Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!abgrady
From: abgrady@dciem.UUCP (Brian Grady)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: zen and the art of behaviourism
Message-ID: <959@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Jun-84 14:19:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.959
Posted: Fri Jun 29 14:19:24 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 04:43:32 EDT
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 43

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