Brahman, Tao, Sunyata, Thales, Einstein

[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/...ain-meditation

More:

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

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

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0121144007.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/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."

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...nd_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...nd_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"). 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-Mount.../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.