Zen and Martial Arts Practice

[BillKephart]

This post was originally published as an article in a dedicated KarateForums.com Articles section, which is no longer online. After the section was closed, this article was most to the most appropriate forum in our community.

Zen practice has its roots in the dhyana or meditation school of Buddhist thought, which is, itself, a subdivision of the greater Mahayana Buddhism that has its roots with the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna was a noted critic of logic and cognizant of its limits. It was known to him that the logical world view must always limit the path to truth because of inherent weaknesses in logic. In his book on dialectical logic, known as "Prasanga," he showed that all systems of logic are self contradictory. They affirm what they deny.

Material causality, which is the basis for logic, is predicated on the assumption of distinction. In other words, some things are different from others. Nagarjuna followed this proposition to its logical conclusions.

Suppose A causes B. There are four possibilities. Either A and B are identical, distinct, both identical and distinct, or neither identical nor distinct. Each is problematic. If A and B are identical, one cannot be distinguished from the other. They are the same. One might as well say nothing changed. If A and B are distinct, one cannot see any hints of one in the other. No causal relationship can be established. If A and B are both, then that is a contradiction. It is assumed by logic that an object cannot simultaneously hold opposite properties. Finally, if A and B are neither, then they are nothing at all.

If logic is true, then nothing can exist. Then none of these are possible. Everything is impossible because everything is necessarily contradictory. It is impossible to think of one value without understanding its opposite. Dichotomous thinking is how the human mind operates. Opposites have a necessary link. One cannot know the meaning of hot without also knowing the meaning of cold. They can't be separated. Thus, it is the conclusion of Mahayana Buddhism that the third possibility of causality is the correct one. In the quest for truth, logic must be transcended.

Zen follows from this principle of the embrace of contradiction and dichotomous thinking. While it is better than the alternatives, it has a problem of its own for truth. The problem is the human mind. Suppose a person sees a tree. To understand the tree, they associate the tree with the concept of the not tree. This goes back to understanding what things are by what they are not. But, the problem goes further. If the tree is distinct from all things that are not trees, then isn't it true that the idea of the tree in the human mind is distinct from the tree itself?

This is a terrible problem for humanity. For when a human sees a tree and associates it with their idea of a tree (which is not the same as the tree), then they are limiting their view of the tree. They cannot understand the tree because their idea of the tree blinds them. This is true in other things. Suppose a man believes he loves a woman. He thinks he understands her. But, what he thinks the woman is gets in the way understanding what the woman really is. Does he know his love? Does he even love his love? This is the prison of thought. This is what Zen seeks to escape.

The heart of Zen is meditation. The heart of meditation is mindfulness. The heart of mindfulness is no mind. Zen is the art of cultivating a non categorizing mind or no mind. The Zen mind is the mind that sees the thing in itself without imposing other things on it that might cloud the truth. However, Zen mind is also the everyday mind. The Zen mind may categorize but it realizes and accounts for the fact that it is categorizing.

This mind is cultivated chiefly by the practice of seated meditation or zazen. But, this is not the only form of meditation. There is walking meditation, running meditation, working meditation and an infinity of others. The core principle of meditation is mindfulness in task. If one maintains mindfulness, they do not think, but react. They do what is necessary. It is on this path that Zen mind and the sight that sees things in themselves may be achieved.

Zen mind is a core principle of the Japanese martial arts. Judo, Kendo, Karate-do, and Akido all have one thing in common: they are budo; a way of war or fighting. Zen is a path. Budo is a path. Zen is contradiction. Budo is also a contradiction. It kills for life.

Budo is about achieving no mind in movements. Kihon (basics), kata (forms) and kumite (sparring) are all based on this principle. Through repetition of movements with mindfulness a person can even meditate while practicing the martial arts. Victory in combat is reliant on the lack of hesitation. As in the Zen mind, one does not think but reacts.

It is through the cultivation of Zen mind that a person may be able to see situations for what they are. It will assist in knowing when to fight and to strike home when the moment of truth comes.

[Patrick]

Thank you for your submission.

[joesteph]

Nagarjuna was a noted critic of logic and cognizant of its limits. It was known to him that the logical world view must always limit the path to truth because of inherent weaknesses in logic. In his book on dialectical logic, known as "Prasanga," he showed that all systems of logic are self contradictory. They affirm what they deny. . . .

I'm not familiar with Nagarjuna, Bill, but I see from your posting that he was a critic of logic in that he understood that even logic has its limits. Aristotle is considered the father of Western logic, and yet paradox still exists in Western logic/logical thinking. (I have an old Funk & Wagnall's dictionary that has as the first definition of paradox "A statement seemingly absurd or contradictory, yet in fact true," and the second definition as "A statement essentially self-contradictory, false, or absurd"--rather like two definitions at odds on defining "paradox.")

Everything is impossible because everything is necessarily contradictory. It is impossible to think of one value without understanding its opposite.

Would you then say that the question "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object" is a paradox, absurd, or simply a semantics game in the guise of logic and therefore both are nonexistent?

When I wrote my thesis for philosophy, I made reference to Timothy Sprigge's "absence of space" example. Essentially, Sprigge suggests that space--even what we call "empty" space--is actual, actually exists (as in it can be measured, such as the "empty space" between two objects, or, if two objects touch, it is not that there is no space between them, but that they have met at a particular point in space). The absence of space is, to Sprigge, impossible for the human mind to comprehend. True absence, true "absence of space," is just beyond us, because we always place something "in" space, and even "empty" space holds some definable quality, extension coming to my mind.

Dichotomous thinking is how the human mind operates. Opposites have a necessary link. One cannot know the meaning of hot without also knowing the meaning of cold. They can't be separated. . . .

Do you mean represented by yin and yang. Bill? Even in yin and yang, there exists the "dot" that represents some of the opposite in the other, much as a man possesses a drop of estrogen in his system, as a woman possesses a similar drop of testosterone. I've wondered why the Koreans use um and yang, obviously influenced by the Chinese, without the "dot" that represents some of the opposite within one-another.

Zen follows from this principle of the embrace of contradiction and dichotomous thinking. While it is better than the alternatives, it has a problem of its own for truth.

Truth . . . What is truth (or Truth)? I think of the question, "Is truth the opposite of a lie or the opposite of a mistake?"

The problem is the human mind. Suppose a person sees a tree. To understand the tree, they associate the tree with the concept of the not tree. . . .

Interesting, as it's opposite the Western concept, which goes back to Socrates and his pupil Plato, that "treeness" is identifiable, is noted, is recognized that the tree may be recognized, though every tree, even of the same type, is different from every other.

If the tree is distinct from all things that are not trees, then isn't it true that the idea of the tree in the human mind is distinct from the tree itself?

A caveat not to confuse the map for the territory?

This is a terrible problem for humanity. For when a human sees a tree and associates it with their idea of a tree (which is not the same as the tree), then they are limiting their view of the tree. They cannot understand the tree because their idea of the tree blinds them. . . .

I had a discussion with a friend some years back, when I was taking art classes. He had picked up that one of the main problems of people who are learning art is that they are not drawing or painting the object that is their model, such as to do a still-life of a chair. They draw or paint their idea of a chair with characteristics similar to the model. However, in experimentation, when the model, again, the chair, was turned upside-down, the budding artist was much more focused on detail, on correctness, so that if the drawing or painting were turned "upside-down," the resemblance to the model, the chair, was much more precise.

The heart of Zen is meditation. The heart of meditation is mindfulness. The heart of mindfulness is no mind. Zen is the art of cultivating a non categorizing mind or no mind. The Zen mind is the mind that sees the thing in itself without imposing other things on it that might cloud the truth. . . .

When you say "the thing in itself," Bill, it makes me think of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose "das Ding an sich" translates as exactly that--the thing in itself. According to Kant, there are so much phenomena coming at us, that we lack the ability (our minds depending on our senses to take in information) to strip the phenomena away and see "the thing in itself."

This mind is cultivated chiefly by the practice of seated meditation or zazen. . . . The core principle of meditation is mindfulness in task. If one maintains mindfulness, they do not think, but react. They do what is necessary. It is on this path that Zen mind and the sight that sees things in themselves may be achieved. . . . (emphasis added)

Aldous Huxley wrote The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell, in which he explains what was considered legitimate research in the "mind-expanding" drugs that later came to be controlled substances as hallucinogenics--the "psychedelic" drugs. He insisted in The Doors of Perception that he did, indeed, see "the thing in itself," but could only do so in this chemically-induced state of mind.

Zen is contradiction. Budo is also a contradiction. It kills for life.

Perceptive.

[bushido_man96]

I'd have to say that you two guys are a touch deeper than I am.

A nice article, though. And a nice response, Joe.

As for me, I just go to class and learn technique and application.

[tallgeese]

I agree. Very well done on both sides of this. However, to me, a tree is the thing in my back yard. Pretty much end of story for me.

[Wa-No-Michi]

I am not sure there isn't some value in what BillKephart has written.

For me, it was quite refreshing, and I can understand what he is saying. I am not Japanese (I am English and arguably just as complex), but I dont think that any of these precepts are difficult for me to swallow.

Yes I have trained only in Japanese art with a lot of Japanese instructors so I am biased.

Easy to talk about conditioning the body for combat with eastern principles, but perhaps when it comes to conditioning the mind, well thats when it gets a bit freaky to us.

So are we only buying half of the product if we are just using the moves and disregarding the mindset?? Maybe not, but perhaps its a bit like taking the game of snooker an saying, lets make this easier for us to achieve the end result and create pool. Which is perhaps the western (American) way... take out anything challenging and make it easier to succeed.

My Karate training has a clearly defined purpose. Focused on the Jutsu rather than the do / way (improvement of self), although arguably there is no real difference.

[joesteph]

I am not sure there isn't some value in what BillKephart has written. . . .

Easy to talk about conditioning the body for combat with eastern principles, but perhaps when it comes to conditioning the mind, well thats when it gets a bit freaky to us.

In many ways, we are the sum total of our experiences, so it can be quite difficult to have a different mindset--or want to. What works best is an open mind, taking in, evaluating, and then deciding what's right for us.

[P]erhaps its a bit like taking the game of snooker an saying, lets make this easier for us to achieve the end result and create pool. Which is perhaps the western (American) way... take out anything challenging and make it easier to succeed.

When we say "Western," I don't see us limiting ourselves to the US; it's as European as it is American. Do we Westerners alone take out the challenging, or do all cultures have their own preferences when it comes to challenges? I'd say it applies to East as well as West.

My Karate training has a clearly defined purpose. Focused on the Jutsu rather than the do / way (improvement of self), although arguably there is no real difference.

Then you've established a code for yourself as an individual, Wa-No-Michi. You're more fortunate than most; you have a direction, sailing a tall ship with a star to guide you.

[bushido_man96]

I agree. Very well done on both sides of this. However, to me, a tree is the thing in my back yard. Pretty much end of story for me.

That just about sums it up for me, too. I just don't see any need to over analyze anything.

So are we only buying half of the product if we are just using the moves and disregarding the mindset?? Maybe not, but perhaps its a bit like taking the game of snooker an saying, lets make this easier for us to achieve the end result and create pool. Which is perhaps the western (American) way... take out anything challenging and make it easier to succeed.

I don't think that this is really the case; making things easier for us (Westerners) to achieve. It has more to do with how we choose to achieve our goals, and what avenues we wish to take to reach them.

[tallgeese]

There are plenty of ways to develop a combative mindset that don't involve eastern prinicples. Warrior arts have a pretty signifigant tradition in the west as well.

Modern psycology has even develved into the areas of violence and combat mindset.

Mindset is developed by training with a purpose and the quality of drills executed by trainers. It is also influnced by realistic simulations and an understanding of reality based training and the acceptance that violenc can and will happen to us in our daily lives.

If you're into the whole eastern mindset that's fine, just realize that it's not the only mindset training available to those aspiring to warriorhood.

[Wa-No-Michi]

There are plenty of ways to develop a combative mindset that don't involve eastern principles. Warrior arts have a pretty signifigant tradition in the west as well.

Modern psycology has even develved into the areas of violence and combat mindset.

Mindset is developed by training with a purpose and the quality of drills executed by trainers. It is also influnced by realistic simulations and an understanding of reality based training and the acceptance that violenc can and will happen to us in our daily lives.

If you're into the whole eastern mindset that's fine, just realize that it's not the only mindset training available to those aspiring to warriorhood.

I don't get too hung up on the zen thing tbh, but the language used is familiar to me.

Actually I think if you drill down into it, the precepts are exactly the same. Its just a different route to the same end. You don't have to be easterm or from a "confusion" society to realise this.

If you train in traditional budo it tends to be embedded in the pedagogy of the system anyway or at least the elements that are needed to make the martial side of the art functional.... and that is all that is important to me.

And believe it or not you CAN do this easily and without having to refer to each other as "grasshopper".