⏑−⏑−¦−⏑⏑−¦¦−−⏑⏑¦⏑−⏑− bhavipulā
viyujyamāne hi tarau
puṣpair-api phalair-api |
⏑⏑−−¦⏑−−−¦¦⏑⏑−−¦⏑−⏑−
patati cchidyamāne vā
tarur-anyo na śocate || 4.61
4.61
For at a
tree's shedding
Of its
flowers and fruits,
And at its
falling, or at its felling,
No other
tree mourns.”
COMMENT:
Ostensibly today's
verse, following on from yesterday's verse, provides with the example
of a tree an illustration of an organism which, though living, does
not depend for its existence on the exercise of reason.
Ostensibly, then, the
prince in today's verse is still criticizing those others who, like
trees, fail to exercise their reason in establishing the will to the
truth.
The alternative or
contrary way of reading today's verse, which is the concluding verse
in a series of six verses containing the prince's reflections, is to read it as a
suggestion of the ultimate truth of a buddha – which might be just
to stand, or just to sit, like a tree.
There is a chapter of
Shobogenzo titled 無情説法 (Jap:
MUJO-SEPPO) , “The Non-Emotional Preaches Dharma.” Today's verse,
as I read it, relates to that teaching.
If you want to look at
an actual example of a human being who lives his or her life
undisturbed by emotion then I honestly wouldn't bother looking at me.
I am, in the words of Marjory Barlow, “an inveterate worrier.”
When I sit and look out
of my bedroom window, however, and see white clouds floating west to
east in a blue sky, and a bare apple tree glinting in the winter
sunshine, the clouds and the tree are immaculate exemplars of the one
golden dharma that physicists suspect the universe will never be
found to disobey – namely, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Though I have described
it as an immaculate exemplar, as it stands there, totally undisturbed
by thoughts and feelings, temporarily obstructing the 2nd law with
its upward and outward direction of energy, the apple tree in my
garden has individual peculiarities. It is by no means symmetrical.
It has twists and bumps and scars like no other apple tree. It belongs to that
genus of tree that Aśvaghoṣa describes in
Saundara-nanda Canto 10, as anyāḥ vṛkṣāḥ – trees which
are different, individual, other.
In conclusion then, to
understand what Aśvaghoṣa really means in today's verse by tarur
anyaḥ, “another tree,” it may be necessary to understand what
he means in SN10.19 by anye vṛkṣāḥ,
“other/odd/different trees.” Again, in order to understand the real
meaning of anye vṛkṣāḥ, it might be necessary to understand
what the likes of Dogen and his Chinese ancestors meant
by 非仏 (HI-BUTSU),
“a non-buddha.” And ultimately, in order to understand the real
meaning of 非仏 (HI-BUTSU),
“a non-buddha,” it might be necessary to understand what the
likes of Dogen and his Chinese ancestors meant by 非思量 (HI-SHIRYO),
“non-thinking.”
In a comment to
yesterday's post, some bloke called Rich seemed to opine that top
rugby players exercise reason in training but when they are actually
playing in a match, reason goes out of the window and everything is
pure action. What a totally fucking stupid and baseless opinion! I
may not know much, I may know almost nothing, but I know a groundless
view when I see one.
One senses that Rich is
familiar with the Buddhist theory of the likes of my teacher, Gudo
Nishijima, but one wonders if Rich has ever actually played rugby, or
any challenging sport.
My confidence in this
matter comes out of real experience. For several years playing rugby
was at the centre of my universe, and so I know from real experience
that excellent practice of non-thinking on a rugby pitch invariably
arises out of thinking, out of exercise of the faculty of reason, out
of what ex-Welsh international rugby player and BBC rugby commentator
Jonathan Davies frequently refers to as using the top two inches, and out of what FM Alexander called "thinking in activity."
I knew this well enough
as a teenager, but then in my twenties I temporarily set aside what I
knew from experience in favour of what Gudo Nishijima taught me in
the way of “true Buddhist theory.” Because I can be incredibly
slow on the uptake, it took me many years to work out that Gudo
Nishijima, in the primary matter of using or negating reason in Zazen, and
pursuing or negating right posture in Zazen, was talking through his
arse. But as a result of such painfully slow progress, nowadays I
know pretty well when would-be experts on Zen, and on right posture,
and on the Alexander Technique, are talking through their arse,
expressing their own stupid views which have no basis in reality.
So when Rich says in
his comment that he knows nothing, and neither do I, I find something
to be applauded in his fighting spirit. At the same time, I would
like to say to Rich that, in the matter under discussion, I dare say
that I know a fucking sight more than you do, mate.
And if I sound angry, the person I mainly feel anger towards is not Rich, and not even that other great talker through his arse Gudo Nishijima. I feel anger towards the gullible sap in me who bought into a baseless view. At least Jack in Jack & The Beanstalk got some beans for his trouble. All I got was the "true Buddhist theory" of a Zen master who – in the primary matter of sitting – did not know what he was talking about.
VOCABULARY
viyujyamāne
= loc. sg. m. pres. part. passive vi- √ yuj: to be separated from
or deprived of , lose (instr.);
hi:
for
tarau
(loc. sg.): m. a tree
puṣpaiḥ
(inst. pl.): n. a flower , blossom
api:
and, also
phalaiḥ
(inst. pl.): n. fruit
api:
and, also
patati
= loc. sg. m. pres. part. pat: to fall down
chidyamāne
= loc. sg. m. pres. part. passive chid: to be cut down, hewn, chopped
vā:
or
taruḥ
(nom. sg.): m. a tree
anyaḥ
(nom. sg. m.): mfn. another
na:
not
śocate
= 3rd
pers. sg. śuc: to suffer violent heat or pain , be sorrowful or
afflicted , grieve , mourn at or for (loc.)
如空野雙樹 華葉倶茂盛
一已被斬伐 第二不知怖
此等諸人輩 無心亦如是
一已被斬伐 第二不知怖
此等諸人輩 無心亦如是