“I bow in repentance of any misdeeds lived, forgetting any of all the origins of the world that can be learned.”
This is #11 out of a series of 108 daily Buddhist affirmations that I am attempting to translate with my hands tied behind my back (well not really that, but I’m deliberately not seeking out translations on the internet, using only dictionary and grammar).
…
9. 부모님께 감사하는 마음을 잊고 살아 온 죄를 참회하며 절합니다.
“I bow in repentance of any misdeeds lived, forgetting my heart full of thanks to my ancestors.”
10. 일가 친척들의 공덕을 잊고 살아 온 죄를 참회하며 절합니다.
“I bow in repentance of any misdeeds lived, forgetting any of the pious acts of my kin.”
11. 배울 수있게 해 준 세상의 모든 인연들을 잊고 살아 온 죄를 참회하며 절합니다.
I would read this eleventh affirmation as: “I bow in repentance of any misdeeds lived, forgetting any of all the origins of the world that can be learned.”
This seems like one of the aspects of Buddhism that I find least attractive: a sort of epistemic nihilism, an abrogation of curiosity in the nature of reality. “We know the ‘real’ reality, so all this reality we see around us doesn’t really interest us.” Then again, that seems to be a feature of any kind of religious certainty, perhaps. Including faith-based atheism?
I’ve been thinking a lot about the “purity narratives” (which all of these affirmations reference, via the concept of repentance), too. They bother me. I’m not interested in purity, and I don’t view defilement (i.e. lack of purity) as a valid concept in a philosophically materialist (anti-transcendent) worldview. But even such as statement as “not a valid concept” is actually a sort of purity narrative, isn’t it? “Material reality is being polluted by concepts of purity! Oh no!” … stuck in a paradox of dialectical thought…
[UPDATE: So it occurs to me, on rereading this much later, that I have misunderstood this aphorism – this one, and all those that have the same structure “…misdeeds lived, forgetting…”. The “forgetting my X” is in fact an example of the “misdeeds lived” – which is to say, you’re repenting for failing to experience the feeling in question. This is especially relevant in the context of this one, since my misunderstanding sent me off on a bit of an ideological tangent about epistemology and “purity narratives”, that turns out to have been unjustified by the original text. The tangent stands, but the cause has disappeared. A koan?]
