Brahman, Tao, Sunyata, Thales, Einstein

[Darcy88]

Are Brahman, Tao and Sunyata (Buddhist word for emptiness) all different interpretations of what is essentially the same thing? They seem to indicate some kind of uniform essence within all existing phenomena, whether that essence is something or nothingness, and the goals of the three respective religions appear to be the bringing about of a state of cohesion between the individual and this all-pervasive absolute principle or reality or thing.

Here are some short definitions courtesy of wikipedia:

"The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the development of self-knowledge (atma jnana).[7] According to Advaita, a liberated human being (jivanmukta) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self."

"Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered.[7] It is related to the idea of qi, the essential energy of action and existence. Dao is a non-dual concept – it is the greater whole from which all the individual elements of the universe derive. Keller considers it similar to the negative theology of Western scholars,[8] but Dao is rarely an object of direct worship, being treated more like the Hindu concepts of karma or dharma than as a divine object.[9] Dao is more commonly expressed in the relationship between wu (void or emptiness, in the sense of wuji) and yinyang (the natural dynamic balance between opposites), leading to its central principle of wu wei (non-action, or action without force)."

"Śūnyatā, (Sanskrit, also shunyata; Pali: suññatā), in Buddhism, translated into English as emptiness, voidness[1], openness[2], spaciousness, thusness, is a Buddhist concept which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context. In Mahayana Buddhism, it often refers to the absence of inherent essence in all phenomena."

What do you think? I know Western religions are more popular than Eastern ones in this sub-forum, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have. It might be that I'm entirely wrong in my assessment and that these ideas are in opposition rather than essential agreement.

I also sometimes wonder whether these Eastern concepts have any relationship to the pre-socratic philosopher Thales' famous and what I take to be metaphorical assertion that "everything is water," as well as Einstein's equation E = MC^2, from which I've been told we can infer the fact that everything in the universe is in fact a form of energy. Plato's forms may also have a link to all of this, but I'm pretty sure it is of a far more tenuous and disparate nature than that of the others.

Thanks for reading and for any replies!

[cafolini]

This is a comical one. Energy is the ability to do work. There is no matter that cannot do work. So all matter has potential energy, i.e., the ability to do work. However, work is properly defined as force x displacement. You can push a wall all day long but, if you don't displace it, you have done no work.

[Delta40]

I disagree Cafolini. Work is defined as the application of mental or physical effort to a purpose; the use of energy. Whether or not the wall gets displaced is irrelevant since the application of force/energy has been expended therefore work has been done.

[cafolini]

I disagree Cafolini. Work is defined as the application of mental or physical effort to a purpose; the use of energy. Whether or not the wall gets displaced is irrelevant since the application of force/energy has been expended therefore work has been done.

Ok. You have the right to insanity. It's not news. Roflmao

[Delta40]

Ok. You have the right to insanity. It's not news. Roflmao

Lol I bet I took my meds before you did. Of course, not appreciating the boundaries of your logic gives me an advantage!

[Darcy88]

This is a comical one. Energy is the ability to do work. There is no matter that cannot do work. So all matter has potential energy, i.e., the ability to do work. However, work is properly defined as force x displacement. You can push a wall all day long but, if you don't displace it, you have done no work.

I shouldn't have put Einstein's name in the title as his equation was more of a lesser considered afterthought to what I intended to be the primary focus of the thread, which is the possible correspondence between those three concepts central to a number of Asian religions. I am glad I could give you a chuckle though.

[ladderandbucket]

I believe you are talking about the concept of monism. I would name Schopenhauer and Spinoza as important western thinkers on this topic.

[YesNo]

Are Brahman, Tao and Sunyata (Buddhist word for emptiness) all different interpretations of what is essentially the same thing? They seem to indicate some kind of uniform essence within all existing phenomena, whether that essence is something or nothingness, and the goals of the three respective religions appear to be the bringing about of a state of cohesion between the individual and this all-pervasive absolute principle or reality or thing.


I don't know much about these writers, but I think what they describe is a kind of "field" rather than a "particle", such as an electromagnetic field. These fields are empty or nothing because they are not a particle, but they are not unreal because they contain energy. I assume each of these positions imply that there exists some field of consciousness.

They are all the same to me, because I don't understand them well enough to see the differences. Were I looking for differences, I would further ask how each position viewed the universe or human life. As far as accepting them, my metaphysics assumes that the universe has to be "good", "adequately free", and "conscious" or I would reject the philosophy as inadequate.

[Darcy88]

I don't know much about these writers, but I think what they describe is a kind of "field" rather than a "particle", such as an electromagnetic field. These fields are empty or nothing because they are not a particle, but they are not unreal because they contain energy. I assume each of these positions imply that there exists some field of consciousness.

They are all the same to me, because I don't understand them well enough to see the differences. Were I looking for differences, I would further ask how each position viewed the universe or human life. As far as accepting them, my metaphysics assumes that the universe has to be "good", "adequately free", and "conscious" or I would reject the philosophy as inadequate.

I think of the main three I mentioned Brahmanism is closest to your view of the universe. It seems to imply the existence of a universal consciousness pervading all things. My grasp on it isn't solid but that's what I get from it.

[Paulclem]

There are important differences in Buddhism and Hinduism, one of the basic being Atman - self in Hinduism, and non-self in Buddhism. Non-self is related to emptiness in the absence of inherent existence of the self, whereas in Hinduism you have the universal mind as you pointed out.

I don't know much about Taoism, but in conversation with a Chinese friend, he described the Ying Yang symbol as a stage before a circle which was empty - indicating emptiness. I think he was pointing out relationship between Taoism and Buddhism, but more than that I couldn't claim.

I think study of the three would throw up the differences more clearly, and it's a bit like when people claim things like - all religions are the same/ aim for the same/ are part of the same thing. A theistic religion like Hinduism has elements that are similar to Buddhism, but the fundamental premise is different. When scholars - such as Christmas Humphreys - started to first look at Buddhism and Hinduism, they too noted the similarities and confused the concepts. Reincarnation, for example, in Hinduism is very different from the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.

A discussion about the ultimate nature of reality between Hinduism, Buddhism and Tao is limited by our academic appreciation of it, though of course you have to start somewhere.

[Darcy88]

There are important differences in Buddhism and Hinduism, one of the basic being Atman - self in Hinduism, and non-self in Buddhism. Non-self is related to emptiness in the absence of inherent existence of the self, whereas in Hinduism you have the universal mind as you pointed out.

I don't know much about Taoism, but in conversation with a Chinese friend, he described the Ying Yang symbol as a stage before a circle which was empty - indicating emptiness. I think he was pointing out relationship between Taoism and Buddhism, but more than that I couldn't claim.

I think study of the three would throw up the differences more clearly, and it's a bit like when people claim things like - all religions are the same/ aim for the same/ are part of the same thing. A theistic religion like Hinduism has elements that are similar to Buddhism, but the fundamental premise is different. When scholars - such as Christmas Humphreys - started to first look at Buddhism and Hinduism, they too noted the similarities and confused the concepts. Reincarnation, for example, in Hinduism is very different from the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.

A discussion about the ultimate nature of reality between Hinduism, Buddhism and Tao is limited by our academic appreciation of it, though of course you have to start somewhere.

As a Zen Buddhist I see a tremendous overlap between Taoism and the form of Buddhism to which I ascribe. In fact I often have difficulty discerning any meaningful difference whatsoever between the ways in which the universe is understood by both systems of thought. This makes perfect sense, since Taosim and Zen (Or Chan) both originated in China and the difference between Zen Buddhism and other forms is the likely result of its mixing with Taosim. I even heard somewhere that it was a Buddhist monk who first taught the Taoists to meditate.

I suppose the similarity I see between Hinduism and Buddhism is that both seem to encompass all existent phenomena under a single unifying principle, which in Hinduism is Brahman or Atman and in Buddhism is emptiness. The Atman seems impervious to particulars, to attempts to limit and/or define it. From wikipedia again:" Ātman is the first principle,[1] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual." The use of the word "self" is certainly non-Buddhistic, but the way that self is described as being "beyond identification with phenomena," does seem somewhat Buddhistic. I see much commonality between the yogi striving to attain union with God or Atman and the Zen meditator trying to awaken in him or herself what is referred to as the "Buddha-nature."

You make great points though. Thanks for contributing.

[Paulclem]

both originated in China and the difference between Zen Buddhism and other forms is the likely result of its mixing with Taosim

Whilst Toaism originated in China, Ch'an/ Zen Buddhism didn't originate there, but developed there. It was an import and adapted to the cultural conditions - for example there's no alms round in China or Japan due to different attitudes to work ethics. Zen/Ch'an displays this superficial difference, but is scripturally and in practice, it is consistent with other forms of Buddhism. I would dispute that it mixed with Taoism, but there is some kind of relationship, and perhaps conclusions reached by practitioners has similar results. A more modern example of this interchange can be seen with certain Christian Carmelite Monasteries where they have adopted Buddhisy meditation techniques. You couldn't claim from this that the traditions mixed though. As I indicated earlier, my friend suggested that there was a relationship, and probably quite a powerful one.

the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual." The use of the word "self" is certainly non-Buddhistic, but the way that self is described as being "beyond identification with phenomena

They are not the same - you could probably equate the essence of Hinduism with ideas of a soul, though in Christian traditions this doesn't seem to be a very well developed idea in that there's no attempt to explain what this soul my be or consist of - certainly in the common conception. I think you have to be careful of making assumptions based upon attempts to describe the ideas. Hinduism has this definitive, though difficult to realise, underlying reality whereas the ultimate nature of reality in Buddhism is emptiness, which is not an essence or realm, but a realisation that can be achieved.

I see much commonality between the yogi striving to attain union with God or Atman and the Zen meditator trying to awaken in him or herself what is referred to as the "Buddha-nature."

The difference between Atman and Buddha-Nature is that the Atman is some kind of underlying nature present in the being, whilst Buddha-Nature is a potential and not a thing. All beings have Buddha-Nature, which refers to the possibility that in time they could become Buddhas. This is one of the features of Mahayana Buddhism - of which Zen is a part - and forms the basis of the vows to help all being achieve enlightenment.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabuddhism/a/Buddha-Nature.htm

This section in the link has a good description of what I'm getting at.

Is Buddha Nature a Self?

it's a fascinating subject. There are various interpretations, as you can see from the link - the closest to your idea being a subtle mind.

[Darcy88]

both originated in China and the difference between Zen Buddhism and other forms is the likely result of its mixing with Taosim

Whilst Toaism originated in China, Ch'an/ Zen Buddhism didn't originate there, but developed there. It was an import and adapted to the cultural conditions - for example there's no alms round in China or Japan due to different attitudes to work ethics. Zen/Ch'an displays this superficial difference, but is scripturally and in practice, it is consistent with other forms of Buddhism. I would dispute that it mixed with Taoism, but there is some kind of relationship, and perhaps conclusions reached by practitioners has similar results. A more modern example of this interchange can be seen with certain Christian Carmelite Monasteries where they have adopted Buddhisy meditation techniques. You couldn't claim from this that the traditions mixed though. As I indicated earlier, my friend suggested that there was a relationship, and probably quite a powerful one.

the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual." The use of the word "self" is certainly non-Buddhistic, but the way that self is described as being "beyond identification with phenomena

They are not the same - you could probably equate the essence of Hinduism with ideas of a soul, though in Christian traditions this doesn't seem to be a very well developed idea in that there's no attempt to explain what this soul my be or consist of - certainly in the common conception. I think you have to be careful of making assumptions based upon attempts to describe the ideas. Hinduism has this definitive, though difficult to realise, underlying reality whereas the ultimate nature of reality in Buddhism is emptiness, which is not an essence or realm, but a realisation that can be achieved.

I see much commonality between the yogi striving to attain union with God or Atman and the Zen meditator trying to awaken in him or herself what is referred to as the "Buddha-nature."

The difference between Atman and Buddha-Nature is that the Atman is some kind of underlying nature present in the being, whilst Buddha-Nature is a potential and not a thing. All beings have Buddha-Nature, which refers to the possibility that in time they could become Buddhas. This is one of the features of Mahayana Buddhism - of which Zen is a part - and forms the basis of the vows to help all being achieve enlightenment.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabuddhism/a/Buddha-Nature.htm

This section in the link has a good description of what I'm getting at.

Is Buddha Nature a Self?

it's a fascinating subject. There are various interpretations, as you can see from the link - the closest to your idea being a subtle mind.

Both Atman and Buddha-nature are unconditioned, transcending the cycle of birth and death, cause and effect, the limitations of verbal definition, just as with the Dao. The Atman is conscious, while the Buddhists in a sense consider consciousness an illusion, one of the five aggregates, something to get beyond. I think Brahman is in some aspects relatable to Buddhism, while in others it is quite contrary to Buddhist principles. Saying Brahman and Emptiness are entirely different misses some unmistakable similarities they share.

It is arguable in my opinion that Buddhism is to Hinduism in terms of genesis and relation what Christianity is to Judaism. They are radical departures from their religious/philosophical predecessors but they also grew out of the same soil and bear some indelible distinguishing markers of what came before them.

You're right about Daosm and Zen being separate things. Daoism does not emphasize compassion the way Zen does. But it seems to me that when contemplating the nature of the universe through the lens of either one you apprehend things quite similarly. Essential unconditionality is common between those two and even all three in my opinion.

Zen appeals to me because after years of being mired in the manifold theories of Western philosophy I happened upon this system which emphasizes practice over philosophy, intuition over intellect. That said I do believe I may have neglected Buddhist theory in favour of simply meditating in the manner called "shikantaza" in Zen Buddhism. So my grasp of these principles may be shaky and perhaps after further study my thoughts on them will change.

[Paulclem]

Both Atman and Buddha-nature are unconditioned

There are different views on this expressed by different schools, but the difference is perhaps expressed finding atman through practice and becoming our Buddha nature through practice. We could argue about Buddha nature needing to be realised - and therefore conditional upon a being's spiritual state - their path. I'm not sure we would get anywhere without our own personal realisations. My disagreement that they are similar comes down to the wider implications and philosophy inherent in Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is arguable in my opinion that Buddhism is to Hinduism in terms of genesis and relation what Christianity is to Judaism.

There's no doubt that The Buddha's first teachings came from Hindu teachers. It is also clear that he found their teaching did not lead to the Enlightenment he sought, and he reverted back to a simpler meditation he had practiced as a child. I think the message here is a break with Hindu tradition, and Buddhists have always denied the Hindu claim that they are a subset of Hinduism. I think the main markers you mention are things like Karma, reincarnation, meditation. They are also the concepts that mark them as very different from each other in the specifics.

The largest, though, is the theism of Hinduism and the non-theism of Buddhism, (though there is the God realm within samsara). The ultimate nature of reality in Hinduism rests upon the aspects of God as the originator, sustainer and destroyer of the world universe etc. It has also given rise to ideas of the cosmic mind. I don't see, despite the difficulty we might have in differentiating between Ataman and Emptiness, how the outcomes could thus be related. Buddhism postulates a distant origin, but no creation by a creator God. instead the ultimate nature of reality rests upon the delusions of the individual and the inculcation of Karma which sustains this. It is an interesting question though.


Zen appeals to me because after years of being mired in the manifold theories of Western philosophy I happened upon this system which emphasizes practice over philosophy, intuition over intellect. That said I do believe I may have neglected Buddhist theory in favour of simply meditating in the manner called "shikantaza" in Zen Buddhism. So my grasp of these principles may be shaky and perhaps after further study my thoughts on them will change.

I think it goes in cycles - periods of meditation and periods of study. Sometimes our lives are not conducive to one or the other. The meditation is important though. For me it demonstrated that what I was reading was true - those bits within my small experience!

I've got a mate who is studying with a Kagyu teacher in Birmingham. We discus it sometimes when I see him, and he is impressed by how long the path is. It's a long game over quite a few lives he reckons. We both find it fascinating and increasingly "awesome" in how far we have to go. Good luck with it! There's lots to go at.

I was never involved in any religion as a child - my parents were very sceptical of any religion, and religious people in particular. Although it denied me an early appreciation of what Christianity was, I didn't feel constrained by it either. I feel pretty lucky.

PS - it's nice to have a chat about Buddhism. I haven't discussed it for a while.

[cafolini]

Both Atman and Buddha-nature are unconditioned

There are different views on this expressed by different schools, but the difference is perhaps expressed finding atman through practice and becoming our Buddha nature through practice. We could argue about Buddha nature needing to be realised - and therefore conditional upon a being's spiritual state - their path. I'm not sure we would get anywhere without our own personal realisations. My disagreement that they are similar comes down to the wider implications and philosophy inherent in Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is arguable in my opinion that Buddhism is to Hinduism in terms of genesis and relation what Christianity is to Judaism.

There's no doubt that The Buddha's first teachings came from Hindu teachers. It is also clear that he found their teaching did not lead to the Enlightenment he sought, and he reverted back to a simpler meditation he had practiced as a child. I think the message here is a break with Hindu tradition, and Buddhists have always denied the Hindu claim that they are a subset of Hinduism. I think the main markers you mention are things like Karma, reincarnation, meditation. They are also the concepts that mark them as very different from each other in the specifics.

The largest, though, is the theism of Hinduism and the non-theism of Buddhism, (though there is the God realm within samsara). The ultimate nature of reality in Hinduism rests upon the aspects of God as the originator, sustainer and destroyer of the world universe etc. It has also given rise to ideas of the cosmic mind. I don't see, despite the difficulty we might have in differentiating between Ataman and Emptiness, how the outcomes could thus be related. Buddhism postulates a distant origin, but no creation by a creator God. instead the ultimate nature of reality rests upon the delusions of the individual and the inculcation of Karma which sustains this. It is an interesting question though.


Zen appeals to me because after years of being mired in the manifold theories of Western philosophy I happened upon this system which emphasizes practice over philosophy, intuition over intellect. That said I do believe I may have neglected Buddhist theory in favour of simply meditating in the manner called "shikantaza" in Zen Buddhism. So my grasp of these principles may be shaky and perhaps after further study my thoughts on them will change.

I think it goes in cycles - periods of meditation and periods of study. Sometimes our lives are not conducive to one or the other. The meditation is important though. For me it demonstrated that what I was reading was true - those bits within my small experience!

I've got a mate who is studying with a Kagyu teacher in Birmingham. We discus it sometimes when I see him, and he is impressed by how long the path is. It's a long game over quite a few lives he reckons. We both find it fascinating and increasingly "awesome" in how far we have to go. Good luck with it! There's lots to go at.

I was never involved in any religion as a child - my parents were very sceptical of any religion, and religious people in particular. Although it denied me an early appreciation of what Christianity was, I didn't feel constrained by it either. I feel pretty lucky.

PS - it's nice to have a chat about Buddhism. I haven't discussed it for a while.

No, on many counts. There two general, philo-sophist positions of Atman. If you associate yoga, you have many more. It has nothing to do with the Buddha. The Buddha achieved Nirvana. Left all karma and philo-sophist position. He did not teach anymore and passed away like that. The venerable Buddhist monks are something different, but even them do no babble philo-sophically as the Atman people. There is no comparison in that regard.

[Darcy88]

No, on many counts. There two general, philo-sophist positions of Atman. If you associate yoga, you have many more. It has nothing to do with the Buddha. The Buddha achieved Nirvana. Left all karma and philo-sophist position. He did not teach anymore and passed away like that. The venerable Buddhist monks are something different, but even them do no babble philo-sophically as the Atman people. There is no comparison in that regard.

Nothing to do with the Buddha." Really Cafolini? Nothing at all? The obliteration of the ego, the transcendence of sense and materialism, of the world of phenomena, the unconditioned aspect of the absolute...... nope, nothing in common at all I suppose!

You should have quoted me. Paulclem has been arguing against my position that Brahmanism and Buddhism are essentially similar.

Also, you say he "did not teach anymore." What are you talking about? He spent the last 45 years of his life travelling and teaching.

In yoga everything is united by something, in Buddhism everything is united by nothingness. That's it. The something in yoga is transcendent, unconditioned, infinite, absolute. The Buddhist conception makes more sense to me but you ought not talk down on the yogis like they are fools engaged in sophistry. They aren't. I don't consider their wisdom to be ultimate, but it is wisdom nonetheless.

[Paulclem]

Yes - the Buddha taught for 45 years. I'm not sure what Cafolini's point is about The Buddha, but I seem to remember him saying something similar previously. Perhaps he thinks the Buddhist teachings have no relation to The Historical Buddha, but it is well documented. The Buddha's words were preserved by Talking Books - Monks who memorised the teachings. They were later written down. The oral form was preserved in the repetitious formats used in the Tripitaka.

[cafolini]

Buddha taught for many years, but when he achieved Nirvana, he no longer taught anything involving karma or philo-sophy. He said people had to reincarnate to learn the necessary lessons to eventually not need any more lessons, thus achieving Nirvana, where to live or die has no value beyond that.

[Paulclem]

The title Buddha is used for someone who has achieved Enlightenment, and Nirvana is the state achieved - perfect peace, happiness, compassion etc - though it is generally regarded as indescribable. You seem to be implying that the two are different and that when he experienced Parinirvana - the death of the body of an enlightened person - that this was different from what he had been teaching. This is not so, as Parinirvana is the final death of the Enlightened being. In the 45 years of his teaching, he had expounded on Karma and the path to achieve Enlightenment already. This is ll in the texts.

I also wonder about your use of philo-sophy - are you trying to imply sophistry with this?

[cafolini]

The title Buddha is used for someone who has achieved Enlightenment, and Nirvana is the state achieved - perfect peace, happiness, compassion etc - though it is generally regarded as indescribable. You seem to be implying that the two are different and that when he experienced Parinirvana - the death of the body of an enlightened person - that this was different from what he had been teaching. This is not so, as Parinirvana is the final death of the Enlightened being. In the 45 years of his teaching, he had expounded on Karma and the path to achieve Enlightenment already. This is ll in the texts.

I also wonder about your use of philo-sophy - are you trying to imply sophistry with this?

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.
And why would you play stupid with me regarding sophistry when what I implying is absolutely obvious. Don't mess with Buddha. In Nirvana there is no Atman, nor yoga. Buddha tried all of those phjlo-sophist positions throughout his travels and while he taught. In Nirvana they are all impossible. You cannot stop the Buddha's story wherever you please to satisfy your cons.

[Paulclem]

You are entitled to your idiosyncratic view, but it doesn't accord with the teachings. The Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree before he began teaching. He achieved Nirvana then, and his teachings were a path for others to achieve this. This is the Buddha's story.

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.

It depends which tradition you refer to. The Mahayana tradition's Buddhas are full of compassion for all sentient beings, which is Amitahba's vow - To release all sentient beings from samsara. This constitutes the Bodhisattva vow.

The Therevada tradition considers the state of Nirvana to be beyond, though it is claimed that to achieve this, a being would need to realise the full extent of compassion anyway.

[cafolini]

You are entitled to your idiosyncratic view, but it doesn't accord with the teachings. The Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree before he began teaching. He achieved Nirvana then, and his teachings were a path for others to achieve this. This is the Buddha's story.

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.

It depends which tradition you refer to. The Mahayana tradition's Buddhas are full of compassion for all sentient beings, which is Amitahba's vow - To release all sentient beings from samsara. This constitutes the Bodhisattva vow.

The Therevada tradition considers the state of Nirvana to be beyond, though it is claimed that to achieve this, a being would need to realise the full extent of compassion anyway.

Even the Dalai Lama would not argue these points with me. Even the venerable monks would not argue this. The Lama is too aware of the final way of Buddha in Nirvana. He's too skillful to associate Buddha with the traditions. He knows he must preserve the possibility of other Buddha beyond any possibility of philo-sophist definition. Otherwise, Nirvana would be impossible. Case closed, until you lie enough again to merit a comment. Roflmao.

[Paulclem]

Even the Dalai Lama would not argue these points with me. Even the venerable monks would not argue this. The Lama is too aware of the final way of Buddha in Nirvana. He's too skillful to associate Buddha with the traditions. He knows he must preserve the possibility of other Buddha beyond any possibility of philo-sophist definition. Otherwise, Nirvana would be impossible. Case closed, until you lie enough again to merit a comment. Roflmao.

To reiterate:

you seem to be saying that there is a difference between the Enlightenment of The Buddha and his Parinirvana which is different and therefore - because he is now beyond - unteachable.

This is not the accepted view of The Buddha's Enlightenment by either the Therevadin or Mahayana traditions. He achieved full Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, and thus earned the title of Buddha. This is a full title.

The Therevada view of his Parinirvana is that he is now beyond, but that his teachings and the path will lead others to full Enlightenment too.

The Mahayana view is that fully Enlightened Buddhas can still work for the benefit of sentient beings, and that there is a host of Buddhas who embody different qualities such as compassion.

None of this is in the slightest bit controversial.

Your stance seems to ignore the whole Mahayana tradition and rests upon the fallacious view that the Buddha did not complete the teaching which leads to an appreciation of karma, reincarnation etc.

He's too skillful to associate Buddha with the traditions

This is clearly false.

It seems as though you are using the negative definitions of Nirvana - in the sense that it is indescribable - to postulate the idea that it cannot be passed on. This is not the case, and with the Mahayana, there is a tradition of practice which relies upon different Buddhas including the Historical Buddha. This is neither esoteric nor confined to advanced practice, but is part of everyday Mahayana meditation. As I said, none of this is controversial.

[mal4mac]

Are Brahman, Tao and Sunyata (Buddhist word for emptiness) all different interpretations of what is essentially the same thing?

They are all the same thing: mechanisms for spiritualized power and domination

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2013/08/08/sutras-of-flesh-and-blood/

[cacian]

You are entitled to your idiosyncratic view, but it doesn't accord with the teachings. The Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree before he began teaching. He achieved Nirvana then, and his teachings were a path for others to achieve this. This is the Buddha's story.

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.

It depends which tradition you refer to. The Mahayana tradition's Buddhas are full of compassion for all sentient beings, which is Amitahba's vow - To release all sentient beings from samsara. This constitutes the Bodhisattva vow.

The Therevada tradition considers the state of Nirvana to be beyond, though it is claimed that to achieve this, a being would need to realise the full extent of compassion anyway.

this if you believe enlightenment is sitting under a tree to achieve it.
it seems rather far fetched that one is enlightened one the rest is not. there is a lack of logic.
if one is to be enlightened why not all ? that would save the bhudist time work and effort and gives the majority plenty to talk if they are all enlightened at the same time. how does one to chose one from the millions around? surely the task is humongous having to chose the one. and then the one has to go around teaching it all.
I cannot accept that only one is given and not all because in works term it is an easier task. equal measure to an equal pleasure surely that would make more sense.

[cacian]

Nothing to do with the Buddha." Really Cafolini? Nothing at all? The obliteration of the ego, the transcendence of sense and materialism, of the world of phenomena, the unconditioned aspect of the absolute...... nope, nothing in common at all I suppose!

You should have quoted me. Paulclem has been arguing against my position that Brahmanism and Buddhism are essentially similar.

Also, you say he "did not teach anymore." What are you talking about? He spent the last 45 years of his life travelling and teaching.

In yoga everything is united by something, in Buddhism everything is united by nothingness. That's it. The something in yoga is transcendent, unconditioned, infinite, absolute. The Buddhist conception makes more sense to me but you ought not talk down on the yogis like they are fools engaged in sophistry. They aren't. I don't consider their wisdom to be ultimate, but it is wisdom nonetheless.

how does nothingness which is a state of not being there unites anything.
nothing is empty and a human is not.

[Paulclem]

They are all the same thing: mechanisms for spiritualized power and domination

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2013/08/08/sutras-of-flesh-and-blood/

The Perfection of Immanental Wisdom Sutra

Presumably the replacing of a deity with a doctrine. it ignores ideas like The precious human Life, and the acknowledgement of the doctrine of the need for a human body to progress.

The Irrevocable Axiom Sutra

See above

The Fear or Contempt Sutra

This again ignors the preciousness of Human Life acknowledged by the doctrine. That's why the Human realm is recognised as the most important in the Wheel of Life as it offers the best opportunity for escape. On the basis of contempt for the human body, why doesn't the doctrine advocate a formless realm or the god realm?

The Bourgeoisie Sutra

This is a western interpretation which seems to neglect how untouchables in India often have become Buddhists to escape the labelling of the caste system. Any organisation has hierarchies, but the spirit of the teaching is respect rather than a hierarchy.

The Statute of Decision Sutra

More on the hatred of the body. See point one.

The Lustful Imperium Sutra

Reject the body for the Dharma - see point one.

The Sutra of Hallucinated Destruction

Not being able to understand the implications of how an individual can improve themselves, the article criticises an assumed psychological character, whereas the aim is to improve the happiness of a person through dealing with those character traits which cause suffering.

The Identity of the Assassin Sutra

See last point.

The Suicide of X-buddhism Sutra

More about hatred of the body/ character. see above.

The Impotence Sutra

It ignores the fact that some emotions are negative and that the teaching are there to assist in reducing and removing those which cause suffering.


The Termination of the Statute Sutra

Presumably a critique of reincarnation, but the language is so obscure as to render it unintelligible beyond a vague assumption.

The Reclamation of Radical Identity Sutra

See above.

Well that was fun. I'm surprised you give this article much credence Mal, or perhaps it was a joke. Repetitive and verbose which is a feature of writing that says very little.

[Paulclem]

this if you believe enlightenment is sitting under a tree to achieve it.
it seems rather far fetched that one is enlightened one the rest is not. there is a lack of logic.
if one is to be enlightened why not all ? that would save the bhudist time work and effort and gives the majority plenty to talk if they are all enlightened at the same time. how does one to chose one from the millions around? surely the task is humongous having to chose the one. and then the one has to go around teaching it all.
I cannot accept that only one is given and not all because in works term it is an easier task. equal measure to an equal pleasure surely that would make more sense.

if you believe enlightenment is sitting under a tree to achieve it

No I don't.

it seems rather far fetched that one is enlightened one the rest is not. there is a lack of logic.

It is far fetched. if it was that easy then surely everyone would have done it.

if one is to be enlightened why not all ?

That's the aim Cacian, and why The Buddha taught the Buddhist path. In fact you've hit on the Bodhisattva Ideal which is a vow to lead all beings to Enlightenment by those who take it.

surely the task is humongous

Correct - but this was the vow taken by Buddha Amitabha. (Thre are other Buddhas including the Historical Buddha we know).

and then the one has to go around teaching it all

The Buddha taught for 45 years until his death. it is said that the other Buddhas all work to help sentient beings achieve Enlightenment, but we are unable to perceive them due to our mind's delusions.

I cannot accept that only one is given and not all

That's quite correct Cacian and is the basis of the Bodhisattva ideal I posted above. It is a difficult path to follow though and traditionally takes a number of lifetimes to complete. Considering that all sentient beings refers to all beings - insects, animals, fish etc etc on this and other worlds, then yes the task is humungous.

[Darcy88]

how does nothingness which is a state of not being there unites anything.
nothing is empty and a human is not.

It is a difficult concept I have yet to fully come to terms with. Our minds have this tendency to look at things and isolate them from the unceasing flow of cause and effect. Are you actually just your bodily form and psychical awareness or are you not just, in this present moment, one more domino in an unending forward and backward series of causes and effects? Take away dualism and all is essentially one. Nothing exists independently, in and of itself. Regard a river and realize that it is more than just that stream of water flowing past your eyes. It is as much rain and glacier, thousands of years of rain and glacier, as it is what immediately presents itself to you. Our minds see one small segment of rail-tracks and automatically bestow on them autonomous existence when in fact the tracks stretch endless distances united, one.

The nothingness of Buddhism is the assertion that no one thing exists without all things, without the whole, including ourselves. This way of looking at things increases understanding and can help eliminate ignorance. I'm sure I just did a terrible job of explaining it but, like I said, I'm still in the process of figuring it out.

[mal4mac]

I'm surprised you give this article much credence Mal, or perhaps it was a joke. Repetitive and verbose which is a feature of writing that says very little.

I take it very seriously, his blog just caused me to jack in Buddhism (again!) It uses rather more terminology from Critical Theory than I think is necessary, or to my taste, but if you read a substantial part of the site you might get some idea what he is talking about. The guy has serious credentials in Buddhist Studies, he shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. Also I've just read someone complaining about his verbosity on his blog, to which he responds, he's not ducking the issue.

[Paulclem]

I take it very seriously, his blog just caused me to jack in Buddhism (again!) It uses rather more terminology from Critical Theory than I think is necessary, or to my taste, but if you read a substantial part of the site you might get some idea what he is talking about. The guy has serious credentials in Buddhist Studies, he shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. Also I've just read someone complaining about his verbosity on his blog, to which he responds, he's not ducking the issue.

It's good that he's not ducking the issue because such language use smacks of inauthenticity, which is a shame if he has something to say.

As for the content of the article, I can't say I was at all impressed. His main point seems to be that Buddhism is anti- body and character, and perhaps anti-human. This in itself is a valid point and worthy of discussion, though I didn't see that he presented it in a particularly coherent fashion. I don't think his attempt at parody worked, and it got in the way of what is an interesting point.

I hope you find what you want anyway. I'll have a look at his blog.

[Darcy88]

They are all the same thing: mechanisms for spiritualized power and domination

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2013/08/08/sutras-of-flesh-and-blood/

Too many words, too many thoughts, too much beclouding analysis. That article and that man are decidedly un-zen. Nietzsche, Marx, Zizek..... these have next to zero relevance to the Buddhist aspirant and yet you can tell this writer's ideas on Buddhism are very much informed by such thinkers.

[YesNo]

how does nothingness which is a state of not being there unites anything.
nothing is empty and a human is not.

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation, but when I hear talk of "nothingness", from whatever source, I assume there is some implied "field" that the person is talking about even when they seem to deny it.

Fields do exist such as the magnetosphere around the earth that protects us from solar winds and allows life to exist. Such a field is no-thing, but it is real and can trap radiation in the Van Allen Belts and protect us. As I currently see it, achieving actual nothingness, neither things nor fields, is likely an impossible and undesirable goal.

Perhaps there is too much emphasis on the non-self in Buddhism in the way it is presented. I've never actually achieved nothingness as a result of the amateurish meditations I have tried, but then I could not see myself having "nothingness" as an intention. If I were convinced nothingness were the ultimate goal of mediation, I would stop doing it.

[Darcy88]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation, but when I hear talk of "nothingness", from whatever source, I assume there is some implied "field" that the person is talking about even when they seem to deny it.

Fields do exist such as the magnetosphere around the earth that protects us from solar winds and allows life to exist. Such a field is no-thing, but it is real and can trap radiation in the Van Allen Belts and protect us. As I currently see it, achieving actual nothingness, neither things nor fields, is likely an impossible and undesirable goal.

Perhaps there is too much emphasis on the non-self in Buddhism in the way it is presented. I've never actually achieved nothingness as a result of the amateurish meditations I have tried, but then I could not see myself having "nothingness" as an intention. If I were convinced nothingness were the ultimate goal of mediation, I would stop doing it.

That's because you're only considering it intellectually. If you meditated deeply on it and apprehended it with more than just the intellect you'd see that there is much more to it and that it is very positivistic.

[YesNo]

If it is positivistic, then it is not the "nothingness" (neither object nor field) that I am seeing it as. In that case, Hinduism and Buddhism would be two different approaches to the same end.

[mal4mac]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation...

The end of "dukkha" where dukkha is Pali for any kind of suffering or irritation you might feel in life... this is expressed very clearly in the basic doctrines of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.

This is achieved, supposedly, through Insight Meditation (Vipissana) where you "let go" of everything that causes suffering, which means letting go of everything... leaving you with nothing. To do this you are supposed to see the unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and "non-self-essence" of every "dependent origination", that is, of everything that appears in consciousness.

I think this is impossible... how do you you, for instance, get rid of the feeling of the chair against your buttocks... your buttocks, the chair, and gravity are permanent (at least as long as you live...) so you can never see their impermanence. You can intellectualize it... you know your buttocks are impermanent... but, as Darcy says, intellectualising is a big-no-no in Buddhist circles. You have to see impermanence. Because you can't do this you keep on buying Buddhist books and repeatedly going on meditation courses, it's a great way to money and power for Buddhist monks and lay teachers.... just as being gatekeepers for the impossible ideas of "heaven" and "God" are great ways to money & power for Christian monks and bishops.

And you can't end all pain, anyway, I think most Buddhists accept that, so it's really just talking about mental suffering/irritation. If you're happy enough, not suffering that much, I don't really see the need to bother. Also, there are other less difficult, less impossible, things you can try first... like Socratic, stoic, skeptical and epicurean methods. Or just read a detective novel to distract you from your worries. These are more intellectual methods, of course, but I much prefer them to meditation, and they usually get me to a "happy enough" place.

[mal4mac]

If it is positivistic, then it is not the "nothingness" (neither object nor field) that I am seeing it as. In that case, Hinduism and Buddhism would be two different approaches to the same end.

Isn't the end of suffering positive? That occurs when you think of nothing.

Also, you do get states of "joy" and "calm" in samatha meditation (the precursor to vipissana)... but as you are supposed to let go of them, 'cause they are "something", I am not sure if they really count as positive... in fact they are probably negative 'cause you kinda want to hold on to them!

Hindus believe that the ultimate level of reality is atman, which is one with Brahman, this is not nothing. The Buddhist philosopher Candrakīrti shows the difference:

"Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)

[Paulclem]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation

For an ordinary practitioner - most practitioners - they are trying to gain a psychological insight into the mind, and, depending upon the tradition whose programme of meditation they are following, reducing their delusions by recognising negative features of their mind. This might be through a focused meditation on anger or Vipassana or Zazen. There are lots of types. I would disagree with Darcy that what Buddhists are trying to achieve is nothingness. The ordinary practitioner is not trying to achieve anything like an insight or realisation of Emptiness, or the ultimate nature of reality. It is much more prosaic, and therefore more relevant. In trying to reduce delusions by gaining insights into the nature of the mind, the practitioner is trying to reduce their suffering and increase their wisdom - a wisdom that recognises aspects of the Four Noble Truths, such as the causes of suffering ie delusions like anger, jealousy etc that are expressions of egotism.

Perhaps there is too much emphasis on the non-self in Buddhism in the way it is presented.

You may be right with this. Non self is a concept that is related to Emptiness and is an advanced practice. Although I may be making a very wrong assumption - and apologies if I am - I don't think we who are chatting here are anywhere near this. As a result we are talking without experience. Though there's no problem in discussing it, we have to concede that we may well be making assumptions and making statements that we wouldn't make if we had realised the concept.

I think this is impossible... how do you you, for instance, get rid of the feeling of the chair against your buttocks... your buttocks, the chair, and gravity are permanent (at least as long as you live...) so you can never see their impermanence. You can intellectualize it... you know your buttocks are impermanent.

I don't know why it would be taught if it were impossible. This is the claim of the Pure land Buddhists who hthus rely upon Amitaha's mantra on the basis that enlightenment is unachievable. This is denied by the other Buddhist traditions, and, as I said, why would teachers like HH The Dalai Lama promote something that is impossible? Have you considered that there are other types of practice that might be more suited to you? I'm not trying to drag you back to practice though Mal.

Because you can't do this you keep on buying Buddhist books and repeatedly going on meditation courses, it's a great way to money and power for Buddhist monks and lay teachers.... just as being gatekeepers for the impossible ideas of "heaven" and "God" are great ways to money & power for Christian monks and bishops.

This is very unfair to the sincere efforts of teachers to teach the Dharma. In fact, you could buy lots of Buddhist books, but texts are freely available on the internet, and there are often free books distributed sometimes which are sponsored by patrons. We had some a number of years ago from Taiwan. The teachings themselves are given free, and Monks and Nuns, as part of their vows, are not supposed to own property. In practice though, all organisations need funds, and I don't see any problem with selling books. No-one is forced to buy anything, and I don't buy your argument that repeated failure will lead to people buying more books. A friend of mine once accused a Driving instructor of the same thing on the basis that more fails would bring his customers back. His response was that success spreads the word and that's how he sustained his business. I think the success of Buddhism, not just as a philosophy and practice, but as a moral way of life, is down to the beneficial changes - deep and superficial - it can effect in a person.

[Darcy88]

My main motivation for meditation is quelling psychological turmoil. But I also do it to come to a deep intuitional realization of the truths of certain principles of Eastern religions. Buddha is number one for me, but I am also interested in the philosophies of Laozi and Patanjali.

There is hard science to back the benefits of meditation up.

[Paulclem]

My main motivation for meditation is quelling psychological turmoil. But I also do it to come to a deep intuitional realization of the truths of certain principles of Eastern religions. Buddha is number one for me, but I am also interested in the philosophies of Laozi and Patanjali.

There is hard science to back the benefits of meditation up.

That's a good motivation. We've all got something about us that needs improving. For me, the biggest is anger. I often think - in calm professional mood - that I'm doing alright, but then I go home and the bloody dog winds me up. Not so good then. :lol:

[Darcy88]

That's a good motivation. We've all got something about us that needs improving. For me, the biggest is anger. I often think - in calm professional mood - that I'm doing alright, but then I go home and the bloody dog winds me up. Not so good then. :lol:

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." - The Buddha.

I love that quote and often recollect it in moments of anger.

[mal4mac]

I'm confused with what Buddhists are aiming to achieve with meditation

For an ordinary practitioner - most practitioners - they are trying to gain a psychological insight into the mind

That isn't fundamental surely, if so it's a pretty unattractive thing! Surely the important thing is to end suffering, and the Buddha indeed puts that up front in the 4NT and N8P. The pursuit of insight is 7th part of the N8P, not the be all and end all.



, and, depending upon the tradition whose programme of meditation they are following, reducing their delusions by recognising negative features of their mind. This might be through a focused meditation on anger or Vipassana or Zazen. There are lots of types.


Aren't these all fundamentally the same? Don't you focus on anger to see the Three Characteristsics: "suffering, impermanence, no-self"? Don't you sit in wait, in Zazen, for mental events so you can gain insight into their nature? Don't all methods, really, reduce to Vipassana, which means Insight in Pali?



I would disagree with Darcy that what Buddhists are trying to achieve is nothingness. The ordinary practitioner is not trying to achieve anything like an insight or realisation of Emptiness, or the ultimate nature of reality.


Aren't all practitioners seeking the end of suffering? I don't get your "ordinary" practitioner distinction, who are the extraordinary practitoners? Chogyma Trungpa? He was an alcoholic who crashed a car into a joke shop - now that's an extraordinary practice :)! (Either that or he's just a common criminal...)



... why would teachers like HH The Dalai Lama promote something that is impossible? Have you considered that there are other types of practice that might be more suited to you?


He's a nice guy, preaching compassion and democracy, but that doesn't mean that his metaphysics and meditation practices are worth a dime. Newton was a great physicist, and I greatly admire him for that, even if his Christian beliefs were totally beyond belief. DL does say meditation gets him through the heavy political day, but Obama & Mandela get though their heavy days without it. So is it necessary?

I don't need to practice. I'm not suffering all that much, and I'm happy being a playful ape, I don't want to be a God, which I think is what most Buddhists are seeking, at root, if they look closely at their motives. Life has denied them their apeish demands, so they think they will be a God instead, but this is as possible as clicking your heals and ending up in OZ. Better to be a playful ape and demand something else apeish. Can't beat up the silverback, go look for a banana instead...

Alan Watts said he sat like a cat, so maybe I'll do that practice, which is also a non-practice. Doesn't "practice" smack of "doing", another Buddhist no-no, so in my non-practice will I not be the perfect practitioner? I'll go beyond Wallace and be a non-buddhist with a non-practice! His practice:

http://glennwallis.com/meditation-group/

Aside - Watts was a drunk as well, and Kerouac,... does Buddhism lead to drink?



Because you can't do this you keep on buying Buddhist books and repeatedly going on meditation courses, it's a great way to money and power for Buddhist monks and lay teachers.... just as being gatekeepers for the impossible ideas of "heaven" and "God" are great ways to money & power for Christian monks and bishops.

This is very unfair to the sincere efforts of teachers to teach the Dharma.


Maybe some are sincere, but brain washed.



In fact, you could buy lots of Buddhist books, but texts are freely available on the internet...


A subtle marketing ploy. There's a famous computer programming book that was given away freely, but people found it difficult, and paid to go on courses.

Though I guess blatant marketing practices are largely based in the West. In traditional countries the monks have brainwashed the populace to give them free food, and build them nice monasteries. Nice work if you can get it! Sit around all day, like a cat, and then go and miaow for free food. Heck, maybe they are playful cat-apes after all!

[mal4mac]

My main motivation for meditation is quelling psychological turmoil. But I also do it to come to a deep intuitional realization of the truths of certain principles of Eastern religions. Buddha is number one for me, but I am also interested in the philosophies of Laozi and Patanjali.

There is hard science to back the benefits of meditation up.

Hard science? It's psychology... see what Feynman ( a real hard scientist) thought about psychology... and that was mainstream psychology, not the fringe Buddhist/brainscan stuff (check out the spec-no-bud site for their cogitations on that "science"... they looked at actual papers, not pop-science, and found that real brain scanners think the Buddhist brain scan stuff isn't up to scratch.

Anger is quite refreshing. I let myself feel it after my latest bout with x-Buddhism and if felt g-o-o-o-d. No more trying to love my soddish former colleagues, no more trying to love Hitler, or the dodgy bankers. Be angry at the the %$$£&££! All internal of course, apart from a bit of fist waving, and a bit of hanging Hitler, perhaps. I'm not suggesting you hurt anyone, of course, except Hitler. But what's wrong with "Jesus against the money lenders in the temple" kind of anger? Cats get angry, steal their food and see what happens. Eat when hungry, sleep when tired, sit when you feel like it, get angry when someone steals your food. Isn't that Zen?

[JuniperWoolf]

Hard science? It's psychology... see what Feynman ( a real hard scientist) thought about psychology... and that was mainstream psychology, not the fringe Buddhist/brainscan stuff (check out the spec-no-bud site for their cogitations on that "science"... they looked at actual papers, not pop-science, and found that real brain scanners think the Buddhist brain scan stuff isn't up to scratch.

What exactly is your scientific background? Any undergraduate student who has taken a course on scientific methodology should be able to pick up a copy of the American Journal of Psychology and recognize empirical method when they see it. Although psychologists study difficult-to-grasp concepts like memory or personality the subject of inquiry has nothing to do with whether something is "scientific." Science is a method, and the method of psychological experimentation is the same as that used in any field. You're trying to say that you don't consider behaviourist studies of the 1950's science, in an extremely (and actually deliberately) overt way? Today's cognitive psychology has added innovation to that scientific rigour displayed by behaviourists and has impacted society in ways that you probably can't imagine.

Also, who do you propose should study the effects of meditation on stress levels, or how easily the average person bends to authority, or how to treat someone with a psychological disorder? Should we leave it up to quantum physicists like Feynman? Should we just not bother pursuing those lines of inquiry?

[Paulclem]

That isn't fundamental surely, if so it's a pretty unattractive thing! Surely the important thing is to end suffering

I don't mean a western psychology - but an understanding of the mind. Yes, the important thing is to end suffering, but where do you start with that? Your own mind as the basis of dealing with the things that engender that suffering - the most fundamental being our delusion related to an existing self which leads to egoism, anger, jealousy etc etc. Recognising that your own mind causes much of the suffering is where you start.

Aren't these all fundamentally the same? Don't you focus on anger to see the Three Characteristsics: "suffering, impermanence, no-self"? Don't you sit in wait, in Zazen, for mental events so you can gain insight into their nature? Don't all methods, really, reduce to Vipassana, which means Insight in Pali?

They do not all reduce to vipassana. In the Gelug tradition one set of meditations I done in a sequence of 21, which can be over 21 mediations, 21 weeks or 21 months depending upon advice. These have specific objectives such as meditating upon the Precious human Life and use analytical and placement meditation. These Lam Rim meditations were developed by Lama Tsonkhapa.

I don't get your "ordinary" practitioner distinction, who are the extraordinary practitoners? Chogyma Trungpa? He was an alcoholic who crashed a car into a joke shop - now that's an extraordinary practice ! (Either that or he's just a common criminal...)

Monks studying the path are ordinary practitioners Mal - so what does that make us? Ordinary too if we have a sustained practice. I think it's clear who advanced practitioners would be. As for Chgyam Trungpa, drinking while driving makes him a criminal. I can't recall how many references I've answered concerning Chogyam Trungpa. It is a bit tedious, especially considering that there have been Harold Shipmans, a murderous nurse, bent coppers, paedofile Priests, and abusive social workers etc etc none of which degrade what they appeared to represent, but just went to prove that where humans are involved, then human frailty will be too. Yes - lets wheel out Chogyam Trungpa again. There are other supposedly Buddhist sects that operate that are also in it for the prestige and money. there is a list of these groups and individuals - some of which are self proclaimedly enlightened - who do not represent Buddhism, but who masquerade as such. Fortunately Buddhism is bigger than any of these.


DL does say meditation gets him through the heavy political day, but Obama & Mandela get though their heavy days without it. So is it necessary?

One of the things HH The dalai lama says is that he is a simple Buddhist Monk. That being the case, he has a meditation practice to maintain and associated vows to fulfil. Other political leaders will have none of this. His objectives are different to politicians, as that is only part of his job. He's first and foremost a monk, then the representative of the Tibetan people and all those who have come to rely upon him, and he's an international politician. I'm not saying he works harder. I'm saying his objectives are different.

I don't need to practice. I'm not suffering all that much, and I'm happy being a playful ape, I don't want to be a God, which I think is what most Buddhists are seeking, at root, if they look closely at their motives. Life has denied them their apeish demands, so they think they will be a God instead, but this is as possible as clicking your heals and ending up in OZ. Better to be a playful ape and demand something else apeish. Can't beat up the silverback, go look for a banana instead...

The four noble truths on suffering is clear that our happiness also leads to suffering. You are neglecting this fact. We in the west are generally much more fortunate than poorer countries. We live, relatively, like princes and it may be very difficult to see through that. Anyway, it's your path to follow Mal. Who can tell you what to do?

Doesn't "practice" smack of "doing",

Toying with words is not an answer. practice merely refers to what meditation a person engages in. Practice requires effort so there's no real get out if a person wants to try.

Aside - Watts was a drunk as well, and Kerouac,... does Buddhism lead to drink?

Nope

Maybe some are sincere, but brain washed

Brain washing has been discredited. I think you're clutching at straws.

monks have brainwashed the populace to give them free food, and build them nice monasteries. Nice work if you can get it! Sit around all day

You surely know that the culture of giving alms pre-dates Buddhism and is a cultural phenomenon in India. It doesn't happen in the west, japan or China due to cultural attitudes to work. The brainwashing failed there then.

Joking aside, I think I can see that there are some major assumptions you have there Mal, particularly about the relationship between a practice, and the ultimate aims of Buddhism. A practitioner has to start with themselves and understand their own mind first. How else can they gain control of those factors which cause suffering? - (in the four noble truths this mainly refers to mental suffering rather than gross suffering). Anyway, good luck.

[Darcy88]

Hard science? It's psychology... see what Feynman ( a real hard scientist) thought about psychology... and that was mainstream psychology, not the fringe Buddhist/brainscan stuff (check out the spec-no-bud site for their cogitations on that "science"... they looked at actual papers, not pop-science, and found that real brain scanners think the Buddhist brain scan stuff isn't up to scratch.

Anger is quite refreshing. I let myself feel it after my latest bout with x-Buddhism and if felt g-o-o-o-d. No more trying to love my soddish former colleagues, no more trying to love Hitler, or the dodgy bankers. Be angry at the the %$$£&££! All internal of course, apart from a bit of fist waving, and a bit of hanging Hitler, perhaps. I'm not suggesting you hurt anyone, of course, except Hitler. But what's wrong with "Jesus against the money lenders in the temple" kind of anger? Cats get angry, steal their food and see what happens. Eat when hungry, sleep when tired, sit when you feel like it, get angry when someone steals your food. Isn't that Zen?

The Dalai Lama says he would go back and kill Hitler if given the chance. Patanjali says to be indifferent towards evil. Thich Nhat Hanh says anger is bad because it consumes you, confuses you, possesses you, and makes you act irrationally. This last claim is hard to dispute. Not allowing yourself to be taken over by anger is a good thing. Most of the things that anger us aren't extreme Hitlerian acts, on the contrary they are petty things like traffic jams, arguments, not getting one's way. Meditation can give one a sense of calmness which better enables one to handle such negative emotions.

I don't know where you are getting your facts from, but I've heard from many legitimate non-Buddhist sources that meditation has real verifiable positive effects on the brain.

And getting angry at a thief is not Zen.


"A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."

You can go ahead and emulate cats though. I won't try to stop you.

[mal4mac]

As for Chgyam Trungpa, drinking while driving makes him a criminal. I can't recall how many references I've answered concerning Chogyam Trungpa. It is a bit tedious, especially considering that there have been Harold Shipmans, a murderous nurse, bent coppers, paedofile Priests, and abusive social workers etc etc none of which degrade what they appeared to represent


But none of these malignant pygmies had anywhere near the spiritual authority in their institutions that Trungpa had, and still has, in Buddhism. Also, doctors, nurses, and coppers are not expected to be spiritual authorities beyond reproach. Priest are, hence the massive damage to the Roman catholic church caused by the paedophile priest scandal. I think their activities have certainly degraded the church in the eyes of many people... and none of those priests were anywhere near as powerful as Trungpa.

[Paulclem]

But none of these malignant pygmies had anywhere near the spiritual authority in their institutions that Trungpa had, and still has, in Buddhism. Also, doctors, nurses, and coppers are not expected to be spiritual authorities beyond reproach. Priest are, hence the massive damage to the Roman catholic church caused by the paedophile priest scandal. I think their activities have certainly degraded the church in the eyes of many people... and none of those priests were anywhere near as powerful as Trungpa.

As powerful as Trungpa? I think you are overstating his influence. A Tibetan lama may have influence over his tradition - Gelug, Kagyu, Nyingma etc. A lama will not represent another tradition, only be an ambassador for Buddhism in general. So he was a part of a Tibetan lineage, not the whole thing, and he certainly does not represent the whole of Buddhism as the different schools have their own teachers. The fact that he has come to be a byword for bad Buddhist practice is solely because he was a high profile in the West.

His failings are highlighted because of the expectations incumbent upon all Monks and Nuns, but high profile ones in particular. It is shocking that someone who claims to teach a moral path should fall short. That's humans for you though.

[Darcy88]

I don't need to practice. I'm not suffering all that much, and I'm happy being a playful ape, I don't want to be a God, which I think is what most Buddhists are seeking, at root, if they look closely at their motives. Life has denied them their apeish demands, so they think they will be a God instead, but this is as possible as clicking your heals and ending up in OZ. Better to be a playful ape and demand something else apeish. Can't beat up the silverback, go look for a banana instead...


Can't beat up the silverback? Do you have any idea at all how many of the toughest most physically powerful men of history and of today were or are Buddhists, Taoists, or meditators in general? Your paragraph here smacks of Nietzschean misconception, of the notion that religious people are weak failures in nature and so seek some beyond to compensate spiritually for what they lack physically, materially, worldly, ect. It is a load of hogwash.

My kind of Buddhism has no God. I don't want to be a God. I can't even understand what you're talking about.

Life doesn't deny us our "apeish demands," if I'm understanding that correctly. I could just as easily go out and womanize, drink, fight, do whatever I want, but I choose to spend a great deal of time meditating because it makes me happier, plain and simple. Peace of mind>>>>> transient pleasures.

[mal4mac]

Can't beat up the silverback? Do you have any idea at all how many of the toughest most physically powerful men of history and of today were or are Buddhists, Taoists, or meditators in general? Your paragraph here smacks of Nietzschean misconception, of the notion that religious people are weak failures in nature and so seek some beyond to compensate spiritually for what they lack physically, materially, worldly, ect. It is a load of hogwash.

I was using a metaphor, physical strength has nothing to do with it. The strongest men physically can be lame heads, while weak men, physically, can be Nietzsche.

Of course a small minority of the weak are quite strong in worldly, political ambition & abilities, the Nick Cleggs or Richard Nixons of Buddhism, and see an easy way to power through exploiting their weaker brethren.

I was using "God" as a metaphorical signifier for spiritual hogwash in general. Buddhists are in pursuit of metaphysical hogwash, of the "enlightenment" & "Nirvana" vintage, thinking it is champagne, because they think drinking it will set them above the masses, and above the defeats they have experienced in their human/ape lives.



Life doesn't deny us our "apeish demands," if I'm understanding that correctly. I could just as easily go out and womanize, drink, fight, do whatever I want, but I choose to spend a great deal of time meditating because it makes me happier, plain and simple. Peace of mind>>>>> transient pleasures.

I wasn't encouraging womanizing, drinking, fighting; Nietzsche points us to ways of sublimating these tendencies through art, either creating it or experiencing it. Recently I was reading some top-rated Buddhist works at the same time as reading Anna K. The former was like watching paint dry, certainly suffering, the latter was like being at a wonderful party. Have you seen any top literary critic suggesting that reading the Pali canon is a wonderful aesthetic experience? Buddhism, in any case, discourages listening to great classical music & reading great literature, as well as sex. It's all parts of its power drive, trying to get the sheep to bow to its will by denying their most basic drives.

Reading great literature is not a transient pleasure; it's a pleasure that's, usually, repeated every time you pick a masterpiece. Often it's calming, often it's stimulating, all-in-all a far more varied, human, & happy experience than watching your nose, reading dry-as-dust scriptures, or listening to tedious dharma talks.

[mal4mac]

As powerful as Trungpa? I think you are overstating his influence.

In modern Western Buddhism is there any greater influence? Not only only Tibetan best-sellers like Ricard recommend him and his books, but so do the best-sellers in other traditions, like Suzuki, Kornfield, and Kabat-Zinn. It's probably because he is very much on the side of freedom, of throwing off "the establishment", of letting the ape loose, perhaps even more so than Nietzsche! (Maybe more sublimation required... less drinking... drunken apes are not pretty...)



A Tibetan lama may have influence over his tradition - Gelug, Kagyu, Nyingma etc. A lama will not represent another tradition, only be an ambassador for Buddhism in general. So he was a part of a Tibetan lineage, not the whole thing, and he certainly does not represent the whole of Buddhism as the different schools have their own teachers.

But doesn't the Dalai Lama support all the traditions? In any case, he had the support and backing of the Dalai Lama, and not just for his work in the West:

"From 1959 to 1963, by appointment of the Dalai Lama, Trungpa served as the spiritual advisor for the Young Lamas Home School in Dalhousie, India." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6gyam_Trungpa


The fact that he has come to be a byword for bad Buddhist practice is solely because he was a high profile in the West.

But he's also a byword for good Buddhist practice! Hence the continuing questioning. Interesting that you are not using the "crazy wisdom" defence. Is he too "anti-establishment" for you? The only "out" that I can see is for the Dalai Lama to posthumously strip him of all titles, and admit he made a mistake in backing him, but that would really upset followers in Trungpa's lineage, and the "crazy wisdom" guys. Another NKT-like bust up, only much bigger... so I guess his current policy of "sweep under carpet" is the one to go for... smacks of mundane political manouvering though... Can you really mix politics and spirituality?

[Darcy88]

I was using a metaphor, physical strength has nothing to do with it. The strongest men physically can be lame heads, while weak men, physically, can be Nietzsche.

Of course a small minority of the weak are quite strong in worldly, political ambition & abilities, the Nick Cleggs or Richard Nixons of Buddhism, and see an easy way to power through exploiting their weaker brethren.

I was using "God" as a metaphorical signifier for spiritual hogwash in general. Buddhists are in pursuit of metaphysical hogwash, of the "enlightenment" & "Nirvana" vintage, thinking it is champagne, because they think drinking it will set them above the masses, and above the defeats they have experienced in their human/ape lives.



I wasn't encouraging womanizing, drinking, fighting; Nietzsche points us to ways of sublimating these tendencies through art, either creating it or experiencing it. Recently I was reading some top-rated Buddhist works at the same time as reading Anna K. The former was like watching paint dry, certainly suffering, the latter was like being at a wonderful party. Have you seen any top literary critic suggesting that reading the Pali canon is a wonderful aesthetic experience? Buddhism, in any case, discourages listening to great classical music & reading great literature, as well as sex. It's all parts of its power drive, trying to get the sheep to bow to its will by denying their most basic drives.

Reading great literature is not a transient pleasure; it's a pleasure that's, usually, repeated every time you pick a masterpiece. Often it's calming, often it's stimulating, all-in-all a far more varied, human, & happy experience than watching your nose, reading dry-as-dust scriptures, or listening to tedious dharma talks.

Maybe there are some ancient sutras condemning art. I don't really care. Nothing I've read has lead me to believe that Buddhism prohibits classical music or Anna Karenina.

Again you associate spirituality with defeat. That notion just doesn't hold up. I know plenty of successful people who are religious.

Reading the Pali Canon is not supposed to be an aesthetically satisfying experience. Medical books are boring as well, but they contain important knowledge that can enhance one's quality of life.

Yep you're pretty much just regurgitating basic Nietzsche. If you find peace of mind reading that egoistic semi-lunatic then all the power to you my friend.

Meditating makes me a better artist. Heck, I even read a book a long while ago about a writer who used Zen to help her write.

[Paulclem]

In modern Western Buddhism is there any greater influence? Not only only Tibetan best-sellers like Ricard recommend him and his books, but so do the best-sellers in other traditions, like Suzuki, Kornfield, and Kabat-Zinn. It's probably because he is very much on the side of freedom, of throwing off "the establishment", of letting the ape loose, perhaps even more so than Nietzsche! (Maybe more sublimation required... less drinking... drunken apes are not pretty...)



But doesn't the Dalai Lama support all the traditions? In any case, he had the support and backing of the Dalai Lama, and not just for his work in the West:

"From 1959 to 1963, by appointment of the Dalai Lama, Trungpa served as the spiritual advisor for the Young Lamas Home School in Dalhousie, India." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6gyam_Trungpa



But he's also a byword for good Buddhist practice! Hence the continuing questioning. Interesting that you are not using the "crazy wisdom" defence. Is he too "anti-establishment" for you? The only "out" that I can see is for the Dalai Lama to posthumously strip him of all titles, and admit he made a mistake in backing him, but that would really upset followers in Trungpa's lineage, and the "crazy wisdom" guys. Another NKT-like bust up, only much bigger... so I guess his current policy of "sweep under carpet" is the one to go for... smacks of mundane political manouvering though... Can you really mix politics and spirituality?

I've been involved in Buddhism since 1992, and I have come across his teachings only through an occaisional book. I wouldn't say that his name is bandied as an exemplar of Tibetan Buddhism, but that is before I read about him just now. Truth is, I know more about him from others raising his controversial nature than I do from coming across him elsewhere. (I was incorrect when iI said that he was part of one tradition - he held the Nyingma and kagyu lineages). He opened a lot of meditation centres. I see that as a positive thing, and his writing and teachings were admired.

So we have a problem - a figure who has promoted Buddhism, given teachings and inspiring a lot of support through his centres. On the other hand he is accused of alcoholism, having sexual relations with his students and takng drugs. He crashed a car into a shop and was left paralysed. Whether he was drunk or not may be moot, but given his alcoholism, maybe he was.

Answer: no idea. The only way to judge would be to weigh the harm versus the good - though you would only do that if you thought promoting Buddhism as a positive thing to do.

Do you want to go back to the thread now, or do you want to persist in taking one controversial figure and trying to dovetail him into the universal representative of all Buddhism? As I said before, though he was influential in the West, and in Tibetan Buddhism, there is also Thai, Burmese, Sri Lankan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhists and traditions, as well as their western incarnations.

[Darcy88]

I'm starting to think the ultimate "enlightenment" is Buddhist morality and psychology along with yogic physical and psychical practice/discipline topped off with scientific knowledge, especially quantum physics and neuroscience. Some of the new discoveries being made in those fields are mind-blowing and illusion-shattering. I believe a lot of scientists are living their lives in a state quite akin to Zen enlightenment, in which common-held illusory notions pertaining to the universe and the self have been seen through and transcended.

[mal4mac]

Maybe there are some ancient sutras condemning art. I don't really care. Nothing I've read has lead me to believe that Buddhism prohibits classical music...

I just read an interview with Ajahn Thannisaro and he says he really enjoyed classical music but had to give it up when he became a monk.



Reading the Pali Canon is not supposed to be an aesthetically satisfying experience. Medical books are boring as well, but they contain important knowledge that can enhance one's quality of life.


Point taken, I agree not all important books need be aesthetically pleasing. Although it helps... parts of the Bible are aesthetically pleasing, and all of the Bhagavad Gita.



Yep you're pretty much just regurgitating basic Nietzsche. If you find peace of mind reading that egoistic semi-lunatic then all the power to you my friend.


I don't look to him for peace of mind, but for mental stimulation. Many great minds have seemed "semi-lunatic" by normal standards, even some admired in Buddhism. Trungpa has been mentioned, but there's also, for example, Bodhidharma, who sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous. John Horgan makes many of the same criticisms, without resorting to Nietzsche:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html

"decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people."

Another interesting article here by Mary Garden:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/MaryGarden.html

"Eastern meditation techniques were never meant to be methods to reduce stress and bring about relaxation. They are essentially spiritual tools, designed to apparently "cleanse" the mind of impurities and disturbances so as to attain so-called enlightenment--a concept as nebulous as God."

"When I finally gave up on seeking enlightenment in the late 1970s and returned to worldly life, I also gave up meditating--except for the occasional sitting still for a few minutes here and there, watching my breath in the Vipassana way. However, over the years I would beat myself up about my laziness: "You should meditate," my inner critic would harp. "Every day, for at least half an hour." But why? I now ask. Did it really do me any good? I manage my life perfectly well without it. If I want peace and relaxation, I have a massage, or soak in a hot bath or swim twenty laps at the local pool. Or I go for a long leisurely walk. Or I just sit in a chair and do nothing. Is meditation really as beneficial as its proponents claim?"

[Darcy88]

I just read an interview with Ajahn Thannisaro and he says he really enjoyed classical music but had to give it up when he became a monk.



Point taken, I agree not all important books need be aesthetically pleasing. Although it helps... parts of the Bible are aesthetically pleasing, and all of the Bhagavad Gita.



I don't look to him for peace of mind, but for mental stimulation. Many great minds have seemed "semi-lunatic" by normal standards, even some admired in Buddhism. Trungpa has been mentioned, but there's also, for example, Bodhidharma, who sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous. John Horgan makes many of the same criticisms, without resorting to Nietzsche:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html

"decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people."

Another interesting article here by Mary Garden:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/MaryGarden.html

"Eastern meditation techniques were never meant to be methods to reduce stress and bring about relaxation. They are essentially spiritual tools, designed to apparently "cleanse" the mind of impurities and disturbances so as to attain so-called enlightenment--a concept as nebulous as God."

"When I finally gave up on seeking enlightenment in the late 1970s and returned to worldly life, I also gave up meditating--except for the occasional sitting still for a few minutes here and there, watching my breath in the Vipassana way. However, over the years I would beat myself up about my laziness: "You should meditate," my inner critic would harp. "Every day, for at least half an hour." But why? I now ask. Did it really do me any good? I manage my life perfectly well without it. If I want peace and relaxation, I have a massage, or soak in a hot bath or swim twenty laps at the local pool. Or I go for a long leisurely walk. Or I just sit in a chair and do nothing. Is meditation really as beneficial as its proponents claim?"

Just because a monk gives up classical music doesn't mean the Buddhist lay person has to. Japanese monks have contributed greatly to their nation's artistic history.

Meditation works. I have 10 years now of personal experience to back this up. I can be happy without meditation, but with meditation happiness is pretty much guaranteed. It drives away anxiety and depression. Exercise is the only thing that comes close to achieving the same positive effects, for me at least. I really can't understand why anyone would have anything against it. There are times when I meditate 6 hours or more a day, but usually it is 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes at night. It balances me. It makes me enjoy things more. It is funny you mention classical music because it just so happens that my favourite thing is to meditate and then listen to classical music right afterwards, when my mind and my senses are focused. Meditation makes you able to resist and ignore stimuli, but it also gives you the ability to focus with enhanced sensitivity on things like music.

To be honest I'm not even really in pursuit of "enlightenment." I used to be, but not anymore. I've merely noticed the positive effects meditation and yoga have and they are really merely forms of exercise to me. I literally think of them the way I do of jogging or shadow-boxing. I used to be really into weight-lifting and then martial arts. The brain is part of the body and so by meditating I am simply working out that organ the way I used to bench press to develop my chest.

Martial arts and yoga for the body, meditation and books for the brain. That is my formula. But that isn't to say I don't study and seek to embody the truths of Eastern religions. I just don't use the attainment of enlightenment as my motivation for doing so.

And my opinion on meditation can't be reduced to some placebo effect is has, because I began meditating long ago and experienced a feeling I can only call an orgasm of the brain long before I read of such experiences in books.

[Paulclem]

I just read an interview with Ajahn Thannisaro and he says he really enjoyed classical music but had to give it up when he became a monk.

Is it really a criticism though? A Monk or a Nun is given respect precisely because they have given up worldly pursuits. They know this when they become Monks and Nuns, and decide to follow their chosen path. They also give up alcohol, clothes, hairstyles, chatting etc etc, because they are being fast tracked into focusing upon their path. Anyone might think that classical music is important. Ok, but how important is classical music really? Enjoyable, providing a good living for some, very skilful, etc. But if I never heard any classical music again - or any music ever again - what effect would it have. None except perhaps the regret of not hearing it briefly before I got on with what I was doing.

"decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people."

"decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people."

So these are physiological effects presumably. I know that there are claims for the beneficial effects of meditation, de-stressing etc etc, but these are really not the point of meditation. You are quite correct to say that you could do other stuff and feel just as well. This is not what meditation is about. Meditation may have related stress reducing effects, and you quite rightly say that meditation may have a negative effect on some people - particularly with respect to mental illness. The purpose of meditation is to initially understand the mind and develop methods to increase positive aspects and reduce negative traits. Confronting psychological states for a person with a mental illness is not a good idea without the proper therapy/ guidance/ treatment. No-one would dispute that. The definition I heard of meditation is the contemplation of a virtuous object. Analysis of a negative action or state, and a willingness to reduce that state through placement of an antidote - patience for anger for example. When you are dealing with a lifetime of habitual anger, then this is not a quick process.

but there's also, for example, Bodhidharma, who sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.

Milarepa developed hard skin on his backside due to his prolonged sitting, but the point is that both of these people were so determined on the path that they were beyond personal privation. No teacher I have ever heard would expect anyone to do something so extreme. It can be argued that Bodhidharma and Milarepa were not ordinary, and what would concern an ordinary person did not concern them in the same way. I don't think you can criticise Buddhism on these grounds. No-one is expected to do anything like this, and in fact, both these practitioners motivated themselves to their efforts.

"Eastern meditation techniques were never meant to be methods to reduce stress and bring about relaxation. They are essentially spiritual tools, designed to apparently "cleanse" the mind of impurities and disturbances so as to attain so-called enlightenment--a concept as nebulous as God."

he's entitled to his opinion of course. If someone sincerely tries something out, then they must come to their own conclusions, as he obviously has. I think his last point - a concept as nebulous as God, is unfair. He has decided not to follow the path - ok - but why try to criticise it because it didn't work for him? It clearly works for many. If he said - I didn't get that - fair enough.

What is clear is that we in the west have an inflated expectation of Buddhism. it is my experience that it is a benficial practice, but we've got to remember that we are not monks and nuns for the main part, and as such cannot devote much of our time to practice. That being the case - it wil take longer. There are no quick fixes claimed in Buddhism - a stream enterer has only to reincarnate 7 more times! That's 350 years for someone who lives 50 years each life. Do we fully appreciate that?

[mal4mac]

... Anyone might think that classical music is important. Ok, but how important is classical music really? Enjoyable, providing a good living for some, very skilful, etc. But if I never heard any classical music again - or any music ever again - what effect would it have. None except perhaps the regret of not hearing it briefly before I got on with what I was doing.


But what would you get on with? Washing the dishes? For me Socratic philosophy, classical music, drama and literature are essential. At a pinch, I might "get away" with just one of them, but lose them all, and my life wouldn't be worth living. The thought of just having "the Buddhist path" doesn't seem very attractive.



The definition I heard of meditation is the contemplation of a virtuous object. Analysis of a negative action or state, and a willingness to reduce that state through placement of an antidote - patience for anger for example. When you are dealing with a lifetime of habitual anger, then this is not a quick process.


Is this a purely Tibetan meditation? It's not covered in the mostly Theravadan/Zen texts I've read. Is it a practice covered in the original Pali suttas? If not, is it really Buddhism?

By analysis do you mean a rational questioning of the thoughts leading to anger? For instance, you might be angry at colleagues for using you as a political pawn. You can take the sting out of this by remembering that people & office politics are stupid, to be ignored, and its your evening reading of Socrates that counts. This is a purely rational way of attacking anger that isn't recommended in the meditation books I've come across, but seems the most efficient method, to reduce it to a level of enjoyable stimulation, rather than a level of self consuming destruction. I haven't found trying to replace anger directly by patience possible, how can you just swap one emotion with another?




he's entitled to his opinion of course. If someone sincerely tries something out, then they must come to their own conclusions, as he obviously has. I think his last point - a concept as nebulous as God, is unfair. He has decided not to follow the path - ok - but why try to criticise it because it didn't work for him? It clearly works for many. If he said - I didn't get that - fair enough.


Got what? A feeling that they understand everything and life has infinite meaning? This might just be a feeling, maybe induced by meditation, maybe induced by eating the wrong mushrooms. To equate such "mind storms" with something grand like "Enlightenment", "Nibanna", "Heaven" is just metaphysical posturing, pure nonsense.

The West had its enlightenment through the works of Kant, Nietzsche, et al. They swept away the metaphysical nonsense of Christianity, it's about time to do the same for Eastern religions.

[mal4mac]

Meditation works. I have 10 years now of personal experience to back this up. I can be happy without meditation, but with meditation happiness is pretty much guaranteed. It drives away anxiety and depression.


Horgan wasn't arguing that it didn't work, but he was arguing that "just sitting" is just as effective. If you "just sat" for thirty minutes a day then wouldn't you also become more relaxed? Who knows? Try it for ten years... or read the research literature. Of course "just sitting" doesn't sound so grand as MEDITATION. You can't pretend you're becoming a God if you're "just lazing around" like any old hoi poloi fisherman or sun worshiper.



It is funny you mention classical music because it just so happens that my favourite thing is to meditate and then listen to classical music right afterwards, when my mind and my senses are focused. Meditation makes you able to resist and ignore stimuli, but it also gives you the ability to focus with enhanced sensitivity on things like music.

So you are claiming meditation gives you "super powers", an enhanced sensitivity to music, compared with any old music listener who doesn't meditate. And you were accusing Nietzsche of egotism?



To be honest I'm not even really in pursuit of "enlightenment." I used to be, but not anymore. I've merely noticed the positive effects meditation and yoga have and they are really merely forms of exercise to me. I literally think of them the way I do of jogging or shadow-boxing. I used to be really into weight-lifting and then martial arts. The brain is part of the body and so by meditating I am simply working out that organ the way I used to bench press to develop my chest.


So now you are claiming that meditation leads to general brain development. Any research to back that up?

[Paulclem]

But what would you get on with? Washing the dishes? For me Socratic philosophy, classical music, drama and literature are essential. At a pinch, I might "get away" with just one of them, but lose them all, and my life wouldn't be worth living. The thought of just having "the Buddhist path" doesn't seem very attractive.

The point is Mal that they are just a part of samsara. The other point is that no-one is going to ask you to give them up. You're not bound by any vows, but you can still call yourself a Buddhist - if you wanted to.

Socratic philosophy, classical music, drama and literature are essential They are not essential, only desirable. Your claim that life wouldn't be worth living without them is a little worrying.

Is this a purely Tibetan meditation? It's not covered in the mostly Theravadan/Zen texts I've read. Is it a practice covered in the original Pali suttas? If not, is it really Buddhism?

It's part of the tradition I follow - Tibetan Mahayana in the Gelug tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamrim#Subjects_of_the_lamrim

There are more than Therevadin and Zen.


By analysis do you mean a rational questioning of the thoughts leading to anger? For instance, you might be angry at colleagues for using you as a political pawn. You can take the sting out of this by remembering that people & office politics are stupid, to be ignored, and its your evening reading of Socrates that counts. This is a purely rational way of attacking anger that isn't recommended in the meditation books I've come across, but seems the most efficient method, to reduce it to a level of enjoyable stimulation, rather than a level of self consuming destruction. I haven't found trying to replace anger directly by patience possible, how can you just swap one emotion with another?


The meditations I described are another way to Vipissana and Zazen. Analytical meditation is where you examine a situation where you resorted to anger and examine it - coming to a conclusion about its effects. The effects of anger are invariably negative - (not wrathfulness where anger is used positively to prevent something bad from happening - you might be wrathful with a mugger for example). Having come to a conclusion that anger is bad, you then make a determination to be more patient an use placement meditation to try to fix this feeling at the heart, meditating upon how this feels.

I haven't found trying to replace anger directly by patience possible, how can you just swap one emotion with another?

You won't. It is a powerful emotion and takes lots of practice to quell. I found meditation gives me space to pause before reacting, though I wouldn't say I've quelled my anger, just given myself that bit of space when dealing with it. Without examining anger in this way, the theory goes that a person would just react in their habitual angry way. By working on anger, you're trying to alter the habitual response with more insight into yourself and how your mind works. That bit of space gives you more control eventually. It's not easy, but then no-one said it was.

Got what? A feeling that they understand everything and life has infinite meaning? This might just be a feeling, maybe induced by meditation, maybe induced by eating the wrong mushrooms. To equate such "mind storms" with something grand like "Enlightenment", "Nibanna", "Heaven" is just metaphysical posturing, pure nonsense.

The way I look at it is that I'm very far from achieving anything like Emptiness, let alone Enlightenment. I have no experience of these things, and who knows how many lifetimes before I do. I can only go on my small experience, and that is that the meditations work for me. By logical extension, if this works, if this method is valid, then it gives me faith that those things that I'm ultimately going for, are achievable. The words of The Buddha, HH The Dalai Lama, and the teachers I've had lead me to believe this. I have lots of reasons for believing in Buddhism - most are linked to what has happened to me, the people I have met and Buddhist friends. In the final analysis for me, though, it has always made sense. It has made sense, and has worked for me. If it doesn't make sense or work for you, then I can understand your attitude. Who could have a problem with that?

The West had its enlightenment through the works of Kant, Nietzsche, et al. They swept away the metaphysical nonsense of Christianity, it's about time to do the same for Eastern religions.

There is no escape from suffering to be found in Kant, Nietzsche or any other western psychology or religion. A salve and promise at most.

metaphysical nonsense

This metaphysical nonsense you mention is at odds with the mundane fact of my attempts at self improvement through meditation and contemplation. The Buddhism I see and experience is not about metaphysics, but about how I become a more positive and compassionate person in the face of inevitable changing fortunes, death and separation. Enlightenment is the long game - the end of the match, what I'm mainly concerned with now is keeping my eye on the ball and perhaps passing it well.

[YesNo]

Another interesting article here by Mary Garden:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/MaryGarden.html


I think Garden makes some good points about the potential damage that can come from meditation. This is not a reason to stop meditating, but it is good to be aware of potential problems.

One should probably also be cautious with yoga positions that stress parts of the body. My own experience with some yoga positions where I stressed my ankles made me limit my own use of yoga to only the very basic asanas, like standing and lying down. In general I think slow walking works better, at least for me, but I'm sure people have been killed doing that as well.

I've tried a couple meditation techniques which I think are beneficial. The earliest was Eknath Easwaran's "Passage Meditation" and more recently, Ajayan Borys, "Effortless Mind". I suspect both of these people have a Hindu rather than a Buddhist philosophy since they did not seem motivated by "suffering" and made positive comments about the "Divine" and the "Self".

Both of them, as I recall, did not recommend meditating too often, probably 30 minutes a day and then stop. As I understood it from them, meditation is like sleep to refresh the mind. One doesn't want to sleep one's life away, although getting enough is important. Similarly, one shouldn't meditate one's life away either.

Easwaran also warned against breathing, "prana", practices because of the powerful effects they had. Of course, after reading that I had to try them. Although I think deep, rhythmic breathing can refresh the lungs, I didn't get the wild experiences he warned me about and which I was expecting. Maybe that was a good thing.

[Darcy88]

Horgan wasn't arguing that it didn't work, but he was arguing that "just sitting" is just as effective. If you "just sat" for thirty minutes a day then wouldn't you also become more relaxed? Who knows? Try it for ten years... or read the research literature. Of course "just sitting" doesn't sound so grand as MEDITATION. You can't pretend you're becoming a God if you're "just lazing around" like any old hoi poloi fisherman or sun worshiper.




So you are claiming meditation gives you "super powers", an enhanced sensitivity to music, compared with any old music listener who doesn't meditate. And you were accusing Nietzsche of egotism?



So now you are claiming that meditation leads to general brain development. Any research to back that up?

People sit for hours a day in front of the television and computer, in traffic jams, on the bus, and they're still stressed out.

Developing the capacity of deep concentration is not a "super power." Humility is important to Eastern religion. I am not trying to become a god. If anything Buddhism and Taosim make me view myself as simply the product of cause and effect, without free will, totally subservient to the omnipotence of fate. Your desperate grasping at baseless absurdities evinces the abject weakness of your position.

Here is an article about meditation's effects on the brain. But of course you must know more than this medical professional who has researched it. You don't even give credence to the entire field of psychology and so perhaps it means nothing to you anyway.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/use-your-mind-change-your-brain/201305/is-your-brain-meditation

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/806288

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144007.htm

Learn yo facts bro.

[mal4mac]

People sit for hours a day in front of the television and computer, in traffic jams, on the bus, and they're still stressed out.

I think he meant "just sitting and doing nothing". Actually isn't this a Zen practice? Of course saying it's a Zen practice makes it seem something special, that might feed the ego, "Look at me doing Zen practice!" Better call it "just sitting"...

[mal4mac]

There is no escape from suffering to be found in Kant, Nietzsche or any other western psychology or religion. A salve and promise at most.


You might be right about Kant & Nietzsche, they gave me a welcome antenna for metaphysical nonsense, but don't really do much for positive relief of suffering. But the Ancient Greeks had some interesting ideas, and techniques, taken up by Albert Ellis and other psychologists (Rational emotive therapy, CBT, etc...) They are more than a salve, I think; try reading Pierre Hadot's "What is Ancient Philosophy", or "Philosophy as a Spiritual Practice".

[Darcy88]

I think he meant "just sitting and doing nothing". Actually isn't this a Zen practice? Of course saying it's a Zen practice makes it seem something special, that might feed the ego, "Look at me doing Zen practice!" Better call it "just sitting"...

Yes, it is obvious that part of Buddhist meditation is the feeding of the ego. Well put sir.

[NikolaiI]

I just read an interview with Ajahn Thannisaro and he says he really enjoyed classical music but had to give it up when he became a monk.

Point taken, I agree not all important books need be aesthetically pleasing. Although it helps... parts of the Bible are aesthetically pleasing, and all of the Bhagavad Gita.

I don't look to him for peace of mind, but for mental stimulation. Many great minds have seemed "semi-lunatic" by normal standards, even some admired in Buddhism. Trungpa has been mentioned, but there's also, for example, Bodhidharma, who sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous. John Horgan makes many of the same criticisms, without resorting to Nietzsche:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html

"decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people."



Well, on this and many other issues in the scientific community, opinion is divided. I could search for and post articles that reached the opposite conclusions, but I don't really have the time to do that research right now. I can simply talk from my experiences and conclusions; and the feelings I've gotten from others toward their experiences of meditation. . . there is one friend of mine who had a negative experiences, not with stress or depression but he says that he got sort of trapped in a meditation. While it seems hard to understand this happening, his mind and body are different from mine as all are, and I suppose anything's possible.

For me, nothing like that could ever happen. . . meditation is only positive, it's nothing other than the practice of being still, of being calm; and doing this practice tends to have a deep impression on the rest of one's life.

Having said that - I think it's important to say, what meditation isn't; it isn't anything special, or anything at all really. In the paragraph, it says, "No more than simply sitting still does," and I've read more than one Zen teacher or Buddhist teacher explain how meditation is simply sitting still. That's all it is. Meditation is just sitting.

It doesn't make any claims, because there's nothing that you should expect for you. The idea is that you should experience what is there, and let it happen of itself. If anger arises, you simply stay aware of what you're seeing and feeling, and it will fade away, more quickly the more you've practiced being consciously calm.

Anytime I have an idea of what I should experience, or should feel, or should know, then immediately my brain freezes up, and stops thinking creatively. Meditation helps me release concepts and uncontrolled thoughts, so that frees up energy to help me experience the present moment, all that I'm feeling and experiencing. The whole point is to experience the present as fully as possible.

But there are different forms of meditation, as well. Mantra meditation, such as Tayatha Om Bekandze, Bekandze Maha Bekandze, Randze Samugate Svaha, are also forms of focusing mind's thought, and help one to feel more calm and joy. This particular mantra is called the Medicine Buddha mantra, and it's supposed to be. . . as freeing as any religious sacrament or prayer. In other words it's supposed to purify karma and release karma, and also create immeasurable merits and seeds of positive karma.

This is where the canon of Buddhism shifts between the Theravada system, and the Mahayana one. The Medicine Buddha mantra is part of the Mahayana, as are Zen and Shin Buddhism, with its chanting of the Nembetsu, Namu Amida Butsu, "I take refuge in Amida Buddha", and the Nichiren sect, as well as others.

Besides sitting meditation, the common other three are walking, standing, and lying down meditation, in which the meditator simply practices being still in those positions.

Walking meditation is my favorite, and a common one among Zen Buddhists. It's very easy, just to walk, and to feel the ground under one's soles, and to be surrounded by the forest and the air and the animals. . .

It's not really a goal-oriented activity; it is in fact sort of the opposite, the aim is to have no aim.


Another interesting article here by Mary Garden:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/MaryGarden.html

"Eastern meditation techniques were never meant to be methods to reduce stress and bring about relaxation. They are essentially spiritual tools, designed to apparently "cleanse" the mind of impurities and disturbances so as to attain so-called enlightenment--a concept as nebulous as God."

"When I finally gave up on seeking enlightenment in the late 1970s and returned to worldly life, I also gave up meditating--except for the occasional sitting still for a few minutes here and there, watching my breath in the Vipassana way. However, over the years I would beat myself up about my laziness: "You should meditate," my inner critic would harp. "Every day, for at least half an hour." But why? I now ask. Did it really do me any good? I manage my life perfectly well without it. If I want peace and relaxation, I have a massage, or soak in a hot bath or swim twenty laps at the local pool. Or I go for a long leisurely walk. Or I just sit in a chair and do nothing. Is meditation really as beneficial as its proponents claim?"

Again there is the distinction between just sitting and meditation. "Or I go for a long leisurely walk. Or I just sit in a chair and do nothing." Meditation is exactly just sitting, or just walking. It is nothing other than the present moment. . . experiencing the present - any present - is the practice of meditation.

It is easy to become confused because of the words, and this is one reason I like the term "Mindfulness training." Best of all is awareness, as a term for meditation. But meditation is really nothing other than experiencing the present moment, of practicing mindfulness of all the feelings and states that arise, all the thoughts and images, just watching them, arising and fading, and if the mind naturally becomes more and more still by doing this practice, generally it gets a little easier to practice.

Really there is no reward or benefit to meditation. There is actually a reward from it, from stilling the mind and calming it to deeper levels of calmness -the reward is a lessening of the impact of extreme emotions - lessening their existence, rather, and lessening the pull of ordinary emotions. But it is not that pleasure and happiness disappear because suffering has, they actually are increased, for as Schopenhauer says, pleasure is mainly just the absence of suffering.

Calming and stilling the mind, and controlling and directing the thoughts and emotions, all seems to re-order our existence, with ourselves at the top as should be, and all of our energies under our control. The dedicated practice of concentration, or awareness, or being in the present all serve to benefit us exactly as much as they do - how much they will benefit any person is a result of all their actions. How could a negative effect happen from something you do, that is, not doing anything? The only negative effect is something that could happen because of thoughts you aren't currently controlling - and isn't that itself another impetus that it's necessary to learn to control and direct your thoughts, feelings and energies?

There is also no way to teach meditation, in the final word, because all it is is one's experiencing the world, the present; and this is only experienced by oneself. What ultimately can never be changed by meditation is the most core foundations of one's personality - beyond a certain age. We form our personalities to various extents in the first 5, 12, 16, 18, and 25 years of our life. . . no one's the same of course, but after the age of 25, the brain has more or less completely formed, and changes in it are rare on a large scale. That is, it's rare for someone, especially who believes strongly in their side, to switch political sides; once one is 25, one's religion changes far less often, as well as other examples.

In other words, the sense of life that is created in the early years of life, maybe the first 9 or 12 - that is with one throughout life, and never tends to change.

[mal4mac]

For me, nothing like that could ever happen. . . meditation is only positive, it's nothing other than the practice of being still, of being calm; and doing this practice tends to have a deep impression on the rest of one's life.



Like a good night's sleep or a nap? Or reading a book calmly , while being still?



Having said that - I think it's important to say, what meditation isn't; it isn't anything special, or anything at all really. In the paragraph, it says, "No more than simply sitting still does," and I've read more than one Zen teacher or Buddhist teacher explain how meditation is simply sitting still. That's all it is. Meditation is just sitting.


When "just sitting" people are likely to do things that would in no way be considered part of a successful meditation session. For instance, negative rumination is often found in depressive who "just sit". Such people tend to go over-and-over negative events in their life, not attempting to move forward to a solution, but creating a mental groove of negativity.

Indeed, some meditation masters might instruct you to let go of such thoughts, but in attempting that you are moving beyond "just sitting". I guess a Zen master might say that when you no longer ruminate on negative thoughts, or any other thoughts, then you have really obeyed the order to just sit. (Very infuriating these Zen masters, I often need something to calm me down after reading them.)



It doesn't make any claims, because there's nothing that you should expect for you. The idea is that you should experience what is there, and let it happen of itself. If anger arises, you simply stay aware of what you're seeing and feeling, and it will fade away, more quickly the more you've practiced being consciously calm.


What if it doesn't fade away? For many people the negative ruminations just keep on coming back. Indeed, many meditation masters suggest that many people need to have therapy, or "something else", before thinking about meditating, that is, should use a techniques like CBT, psychoanalysis, or simple distraction, or "sufficient sleep", or nap, or "journal", or exercise, or drugs, or (my favourite!) read a good book, to combat, or replace, negative thoughts. But if people just want to escape from negative thoughts, and get a bit calmer, why not do these things *instead of* meditation.

[NikolaiI]

Like a good night's sleep or a nap? Or reading a book calmly , while being still?

These are good, but there's something to be said for spending several minutes a day without any external stimuli, and yet not in sleep.


When "just sitting" people are likely to do things that would in no way be considered part of a successful meditation session. For instance, negative rumination is often found in depressive who "just sit". Such people tend to go over-and-over negative events in their life, not attempting to move forward to a solution, but creating a mental groove of negativity.

Indeed, some meditation masters might instruct you to let go of such thoughts, but in attempting that you are moving beyond "just sitting". I guess a Zen master might say that when you no longer ruminate on negative thoughts, or any other thoughts, then you have really obeyed the order to just sit. (Very infuriating these Zen masters, I often need something to calm me down after reading them.)

There are some very nice ways of dealing with this problem... in fact, some very simple ways that are so simple most people would never think to try them - and as they are unusual. . . just yeah, people don't, but they could be benefited so much.

I kind of think, one good way of dealing with it is to - before trying to spend time completely free of thought - learn to think positively. This clichéd idea is actually pretty good to do. . . One good way is to practice auto-suggestion. . . Write down on a piece of paper in cursive phrases like, "I am healthy," "I am strong," "I am peaceful," or whatever feels like it would be of benefit. There are some good reasons for doing this.. one is that the world is often, if not always, bombarding us with random, negative manipulative images and suggestions; we need some kind of defense against this, and this method of writing self-suggestions on paper is a good defense actually. You can probably understand that most people would not try this. . . it just doesn't seem powerful, magical, or what they would intuit as effective, and yet it's extremely beneficial and effective.

Among the benefits I've experienced from it, I've had fewer negative thoughts, I've had calmer thoughts in general, I've noticed a significant increase in my health and emotional and physical strength (resistance to anything that seems to want to defeat me) and a much calmer feeling most of the time. It's kind of like - if you believe you are good; you are less likely to beat yourself up over a mistake.

It just helps - and then in meditation, after doing this for a while, it's easier to be calm; negative thoughts come up less often, and they don't stay around as much, and they also don't cause as much of a reaction.

It's a somewhat long process, but it's possible to be where you want to, with one's emotional and mental life!


What if it doesn't fade away? For many people the negative ruminations just keep on coming back. Indeed, many meditation masters suggest that many people need to have therapy, or "something else", before thinking about meditating, that is, should use a techniques like CBT, psychoanalysis, or simple distraction, or "sufficient sleep", or nap, or "journal", or exercise, or drugs, or (my favourite!) read a good book, to combat, or replace, negative thoughts. But if people just want to escape from negative thoughts, and get a bit calmer, why not do these things *instead of* meditation.

Oh, CBT - interesting. I have a friend who is trying to practice that. The problem is; he does nothing different, it doesn't reach anywhere near the core of his troubles. The problem I have with this type of psychology is I don't think they know what they're doing. Abraham Maslow was terrific, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature was great, but . . . most all of psychology seems so flimsy, so insecure, so lacking of real psychological insight or wisdom. I realized the ineptitude of this branch of science when I read Milarepa.

Sufficient sleep, psychoanalysis, journal, exercise, a nap. . . all good things. . .

But to address the problem of escaping from negative thoughts, like I said, I've found an illimitably more beneficial process. What I mean is -transforming one's energies . . or re-directing one's energies, so that there are no more negative thoughts to deal with. And it's very possible and doable. It's possible to really transform all of one's mental and emotional energy so that none of it is negative or self-defeating. And sitting meditation alone might not be enough. For me, what made the greatest difference were three things: walking meditation in the forest, listening to dharma talks by people like Tara Brach, Gil Fronsdal, and Thich Nhat Hanh, and writing positive suggestions in cursive. . . also, mantra meditation. It's not easy to delineate which had the most effect; but the dharma talks were definitely very important.. Almost nothing was as calming as listening to them on an mp3 player while walking through the woods.

And yeah, I understand it's different for everyone. I talk about transforming thoughts and energy; but as I said earlier, I don't think we can ever change too greatly the core of our personality, which is fashioned fairly firmly by the time we're 25, and a little less so by the age of 17-19...

One thing about meditation that's been said before, is that one of the main reasons for learning to become free of thought for some periods in the day, is that we can only really experience the preset reality if we're able to do so. It's all about experiencing reality, rather than just our thoughts - positive or negative - about reality.

[mal4mac]

I kind of think, one good way of dealing with it is to - before trying to spend time completely free of thought - learn to think positively. This clichéd idea is actually pretty good to do. . . One good way is to practice auto-suggestion. . . Write down on a piece of paper in cursive phrases like, "I am healthy," "I am strong," "I am peaceful," or whatever feels like it would be of benefit.


This is old school "positive thinking", and is largely frowned upon by modern psychologists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale#Criticism_and_controversy

I always found it a bit artificial, tedious, not helpful at all, so didn't pursue it. I find distraction & rational argument to be far more effective techniques.




Oh, CBT - interesting. I have a friend who is trying to practice that. The problem is; he does nothing different, it doesn't reach anywhere near the core of his troubles. The problem I have with this type of psychology is I don't think they know what they're doing.


It is only 50% effective in treating depression, but it does have the reputation of being the most successful technique, about as effective as drugs. Still if you are in the 50% it doesn't work for then, then that isn't too helpful. I think you are onto something when you say it may not reach the core of problems some people are having. Then I think the ancient philosophers may help - Seneca, Epictetus, Epicurus, etc. I don't think psychologists have taken their message on board.



Abraham Maslow was terrific, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature was great, but . . . most all of psychology seems so flimsy, so insecure, so lacking of real psychological insight or wisdom. I realized the ineptitude of this branch of science when I read Milarepa.


I have some doubts about Maslow's "hierarchy of needs". Did Milarepa satisfy his sexual needs before reaching his enlightenment? Did you read Matthieu Ricard's translation of Milarepa? I keep on meaning to read that.



But to address the problem of escaping from negative thoughts, like I said, I've found an illimitably more beneficial process. What I mean is -transforming one's energies . . or re-directing one's energies, so that there are no more negative thoughts to deal with. And it's very possible and doable. It's possible to really transform all of one's mental and emotional energy so that none of it is negative or self-defeating. And sitting meditation alone might not be enough.

This sounds like Ricard again, he talks about such techniques in his popular works (e.g., "Happiness") Maybe there is something in these Tibetan techniques, which psychologists seem to be investigating more and more these days.


One thing about meditation that's been said before, is that one of the main reasons for learning to become free of thought for some periods in the day, is that we can only really experience the preset reality if we're able to do so. It's all about experiencing reality, rather than just our thoughts - positive or negative - about reality.

How do you know you are experiencing preset reality? How do you know you are not "just" having a good experience? I put "just" in quotes, because I think this is the most important thing. What could be more important? Would you rather experience 'preset reality' and feel really bad, or feel really good and not experience preset reality? I've a lot of time for Buddhism when it talks about techniques for combating negative emotions, or tells interesting stories like "the life of Milarepa". But I start to switch off when it goes on about "preset reality", "luminous mind", "core consciousness", "enlightenment", "rebirth", "karma", etc... These are metaphysical concepts that don't seem of much use, just as much intellectual baggage as "Holy Ghost", "heaven", "angels". I've dropped the Christian baggage, I don't now want to lumber myself with a whole lot of Buddhist baggage.

[NikolaiI]

This is old school "positive thinking", and is largely frowned upon by modern psychologists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale#Criticism_and_controversy

I always found it a bit artificial, tedious, not helpful at all, so didn't pursue it. I find distraction & rational argument to be far more effective techniques.

Of course. To each his own. I have merely found it one of the most effective ways of stream-lining my thoughts and energy towards a single goal. If one is self-divided, very little is usually accomplished. Secondly, there are so many images and suggestions in our world, many or most of them rather nonsense, that it is useful to give oneself a counter-balance to it. ("It takes a lot of time to push away the nonsense":p). Similar to this is the practice of being selective. I have found that it has always made a tremendous difference in my life when I am selective about what I read. Of course, the criterion I go by is inner judgment of what I view to be most helpful or expanding in the best directions. Emerson mentioned this idea briefly. In other words, I find my quality of life is much improved by reading the best 1% of humanity's literary and moral genius, provided I can find them.


It is only 50% effective in treating depression, but it does have the reputation of being the most successful technique, about as effective as drugs. Still if you are in the 50% it doesn't work for then, then that isn't too helpful. I think you are onto something when you say it may not reach the core of problems some people are having. Then I think the ancient philosophers may help - Seneca, Epictetus, Epicurus, etc. I don't think psychologists have taken their message on board.

Yep. :) Similar to the idea of selectivity; in all spheres basically it's very useful. . . I find that those practitioners are mostly misguided or lost - or at best, a several layer watered-down version of something much more valid and true.

I also strongly agree with the idea that self-reliance in these endeavors is essential. Others' ideas are often a poor substitute for one's own creative thinking.


I have some doubts about Maslow's "hierarchy of needs". Did Milarepa satisfy his sexual needs before reaching his enlightenment? Did you read Matthieu Ricard's translation of Milarepa? I keep on meaning to read that.

It's interesting, whenever I speak of Maslow, more often than not the response is immediately directed toward his hierarchy of needs, and yet that was in no way a central them of Further Reaches, if it was in the book at all.

No, I believe the first book I read of his songs was this book; http://www.amazon.com/Drinking-Mountain-Stream-Beloved-Milarepa/dp/0861710630 , the translators Lama Kunga Rinpoche, and Brian Cutillo.


How do you know you are experiencing preset reality? How do you know you are not "just" having a good experience? I put "just" in quotes, because I think this is the most important thing. What could be more important? Would you rather experience 'preset reality' and feel really bad, or feel really good and not experience preset reality? I've a lot of time for Buddhism when it talks about techniques for combating negative emotions, or tells interesting stories like "the life of Milarepa". But I start to switch off when it goes on about "preset reality", "luminous mind", "core consciousness", "enlightenment", "rebirth", "karma", etc... These are metaphysical concepts that don't seem of much use, just as much intellectual baggage as "Holy Ghost", "heaven", "angels". I've dropped the Christian baggage, I don't now want to lumber myself with a whole lot of Buddhist baggage.

:)
It took me a minute to figure out your "preset" joke. I really hardly ever make spelling mistakes. Really! :)

There are a lot of interesting scriptures that have fantastic descriptions of places and beings, and there are a lot of different angles that different saints or teachers have taken. Shinran is very different in style and topic from Benkai. I would say take what you can use. Truthfully, I think that's the best thing in any endeavor. It's easy to get things wrong, and it's hard to get things right. Words and phrases mean little in themselves; if the intention behind them is ill, then the effect won't be any good. If one is healthy and has insight into how to become healthy, then they can help people; but if one isn't, then they just won't.

In any case, words are baggage, sometimes; I would say it's not a bad thing to discard them - and several Zen teachers follow something like this. In Buddha's teaching, what stands out as being the most important goal is to relieve suffering - of others, and within oneself; and to begin with, it would seem, in oneself. Some disciples were arguing and came to the Buddha to solve their argument concerning the origin of the universe, and he made the point that it doesn't matter so much how the universe began, what mattered more was to end suffering.