unsmoked - 06 October 2010 10:59 AM

I was wondering, ‘Is Saralynn a cynic like Traces Elk, or is this her way of illustrating, or demonstrating the darting mind mentioned in the OP?

The picture posted for saralynn is a fake.  She really has chipmunk cheeks from keeping her tongue so firmly planted in them so often. 

unsmoked - 06 October 2010 10:59 AM

As a science, Zen is saying, “Show me your original face.” 

Not sure I’d agree that Zen is a science (at least in current use of the term science), rather a technology. 

unsmoked - 06 October 2010 10:59 AM

Some of us bungie jump to shake the darting mind.  Some drive a race car at 250 mph.  Some drain a bottle of Chablis.  Some howl and bark like dogs at a fundamentalist service.  As Poor Richard mentioned above, we didn’t have a class in school that told us anything useful about the darting mind.

Got to start in first grade on that one!  Fortunately I had a grandmother who instilled some early advice and practice.

Ecurb Noselrub - 06 October 2010 11:22 AM

unsmoked - 06 October 2010 10:59 AM

As a science, Zen is saying, “Show me your original face.”

That assumes that we have an “original face.” Big assumption. If I am the product of the culture in which I am born, I have no “face” other than this one. If I can rise above my culture and free myself of its constraints, it is not my “original” face that I am showing, but a new one.

Mu

Or for folk from Texas, Moo.

burt - 06 October 2010 10:07 PM

Ecurb Noselrub - 06 October 2010 11:22 AM

unsmoked - 06 October 2010 10:59 AM

As a science, Zen is saying, “Show me your original face.”

That assumes that we have an “original face.” Big assumption. If I am the product of the culture in which I am born, I have no “face” other than this one. If I can rise above my culture and free myself of its constraints, it is not my “original” face that I am showing, but a new one.

Mu

Or for folk from Texas, Moo.

It’s hard to pin you Buddhists down, but I do know the smell of bullshit.

Ecurb Noselrub - 07 October 2010 03:32 AM

burt - 06 October 2010 10:07 PM

Ecurb Noselrub - 06 October 2010 11:22 AM

unsmoked - 06 October 2010 10:59 AM

As a science, Zen is saying, “Show me your original face.”

That assumes that we have an “original face.” Big assumption. If I am the product of the culture in which I am born, I have no “face” other than this one. If I can rise above my culture and free myself of its constraints, it is not my “original” face that I am showing, but a new one.

Mu

Or for folk from Texas, Moo.

It’s hard to pin you Buddhists down, but I do know the smell of bullshit.

Watch out or I’ll sic Wonder Warthog on you for a good old fashion Texas cow pie shoot-out.

BigRedFutbol: You guys haven’t read Hitchens on Mother T, have you?

She raised unaccounted-for millions of dollars, very little of which actually went towards improving the lives of impoverished people; in fact, she believed that the poor and the dying should stay that way, as an example for the rest of us and to give people like her someone to minister to.

I didn’t read the Hitchen’s book on Mother Teresa (loved the title:  The Missionary Position), but read several reviews and saw interviews.  I liked and disliked it for several reasons.

I liked it because I don’t believe in “saints” and I think our desire to create idols and worship illusions is a destructive human frailty.  Not only is it unrealistic, but guilt producing.

However, I thought Hitchen’s diatribe against Mother Teresa lacked depth and fairness.

No, she wasn’t a saint, but neither was she diabolical.  Yes, she was pig-headed , her tactics questionable, and her beliefs were certainly not politically correct with her views on homosexuality & abortion, etc., but, her motivation was sincere and arose from a burning sense of brotherhood and humanity and her desire to serve the poorest of the poor with love and care.

Don’t forget, Mother Teresa didn’t become a celebrity until rather late in life, but, prior to that, she grew up in Albania, started with nothing, was uncelebrated, and, after years of labor and overcoming obstacles, she developed the Missions of Charity, which now serves so many people in need.  Why did she do it?  Because she hungered for power?  Doubtful.  She claimed it was her “calling” and I believe her.  Also, in practical terms, no other charities or government agencies were helping these people and they were eating out of trashcans and dying on the street. 

Yes, as Hitchen’s claimed, she dined with dictators, like that creep from Haiti, but, she did it for a purpose…..she wanted to enter the country to help the people.  It wouldn’t have served her purpose to start accusing him of war crimes.  Besides, she wasn’t a political activist.

He also alleges that the medical care in the hospitals she established should have been more sophisticated given her access to funds.  Did he even stop to think that the hospitals wouldn’t have even existed if it were not for her?  What is he suggesting?  She stole the money and had a secret stash of gold and jewelry under her cot?

Yes, she exploited her fame, but, again, I don’t believe she had a scrapbook of herself.  She took her celebrity status seriously and neither wanted to disillusion or disappoint people.  Maybe her ego was involved as well, but, I don’t believe it was the primary motive for her actions.  She tried to please Christ, not her fan club.  The recent book composed of letters written to her confessor (which she wanted burned) showed her to be a women who was deeply anguished for most of her life, fearing that her faith was an illusion.  Yet, she was loyal to her vocation and never allowed her sorrow to show.

Personally, I think it would have been more helpful to humanity if she did express her fears instead of hiding them, but, that’s a judgment call I don’t want to make. 

But, some people…Hitchens, for instance, have no problem at all hurling judgment calls at her.

Besides, I hate black and white thinking.  If you’re going to write a book about Mother Teresa, describe the light as well as the dark.

Ecurb Noselrub - 06 October 2010 11:22 AM

unsmoked - 06 October 2010 10:59 AM

As a science, Zen is saying, “Show me your original face.”

That assumes that we have an “original face.” Big assumption. If I am the product of the culture in which I am born, I have no “face” other than this one. If I can rise above my culture and free myself of its constraints, it is not my “original” face that I am showing, but a new one.

If what isn’t you subsides for a minute, (as in relaxed, healthy, sound sleep) and you are in an ordinary, awake, attentive, responsive, nothing special frame of mind (Burt’s ‘mu’, which can be translated as a clear sky with no clouds), who are you?  Somebody else?

burt - 06 October 2010 09:58 PM

S.I. Hayakawa (1906 – 1992): “If you see in any given situation only what everyone else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of it.”

“Azande, in deploying their… beliefs, take as much account of experience as do modern Westerners.  At the same time, there are some important differences.  For whereas Azande seem to spend most of their time… defending beliefs about the causes of sickness and misfortune against experience, Western medical scientists seem more ready to expose equivalent beliefs to the possibly destructive effects of experience16.”

eh?

Poor Richard - 07 October 2010 03:47 PM

burt - 06 October 2010 09:58 PM

S.I. Hayakawa (1906 – 1992): “If you see in any given situation only what everyone else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of it.”

“Azande, in deploying their… beliefs, take as much account of experience as do modern Westerners.  At the same time, there are some important differences.  For whereas Azande seem to spend most of their time… defending beliefs about the causes of sickness and misfortune against experience, Western medical scientists seem more ready to expose equivalent beliefs to the possibly destructive effects of experience16.”

eh?

Ignore the 16, don’t know where that came from.

burt - 07 October 2010 10:42 PM

Poor Richard - 07 October 2010 03:47 PM

burt - 06 October 2010 09:58 PM

S.I. Hayakawa (1906 – 1992): “If you see in any given situation only what everyone else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of it.”

“Azande, in deploying their… beliefs, take as much account of experience as do modern Westerners.  At the same time, there are some important differences.  For whereas Azande seem to spend most of their time… defending beliefs about the causes of sickness and misfortune against experience, Western medical scientists seem more ready to expose equivalent beliefs to the possibly destructive effects of experience16.”

eh?

Ignore the 16, don’t know where that came from.

That’s a relief. You had me going there….

Poor Richard - 07 October 2010 11:53 PM

burt - 07 October 2010 10:42 PM

Poor Richard - 07 October 2010 03:47 PM

burt - 06 October 2010 09:58 PM

S.I. Hayakawa (1906 – 1992): “If you see in any given situation only what everyone else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of it.”

“Azande, in deploying their… beliefs, take as much account of experience as do modern Westerners.  At the same time, there are some important differences.  For whereas Azande seem to spend most of their time… defending beliefs about the causes of sickness and misfortune against experience, Western medical scientists seem more ready to expose equivalent beliefs to the possibly destructive effects of experience16.”

eh?

Ignore the 16, don’t know where that came from.

That’s a relief. You had me going there….

Experience 16 is one of the things you get when they take you to Area 51.

Poor Richard - 05 October 2010 09:00 PM

unsmoked - 05 October 2010 11:34 AM

Zen as a Science

Is it possible for the mind to see past darting, restless thoughts to observe, without analysis, the actual state of the body as a whole?  (including the tendency of thoughts to start darting). 

[...]

What I’m looking at here is how we can be free, enjoying ourselves one minute, and mentally embroiled and miserable the next.  Are we at the mercy of the mercurial nature of thoughts?

I have to give Buddhism credit for knowing more about meta-cognition, attention, introspection, and exotic mental states than anybody else in the world. But I can’t breathe in the atmosphere of “spirituality,” tradition, and authority they live in (although they don’t all embrace that equally).

As for your question, yes the vast majority are at the mercy of their thoughts because they have no cognitive training or discipline. They have no meta-cognitive skills. Such skills are not necessarily hard to develop but few ever encounter a venue for such training, and most of the venues that exist come with spiritual or mystical strings attached. We need to get meta-cognitive skill development out of the cult and into the classroom.

I can imagine students in the future experimenting with simple biofeedback devices.  They will be able to see a waving line or other signal on a monitor screen which indicates the activity of random/darting thoughts, or a signal that indicates a peaceful, attentive state.  Watching the line, the student, as though playing a video game, will quickly learn how to enter the peaceful, attentive state.

Generally, in our culture, such a state of mind isn’t seen, or recognized as creative or useful.  But maybe, as the Science of Mind is explored, researchers will conduct experiments in which, for example, a thousand students who use the biofeedback device and successfully maintain the peaceful/attentive state for 10 or 20 minutes a day, will be compared to a thousand comparable students who don’t maintain this state for 10 or 20 minutes a day.  The test scores, essays, interviews with researchers etc. of the two student groups can then, perhaps, indicate if the meditative period is a creative influence in human life.

It’s astonishing to me that we don’t know this stuff already. Your proposal is very modest.

Poor Richard - 08 October 2010 05:51 PM

It’s astonishing to me that we don’t know this stuff already. Your proposal is very modest.

Especially since Zen masters have been teaching it for well over a thousand years.  In Japan I asked people among the general public if they were interested in Zen.  “Oh no.  Too difficult!  Too difficult!” 

Possibly, simple biofeedback techniques will be able to help people inwardly ‘settle down’ and see for themselves what the adepts of old have been talking about.

unsmoked - 09 October 2010 09:53 AM

Poor Richard - 08 October 2010 05:51 PM

It’s astonishing to me that we don’t know this stuff already. Your proposal is very modest.

Especially since Zen masters have been teaching it for well over a thousand years.  In Japan I asked people among the general public if they were interested in Zen.  “Oh no.  Too difficult!  Too difficult!” 

Possibly, simple biofeedback techniques will be able to help people inwardly ‘settle down’ and see for themselves what the adepts of old have been talking about.

Apropos of your topic, Zen as a science, this is a quote from Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation

Bauwens: I’ll give you an example in the field of spiritual research. I have an example of one or two people like John Heron in New Zealand (of the South Pacific Center for Human Inquiry). Let’s say you do meditation. You have to choose a lineage from within which to work. If you do it according to the instructions of the lineage, there are certain things you are expected to experience while other experiences may be disqualified. In other words authoritarianism is built into the spiritual practice.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Heron

But what if we just agree to get together and practice a certain meditation. Lets say Zen. At the end of the day we get together and exchange our experiences. This then is the open source way to experience things which I personally consider to be real without having to accept the whole hierarchical and institutional context in which this has happened until today. You can see then how peer to peer is not something you apply just in the production of goods or the collection of knowledge.

Perhaps you just apply it to everything.

Every human activity that can be done by peers allocating their resources together can be peer-to-peer. You can therefore have something as unlikely seeming as a peer-to-peer spirituality.”

See also The next Buddha will be a collective: spiritual expression in the peer to peer era. By Michel Bauwens

I agree with Bauwens about the authoritarianism of spiritual traditions, but I disagree with him about the basic nature of spirituality itself, which even without the authoritarianism is overburdened with magical thinking.

If you subtract the magical thinking from spirituality, what’s left is 1) meta-cognition, 2) cognitive hygiene and 3) the scientific fact that all life is interconnected and interdependent.

I deconstruct spirituality in some detail in “Is Spiritual the new supernatural?”