Monday, August 17, 2009

SAUNDARANANDA 13.42: Containment

aalokya cakShuShaa ruupaM
dhaatu-maatre vyavasthitaH
strii v" eti puruSho v" eti
na kalpayitum arhasi

= = - = - = = =
= - = = - = - =
= = - - - = = -
- = - - - = - -

13.42
On seeing a form with your eye

You are contained in the sum of the elements:

That 'it is a woman' or 'it is a man'

You should not interpose.

COMMENT:
Thirty years ago when I was learning karate in Sheffield University Karate Club, I went into karate training with the same stupid all-out sincerity I used to bring to all-male rugby training. Because of that I didn't initially notice how sexually attractive some of the girls I was training with were. Later on, after I had realised how very attractive one or two of the girls were, I remember wondering how come I hadn't noticed before.

What the Buddha is describing in the first half of this verse, as I read it, is related to that kind of in-the-moment sincerity of a committed sportsman, a psychological phenomenon which, again, is based in integrity. Integrity means co-ordinated activity of the whole psycho-physical organism in using body and voice, and in living life.

What does it mean to allow the head out of the grip of the fear reflexes, to allow the back to lengthen and widen, so that the activity of breathing is well co-ordinated? I do not know. I am working on it every day.

But I do clearly understand, thanks to FM Alexander, which way round it is. I understand what is primary. It is not a question of practising mindfulness of breathing in order to co-ordinate one's activity. It is primarily a question of co-ordinating one's activity. Then mindfulness of free breathing, and mindfulness of the truth expressed in this verse, are liable to follow by accident. This is what I learned on the rugby pitch and in the karate dojo, and this is the central principle of the teaching work that I now do: that co-ordinated activity comes first. Any psychological or other benefits that accrue do so indirectly.

I am not sure how many readers are keeping up to date with this blog these days, apart from my brother. So I'll finish by writing something that I know will at least interest him.

Following on from what I wrote yesterday about fighting ignorance, I thought back to the circumstances of my conception, during the first sexual experience of two young university students, and of my early years living in a police house under a father who had flunked out of university and, in order to support a young family, had signed up to join an organisation, the West Midlands Police Force, which made a virtue out of institutionalized ignorance.

Ignorance is end-gaining and it is rife everywhere -- primarily, lest I forget, in me. At least the old "dying breed" of police officer made a conscious virtue of it, never shirking from calling a person of colour a "jungle bunny," or from dispensing a bit of instant justice with the trusty old truncheon. In Buddhist circles people practice their ignorance more unconsciously, calling it Buddhist compassion, mindfulness, concentration, et cetera. In Soto Zen, above all, they call it correct posture. Much as I am indebted to EH Johnston, I think his translation of this verse was sheer ignorance, not based on co-ordinated activity as a translator, but based on a view on Buddhist concentration. And Linda Covill, lovely poet though she is, followed him like a sheep.

A couple of weeks before coming to France for August, when, over dinner, I wrang my father's neck to see if would "put his hands up," he, being completely au fait with the rules of physical violence, left his hands resolutely and fearlessly down on the table. Afterwards he told me that he had been aware that if I had hit him it would have hurt, but he had never been afraid of physical violence. And I perceived in the old man's attitude, in this respect at least, a certain degree of integrity.

Ignorance does most damage when it does not know itself. Being bopped over the head by an ignorant policeman's truncheon may leave a bump that will take days or weeks to heal. But the ignorance of a parent or teacher who insists that a child or student "pull your shoulders back" or "tuck your chin in" or "breathe from your abdomen," or "keep your spine straight vertically," while understanding nothing of the underlying co-ordination involved, does much more damage over the course of a lifetime.

Maybe I was lucky to have a father who made it so easy for me to see that ignorance, in all its guises, is enemy number one.

EH Johnston:
When you see an object with your eye, you should concentrate on the basic elements in it only and not form any conception of it as, say, a woman or a man.

Linda Covill:
When seeing a shape with your eyes, pay attention only to its primary elements; do not conceptualize it as 'woman' or 'man.'


VOCABULARY:
aalokya: ind.p. having seen or looked at , beholding
cakShuShaa = inst. sg. of cakShus: n. the act of seeing; faculty of seeing, sight ; a look ; the eye
ruupam (acc. sg.): n. any outward appearance or phenomenon or colour ; form , shape , figure; (with Buddhists) material form i.e. the organized body

dhaatu: m. layer , stratum; element, a constituent element or essential ingredient of the body
maatre = loc. of maatra: n. an element , elementary matter ; n. (ifc.) measure , quantity , sum
vyavasthitaH (nom. sg): mfn. placed in order , drawn up (in battle) ; placed , laid , put , stationed ; contained in (loc.) ; used in the meaning of (loc.) , signifying (as a word) ; one who has waited or stayed ; based or dependent on (loc.) ; resolved upon (loc.) ; persevering in , sticking or adhering to (loc.); settled , established , fixed , exactly determined , quite peculiar or restricted to (loc.)

strii (nom. sg.): f. a woman
vaa... vaa: either... or
iti: "...." ; that it is
puruShaH (nom. sg.): a man

na: not
kalpayitum (infinitive, causitive of √klRp, to be well ordered): to set in order , arrange , distribute , dispose ; to bring into suitable connection with ; to prepare , arrange ; to fit out , furnish with (instr.); to fix , settle ; to make , execute , bring about
arhasi: you should

10 comments:

SlowZen said...

Mike,
Still reading. Finished the use of self. It's possible that I don't understand very well, but the book mostly seemed like an advertisement. A early 20th century informercial.

The experiments were good, but I was looking for instructions.

Mike Cross said...

Hi Jordan,

Good to know you are there. I had a look at your blog over the weekend and was reflecting this morning on walking away from trouble vs fighting ignorance.

I came to the conclusion that as long as one walks away from trouble in the world and fights ignorance within oneself, then there is no conflict.

My tendency, following the mirror principle I suppose, is to want to fight ignorance when I meet it in others -- especially when others receive the Dharma and then go about advertising their ignorant selves far and wide over the internet. But in the end I managed to withhold consent to posting a comment on your blog. Well (not) done, me.

I'll bet you were looking for instructions, you horrible end-gainer. You were hoping somebody would tell you what to do. But the truth that Alexander is advertizing in The Use of the Self is primarily the truth of not doing.

All the best,

Mike

SlowZen said...

Hey Mike,
Some times we try and walk away from trouble but it just keeps on following us. Like a peice of toilet paper stuck to a shoe.

Mike Cross said...

Yep. The more we try, the harder it gets. Just keep trying harder, I suppose!

Ignorantly yours,

Mike

Anonymous said...

daily reader here
and AT practitioner
thank you and please continue

Mike Cross said...

Thank you, anonymous daily reader. Maybe I should be more circumspect about what family secrets I divulge if my brother is not the only one listening in!

Malcolm M said...

Hi Mike,

I'm still checking in.

In response to your call for a pundit yesterday (why on earth do I think that might apply to me?), I played around with verse 13.41. I came up with much the same as EHJ and LC:

"Of necessity one must function in this world by use of the senses, each in its own sphere.
(But) neither the object thereof nor its incidental qualities are to be held onto."

Although your suggested reading for the last two lines doesn't feel right to me, I'm not enough of a sanskritist to pin down or explain why; or to have much confidence in any "gut" feelings I might have. Let's hope a proper pundit shows up.

Mike Cross said...

Many thanks, jiblet.

That translation makes a lot of sense, in the context of the teaching that feelings rule us but we are not to trust them.

Also, the way you make the distinction between object of the senses and incidental qualities,fits well with Alexander's explanation of what he meant by faulty sensory appreciation, viz: "Sensory apprecation, from our point of view, has a much wider significance than is generally attributed to it. But it will be sufficient at this point to state that, taken even in the most limited sense, it includes all sensory experiences which are conveyed through the channels of sight, hearing, touch, feeling, equilibrium, movement etc., and which are responsible for psycho-physical action and reaction throughout the organism."

On first consideration, I think the following might be an improvement on yesterday's effort:

It is necessarily through the senses, each in its own sphere,

That one must function in this world.

But no impulse in that sensory realm is to be held onto,

Nor any associated indication.


Thanks again. I will keep working on it.

Mike

Pete said...

Still reading your translation. Love the commentary.
Cheers and thanks, Peter

Mike Cross said...

Thanks for the encouragement, Peter.