--Apple-Mail-2-586742670
charset=WINDOWS-1252;
format=flowed
Well, there have been some very animated posts regarding enlightenment=20=
here recently, and they have inspired me to share some things with the=20=
list.
I have just returned to Japan from the USA, where I acted as personal=20
interpreter for Fukushima Roshi, the head of the Rinzai sect of Zen=20
buddhism. We spent Feb and March traveling around the US, giving talks=20=
on Zen at a host of universities and colleges. It was hard work. For=20=
me, the most interesting part of being dragged around the country by a=20=
Zen Master was that I had to answer questions posed to by Americans. =20
Invariably, people would ask him about enlightenment.
Well, since words do it no justice, and Zen is all about experience,=20
many Chinese Masters would answer such a query with an action. They=20
also used expressions that transcended common sense, known as kigo as a=20=
means of teaching. "What is the sound of one flute playing?" would not=20=
qualify, but "Standing on a bridge, the bridge flows, and the river=20
stands still" would. These kigo were most perplexing to people.
Anyway, I liked Zen Master Fukushima's answer to enlightenment, because=20=
he made a very good point, as Zen Masters tend to do. He said that=20
"enlightenment" was not a good translation for this Zen experience. =20
Rather, we should use the word "satori". He said the the word=20
"enlightenment" has a rather Christian nuance, and when we think of the=20=
word we may think about a darkened room then it being illuminated, and=20=
we can "see" things. I had completely forgotten about how "The=20
Enlightenment" was so related to scientific investigation, (I was=20
interpreting, not thinking) and so now his teaching becomes even=20
better. You see, he went on to say that in Zen, satori does take into=20=
account the illumination of a darkened room, but it also includes, as=20=
an essential part, the darkness as well.
Let there be light!
On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 03:46 AM, Tim Cassler wrote:
> "...The 18th century thinkers who brought about =84the
> Enlightenment=89 in Western thought believed that by relying on reason=20=
> and
> science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness=20=
> which
> had eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their =
=84Enlightenment=89
> then, was a very different thing from the messianism of 1 John=20
> 5:20..."
>
> Indeed, their attempts, (and any others), to "...rely on reason and
> science..." are at the very root of the problem. No one said the 18th
> Century thinkers were enlightened. My references of 'enlightenment'=20
> were to
> Moses, Paul and Thomas, none of whom I'd consider "religious" as we
> pejoratively use the term today. The common thread is that each had a
> radical, intimate, life changing experience with God directly, and=20
> they were
> absolutely enlightened. Forgive my ignorance if these examples fall=20
> short of
> some preconceived 'notion' of what enlightenment is. My statements,=20
> (and I
> reiterate, they are IMHO), did not equate 18th Century theological=20
> thought
> with the source of the text of 1 John, which is, of course, the Word=20=
> of God.
>
> How Christ, (or even Buddha) might giggle to themselves as they listen=20=
> to
> our discussions. Here's another humble opinion....I don't think
> enlightenment is nearly as complicated as we try to make it.
>
> --=20
>
> Tim Cassler
> Toolbox Studios, Inc.
> 454 Soledad, Suite 100
> San Antonio, TX 78205
>
> 210.225.8269 x111
> fax.225.8200
>
>> From: Thomas W Hare <thare@Princeton.EDU>
>> Organization: Princeton University
>> Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:24:19 -0400
>> To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>>
>> Recent remarks on the relation between spiritual attainment and=20
>> technical
>> skill
>> in shakuhachi performance and the subsequent string on enlightenment=20=
>> are just
>> the sort of thing I enjoy on this list. To my mind, the most=20
>> interesting
>> questions raised in the exchanges are the ones for which there is no
>> definitive
>> answer. That=82s probably why these questions keep recurring, not =
only=20
>> in the
>> list, but in the context of Buddhism and performing arts as well. =20
>> The many
>> contributions I found this morning when I got into my email have=20
>> finally
>> provoked me to add my two-cents worth. Apologies to those who are=20
>> tired of
>> this line of discussion.
>>
>> The first thing that caught my eye was Tim=82s relation of=20
>> enlightenment to a
>> quotation from John. I=82m wondering what the Gk. words are in the=20=
>> text there,
>> and what Hebrew words in the other examples Tim referred to, because=20=
>> in normal
>> use in the West, "enlightenment" means something explicitly opposed =
to
>> traditional religion. The 18th century thinkers who brought about=20
>> =84the
>> Enlightenment=89 in Western thought believed that by relying on =
reason=20
>> and
>> science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness=20=
>> which
>> had
>> eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their =84Enlightenment=89=
=20
>> then, was
>> a
>> very different thing from the messianism of 1 John 5:20
>>
>> Now I suppose it all depends on whether you are at heart a =84lumper=89=
=20
>> or a
>> =84splitter,=89 but by professional training and personal =
inclination, I=20
>> guess I
>> fall in the latter category, and that being the case, it seems to me=20=
>> that what
>> people are talking about in Zen, using the word =84enlightenment,=89 =
is
>> emphatically not the arrival of a messiah. Perhaps you could make=20
>> the case
>> that Pure Land Buddhism has something analogous to a messiah and,=20
>> even, to
>> God,
>> but Zen is based not on the grace and forgiveness of a superior=20
>> being, but
>> rather on a rigorous examination and thoroughgoing excavation of the=20=
>> shaky
>> foundations of our prejudices. It is called a religion of=20
>> =84self-power=89 and is
>> explicitly distinguished from other strains of Buddhism in which the=20=
>> power of
>> another (Buddha, bodhisattva, ascetic or whatever) lends you a hand=20=
>> toward
>> spiritual progress.
>>
>> That=82s not to say that there aren=82t claims of special authority =
in=20
>> Zen, or
>> particular methods of practice which are recommended by a long=20
>> tradition. All
>> the same, those claims and methods are relentlessly questioned in Zen=20=
>> practice
>> and even Buddha -- who is emphatically not a god or God -- is=20
>> subjected to
>> doubt and, arguably, ridicule: there=82s an old saying to the effect=20=
>> that if you
>> meet the Buddha in your practice (and he becomes an obstacle) you=20
>> should kill
>> him.
>>
>> What might this have to do with shakuhachi playing? Many people=20
>> would answer
>> =84nothing.=89 (And that would probably be a perfectly appropriate =
=84Zen=89=20
>> response
>> to the question.) For others, though, the rigorous confrontation of
>> preconceptions about who we are and what we are capable of with the
>> difficulties of shakuhachi performance might serve as a religious=20
>> practice.
>> Clearly there are many performers today, both inside and outside=20
>> Japan, who
>> take this view. It is, moreover, the basis of the claims made by=20
>> Komuso monks
>> in their religious use of the instrument (cf. Watazumi and the modern
>> =84spiritualist=89 masters we occasionally talk about on this list.)
>>
>> What the spiritual status of shakuhachi performance might have been=20=
>> earlier in
>> Japan raises fascinating questions; the answers are far from clear. =20=
>> Ikkyu,
>> the legendary Zen iconoclast, was known to play the instrument, but=20=
>> did he
>> play
>> it for spiritual advancement or, rather, for a break from his=20
>> spiritual
>> practice and the administrative burdens he assumed late in life? I=82d=
=20
>> like to
>> know more about this, and perhaps there=82s someone on the list who=20=
>> can, as it
>> were, enlighten me.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Tom Hare
>
--Apple-Mail-2-586742670
charset=WINDOWS-1252
Well, there have been some very animated posts regarding enlightenment
here recently, and they have inspired me to share some things with the
list.=20
I have just returned to Japan from the USA, where I acted as personal
interpreter for Fukushima Roshi, the head of the Rinzai sect of Zen
buddhism. We spent Feb and March traveling around the US, giving
talks on Zen at a host of universities and colleges. It was hard
work. For me, the most interesting part of being dragged around the
country by a Zen Master was that I had to answer questions posed to by
Americans. Invariably, people would ask him about enlightenment.
Well, since words do it no justice, and Zen is all about experience,
many Chinese Masters would answer such a query with an action. They
also used expressions that transcended common sense, known as
<italic>kigo </italic>as a means of teaching. "What is the sound of
one flute playing?" would not qualify, but "Standing on a bridge, the
bridge flows, and the river stands still" would. These <italic>
kigo</italic> were most perplexing to people.
Anyway, I liked Zen Master Fukushima's answer to enlightenment,
because he made a very good point, as Zen Masters tend to do. He said
that "enlightenment" was not a good translation for this Zen
experience. Rather, we should use the word "satori". He said the the
word "enlightenment" has a rather Christian nuance, and when we think
of the word we may think about a darkened room then it being
illuminated, and we can "see" things. I had completely forgotten
about how "The Enlightenment" was so related to scientific
investigation, (I was interpreting, not thinking) and so now his
teaching becomes even better. You see, he went on to say that in Zen,
satori does take into account the illumination of a darkened room,
but it also includes, as an essential part, the darkness as well.
Let there be light!
On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 03:46 AM, Tim Cassler wrote:
<excerpt>"...The 18th century thinkers who brought about =84the
Enlightenment=89 in Western thought believed that by relying on reason
and
science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness
which
had eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their =84Enlightenment=89=
then, was a very different thing from the messianism of 1 John
5:20..."
Indeed, their attempts, (and any others), to "...rely on reason and
science..." are at the very root of the problem. No one said the 18th
Century thinkers were enlightened. My references of 'enlightenment'
were to
Moses, Paul and Thomas, none of whom I'd consider "religious" as we
pejoratively use the term today. The common thread is that each had a
radical, intimate, life changing experience with God directly, and
they were
absolutely enlightened. Forgive my ignorance if these examples fall
short of
some preconceived 'notion' of what enlightenment is. My statements,
(and I
reiterate, they are IMHO), did not equate 18th Century theological
thought
with the source of the text of 1 John, which is, of course, the Word
of God.
How Christ, (or even Buddha) might giggle to themselves as they listen
to
our discussions. Here's another humble opinion....I don't think
enlightenment is nearly as complicated as we try to make it.
--=20
Tim Cassler
Toolbox Studios, Inc.
454 Soledad, Suite 100
San Antonio, TX 78205
210.225.8269 x111
fax.225.8200
<excerpt>From: Thomas W Hare <<thare@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Princeton University
Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:24:19 -0400
To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
Recent remarks on the relation between spiritual attainment and
technical
skill
in shakuhachi performance and the subsequent string on enlightenment
are just
the sort of thing I enjoy on this list. To my mind, the most
interesting
questions raised in the exchanges are the ones for which there is no
definitive
answer. That=82s probably why these questions keep recurring, not only
in the
list, but in the context of Buddhism and performing arts as well. The
many
contributions I found this morning when I got into my email have
finally
provoked me to add my two-cents worth. Apologies to those who are
tired of
this line of discussion.
The first thing that caught my eye was Tim=82s relation of enlightenment
to a
quotation from John. I=82m wondering what the Gk. words are in the text
there,
and what Hebrew words in the other examples Tim referred to, because
in normal
use in the West, "enlightenment" means something explicitly opposed to
traditional religion. The 18th century thinkers who brought about =84the
Enlightenment=89 in Western thought believed that by relying on reason
and
science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness
which
had
eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their =84Enlightenment=89
then, was
a
very different thing from the messianism of 1 John 5:20
Now I suppose it all depends on whether you are at heart a =84lumper=89 =
or a
=84splitter,=89 but by professional training and personal inclination, I
guess I
fall in the latter category, and that being the case, it seems to me
that what
people are talking about in Zen, using the word =84enlightenment,=89 is
emphatically not the arrival of a messiah. Perhaps you could make the
case
that Pure Land Buddhism has something analogous to a messiah and,
even, to
God,
but Zen is based not on the grace and forgiveness of a superior being,
but
rather on a rigorous examination and thoroughgoing excavation of the
shaky
foundations of our prejudices. It is called a religion of
=84self-power=89 and is
explicitly distinguished from other strains of Buddhism in which the
power of
another (Buddha, bodhisattva, ascetic or whatever) lends you a hand
toward
spiritual progress.
That=82s not to say that there aren=82t claims of special authority in
Zen, or
particular methods of practice which are recommended by a long
tradition. All
the same, those claims and methods are relentlessly questioned in Zen
practice
and even Buddha -- who is emphatically not a god or God -- is
subjected to
doubt and, arguably, ridicule: there=82s an old saying to the effect
that if you
meet the Buddha in your practice (and he becomes an obstacle) you
should kill
him.
What might this have to do with shakuhachi playing? Many people would
answer
=84nothing.=89 (And that would probably be a perfectly appropriate =
=84Zen=89
response
to the question.) For others, though, the rigorous confrontation of
preconceptions about who we are and what we are capable of with the
difficulties of shakuhachi performance might serve as a religious
practice.
Clearly there are many performers today, both inside and outside
Japan, who
take this view. It is, moreover, the basis of the claims made by
Komuso monks
in their religious use of the instrument (cf. Watazumi and the modern
=84spiritualist=89 masters we occasionally talk about on this list.)
What the spiritual status of shakuhachi performance might have been
earlier in
Japan raises fascinating questions; the answers are far from clear.=20
Ikkyu,
the legendary Zen iconoclast, was known to play the instrument, but
did he
play
it for spiritual advancement or, rather, for a break from his spiritual
practice and the administrative burdens he assumed late in life? I=82d
like to
know more about this, and perhaps there=82s someone on the list who can,
as it
were, enlighten me.
Yours,
Tom Hare
</excerpt>
</excerpt>=
--Apple-Mail-2-586742670--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:32 PST