I find reading science to be a habit I have long cultivated, as it makes certain more physical chains of cause and effect more intelligible to me. Since I am engaged in practice now, reading science about practice is a pretty natural and fun thing to do. This forum seems likely to be a place to find others who are of a similar bent, while weeding out those people that like to apply a sciency sheen to what ever pop culture fad of the week is and have no actual experience of sitting meditation.
Perhaps that is and expectation I bring here that the bulk of the group doesn't share. And let it be stipulated that a science model of the brain doesn't touch the effort of sitting down day after day. Thanks, Chris Austin-Lane Sent from a cell phone On Oct 24, 2010, at 19:37, mike brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bill!, > > [Mike] Well, I can't speak for others, but this zen practioner finds such > articles both interesting and helpful. > [Bill!] I can understand that, but interesting and helpful for what? > Certainly not for your zen practice. > > > > I see my zen practice as a 24/7 thing (including the fast amounts of time > when I'm caught up in my thoughts/desires and aversions - coming back to 'the > now' is an indispensible part of the practice) and so I include everything in > my practice. An understanding of what happens physiologically is not > essential to my practice, but is IMHO useful in grounding the practice of > people starting off in Zen away from all things ethereal and metaphysical. > > > > [Mike] Science helps us get down to the 'nuts and bolts' of how and why > things are what they are. > [Bill!] Science is just another worldview, and it's viewpoint is no more > valid than any other worldview. It does help you create concepts of WHY and > WHAT things are, but all these are illusions. The 'nuts and bolts' are > fantasy (concepts) but very important for science because science focuses on > deconstruction. It is based on believing nothing exists as a whole in and of > itself, but everything is just a compilation of other things. > > I don't think science has an aversion to unity and maybe the deconstruction > process is essential to discover the underlying unity of everything - just as > zazen can be a deconstruction of the layers that obscure Buddha Nature. Each > layer is an illusion, but needs to be seen for what it is before it is let go > of. Science, or at least the natural sciences, castegorises things out of a > convenience for research (think of the vastness of each discipline) and not > because there is no connection. > > > [Mike] If we think, and appreciate, that science has helped us debunk most > religious dogma and superstition, then I find it hypocritical to not turn the > light of science on zen. > [Bill!] Science has merely replaced religious dogma and superstition. You > seem to have the idea that science shows us ultimate 'truth' rather than just > being another perspective on truth (reality) based on what we perceive to be > probabilities. Logic is not truth. Rationality is not truth. Buddha Nature is > truth because it is pure experience. > > I don't believe science shows us the ultimate 'truth' because we can't even > define it in the first place. Is it even an objective 'truth'? Never the > less, I'd still argue that the scientific method takes us closer to a > stripping of the superflous, supernatural dressing of zen which does more to > obscure zen than anything else. True, rationality and logic aren't truth, but > they are easier tools to work with cutting the path and are easier to put > down when the Truth is (re)discovered. > > > > > [Mike]Or perhaps we'd secretly like to keep zen "cool and mysterious"... ; ) > [Bill!] Zen might be thought of as 'cool', but it's certainly not at all > mysterious - and you know that as well as I do. > > > > Only when you've passed thru the gateless gate and met Buddha eyeball to > eyeball can you say such a thing... Hmm, maybe poetry and literature are > better tools for expressing zen?..... ; ) > > ...Bill! > > Mike > > > > >
