ZAZEN: Not Zazen
Gudo Nishijima made a complete horlicks of translating Shobogenzo into English. While realizing, as his student, that I had to redo the whole thing from scratch, in some ways I failed in that task. I left in tact some Gudo-isms that I should have questioned more extensively. The best example of my stupidity as a translator was leaving the translation of ZAZEN as "Zazen" -- what kind of translation is that?
ZA means to sit. There is nothing mystical about ZA. It is a simple verb: to sit.
ZEN represents the sound of the Sanskrit word dhyana.
So the literal translation of ZAZEN is sitting-zen or sitting-dhyana. There is no difficulty about it. If you want a totally English translation, then it might be sitting-meditation.
What possible reason is there for leaving ZAZEN untranslated as "Zazen"? Does using the Japanese word ZA instead of the English word "sitting" lend a sound of greater authenticity? If you continue to think so, you are even more of a wanker than I was.
Here is a short koan to underline the point:
A Soto Zen monk says to a non-Buddhist non-monk:
"I am a Zazen monk of the Soto Zen church."
The non-Buddhist non-monk remains silent.
(But secretly to himself he is thinking: "You are a wanker.")
If you check out the internet writings of some of Gudo's Dharma-heirs you may find translations of ZAZEN that are much worse still than "zazen."
On James Cohen's webpage for example I found the words "seated meditation." Similarly on Eric Rommeluère's webpage in French I found "méditation assise."
Those translations have merit in the sense that they are translations; they are oriented in the direction of de-mystification. However, they reveal a total lack of understanding of the fundamental point of Master Dogen's sitting-zen. More than that, they reveal a total lack of understanding of the fundamental point of the stupid Zazen of Gudo himself -- for whom Zazen has got nothing at all to do with meditation, but is just to do the act of sitting.
I do not know what sitting-zen is. But if there is any Zen Master out there who, notwithstanding the clarification I have just made, would like to persist in translating ZAZEN as seated meditation, or méditation assise, or meditacion sentada, or any similar two-word phrase, I would like to say without hesitation (but possibly with just a hint of Paul Whitehouse & Harry Enfield):
No, you fucking wanker. No, you rosy-cheeked, red-nosed clown. No you Zen fraud who does not even know that he is a fraud. No, it is not that.
Not seated meditation, you tosser. Sitting-zen.
posted by Mike Cross at 2:50 PM
16 Comments:
Mike,
Why Sitting-Zen?
Why not sitting-Dhyana?
It took The Old Sage (in one translation of Pali texts) about 28 paragraphs to explain "right concentration." Maybe he was giving his own version of "it's not that!"
But perhaps we don’t even need to call it anything but just do it. The problem only arises when we are trying to express it to others. I think Master Dogen's work gets the point across rather well. Dose the language used to get someone to practice matter? If so why? I have a tendency to think that King Gotama and Master Dogen tried to communicate in colloquial language of there time and place. Why do we in the west have a need to do otherwise? Is there something magical about using ZAZEN rather than Zazen?
I think you have to call it something. Could I call it sharpening Manjusuri's sword?
Is name and form even important? If we get attached to name and form are we deluding ourselves? Is just doing the same as end gaining? Is the means the same as the end?
Lots of questions raised in me by this post.
I hope you do not find my questions cheep or rude.
Respectfully,
Jordan
Hi Jordan -- thanks for your questions.
Sitting-zen and sitting-dhyana are both totally valid literal translations in my book.
But seated zen, seated dhyana, or seated meditation are all translations that miss the point. It is not a problem of words -- it is a problem of wrong understanding that is manifested in the words.
Even if a translation of Master Dogen's words is not a bad one, we are still always liable to react badly to those words -- in which case the problem is not in the words but in our wrong reaction.
From years of daily sitting-zen and studying Shobogenzo in detail, Gudo understood Master Dogen's emphasis on action, i.e. on sitting as action. So it is not that meditation is the primary thing while being seated is something incidental. The physical action of sitting is the primary thing -- just doing it.
That is Gudo's thesis. It corresponds with Master Dogen's instruction bodily to sit in the full lotus posture.
My anti-thesis is to emphasize the meditative aspect of sitting-zen, which is centred on the decision NOT TO DO. For example, not to pull in the chin, not to fiddle around adjusting one's posture, not to manipulate this and that aiming for symmetrical alignment; in short, not to fix, not to do, not to endgain. Master Dogen also wrote: Mentally sit in the full lotus posture.
The synthesis is for you to work out.
Just sitting is the means and just sitting is the end. But just sitting as the means is a million miles away from just sitting as the end.
Zen Masters of today, Brad Warner and the like, affirm just sitting as the means, but they have never experienced just sitting as the end, even in a dream, so they make their absurd and immature pronouncements which negate Master Dogen's teaching that sitting-zen is the practice and experience that penetrates the Buddha's enlightenment.
A sincere question is never cheap or rude, Jordan -- unless it is a rhetorical question expressing a view which is, by definition, cheap and rude.
Listen to me! I am the world champion of cheap and rude views.
Mike,
Thank you for your answers.
I actually see the point in both the thesis and your anti-thesis.
The synthesis is a middle way.
If I am mistaken, please let us discuss it, but I read the instruction to say:
Just sit upright, not leaning to the left, inclining to the right, slouching forward, or arching backward. It is vital that the ears vis-à-vis the shoulders, and the nose vis-à-vis the navel, are caused to oppose each other. Let the tongue spread against the roof of the mouth. Let the lips and teeth come together. The eyes should be kept open. Let the breath pass imperceptibly through the nose.
Having regulated the physical posture, breathe out once, and sway left and right. Sit still, "Thinking that state beyond thinking." "How can the state beyond thinking be thought?" "Non-thinking." This is the vital art of sitting-zen.
So, the original thesis is correct to the point of the preparation(action), which leads to your thesis. Once you have prepared then Just Sit. I considered an expletive here for emphasis. It is quite clear. Sit still. It dose not say fix and fiddle about or worry about your posture. You should have already done that in the preparation.
Weather or not just sitting still is an action or not an action is not even a thought.
Maybe I am simple, but I do not think it was ever meant to be difficult.
Of the original point I was trying to make in my first comment. I don’t think it matters so much the language used, but maybe how the language is interpreted. If I say sitting-meditation, or just sitting, but express the same instruction as in italics above, I do not see a problem with using the what ever words get that across.
Sorry if I seem to be pontificating on your blog. But I am interested in your input.
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
I agree that the language itself is not important, but sometimes the words people write and say betrays their lack of understanding, or their wrong understanding. I do not see any problem with your saying sitting-meditation, or just sitting. But if you say seated meditation, then you identify yourself as a variety of wanker.
No, Jordan, the synthesis is not a middle way. The middle way is only an idea. There is no such fucking thing as a middle way.
The middle way might be like “winning hearts and minds.” On BBC Radio 4 I heard an Australian expert on counter-insurgency explaining the difference between winning hearts and minds as an idea, and what winning hearts and minds actually means in practice--i.e. killing insurgents and breaking their stuff with sufficient force to convince the local population that the side to be on is with the counter-insurgency and not with the insurgency. To me, real enlightenment is usually like that -- the realization that the view I was basing my efforts on was not real, just my own cheap view.
The thesis is just to sit -- i.e. to do. The thesis is physically to do it, to make physical effort to sit upright. In short, Sit the Fuck Down & Shut the Fuck Up! That is thesis authentically transmitted from Stupid Way to Doubtboy.
The sythesis is also just to sit -- i.e. non-doing. The synthesis is it doing itself, effortlessly, body and mind spontaneously dropping off.
What I struggle with day by day is the anti-thesis -- i.e. not to do. The anti-thesis is not to sit upright as I understand sitting upright, not to fix, not to stiffen, not to push and pull, not to go down the path of wrong reaction to the idea of sitting upright.
Yesterday I told you that the synthesis is for you to work out. That might have been a mistake. It might be truer to say that the synthesis works itself out, spontaneously, unless prevented from doing so -- following the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It may be truer to say that the thing we have to work out for ourselves is the anti-thesis. The thing we have to learn for ourselves is the backward step of turning light around; in other words, waking up to our endgaining idea; in other words, non-thinking; in other words, mentally sitting in the full lotus posture.
When you get to the point of deciding, in your words, Just [expletive deleted] Sit, you may think that what follows your decision is the synthesis but my experience tells me that what follows is more likely to be some variation on the theme of the original thesis -- that is, a blind physical reaction to some endgaining idea.
Mike,
You've made some valid points and buried them.
To leave Zazen completely untranslated means it becomes a mystical word.
To translate it as 'sitting meditaiton' is in some way to mislead.
If as you say that what Dogen has done is to use Zen because it sounds the same as Dhyana then I guess that a translator should follow the intention of the original document and if that did not translate from Sanskrit(?) then it is the the Sanskrit that shoudl be preserved so taht you end up with "sitting in Dhyana".
But in a pragmatic sense that is no better since Dhyana, Zazen and Meditation all have connotations which are unhelpful.
If Master Dogen had not in fact gone on to clarify what he meant I think the issue would be important.
You could call it Zazen, Sitting in Dhyana, Entering the Dharma Gate, Snark Hunting or anything but its essence would not change.
Differnet people would still seek to act based on the words alone and lead themselves astray.
I have a personal pet hate when I see a translation with words in it which have been deliberately not translated. It shows me that the translator(s)are trying to make some point which the original document did not make.
Yes, we should definitely worship the gourd. Down with the sandal!
Regards to all,
Harry.
ZA, sitting, expresses physical effort.
ZEN, dhyana, zen, meditation, thinking, expresses mental effort.
ZAZEN (one word), sitting-zen, expresses the principle that the sitting is the meditation, and the meditation is to sit.
That is one way of explaining it.
Any way up, however it is explained,the literal translation is not "sitting in dhyana," not "sitting in meditation", but just sitting-dhyana or just sitting-meditation.
In stating this so dogmatically, I feel that I am not expressing my own view but just stating a fact that to me is glaringly obvious.
But isn't that how every self-opinionated bigot always feels when expressing his own view?
So Mike, what you're saying is that you are NOT anti-semantic?
Regards,
H.
Hello Harry,
FU-KAN-ZAZEN-GI
Everywhere encourage sittingzen rules
I revere those words, and I revere the bodhi-mind from which they emerged.
The bodhi-mind may be intimately related with everywhere -- a place beyond all -isms and all anti -isms.
Wankers like you and me, Harry, are excited by the gorgeousness of our own vivid idea. That is the essence of being a wanker. Thirty-odd years ago as I made my way to school, in my head I was Prince of the Universe treading the path towards a glittering throne. But as I got off the number 91 bus, thinking how wonderful and clever I was, fellow Brummies on the bus, it turned out, were not thinking, "What a great guy!" Unbeknowns to me, I heard many years later, they were thinking, "There goes that wanker!"
Fortunately for you and me, the character FU also embraces clever wankers everywhere.
"sitting-dhyana or just sitting-meditation"
Either of those are I think valid. The hyphenation is the critical bit. It emphasises the non-separateness of the thing.
"But isn't that how every self-opinionated bigot always feels when expressing his own view?"
It is also how an expert in any field feels and it's reasonable to call you such a thing in this context.
The only issue is that to get too attached to the words can miss the point that not everything fits neatly into words. You can end up trying to translate the untranslatable.
An alternative approach at a least-bad translation requires that you have some experience to draw on of the thing in question.
After several decades of sitting on a Zafu you must have at least a pretty clear idea of what it is not and this alone can help with your translation efforts.
What I discovered from my years on a black sitting-cushion is mainly this:
There is a bridge between sitting as physical doing and sitting as non-doing, and that bridge is the decision not to do.
For me, sitting-zen or sitting-dhyana or sitting-meditation, are all good translations of ZAZEN, which embrace not only sitting as physical doing and sitting as non-doing, but also the bridge which is the mental decision not to do.
"For me, sitting-zen or sitting-dhyana or sitting-meditation, are all good translations of ZAZEN, which embrace not only sitting as physical doing and sitting as non-doing, but also the bridge which is the mental decision not to do."
I think that I might well steal this description of Zazen...
Thank you. I hope you plunder it well and truly, and make it completely your own.
What do you think such a thing would look like?
Answer number 1: A wanker who could beat himself off without beating himself up.
Regards,
Harry.
A person who is free of doing looks at ease.
I heard that Master Kodo Sawaki, in his old age, used to drink a large bottle of sake before beating himself off.
I don't know, but I guess from my own experience of being lonely in Japan that Master Kodo didn't feel at ease before, during, or after beating himself off. Hence he turned temporarily to the bottle, and let himself fall into hell.
At the same time, I also heard that Master Kodo used to say that he felt quite at ease in hell.
The real virtue of sitting-zen is like that. The love of your life starts shagging your best mate and, caught frozen between shock and anger, you sit facing the wall, in denial, unable to accept what has happened, in hell. But when in hell there is sitting-zen, there is even in hell a kind of ease.
Post a Comment
<< Home