure action whereby we actually experience this being of reality.

Something like that.

I think that, while Bro. Brad Warner mentions the "Four Views" or "Three Philosophies and One Reality" from time to time in his books, he himself does not make wide use of that model in his writings (at least, as far as I can see). I think it is actually a very sound description of aspects of Buddhist/Mahayana Teachings, but I also think dear Nishijima Roshi had a tendency to run a bit wide with his model sometimes. He tried to fit many things into one or the other of the Four Views that were not always a good fit, and I don't think you can so easily make a line by line association to Dogen's writings, or to the Four Noble Truths, to one or the other of the Four Views. (Let me mention that there has never been the principle in Zen Buddhism that one always agree with every expression of the Teachings by one's Teacher in all aspects. If that were the case, Zen Buddhism, and Buddhism in general, would not come in so many flavors or develop. Dogen did not copy, and sometimes made his own, many of the Teachings by his Teacher in China, Rujing, and none of us are exact copies of Nishijima Roshi. It is best said that, like a piano student who plays in his own way on the very same keys of the piano, we all agree on the wordless essence, sometimes express the words and descriptions differently ).

In any case, I will print below in full the section of the book by Nishijima Roshi which I translated in which he discusses his ideas about the "Four Noble Truths." In the book, Nishijima Roshi is having a talk with an imagined student:

A Heart to Heart Chat on Buddhism with Old Master Gudo (Expanded Edition)

https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Chat-Buddhism-Master-Expanded/dp/0692374337/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

===============

IV. THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS



A NEW WAY TO SEE “THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS.”

Sekishin: So, can it be said that Buddhism is a way of thinking that supplants and rejects both idealism and materialism?

Gudo: Yes. From one perspective, we can say that it is exactly that. On the other hand, and from a complementary perspective, Buddhism also embraces, transcends and fully contains within its structure both idealistic thinking and materialistic thinking.

Sekishin: How does it accomplish that hard trick?

Gudo: Well, the philosophical system within Buddhism that allows such an accomplishment is the system we call “The Four Noble Truths.”

Sekishin: Ah… That is the Buddhist teaching containing the four concepts saying, first, this life is a life of suffering, that the cause of that suffering is our craving and desire, that suffering can be brought to an end through the elimination of craving and desire, and finally, that the so-called “Eightfold Path” is the means to the end of suffering …

Gudo: That is right. Those four propositions are known as “The Four Noble Truths,” and are rightly said to be among the most important elements constituting the philosophy of Buddhism. After Gautama Buddha attained truth under the Bodhi Tree at Magadha, his very first teaching, spoken to the five ascetics who had been his former companions, was an imparting of these Four Noble Truths. Gautama Buddha himself asserted the centrality within Buddhism of these Four Noble Truths, and there is no doubt as to their great importance.

Sekishin: Well, hmmm, I don’t think that life is all just suffering. When I hear this, I doubt very much just how accurate these Noble Truths really are. For example, the First Noble Truth, namely, that this world is suffering, is that correct? Of course, this human life we all live will contain much pain and suffering sometimes. However, life is not necessarily all suffering. For example, when we drink and celebrate happy times, when we enjoy a good day with our friends, when we have had some success or achievement in our work, or when we fall in love and get married, when our children succeed in their lives before our eyes… Do we really have to grimace at it all and think of these nice things as being the cause of suffering?

I understand that, well, even pleasure is the root of suffering when we become attached to the pleasure, or crave and desire the pleasure to excess. Still, when we look at the Second Noble Truth, which says that the cause of all suffering in this world is our craving and desire, is such a cut and dried statement really correct too? Is that all it is? Isn’t the picture a bit more complex, and the causes of human suffering manifold?

And even if so, with regard to the assertion that suffering can be brought to an end through the elimination of craving and desire, which is the Third Noble Truth, I just don’t think it possible for a human being, by our basic nature, to be able to totally eliminate desire and such within us. I do not think it possible or even optimal for us to become desireless and passionless like cold automatons. Only a cold and lifeless stone is without all desire and passion, and I do not think that the goal of our Buddhist practice is to become like lifeless stones. Accordingly, I just cannot think well of some “Eightfold Path” or other strange concept that seeks to force us into forms of behavior which are unnatural or even impossible for normal human beings. Is the idea that our true and good inner nature will manifest somehow by the mere cutting off of our desire? I very, very much doubt it.

Gudo: Well, I think your doubts are right to an extent. I too have wrestled with great misgivings having connection to the manner in which The Four Noble Truths typically have been explained and taught.

Sekishin: But, Roshi, did you not just say that The Four Noble Truths form one of the centerpieces of Buddhist philosophy?

Gudo: Oh, yes, I believe that The Four Noble Truths are among the most important foundations for the wisdom of Buddhism. However, at the same time, and so that The Four Noble Truths can rightly occupy their central place in Buddhism, I believe that it is necessary for us to somewhat revise the way in which The Four Noble Truths have been commonly explained. I feel we should find the deeper meaning in these truths. I would like to propose an alternative perspective on The Four Noble Truths that may help illuminate the real wisdom they contain.

Sekishin: But, I believe that the description I gave earlier of the content of The Four Noble Truths is the prevalent description as set forth in several very ancient suttas, and I think that it is consistent with the authoritative explanation.

Gudo: That is certainly true, and that is one perspective on the teaching. But, we must keep in mind that even such extremely ancient writings as the oldest Pali suttas were not ultimately set down until some hundreds of years or more after the death of Gautama Buddha. Such time allowed for various interpretations to develop with regard to the basic teachings. If we were, for example, to think backwards from our present year... subtracting a hundred years would place us near the start of the twentieth century, and two hundred years would take us back to the time of Napoleon. So, when we think about how impossible it is for us who are alive today to imagine just how life was a century ago... Of course, we can know a bit from reading books or from paintings and photographs and such, but it is almost impossible for us to guess the reality of people’s feelings and experiences in their day-to-day lives, the realities of food, clothing and shelter, the actual social environment and the like. And we are left just so much more at a loss with regard to imagining the situation some two centuries ago.

If we think from such a standpoint, in Gautama Buddha’s day, which lacked the methods of accurately recording and transmitting ideas that we now possess in our time, the passing of a hundred or two hundred years would have caused much loss—perhaps more than we can even imagine—in the attempt to properly and accurately transmit the teachings. That is so even if a rigorous system of oral recitation and repetition were employed, as is claimed for the Buddha’s words that were passed down orally for hundreds of years. Accordingly, the content of even the oldest of suttas and other sources just cannot be said to be always fully and necessarily reflecting the real thinking of Gautama Buddha.

Sekishin: So, Roshi, what you are saying is that you have some doubt as to whether the explanation of The Four Noble Truths found in the old suttas and other sources is the real meaning intended by Gautama Buddha, and that other perspectives might help bring out the wisdom in the teaching...?

Gudo: That is right. You said before that you have a hard time believing the explanation regarding The Four Noble Truths as found in many traditional sources. Well, since the explanation found in the old suttas and such was created based upon an oral retelling and reciting from memory passed down from teller to teller for hundreds of years after the lifetime of Gautama Buddha, a long period during which every single person who had had the experience of actually seeing Gautama Buddha, of hearing his teachings directly, gradually died off, well, we should not over-value these books unquestioningly just because they are ancient, and we can look at these matters in other ways.

Sekishin: In that case, Roshi, what is your other understanding of The Four Noble Truths?

Gudo: As you said, the most common manner of understanding of The Four Noble Truths has been that: (1) this life is suffering, (2) the cause of that suffering is craving and desire, (3) and, if we were but to cut off craving and desire (4) the true and proper human state would manifest. The Eightfold Path is the way. However, such a manner of understanding, such an interpretation of this actual world in which we live, is just too simplistic, too dogmatic. By approaching this in another manner, we can better bring the teaching to life. It is not that I am saying that the traditional interpretations are wrong. Rather, I hope to explain them in a way that looks to their implications from other perspectives to shed light on the real meaning of desire, suffering and the cure for suffering.

First, in the very phrase The Four Noble Truths, the meaning of Truths as used therein, as shown by its usage in Noble Truths or in other Buddhist terminology such as The Truth of the First Principle (Jap: daiichigitai), is not meant merely the ordinary meaning of the “truth” of some determination or decision, e.g., the truth that something is determined to be something, that X = Y or 1+1 = 2. Instead, it should be understood as a word pointing to several bases of thinking serving as foundations underlying all decision making.

Namely, if we put it into modern terms, “Truths” is a word expressing several fundamental or basic standpoints or viewpoints, such as would be conveyed in the expressions “life views” or “worldviews.” Accordingly, the meaning of The Truth of Suffering (Jap: kutai) means a way of thinking centered on suffering, The Truth of Accumulation or Aggregation (shutai in Japanese) means a way of thinking centered on accumulations and aggregates, The Truth of Self-Regulation (Jap: mettai) means a way of thinking centered on self-control and self-regulation, and The Truth of the True Way (Jap: dotai) means a way of thinking centered on the True Way.

Sekishin: I do not think that I have heard The Four Noble Truths expressed in this way before. So, Roshi, are you saying that The Four Noble Truths constitute, in fact, a list of four separate and independent ways of thinking?

Gudo: Yes. From another perspective, I believe that Gautama Buddha’s true meaning was just that. They are separate and independent ways of thinking, yet fit and build, one upon the other, in a unified and settled order which constitutes a characteristic and distinctive perspective of Buddhism. The Chinese characters which were chosen by the early translators of Buddhist literature to express the Sanskrit words catvary aryasatyani are pronounced shi sho tai in Japanese. Shi means four, sho means sacred or noble, and tai means truth or philosophy. Often, however, they are referred to as shi tai ron, wherein ron means theory. Thus the phrase The Theory of Four Philosophies can also be used as quite a close translation. The word satya in Sanskrit has arrived in Japanese as tai. Both satya and tai can be interpreted in several ways; although the prime meaning of both is undoubtedly “truth,” the word “philosophy” is also an accurate rendering from the Japanese.

Sekishin: All right. What, then, do you mean when you say that The Truth of Suffering means a way of thinking centered on suffering?

Gudo: If we start with The Truth of Suffering, we find that in the old suttas and in other sources, there is an explanation of the so-called Four Sufferings and Eight Sufferings, which I believe serves as a good point of reference. The Four Sufferings are birth, old age, sickness and death, and the Eight Sufferings are the first four sufferings, plus the sufferings of being apart from those one loves, meeting those one detests, not obtaining one's desires, and sufferings arising from the five aggregates. Put another way, among these Eight Sufferings is the suffering of being unable to escape from the desire to be together with those one loves, the suffering of being unable to fulfill one’s desire not to encounter persons one loathes, the suffering of not being able to obtain that which one wishes to obtain, and the suffering of longing for quiet and stillness though being unable to realize quiet and stillness, and others. Each is a suffering born from the inability of human beings to realize and achieve the longings and desires we carry in our hearts.

In addition, The Four Sufferings of birth, old age, sickness and death represent an inability to attain a desired happiness during life. For example, we cannot escape the yearning for health and youth, although such cannot always be the case. We cannot live forever, or escape from death, although we might hope to do so. Each suffering is born from our inability to escape the longings and desires we each carry with us, an inability to accept life as it is. Each stems from our desire that life be some other way; it is our creation of idealized dreams of how we would otherwise wish life to be, how life should be, other than just what it is as we find it.

These longings, desires, wishes and such represent our dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a dream of how we wish circumstances would be or should be to make us happy, We have a vision of an ideal life, a notion of what would make us happy once and for all if only it would come to be. Dukkha, suffering, may perhaps be better translated as dissatisfaction with how things are. That is, it is the suffering that necessarily arises in idealism, in idealistic thinking. The idealistic concept is always much better than the checkered world as we find it, here and now. So, it is not that the denial of a desire must necessarily result in suffering, but that idealistic philosophies and views have, inherent within themselves, a characteristic of suffering. In contrast, in Buddhism, which allows us to be content and fully at home in the world just as it is, and amid circumstances just as we find them, while simultaneously holding all the dreams and desires of an active life, in Buddhism, we might feel the sting of a desire denied to us, yet, in our simultaneous equanimity and acceptance of that fact, we merely observe, with objectivity and tranquility, the throb of the hard punch that life may have handed to us. There may be some pain, some sadness perhaps, but true suffering can occur only when we cling to the pain, wrap our minds around it, and refuse to observe it all from a tranquil stance of acquiescence. We may dream that the path of life would take us to the north, and we work step-by-step to travel north toward our goal. But, when life blocks our path, when the wind blows us onto a southern course, the Buddhist will accept that fact, will appraise the altered circumstances of life and plot a new route, a new direction, step-by-step.

I do not believe that the Buddha held that sickness, old age and death are the cause of suffering in and of themselves. Rather, he discovered that our refusal to embrace and allow sickness, old age and death, and to cling to and crave health, youth and life in their stead as our desired ideal, is the root of suffering. Dukkha, dissatisfaction, arises from sickness, but only when we refuse the condition; from old age, if we long for youth; in encountering death, because we cling to life; by loss, when we cannot let go; due to violated expectations, because we wished otherwise.

So, if we look from such a standpoint, we can understand that suffering is linked to our inability as human beings to realize our inner ideals and, looking at it from the opposite standpoint, that a way of thinking centered on suffering means a way of thinking centered upon the ideals which are the cause of suffering. Specifically, suffering is a reaction to our desired ideals whereby life fails, from our subjective viewpoint, to meet the artificial standards, hopes, wishes, dreams and expectations we self-righteously place upon it within our human hearts. Accordingly, The Truth of Suffering can be understood to refer to ways of thinking having as their center-point human desire for the ideal, and thus is an expression bearing the flavor of the philosophies of idealism as found in ancient India.

Sekishin: And, so, what is the second of the four, The Truth of Accumulation or Aggregation as a way of thinking centered on accumulations and aggregates?

Gudo: In some old suttas and sutras, this is sometimes referred to as the Truth of Cause, and there are many examples of this cause being interpreted to mean the cause that is desire. However, in other examples, this cause is interpreted as being the cause displayed in cause and effect relationships, another central concept in Buddhism, and I believe that such an interpretation may be closer to an original meaning intended by Gautama Buddha. This latter perspective can also cast light on the true significance of the teaching.

Thus, in place of the “Truth of Cause,” I prefer the term “The Truth of Accumulation” or “Aggregation,” which I believe is closer to the original Sanskrit word, samdaya. If we try to restate this “cause” as the “cause” of “cause and effect” then, using other words, we might say it means, for example, the causal relationships existing among the accumulations and aggregations of particles and forces of physical matter, the physical phenomena that constitute this objective world, which surrounds and includes us. We can understand The Truth of Accumulation or Aggregation to mean the causes and interactions found in the physical matter of this objective world of which we are part, and material causes as the causes found in cause and effect relationships in this world. This Truth can be thus called the The Truth of Aggregates, meaning the aggregates of matter, the Truth of the cause and effect relationships of the aggregates of matter in the objective world that surround us.

Sekishin: When you say matter, it thus seems opposite to the idealistic thinking of The Truth of Suffering.

Gudo: That is correct. If we say that The Truth of Suffering bears the flavor of the philosophies of idealism of ancient India, then I believe that Gautama Buddha’s real meaning in The Truth of Aggregates is materialism, the philosophies of materialism of ancient India. As the Buddha taught, falling one-sidedly into a materialistic viewpoint, and holding as too important the experiences of our senses, is also—just as with idealism—a way of thinking that is a source of suffering. We have to keep in mind that Gautama Buddha did not view the real world as a world of only pure physical matter lacking all meaning and value, as something cold and dead and meaningless. To see life and the world as, at heart, nothing but a collection of physical phenomena, this is too a source of suffering and delusion.

Sekishin: What, then, is the next of the four, The Truth of Self-Regulation? You describe this as a way of thinking centered on self-control and self-regulation …

Gudo: The term in Sanskrit is nirodha-satya, which also can be translated as The Truth of Negation or The Truth of Synthesis. I have sometimes thought such terms to be a good translation, for the meaning of this Truth of “Negation” and of “Synthesis” is the negation and synthesis of the ideal, the negation and synthesis of the material. To the extent that we human beings are living in a world centered on what we think, what we wish and dream, our thoughts, wishes and dreams, and our ideals, will be a cause of problems to us. And to the extent that we human beings are living in a world in which we are wrapped up in the material and what we experience through the senses, we shall revere one-sidedly the material and hold as overly important our senses. However, besides the worlds of thinking and of the senses, besides the perspectives of the ideal and the material, one additional, most important perspective exists for human beings: this is the world of action, of being and doing which accepts the world just as it is. It is the world that sweeps in and swallows whole both the ideal and the material, right here and now. It is called a world of action because this world is active now, is acting here and now, and we exist now, are acting here and now as an expression of that active world.

Therefore, because this world of action is, at this very moment, existentially the world of the present moment, there is no time to slowly contemplate this or that, nor time to confirm phenomena sensually. The world of action is a world in which ideas and ideals are negated, transcended, synthesized and absorbed, and simultaneously, a world in which matter and the senses are negated, transcended, synthesized and absorbed. It is the world that is this present moment in time, the world which, spatially, embodies this very place: here and now. It is a way of thinking that transcends thinking, as well as a way of thinking that transcends the senses. The philosophy born out of a world of action, possessing such a meaning both negating and absorbing each of the ideal and the material, can thus be called The Truth of Negation or The Truth of Synthesis.

Sometimes it is referred to as The Truth of Extinction, perhaps meaning some ultimate extinction of thought, extinction of the senses or extinction of all desire. But I do not prefer that term. Nothing is made extinct, and even desire is still there as a necessary aspect of our being alive as human beings. But all is gone beyond, embraced and synthesized into a whole. Because—more than any true eradicating and extinguishing of the ideal and material— it sweeps in and swallows whole both the ideal and the material. So we had best not call it The Truth of Extinction.

However, the Sanskrit word nirodha can have a variety of meanings, such as confinement, locking up, imprisonment, to restrain, check, control, and so forth. For this reason, I think that we also might say that nirodha can mean a form of self-control, or self-regulation. In order to realize that state of action in which ideas and ideals are negated, transcended, synthesized and absorbed, and simultaneously, in which matter and the senses are negated, transcended, synthesized and absorbed, a state in which we live in the world as it is, just here and now, what we must realize is a state of balance in body, balance in mind, a regulation of body and mind.

One subject that we will have a chance to discuss later in detail concerns the various physical and mental effects of Zazen, such as the effect of Zazen upon the human autonomic nervous system, which is brought into a state of balance, and the regulation of the body and mind brought into a state of balance. Thus, I now prefer to describe this The Truth of Self-Regulation, as a way of thinking centered on self-control and self-regulation realizing balance in body, balance in mind. By The Truth of the True Way, and most specifically, by the practice of Zazen, we are brought into that state in which body and mind are balanced, controlled and regulated in such a way, and The Truth of Self-Regulation thereby attained. So, this is the The Truth of Self-Regulation, The Truth of Self-Control, and perhaps we might also term it The Truth of Equilibrium for this balance and equilibrium of body and mind.

Sekishin: This leads us to The Truth of the True Way, the Truth centered on the True Way.

Gudo: The True Way is a translation from the original Sanskrit, marga-satya, and is said to encompass the true teachings of the Buddha. We said that the thinking behind The Truth of Self-Regulation is a way of thinking pertaining to the world of action, which calls upon us to realize a state of balance in body, balance in mind in our living. But that does not mean that, naturally and in and of themselves, each and every one of our actions will be so balanced, right and proper at all times or in all circumstances. Accordingly, our actions and behavior are sometimes balanced, right and proper, and sometimes unbalanced. But that state in which they are in accord and agreement with the balanced state is best understood as being The True Way. In the suttas, this Truth of the True Way is explained in its connection to The Eightfold Path, which is not just by coincidence.

The Eightfold Path consists of True View, True Thinking, True Speech, True Action, True Livelihood, True Effort, True Consciousness and True Balance. These call for us to engage in and hold proper and balanced viewpoints, proper and balanced ideas, proper and balanced manners of speaking, proper and balanced conduct, proper and balanced ways of living, proper and balanced courses of endeavor, proper and balanced states of mind and proper and balanced states of body. When each of these types of personal actions and behaviors are in a state of perfect balance, such is what we call The True Way.

However, realizing and achieving such states of balance is not an easy thing. For this reason, Gautama Buddha urged the practice of Zazen as the means giving rise instantaneously to that state of perfect balance, harmony and accord between our actions and the balance, rightness and propriety which is the order of the universe. Accordingly, The Truth of the True Way, if we examine its meaning thoroughly, can also be said to be that way of living centered upon the practice of Zazen.

...


Sekishin: I would like to focus on Zazen a bit later, Roshi, and discuss it then in depth. For now, Roshi, may I ask on what basis you came to adopt the interpretation of The Four Noble Truths that you have just put forth?

Gudo: That is directly related to the many, many years that I have spent reading and considering Master Dogen’s Shobogenzo.

Sekishin: Is the same explanation of The Four Noble Truths found in the Shobogenzo?

Gudo: There is no explanation that directly maps out such a structure, or which speaks in exactly those words. Yet, throughout the Shobogenzo there appears again and again a logic and method of assertion attempting to explain this world of reality in which we live by means of the multi-layered and complex usage and interworking of four ways of thinking, which, although seemingly in conflict with each other, fit and build, one upon the other, in a unified and settled order, and which constitute a characteristic and distinctive perspective of Buddhism.

Through the combination of those four ways of thinking, a fine explanation is afforded of this world of reality. And to the extent that we do not employ this unique combination of the four ways of thinking, I feel keenly that a good explanation of this strange and complex, multi-layered world of reality in which we live must elude us. I therefore came to the hypothesis that The Four Noble Truths as expounded by Gautama Buddha within early Buddhism, and that method of assertion which combines and interweaves the four ways of thinking as appears again and again throughout the Shobogenzo, are one and the same.

Master Dogen expresses his ideas in the Shobogenzo based on a pattern of four phases. First, he explains a problem from the idealistic point of view; that is, as an idea using abstract concepts. Then, immediately after this first phase, he explains the same problem, but this time from the objective, or materialistic point of view. In other words, he gives concrete examples and facts. In the next phase, he explains the problem yet a third time as a real problem; that is, from the perspective of the philosophy of action. Of course, he cannot explain the reality surrounding the problem merely with words in a book, but he does so by bringing together the subjective, idealistic viewpoint which he presents first, and the second objective, materialistic viewpoint, via a viewpoint merging and transcending idea and matter, the subjective and objective as an unbroken whole, which is reality. This is the standpoint of a philosophy of action. He synthesizes the two viewpoints into a realistic appraisal of the issue: an unbroken synthesis of the self and the external world. And in the final phase—since words alone will not suffice in a description of reality—he tries to suggest the subtle, ineffable nature of reality itself by using symbolic, poetic or figurative forms of speech.

After I had read and re-read Master Dogen’s book, I became used to this unique way of thinking about things. He discusses all problems from three points of view, subjective and ideal, objective and material, and realistic action. He then goes on to insist on the difference between his three viewpoints and the real situation itself beyond mere descriptive words. Using this method, he is able to explain the reality of a situation clearly and logically. He believes that the most important thing is to experience what reality itself is, just as it is; at the same time, he realizes how impossible this is using the medium of the written word alone.

When I remembered The Four Noble Truths, which at first had defeated me so completely, I could not but help see a link between the four-phased pattern in Master Dogen’s works and The Four Noble Truths. Then, I started to think that possibly the biggest contradiction that Gautama Buddha must have faced in his thinking would have been between the subjective, idealistic thought of traditional Indian religion and the objective, materialist philosophies of the Six Great Non-Buddhist Masters who were popular in India at that time.

I thought that Gautama Buddha’s solution to this contradiction was his discovery that we are in fact living in reality; not, as idealists tend to think, in the world of subjective ideas or idealistic dreams, nor as materialists tend to think, in a world of objective matter alone. Gautama Buddha established his own philosophy based on the fact that we live in the vivid world of momentary existence, in the real world itself, here and now, merging and transcending idea and matter, the subjective and objective as an unbroken whole, which is reality. We exist, we live, we act here and now. This is the perspective of a religion of action. He used a method that brought together the two fundamental philosophical viewpoints into a synthesized whole. And the philosophical system he constructed in this way is the Buddhist philosophical system.

But at the same time, he realized that philosophy is not reality; it is only a discussion of the nature of reality. To express this real world in mere words is impossible. He needed some further method by which people could experience directly what the nature of reality is, a method of real action and practice, pure being beyond words. That method is Zazen, a practice that was already traditional in India from ancient times. Gautama Buddha found that when we sit in this traditional posture in quietness, we can taste reality directly. So he recommended his disciples to practice Zazen every day.

Sekishin: But Roshi’s method of explaining The Four Noble Truths is just your own hypothesis...

Gudo: Yes. Although I believe that the theory is accurate by my eyes, it is still but a hypothesis. However, some 50 years have passed since the time I first adopted such a way of viewing The Four Noble Truths as the foundation for my own understanding of the philosophy of Buddhism. During that period, I have come to feel keenly that the foregoing explanation constitutes a most important premise for understanding the philosophy of Buddhism, and further, that if we do not comprehend The Four Noble Truths theoretically in the manner described, Buddhist philosophy will be rather beyond our understanding.

[Rad_Ahemn]

Wow, Jundo .. wow!

Thank you very much for sharing what your beloved teacher shared.

I also agree that this model could be a tad ... wide.
Personally, I am not even sure it is linked to the Four Noble Truths. It may just be an artefact of how one should clearly articulate a message or argument, a skill Dōgen obviously had as a powerful and compelling speaker.

Compare the structure with that of a "perfect" sales pitch:
1. Call to action - an impassioned emotional plea to the customer's good graces for a better/idealised world.
2. Detailed information - overwhelm the customer with details on how bad the situation currently is.
3. The "product" fixes the problem - indicate how the "product" can move the imperfect situation toward the idealised world.
4. Leave the customer with a choice - let the customer decide if they want to "be part of the solution or problem" while waxing lyrical all on the above.

I am still pouring over your shared chapter and will let you know if I have any questions.

Thank you soo much, Jundo.

Adam

(sat today)