南無, Translations, Worship, Buddhism and Being Stuck

Over at The Worst Horse, there's an interesting exchange arising from a fundamentalist Christian pastor with a geriatric congregation who applauds the pastor's acting out of his anger management issues.  As Rod/Worst Horse points out,

“We don’t worship Buddha,” says pastor Dennis Terry, introducing Rick Santorum while preaching to the choir in the newly posted video... Well, that’s not something most Buddhists say they do, either — at least not many Western Buddhists; rather, it’s more often the case that we look at the historical Buddha as an example of a real human being who proved that liberation from suffering was possible.

I noted that

This is a very interesting point, but actually more than a few Western Buddhists do express worship to the Buddha when they chant the Vandana  

To which Rod/Worst Horse replies

Well, that’s true, except for some this is a vocalisation of recognizing a quality inherent in ourselves and in others.

Yah, you got that right.  But Neal in the comments says,

@Mumon It is my understanding that the English translation of the Vandana is “I venerate the Sacred One, the Great Sage, the Truly Enlightened One.”
It is also my understanding that the word “venerate” means to revere or respect. Not quite the same as worship.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 I want to explore Neal's comment a bit, especially in regard to how it reflects Western Buddhist thinking, but first I'm afraid we'll have to go on a language excursion.  OK, well, let's go to the dictionary:

wor·ship

 [wur-ship] Show IPA noun, verb, -shiped, -ship·ing or ( especially British ) -shipped, -ship·ping.

noun

1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.

2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.

3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.

4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.

5. ( initial capital letter ) British . a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually preceded by Your, His,  or Her ). 

 Since in many translations that I've seen of Buddhist liturgies the word "homage" is used, this might be enough, in my opinion, but just to be sure,  the definition of "veneration" does indeed list reverence as a synonym for veneration.

As I said, Rod/Worst Horse is right about this being a vocal expression of a quality that inheres to us. The operative word that is worship/homage/veneration here is 南無, expressed in Japanese chanting as "namu" (なむ）and Mandarin and Pali as "namo." That 南無 in Chinese and Japanese is obviously a transliteration of the Pali is evident from the meaning of the characters composing 南無; 南 means "South" and "無" is the mu meaning "not" or the prefix "un" as in "wireless" being 無線 ,  (musen) in Japanese.    Jeffrey's Japanese-English dictionary's definition of 南無 lists several uses the term, none of which use the term "worship," but all of which seem to be dancing around the word somehow.  I do think the case can be made that indeed, "worship," "homage to," and "venerate" can be used interchangeably for 南無 here, because of the uses of the term where we find it, and noted translations of it.

 For example, Jeffrey's Japanese-English Dictionary includes the Nichiren chant 南無妙法蓮華経 (namu myouhourengegyou) - oh, I should note the "ou" usage connotes an extended "oh" sound, in case you're interested.  南無妙法蓮華経 is translated as "Homage to the Lotus Sutra."

For us Zen folks,  many of us chant 延命十句觀音經 ("Emmei Jukku Kannon Gyou").  Hakuin scholar Philip Yampolsky translates that sutra as:

Kanzeon! Salutation and devotion to the Buddha!
We are one with the Buddha
In cause and effect related to all Buddhas
and to Buddha Dharma and Sangha.
Our true nature is
Eternal, Joyous, Selfless and Pure.
So let us chant every morning
Kanzeon with Nen (attention)
Every evening Kanzeon with Nen!
Nen Nen arises from Mind
Nen Nen is not separate from Mind.

(Note to Prof. Yampolsky: Please forgive my bad editing; I'm wrestling with Blogger.) The phrase "Salutation and devotion to the Buddha" is what is rendered from 南無佛, ("namu butsu") and yeah, 佛 means "the Buddha."

The most common expression of the use of 南無 would be the Pure Land use of it; which is rendered in Japanese as "阿弥陀仏," (namu amida butsu) or, evidently, 阿弥陀佛.  It's also the most common form of Buddhist homage in Chinese (where, to the best of my knowledge, it would be rendered in Mandarin as "namu amito fo.")  In Chan Buddhist temples in China you'll be greeted with 阿弥陀佛.

Ok, I think I've beaten that ...oh, I better not use that metaphor- as I said Rod/Worst Horse is right.


 I didn't want to write this because I wanted to bore anyone with my meager knowledge of comparative linguistics or whatever you call the stuff I wrote above. The real reason I wanted to write about this is because I think it  -and that rage filled pastor that Rod/Worst Horse referenced, underscores a kind of fault-line in Western convert Buddhism.  I first encountered it when my teacher, leading a ceremony honoring the Buddha's birth, invited us to engage in a ceremony by saying, "Let us worship the Buddha." I, myself, felt it right there: Hey, wait a second!  Nobody said anything about worshiping anything!  Later I read stuff such as the above and I became convinced: what we regard as "worship" is a "good" thing when we mean reverent honor, respect, and veneration, but we think it's a "bad" thing when we mean "bowing down before the other evil guy's false deity," or something like that.   We associate "worship" with what that hateful pastor does, whereas we venerate, reverently honor, etc. But they both mean the same thing!

Now I find that pastor's brand of fundamentalism repulsive; that is, I am viscerally repulsed by a crowd of angry people being stirred up by a person displaying anger conveniently speaking for a god who is only present as anger.  And he may not - he certainly is not worshiping, reverently honoring, or venerating that aspect of us which transcends suffering, greed, hatred and ignorance.  But I don't think I'm adequately doing my own transcendence if I let him - or rather my perception of him - if I let my perception of him  get to own the word "worship" as a bad thing in and of itself.  If we are venerating the separation of ourselves from others, if we are venerating our own greed, hatred and ignorance, if I am acting out of my own visceral repulsion, I find it very difficult to see past where that pastor is; I limit my own freedom to act out of generosity, compassion, and wisdom.

And that's why I wanted to mention this.

On Chanting

I generally don't do that many posts about practice in the Zendo.  I generally don't do it because I've found others' material to be sufficient for me. 

But oddly enough for the life of me, I can't find right now exactly what I'm looking for.

I recently finally read one of Brad Warner's books, Sit Down and Shut Up.  I also don't read a lot of so-called modern teachers' books, for the simple reason that I haven't gotten through the older teachers' books first, and most of what I'd read of modern teachers seems, um...recycled?  I don't mean that in an accusative way, but rather it more or less duplicates what's already there.  Consider this the review of the book I'd been meaning to do for a while: Sit Down and Shut Up is, despite its meanderings, in many ways a better book than Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. Yeah, it is, for what both purport to do: explain Zen in the Soto flavor to a modern audience.  By that I mean that its linear structure, humor, use of the Japanese language characters, etc. make the practice for more well explained than Suzuki did.  It also benefits from the lack of a section of how the poor author had died and was such a great master that...yada yada yada.  Warner's a "slob like one of us,"  who had the  fortune of being from a part of Ohio I'd bet people in Ohio joke about.

It also occurs to me that a Rinzai version of this genre ought to exist too.   Maybe it already does; maybe it might need to exist in some form on this blog, but from a lay person's perspective.  Seriously though if you want to read about what Zen (Soto-flavored) Buddhism is, Warner's book is pretty good and pretty knowledgeable.  I've some differences with him here, and there, but they're relatively minor.  So consider this an endorsement of that book from yours truly.

 Anyhow, where was I? Oh yeah, chanting. Barbara of the White Plum tradition has this to say on ritual:

Rituals in Buddhism are a upaya, which is Sanskrit for "skillful means." Rituals are performed because they are helpful for those who participate.

Of course, if you are new to Buddhism you may feel awkward and self-conscious as you try to mimic what others around you are doing. Feeling awkward and self-conscious means you are bumping into your delusional ideas about yourself. Acknowledging those feelings and getting beyond them is vital spiritual practice.

We all come into practice with issues and buttons and tender spots that hurt when something pushes them. Usually we go through our lives wrapped in ego armor to protect the tender spots. But the ego armor causes its own pain, because it cuts us off from ourselves and everyone else. Much Buddhist practice, including ritual, is about peeling off the armor. Usually this is a gradual and gentle process that you do at your own pace, but you will be challenged to step out of your comfort zone at times.

She then points to James Ford, (from within the Soto/Sambo Kyodan traditions) who says:

These rites are the family form of this community. Daido Loori, our cousin in the dharma, tells us how "generally defined, liturgy can be considered an affirmation or restatement of the common experience of a community." He explains how "all of Zen’s rites and rituals are constantly pointing to the same place, to the realization of no separation between the self and the ten thousand things. Zen liturgy is upaya, skillful means. Like zazen and all the other areas of our training, it functions as a way of uncovering the truth which is the life of each one of us."... It is our tradition to chant it in a Sino-Japanese form, a liturgical language created by pronouncing Chinese words in the Japanese manner. Here we find ourselves letting go of the meaning, and just chanting. Taizan Maezumi explains something of this. This quote is a little long, but it's helpful. Maezumi Roshi tells us:

Chanting is an effective means of harmonizing body and mind. Chant with your ears, not with your mouth. When chanting, be aware of the others who are also chanting. Blend your voice with their voices. Make one voice, all together. Chant not too high, not too low, not too fast, not too slow. Take your pace from the senior practitioner, who will take the initiative. Chanting should not be shouting. When a person chants like that, he chants as if only he exists and no one else, which is not so. Always adjust yourself to the others, rather than expecting them to adjust to you. Then there is harmony. Chant as though each syllable were a drop of rain in a steady shower. It is very mild, consistent, and sustained.

Chanting functions the same as all of our practices in Zen. On one level, we can see that the sutras we chant have their own content; they mean something. Some, like the Heart Sutra for example, are especially concise and packed with deep meaning. But again, apart from the texts, the act of chanting is in itself an absolute practice, simultaneously expressing and creating an inner state of consciousness. And as we chant together and hear each other chanting, we are helped further in joining our minds. This is harmony. This is practice together.

See what I mean about existing authors being "sufficient?" Well, I take that back, because I think there's things to add to this:

• In this chanting, it is not, despite appearances, an invocation to anyone or anything separated from those chanting. It is not like a Christian invocation to a deity "out there" but rather to that which is far more immediate.
• That being said, the chanting does point to a metaphysical assumption, namely that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and ancestors being invoked are immediate, and are not entities entirely separate from those doing the chanting.   This assumption I do not find unreasonable however.   These chants and rituals came from somewhere, conditioned by conditions that brought about their arising.  My hearing and my chanting of myself with others, brings us at least in part with the mind of many ancestors of my lineage in exactly the same way as a good chi sau ( 黐手, or "sticky hands") presents to my consciousness the mind of my sifu and his ancestors.  That's pretty damned intimate.
• Rinzai chanting is different somewhat from the Soto flavor, as I touched briefly upon in this post a while back. In particular, there's more ki (qi, or 気) emphasis through breath in our chanting. It makes it more physical.  It's actually one reason I'm more drawn to Rinzai practice, at least as it exists in the US.
• It need not be said, but I'll say it anyway: Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese chanting are different than the Japanese forms, and tend to be more "musical" than the Japanese forms.  That sort of fits with those temples' approach to Buddhism (even Zen/Chan Buddhism) as being more rococo, or more colorful than the Japanese counterparts.
• Much of what's been written in this regard might seem to be an apology for That Which Clearly Has Supernaturalist Origins, as a way to bring in the supernatural through a back door, so to speak. I'm sure PZ Myers thinks that way.  But if Myers has been to the theatre (or a movie) or a musical performance, I wonder if he seriously thinks that those performative acts are invoking the Muses. No actually I don't; nobody save for a few out beyond the fringes fundamentalist monotheists seriously thinks that performance is "demonic."  
• More to the point, Myers would do well to read at least some modern language theorists, who are sort of pointing in the right direction here. One J. L. Austin said, according to Wikipedia, that

  A "performative utterance," Austin argued in How to Do Things With Words, cannot be said to be either true or false, as a constative utterance might be. It can only be judged either "happy" or "infelicitous" depending upon whether the conditions required for it to succeed have been met. In this sense performativity can be said to investigate the pragmatics of language.

  Now I take some issue with the "happy" or "infelicitous" part of that (that's pretty limiting, isn't it?), but the basic direction here seems right: the point of the performance as performance is not necessarily to be "right" in the same sense as a physics lecture's content is correct (though a good physics professor is quite a performer). But even a lousy physic professor's teaching performance in no way invalidates his content. The purpose of the content of Zen Buddhist chanting is to point to the Fundamental Point, the Original Face, and the performance as chanting is to realize and express that.
• Finally, there's a point that I think every teacher I've read has simply not seen, or forgotten, or perhaps they're inherently for more enlightened than I can ever hope to be and don't even need to make the pont.  When chanting in this foreign "language" the syllables don't have the cadence and structure of English (or for that matter, Japanese or Chinese, or even Pali, now that the Chinese Japanese ancestors have had their way with these things).  It takes real mindfulness to focus to Chant the East Asian forms of the Great Compassionate Dharani correctly just as it takes takes a great deal of mindfulness to use a sharp knife correctly.  I remember the first time I chanted it, now over 20 years ago- the thought that popped into my head was, "Ah, it's a  tongue-twister! How clever!" It brings about a more mindful state because you'll trip over yourself, vocally, that is, if you're not paying attention.

OK, that's my bit on chanting. It's just my few words; again, do your own homework.

Attention Is Not Separate From Mind-Heart

 

So says the last line of the "10 Phrase Life Prolonging Kannon Sutra":

延 命 十 句 觀 音 經 (Emmei Jukku Kannon Gyo)

觀世音 南無佛

KANZEON NAMU BUTSU

與佛有因 與佛有緣

YO BUTSU U IN YO BUTSU U EN

佛法僧緣 常樂我淨

BU PO SO EN JO RAKU GA JO

朝念觀世音 暮念觀世音

CHO NEN KANZEON BO NEN KANZEON

念念從心起 念念不離心

NEN NEN JU SHIN KI NEN NEN FU RI SHIN

Where is your attention? That is where your mind and heart are: that's what you're caring  about at the moment.


And one of the points of that sutra, by the way, is to heighten one's degree of attention.

Geez,  I could almost have Tweeted that.

And yet more on Barbara O'Brien's "Buddhism without Buddhism" & Stephen Batchelor

I seem to be getting a great deal of mileage out of Barbara O'Brien's post here.  It's helping to clarify my views, and I would say,  points of how I would critique "Western Buddhism"

In her latest comment; she mentions Stephen Batchelor, and points to her review of his latest book..  Thanks to her, assuming her review's right, I have learned that I  too have my points of disagreement with him, and thank her  for sparing me the time going though his book.  I would agree, from a "Four Dharma Seals" criterion, that he's stepped out of Buddhism, if that is the criterion for who's a Buddhist and who isn't a Buddhist.  On the other hand, is the "Four Dharma Seals" a gate that admits those who are Buddhists and keeps out those who aren't?

From her latest comment on "Buddhism without Buddhism:"

These days many of us are struggling to maintain the integrity of undiluted Buddhism in the West in spite of the push by people like Stephen Batchelor to take all the power out of it and repackage it as McDharma. Hey, it sells books, right?

 In her hyperlink here on Batchelor she points out:

For example, on page 34 of Confessions Batchelor writes about the 7th-century philosopher Dharmakirti -- "His philosophy gave me an excellent conceptual framework for interpreting my practice of mindfulness as well as the other experiences I had had in Dharamsala." However, "Emptiness of inherent existence, by contrast, is just a conceptual and linguistic abstraction."
"Emptiness of inherent existence" -- shunyata -- is the key to understanding Mahayana Buddhism. Without some appreciation for shunyata, you will misunderstand everything else. Realization of shunyata is the perfection of great wisdom evoked by the Heart Sutra. And it's a "conceptual and intellectual abstraction" only until one learns how to reach beyond the limits of conceptual thought to understand it.

I think her hyperlink to Batchelor is spot on, but I think her implication that he's trying merely to sell books misses the mark.  For whatever reason, "Emptiness of inherent existence, by contrast, is just a conceptual and linguistic abstraction" is no doubt a belief sincerely held by him.  I have no idea now an intelligent, learned man can have that as a sincerely  held belief these days, but, as my grandma would have said, there you are. 

What I mean by that is  to me, everything from the cosmology of the universe to Treblinka and Rwanda and 9/11 to Big Horizon to the prevalence of deconstruction as an explanation for what we communicate manifests the voidness of essence.

But I think Batchelor came to his conclusions after careful thought, just as I would say I came to Buddhism after careful thought.  I just think, (ah, think) that like Newt Gingrich, he has made a rather odd choice of paths, and I would suspect that - as his book title - Batchelor still considers himself a Buddhist.

O'Brien's distinctions here, even the "Four Dharma Seals" criterion, I would say, are somewhat arbitrary insofar as these are things that were decided by people, hence their validity is ultimately negotiable .(See "Zen master" Herb Cohen's books on negotiation as to why this is so.  It is simply amazing to me that when the book linked here came out in the 70s, Cohen, a corporate lawyer of some kind, was using the skills in this book to negotiate deals with clients, using the very underlying ideas of emptiness as Nagarjuna and Sartre and Derrida,  the latter of whom was also in his prime.  Cohen just put these concepts in a very user-friendly mass market paperback, having nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism or a spiritual path..  But I digress.)

Barbara continues in her comment on "Buddhism without Buddhism:"

When I say “undiluted” Buddhism I don’t mean slavish copying of Asian forms just because it’s traditional. Rather, right now we’re all going through a process of discovering what will best function as upaya in western culture. Buddhism has always gone through some re-tooling as it has spread into new cultures. But what many of us have found is that bowing chanting, rituals — work. The litrugy works. The old commentaries and sutras work. They are transformative. They are a powerful skillful means. So we’re adapting and retooling, but not in a way that dilutes what the dharma ancestors have given us. 

The bowing and chanting etc. are, in my experience, far more powerful in some forms than others, and some "adaptations of the Asian forms for Westerners" are simply dreadful, esthetically speaking, and for whatever reason, much of the impetus for why Asian forms are the way they are is strained out of the Westernization..

The White Plum Asanga has 延 命 十 句 觀 音 經  in their liturgy,  but they completely miss the lineage and provenance of this chant when they do chant it, based on my experiences in more than one of the temples in their lineage.  Even though this chant comes down from the Rinzai line via Hakuin, they have "anti-adpated" it to the West; they've drained it of all its power (literally doing so, I'm certain Hakuin would insist).  But heck, Soto guys like Brad Warner probably don't even chant this, so what am I complaining about? Besides, I would submit that all, all are Buddhists.  But it does trigger the thought in me that perhaps a post explaining how it's done in the Rinzai tradition might be helpful at some point.  Just don't do it that way at 3 in the morning in a house full of non-Buddhists on a clear warm summer night with the windows wide open or you might get arrested for a domestic disturbance...but I digress again.


However, with the world the way it is, with Kentucky Fried Chicken popular in China (go figure!), and Tabasco sauce ubiquitous in Japan, much of the idea that "Buddhism must be adapted for Westerners" seems much like cultural chauvinism.  To each their own on this, but always be on the lookout for the genuine article.  To make a (no-no!) meat eating analogy, it's the difference between real Japanese teppan and Benihana.

"Zen Rituals" and Flypaper

Soto Zen Buddhist Brad Warner says, inter alia:

I think rituals are important for human beings. It seems like we need some kind of rituals to keep us happy and contented. I like the Zen way of dealing with rituals by doing them but not really believing in them. It seems like a rational solution to the problem.

What I think he means here is there isn't assumed to be some magic or some supernatural "thing" associated with the ritual which is anticipated to do something special that could not be done without the ritual.

While I tend to share the basic skepticism to the supernatural, I don't think that stance historically uniformly true in Zen Buddhism, and in chanting, something different really does happen that is different than had one not chanted, like when you do anything no matter how mundane, it "changes the course of history." Whether that's supernatural or not is irrelevant to the fact that the chanting has some efficacy...subject to the issues surrounding "spiritual materialism" I'll discuss shortly. Now in the Rinzai school, in the tradition from Hakuin, chanting in Buddhist rituals is substantially more lively than in the Soto tradition, so maybe Warner's chants and rituals are just boring (I doubt), or maybe they're just done differently. But when we Rinzai folk chant, we show up to chant, and in order to do that there must be a kernel of belief in mindfulness to do that, and in that sense, we "believe" in our rituals.

About the efficacy of the chanting, my teacher had once said that something to the effect that Heart Sutra → Emmei Jukku Kannon Gyo¹ → 無. What he meant by this is that the presence, the technique, and the mindfulness one would do as one practiced chanting the Heart Sutra, would by its nature be an expanded version of chanting the "10 Phrase Life Prolonging Kannon Sutra" (延命十句觀音經) which would be an expanded version of working with 無. Now of course Warner's school deemphasizes koan study, so maybe that makes his chants and rituals boring. But I doubt it.

As the Pure Land link notes above (with spelling corrected):

Towards the end of his life, the great Zen Master Hakuin (1689-1769) took an increasing interest in life outside the monastery and in the lives and practices of his lay diciples, government ministers and the aristocracy.

In a letter dated 1754 to Lord Nabeshima he tells of the virtues required of a good leader and the merits attached to recitation of the Enmei Jukku Kannon Gyo (Ten Phrase Life Prolonging Kannon Sutra).

Along with the letter he sent a copy of the Sutra and told Lord Nabeshima of the miracles that were associated with its recitation, both in China and Japan.

Hakuin expresses the hope that his lordship will recite it two or three hundred times each day and encourage his retainers, the uneducated and illiterate, to do so as well. He goes on:

'The reason lies in the testing. Give this to those who are seriously ill or have met with disaster for their consolation.

If it is recited with sincerity, miracles will without fail be accomplished and the person who recites it will be free from disease and attain a long life.
This applies to anyone at all.'

Now how to reconcile with what Brad Warner says with what Hakuin says? Well, Hakuin lived at a different time, first of all, and so wasn't exactly scientifically oriented. However, Hakuin's writing style tends to be a bit hyperbolic to put it mildly. He's say a lot of things to encourage people, from what I've read. (Then again, so does Warner...) And, full disclosure: when one has been sitting for a while this sutra is very useful to "direct the chi　(気)" to where it can alleviate pain, and I'm not making this up. Sure, sure there's non-supernatural reasons for this, but it's not a placebo effect, it's more of the effects of exercise/yoga on fixing what ails your body, structurally speaking.

Now the thing is, you can't "get" this to happen by wanting, and of course getting rid of a gaining idea - the idea that you can get something out of the ritual - is probably completely impossible. That's because wanting not to want to gain or wanting to get even happiness and contentment from rituals are still things to be wanted to be gained from them. But given nonduality, some degree of avoidance of excessive scrupulosity is an accurate position to take, I think.  Just bow. Just chant.  And don't chase after thoughts about when you miss the right word, or have to take a breath and that distorts the rhythm and all that. Just go back to the practice...





_____________________________

1. 延 命 十 句 觀 音 經 (Emmei Jukku Kannon Gyo)

觀世音 南無佛

KANZEON NAMU BUTSU

與佛有因 與佛有緣
YO BUTSU U IN YO BUTSU U EN
佛法僧緣 常樂我淨
BU PO SO EN JO RAKU GA JO
朝念觀世音 暮念觀世音
CHO NEN KANZEON BO NEN KANZEON
念念從心起 念念不離心
NEN NEN JU SHIN KI NEN NEN FU RI SHIN