As I have been doing this exercise throughout the week I have been trying to do as suggested, and incrementally increase the amount of time I spend in silence. I have been locking myself away somewhere where I believe I won’t be interrupted and I set a timer to time how long I spend in silence. I have taken an incredibly clinical approach to this whole exercise. One could argue that I am just following the example of what we did in class, but I think it’s more than that. I feel like my approach to this silent activity is much like the scientist in the reading who tries to study water.
I am like the scientist because just like he attempts to understand water by studying its properties; I am attempting to understand zen by observing and classifying what it does to the mind. I refuse to just let myself feel the peace and tranquility that comes along with sitting in silence. Instead I keep attempting to emulate what the reading has told me to do, which is incredibly difficult considering how unclear the readings instructions of finding zen were. Every time I have sat in silence I have attempted to observe the inner workings of how I am thinking. I subdivide myself into two categories. When I am sitting in silence, I am both an experiment and a scientist. When I am the experiment I attempt to emulate the readings, but I am also simultaneously attempting to be an objective observer. But fundamentally you cannot be an objective observer, if you are the experiment yourself. According to the readings, you also cannot achieve zen by splitting yourself in two like this.
In a way, I think this experiment is flawed. From my interpretation of the readings, it is impossible to reach zen if you are also observing your thoughts when attempting to reach zen. To reach zen is to just be, and when you are thinking about just being you by definition cannot just be. You cannot be the toad, if you are thinking about being the toad. On the other hand, I think the experiment is brilliant because it demonstrates the idea that you cannot just allow things to be. To get better at something you have to practice and criticise and try to get better. We do not get better by just being. We have to actively seek out improvement and thus I think it is fundamentally important that we observe our thoughts in these states of silence. We have to observe if we wish to learn.
So in the end we have to both be, and think about being. Both are important in obtaining a better understanding of how this silence helps us. I think that ultimately this is what the reading was trying to iterate. I am still utterly confused on how to actually go about both being while also thinking about being. So in many ways this exercise has both taught me a lot and has simultaneously made me feel like I have taken ten steps back from where I started from.
I am really curious what other people’s procedures were in going about this exercise. Did you increase the time? Did you try to follow the guidance of the reading, or did you take your own approach? I thought this was a really amazing exercise and I’m stoked to hear what other’s have to say about it.
Rene Descartes said "cogito ergo sum" translated to "I think, therefore I am." I believe your position is in disagreement to this as you've said "you cannot be the toad, if you are think about being the toad." To reach enlightenment in zazen, one must just be; living their lives, not worrying about yesterday or tomorrow. I believe that thought interrupts this mindset. You added,"to get better at something, you have to practice and criticize and try to get better" further moving from zazen. Practice moves away from the beginner's mind. Practice leads to expertise and experts cannot contemplate true silence. True silence has many meanings and experts will try to restrict the scope of silence and therefore they can never truly experience silence. I would prefer to be an "expert" because I would have a good understanding of a concept and then leave it at that, not complicating my life. Do you think this is the mindset of the expert or do you think they will try to understand the mechanics of their understanding of the concept; therefore meaning experts have the beginners mind?
ReplyDeleteWe all reach different conclusions on silence. For me, silence has been about reflection. I think that silence should also go beyond seclusion; one should be able to achieve it at a super-bowl game. My silence is about thoughts and I want to transcend my thoughts. Do you guys think this is possible and if so how can we achieve it?
I can connect to your experience this week while wrestling with the idea of "practicing silence". You said, "It is impossible to reach zen if you are also observing your thoughts when attempting to reach zen" which really struck a chord with me. I found that the closer I got to zen, the less I remember after the silence ended. Which, I suppose, means I stopped observing my cognitive state. On the other hand, the more I tried to observe myself, the squirmier I got. I couldn't calm the mind waves as easily, and I still felt tense afterwards. So, with that being said, how could the experiment be improved? Would omitting the instructions to "observe ourselves" benefit the overall experience? Maybe instead of searching for profound observations within our cognitive state, we should be asked to simply practice silence? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteMomo, I loved what you had to say about achieving silence in any scenario, even the super-bowl. However, I don't know that it is possible to transcend all thoughts, and here's why. To me, that is not the goal of practicing zen. Instead of transcending all thoughts, I believe the goal is to quiet the useless brain chatter we are all so accustomed to ignoring in order to really understand what our inner guidance, intuition, subconscious, whatever you want to call it, etc. is whispering to us. If we are able to quiet the chatter, we are able to listen more intently to the energy that surrounds us and is inside of us. I wouldn't want to miss any of that by trying to transcend all form of thoughts into a mind and state of nothingness.
I believe that your approach certainly has values, especially because it is a method that has been utilized by ancient cultures for a very long time. I believe they saw some aspect of silence, non-motion, non-thought that achieved some form of true self awareness or understanding, and thus have used the meditation as a tool for a long time. While I do believe that people born into a particular culture are likely repeat what they've absorbed of the culture and then try to pass their understanding of it to their descendants down the generations, I can't imagine a practical situation in which a completely non-working system would be preferred over competing working systems and ideas for that long a time--at least without important reasons, good or bad.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that it has to be complementary with activity and events that one experience in life. We can experience new things, hardships, relationships, various emotions, and then soon afterwards try to recall and understand how we handled the situation and what we were thinking at that time. That too could be valuable because it is almost like dissecting and analyzing the mind and body's behavior during all of those events. And using this information, perhaps one can (1) anticipate future behaviors while experiencing uncertainties or (2) see where one needs improvement (which is subjective) and try to understand how she/he can effectively improve--since not every path towards improvement works for everyone, some trial and error may methodology might also be added.
I agree with everyone that it is very difficult to fully understand any human including one's self. I do not know if it is impossible, however I do have a deterministic outlook on things so perhaps I believe that it can be achieved to a point where it is "good enough".