Nicholas Hallsworth (asker) Oct 2, 2016:

Physical aspect Thank you mmb42, Port City. I'm just waiting for some confirmation from a native speaker with some knowledge of philosophy and then I'll decide the final term.

In terms of whether it is physical or not, if 身(体) is neutral, it may be being used as a way of expressing innateness in contrast to what is leaned and socialized--what lies within us to be uncovered--our Buddha-nature--the kernel of our being.

Marc Brunet Oct 2, 2016:

One afterthought... 身 has to be a neutral term. Shoin could have used 肉体 if it fitted his point.
he did not. So that puts this issue to rest. You are right on this aspect.
Note that I eventually committed for a term that implies the blending of mind and spirit in man's actualisation of the Way, a term hopefully compatible with the Buddhist view: the "Kernel" (of human nature).
Thank you for your correction, anyway, Port City-san. Cheers :-)

Marc Brunet Oct 2, 2016:

I agree with you re: absence of dichotomy between mind and body in the Buddhist approach, Port City-san.

Now, if 身　is indeed a neutral term, then my point 1/ below no longer holds.

Can we still agree on the next two (rephrased in 3/ below) ? :-)

1/ Shoin uses two apparently contrastive terms (身 and 本尊）. To what effect? This has to be interpreted and rendered in the translation.

2/ Shoin makes two points:
a) an observation worth meditating on
b) a conclusion impressing upon us that this condition is the premice to living human relations according to the 'Way'

3/ (my earlier wording paraphrasing this saying used the term 'worldly', I meant to use 'mortal'. This is my correction:)
In a), the reference frame of this contrast is not one of tension equating 本尊 with good and 身 with bad, as in the Western puritan tradition, but one noting Nature's surprising combination of a mortal shell with a sublime content -- the pairing of two different dimensions: a perishable short lived natural drive for self preservation and a quest for well being, with an eternal ethical living principle that transcends the existence of this shell beyond its term.

Port City Oct 1, 2016:

The way is the Buddha-like nature that man has. Man is noble for innately holding the way. I just treated 身 as a person in a sense of 'physical being' not a 'spirit' because there is no distinct dichotomy between the flesh and the spirit in Buddhism as I view it.

Marc Brunet Oct 1, 2016:

Thank you Port City for your reply.
What strikes me in the expression of this thought, which you picked up very well, is that he did not use 精神, 頭 or こころ to refer to that 'vessel' that came to mind to both of us, but deliberately used 身; and he had a reason for doing that, which I think Nick has picked up very well, and which I see as affirming that the worth of mortal man is that he holds within him the Way which if, truly lived. can give meaning to his life, that for many becomes a sort of liberation, no matter how short and trivial and inconsequential that life may appear.

Nicholas Hallsworth (asker) Oct 1, 2016:

Port City: You could be right. I guess the next step is to ask a native speaker. Thank you for your help!

Port City Oct 1, 2016:

I just simply see 身体 as a vessel that houses 本尊 in this context, which isn't like 'flesh vs spirit'. Maybe I'm not that philosophical.

Nicholas Hallsworth (asker) Oct 1, 2016:

Thoughts Brilliant contributions everyone. This has to be innate and highly physical. I'm coming around to the idea that what it's essentially saying is that we hold the Way within us, physically and this is why man is worth. Later the author talks about searching inside the self to find answers, rather than through experience and knowledge.

Here is my best effort for now:

The way is the kernal of the flesh, and man is worthy for he holds the Way within him.

I will keep thinking then let you all know the result.

Thank you!

Marc Brunet Oct 1, 2016:

what about 身? 身 is the term that prompts me to consider '(worldly) human nature', in contrast with 本尊, this other side of the self we all share.
How does the paradoxical use of this term is meant to work in the pitch of this great thought, in your view, Port City-san? ...

Port City Oct 1, 2016:

virtue? I don't think the sentence mentions anything about the "worldly" human nature (especially in contrast with divine nature). Maybe 本尊 means deep-rooted "Buddha-like" virtue or spirit, seeing from the link you posted? I'm not sure if he considered such virtue/spirit to be innate or something to be acquired, though.

Marc Brunet Sep 30, 2016:

re: 本尊 (2/2) We may be made of clay alright, but we are not clump of it, we are a receptacle that holds something much higher, to be treasured, cultivated and lived. Thus the unforgettable character of his logic as a man of depth and wisdom:

"The 'Way' being the essence of this worldly human nature of ours, treating that nature with respect (in ourselves as well as others) is part and parcel of practicing the 'Way'".

Of course this is a paraphrase. If you agree with it, feel free to reduce it back to something closer to the text. Cheers and good luck. :-)

Marc Brunet Sep 30, 2016:

re: 本尊 (1/2) Mmmh, this is a tough one, because to work out what Shoin meant requires defining not just 本尊　 but 身　as well.

The literal phrase that comes up for the first term is "principal image". In this spiritual context, would explore whether we can get somewhere when equating this term with "the essence of' or ' the true self of'.

Next, still in that spiritual context, his using 身 to refer to our human nature with this heavily physical term introduces a contrast that initially stumps our initial anticipation of following his point into elevated spheres, but only to realise shortly after that this very contrast adds a whole vigour, strength and realism to his unforgettable manner of completing it, and which I would interpret as this: