It seems so peaceful and good when you describe it ... I am a destructively passionate person. I don't want to be good; I think it would kill something inside me. In therapy I learn mindfulness which is adapted from Buddhism and it gives one an incredible sense of calm, but I always feel ashamed of myself when I'm calm or even not being destructive. I feel a compulsive need to be destructive. I like being hurt.Originally Posted by Paulclem
How do you endure good life, Paulclem?
I've been trying a mantra and it seems to work, but I don't really understand why because it is so easy to do. I suspect it is a lot like prayer for a Christian or Muslim. It makes me wonder about the power of language.
This does seem to relate to the original question of the thread which is HOW religion is supposed to give meaning to life. I suspect if one can reduce one's anger with these techniques that would allow more meaning into one's life, or allow one to see the meaning that is there.
cl154576 - when I was a young chap, I had a very confused view of life. I know I caused hurt, problems for others and myself, and I didn't respond to others' needs very well at all. That was due to the mixed messages I got from my upbringing and generally how young men can potentially be. It did nothing for my personal happiness, and I determined to improve that - without recourse to any religion in the beginning.
Before becoming a Buddhist I did worry that I might lose that part of me which I considered to be easy going and appreciative of the funny things in life. I had the misconception that I would have to become as I pictured others who had become Buddhist - a bit straight and serious. I didn't know that we can gain an element of self control over ourselves. I didn't know that there's no inevitable outcome for a path you choose. We consider our character or personality to be something set, or following a particular groove. It doesn't necessarily. What we have to do is filter out those things that are damaging in the short and long term for ourselves. It takes time, but there's no reason why a person should lose passion for life. It's a case of skillfully channelling our potential. As for negative actions - then you can't achieve everything at once. The first thing is to sort out your own personal unhappinesses and deal with those first. Only you can set your own priorities for that.
As for enduring the good life - well we all have problems and difficulties, and the definition of the good life is very subjective. My life may very well seem completely boring to someone else, and I have to add that it's always a struggle to eep doing and saying the right things and I frequently fail. (It's the saying the wrong things that gets me.) that doesn't mean that some way off tomorrow that I won't be able to progress further.
GL - my experience of meditation - small though it is - is that it adds clarity to a person's view. Rather than someone else telling you what's up with you - if anything - it gives you the tools for self examination, and a mental space to consider things before responding.
Yes - I reckon you're right. Anger is a totally selfish and very distorting view - and it doesn't have to be the full blown raging kind either. I suffer from the muttering and irritable dissatisfaction anger which can really affect your view and make up all kinds of destructive theories as to why so and so did this and how they've really got it in for me etc etc - or is that just me?
I think reducing it allows one to begin to develop the more positive aspects of the human personality such as compassion etc.
We used to discuss how mantras worked. It does stop all other mental rubbish going on like the low level anger i was just talking about. It's supposed to be a virtuous activity - which promotes a positive state of mind, and who knows if the multiple recitation of them by many many other people over time has some effect upon a person.
The ultimate Buddhsit view in my tradition is the freeing of all beings from suffering. To even begin to contribute towards that, you have to sort yourself out in a radical way - stop doing bad things, start doing good things and begin to develop those qualities that can affect others for the positive.It's a big ask, but a good one.
It happens when the search for meaning comes to its logical conclusion---"To be or not to be." I think that in the face of annihilation, "death of the ego", we are hard-wired to conceptualize...in some shape, form, or fashion...deity. For in the black hole that we discover at that point in our journey, "need can blossom into all the compensations it requires", including religion. (Quote is from Marilyn Robinson in Housekeeping)
I am confused on this subject as I am on most things metaphysical. If someone offends me or attempts to hurt my family then I respond in what I believe to be a natural human response, or as some might term it self preservation. Now I know where that comes from and I suspect most of you do, however I find it difficult to come to terms with the consequences of my defence mechanisms and there is " the rub".
Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?
We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything.
" There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make. "
That is excellent, Mr. J.
I think you described the source of anger well, at least as I experience it. The mind gets full of theories justifying why others deserve a good punishment. When we're feeling good, these theories hide in the background, but when things go wrong they come up giving us an excuse to execute the punishment. It's a lack of compassion, or just a lack of imagination, since we can no longer see these people as they really are.Yes - I reckon you're right. Anger is a totally selfish and very distorting view - and it doesn't have to be the full blown raging kind either. I suffer from the muttering and irritable dissatisfaction anger which can really affect your view and make up all kinds of destructive theories as to why so and so did this and how they've really got it in for me etc etc - or is that just me?
I think reducing it allows one to begin to develop the more positive aspects of the human personality such as compassion etc.
We used to discuss how mantras worked. It does stop all other mental rubbish going on like the low level anger i was just talking about. It's supposed to be a virtuous activity - which promotes a positive state of mind, and who knows if the multiple recitation of them by many many other people over time has some effect upon a person.
The ultimate Buddhsit view in my tradition is the freeing of all beings from suffering. To even begin to contribute towards that, you have to sort yourself out in a radical way - stop doing bad things, start doing good things and begin to develop those qualities that can affect others for the positive.It's a big ask, but a good one.
The idea that other people reciting a mantra can affect me is interesting, much like the idea of prayer by other people might have some affect upon me.
I was recently reading a book by a neuroscientist studying near death experiences. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name at the moment, but it doesn't matter. Anyway, he claimed that the portion of the brain affecting REM sleep is the source of these experiences much like the eye is the source of our vision and the ear the source of our sight. I guess the ultimate question is whether this portion of the brain is deceiving us or giving us a clue to ultimate reality.
Regarding all those bronze age documents, I don't think one has to restrict one's attention to a religious canon, especially if there is a portion of the brain that provides religious experience. One can use any texts that might help clarify the issues that come to mind. Since not everyone can see equally well, it doesn't hurt to read what people whose vision may have been better had to say about something in the past.
Clearly, I would never dismiss religious texts out of hand and admit they do have a certain historical worth, but I feel that is restricted to the values and mind set of that age rather than any supernatural truth. My point is that the value of these writings have had repercussions in the world that are, in my opinion, way beyond their merit as fact.
The problem is I think that there were no shrinks to sit the prophets on the couch and ask the obvious question, " Why do you believe this and did you have a difficult childhood ?" I bet Freud would have loved to have John of Patmos in his treatment room.
" There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make. "
I'm not sure which near death experiences we're talking about. The light at the end of the tunnel story has been explained quite clearly. When someone goes blind rapidly, or when someone is dying, the occipital lobe (or visual cortex) of the brain begins to shut down. Sight information is transmitted to the brain through light/color cones. As sight dies, it does so in a shrinking conical pattern. The edges going black and contracting inward. This causes the last remaining light to appear much brighter, in contrast to the darkness. It looks like a light at the end of a tunnel.
The other NDEs I know of are tales of seeing loved ones in the light, or claims of floating over one's dying/dead body. I don't really know how it could be possible for a determination to be made that they were in REM state, unless the researchers conducting the study planned for someone to have a near death experience and monitored them in a controlled environment.
I could be missing some info here, not sure.
Originally Posted by jocky
"Where does this idea or reality of conscience come from, is it a natural human emotion or something much deeper and ingrained in the human psyche? In other words are we driven by emotions we have inculcated by canons we have had drummed into us in childhood, be it religious or environmental, or is it something which is beyond explanation?
We all have to find our own answers but I feel that pouring over bronze age theological literature may not resolve anything."
Well, according to psychoanalytical theory the personality is divided into three parts, an unholy trinity lol.
These are the id, the ego and the super ego. The id is the basic level, which is the unconscious mess of primitive urges and instincts for the gratification of basic desires, like food, sex and the avoidance of pain. The ego is the part of the personality which thinks and is self-aware. It is the seat of self-confidence. The super-ego regulates the ego and is effectively the conscience which criticizes the ego for gratifying those base urges from the id. Supposedly it is the conflict between the super-ego and the ego which is the cause of psychological problems.
I suppose, theoretically, the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong has to be learned through teaching. Who teaches? Generally it is imposed through a controlling mechanism, either secular law or religion.
So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies. In large groups of people there is a natural hierarchy. The strong rise to the top. There are different areas of strength though. Physical and Mental. This pattern has been repeated down through the ages and is easily illustrated by the conflict between medieval Kings and the Church. The kings’ martial prowess and control through random acts of violence - and the church which controlled learning (through random acts of violence) and tried to tell the kings what to do. Calculating intelligence can control a bully, but you’ve got problems if the bully is also smart! See Henry VIII. He simply made himself head of the church. Smart move, eh?
To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model. “The Big Beard in the Sky’ is the parent which wields absolute authority over the developing consciousness. How many times have you heard a parent say, “I’ll be watching you!”. Here is the birth of the idea of God. A person grows up with the belief that someone is always looking over their shoulder and will exact retribution for misdemeanours. Or at least they used to. In this country a parent is no longer allowed to discipline their child because it is regarded as child abuse. Consequently we now have generations growing up who lack the development of the concept of retribution for transgressions in their super-ego. Even the legal system has been ham-strung by rightsist legislation, so even if a transgressor is caught in young adulthood, he knows that there is no real consequence to his actions. We have allowed ourselves to think the common sense out of our society.
Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others. So is psychology, which in a secular society has become the new religion. Some practitioners of psychology may be very good, just as some priests may be very good. Unfortunately not all are. Psychiatry is essentially reverse engineering personality problems. It’s much easier to observe and record simple cause and effect. The psychiatrist is presented with an effect and seeks to determine the cause. He does so through dogmatic adherence to other peoples’ work. If the template says X is the result of Y minus Z then he bases his solution on this. If, however, X is also the product of A times B plus C, his solution will be wrong.
Both psychology and religion are wielded like blunt instruments, more often than not by people who don’t really understand them (or have their own adgenda). Take a look at Scientologists.However, their position is often inviolable in societies which elevate their practitioners into positions of power and status.
Last edited by Hawkman; 08-15-2011 at 05:10 AM.
That reply is along the lines of what I have always felt but could not articulate. Thanks for the explanation Hawkman.
" There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make. "
I think each situation has to be judged on its own, and it is difficult to come up with a standard response to every situation.
In terms of defending yourself and family it's down to motivation, and the motivation is clear - defence against some threat to yourself or your family friends or stranger. No-one would condemn that, and it is different to a mind of anger which has a selfish motivation. It reminds me of what has been a recent debate - how much force can you use to protect against an intruder. the law says reasonable force, and morally it's got to be reasonable force - otherwise something else comes into play like revenge or vindictiveness - which is a selfish form of anger.
In Buddhism, the mind is regarded as a collection of the senses - and one of the purposes of meditation is to examine and find out wat the nature of the mind is. By comparison - western views of the mind are rather simplistic. There are various levels of the mind, and on reflecting on the mind, it becomes apparent that the motivating aspect sits underneath the conscious mind. It is said that our drives and preferences are partly environmental - nurture, but that there is also an element of karma - or nature - within us.
Some of the canonical Judeo-Christo-Islamic texts I don't consider worth reading except for historical purposes. One of them is Revelations or the Apocalypse which is what I believe you are referring to with John of Patmos. The canonization of this text in Christianity is one of the reasons why I am not Christian, but saying that, I also consider Christianity superior to Atheism.
Also I find Samuel and Kings more interesting as historical rather than religious documents. There are other bronze age texts that might be worth considering. I don't want to tell you which ones because I don't want you to think I'm pushing you into a religious tradition. Also some of the atomic age texts that have not been canonized at all, I consider worth reading and equally valuable.
I don't know either how the link was made to the REM state. Nor do I really know how scientists determined that the cosmic background radiation really came from the Big Bang or that the fossil records provide evidence for evolution. But until they tell me differently and they can convince each other of the change of theory, I tend to trust them.
Besides near-death experiences, which someone who resurrected experienced, there are also shared-death experiences which people close to the dying person experienced and out-of-body experiences.
Linking these kinds of experiences to a place in the brain doesn't prove that these experiences are anything more than illusions, nor does it prove that they are not illusions. What I find interesting about the research is that it does hint that other species with similar brain structure may have similar experiences.
Last edited by YesNo; 08-15-2011 at 10:05 AM. Reason: grammar
So, what about all the cases of people who have died and come back, and didn't have any experience? Wouldn't that be just as valid for arguing that there is no after-life as using the ones who have had near-death experiences for arguing that there is?
So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies. In large groups of people there is a natural hierarchy. The strong rise to the top. There are different areas of strength though. Physical and Mental. This pattern has been repeated down through the ages and is easily illustrated by the conflict between medieval Kings and the Church. The kings’ martial prowess and control through random acts of violence - and the church which controlled learning (through random acts of violence) and tried to tell the kings what to do. Calculating intelligence can control a bully, but you’ve got problems if the bully is also smart! See Henry VIII. He simply made himself head of the church. Smart move, eh?
To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model. “The Big Beard in the Sky’ is the parent which wields absolute authority over the developing consciousness. How many times have you heard a parent say, “I’ll be watching you!”. Here is the birth of the idea of God. A person grows up with the belief that someone is always looking over their shoulder and will exact retribution for misdemeanours. Or at least they used to. In this country a parent is no longer allowed to discipline their child because it is regarded as child abuse. Consequently we now have generations growing up who lack the development of the concept of retribution for transgressions in their super-ego. Even the legal system has been ham-strung by rightsist legislation, so even if a transgressor is caught in young adulthood, he knows that there is no real consequence to his actions. We have allowed ourselves to think the common sense out of our society.
Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others. So is psychology, which in a secular society has become the new religion. Some practitioners of psychology may be very good, just as some priests may be very good. Unfortunately not all are. Psychiatry is essentially reverse engineering personality problems. It’s much easier to observe and record simple cause and effect. The psychiatrist is presented with an effect and seeks to determine the cause. He does so through dogmatic adherence to other peoples’ work. If the template says X is the result of Y minus Z then he bases his solution on this. If, however, X is also the product of A times B plus C, his solution will be wrong.
Both psychology and religion are wielded like blunt instruments, more often than not by people who don’t really understand them (or have their own adgenda). Take a look at Scientologists.
This is a simplistic view. Clearly religions often form a sub culture to a given state - ie Catholicism in Communist era Poland or Buddhism in China. Where they are in cahoots with the state - then it's often a question of power in the guise of religion - though this is disputed of course.
To say that there is a part of the brain which is dedicated to believing in a higher power, unquestionable authority or mysticism, has been explained through the parental model.
What about non Theistic religions? There is no controlling power and it is all down to personal responsibility. I think this is psychology at its simplest. A mere theory that can't really be prooven, but reduces religions to the need by individuals to be nurtured by a higher power. It's just too simple. Many are born to a religion and accept it as a fact from their culture, but other mature and intelligent people come to it in much later life. I really think it doesn't fit them either.
Essentially though, Religion is an invention of man for the purpose of regulating the behaviour of others
I disagree. On a personal level religion is about your own behaviour. In Buddhism, it is about personal responsibility and attaining an ideal. The invention part is a moot point - The Buddha was a man who invented Buddhism - or rather re-invented it - and though I can't speak for the other religions, i bet they dispute this.
Buddhist ideas on mindfulness and meditation practices have been widely adopted by some schools of psychology. That's good, as the methods work, though it does require the person to want to improve, stop negative thinking, see things in a different way etc etc.
Going back to your initial description of the psychological description of the mind - id ego etc - I thought that model isn't widely used now as being too simplistic? Correct me if I am wrong - I seem to remember some thing about it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
