Brahman, Tao, Sunyata, Thales, Einstein

[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/c...t_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/c...t_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#..._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.