Mindfuck Sensei Lessons

[Blizzard]

To become a master, you must take the cricket from my hand without killing it. But in order to take the cricket, you must not want to take the cricket!

Discuss.

[Spoofus]

I think this means(to me anyway) if you think of taking the "cricket" your expressions or emotions will give hint to what you are going to do,therefore if you rely on your instinct to achieve this because if you try to hard your exert to much force and kill the "cricket" or upon thinking that you are going to kill it you will not apply the needed force to actually grab it and let it slip in your grasp.

Or in other words, Do not think to much of the task at hand do what comes to you naturally and you will achieve your goal.

my 4am response

[Blizzard]

Actually I know exactly what this is supposed to mean and what it references, but you are going way too abstract. The simple idea is that there are "things" in life that you can't get as long as you really want them. You can only get them once you reach a level of indifference towards the actual result that you can actually achieve that result. In other words, you have stop caring whether you get the result, it should not affect you if you don't get the result you wanted. This is often achieved by learning to enjoy the process so the journey itself becomes the goal and the final result doesn't matter anymore (but you can still get it).

I was basically interested in how others see this, whether they have experience in certain areas of life where to this concept (or maybe even "law") applies.

[KK20]

Well that's a bunch of bullshit; taking a cricket from another person doesn't make you a master.

I guess the more important line of the quote is the second sentence as it somewhat creates a contradiction: how can you take something without wanting to? The act of 'doing' is essentially 'wanting' your body to 'do'. Of course, people will have different philosophies and question if this is really true. Basically they ask "What does 'want' mean?" Some may even argue that 'having to' and 'needing to' are not the same as 'wanting to'. I'm not entirely sure where I stand, so I'll just be like Socrates and question everyone's ideas.

The answer you provided Blizzard sounds a lot like stoicism, which is a philosophy I agree with.

[Blizzard]

*looks up stoicism* Uuuuuuhhhh, I like this stuff. <3

Yeah, the point isn't obviously in the cricket, the point is the metaphor of wanting something and getting it or the desire itself to get it being actually the greatest obstacle in getting it.
I think that one has to achieve some sort of happiness without in order to be able to not need it and therefore "not want it". The point is not actually not wanting it, it's just the indifference to the outcome. If you get it, cool. If not, also cool. Whether you get it or not does not influence your degree of happiness at all.

Budism also teaches that desire causes suffering and that freedom from desire is enlightenment. And if you aren't trying to actually get it, there is no need to "try", no need to maybe pretend, you can just be yourself, go about your business, do whatever you want to do. Obviously it is important that all of this is taken from a positive perspective.

I am referring to "it" the whole time, and that "it" can be anything, but mainly it is something that is supposed to bring you some degree of happiness. There are a few philosophies that teach you that there is no happiness in chasing a goal and getting it. Some claim that the journey is the goal and that the process itself should already make you happy. The goal itself is only the cherry on top.
I believe that it goes even deeper. I believe that happiness can be achieved without any of that. Then even the process itself becomes actually the cherry on top of everything which, by comparison, should make that "static happiness" actually so massive that there is nothing comparable out there.

I think that concept of being able to get something only by not wanting it, is one of the greatest mindfucks life has to offer. Constantly we chase after illusions that we think will bring us happiness. Some do, but it doesn't last and then we think yet again "No, wait, if I get this instead, I'll be actually happy." Most people spend their entire lives like this. Of course, then the question whether there is any point to anything at all is raised. I guess not. Sure, that may sound nihilistic, but does there have to be a point? When are people usually having the most fun? Usually when they are doing something that has no real point. If you joke around with friends, is there really a point? When you read a book, is there a point? Realistically no, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if it makes you feel good and if you like doing it. But it shouldn't be the source of happiness, it should be yet another cherry on top.

Anyway, this is how I see things. Most of my close friends follow this kind of philosophy, hence why Teo was messing around when he came up with this quote. I laughed my ass off because it describes it so accurately, but is so simple.

[winkio]

Perhaps it's not the original intent of the quote, but it made me think of something a little different.  To me, not wanting the cricket isn't about being a stoic, but about being broad-minded.  If you only focus on the direct route to achieving your goal, it may be impossible, but if you look around and consider all available options, you may find a way to do it.

[Blizzard]

A bit off topic, but I watched some video a few months back about some dude explaining how when you do something simple and mechanic, a reward will improve your performance while if you do something creative, a reward will be counterproductive because it narrows your focus when you should be broadening your mind. (He used that one task with the box and the candles as example.) He also explained how the motivation for the creative task should be intrinsic and internal, one should be doing it because they like doing it, not to get something out of it. So it may be related to this to some degree.