Scratching an itch

[Shindo]

Re: Scratching an itch

Well what a lot of posts

Things that have been said that resonate with me:

In other words, to state that zazen has a definite and particular form, and to cling to that position leads to one kind of trouble, while stating that zazen has no particular form sends one off in another confused direction. There is no logical resolution to this problem. And it is this illogical paradox with which a true practitioner of Zen must 'sit', both literally and spiritually.

if we become clinging to the posture, is just like you're clinging to the finger which is pointing the moon, then you won't see the moon clearly

3. Action: The action of Zazen realizes the whole universe.

Language is inherently slippery. When we understand that, I think it helps because then all words becomes a bit of a koan--breaking down the belief that logic and intellect can ever lead to a complete understanding of anything.

In my working world, words are use with a precice meaning like:

endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography
Stereotactic neurosurgery
right hemicolectomy.

They allow me to orientate myself exactly in anatomy, procedure, experience, cost etc etc. But in this relatively new world I find myself in, I can see that things are not so sure-cut. I think I will just go sit .

Thank you all for taking the time to explain your views of all this.

Kind regards

Jools

[chicanobudista]

Re: Scratching an itch

.

2. Materialism: The whole universe is not Zazen or anything like Zazen.

I think a materialist would say.

2. Zazen is only about posture used by certain Buddhists. Read a book. You'll get the idea. :mrgreen:

[Jundo]

Re: Scratching an itch

Now, we can see a lot of translation of the Shobogenzo. Which one is the correct translation?

You know, although the meaning is the same, but there are a lot of differences translation for example between Shasta abbey and Aitken Roshi's translation.

I just feel that they translate it with their own interpretation and understanding , so that we can't get the original version of Shobogenzo in English. And I'm afraid that it can make misunderstanding to the Shobogenzo.

is it so difficult to translate from Japanese to English?

or may be if I want to get the original one, I should learn the Japanese language :P

Gassho, Shui Di

Hi Shui Di,

Even most modern Japanese cannot read it. It takes both deep familiarity with 13th Century Japanese, the many ancient stories and poems that Dogen mentions in passing in the text, plus Dogen's unique philosophy. Sometimes the meaning is confusing even then, even to the best experts!

My teacher's translation (Nishijima-Cross), I have been told, is very very accurate (although not the easiest to read). Some that are easier to read are not so precise. Thus, what I usually do to increase understanding when we discuss "Shobogenzo" on "sit-a-long with Jundo" is to put two translations side by side. By reading both, we maybe can "extrapolate" the original meaning behind the words. Even then, it is very difficult.

I take it you read Chinese characters? You may be able to read a bit now. It is available in Japanese on the Internet, and I can find it for you if you want.

Gassho, Jundo

[Jundo]

Re: Scratching an itch

ps. Jundo, I'm not sure if you are addressing the 'posture perfectionist' statements to me, or if you're just saying it generally.

No, not directed at you Harry. I had in mind more some subset of Japanese teachers I have encountered, plus perhaps people like our mutual friend over at Errata.

I can't sit lotus posture, and I'm good with this. I see no 'mysitical' signifigance to the posture at all.

Yes, "mystical" significance was a really really poor choice of words by me. Your "realizes the whole universe" is much better.

Sorry about the confusion. Gassho, Jundo

[Eika]

Re: Scratching an itch

Shui Di wrote:
Zen isn't related to standing and sitting, while standing and sitting is Zen.
Saying that sitting in full lotus is "very special posture", well, it's help for the beginner, just to make a "trust".

But, more further, if we become clinging to the posture, is just like you're clinging to the finger which is pointing the moon, then you won't see the moon clearly.

Very nicely said . . . and as we know this we sit (as best we can) in the postures (note the plural) that are recommended by Zen teachers.

Shui Di wrote:
I just feel that they translate it with their own interpretation and understanding , so that we can't get the original version of Shobogenzo in English. And I'm afraid that it can make misunderstanding to the Shobogenzo.

This is the entire problem with language. Reading is always an act of interpretation even for native speakers. Nearly every word in any language has more than one meaning. Check out how many fairly succinct and direct statements are the source of confusion on this forum alone. In a work the size of Shobogenzo, the issue is compounded by each sentence having multiple words, and each paragraph having multiple sentences, and each chapter having multiple paragraphs . . . you see the problem. We, as readers, always have to 'triangulate' the intent of the author from the specifics. A sentence like "I have a dream today" could be interpreted as anything from "I have a wish today" to "I am hallucinating this day!" Or better: "I love you." Figure that one out. Every element of a written document is context-dependent on all of the other elements (a bit like Indra's Net). So each character has to be interpreted by its context with other characters, each of which has multiple meanings. Further, the amount of time that passes between the writing and the reading, the greater the confusion. So, you may get closer to the original intent by learning the archaic Japanese, but the primary issue is still the same. Language is inherently slippery. When we understand that, I think it helps because then all words becomes a bit of a koan--breaking down the belief that logic and intellect can ever lead to a complete understanding of anything. That's one of the reasons why we say Zen is a transmission outside of the scriptures.

Gassho,
Bill

[will]

Re: Scratching an itch

I think different translations have their merit. I'm digging the Shasta Abbey's rich interpretation at the moment (the little I've read).

G,W

[Ryumon]

Re: Scratching an itch

is it so difficult to translate from Japanese to English?

or may be if I want to get the original one, I should learn the Japanese language :P

It's not so much that it's difficult to translate from Japanese, but that Dogen's writings are in an archaic style of Japanese that are very, very far from the current language.

Kirk

[Shui_Di]

Re: Scratching an itch

Well, thanks Jundo.....

But, I have some questions....

Now, we can see a lot of translation of the Shobogenzo. Which one is the correct translation?

You know, although the meaning is the same, but there are a lot of differences translation for example between Shasta abbey and Aitken Roshi's translation.

I just feel that they translate it with their own interpretation and understanding , so that we can't get the original version of Shobogenzo in English. And I'm afraid that it can make misunderstanding to the Shobogenzo.

is it so difficult to translate from Japanese to English?

or may be if I want to get the original one, I should learn the Japanese language :P

Gassho, Shui Di

[will]

Re: Scratching an itch

Jundo
It is interesting to compare the two. As you can see, there is no mention here particularly of "upright posture", and instead there is something much more encompassing and subtle. I think.

Yes. I see that.

The bold emphasis in the last paragraph is mine. I think he sums things up very nicely there.

Yep. Very nice.

G,W

[Bansho]

Re: Scratching an itch

Hi guys,

Thanks for this discussion. It seems to me that questions like 'Is scratching Zazen or not?' is something that everyone must answer for themselves. We must pose the question over and over, and answer the question over and over. Each time we think differently about the question, and each time the answer may be different. No lasting right or wrong for a particular individual, and certainly what is 'right' in the eyes of one individual must not necessarily be 'right' in the eyes of another. In this moment, scratching may be perfectly Zazen, no Zazen apart from scratching, and no scratching which is not Zazen. In the next moment, it may be just mundane scratching.

This discussion reminded me of something Thomas Wright wrote in his introduction to 'How to Cook Your Life' by Uchiyama Roshi. I certainly don't necessarily agree with everything said in the following quote, but I think it's worth citing here:

It goes without saying that the central practice of a person practicing Buddhism is zazen. However, the reader should not get the idea that here I am comparing zazen with the rest of our day-to-day activities. To do so would be to fall into the trap that many practitioners fall into of clinging to the idea that practicing zazen is most important; therefore, one should practice it twenty-four hours a day. The error here is in taking literally the idea of zazen being the most important activity in our life as opposed to all our other activities.

On the other hand, there is another trap that people can and often do fall into, and that is the one of thinking that we must practice zazen in all of our day-to-day activities. The obvious next step in this way of thinking is to equate all of one's activities with zazen. That is, everything one does is zazen - eating, sleeping, drinking, being. The practical problem in this way of thinking is that all too often people simply wind up doing less and less zazen, deluding themselves into believing that since all their activities are zazen there is no need to sit and face the wall and do zazen.

To restate the problem, taking the idea of zazen as the central practice in a relative or comparative sense leads to an egoistical extreme eventually inviting suicide. On the other hand, taking the idea of zazen in a 'broader' context leads to a kind of simplistic eclecticism having nothing to do with zazen. In other words, to state that zazen has a definite and particular form, and to cling to that position leads to one kind of trouble, while stating that zazen has no particular form sends one off in another confused direction. There is no logical resolution to this problem. And it is this illogical paradox with which a true practitioner of Zen must 'sit', both literally and spiritually.

The bold emphasis in the last paragraph is mine. I think he sums things up very nicely there.

Gassho
Ken

[Jundo]

Re: Scratching an itch

Thanks for this Will.

With all due respect to the free and beautiful expression of my Dharma Brother, Michael Leutchford, his "Modern Interpretation" of Bendowa differs in important ways from most standard translations, for example ...

Bendowa
Dogen Sangha Modern interpretations


When the buddhas – those who live fully in the present – each of
whom has learned the Buddha’s truth from a real person, realise what
the truth is, they achieve it by the best method there is. This method,
in which there is no intention of reaching an aim, is subtle, and is only
taught by one buddha to another buddha. It never deviates from this.
It is a practice that balances the active and the passive, and it sets the
body-and-mind right. The authentic form of this practice, which is
known as Zazen, is sitting in an upright posture.

... versus this respected version by Aitken Roshi and Kaz Tanahashi ...

The various Buddhas and Tathagatas have a most enlightened way of realizing superior wisdom and transmitting the supreme law. When transmitted from Buddha to Buddha, its mark is self-joyous meditation. To enter this meditation naturally, right sitting is the true gate. Though each man has Buddha-nature in abundance, he cannot make it appear without practice or live it without enlightenment. If you let it go, it fills your hand; it transcends the one and many. If you talk about it, it fills your mouth; it is beyond measurement by height and width. All Buddhas eternally have their abode here without becoming attached to one-sided recognition. All beings are working here without attachment to sides in each recognition. The devices and training that I teach now manifest all things in original enlightenment and express unity in action. And when you thoroughly understand, why cling to such trifles as these?

It is interesting to compare the two. As you can see, there is no mention here particularly of "upright posture", and instead there is something much more encompassing and subtle. I think.

Here is the recent, and rather less pithy, Shasta Abbey version ...

All Buddhas, without exception, confirm Their having realized the state of
enlightenment by demonstrating Their ability to directly Transmit the wondrous
Dharma. As embodiments of the Truth, They have employed an unsurpassed,
inconceivably marvelous method which functions effortlessly. It is simply this
method that Buddhas impart to Buddhas, without deviation or distortion, and Their
meditative state of delight in the Truth is its standard and measure. As They take
pleasure wherever They go to spiritually aid others while in such a state, They treat
this method of Theirs—namely, the practice of seated meditation—as the proper
and most straightforward Gate for entering the Way.
People are already abundantly endowed with the Dharma in every part of
their being, but until they do the training, It will not emerge. And unless they
personally confirm It for themselves, there is no way for them to realize what It is.
But when they give It out to others, It keeps filling their hands to overflowing for,
indeed, It makes no distinction between ‘for the one’ and ‘for the many’. When
they give voice to It, It flows forth from their mouths like a tide, limitless in Its
breadth and depth. All Buddhas continually dwell within this state, with None
holding onto any of Their thoughts or perceptions, regardless of whatever may
arise, whereas the great mass of sentient beings perpetually make use of what is
within this state, but without their being fully awake to any situation.

[/quote]

Gassho, Jundo

[Shui_Di]

Re: Scratching an itch

I'm not the Zen master.... just like the others, I'm just a beginner...

Gassho, Shui Di.

[will]

Re: Scratching an itch

The posture is like a good tool. Just a tool...

Spoken like a true Zen ma ma ma masterrrr. 8)


G,W

[Shui_Di]

Re: Scratching an itch

Zen isn't related to standing and sitting, while standing and sitting is Zen.
Saying that sitting in full lotus is "very special posture", well, it's help for the beginner, just to make a "trust".

But, more further, if we become clinging to the posture, is just like you're clinging to the finger which is pointing the moon, then you won't see the moon clearly.

Remember... to study the self is to forget the self....
if the self is forgotten, .... who will cling to such a posture....?

The posture is like a good tool. Just a tool...

Gassho, Shui Di

[will]

Re: Scratching an itch

Bendowa
Dogen Sangha Modern interpretations


When the buddhas – those who live fully in the present – each of
whom has learned the Buddha’s truth from a real person, realise what
the truth is, they achieve it by the best method there is. This method,
in which there is no intention of reaching an aim, is subtle, and is only
taught by one buddha to another buddha. It never deviates from this.
It is a practice that balances the active and the passive, and it sets the
body-and-mind right. The authentic form of this practice, which is
known as Zazen, is sitting in an upright posture.

Jundo

My teacher, Nishijima, considers the Lotus Position a pure action, one pure thing. He recommends everyone to sit in the Lotus Position if at all possible. I do too (too many westerners get lazy or scared and don't really try, or give it sufficient time). But these days, in Zazen, Westerners have begun sitting other ways such as in seiza or on chairs (I only recommend this if there is a physical limitation whereby one cannot sit in the Lotus Posture). I believe that body-mind can be dropped away in those positions too if done with balance and stability.

Another good point which I heard someone once say about the benefit of not using a bench and such, is that we should be able to sit anywhere.

"Oh no. I don't have my bench. Sh*t." :shock:

This Zazen stuff, doesn't get glued to the cushion though. What would be the point of sitting if we couldn't take it into every moment of our existence?

Anyway, it's funny how when we think about itch, we itch. My sister used to go crazy when the word flea was mentioned (our house had fleas a couple of times when I was a kid). Also when we itch one place and we scratch it, another itch starts. It's mostly reaction and focusing on the itch.

Sit with it? Not sit with it? Well, that's really up to you. Just don't spend 30 minutes scratching.

G,W