"Zen in Shooting"

[cpty1]

I liked that.  I mean I really liked that.  Wow!

[Duane Thomas]

Reading these essays, it seems to me that what this guy means when he says "Zen" is classic concentration, narrowing your focus to one thing. What Brian talks about in his book is actually the diametric opposite, opening yourself up to all relevant inputs by clearing your mind of conscious thought. For something as static and unchanging as bull's-eye shooting, the origin of these essays, then classic concentration can work well. But for something as fast-paced and complex as firing an IPSC stage, classic concentration is just entirely too slow.

[cpty1]

Even the best books or essays regarding technique for any action always contain some points that are not understood or not agreed to by some readers.  The work PSBF by our gracious host comes about as close as I have ever seen.  I have always felt it helpful to glean what I can from a work, then revisit that work later after I have hopefully expanded my experience and expertise foundations.  I then find the second reading reconfirms and refreshes the memory on many major points and things I may not have picked up on or understood after the first reading are suddenly crystal clear.  While bullseye shooting does perhaps lend itself to classic concentration at some levels, maybe even at the highest levels, I found the author aware of the benefits of operating outside the realm of classic concentration also.  If I may quote, "to do those right things INSTANTLY, without any conscious deliberation is a much higher goal."  "When the operation of the mind and the body coincide with one point in time and when the space between thought and conduct is eliminated in such a way that they are in perfect unison, we may regard such a moment as the present."  I could really relate to that.  Also of interest to me personally was "The problem of grief arises when we subordinate the moment to our self-centered thoughts: not just this moment, but what WE want."  What struck me immediately upon reading this was a couple of phrases from Brian's book...."Wanting to win is a contradiction." and "Only when there is no concern over results can you perform to your maximum potential."  For me, the essay contained a few jewels of knowledge in and of itself, but also triggered recollections of some of the concepts I have found helpful to me in my shooting pursuits over the years.  BTW, if you haven't figured it out by now, most of those concepts are from Brian's book also.

[GunRunner]

Well i've been debating wheather to comment upon this or not since i've read neither all of Dreyer's essays or Brians book and haven't studied Zen...

But i will post Dreyer's reply to my email. He seems to be trying to justify his essays with traditional Zen art, while admitting he doesn't agree with all of its practices. As you can imagine hes having problems resolving this...

~~~~~

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:38:36 -0500

From: "John A. Dreyer" <Dreyer_infonet@compuserve.com>

Subject: re: Have you ever read...

Sender: "John A. Dreyer" <Dreyer_infonet@compuserve.com>

To: Mike Dumas <umrk@bellsouth.net>

Message text written by Mike Dumas

>Have you ever read Practical Shooting, Beyond

Fundamentals  by Brian Enos  1990

Its been called "Zen and the Art of Pistol Shooting"<

Hi Mike,

No I have not.  However, while it is probably an INCREDIBLE book (based on

its title "Beyond Fundamentals&quot, Enos probably did not study Zen in detail

to write his book.  Why do I say that?

I am extremely concerned about the credibility of my articles claiming that

there is "Zen" in shooting.   After many email exchanges with living Kyudo

instructors, most do not believe that Zen and archery (or shooting) are one

in the same. They tell me that while many of the same mental states and

terminologies exist in both practices, they are still separate.  They claim

that Kyudo is practiced as a Zen art in conjunction with traditional Zen

practice merely as an illustration to its basic teaching.  Zen practice, of

course, is centered about meditation, something to which I (and most of

them) do not subscribe.  However, the recurring writings about mind-body

union and the importance on the focus on breathing in meditation relate

directly to PRECISION shooting!  For me, a daily dry firing ritual, free

weight training, and a trip twice weekly to the range for firing practice

is the extent of my "shooting practice."

I have read much about Zen and found its goals and terminologies consistent

with my discoveries about PRECISION shooting.  Kyudo instructors agree with

my findings in that respect, except that they can't guarantee that these

mental states are Zen itself.   Why?  Because most Kyudo instructors do not

know anything about Zen, even the Japanese ones.   Basically, Zen is a

philosophy in decline, seldom studied, even less practiced, almost

forgotten.   That means that the term "Zen" is used in circumstances where

it has no business - especially in the western world.  Unfortunately, the

only Americans to write about Zen in the last 30 years were a bunch of

dope-using weirdos, and I give them NO credibility.

In regards to Enos, while action shooting is nothing like Kyudo, I will

still try to find Enos' book to see why Zen is referred.  Unless there is

exact and elaborate REPETITIVE action, a process cannot be related to Zen

art.  Concentration or mental focus is NOT Zen.  However, the MAGIC that he

has discovered is definitely worth the look.  They say that "a master of

one gun is usually a master of ALL."

Thank you VERY MUCH for the note!   Write anytime.

Best regards,

John A. Dreyer

http://www.bullseyepistol.com

~~~~~

mike

[benos]

Anybody,

Pardin my ignorance, but what is Kyudo?

And, "Unless there is

exact and elaborate REPETITIVE action, a process cannot be related to Zen

art."

I don't buy it, (Irv). (Who can guess that movie line?) (I bet Erik.)

What is meant by Zen art? Is effortless, impeccable activity arising from total stillness art?

To me, as a noun, the word Zen has no meaning. As a verb, Zen means meditation, which means to ponder or inquire. Is the perfect, selfless intelligence of instantaneous stillness resulting from returning to inquiry, art? Or could "Zen art" just be words (not unlike the word Zen, as a noun)? All names, to say nothing of descriptions, upon investigation, will be found to be empty, with no fixed reality. The only (pragmatic) point of talking about Zen, meditation, or inquiry, is to get you to experience the perfection of stillness for yourself. After all, who else could experience it?

be

[GunRunner]

Kyudo: The Essence and Practice of Japanese Archery and Illuminated Spirit: Conversations with a Kyudo Master.

http://www.kyudo.com/yudo-k.html

I don't have a clue what Zen art would be. I think hes wanting some sort of validation for his use of Zen in shooting in his essays.  

mike

(Edited by GunRunner at 7:33 pm on Dec. 15, 2001)

[benos]

Mike,

Ah, thank you. And, yea, I think the validation thing might be it.

be

[bird]

I don't know alot about Zen, but to me it is living in the here and now and being aware of everything that is happening as time is constantly moving forward.

My Dad always told me that the mind controls the body and that once you realize that, your body will do anything your mind tells it to do.(within reason, I mean a 300# person is not going to be a very good Jockey even though he may break the horse's back trying).

Once you have your foundation and index down, I can see how practical shooting is best done living in the here and now, zen or whatever label you want to attatch to it.

To me it all boils down to being calm, relaxed and just enjoying the shooting as it is happening.

I may be wrong but this is my take on zen while shooting.

[j1b]

I occasionally lose my temper a bit - and I guess now is one of those times.

I think it is incredibly presumptious for this author to claim that Brian hasn't studied Zen in depth. To make a judgment like that w/o knowing or reading the book - is simply disrespectful. Personally I wouldn't entertain reading a book from such a closed minded individual.

Whether he agrees w/ Brian or not. Whether any of us do . . . that statement (to me) seems wrong.

I am not religious - by any stretch. I hope not to offend anyone w/ this next statement. Many religions assign different values to their God and what he is or does or values. What one says may differ substantially from what the other says - yet both groups feel as though they are doing right. Joseph Campbell did a study and determined that fundamentally all religion is the same - and the the platforms are probably ok - while the technicalities are probably off base. I suspect this premiss is the same w/ Zen. Different groups will believe what they believe - however the core of the belief is what matters most.

Personally I enjoy this forum immensly - and its because I feel Brian has a good idea about the core beliefs of Zen.

Sorry guys - just stating my opinion.

JB

[benos]

Thanks Jack.

If you study various religions, you'll find for yourself that they are all indeed similar, if only because they depend on this strange thing called "belief" - for their reality (existence). Depending on your view, Zen could be called a religion, or it could not. If your faith and study of Zen Buddhism is founded on what the Buddha said and taught, and you activate belief in your mind in order to study Buddhism, then Zen Buddhism would be a religion. In differing from ALL religions, however, Zen Buddhism does not purport a supreme deity or god who is somehow mysteriously in charge. Zen just keeps relentlessly pointing to your own mind to show you why things are the way they are FOR YOU. In this way, Zen is not a religion. There are some schools of Zen Buddhism, including just Buddhism, which teach that you need to arouse great faith (or belief) in what the Buddha taught was actually true reality, in order to realize it yourself. I don't have any use for that teaching of certain Zen schools. If you investigate your own conclusions residing in your mind carefully, without stopping or depending on ANY conditional beliefs, you'll find that all the sorrows of mankind are rooted in belief. Belief blinds you from the truth. I'm over belief. I think Zen adopted belief because the masters saw that many people need something to believe in, even if only as a temporary shelter. Even Zen schools that teach belief, however, eventually teach that upon personal realization (of the way things really are), all previously held beliefs evaporate like the morning dew. So they carefully use belief only to guide people until they are strong enough to SEE without BELIEVING.

So, Zen can be viewed as a religion or not, depending on your inclination.

be

[EricW]

[Thread Shift Mode ON]

Once you start studying belief systems, one of the shocking things you discover is the utter pervasiveness of beliefs.  I was educated as a scientist and fortunately went to a university that gave coursework in the study of belief systems from both a religious and scientific view.  The study and understanding of what really is a belief changed my entire view of the world.  Now I frequently go through life feeling like an observer - on the outside of the fishbowl looking in.  Belief prevents one from separating information from action, which means you never really receive untainted information.  

Even objective Science is not immune from basing it's work on belief.  Science's great core belief is essentially:  "Nature is simple, and the simplest (workable) explanation of Nature will always prove to be the best."  The difference between Science is that we clearly acknowledge this faith conviction up front.  But it works, so we use it.

The study of belief systems will make you cognizant of how much you use and implicitly accept them.  A frequently humorous and entertaining introduction to the wackier belief systems can be found at:  

http://www.randi.org

and

http://www.junkscience.com

It's just the tip of the iceberg, but it's a start...

Eric

[benos]

EricW,

Man, that second link is quite the database.

I feel like I'm the fish and the universe is the fishbowl. At the same instant I'm "looking out," the world is "looking back." The more I believe the less I know.

be

[EricW]

BE,

Maybe the fish bowl wasn't a great analogy, but I feel more and more detached from everything every day.

What I really want to know is if the Universe IS a fish bowl.  What if I'm just down here swimming around for someone's entertainment?    

E

[Thread Shift Mode OFF]

Ahh...back to Zen...

[benos]

Eric,

Well, I guess there's nothing left to do but put on a good show!

be

[JVL]

There are different "schools" of Zen, just like there are 386 branches of Southern Baptist church.

It looks like John and Brian are approaching the same problem from different angles.  Maybe one or both can't see the merit in the other's approach.  That's why they are approaching from different angles!

I'm just glad to see two different avenues(IPSC and Bullseye) talking about Zen and shooting.  I've been doing both types of shooting for over a year now.  I've been trying to 'grok' zen for just over thirty years now.  I read Eugen Herrigal's book, while trying archery.  Read Miyamoto's Book of 5 Rings, while studying fencing.  Lots of books, good and bad, regarding Buddhism and Zen.

Now I hope to get Brian's book soon, since I've started recently both IPSC and Bullseye.

I applaud John's work on the Bullseye site, I've found it very informative and useful on Bullseye so far.  I hadn't even noticed before his stuff on Zen.  My small gripe is all the Japanese words.  Right now, it's a little evocative of Islam, which mandates the follower learn Arabic.  Zen originated in India, developed more in China, then was more widespread in Japan, before coming to America.   I'm put off by all the Japanese language lessons John includes in his brief dissertations.  But still, overall, I'm glad to see the dissertations there, even if I don't agree with everything he says.

Here's a quote taken from John's website that seems more applicable to IPSC than the (relatively) tranquil sport of Bullseye shooting:

Takuan Roshi explains, "Keeping the mind tranquil as it moves in the myriad directions in the midst of uproar and

commotion is true tranquillity. Tranquility in tranquility is not true tranquility; it is tranquillity in action that is the true tranquility."

[benos]

JVL,

I'm with you. The trick is to explain IT without giving IT a name.

be

[John Thompson]

It should be noted that Buhdism like taoism and so many so called eastern religions didn't start out as religions but instead were philosophies.  They were only meant to be philosphies and didn't evolve into religions until combined with supersitious beliefs by the primative people who adopted the philosphies.

This observation may upset those who look at the philosphies as coming from their God or whatever they assign higher order to but for those who follow a traditional theological belief system it allows them to appreciate Zen without compromising their beliefs.

[EricW]

I was shooting into the berm the other day, just watching the sights and the slide move when I realized just how much more I can see today, than a year ago - especially since five years ago.  Another realization I had though was that my entire approach to shooting has changed.  Nothing I do or care about is the same today as it was five years or a decade ago.  Nothing.  The *great* realization I had was that the reason for this is that how I *think* about shooting, what I think while shooting, has shifted 180 degrees.  Ironically, even though I'm shooting faster and better than I ever have, I feel like I shoot more passively than I ever have.  Zen?   Maybe.  Maybe not.  I can't explain it, but it's real and it's happening.

I never would have made it this far is someone hadn't let me know that it was OK to feel that way about the whole deal.

Thanks Brian!

[SiG Lady]

I ran across Dreyer's stuff sometime early last year. I plucked out what worked for me... then bought BE's book. Cafeteria zen. It's everywhere. Zen is like that.

[SiG Lady]

...and detachment is still the key.

[Duane Thomas]

That's one reason I enjoy watching Travis perform. When he shoots, he gets this look on his face, it's kind of hard to describe. It's very abstracted, detached, like he's not emotionally involved in what's occurring.  He's just sitting back and watching it happen.

[Steve Anderson]

It doesn't have to have a name to be valid.

It's not valid just because it has a name.

It seems like we get hung up on what something is or isn't, when it may just be.

.02,

SA