What Shunryu Suzuki Actually Said

[Mark Foote]

I have two new posts on my own website, What Shunryu Suzuki Actually Said, and More of What Shunryu Suzuki Actually Said.  I thought I would offer the links here, in case there are any fans of "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" in the crowd.  

Here is the text of "What Shunryu Suzuki Actually Said"-- I'd love to hear any thoughts or comments you might have:

 

I recently had occasion to reread the lecture “Breathing” in “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind”. Out of curiosity, I then looked for a transcript of the lecture in the Shunryu Suzuki archives set up by David Chadwick.
 

There are differences between the two versions. Here are the last three sentences from “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind”:

 

So when you practice zazen, your mind should be concentrated on your breathing. This kind of activity is the fundamental activity of the universal being. Without this experience, this practice, it is impossible to attain absolute freedom.

 

(“Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind”, edited by Trudy Dixon, Weatherhill 1971 p 27)

 

Here are the same sentences from the transcript, with the differences highlighted:

 

So, when you practice zazen, your mind should be concentrated in your breathing and this kind of activity is the fundamental activity of the universal being. If so, how you should use your mind is quite clear. Without this experience, or this practice, it is impossible to attain the absolute freedom.

 

(“Thursday Morning Lectures”, November 4th 1965, Los Altos; emphasis added)

 

The transcript is annotated, “(Not Verbatim) Los Altos box title: Swinging Door”.

 

There’s a sentence that’s omitted in the “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind” version: “if so, how you should use your mind is quite clear”. The transcript may not be verbatim, but I would guess that Suzuki did say something along these lines.

 

There’s a particular transition in zazen that I believe Suzuki was referring to. Here’s a description I made of that transition:

 

The presence of mind can utilize the location of attention to maintain the balance of the body and coordinate activity in the movement of breath, without a particularly conscious effort to do so. There can also come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.

 

(Common Ground)

 

The mind is “concentrated in the breathing” when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention. If the presence of mind continues the placement of attention by the movement of breath, then the role of the mind is clear–that’s the way I read the transcript.

 

Suzuki ended his lecture by asserting that “without this experience, or this practice, it is impossible to attain the absolute freedom”.

 

Gautama the Buddha also mentioned freedom, in the context of “the ceasing of action”:

 

And what… is the ceasing of action? That ceasing of action by body, speech, and mind, by which one contacts freedom,–that is called ‘the ceasing of action’.

 

(SN IV 145, Pali Text Society IV pg 85)

 

The action that could be expected to cease was a particular kind of action, the action of “determinate thought”:

 

… I say that determinate thought is action. When one determines, one acts by deed, word, or thought.

 

(AN III 415, Pali Text Society Vol III pg 294)

 

I wrote about the “ceasing of action” in a recent post:

 

A central theme of Gautama’s teaching was the cessation of “determinate thought” in action, meaning the cessation of the exercise of will or volition in action. A cessation of the exercise of will could be attained, said Gautama, through the induction of various successive states of concentration. As to the initial induction of concentration, Gautama declared that “making self-surrender the object of thought, one lays hold of concentration, one lays hold of one-pointedness of mind”.
 

I begin with making the surrender of volition in activity related to the movement of breath the object of thought. For me, that necessitates thought applied and sustained with regard to relaxation of the activity of the body, with regard to the exercise of calm in the stretch of ligaments, with regard to the detachment of mind, and with regard to the presence of mind. I find that a presence of mind from one breath to the next can precipitate “one-pointedness of mind”, but laying hold of “one-pointedness of mind” requires a surrender of willful activity in the body much like falling asleep.

 

(Response)

 

When the location of attention can shift anywhere in the body as a function of the movement of breath, and the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation follows solely from the location of attention, there is a feeling of freedom.
 

I am more grateful than ever to David Chadwick for his efforts to preserve and make public the historical records of Shunryu Suzuki and his teaching.

 

[Vajra Fist]

Very nice! Its been a while since I read Beginners Mind. It was the first book I read on meditation about 20 years ago.

 

Still love this description in the chapter on breathing:

 

Quote

If you think, “I breathe,” the “I” is extra…what we call “I” is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and when we exhale. It just moves, that is all.  When your mind is pure and calm enough to follow this movement, there is nothing: no “I,”  no world, no mind nor body; just a swinging door.

 

[Invisible Acropolis]

Alternately...

 

Quote

“For an approximate definition of the first of these three human impulses which must arise and manifest themselves in a real man, one might employ the English word "can," yet not in the sense in which this word is used in the contemporary English language but in the sense in which Englishmen used it before what is called the "Shakespearean epoch."

 

Although for the exact definition of the second of these human impulses in the contemporary English language there is a word, namely "wish," it is nevertheless employed by you Americans, as well as by the English people themselves, only in order to vary, of course unconsciously, the degree of the expression of that so to say "slavish impulse" for which there are, particularly in this language, a multitude of words as, for example, "like," "want," "need," "desire" and so on.

 

And as regards a word for the expression and understanding of the third definite aforementioned human impulse, in the whole lexicon of words in the English language there cannot be found one even approximately corresponding.

 

This impulse, proper exclusively to man, can be denned in the English language only descriptively, that is, with many words. I should define it for now in the following words: "the entire sensing of the whole of oneself."

 

This third impulse, which should be sometimes in the waking state of man, one of certain definite manifestations in the general presence of every normal man, is of all the seven exclusively-proper-to-man impulses the most important, because its association with the first two, namely, those which I have already said can be approximately expressed in English by the words "can" and "wish," almost composes and represents the genuine I of a man who has reached responsible age.

 

It is only in a man with such an I that these three impulses, two of which are approximately defined in English by the words "I can" and "I wish," acquire in their turn that significance which I presume; which significance, and the corresponding force of action from their manifestation, is obtained only in a man who by his intentional efforts obtains the arising in himself of data for engendering these impulses sacred for man.

 

Only such a man, when he consciously says "I am"—he really is; "I can"—he really can; "I wish"—he really wishes.

 

When "I wish"—I feel with my whole being that I wish, and can wish. This does not mean that I want, that I need, that I like or, lastly, that I desire. No. "I wish." I never like, never want, I do not desire anything and I do not need anything—all this is slavery; if "I wish" something, I must like it, even if I do not like it. I can wish to like it, because "I can."

 

I wish—I feel with my whole body that I wish.

 

I wish—because I can wish.”

 

- Gurdjieff,

from "Life is Real Only Then, When 'I Am': All and Everything, Third Series"

 

[C T]

That space between wishing for, and wishing away... that's impertubable openness, a resting sweet spot where full potentiality needlessly awaits.  Emancipation is but a moment to moment recognition of this actionless presence in that openness. It doesn't even need a name.  

[Invisible Acropolis]

12 hours ago, C T said:

That space between wishing for, and wishing away... that's impertubable openness, a resting sweet spot where full potentiality needlessly awaits.  Emancipation is but a moment to moment recognition of this actionless presence in that openness. It doesn't even need a name.  

 

Nothing needs a name.  Language is only useful for communication with others, and even then its not something which is "required" or "necessary".  In many ways, the origins of human deception and social manipulation are found in the origins of spoken languages.  Written languages expanded and broadened these possibilities.

[Mark Foote]

On 2/4/2023 at 12:31 AM, Vajra Fist said:

 

Very nice! Its been a while since I read Beginners Mind. It was the first book I read on meditation about 20 years ago.

 

Still love this description in the chapter on breathing:

 

If you think, “I breathe,” the “I” is extra…what we call “I” is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and when we exhale. It just moves, that is all.  When your mind is pure and calm enough to follow this movement, there is nothing: no “I,”  no world, no mind nor body; just a swinging door.

 

 

Thanks, Vajra Fist.  I actually tackled the rest of the lecture in my subsequent post, More of What Shunryu Suzuki Actually Said. 

The passage you've quoted is from the start of the lecture, but he repeats something similar later on.  Here's my take on his later formulation, from my post:

 

And the important thing is you must have — if you become — if you want to become purely one with the activity of inhaling and exhaling your mind should be pure and calm enough to follow the activity. If you think, ‘I take breathing’. I is extra. There is no you to say I. This is enough. When your mind is pure and calm enough, there is no idea of I.

(http://shunryusuzuki2.com/Detail1?ID=77)

 

Gautama the Buddha described a “purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind”, in the fourth of the initial concentrations:

 

… (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind.

 

(AN Book of Fives 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 18-19, parentheticals universalize pronoun)

 

“The pureness of (one’s) mind” I believe refers to the lack of any intent in the mind.  If the activity of the body follows solely from the location of attention, a presence of mind is possible such that no matter where the breath shifts the location of attention, the activity of the body follows solely from that singular location. Presence of mind as the location of attention shifts “suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind”.

 

"... a presence of mind is possible such that no matter where the breath shifts the location of attention, the activity of the body follows solely from that singular location"--I'm finding that experience, sometimes.  "If so, how you should use your mind is quite clear"--maybe, getting clearer.

See what you think, of the new post--I'm really open to comment, there or here.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:08 AM, Invisible Acropolis said:

 

Nothing needs a name.  Language is only useful for communication with others, and even then its not something which is "required" or "necessary".  In many ways, the origins of human deception and social manipulation are found in the origins of spoken languages.  Written languages expanded and broadened these possibilities.

 

 

There are also positives to language, in my opinion. 

 

Gödel demonstrated that any system that can describe everything we know, can also create paradoxes and contradictions.  It's the paradoxes and contradictions that make language a minefield, but if you acknowledge the limitations and build only a limited description, then I think language can be useful.  

I'm very grateful for the words of Gautama the Shakyan--and many others--and for those who transcribed their words over centuries.  Gautama had a funny way of only saying so much.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Mark Foote