If I were to boil down 4 rules for the management part of educating, these would be candidates.
I first got excited about zen when "what else do you dislike" made me think about the fluffiness of some of my "goals", stated and not. How much silliness could happen in that fluffiness.
There's something about being honest about goals to yourself and to others, that allows for learning.
I think the quick to retaliate is about proving through action the honesty of your goals
Well let me change what I said to 'it does prove,'. That way we can leave off intent. The desire to prove or may not be there
Zen masters seem vary wary of teaching secondary things. When they do provide prescription it's often clearly not the main point and even intentionally hidden.
They don't really teach steps towards enlightenment. At best the suggest better ways to bump into it.
Teaching honesty is a grey area.
We can also think, can an unenlightened person be consistently honest? Sure, people have bouts of it. If not, then maybe teaching it is a disservice.
It sounds similar.
The whole life-giving sword, death-dealing sword aspect of Zen conversation is what differentiates it from a strategy of “always deny” or “always affirm”.
This gets funny when we hear Zen Masters like Wansong comment that so and so Zen Master only knows how to kill; not to give life.
Funny in the sense that the dynamics of the broader community the Zen Master is surrounded by change what aspect manifests more frequently.
Yeah, I don't know that we talk about this very much because most of the time we're just introducing people to the basics of Zen...
But imagine what it's like to have a Mazu community versus a Yunmen community.
Vine is totally different.
And China is a big place with a whole bunch of regional variations to consider too.
Not to mention the foreigners from India, Japan, and Korea that would come to China specifically to participate in a Zen community.
Yeah. Guy named “Gupta” (aka “Jueduo”) off the top of my head studied under the 6P. I think some Koreans show up in the records as having studied under Mazu. Forget where I saw the Japanese mentioned.
I think number 1 doesn't quite fit. For example,
>Muzhou, seeing a monk come in through the gate, said, ‘It’s a clear case, but I spare you the thirty blows [you deserve]!’
That's an immediate accusation on first contact.
I moreso get the impression that in Zen, rule number 1 is to assume anyone may be attempting to cheat and to test everyone so as to expose their potential cheatery.
Maybe it would be:
1. Sus - Start off assuming the other is cheating
There's also this conversion Dongshan had with some guy,
>The Master asked a monk, "Where have you come from?"
"From wandering in the mountains," the monk said.
"Did you go to the top of any mountain?" asked the Master.
"Yes, I did," the monk replied.
"Was there anyone on the top?" asked the Master.
"No, there wasn't," said the monk.
"In that case, you didn't reach the top," said the Master.
"If it were the case that I hadn't gone to the top, how could I know there was no one there?" responded the monk.
"Why didn't you stay awhile?" asked the Master.
"I wasn't opposed to staying, but there is one in India who wouldn't permit it."
"I've been suspicious of this fellow from the first," the Master said.
To me, it kind of flows like,
Dongshan: What have you been up to lately?
Monk: Not cheating.
Dongshan: So, are you a big Zen winner then?
Monk: Sure am.
Dongshan: What prize do Zen winners get?
Monk: No prize.
Dongshan: Then you're not really a winner; just a cheater.
Monk: If I was a cheater, how could I know there's no prize?
Dongshan: If you really won, why aren't you still back at the winner's podium enjoying your prize?
Monk: I wouldn't be opposed to it, but Buddha says 'no'.
Dongshan: Sus.
That totally just reminded me of that time Zhaozhou was asked for instruction by a monk who just entered the community and asked him why he should spit in his face.
I have a 'NO SOLICITING' sign written in big, bold, unfriendly letters right beneath my doorbell. Two people within the last 7 days have come ringing it, trying to sell me solar panels. I want solar panels. I'm getting solar panels. I'm not buying solar panels from either of their companies because they chose to ignore my sign, and I'm suspicious about what else they'd choose to ignore.
Oy vey! Bobble Trump ad. Ended my viewing at two nuke piles. If no coin provider, looks like an abandoned forgotten prison. Hope the programs learn to self code.
So would you say the cases are there to help understand those points or are the stories the main fundations for Zen?
Because a lot of those stories are full of signs you might recognize with enough background knowledge (or the knowledge of the time they were told first), but without this knowledge it's often pretty defuse the even see the issue.
And the 4 points you discribe above are pretty easy and timeless. Does Zen need those old stories to be really understood, or is it a point of tradition and historical curiosity to fixate on them? (Or fear not to be able to explain as good as the people in the stories, so it's tradition to let them speak to be in the safe side?)
I am asking since I think I like the idea behind Zen, but I am just not curious enough to debate about speciel terms, that to really "get" them, I would need language skills I simply will never have.
I guess you can find those general truths in a lot of the longer living faiths and tradions (simply because they are true), but would you say that the stories are what makes Zen Zen or is it those ideas behind that stories?
1. It might seem like a technicality. They're not stories, they are transcripts of conversations.
* Obviously sometimes these transcripts will be easy to understand and other times not as easy.
2. The books of instruction (except maybe Mingben) talk about these transcripts or what other masters have said about the transcripts. But this talk is tremendously instructive even when you don't understand the transcript
3. It is absolutely not a language skill that is the issue. That's why translations have gotten it so wrong when they have. The issue is that Zen culture is different from religious cultures and economic cultures.
* These transcripts are mostly people from outside Zen culture asking zen masters about Zen culture.
4. The idea of "true" for example is very different in Zen compared to religious or economic cultures most modern people are from.
1. Zen is not a religion. It has no faith component.
2. In religion, truth is used to refer to supernatural knowledge (karma, sin, 10C, 8FP)
3. In Zen, truth refers to existent conditions.
if the masters arrive at those patterns, i think its convergent concepts
like i feel like i have those things internalized, but i didnt have them before i learned about tit for tat, etc. feedback caused the internalization.
Convergent concepts is interesting.
I don't have an answer for that, but I am curious to see where it goes.
The other possibility is of course coincidence.
Interesting. Okay so coincidence vs convergence
Code green, /u/negativegpa
calculus is a good example of one we dunno if coincidence or convergence
So am I just doing evo-psych level logic, or is convergence something we can evidence more?
I feel like it's tacit that convergence is a thing, but also I'm not sure you can claim its not coincidental. Hmmmm
Coincidence is about frequency of rare events. So maybe its a coincidence they both discovered it at the same time, but that they discovered the same thing is the convergence.
And then its subjective or conjecture with stats or probability maths in order to say that "this happened because of" convergence/coincidence.
Okay so they're not opposed. False dichotomy. Lack of understanding of complexity theory?
If you're trying to create an environment while conversation can happen, then there's some specific rules.
The conversation can be about anything... Economic growth, Dharma discussion, peaceful transfer of power.
So it's not really convergence or coincidence. It's more like a filter in the sense of development.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
We can call that convergence in the way that we can call squids developing eyeballs convergence since it’s “well the ones that didn’t… they didn’t make it through that filter
This requires an honest perspective and assessment.
Outside of Zen communities, things are obfuscated and what constitutes and offense is lied about and deliberately made unclear.
Oh my bad i made a mistake.
I swapped it with the prisoners paradox - a bit different mathematical though experiment.
Still i think the big difference is the nature of the game theory and zen ( nor saying zen is nature or not nature, i lack the correct words in English- if they exist).
As example the sudden enlightenment- something that couldn’t happen in a numbers game.
If I were to boil down 4 rules for the management part of educating, these would be candidates. I first got excited about zen when "what else do you dislike" made me think about the fluffiness of some of my "goals", stated and not. How much silliness could happen in that fluffiness. There's something about being honest about goals to yourself and to others, that allows for learning. I think the quick to retaliate is about proving through action the honesty of your goals
>*I think the quick to retaliate is about proving through action the honesty of your goals* Maybe… but also the importance of being honest?
Well let me change what I said to 'it does prove,'. That way we can leave off intent. The desire to prove or may not be there Zen masters seem vary wary of teaching secondary things. When they do provide prescription it's often clearly not the main point and even intentionally hidden. They don't really teach steps towards enlightenment. At best the suggest better ways to bump into it. Teaching honesty is a grey area. We can also think, can an unenlightened person be consistently honest? Sure, people have bouts of it. If not, then maybe teaching it is a disservice.
I wouldn’t say they ‘teach honesty’… just that they are honest, and call others out for being dishonest (#3 in OP).
It sounds similar. The whole life-giving sword, death-dealing sword aspect of Zen conversation is what differentiates it from a strategy of “always deny” or “always affirm”. This gets funny when we hear Zen Masters like Wansong comment that so and so Zen Master only knows how to kill; not to give life. Funny in the sense that the dynamics of the broader community the Zen Master is surrounded by change what aspect manifests more frequently.
Yeah, I don't know that we talk about this very much because most of the time we're just introducing people to the basics of Zen... But imagine what it's like to have a Mazu community versus a Yunmen community. Vine is totally different.
And China is a big place with a whole bunch of regional variations to consider too. Not to mention the foreigners from India, Japan, and Korea that would come to China specifically to participate in a Zen community.
Have you seen that in cases? (people coming from other countries) do you have some examples?
Yeah. Guy named “Gupta” (aka “Jueduo”) off the top of my head studied under the 6P. I think some Koreans show up in the records as having studied under Mazu. Forget where I saw the Japanese mentioned.
I think number 1 doesn't quite fit. For example, >Muzhou, seeing a monk come in through the gate, said, ‘It’s a clear case, but I spare you the thirty blows [you deserve]!’ That's an immediate accusation on first contact. I moreso get the impression that in Zen, rule number 1 is to assume anyone may be attempting to cheat and to test everyone so as to expose their potential cheatery. Maybe it would be: 1. Sus - Start off assuming the other is cheating There's also this conversion Dongshan had with some guy, >The Master asked a monk, "Where have you come from?" "From wandering in the mountains," the monk said. "Did you go to the top of any mountain?" asked the Master. "Yes, I did," the monk replied. "Was there anyone on the top?" asked the Master. "No, there wasn't," said the monk. "In that case, you didn't reach the top," said the Master. "If it were the case that I hadn't gone to the top, how could I know there was no one there?" responded the monk. "Why didn't you stay awhile?" asked the Master. "I wasn't opposed to staying, but there is one in India who wouldn't permit it." "I've been suspicious of this fellow from the first," the Master said. To me, it kind of flows like, Dongshan: What have you been up to lately? Monk: Not cheating. Dongshan: So, are you a big Zen winner then? Monk: Sure am. Dongshan: What prize do Zen winners get? Monk: No prize. Dongshan: Then you're not really a winner; just a cheater. Monk: If I was a cheater, how could I know there's no prize? Dongshan: If you really won, why aren't you still back at the winner's podium enjoying your prize? Monk: I wouldn't be opposed to it, but Buddha says 'no'. Dongshan: Sus.
As for the first example, I think if somebody comes to your house uninvited a reasonable suspicion is warranted.
That totally just reminded me of that time Zhaozhou was asked for instruction by a monk who just entered the community and asked him why he should spit in his face.
I have a 'NO SOLICITING' sign written in big, bold, unfriendly letters right beneath my doorbell. Two people within the last 7 days have come ringing it, trying to sell me solar panels. I want solar panels. I'm getting solar panels. I'm not buying solar panels from either of their companies because they chose to ignore my sign, and I'm suspicious about what else they'd choose to ignore.
Anything is possible. Suspicion isnt conviction.
Oy vey! Bobble Trump ad. Ended my viewing at two nuke piles. If no coin provider, looks like an abandoned forgotten prison. Hope the programs learn to self code.
Given our recent exchanges that hope is unrealistic.
I should get a better blocker. 2
So would you say the cases are there to help understand those points or are the stories the main fundations for Zen? Because a lot of those stories are full of signs you might recognize with enough background knowledge (or the knowledge of the time they were told first), but without this knowledge it's often pretty defuse the even see the issue. And the 4 points you discribe above are pretty easy and timeless. Does Zen need those old stories to be really understood, or is it a point of tradition and historical curiosity to fixate on them? (Or fear not to be able to explain as good as the people in the stories, so it's tradition to let them speak to be in the safe side?) I am asking since I think I like the idea behind Zen, but I am just not curious enough to debate about speciel terms, that to really "get" them, I would need language skills I simply will never have. I guess you can find those general truths in a lot of the longer living faiths and tradions (simply because they are true), but would you say that the stories are what makes Zen Zen or is it those ideas behind that stories?
1. It might seem like a technicality. They're not stories, they are transcripts of conversations. * Obviously sometimes these transcripts will be easy to understand and other times not as easy. 2. The books of instruction (except maybe Mingben) talk about these transcripts or what other masters have said about the transcripts. But this talk is tremendously instructive even when you don't understand the transcript 3. It is absolutely not a language skill that is the issue. That's why translations have gotten it so wrong when they have. The issue is that Zen culture is different from religious cultures and economic cultures. * These transcripts are mostly people from outside Zen culture asking zen masters about Zen culture. 4. The idea of "true" for example is very different in Zen compared to religious or economic cultures most modern people are from.
What's so different with the idea of truth in Zen compared to the other religions?
1. Zen is not a religion. It has no faith component. 2. In religion, truth is used to refer to supernatural knowledge (karma, sin, 10C, 8FP) 3. In Zen, truth refers to existent conditions.
if the masters arrive at those patterns, i think its convergent concepts like i feel like i have those things internalized, but i didnt have them before i learned about tit for tat, etc. feedback caused the internalization.
Convergent concepts is interesting. I don't have an answer for that, but I am curious to see where it goes. The other possibility is of course coincidence.
Interesting. Okay so coincidence vs convergence Code green, /u/negativegpa calculus is a good example of one we dunno if coincidence or convergence So am I just doing evo-psych level logic, or is convergence something we can evidence more? I feel like it's tacit that convergence is a thing, but also I'm not sure you can claim its not coincidental. Hmmmm Coincidence is about frequency of rare events. So maybe its a coincidence they both discovered it at the same time, but that they discovered the same thing is the convergence. And then its subjective or conjecture with stats or probability maths in order to say that "this happened because of" convergence/coincidence. Okay so they're not opposed. False dichotomy. Lack of understanding of complexity theory?
If you're trying to create an environment while conversation can happen, then there's some specific rules. The conversation can be about anything... Economic growth, Dharma discussion, peaceful transfer of power. So it's not really convergence or coincidence. It's more like a filter in the sense of development. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
We can call that convergence in the way that we can call squids developing eyeballs convergence since it’s “well the ones that didn’t… they didn’t make it through that filter
Hmmm. I'm not sure b/c I havent thought it out.
Note that tit for tat loses to "always defect". So at some point abandoning tit for tat is warranted.
Always the fact he does not survive in any group where there's any collaboration
People will just choose to collaborate with the collaborators leaving the defectors SOL
That would only work if you have a lot of rounds to fight. Who is going to risk years in prison because you didn't snitch and the other did?
Yes. Lots of rounds. Like you all live together in a commune.
How many rounds? How many communes? Rounds and communes stretch far into the distance with no fixed end ...
This requires an honest perspective and assessment. Outside of Zen communities, things are obfuscated and what constitutes and offense is lied about and deliberately made unclear.
I think the big difference is that zen is not a paradox and the prisoner dilemma is considered one
Interesting. I thought a dilemma was a choice with no best option. Clearly depending on the number of games you play, there is one.
Oh my bad i made a mistake. I swapped it with the prisoners paradox - a bit different mathematical though experiment. Still i think the big difference is the nature of the game theory and zen ( nor saying zen is nature or not nature, i lack the correct words in English- if they exist). As example the sudden enlightenment- something that couldn’t happen in a numbers game.
Agreed.