−⏑−−¦⏑−−−¦¦−−−−¦⏑−⏑−
yas-tu
bhāvān a-saṁdigdhān-ekī-bhāvena
paśyati |
−−⏑⏑¦⏑−−−¦¦−−−⏑¦⏑−⏑−
mt-piṅḍavad-asaṁdeha
saṁdehaḥ sa ihocyate || 12.27
12.27
But what sees not blurred things
As coalesced into one mass,
Like a ball of mud,
O one who is free of blur!
– Here that is called blurring of
sight.
COMMENT:
In today's verse saṁdeha could
literally be translated “confusion,” as each of the three
professors translated it (EBC/PO: confusion; EHJ: confusion of
thought); and eki-bhāva could be translated accordingly as “fused
into one,” so that “fuse” and “con-fuse” resonated with
each other.
But as I wrote in the comment to
BC12.24, I read saṁdeha in this context as “blurring of vision”
– an impediment belonging to the 2nd phase, since it is
related with how the devotee of saṁsāra is connected, through
sensory perception, with the external world. And the word in today's
verse that seems to support this reading is paśyati, “sees.”
On further reflection, and remembering the title of a booklet written by a colleague in developmental work titled "My Vision is Perfect, Why Don't I See?", I think "blurring of sight" may be better than "blurring of vision."
On further reflection, and remembering the title of a booklet written by a colleague in developmental work titled "My Vision is Perfect, Why Don't I See?", I think "blurring of sight" may be better than "blurring of vision."
If we thus understand saṁdeha to mean
blurring of sight, it is the elimination of this interference to which
Aldous Huxley, author of The Doors of Perception and one-time pupil
of FM Alexander, devoted much of his life.
Huxley's eyesight had been impaired in
his youth by an illness; and learning Alexander's means-whereby
principle under the tutelage of Alexander himself had evidently
helped Huxley to see better, in more ways than one.
Later, however, Huxley resorted to
study of the Bates method under a teacher in California, and with
reference to Huxley's efforts to improve his eyesight by these means,
FM Alexander apparently denigrated what he called Huxley's “beastly
end-gaining exercises.”
For Alexander, then, whatever growth Huxley felt he had achieved from practising the Bates Method, from taking LSD in the attempt to open the Doors of Perception, and from his effort to see God through his association with Vedanta philosophy, Huxley had not been able to see what Alexander meant by application of the means-whereby principle. This in spite of the fact that Huxley titled one of his later books Ends and Means.
A similar irony may be noted with regard to Arāḍa himself, in that Arāḍa is in process of laying out a means-whereby the bodhisattva might liberate himself from saṁsāra. This means-whereby, Arāḍa is teaching in today's verse, involves overcoming the obstacle of blurred seeing. And yet, the bodhisattva ultimately realizes, Arāḍa himself still has dust in his eyes regarding such liberation.
A similar irony may be noted with regard to Arāḍa himself, in that Arāḍa is in process of laying out a means-whereby the bodhisattva might liberate himself from saṁsāra. This means-whereby, Arāḍa is teaching in today's verse, involves overcoming the obstacle of blurred seeing. And yet, the bodhisattva ultimately realizes, Arāḍa himself still has dust in his eyes regarding such liberation.
In the case of
Arāḍa, however, who was the truest of sages, the dust was not
much.
Thus, in the Discourse to Prince Bodhi
(Bodhirājakumārasuttaṁ; MN85), the Buddha relates, in the part about deciding who to teach after his awakening, that he thought
first about Arāḍa, since Arāḍa for a long time had been one
with little dust on his eyes (dīgharattaṁ apparajakkhajātiko).
Aldous Huxley,
evidently, as FM Alexander saw him and his “beastly end-gaining” was
still a man with a lot of dust on his eyes. But Arāḍa was the
truest of sages, a man with only a little dust on his eyes.
That's why I think
a certain sharpness of the critical faculties deserves to be brought
to the present Canto. We are not dealing, as EHJ and PO have opined,
with an early form of Sāmkhya philosophy, which would have brought with it a
whole lot of eye-dust. Neither is Arāḍa as I hear him necessarily to be understood as representing the Brahmanist tradition -- though he does refer in the end to brahma. Rather, we are dealing with the truest of sages, a man
with but a little dust on his eyes, expounding his own teaching (svasya śastrasya; 12.15).
Equally, though for brevity I have translated iha in today's verse and in yesterday's verse as "here," I think Arāḍa means by iha "in this teaching of mine."
Equally, though for brevity I have translated iha in today's verse and in yesterday's verse as "here," I think Arāḍa means by iha "in this teaching of mine."
VOCABULARY
yaḥ
(nom. sg. m.): that which
tu:
but
bhāvān
(acc. pl.): m. that which is or exists , thing or substance , being
or living creature (sarva-bhāvāḥ , all earthly objects)
a-saṁdigdhān
(acc. pl. m.): mfn. not indistinct; undoubted , unsuspected , certain
ekī-bhāvena
(inst. sg.): m. the becoming one , coalition
paśyati
= 3rd pers. sg. paś: to see
mṛt-piṅḍavat:
ind. like a lump of clay
mṛt-piṅḍa:
m. a clod of earth , lump of clay
mṛḍ:
f. earth , soil , clay , loam ; a piece of earth , lump of clay
piṅḍa:
m. any round or roundish mass or heap , a ball , globe , knob ,
button , clod , lump , piece
asaṁdeha
(voc. sg.): O one free of doubt!
saṁdehaḥ
(nom. sg.): m. a conglomeration or conglutination
(of material elements); doubt , uncertainty
saṁ-
√ dih: to smear , besmear , cover ; to heap together ; to be
doubtful or uncertain (said of persons and things
deha:
( √ dih , to plaster , mould , fashion) the body ; form , shape ,
mass , bulk (as of a cloud)
sa
(nom. sg. m.): it
iha:
ind. here, in this system
ucyate:
is called
於諸性猶豫 是非不得實
如是不決定 是説名爲疑
如是不決定 是説名爲疑
No comments:
Post a Comment