Gained/Lost in translation

[michaelw]

I am currently reading Zen and Western Thought by Masao Abe. A bit of an odd cove by the sound of him yet a very interesting writer. The book has an exegesis of ‘u’ and ‘mu’ and as far as I understand it is not the commonly accepted popular explanation. In another chapter on Dogen and Buddha Nature he says that Dogen chose to translate from the Chinese the commonly accepted ‘all things have Buddha nature’ as ‘all things are Buddha nature’.
Is the original source material of Dogen available for study and how much of what we are presented with as translation from the original is coloured by the translator’s interpretation?
At what level do you access trusted translations ie academic works or on the shelves in bookshops ie those that are writing from source material rather than translations of others?

Presumably the form of Japanese that Dogen was writing was not something that would be recognisable to modern Japanese?
Next book is A Study of Dogen by Abe.
Sorry to run long.

Gassho
MichaelW
satlah

[Jundo]

Hi Michael,

The book has an exegesis of ‘u’ and ‘mu’ and as far as I understand it is not the commonly accepted popular explanation.

What is Abe's explanation of these?
.

‘all things have Buddha nature’ as ‘all things are Buddha nature’.

It is not a mistranslation, so much as Dogen's jazzy and creative wordplay to squeeze meaning out of the phrase, which is (仏性有り) and can be read either way. It is an old debate in Mahayana, whether Buddha Nature is something that sentient beings have or develop as potential to become a Buddha someday, or whether all things, sentient and insentient, "are" already Buddha Nature whether they know it or not.

There are good and bad and so so translations. It is one reason that (1) when reading Dogen, I usual read side-by-side 2 or 3 of the more reputable and respected translation of Dogen, to extrapolate where the old boy may have been coming from, and (2) I trust the more respected translations, and not those that are a bit more iffy.

In any case, like music, one can know who can hold a key and who can't.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

[michaelw]

What is Abe's explanation of these?

Far too deep a subject for me to summarise easily. I don't think that there is anything unorthodox or controversial and echoes pretty much what you say except here he is using u and mu where you were using cats and people the last time. Where it gets very interesting and a bit trippy is he introduces Sunyata as the middle way between u and mu. A negation of negation turns Sunyata/Mu into an emptying of emptiness while u becomes mu becomes u while u is u and mu is mu. The static universe suddenly becomes flowing and dynamic.
As an aside I never knew that Nagarjuna introduced the idea of Sunyata.

This chapter compares of the concept of being and non-being between east and west. This east west difference is a theme I seem to have accidently picked up on from Uchiyama, van der Braak and now Abe.

Ref: Abe M. 1986 Zen and Western Thought chapter Non-Being and Mu – the Metaphysical Nature of Negativity in the East and the West.

Gassho
MichaelW

satlah

[Jundo]

[FONT=Arial]Ref: Abe M. 1986 Zen and Western Thought chapter Non-Being and Mu – the Metaphysical Nature of Negativity in the East and the West.

He writes ...

... Nagarjuna's idea ... refers to the Way which transcends every possible duality including that of being and non-being, affirmation and negation. Therefore, his idea of Emptiness is not a mere emptiness as opposed to fullness. Emptiness as Sunyatd transcends and embraces both emptiness and fullness. It is really formless in the sense that it is liberated from both 'form' and ''formlessness'. Thus, in Sunyatd, Emptiness as it is is Fullness and Fullness as it is is Emptiness; formlessness as it is is form and form as it is is formless. This is why, for Nagarjuna, true Emptiness is wondrous Being. This dialectical structure of Sunyatd ... is not based on a mere negation but on a negation of the negation. ... And an absolute negation is nothing but an absolute affirmation, logically speaking, the negation of the negation is affirmation. ....

... This is most clearly seen in the Japanese terms, u and to mu. The term u stands for being and the term mu for non-being. Unlike Western ideas of being and non-being {to on and me on, etre and non-etre, Sein and Nichtsein), u and mu are of completely equal force in relation to one another. They are entirely relative, complementary, and reciprocal, one being impossible without the other. In other words, mu is not one-sidedly derived through negation of u. Mu is the negation of u and vice versa. One has no logical or ontological priority to the other. ... [I]n Buddhism, Sunyatd, as the ultimate, is realized by directly transcending the very duality of u and mu, which stand on equal footing and are completely reciprocal ...

... Although the realization of Emptiness is essential, one should not cling to Emptiness as Emptiness. This is why Mahayana Buddhism, which is based on the idea of Emptiness, has throughout its long history rigorously rejected the attachment to Emptiness as a 'confused understanding of Emptiness', a 'rigid view of nothingness', or a 'view of annihilatory nothingness'. In order to attain true Emptiness, Emptiness must 'empty' itself; Emptiness must become non-Emptiness. Thus true Emptiness is wondrous Being, absolute U, the fullness and suchness of everything, or tathatd; it is ultimate Reality which, being beyond u and mu, lets both u and mu stand and work just as they are in their reciprocal relationship. ...
.

As I understand Abe's point and his philosophical discussion, it is nothing surprising to Soto Practitioners in the way of Master Dogen. It is one reason I often refer to "Emptiness" as also "Flowing Wholenss," a Wholeness which is ever changing and flowing, not a "thing to nail down" but more the great Dance that all things of reality are dancing together.

Emptiness empties all the division and separate things, beings and moments of time, but kinda then swings around and re-invigorates each thing/being/moment as each fully the Flowing Wholenss in one position ... each again its own self, but now seen very differently than before, as its own shining jewel on Indra's Net. It is the source of the famous saying "Mountains are Mountains, Mountains are not Mountains, Mountains are Mountains again." It is why we say that a realization of Emptiness is only the doorway to Enlightenment, for then it is necessary to bring such realization back down to the ground and into this busy life.

Gassho, J
stlah

[michaelw]

See I knew you could explain it better than me.
Bit of a mind blower though.
I really need to sit with this for a while.
Not do anything just sit.

Gassho
MichaelW

satlah