tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post1703027107824376682..comments2024-02-06T22:19:13.028-08:00Comments on Mining Aśvaghoṣa's Gold: SAUNDARANANDA 3.41: Rejoicing in a Castle of FearlessnessMike Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-63004850218143288042009-01-26T08:35:00.000-08:002009-01-26T08:35:00.000-08:00I know that whilst sittng in this chair trying to ...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!lxghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00192146744058183451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-35826451347491410632009-01-25T12:41:00.000-08:002009-01-25T12:41:00.000-08:00I don't know, Harry. But I have a feeling we will ...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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>The next step is "one-pointedness," or unity of purpose, which, as I understand it now, means inhibitory thinking. <BR/><BR/>When FM Alexander said, "This work is an exercise in finding out what thinking is," he was talking about the latter kind of thinking. <BR/><BR/>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....<BR/><BR/>[Anybody there?]Mike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-43447174958533478832009-01-25T11:43:00.000-08:002009-01-25T11:43:00.000-08:00Thanks, Mike.Didn't Master Dogen resolve that prob...Thanks, Mike.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>Of course that isn't worth monkey nuts if we don't do it ourselves.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Harry.Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168631752214481563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-47756480943417181422009-01-25T11:13:00.000-08:002009-01-25T11:13:00.000-08:00Master Dogen's point about wrong is not to do it, ...Master Dogen's point about wrong is not to do it, here and now. <BR/><BR/>I experienced the same practical emphasis first hand in the teaching room of Marjory Barlow, who said: <STRONG>The wrong inner patterns are the doing which has to be stopped.</STRONG><BR/><BR/>The same indication, as I see it, is there in the word <EM>tatra</EM>, in the 3rd line of Ashvaghosha's verse. <BR/><BR/>This is a really difficult problem, relating to the existence of two different kinds of thinking -- inhibitory/practical vs intellectual/abstract.<BR/> <BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>MikeMike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-89722330684462651122009-01-25T10:38:00.000-08:002009-01-25T10:38:00.000-08:00Yes,'I'm', 'we're', 'it's', 'they're' wrong again....Yes,<BR/><BR/>'I'm', 'we're', 'it's', 'they're' wrong again.<BR/><BR/>A 'wrong' fetish seems effectively much the same as a 'Zen' fetish to me.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the attempt at least.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>H.Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168631752214481563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-38420624503770488512009-01-25T07:03:00.000-08:002009-01-25T07:03:00.000-08:00Hi Harry, Have just been out walking for a couple ...Hi Harry, <BR/><BR/>Have just been out walking for a couple of hours and pondering your comments in process. <BR/><BR/>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.) <BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>MikeMike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-33836328559127087362009-01-25T04:23:00.000-08:002009-01-25T04:23:00.000-08:00Hi, Mike.Ha!Oh, don't get me 'wrong'.That was just...Hi, Mike.<BR/><BR/>Ha!<BR/><BR/>Oh, don't get me 'wrong'.<BR/><BR/>That was just an example, I get up to all sorts of mischief with my body, speech and mind as you clearly appreciate!<BR/><BR/>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<BR/>'this/that is wrong' and so it doesn't appear to be a big factor.<BR/><BR/>"...it could be that you are looking into the mirror of sitting/realisation and seeing your own immaculate Buddha-nature. <BR/><BR/>Or it could be that your over-active intellect is blinding you to your own delusion. "<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I'm hoping you can reason this better for me. No problem if you can't.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Harry.Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168631752214481563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-65171479173495832652009-01-25T02:47:00.000-08:002009-01-25T02:47:00.000-08:00Hi Harry, If you cannot see any wrong inner patter...Hi Harry, <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Or it could be that your over-active intellect is blinding you to your own delusion. <BR/><BR/>Staying resolutely in the middle, I shall not pass judgement!<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>MikeMike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-60011970336503423252009-01-24T15:19:00.000-08:002009-01-24T15:19:00.000-08:00...In terms of an example:If I think of giving som......In terms of an example:<BR/><BR/>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'?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>That ass-kicking thought seems fine to me; harmless, natural etc.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Harry.Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168631752214481563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-88350887794351786532009-01-24T14:59:00.000-08:002009-01-24T14:59:00.000-08:00Hi again, Mike.What, in reality, makes the 'inner ...Hi again, Mike.<BR/><BR/>What, in reality, makes the 'inner patterns' wrong?<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Harry.Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168631752214481563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-91168653605277439412009-01-24T12:12:00.000-08:002009-01-24T12:12:00.000-08:00Hi Harry, The problem is not so much the words use...Hi Harry, <BR/><BR/>The problem is not so much the words used to represent duHka-nirodha-satya, or "the truth of stopping suffering." <BR/><BR/>The problem is more that we tend not to be clear in regard to what has to be stopped, or inhibited. <BR/><BR/>But Ashvaghosha spelled it out in verse 3.12. <BR/><BR/>And, for me, Marjory Barlow is expressing exactly the same truth as Ashvaghosha: <BR/><BR/>The wrong inner patterns are the doing which has to be stopped.Mike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-1307232428936165292009-01-24T11:31:00.000-08:002009-01-24T11:31:00.000-08:00Hi Mike,I don't see that Master Dogen was just ref...Hi Mike,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>From the page you linked me to:<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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?)<BR/><BR/>This 'inhibition' can (and maybe should) I think, be positively phrased as a rather special form of expression.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Harry.Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168631752214481563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-88445021563270935832009-01-24T10:15:00.000-08:002009-01-24T10:15:00.000-08:00Hi Harry, That which has to be stopped, as I under...Hi Harry, <BR/><BR/>That which has to be stopped, as I understand it, is further back than action, or bodily conduct. <BR/><BR/>Marjory Barlow expresses it <A HREF="http://www.the-middle-way.org/subpage2.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> with unsurpassed clarity. To quote from the article directly: <BR/><BR/><STRONG>The wrong inner patterns are the doing which has to be stopped.</STRONG><BR/><BR/>Those wrong inner patterns are centred on the panic reflex that I keep banging on about -- the Moro/Mara reflex. <BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>MikeMike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-84024331248048860452009-01-24T09:56:00.000-08:002009-01-24T09:56:00.000-08:00Hi Mike,Another interesting post.Re. 'Inhibition':...Hi Mike,<BR/><BR/>Another interesting post.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>'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'.<BR/><BR/>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'.<BR/><BR/>Just a minor ramble.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>harry.Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168631752214481563noreply@blogger.com