−−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−−¦¦−−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−− Upajāti
(Rāmā)
nāśīviṣebhyo
hi tathā bibhemi naivāśanibhyo
gaganāc-cyutebhyaḥ |
⏑−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−−¦¦⏑−⏑−¦−⏑⏑¦−⏑−−
na
pāvakebhyo 'nila-saṁhitebhyo yathā bhayaṁ me viṣayebhya eva
|| 11.8
11.8
For I am not so afraid
of venomous snakes,
Or of thunderbolts
falling from the sky,
Or of fires supplied
with air,
As I am fearful of
objects of the senses.
COMMENT:
indhane sati vāyau ca
yathā jvalati pāvakaḥ /
Just as a fire burns
only where fuel and air co-exist,
viṣayāt
parikalpāc-ca kleśāgnir-jāyate tathā // SN13.50
So a fire of affliction
arises, from an object and the forming of a conception.
abhūta-parikalpena
viṣayasya hi badhyate /
For through an illusory
fixed conception one is bound to an object;
tam-eva viṣayaṃ
paśyan bhūtataḥ parimucyate // 13.51 //
Seeing that very same
object as it really is, one is set free.
dṛṣṭvaikaṃ
rūpam-anyo hi rajyate 'nyaḥ praduṣyati /
On seeing one and the
same form this man is enamoured, that man is disgusted;
kaś-cid bhavati
madhya-sthas-tatraivānyo ghṛṇāyate // 13.52
Somebody else remains
in the middle;
while yet another feels
thereto a human warmth.
ato na viṣayo
hetur-bandhāya na vimuktaye /
Thus, an object is not
the cause of bondage or of liberation;
parikalpa-viśeṣeṇa
saṃgo bhavati vā na vā // SN13.53
It is due to peculiar
fixed conceptions that attachment arises or does not.
In view of what the
Buddha thus tells Nanda in SN Canto 13, we should maybe understand
that the bodhisattva in today's verse is fearful of objects not because there is
originally any fault
in objects themselves, but rather because sense objects become
dangerous when they become the targets of the desirous senses of a person who
lacks the detachment to see an object as it really is.
At
the same time being afraid of viṣayebhyaḥ in the plural can mean
being afraid of sensual attractions, or sensuality. So although the
word viṣaya originally suggests something very objective – an
object of the senses, or the reach of the senses – it can also
include some more subjective sense of the activity of the senses.
Bhayaṁ me viṣayebhyaḥ, therefore, could be translated as “my
fear of objects targeted by the senses” or maybe more strictly accurately, in
view of what the Buddha tells Nanda, as “my fear of targeting of
objects by the senses.”
In a similar way, only
the other way round, kāma, from the root √kam (to wish, to
desire), ostensibly means something subjective. But just as in
English a heart's desire is an object that the heart wants, and
desires can mean objects of desire, so too in Sanskrit can kāmāḥ
mean desires as objects.
So when in today's verse
the bodhisattva confesses his fear of objects (viṣayebhyaḥ), and
in tomorrows verse describes how desires (kāmāḥ) delude men's
minds, even though viṣayebhyaḥ sounds originally more objective
and kāmāḥ sounds originally more subjective, I think Aśvaghoṣa's
intention is to indicate that in the coming speech the bodhisattva is
going to use the two terms as more or less synonymous.
When a young bloke falls
in love, as young blokes are prone to do – to fall “into love”
as my Zen teacher used to phrase it, as if love were some kind of
elephant trap – is he deluded by sensual objects, like lingerie and lip-gloss? Or is he deluded by his own desires? Is the
cause on her or in him?
The apparently
interchangeable use of viṣaya (object) and kāma (desire) seems to
suggest that, as far as the bodhisattva was concerned, for practical
intents and purposes, the distinction between the subjective and the
objective was a nicety that could be transcended. The important
thing, in the practice of a bodhisattva who desired release, was not
to become too deeply ensnared in delusion.
A practical directive
in this direction, a teaching directed by the Buddha to his son
Rāhula, is recorded in the Mahārāhulovādasuttaṁ as follows:
Paṭhavīsamaṁ
Rāhula bhāvanaṁ bhāvehi.
Ānandajoti Bhikkhu
translates this as:
Develop the meditation,
Rāhula, that is to be even as the earth.
In a footnote, AB adds:
Develop the
meditation - bhāvanaṁ bhāvehi, could be more literally
rendered as “develop the development” if it wasn't so
unidiomatic.
Reflecting this morning
that bhāvana in Sanskrit is an -na neuter action noun (from the
causative of bhū, to be), it occurred to me that bhāvanaṁ bhāvehi
might be translated still more literally as “develop the
developing” or “develop the act of development”:
Paṭhavīsamaṁ
Rāhula bhāvanaṁ bhāvehi.
“Develop the act of
development, Rahula, that is to be even as the earth.”
“Do the work of
developing, Rahula, that is to be even as the earth.”
Most readers of this
blog, I suppose, like me, have come to the Buddha's teaching
primarily through the transmission of the Buddha-dharma through Aśvaghoṣa
and Nāgārjuna in India, through Bodhidharma in India and China,
through the Chinese Zen patriarchs in China, and through the Japanese
Zen Master Dogen in China and Japan.
For
us, therefore, the emphasis is somewhat problematic that the Buddha
and the Indian patriarchs Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna evidently
placed on bhāvana, using a variety of nimitta – nimitta being
conventionally understood as meaning something like “a subject for
meditation.” It is problematic since in the Buddha's teaching as
we have received it, all that is necessary is just to sit, dropping
off body and mind. Nobody has transmitted to us an a-la-carte menu of
nimitta. Our dumb arses have been happily sitting as if in the cheap seats where only one
set menu is served.
But
now, in the writings of Aśvaghoṣa and Nāgārjuna, we are
confronted with talk of bhāvana (meditation), in which are
implicated various nimitta (subjects of meditation); and these terms
evidently hark back to what the Buddha taught the likes of his son
Rāhula, as recorded in the most ancient Pali texts.
In
SN Canto 16 I translated bhāvana as “mental
development” (sarvāsravān bhāvanayābhibhūya
na jāyate śāntimavāpya bhūyaḥ; He prevails over all
pollutants, by the means of mental development, and, on finding
peace, is no longer subject to becoming. SN16.5). And I translated
nimitta, somewhat non-committally as "a factor":
pragrāhakaṃ yat-tu
nimittam-uktam-uddhanyamāne hṛdi tan-na sevyam /
That factor said
to be "garnering" does not serve when the emotions are
inflamed,
evaṃ hi cittaṃ
praśamaṁ na yāti [viś]vāyunā vahnir-iveryamāṇaḥ //16.53
For thus the mind does
not come to quiet, like a fire being fanned by the wind.
śamāya yat
syān-niyataṃ nimittaṃ jātoddhave cetasi tasya kālaḥ /
A factor ascertained to
be calming has its time when one's mind is excited;
evaṃ hi cittaṃ
praśamaṃ niyacchet pradīpyamāno 'gnir-ivodakena //16.54
For thus the mind
subsides into quietness, like a blazing fire doused with water....
Near the beginning of
the Mahārāhulovādasuttaṁ, Rāhula is described like this:
Tato paṭinivattitvā
aññatarasmiṁ rukkhamūle nisīdi.
Therefore having turned back he sat down at the root of a certain tree.
Pallaṅkaṁ ābhujitvā, ujuṁ kāyaṁ paṇidhāya,
After folding his legs crosswise, and setting his body straight,
parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā.
he established mindfulness at the front.
Therefore having turned back he sat down at the root of a certain tree.
Pallaṅkaṁ ābhujitvā, ujuṁ kāyaṁ paṇidhāya,
After folding his legs crosswise, and setting his body straight,
parimukhaṁ satiṁ upaṭṭhapetvā.
he established mindfulness at the front.
In this passage ujuṁ
(straight) corresponds to the Sanskrit ṛjum, which the MW
dictionary defines as “tending in a straight direction,
straight, upright.” So in some sense we can understand that
sitting-meditation as Dogen taught it is our bhāvana, and this word
ujum or ṛjum (tending upright) expresses the only nimitta that some
of us have personally received from a teacher, as a means with which
to practise our bhāvana.
In that case, it struck
me as I sat this morning, it may be important for us to recognize
that this very simple practice of sitting-meditation that we like to
practise is also – because the Buddha called it so – a bhāvana, a Developing, or an Act of
Development.
Since tending in a
direction, and uprightness, are essentially vestibular problems; and
since in human development the vestibular system is precocious, that all sort of makes sense to me.
But the proof of the
pudding – for bodhisattvas who desire release, and who therefore
fear ensnarement in delusion induced by desires/objects – may be in
the eating.
That being so, who in Dogen's line in
the world today can truly claim, by his detachment with regard to
desires/objects, to have kicked Māra's arse?
Don't look at me,
because I certainly haven't, at least not on a permanent basis.
Perhaps we who follow Dogen would all do
well to go back to the ancient texts, in Sanskrit and in Pali, and
think again, in light of what is recorded there, about the sitting
practice that has been transmitted down to us.
Ironically, though it
may only be subjective prejudice re-asserting itself, I find those
ancient texts to be supportive of the heretic non-Buddhist effort I
have been making these past 20 years, in which I have become
progressively less interested in Buddhism as a religion, and more
interested in scientific discoveries to do with human development
(bhāvana), centred on the working of the vestibular system. Chief
among the modern pioneers of such bhāvana, in my book, has been FM
Alexander.
VOCABULARY
na:
not
āśīviṣebhyaḥ
(abl. pl.): m. a kind of venomous snake
hi:
for
tathā:
ind. so, to that extent
bibhemi
= 1st pers. sg. bhī: to fear, be afraid
na:
not
eva:
(emphatic)
āśanibhyaḥ
(abl. pl.): f. the thunderbolt , a flash of lightning
gaganāt
(abl. sg.): n. the atmosphere , sky , firmament
cyutebhyaḥ
(abl. pl. f.): mfn. falling
na:
not
pāvakebhyaḥ
(abl. pl.): m. fire or the god of fire
anila-saṁhitebhyaḥ
(abl. pl. m.): combined with air
anila:
m. air or wind
saṁhita:
mfn. put together ; joined or connected or endowed or furnished with
, abounding in , possessed of , accompanied by (comp.)
saṁ-
√ dhā: to combine, connect with
yathā:
ind. as, to such an extent
bhayam
(acc. sg.): n. fear
me
(gen. sg.): in/of me
viṣayebhyaḥ
(abl. pl.): m. sphere (of influence or activity); objects, ends to
be gained ; anything perceptible by the senses , any object of
affection or concern or attention , any special worldly object or aim
or matter or business , (pl.) sensual enjoyments , sensuality
eva:
(emphatic)
不畏盛毒蛇 凍電猛盛火
唯畏五欲境 流轉勞我心
唯畏五欲境 流轉勞我心
No comments:
Post a Comment