Zen Weekly 2
Hawkeye
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
in Discussions
After winning several archery contests, the young and rather boastful champion challenged a Zen master who was renowned for his skill as an archer. The young man demonstrated remarkable technical proficiency when he hit a distant bull's eye on his first try, and then split that arrow with his second shot. "There," he said to the old man, "see if you can match that!" Undisturbed, the master did not draw his bow, but rather motioned for the young archer to follow him up the mountain. Curious about the old fellow's intentions, the champion followed him high into the mountain until they reached a deep chasm spanned by a rather flimsy and shaky log. Calmly stepping out onto the middle of the unsteady and certainly perilous bridge, the old master picked a far away tree as a target, drew his bow, and fired a clean, direct hit. "Now it is your turn," he said as he gracefully stepped back onto the safe ground. Staring with terror into the seemingly bottomless and beckoning abyss, the young man could not force himself to step out onto the log, no less shoot at a target. "You have much skill with your bow," the master said, sensing his challenger's predicament, "but you have little skill with the mind that lets loose the shot."
Comments
*edit*
a better example would have been: if the Zen Master and champion archer both went skydiving (something neither of them had done before), then shot at a tree while parachuting to the ground.
*edit*
a better example would have been: if the Zen Master and champion archer both went skydiving (something neither of them had done before), then shot at a tree while parachuting to the ground. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you walk through fire to save someone you loved? Would you give your life without question in order to save all of humanity? And the real question: If put in such a situation, would you do what you say?
These are deep questions that can be difficult to answer because humans are in fact fear-based. This is a very significant point that the Zen master is making. A girl I used to know left her dayjob to travel the world with just a small backpack. Her motto was "What would you do if you weren't afraid". Sure fear is apart of us, but like anything it can be controlled with displine and right thinking.
If this story does not sound right to you, please, before you dismiss it, ask yourself honestly why it is that the Zen master was able to stand on a flimsy, shakey log, a log that could quite possibly break at any moment, and still have the concentration to hit a tree with a bow and arrow. In that very act, lies the moral to this story.
As such, walking through fire to save someone you loved is an analogy that only partially applies; love in and of itself is not a very rational thing. The argument is that mental acuity (rational) can overcome fear (irrational). I'm using the words "rational" and "irrational" very loosely here.
As such, walking through fire to save someone you loved is an analogy that only partially applies; love in and of itself is not a very rational thing. The argument is that mental acuity (rational) can overcome fear (irrational). I'm using the words "rational" and "irrational" very loosely here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your point is that you are making the assumption that the Zen master is not afraid because he has performed the act before and is thus deriving strength from that.
My point is that the log could break at any time. No matter how many times the Zen master has stepped on that log it could break at ANY time; like a game of russian roulette.
But regardless, you are also making the assumption that the Zen master has stepped on that log before when the story makes no such claim. It could be that the Zen master led the archer in the forest looking for ANY dangerous looking area that was unfamiliar to both of them to shoot an arrow and the first thing he found happened to be a rickety old log. He could have decided to shoot an arrow inside a bear cave or a snake pit or the top of a old dead tree. The story never says the Zen master had been on the log before. I think that would have been mentionned since it would totally change the story.
Another thing I'm wondering about: You talk about "rational" like its the most important thing in the world. Do you think "rational" people better than "irrational" people?
Do I understand it correctly that you feel that my example does not apply to the scenario because it involves love which is not rational? Because I feel that rationalization is not the only solution to overcoming fear. In fact, I think love is the ultimate solution to overcoming fear.
As far as being defensive, I'm simply trying to understand your arguement. I don't feel that you have attacked me. I'm only voicing my belief and trying to understand yours. Honestly! No animosity here!
So in as unaggressive internet speaking voice as I can muster I'll ask again in a different way: Why do you say the arguement is that being rational overcomes fear when in fact being rational does not seem to overcome fear in the story?
You say any rational man would fear for his life. The archer feared for his life and did not overcome the fear. The Zen master overcame the fear but you say he is wrong.
I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Like a person who can hit a target at 500m on the shooting range with ease, cant hit a deer at 300m in a forest.
Anyhow, that’s my opinion.
Like a person who can hit a target at 500m on the shooting range with ease, cant hit a deer at 300m in a forest.
Anyhow, that’s my opinion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
Like a person who can hit a target at 500m on the shooting range with ease, cant hit a deer at 300m in a forest.
Anyhow, that’s my opinion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he hit the nail on the head with that one. The Zen master was demonstrating that while he might have remarkable aim, this means nothing in real life application, because he's never going to be faced in a situation when a bow and arrow will be useful which won't have a great deal of fear tagged with it (save from a tournament or something trivial like that).
It also tells me the moral that perhaps there's more than one way to excel at something in your life. For example the student exceled at aim, but didn't think to master perhaps the more important things such as fear and self-discipline.
Joe (the champion) is bragging to everyone because he can shoot a single skulk in a wide open room with no other distractions. Bill the Zen master then takes him to a wide open room with plenty of distractions (other enemies, friendlies getting in the way, people shouting at him, etc) and Joe finds that all the fancy target practice is worthless when he cannot ignore the distractions and dangers around him.
Joe would be like the expert marksman who can shoot a bullseye 10 out of 10 times, but locks up in a combat situation because he has not been trained to deal with it. Bill would be the guy who, while he might not be able to hit the target every time, would atleast be up and doing what he can to help those around him.
This quote also sprung into my head as I was reading
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I do not aim with my hand. He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I aim with my eye.
I do not shoot with my gun. He who shoots with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind.
I do not kill with my gun. He who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->