1 2 > 
 
   
 

How to be no different from the Buddha and the founder of Zen

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8633
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
14 February 2018 11:28
 

Speaking of the crowning meditation, Zen master Yuansou said, “Real Zennists set a single eye on the state before the embryo is formed, before any signs become distinct.  This opens up and clears the mind, so that it penetrates the whole universe.  Then they are no different from the Buddha and the founder of Zen.”

(Yuansou quoted from the book, ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary)

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
18 February 2018 21:46
 

Thanks, that’s a cool quote. On a somewhat related note, here’s an idea from somewhat later in neonate development that fascinates me in a koan-like way.


How do infants code match?


It doesn’t seem to have metaphysical implications at first, I guess. But when you really think of it - how do tiny babies imitate? They take in information from one modality (seeing it, generally) and, with no feedback (infants did this for eons long before mirrors were invented, after all,) translate it to another - interoceptive awareness. That is a fancy way of saying that when you smile or stick your tongue out at a baby, and they smile or stick their tongue out back, they have no way of seeing that their movement matches yours. They are born knowing that a sight matches a feeling.


What does that say about the nature of information in our universe?

All of it together was the river of occurrences, the music of life. And when Siddhartha listened attentively to this river, to this thousand-voiced song, when he listened neither for the sorrow nor for the laughter, when he did not attach his soul to any one voice and enter into it with his ego but rather heard all of them, heard the whole, the oneness— then the great song of the thousand voices consisted only of a single word: Om, perfection.

......


There are stones that feel like oil or soap, others that feel like leaves, others like sand, and each one is special and prays Om in its own way, each is Brahman, but at the same time and to just as great an extent, each one is a stone, is oily or soapy, and precisely this pleases me and seems to me wondrous and deserving of worship.

Hesse, Hermann. Siddhartha

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
23 February 2018 18:33
 
NL. - 18 February 2018 09:46 PM

Thanks, that’s a cool quote. On a somewhat related note, here’s an idea from somewhat later in neonate development that fascinates me in a koan-like way.


How do infants code match?


It doesn’t seem to have metaphysical implications at first, I guess. But when you really think of it - how do tiny babies imitate? They take in information from one modality (seeing it, generally) and, with no feedback (infants did this for eons long before mirrors were invented, after all,) translate it to another - interoceptive awareness. That is a fancy way of saying that when you smile or stick your tongue out at a baby, and they smile or stick their tongue out back, they have no way of seeing that their movement matches yours. They are born knowing that a sight matches a feeling.


What does that say about the nature of information in our universe?

Maybe it says more about imitation being instinctual in humans…

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/science/children-learn-by-monkey-see-monkey-do-chimps-dont.html

 

 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
23 February 2018 20:28
 
proximacentauri - 23 February 2018 06:33 PM
NL. - 18 February 2018 09:46 PM

Thanks, that’s a cool quote. On a somewhat related note, here’s an idea from somewhat later in neonate development that fascinates me in a koan-like way.


How do infants code match?


It doesn’t seem to have metaphysical implications at first, I guess. But when you really think of it - how do tiny babies imitate? They take in information from one modality (seeing it, generally) and, with no feedback (infants did this for eons long before mirrors were invented, after all,) translate it to another - interoceptive awareness. That is a fancy way of saying that when you smile or stick your tongue out at a baby, and they smile or stick their tongue out back, they have no way of seeing that their movement matches yours. They are born knowing that a sight matches a feeling.


What does that say about the nature of information in our universe?

Maybe it says more about imitation being instinctual in humans…

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/science/children-learn-by-monkey-see-monkey-do-chimps-dont.html


What you reference here is a somewhat different topic.


You are talking about whether or not humans imitate instinctively (they probably do, at least to a large extent.) I am talking about the implication of babies (apparently - there are different schools of thought on imitation so I won’t say this is 100% a given) being able to match the sight of another person with the interoceptive ‘feeling’ of that person’s actions either from birth or very early in development.


One of the most common examples of infant imitation is infants sticking out their tongue, because this skill develops so early - some people say it is present at birth. There is some debate over whether or not infants can actually do this as new, newborns (some studies say yes, some say it is a common enough behavior that it’s difficult to rule out the idea that they’re simply reacting to stimuli in general - newer research now says ‘no’, but that may be replaced by newer research still, who knows) but either way, they can imitate this action very early on. In the first few months of life, far before they could have learned this in any kind of conscious way. This seems more indicative of their ‘fourth trimester’ ending and their nervous system coming more fully online than a learned process.


Anyways, the salient point here is that infants can apparently see something, and know that they are doing that something, presumably based on feedback from their own bodies as they move various muscles and so on. Even though they have no means of seeing themselves. They are not matching sight to sight, they are matching sight to feeling - with no teaching, no training.


What kind of internal, felt mirror of the external world would allow for this? It really is koan-like, to my mind.

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
25 February 2018 11:15
 
NL. - 23 February 2018 08:28 PM
proximacentauri - 23 February 2018 06:33 PM
NL. - 18 February 2018 09:46 PM

Thanks, that’s a cool quote. On a somewhat related note, here’s an idea from somewhat later in neonate development that fascinates me in a koan-like way.


How do infants code match?


It doesn’t seem to have metaphysical implications at first, I guess. But when you really think of it - how do tiny babies imitate? They take in information from one modality (seeing it, generally) and, with no feedback (infants did this for eons long before mirrors were invented, after all,) translate it to another - interoceptive awareness. That is a fancy way of saying that when you smile or stick your tongue out at a baby, and they smile or stick their tongue out back, they have no way of seeing that their movement matches yours. They are born knowing that a sight matches a feeling.


What does that say about the nature of information in our universe?

Maybe it says more about imitation being instinctual in humans…

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/science/children-learn-by-monkey-see-monkey-do-chimps-dont.html


What you reference here is a somewhat different topic.


You are talking about whether or not humans imitate instinctively (they probably do, at least to a large extent.) I am talking about the implication of babies (apparently - there are different schools of thought on imitation so I won’t say this is 100% a given) being able to match the sight of another person with the interoceptive ‘feeling’ of that person’s actions either from birth or very early in development.


One of the most common examples of infant imitation is infants sticking out their tongue, because this skill develops so early - some people say it is present at birth. There is some debate over whether or not infants can actually do this as new, newborns (some studies say yes, some say it is a common enough behavior that it’s difficult to rule out the idea that they’re simply reacting to stimuli in general - newer research now says ‘no’, but that may be replaced by newer research still, who knows) but either way, they can imitate this action very early on. In the first few months of life, far before they could have learned this in any kind of conscious way. This seems more indicative of their ‘fourth trimester’ ending and their nervous system coming more fully online than a learned process.


Anyways, the salient point here is that infants can apparently see something, and know that they are doing that something, presumably based on feedback from their own bodies as they move various muscles and so on. Even though they have no means of seeing themselves. They are not matching sight to sight, they are matching sight to feeling - with no teaching, no training.


What kind of internal, felt mirror of the external world would allow for this? It really is koan-like, to my mind.

Infants stick their tongues often and they can mirror their mother’s facial expressions very early on. I would be hesitant to ascribe this behavior to anything else other than normal instinctual human infant behavior, unless proven otherwise.

I

 

 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
25 February 2018 12:39
 
proximacentauri - 25 February 2018 11:15 AM

Infants stick their tongues often and they can mirror their mother’s facial expressions very early on. I would be hesitant to ascribe this behavior to anything else other than normal instinctual human infant behavior, unless proven otherwise.

I


I’m not understanding your point here. Normal instinctual behavior covers many things that have a different basis. It is normal instinctual behavior for birds to fly and fish to swim adeptly in the ocean. Human babies do not fly or swim adeptly in the ocean.


Saying something is normal and instinctual is kind of neither here nor there when it comes to the point I was making about code matching. It would be like if I talked about birds having hollow bones, wings, and an aerodynamic shape that allow for flight, and you were like “Hollow bones? Flying is normal instinctual behavior for a bird, I wouldn’t ascribe it to anything else.” The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
25 February 2018 12:46
 

This article may explain the background better than I can, btw:


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051326

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8633
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
26 February 2018 12:19
 
unsmoked - 14 February 2018 11:28 AM

Speaking of the crowning meditation, Zen master Yuansou said, “Real Zennists set a single eye on the state before the embryo is formed, before any signs become distinct.  This opens up and clears the mind, so that it penetrates the whole universe.  Then they are no different from the Buddha and the founder of Zen.”

(Yuansou quoted from the book, ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary)

Zen master Yuanwu commented, “At all times you remain peaceful and tranquil, without having anything whatsoever hanging on your mind.”

Another Zen master said, “The ground of mind does not produce useless plants.” 

 

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
27 February 2018 15:55
 
NL. - 25 February 2018 12:39 PM
proximacentauri - 25 February 2018 11:15 AM

Infants stick their tongues often and they can mirror their mother’s facial expressions very early on. I would be hesitant to ascribe this behavior to anything else other than normal instinctual human infant behavior, unless proven otherwise.

I


I’m not understanding your point here. Normal instinctual behavior covers many things that have a different basis. It is normal instinctual behavior for birds to fly and fish to swim adeptly in the ocean. Human babies do not fly or swim adeptly in the ocean.


Saying something is normal and instinctual is kind of neither here nor there when it comes to the point I was making about code matching. It would be like if I talked about birds having hollow bones, wings, and an aerodynamic shape that allow for flight, and you were like “Hollow bones? Flying is normal instinctual behavior for a bird, I wouldn’t ascribe it to anything else.” The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

Right, the point I was attempting to make is that an infant’s behavior of sticking out its tongue in response to its mother sticking out hers does not necessarily mean there’s something magical happening with information flow in the universe… in other words, ‘woo’.

 

 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
27 February 2018 20:46
 
proximacentauri - 27 February 2018 03:55 PM
NL. - 25 February 2018 12:39 PM
proximacentauri - 25 February 2018 11:15 AM

Infants stick their tongues often and they can mirror their mother’s facial expressions very early on. I would be hesitant to ascribe this behavior to anything else other than normal instinctual human infant behavior, unless proven otherwise.

I


I’m not understanding your point here. Normal instinctual behavior covers many things that have a different basis. It is normal instinctual behavior for birds to fly and fish to swim adeptly in the ocean. Human babies do not fly or swim adeptly in the ocean.


Saying something is normal and instinctual is kind of neither here nor there when it comes to the point I was making about code matching. It would be like if I talked about birds having hollow bones, wings, and an aerodynamic shape that allow for flight, and you were like “Hollow bones? Flying is normal instinctual behavior for a bird, I wouldn’t ascribe it to anything else.” The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

Right, the point I was attempting to make is that an infant’s behavior of sticking out its tongue in response to its mother sticking out hers does not necessarily mean there’s something magical happening with information flow in the universe… in other words, ‘woo’.


I feel like you’re conflating ‘woo’ with ‘That sounds weird to me!’. A lot of science sounds weird to people. Arguably, science has always been the rebel in the room shaking up common sense intuitions, not confirming them.


Aside from that, the idea that information is translatable into different formats is not only not controversial (how do radio waves make music in a radio, after all,) but pretty much a given when it comes to infant imitation. We know that they are translating information one way or the other, we just don’t know how. But the idea that it’s happening is some way is not, that I know of, even especially controversial. This is why I said that, for me, it’s koan like. We see this happening in many places in our universe, from radio waves to computers to the transmission of information among humans. Even if I understood the physics of this perfectly, I like to think it would not detract from the profundity I see in this dynamic.

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
28 February 2018 23:17
 
unsmoked - 26 February 2018 12:19 PM
unsmoked - 14 February 2018 11:28 AM

Speaking of the crowning meditation, Zen master Yuansou said, “Real Zennists set a single eye on the state before the embryo is formed, before any signs become distinct.  This opens up and clears the mind, so that it penetrates the whole universe.  Then they are no different from the Buddha and the founder of Zen.”

(Yuansou quoted from the book, ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary)

Zen master Yuanwu commented, “At all times you remain peaceful and tranquil, without having anything whatsoever hanging on your mind.”

Another Zen master said, “The ground of mind does not produce useless plants.”


Zen continues to strike me as akin to the apathetic resignation of Zen Master Frankie J when he says “It’s been a rough road baby just let it go”. When you subtract ‘right effort’ from the equation, it’s not a concepts that particularly makes sense to me as a spiritual path. I do acknowledge that those who know about such things tend to say there is a meeting point where effort and effortlessness converge, however.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8633
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
01 March 2018 09:58
 
NL. - 28 February 2018 11:17 PM
unsmoked - 26 February 2018 12:19 PM
unsmoked - 14 February 2018 11:28 AM

Speaking of the crowning meditation, Zen master Yuansou said, “Real Zennists set a single eye on the state before the embryo is formed, before any signs become distinct.  This opens up and clears the mind, so that it penetrates the whole universe.  Then they are no different from the Buddha and the founder of Zen.”

(Yuansou quoted from the book, ‘ZEN ESSENCE - The Science of Freedom’ - translated and edited by Thomas Cleary)

Zen master Yuanwu commented, “At all times you remain peaceful and tranquil, without having anything whatsoever hanging on your mind.”

Another Zen master said, “The ground of mind does not produce useless plants.”


Zen continues to strike me as akin to the apathetic resignation of Zen Master Frankie J when he says “It’s been a rough road baby just let it go”. When you subtract ‘right effort’ from the equation, it’s not a concepts that particularly makes sense to me as a spiritual path. I do acknowledge that those who know about such things tend to say there is a meeting point where effort and effortlessness converge, however.

At mealtime, do you use right effort to taste the soup?

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
01 March 2018 12:50
 
unsmoked - 01 March 2018 09:58 AM

At mealtime, do you use right effort to taste the soup?


At mealtime today, I mistakenly poured my salad dressing on my black beans (and was going to go ahead and do a full switch, saying to heck with it and putting the sour cream on the salad, except I wasn’t hungry by the time I finished the beans, which were surprisingly not bad covered in salad dressing.)


So… yeah.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8633
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
02 March 2018 11:49
 
NL. - 01 March 2018 12:50 PM
unsmoked - 01 March 2018 09:58 AM

At mealtime, do you use right effort to taste the soup?


At mealtime today, I mistakenly poured my salad dressing on my black beans (and was going to go ahead and do a full switch, saying to heck with it and putting the sour cream on the salad, except I wasn’t hungry by the time I finished the beans, which were surprisingly not bad covered in salad dressing.)


So… yeah.

This summer, your bean salad gets a ribbon at the County Fair.  (don’t let on you used Newman’s Own Italian)

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
03 March 2018 12:05
 
unsmoked - 02 March 2018 11:49 AM
NL. - 01 March 2018 12:50 PM
unsmoked - 01 March 2018 09:58 AM

At mealtime, do you use right effort to taste the soup?


At mealtime today, I mistakenly poured my salad dressing on my black beans (and was going to go ahead and do a full switch, saying to heck with it and putting the sour cream on the salad, except I wasn’t hungry by the time I finished the beans, which were surprisingly not bad covered in salad dressing.)


So… yeah.

This summer, your bean salad gets a ribbon at the County Fair.  (don’t let on you used Newman’s Own Italian)


Sweet. Now I just have to create a market for my innovative sour cream salad dressing.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8633
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
03 March 2018 12:59
 
NL. - 03 March 2018 12:05 PM
unsmoked - 02 March 2018 11:49 AM
NL. - 01 March 2018 12:50 PM
unsmoked - 01 March 2018 09:58 AM

At mealtime, do you use right effort to taste the soup?


At mealtime today, I mistakenly poured my salad dressing on my black beans (and was going to go ahead and do a full switch, saying to heck with it and putting the sour cream on the salad, except I wasn’t hungry by the time I finished the beans, which were surprisingly not bad covered in salad dressing.)


So… yeah.

This summer, your bean salad gets a ribbon at the County Fair.  (don’t let on you used Newman’s Own Italian)


Sweet. Now I just have to create a market for my innovative sour cream salad dressing.

Here’s a photo.  Tweek this by the addition of slivered Greek olives?  https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/how-to-give-your-salad-dressing-a-creamy-upgrade-article 

On Discovery Channel’s Shark Tank, entrepreneurs say they invested their kids’ college fund and their parents’ nest egg to get started.  (admitted, their ideas aren’t as good as an innovative sour cream salad dressing).

 
 
 1 2 >