−−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−−¦¦⏑−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−− Upajāti
(Vāṇī)
svargāya
yuṣmākam-ayaṁ tu dharmo mamābhilāṣas-tv-apunar-bhavāya |
−−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−−¦¦−−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−−
asmin
vane yena na me vivatsā bhinnaḥ pravttyā
hi nivtti-dharmaḥ || 7.48
7.48
But
this dharma of yours aims at heaven,
Whereas
my desire is for no more becoming;
Which
is why I do not wish to dwell in this wood:
For
a non-doing dharma is different from doing
[or
a non-doing dharma is destroyed by doing].
COMMENT:
Today's
verse is such a vitally important verse that its meaning deserves to
be distilled and crystallized in the most succinct and pithy of Zen
comments. Well, hard luck. The best I can do for the moment is this
comment.
The
old Nepalese manuscript has in the 4th pāda pravṛttyau.
On paleographical grounds this could be read with equal justification
as the locative pravṛttau, but in context it is naturally read as
pravṛttyā. Pravṛttyā, in turn, can be read as ablative (pravṛttyāḥ
with the ḥ dropped before hi as per the rules of sandhi) or as
instrumental (pravṛttyā).
Bhinna, the past participle of bhid, to split, can be read in many ways -- the MW dictionary gives split, broken, shattered, pierced, destroyed; leaky (as a ship); broken through, transgressed, violated; disunited, set at variance. With a locative bhinna means cleaving to, and so grammatically bhinnaḥ pravṛttau is possible, but logically it does not fit.
Bhinnaḥ with ablative
means “different from” or “apart from” and EBC followed this
reading:
the nature of
cessation is different from that of activity. (EBC)
EHJ followed EBC with
the dharma of
cessation from activity is apart from the continuance of active
being. (EHJ)
But EHJ in a footnote
to his translation added as an alternative reading (taking pravṛttyā
as instrumental):
the dharma of
nivṛtti is destroyed by pravṛtti.
PO erred on the side of
interpretation rather than literal exactness with:
the dharma of
cessation is opposed to the dharma of continued existence.
My view is that
Aśvaghoṣa did not lack the writing skills to leave us in no doubt
exactly which reading he meant, if he desired to leave us in no
doubt. That being so, accepting that the original was in fact
pravṛttyā[ḥ], I think the ambiguity of bhinnaḥ pravṛttyāḥ
(abl.) or bhinnaḥ pravṛttyā (inst.) is designed to cause us to
stop and think.
What in fact is the
relationship between nivṛtti and
pravṛtti?
What
did the Buddha-to-be understand by pravṛtti?
What
did the Buddha-to-be understand by nivṛtti?
And
how did the Buddha-to-be understand that nivṛtti is bhinna from, by or with
pravṛtti?
And more than that:
What did the Buddha himself understand by pravṛtti?
What did the Buddha himself understand by nivṛtti?
And how might the Buddha himself have understood that nivṛtti is bhinna from, by or with pravṛtti?
My
translation reflects one reading of the situation and two readings of
the 4th
pāda, but there may be many other readings which are equally valid or more valid than mine.
My
reading of the situation is that the prince on the surface is gently
making a logical or philosophical point – A is different from B.
But below the surface the words of the Buddha-to-be are pointing to a
truth which is not so gentle, but much more severe. A is destroyed by
B. A is violated by B, and never the twain shall meet. Sorry to be so
blunt and dogmatic about it, but you cannot do an undoing.
So
this is how I have understood the 4th
pāda, on the surface and below the surface, and how accordingly I have translated it, using square brackets:
For
a non-doing dharma is different from doing
[or
a non-doing dharma is ruined / destroyed by doing].
So far, so clear. But going futher, by way of a PS, there is doubt.
When
I first prepared the vocabulary for this verse, I didn't notice that
pravṛttyā could be the ablative pravṛttyāḥ minus the ḥ; I
assumed it was the instrumental pravṛttyā. That being so, my
attention was first drawn to the dictionary definition of bhinna as
mixed
or mingled with (instr.).
bhinnaḥ pravṛttyā
hi nivṛtti-dharmaḥ
The
dharma of non-doing is mixed in with doing.
The dharma of non-doing is muddled up with doing.
As
a logical statement, that sucks. As an aid to clarity of thinking, it
sucks.
As
an aid to clarity of thinking, PO's translation is vastly preferable:
the
dharma of cessation is opposed to the dharma of continued existence.
As an aid to clarity of
thinking, PO's translation has the attraction of mirroring the words of FM
Alexander (which I have quoted on this blog before) :
END GAINING AND "MEANS-WHEREBY":
These terms stand for two different, nay, opposite conceptions and for two different procedures. According to the first or end-gaining conception, all that is necessary when an end is desired is to proceed to employ the different parts of the organism in the manner which our feeling dictates as necessary for the carrying out of the movements required for gaining the end, irrespective of any harmful effects due to misuse of the self during the process; a conception which implies the subordination of the thinking and reasoning self to the vagaries of the instinctive guidance and control of the self in carrying out the activities necessary to achieve the end. It will be seen therefore that end-gaining involves the conception and procedure of going direct for an end without consideration as to whether the "means-whereby" to be employed are the best for the purpose....
In
principle, then, an end-gaining dharma by definition is opposed to
a dharma which is a means-whereby. A dharma of doing is opposed
to a dharma of non-doing. A dharma of continued existence is
opposed to a dharma of cessation.
Contrarily to translate bhinnaḥ
pravṛttyā hi nivṛtti-dharmaḥ “The
dharma of non-doing is mixed in with doing” would
muddy the waters. And anyway, in context, it would not fit, even in square brackets. It would go against the logical flow of the verse. Aśvaghoṣa couldn't have intended such a reading.
And
yet “The dharma of
non-doing is mixed in / muddled up with doing” seems
to have a ring of truth about it –
not in dustless Buddhist theory but rather in my own dusty,
very-far-from-perfect practice.
So here then are not only two but three
levels at which to read the 4th pāda of today's verse:–
(1) At the most
superficial level it gently and politely points out a difference
between nivṛtti and pravṛtti.
(2) Below that level,
it is a more stark and strident pointing out of the incompatibility
between nivṛtti and pravṛtti, a statement that nivṛtti is
destroyed by pravṛtti.
(3) At a level of
considerably less stridency and less certainty, it can be read as a
suggestion that nivṛtti and pravṛtti are all mixed up with each
other.
How many more levels
there might be is an unknown unknown.
One way of looking at
it is that to sit in full lotus with the body is to
do; to sit in full lotus with the mind is not to do;
and sitting in full lotus as dropping off body and mind is non-doing.
At the same time, fully
to sit in lotus might be to abandon all ways of looking at it.
As a PPS, to
personalize all of the above, in the mid-1980s, prior to a trip to
the US with Jeff Bailey, Gudo Nishijima prepared a booklet titled
“Learning a Different Way.” That pretty much sums up what I
thought I was doing in my twenties, or, to be precise, from the ages
of 22 to 34, from meeting Gudo Nishijima in 1982 through to starting
Alexander lessons in 1994. I thought I was learning a different way,
a better way. As part of this learning process, I studied in detail
what Dogen meant by polishing a tile as opposed to trying to make a
mirror. I spent a lot of time thinking long and hard, and writing, about this dichotomy, which seemed to
be at the heart of Dogen's Zazen teaching.
Getting into Alexander
work, however, caused me to see that I had not been learning such a
different way after all. By holding myself up through a big effort of doing, like a soldier on a parade ground, I had been practising a peculiarly Japanese
variation on the theme of doing, on the theme of end-gaining. And
doing and non-doing, end-gaining and means-whereby, I began to
understand more practically, are more than different conceptions; they are – as FM
Alexander wrote – opposite
conceptions, and different procedures. “You cannot do an
undoing,” Marjory Barlow emphasized. In Alexander work one
learns to think a direction like “spine to lengthen” –
just to think it, not to try and do it. The tiniest bit of trying to
implement it, Marjory would say, and the whole thing is ruined. A
non-doing dharma is ruined by doing.
“You cannot do an
undoing.” This is very clear in principle – a kind of Alexandrian
absolute – and I have endeavoured to be clear about this truth in
my internet outpourings. But in my everyday life am I an exemplar of
non-doing, of attending to the means-whereby principle, of a way that
is truly different from pravṛtti? In short, no I am not. Especially
not, I feel, when I am here in Aylesbury. But even in Aylesbury I get
up in the morning and sit in relative quietness for an hour.
Conversely, there are times by the forest in France when I am totally ruled by
end-gaining, and devoted to doing. So in principle Aylesbury is a
place for carrying on with family life and getting things done,
whereas by the forest in France is a place to practice a different
way, non-doing. But in actual practice, the whole thing feels like a
bloody great muddle. More than that, in terms of forging for myself a path through life, I feel like I have made a bloody great mess of
everything, and through that mess I feel like I am muddling, not very
well.
Sometimes I wonder why
I even bother, say, muddling on with this translation effort. Just
because the three professors in my opinion did not know Aśvaghoṣa's teaching, even if they knew a lot about it, and I know that they didn't
know it, that doesn't mean that I do know it. What is to stop my
translation effort further muddying waters that Buddhist scholars
have already muddied?
The answer to that
question, I hope, might be provided by today's verse – or at least hinted at
obliquely by today's verse.
I think the
Buddha-dharma is a dharma of non-doing. As such, can it really even be touched, much
less ruined, much less destroyed, by the unenlightened doing of a
muddler? I hope not.
If the truth is that
the Buddha-dharma, as a dharma of non-doing, can never be destroyed
by doing, then, ironically, the words of the Buddha-to-be in the 4th pāda of today's verse can be read as stating the exact opposite of this truth -- “A non-doing dharma is destroyed by doing." Was Aśvaghoṣa aware of this irony? I don't know. But in
general I think Aśvaghoṣa was not a person upon whom any irony was
ever lost.
VOCABULARY
svargāya
(dat. sg.): m. for heaven
yuṣmākam
(gen. pl.): of you all
ayam
(nom. sg. m.): this
tu:
but
dharmaḥ
(nom. sg.): m. dharma
mama
(gen. sg.): my
abhilāṣaḥ
(nom. sg.): m. desire , wish , covetousness , affection (with loc.
or ifc.)
tu:
but
apunar-bhavāya
(dat. sg.): for not again becoming
asmin
(loc. sg. n.): this
vane
(loc. sg.): n. forest
yena
(inst. sg.): by which, for which reason
na:
not
me
(gen. sg.): in/of me
vivatsā
(nom. sg. f.): the desire to live
bhinnaḥ
(nom. sg. m.): mfn. split , broken , shattered , pierced ,
destroyed ; leaky (as a ship) ; broken through , transgressed ,
violated ; disunited , set at variance ; distinct , different from
or other than (abl. or comp.); mixed or mingled with (instr.) ;
cleaving to (loc. or comp.)
bhid:
to split , cleave , break , cut or rend asunder , pierce , destroy ;
to pass through (as a planet or , comet) ; to disperse (darkness) ;
to transgress , violate , (a compact or alliance) ; to disturb ,
interrupt , stop
pravṛttyāḥ
(abl. sg.): f. doing, active life
pravṛttyā
(inst. sg.): f. doing, active life
pravṛttau
[old Nepalese manuscript = pravṛttyau] (loc. sg.): f. doing,
active life
hi:
for
nivṛtti-dharmaḥ
(nom. sg. m.): the dharma of non-doing
合會別離苦 其苦等無異
非我心不樂 亦不見他過
但汝等苦行 悉求生天樂非我心不樂 亦不見他過
我求滅三有 形背而心乖
No comments:
Post a Comment