abgrady@dciem.UUCP (Brian Grady) (06/29/84)
I find the surface agreement on this point between the behaviourists and the
Zen concept of No-Mind to be quite amusing, considering their
vastly differing origins.
Says the behaviourist: "Where is this mind? Show it to me!"
Says the buddhist: "You say you hear, and think. Who hears? What thinks?"
The Zen master continually prods his students, demanding that they
show him their Mind, or Ego that they are so sure exists, knowing that
the student cannot, since there is no such thing as self or mind.
The reasoning behind this? I apologise for any errors I make ahead
of time; it's a tricky concept which I don't fully grasp yet.
As I recall, the concept of a permanent and abiding ego or central
self is supposed to be an illusion arising from the actions of our
six senses (yes, six. The buddhists count the five external senses
of sight, hearing, touch taste, and smell, but they also include
conciousness as a sense, a sort of internal sense, I suppose).
The sensation (and that is all that it is, an illusion) of abiding
existence comes about because of the actions of our senses.
Our senses detect things, and pass them on to
the centres of conciousness. Our conciousness directs actions in
response to the sensations, and can remember doing this time and time
again. Gradually, it gets the idea that it has some kind of permanent
existence. It forgets that it really is just reacting to its environment,
and that if the environment changes, it too will change. There is no
abiding stuff here! A permanent kind of self is an illusion,
brought about by the actions of the senses and the ignorance of
the how awareness comes to be. Therefore, there is no "I".
Seeing sees; thinking thinks. A book is read, but no-one reads it.
I find this an interesting model compared to the behaviourist model.
If, as the Buddhists say, our 'self' is just a collection of learned
responses and reactions to our environment, and that the 'ego'
is an illusion resulting from sensory stimulation, does this
mean that the behaviourists now could have a philisophico/religious
platform to stand on? Any takers?
With apologies if the religious nature of this
submission is out of place.
Brian Grady
yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/03/84)
Show me this "it" which gets an idea that "it" has abiding stuff and which perceives illusions. If I say you cannot call it a mind, what will you call it? -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba
abgrady@dciem.UUCP (Brian Grady) (07/09/84)
I suppose that the Buddhists would call 'it' conciousness, which they define as a sense organ. Mind they tend to link with the idea that westerners would find akin to the 'soul' concept. That is, an abiding, unchanging essence that is the core of the person. The Buddhist 'conciousness' is a conditioned thing, constantly in flux, depending on the environment and past actions. It is not the core of the person, as we might tend to think the western mind is -- cogito ergo sum. The buddhists would not agree with Descartes: "I think therefore I think" would probably be about as far as they would go with the logic. Brian G.
yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/12/84)
<Not the Zen Buddhists bubbie, they wouldn't call it period> Joshu preached to the people. He said: "Cut off the heads of the Buddhas of Reward and Deliverance, and you will become a worthy one." A monk asked, "The one who cuts off the heads of the Buddhas of Reward and Deliverance, what kind of person is that?" Joshu said, "Not your kind." -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba