tasmaad eShaam a-kushala-karaaNaam ariiNaam
cakShur-ghraaNa-shravaNa-rasana-sparshanaanaam
sarv'-aavasthaM bhava viniyamaad a-pramatto
m" aasminn arthe kShaNam api kRthaas tvaM pramaadaM
saundaranande mahaakaavye shiil'-endriya-jayo naama trayodashaH sargaH
= = = = - - - - - = = - = =
= = = = - - - - - = = - = =
= = = = - - - - - = = - = =
= = = = - - - - - = = - = =
= - - = = - = = = = = - - - = = = - = - = = =
13.56
So towards those mischief-making foes --
Seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and feeling --
In every situation show a vigilance born of restraint.
You are not for an instant to be heedless in this matter.
The 13th Canto of the epic poem Handsome Nanda, titled 'Thwarting the Power of the Senses through Practice of Integrity'
COMMENT:
Shravana means hearing as the sense which is centred on the ear. That sense is the sense of movement, whether the movement be a relatively rapid movement like the sound of a computer whirring through the air at around 1,500 cycles per second, or whether the movement be a relatively slow one like one's own body being propelled round a bend on a motorbike at 60 miles per hour. What I am getting it, in other words, is that I would like to understand shravana as including both the auditory sense (sense of faster moving sound vibrations) and the vestibular sense (sense of the body's relativelly slower movement or non-movement in space).
Sparshana, similarly, I would like to understand as including not only the superficial touching felt through the skin, but also the deeper proprioceptive sensing done through muscle spindles, joint capsules, and Golgi tendon organs.
In other words, I would like to understand that the lost sixth sense, the compound sense of proprioception in which the vestibular system plays a central integrating role, is included implicitly within the five senses listed in the 2nd line. Because when we talk about fauly sensory appreciation misguiding us in the matter of upright sitting posture, we are talking mainly about proprioception.
Speaking of sitting posture, yesterday was an interesting day. With my wife and older son I drove down to London for the afternoon and spent a few hours wandering around the vicinity of the Natural History Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum. In the latter I was especially struck (apologies for not having a photo) of a Buddha sculpture from the 4th or 5th century from the area which is modern-day Pakistan. Even though it was scuplted in stone, the image had a tremendously strong dynamic sense of the head going forward and up. Also impressive was a wooden arhat carving from China, from maybe the 7th or 8th century, which showed no concern at all for correct sitting posture but was tremendously life-like. The arhat, leaning his arm on one leg, seemed to be engaged in animated debate.
When we re-joined our younger son for dinner, the conversation got round to the topic of posture in connection with their recent trip to Japan. My younger son, though a keen player of football and cricket, tends to sit at the table as if he had no backbone. He is a slumper. Mindful of Marjory Barlow's injunction never to use the Alexander Technique as a stick to beat children with, I make a point of never getting on my son's case about his posture -- as far as I am concerned it is his choice how he sits. In Japanese culture, however, to hold oneself upright is regarded as a kind of politeness, and certain stiffness is even regarded as a virtue. So it seems my wife and older son were putting a certain pressure on my younger son to put on a bit of a show for his grandfather, and stiffen up a bit, at least when they were eating out in public, or sitting at the table with other relatives. My younger son, who is neither fool nor fighter, did not react one way or the other. He neither stiffened up as requested, nor fought against the social pressure. When he got back home to Aylesbury, however, I noted that he seemed mightily relieved to get back to his X-box, his own room and his good mate over the road.
When I saw my son this morning, having slept on this problem of posture, I asked him, "When somebody puts pressure on you to sit up straight, what is the enlightened thing to do?" His instant answer was: "Say No." Good answer, I thought. But often when people say No, their conception is that they are saying No to the stimulus, which isn't quite it. The truly enlightenened thing to do is to say No to one's own reaction to the stimulus. So I asked again, "Say No to what?" My son paused for a couple of seconds, "To fixing."
Viniyamaad a-pramatta, vigilance born of restraint, as I understand the phrase, relates to the virtuous circle that spontaneously forms around a person's saying the magic word "No." It is a virtuous circle of stopping and becoming aware. I have never tried to guide my 16-year-old son in the matter of posture, but I have tried to teach him through deed and word the virtue of saying No, and my sense this morning is that I have not done too bad a job of it.
Viniyamaad a-pramatta, vigilance born of restraint, is required in every situation (sarv'-aavastham) because faulty sensory appreciation is an ever-present. So it is necessary that at least a part of me remembers at every moment, it is necessary that I do not completely forget even for a moment (kshanam api), that I do not want to fix. I do not want to stiffen my neck, pull my head back and down, compress my spine into itself, and hold everything in so that my breathing is restricted.
The problem that the Buddha has addressed in this canto, the problem of circumventing the power of the senses through the mindful practice of integrity, is not similar to the problem that FM Alexander devoted his life to addressing. The problem, as I see it, is just exactly the same problem.
When so-called Zen masters instruct others in the matter of 'correct sitting posture,' without ever having truly understood or even recognized this problem, their fault is not their failure to embrace the teaching of FM Alexander. Their fault is their ignorance in regard to the most fundamental teaching of the Buddha Gautama.
The most fundamental fault to fight against, mischief-making enemy number one, in every situation (sarv'-avastham), internally and externally, might be the ignorant fixing that is tied up with faulty sensory appreciation.
EH Johnston:
In all circumstances, therefore, you should be attentive to restraining these sin-causing enemies, namely, sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch. In this matter do not be neglectful even for a moment.
Linda Covill:
In every situation, therefore, be careful to place restrictions on those enemies -- sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch -- which produce unwholesome states. Don't be negligent about this even for an instant!"
VOCABULARY:
tasmaat: from that, on that account, therefore
eShaam (genitive, plural): of these
a: not
kushala: good, healthy; n. welfare , well-being , prosperous condition , happiness
a-kushala: mfn. inauspicious , evil ; not clever ; n. evil
karaaNaam = gen. pl. of kara: a doer , maker , causer
ariiNaam = gen. pl. of ari: an enemy
cakShus: n. the act of seeing; n. faculty of seeing , sight ; n. the eye
ghraaNa: m. n. smelling , perception of odour; n. the nose
shravaNa: n. hearing; m. the ear
rasana: n. tasting , taste , flavour ; n. the tongue as organ of taste
sparshanaanaam = gen. pl. of sparshana: n. the act of touching , touch , contact ; n. sensation , sense of touch , organ of sensation or feeling , sensitive nerve
sarva: all, every
avastha: state , condition , situation
bhava = 2nd person, imperative of bhuu: to be, become
viniyamaad = ablative of viniyama: m. limitation , restriction to (loc.); restraint , government
a: not
pramatta: mfn. excited , wanton , lascivious , rutting ; drunken , intoxicated ; mad , insane ; inattentive , careless , heedless , negligent
apramatta: mfn. not careless , careful , attentive , vigilant
a-pramattaH (nom. sg. m.): a man who is not careless
maa: a particle of prohibition or negation, most commonly joined with the Subjunctive... rarely with the augmentless impf.
asmin (locative): in this
arthe (locative): aim, purpose, thing, matter
kShaNam: an instant
api: even
kRthaaH = augmentless impf. of kR: to do, make
tvam (nom.): you
pramaadam (acc.): m. intoxication ; madness , insanity ; negligence , carelessness about
saundaranande mahaakaavye (locative): in the great poem Handsome Nanda
shiila: practice of integrity, discipline, good conduct
indriya: sense, sensory power
jayaH (nom.): m. conquest , victory , triumph , winning , being victorious (indriyaanaam-jaya victory over or restraint of the senses)
naama: named, by name
trayodashaH sargaH (nom.): 13th Canto
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
SAUNDARANANDA 13.55: Who Let These Snakes In?
kaamabhoga-bhogavadbhir aatma-dRShTi-dRShTibhiH
pramaada-naika-muurdhabhiH praharSha-lola-jihvaiH
indriyoragair mano-bila-shayaiH spRhaa-viShaiH
sham-aagadaad Rte na daShTam asti yac cikitset
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - =
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = =
= - = - = - = - - - = - = - =
- = - = - = - = - = - - - = =
13.55
Coiling in sensual enjoyment,
for eyes they have selfish views;
Their many heads are heedlessness
and their flickering tongues excitement:
The snaky senses lurk in mind-pits,
their venom eager desire,
And when they bite there is no cure,
save the antidote of cessation.
COMMENT:
In however many hundred years there were between the time of the Buddha Gautama and the time of the Buddha's 12th-generation descendant Ashvaghosha, the Buddha's verbal teachings were preserved firstly through an oral tradition; then at some point those verbal teachings were written down in Sanskrit by anonymous scribes. A Sanskrit text of the Saddharma-puNDariika-suutra (Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the True Dharma) discovered in 1931 at Gilgit in Kashmir is estimated to have been copied in the fifth or sixth century, but there is no record of the name of the person who originally transcribed the text (much less copied it). The idea, presumably, was that the Sutra consisted of the golden words of the Buddha himself, and the name of the person who wrote those words down in Sanskrit form was of no consequence.
Some time around the first century, however, an individual by the name of Ashvaghosha wrote, and took individual responsibility for, the two Sanskrit epic poems Buddhacarita (The Buddha's Career) and Saundarananda (Handsome Nanda). EH Johnston stated in his 1928 preface to the Sanskrit text of Saundarananda, "It is a mistake for the scholar of Buddhism to ignore the Saundarananda, as has been the case in the past. It is the earliest Buddhist work by a writer whose name is known to us."
Never mind about the scholar of Buddhism. It might be a mistake for any spade-wielding miner who wishes to dig out the original truth of Buddha to ignore the Saundarananda. Because Ashvaghosha was much more than an acclaimed Sanskrit poet.
Still, Johnston's point, and it was a true one, was that "it is desirable to establish the text of the poem so far as possible."
Johnson continues:
Though it is better preserved than that of the Buddhacarita, there is no Tibetan translation to help in its correction and the most careful scrutiny of the manuscript is called for... The purpose of the present edition [Johnston's publication of the Sanskrit text] is twofold, to give a complete description of the material available in the manuscript, so as to facilitate further work by others on the text, and to provide a good a text as possible. There are only two known manuscripts of the Saundarananda, both in the Library of H.H. the Maharaja of Nepal, who most generously allowed me the loan of them. The earlier... dates from about 1165 AD and consists of thirty-five long palm leaves, in a clear and good handwriting, with six lines of writing on each side divided into three sections. The manuscript has been so badly eaten into by white ants that in the middle of each leaf usually some three lines of writing, occasionally as many as five, are missing, though the damage at the ends is less and sometimes ni. Leaf 34 has one end missing, holding about one-sixth of the text, and leaf 35 is a mere fragment.... The leaf manuscript (L) is undoubtedly a very good manuscript and has an excellent text. It has, however, been a good deal altered, apparently by different hands at different times, and not always for the better.... The other manuscript, which I call the paper manuscript (P), is a paper manuscript of 73 leaves, placed by H.P. Shastri in the eighteenth century. The slovenliness of the handwriting is only too true an index of the carelessness and inaccuracy of the copyist, but, as it is our only authority for a good third of the text, it is no waste of labour to record its many mistakes. It has at least the virtue that the copyist was content to make nonsense instead of substituting his own conjectures. It has also been a good deal corrected and omissions have been supplied several times in entirely different hands; but the correctness of the additions where they can be checked with L shows them to have been taken from another manuscript, and not to be mere conjections.... To produce a perfect text from such material is impossible... I must admit that there are only too many passages in which the text I have adopted or the explanation I have given is only tentative... Though the text is not perfect, it has been less tampered with than that of the Buddhacarita, possibly as the less popular poem. Only three verses (11.56, 11.57 and 13.55) are obvious interpolations as against a dozen at least in that portion of the Buddhacarita which is extant in Sanskrit.
Johnston decided to omit 13.55 from his main Sanskrit text in devanagari script. Johnston includes the romanized version, however, in a footnote to his Sanskrit text:
This verse, whose metre does not seem to occur elsewhere, is so obviously spurious that I have withdrawn it from the text. It runs as follows:
kaamabhogabhogavadbhir aatmadRShTidRShTibhiH
pramaadanaikamuurdhabhiH praharShalolajihvaiH
indriyaoragair manobilashayaiH spRhaaviShaiH
shamaagadaad Rte na daShTam asti yac cikitset
Subsequently, in his footnotes to his English translation, Johnston adds:
This verse, which I consider spurious, runs as follows:
Nothing except the antidote of tranquility can cure the bite of the snakes of the senses, whose coils are the enjoyments of the passions, whose eyes are the beliefs in self, with the many heads of heedlessness, the flickering tongues of raptures and the poison of longings, and who lurk in the lairs of the mind.
LC follows EHJ in skipping 13.55, noting that "Johnston does not supply the text for this verse as he considers it spurious."
For me, whether or not Ashvaghosha himself wrote it, 13.55 seems to drive home the point made in 13.54, reminding me what I need constantly to be reminded of: that if our worst evil is the habit of fixing upon an object, then the kind of effort required in practising integrity is not primarily an effort to do; rather, it is primarily an effort NOT to do. It is effort of a higher order. It is primarily an effort of cessation.
VOCABULARY:
kaama: desire, longing, love, sensuality
bhoga: (1) m. (from √bhuj) any winding or curve , coil (of a serpent); the expanded hood of a snake ; a snake ; the body
(2) m. ( from √bhuj) enjoyment , eating , feeding on
√bhuj: to bend, curve ; to enjoy, enjoy a meal, eat
kaama-bhoga: m. pl. gratification of desires , sensual gratification
bhogavadbhir = inst. pl. (agreeing with indriya-oragaiH in line 3) of bhogavat: (1) mfn. furnished with windings or curves or rings , ringed , coiled (as a serpent); furnished with a hood ; a serpent ; (2) mfn. furnished with enjoyments , having or offering enjoyments , delightful , happy , prosperous
aatma: self
dRShTi: f. seeing, view; sight , the faculty of seeing ; the mind's eye ; eye ; the pupil of the eye
dRShTibhiH = inst. pl. of dRShTi: f. eye
pramaada: m . intoxication ; madness , insanity ; negligence
naika: mfn. not one , more than one , various , manifold , numerous , many
muurdhabhiH = inst. pl. of muurdhan: m. the forehead , head in general , skull , (fig.) the highest or first part of anything , top , point
praharSha: erection of the hair , extreme joy , thrill of delight , rapture
lola: mf(A)n. moving hither and thither , shaking , rolling , tossing , dangling , swinging , agitated , unsteady , restless
jihvaiH = inst. pl. of jihva: m. the tongue
indriya: sense, power of sense
uragaiH = inst. pl. of uraga: m. snake, serpent
manas: mind
bila: n. a cave , hole , pit
shayaiH = inst. pl. of shaya: mfn. lying , sleeping , resting , abiding
spRhaa: f. eager desire , desire , covetousness , envy , longing
viShaiH = inst. pl. of viSha: n. poison , venom
shama: m. tranquillity , calmness , rest , equanimity , quietude ; pacification , allayment , alleviation , cessation , extinction
agadaad = abl. of agada: m. a medicine , drug , (especially) antidote
Rte: ind. under pain of , with the exclusion of , excepting , besides , without , unless (with abl.)
na: not
daShTa: mfn. bitten, stung
asti: there is
yat: which
cikitset = 3rd. pers. optative (?) from cit: to treat medically, to cure
pramaada-naika-muurdhabhiH praharSha-lola-jihvaiH
indriyoragair mano-bila-shayaiH spRhaa-viShaiH
sham-aagadaad Rte na daShTam asti yac cikitset
= - = - = - = - = - = - = - =
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = =
= - = - = - = - - - = - = - =
- = - = - = - = - = - - - = =
13.55
Coiling in sensual enjoyment,
for eyes they have selfish views;
Their many heads are heedlessness
and their flickering tongues excitement:
The snaky senses lurk in mind-pits,
their venom eager desire,
And when they bite there is no cure,
save the antidote of cessation.
COMMENT:
In however many hundred years there were between the time of the Buddha Gautama and the time of the Buddha's 12th-generation descendant Ashvaghosha, the Buddha's verbal teachings were preserved firstly through an oral tradition; then at some point those verbal teachings were written down in Sanskrit by anonymous scribes. A Sanskrit text of the Saddharma-puNDariika-suutra (Sutra of the Lotus Flower of the True Dharma) discovered in 1931 at Gilgit in Kashmir is estimated to have been copied in the fifth or sixth century, but there is no record of the name of the person who originally transcribed the text (much less copied it). The idea, presumably, was that the Sutra consisted of the golden words of the Buddha himself, and the name of the person who wrote those words down in Sanskrit form was of no consequence.
Some time around the first century, however, an individual by the name of Ashvaghosha wrote, and took individual responsibility for, the two Sanskrit epic poems Buddhacarita (The Buddha's Career) and Saundarananda (Handsome Nanda). EH Johnston stated in his 1928 preface to the Sanskrit text of Saundarananda, "It is a mistake for the scholar of Buddhism to ignore the Saundarananda, as has been the case in the past. It is the earliest Buddhist work by a writer whose name is known to us."
Never mind about the scholar of Buddhism. It might be a mistake for any spade-wielding miner who wishes to dig out the original truth of Buddha to ignore the Saundarananda. Because Ashvaghosha was much more than an acclaimed Sanskrit poet.
Still, Johnston's point, and it was a true one, was that "it is desirable to establish the text of the poem so far as possible."
Johnson continues:
Though it is better preserved than that of the Buddhacarita, there is no Tibetan translation to help in its correction and the most careful scrutiny of the manuscript is called for... The purpose of the present edition [Johnston's publication of the Sanskrit text] is twofold, to give a complete description of the material available in the manuscript, so as to facilitate further work by others on the text, and to provide a good a text as possible. There are only two known manuscripts of the Saundarananda, both in the Library of H.H. the Maharaja of Nepal, who most generously allowed me the loan of them. The earlier... dates from about 1165 AD and consists of thirty-five long palm leaves, in a clear and good handwriting, with six lines of writing on each side divided into three sections. The manuscript has been so badly eaten into by white ants that in the middle of each leaf usually some three lines of writing, occasionally as many as five, are missing, though the damage at the ends is less and sometimes ni. Leaf 34 has one end missing, holding about one-sixth of the text, and leaf 35 is a mere fragment.... The leaf manuscript (L) is undoubtedly a very good manuscript and has an excellent text. It has, however, been a good deal altered, apparently by different hands at different times, and not always for the better.... The other manuscript, which I call the paper manuscript (P), is a paper manuscript of 73 leaves, placed by H.P. Shastri in the eighteenth century. The slovenliness of the handwriting is only too true an index of the carelessness and inaccuracy of the copyist, but, as it is our only authority for a good third of the text, it is no waste of labour to record its many mistakes. It has at least the virtue that the copyist was content to make nonsense instead of substituting his own conjectures. It has also been a good deal corrected and omissions have been supplied several times in entirely different hands; but the correctness of the additions where they can be checked with L shows them to have been taken from another manuscript, and not to be mere conjections.... To produce a perfect text from such material is impossible... I must admit that there are only too many passages in which the text I have adopted or the explanation I have given is only tentative... Though the text is not perfect, it has been less tampered with than that of the Buddhacarita, possibly as the less popular poem. Only three verses (11.56, 11.57 and 13.55) are obvious interpolations as against a dozen at least in that portion of the Buddhacarita which is extant in Sanskrit.
Johnston decided to omit 13.55 from his main Sanskrit text in devanagari script. Johnston includes the romanized version, however, in a footnote to his Sanskrit text:
This verse, whose metre does not seem to occur elsewhere, is so obviously spurious that I have withdrawn it from the text. It runs as follows:
kaamabhogabhogavadbhir aatmadRShTidRShTibhiH
pramaadanaikamuurdhabhiH praharShalolajihvaiH
indriyaoragair manobilashayaiH spRhaaviShaiH
shamaagadaad Rte na daShTam asti yac cikitset
Subsequently, in his footnotes to his English translation, Johnston adds:
This verse, which I consider spurious, runs as follows:
Nothing except the antidote of tranquility can cure the bite of the snakes of the senses, whose coils are the enjoyments of the passions, whose eyes are the beliefs in self, with the many heads of heedlessness, the flickering tongues of raptures and the poison of longings, and who lurk in the lairs of the mind.
LC follows EHJ in skipping 13.55, noting that "Johnston does not supply the text for this verse as he considers it spurious."
For me, whether or not Ashvaghosha himself wrote it, 13.55 seems to drive home the point made in 13.54, reminding me what I need constantly to be reminded of: that if our worst evil is the habit of fixing upon an object, then the kind of effort required in practising integrity is not primarily an effort to do; rather, it is primarily an effort NOT to do. It is effort of a higher order. It is primarily an effort of cessation.
VOCABULARY:
kaama: desire, longing, love, sensuality
bhoga: (1) m. (from √bhuj) any winding or curve , coil (of a serpent); the expanded hood of a snake ; a snake ; the body
(2) m. ( from √bhuj) enjoyment , eating , feeding on
√bhuj: to bend, curve ; to enjoy, enjoy a meal, eat
kaama-bhoga: m. pl. gratification of desires , sensual gratification
bhogavadbhir = inst. pl. (agreeing with indriya-oragaiH in line 3) of bhogavat: (1) mfn. furnished with windings or curves or rings , ringed , coiled (as a serpent); furnished with a hood ; a serpent ; (2) mfn. furnished with enjoyments , having or offering enjoyments , delightful , happy , prosperous
aatma: self
dRShTi: f. seeing, view; sight , the faculty of seeing ; the mind's eye ; eye ; the pupil of the eye
dRShTibhiH = inst. pl. of dRShTi: f. eye
pramaada: m . intoxication ; madness , insanity ; negligence
naika: mfn. not one , more than one , various , manifold , numerous , many
muurdhabhiH = inst. pl. of muurdhan: m. the forehead , head in general , skull , (fig.) the highest or first part of anything , top , point
praharSha: erection of the hair , extreme joy , thrill of delight , rapture
lola: mf(A)n. moving hither and thither , shaking , rolling , tossing , dangling , swinging , agitated , unsteady , restless
jihvaiH = inst. pl. of jihva: m. the tongue
indriya: sense, power of sense
uragaiH = inst. pl. of uraga: m. snake, serpent
manas: mind
bila: n. a cave , hole , pit
shayaiH = inst. pl. of shaya: mfn. lying , sleeping , resting , abiding
spRhaa: f. eager desire , desire , covetousness , envy , longing
viShaiH = inst. pl. of viSha: n. poison , venom
shama: m. tranquillity , calmness , rest , equanimity , quietude ; pacification , allayment , alleviation , cessation , extinction
agadaad = abl. of agada: m. a medicine , drug , (especially) antidote
Rte: ind. under pain of , with the exclusion of , excepting , besides , without , unless (with abl.)
na: not
daShTa: mfn. bitten, stung
asti: there is
yat: which
cikitset = 3rd. pers. optative (?) from cit: to treat medically, to cure
Saturday, August 29, 2009
SAUNDARANANDA 13.54: Not Any Old Effort, Please
kaaryaH parama-yatnena
tasmaad indriya-saMvaraH
indriyaaNi hy aguptaani
duHkhaaya ca bhavaaya ca
= = - - - = = -
= = = - - = - =
= - = = - = = -
= = - - - = - -
13.54
Through effort of the highest order,
Therefore, contain the power of the senses;
For unguarded senses
Make for suffering and for becoming.
COMMENT:
From The Alexander Technique As I See It, by Patrick MacDonald:
In learning the Technique, considerable effort on the part of the pupil is required. A first step is to learn what sort of effort is necessary. The first essay nearly always produces more muscular tension, particularly in the neck, and this is exactly the opposite of what is required. The pupil must learn to stop doing, "to leave himself" in the hands of the teacher, neither tensing nor relaxing. Further, any emotional involvement in trying to learn what to do, or in what is going on, should be avoided. The best results are gained when a pupil can dissociate himself from what is happening, as if standing on one side watching someone else being taught. If he can do this for a time he will find himself taking his proper part in the process, with an awareness that is quite different and greatly enhanced. Alexander named the opposite of this kind of behavior "end-gaining" (i.e. the desire to bring about the end in view however wrong the means might be). He demonstrated that the quality of means employed brings about the kind of end arrived at, and that poor means invariably bring about a mediocre end. He showed that if a new kind of result was wanted, a new set of means would have to be used. This was not a startling new discovery; it had been said before. But it needs constant repetition, as there is still world-wide belief, against all evidence, that new results can be brought about by the same old methods.
EH Johnston:
Therefore one should strive one's hardest for the control of the senses ; for unguarded senses lead to suffering and the continuance of existence.
Linda Covill:
For this reason you should control your senses with the maximum of effort, for ungoverned senses make for sorrow and rebirth
VOCABULARY:
kaaryaH (nom. sg.): to be made
parama: (superlative of para) mfn. utmost, the highest
yatnena (instr.): with effort, strenuously
tasmaad: therefore
indriya: sense
saMvaraH = nom. sg. of saMvara (from saM-√vR): mfn. keeping back , stopping ; m. a dam , mound , bridge; m. shutting out the external world (with jainas one of the 7 or 9 tattvas) ; n. (with Buddhists) restraint , forbearance
saM-√vR: to cover up , enclose , hide , conceal; to put together or in order , arrange; to gather up (snares) ; to ward off , keep back , restrain , check , stop
indriyaaNi (nom./accu., plural): senses
hi: for
agupta: mfn. unhidden , unconcealed; unprotected ; unguarded
duHkhaaya (dative): for suffering
ca: and
bhavaaya (dative): for becoming
ca: and
tasmaad indriya-saMvaraH
indriyaaNi hy aguptaani
duHkhaaya ca bhavaaya ca
= = - - - = = -
= = = - - = - =
= - = = - = = -
= = - - - = - -
13.54
Through effort of the highest order,
Therefore, contain the power of the senses;
For unguarded senses
Make for suffering and for becoming.
COMMENT:
From The Alexander Technique As I See It, by Patrick MacDonald:
In learning the Technique, considerable effort on the part of the pupil is required. A first step is to learn what sort of effort is necessary. The first essay nearly always produces more muscular tension, particularly in the neck, and this is exactly the opposite of what is required. The pupil must learn to stop doing, "to leave himself" in the hands of the teacher, neither tensing nor relaxing. Further, any emotional involvement in trying to learn what to do, or in what is going on, should be avoided. The best results are gained when a pupil can dissociate himself from what is happening, as if standing on one side watching someone else being taught. If he can do this for a time he will find himself taking his proper part in the process, with an awareness that is quite different and greatly enhanced. Alexander named the opposite of this kind of behavior "end-gaining" (i.e. the desire to bring about the end in view however wrong the means might be). He demonstrated that the quality of means employed brings about the kind of end arrived at, and that poor means invariably bring about a mediocre end. He showed that if a new kind of result was wanted, a new set of means would have to be used. This was not a startling new discovery; it had been said before. But it needs constant repetition, as there is still world-wide belief, against all evidence, that new results can be brought about by the same old methods.
EH Johnston:
Therefore one should strive one's hardest for the control of the senses ; for unguarded senses lead to suffering and the continuance of existence.
Linda Covill:
For this reason you should control your senses with the maximum of effort, for ungoverned senses make for sorrow and rebirth
VOCABULARY:
kaaryaH (nom. sg.): to be made
parama: (superlative of para) mfn. utmost, the highest
yatnena (instr.): with effort, strenuously
tasmaad: therefore
indriya: sense
saMvaraH = nom. sg. of saMvara (from saM-√vR): mfn. keeping back , stopping ; m. a dam , mound , bridge; m. shutting out the external world (with jainas one of the 7 or 9 tattvas) ; n. (with Buddhists) restraint , forbearance
saM-√vR: to cover up , enclose , hide , conceal; to put together or in order , arrange; to gather up (snares) ; to ward off , keep back , restrain , check , stop
indriyaaNi (nom./accu., plural): senses
hi: for
agupta: mfn. unhidden , unconcealed; unprotected ; unguarded
duHkhaaya (dative): for suffering
ca: and
bhavaaya (dative): for becoming
ca: and
Friday, August 28, 2009
SAUNDARANANDA 13.53: The True Cause of Arrested Development
ato na viShayo hetur
bandhaaya na vimuktaye
parikalpa-visheSheNa
saNgo bhavati vaa na vaa
- = - - - = = =
= = - - - = - =
- - = - - = = -
= = - - - = - =
13.53
Thus, an object is not the cause
Of bondage or of liberation;
It is through a particular kind of fixing
That sticking occurs or does not.
COMMENT:
Exactly what kind of fixing is it that causes a person to become emotionally stuck? What causes life to be experienced as one emotional snag, or sticking point, after another?
I think it has to do with trying to be right, on the basis of feeling that is wrong, due in particular to unduly excitable fear reflexes.
If I am allowed to use technical jargon, I think it has to do with end-gaining, on the basis of faulty sensory appreciation centred on a dysfunctional vestibular sense, associated with aberrant vestibular reflexes.
Speaking of the vestibular system (which Marjory Barlow admittedly never does, not directly), in the passage from Marjory's book quoted in the comment to 13.51, I missed a few sentences out which relate to the vestibulo-ocular reflex, and I would like to quote them now. So here is the passage again, quoted verbatim from pp. 156 :
Q: How do you address the use of the eyes?
MB: I say, I want you to look at something, but see it. That's the great secret. Because you can be looking at that picture and not seeing it at all. Ask them, "What were you looking at?" It isn't a question of staring, it's a question of consciously directing the eyes, so that they are seeing. Some teachers don't use their eyes at all. It's terrible. FM used to say that a lot -- "Look at what you're doing, you've got to use all your senses," he used to say. They eyes are so important, because they are awfully mixed up with the head direction, and if you've got someone with a stiff neck and you can't undo it, get them to look at something and turn the head and you'll find the neck comes undone immediately -- but immediately! It's all part of the fixing. That's our biggest evil, fixing. FM used to say that. "You all fix." See, it's the desire to hold onto something. You've got to let it go and be in danger. You know how I put my hand down the spine and free that little bit through there just below the 'hump', and with some people if you do that too soon they look absolutely panic stricken. Their whole security is bound up just in that little bit below the hump and if you begin to free that, goodness, it's as if your taking away their whole security. That's one thing FM used to say, "What we're doing here is interfering with a person's sense of security -- what we're giving them is something much more secure, but they can't feel it so they don't know it yet. They will in time."
Marjory does not mention "the vestibulo-ocular motor reflex arc" in this passage any more than Ashvaghosha does in this verse. Marjory detested scientific-sounding jargon. She didn't like the habit among Alexander teachers, for example, of describing lying down work as "lying semi-supine." So she didn't talk, as I am always talking, about "the vestibular system." But in the above passage on the subject of fixing, when she talks about looking at something and turning the head, Marjory is just talking about the vestibular-ocular motor reflex arc.
One of the good things about being back in Aylesbury is that there are many good teachers here waiting to deepen my understanding of how aberrant vestibular reflexes influence human behaviour -- or at least waiting to falsify my former views on human growth and development. Among those good teachers, the best tend to be aged around 8 or 9 years old.
None of these teachers is perfect. Their mums bring them to see us knowing that something is wrong, something is stuck. So none of them is perfect. But some of them are happier than others. And the ones that are happier, it seems to me, are free of -- how can I put it without using technical sounding jargon? -- a particular kind of fixing.
EH Johnston:
Hence an object of the senses is not of itself a determining cause either of bondage or of emancipation. Association with a special imagination may make it such or it may not.
Linda Covill:
It follows that sense objects are not the cause of bondage or liberation; whether attachment arises or not is due to specific imaginings.
VOCABULARY:
ataH: hence, from this
na: not
viShayaH (nom.): an object
hetuH (nom.): cause
bandhaaya (dative): for bondage
na: not
vimuktaye (dative): for liberation
parikalpa: fixing
visheSheNa = instr. sg. of visheSha: characteristic difference , peculiar mark , special property , speciality , peculiarity ; a kind , species , individual (e.g. vRkSha-visheSha , a species of tree , in comp. often also = special , peculiar , particular , different , e.g. chando-visheSha , " a particular metre ")
saNgaH (nom): m. sticking , clinging to , touch , contact with ; addiction or devotion to , propensity for , (esp.) worldly or selfish attachment or affection , desire , wish , cupidity; relation to , association or intercourse with (gen. instr. with and without saha loc. , or comp.)
bhavati: it becomes, is
vaa na vaa: or not
bandhaaya na vimuktaye
parikalpa-visheSheNa
saNgo bhavati vaa na vaa
- = - - - = = =
= = - - - = - =
- - = - - = = -
= = - - - = - =
13.53
Thus, an object is not the cause
Of bondage or of liberation;
It is through a particular kind of fixing
That sticking occurs or does not.
COMMENT:
Exactly what kind of fixing is it that causes a person to become emotionally stuck? What causes life to be experienced as one emotional snag, or sticking point, after another?
I think it has to do with trying to be right, on the basis of feeling that is wrong, due in particular to unduly excitable fear reflexes.
If I am allowed to use technical jargon, I think it has to do with end-gaining, on the basis of faulty sensory appreciation centred on a dysfunctional vestibular sense, associated with aberrant vestibular reflexes.
Speaking of the vestibular system (which Marjory Barlow admittedly never does, not directly), in the passage from Marjory's book quoted in the comment to 13.51, I missed a few sentences out which relate to the vestibulo-ocular reflex, and I would like to quote them now. So here is the passage again, quoted verbatim from pp. 156 :
Q: How do you address the use of the eyes?
MB: I say, I want you to look at something, but see it. That's the great secret. Because you can be looking at that picture and not seeing it at all. Ask them, "What were you looking at?" It isn't a question of staring, it's a question of consciously directing the eyes, so that they are seeing. Some teachers don't use their eyes at all. It's terrible. FM used to say that a lot -- "Look at what you're doing, you've got to use all your senses," he used to say. They eyes are so important, because they are awfully mixed up with the head direction, and if you've got someone with a stiff neck and you can't undo it, get them to look at something and turn the head and you'll find the neck comes undone immediately -- but immediately! It's all part of the fixing. That's our biggest evil, fixing. FM used to say that. "You all fix." See, it's the desire to hold onto something. You've got to let it go and be in danger. You know how I put my hand down the spine and free that little bit through there just below the 'hump', and with some people if you do that too soon they look absolutely panic stricken. Their whole security is bound up just in that little bit below the hump and if you begin to free that, goodness, it's as if your taking away their whole security. That's one thing FM used to say, "What we're doing here is interfering with a person's sense of security -- what we're giving them is something much more secure, but they can't feel it so they don't know it yet. They will in time."
Marjory does not mention "the vestibulo-ocular motor reflex arc" in this passage any more than Ashvaghosha does in this verse. Marjory detested scientific-sounding jargon. She didn't like the habit among Alexander teachers, for example, of describing lying down work as "lying semi-supine." So she didn't talk, as I am always talking, about "the vestibular system." But in the above passage on the subject of fixing, when she talks about looking at something and turning the head, Marjory is just talking about the vestibular-ocular motor reflex arc.
One of the good things about being back in Aylesbury is that there are many good teachers here waiting to deepen my understanding of how aberrant vestibular reflexes influence human behaviour -- or at least waiting to falsify my former views on human growth and development. Among those good teachers, the best tend to be aged around 8 or 9 years old.
None of these teachers is perfect. Their mums bring them to see us knowing that something is wrong, something is stuck. So none of them is perfect. But some of them are happier than others. And the ones that are happier, it seems to me, are free of -- how can I put it without using technical sounding jargon? -- a particular kind of fixing.
EH Johnston:
Hence an object of the senses is not of itself a determining cause either of bondage or of emancipation. Association with a special imagination may make it such or it may not.
Linda Covill:
It follows that sense objects are not the cause of bondage or liberation; whether attachment arises or not is due to specific imaginings.
VOCABULARY:
ataH: hence, from this
na: not
viShayaH (nom.): an object
hetuH (nom.): cause
bandhaaya (dative): for bondage
na: not
vimuktaye (dative): for liberation
parikalpa: fixing
visheSheNa = instr. sg. of visheSha: characteristic difference , peculiar mark , special property , speciality , peculiarity ; a kind , species , individual (e.g. vRkSha-visheSha , a species of tree , in comp. often also = special , peculiar , particular , different , e.g. chando-visheSha , " a particular metre ")
saNgaH (nom): m. sticking , clinging to , touch , contact with ; addiction or devotion to , propensity for , (esp.) worldly or selfish attachment or affection , desire , wish , cupidity; relation to , association or intercourse with (gen. instr. with and without saha loc. , or comp.)
bhavati: it becomes, is
vaa na vaa: or not
Thursday, August 27, 2009
SAUNDARANANDA 13.52: Building the Case against Enemy Number One
dRShTv" aikaM ruupam anyo hi
rajyate 'nyaH praduShyati
kash cid bhavati madhya-sthas
tatra' aaiv' aanyo ghRNaayate
= = = = = - = = -
= - = = - = - -
= = - - - = = =
= = = = - = - =
13.52
On seeing one and the same form
This man is enamoured, that man disgusted;
Somebody else remains indifferent;
While yet another feels thereto a human warmth.
COMMENT:
The 2nd line could be translated:
This man is turned on, that man off;
That translation might if anything be more exact. But would the register in that case be too colloquial? This is the kind of problem that an editor might help with. At primary school I was a precocious reader and at secondary school I was good at doing translations -- from Latin and from Spanish in particular. But I was never particularly good at English.
Anyway, the purpose of this verse is to establish facts in support of a pivotal statement made in the following verse about what causes us to get stuck and to get free.
And nobody needs to find four other people to corroborate the facts of this verse.
If I wish to remain permanently turned on by a woman's form, that is impossible. If I wish to always be turned off by a woman's form, that also is impossible. If I remain indifferent towards a woman's form, that is only a momentary state. If I say on the basis of a momentary state that I have become indifferent to a woman's form, I am deluding myself. If I try to be, or pretend to be, a man at the fourth level -- a man of true benevolence and compassion who on looking at a woman's form feels only human warmth -- that is just the essence of fixing.
The greatest threat to a man's integrity, as I see it, is neither a woman's form nor his own emotional reaction to a woman's form. The greatest threat to a man's integrity is trying to be, or pretending to be, something that he is not. Our greatest evil, as FM Alexander truly observered, is fixing.
EH Johnston:
On seeing a certain form one man is attracted, another dislikes it and a third is indifferent, while yet another feels compassionate disgust for the same object.
Linda Covill:
Upon seeing one and the same form, one person desires it, another repulses it, yet another remains indifferent, while someone else will feel compassion.
VOCABULARY:
dRShTva (absolutive of dRsh): seeing, after seeing
ekam (acc.): one
ruupam (acc.): n. form
anyaH (nom. sing. m.): another, the other man
hi: for
rajyate = 3rd pers. sing. of raJj: to redden , grow red , glow ; to be affected or moved , be excited or glad , be charmed or delighted by (instr.) , be attracted by or enamoured of , fall in love with (loc.
anyaH (nom. sing. m.): another
praduShyati = 3rd pers. sing. of pra-√duSh: to become worse , deteriorate; to be defiled or polluted , fall (morally); to become faithless, fall off
kash cid: someone
bhavati: is, becomes
madhya-sthaH (nom. sing. m.): being in the middle; standing between two persons or parties mediating , a mediator ; belonging to neither or both parties , (only) a witness , impartial , neutral , indifferent
tatra: therein; for that object
eva: (emphatic) that same one
anyaH (nom. sing. m.): another
ghRNaayate = 3rd pers. sing. of verb from ghRNaa: f. a warm feeling towards others , compassion , tenderness
ghRNa: m. heat , ardour , sunshine
rajyate 'nyaH praduShyati
kash cid bhavati madhya-sthas
tatra' aaiv' aanyo ghRNaayate
= = = = = - = = -
= - = = - = - -
= = - - - = = =
= = = = - = - =
13.52
On seeing one and the same form
This man is enamoured, that man disgusted;
Somebody else remains indifferent;
While yet another feels thereto a human warmth.
COMMENT:
The 2nd line could be translated:
This man is turned on, that man off;
That translation might if anything be more exact. But would the register in that case be too colloquial? This is the kind of problem that an editor might help with. At primary school I was a precocious reader and at secondary school I was good at doing translations -- from Latin and from Spanish in particular. But I was never particularly good at English.
Anyway, the purpose of this verse is to establish facts in support of a pivotal statement made in the following verse about what causes us to get stuck and to get free.
And nobody needs to find four other people to corroborate the facts of this verse.
If I wish to remain permanently turned on by a woman's form, that is impossible. If I wish to always be turned off by a woman's form, that also is impossible. If I remain indifferent towards a woman's form, that is only a momentary state. If I say on the basis of a momentary state that I have become indifferent to a woman's form, I am deluding myself. If I try to be, or pretend to be, a man at the fourth level -- a man of true benevolence and compassion who on looking at a woman's form feels only human warmth -- that is just the essence of fixing.
The greatest threat to a man's integrity, as I see it, is neither a woman's form nor his own emotional reaction to a woman's form. The greatest threat to a man's integrity is trying to be, or pretending to be, something that he is not. Our greatest evil, as FM Alexander truly observered, is fixing.
EH Johnston:
On seeing a certain form one man is attracted, another dislikes it and a third is indifferent, while yet another feels compassionate disgust for the same object.
Linda Covill:
Upon seeing one and the same form, one person desires it, another repulses it, yet another remains indifferent, while someone else will feel compassion.
VOCABULARY:
dRShTva (absolutive of dRsh): seeing, after seeing
ekam (acc.): one
ruupam (acc.): n. form
anyaH (nom. sing. m.): another, the other man
hi: for
rajyate = 3rd pers. sing. of raJj: to redden , grow red , glow ; to be affected or moved , be excited or glad , be charmed or delighted by (instr.) , be attracted by or enamoured of , fall in love with (loc.
anyaH (nom. sing. m.): another
praduShyati = 3rd pers. sing. of pra-√duSh: to become worse , deteriorate; to be defiled or polluted , fall (morally); to become faithless, fall off
kash cid: someone
bhavati: is, becomes
madhya-sthaH (nom. sing. m.): being in the middle; standing between two persons or parties mediating , a mediator ; belonging to neither or both parties , (only) a witness , impartial , neutral , indifferent
tatra: therein; for that object
eva: (emphatic) that same one
anyaH (nom. sing. m.): another
ghRNaayate = 3rd pers. sing. of verb from ghRNaa: f. a warm feeling towards others , compassion , tenderness
ghRNa: m. heat , ardour , sunshine
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
SAUNDARANANDA 13.51: Fixing vs Seeing
abhuuta parikalpena
viShayasya hi badhyate
tam eva viShayaM pashyan
bhuutataH parimucyate
- = - - - = = -
- - = - - = - =
- = - - - = = =
= - = - - = - =
13.51
For by the unreal means of fixing
One is bound to an object;
Seeing that very same object
As it really is, one is set free.
COMMENT:
In this verse unreal parikalpa is contrasted with, or opposed to, seeing an object as it really is. It is a situation of either A or B; A vs B. To use a term from probability theory, A and B are "mutually exclusive" events.
So here is the puzzle: A and B are totally opposed to each other. B is seeing as on object as it really is. A is unreal. So what is A?
The obvious answer is that A is illusion, false conception, unreal imagining. B is seeing an object as it really is, and A is illusion.
The unobvious answer that emerges upon deeper investigation of the problem, however, is that A is not so much illusion as fixing. It has less to do with my conception of an object than it has to do with how I use myself.
When a person fails to see an object as it really is, the most fundamental factor is how a person uses his or her eyes. Even a person with 20/20 vision sometimes fails to see, because of the way he or she uses her eyes.
A colleague of mine named Jane Field, a leading though not well-known expert in the area of inhibition of vestibular reflexes, wrote for parents and teachers of dyslexic children a pamphlet titled "My vision is perfect: why don't I see?" The answer, as I understand it, is that I don't see because of the way I use my eyes.
And the way I use my eyes, in turn, depends on the way I use myself. The way I use my eyes, for example, depends on how I approach sitting upright:
When I practise sitting upright, am I able to allow all the natural mechanisms to work freely? Or is it necessary for me to intervene, to put a spanner in the works and fiddle about?
Am I an allower? Or am I a fixer? B or A?
Am I a fixer? Or am I an allower? A or B?
Do I have to be the one who is in control? Or can I truly welcome the insecurity of not knowing, of having nothing to hold onto, of letting go? A or B?
Am I the end-gainer? Or can I follow, even for one moment, the true means-whereby? A or B?
If A is fixing, if parikalpa means fixing, then why does the Buddha call it abhuuta, not real?
The Buddha calls fixing unreal because when a sitting posture is arranged, or held, by some clever human being who is putting a spanner in his own works, thinking that he knows what the right posture is, then that sitting 'posture' lacks something natural or spontaneous.
This I think is why the Buddha is saying that, as a means of practising integrity, fixing is not real.
At the end of a lesson, Marjory Barlow once looked me in the eyes and said, "It has to be real." There was something in the way she said that sentence that has caused me never to forget it.
Just because fixing is not real does not mean that it is an easy habit to be free of. As a wise man once said, "The most difficult things to get rid of are the ones that don't exist."
Marjory Barlow's book An Examined Life contains the following passage in which she contrasts fixing and really seeing. Marjory is answering a question specifically about how, in giving an Alexander lesson, she addresses the use of the eyes.
I say, I want you to look at something, but see it. That's the great secret. Because you can be looking at that picture and not seeing it at all. Ask them, "What were you looking at?" It isn't a question of staring, it's a question of consciously directing the eyes, so that they are seeing. Some teachers don't use their eyes at all. It's terrible. FM used to say that a lot -- "Look at what you're doing, you've got to use all your senses," he used to say.
It's all part of the fixing. That's our biggest evil, fixing. FM used to say that. "You all fix." See, it's the desire to hold onto something. You've got to let it go and be in danger.
The intention of the phrase "consciously direct the eyes" in this passage should not be understood as an exhortation to do something specific with the muscles of the eye. (As always, beware the written word.) Marjory is talking about the eyes in this passage because she was specifically asked about the eyes.In fact, in the 30 or 40 lessons I had with Marjory, I don't remember her once mentioning the eyes. But she spoke constantly of letting the neck be free, to let the head go forward and up, to let the back lengthen and widen, while sending the knees away.
So pashyan in this verse, as I read it, does not mean seeing only with the eye. As discussed previously in connection with the golfer who couldn't keep his eyes on the ball, truly to see an object as it really is may be a function of the co-ordination of one's whole body-mind. And a particularly important role within this overall co-ordination, as far as my present understanding goes, is played by vestibular reflexes beginning with the Moro reflex. So the way I use my eyes depends to a large extent on the way my ears use me.
EH Johnston:
For a man is chained by the false conception of an object, while by seeing the same object as it really is he is liberated.
Linda Covill:
For a man is imprisoned by unreal imaginings about a sense object, but when he sees that very same sense object as it really is, then he is freed.
VOCABULARY:
abhuuta: mfn. whatever has not been or happened
parikalpena (inst.): through fixing
viShayasya (genitive): of an object
hi: for
badhyate = 3rd pers. sing, passive of bandh: to bind , tie , fix , fasten , chain , fetter
tam eva: that very
viShayam (acc.): object
pashyan: seeing
bhuuta: n. that which is or exists
-taH: (adverbial/ablative suffix) as is, in accordance with
parimucyate = 3rd pers. sing, passive of parimuc: to unloose , set free
viShayasya hi badhyate
tam eva viShayaM pashyan
bhuutataH parimucyate
- = - - - = = -
- - = - - = - =
- = - - - = = =
= - = - - = - =
13.51
For by the unreal means of fixing
One is bound to an object;
Seeing that very same object
As it really is, one is set free.
COMMENT:
In this verse unreal parikalpa is contrasted with, or opposed to, seeing an object as it really is. It is a situation of either A or B; A vs B. To use a term from probability theory, A and B are "mutually exclusive" events.
So here is the puzzle: A and B are totally opposed to each other. B is seeing as on object as it really is. A is unreal. So what is A?
The obvious answer is that A is illusion, false conception, unreal imagining. B is seeing an object as it really is, and A is illusion.
The unobvious answer that emerges upon deeper investigation of the problem, however, is that A is not so much illusion as fixing. It has less to do with my conception of an object than it has to do with how I use myself.
When a person fails to see an object as it really is, the most fundamental factor is how a person uses his or her eyes. Even a person with 20/20 vision sometimes fails to see, because of the way he or she uses her eyes.
A colleague of mine named Jane Field, a leading though not well-known expert in the area of inhibition of vestibular reflexes, wrote for parents and teachers of dyslexic children a pamphlet titled "My vision is perfect: why don't I see?" The answer, as I understand it, is that I don't see because of the way I use my eyes.
And the way I use my eyes, in turn, depends on the way I use myself. The way I use my eyes, for example, depends on how I approach sitting upright:
When I practise sitting upright, am I able to allow all the natural mechanisms to work freely? Or is it necessary for me to intervene, to put a spanner in the works and fiddle about?
Am I an allower? Or am I a fixer? B or A?
Am I a fixer? Or am I an allower? A or B?
Do I have to be the one who is in control? Or can I truly welcome the insecurity of not knowing, of having nothing to hold onto, of letting go? A or B?
Am I the end-gainer? Or can I follow, even for one moment, the true means-whereby? A or B?
If A is fixing, if parikalpa means fixing, then why does the Buddha call it abhuuta, not real?
The Buddha calls fixing unreal because when a sitting posture is arranged, or held, by some clever human being who is putting a spanner in his own works, thinking that he knows what the right posture is, then that sitting 'posture' lacks something natural or spontaneous.
This I think is why the Buddha is saying that, as a means of practising integrity, fixing is not real.
At the end of a lesson, Marjory Barlow once looked me in the eyes and said, "It has to be real." There was something in the way she said that sentence that has caused me never to forget it.
Just because fixing is not real does not mean that it is an easy habit to be free of. As a wise man once said, "The most difficult things to get rid of are the ones that don't exist."
Marjory Barlow's book An Examined Life contains the following passage in which she contrasts fixing and really seeing. Marjory is answering a question specifically about how, in giving an Alexander lesson, she addresses the use of the eyes.
I say, I want you to look at something, but see it. That's the great secret. Because you can be looking at that picture and not seeing it at all. Ask them, "What were you looking at?" It isn't a question of staring, it's a question of consciously directing the eyes, so that they are seeing. Some teachers don't use their eyes at all. It's terrible. FM used to say that a lot -- "Look at what you're doing, you've got to use all your senses," he used to say.
It's all part of the fixing. That's our biggest evil, fixing. FM used to say that. "You all fix." See, it's the desire to hold onto something. You've got to let it go and be in danger.
The intention of the phrase "consciously direct the eyes" in this passage should not be understood as an exhortation to do something specific with the muscles of the eye. (As always, beware the written word.) Marjory is talking about the eyes in this passage because she was specifically asked about the eyes.In fact, in the 30 or 40 lessons I had with Marjory, I don't remember her once mentioning the eyes. But she spoke constantly of letting the neck be free, to let the head go forward and up, to let the back lengthen and widen, while sending the knees away.
So pashyan in this verse, as I read it, does not mean seeing only with the eye. As discussed previously in connection with the golfer who couldn't keep his eyes on the ball, truly to see an object as it really is may be a function of the co-ordination of one's whole body-mind. And a particularly important role within this overall co-ordination, as far as my present understanding goes, is played by vestibular reflexes beginning with the Moro reflex. So the way I use my eyes depends to a large extent on the way my ears use me.
EH Johnston:
For a man is chained by the false conception of an object, while by seeing the same object as it really is he is liberated.
Linda Covill:
For a man is imprisoned by unreal imaginings about a sense object, but when he sees that very same sense object as it really is, then he is freed.
VOCABULARY:
abhuuta: mfn. whatever has not been or happened
parikalpena (inst.): through fixing
viShayasya (genitive): of an object
hi: for
badhyate = 3rd pers. sing, passive of bandh: to bind , tie , fix , fasten , chain , fetter
tam eva: that very
viShayam (acc.): object
pashyan: seeing
bhuuta: n. that which is or exists
-taH: (adverbial/ablative suffix) as is, in accordance with
parimucyate = 3rd pers. sing, passive of parimuc: to unloose , set free
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
SAUNDARANANDA 13.50: The Roots of Abnormality
indhane sati vaayau ca
yathaa jvalati paavakaH
viShayaat parikalpaac ca
klesh'-aagnir jaayate tathaa
= - = - - = = -
- = - - - = - =
- - = - - = = -
= = = = - = - =
13.50
Where fuel and air co-exist,
Just as there a fire burns,
With an object and through fixing,
So a fire of affliction arises.
DUST & FLUFF:
If we interpret parikalpa to mean illusion, invention, imagining, this verse, the previous verse, and following verse all sound reasonable enough, as in the translations of EHJ and LC.
But how do afflictions like greed and anger actually arise? As a result of illusion or imagination? Or as a result of some deeper psycho-physical abnormality?
In the context of this canto, whose title is Thwarting the Power of the Senses through Practice of Integrity, fixing rather than imagining is the translation of parikalpa which, in my book, fits better and also which has the more profound meaning, touching on the problem of unduly excited fear reflexes.
Consider, for example, how greed for food arises. Does it arise primarily because of some illusion we have about food or some imaginations or imaginings about food? Or does it arise primarily become something is stuck, because of some arrested development of our psycho-physical mechanisms?
Here is how FM Alexander addressed that question in his book Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual, at the end of a chapter whose title, very appropriately for our present discussion, is UNDULY EXCITED FEAR REFLEXES, UNCONTROLLED EMOTIONS, AND FIXED PREJUDICES:
Fundamental desires and needs must be satisfied; if they are not, serious results must follow sooner or later, and the fact that the attempt to satisfy desires and needs leads many individuals to indulge in abuse and excess does not affect this conclusion. Abuse and excess are always associated with abnormality, and abnormality is due to abnormal conditions in the psycho-physical functioning of the organism, and this applies in the matter of abuse and excess in eating, as well as in drinking and in connexion with any other needs and desires. Abuse or excess is an attempt to satisfy a need or desire which, originally normal, has become abnormal, and as long as this abnormal desire or need remains, it is useless to deny a man the "means-whereby" to his excesses and abuses. Our energies should instead by applied to attempts to eradicate the abnormal conditions responsible for the excess and abuse, and so to restore the normal psycho-physical functioning of the organism and the reliable sensory appreciation which ensures the maintenance of normality in our desires and needs.
Yesterday was my last day in France after 5 weeks here alone (the rest of the family has been in Japan for the summer), and I was in a funny, retrospective mood. I hope that it was part of a very long term process of wobbling back towards the Buddha's truth of normality. Afflictions, beginning with the three root afflictions of greed, anger, and ignorance, are abnormal states. If I could go back 30 years to where my elder son is now, looking forward to starting university, I would really make a point of aspiring toward normality -- as opposed, for example, to aspiring for enlightenment through Zen and the martial arts.
Being Alexander teachers, along with sitting every day, I am sure, has helped my wife and I do a good job of bringing up our two sons. Despite being half-English and half-Japanese they could not have had a more normal upbringing and people generally remark what pleasant, confident and well-balanced lads they are. From where I was at the end of my 20s, just before meeting my wife, I haven't done a bad job of turning things around, and coming back to a more normal way of life. Backward being the operative direction. I hope my sons don't stray as I did. I hope they continue to aspire to normality.
By aspiring to normality can we avoid aging, sickness, and death? I suppose it depends on what the nectar of deathlessness means. But the simple answer is that No, if we aspire to normality we are still going to age, get ill, and die. Even so, the Buddha's teaching as I hear it is to aspire toward normality. The backward step is a step back in the direction of normality. Deathlessness cannot be other than our normal state.
In my youth I turned my back on normality through a big ambition to make great waves in the world. I went to Japan seeking enlightenment, met Gudo Nishijima, and believed him when he said that it was up to our small group -- we four 'Ejos' of Bailey, Zacchi, Luetchford and Cross -- to save the world from the conflict between idealism and materialism, by clarifying the realism of the philosophy of action. His arguments were so coherent. It all seemed to make such sense philosophically. And geopolitically my teacher made it seem that world history was hanging in the balance, and so the need to spread the gospel of realism was extremely urgent. On top of that, "If you can transcend family life," he told me, "you will be the most excellent Buddhist master in the world. This is my expectation." It was a strong stimulus, and I was not man enough to treat a small person's egoistic hope with the contempt it truly deserved.
Moreover, the key practice at the centre of it all, I was taught, was so simple: just keep sitting upright in the right posture, four times a day if you can, concentrating all effort on keeping the spine straight vertically. All the rest will take care of itself.
No mention was ever made of the problem of faulty sensory appreciation. The problem of faulty sensory appreciation seemed to go unrecognized.
Truly, it was like dry firewood and a favourable wind; and the abnormally great fire of abnormality that arose then still hasn't gone out. So if my comments sometimes seem off-beat, forgive me. I am working on it.
Where fuel and air co-exist
Just as there a fire burns,
With ambition, and through fixedness,
So normality one spurns.
Q.E.D.
EH Johnston:
As fire flames when wind and fuel are both present, so the fire of sin arises when the objects of the senses and imaginations about them are both present.
Linda Covill:
Just as a fire burns when it has both fuel and air, so too does the fire of defilement arise when both sense objects and imaginings about them are present.
VOCABULARY:
indhane (locative): n. kindling , lighting ; fuel ; wood , grass &c used for this purpose
sati (locative): there being
vaayau (locative): wind, air
ca: and
yathaa: just as
jvalati: it blazes, flames, burns brightly
paavakaH (nom.): m. fire
viShayaat (ablative): from sense object
parikalpaat (ablative): from fixing
ca: and
klesha: affliction
agniH (nom.): m. fire
jaayate: is born, arises
tathaa: so, likewise
yathaa jvalati paavakaH
viShayaat parikalpaac ca
klesh'-aagnir jaayate tathaa
= - = - - = = -
- = - - - = - =
- - = - - = = -
= = = = - = - =
13.50
Where fuel and air co-exist,
Just as there a fire burns,
With an object and through fixing,
So a fire of affliction arises.
DUST & FLUFF:
If we interpret parikalpa to mean illusion, invention, imagining, this verse, the previous verse, and following verse all sound reasonable enough, as in the translations of EHJ and LC.
But how do afflictions like greed and anger actually arise? As a result of illusion or imagination? Or as a result of some deeper psycho-physical abnormality?
In the context of this canto, whose title is Thwarting the Power of the Senses through Practice of Integrity, fixing rather than imagining is the translation of parikalpa which, in my book, fits better and also which has the more profound meaning, touching on the problem of unduly excited fear reflexes.
Consider, for example, how greed for food arises. Does it arise primarily because of some illusion we have about food or some imaginations or imaginings about food? Or does it arise primarily become something is stuck, because of some arrested development of our psycho-physical mechanisms?
Here is how FM Alexander addressed that question in his book Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual, at the end of a chapter whose title, very appropriately for our present discussion, is UNDULY EXCITED FEAR REFLEXES, UNCONTROLLED EMOTIONS, AND FIXED PREJUDICES:
Fundamental desires and needs must be satisfied; if they are not, serious results must follow sooner or later, and the fact that the attempt to satisfy desires and needs leads many individuals to indulge in abuse and excess does not affect this conclusion. Abuse and excess are always associated with abnormality, and abnormality is due to abnormal conditions in the psycho-physical functioning of the organism, and this applies in the matter of abuse and excess in eating, as well as in drinking and in connexion with any other needs and desires. Abuse or excess is an attempt to satisfy a need or desire which, originally normal, has become abnormal, and as long as this abnormal desire or need remains, it is useless to deny a man the "means-whereby" to his excesses and abuses. Our energies should instead by applied to attempts to eradicate the abnormal conditions responsible for the excess and abuse, and so to restore the normal psycho-physical functioning of the organism and the reliable sensory appreciation which ensures the maintenance of normality in our desires and needs.
Yesterday was my last day in France after 5 weeks here alone (the rest of the family has been in Japan for the summer), and I was in a funny, retrospective mood. I hope that it was part of a very long term process of wobbling back towards the Buddha's truth of normality. Afflictions, beginning with the three root afflictions of greed, anger, and ignorance, are abnormal states. If I could go back 30 years to where my elder son is now, looking forward to starting university, I would really make a point of aspiring toward normality -- as opposed, for example, to aspiring for enlightenment through Zen and the martial arts.
Being Alexander teachers, along with sitting every day, I am sure, has helped my wife and I do a good job of bringing up our two sons. Despite being half-English and half-Japanese they could not have had a more normal upbringing and people generally remark what pleasant, confident and well-balanced lads they are. From where I was at the end of my 20s, just before meeting my wife, I haven't done a bad job of turning things around, and coming back to a more normal way of life. Backward being the operative direction. I hope my sons don't stray as I did. I hope they continue to aspire to normality.
By aspiring to normality can we avoid aging, sickness, and death? I suppose it depends on what the nectar of deathlessness means. But the simple answer is that No, if we aspire to normality we are still going to age, get ill, and die. Even so, the Buddha's teaching as I hear it is to aspire toward normality. The backward step is a step back in the direction of normality. Deathlessness cannot be other than our normal state.
In my youth I turned my back on normality through a big ambition to make great waves in the world. I went to Japan seeking enlightenment, met Gudo Nishijima, and believed him when he said that it was up to our small group -- we four 'Ejos' of Bailey, Zacchi, Luetchford and Cross -- to save the world from the conflict between idealism and materialism, by clarifying the realism of the philosophy of action. His arguments were so coherent. It all seemed to make such sense philosophically. And geopolitically my teacher made it seem that world history was hanging in the balance, and so the need to spread the gospel of realism was extremely urgent. On top of that, "If you can transcend family life," he told me, "you will be the most excellent Buddhist master in the world. This is my expectation." It was a strong stimulus, and I was not man enough to treat a small person's egoistic hope with the contempt it truly deserved.
Moreover, the key practice at the centre of it all, I was taught, was so simple: just keep sitting upright in the right posture, four times a day if you can, concentrating all effort on keeping the spine straight vertically. All the rest will take care of itself.
No mention was ever made of the problem of faulty sensory appreciation. The problem of faulty sensory appreciation seemed to go unrecognized.
Truly, it was like dry firewood and a favourable wind; and the abnormally great fire of abnormality that arose then still hasn't gone out. So if my comments sometimes seem off-beat, forgive me. I am working on it.
Where fuel and air co-exist
Just as there a fire burns,
With ambition, and through fixedness,
So normality one spurns.
Q.E.D.
EH Johnston:
As fire flames when wind and fuel are both present, so the fire of sin arises when the objects of the senses and imaginations about them are both present.
Linda Covill:
Just as a fire burns when it has both fuel and air, so too does the fire of defilement arise when both sense objects and imaginings about them are present.
VOCABULARY:
indhane (locative): n. kindling , lighting ; fuel ; wood , grass &c used for this purpose
sati (locative): there being
vaayau (locative): wind, air
ca: and
yathaa: just as
jvalati: it blazes, flames, burns brightly
paavakaH (nom.): m. fire
viShayaat (ablative): from sense object
parikalpaat (ablative): from fixing
ca: and
klesha: affliction
agniH (nom.): m. fire
jaayate: is born, arises
tathaa: so, likewise
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)