>
>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 04:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Peter H <voxsonorus@yahoo.com>
>To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: shakuhachi and spritual practice
>Message-ID: <20030407110236.93733.qmail@web21209.mail.yahoo.com>
>
>Well, I read every email, but none of them really pertained to my
>original questions.
> I'm still
>unsure whether, if one or more of the "musical" things like pitch,
>timing or phrasing, expressivenes, quality of tone, etc, are lacking in
>one's playing, the spiritual side suffers. Can you say "well, his
>technique and sound are terrible, but his playing has great spirit."
>How about the opposite, and if so is one the converse of the other,
>i.e. can just one but not both be true? Anyone care to bite this time?
Peter, I'm going to take a shot at it. Hard, deep topic.
In my experience, as someone who just plays the shakuhachi, doesn't
belong to any school of shakuhachi playing, and doesn't do Zen in any
way, I find that I CAN sometimes honestly say about some players that
"their playing is terrible, but has great spirit."
However, when I've heard this, it's not because the musician is not
TRYING to play well, they always are: though they play badly,
somehow the purity of their intention gets into their sound. If a
player just doesn't care, that's something else, and that comes
across in the sound, too.
I also find that the converse can be true, I've heard a number of
musicians, on shakuhachi, and other instruments as well, about whose
music one could say: " They play perfectly (or very well, or
whatever) from a technical point of view, but their music is flawed
by the sound being infected w/ ego."
In my personal experience, this absorbtion by sound of psychological
beingness, or spiritual intent, is clearest w/ voice and wind
instruments, but i've heard gorgeous violin tones dripping w/
self-satisfaction more than a few times in my concert going
life...even the piano's sound can be infected. How this happens is
unclear, but the result is clear, at least to me, at least part of
the time. I think many others have had this experience.
On the positive side of this, think about John Coltrane's sound, and
how much spiritual striving, and musical and life experience there is
in the sound, but how little ego. I'm sure most of us can think of
great musicians whose sound somehow embodies their greatness as human
beings....which most of them came to by way of intense practice and
focus on the MUSICAL aspects of playing. In my opinion.
Strive to be a better musician, that IS true spiritual discipline.
As for me, I try to keep my ego out of my sound, while letting my
life/music experience inform it. I try to concentrate on the inner
flow of the sound, regardless what i'm playing, or with whom I'm
playing, while at the same time attending to musical matters such as
pitch, timbre, rhythm. I try to do this even when playing
computer/synthesizer! (Can a synthesizer's sound be contain spirit?
Hmmm... ) I also try to play as well as possible, technically. It's
important, it's part of the musical way, to sincerely work on
improving one's musicianship, and to try to do justice to the music,
musically. It's just part of the way though, not the whole thing.
My 2 cents.
joel
>After meditating off an on for about ten years, I one day decided that
>despite what my venerable meditation teachers had told me, I couldn't
>meditate any more because I didn't know exactly how focusing on my
>breath would enlighten me; there were breaks in the chain. A few days
>later, due to a chance (of course) encounter in a train, I found myself
>at a Vipassana meditation retreat, and had the question answered to my
>satisfaction by the method taught there. I'm asking these questions in
>the same spirit of skepticism.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
>http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:09:44 -0500
>From: Tim Cassler <tim@toolbox.net>
>To: <Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu>
>Subject: Thanks, Al. :o)
>Message-ID: <BAB6E2C8.B3AB%tim@toolbox.net>
>
>> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>--B_3132547784_226771
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>agreed.
>
>--
>
>Tim Cassler
>Toolbox Studios, Inc.
>454 Soledad, Suite 100
>San Antonio, TX 78205
>
>210.225.8269 x111
>fax.225.8200
>
>> From: HeirPhoto@aol.com
>> Reply-To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 12:45:39 EDT
>> To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 4/6/2003 10:09:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>> adavis9@austin.rr.com writes:
>>
>>>
>>> If you need some one to tell you you're enlightened, you're not.
>>> If you are enlightened, you will never need to tell someone that they are.
>>>
>>
>> Best thing I have read here in days. Thanks.
>>
>> Tony Miller
>>
>
>
>--B_3132547784_226771
>Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>
><HTML>
><HEAD>
><TITLE>Thanks, Al. :o)</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana">agreed.<BR>
><BR>
>-- <BR>
><BR>
>Tim Cassler<BR>
>Toolbox Studios, Inc.<BR>
>454 Soledad, Suite 100<BR>
>San Antonio, TX 78205<BR>
><BR>
>210.225.8269 x111<BR>
>fax.225.8200<BR>
></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><BR>
><B>From: </B>HeirPhoto@aol.com<BR>
><B>Reply-To: </B>Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu<BR>
><B>Date: </B>Sun, 6 Apr 2003 12:45:39 EDT<BR>
><B>To: </B>Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu<BR>
><B>Subject: </B>Re: shakuhachi V1 #288<BR>
><BR>
></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><BR>
></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">In a
>message dated 4/6=
>/2003 10:09:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, adavis9@austin.rr.com writes:<BR>
><BR>
></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
>If you need some one to tell you you're enlightened, you're not.<BR>
>If you are enlightened, you will never need to tell someone that they are.<=
>BR>
><BR>
></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
>Best thing I have read here in days. Thanks.<BR>
><BR>
>Tony Miller</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"> <BR>
></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><BR>
></FONT>
></BODY>
></HTML>
>
>
>--B_3132547784_226771--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:24:19 -0400
>From: Thomas W Hare <thare@Princeton.EDU>
>To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>Message-ID: <3E91C253.B9FAAF91@princeton.edu>
>
>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 defi=
>nitive
>answer. That=92s probably why these questions keep recurring, not only i=
>n the
>list, but in the context of Buddhism and performing arts as well. The ma=
>ny
>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=92s relation of enlightenment =
>to a
>quotation from John. I=92m wondering what the Gk. words are in the text =
>there,
>and what Hebrew words in the other examples Tim referred to, because in n=
>ormal
>use in the West, "enlightenment" means something explicitly opposed to
>traditional religion. The 18th century thinkers who brought about =93the
>Enlightenment=94 in Western thought believed that by relying on reason an=
>d
>science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness whi=
>ch had
>eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their =93Enlightenment=94 t=
>hen, 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 =93lumper=94 o=
>r a
>=93splitter,=94 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 =93enlightenment,=94 is
>emphatically not the arrival of a messiah. Perhaps you could make the ca=
>se
>that Pure Land Buddhism has something analogous to a messiah and, even, t=
>o God,
>but Zen is based not on the grace and forgiveness of a superior being, bu=
>t
>rather on a rigorous examination and thoroughgoing excavation of the shak=
>y
>foundations of our prejudices. It is called a religion of =93self-power=94=
> and is
>explicitly distinguished from other strains of Buddhism in which the powe=
>r of
>another (Buddha, bodhisattva, ascetic or whatever) lends you a hand towar=
>d
>spiritual progress.
>
>That=92s not to say that there aren=92t claims of special authority in Ze=
>n, or
>particular methods of practice which are recommended by a long tradition.=
> All
>the same, those claims and methods are relentlessly questioned in Zen pra=
>ctice
>and even Buddha -- who is emphatically not a god or God -- is subjected t=
>o
>doubt and, arguably, ridicule: there=92s 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 an=
>swer
>=93nothing.=94 (And that would probably be a perfectly appropriate =93Ze=
>n=94 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 practic=
>e.
>Clearly there are many performers today, both inside and outside Japan, w=
>ho
>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
>=93spiritualist=94 masters we occasionally talk about on this list.)
>
>What the spiritual status of shakuhachi performance might have been earli=
>er in
>Japan raises fascinating questions; the answers are far from clear. Ikk=
>yu,
>the legendary Zen iconoclast, was known to play the instrument, but did h=
>e play
>it for spiritual advancement or, rather, for a break from his spiritual
>practice and the administrative burdens he assumed late in life? I=92d l=
>ike to
>know more about this, and perhaps there=92s someone on the list who can, =
>as it
>were, enlighten me.
>
>Yours,
>Tom Hare
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:46:15 -0500
>From: Tim Cassler <tim@toolbox.net>
>To: <Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu>
>Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>Message-ID: <BAB731A7.B413%tim@toolbox.net>
>
>"...The 18th century thinkers who brought about =93the
>Enlightenment=94 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 =93Enlightenment=94
>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 wer=
>e
>absolutely enlightened. Forgive my ignorance if these examples fall short o=
>f
>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
>
>> 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
>>=20
>> 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=92s probably why these questions keep recurring, not only in =
>the
>> list, but in the context of Buddhism and performing arts as well. The ma=
>ny
>> 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.
>>=20
>> The first thing that caught my eye was Tim=92s relation of enlightenment to=
> a
>> quotation from John. I=92m wondering what the Gk. words are in the text th=
>ere,
>> and what Hebrew words in the other examples Tim referred to, because in n=
>ormal
> > use in the West, "enlightenment" means something explicitly opposed to
>> traditional religion. The 18th century thinkers who brought about =93the
>> Enlightenment=94 in Western thought believed that by relying on reason and
>> science they could escape the religious superstition and divisiveness whi=
>ch
>> had
>> eviscerated Europe in the previous centuries. Their
>>=93Enlightenment=94 then,=
> was
>> a
>> very different thing from the messianism of 1 John 5:20
>>=20
>> Now I suppose it all depends on whether you are at heart a =93lumper=94 or a
>> =93splitter,=94 but by professional training and personal
>>inclination, I gues=
>s 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 =93enlightenment,=94 is
>> emphatically not the arrival of a messiah. Perhaps you could make the ca=
>se
>> that Pure Land Buddhism has something analogous to a messiah and, even, t=
>o
>> God,
>> but Zen is based not on the grace and forgiveness of a superior being, bu=
>t
>> rather on a rigorous examination and thoroughgoing excavation of the shak=
>y
>> foundations of our prejudices. It is called a religion of
>>=93self-power=94 a=
>nd is
>> explicitly distinguished from other strains of Buddhism in which the powe=
>r of
>> another (Buddha, bodhisattva, ascetic or whatever) lends you a hand towar=
>d
>> spiritual progress.
>>=20
>> That=92s not to say that there aren=92t claims of special
>>authority in Zen, o=
>r
>> particular methods of practice which are recommended by a long tradition.=
> All
>> the same, those claims and methods are relentlessly questioned in Zen pra=
>ctice
>> and even Buddha -- who is emphatically not a god or God -- is subjected t=
>o
>> doubt and, arguably, ridicule: there=92s an old saying to the effect that i=
>f you
>> meet the Buddha in your practice (and he becomes an obstacle) you should =
>kill
>> him.
>>=20
>> What might this have to do with shakuhachi playing? Many people would an=
>swer
>> =93nothing.=94 (And that would probably be a perfectly
>>appropriate =93Zen=94 res=
>ponse
>> 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 practic=
>e.
>> Clearly there are many performers today, both inside and outside Japan, w=
>ho
>> 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
>> =93spiritualist=94 masters we occasionally talk about on this list.)
>>=20
>> What the spiritual status of shakuhachi performance might have been earli=
>er in
>> Japan raises fascinating questions; the answers are far from clear. Ikk=
>yu,
>> the legendary Zen iconoclast, was known to play the instrument, but did h=
>e
>> play
>> it for spiritual advancement or, rather, for a break from his spiritual
> > practice and the administrative burdens he assumed late in life?
>I=92d lik=
>e to
>> know more about this, and perhaps there=92s someone on the list who can, as=
> it
>> were, enlighten me.
>>=20
>> Yours,
>> Tom Hare
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:31:50 -0600
>From: Nelson Zink <zink@newmex.com>
>To: <Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu>
>Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>Message-ID: <BAB73C56.2B92%zink@newmex.com>
>
>Thomas,
>
>> What might this have to do with shakuhachi playing?
>
>Let's take a somewhat analogous situation--the Tendai Running Monks.
>
>http://millennium-tv.com/monks.html
>
>They run repeated ultra-marathons in an attempt to achieve enlightenment.
>And there are people who compete in Iron Man competitions. Both run, both
>exert themselves to exhaustion. What's the difference between the two
>groups/activities?
>
>There are those who play honkyoku in an attempt to achieve enlightenment and
>those who play honkyoku in performances. Both play the same notes. What's
>the difference between the two groups/activities?
>
>Will Tendai Monks and Iron Man competitors achieve enlightenment in roughly
>the same ratios? What about suizen and performance/recording honkyoku?
>
>Is it the act or the intention? Does intention have bearing on result? If
>intention has substantial bearing on result then we should focus on
>intention rather than the activity through which it's manifest--running
>ultra-marathons or playing honkyoku or hopscotch for that matter.
>
>When I first found the shakuhachi, I had no idea that it had any
>relationship to Zen. And think the only connection that can exist is one of
>intention.
>
>Nelson
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:15:03 +0900
>From: Marcus Grandon <mgrandon@tokai.or.jp>
>To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>Message-ID: <24BDA5EC-6957-11D7-A39A-00039375B570@tokai.or.jp>
>
>--Apple-Mail-2-586742670
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> 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
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Content-Type: text/enriched;
> 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--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:37:16 -0700
>From: Rich Powers <rpowers@stanford.edu>
>To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: shakuhachi V1 #288
>Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20030407173538.02c19bb8@rpowers.pobox.stanford.edu>
>
>--=====================_31240331==_.ALT
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>To all seekers of enlightenment,
>
>May you have as much success achieving satori as Nelson has had achieving
>perturbation.
>
>Rich
>--=====================_31240331==_.ALT
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
><html>
><font size=3>To all seekers of enlightenment,<br>
><br>
>May you have as much success achieving satori as Nelson has had achieving
>perturbation.<br>
><br>
>Rich</font></html>
>
>--=====================_31240331==_.ALT--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:40:54 +0900
>From: ribbled@med.kochi-ms.ac.jp
>To: Shakuhachi@communication.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: shakuhachi and spritual practice
>Message-ID: <OF117C0229.90286CB8-ON49256D02.0005DC57@med.kochi-ms.ac.jp>
>
>Peter asked "Can you say "well, his
>technique and sound are terrible, but his playing has great spirit."
>How about the opposite, and if so is one the converse of the other,
>i.e. can just one but not both be true? Anyone care to bite this time?
>
>I think both statements can be true. One can make the first statement
>depending on how one defines spirit, if spirit can refer to enthusiasm or
>being full of energy, or making a great effort... As for the opposite I'm
>sure that most of us have heard players or perhaps found ourselves guilty
>of having great sound (or maybe good sound) and technique on a particular
>piece but perhaps we were just going through the motions and the
>performance wasn't inspired. One has to go beyond a simple repitition of a
>honkyoku in order to make it one's own piece, as Yokoyama Katsuya is known
>to have said. How one defines one's spirituality seems to be quite
>subjective so theoretically one could feel very spiritual when playing but
>the piece might sound less than sublime to the listener, again depending on
>who was listening. If you were playing a honkyoku and the listener was
>familiar with that particular genre they might not appreciate your errors
>in timing or meris which were too high in pitch. I don't think one's
>spiritual side is suffering just because one's pitch is off but it seems
>that if one is studying shakuhachi as a discipline one would want to
>improve musically as well as spiritually so that consistent effort, study,
>and practice (right practice, that is) would be goals one would set for
>oneself. Historically, the komuso were members of a group so I imagine
>they played in that context where honkyoku that were played were recognized
>as having certain musical elements which distinguished them from other
>pieces, including things like phrasing, pitch, or quality of tone. Even
>the great masters are never satisfied with their playing, I don't think,
>and I don't imagine that those who become "enlightened" just sit around
>twiddling their thumbs either. If shakuhachi was an easy thing to master it
>wouldn't be any fun would it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>Ribble
>
>How sour sweet music is
>When time is broke and no proportion kept
>So is it in the music of men's lives
>
> Shakespeare/Richard II, V. v.42
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of shakuhachi V1 #293
>*************************
-- Joel G. Taylorhttp://www.ir-music.org/wavelet/ http://www.arts.rpi.edu/nyquist/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:32 PST