On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:32:03 -0700, Michael Sylvester: >This is not new.
I wasn't saying that it was. However, the essence of the NY Times article is the increasing use of mindfulness meditation as a clinical technique and its evaluation of effectiveness and efficacy. I believe that there have been a variety of studies already done comparaing systematic relaxation, guided imagery, and meditation in the context of dealing with phobias and other anxiety disorders and my recollection is that there is no real difference among them in producing a sense of relaxation. Learning the skills to deal with the phobic object or source of anxiety is another matter, better to be handled by a good clinician or a wise master. >There is a piece on Mindfulness in the Asian journals of Thomas Merton. >Merton was my novice master when I was studying to be a Trappist >monk at the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky in the late 1950s. No doubt. Of course, the basic ideas go back to the teachings of the Buddha, some 2500 years ago. For some background see the entry on Wikipedia (standard cautions apply): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness In the 1960s and 1970s, especially in the development of the human potential movement, a number of Buddhist and other Asian ideas were introduced into U.S. popular culture but enduring influences seem to be few and inconsistently used. Ellen Langer is perhaps "best" known for being associated with "mindfulness" and "mindlessness" but that is another kettle of fish. >In walking just walk,do not wobble. That reminds me... don't look for fish in the tree tops. For those that are interested in such things, I recommend the "Zen Comics" books by Ioanna Salajan for brief lessons and aphorisms in the Zen Buddhist tradition (Publisher is Charles E. Tuttle, Rutland, VT; available in paperback) >Mindfulness to me ironically is acting without being distracted by >thought processes. One major problem is that our cocenption of mindfulness is basic primarily on *explicit cognition*, that is, what we are aware of or paying attention. But as many contemporary social cognitive research now recognize, implicit cognition and environmental priming effects can have subtle effects on our behavior and consciousness without our realizing it. If one thinks of the discipline of meditation as, I believe to be the case in Zen Buddhism, trasnscending the categorization of daily activities which prevent one from directly perceiving an experience, then mindfulness, paradoxically, means that meditation can lead to perception unmediated by our interpretation of the stimuli and/or event, that is, the state of "no mind". From this perspective, I think, the following statement makes sense: "Even a good thing isn't as good as no thing." >I find the behavior mod technique of Thought Stopping just as effective, Okay but I don't think that thought stopping is really relevant here. Instead, the inability to stop thoughts might be more important: Buddhists say: Don't think of a monkey. Dan Wegner says: Don't think of a white bear. (Someone needs to fix up Wegner's entry on Wikipedia, in the meantime see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Bear_Phenomenon http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/ ) >More later. What is the sound of one hand clapping. The common mistake that people make when given a koan like the "one hand clapping" koan is that they think that the important thing is getting the "correct' answer to the question. The entry on koans at Wikipedia gives some insight but a critical point is that the answers to such questions come from experience and not reading and thinking. Or not. Anyway, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan Briefly, on the interpretation of a koan: |The purpose of koans is for a Zen practitioner's mind to |match an enlightened being's mind. Once a Zen practitioner |matches the mind of the master the koan makes sense |and the teaching point is realized. | |Zen teachers and practitioners insist that the meaning of a koan |can only be demonstrated in a live experience. Texts (including |koan collections and encyclopedia articles) cannot convey that |meaning. Yet the Zen tradition has produced a great deal of l |iterature, including thousands of koans and at least dozens of |volumes of commentary. Nevertheless, teachers have long alerted |students to the danger of confusing the interpretation of a koan |with the realization of a koan. When teachers say "do not confuse |the pointing finger with the moon", they indicate that awakening |is the standard - not ability to interpret. | |Even so, koans emerge from a literary context, and understanding |that context can often remove some - but presumably not all - of |the mystery surrounding a koan. For example, evidence[7] suggests |that when a monk asked Zhaozhou "does a dog have Buddha-nature |or not?", the monk was asking a question that students had asked |teachers for generations. The controversy over whether all beings |have the potential for enlightenment is even older[8] - and, in fact, |vigorous controversy[9] still surrounds the matter of Buddha nature. | |No amount of interpretation seems to be able to exhaust a koan, so |it's unlikely that there can be a "definitive" interpretation. One answer to the "does a dog have Buddha-nature" is "woof" (courtesy of Jack Kerouac). As for Michael Sylvester's one hand clapping koan: "Woof, woof!" -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
