From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: I like Zen (was Re: I like consciousness)
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:58:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <kf45PTu00WB80IYGcD@andrew.cmu.edu>, lord+@andrew.cmu.edu (Tom Lord) writes:

I don't mean that we
:would be wide-eyed and full of wonder, but that we would be helpless,
:entirely dependant organisms lost in an overwhelming sea of sensation.
:This might be fun for a few hours, but it isn't a healthy way to live :-)
:

I disagree with this. Ever try it? I would guess not, because this
description is not even close. I know it is kind of futile to put
the experience into words, I just try to give a flavor of it. If
anything, I would contend it is the healthiest way to live. You think
when it is appropriate to think, act when it is appropriate to act.

I am my most effective when I am not thinking. 

:Personally, i've taken the message of zen to be this: all of our
:scripts, models, and stock behaviors are there in our brains.  They
:are not the product of will that brings them to bear -- they are
:well-worn paths through the statespace of brainstates -- they are
:potential wells.  The nice thing about these paths, and our brains in
:general, is that they are self-optimizing.  

I disagree with this statement. Based on my observations of my self
and many other people, they are pretty random in whether they improve
or not. 

Furthermore, this may be what you have extracted from zen, but that is
one tiny part of zen.

Given lots of past
:experience and data about the present, our brains will tend to fall
:into helpful states.  

Sounds like you've been very fortunate in life. I observe most people
fall into the equivalent of hypnosis and stay there most of their
lives. 

Our brains can only fall into helpful states if you can let the data
in. If you're too busy telling yourself things should be this way or
things should be that way then you never have a chance to collect any
real data.

The zen stories often strike me as reminders
:that it is almost never worthwhile to anticipate or second-guess or
:direct what one's self will do.  

Better yet, they are reminders to JUST do.

The process is automatic and,
:generally speaking, better served by a `will' that wants to observe
:than one that wants to control.  Zen, i think, is about the boundries
:of the self and about tactics for harmonizing with the other.
:

Huh?

:I think that nowadays we might consider talking about zen, not only in
:phenomenological terms, but also in physiological terms.  I'm not sure
:it would work out -- but i think that instead of talking about the
:state of no-mind we could try to talk about ideals for how our
:attention should be directed.  Not that we could just place our
:attention arbitrarily, but having an ideal gives us something to
:notice about ourselves.  Its a source of, hopefully useful, feedback.
:Consider a person working some well-developed manual skill: no motion
:is wasted, the person is relaxed and alert, and the work is subtle,
:useful, and beautiful.  These things come about not because the person
:has no-mind, but because their attention, the work, and their library
:of skills are all feeding back on each other -- and the person is not
:trying for any more or less than is happening.

You have misunderstood what is meant by no-mind. As it is doomed to be
misunderstood  when one conceptualizes it. When a person is a master
in a physical skill, there is no thought at all in the action. There
is just a doing, and that's it. There is no trying in no-mind. "No
try. Do, not do. No Try"-Yoda

:
:I think we might also talk about zen politics.  After all, given the
:description above, its hard to see any action that wouldn't conform to
:the zen ideal...

Any action, performed in the right state of mind.

because after all, the control we are advised to give
:up is really an illusion, and no matter what else is going on, our
:brains are still just following their own rules.  Political thought
:resolves the paradox, i think.  When we are focused on control, it is
:not that our attention is operating outside of zen principals -- but
:it is the case that our attention is focused on conformance to social
:constructions.  When our attention is turned inward in such a way as
:to interfere with our own organisms there is still a zen craftsperson
:at work -- but that craftsperson is a social construct, a
:transpersonal phenomenon, and not necessarily one whose projects
:include the nurturing of human lives.

Could you please rephrase that. I don't understand this paragraph.

:
:I won't try to draw it out in this post, but i also think of zen
:teachings as similar to classical greek attitudes about moderation;
:also as similar to musical instruction that focuses on listening and
:reacting rather than on drill and control.
:
:
:  The 'goal' of Zen is intuitive understanding of existence. This is
:  beyond any conceptualization.
:
:An intuitive understanding of where one is at is different from a
:conceptualization.  For one thing, a conceptualization can be
:communicated while an intuition can not (without first being reduced
:to a conceptualization).  But i think there is hope that we can come
:to a conceptual (and ultimately technical) understanding of the
:processes that make up intution.
:

My original post was in response to someone's description of
meditation, and I tried to respond by giving a brief explanation of
what my form of meditation is like. If you find my explanations vague,
that cannot be helped, because it is purely experiential. It is not an
experience that can possibly be captured by words. Therefor, I can
only recommend the prerequisites for achieving such an experience.

If you would like to go off on a discussion of Buddhist psychology and
politics, that is all well and good. If you want to talk meditation,
talk meditation. But before you talk meditation, find a teacher and DO
meditation. Before you talk zen, spend some time DOING zen.

				yours in contentiousness,
					Lorenzo
-- 
"Once upon a time men were possessed    ******************************
by devils. Now they are not less        *  Lorenzo Farris            *
obsessed by ideas" -CG Jung             *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
					******************************
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness