The Game of Go and Enlightenment

[Bonobo]

I'm not convinced the author of the article fully understands either Buddhism or Go tbh.

From the same page:

William S. Cobb is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. He is certified by the Nihon Kiin (Japanese Go Association) as an International Go Instructor. This is an adaptation of an article that originally appeared in The Eastern Buddhist.

William Cobb is also author of “The Empty Board” (See also https://senseis.xmp.net/?ReflectionsOnTheGameOfGo)

… so, I’d assume that he understands more about both Buddhism AND Go at least than I do.

[Bonobo]

Also, re: playing “peacefully” vs. “fighting style” … a few years ago, a friend from South Korea, 9d [KGS], visited me, and I took him to the Go club in the next big city … he played a few 4 and 5 Dan players and crushed them all, peacefully, calmly, meaning that they didn’t even realize their groups were dead until some time after the moves that sealed their fates. It was amazing to watch. (But then again I’m currently (still) just 9k [OGS], so what do I understand …)

[Uberdude]

It seems I don't really fit in very well with the culture of this forum. Y'all take it easy.

I'd like to think the culture of this forum is one in which people discuss Go, can have cordial disagreements, not take offence, and continue contributing. I hope you do.

[Kirby]

It seems I don't really fit in very well with the culture of this forum. Y'all take it easy.

I'd like to think the culture of this forum is one in which people discuss Go, can have cordial disagreements, not take offence, and continue contributing. I hope you do.

Well, you prefixed your comment saying that you didn’t mean the comment to be ad hominem... I can see how it could have caused some offense. This is not to say that I didn’t think your presentation was cordial. But I also think it’s wrong to say that someone can’t take offense.

I don’t think your comment was wrong, per say. I probably have a similar opinion. People take things differently, and that’s also ok

[dfan]

This is something that I struggle with myself, especially as I try to reach dan level. I am a peaceful player by nature and I enjoy playing "negotiating" rather than "fighting" games. But I think it is essential, not just for playing strength but also for understanding of the game, to realize that underneath the negotiation there is always the possibility of a fight breaking out, and all of those fights, whether played out or implicit, involve tactics and violence. In any pro game that looks peaceful, every player is still trying on every single move to play the maximally efficient move in an all-out struggle; they just thought that in that game the best moves were the ones that were quieter (on the surface).

I think that by the time people reach dan level they generally have to be pretty balanced in their approach, and be able to scratch and claw when it's called for, but it's very possible to get to SDK level and still shy away from fighting (ask me how I know!), and I think it really holds one back both in strength and in appreciation. Knotwilg's anecdote really resonated with me for that reason.

[negapesuo]

It seems I don't really fit in very well with the culture of this forum. Y'all take it easy.

I haven't seen anyone be hostile towards you or your ideas, so I'm not sure why you would think that. You put yourself out there by presenting your ideas on a forum and naturally you will receive feedback. If all you were looking for was validation and agreement based on the fact that we are all Go players, I would agree that you don't fit in very well with the culture of the forum (I don't think you were).

Instead, if what you were looking for was a free exchange of ideas and opinions from others that have various experiences and perspectives from this game of Go, this is a great place to get that. Depends on what you want out of the ideas you present.

[xela]

It seems I don't really fit in very well with the culture of this forum. Y'all take it easy.

Ah, you've got private messages turned off in your profile, I'll just have to say nice things to you in public. I'm really glad to have you joining this forum and offering a fresh point of view. I hope you'll keep speaking up and encouraging others by your example. It's great to see how much you enjoy playing go, how you're open to learning new things and how you don't mind questioning those of us who may be a little bit set in our ways. Please keep up the good work!

[Maharani]

I haven't read the article in question, but I've been studying "enlightenment" teachings for a little less than two years now, specifically a framework of non-dual concepts describing happiness as laid out by Roger Castillo (link to his YouTube channel below). Let me offer my clumsy summary first.

All we're truly looking for is happiness in daily living.
The flow of Life will always be a mix of pleasure and pain. (Pain can be physical or emotional; sadness and anger are forms of emotional pain, for instance.)
Our unhappiness is always a result of our psychological attitude towards the flow of Life. We call this attitude "suffering".
Happiness is simply the absence of suffering.
Happiness is unbroken peace of mind regardless of circumstance.
Suffering manifests as 1. guilt, 2. blame, 3. pride, 4. worries & anxiety, 5. expectations & attachment to outcomes.
The root cause of all suffering is our false belief in "personal doership".
When we examine how thoughts and decisions come about, we find that they are always the result of a person's genetic make-up & conditioning through Life.
Our feeling of free will is both an illusion and a gift.
The experience of being alive as a human is designed to feel as if we are free to do whatever we choose in each moment.
Our own free will is never different from the will of Life.
When we deeply understand and feel that Life unfolds according to "destiny" (cause & effect), our attitude of doership & attachment falls away and peace of mind persists on a continuous basis.

None of these concepts are intended as "truths", merely as pointers for us to check against our own experience.

According to these concepts, "enlightenment" or liberation is something that, by this definition, we as (perceived) separate, independent "doers" cannot achieve. Life puts the false belief of personal doership in place through conditioning when we acquire language at 2 or 3 years old, and Life may or may not dissolve it by means of new conditioning (for instance, coming across these teachings).

In any case, if I apply these teachings to go, happiness (peace of mind) would not necessarily equate to a non-violent style of play. Rather, it might mean that we don't feel guilt for "mistakes" and accept that we cannot control the outcomes of our moves (such as our opponent's responses). It would also mean that we don't feel guilt regarding any of our painful emotions (temporary anger over a variation we missed, temporary sadness over a game we've lost).

Roger's YouTube channel for anyone curious to learn more about these teachings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3nxl1 ... Efw/videos

[Gomoto]

I could attach and extend on some ideas in the thread, or just kill them. But I think I'll just tenuki.

[gennan]

I think that some emotional detachment helps to play go better, but I cannot imagine how go can be interesting when all threats are removed from the game (and thus any incentive to defend). If you delete the capturing rule to ensure games are peaceful and Zen-like, you'd just be filling the board with stones to create nice patterns. Wouldn't that be more like painting? There's nothing wrong with painting, but to me it's not as interesting as go.

But perhaps this is not at all what you mean.

[Gomoto]

You can try to win very hard, and still there are different reasons why you would do so.

Some of those reasons are like killing a group by force and loosing the game therefore.

[gennan]

https://tricycle.org/magazine/the-game-go/

Found this article from 20 years ago on Tricycle. I'm curious what you all think of it.

Personally, I think it's nice to be agreed with, but ultimately the state of the game is pretty far removed from this enlightened ideal these days. The AI revolution has definitely made things worse in this regard, with its emphasis on winrates and grabbing territory early. But online players didn't need AI's help to be unenlightened, with their hatred of handicaps and greedy, violent styles of play.

In contrast however, my games at my local club are very much in line with the spirit of the game espoused in the article. It's very strange to me that this stark separation exists (though I'm very glad that it does).

As much as I'd love to believe otherwise, I ultimately don't think the game of Go inherently pushes players to consider enlightened principles. It provides rich fodder for thinking in that way, provided you already approach the board in that mindset, that much is true I think. But I have plenty of evidence that Go is rather a kind of ultimate playground in which we express our nature and mindset. If that mindset is enlightened, then our play will be enlightened. If our mind is violent and clinging and deluded, then that's the sort of game we'll be playing.

Oh, also, I think if we were really unconcerned with winning and losing, then komi wouldn't include a half point, lol. I'm not sure why we decided we needed blood for it to be interesting. A mutually-interesting jigo is my personal ideal, though I also recognize that that kind of makes me a weirdo.

What do you all think?

When I wrote my previous response, I only read the article and this thread scantly.
I read the article better now (a couple of times even) and now I think my first response was totally inadequate. I'm sorry for that.

I learned to play go in 1988, well before the internet was a thing. So I played only real life game in go clubs. I think the article describes quite well how the culture of the go community was back then (though the article is idealizing it). And I do think the real life go community is still like that. I participated in the European Go Congress this year and to me it was not very different from 25 years ago as far as how the players interacted. Go players in general are still friendly, supportive and inclusive people with a great sense of community. And I try to pass these values to the kids in my kids club.

But as far as I'm aware of, finding enlightenment from playing go was never much of a thing for most players (including me). If that's what you're looking for, go may not be your best option (though it's not the worst either, I suppose). Winning and losing may not be as important in go as in some other games, but it's still important for most players. And that was also the case in 1988.

As for people behaving pedanticaly with their special knowledge from AI study, those people would have done the same with their special knowledge from joseki dictionaries back in 1988. So I feel AI didn't really change that.

As for style of play, also in 1988 there were players with a violent and/or greedy style of play. Different styles of play have always existed. But style of play has little to do with how they interact socially IME. Violent and greedy players can be very gentle and generous people. So I think you shouldn't be too quick in judging people from their style of play. Playing violent and greedy isn't them being mean. They are probably just trying to become better go players and they feel that their style suits them better to succeed. Also, they may not even be aware that you consider their style violent and greedy. And when you show their game to a very strong player, they might even disagree with that judgement and consider it a sharp way of playing, which would be a compliment.

But about playing the internet, I don't really know how it is these days. I've never been a big fan of playing go on the internet. On many internet platforms, people tend to behave much worse than in real life (especially when they feel anonymous), so I can imagine that some pretty rude and mean behaviour can be found on go servers also, especially on large servers with little social interactions, where players are more anonymous.

[Knotwilg]

Violent and greedy players can be very gentle and generous people. So I think you shouldn't be too quick in judging people from their style of play.

Many years ago when my back was still relatively supportive, I played "mini-football" with a bunch of colleagues. D.G. was one of them. His playing style was: "I'll be in the point of the attack, give me the ball and I will try to score, thank you very much". Once he had the ball, his team mates would rarely ever receive it back, the only thing that seemed to matter to him was he, the ball and the goal. Not my kind of player.

I hadn't really worked with D.G on the job. When we ended up in the same team, he turned out to be one of the most generous, supportive, friendly and cooperative colleagues I ever had.