Microcosmic Orbit Question

[HighKick]

Right, the emptiness of words. I see what you mean. You dare not utter a noun for fear of missing the meaning. However, as the Diamond Sutra relays (and as neuroscience has demonstrated): “All living beings are to be led to Nirvāṇa. Yet after beings have been liberated, truly no being has been liberated. Why? Because no bodhisattva who is a real bodhisattva entertains the perception of a self, a person, a being, or a life-span (Section 3). So, where is the Self that has labeled itself? This is one serious question. I spoke of neuroscience's findings on "I." Here we go via paraphrase: Back in the 90s, neuroscience began piecing together the discovery that our Narrator ("I") is a projection of the Default Mode Network, which is an evolved network that allowed Homo sapiens to see icons on the horizon and remember their whereabouts (food, water, shelter). So, where is the "I" that labels itself? Interesting, yes? Last, you might recall the Buddhist concept of causality. In other words, dependent origination. In such a view, the Self (DMN) is not the ultimate agent of causation.

Question: You said "you" stopped trying to prove XYZ. Are you nodding to the DMN, or some dualistic ghost in the machine?
Question: How do you know qi is not teaching you? There is no agent of causation according to the Buddhism you nod to.
Question: How can fictional Narrators feel anything? Have you ever read the "Heart Sutra?"

"No feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness" (Kwan Um version).

I am sorry if this DMN has soured or rankled your DMN. Be well.

What!?!?

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

What!?!?

My prompt is now closed, but I will now freely answer questions backed by me twenty-five years of reading books on neuroscience and Mahayana Buddhism (with some Indian and Tibetan philosophy woven within).

My research began with my martial arts habit. Remember, Chinese martial arts points to the story of kung-fu being brought to Shaolin by Bodhidharma, a "historical" figure that Zen groups often look to as the "first patriarch." So, in this cultural soup, physical exercises and spiritual endeavors go hand in hand. However, in modern clubs and gyms, physicalism and the art of making a buck has forced a divorce between these two deep cultural forces.

This response is built upon two patterns. One is ancient and one is modern. I will consider the latter first. Beginning in the 90s, neuroscience began mapping out how the "I" narrator is developed in the brain. The regions known as the medial prefrontal complex, posterior cingulate cortex, and the inferior parietal lobule are the ingredients of our Default Mode Network (our narrator). So, the idea that the body is the "I" or that thoughts are identical to the "I" have been updated. Many will not be aware of this if they do not read about this matter. Indeed, most people live out their lives not knowing exactly what the "I" represents.

Furthermore, Mahayana's Diamond Sutra began this question long, long ago. Throughout its text, as you can see in my quotation, the question is if there are any beings to be liberated. Many garden-variety Buddhists have no idea about this sutra, so it is often quite a surprise to suddenly stumble upon it. So, the problem these two experiences (Neuroscience and Mahayana Buddhism) point out is the problem of how a basic physicalist suddenly discovers that the notion of an "I" is and has been in question.

In closing, as we martial artists might remember, the Japanese art of Kyudo via Zen utilizes the idea of letting go of the I-narrator in order to make a bullseye. In fact, the target is the Self ("I" is not rooted in the brain any longer, which points to Zen's nondualist bones). If we widen this process, we will see that the narrator is great as a type of behavior-management system in Darwin's playground, however, when we double down on its material existence outside of its DMN essence, we lose the plot. Remember, Donald Hoffman and his team of mathematicians ran one-thousand or more evolutionary simulations in a quest to find out if humans evolved to "see the truth." The answer: No. We evolved to see food sources, sources of water, and habitation. According to their experiments, we have a 0% chance of seeing reality-as-is. Our occipital lobe feeds us a 3d map to the best of its ability. However, as the Kyudo archer might tell us: Don't confuse the map for the terrain.

Now, do I care if people reject these findings and stick to physicalism? No, that is their prerogative. It will not bother me in the slightest.

Do I care if the entire population rejects even the example of Kyudo and Zen? No, that is the prerogative of each DMN.

Have a superb Saturday, sir!

 

[Marsha Larts]

What!?!?

Synthetic

A bot, not necessarily telling someone what to say, but how to say it.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Synthetic

A bot, not necessarily telling someone what to say, but how to say it.

Sounds great.
After writing two assays on the fly, I've pretty much said what I can.

Helpful Books: If you are truly interested in learning more, please read any of the four below or all of them if you wish. Interested martial proponents might begin with B.

a. The Compass of Zen by Seung Sahn
b. The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman
c. Materialism is Baloney by Bernardo Kastrup
d. The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker


--Best regards.

 

[everything]

Everything is energy (E=mc^2). If "mind" is an "emergent property" of energy, does that mean mind (energy) becomes aware of Qi (energy)? In a sense, the system becomes aware of itself.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Everything is energy (E=mc^2). If "mind" is an "emergent property" of energy, does that mean mind (energy) becomes aware of Qi (energy)? In a sense, the system becomes aware of itself.

Here is today's posting by Zen Master Jackson Peterson. Remember, Zen's connection to Japanese martial arts and Chinese martial arts is historically deep. Enjoy.

"Who Is Responsible for Thinking and the Thoughts That Are Thought?

Just like atmospheric conditions produce all the manifestations of weather, including moments of thunder and lightning, likewise the conditions within the neurons of the brain and brain activity are what produce thinking, thoughts, and the thoughts believed to be real—as well as the sense that there’s a “me” that’s thinking the thoughts and who owns the thoughts.

It’s the totality of the 86 billion neurons in the brain that are doing the thinking as an aspect of the biocomputer brain. Thoughts are generated by the neurons. There’s no one in there who is doing the thinking other than the network configurations of billions of neurons.
There’s no self in there who is doing the thinking, because the self itself is a thought construct of billions of neurons. And of course, behaviors and actions emerge from various patterns of thinking, which are generated by the billions of neurons that generate them.

There’s no small soul or autonomous self that is directing the thinking, controlling the thoughts, making decisions, and acting. All of that is like the atmospheric conditions which produce the weather. Likewise, all brain activity is nothing more than the so-called atmospheric conditions, or states of weather, occurring in the brain—including the sense of self as a thinker.

And if you notice when reading this how it produces a strange sense of there being no self at all, that experience is called anattā in the Pāli language spoken by the Buddha. It was a central pillar of the insight that the “self” is nothing more than (via the use of modern memes) a fabrication of neurons—or should I say, that the neurons themselves generated this insight."

 

[isshinryuronin]

Chinese martial arts points to the story of kung-fu being brought to Shaolin by Bodhidharma, a "historical" figure that Zen groups often look to as the "first patriarch." So, in this cultural soup, physical exercises and spiritual endeavors go hand in hand.

I think it is overreaching to say Bodhidharma brought kung fu to Shaolin. There was a mix of "spiritual endeavors" and physical exercises, but this doesn't mean it was kung fu, despite the legend. I don't believe there is any evidence of an effective, organized empty hand system taught prior to 1500. Early Shaolin skills were mostly spear combat and were military-related during this time as the monks served in the Ming dynasty army when called. There are several written accounts of their weapons skill.

It was only after the Ming fell to the Qing in around 1600 that Shaolin's military connection was no longer needed and that civilian empty hand MA took off and became the focus of the Shaolin monks. Taoist/Zen philosophy became ingrained into CMA about this time.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

I think it is overreaching to say Bodhidharma brought kung fu to Shaolin. There was a mix of "spiritual endeavors" and physical exercises, but this doesn't mean it was kung fu, despite the legend. I don't believe there is any evidence of an effective, organized empty hand system taught prior to 1500. Early Shaolin skills were mostly spear combat and were military-related during this time as the monks served in the Ming dynasty army when called. There are several written accounts of their weapons skill.

It was only after the Ming fell to the Qing in around 1600 that Shaolin's military connection was no longer needed and that civilian empty hand MA took off and became the focus of the Shaolin monks. Taoist/Zen philosophy became ingrained into CMA about this time.

The important point is that I said "story." I did not say historical fact. The entire saga of the myth is in question (for me) just like many other martial myths. Also, note the use of quotation marks around "historical," which implies my deep suspicion. My entire statement you quoted was smeared in my use of irony. However, "times being what they are" (Stoppard), catching tone is often difficult on the internet. Personally, as a Zen student of Bob Moore (R.I.P.), I find the whole Bodhidharma myth just that...a myth.

As for "kung-fu" and its magical appearance as a sudden development in human history, I am highly suspicious. In fact, in terms of the entire Shaolin story, I am even more suspicious. Furthermore, I note that you do not use in-line citations. I don't know why, however, I shrug and go on. Remember, in-line citations are absolutely necessary in order to convey clear and concise historical details. Readers want to know where the information comes from originally.

As for the weapon-based approach ("spear"), and even though I have no idea where you get your data from (in-text is king), I agree that my own feelings (suspicions) about your spear idea (Hsing-I?) possesses the ring of truth. For example, I possess training modes from a particular strain of "Tibetan" White Crane (I don't believe the origin story at all). Through years of practice, I found that I could substitute the "empty-hands" with a mace, sword, shield, and dagger effectively with only a tiny tweak. So, in the "from weapon to bare fist" idea, we are in an agreement it seems.

To be honest, I don't really check this thread all that much. Most of my work is done on my blog. Feel free to PM me if you wish to have more conversations.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The important point is that I said "story." I did not say historical fact. The entire saga of the myth is in question (for me) just like many other martial myths. Also, note the use of quotation marks around "historical," which implies my deep suspicion. My entire statement you quoted was smeared in my use of irony.

I did not mean to infer that you personally advocated the "story." I was addressing the story, itself. My apologies for the way it sounded.

As for the weapon-based approach ("spear"), and even though I have no idea where you get your data from (in-text is king)

"At this point in time (16th century) there are no serious professional references to Bare-Hand techniques in the monastery, but only to fighting with weapons." Cohen, I. (2017) Karate Uchina-Di, p. 238. This is but one of a number of relevant quotes and attributed historical excerpts from his 44-page chapter on Shaolin MA.

Cohen's biography lists extensive and varied TMA training over 50+ years and that he served in the Israeli Directorate of Military Intelligence. His book is historically and culturally widest in scope (over 600 pages) of any TMA book I've come across and seems extremely well researched with the bibliography listing over 80 primary sources.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

I did not mean to infer that you personally advocated the "story." I was addressing the story, itself. My apologies for the way it sounded.

"At this point in time (16th century) there are no serious professional references to Bare-Hand techniques in the monastery, but only to fighting with weapons." Cohen, I. (2017) Karate Uchina-Di, p. 238. This is but one of a number of relevant quotes and attributed historical excerpts from his 44-page chapter on Shaolin MA.

Cohen's biography lists extensive and varied TMA training over 50+ years and that he served in the Israeli Directorate of Military Intelligence. His book is historically and culturally widest in scope (over 600 pages) of any TMA book I've come across and seems extremely well researched with the bibliography listing over 80 primary sources.

Thank you so very much for doing this. I wish I could forward you a forum award.

In order to challenge my own suspicions, I bought Dr. Meir Shahar's The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion and the Chinese Martial Arts. So far, I find it quite revealing. As Shahar says, "By the 1990s, the temple attracted more than a million tourists a year." Funny is it not? It's difficult, in my opinion, to kill a dream; however, it seems it's absolutely ok to charge folks as they are dreaming. Also, Shahar reports that the tourist industry in question (in the 90s) brought "in $5 million annually." I am reminded of the question: "Who is dragging around this dead body?" Some say Huang Po asked this of a student; some say it was Linji.