Saturday, January 24, 2009

SAUNDARANANDA 3.41: Rejoicing in a Castle of Fearlessness

3.41
api ca svato 'pi parato 'pi
na bhayam abhavan na daivataH
tatra ca susukha-subhikSHu-guNair
jahRSHuH prajaaH kRta-yuge Manor iva

What is more, [arising] from self and from the other,

No terror occured; nor from fate.

At that time and place,
by dint of their true happiness
and material plenty and practical merits,

The citizens rejoiced as in the golden age of Manu.


COMMENT:

Line 1:
They say that when a person is enlightened, his experience of the world is whole. We who are not yet there, in contrast, in our SUFFERING, continue to experience all things and phenomena as arising either from within or without. When a bright idea arises, it seems to arise from within me. When the sun comes up in the morning, it seems to arise from outside. "From self and from the other," then, can be understood as an expression of the divided view of self and others, which is synonymous with SUFFERING.

Line 2:
A terror arising from self might mean, for example, a pogrom, or similar episode of ethnic cleansing. An terror arising from the other might mean, for example, a terrorist movement, whose grievances I do not understand, bombing the city where I live. That no such atrocity blighted the kingdom of Kaplilavastu was not a fluke. I think Ashvaghosha here may be suggesting the working of karma, that is, CAUSATION, not only at the level of individual observance of the precepts but also at the level of collective responsibility. A terror committed by my community, or against my community, is the work of Mara, and how Mara fares is totally up to me. If I were able, well and truly, to inhibit my own Mara reflex, then people around me might be inspired and guided by my example to inhibit theirs. The point of this line, in other words, is negation of fatalism, and affirmation of the law of CAUSE AND EFFECT: if we believe in cause and effect and attend to our own not doing of wrong, here and now, then there is nothing for any of us to worry about.

Line 3:
In this verse too, therefore, I think the use of the word tatra is not incidental. Tatra indicates the here and now, the stage upon which wrong is INHIBITED. The list of three elements that Asvhaghosha uses to describe the Kapilavastu community is very reminiscent of lists of three or four elements that Master Dogen compiles in Shobogenzo, comprising: (1) something mental, religious, or spiritual, (2) something material, and (3) something to do with INHIBITION, or mundane action. An example might be, in discussing buddha, to list a golden buddha, a wood buddha, and a mud buddha. Or on a bovine theme he might have listed a golden calf, a load of bull, and a ring through the nose. If this all sounds too philosophical, not grounded weightily enough in zafu-squashing, then remember what the ultimate teaching of Zen Master Dogen is: that there is mental sitting as opposed to physical sitting; that there is physical sitting as opposed to mental sitting, and that there is sitting, truly, as body and mind dropping off.

Line 4:
The key word is rejoiced. As we shall investigate shortly, the fourth realisation in sitting practice is realised through non-attachment to joy. But the first steps in sitting practice, as Ashvaghosha is about to describe them, are most definitely joyful steps. And those first joyful realisations, if I understand correctly, depend on the use of reason to discriminate between a pair of mutually exclusive and opposite approaches; namely, end-gaining vs A MEANS-WHEREBY.

VOCABULARY:
api ca: as well, moreover, also
sva: self
-taH (ablative suffix): from, in accordance with, in respect of
svataH: from the self, from within
api: also
parataH: from the other, from without
api: also

na: not
bhayam (accusative): fear, danger, distress
abhavat: (imperfect of bhuu) became, brought into existence, was
na: not
daiva: divine will, destiny, fate, chance
daivataH: from fate, from chance

tatra: there, at that time and place
ca: and
su- (prefix): good, true, harmonious, great
susukha: great ease, true happiness
subhikSHu: plenty, having abundant supply of provisions
guNaiH (instrumental, plural): with/through/ because of merits or virtues

jahRSHuH(perfect of hRish): rejoiced
prajaaH (nominative, plural): subjects of the king, citizens
kRta: done, perfected
yuga: an age of the world, epoch
kRta-yuge (locative): in the golden age, the first of the four ages of the world
Manor (genitive): of Manu
iva: like


EH Johnston:
No one too experienced any danger from himself, from others, or from fate: the people rejoiced there as in the golden age of Manu, in happiness, plenty and virtue.

Linda Covill:
Nor did anyone fear harm from himself, from others or from fate; the people there rejoiced in great ease, abundant in provisions and virtue, as in the golden age of Manu.

14 comments:

Harry said...

Hi Mike,

Another interesting post.

Re. 'Inhibition': I'm sure you've dealt with this before elsewhere in detail... but, Master Dogen looked at conduct from the point of view of 'do not commit' in that Shobogenzo chapter.

'Inhibition', to my mind, suggests that there is something to stop, but, is there something to stop when we haven't yet really done anything in the present real moment? 'Inhibit' suggests a look at the action from the point of view of the action, but the real action actually doesn't exist yet if we can still 'not do it'.

It seems to me that 'not doing' something is not to inhibit anything at all because nothing was/is there to be stopped or lost and everything just goes on fully and totally as it is if we 'do not commit'.

Just a minor ramble.

Regards,

harry.

Mike Cross said...

Hi Harry,

That which has to be stopped, as I understand it, is further back than action, or bodily conduct.

Marjory Barlow expresses it here with unsurpassed clarity. To quote from the article directly:

The wrong inner patterns are the doing which has to be stopped.

Those wrong inner patterns are centred on the panic reflex that I keep banging on about -- the Moro/Mara reflex.

All the best,

Mike

Harry said...

Hi Mike,

I don't see that Master Dogen was just referring to an act of body (in contrast to other things) when he talked in terms of 'not committing'. It seems more likely to me that he considered 'not committing' more fully in the traditional terms of actions of body, speech and mind.

From the page you linked me to:

"The word inhibition in this sense means the opposite of volition -- withholding consent to automatic reaction. It does not mean suppressing something in the sense in which it is used in psycho-analysis."

I think 'inhibition' is an unfortunate, and possibly very misleading, choice of word in this context. It looks at the action from what is not being done (i.e. an unreal not-thing) rather than from the reality of what is actually being done/ what is expressed/manifest. Thus, maybe this idea of inhibition could be held to effectively create an inhibition itself where there really is none (i.e. "I must inhibit this act"... what act?)

This 'inhibition' can (and maybe should) I think, be positively phrased as a rather special form of expression.

Regards,

Harry.

Mike Cross said...

Hi Harry,

The problem is not so much the words used to represent duHka-nirodha-satya, or "the truth of stopping suffering."

The problem is more that we tend not to be clear in regard to what has to be stopped, or inhibited.

But Ashvaghosha spelled it out in verse 3.12.

And, for me, Marjory Barlow is expressing exactly the same truth as Ashvaghosha:

The wrong inner patterns are the doing which has to be stopped.

Harry said...

Hi again, Mike.

What, in reality, makes the 'inner patterns' wrong?

Regards,

Harry.

Harry said...

...In terms of an example:

If I think of giving someone a good kick in the ass, but think better of doing it because I just know its not right (so I just 'drop' the thought/feeling), where is the wrong in that and what makes it 'wrong'?

Isn't not doing that instead right because I am not following through on that 'inner pattern' and I am also contributing to my not really doing ass-kicking again?

That ass-kicking thought seems fine to me; harmless, natural etc.

Regards,

Harry.

Mike Cross said...

Hi Harry,

If you cannot see any wrong inner patterns in yourself, it could be that you are looking into the mirror of sitting/realisation and seeing your own immaculate Buddha-nature.

Or it could be that your over-active intellect is blinding you to your own delusion.

Staying resolutely in the middle, I shall not pass judgement!

All the best,

Mike

Harry said...

Hi, Mike.

Ha!

Oh, don't get me 'wrong'.

That was just an example, I get up to all sorts of mischief with my body, speech and mind as you clearly appreciate!

In sitting Zen though, when 'committing' is allowed to drop away- I mean something as immediate as committing the urge to tap my foot or move around the room nervously- it seems that 'wrong' doesn't exist separate at all from our own 'inner pattern' of
'this/that is wrong' and so it doesn't appear to be a big factor.

"...it could be that you are looking into the mirror of sitting/realisation and seeing your own immaculate Buddha-nature.

Or it could be that your over-active intellect is blinding you to your own delusion. "

At any rate, in sitting Zen, no asses are really kicked and so I tend to agree with Master Dogen in that the practice is nothing other than the result regardless of what we think of 'right' and 'wrong' and no matter how thoroughly or not we think we are practicing.

My over-active intellect and everything else, as Master Dogen highlighted, has endless potential to realise me, as does my delusion. What I really think of 'right', 'wrong', 'realised', 'deluded' are the spades that dig me; not some abstract/disembodied value from an old book or elsewhere.

I'm hoping you can reason this better for me. No problem if you can't.

Regards,

Harry.

Mike Cross said...

Hi Harry,

Have just been out walking for a couple of hours and pondering your comments in process.

I'm not sure what Master Dogen would make of the efforts of modern-day Zen philosophers to interpret his words. My intention when I started this blog was to keep it clear of my own stuff -- hence the URL. Proper translation work is an exercise in dropping off my own view, whereas adding comments easily tends in the opposite direction, trying to show how clever I am. (Writing words that make me sound good -- words replete with eu-phoney.)

From Ashvaghosha's standpoint, what is Zen? From Ashvaghosha's viewpoint, "Zen" is a foreigner's mispronunciation of the word dhyaana, which I am starting to translate as "realisation."

In conclusion, I think that a lot of misunderstandings stem from the various viewpoints of Japanese Zen. But Ashvaghosha is talking from a standpoint before those dubious views ever became popular.

To tell you straight, Harry, I think you are struggling on the basis of an intellectual view that infected you while you were reading Shobogenzo.

You are wrong, my friend, and it is up to you to find out what your wrongness is. I can't do it for you. I've got enough on my plate with my own wrong inner patterns.

All the best,

Mike

Harry said...

Yes,

'I'm', 'we're', 'it's', 'they're' wrong again.

A 'wrong' fetish seems effectively much the same as a 'Zen' fetish to me.

Thanks for the attempt at least.

Regards,

H.

Mike Cross said...

Master Dogen's point about wrong is not to do it, here and now.

I experienced the same practical emphasis first hand in the teaching room of Marjory Barlow, who said: The wrong inner patterns are the doing which has to be stopped.

The same indication, as I see it, is there in the word tatra, in the 3rd line of Ashvaghosha's verse.

This is a really difficult problem, relating to the existence of two different kinds of thinking -- inhibitory/practical vs intellectual/abstract.

All the best,

Mike

Harry said...

Thanks, Mike.

Didn't Master Dogen resolve that problem directly (via non-thinking) by realising that everything, including every dichotomy, is perfectly contained in the present moment?

Of course that isn't worth monkey nuts if we don't do it ourselves.

Regards,

Harry.

Mike Cross said...

I don't know, Harry. But I have a feeling we will return next week to this vital topic of the two kinds of thinking when we look at Ashvaghosha's description of the four realisations.

My initial impressions are that Ashvaghosha talks first about dualistic thinking, based on reason -- e.g. discriminating between end-gaining and a means-whereby approach.

The next step is "one-pointedness," or unity of purpose, which, as I understand it now, means inhibitory thinking.

When FM Alexander said, "This work is an exercise in finding out what thinking is," he was talking about the latter kind of thinking.

The process of understanding what I am going on about now can be greatly speeded up by the hands of an experienced Alexander teacher --as I am sure contributors to this blog like lxg, Plato, Jordan and others with first-hand experience of Alexander work, would readily agree....

[Anybody there?]

lxg said...

I know that whilst sittng in this chair trying to 'think' of something clever to say, I have allowed gravity to wreak havoc on my body!