Andrew S:
surely its the mind and grasping that causes the clinging and not the object.
Hey Andrew,
It was nice to put what I'm doing mentally on here since it actually opened up my awareness to how many things I've tried and used. I like what you've said here about the mind causing the grasping and not the object. I've always been fascinated by how my mind doesn't seem to cling to the pleasant aspects of metta practice which seems to strengthen your point. So my wondering of whether having a chant with intonation would cause clinging as opposed to chanting in a monotone form is cured to a degree. This all goes back to what Jordi said about intention and disposition. We don't chant to sound like American Idol contestants who solely care about how pleasant the singing is to the ear sense door.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia on the critique of melodious chanting:
"
Ghitassara Sutta
In the
Ghitassara Sutta (
Anguttara Nikaya 5.209), the Buddha teaches:Bhikkhus, there are five dangers of reciting the Dhamma with a musical intonation. What five?Oneself gets attached to the sound, others get attached to the
sound, householders are annoyed, saying, “Just as we sing, these sons of
the Sakyan sing”, the concentration of those who do not like the sound
is destroyed, and later generations copy it.These, monks, are the five dangers of reciting the Dhamma with a musical intonation.
[10]Defense of chanting
John Daido Loori justified the use of chanting sutras by referring to Zen master
Dōgen.
[11] Dōgen is known to have refuted the statement "Painted rice cakes will
not satisfy hunger". This statement means that sutras, which are just
symbols like painted rice cakes, cannot truly satisfy one's spiritual
hunger. Dōgen, however, saw that there is no separation between metaphor
and reality. "There is no difference between paintings, rice cakes, or
any thing at all".
[12] The symbol and the symbolized were inherently the same, and thus only the sutras could truly satisfy one's spiritual needs.To understand this non-dual relationship experientially, one is told to practice liturgy intimately.
[13] In distinguishing between ceremony and liturgy,
Dōgen states, "In ceremony there are forms and there are sounds, there is
understanding and there is believing. In liturgy there is only
intimacy." The practitioner is instructed to listen to and speak liturgy
not just with one sense, but with one's "whole body-and-mind". By
listening with one's entire being, one eliminates the space between the
self and the liturgy. Thus, Dōgen's instructions are to "listen with the
eye and see with the ear". By focusing all of one's being on one
specific practice, duality is transcended. Dōgen says, "Let go of the
eye, and the whole body-and-mind are nothing but the eye; let go of the
ear, and the whole universe is nothing but the ear." Chanting intimately
thus allows one to experience a non-dual reality. The liturgy used is a
tool to allow the practitioner to transcend the old conceptions of self
and other. In this way, intimate liturgy practice allows one to realize
emptiness (
sunyata), which is at the heart of Zen Buddhist teachings."
I don't think I fully understand what Dōgen was saying in this quote but it sounds quite similar to what I said at the end of my reply to Jordi!