# Meditation



## HelpfulHero

I know I say a lot of stuff that might strike others as woo-ish, so I'll spare you any discomfort and just ask if anyone here has tried meditation? It doesn't have to be spiritual or focus on the Buddha or anything, just deep belly breathing, perhaps a personal chant that you find calming, loosening the nerves at the back of the eyes, imagine something beautiful, and just relax. May be helpful for some of you with sas. I like doing it in conjunction with binaural beats for theta wave stimulation


----------



## HelpfulHero

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...ation-can-help-relieve-anxiety-and-depression


----------



## Slogger

Meditation frees me from anxiety, for sure. Also helps me see my faults without feeling hopeless about them; rather, I can see clearly how to fix them.

It does take some self-discipline to keep at it though, and to work away at those faults. It's all too easy to slide back into bad habits.

You know what's really woo-ish is believing all those stupid thoughts that make us anxious!


----------



## HelpfulHero

Very true, must find honest and good thoughts to replace them with


----------



## ugh1979

HelpfulHero said:


> I know I say a lot of stuff that might strike others as woo-ish, so I'll spare you any discomfort and just ask if anyone here has tried meditation? It doesn't have to be spiritual or focus on the Buddha or anything, just deep belly breathing, perhaps a personal chant that you find calming, loosening the nerves at the back of the eyes, imagine something beautiful, and just relax. May be helpful for some of you with sas. I like doing it in conjunction with binaural beats for theta wave stimulation


Yes I practice secular meditation.

I posted about it here.

The article it links to has some good secular based recordings to listen to when meditating. I use them all the time.


----------



## shyguyred

Ive been practicing a secular version of Buddhism for a while and found a good website for secular Buddhism if you want to learn about it.http://secularbuddhism.org/new-to-secular-buddhism/


----------



## ugh1979

shyguyred said:


> Ive been practicing a secular version of Buddhism for a while and found a good website for secular Buddhism if you want to learn about it.http://secularbuddhism.org/new-to-secular-buddhism/


I wondered how any form of Buddism could be secular, but I read the FAQs on that site, and it answered the question acceptably.

This is a good example of removing all the supernatural doctrine of a religion that can't credibly be believed and just keeping the credible good elements of it.

It's a good option for people who want to follow a religious type philosophy but one that stays on the right side of rationality, so as to be respectable and avoid uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Secular Buddism seems to be a virtuous 21st century "religion", and is a good example of how people are adapting traditional but still useful beliefs to fit the secular age.


----------



## Slogger

shyguyred said:


> Ive been practicing a secular version of Buddhism for a while and found a good website for secular Buddhism if you want to learn about it.http://secularbuddhism.org/new-to-secular-buddhism/


Thanks for posting that link, I'm really enjoying the straightforward writing there.

I think the core teachings of Buddhism have always been secular. Since the central point of Buddhism is non-attachment, clinging to and being motivated by mystical beliefs such as reincarnation goes against the teachings.


----------



## Zeeshan

The best form of meditation if you have social anxiety depression etc. is focused meditation, dont listen to music, dont do transcendental stuff like that

take a candle and stare at it, time it

sit there and stare at it

when the mind wanders, bring it back to the candle

every time it wanders bring it back to the candle

keep doing that, and soon your brain will allow you control


----------



## xgodmetashogun

Zeeshan said:


> The best form of meditation if you have social anxiety depression etc. is focused meditation, dont listen to music, dont do transcendental stuff like that
> 
> take a candle and stare at it, time it
> 
> sit there and stare at it
> 
> when the mind wanders, bring it back to the candle
> 
> every time it wanders bring it back to the candle
> 
> keep doing that, and soon your brain will allow you control


right on


----------



## MrKappa

Yeah, normally meditation without an third party influence is nearly impossible for me, but occasionally I curl into a ball and close my eyes, and rest. Not exactly meditation.

ASMR helps me relax quite a bit as well.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> Thanks for posting that link, I'm really enjoying the straightforward writing there.
> 
> I think the core teachings of Buddhism have always been secular. Since the central point of Buddhism is non-attachment, clinging to and being motivated by mystical beliefs such as reincarnation goes against the teachings.


I was interested in knowing your views (and everyone else's) on karma, which is essentially a Buddhist concept I think (could be Hindu, so I might be wrong). Personally, it sounds appealing but I do not believe in a balance sheet, neither for this world or for any other world even if they exist. The whole idea of rights and wrongs and getting paid back seems rather far fetched, though its very fashionable for a lot of rationalists to believe in it.


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> I was interested in knowing your views (and everyone else's) on karma, which is essentially a Buddhist concept I think (could be Hindu, so I might be wrong).


Karma means action and refers to the world of cause and effect. It's a complex topic, not simply "something bad happened to me so I must have done something bad" or visa-versa. It's as complex as the interactions between all particles in the universe.

In Buddhism, moral practices are certainly encouraged to help reduce suffering along the path. But ultimately, a Buddhist is not concerned with karma because cause and effect occur only in the mindset of past and future. In reality, according to Buddhism, there is only now.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> Karma means action and refers to the world of cause and effect. It's a complex topic, not simply "something bad happened to me so I must have done something bad" or visa-versa. It's as complex as the interactions between all particles in the universe.
> 
> In Buddhism, moral practices are certainly encouraged to help reduce suffering along the path. But ultimately, a Buddhist is not concerned with karma because cause and effect occur only in the mindset of past and future. In reality, according to Buddhism, there is only now.


To reduce suffering for whom? For the self, for others, for the future generations or for everyone on this planet?

Buddhism also ascribes to following the middle path. But why would I not want to engage in extravagances? To get the best food and the most luxurious beds, to pleasure my senses? Why would I deny myself at all? Especially if I want to live in the "now"?


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> To reduce suffering for whom? For the self, for others, for the future generations or for everyone on this planet?


Ultimately, yes. Anyway, if all people avoided killing, stealing, lying, adultery, etc., wouldn't the world be a better place, now and tomorrow, even if Buddhism was a farce?



pazuzuinxs said:


> Buddhism also ascribes to following the middle path. But why would I not want to engage in extravagances? To get the best food and the most luxurious beds, to pleasure my senses? Why would I deny myself at all? Especially if I want to live in the "now"?


Ultimately, Buddhism does not say you cannot engage in extravagance. The big no-no is CLINGING to extravagance, NEEDING IT to be fulfilled. Do you understand the difference?


----------



## purechaos

From the books I've read labeling right and wrong isn't a Buddhist concept, your supposed to look at things in non judgement almost as if it were for the first time. And they don't even suggest clinging to any one belief. 
If you're interested you could check into lojong slogans .....good break down of Buddhist concepts ......


----------



## pazuzuinxs

There seems to be a lot I have to learn about Buddhism. But one simple question, and I actually want to know. So how important is the concept of Buddha or Bodhisattvas in Buddhism? Are they icons to aspire to, or some sort of meta ideal? Or are they also part of the philosophy and do not relate to actual persons?


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> There seems to be a lot I have to learn about Buddhism. But one simple question, and I actually want to know. So how important is the concept of Buddha or Bodhisattvas in Buddhism? Are they icons to aspire to, or some sort of meta ideal? Or are they also part of the philosophy and do not relate to actual persons?


Anytime a person acts for the benefit of others with no thought for themselves, that person is being a Bodhisattva. For example, a musician giving a brilliant performance is being a Bodhisattva. A ER nurse working through exhaustion to treat victims of an accident is being a Bodhisattva. It's all about the state of mind of the person. A clear, open mind in which the boundaries of the self dissolve is the mind of the Bodhisattva. No doubt you've had that mind at times yourself, where you've acted naturally and immediately and your actions were entirely appropriate for the moment. It's a wonderful feeling, with no sense of suffering or sacrifice, no sense of that burning, desirous self.

In Buddhist practice, Bodhisattvas are taken up a notch. They have that clear, open mind to a much greater degree and more consistently than the musician or ER nurse.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> Anytime a person acts for the benefit of others with no thought for themselves, that person is being a Bodhisattva. For example, a musician giving a brilliant performance is being a Bodhisattva. A ER nurse working through exhaustion to treat victims of an accident is being a Bodhisattva. It's all about the state of mind of the person. A clear, open mind in which the boundaries of the self dissolve is the mind of the Bodhisattva. No doubt you've had that mind at times yourself, where you've acted naturally and immediately and your actions were entirely appropriate for the moment. It's a wonderful feeling, with no sense of suffering or sacrifice, no sense of that burning, desirous self.
> 
> In Buddhist practice, Bodhisattvas are taken up a notch. They have that clear, open mind to a much greater degree and more consistently than the musician or ER nurse.


Thanks for the note. Well, there is a Buddhist monastery in the town where I live and I had a chat with some of the monks there. They were Tibetan so their views might not be universal. 
Here is what I did not agree with, coming from an atheist standpoint. Clarify me if I am wrong, I would love that.

1. Reincarnation: I do not buy, but it seems to be a very central tenet of Buddhist teachings. 
2. Detachment from life or from clinging to things: Why would I not be immersed in all aspects of life and enjoy it to the fullest? By being detached, how does it help me? Or anyone for that matter?
3. The concept of meditation: It has been described and prescribed in great detail. I do not agree that it is more than rest. Further, I play the electric guitar and find it to be a calming experience.
4. Concept of Nirvana: The whole enlightenment thing is beyond me and is vague. I might consider myself to be enlightened, happy and blissful. Who's to say that I am not?
5. Buddha: Even if the only reason for having a leader is to allow the teachings to be real, I still do not understand the need for semi-deification or even having an exemplary to follow.


----------



## ugh1979

pazuzuinxs said:


> The whole idea of rights and wrongs and getting paid back seems rather far fetched, though its very fashionable for a lot of rationalists to believe in it.


Why would any rationalist believe in karma?


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> 1. Reincarnation: I do not buy, but it seems to be a very central tenet of Buddhist teachings.


According to Buddhism, there is no abiding essence in anything. Therefore reincarnation, as understood by the deluded mind, is not possible.



pazuzuinxs said:


> 2. Detachment from life or from clinging to things: Why would I not be immersed in all aspects of life and enjoy it to the fullest? By being detached, how does it help me? Or anyone for that matter?


You do not understand the difference between enjoyment based on full engagement, which is the Buddhist way, and enjoyment based on clinging and greed, which is the typical way people enjoy things.



pazuzuinxs said:


> 3. The concept of meditation: It has been described and prescribed in great detail. I do not agree that it is more than rest. Further, I play the electric guitar and find it to be a calming experience.


Playing the guitar is a form of meditation that takes your mind into a state called "samadhi of the particular" (_ji zanmai_ in Zen). Formal meditation reveals "Ocean King samadhi" (_kaio zanmai _in Zen). The Ocean samadhi is much different than the particular samadhi, and must be experienced to be better understood.



pazuzuinxs said:


> 4. Concept of Nirvana: The whole enlightenment thing is beyond me and is vague. I might consider myself to be enlightened, happy and blissful. Who's to say that I am not?


No one! 



pazuzuinxs said:


> 5. Buddha: Even if the only reason for having a leader is to allow the teachings to be real, I still do not understand the need for semi-deification or even having an exemplary to follow.


Buddhists do not worship the Buddha nor consider him to be some sort of supernatural character. There are many reasons for bowing to statues or chanting sutras that expound the qualities of a Buddha, but worshiping the historical Buddha is not among them.


----------



## purechaos

pazuzuinxs said:


> Thanks for the note. Well, there is a Buddhist monastery in the town where I live and I had a chat with some of the monks there. They were Tibetan so their views might not be universal.
> Here is what I did not agree with, coming from an atheist standpoint. Clarify me if I am wrong, I would love that.
> 
> 1. Reincarnation: I do not buy, but it seems to be a very central tenet of Buddhist teachings.
> 2. Detachment from life or from clinging to things: Why would I not be immersed in all aspects of life and enjoy it to the fullest? By being detached, how does it help me? Or anyone for that matter?
> 3. The concept of meditation: It has been described and prescribed in great detail. I do not agree that it is more than rest. Further, I play the electric guitar and find it to be a calming experience.
> 4. Concept of Nirvana: The whole enlightenment thing is beyond me and is vague. I might consider myself to be enlightened, happy and blissful. Who's to say that I am not?
> 5. Buddha: Even if the only reason for having a leader is to allow the teachings to be real, I still do not understand the need for semi-deification or even having an exemplary to follow.


1. I don't see reincarnation as being central. Most of the books I read are more centralized around loving kindness and compassion. And you are right some thoughts and practices in Buddhists sects are not universal. I like the idea of reincarnation but I don't hold it as an absolute truth.

2. Im thinking you are mis understanding attachment. Not being attached is the concept of realizing the impermanence of phenomenon (moments, relationships, family, even ordinary things like the weather.) If you're attached its like caging a wild animal, or like a mother unwilling to accept the fact that her child is growing up and leaving the nest.

3. Meditation is not getting caught up in thought. You know how you'll be walking down the street, driving a car, or what have you and you really won't notice anything in front of you cause you're to busy being in your head. Meditation is awareness of what is in front of you and getting out of.your head.

4. Nirvana is the absense of aversion, delusion, and desire. And no one can tell you if you are one way or the other, you are your own principal witness. I don't know anywhere even in Buddhist texts where it says you have to be Buddhist to be blissful.

5. If you are into say martial arts would you not follow the instructions of your teacher or somehow idolize say maybe, Bruce Lee?

The thing about Buddhism is, they don't ignore science and hold to thier beliefs as if it is a fixed idea. The fundamental structure is to accept things as they are and move beyond suffering.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

ugh1979 said:


> Why would any rationalist believe in karma?


I guess rationalists argue that karma is just the name given to any action and its effects. And a lot of rationalists would believe that.
The problem is I guess, Buddhism can be interpreted as "what you will" which in itself not bad. So there is a monastic order and symbolism as well as rituals. The texts are very abstract and so terms like karma or the concept of reincarnation can be both taken literally, or in any way you please.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

purechaos said:


> 1. I don't see reincarnation as being central. Most of the books I read are more centralized around loving kindness and compassion. And you are right some thoughts and practices in Buddhists sects are not universal. I like the idea of reincarnation but I don't hold it as an absolute truth.
> 
> 2. Im thinking you are mis understanding attachment. Not being attached is the concept of realizing the impermanence of phenomenon (moments, relationships, family, even ordinary things like the weather.) If you're attached its like caging a wild animal, or like a mother unwilling to accept the fact that her child is growing up and leaving the nest.
> 
> 3. Meditation is not getting caught up in thought. You know how you'll be walking down the street, driving a car, or what have you and you really won't notice anything in front of you cause you're to busy being in your head. Meditation is awareness of what is in front of you and getting out of.your head.
> 
> 4. Nirvana is the absense of aversion, delusion, and desire. And no one can tell you if you are one way or the other, you are your own principal witness. I don't know anywhere even in Buddhist texts where it says you have to be Buddhist to be blissful.
> 
> 5. If you are into say martial arts would you not follow the instructions of your teacher or somehow idolize say maybe, Bruce Lee?
> 
> The thing about Buddhism is, they don't ignore science and hold to thier beliefs as if it is a fixed idea. The fundamental structure is to accept things as they are and move beyond suffering.


Appreciate your explanations. 
Reincarnation: You may not consider it but it still appears in a majority of Buddhist teachings.
Meditation: I buy your logic.
Attachment: Again I buy your logic.
Nirvana: Absence of aversion, delusion, and desire would ultimately mean denying one's emotions and emotional needs. And if the world is delusional (maya as in Pali texts) then how can I escape the delusion while staying in this world?
Idolization:I might follow Bruce Lee's techniques or teachings but would not idolize him.


----------



## ugh1979

pazuzuinxs said:


> I guess rationalists argue that karma is just the name given to any action and its effects. And a lot of rationalists would believe that.





> *karma*
> : the force created by a person's actions that is believed in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine what that person's next life will be like
> 
> : the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person


The definition you give is for causality, not karma.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

ugh1979 said:


> The definition you give is for causality, not karma.


I am rather confused with the definition of karma. Maybe Slogger can give you a better answer


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> I am rather confused with the definition of karma. Maybe Slogger can give you a better answer


Karma is causality, cause and effect. Commonly-observed physical laws demonstrate karma, but the word refers more specifically to the laws as they govern human behavior.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Karma is causality, cause and effect.


Just saying it's causality is misleading. Karma is a fate based definition of causality mired in superstition, opposed to the secular definition of causality which can be empirically demonstrated.



> *Causality*
> Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.​




> *Karma*
> Karma means action, work or deed; it also refers to the principle of causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future of that individual.





> Commonly-observed physical laws demonstrate karma, but the word refers more specifically to the laws as they govern human behavior.


Which laws demonstrate karma? (And I don't mean causality as per the secular definition)


----------



## Umpalumpa

Ugh, you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and worse, you are arguing on just given names, which in reality it doesn't matter if you call it X or Y.
OP are you related to theta healing?


----------



## ugh1979

Umpalumpa said:


> Ugh, you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and worse, you are arguing on just given names, which in reality it doesn't matter if you call it X or Y.


No i'm calling someone out on providing a misleading definition. It was clear an earlier poster was confused by it as well so that's even more justification for clarification.

Semantics matter if you want people to understand what you are saying.


----------



## Umpalumpa

Calling someone out on providing a misleading definition is exactly arguing on given names and calling it X or Y
The act of calling out someone isn't necessary and it doesn't do any good (example: me calling you for arguing for no reason while arguing myself)
And by bad* (there is no such thing as good or bad) I mean its level of extremity.
I didn't explain it well, I hope I make sense


----------



## ugh1979

Umpalumpa said:


> Calling someone out on providing a misleading definition is exactly arguing on given names and calling it X or Y
> The act of calling out someone isn't necessary and it doesn't do any good (example: me calling you for arguing for no reason while arguing myself)
> And by bad* (there is no such thing as good or bad) I mean its level of extremity.
> I didn't explain it well, I hope I make sense


No you aren't making sense.

If someone says X is Z, when in fact X is far more commonly defined as Y, that's an issue that should be highlighted as it will create confusion.


----------



## Umpalumpa

Okey, so I will explain myself better
As for calling X or Y
Our sub-conscious doesnt understand many words, for example it doesn't understand the word "try" it knows or I will do or I won't, much like a child, in fact we were given the illusion of understanding certain words while we simply can't.
Yes of course rationally you can say you understand what is "try" but the truth is, is that it cannot be TRULY define in our subconscious, in many situations a person says he love something but in the deepest way of understanding, his subconscious will understand it as hate, while rationally he would still believe that he love it.
I'm saying words themselves cannot really be defined as words are more feeling-based.

As for trying to avoid confusion, the best way to do it is by telling about how those two words are connected without "disrespecting" one word
You are defining things by saying X is not Y.
You are saying this is not that, instead of saying this is this,
Which if you want to talk about it mathematically, it is wrong


----------



## ugh1979

Umpalumpa said:


> Okey, so I will explain myself better
> As for calling X or Y
> Our sub-conscious doesnt understand many words, for example it doesn't understand the word "try" it knows or I will do or I won't, much like a child, in fact we were given the illusion of understanding certain words while we simply can't.
> Yes of course rationally you can say you understand what is "try" but the truth is, is that it cannot be TRULY define in our subconscious, in many situations a person says he love something but in the deepest way of understanding, his subconscious will understand it as hate, while rationally he would still believe that he love it.
> I'm saying words themselves cannot really be defined as words are more feeling-based.


I have no idea what you are trying to say.



> As for trying to avoid confusion, the best way to do it is by telling about how those two words are connected without "disrespecting" one word
> You are defining things by saying X is not Y.
> You are saying this is not that, instead of saying this is this,
> Which if you want to talk about it mathematically, it is wrong


I explained the difference, and I didn't say 'karma causality' wasn't any type of casualty. I said it was a definition which was very different from the dictionary definition of causality which the vast majority of people will be familiar with. Hence why it was misleading.


----------



## Umpalumpa

I'm saying many things, one for example is that you can't truly define something, at the moment you define something it losses its definition, I'm saying that two things can be quite alike or more likely they might be the same because our lack of ability to define things (because we define things mostly with our feelings)
I'm also saying that words are a very tricky thing


----------



## ugh1979

Umpalumpa said:


> I'm saying many things, one for example is that you can't truly define something, at the moment you define something it losses its definition, I'm saying that two things can be quite alike or more likely they might be the same because our lack of ability to define things (because we define things mostly with our feelings)
> I'm also saying that words are a very tricky thing


Which definition of define are you using there?


----------



## Umpalumpa

English isn't my main language so...


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Umpalumpa said:


> I'm saying many things, one for example is that you can't truly define something, at the moment you define something it losses its definition, I'm saying that two things can be quite alike or more likely they might be the same because our lack of ability to define things (because we define things mostly with our feelings)
> I'm also saying that words are a very tricky thing


I was confused by the definition and yes terms do matter. If I add something and say that it's the same as subtracting something, then I'm being definitionally wrong. And ugh was kinda helping me out with it. 
And how can I define causality, or karma or even the Newtonian laws with my feelings?


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> Just saying it's causality is misleading. Karma is a fate based definition of causality mired in superstition, opposed to the secular definition of causality which can be empirically demonstrated.


That's just how people usually interpret it, with overly-simplistic relationships of cause and effect that are based on personal desires. Most people don't even know that Buddhism doesn't support the concepts of "good" and "bad" karma. There's just karma, as rational and impersonal as rain falling from the sky. Just because it ruined your picnic doesn't mean it's bad.



ugh1979 said:


> Which laws demonstrate karma? (And I don't mean causality as per the secular definition)


Regarding behavior, if you punch someone in the face they might not like you, which could set off a chain of events leading to all sorts of destruction. Karma. The interactions of behavior and the environment, and visa-versa, influence gene expression, which affects the behavior and development of the organism. Karma.

But ultimately it's wrong to say that a person can generate good or bad karma because karma refers to _all _interactions, and no one person or thing can control that. Being a good person doesn't guarantee you'll never suffer or cause suffering.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> That's just how people usually interpret it, with overly-simplistic relationships of cause and effect that are based on personal desires. Most people don't even know that Buddhism doesn't support the concepts of "good" and "bad" karma. There's just karma, as rational and impersonal as rain falling from the sky. Just because it ruined your picnic doesn't mean it's bad.


So in mainstream Buddism, in what way does karma determine what the person's next life will be like?



> Regarding behavior, if you punch someone in the face they might not like you, which could set off a chain of events leading to all sorts of destruction. Karma. The interactions of behavior and the environment, and visa-versa, influence gene expression, which affects the behavior and development of the organism. Karma.


I don't see how that isn't the same thing as secular causality.



> But ultimately it's wrong to say that a person can generate good or bad karma because karma refers to _all _interactions, and no one person or thing can control that. Being a good person doesn't guarantee you'll never suffer or cause suffering.


Does anyone believe that being a good person will guarantee they will never suffer or cause suffering? Maybe they exist, but I've never heard of anyone who believes that.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> That's just how people usually interpret it, with overly-simplistic relationships of cause and effect that are based on personal desires. Most people don't even know that Buddhism doesn't support the concepts of "good" and "bad" karma. There's just karma, as rational and impersonal as rain falling from the sky. Just because it ruined your picnic doesn't mean it's bad.
> 
> Regarding behavior, if you punch someone in the face they might not like you, which could set off a chain of events leading to all sorts of destruction. Karma. The interactions of behavior and the environment, and visa-versa, influence gene expression, which affects the behavior and development of the organism. Karma.
> 
> But ultimately it's wrong to say that a person can generate good or bad karma because karma refers to _all _interactions, and no one person or thing can control that. Being a good person doesn't guarantee you'll never suffer or cause suffering.


If karma is just action and reaction, then it is just a name for what is known in different terms.

To both Slogger and Pure Chaos:

The basis of science is to provide theories which can explain phenomena. And a theory has to be falsifiable. So if there is a theory saying that the Earth goes around the Sun and I find evidence that the Sun too revolves the Earth, then I just falsified the theory. 
If there are no theories in Buddhism which can be rejected with new evidence, then Buddhism is essentially reduce to a tautology or at best a subjective compendium of knowledge.

Let me discuss the points you made.

"full engagement, is the Buddhist way". Sure. A proletariat revolution is then the Communist way. That is a description. Does that lead to anything? No! In the Bible it says God made the world. I can disprove it by showing that the world was not made by a superhuman being. But how can one disprove a way?

"reincarnation, as understood by the deluded mind, is not possible." What is a deluded mind? Does Buddhism define that? If "there is no abiding essence in anything" then a definition of deluded mind would not carry any essence.

"Playing the guitar is a form of meditation". What is not a form of meditation? What is the domain of meditation?

"Buddhists do not worship the Buddha nor consider him to be some sort of supernatural character." Well some Buddhist do. I have been to too many temples to believe this. What do Buddhists believe in? Why is any different from just being an atheist? If there are no differences, then there shouldn't be a terminology of Buddhism at all.
If Buddhism encompasses anything and everything, then I would rather concentrate on learning about the sciences or the arts. In effect I am then learning about Buddhism.


----------



## purechaos

this thread messes me up a little when thinking of a way to explain things. I'm good when I read books on buddhism but I feel I have to be careful when explaining it, because most people have a "general" misguided view on what "overall" buddhism.

So i'm pulling things from a blog, and a couple books I have read and reread often.

What the historical Buddha taught was a *method* for understanding oneself and the world in a different way. The many lists of doctrines are not meant to be accepted on blind faith. The Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen master, says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are *guiding means*; they are not absolute truth."

The absolute truth of which Thich Nhat Hanh speaks cannot be contained in words and concepts. Thus, merely believing in words and concepts is not the Buddhist path. There is no point in believing in reincarnation/rebirth, for example. Rather, one *practices* Buddhism in order to realize *a self* not subject to birth and death.

Many Boats, One River

To say that doctrines and teachings shouldn't be accepted on blind faith doesn't mean they aren't important. The myriad teachings of Buddhism are like* maps* to follow on a spiritual journey, or *a boat *to carry you across a river. Daily meditation or chanting may seem pointless, but when *practiced with sincerity* they have a real impact on your life and outlook.

And to say that Buddhism is not about believing things doesn't mean there are no Buddhist beliefs. Over the centuries Buddhism has developed diverse schools with distinctive, and sometimes contradictory, doctrines. Often you might read that "Buddhists believe" such and such a thing, when in fact that *doctrine belongs only to one school and not to all of Buddhism.*

To compound confusion further, throughout Asia one can find a kind of folk Buddhism in which the Buddha and other iconic characters from Buddhist literature are believed to be divine beings who can hear prayers and grant wishes. Clearly, there are Buddhists with beliefs.* Focusing on those beliefs will teach you little about Buddhism, however.*

If you want to learn about Buddhism, I suggest putting aside all assumptions. Put aside assumptions about Buddhism, and then assumptions about religion. Put aside assumptions about the nature of the self, of reality, of existence. Keep yourself open to new understanding. Whatever beliefs you hold, hold in an open hand and not a tight fist. Just practice, and see where it takes you.

..................................................

on Karma

"People get into a heavy-duty sin and guilt trip, feeling that if things are going wrong, that means that *they did something bad and they are being punished. That's not the idea at all. *The idea of karma is that you continually get the teachings that you need to *open your heart*. To the degree that you didn't understand in the past how to stop protecting your soft spot, how to stop armoring your heart, you're given this gift of teachings in the form of your life, to give you everything you need to open further." 
― Pema Chödrön

a poem on compassion that may get your mind running

Call Me by My True Names

Do not say that I'll depart tomorrow 
because even today I still arrive.

Look deeply: I arrive in every second 
to be a bud on a spring branch, 
to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile, 
learning to sing in my new nest, 
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower, 
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.

I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry, 
in order to fear and to hope. 
The rhythm of my heart is the birth and 
death of all that are alive.

I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river,
and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time 
to eat the mayfly.

I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond, 
and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence, 
feeds itself on the frog.

I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, 
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks, 
and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to 
Uganda.

I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea
pirate,
and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and
loving.

I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my
hands,
and I am the man who has to pay his "debt of blood" to, my
people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.

My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all
walks of life.
My pain if like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.

Please call me by my true names, 
so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once, 
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

Please call me by my true names, 
so I can wake up, 
and so the door of my heart can be left open, 
the door of compassion.

Thicht Naht Hahn


----------



## pazuzuinxs

purechaos said:


> this thread messes me up a little when thinking of a way to explain things. I'm good when I read books on buddhism but I feel I have to be careful when explaining it, because most people have a "general" misguided view on what "overall" buddhism.
> 
> So i'm pulling things from a blog, and a couple books I have read and reread often.
> 
> What the historical Buddha taught was a *method* for understanding oneself and the world in a different way. The many lists of doctrines are not meant to be accepted on blind faith. The Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen master, says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are *guiding means*; they are not absolute truth."
> 
> The absolute truth of which Thich Nhat Hanh speaks cannot be contained in words and concepts. Thus, merely believing in words and concepts is not the Buddhist path. There is no point in believing in reincarnation/rebirth, for example. Rather, one *practices* Buddhism in order to realize *a self* not subject to birth and death.
> 
> Many Boats, One River
> 
> To say that doctrines and teachings shouldn't be accepted on blind faith doesn't mean they aren't important. The myriad teachings of Buddhism are like* maps* to follow on a spiritual journey, or *a boat *to carry you across a river. Daily meditation or chanting may seem pointless, but when *practiced with sincerity* they have a real impact on your life and outlook.
> 
> And to say that Buddhism is not about believing things doesn't mean there are no Buddhist beliefs. Over the centuries Buddhism has developed diverse schools with distinctive, and sometimes contradictory, doctrines. Often you might read that "Buddhists believe" such and such a thing, when in fact that *doctrine belongs only to one school and not to all of Buddhism.*
> 
> To compound confusion further, throughout Asia one can find a kind of folk Buddhism in which the Buddha and other iconic characters from Buddhist literature are believed to be divine beings who can hear prayers and grant wishes. Clearly, there are Buddhists with beliefs.* Focusing on those beliefs will teach you little about Buddhism, however.*
> 
> If you want to learn about Buddhism, I suggest putting aside all assumptions. Put aside assumptions about Buddhism, and then assumptions about religion. Put aside assumptions about the nature of the self, of reality, of existence. Keep yourself open to new understanding. Whatever beliefs you hold, hold in an open hand and not a tight fist. Just practice, and see where it takes you.
> 
> ..................................................
> 
> on Karma
> 
> "People get into a heavy-duty sin and guilt trip, feeling that if things are going wrong, that means that *they did something bad and they are being punished. That's not the idea at all. *The idea of karma is that you continually get the teachings that you need to *open your heart*. To the degree that you didn't understand in the past how to stop protecting your soft spot, how to stop armoring your heart, you're given this gift of teachings in the form of your life, to give you everything you need to open further."
> ― Pema Chödrön
> 
> a poem on compassion that may get your mind running
> 
> Call Me by My True Names
> 
> Do not say that I'll depart tomorrow
> because even today I still arrive.
> 
> Look deeply: I arrive in every second
> to be a bud on a spring branch,
> to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile,
> learning to sing in my new nest,
> to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
> to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.
> 
> I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
> in order to fear and to hope.
> The rhythm of my heart is the birth and
> death of all that are alive.
> 
> I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river,
> and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time
> to eat the mayfly.
> 
> I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond,
> and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence,
> feeds itself on the frog.
> 
> I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
> my legs as thin as bamboo sticks,
> and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to
> Uganda.
> 
> I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat,
> who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea
> pirate,
> and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and
> loving.
> 
> I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my
> hands,
> and I am the man who has to pay his "debt of blood" to, my
> people,
> dying slowly in a forced labor camp.
> 
> My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all
> walks of life.
> My pain if like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.
> 
> Please call me by my true names,
> so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once,
> so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
> 
> Please call me by my true names,
> so I can wake up,
> and so the door of my heart can be left open,
> the door of compassion.
> 
> Thicht Naht Hahn


Your post is a great read! Logical or not, it's poetic and wonderful. Thanks for sharing!!!


----------



## purechaos

Its hard to explain Buddhism in a thread like this because there is a lot to it as far as realizing there is "no self" which is a long explanation, or looking at "reality" like a dream or illusion, another long explanation, seeing things without affixing a label or definition, not letting ego control you but not resisting it (jealously, anger aversion, desire) by recognizing, accepting, leaning in and transcending. 

It could take hours or days lol


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> So in mainstream Buddism, in what way does karma determine what the person's next life will be like?


I don't know, but it's probably a lot of woo-woo nonsense. The Buddhists I know generally roll their eyes when people talk about "making good karma" for a better life. Mainstream Buddhists typically haven't meditated long enough and intensely enough to get a deeper comprehension of Buddhism. Many have never meditated, which is crazy, like saying you're a swimmer when you've never been in water past your ankles.

You really can't comprehend what Buddhism points to by reading, lectures, logical analysis, etc., any more than you can become an Olympic gymnast by reading about it, watching it on TV, or analyzing the physics of the moves. Really, really, really.



ugh1979 said:


> I don't see how that isn't the same thing as secular causality.


I agree. Thing is, secular causality can't explain everything yet. There's still so much to learn about the nature of reality, what we call matter, consciousness, and such. I'm convinced that eventually science will point to the same truths as Buddhism. But even then, you won't be able to comprehend those truths until you can let go of the mental barrier that makes it seem like you're separate and independent from an "external" world.



ugh1979 said:


> Does anyone believe that being a good person will guarantee they will never suffer or cause suffering? Maybe they exist, but I've never heard of anyone who believes that.


Eh, I think lots of people believe it subconsciously, whether they say so or not. Because when something causes them suffering they're shocked, like, "How could this happen to me? I'm a good person, I don't deserve this!!!"


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> "full engagement, is the Buddhist way". Sure. A proletariat revolution is then the Communist way. That is a description. Does that lead to anything? No! In the Bible it says God made the world. I can disprove it by showing that the world was not made by a superhuman being. But how can one disprove a way?


Well, you can demonstrate that it doesn't fulfill its promises.



pazuzuinxs said:


> "reincarnation, as understood by the deluded mind, is not possible." What is a deluded mind? Does Buddhism define that? If "there is no abiding essence in anything" then a definition of deluded mind would not carry any essence.


Right, definitions have no abiding essence. The thought "no abiding essence" has no abiding essence. A deluded mind is motivated by beliefs such as "there is no abiding essence".



pazuzuinxs said:


> "Playing the guitar is a form of meditation". What is not a form of meditation? What is the domain of meditation?


Seeing things as separate from the self is not meditation. But there's 10,000 shades of grey in this matter. Playing guitar is a form of meditation but not the best form if it's just you and the guitar, and anything else is seen as an interruption. That's the difference between the particular and the ocean samadhis. Buddhist doctrine describes many types of samadhi.



pazuzuinxs said:


> "Buddhists do not worship the Buddha nor consider him to be some sort of supernatural character." Well some Buddhist do. I have been to too many temples to believe this. What do Buddhists believe in? Why is any different from just being an atheist? If there are no differences, then there shouldn't be a terminology of Buddhism at all.
> If Buddhism encompasses anything and everything, then I would rather concentrate on learning about the sciences or the arts. In effect I am then learning about Buddhism.


Yes, you are. But it'll take you much longer that way. 

Regarding worshiping the Buddha, you may be misinterpreting what you see. Bowing in front of a statue, for example, is not done to worship the Buddha, but to express humility and gratitude, among other things. A little research online would clear up your misconceptions.

Bowing also feels really good after you've been sitting cross-legged on the floor for an hour!

Also, you may be misinterpreting what people mean when they use supernatural terms to talk about the Buddha. Sometimes there just aren't other words to fully express one's experience. Or sometimes people are total woo-woo heads.

Ultimately, if you really want to comprehend Buddhism, you must do the practice. As the Buddha said, "You must see for yourself."


----------



## purechaos

Good way of putting it slogger


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> I don't know, but it's probably a lot of woo-woo nonsense. The Buddhists I know generally roll their eyes when people talk about "making good karma" for a better life. Mainstream Buddhists typically haven't meditated long enough and intensely enough to get a deeper comprehension of Buddhism. Many have never meditated, which is crazy, like saying you're a swimmer when you've never been in water past your ankles.
> 
> You really can't comprehend what Buddhism points to by reading, lectures, logical analysis, etc., any more than you can become an Olympic gymnast by reading about it, watching it on TV, or analyzing the physics of the moves. Really, really, really.


Fair enough. I certainly encourage the reformation and removal of supernatural elements of ideologies, so i'm glad to hear of Buddhists that don't believe in supernatural concepts such as fate.



> I agree. Thing is, secular causality can't explain everything yet. There's still so much to learn about the nature of reality, what we call matter, consciousness, and such. I'm convinced that eventually science will point to the same truths as Buddhism.


So while you rightfully accept that secular causality can't explain everything yet, are you implying that Buddism can, and eventually science will align with all it's claims?



> But even then, you won't be able to comprehend those truths until you can let go of the mental barrier that makes it seem like you're separate and independent from an "external" world.


I think that question depends on specifics. We are of course all part of one big system (the universe), but to what degree we are all linked and in what way is the question.

I'm well aware all the atoms in my body came from supernovas and other cosmic events for example, so I feel very much part of the universe in that extent, (physically), but I don't feel my consciousness is part of any universal consciousness or anything like that.



> Eh, I think lots of people believe it subconsciously, whether they say so or not. Because when something causes them suffering they're shocked, like, "How could this happen to me? I'm a good person, I don't deserve this!!!"


I understand lots of people think they will have better fortune if they behave in a certain way, (a common superstition), but thinking they will be guaranteed not to come to any harm is very rare IMO. If someone truly believed they were guaranteed not to come to any harm they would never display any behaviour which protected them from harm.

It's only when there are serious mental health issues people think they are invincible and nothing can harm them.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> So while you rightfully accept that secular causality can't explain everything yet, are you implying that Buddism can, and eventually science will align with all it's claims?


The main point of Buddhism is "there is no abiding essence". To comprehend that fully, with one's entire being, lets you comprehend everything _in a sense_; but to cling to any bit of comprehension to try to understand isolated things or events goes against the main point. So Buddhism and science, as we currently know science, must diverge at that point because science as we know it is a reductionist discipline.



ugh1979 said:


> I think that question depends on specifics. We are of course all part of one big system (the universe), but to what degree we are all linked and in what way is the question.


Yep, that's a big question.



ugh1979 said:


> I'm well aware all the atoms in my body came from supernovas and other cosmic events for example, so I feel very much part of the universe in that extent, (physically), but I don't feel my consciousness is part of any universal consciousness or anything like that.


The truth of Buddhism is beyond what we call consciousness, so of course you wouldn't feel anything like that.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> The main point of Buddhism is "there is no abiding essence". To comprehend that fully, with one's entire being, lets you comprehend everything _in a sense_; but to cling to any bit of comprehension to try to understand isolated things or events goes against the main point. So Buddhism and science, as we currently know science, must diverge at that point because science as we know it is a reductionist discipline.


So Buddism is against trying to understand the origin/reason for of anything? You make it sound like the opposite of what science typically strives for.

Is that correct?



> The truth of Buddhism is beyond what we call consciousness, so of course you wouldn't feel anything like that.


How can any human know this "Buddhist truth" if it's beyond the capability of our minds to understand it?


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> So Buddism is against trying to understand the origin/reason for of anything? You make it sound like the opposite of what science typically strives for.


You could say it's against trying to understand the origin/reason of any _one _thing. According to Buddhism, nothing can be understood completely without understanding everything else. That's "no abiding essence" again.

So yes you could say it's the opposite of what science typically strives for.

But of course Buddhism is not against understanding things, it's not against thinking and reasoning. Those are tools useful for specific purposes. The problem is when we get attached to a tool and use it inappropriately. No one tool of thought or reason is appropriate for all purposes. Hence the ongoing diversification of human endeavors, which is an instinctive expression of Buddhist truth.



ugh1979 said:


> How can any human know this "Buddhist truth" if it's beyond the capability of our minds to understand it?


That's what meditation is for, to go beyond our understanding. Again, you must see for yourself.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> You could say it's against trying to understand the origin/reason of any _one _thing. According to Buddhism, nothing can be understood completely without understanding everything else. That's "no abiding essence" again.


Since we will never understand everything, the next best thing is to try and understand as many things as possible. Having part of the picture is better than having none of it since you can't have all of it.



> So yes you could say it's the opposite of what science typically strives for.


So you saying earlier "I'm convinced that eventually science will point to the same truths as Buddhism.", is rather at odds with that.



> But of course Buddhism is not against understanding things, it's not against thinking and reasoning. Those are tools useful for specific purposes. The problem is when we get attached to a tool and use it inappropriately. No one tool of thought or reason is appropriate for all purposes. Hence the ongoing diversification of human endeavors, which is an instinctive expression of Buddhist truth.


Yes different modes of thoughts and lines of reason are appropriate for different purposes. That's just common sense, and inherent to the human mind rather than just 'Buddhist truth'.



> That's what meditation is for, to go beyond our understanding. Again, you must see for yourself.


So it's something that we can understand without using our minds? :? That doesn't make any sense to me. How can we be aware of anything that hasn't filtered into our consciousness via our cognitive processes?

For the record, I do meditate everyday, as I find it useful and very calming not really thinking for a while (mindfulness), as I have a mind that is prone to racing and over thinking/analysis. It gives my mind a nice rest as it dampens neural activity which can be beneficial. At no point though do I think i'm accessing any mystic knowledge by doing it.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> Well, you can demonstrate that it doesn't fulfill its promises.
> 
> Right, definitions have no abiding essence. The thought "no abiding essence" has no abiding essence. A deluded mind is motivated by beliefs such as "there is no abiding essence".
> 
> Seeing things as separate from the self is not meditation. But there's 10,000 shades of grey in this matter. Playing guitar is a form of meditation but not the best form if it's just you and the guitar, and anything else is seen as an interruption. That's the difference between the particular and the ocean samadhis. Buddhist doctrine describes many types of samadhi.
> 
> Yes, you are. But it'll take you much longer that way.
> 
> Regarding worshiping the Buddha, you may be misinterpreting what you see. Bowing in front of a statue, for example, is not done to worship the Buddha, but to express humility and gratitude, among other things. A little research online would clear up your misconceptions.
> 
> Bowing also feels really good after you've been sitting cross-legged on the floor for an hour!
> 
> Also, you may be misinterpreting what people mean when they use supernatural terms to talk about the Buddha. Sometimes there just aren't other words to fully express one's experience. Or sometimes people are total woo-woo heads.
> 
> Ultimately, if you really want to comprehend Buddhism, you must do the practice. As the Buddha said, "You must see for yourself."


What does Buddhism promise, if anything at all? That is precisely what I want to know.

Is there a workable guideline/ definition of meditation or is it again all flexible and subjective?

ROFL about the woo-woo heads. Really made me smile, the way you said it. I am not too concerned with idol worship. Thats just a convenience for a number of people to do other things.

What my main argument is, what makes Buddhism? And your point about a deluded mind are strikingly close to what a lot of apologists say--"without faith you will not be able to see. clear your mind my friend, and the science of God will be apparent to you"


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> Since we will never understand everything, the next best thing is to try and understand as many things as possible. Having part of the picture is better than having none of it since you can't have all of it.


Sure, it's human nature to seek knowledge and understanding. Knowledge and understanding are very useful tools.



ugh1979 said:


> So you saying earlier "I'm convinced that eventually science will point to the same truths as Buddhism.", is rather at odds with that.


Science will _point _to the same truths, but it won't take you there, if I'm understanding what you're saying is at odds.



ugh1979 said:


> Yes different modes of thoughts and lines of reason are appropriate for different purposes. That's just common sense, and inherent to the human mind rather than just 'Buddhist truth'.


One thing to note is that many religions or philosophies or what-have-you are based on specific beliefs that followers adhere to in any situation. Buddhism is a different in that respect.



ugh1979 said:


> So it's something that we can understand without using our minds? :? That doesn't make any sense to me. How can we be aware of anything that hasn't filtered into our consciousness via our cognitive processes?


It's something we comprehend without _clinging to thoughts_. In that way, you actually use your mind more fully.



ugh1979 said:


> For the record, I do meditate everyday, as I find it useful and very calming not really thinking for a while (mindfulness), as I have a mind that is prone to racing and over thinking/analysis. It gives my mind a nice rest as it dampens neural activity which can be beneficial. At no point though do I think i'm accessing any mystic knowledge by doing it.


There's no mystical knowledge to access, no secrets. It's all right here, but we block it by clinging to thoughts. If you took your meditation further, your questions and doubts about Buddhism would be answered. You really do have to see for yourself. :yes


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> What does Buddhism promise, if anything at all? That is precisely what I want to know.


Freedom from suffering. Not necessarily from pain, but from suffering. Discomfort and pain are inherent in life, but suffering doesn't have to be.



pazuzuinxs said:


> Is there a workable guideline/ definition of meditation or is it again all flexible and subjective?


There are many guidelines/definitions, as purechaos pointed out, many many paths. But in general it's best to work with a reputable teacher because it's so easy to fool yourself into thinking you've "got it". Technique-wise, there's everything from total indulgence, as in Tantra (the Indian cult of ecstasy), to various disciplines of abstinence, as in say Jainism.



pazuzuinxs said:


> What my main argument is, what makes Buddhism? And your point about a deluded mind are strikingly close to what a lot of apologists say--"without faith you will not be able to see. clear your mind my friend, and the science of God will be apparent to you"


What makes Buddhism is the realization, be it deep or shallow, that there is no abiding essence in anything, and the willingness to let one's life align with that truth.

Faith is not necessary if that truth really makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense, and you wanted to see for yourself, say by attending a retreat with a teacher, then yeah you'd need faith to do what the teacher says without questioning why or trying to reason things out instead of following the teacher's instructions.

"Clear your mind my friend, and the science of God will be apparent to you." Yeah, that prescription appears a lot in various religions. It points to "no abiding essence".


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Science will _point _to the same truths, but it won't take you there, if I'm understanding what you're saying is at odds.


Without understanding what you mean about what that destination is I don't understand what 'truths' science will be pointing to.



> One thing to note is that many religions or philosophies or what-have-you are based on specific beliefs that followers adhere to in any situation. Buddhism is a different in that respect.


Yes religions that believe in divine morality for example. The pliability of Buddism you mention to adapt based on the situation is standard to secularist ideologies as well.



> It's something we comprehend without _clinging to thoughts_. In that way, you actually use your mind more fully.


Can you give an example? I'm not clear on what you mean when you talk about "clinging" to thoughts for example.



> There's no mystical knowledge to access, no secrets.


It's clearly highly mystical by any definition of the term, and if it wasn't secret (i.e. not generally known) everyone would be aware of it.

Can you explain how is it not mystical and how it is well known?



> It's all right here, but we block it by clinging to thoughts. If you took your meditation further, your questions and doubts about Buddhism would be answered. You really do have to see for yourself. :yes


This is getting in to the typical "woo-woo" ambiguous type reasoning where what it is can't be communicated/explained.

What's its purpose and justification for credibility of actuality?


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Freedom from suffering. Not necessarily from pain, but from suffering. Discomfort and pain are inherent in life, but suffering doesn't have to be.


Which definition of suffering does it provide freedom from?



> There are many guidelines/definitions, as purechaos pointed out, many many paths. But in general it's best to work with a reputable teacher because it's so easy to fool yourself into thinking you've "got it". Technique-wise, there's everything from total indulgence, as in Tantra (the Indian cult of ecstasy), to various disciplines of abstinence, as in say Jainism.


To apply the same reasoning, why do you think the "reputable" teacher has "it" either?

It could be the blind leading the blind. I can't accept anyone knows the "truth", and that those who claim they do are deluded. I think the only thing we can do is assess all the approximations of the truth on offer and form a world view based on them. Once which is in a state of constant refinement and progress in line with the emergence of new evidence and knowledge.



> What makes Buddhism is the realization, be it deep or shallow, that there is no abiding essence in anything, and the willingness to let one's life align with that truth.


That seems perfectly in line with typical scientific rationalism in that nothing is permanent and everything is transient. A body of energy at once place and time in the universe will undoubtedly by dissipated into the universe at another with no trace (essence) of the previous states enduring.



> Faith is not necessary if that truth really makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense, and you wanted to see for yourself, say by attending a retreat with a teacher, then yeah you'd need faith to do what the teacher says without questioning why or trying to reason things out instead of following the teacher's instructions.


Doing anything without questioning is folly IMO. No one person can be trusted completely. All important questions should be analysed utilising the likes of scientific method to establish the most credible approximation of the truth with the least risk of cognitive bias from any individual.



> "Clear your mind my friend, and the science of God will be apparent to you." Yeah, that prescription appears a lot in various religions. It points to "no abiding essence".


That quote about the "science of God" is at odds with "no abiding essence", as a belief in God implies there is very much an abiding essence, i.e. "God".

It's also at odds with Buddism which is atheistic, so i'm confused by your response.


----------



## purechaos

Suffering is a feeling. You know when you feel suffering, and that is different for everyone, some may find suffering in something and another may feel no certain way about it.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> Freedom from suffering. Not necessarily from pain, but from suffering. Discomfort and pain are inherent in life, but suffering doesn't have to be.
> 
> There are many guidelines/definitions, as purechaos pointed out, many many paths. But in general it's best to work with a reputable teacher because it's so easy to fool yourself into thinking you've "got it". Technique-wise, there's everything from total indulgence, as in Tantra (the Indian cult of ecstasy), to various disciplines of abstinence, as in say Jainism.
> 
> What makes Buddhism is the realization, be it deep or shallow, that there is no abiding essence in anything, and the willingness to let one's life align with that truth.
> 
> Faith is not necessary if that truth really makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense, and you wanted to see for yourself, say by attending a retreat with a teacher, then yeah you'd need faith to do what the teacher says without questioning why or trying to reason things out instead of following the teacher's instructions.
> 
> "Clear your mind my friend, and the science of God will be apparent to you." Yeah, that prescription appears a lot in various religions. It points to "no abiding essence".


What makes nihilism is also the realization that there is no abiding essence in anything. And once you realize that, you can transcend suffering. You transcend suffering since you transcend a concept of evil. Your idea of Buddhism seems very close.

Firstly, suffering generates nihilism since it creates a search for meaning, i.e. will to truth, which in turn turns against itself: Will to truth eventually creates nihilism since its inherent honesty must also reveal
its own truths as false. Secondly, nihilism generates suffering as humans have
become addicted to eternal truths such as God before exposing this God as
false. Nietzsche calls this stage of nihilism for passive nihilism since the
culture undergoing this process is not ready to take action on the very insight
it has produced. Miguel Unamuno may be said to represent this position as he
struggles between faith and reason: reason says that God does not exist, while faith cannot tolerate this thought. But this also means that, from a
Nietzschean perspective, Unamuno is unable to the see that it was suffering
which created the crisis he himself is suffering.


----------



## purechaos

if you have 12 minutes






good break down


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> Without understanding what you mean about what that destination is I don't understand what 'truths' science will be pointing to.


No abiding essence in anything.



ugh1979 said:


> Yes religions that believe in divine morality for example. The pliability of Buddism you mention to adapt based on the situation is standard to secularist ideologies as well.


Yeah, and we could certainly talk about "no abiding essence" without referring to Buddhism, if that sits better with you. It's a basic nature of the universe, which is why it shows up in so many religions. Buddhism points to it more directly than most ways of thought, but you don't have to be Buddhist or be interested in Buddhism to explore that fact.



ugh1979 said:


> Can you give an example? I'm not clear on what you mean when you talk about "clinging" to thoughts for example.


Basically, dwelling on thoughts that are not useful/appropriate in the present moment, thoughts that are centered around the self and don't relate to what's around you. Unnecessary thinking is clinging to thoughts. All that thinking you quiet down when you meditate.



ugh1979 said:


> Can you explain how is it not mystical and how it is well known?


Everyone is aware of it at some level. Everyone responds to the "outside" world in some ways, if only through the senses, which are clear on the issue of not being separate from all else. Mentally though, it's a mish-mash of responses, some controlled by the belief that we are separate from all else, and some that are not. The responses that are freer from that belief are the ones we seek, the ones that give the pleasure that human beings crave. That pleasure by nature can be highly-beneficial to the human species, and can be greatly expanded through practices such as meditation. Again, as you say though, it's not strictly a Buddhist thing, it's just the way things are.



ugh1979 said:


> This is getting in to the typical "woo-woo" ambiguous type reasoning where what it is can't be communicated/explained.


If I told you there was an alien being in my closet, would you believe me? Even if I sent you pictures or a video, it could just be special effects. Wouldn't you want to see for yourself? Or if you were overweight and out of shape and I tried to describe what it felt like to be fit, all the physical and psychological advantages and delights, wouldn't you need to get fit yourself to really understand all the subtleties of what I meant?


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> Which definition of suffering does it provide freedom from?


Psychological pain. Pain resulting from mental delusions, from clinging to ideas that don't jive with reality. For example, getting depressed about getting older and feeling your body degenerate.



ugh1979 said:


> To apply the same reasoning, why do you think the "reputable" teacher has "it" either?
> 
> It could be the blind leading the blind. I can't accept anyone knows the "truth", and that those who claim they do are deluded. I think the only thing we can do is assess all the approximations of the truth on offer and form a world view based on them. Once which is in a state of constant refinement and progress in line with the emergence of new evidence and knowledge.


Well that's fine too. Ultimately, the universe is the greatest teacher. Human teachers are useful though for helping you with technique and speeding things along. In Buddhist practice, it's pretty easy to see if a teacher is walking-the-walk, as they say. They may not be perfect, but their practice has to be darned solid to keep up the schedules and disciplines they follow.



ugh1979 said:


> That seems perfectly in line with typical scientific rationalism in that nothing is permanent and everything is transient. A body of energy at once place and time in the universe will undoubtedly by dissipated into the universe at another with no trace (essence) of the previous states enduring.


Yeah, definitely! So think about the implications of that fact with regards to human behavior. How much of our behavior is influenced by incorrect beliefs in permanence?



ugh1979 said:


> Doing anything without questioning is folly IMO. No one person can be trusted completely. All important questions should be analysed utilising the likes of scientific method to establish the most credible approximation of the truth with the least risk of cognitive bias from any individual.


An entirely valid method. I'm sure the sciences will eventually get around to studying all the implications of "no abiding essence".



ugh1979 said:


> That quote about the "science of God" is at odds with "no abiding essence", as a belief in God implies there is very much an abiding essence, i.e. "God".
> 
> It's also at odds with Buddism which is atheistic, so i'm confused by your response.


It's just a little poetic interpretation. Buddhists use the word "God" all the time, but it doesn't mean they believe in God.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> No abiding essence in anything.


I'd say many cosmologists, physicists etc already think that.

I know I do. It's of course totally speculative, but I believe everything arises from 'quantum foam', which could be regarded as something that has no essence as it has no defined values.

This graphic explains it well:












> Yeah, and we could certainly talk about "no abiding essence" without referring to Buddhism, if that sits better with you. It's a basic nature of the universe, which is why it shows up in so many religions. Buddhism points to it more directly than most ways of thought, but you don't have to be Buddhist or be interested in Buddhism to explore that fact.


It seems perfectly compatible with Buddist type ideologies, but it's totally at odds with the likes of the Abrahamic religions, which are built upon set values both physically and mentally.

All theists i've spoken to have been unwilling agree that universe came from 'quantum foam' for example, as they demand an intelligent creator.

Deism and believing that there is no abiding essence in anything are contradicting beliefs.



> Basically, dwelling on thoughts that are not useful/appropriate in the present moment, thoughts that are centered around the self and don't relate to what's around you. Unnecessary thinking is clinging to thoughts. All that thinking you quiet down when you meditate.


That's just good mental advice that can be taught secularly. (That's how I learned it and since practice it, much to the relief of my SA issues )

So, can you give me any other information on how Buddism is different from a well educated and informed secular mentality?



> Everyone is aware of it at some level. Everyone responds to the "outside" world in some ways, if only through the senses, which are clear on the issue of not being separate from all else. Mentally though, it's a mish-mash of responses, some controlled by the belief that we are separate from all else, and some that are not. The responses that are freer from that belief are the ones we seek, the ones that give the pleasure that human beings crave. That pleasure by nature can be highly-beneficial to the human species, and can be greatly expanded through practices such as meditation. Again, as you say though, it's not strictly a Buddhist thing, it's just the way things are.


OK so again just the same as good secular mentality.



> If I told you there was an alien being in my closet, would you believe me? Even if I sent you pictures or a video, it could just be special effects. Wouldn't you want to see for yourself? Or if you were overweight and out of shape and I tried to describe what it felt like to be fit, all the physical and psychological advantages and delights, wouldn't you need to get fit yourself to really understand all the subtleties of what I meant?


So far you haven't hinted at anything that is different from good secular mental discipline, so i'm still no clearer about how your belief differs from many secularists.


----------



## purechaos

Why does it matter? 

I'm beginning to think that you are too hung up on the label of "Buddhism." Buddha didn't need Buddhism , neither do you. A Buddhist could meet a non Buddhist and have commonalities. I even think "labeling" yourself a Buddhist goes against the idea of Buddha. I mean think about it, we are interdependent, saying you are a Buddhist implies that you are not, and that you are some independent self separate from everyone else. Unless of course the notion is that everyone is Buddhist and Buddha. At that point, call it what you will, but its all the same.


----------



## purechaos

However, most main stream meditators, meditate say 15 minutes to an hour maybe . People who dive deep into Buddhist perspective meditate all day, where ever they are.....


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Psychological pain. Pain resulting from mental delusions, from clinging to ideas that don't jive with reality. For example, getting depressed about getting older and feeling your body degenerate.


OK fair enough, but again, secular compatible.



> Well that's fine too. Ultimately, the universe is the greatest teacher. Human teachers are useful though for helping you with technique and speeding things along. In Buddhist practice, it's pretty easy to see if a teacher is walking-the-walk, as they say. They may not be perfect, but their practice has to be darned solid to keep up the schedules and disciplines they follow.


'We' are our greatest teacher. The universe teaches us nothing. It's simply there to be realised by us.

Therefore, I look to what I deem the best most qualified minds the world currently has on the subject of knowledge about the universe to learn from.

Those people are physicists, biologists, chemists, neuroscientists, psychologists etc, who work endlessly providing an ever more accurate empirical based knowledge. Not Buddhists, who ignore substantiated science unless it happens to be able to be correlated with one of their Buddist ideologies.

What reason should I have to think a Buddhist teacher has a credible knowledge of the universe that isn't secular/scientific knowledge?

How can Buddism prove it's credibility?



> Yeah, definitely! So think about the implications of that fact with regards to human behavior. How much of our behavior is influenced by incorrect beliefs in permanence?


Yes it's significant, and its issues can be resolved with good secular metal discipline. That's fine if Buddism teaches that as well, but i'm looking for what differentiates Buddism from secularism.



> An entirely valid method. I'm sure the sciences will eventually get around to studying all the implications of "no abiding essence".


That "truth" has no implication on most sciences. It's only really physics that it effects, and as I said earlier, a version of it is already believed by many world class physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind.



> It's just a little poetic interpretation. Buddhists use the word "God" all the time, but it doesn't mean they believe in God.


Fair enough. "God" aka "the Universe".


----------



## purechaos

Buddhism does not ignore science by any means. In fact there are monks that study science.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Buddhism does not ignore science by any means. In fact there are monks that study science.


Indeed many do study science and so they should (like everyone else). What I was implying is that there are certain beliefs many Buddhists hold that scientific consensus indicates are false. _That _is the science that many Buddhists choose to conveniently ignore.

It's cherry picking.


----------



## purechaos

Those Buddhist don't understand Buddhism ..


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Those Buddhist don't understand Buddhism ..


I'm sure millions of them disagree with you, but fair enough.


----------



## purechaos

What beliefs are you speaking of anyway?


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> What beliefs are you speaking of anyway?


Divine knowledge and reincarnation for obvious example. I could provide a list of at least hundreds of typical Buddist beliefs that science indicates as false.


----------



## purechaos

Which interpretation of reincarnation are you speaking of? Lol


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Which interpretation of reincarnation are you speaking of? Lol


No one specifically. There are many different interpretations of reincarnation that can be assessed for potential validity/plausibility. lol


----------



## purechaos

Right cause there is one interpretation that: 

You in essence reincarnate yourself moment to moment. Meaning if you think that you are the exact same person you were 10 minutes ago, you reincarnated yourself. But in Buddhism since nothing is permanent including yourself, there is no self that is subject to reincarnation. 

To me people who believe in life and death reincarnation in a literal context aren't coming from a Buddhist perspective because if they were it wouldn't make any damn sense. 

If nothing is permanent including yourself, than you can't possibly reincarnate into another form because there is no solid you to begin with


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> What makes nihilism is also the realization that there is no abiding essence in anything. And once you realize that, you can transcend suffering. You transcend suffering since you transcend a concept of evil. Your idea of Buddhism seems very close.


No, no, Buddhism is not nihilistic. Just because you don't cling to thoughts doesn't mean you don't have any.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

purechaos said:


> Right cause there is one interpretation that:
> 
> You in essence reincarnate yourself moment to moment. Meaning if you think that you are the exact same person you were 10 minutes ago, you reincarnated yourself. But in Buddhism since nothing is permanent including yourself, there is no self that is subject to reincarnation.
> 
> To me people who believe in life and death reincarnation in a literal context aren't coming from a Buddhist perspective because if they were it wouldn't make any damn sense.
> 
> If nothing is permanent including yourself, than you can't possibly reincarnate into another form because there is no solid you to begin with


But you could in a way reincarnate yourself after death. So the Hindoo version of reincarnation which is much in vogue with a number of rational followers is this. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy (or mass=energy) can neither be created nor be destroyed. Now if we consider the whole universe as an isolated system, the concept holds true. So in essence you are always being reincarnated into something or another.

There is also a solid me to begin with. That is my objective reality. Of course, we could as well be bacteria in a cosmic prison, but for me my reality is what I will hold true.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> No, no, Buddhism is not nihilistic. Just because you don't cling to thoughts doesn't mean you don't have any.


Nihilism never says we don't have thoughts. that would be absurd. All it says is exactly what you said before: "No abiding essence in anything."


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> 'We' are our greatest teacher. The universe teaches us nothing. It's simply there to be realised by us.
> Therefore, I look to what I deem the best most qualified minds the world currently has on the subject of knowledge about the universe to learn from.
> Those people are physicists, biologists, chemists, neuroscientists, psychologists etc, who work endlessly providing an ever more accurate empirical based knowledge. Not Buddhists, who ignore substantiated science unless it happens to be able to be correlated with one of their Buddist ideologies.


Excuse me, but Buddhists do not ignore science. Where did you get that idea?!

Just among the few Buddhists I know, there are many scientific types: a neuropsychologist, several medical doctors, several psychiatrists/psychologists, a neurosurgeon, an oceanographer, several therapists of various disciplines, and a couple software engineers. Also several lawyers, a couple nature documentarists, an art director, a Hollywood costume designer, and numerous successful musicians and artists. Overall, I'd say a higher percentage of clear-thinking, engaged, and successful people than in the general population. Certainly not a bunch of superstitious fluff-brains with their heads stuck in the sand.

"Professional" Buddhists, such as monks and teachers, do not ignore science either. As I've observed, they're always interested in hearing about scientific discoveries, and never, ever say that anything in science is at odds with Buddhism. Just the opposite, in fact. I don't know where you got the idea that Buddhists ignore science, but I'm guessing you don't know many Buddhists personally.



ugh1979 said:


> What reason should I have to think a Buddhist teacher has a credible knowledge of the universe that isn't secular/scientific knowledge?


Buddhism isn't so concerned with knowledge, but with fostering the clarity of mind that creates mental health and more harmonious interactions among people. That clarity of mind is a direct reflection of "no abiding essence", a basic fact of the universe. Note that there's nothing mystical about the human mind operating within the laws of the universe. We don't have to label it "Buddhism".

Science is taking the slow route to discovering how humans operate relative to the fact of no abiding essence, wading through the complexities of biochemistry and brain structure and sociology and psychiatry and such, putting the pieces together until a bigger picture emerges. Buddhism looks at the big picture first.



ugh1979 said:


> How can Buddism prove it's credibility?


Humans are at their best when their minds are clear of extraneous thought. Get your mind clear, really clear, and you see that for yourself. Again, we don't have to label this "Buddhism", it's just the way things are.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> I know I do. It's of course totally speculative, but I believe everything arises from 'quantum foam', which could be regarded as something that has no essence as it has no defined values.


Yeah, I've read some articles about quantum foam. Also multiverses. I've read a couple of David Deutsch's books, he's a good writer. But hey, some of those ideas sound as crazy as there being a God as the intelligent creator!



ugh1979 said:


> So far you haven't hinted at anything that is different from good secular mental discipline, so i'm still no clearer about how your belief differs from many secularists.


Again, you must take your meditation further to see what I mean. It's not a matter of belief, but of seeing for yourself.

If you're unwilling to do that, then I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you because there's no other way for you to really understand.


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> Nihilism never says we don't have thoughts. that would be absurd. All it says is exactly what you said before: "No abiding essence in anything."


Ok, I misunderstood what you were getting at.


----------



## noscreenname

Meditation has real proven benefits backed by science. Even if some or all of it is placebo, so what? 

As humans we are geared to have "woo" in our life. We just need to learn to separate it out when it counts.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Right cause there is one interpretation that:
> 
> You in essence reincarnate yourself moment to moment. Meaning if you think that you are the exact same person you were 10 minutes ago, you reincarnated yourself. But in Buddhism since nothing is permanent including yourself, there is no self that is subject to reincarnation.
> 
> To me people who believe in life and death reincarnation in a literal context aren't coming from a Buddhist perspective because if they were it wouldn't make any damn sense.
> 
> If nothing is permanent including yourself, than you can't possibly reincarnate into another form because there is no solid you to begin with


That's all very well, and it sounds like a good modern interpretation of Buddhism. However, there are still widely held Buddhist beliefs such as the below which seem delusional and contrary to current scientific understanding.

(Taken from a reputable unbiased source):



> _*Beyond this life*
> 
> For Buddhists, karma has implications beyond this life. Bad actions in a previous life can follow a person into their next life and cause bad effects (which Westerners are more likely to interpret as 'bad luck').
> 
> Even an Enlightened One is not exempt from the effects of past karma. One story tells that the Buddha's cousin tried to kill him by dropping a boulder on him. Although the attempt failed, the Buddha's foot was injured. He explained that this was karmic retribution for trying to kill his step-brother in a previous life.
> 
> On a larger scale, karma determines where a person will be reborn and their status in their next life. Good karma can result in being born in one of the heavenly realms. Bad karma can cause rebirth as an animal, or torment in a hell realm.
> 
> Buddhists try to cultivate good karma and avoid bad. However, the aim of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of rebirth altogether, not simply to acquire good karma and so to be born into a more pleasant state. These states, while preferable to human life, are impermanent: even gods eventually die._



Your interpretation of Buddhism which rejects that seems to be a much rarer one, as I see the likes of the above mentioned in most descriptions of Buddhism I read.


----------



## noscreenname

ugh1979 said:


> That's all very well, and it sounds like a good modern interpretation of Buddhism. However, there are still widely held Buddhist beliefs such as the below which seem delusional and contrary to current scientific understanding.
> 
> Your interpretation of Buddhism which rejects that seems to be a much rarer one, as I see the likes of the above mentioned in most descriptions of Buddhism I read.


The problem with Buddhism is that there are many branches of it, some that are mixed with other religions like shinto which are theistic in nature. It also has a large canon of texts.

Anyways the Buddha said to go out and discover things for yourself. You are free to disagree even change his teachings if you find something better.


----------



## Confused92

I started meditating some weeks ago.The truth is, I was quite skeptic at first.However, it was and still is something that makes me feel good about myself.Usually I meditate 5-10 minutes per day, everyday.I believe it can only do good and no harm.Besides, there are emerging scientific evidence that it is beneficial for our health.I was quite surprised to find out that prolonged meditation can change gene expression...here is the link to the study for anyone interested.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131208090343.htm
Now as far as Buddhism is concerned, I want to know more about it but I don't know exactly from which source to begin with. But if there is one thing from Buddhism that I have kept and I apply in my everyday life, is to not judge people or their actions.I guess in a way I am trying to maintain a positive karma, though I might be wrong.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Excuse me, but Buddhists do not ignore science. Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Just among the few Buddhists I know, there are many scientific types: a neuropsychologist, several medical doctors, several psychiatrists/psychologists, a neurosurgeon, an oceanographer, several therapists of various disciplines, and a couple software engineers. Also several lawyers, a couple nature documentarists, an art director, a Hollywood costume designer, and numerous successful musicians and artists. Overall, I'd say a higher percentage of clear-thinking, engaged, and successful people than in the general population. Certainly not a bunch of superstitious fluff-brains with their heads stuck in the sand.


You've missed my point. To clarify, I said they embrace the science that substantiates their Buddhist ideologies, but ignore science that contradicts them. There are also of course hundreds of scientific disciplines that have no relevance to their Buddhist ideologies, which i'm sure many of them happily embrace. 

I certainly wasn't saying Buddhists are completely anti-science, just sometimes anti-science if it conflicts with their cognitive bias.

Since Buddhist interpretations can be so ambiguous, what science a Buddhist embraces and what science they reject due to compatibility/conflict with their beliefs has to be considered on a case by case basis.

Most of those professions you mentioned have no reason to conflict with ideas about the nature of the universe. An oceanographer for example need be no more informed about the nature of the universe (or the lack of an inherent nature) than a street cleaner.

However if I wanted knowledge about oceanography i'd speak to the oceanographer rather than the street cleaner.



> "Professional" Buddhists, such as monks and teachers, do not ignore science either. As I've observed, they're always interested in hearing about scientific discoveries, and never, ever say that anything in science is at odds with Buddhism. Just the opposite, in fact. I don't know where you got the idea that Buddhists ignore science, but I'm guessing you don't know many Buddhists personally.


I'm sure many of them are, but that doesn't mean they are experts. For expert knowledge on a subject I seek the advice of specialists on the subject. No one teacher is capable of providing the fullest spectrum of knowledge on offer. A jack of all trades is master of none.



> Buddhism isn't so concerned with knowledge, but with fostering the clarity of mind that creates mental health and more harmonious interactions among people. That clarity of mind is a direct reflection of "no abiding essence", a basic fact of the universe. Note that there's nothing mystical about the human mind operating within the laws of the universe. We don't have to label it "Buddhism".


Saying things like "Buddism isn't so concerned with knowledge" invalidates it's claim to wisdom IMO, as wisdom requires knowledge.

How can one credibly claim wisdom without the evidence/knowledge to justify it?



> Science is taking the slow route to discovering how humans operate relative to the fact of no abiding essence, wading through the complexities of biochemistry and brain structure and sociology and psychiatry and such, putting the pieces together until a bigger picture emerges. Buddhism looks at the big picture first.


Where does this Buddhist knowledge of how humans operate come from?

How does Buddism know what the "big picture" is? Science works endlessly utilising the scientific method to piece together evidence that is the jigsaw of realising the "big picture".

I find the idea that Buddhists think they can see the "big picture" absurd and arrogant. I think everyone should have the humility to understand that the "big picture" can only be revealed empirically, and that we will never have the complete picture. Just an approximation of it at varying resolutions.



> Humans are at their best when their minds are clear of extraneous thought. Get your mind clear, really clear, and you see that for yourself. Again, we don't have to label this "Buddhism", it's just the way things are.


Again that's just good advice that as you say need not relate to Buddhism.

I'm still to see you provide any information about Buddhism that isn't just good mental practice that can be taught and practiced secularly.

Where are the _differences _to good secular philosophy and why should anyone believe them?


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Yeah, I've read some articles about quantum foam. Also multiverses. I've read a couple of David Deutsch's books, he's a good writer. But hey, some of those ideas sound as crazy as there being a God as the intelligent creator!


Some are pretty "out there", but all we can do is keep investigating. The scientific method helps separate the wheat from the chaff, but some questions may of course never be answered. It's still fun/useful hypothesising though. 



> Again, you must take your meditation further to see what I mean. It's not a matter of belief, but of seeing for yourself.
> 
> If you're unwilling to do that, then I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you because there's no other way for you to really understand.


Personal experience can't always be trusted, so i'd never use one as evidence for something like this. I've been to other "dimensions" and had "spiritual" experiences hundreds of times via psychedelic and dissociative drug use. If I wasn't a rational scientific person i'd probably believe that those experiences revealed some hidden reality about the universe, just as many people have done for at least tens of thousands of years with traditional psychoactive plant use.

However, intelligent scientific analysis indicates it's far more likely the experiences were just dream like illusions that to believe in the actuality of would be delusional.

I have no reason to think that deeper meditation wouldn't be along the same lines.


----------



## ugh1979

noscreenname said:


> Meditation has real proven benefits backed by science.


Indeed, but I don't think anyone here disagrees.



> Even if some or all of it is placebo, so what?


I'd say it's better to remove belief in parts that have no credibility in the interests of intellectual honesty. As you correctly say below, we need to learn to separate reality from fantasy when it matters.



> As humans we are geared to have "woo" in our life. We just need to learn to separate it out when it counts.


----------



## ugh1979

noscreenname said:


> The problem with Buddhism is that there are many branches of it, some that are mixed with other religions like shinto which are theistic in nature. It also has a large canon of texts.


Indeed, which can make it difficult to have a discussion about it, since there is no defined "it".



> Anyways the Buddha said to go out and discover things for yourself. You are free to disagree even change his teachings if you find something better.


Yes that is one thing I like about Buddism. It's adaptability, which is the polar opposite of often vile/childish steadfast ideologies of the Abrahamic religions for example.


----------



## MrKappa

Unsure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but it almost seems as if Bhuddism is a Branch from Janism which may be possibly older. Remember reading about their primary saint and they walked a line similar to the one Jesus did during Crucifixion.

Their non-violence, and self control seems very similar with ideas of temperance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_(virtue)



ugh1979 said:


> Personal experience can't always be trusted, so i'd never use one as evidence for something like this. I've been to other "dimensions" and had "spiritual" experiences hundreds of times via psychedelic and dissociative drug use.


They are also achievable through purification. That is debatable as to whether it is a healthy path, or an unhealthy path.

This is the most insane thing...

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

The path to *enlightenment*, is probably a collection of many shared personal experiences with very distinct similarities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itual-journey-trying-live-sunlight-alone.html



> Excerpts from her diary showed she was refusing to eat or drink in the belief it would 'spiritually cleanse' her body and 'recharge her both physically and mentally'.


The only question is, when meditative states are reached, are we in a heightened state of functioning? With cleansing do we reach our full potentials? I guess the study of the immune system, and more than brainwave activity is required when attempting to fully understand the millenniums of spiritual paths.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12883106



> These findings demonstrate that a short program in mindfulness meditation produces demonstrable effects on brain and immune function. These findings suggest that meditation may change brain and immune function in positive ways and underscore the need for additional research.


I believe there is truly untapped human potential and whether death is the answer is entirely irrelevant. Tasting a higher state of being, is open with interpretation.

Anyways, Mayans had a very distinct art, and yes, probably very very distinct purification methods, psychedelic or no.

I truly need to spend more time learning about immuno systems - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17681970 - Unfortunately use is also linked with olney's lesions.

Probably non-comparable, I'm layman with immune systems - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2172402 - Unfortunately it is the defacto go to medicine.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> You've missed my point. To clarify, I said they embrace the science that substantiates their Buddhist ideologies, but ignore science that contradicts them. There are also of course hundreds of scientific disciplines that have no relevance to their Buddhist ideologies, which i'm sure many of them happily embrace.


Please give an example of what you've heard a Buddhist say that shows they're ignoring a contradictory scientific statement.



ugh1979 said:


> Where does this Buddhist knowledge of how humans operate come from? How does Buddism know what the "big picture" is? Science works endlessly utilising the scientific method to piece together evidence that is the jigsaw of realising the "big picture".
> 
> I find the idea that Buddhists think they can see the "big picture" absurd and arrogant. I think everyone should have the humility to understand that the "big picture" can only be revealed empirically, and that we will never have the complete picture. Just an approximation of it at varying resolutions.


Spiders at birth have the inherent knowledge to use their silk to make ingenious types of snares. We call that instinct. Some even call it wisdom. Or is it knowledge? Where did it come from?



ugh1979 said:


> Where are the differences to good secular philosophy and why should anyone believe them?


Some Buddhist sects are wound up around a lot of apparent beliefs in Gods and the power of rituals and such. It's just poetic interpretation because there aren't always words to express concepts, because humans love using beautiful or mysterious symbols to express ideas, or because people don't like looking at what they see as cold, hard facts. Those facts often go down easier when sugar-coated with fanciful ideas.

For example, the deity Avalokitasvara, The One Who Hears the Cries of the World. She (sometimes he) is an expression of the fact that things are the way they are for perfectly logical reasons, that the universe "hears" and responds perfectly in every situation. Of course it responds perfectly to its own laws! But that fact was not so obvious in the past because science wasn't very advanced. Some people saw it though, in spite of the lack of complete empirical evidence to explain things such as disease or astronomical phenomena, and they contrived the goddess to express it to those who didn't. But embracing facts in the form of deities is of course not necessary. Scientific explanations are indeed better in many ways.

We can know very well through empirical evidence that the phenomenal universe is perfectly logical, but still we struggle with unpleasant states such as anger and depression when those laws don't function the way we want. That proves we don't understand deeply enough. Suffering is woo-woo because it doesn't jive with reality.

I know it frustrates you when I say you must see for yourself, but it's true. To prove to me that you can understand without seeing for yourself, find someone who's been blind since birth and make them understand "red" in the same way a sighted person does.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Please give an example of what you've heard a Buddhist say that shows they're ignoring a contradictory scientific statement.


See my previous post for an example of common Buddhist beliefs regarding reincarnation which clearly disregards/ignores scientific consensus.



> Spiders at birth have the inherent knowledge to use their silk to make ingenious types of snares. We call that instinct. Some even call it wisdom. Or is it knowledge? Where did it come from?


Instinct evolves in organisms in line with natural selection. I've never personally heard any one call instinct wisdom.

Knowledge of the nature of the universe is irrelevant to survival so has no reason to have evolved as innate knowledge. It's far too existential to be intuitive IMO.



> Some Buddhist sects are wound up around a lot of apparent beliefs in Gods and the power of rituals and such. It's just poetic interpretation because there aren't always words to express concepts, because humans love using beautiful or mysterious symbols to express ideas, or because people don't like looking at what they see as cold, hard facts. Those facts often go down easier when sugar-coated with fanciful ideas.
> 
> For example, the deity Avalokitasvara, The One Who Hears the Cries of the World. She (sometimes he) is an expression of the fact that things are the way they are for perfectly logical reasons, that the universe "hears" and responds perfectly in every situation. Of course it responds perfectly to its own laws! But that fact was not so obvious in the past because science wasn't very advanced. Some people saw it though, in spite of the lack of complete empirical evidence to explain things such as disease or astronomical phenomena, and they contrived the goddess to express it to those who didn't. But embracing facts in the form of deities is of course not necessary. Scientific explanations are indeed better in many ways.
> 
> We can know very well through empirical evidence that the phenomenal universe is perfectly logical, but still we struggle with unpleasant states such as anger and depression when those laws don't function the way we want. That proves we don't understand deeply enough. Suffering is woo-woo because it doesn't jive with reality.


So basically it's some good advice (and lots of nonsense as far as I can see), wrapped up in "woo-woo" to make it more palatable to those who struggle with accepting what from an anthropic perspective is a cold/hard/indifferent reality, so they require a splash of fiction and anthropomorphism to be able to swallow it.

Fair enough.



> I know it frustrates you when I say you must see for yourself, but it's true. To prove to me that you can understand without seeing for yourself, find someone who's been blind since birth and make them understand "red" in the same way a sighted person does.


I don't see how that wouldn't just result in me making up my own almost certainly delusional version of reality.

If people have a certain experience enough, they may start to believe its actuality when in fact it's a delusion.

There's a very good reason rationalists rejected such methods of learning about the universe in the last few hundred years in favour of the scientific method and peer review which best remove cognitively biased fallacies.

This article explains it well.

Here's another good example of the absurdity and hubris of certain Buddhist beleifs:



> Abhijñā  has been translated generally as "knowing," "direct knowing" and "direct knowledge" or, at times more technically, as "higher knowledge" and "supernormal knowledge." In Buddhism, such knowing and knowledge is obtained through virtuous living and meditation. *In terms of specifically enumerated knowledges, these include worldly extra-sensory abilities (such as seeing past and future lives) as well as the supramundane extinction of all mental intoxicants (āsava).*


Buddhists claiming extra-sensory abilities that allow them to see past and future lives?

I think even Scientologists or Mormons would baulk at that idea!


----------



## MrKappa

^Science uses probabilities to predict "future lives". Perhaps there is a higher functioning state of mind, similar to an autistic with flawless memory and ability to use probabilities to predict "future lives", or events in the near future.

*Sharper Gradient of Spatial Attention in Autism*

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/16/6776

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



> The most dramatic examples of savant syndrome occur in individuals who score very low on IQ tests, but not always. In some very rare and extreme cases, some people with savant actually had an average to even a higher IQ while demonstrating exceptional skills or brilliance in specific areas, such as rapid calculation, art, memory, or musical ability.[4][5][6][7]


http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2970



> *Mindfulness Improves Reading Ability, Working Memory, and Task-Focus, say UC Santa Barbara Researchers *
> 
> "What surprised me the most was actually the clarity of the results," said Michael Mrazek, graduate student researcher in psychology and the lead and corresponding author of the paper, "Mindfulness Training Improves Working Memory Capacity and GRE Performance While Reducing Mind Wandering."


Extra dimensional claims, well, perhaps that's simply side-stepping a more direct psychological technique that may potentially aggravate and worsen a situation.

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



> The integrative milieu model, developed by Kevin F. McCready, is an alternative treatment regime to the medical model of psychiatry for treating people suffering from psychological distress.
> 
> A central part of the anti-psychiatry movement, being a close friend of Peter Breggin and a board member of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, McCready based his model on the idea that human psychological suffering is not caused by a physiological disease or a chemical imbalance, but by a compromise to a person's humanity. He believed that the biomedical model of psychiatry was a compromise to a person's humanity, stripping its patients from elements he considers to be a necessary and natural part of human life experience. This model of treatment combined elements from psychodynamic theories, particularly the theories of Carl G. Jung, humanism, and existentialism.[1]


Something I want to try reading someday...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(Jung)



> The Red Book was a product of a technique developed by Jung which he termed active imagination. As Jung described it, he was visited by two figures, an old man and a young woman, who identified themselves as Elijah and Salome. They were accompanied by a large black snake. In time, the Elijah figure developed into a guiding spirit that Jung called Philemon (ΦΙΛΗΜΩΝ, as originally written with Greek letters). Salome was identified by Jung as an anima figure. The figures, according to Jung, "brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life."[4]


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> ^Science uses probabilities to predict "future lives". Perhaps there is a higher functioning state of mind, similar to an autistic with flawless memory and ability to use probabilities to predict "future lives", or events in the near future.


Utilizing science/probability/empirical evidence to make predictions is vastly different from claiming "worldly extra-sensory abilities (such as seeing past and future lives)".


----------



## MrKappa

Is it any different than selling a space program to the general public with beliefs in extra terrestrial life? ;D


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> Is it any different than selling a space program to the general public with beliefs in extra terrestrial life? ;D


Is what any different?


----------



## MrKappa

Never mind... I like the idea that Buddhists beliefs are unfounded.


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> Never mind... I like the idea that Buddhists beliefs are unfounded.


What do you like about it?


----------



## noscreenname

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, which can make it difficult to have a discussion about it, since there is no defined "it".


They must at least follow the Buddha's four noble truths. Of course it gets even more complicated if you take Buddhism as just a philosophy and not religion.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> See my previous post for an example of common Buddhist beliefs regarding reincarnation which clearly disregards/ignores scientific consensus.


The source there seems to draw mainly from Tibetan beliefs. There are many sects in Buddhism, and not all are concerned with beliefs in karma and reincarnation.

Anyway, maybe karma is just a primitive word for a deeper understanding of how our actions affect the human condition now and in the future. And reincarnation just a concept that relates to the law of conservation in a way we don't comprehend yet. No crazier than multiverses, and you said it's ok to accept the possibility that those exist, to explore those ideas. Why is it not ok for others to consider that our actions have long-range effects on humanity, or that the awareness we're experiencing now has some sort of continuity?

And if multiverses are true, how can we be sure there isn't at least one universe that operates like that?



ugh1979 said:


> Knowledge of the nature of the universe is irrelevant to survival so has no reason to have evolved as innate knowledge. It's far too existential to be intuitive IMO.


IYO. Science has barely started studying the nature of the brain and consciousness and how they relate to the "outside" world.



ugh1979 said:


> There's a very good reason rationalists rejected such methods of learning about the universe in the last few hundred years in favour of the scientific method and peer review which best remove cognitively biased fallacies.


Well that's fine. But again, science has just begun to study such things, as with the article referenced by Confused92 about meditation and gene expression. It'll be interesting to see what this new branch of science discovers in the next few decades!



ugh1979 said:


> Buddhists claiming extra-sensory abilities that allow them to see past and future lives?


I don't know any Buddhists who make those claims. Some doctors make some pretty far-out claims, but that doesn't mean all doctors are frauds. But of course you'd want to verify their claims for yourself somehow.


----------



## MrKappa

ugh1979 said:


> What do you like about it?


The fact that Bhuddists through their personal experiences and profound evidences, are taken less seriously, than proposed existences of extra-terrestrial life based on probabilities.

They both have merit, and are both unfounded. More importantly they inspire legions of followers, devotees, and employees.


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> The fact that Bhuddists through their personal experiences and profound evidences, are taken less seriously, than proposed existences of extra-terrestrial life based on probabilities.
> 
> They both have merit, and are both unfounded. More importantly they inspire legions of followers, devotees, and employees.


Most science starts as hypothesis. It's perfectly understandable that we take what we can potentially find evidence for more seriously than that which we can't.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> The source there seems to draw mainly from Tibetan beliefs. There are many sects in Buddhism, and not all are concerned with beliefs in karma and reincarnation.


That's fair enough, and as I said earlier, I highly approve of Buddhist sects that discard the supernatural/mystical crap.

However, when someone says they are a Buddhist, it's typically assumed they believe in the supernatural/mystical versions of karma and reincarnation.



> Anyway, maybe karma is just a primitive word for a deeper understanding of how our actions affect the human condition now and in the future. And reincarnation just a concept that relates to the law of conservation in a way we don't comprehend yet.


Anything is possible when you redefine the words.



> No crazier than multiverses, and you said it's ok to accept the possibility that those exist, to explore those ideas. Why is it not ok for others to consider that our actions have long-range effects on humanity, or that the awareness we're experiencing now has some sort of continuity?


Our actions obviously do have long-range effects on humanity. Our actions combined with the actions of many other elements of the universe. That's just causality though.

I've never heard a good argument why or how our awareness can/should have continuity which is why I don't deem it plausible. I welcome research in to it, but so far the scientific research that has been done on it has failed to find any evidence for its existence.



> And if multiverses are true, how can we be sure there isn't at least one universe that operates like that?


We can't be 100% sure of anything.



> IYO. Science has barely started studying the nature of the brain and consciousness and how they relate to the "outside" world.


In my opinion yes. Once I see any evidence for such a link i'll reconsider.



> Well that's fine. But again, science has just begun to study such things, as with the article referenced by Confused92 about meditation and gene expression. It'll be interesting to see what this new branch of science discovers in the next few decades!


Indeed. 



> I don't know any Buddhists who make those claims. Some doctors make some pretty far-out claims, but that doesn't mean all doctors are frauds. But of course you'd want to verify their claims for yourself somehow.


Fair enough. You certainly sound like a Buddhist who doesn't follow the supernatural/mystical tenets that are often believed by Buddhists, so it's no surprise you have Buddhists of a similar mindset in your social circle.

I just read a very interesting article in Scientific American called Why I Don't Dig Buddhism which reflects many of my points in this thread.

This paragraph for example reflects what I was saying earlier about how the "truth" that is allegedly accessible with meditation is subjective rather than objective, thus delusional:



> The mystical philosopher Ken Wilber, when I interviewed him, compared meditation to a scientific instrument such as a microscope or telescope, through which you can glimpse spiritual truth. This analogy is bogus. Anyone can peer through a telescope and see the moons of Jupiter, or squint through a microscope and see cells divide. But ask 10 meditators what they see, feel or learn and you will get 10 different answers.


----------



## purechaos

So is all subjectivity delusional then, considering how most things in life are subjective from a perceiver s eyes. Kinda like ugly/beautiful and most judgements made about other ?


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> So is all subjectivity delusional then, considering how most things in life are subjective from a perceiver s eyes. Kinda like ugly/beautiful and most judgements made about other ?


It's only delusional if someone is claiming it is an objective truth when it can be shown not to be.

Nobody is claiming their aesthetical judgements are objective truths. (If they are they are delusional)


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> I just read a very interesting article in Scientific American called Why I Don't Dig Buddhism which reflects many of my points in this thread.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> The mystical philosopher Ken Wilber, when I interviewed him, compared meditation to a scientific instrument such as a microscope or telescope, through which you can glimpse spiritual truth. This analogy is bogus. Anyone can peer through a telescope and see the moons of Jupiter, or squint through a microscope and see cells divide. But ask 10 meditators what they see, feel or learn and you will get 10 different answers.


Here's another enlightening quote from that article:

_One problem was that meditation never really tamed my monkey mind. During my last class, I fixated on a classmate who kept craning his neck and grunting and asking our teacher unbearably pretentious questions. I loathed him and loathed myself for loathing him, and finally I thought: What am I doing here? By that time, I also had serious intellectual qualms about Buddhism. I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than Catholicism, my childhood faith._

As some of his critics said, this guy obviously did not get a taste of true meditation, not even close! You must meditate much longer and more intently than he obviously did -more than probably 99% of meditators do-to get even a taste. Sitting for an hour or two each week, or even an hour or two each day, is highly unlikely to produce a convincing result. It's like expecting to win a national track meet when your training consists of jogging around the block every day.

To get a real taste, you need to meditate _with correct form_ for around 8 hours a day minimum for at least four days (a week is better, but this can vary some for each person), plus keep your focus going the whole time you're not sitting.

A seriously successful meditation practice is extremely difficult to maintain while going about day-to-day life. It's best tried in a retreat environment.

"Life is too short," says Horgan. Well, it doesn't really take that long if you really want to see for yourself. And you really do have to do that, really, really, really.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> Here's another enlightening quote from that article:
> 
> _One problem was that meditation never really tamed my monkey mind. During my last class, I fixated on a classmate who kept craning his neck and grunting and asking our teacher unbearably pretentious questions. I loathed him and loathed myself for loathing him, and finally I thought: What am I doing here? By that time, I also had serious intellectual qualms about Buddhism. I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than Catholicism, my childhood faith._
> 
> As some of his critics said, this guy obviously did not get a taste of true meditation, not even close! You must meditate much longer and more intently than he obviously did -more than probably 99% of meditators do-to get even a taste. Sitting for an hour or two each week, or even an hour or two each day, is highly unlikely to produce a convincing result. It's like expecting to win a national track meet when your training consists of jogging around the block every day.
> 
> To get a real taste, you need to meditate _with correct form_ for around 8 hours a day minimum for at least four days (a week is better, but this can vary some for each person), plus keep your focus going the whole time you're not sitting.
> 
> A seriously successful meditation practice is extremely difficult to maintain while going about day-to-day life. It's best tried in a retreat environment.
> 
> "Life is too short," says Horgan. Well, it doesn't really take that long if you really want to see for yourself. And you really do have to do that, really, really, really.


8 hours a day!? I guess "proper" Buddhism isn't for anyone who has to work then.

Even with that full time commitment, as the article mentions, the meditator will end up with a different revealed "truth" from any other just as committed meditator.

It sounds like it's really just 8 hours a day chilling out and making up your own "truths".


----------



## purechaos

meditation isn't only about sitting though. Eventually when you meditate enough in sitting, you get the same effects being "awake", in the moment, and keeping focus. 

I remember watching an interview with Thicht Nhat Hahn in which he said as he was speaking, that he was meditating in that very moment.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> meditation isn't only about sitting though. Eventually when you meditate enough in sitting, you get the same effects being "awake", in the moment, and keeping focus.
> 
> I remember watching an interview with Thicht Nhat Hahn in which he said as he was speaking, that he was meditating in that very moment.


Indeed I appreciate the mental benefits that meditating can have. Hence why I meditate. But not 8 hours a day!


----------



## purechaos

i guess maybe when you get to a certain point, the effects of meditating comes naturally and requires less effort to maintain mindfulness?


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> i guess maybe when you get to a certain point, the effects of meditating comes naturally and requires less effort to maintain mindfulness?


Yes i'm sure it does. Like anything, the more you do it the more natural it becomes.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> Here's another enlightening quote from that article:
> 
> _One problem was that meditation never really tamed my monkey mind. During my last class, I fixated on a classmate who kept craning his neck and grunting and asking our teacher unbearably pretentious questions. I loathed him and loathed myself for loathing him, and finally I thought: What am I doing here? By that time, I also had serious intellectual qualms about Buddhism. I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than Catholicism, my childhood faith._
> 
> As some of his critics said, this guy obviously did not get a taste of true meditation, not even close! You must meditate much longer and more intently than he obviously did -more than probably 99% of meditators do-to get even a taste. Sitting for an hour or two each week, or even an hour or two each day, is highly unlikely to produce a convincing result. It's like expecting to win a national track meet when your training consists of jogging around the block every day.
> 
> To get a real taste, you need to meditate _with correct form_ for around 8 hours a day minimum for at least four days (a week is better, but this can vary some for each person), plus keep your focus going the whole time you're not sitting.
> 
> A seriously successful meditation practice is extremely difficult to maintain while going about day-to-day life. It's best tried in a retreat environment.
> 
> "Life is too short," says Horgan. Well, it doesn't really take that long if you really want to see for yourself. And you really do have to do that, really, really, really.


Both mediation and relaxation achieve a similar purpose---reduce distress. But meditation seems to improves concentration more. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17291166

As such meditation has no religious colors. Even the concept of prayer in solitude probably amounts to meditation in the Abrahamic religions. I practiced 'pranayama' a while ago---a form of Hindu meditation. I thought it did help me focus at times. But it was hard to do. One major difference I feel was the use of 'mantras' or chants. And a different goal---to realize the 'self' or who you are as a person. Not as one defined by others, but only as one defined by you.


----------



## tobi08

I recommend Holosync for Meditation. It has binaural beat technology and you just use headphones and let it do all the work that otherwise would take ages with traditional meditation.
I experience moments of deep joy and satisfaction thanks to Holosync and a higher awareness which is growing with everyday i listen to it.


----------



## purechaos

I've tried binaural beats before .....it left a "whirly" feeling in my head .....uncomfortable


----------



## pazuzuinxs

purechaos said:


> I've tried binaural beats before .....it left a "whirly" feeling in my head .....uncomfortable


Same feeling. I was getting nauseous after a while.


----------



## tobi08

purechaos said:


> I've tried binaural beats before .....it left a "whirly" feeling in my head .....uncomfortable


well there are a lot of binaural beats technologies out there, i dont know which one you tried.
But with Holosync you entrain your brain to handle the stimulus.. it might not just be the binaural beats which make you uncomfortable it also can be that you just sit and allow your feelings and thoughts to arise. This can get uncomfortable i understand that. 
If you stick to Holosync daily you will see benefits from it i promise you.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> 8 hours a day!? I guess "proper" Buddhism isn't for anyone who has to work then.


That would be just to ensure that you get a convincing result. Once you get the technique down, you can get there quicker and stay there more easily. Some working people who want to sharpen their practice get in many hours of meditation each day by getting up early and staying up late. Maybe also an hour in the afternoon during lunch. When your meditation heats up, you don't need as much sleep.



ugh1979 said:


> Even with that full time commitment, as the article mentions, the meditator will end up with a different revealed "truth" from any other just as committed meditator.


Example of this from the article:

"&#8230;a near-death experience had showed him that mind rather than matter constitutes the deepest level of reality and is in some sense eternal. Other Buddhists, such as the psychologist Susan Blackmore, are strict materialists, who deny that mind can exist independently of matter."

Um, any "truth" that involves concepts such as these is not the truth that meditation is meant to reveal. To be concerned with declaring or believing that "This is this way" or "This is that way" _completely_ misses the point.



ugh1979 said:


> It sounds like it's really just 8 hours a day chilling out and making up your own "truths".


Chilling out?! LOL! Yeah, you'd better know how to do that really well, because if your practice is weak you will suffer a lot from the physical pain of sitting for extended periods, the limited sleep, and the restrictions on behavior. Even if you know what you're doing, the first couple days can be rough if you've let your practice slide.

For advanced practice at chilling out during a retreat, step up to be the daily cook for 50+ people, or take on a staff position. Retreats offer lots of ways to test your mettle at chilling out!

"Making up your own "truths"", LOL!!! Take those "truths" to the teacher during your private interview and see what happens.

Really, you should try it for yourself. If you could set your bulldog-tenacity to the task, you'd rock!


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> That would be just to ensure that you get a convincing result. Once you get the technique down, you can get there quicker and stay there more easily. Some working people who want to sharpen their practice get in many hours of meditation each day by getting up early and staying up late. Maybe also an hour in the afternoon during lunch. When your meditation heats up, you don't need as much sleep.


Well I find my half hour to an hour a day very useful, so I guess it's on a scale of increasing returns to a point.



> Example of this from the article:
> 
> "&#8230;a near-death experience had showed him that mind rather than matter constitutes the deepest level of reality and is in some sense eternal. Other Buddhists, such as the psychologist Susan Blackmore, are strict materialists, who deny that mind can exist independently of matter."
> 
> Um, any "truth" that involves concepts such as these is not the truth that meditation is meant to reveal. To be concerned with declaring or believing that "This is this way" or "This is that way" _completely_ misses the point.


So what are the "truths" if they aren't a revelation of reality?



> Chilling out?! LOL! Yeah, you'd better know how to do that really well, because if your practice is weak you will suffer a lot from the physical pain of sitting for extended periods, the limited sleep, and the restrictions on behavior. Even if you know what you're doing, the first couple days can be rough if you've let your practice slide.
> 
> For advanced practice at chilling out during a retreat, step up to be the daily cook for 50+ people, or take on a staff position. Retreats offer lots of ways to test your mettle at chilling out!
> 
> "Making up your own "truths"", LOL!!! Take those "truths" to the teacher during your private interview and see what happens.
> 
> Really, you should try it for yourself. If you could set your bulldog-tenacity to the task, you'd rock!


tbh my comment was a bit tongue in cheek. :b

However, i'd be interested to hear the "truths" that ten different teachers had.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> So what are the "truths" if they aren't a revelation of reality?


You can't say it's this or that. "This" and "that" imply separation, an inside and an outside, an essence inside or outside that's independent of all else. Being motivated by beliefs in this or that ultimately causes suffering for ourselves and/or others, because such beliefs are incompatible with universal laws.

The human mind is very adept at fooling itself, and that it does almost constantly by forming concepts of reality based on the limited facts stored in the meat-computers in our skulls. Purpose of meditation and other practices is to stop that sort of thinking, to stop manually relating the world around us to our personal memory banks, and let the appropriate facts be accessed as needed, drawn by what's around us. Not "around" us really, but just "us", since in reality there's no separation.

As your meditation practice deepens, you learn to "feel" and relax the mental "hand" that reaches for and grasps those limited concepts. You learn to let those thoughts go, making room for larger, more appropriate thoughts that more completely incorporate the "outside" world. Then you let go of those thoughts. Repeat until the barrier is completely dissolved.



ugh1979 said:


> tbh my comment was a bit tongue in cheek.


Ha ha, yeah, it did seem a bit brash --not your usual, rational style.  But I get comments like that all the time when returning to work after a retreat. "Oh, you did a Zen retreat? That sounds soooo relaxing!!!"



ugh1979 said:


> However, i'd be interested to hear the "truths" that ten different teachers had.


To be interested in any truth spoken by any teacher, even if by the historical Buddha himself, entirely misses the point. One teacher could say, "We see only the Buddha-mind before us." Another could say, "We do not see the Buddha-mind before us." Another could say, "We see hell before us," while another says, "We see heaven before us". Not one, nor all, nor any, nor none of those statements are _the _truth. Teachers sometimes spout what seems to be nonsense on purpose, trying to get students to recognize the impulsiveness of that mental hand which reaches for explanations even when there are none.


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> You can't say it's this or that. "This" and "that" imply separation, an inside and an outside, an essence inside or outside that's independent of all else. Being motivated by beliefs in this or that ultimately causes suffering for ourselves and/or others, because such beliefs are incompatible with universal laws.


I believe the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.
I believe pi is (rounded): 3.14

Those are 2 beliefs I have that are very much compatible with universal laws, and are entirely necessary for modern life. How do they cause suffering?

They don't imply there is an inside and an outside, or an essence that independent of all else. They are in fact just factors of a larger system. Any system has identifiable parts.

Also, it's not humanly feasible or functional to not think about how things work. A healthy balance should be struck between good mental discipline and the various other areas that we need to be aware of to survive and prosper.



> The human mind is very adept at fooling itself, and that it does almost constantly by forming concepts of reality based on the limited facts stored in the meat-computers in our skulls. Purpose of meditation and other practices is to stop that sort of thinking, to stop manually relating the world around us to our personal memory banks, and let the appropriate facts be accessed as needed, drawn by what's around us. Not "around" us really, but just "us", since in reality there's no separation.


The mind is indeed very adept at fooling itself, which is precisely why personal experience can't always be trusted. What is meditation if it isn't a type of experience?



> As your meditation practice deepens, you learn to "feel" and relax the mental "hand" that reaches for and grasps those limited concepts. You learn to let those thoughts go, making room for larger, more appropriate thoughts that more completely incorporate the "outside" world. Then you let go of those thoughts. Repeat until the barrier is completely dissolved.


Yes i'm familiar with mindfulness as I practice it everyday in meditation, and it's a useful mental tool, but it's not something that should be done at the expense of the rest of my life.



> To be interested in any truth spoken by any teacher, even if by the historical Buddha himself, entirely misses the point. One teacher could say, "We see only the Buddha-mind before us." Another could say, "We do not see the Buddha-mind before us." Another could say, "We see hell before us," while another says, "We see heaven before us". Not one, nor all, nor any, nor none of those statements are the truth. Teachers sometimes spout what seems to be nonsense on purpose, trying to get students to recognize the impulsiveness of that mental hand which reaches for explanations even when there are none.


The flipside is that there is benefit in reaching for explanations when there are though.

It seems to me that achieving a balance is best practice, rather than complete immersion in either.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

ugh1979 said:


> I believe the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.
> I believe pi is (rounded): 3.14
> 
> Those are 2 beliefs I have that are very much compatible with universal laws, and are entirely necessary for modern life. How do they cause suffering?


I would love to see what is the answer to this


----------



## purechaos

You know that 1+1 is 2......those are concrete facts......you believe that you will win a gold medal someday or that angels exist, or that someone loves you, you know the make of your car is mazda, that the word no in English is spelled n....o.....you know you have 10 dollars in your pocket after counting it, you believe that one day you'll have million dollars .....knowing and believing are not the same


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> You know that 1+1 is 2......those are concrete facts......you believe that you will win a gold medal someday or that angels exist, or that someone loves you, you know the make of your car is mazda, that the word no in English is spelled n....o.....you know you have 10 dollars in your pocket after counting it, you believe that one day you'll have million dollars .....knowing and believing are not the same


True, but something can be believed and known or believed but not known.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> I believe the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.
> I believe pi is (rounded): 3.14
> 
> Those are 2 beliefs I have that are very much compatible with universal laws, and are entirely necessary for modern life. How do they cause suffering?


How about if you're trying to calculate the area of a circle while chopping vegetables? :b



ugh1979 said:


> They don't imply there is an inside and an outside, or an essence that independent of all else. They are in fact just factors of a larger system. Any system has identifiable parts.


Again, it's not beliefs, thoughts, that cause suffering, it's clinging to them. When we take this letting-go business far enough we see that we don't have to hold onto thoughts because everything around us _is_ our thoughts. Another way to say this is that we are totally immersed in the moment.



ugh1979 said:


> Also, it's not humanly feasible or functional to not think about how things work. A healthy balance should be struck between good mental discipline and the various other areas that we need to be aware of to survive and prosper.


Thinking is not bad, it's absolutely necessary. It's clinging to thoughts that's bad. Taking the good mental discipline into our everyday lives enhances our lives.

When I come off a week-long retreat (_sesshin_ in Zen), I'm jazzed to get back to work. In spite of the week of minimal sleep and an intense schedule, my mind is so clear, concentration is effortless, and I have more energy than if I'd slept full nights all week. As someone said, it's like swimming in clear, cool water after being stuck in a tub of glue.



ugh1979 said:


> The mind is indeed very adept at fooling itself, which is precisely why personal experience can't always be trusted. What is meditation if it isn't a type of experience?


It's practice in not clinging to experience.



ugh1979 said:


> The flipside is that there is benefit in reaching for explanations when there are though.


Can you explain something completely and correctly if you don't have all the necessary facts?



ugh1979 said:


> It seems to me that achieving a balance is best practice, rather than complete immersion in either.


It's possible, as purechaos pointed out regarding Thic Nhat Hanh, to be completely immersed in meditation at all times. That's best, complete immersion in each moment. Very difficult for most people in their everyday lives. But maybe with the growing awareness of the benefits of mindfulness, it'll become a more common practice, as say jogging has since the 1970s. Now look at people and their running, so many everyday people devoting hours each week to the discipline, doing marathons and such!


----------



## ugh1979

Slogger said:


> How about if you're trying to calculate the area of a circle while chopping vegetables? :b
> 
> Again, it's not beliefs, thoughts, that cause suffering, it's clinging to them. When we take this letting-go business far enough we see that we don't have to hold onto thoughts because everything around us _is_ our thoughts. Another way to say this is that we are totally immersed in the moment.
> 
> Thinking is not bad, it's absolutely necessary. It's clinging to thoughts that's bad. Taking the good mental discipline into our everyday lives enhances our lives.


My reply was to you saying, "Being motivated by beliefs in this or that ultimately causes suffering for ourselves and/or others, because such beliefs are incompatible with universal laws."

You didn't mention clinging to them, which I agree can cause suffering when it comes to certain beliefs.

Your statement didn't reflect what you meant since it omitted the part about clinging to them and appeared to infer all beliefs.



> It's practice in not clinging to experience.


I'd still call that practice an experience.



> Can you explain something completely and correctly if you don't have all the necessary facts?


No, but since we often only need approximations of truth it doesn't matter if we don't have all the facts. We can build, control and use systems to our benefit even when not everything is known about them.



> It's possible, as purechaos pointed out regarding Thic Nhat Hanh, to be completely immersed in meditation at all times. That's best, complete immersion in each moment. Very difficult for most people in their everyday lives. But maybe with the growing awareness of the benefits of mindfulness, it'll become a more common practice, as say jogging has since the 1970s. Now look at people and their running, so many everyday people devoting hours each week to the discipline, doing marathons and such!


Someone spending part of their available time jogging can of course be part of a healthy balanced lifestyle, but someone spending all their time jogging wouldn't be.

The same can surely be said of meditation, and just about anything. Everything in moderation.


----------



## Slogger

ugh1979 said:


> Someone spending part of their available time jogging can of course be part of a healthy balanced lifestyle, but someone spending all their time jogging wouldn't be.
> 
> The same can surely be said of meditation, and just about anything. Everything in moderation.


A meditative mind can be maintained continuously. With practice, even while sleeping. It can become as natural as breathing.


----------



## purechaos

Slogger said:


> A meditative mind can be maintained continuously. With practice, even while sleeping. It can become as natural as breathing.


 Yeah, the sleeping part, being lucid and knowing when you are dreaming and bring able to be in the moment in your dreams, now that's cool.


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> A meditative mind can be maintained continuously. With practice, even while sleeping. It can become as natural as breathing.


Are you sure that meditation should be practised all the time? 
I don't want to go into semantics again but if I equate meditation with concentration and single mindedness (i.e. these things are necessary but not sufficient for meditation), then mediatation seems to rule out multi tasking. So when I am making bacon and eggs for breakfast should i not listen to the morning news?


----------



## Len Phelbs

I like meditation and try to practise on and off. getting up early enough/ transitioning to it is difficult and you get those bring racing check list meditations even after tea and relaxing. even that seems to help thou, chanting w incense lit works pretty well at cleaning up stray mental garbage


----------



## Slogger

purechaos said:


> Yeah, the sleeping part, being lucid and knowing when you are dreaming and bring able to be in the moment in your dreams, now that's cool.


Apparently, you expand your awareness to where the states of sleeping and being awake feel the same. So in that case you wouldn't have dreams. It'd be interesting to have some sleep studies done on people who claim to have reached this state.


----------



## Slogger

pazuzuinxs said:


> Are you sure that meditation should be practised all the time?
> I don't want to go into semantics again but if I equate meditation with concentration and single mindedness (i.e. these things are necessary but not sufficient for meditation), then mediatation seems to rule out multi tasking. So when I am making bacon and eggs for breakfast should i not listen to the morning news?


Yes, it would rule out some forms of multi-tasking. When you're making breakfast you should just make breakfast. When you're listening to the news, you should just listen to the news. Full engagement in each activity.

Multi-tasking as switching your _complete_ focus among different tasks is no problem at all. For example, making more coffee while your bacon is frying. When your practice is strong, you can take on many tasks this way, moving freely and efficiently from one to another, with enhanced effectiveness.

And when your practice heats up, you _want_ to do things that way, it's very satisfying and enjoyable, and you see clearly how it's more efficient overall because you don't make so many of those little mistakes that take time to clean up later, like the bacon grease slopped on the counter.


----------



## Slogger

purechaos said:


> Yeah, the sleeping part, being lucid and knowing when you are dreaming and bring able to be in the moment in your dreams, now that's cool.


Here's a good article on a meditation/sleep study. Although I was disappointed that it didn't mention dreaming.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328970/


----------



## pazuzuinxs

Slogger said:


> Apparently, you expand your awareness to where the states of sleeping and being awake feel the same. So in that case you wouldn't have dreams. It'd be interesting to have some sleep studies done on people who claim to have reached this state.


I'm skeptical of this, but if some study shows this it would be very interesting. That would actually make me believe that the effects of meditation are over and above the effects of simple relaxation. It's a strong claim and I wish that it's proven true.


----------



## Len Phelbs

Slogger said:


> Yes, it would rule out some forms of multi-tasking. When you're making breakfast you should just make breakfast. When you're listening to the news, you should just listen to the news. Full engagement in each activity.
> 
> Multi-tasking as switching your _complete_ focus among different tasks is no problem at all. For example, making more coffee while your bacon is frying. When your practice is strong, you can take on many tasks this way, moving freely and efficiently from one to another, with enhanced effectiveness.
> 
> And when your practice heats up, you _want_ to do things that way, it's very satisfying and enjoyable, and you see clearly how it's more efficient overall because you don't make so many of those little mistakes that take time to clean up later, like the bacon grease slopped on the counter.


what if cooking isn't your priority, but still essential to living. bacon with spilled grease coffee with extra scoop of grounds still makes breakfast.


----------



## Slogger

Len Phelbs said:


> what if cooking isn't your priority, but still essential to living. bacon with spilled grease coffee with extra scoop of grounds still makes breakfast.


Whatever you're doing at the moment is your priority; every task deserves your complete attention. That is the whole point of meditation.


----------



## Len Phelbs

Seems almost dishonest. I drink coffee to wake up for the day, eat to keep low blood sugar from killing me. The bukowski in me says **** it sleep in and drink the coffee to stay up and drink later or skip work and write about the track and women. Sounds meditative to you?


----------



## Slogger

Len Phelbs said:


> Seems almost dishonest. I drink coffee to wake up for the day, eat to keep low blood sugar from killing me. The bukowski in me says **** it sleep in and drink the coffee to stay up and drink later or skip work and write about the track and women. Sounds meditative to you?


It's the state of mind that matters. But if you don't know yourself, probably "No".


----------



## Len Phelbs

Slogger said:


> It's the state of mind that matters. But if you don't know yourself, probably "No".


I've been thinking about it, starting to see you point thou definate meditation times still where I'm at. Checking awareness through the day against a standard of focused and singular could be a good practice for me.

looking at it like vegetarian diet, the model will usually be made by full converts but there's something there for omnivores getting off mcdonalds or other garbage


----------

