What I want out of the AT is the ability to respond to every stimulus - every situation or event - in a considered way. To respond in a way that reflects my fundamental intention, with conscious consideration. This is as opposed to reacting out of unconscious habit, routine, selfishness or shortsightedness.
The AT provided two tools to do this. The technical jargon is "inhibition" and "direction". At first I tried to put these tools into effect when the impulse to get out of a chair arises. Now, I'm trying to use them constantly. I am still, ah, somewhat short of this goal, but I'm making the effort.
Alexander seems to me ever practical. He was very concerned with how people used themselves. I'm no scholar of his writing, but I do not believe he ever suggested people simply practice just "inhibition" and "direction". These tools seem to be always presented as precursor to an action of the body/mind. What possible benefit might they have if practiced alone? Another way of saying this: Is it possible to "inhibit" and "direct" and have all other desires and impulses regarded as "end-gaining"?
What a weird thing to suggest. Why on earth would anyone want to spend time to do this? I have no idea. Is it really possible? I'm not sure. But how about if we set out to do something really simple, like say sitting. We can call this type of sitting the "inhibition of end-gaining where anything other than sitting is end-gaining" and "directing". Maybe calling this "just sitting" would be more convenient.
My question is: Is there any arrangement of the body that would be more supportive of "just sitting"? How would you sit if you wanted to "just sit" well? We will need to put aside the questions of what it means to "sit well". We'll also need to set aside the question of why you would care if you sat "well" or not "well".
I have found that I have more trouble continually "just sitting" while slumped on a couch with a gin and tonic, than when I am in my AT training program sitting in a chair. Clearly, how one arranges one's body has an impact on ones ability to "just sit".
For brief periods, I'm not sure it matters how one arranges ones body to "just sit". But longer periods of time erodes our ability to use our self well.
Although the concept of AT "direction" is unknown to Zen students, they otherwise are very concerned with "just sitting". Many Zen students are critically concerned with their ability to "just sit" well in for long continuous periods in an environment that discourages gross physical movements. For over 2000 years Zen teachers have claimed that the full lotus is the ne plus ultra of sitting postures.
US Zen teachers continue to recommend the full lotus. And this comes from a society that easily discards traditions that don't work here. We have dispensed with the sexism of traditional Eastern Zen and the rigorous physical style. We have obscured the boundaries of lay and ordained, monastic and community. We have changed quite a bit with traditional Zen, but all Zen teachers and senior students that I have ever seen sit in full lotus unless they have compelling physical reasons that make it impossible.
Despite such strong recommendation, it seems that there is not a whole lot written about why the full lotus is recommended. In part, this is because there is no coherent physical teaching of Zen. (This blog is about trying to provide some framework of a physical teaching of Zen. ).
Here are some thoughts on why the full lotus is recommended and practiced:
1. The AT student can see the benefits at a glance. This spine is long, and the torso is wide. The upper arms are gently externally rotated and there is maximal distance between the elbow and the thumb and forefinger. The knees go dramatically out and away. With this expansive form, we can easily notice the pulling down, shortening and narrowing that is the distraction from the simple activity of "just sitting".
2. It is possible to appreciate the antagonistic forces between the "down" at the sit bones and the "up" at the head/neck.
3. The full lotus is easy on the circulation. When sitting or kneeling for long periods the blood pools and the lower legs and feet. In the full lotus it easily re-enters the circulation.
4. Ones bottom and knees for a tripod. This is a very stable configuration. It is very helpful should the winds of desires and aversions kick up.
5. This may seem like a stretch, but the full lotus seems to recycle the energy that enters the legs. To me there seems a vital energy that flows into the legs and leaks out and away when on a kneeling bench or sitting in a chair. The full lotus recycles this energy nicely. Your experience may vary.
6. There is a sensation of tautness in the legs. Not tight, but definitely not loose. And this is reflected in the quality of the mind.
7. The full lotus helps one to stay warm. When wrapped in long robes it's easy to keep the lower legs and feet warm.
8. It's a dignified way to sit among the "alternative" crowd. Among the more traditional crowd it's an entertaining party trick.
For all the benefits it's a pity that the full lotus is not easy for us in the west. It's the external rotation of the hips that is the problem. The rest of the posture is very neutral and requires no flexibility or strength. When I first started sitting I sat on a high cushion and two smaller ones under my knees. Every few months I would arrange my cushions to effectively bring my feet a bit higher. It did take me a few years before I could sit in the full lotus with little distraction. Of course, there are a few yogic exercises that can accelerate the process.
I mention all this to recommend the full lotus to those who study the AT. It is a very useful posture for the AT crowd should they become interested in honing their skills of "inhibition" and "direction" with minimal distracting activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment