Hi VL, all
I hoped Don would expand on the statement that "thought is not required,"
because it wasn't clear to me what the context was. Sometimes you hear the
idea that "you can't stop thinking... you're always thinking about
*something*" So if this was meant to be a rebuttal to that idea, then I'd
agree. Thought *can* be dropped.
(more below)
>Ian asked the right question. Is thought required for the process or for
>the end result? Is your computer monitor (screen and speakers) completely
>essential either? If I knew the organization of my computer well enough,
>I could eliminate the screen and speakers altogether and be able to type
>and print documents, defrag my hard drive, and pay my bills online all a
>priori, because the only thing that is really ever happening when a
>computer is used with or without the monitor is the opening and closing of
>electrical circuits in the body of the computer.
>
>
>
>The reason we use computers is not because we feel the need to manipulate
>tiny circuits. That is what robots and animals do. Have you ever seen an
>assembly line machine with a screen next to it so the machine can read
>what to do next? No! The monitor presents a cognizable, workable analogy
>of the circuits' activity that is not a "true" representation of the only
>tangible thing going on, the switching circuits, but it is customized to
>our perception so that we can point-and-click icons and type and read
>words, none of which exist in tiny circuits.
>
>
>
>We are humans. We use computers not just for organizing digital photos
>and pictures, but to look at the picture. We use computers not just for
>organizing digital music, but to listen to the music. We use computer
>monitors to experience, even though we are constantly unaware of the
>reality of every step in the process of using the computer (circuits
>switching). Our experience and goal is not the objective reality anyway,
>but just that experience itself. Maybe you have a cool looking screen
>saver. How cool do you think the programming code for that screensaver
>would look?
I think this is a great analogy against a philosophical position that I've
seen sometimes - that experience is an "illusion" and all that is "really
happening" is various neurons firing, and chemicals interacting, and
various body parts doing their thing. This one-sided perspective
unfortunately I think is somewhat prevalent in the medical field, when the
functioning of the body is seen *only* in those terms.
That perspective is completely true, as far as it goes, just as it is
completely true that what's "really happening" inside a computer is just
circuits switching. It just isn't the entire picture, nor is it the entire
picture within the context of trying to explain something which we want to
explain (whether that be a computer virus, or a biological one). Also,
trying to explain an event from the level of circuits switching or neurons
firing presents a huge descriptive challenge, and after all that work maybe
we still won't understand *why* anything is happening the way it is.
>So thought is not required just as much as computer speakers and screen
>are not. I invite those on this list who believe that enlightenment is a
>thoughtless state in which all things which are human must be abandoned,
>to turn off your computer, unplug the speakers and screen, restart the
>computer, and see how much work you get done. What happens on the monitor
>is all we can have and can know.
This last part, if I am interpreting it correctly as far as how the analogy
applies, I think goes too far. I am reading it as "thought is all we can
have and can know." Is that what is being said here?
>Yes, the monitor is an inefficient middle-man, and yes, thoughts are not
>required to execute the process, but the process was meant to not only be
>executed but also experienced in a form relatable to the senses.
There is a question here about the nature of the relationship between
thought and the senses. Or between thought and what is sensed. Do they
always come together?
>What is the point in memorizing each step in opening a photograph on the
>computer so that it could be done without a screen on which to view it in
>the first place? That's exactly what you are doing as long as you chase
>the so-called "Wooden Plank Enlightenment" The key is not to be without a
>mind, but to be in control of it. The meditation of wooden-plank zen
>involves killing the wild bull because it can not be ridden, while another
>meditation involves actually training the bull to be ridden.
There are a variety of perspectives on the place of thinking within
meditation. Some shoot for settling and stilling of thought, others just
let it arise and pass... and then there is a meditation in the sense of
thought-full reflection on a subject. I don't think we should say - only
this mode is correct, only this is useful and good for anything. Only this
one is relevant to enlightenment. I'm inclinded to think that they all
have a place and a purpose, but their place and purpose has to be understood.
As far as Zen practice goes... well even here there are a variety of
perspectives on that, depending on the teacher. There is koan practice,
following the breath, "just sitting" zazen.... and we could argue about
which one is the best and truest Zen practice.
But overall, I'd certainly agree that for life in general, it would be
great to be able to ride the wild bull instead of getting dragged around by
it. The big question is, what marks the difference between riding and
getting dragged?
Ian
>Remember; you are shooting at a moving target! Don't aim directly at the
>target, but lead your shots instead!
>
>Mr. VL
Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
