|
Home > Archive > Yoga > June 2005 > Yoga "mysticism"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| howdydave 2005-05-28, 8:55 am |
|
Howdy!
I have often heard of "yoga mysticism" but I have never encountered
it.
Is that just due to my ignorance of the Yoga Sutras and Upanashads?
OR...
Is "mysticism" just a term used by outsiders who are unfamilier with
the very specific terminology that covers the different states of
"internal awareness" that a person usually does not encounter unless
they practice yoga themselves?
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| David 2005-05-28, 11:51 am |
| howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> I have often heard of "yoga mysticism" but I have never encountered
> it.
>
> Is that just due to my ignorance of the Yoga Sutras and Upanashads?
>
> OR...
>
> Is "mysticism" just a term used by outsiders who are unfamilier with
> the very specific terminology that covers the different states of
> "internal awareness" that a person usually does not encounter unless
> they practice yoga themselves?
>
>
I also have never encountered it. Generally, those I've met who were "in
to" some sort of mysticism were actually in love with the idea of
secret knowlede. Some how, for them, the idea that some group or diety
or secret society had the final answer that would explain everything was
satisfying. They didn't need to be privy to that secret, just wanted to
know that it was there.
Strange notions, if you're asking me.
David
| |
| omjaroo 2005-05-28, 10:54 pm |
| > Howdy!
>
> I have often heard of "yoga mysticism" but I have never encountered
> it.
Mysticism, relates to that which can be known but not necessarily
demonstrated, proven, or explained. Yoga deals with lots of that stuff.
Virtually none of it is secret but few people invest the time and effort
to learn it. Much of it can not be learned intellectually and must be
experienced. Hence it remains a mystery and the people who experience it
are mystics and the discussion of it is termed mysticism.
This is also why no single yoga is suited to everyone. There are
different yoga foundations for different personality types. Which speaks
to another comment I wanted to address concerning jnanis. Jnana is the
yoga path of wisdom, knowledge and use of the mind to transcend the
mind. It is suited to people for whom reasoning, didactics, and all
manner of intellectual inquiry for the truth is strong. Karma yoga for
people of action and those whose passion is to serve, bhakti for whom
love and adoration of God is paramount. As one dives deeper and deeper
into the internal environment the differing yogas come closer and closer
to each other until at a point they all merge into ? You guessed it,
Yoga.
There are a number of jnanis who are regulars in alt.yoga. You can
probably pick them out by the tone of their comments. Stu, Puma, MikeD,
Christopher Calder, JD, blacknblue, HB, Wade, to name a few. Jnana is
less about a prescribed discipline and more about a relentless and
merciless seeking after the truth, to the point of trading life itself
if need be.
> Is that just due to my ignorance of the Yoga Sutras and Upanashads?
It would be helpful for a jnani to read/read about these.
> OR...
>
> Is "mysticism" just a term used by outsiders who are unfamilier with
> the very specific terminology that covers the different states of
> "internal awareness" that a person usually does not encounter unless
> they practice yoga themselves?
That likely is the case however I think, arcane or esoteric would be
more appropriate here.
Occult is the one that still has me a bit turned around. The term is
used as if it has a specific meaning but I haven't found one yet. I
think it is probably bandied around like the term mysticism.
Jared
Namaste
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-28, 10:54 pm |
| I use to believe in the occult and mysticism, but now I think the
evidence suggests that it's all in the brain. BRAIN ELECTRICS is a new
science, while ancient mysticism is a misinterpretation of natural
brain phenomena. Anyone can take 50 milligrams of psilocybin and get a
fantastic mystical experience. If mysticism is based on chemistry,
that means it is physical in nature, not supernatural, and is part of
the physical brain structure and function.
See "Do you have a soul?" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/soul.html
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-29, 8:54 am |
| "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:omjaroo-63BB69.19380028052005@news.corenews.com...
<snip>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It would be helpful for a jnani to read/read about these.
<snip>
> Jared
>
> Namaste
Howdy!
I have the 2 vol.
God Talks With Arjuna - The Bhagavad Gita
by: Paramahansa Yogananda
I was going to order a commontary on the Yoga Sutras just yesterday, but I
thought that I had better make a concerted effort to study what I already
have on hand first!
Dave
| |
|
| On 2005-05-28 20:04:48 -0700, "calderhome@yahoo.com"
<calderhome@yahoo.com> said:
> I use to believe in the occult and mysticism, but now I think the
> evidence suggests that it's all in the brain. BRAIN ELECTRICS is a new
> science, while ancient mysticism is a misinterpretation of natural
> brain phenomena. Anyone can take 50 milligrams of psilocybin and get a
> fantastic mystical experience. If mysticism is based on chemistry,
> that means it is physical in nature, not supernatural, and is part of
> the physical brain structure and function.
Dang Chris, that is soooo David Hume, materialist of you. Everything
can be explained in terms of concrete physical phenomena.
Imagine for just a second that the electrons speeding through the cells
and synapses, are taking place at sub-atomically. Is it possible that
the reactions that are happening may be subject to the laws of quantum
mechanics and not Newtonian physics?
It these are in fact quantum reactions it suggest that the brain is not
so much a binary computer with on-off conditions but a quantum
computer. A quantum computer subject to the multi dimensional physics
of QM. No longer on-off but coherent super position states.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/
And if this theory is too wild and speculative, isn't important for
humans to understand that there is a bigger picture here than a bunch
of animals roaming around this planet, spitting and belching for
survival. Isn't sum of our humanity more than a mass of cells glued
together?
Just maybe the attributes of brain physiology are markers for events
transcending the brain itself. Measuring brain reactions to understand
consciousness is a bit like taking apart a printing press to understand
today's news stories.
--
~Stu
| |
| omjaram 2005-05-30, 9:01 am |
| Stu,
Thanks for the url, very cool! MikeD likes this stuff. Did you notice
he just posted?
My two cents:-)
There will always be a physical corollary (of anything that exists),
which can be observed, defined measured etc, even if the technology to
do so doesn't exist yet. The materialists are searching for the same
thing the religious are. They are just taking a different
(longer/scarier) path if you ask me (and Mr. Einstein, who they say
died a mystic.)
My theory is we live in a primary universe and can only infer what
exists in binary symbolism (equally alternating opposites), giving the
impression of time, space, movement and other fictions required so we
can express (and find our car keys:-).
Namaste
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-30, 9:01 am |
| I am familiar with the quantum brain theory, but don't pay much
attention to it as there is absolutely no proof of it. Even if it is
true, it does not change anything. There is no scientific theory, even
quantum theory, that can justify a belief in reincarnation. That is
the crucial point. No one knows exactly how consciousness works, but
we do know for sure it relies on chemistry to work. You can put any
"enlightened" person to sleep by injecting them with drugs, lowering
their blood pressure, or removing oxygen or glucose from their blood.
My guess is that consciousness is just complexly woven chemistry. Even
bugs have consciousness, so the consciousness circuit exists in even
small animals and is not that complex. One Russian scientist claimed
to have built a conscious computer by making computer chips that mimic
the human brain cell. His claim may have been balcony, but who knows
what scientists will bring in future years. I would not be surprised
if artificial consciousness is possible.
If you read the current scientific papers written on consciousness you
will not find any bigger pile of horse dung anywhere. They use allot
of ten dollar words for ten cent ideas, and jump from one obscure
reference to another, all without really saying anything. Thus, it is
easy to tell from what has been written so far that no one knows
anything and that they are all just bluffing to get grant money. If
you really know how something works you can state it simply and
clearly. Scientists can describe the TV camera like qualities of the
human brain, but not consciousness itself. There is an organic TV in
your brain, but what is watching the TV? The quantum brain papers are
even worse because they have no scientific test data to back up any of
their beliefs. It is all just based on wild speculation and a desire
to find something sexy and mysterious, so they can go on believing in
reincarnation or spirit or whatever their religious trip is.
The universe IS a mysterious place and matter is energy and energy is
UNKNOWN. For example, there is no scientific explanation as to why and
how a room dedicated to meditation practice builds up a vibe. It may
be some kind of simple electrical charge or it may be something new to
science. That said, there is no evidence to suggest a separable soul,
let alone reincarnation. If something is true you can test for it. If
you test the soul-reincarnation theory at multiple points you will find
it fails the test at every point. If you test the no-soul,
no-reincarnation theory at multiple points, you will find it passes the
tests with ease at every single point.
Soul is a theory and no-soul is a theory. I would be pleased to find
that one day someone discovers proof of a soul and reincarnation, as I
find life fun and I would be happy to come back for another go-round.
I am not anti-soul by emotional makeup and I believed in
soul-reincarnation for over 35 years. That is a long time to believe
something. The point is all my beliefs fell apart due to overwhelming
evidence the soul theory is fantasy and not fact. There is allot of
evidence to suggest that religions, which are all cults, and gurus are
using those well meaning fantasies to make money and mind control the
masses.
I would love to be proven wrong on this matter, but I doubt that will
happen as all the evidence is against my former belief in
soul-reincarnation. I got suckered into believing it because I was
naively and wrongly impressed with the credentials of all those great
sages who believed in it. Then I finally realized I was part of a long
chain of belief that was based on nothing but wishful thinking. The
great heroes of religion are not that great, and the "occult" is just
part of the world of human imagination.
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
| |
| omjaram 2005-05-30, 11:53 am |
| Christopher,
>If you test the soul-reincarnation theory at multiple points you will find
>it fails the test at every point. =A0If you test the no-soul,
>no-reincarnation theory at multiple points, you will find it passes the
>tests with ease at every single point.
How do we go about doing this? Can we do it here on alt.yoga?
Jared
Namaste
| |
| Dave ©¿©¬ 2005-05-30, 5:56 pm |
| <calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117433092.121692.255760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am familiar with the quantum brain theory, but don't pay much
> attention to it as there is absolutely no proof of it. Even if it is
> true, it does not change anything. There is no scientific theory, even
> quantum theory, that can justify a belief in reincarnation. That is
> the crucial point. No one knows exactly how consciousness works, but
> we do know for sure it relies on chemistry to work. You can put any
> "enlightened" person to sleep by injecting them with drugs, lowering
> their blood pressure, or removing oxygen or glucose from their blood.
> My guess is that consciousness is just complexly woven chemistry. Even
> bugs have consciousness, so the consciousness circuit exists in even
> small animals and is not that complex. One Russian scientist claimed
> to have built a conscious computer by making computer chips that mimic
> the human brain cell. His claim may have been balcony, but who knows
> what scientists will bring in future years. I would not be surprised
> if artificial consciousness is possible.
>
> If you read the current scientific papers written on consciousness you
> will not find any bigger pile of horse dung anywhere. They use allot
> of ten dollar words for ten cent ideas, and jump from one obscure
> reference to another, all without really saying anything. Thus, it is
> easy to tell from what has been written so far that no one knows
> anything and that they are all just bluffing to get grant money. If
> you really know how something works you can state it simply and
> clearly. Scientists can describe the TV camera like qualities of the
> human brain, but not consciousness itself. There is an organic TV in
> your brain, but what is watching the TV? The quantum brain papers are
> even worse because they have no scientific test data to back up any of
> their beliefs. It is all just based on wild speculation and a desire
> to find something sexy and mysterious, so they can go on believing in
> reincarnation or spirit or whatever their religious trip is.
>
> The universe IS a mysterious place and matter is energy and energy is
> UNKNOWN. For example, there is no scientific explanation as to why and
> how a room dedicated to meditation practice builds up a vibe. It may
> be some kind of simple electrical charge or it may be something new to
> science. That said, there is no evidence to suggest a separable soul,
> let alone reincarnation. If something is true you can test for it. If
> you test the soul-reincarnation theory at multiple points you will find
> it fails the test at every point. If you test the no-soul,
> no-reincarnation theory at multiple points, you will find it passes the
> tests with ease at every single point.
>
> Soul is a theory and no-soul is a theory. I would be pleased to find
> that one day someone discovers proof of a soul and reincarnation, as I
> find life fun and I would be happy to come back for another go-round.
> I am not anti-soul by emotional makeup and I believed in
> soul-reincarnation for over 35 years. That is a long time to believe
> something. The point is all my beliefs fell apart due to overwhelming
> evidence the soul theory is fantasy and not fact. There is allot of
> evidence to suggest that religions, which are all cults, and gurus are
> using those well meaning fantasies to make money and mind control the
> masses.
>
> I would love to be proven wrong on this matter, but I doubt that will
> happen as all the evidence is against my former belief in
> soul-reincarnation. I got suckered into believing it because I was
> naively and wrongly impressed with the credentials of all those great
> sages who believed in it. Then I finally realized I was part of a long
> chain of belief that was based on nothing but wishful thinking. The
> great heroes of religion are not that great, and the "occult" is just
> part of the world of human imagination.
>
> Christopher Calder
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
>
Howdy!
Are you talking about CONCIOUSNESS or THE MIND??
They are not the same thing!
The scientific method is dependant on dualism and thus can not be used to
prove/demonstrate a non-dualist concept. Any attempt to do so will only lead
to conundrums and contradictions.
--
Dave ©¿©¬
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-30, 5:56 pm |
| http://home.att.net/~meditation/soul.html - It's all here. "Do you
have a soul?"
The thinking function of the brain is easier to understand than the
consciousness function of the brain. Dualism or non-dualism has
nothing to do with it. Both functions are physical and rely on
chemistry. If they were not physical in nature, chemistry would have
no effect of either consciousness or the thinking process. Scientists
have now even isolated the parts of the brain that create humor and
sarcasm. Your personality is physical, not a product of some
immaterial "soul." But no one can even conceive how consciousness
works. Even if they do some day create consciousness in computers by
mimicking brain cells, they may still not be able to know how it works.
The page is pasted below, but better to use the link above as the essay
has active links itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------
Do you have a soul?
To know truth you must have a deep desire to see it, and a
willingness to let go of the old lies.
When I was a child I was an atheist and only believed in what I
could see and touch. By age 19 I started to believe in the existence
of souls and reincarnation as a result of my exposure to a number of
famous Indian yogis and the majestic J. Krishnamurti (see photo), who
once claimed to have remembered all of his past lives. At age 21 my
belief in soul was dramatically reinforced by explosive experiences
with Acharya Rajneesh, later known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Osho.
I never believed in any "God," but for 35 years I lived under the
shadow of the great meditation masters and was fairly certain that we
all possessed souls that would survive our physical death.
Unlike Hindus and Christians, most Buddhists believe in some
mysterious and poorly defined personal karma that survives death. I
never believed in the Buddhist concept of immortal personal karma
without soul, because when you reject soul you lose the vehicle for the
transference of karma from one life to the next. To my mind, if soul
goes so does any possibility of immortal personal karma and
reincarnation.
When I met Acharya Rajneesh in 1970 he not only spoke of souls and
reincarnation but also claimed to have the power of astral projection.
I believed his claim because of what I thought were authentic
experiences I had with this "Master" astrally projecting himself, not
just into my room, but into my body while he was physically several
miles away. After reading Matthew Alper's excellent book, The "God"
Part of the Brain, I wonder if those amazing experiences were really
what I had thought they were. Alper's book summarizes the latest
scientific research into how the human brain functions while having
religious experiences. In this essay I have added my own personal
experiences, observations, and theories to several of the main points
of Alper's book, which I consider one of the most important I have ever
read.
Medical research has shown that if you stimulate certain areas of
the brain with a small electric current, you can give people the
experience of spiritual visitation. You may feel that Christ is
touching your heart or that the soul of a dead relative is near you.
There is no evidence to support a belief in authentic astral
projection, however, as all studies indicate that consciousness exists
only in the brain cells that create it. You cannot remove
consciousness from the physical body because consciousness is a
physical phenomena created by chemistry, just as a firefly's light is
created by chemical reactions. That is why you can turn consciousness
on or off by injecting a person with drugs to wake them up or to put
them to sleep. Near-death experiences or even certain drugs can give
you the feeling of being outside of your body, but researchers say that
is just an illusion of the holographic nature of the human brain.
While true astral projection may be impossible, there is credible
scientific theory to suggest that telepathic communication is possible
in human beings. The human brain is an organic electrochemical
computer so complex that to match it with current silicon technology
you would need a computer the size of a small city. Think of all the
things your relatively simple cell phone can do. There is plenty of
computer power in the human brain for us to imagine that some portion
of it could be allocated to broadcasting and receiving messages from
other human brains. This telepathic ability may be the reason why
disciples feel the presence of their spiritual teachers so strongly.
{Note* Meditation is fast becoming a real science, not just an
intuitive art. See Scans of Monks' Brains}
The brain is the most metabolically active human organ and
requires a steady supply of oxygen and glucose as fuel. Although the
brain represents less than 2% of the body's mass, it utilizes 20% of
the body's oxygen consumption and 15% of its cardiac output. Thus the
brain produces an extraordinary amount of energy in the form of
electrical wattage in relationship to the rest of the body. The entire
human body uses chemical reactions to produce both mechanical movements
and electrical currents that flows through all our living cells. The
brain is an analog computer, but amazingly the DNA code that creates it
is digital. The average human brain contains approximately 100 billion
neurons connected by approximately 50 trillion synapses. It is
therefore not difficult to imagine that this fantastically complex
device, the human brain-body, could have mysterious communication
abilities beyond our current understanding.
Perhaps what I thought was astral projection was simply Rajneesh
concentrating on me, sending me his supermental energy long distance.
That powerful jolt of energy may have caused my brain to supply the
added illusion of personal visitation on top of the strong telepathic
transmission. Rajneesh had tremendous mental powers, no doubt, but was
that power really supernatural or just a product of his unique brain
structure and meditative skill?
If you inject any human being with enough sedative, enlightened or
not, they will become unconsciousness. If you damage certain areas of
the brain you can drastically alter human behavior. You can turn a
conservative bank president into a garbage-eating bum just by killing
off some of the brain cells that contain the biocomputer program for
his personality. If you damage other areas of the brain you can erase
all memory.
If consciousness, personality, and memory are all physical
phenomena of brain cells, then when the brain dies there is nothing
left of your individual identity. Your permanent identity of
time-energy-space continues unharmed (see The TES Hypothesis), but
there is no soul, no reincarnation, and no Buddhist transference of
personal karma. If this is true it means that Hinduism, Buddhism,
Jainism, Taoism, Christianity, and Islam are all wrong. It also means
that we all achieve "moksha" (liberation) at the time of death, because
there is no personal cycle of birth and death to escape from and no
magical afterlife. You are born once and you die once and you will
never come back!
One theory states that we have personal souls and/or karma, which
transmigrates from one life to the next, and another theory states that
nothing survives death and only DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and the
will of the living determines the future of our species. Which theory
is correct? I once believed in reincarnation with a high level of
certainty. After many years of seeing the rampant corruption of gurus,
"enlightened" or not, the idiocy of disciples, cults, and organized
religion, and with the new scientific evidence in hand, I find the
soul-reincarnation-karma theory far less plausible.
You do not have to believe in anything supernatural to believe in
cosmic consciousness (satori). Anyone can take the drug psilocybin and
get a cheap, but dramatic, imitation of the natural religious
experience. Clinical research shows that our brains are built to have
religious experiences. As time-energy-space is one singular phenomena,
it is only natural that we occasionally experience the grand cosmic
unity. I personally suspect that even animals have satoris, though
they apparently have no ability to give it a name or understand its
implications.
One of the most interesting concepts of Matthew Alper's book
concerns the rise of self-consciousness in human animals and how
knowledge of our impending death has affected our brains and even our
DNA. If you put a dog in front of a mirror he will never figure out
that he is looking at his own reflection. If you put a higher primate
in front of a mirror, such as a chimpanzee or a human child, the higher
primate will use the mirror for grooming purposes because he recognizes
himself in the reflection. Because man's self-consciousness is so
highly developed, man has come to realize that our life expectancy is
short and our personal demise inevitable.
Animals, like human children, fear death, danger, and pain, but
they have no real understanding of time and the inevitability of their
own destruction. The time-death equation that adult humans understand
becomes a constant source of anguish. A strong survival instinct is
built into our DNA code from our long evolutionary journey from
bacteria to man. When that survival instinct collides with
self-conscious knowledge of our impending death, the brain itself needs
both a neurological and psychological barrier to block the conflict and
tension. That barrier we call religious belief and "the God part of
the brain." The theory states that man has invented myths of God,
soul, reincarnation, karma, and afterlife as a way to provide the brain
with mental opium, a buffer to the constant ticking clock inside our
heads that tells us our inevitable doom is getting closer every day.
The psychological need for a feeling of immortality is so great
that our religious tendencies have become part of our very DNA code.
Humans who believe in the supernatural religions tend to be calmer,
healthier, and thus live longer than the nonreligious. Believers also
tend to show more bravery when courage is needed to protect their
tribe. Genetic tendencies to have religious feelings are fortified
over thousands of years of evolution through survival of the
religiously fittest.
If your religious beliefs feel exactly right to you, it may be
because your subconscious mind wants you to believe in them so that you
will have a better chance for health and a long lifespan. If you
intuitively sense that you have been alive here on planet earth before,
perhaps that feeling of d=E9ja vu comes from your DNA code, not from a
reincarnating soul, because DNA has been active on planet earth for at
least 3.8 billion years and we are all created and united by its
existence.
Science knows that there is only one real life-form on planet
earth, and that is DNA itself. DNA is like a giant vine that has taken
over planet earth. Through the never ending chain of DNA code, we are
not only closely related to other mammals, but also intimately related
to insects, plants, and even bacteria and viruses. Many times in our
past the higher life-forms on earth have been wiped out by impacts of
asteroids and comets, yet the surviving bacteria have always evolved
upward into more complex plants and animals. DNA is not just a helpful
chemical substance inside us. DNA is our biological level identity,
our three dimensional physical 'soul,' if you will.
All over the world, wherever you find man you will find
supernatural religions promising some kind of life after death. Moslem
extremists gladly kill themselves in the name of their religion.
American war heroes have died fighting Japanese and Germans in the name
of Christ, and no doubt many felt they were going to heaven for their
heroic efforts. God is a pretty handy device when your tribe is in
trouble. Almost all of us, atheist and theist alike, instinctively
call out to God for help when we are in grave personal danger.
Man's philosophical beliefs have also been shaped by a survival
contest of world religions to see which religion can most completely
satisfy our emotional needs for a feeling of comfort and safety.
Organized religion is a business and must have money and public support
to survive. If your spouse or child dies, you want a priest, rabbi,
monk, or swami to tell you that your loved one's soul is going to a
better place. Can you imagine a funeral where a holy man bluntly
states that the deceased has no soul and is gone forever? That would
seem cruel, and any religion that provided such a funeral service would
not last long in the religious marketplace.
Why do so many enlightened teachers believe in souls and karma?
It has been my observation that even the enlightened are affected by
cultural conditioning and have a tendency to pass on the religious
teachings of those who came before them with only minor modifications.
For example, the famous enlightened teachers from meat-eating societies
in Tibet, China, and Japan also ate meat, while the great sages from
strictly vegetarian India claim that eating meat is a horrible
unspiritual practice. So I ask, did Rajneesh and J. Krishnamurti
believe in souls because of some direct experience or because they both
grew up in soul-oriented India? Rajneesh once stated that even plants
have souls, and that if an enlightened man (Rajneesh himself) sat next
to a plant, that plant would be so graced that in its next incarnation
it might be born as a human being. I find that grandiose and
self-serving statement difficult to believe, and I suspect a
significant amount of the time Rajneesh was simply shooting his mouth
off without even thinking about what he was saying.
On another occasion Rajneesh stated that we are attracted to
beautiful people because their outer beauty represents the inner beauty
of their souls, because it is the soul which creates the physical body
and mind. Science has proven conclusively that DNA creates the body
and brain, not any mysterious, immaterial "soul." Outward beauty does
not always mean inward beauty, or even a sane mind. The infamous
serial killer Ted Bundy was quite handsome outwardly, yet he is
estimated to have murdered between 35 and 50 women just for the thrill
of it (see photographs of Ted Bundy). If Rajneesh could be mistaken
about something this basic, then couldn't he be wrong about anything?
The "Master" Rajneesh presented many idiotic theories about life
right here and now, so why should anyone believe his theories about
souls and reincarnation? It is only because of his great presence that
his disciples refrained from laughing out loud at some of his
ridiculous ideas. Rajneesh was living proof that enlightenment,
intelligence, and honesty are separate phenomena. You can be a fool,
liar, and a criminal and also become a great energy channeler
(enlightened) if that is your predisposition and desire. Freedom means
free choice to be good or bad and you have that choice no matter how
powerful your meditation skills have become. George Gurdjieff (see
photo), the famous Greek-Armenian mystic, was an alcoholic. Rajneesh
(see photo) became a drug addict, yet both men could channel great
cosmic presence that inspired thousands of spiritual seekers.
Rajneesh's use of drugs, especially nitrous oxide, Valium, and
LSD, also casts doubt on his soul theory of enlightenment. In his last
years Rajneesh declared that from his own experience, LSD could produce
the same consciousness as a Buddha. During his younger, sober days he
stated that LSD produced a "false samadhi" and that consciousness was
the product of "soul," not just physical chemistry. Rajneesh changed
his teaching to rationalize his drug use by stating that "you are
nothing but chemistry." He thus implied that it is OK to use chemicals
to alter consciousness because you are chemicals bonded together in an
organic biological machine. One could ask that if Rajneesh really had
the ability to leave his body and fly around the world at will,
wouldn't that be more entertaining than getting cheap thrills from LSD
and nitrous oxide?
Rajneesh claimed to be as enlightened as the historic Buddha, and
I believe that he was, but why does a Buddha need to take
hallucinogenic drugs? My answer is that Rajneesh became bored with the
Void because the Void can only provide peacefulness long term, but not
an eternal buzz of blissfulness. Judging from my own meditative
practice and reading of science, the buzz and bliss of meditation comes
from a build-up of excess neurotransmitters like serotonin in the
brain. When you meditate in formal sessions you are conserving the
chemical energy of your brain by not wasting it on thoughts and sensory
distraction. Thus you become blissful and may experience nonsexual
orgasms during meditation sessions, but that ecstasy gradually
dissipates after you return to your normal work routine. The feeling
of spaciousness and peacefulness continue, but the buzz settles down to
a feeling of neutrality and quiet emptiness. There is no eternal
orgasm-ecstasy-bliss-buzz possible because any human feeling that has a
beginning must have an end due to the inherent chemical nature of the
brain.
The Buddha is reported to have said that there is "no bliss."
Rajneesh at times admitted that he himself felt "no energy," though
those around him felt awash in his energy. U.G. Krishnamurti has
stated that there is "no bliss." When I meditate in formal sessions I
feel bliss and non-sexual orgasms felt in the hara (belly center), the
heart center, the forehead center, and in the center of the head
directly behind the eyes. The problem is, the orgasmic feelings never
lasts. I have to go back to my meditation room and sit to regain the
neurochemical energy that dissipates during the daily routine of work.
Using my brain for utilitarian proposes eats up those neurotransmitters
rather quickly. It may also be that the brain itself wants to bring us
back to a state of neutrality because a neutral brain has the greatest
ability to ensure our physical survival. A man distracted with a
blissed-out brain is likely to be the first member of the tribe eaten
by the lion, not the last! Meditation and enlightenment may be a
neuro-chemical experience, not a magical soul experience outside the
laws of brain chemistry and physics.
Rajneesh changed his name to "Osho" and ended his life in a state
of dementia due to illness and drug addiction. J. Krishnamurti avoided
major scandals, stayed sober, and is still highly revered long after
his death. But was J. Krishnamurti really a saint and somehow better
ethically than any normal human being? I know many people who lead
virtuous lives and who don't meditate at all. What made J.
Krishnamurti different was not how he lived, which was ordinary, but
his tremendous presence of being. You stood next to him and felt
flooded in cosmic energy which pushed you high into the sky and
destroyed all feelings of limitation. Was J. Krishnamurti's grand
presence the result of many past lifetimes of spiritual effort, or was
it the result of modest effort in meditation in this life combined with
a genetic gift for cosmic consciousness?
Matthew Alper points out in his book that some forms of epilepsy
(see temporal lobe epilepsy) cause hyper-religiousness and mystical
experiences. J. Krishnamurti's mother was an epileptic and we know
epilepsy can be a genetically transferred disease. J. Krishnamurti
never had fits, but he often mysteriously passed out, giving those near
him warning that he was about to lose consciousness (see pictures of an
intense Krishnamurti as a young boy). George Gurdjieff and the Indian
sage Ramakrishna are reported to have had fits in which they thrashed
on the ground uncontrollably. The universally revered Ramana Maharshi
claimed that his emotional heart center was located in the "right side"
of his chest, which I suspect represents a brain abnormality, as in
normal human beings the emotional heart center is felt in the exact
center of the chest.
Is it possible that natural variations in our genetic code could
produce in each century a handful of people with brains perfectly
adapted for enlightenment, thus making meditative practice so easy that
they reach the goal with little effort? Ramana Maharshi is reported to
have achieved "God consciousness" at the tender age of 17! Rajneesh
claims to have become enlightened at age 21. J. Krishnamurti was in
his early twenties when people around him started to feel that he was
fully enlightened. Ramakrishna was reported to have been "born
enlightened," as was the ancient Chinese mystic, Lao-Tse.
Are the spiritually gifted among us the rare but naturally
occurring result of genetic variation? Of the 20,000 to 25,000 genes
that make up a human being, roughly half are suspected of being devoted
to blueprinting our central nervous system. Thus, with 10,000 to
12,500 individual genes controlling the formation of our brain and
spinal cord, the potential for major variations in the level of human
consciousness is enormous. For example, scientists have found that
changes in just a few human genes can have a dramatically positive
effect on human intelligence. Is it therefore logical that human gene
combinations exist that control the amount of raw consciousness we
possess as well.
Few have the artistic talent of a Michelangelo or the scientific
genius of Einstein. If there is a natural genetic "bell curve" for
intelligence, then why not a natural genetically driven bell curve for
spiritual power as well? [see The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class
Structure in American Life, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles
Murray] Research has shown that identical twins tend to have the same
level of interest in religion and/or mystical experience. This
suggests that there is a strong genetic component to our personal
meditative potential. If DNA can explain the vast differences between
a mosquito and a human being, then why can't genetic variations in
human DNA also explain the mental differences between a Hitler and a
Buddha?
Are the enlightened simply those few individuals at the extreme
forward edge of the bell curve, with the masses of the world population
stuck near the middle? If there are child prodigy pianists, artists,
and even astounding child prodigy golfers like Tiger Woods, then why
not child prodigy meditators as well? The Asian cultures may have
simply mistaken naturally occurring genetic variations in the human
brain for evidence of a romanticized past life history that does not
exist in fact. The group conditioning became so strong that the myths
of reincarnation fooled even the enlightened ones. History shows that
the easiest explanation for a phenomena that has the most supporting
evidence is usually correct. Grand claims require grand evidence to
justify a belief in them, and there is currently no scientifically
valid evidence of reincarnation or a magical transference of personal
karma.
If the spiritual bell curve theory is true, it could help explain
the obvious corruption of gurus. Rajneesh was a convicted felon and a
proven liar of historic proportions. George Gurdjieff was a chronic
liar and a loud and often rude alcoholic. The genetics-based view of
enlightenment also helps explain why there are so few enlightened ones
at any given time. If every soul has multiple chances to improve its
meditation skills over lifetimes of effort, then surely the world would
produce more than the meager handful of enlightened sages that are born
each century. Since at least the dawn of Hinduism (about 1500 BC),
long before the historic Buddha was born (about 563 BC), millions of
human beings have been making sincere effort at meditation, yet where
are the results of these heroic lifetimes of effort? The mathematics
and logistics of the soul-karma theory do not add up any way to look at
it.
The argument for souls and/or immortal karma is that enlightenment
is a process that takes many lifetimes of effort and the fruition of
our long journey through time is the eventual payoff of moksha,
infinite ecstasy, and liberation from all suffering. This highly
romantic idea appeals because it brings a sense of warmth and justice
into a cold and often pointlessly cruel world. It intuitively seems
fair that right action is eventually rewarded with positive results;
but this belief in inevitable karma has also caused negative results.
In Tibet it produced a kind of fatalistic inaction which aided the
Communist Chinese in their military takeover in 1950. To quote Drupon
Samten Rinpoche, "They can be taking this life, but they cannot take
the next life." This feeling of immortality has brought Tibetan
Buddhists a great sense of peace and compassion in the face of invasion
and genocide, but is it based or truth or wishful thinking?
Belief in souls and immortal karma has had many negative effects
in India, where the theory of reincarnation helped establish the
ancient Hindu caste system. The caste system was abolished by law in
1949 but lives on as an unfair social class structure, considerably
worse than the traditional class snobbery practiced in Europe. The
lower class, the sudras, are considered inferior while the outcasts,
the "untouchables," are looked down upon as being spiritually unworthy
due to past life sins rather than just being poor and uneducated human
beings. Skin diseases like leprosy are considered signs of punishment
for evil deeds in past lives, though medical science recognizes leprosy
as a disease anyone can contract given sufficient exposure to the
bacillus: Mycobacterium leprae. Even the great Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
promoted the antiscientific and inhumane karmic explanation for
leprosy.
Reincarnation and immortal karma were a way ancient peoples could
explain the inherent inequities of life, death, disease, riches, and
poverty in religious terms that often had no basis in fact. All the
major world religions are relics of the prescientific era and all have
negative biases woven into their teachings. I therefore suggest that
now is the time to create a new pro-science religion that does not
promote the irrational belief in magic and the supernatural, things
which exists only in our imagination, not in fact (see The TES
Hypothesis).
Rejecting the soul theory negates any need to answer such
impossible questions as where souls come from and why they exist at
all. The rebellious sage U.G. Krishnamurti has been saying for decades
that "there is no such thing as enlightenment" and that his state of
continuous cosmic consciousness was without cause, or "acausal." Could
it be that the real cause of enlightenment is rarefied DNA combined
with modest effort? Perhaps the ancient Hindus and Buddhists invented
myths of souls and immortal karma simply because they had no science
and were thus uneducated observers of the phenomena around them and
inside them. Siddhartha Gautama never knew about neurons or DNA, so
how could he be expected come up with any explanations for life that
were not based on the imagined supernatural?
I dismiss claims of past life memories because of the projective
nature of the human brain. The brain can project any image or feeling,
and it is exactly the same neurological mechanism that projects
fantasies of the subconscious that also projects authentic memories
stored in brain cells. What comes out of that one singular projector
may be real memory or real fantasy, but no one can tell the difference
with certainty, not even the late J. Krishnamurti or the Dalai Lama.
False memories are a common occurrence in courtrooms and have sent
many innocent men to their deaths for crimes they never committed.
Just imagine a monk walking into a courtroom claiming to remember all
of his past lives. Then imagine the monk being grilled under
cross-examination and he cannot even remember what he had for lunch
just a few days before. Even the enlightened sages have memory
problems and need to write down important dates and facts so they won't
forget.
If a high Tibetan lama or Hindu yogi enters a medical laboratory
full of skeptical scientists and proves through testing that he can
transfer his consciousness out of his body, then belief in soul and
reincarnation would be easier for everyone. To date that has not
happened, and hospital tests designed to prove out of the body episodes
during near-death experiences have yielded no positive results. As far
as scientifically valid evidence of soul is concerned, the well is
completely dry. Human beings exist as footprints in the sand. One day
the footprint will be erased and only the sand will be left behind.
There is no reincarnation and there is no personal continuity of karma.
Until fairly recently I had dismissed U.G. Krishnamurti's claim
that there is no enlightenment, no soul, and no reincarnation as just
his negative way of teaching. Perhaps, however, he is just trying to
tell the truth no matter how shocking that truth may be. Instead of
becoming attached to the small personal identity of a soul, it is
apparent that one must become attached to nothing less than infinity
itself. All of the great religions of the world may be wrong and just
a product of our own fear of dying. That idea is electrically shocking
to me, but it may well be true.
A summary of the main issues
1) There is no positive proof for the existence of souls, immortal
karma, reincarnation, or any spiritual afterlife. It is interesting to
note that in their last years even Osho and J. Krishnamurti reversed
themselves and stated that there was no reincarnation and thus,
presumably, no soul. If there is no reincarnation and no heaven or
hell, then the question of soul is moot.
2) There are legitimate science-based alternate explanations for
phenomena attributed to souls and immortal karma. The enlightened
teachers seem to confuse the effects of DNA for the effects of soul.
For example, people with higher intelligence and a more finely
articulated DNA code are perceived by them as being older and higher
souls.
3) There are obvious profit and political power motives for those who
promote belief in the supernatural. How many gurus have made fortunes
off the idea of souls and reincarnation? How many monasteries,
ashrams, churches, mosques, and synagogues would go out of business if
people found out there is no soul or immortal karma? How can
governments and the religious hierarchies control the masses if word
leaks out that we all end up in the same state of eternal
unconsciousness when we die, no matter how we behave while we are
alive? Would there be a Vatican City or Tibetan Portola Palace without
a belief in souls and/or immortal karma? The idea of soul has
historically been as much a matter of politics as it has been an issue
of personal religious belief.
4) It is highly probable that human animals have a built-in genetic
predisposition to avoid the inevitable fact of our future death in
order to reduce fear and stress. Our brains create myths of God, soul,
immortal karma, reincarnation, and afterlife as a buffer against the
hurtful knowledge of the inevitable demise of ourselves and everyone we
know and love. By inventing myths of afterlife and/or reincarnation
the brain can exist comfortably without the highly charged survival
instinct electrically connecting to the newfound knowledge of the
inevitability of our future death. The supernatural myths thus act as
a resistive electrical shunt, blocking a dangerous short circuit
between two parts of the brain.
5) Life on earth was created through the nonhuman laws of chemistry,
physics, and probability. Strands of chemicals (DNA) were created by
sheer accident and replicated themselves faster than they could be
destroyed. By further accident, some DNA strands became encased in
protective shells which increased their survivability dramatically,
creating the first bacteria. From simple bacteria more complexity was
added until a myriad of multi-cell creatures were produced. Through
this slow process of evolution over billions of years there was never
any need for soul, except as a myth to help human animals deal with
their growing consciousness of the inevitable time-death equation.
Scientists have produced real living viruses from their base chemical
components, and they did so without concocting any "soul."
The logistical mathematics of the soul theory do not add up. Does
every new bacteria, seed, egg, minnow, spider, or cockroach that
appears in the world demand a soul to go along with its already
sufficient DNA code? We know that humans evolved from bacteria. Where
did soul come into the picture and why? Is there a printing press
somewhere stamping out trillions of new souls every day to keep up with
the demand? The soul theory lacks logical credibility and science has
shown us that the universe is extremely logical in its structure,
formation, and evolution.
6) The famous film director Alfred Hitchcock often added a ploy to his
movies called a "MacGuffin." The MacGuffin distracted the audience
long enough that suspense could be created and the plot could develop
without giving away the true course of the story. In the end the
MacGuffin had no meaning in itself. Likewise, Hindus and Buddhists
have invented complicated myths of reincarnation and/or immortal karma,
declaring that we are all trapped in a cycle of birth and death and
that only our eventual enlightenment can free us. The Eastern
traditions have created a highly sophisticated myth structure, but the
underlying function of their myths is identical to the more childlike
myths of Christianity, with its almighty God, angels, and heaven. The
belief in immortal karma and reincarnation is the MacGuffin that keeps
our minds diverted from the inevitability and finality of our own
death.
No one can honestly say that it is impossible that human beings
have souls or immortal karma. You cannot prove an absolute negative
against such a big and complex issue. One can only say that given the
evidence the possibility is unlikely. The burden of proof is on those
who believe in the supernatural and there are currently no facts to
back up their case. A more realistic and scientifically valid way to
view the big issues of life and death is detailed in The TES
Hypothesis.=20
Christopher Calder
| |
|
| On 2005-05-29 23:04:52 -0700, "calderhome@yahoo.com"
<calderhome@yahoo.com> said:
> I am familiar with the quantum brain theory, but don't pay much
> attention to it as there is absolutely no proof of it. Even if it is
> true, it does not change anything. There is no scientific theory, even
> quantum theory, that can justify a belief in reincarnation. That is
> the crucial point. No one knows exactly how consciousness works, but
> we do know for sure it relies on chemistry to work. You can put any
> "enlightened" person to sleep by injecting them with drugs, lowering
> their blood pressure, or removing oxygen or glucose from their blood.
> My guess is that consciousness is just complexly woven chemistry. Even
> bugs have consciousness, so the consciousness circuit exists in even
> small animals and is not that complex. One Russian scientist claimed
> to have built a conscious computer by making computer chips that mimic
> the human brain cell. His claim may have been balcony, but who knows
> what scientists will bring in future years. I would not be surprised
> if artificial consciousness is possible.
>
> If you read the current scientific papers written on consciousness you
> will not find any bigger pile of horse dung anywhere. They use allot
> of ten dollar words for ten cent ideas, and jump from one obscure
> reference to another, all without really saying anything.
I agree with you fully.
> Thus, it is
> easy to tell from what has been written so far that no one knows
> anything and that they are all just bluffing to get grant money. If
> you really know how something works you can state it simply and
> clearly. Scientists can describe the TV camera like qualities of the
> human brain, but not consciousness itself. There is an organic TV in
> your brain, but what is watching the TV? The quantum brain papers are
> even worse because they have no scientific test data to back up any of
> their beliefs. It is all just based on wild speculation and a desire
> to find something sexy and mysterious, so they can go on believing in
> reincarnation or spirit or whatever their religious trip is.
As I said before they are speculation. And it is possible to write
them off as such. However if one is arguing that the brain is simply a
computer, the wild speculations of Penrose and others work to deflate
the point. They point to the possibility of a brain physiology much
more complex than simple synaptic relays.
>
> The universe IS a mysterious place and matter is energy and energy is
> UNKNOWN.
This is an important point. The other important point is that this
energy appears to have patterns. In growth there is a consistent
movement towards greater diversity, integration and unity. This is
observable in the Theory of Evolution, the Periodic Chart of Elements
or human development.
So we are confronted by a Kosmos of patterned evolving energy.
> For example, there is no scientific explanation as to why and
> how a room dedicated to meditation practice builds up a vibe. It may
> be some kind of simple electrical charge or it may be something new to
> science. That said, there is no evidence to suggest a separable soul,
> let alone reincarnation. If something is true you can test for it. If
> you test the soul-reincarnation theory at multiple points you will find
> it fails the test at every point. If you test the no-soul,
> no-reincarnation theory at multiple points, you will find it passes the
> tests with ease at every single point.
I agree with you here as well. Reincarnation seems like an excellent
myth to subscribe to if your from a society in which your life is
preordained. Your career will be what your father did, you will marry
the one who is selected for you, your place in society will always be
the same. Life is reduced to generations of people living repeating
life cycles.
What better way to deal with this then the belief in reincarnation.
This myth does not make much sense in our society with its break down
of the nuclear family, upward mobility, and transient movement of
individuals.
>
> Soul is a theory and no-soul is a theory. I would be pleased to find
> that one day someone discovers proof of a soul and reincarnation, as I
> find life fun and I would be happy to come back for another go-round.
> I am not anti-soul by emotional makeup and I believed in
> soul-reincarnation for over 35 years. That is a long time to believe
> something. The point is all my beliefs fell apart due to overwhelming
> evidence the soul theory is fantasy and not fact.
The soul is an ill-defined term. In the ancient Greece soul and mind
were used more or less interchangeably. From the point of view of the
ancients the brain was most likely a blood cooling mechanism. Without
understanding brain physiology one can see how one would develop the
concept of a soul. Something was going on inside people, and you
couldn't see it by cutting one open.
By the 19th century the concept of soul was pretty much left to the
domain of religions.
It is interesting to note that in the bible people do not die and their
soul lives on. Even Jesus took his body with him when we was
resurrected. The great myth of the apocalypse has people coming back
into the world with their bodies from their graves. For the followers
of the bible the soul was part of the body.
The concept of a soul separate from the body has its origins with
Plato. This was later picked up by neo platonists of the Islamic,
Xtian and Jewish world.
> There is allot of
> evidence to suggest that religions, which are all cults,
Technically, a cult is small group. A religion suggests a larger community.
> and gurus are
> using those well meaning fantasies to make money and mind control the
> masses.
They might be. On the other hand, there are a great many who take
solace in their religions. Not only can a religion provide strength and
guidance to an individual. It can provide cohesiveness to a community.
There is a fair amount of evidence that totalitarian regimes do best
when there is no religion. And when religion is denied a community,
the religion is taken underground.
We can chose to not take part in a religion. But we should not be
judging those who do. As in any social enterprise there will be a few
hucksters. For the most part I believe people are authentic in their
chosen religions. Just don't go imposing your standards on me.
>
> I would love to be proven wrong on this matter, but I doubt that will
> happen as all the evidence is against my former belief in
> soul-reincarnation. I got suckered into believing it because I was
> naively and wrongly impressed with the credentials of all those great
> sages who believed in it. Then I finally realized I was part of a long
> chain of belief that was based on nothing but wishful thinking. The
> great heroes of religion are not that great, and the "occult" is just
> part of the world of human imagination.
>
> Christopher Calder
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
Isn't imagination what makes us human? Chris, you are arguing for a
world view that is only rational. I am suggesting that that view is as
much of a myth as those glorified by religions. It is very difficult
to discern myths. I often think we are like the schizophrenic who
believes he is Napoleon. From his point of view he does not know he is
not Napoleon. How much of our own world is denial? We will never know.
You may shuck the myth of reincarnation, but it is replaced by a myth
of scientism.
We are best served by examining the moment, and living the best life we
can bring to this moment as possible. We are given tools of the
intellect -rationality and imagination, science and art. We are given
bodies, that allow us mobility and sensibility. And we are given an
internal eye, that we can reflect upon. Getting through this life
seems to be an exercise in integrated these three dynamic modes.
--
~Stu
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-30, 5:56 pm |
| A cult is a "system of religious beliefs and rituals" and has no size
limitations. People call small new religions "cults" because they
conflict with the big old cults. Christianity is a cult as much as the
Moonies or the Osho cult. They are all cults no matter what size or
how old they are. The big cults of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
have created the recent Middle East conflict. All are at fault.
I don't want a human being who only appreciates logic. I put logic and
the thinking part of my brain aside when I wish to go deep in
meditation. But I do not throw away logic or tell people that logic,
thinking, and science are the enemies of man and meditation. Cults
tell their victims to drop logic and follow them blindly because it
feels good to put your brain on hold and follow like an insect. That
did not work out so well for the people at the Rajneesh cult commune in
Oregon or for the Jim Jones cult commune in Guyana. My position is
that one should use both the thinking and no-thought brain states,
enjoy both, and use both for relaxation and survival. There is no
reason for them to be in conflict. That is why I wrote the following.
http://home.att.net/~meditation/jockey.html - "The Brain Jockey Club"
The Brain Jockey Club
Know yourself before you die! - the Brain Jockey Club motto
Q. What is a brain jockey?
A. A brain jockey is a yogi without all the unscientific beliefs and
excess cultural baggage of Hinduism and Buddhism. A brain jockey
utilizes intense self-observation to know himself before he dies.
Brain jockeys practice authentic meditation methods for years in order
to literally rewire their brains to make them more conscious.
Q. What does a brain jockey believe?
A. A brain jockey does not cling to philosophical and religious
beliefs. He observes that human beings have existence on two levels.
On one level of observation he sees that we exist as temporary
individuals, just infinitesimally small parts of the universe. Brain
jockeys accept that the individual is mortal, without trying to cover
up our vulnerability and impermanence with religious myths. From the
greater perspective, the brain jockey also factually observes that we
are also the whole universe. The Big Bang Theory aside, that universe
is basically immortal.
Q. Who is the leader of the brain jockeys?
A. Brain jockeys have no leader, no heroes, and do not follow any
individual or cult.
Q. How much does it cost to become a brain jockey?
A. It's free! A brain jockey only spends his own time and patient
effort to meditate.
Q. Isn't "brain jockey" a silly name?
A. Yes! A brain jockey maintains a sense of humor because he knows
that life is short, and entertainment is the only purpose of life. If
you are not being entertained, there is no point in being here.
Q. Will meditation make me wiser, healthier, and give me supernatural
powers?
A. Meditation will not make you smarter and has little to do with
intelligence. Phony gurus over-sell meditation in order to increase
their profits. If you have no profit motive in meditation you can tell
the truth about its limitations. Meditation will not solve all the
world's problems, will not improve your health dramatically, and will
not make you all-seeing and all-knowing. Meditation will not give you
the power to walk on water, but it may make you feel as though you are
walking in the clouds. Instead of taking illegal drugs to get high,
meditation is cheaper, safer, and healthier.
Q. Should everyone meditate?
A. No. Meditation is not for everyone. If meditation does not
spontaneously interest you then do not force yourself. The stars will
not fall out of the sky just because you decide to live a life without
formal meditation practice. There are other positive things you can do
to improve your life. For example, jogging and swimming are excellent
physical exercises which will reduce stress, make you more relaxed, and
improve your health. Meditation is only something you do because you
want to gain the indescribable experiences it brings. Meditation is
one of the few things that improves with age. Your looks and your sex
life are not going to get better as you grow older. Your power of
meditation will continually improve with age if you practice regularly
with intensity. If you just give meditation lip service, without
regular practice, you will gain nothing.
Our ultimate destiny as individuals is fixed, no matter what we
do. Death is just around the corner for all human animals, and there
is nothing you can gain from meditation that will not be lost by your
death. It's all in the brain, and when your brain dies, your
meditation will come to an abrupt and permanent end. There is no
coming back. Meditation may make you more relaxed, sleep better, and
reduce your level of fear and tension, but it will not solve all of
your personal, financial, and political problems, or turn you into a
saint. Those who pose as saints, super-heroes, and reincarnations of
famous historic figures are either sincerely self-deluded or cunning
frauds.
Gurus who sell quick meditation methods, encounter groups,
seminars, and PBS specials are just taking advantage of the innocent.
The very synapses in your brain must be rewired to reconnect in new
ways to gain progress in meditation (see Scans of Monks' Brains). This
organic transformation takes a long time and there is no way around
patient practice. All authentic meditation methods can be done alone,
at home, at no financial cost to you. See Meditation Handbook.
Please feel free to copy, repost, or publish The Brain Jockey Club.
Christopher Calder
| |
|
| Howdy Dave:
Your explanation simply is beautiful and to me CORRECT. All the trouble
with most of the humans lies in their LENS ,by saying lens I mean our
self or ego wahtever you like to call it. This ego is like a
lens,depending on our surrounding and the conditions we live in,takes
its structure,for instance earlier why you were under so many peoples`
effect!!! Krisna Murti or Osho or your futher,your best friend whatever
you may say... It was so because of your LENS` structure!
And our knowledge,our understanding,information we receive is getting
larger and larger almost every day, so we know more than the other
fellows who lived before us...
Forinsatnce we now know it very well that,there is no REINCARNATION,
we only have the effect of RIBONUCLEIDASID all our ancesters`memories
are written down by this RIBONUCLEIDASID by a sort of CRYPTO,it is
coded in a way!!! Then sometime it is possible that this code can be
opened up,and we satrt to remember our ancesters` actions very clearly
as if it hapened by us...
So people think that it is due to reincarnation...In fact thare is no
such silly reality as number of people are getting more and more!!
As you have clearly indicated Islam,Christianity, Judaism,Brahmanism,
Hinduism and all the religions which beleieve SOUL are absolutely
wrong! If they were correct,it would only one religion saying the
samething would be thru...
But all are saying different realms and some of them condems the
others...
But within all these religions only the one BUDDHISM to me is closer
to the reality, mostly ZEN BUDDHISM is much better as there is no
superhumans in this religion...
In short I am very happy to see that there are many people like
yourselve...At least people who are trying to find the THRUTH...
Thanks alot Dave,
With compassions,
puma
| |
|
| On 2005-05-30 13:09:04 -0700, "calderhome@yahoo.com"
<calderhome@yahoo.com> said:
>
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/jockey.html - "The Brain Jockey Club"
I think we are mostly in agreement Chris.
Another part of your site I initially took issue with was your
criticism of the Buddhist doctrine of suffering. I have come around on
that as well. The major discrepancy of this model is that it does not
allow for suffering from sources of which we have no control (be they
natural disasters, disease, or human violence). Surely we all possess
certain attachments that lead to suffering, on the other hand their are
attachments that lead to love as well.
No matter how i look at the four noble truths, it is hard to take them
as immutable. In the light of our Western ways there is room for a new
paradigm.
Good work.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Dear Calderhome:
My poster actually is for you but some reason I have addressed it to
Dave, I am sorry for this mistake, Although my thanks for Dave also
continue, as he has opened up this nice discussion,
I here clearly would like to thank you once more,because I see that we
are not very few...
With compassion,
puma
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-30, 5:56 pm |
| Life is the cause of suffering, not just attachment and desire. If you
have life and consciousness, you are going to suffer. Buddhists
complain about suffering, but there is no 100% cure other than your
physical death. The suffering of your own personal dream drama may
come to an end, but other new animals will be born and they will
suffer.
The "enlightened" have physical suffering just like you and me. Osho
developed many physical ailments and brain disorders and he suffered
tremendously. I would say the odds are 60 to 40 that he committed
suicide via morphine injection from his doctor. Those enlightened who
did not have brain disease suffered less, but even Krishnamurti
suffered physically and psychologically. There is no magical free
lunch. If you have a central nervous system connected to this crazy
universe you are going to suffer. Just watching the evening news is
often a terrible suffering because we feel empathy for those we see
being tortured, humiliated, or torn apart by nature or by the various
military establishments, including our own.
Meditation reduces psychological suffering and can act as a mild buffer
against physical suffering, but even the deepest meditation is not 100%
effective in nullifying all forms of suffering. When you go deep into
meditation you don't care if you live or die, or if the entire world
lives or dies. That ending of attachment reduces psychological
suffering, but if you drop a hammer on your toe, you are still going to
feel it and SUFFER!
Christopher Calder
| |
|
|
> When I was a child I was an atheist and only believed in what I
>could see and touch. By age 19 I started to believe in the existence
>of souls and reincarnation as a result of my exposure to a number of
>famous Indian yogis and the majestic J. Krishnamurti (see photo), who
>once claimed to have remembered all of his past lives. At age 21 my
>belief in soul was dramatically reinforced by explosive experiences
>with Acharya Rajneesh, later known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Osho.
>I never believed in any "God," but for 35 years I lived under the
>shadow of the great meditation masters and was fairly certain that we
>all possessed souls that would survive our physical death.
oh man stop this self pity. there are people who suffer immeasureably
on this planet. thank your stars. it could have been much, much worse
had you been born in another time and place.
> Unlike Hindus and Christians, most Buddhists believe in some
>mysterious and poorly defined personal karma that survives death. I
>never believed in the Buddhist concept of immortal personal karma
>without soul, because when you reject soul you lose the vehicle for the
>transference of karma from one life to the next. To my mind, if soul
>goes so does any possibility of immortal personal karma and
>reincarnation.
you ask the wrong questions and then cry .
"seek and ye shall find". but what are you seeking? a soul?
reincarnation?
on top of that you insist on playing the teacher.
who cares whether there is a soul or not? can mind games give anyone
happiness?
who cares what is the mechanism of karma/memory from one
body to the next? the great masters who answered these
questions had the psychic powers.
to prove or disprove them you have to be at their level.
you can say this is all the dna, but for now this is a hypothesis. that same
dna is worth nothing if the body has died.
eventually there are two questions for the yogi:
1) who am i
2) how shall i live to be happy.
1) is unanswerable. "i" cannot know myself. neither can you.
the eye cannot see itself and the tongue cannot taste itself. the eye
is eye only because it has the power of "seeing". but that is
not enough. it does not satisfy. neither does the answer
"i am the dna". the answer only makes sense if the question
was proper. a gold coin to a monkey means nothing.
have you seen
a rock being unhappy with itself?
you are not just a soup of proteins, fat, calcium and salt water. that
soup cannot be happy or unhappy.
2) the dalai lama answered this perfectly: "to live happily you live to make
others happy".
| |
|
|
<calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117489800.106250.80300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Meditation reduces psychological suffering and can act as a mild buffer
> against physical suffering, but even the deepest meditation is not 100%
> effective in nullifying all forms of suffering. When you go deep into
> meditation you don't care if you live or die, or if the entire world
> lives or dies. That ending of attachment reduces psychological
> suffering, but if you drop a hammer on your toe, you are still going to
> feel it and SUFFER!
>
you are afraid of pain. someone sold you painlessness/karma/soul
etc. you get stuck on that and complain like hell. they probably wanted
to trick you into impersonal love, which happens to most meditators
after a while.
not willing to continue to revisit life, because life is painful,
suffering etc. this is nirvana.
this is a most negative and escapist philosophy.
accept pain. accept life. accept birth. accept death. accept taxes.
accept all that is not in your control. and having accepted all, be
happy. express yourself with your actions. live with awareness.
this universe waited some 14 billion years (in this cycle of this
universe) so you could be aware and alive in this body. accept that
life and birth.
this is surrender.
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-30, 10:55 pm |
| "But within all these religions only the one BUDDHISM to me is closer
to the reality, mostly ZEN BUDDHISM is much better as there is no
superhumans in this religion..."
I agree with that. I like the better Zen groups best and find the long
sitting weeds out the insincere. Some Zen groups really know how to
meditate and I appreciate that.
Christopher Calder
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-30, 10:55 pm |
| Anon,
You are not following the discussion. My point was that there are no
absolute cures for suffering, not that because life contains suffering
we should give up on life and just complain. The flip side of the
reality is discussed below.
>From "Call For a New Buddhism" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/Buddhism.html
---------------------------------------
Buddha's Four Noble Truths
(1) Life is suffering. Is human life essentially painful from the
moment of birth to the moment of death? Even ordinary life can be full
of fun, adventure, friends, romance, good food, music and art.
Buddhism has been, in many ways, an anti-life religion that appeals to
those who always see the glass half empty rather than half full. Why
should we deny the fact that life can be an enjoyable adventure and not
just a pitiful veil of tears?
(2) All suffering is caused by ignorance. Much suffering is caused by
poverty, accidents, disease, and countless other factors that can be
addressed by the positive application of science. Even the fully
enlightened suffer physically if they fall down and break a leg. We
have modern pain killers for physical pain, and psychological suffering
can be lessened by the practice of meditation. Traditional Buddhist
meditation techniques alone have proven inadequate for the Western
mind. More relevant and powerful methods are available today. "When
the locks (man) change, the keys (meditation techniques) must also
change." See Meditation Handbook.
(3) Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment. A
positive spirit is also needed to overcome suffering and dwelling on
the potential misery of life only amplifies that misery. Friendship,
jokes, and high spirits alleviate suffering more quickly. Love, an
experience rarely mentioned in Buddhist scriptures, is such a powerful
force that suffering retreats in its presence. The loveless negativism
of the extreme forms of Buddhism may lead to a sickly and unloving mind
just as easily as an enlightened spirit.
(4) To suppress suffering, Buddha recommended the Noble Eightfold
Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech,
right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and
right contemplation. What are right views? Is a theocracy of Buddhist
priests going to dictate to the sangha (monastic community) how to
think and what to say? Intense meditation is needed by all, but the
difficulties of determining what is "right action" and "right speech"
is fraught with dangers. Was it "right action" for Tibet to fail to
develop an effective military with which to fight off an obvious
Chinese threat? What brilliant monk dictated that "right action" to
the sheep like sangha?
I am not saying that Siddhartha's Four Noble Truths are wrong, but
rather that suffering should not be the centerpiece of a meditation
based religion for the West. A more positive path to enlightenment is
possible that is every bit as valid as traditional Buddhism and more
suited to the positive Western mind. I see this new Buddhism as an
offshoot of traditional Buddhist and Hindu practice, with both the old
and new schools coexisting without conflict. This new path has been
gradually evolving for decades in the West and this essay is simply
meant to help codify and clarify that which is already being born.
--------------------------
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
| |
|
|
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/soul.html - It's all here. "Do you
> have a soul?"
>
> The thinking function of the brain is easier to understand than the
> consciousness function of the brain. Dualism or non-dualism has
> nothing to do with it. Both functions are physical and rely on
> chemistry. If they were not physical in nature, chemistry would have
> no effect of either consciousness or the thinking process. Scientists
> have now even isolated the parts of the brain that create humor and
> sarcasm. Your personality is physical, not a product of some
> immaterial "soul." But no one can even conceive how consciousness
> works. Even if they do some day create consciousness in computers by
> mimicking brain cells, they may still not be able to know how it works.
>
> The page is pasted below, but better to use the link above as the essay
> has active links itself.
>
>
<snip of unedifying document ;-)>
It appears to me as though you have unquestioningly accepted a
materialist view of causality. Simply put, you believe that the brain
chemistry causes the thought or experience. And yet there is no
definitive proof of this. It could just as well be that the thought or
experience causes the brain chemistry. Or it just might be that they are
not in a cause and effect relationship, that they are the same thing.
Whatever the case, you can't prove it unless you resort to some other
sense of authority. In your case you have chosen "neuroscience." That's
all well and good, but it still leaves your explanation rooted in yet
another explanation of how the world works - one which you have accepted
as true.
David
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-05-30 13:09:04 -0700, "calderhome@yahoo.com"
> <calderhome@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
> I think we are mostly in agreement Chris.
>
> Another part of your site I initially took issue with was your criticism
> of the Buddhist doctrine of suffering. I have come around on that as
> well. The major discrepancy of this model is that it does not allow for
> suffering from sources of which we have no control (be they natural
> disasters, disease, or human violence). Surely we all possess certain
> attachments that lead to suffering, on the other hand their are
> attachments that lead to love as well.
>
> No matter how i look at the four noble truths, it is hard to take them
> as immutable. In the light of our Western ways there is room for a new
> paradigm.
>
> Good work.
Stu,
You and I are usually in agreement. But I'm going to question you on
this one. You find it "hard to take" the four noble truths as immutable.
Would you consider that this might be a misunderstanding on your part,
rather than a problem with the buddha's observation?
What tipped me here was your reference to natural disasters. The
suffering comes not in the disaster, but how we relate to it. Consider
that if you are not attached to anything or anyone, then even in a
tsunami you have lost nothing. In the end, it is always us who controls
what we suffer from.
David
| |
|
| calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> Life is the cause of suffering, not just attachment and desire. If you
> have life and consciousness, you are going to suffer. Buddhists
> complain about suffering, but there is no 100% cure other than your
> physical death. The suffering of your own personal dream drama may
> come to an end, but other new animals will be born and they will
> suffer.
>
> The "enlightened" have physical suffering just like you and me. Osho
> developed many physical ailments and brain disorders and he suffered
> tremendously. I would say the odds are 60 to 40 that he committed
> suicide via morphine injection from his doctor. Those enlightened who
> did not have brain disease suffered less, but even Krishnamurti
> suffered physically and psychologically. There is no magical free
> lunch. If you have a central nervous system connected to this crazy
> universe you are going to suffer. Just watching the evening news is
> often a terrible suffering because we feel empathy for those we see
> being tortured, humiliated, or torn apart by nature or by the various
> military establishments, including our own.
>
> Meditation reduces psychological suffering and can act as a mild buffer
> against physical suffering, but even the deepest meditation is not 100%
> effective in nullifying all forms of suffering. When you go deep into
> meditation you don't care if you live or die, or if the entire world
> lives or dies. That ending of attachment reduces psychological
> suffering, but if you drop a hammer on your toe, you are still going to
> feel it and SUFFER!
>
> Christopher Calder
>
No offense intended, Chris, but you should not be making any statements
about what Buddhists do or don't do. Dukkha does not (necessarily) refer
to physical or psychological suffering.
Meditation is practice, a means of settling the mind so that the step to
enlightenment can me made. While you are correct about it's influence on
the type of pain you mention, it is not the purpose of meditation.
David
| |
|
| calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> Anon,
>
> You are not following the discussion. My point was that there are no
> absolute cures for suffering, not that because life contains suffering
> we should give up on life and just complain. The flip side of the
> reality is discussed below.
>
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/Buddhism.html
> ---------------------------------------
> Buddha's Four Noble Truths
>
> (1) Life is suffering. Is human life essentially painful from the
> moment of birth to the moment of death? Even ordinary life can be full
> of fun, adventure, friends, romance, good food, music and art.
> Buddhism has been, in many ways, an anti-life religion that appeals to
> those who always see the glass half empty rather than half full. Why
> should we deny the fact that life can be an enjoyable adventure and not
> just a pitiful veil of tears?
>
> (2) All suffering is caused by ignorance. Much suffering is caused by
> poverty, accidents, disease, and countless other factors that can be
> addressed by the positive application of science. Even the fully
> enlightened suffer physically if they fall down and break a leg. We
> have modern pain killers for physical pain, and psychological suffering
> can be lessened by the practice of meditation. Traditional Buddhist
> meditation techniques alone have proven inadequate for the Western
> mind. More relevant and powerful methods are available today. "When
> the locks (man) change, the keys (meditation techniques) must also
> change." See Meditation Handbook.
>
> (3) Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment. A
> positive spirit is also needed to overcome suffering and dwelling on
> the potential misery of life only amplifies that misery. Friendship,
> jokes, and high spirits alleviate suffering more quickly. Love, an
> experience rarely mentioned in Buddhist scriptures, is such a powerful
> force that suffering retreats in its presence. The loveless negativism
> of the extreme forms of Buddhism may lead to a sickly and unloving mind
> just as easily as an enlightened spirit.
>
> (4) To suppress suffering, Buddha recommended the Noble Eightfold
> Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech,
> right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and
> right contemplation. What are right views? Is a theocracy of Buddhist
> priests going to dictate to the sangha (monastic community) how to
> think and what to say? Intense meditation is needed by all, but the
> difficulties of determining what is "right action" and "right speech"
> is fraught with dangers. Was it "right action" for Tibet to fail to
> develop an effective military with which to fight off an obvious
> Chinese threat? What brilliant monk dictated that "right action" to
> the sheep like sangha?
>
> I am not saying that Siddhartha's Four Noble Truths are wrong, but
> rather that suffering should not be the centerpiece of a meditation
> based religion for the West. A more positive path to enlightenment is
> possible that is every bit as valid as traditional Buddhism and more
> suited to the positive Western mind. I see this new Buddhism as an
> offshoot of traditional Buddhist and Hindu practice, with both the old
> and new schools coexisting without conflict. This new path has been
> gradually evolving for decades in the West and this essay is simply
> meant to help codify and clarify that which is already being born.
> --------------------------
> Christopher Calder
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
>
Chris, your interpretation of the four noble truths is a typical western
misreading that leads you to think that buddhism is nihilistic. Quite
the opposite is true.
1. Dukkha is not pain.
2. Ignorance is not the problem, attachment is. To say other things
cause suffering just demonstrates that you don't understand the concept
of attachment
3. Attachment to the "good things" you want to celebrate about life are
as much a concern as the bad. And to suggest that love is missing from
Buddhist scripture is a gross misrepresentation.
4. The Buddha does not encourage the repression of suffering. Such a
goal would engender dukkha of its own variety. The eight fold path is a
guide to be used in settling and disciplining the mind. The suggested
ethics allow this to happen, not because they are morally right, but
because they allow you to move toward enlightenment. If you are on the
path you will understand what each injunction is about. It is not
necessary to deconstruct each one, they are not important. It is the
path that is important.
David
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-05-31, 10:52 pm |
| David,
There are as many interpretations of Buddhism as there are Buddhists.
It does not matter if suffering is from the boredom of life, or pain,
or loss of life of a loved one. Buddha clearly said life was largely
suffering and he taught a way to escape that suffering. My position is
that there is no nirvana or moksha other than physical death, which we
all achieve in time without any effort. If you are alive you are going
to suffer, but the point is for the majority of people life is
worthwhile. Each person's life is different. Some people are born
with horrible birth defects and their life may not even be worth the
effort. But for most people life is doable and we should concentrate
on the positive aspects of life, like the beauty of nature, the
progress of science, and our ability to improve the human condition.
I do not care about splitting hairs as to Buddhist teachings because I
reject them and there is no path to enlightenment as you claim. The
evidence suggests that enlightenment has little or nothing to do with
virtue, and everything to do with your DNA code. Most people who become
enlightened are either born that way or achieve it within 10 years of
practice and with only modest effort. Enlightenment is a rare brain
phenomena, not a spiritual phenomenon. I have gotten hundreds of
letters from Buddhists splitting hairs, and they all claim to know what
Buddha really meant, and they all have a different explanation. None
of them speak from experience. They all just rehash what they were
taught by their particular teacher. None stand on their own two feet.
Obviously they all cannot be right. My point is I don't care. Buddha
was wrong and the Eastern view of life is a romantic fiction, not fact.
Christopher Calder
| |
|
|
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> David,
>
> There are as many interpretations of Buddhism as there are Buddhists.
> It does not matter if suffering is from the boredom of life, or pain,
> or loss of life of a loved one. Buddha clearly said life was largely
> suffering and he taught a way to escape that suffering. My position is
> that there is no nirvana or moksha other than physical death, which we
> all achieve in time without any effort. If you are alive you are going
> to suffer, but the point is for the majority of people life is
> worthwhile. Each person's life is different. Some people are born
> with horrible birth defects and their life may not even be worth the
> effort. But for most people life is doable and we should concentrate
> on the positive aspects of life, like the beauty of nature, the
> progress of science, and our ability to improve the human condition.
>
> I do not care about splitting hairs as to Buddhist teachings because I
> reject them and there is no path to enlightenment as you claim. The
> evidence suggests that enlightenment has little or nothing to do with
> virtue, and everything to do with your DNA code. Most people who become
> enlightened are either born that way or achieve it within 10 years of
> practice and with only modest effort. Enlightenment is a rare brain
> phenomena, not a spiritual phenomenon. I have gotten hundreds of
> letters from Buddhists splitting hairs, and they all claim to know what
> Buddha really meant, and they all have a different explanation. None
> of them speak from experience. They all just rehash what they were
> taught by their particular teacher. None stand on their own two feet.
> Obviously they all cannot be right. My point is I don't care. Buddha
> was wrong and the Eastern view of life is a romantic fiction, not fact.
>
>
> Christopher Calder
>
Chris,
From your last few lines, I'm not sure if it is worth even engaging in
a conversation, as you seem to be rather closeminded about this. But
going on the assumption that you overstated your own dogmatism I will
endeavor to get you to open your mind, if even just a little bit.
I'll start by agreeing with you that the "Eastern view of life is a
romantic fiction," if what you mean by that is common Western
perspectives of the Eastern view of life. I've lived in Asia, gotten
drunk with Zen monks, and done my best to understand a different way of
seeing the world. I quickly realized that there is no Eastern view of
life, at least not a single one. Life for Asians is just as
multifaceted, difficult and wonderful as it is for us in the western
cultures.
I'd also like to make an observation about those splitting hair
Buddhists who wrote to you. They weren't very good Buddhists if they
were just repeating what a teacher told them. The Buddha himself warned
against simply accepting someone else's word, even his. The Buddha was
very much an empiricist.
As for enlightenment, I would venture, based on your words above, that
you know little about what it is. Perhaps you were listening to those
same splitting hair buddhists, but I suspect you are actually going back
to your view of the "Eastern life." Enlightenment doesn't get you
anywhere, take you anywhere, it doesn't even feel any different than
your everyday non-enlightened life. It is simply being in the moment. We
have all had these experiences where we are totally and completely
engaged in what we are doing, where we are. Imagine living in that all
the time and you will have a better understanding of enlightenment (and
also a better understanding of Dukha).
As for your view that enlightenment is all in the DNA, I find such
arguments reductio ad absurdum (if I have my latin correct).
Wittegenstein demonstrated quite admirably that if you begin a
discussion with a set of unquestioned assumptions you can pretty much
prove anything you like. And if you don't understand how your
assumptions about science impact your world view, there isn't much sense
in discussing anything.
But I'm hoping that you aren't as didactic as your post appeared and
that you are here for discussion, not to instruct. If you agree and wish
do go on, I would hope to demonstrate to you that Buddhism is fully in
agreement with your desire to live life to the fullest and that your
unsderstanding of Dukkha as suffering is not complete.
Best,
David
| |
| omjaram 2005-06-01, 11:53 am |
| I like the part about getting drunk with the Zen Monks :-) Thanks
Namaste
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2005-06-01, 5:53 pm |
| David,
II was deeply involved with two "enlightened" men, Rajneesh (alias
Osho) and J. Krishnamurti, and have met dozens of other yogis, "Zen
Masters" and Tibetan monks. Both Krishnamurti and Rajneesh were born
destined to become enlightened. Neither had to work hard at it and
both showed symptoms of it as young boys. Both achieved it fully
around age 21 when their central nervous systems became fully
developed.
You seem to hold the traditional view that enlightenment is largely
based on effort, while I hold the view that effort helps, but that the
bulk of the foundation of enlightenment is formed through DNA and the
brain structure you are born with. Effort can perhaps do 10% of the
work, but you can only transform your brain structure so much in a
single lifespan, and you have only one lifetime to work with, not many.
The East misinterprets the neuroplastic quality of the brain to mean
the development of a "soul" or a mysterious karmic entity with no-soul.
I am pro meditation, but against the false hope that anyone can become
fully enlightened through effort, and the false advertisement that
enlightenment is based on virtue and good karma, etc. Neither
Krishnamurti nor Osho were particularly virtuous.
I do not believe there is any "karma" other than simple cause and
effect, and both Hinduism and Buddhism are way off base, as is to be
expected as they were developed in the pre-science era.
You cannot understand my full position fully unless you view my pages
at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/
Christopher Calder
| |
|
| Christ:
What you are saying is just beatiful, because it reflects the reality
not the dreams...Ofcourse there might be some people which will not
like it,because they prefer being in their DREAMS....
Your poster to me is the second best poster here,the other one was the
poster of JARED,regarding his assay for enlightenment...
Thanks very much, as you have enlightened here ,people actually do not
want to be illuminated...So let them do not like your words...Later
on they will get use to it anyway!As illumination shows evrything as it
is...
With compassion,
Puma
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> David,
>
> There are as many interpretations of Buddhism as there are Buddhists.
> It does not matter if suffering is from the boredom of life, or pain,
> or loss of life of a loved one. Buddha clearly said life was largely
> suffering and he taught a way to escape that suffering. My position is
> that there is no nirvana or moksha other than physical death, which we
> all achieve in time without any effort. If you are alive you are going
> to suffer, but the point is for the majority of people life is
> worthwhile. Each person's life is different. Some people are born
> with horrible birth defects and their life may not even be worth the
> effort. But for most people life is doable and we should concentrate
> on the positive aspects of life, like the beauty of nature, the
> progress of science, and our ability to improve the human condition.
>
> I do not care about splitting hairs as to Buddhist teachings because I
> reject them and there is no path to enlightenment as you claim. The
> evidence suggests that enlightenment has little or nothing to do with
> virtue, and everything to do with your DNA code. Most people who become
> enlightened are either born that way or achieve it within 10 years of
> practice and with only modest effort. Enlightenment is a rare brain
> phenomena, not a spiritual phenomenon. I have gotten hundreds of
> letters from Buddhists splitting hairs, and they all claim to know what
> Buddha really meant, and they all have a different explanation. None
> of them speak from experience. They all just rehash what they were
> taught by their particular teacher. None stand on their own two feet.
> Obviously they all cannot be right. My point is I don't care. Buddha
> was wrong and the Eastern view of life is a romantic fiction, not fact.
>
>
> Christopher Calder
| |
| David 2005-06-01, 10:52 pm |
| calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> David,
>
> II was deeply involved with two "enlightened" men, Rajneesh (alias
> Osho) and J. Krishnamurti, and have met dozens of other yogis, "Zen
> Masters" and Tibetan monks. Both Krishnamurti and Rajneesh were born
> destined to become enlightened. Neither had to work hard at it and
> both showed symptoms of it as young boys. Both achieved it fully
> around age 21 when their central nervous systems became fully
> developed.
>
> You seem to hold the traditional view that enlightenment is largely
> based on effort, while I hold the view that effort helps, but that the
> bulk of the foundation of enlightenment is formed through DNA and the
> brain structure you are born with. Effort can perhaps do 10% of the
> work, but you can only transform your brain structure so much in a
> single lifespan, and you have only one lifetime to work with, not many.
> The East misinterprets the neuroplastic quality of the brain to mean
> the development of a "soul" or a mysterious karmic entity with no-soul.
> I am pro meditation, but against the false hope that anyone can become
> fully enlightened through effort, and the false advertisement that
> enlightenment is based on virtue and good karma, etc. Neither
> Krishnamurti nor Osho were particularly virtuous.
>
> I do not believe there is any "karma" other than simple cause and
> effect, and both Hinduism and Buddhism are way off base, as is to be
> expected as they were developed in the pre-science era.
>
> You cannot understand my full position fully unless you view my pages
> at:
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/
>
> Christopher Calder
>
Okay Chris, I'll try one more time. But to me it appears I am not
speaking with you, but being spoken to by you. You've yet to address
anything that I have said, only recounted your version. Still, I may be
mistaken, so let me try it this way, I'll ask you a couple of questions.
You say you've been "involved" with two enlightened people, what made
them enlightened? Or more precisely, what about them made you believe
that they were enlightened?
What comes first? The DNA or the brain structure? In other words, what
are you calling the cause of enlightenment?
David
| |
|
| On 2005-05-31 14:14:08 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
> Stu,
>
> You and I are usually in agreement. But I'm going to question you on
> this one. You find it "hard to take" the four noble truths as
> immutable. Would you consider that this might be a misunderstanding on
> your part, rather than a problem with the buddha's observation?
I have begun reconsidering the four truths on a slightly different
level. It came from watching the movie "What the Bleep do we know?"
In it they more or less demonstrate the perennial philosophy that
suggest reality is derived from consciousness.
From the point of view of pure consciousness in the world, this makes
sense. The four noble truths make sense as well. We all get caught up
in "loops" or "reactions" and loose sight of an authentic nature. By
bringing our awareness to pure consciousness, we are able to allow the
static to subside, and find peace. Sometimes even love.
But how do you explain to a Jew being put to death by the Nazi that
their suffering is attachment. Or that their world is what they make
of it. Can we really equate the Holocaust with Marlee Maitlin consumed
by fat thighs and failed relationships?
There are times that even the greatest sage is going to be subjected to
a horror, and being horrified is a perfectly correct response. Arjuna
was duty bound to pick up his bow and kill the neighboring army.
Conscious exists in different states. At times we "act" from higher
consciousness, but there are times when we are subsumed by the horrors
of reality.
>
> What tipped me here was your reference to natural disasters. The
> suffering comes not in the disaster, but how we relate to it. Consider
> that if you are not attached to anything or anyone, then even in a
> tsunami you have lost nothing. In the end, it is always us who controls
> what we suffer from.
>
> David
What about if you are in the tsunami and you lost your life, or your
family, or were left in extreme chronic pain? There are forms of very
real suffering that non-attachment does not relieve.
We can strive towards a detachment from anything and anyone, but that
detachment needs to be balanced with compassion and very real
connections with our loved ones. On the level of chronic physical
pain, we can strive to transcend it, we can practice non identity with
the body, but the pain will always be there.
The teachings of Buddha presuppose a primary allegiance to dharma -
social obligations. Honestly, I find the western idea of
individuality, self determination, human rights fundamental to 21st
century living. We can take from the Buddhist teachings an important
note of balance in the role pure consciousness can play in allowing us
a internal form of freedom and light. But this internal balance
requires temperance with the individual who is sometime subjected to
suffering beyond the scope of simple psychological release.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-05-31 14:14:08 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> I have begun reconsidering the four truths on a slightly different
> level. It came from watching the movie "What the Bleep do we know?"
>
> In it they more or less demonstrate the perennial philosophy that
> suggest reality is derived from consciousness.
>
> From the point of view of pure consciousness in the world, this makes
> sense. The four noble truths make sense as well. We all get caught up
> in "loops" or "reactions" and loose sight of an authentic nature. By
> bringing our awareness to pure consciousness, we are able to allow the
> static to subside, and find peace. Sometimes even love.
>
> But how do you explain to a Jew being put to death by the Nazi that
> their suffering is attachment. Or that their world is what they make of
> it. Can we really equate the Holocaust with Marlee Maitlin consumed by
> fat thighs and failed relationships?
>
> There are times that even the greatest sage is going to be subjected to
> a horror, and being horrified is a perfectly correct response. Arjuna
> was duty bound to pick up his bow and kill the neighboring army.
> Conscious exists in different states. At times we "act" from higher
> consciousness, but there are times when we are subsumed by the horrors
> of reality.
>
I also enjoyed "What the Bleep." Did you notice that the one woman was a
channeller and not a scientist?
Here's my take on attachment (and it is my take on Buddhism, I won't
claim it to be orthodox). Most of us identify our "self" with the ego,
the self referencing consciousness of mind. This is not correct, or more
precisely, it is not complete. The "self" is also body, memory, milieu
and more. It is the "observer" (for want of a better word), that part of
us that is aware that, for example, during the process of thinking that
we are thinking. It's the aspect that we are trying to bring to the
forefront in our meditation when we try to settle the mind, watching
your breath, watching our thoughts. It is here where the attachment is,
between the observer and the ego. Break that and you are enlightened.
So, I don't try to explain to the Jew being put to death by the Nazi
that their suffering is attachment. Such would be fruitless. That said,
an already enlightened person who found themselves in a similar
situation would be able to confront their death with equanimity. I
remember the horror I experienced the first time I saw video of a
Vietnamese monk self-immolate. He just sat there literally burning to
death. While I doubt I will ever reach that level of detachment, in
retrospect it seems clear to me that is precisely what was involved.
>
>
>
> What about if you are in the tsunami and you lost your life, or your
> family, or were left in extreme chronic pain? There are forms of very
> real suffering that non-attachment does not relieve.
>
> We can strive towards a detachment from anything and anyone, but that
> detachment needs to be balanced with compassion and very real
> connections with our loved ones. On the level of chronic physical pain,
> we can strive to transcend it, we can practice non identity with the
> body, but the pain will always be there.
Pain is actually an easy one to deal with. You are not the pain, why do
you continue to hold on to it as if you were? I'm not suggesting that
the pain goes away if you detach your identification from it, only that
like other aspects of your existence, it is something you observe, not
something you must identify with. Extreme pain, whether of the physical
or emotional type, seems to demand our attention. And yet the typical
response is avoidance. We grab at a bad cut, thinking pressure will
relieve the pain (in the longer term we take drugs to numb it). A
relative passes away and our first response is to deny it. We are then
caught up in a constant tension of ignoring and confronting pain. It is
not even the injury itself that we are thinking about, but this constant
thinking about, not thinking about that, I believe, really is the pain.
Consider that many people who have survived horrific injury, e.g. the
loss of a limb, report that when the injury happens they don't really
feel any pain. That only comes later, after the injury is no longer life
threatening. Why should this be so? My guess is because pain is a luxury
for our mind, it is something the mind does to keep itself busy.
Try this little experiment. Next time you get a headache, instead of
taking aspirin or whatever, concentrate on the pain. Close your eyes and
find the location of the pain, bring your attention to it. You will
likely find that the locus of pain moves, sometimes splits into pieces.
Continue to locate them, get inside the pain, continually bring your
attention back to it. After a while you will probably find that the pain
is gone. Now obviously you need to have good powers of concentration to
do this, and the more demanding the pain the tougher it will be. But if
you've been doing your zazen the exercise should not be all that strange.
>
> The teachings of Buddha presuppose a primary allegiance to dharma -
> social obligations. Honestly, I find the western idea of individuality,
> self determination, human rights fundamental to 21st century living. We
> can take from the Buddhist teachings an important note of balance in the
> role pure consciousness can play in allowing us a internal form of
> freedom and light. But this internal balance requires temperance with
> the individual who is sometime subjected to suffering beyond the scope
> of simple psychological release.
I understand that this awareness of social obligations is a common
interpretation of Buddhist dharma. But consider that the Buddha and his
followers had checked out of civil society. They chose homelessness. How
to reconcile this? My belief is that this was a strictly practical
matter. For example, it is typically assumed that sexual abstinence is a
part of right action in the eightfold path. But why would a philosophy
that recognizes no source of authority for moral judgments suggest that
sex is bad? The problem is that, regardless of how far along the path
you are, sex does not happen in a social vacuum. There is not only the
other person, but anyone who might have a social relationship with them.
Thus, by having sex you are essentially entangling yourself in a thorny
nest of social relations over which you have little control. And while
it might have just been physical for you, it's difficult to avoid the
expectations of the lover, the jealousy of the would be suitor, the
anger of the father, etc. Dealing with these things will take away from
your ability to work toward enlightenment. Therefore, abstain from sex,
not because it is wrong, but because it will keep you from the path.
Isn't the search for enlightenment the essence of individualism? of self
determination? And yet, as self-centered as this search is, what did the
Buddha do with his enlightenment? He turned around and, knowing that he
would get through to only a few and would scarcily impact the vast
majority, attempt to share what he had found - a way out of the dukkha.
I've gotten long-winded, I apologize. But I did want to get back around
to dukkha or suffering as it is often translated. I see it as something
a bit more subtle. We all (well, any of us who live an examined life)
have that sense that their should be something to our lives. We ask
questions about life that begin with why. It is the sense that we are
missing something, that we don't "get it." This creates a longing for
answers. We can create those answers, but only the most blindly faithful
don't feel the holes in them. This is dukkha. (And yes I do think that
the usual notions of pain and suffering are included in this).
And this is what Buddhism has done for me. It hasn't removed the why
questions, but its helped me understand where they come from. In my
better moments I can be detached from them and just observe the wonders
of life. In my worst moments I least have somewhere to go to try to
start dealing with things.
As always, Stu, thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my ideas to
myself. You ask the right questions. Hope I do the same for you.
David
| |
|
| On 2005-06-03 15:27:29 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
> I also enjoyed "What the Bleep." Did you notice that the one woman was
> a channeller and not a scientist?
Yes, and many of the other so called scientists were working far
outside their specialties. For example the chiropractor, the
radiologist, and the anesthesiologist. Check out
http://www.whatthebleep.com
I am as qualified to make these wild speculations as they are. Perhaps
more qualified than Ramtha.
>
> Here's my take on attachment (and it is my take on Buddhism, I won't
> claim it to be orthodox). Most of us identify our "self" with the ego,
> the self referencing consciousness of mind. This is not correct, or
> more precisely, it is not complete. The "self" is also body, memory,
> milieu and more. It is the "observer" (for want of a better word), that
> part of us that is aware that, for example, during the process of
> thinking that we are thinking. It's the aspect that we are trying to
> bring to the forefront in our meditation when we try to settle the
> mind, watching your breath, watching our thoughts. It is here where the
> attachment is, between the observer and the ego. Break that and you are
> enlightened.
>
> So, I don't try to explain to the Jew being put to death by the Nazi
> that their suffering is attachment. Such would be fruitless. That said,
> an already enlightened person who found themselves in a similar
> situation would be able to confront their death with equanimity. I
> remember the horror I experienced the first time I saw video of a
> Vietnamese monk self-immolate. He just sat there literally burning to
> death. While I doubt I will ever reach that level of detachment, in
> retrospect it seems clear to me that is precisely what was involved.
Understood. Initially, I had a similar reaction to Chris' Website. I
have thought about it a bit. If we are going to integrate western
spirituality with the east we need to recognize "Being in the world".
(In the Hiedeggar sense). There are times when we can disassociate
from self identity and transcend. To be. And there may very well be a
state of Being where we can retain Pure being and Being in the world.
But, for most of us, we need to contend with "Being in the world". In
this existential reality, the cause of suffering can come from the
world.
That said, is there ever a case when identification or attachment to
suffering is good? I can't think of any.
>
> Pain is actually an easy one to deal with. You are not the pain, why do
> you continue to hold on to it as if you were? I'm not suggesting that
> the pain goes away if you detach your identification from it, only that
> like other aspects of your existence, it is something you observe, not
> something you must identify with. Extreme pain, whether of the physical
> or emotional type, seems to demand our attention. And yet the typical
> response is avoidance. We grab at a bad cut, thinking pressure will
> relieve the pain (in the longer term we take drugs to numb it). A
> relative passes away and our first response is to deny it. We are then
> caught up in a constant tension of ignoring and confronting pain. It is
> not even the injury itself that we are thinking about, but this
> constant thinking about, not thinking about that, I believe, really is
> the pain.
I would agree with that the Buddhist response to suffering is the best
strategy. But it has its limits. As in chronic pain, say from first
degree burns. A master monk may well be able to transcend this sort of
pain. And an approach of not identifying with the pain may help the
mere mortal. But in the end real chronic suffering will not be
relieved through non-identification. The suffering in Darfer will not
be relieved by cognitive psychology or meditation. It is going to take
people, a political will, medical supplies and food.
>
> Consider that many people who have survived horrific injury, e.g. the
> loss of a limb, report that when the injury happens they don't really
> feel any pain. That only comes later, after the injury is no longer
> life threatening. Why should this be so? My guess is because pain is a
> luxury for our mind, it is something the mind does to keep itself
> busy.
>
> Try this little experiment. Next time you get a headache, instead of
> taking aspirin or whatever, concentrate on the pain. Close your eyes
> and find the location of the pain, bring your attention to it. You will
> likely find that the locus of pain moves, sometimes splits into pieces.
> Continue to locate them, get inside the pain, continually bring your
> attention back to it. After a while you will probably find that the
> pain is gone. Now obviously you need to have good powers of
> concentration to do this, and the more demanding the pain the tougher
> it will be. But if you've been doing your zazen the exercise should not
> be all that strange.
David I am with you on this. When I go to the dentist i never get
novocain. I can always breath through whatever the sadist throws at me.
I am not discounting the value of Buddhist practices. I am saying they
have limits.
>
>
>
> I understand that this awareness of social obligations is a common
> interpretation of Buddhist dharma. But consider that the Buddha and his
> followers had checked out of civil society. They chose homelessness.
> How to reconcile this? My belief is that this was a strictly practical
> matter. For example, it is typically assumed that sexual abstinence is
> a part of right action in the eightfold path. But why would a
> philosophy that recognizes no source of authority for moral judgments
> suggest that sex is bad? The problem is that, regardless of how far
> along the path you are, sex does not happen in a social vacuum. There
> is not only the other person, but anyone who might have a social
> relationship with them. Thus, by having sex you are essentially
> entangling yourself in a thorny nest of social relations over which you
> have little control. And while it might have just been physical for
> you, it's difficult to avoid the expectations of the lover, the
> jealousy of the would be suitor, the anger of the father, etc. Dealing
> with these things will take away from your ability to work toward
> enlightenment. Therefore, abstain from sex, not because it is wrong,
> but because it will keep you from the path.
Buddhism has different guidance for the householder versus the monk.
As Buddhism has spread through out the world these directives have
changed with each society. Most Buddhist countries recognize the
importance of sex and family life.
>
> Isn't the search for enlightenment the essence of individualism? of
> self determination?
Yes. I would say this is a feature we westerners can bring to
Buddhism. The recognition of something called "basic human rights"
really did not come to fruition until the 16th century (There are
traces of it in Roman law). In the Orient, the concept of individual
rights are a relatively new concept. Traditional Buddhism requires
devotion to Dharma. Effectively the path to enlightenment involves the
complete de-solving of the individual. The Western Dharma is not
societal but individualistic. This is a foreign concept to traditional
Buddhists.
When we talk of self determination and individualism, are we talking
about an almost Stoic personal advancement. Success in our lives,
contributing to society, giving back. Maslow's highest form of
Altruism. As enlightened beings we become a Übermensch (in the
Nietzsche sense). I believe, our conception of evolved beings is
different than Buddha's.
> And yet, as self-centered as this search is, what did the Buddha do
> with his enlightenment? He turned around and, knowing that he would get
> through to only a few and would scarcily impact the vast majority,
> attempt to share what he had found - a way out of the dukkha.
Actually I believe Buddha found a way out of samsara. The endless
cycle of birth and rebirth.
The concept of reincarnation is so much the fabric of the Eastern mind,
it never is called into question. As a skeptical westerner, I am
calling this notion into question. Birth and rebirth? Is there any
form of evidence that Samsara is but a fantasy?
>
> I've gotten long-winded, I apologize. But I did want to get back around
> to dukkha or suffering as it is often translated. I see it as something
> a bit more subtle. We all (well, any of us who live an examined life)
> have that sense that their should be something to our lives. We ask
> questions about life that begin with why. It is the sense that we are
> missing something, that we don't "get it." This creates a longing for
> answers. We can create those answers, but only the most blindly
> faithful don't feel the holes in them. This is dukkha. (And yes I do
> think that the usual notions of pain and suffering are included in
> this).
I agree.
>
> And this is what Buddhism has done for me. It hasn't removed the why
> questions, but its helped me understand where they come from. In my
> better moments I can be detached from them and just observe the wonders
> of life. In my worst moments I least have somewhere to go to try to
> start dealing with things.
>
> As always, Stu, thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my ideas to
> myself. You ask the right questions. Hope I do the same for you.
>
> David
Yes. I am still struggling intellectually with many of these concepts.
I enjoy these dialogs in that it gives me a chance to solidify some of
my intuitions and guesses. Few people on the internet understand
Buddha as well as Plato.
Thanks.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-03 15:27:29 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> Yes, and many of the other so called scientists were working far outside
> their specialties. For example the chiropractor, the radiologist, and
> the anesthesiologist. Check out http://www.whatthebleep.com
>
> I am as qualified to make these wild speculations as they are. Perhaps
> more qualified than Ramtha.
Actually, Stu, I think you would have made a great subject in the film.
I found the whole thing rather amusing. Especially the sheer hubris that
kept coming through. It was as if no one else ever thought of such deep
thoughts - and certainly not any sub-continent sages from two and a half
millenia earlier - and as though now they have the "real" answers - that
won't change the next time that science experiences another Kuhn event
(I'll avoid the oft misuderstood "P" word).
>
>
>
> Understood. Initially, I had a similar reaction to Chris' Website. I
> have thought about it a bit. If we are going to integrate western
> spirituality with the east we need to recognize "Being in the world".
> (In the Hiedeggar sense). There are times when we can disassociate from
> self identity and transcend. To be. And there may very well be a state
> of Being where we can retain Pure being and Being in the world. But,
> for most of us, we need to contend with "Being in the world". In this
> existential reality, the cause of suffering can come from the world.
>
> That said, is there ever a case when identification or attachment to
> suffering is good? I can't think of any.
>
This is one of those places where I, too, have trouble. For example, is
there anything sweeter than the pain of broken heart caused by the loss
of a love, especially when you are the jilted party? Would I have been
better off never having experienced that? Could I have experienced it if
I had not been attached to the relationship and its feelings? Is it
possible to allow the mind to experience it while remaining in the
observer - in essence, experience suffering without attachment to it?
>
>
> I would agree with that the Buddhist response to suffering is the best
> strategy. But it has its limits. As in chronic pain, say from first
> degree burns. A master monk may well be able to transcend this sort of
> pain. And an approach of not identifying with the pain may help the
> mere mortal. But in the end real chronic suffering will not be relieved
> through non-identification. The suffering in Darfer will not be
> relieved by cognitive psychology or meditation. It is going to take
> people, a political will, medical supplies and food.
>
I have to agree with you from a practical perspective. From a
theoretical perspective, if everyone were enlightened who was involved
(e.g. Darfur) the suffering wouldn't happen because the events wouldn't
have happened. Fortunately Buddhism is practical and recognized just
this problem. The Mahayana tradition of the Boddhisatva, especially in
the Chinese Quan-Yin and Japanese Kannon, actually puts acheivement of
enlightenment as subservient to aiding those who suffer. And the
Theravada stream of social engaged buddhism takes its concern beyond the
individual sufferer to socially created suffering.
Recently I've come to think that the fundamental contradiction of
Buddhism is a special part of its message. The enlightened Buddha,
having come to the understanding he did, that it was our very engagement
in life that creates dukkha, did not then choose to disengage, but
decided to share what he learned. Knowing all the time that he could not
end dukkha on any large scale, he still chose the path of compassion. To
me, this is simply astounding.
>
>
> David I am with you on this. When I go to the dentist i never get
> novocain. I can always breath through whatever the sadist throws at me.
>
> I am not discounting the value of Buddhist practices. I am saying they
> have limits.
>
I must agree, nor should we stop trying to learn and apply new knowledge
to our understanding.
>
>
> Buddhism has different guidance for the householder versus the monk. As
> Buddhism has spread through out the world these directives have changed
> with each society. Most Buddhist countries recognize the importance of
> sex and family life.
>
>
>
> Yes. I would say this is a feature we westerners can bring to
> Buddhism. The recognition of something called "basic human rights"
> really did not come to fruition until the 16th century (There are traces
> of it in Roman law). In the Orient, the concept of individual rights
> are a relatively new concept. Traditional Buddhism requires devotion to
> Dharma. Effectively the path to enlightenment involves the complete
> de-solving of the individual. The Western Dharma is not societal but
> individualistic. This is a foreign concept to traditional Buddhists.
>
> When we talk of self determination and individualism, are we talking
> about an almost Stoic personal advancement. Success in our lives,
> contributing to society, giving back. Maslow's highest form of
> Altruism. As enlightened beings we become a Übermensch (in the
> Nietzsche sense). I believe, our conception of evolved beings is
> different than Buddha's.
The connection between rights and law is critical here. Rights can only
be defined within the context of a legal system. As secular legal
systems developed in western Europe they first were concerned with the
rights of kings, only later did we eventually define "human rights"
(though initially that meant landed males). Under the church law,
system that preceded secular law in Europe, the issue of rights was
concerned only with ecclesiastic rights. In Asia there were developed
legal systems, especially in Moghul India, China and Japan. But, perhaps
because there never was the religious / secular split as in the west,
discussions of rights never went beyond the rights of the ruler.
Does this explain the difference you point out about the different views
of evolved beings? I don't know. But I think it suggests you are right
about the need to continue to extend Buddhist thought.
>
>
>
> Actually I believe Buddha found a way out of samsara. The endless cycle
> of birth and rebirth.
>
> The concept of reincarnation is so much the fabric of the Eastern mind,
> it never is called into question. As a skeptical westerner, I am
> calling this notion into question. Birth and rebirth? Is there any
> form of evidence that Samsara is but a fantasy?
>
I've never read anything in Buddhist literature where the Buddha is
purported to address the question of reincarnation. Indeed, there are
many reasons to believe that the Buddha didn't believ in reincarnation
(it certainly doesn't fit with his understanding of the self -
regardless of the nonsense I've read by some Tibetan buddhists about how
the Dalai Lama navigates from life to life.
As you suggest, it is such a part of the cultural setting that I think
many of the eventual recorders of buddhist thought assumed it. My
suspicion is that the Buddha chose his battles carefully. What he was
offering was already so radical (overthrowing the caste system) that I
suspect he didn't even want to get into the reincarnation thing. But
think about it, the basic foundations of Buddhism, the four noble truths
and the eight fold path never mention samsara or reincarnation. If the
whole point of the philosophy was the escape from samsara, don't you
think it would at least be mentioned in the centerpiece of the philosophy?
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> Yes. I am still struggling intellectually with many of these concepts.
> I enjoy these dialogs in that it gives me a chance to solidify some of
> my intuitions and guesses. Few people on the internet understand Buddha
> as well as Plato.
>
> Thanks.
As always, its a joy to go back and forth with you. Discussion and the
sharing of ideas is usenet at its best, especially when its with some
one as considered in their thoughts as you are.
David
| |
|
| On 2005-06-06 15:15:07 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
>
[snip for space][vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually, Stu, I think you would have made a great subject in the film.
Too skeptical for their tastes. They wanted people towing the party line.
> I found the whole thing rather amusing. Especially the sheer hubris
> that kept coming through. It was as if no one else ever thought of such
> deep thoughts - and certainly not any sub-continent sages from two and
> a half millenia earlier - and as though now they have the "real"
> answers - that won't change the next time that science experiences
> another Kuhn event (I'll avoid the oft misuderstood "P" word).
You may want to read Ken Wilber's "Eye to Eye". He is critical of the
new age movement. One of his greatest insights is what he calls the
pre/trans fallacy. Effectively, these guys mix up pre-rational states
(think primal scream, Freud's return to the womb) with trans-rational
states (meditation, the causal body).
>
>
>
> This is one of those places where I, too, have trouble. For example, is
> there anything sweeter than the pain of broken heart caused by the loss
> of a love, especially when you are the jilted party? Would I have been
> better off never having experienced that? Could I have experienced it
> if I had not been attached to the relationship and its feelings? Is
> it possible to allow the mind to experience it while remaining in the
> observer - in essence, experience suffering without attachment to it?
Exactly. Back in Buddha's day, those who have evolved to a rational
state may have been few and far between. I imagine the most part of
societies heaped in mythic/magical consciousness. But among those at
the mythic level a few people stand out moving towards Logos. Like
the Greek's the Buddhists tended to eschew the passions for "higher"
pursuits. This is a short coming of rational consciousness.
These days rational consciousness is common place, and the few of us
who stumble into a post rational level, we are understanding the
importance of the passions, and how they "color" rational thought.
[snip for space]
> I have to agree with you from a practical perspective. From a
> theoretical perspective, if everyone were enlightened who was involved
> (e.g. Darfur) the suffering wouldn't happen because the events wouldn't
> have happened. Fortunately Buddhism is practical and recognized just
> this problem. The Mahayana tradition of the Boddhisatva, especially in
> the Chinese Quan-Yin and Japanese Kannon, actually puts acheivement of
> enlightenment as subservient to aiding those who suffer. And the
> Theravada stream of social engaged buddhism takes its concern beyond
> the individual sufferer to socially created suffering.
>
> Recently I've come to think that the fundamental contradiction of
> Buddhism is a special part of its message. The enlightened Buddha,
> having come to the understanding he did, that it was our very
> engagement in life that creates dukkha, did not then choose to
> disengage, but decided to share what he learned. Knowing all the time
> that he could not end dukkha on any large scale, he still chose the
> path of compassion. To me, this is simply astounding.
Yes. And this can be the only way to interpret the 4 noble truths. At
its heart Buddhism is a positive philosophy. Recognition of the
attachment to suffering should not be taken as its aim, but as a
jumping off point.
[snip for space]
>
> The connection between rights and law is critical here. Rights can only
> be defined within the context of a legal system. As secular legal
> systems developed in western Europe they first were concerned with the
> rights of kings, only later did we eventually define "human rights"
> (though initially that meant landed males). Under the church law,
> system that preceded secular law in Europe, the issue of rights was
> concerned only with ecclesiastic rights. In Asia there were developed
> legal systems, especially in Moghul India, China and Japan. But,
> perhaps because there never was the religious / secular split as in the
> west, discussions of rights never went beyond the rights of the ruler.
>
> Does this explain the difference you point out about the different
> views of evolved beings? I don't know. But I think it suggests you are
> right about the need to continue to extend Buddhist thought.
Thanks. It really started with Chris.
>
>
> I've never read anything in Buddhist literature where the Buddha is
> purported to address the question of reincarnation. Indeed, there are
> many reasons to believe that the Buddha didn't believ in reincarnation
> (it certainly doesn't fit with his understanding of the self -
> regardless of the nonsense I've read by some Tibetan buddhists about
> how the Dalai Lama navigates from life to life.
>
> As you suggest, it is such a part of the cultural setting that I think
> many of the eventual recorders of buddhist thought assumed it. My
> suspicion is that the Buddha chose his battles carefully. What he was
> offering was already so radical (overthrowing the caste system) that I
> suspect he didn't even want to get into the reincarnation thing. But
> think about it, the basic foundations of Buddhism, the four noble
> truths and the eight fold path never mention samsara or reincarnation.
> If the whole point of the philosophy was the escape from samsara, don't
> you think it would at least be mentioned in the centerpiece of the
> philosophy?
I disagree. My understanding is that the concept of reincarnation is
so deeply rooted in the oriental mind that it is not questioned. It is
the fundamental core of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. When I have
asked monks about if they believe in reincarnation, their response is
that it is beyond belief. The Wheel of life is so fundamental to
Buddhist philosophy it does not require text.
I suspect if Buddha rejected the tenants of samsara it would have been
displayed prominently in the Dharma. This would be a huge break from
the Upanishads.
I remain agnostic on the subject, though in the next life I may come
around. ;-)
>
>
>
>
> As always, its a joy to go back and forth with you. Discussion and the
> sharing of ideas is usenet at its best, especially when its with some
> one as considered in their thoughts as you are.
>
> David
Thanks. I too am enjoying this.
--
~Stu
| |
|
|
<calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117500793.172507.116440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Anon,
>
> You are not following the discussion. My point was that there are no
> absolute cures for suffering, not that because life contains suffering
> we should give up on life and just complain. The flip side of the
> reality is discussed below.
>
old and death will get everyone, including the buddha. this is
not "suffering", it is the law of nature.
it is how one lives that matters. IMHO a life being lived
with compassion, love and attention is enlightenment.
mental hankering for anything is the cause of the "suffering"
that is being talked about.
there are teachers and teachers. like everything else when something
gets respect and admiration, fakes will abound.
| |
|
|
<calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117580899.278107.19660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David,
>
> There are as many interpretations of Buddhism as there are Buddhists.
> It does not matter if suffering is from the boredom of life, or pain,
> or loss of life of a loved one. Buddha clearly said life was largely
> suffering and he taught a way to escape that suffering. My position is
he taught how to "awaken", which is what bodh (root of buddha) means.
> that there is no nirvana or moksha other than physical death, which we
> all achieve in time without any effort. If you are alive you are going
well there's your snake oil.
> I do not care about splitting hairs as to Buddhist teachings because I
> reject them and there is no path to enlightenment as you claim. The
you reject them, and therefore, "there is no path to enlightenment"?
> evidence suggests that enlightenment has little or nothing to do with
> virtue, and everything to do with your DNA code. Most people who become
which gene, specifically?
> enlightened are either born that way or achieve it within 10 years of
> practice and with only modest effort. Enlightenment is a rare brain
> phenomena, not a spiritual phenomenon. I have gotten hundreds of
what is enlightenment as a "brain phenomena"?
> letters from Buddhists splitting hairs, and they all claim to know what
> Buddha really meant, and they all have a different explanation. None
> of them speak from experience. They all just rehash what they were
> taught by their particular teacher. None stand on their own two feet.
> Obviously they all cannot be right. My point is I don't care. Buddha
you do, and that is why you waste so much breath on this issue.
> was wrong and the Eastern view of life is a romantic fiction, not fact.
>
your point is just another point. it may be completely wrong. the reality
is it your views do not matter at all. they are just mental-word
fabrications aka "hot air".
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-06 15:15:07 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
> [snip for space]
>
>
>
> Too skeptical for their tastes. They wanted people towing the party line.
>
>
>
> You may want to read Ken Wilber's "Eye to Eye". He is critical of the
> new age movement. One of his greatest insights is what he calls the
> pre/trans fallacy. Effectively, these guys mix up pre-rational states
> (think primal scream, Freud's return to the womb) with trans-rational
> states (meditation, the causal body).
>
I'll look for it, sounds interesting. I've been adamantly opposed to new
agism since I read Marilyn Ferguson's book back around 1980. I got to
know Barbara Marx Hubbard back when I worked in Bethesda in the early
eighties. I've never heard it put the way you report Wilbur describes
it, but it makes sense. I've always felt that it was an attempt to find
spirituality through materialism. The problem tends to be a lack of
rigor in the logic - e.g. a channeler is explained by reference to the
indestructibility at the atomic level - ignoring that there is no
necessary connection between the atomic level and the conscious level.
<snip>
>
>
> Exactly. Back in Buddha's day, those who have evolved to a rational
> state may have been few and far between. I imagine the most part of
> societies heaped in mythic/magical consciousness. But among those at
> the mythic level a few people stand out moving towards Logos. Like the
> Greek's the Buddhists tended to eschew the passions for "higher"
> pursuits. This is a short coming of rational consciousness.
>
> These days rational consciousness is common place, and the few of us who
> stumble into a post rational level, we are understanding the importance
> of the passions, and how they "color" rational thought.
>
I would agree with you, but have two reservations. As long as we put no
valuations on the terms rational and mythic/magical. If these are used
as descriptive labels only, I have no problem. When it comes right down
to it each is only a way to structure thought, each backs up the why
questions to a different place. I'd be hard pressed to say one is better
than the other, especially when I consider that rationalism has brought
us to the brink of nuclear destruction, destroyed thousands of
ecosystems and very likely changed the climate of the planet, etc.
My second reservation is that I have no idea what the post-rational
involves (and to be honest, your use of the word "level" reminds me that
you are a believer in progress).
>
> [snip for space]
>
<more snipping>
>
> Yes. And this can be the only way to interpret the 4 noble truths. At
> its heart Buddhism is a positive philosophy. Recognition of the
> attachment to suffering should not be taken as its aim, but as a jumping
> off point.
>
Agreed.
> [snip for space]
>
>
>
> Thanks. It really started with Chris.
>
Yeah, I just wish Chris was in it for the discussion rather than to have
his pov be validated.
<snip
>
>
> I disagree. My understanding is that the concept of reincarnation is so
> deeply rooted in the oriental mind that it is not questioned. It is the
> fundamental core of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. When I have asked
> monks about if they believe in reincarnation, their response is that it
> is beyond belief. The Wheel of life is so fundamental to Buddhist
> philosophy it does not require text.
>
> I suspect if Buddha rejected the tenants of samsara it would have been
> displayed prominently in the Dharma. This would be a huge break from
> the Upanishads.
>
> I remain agnostic on the subject, though in the next life I may come
> around. ;-)
This is one of those that we obviously can never know with any
certainty. And to be fair, much of my early exposure to buddhism was
while lving in Japan and their belief is much weaker. I've read Japanese
Buddhists who explain away Karma as the influence we leave on the world
when we pass away. At the other extreme are the Tibetans who have pretty
much made the whole thing into a religion.
Main reason I personally don't believe in reincarnation is that I have
no memory of past lives. And to be completely practical about it, if I
don't remember it, what impact can it have on me?
>
>
>
> Thanks. I too am enjoying this.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-07 15:01:24 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
[snip]
>
> I would agree with you, but have two reservations. As long as we put no
> valuations on the terms rational and mythic/magical. If these are used
> as descriptive labels only, I have no problem. When it comes right down
> to it each is only a way to structure thought, each backs up the why
> questions to a different place. I'd be hard pressed to say one is
> better than the other, especially when I consider that rationalism has
> brought us to the brink of nuclear destruction, destroyed thousands of
> ecosystems and very likely changed the climate of the planet, etc.
This is because it is possible to be developed on one line and miss
another. For example a mad scientist is developed rationally but not
developed ethically. The point here is that every human has potential
to develop over many different lines. Take a musical genius like
Charlie Parker who did very poorly at coping with life and died of a
heroin overdose.
Rationalism is not a bad thing to have developed, but not at the cost
of compassion, art, or other balancing lines.
>
> My second reservation is that I have no idea what the post-rational
> involves (and to be honest, your use of the word "level" reminds me
> that you are a believer in progress).
Post-rational relates to Kant's Noumenon, or Loevinger's "integrated",
Maslow, "self actualized", the sixth chakra, the Subtle body. The
integrated self, The mind and body are harmoniously one.
At this level any attempts to rationalize the experience leaves only
paradox. Ramana Maharishi put it well, "The World is illusionary,
Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the World. This is the
Post-rational. It is not the primitive state of the pre-rational.
This level of consciousness requires rationality but is not dependent
on it.
There is a hierarchy. Each level includes the one below it. A plant
has minerals but minerals don't have a plant. A human has reptile and
so on.
Levels of consciousness are holistic as well. Each level subsuming the
level before it.
>
>
> Yeah, I just wish Chris was in it for the discussion rather than to
> have his pov be validated.
I wonder. He posts these things to get something going and leaves.
>
> <snip
>
>
> This is one of those that we obviously can never know with any
> certainty. And to be fair, much of my early exposure to buddhism was
> while lving in Japan and their belief is much weaker. I've read
> Japanese Buddhists who explain away Karma as the influence we leave on
> the world when we pass away. At the other extreme are the Tibetans who
> have pretty much made the whole thing into a religion.
>
> Main reason I personally don't believe in reincarnation is that I have
> no memory of past lives. And to be completely practical about it, if I
> don't remember it, what impact can it have on me?
Exactly. One must also ask what are the benefits of this myth? It
does take care of some of the burning questions about life and death.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-07 15:01:24 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> This is because it is possible to be developed on one line and miss
> another. For example a mad scientist is developed rationally but not
> developed ethically. The point here is that every human has potential
> to develop over many different lines. Take a musical genius like
> Charlie Parker who did very poorly at coping with life and died of a
> heroin overdose.
>
> Rationalism is not a bad thing to have developed, but not at the cost of
> compassion, art, or other balancing lines.
>
I tend to think of your "lines" as socially defined ways of thinking,
not something an individual does, but something an individual partakes
in to a greater or lesser degree. The difficulty with rationalism, in
its enlightenment form, has been precisely because it has sought to
replace the ways of thinking that went before. Obviously it cannot do
so, but that doesn't mean that isn't a part of what it is.
>
>
> Post-rational relates to Kant's Noumenon, or Loevinger's "integrated",
> Maslow, "self actualized", the sixth chakra, the Subtle body. The
> integrated self, The mind and body are harmoniously one.
>
> At this level any attempts to rationalize the experience leaves only
> paradox. Ramana Maharishi put it well, "The World is illusionary,
> Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the World. This is the
> Post-rational. It is not the primitive state of the pre-rational. This
> level of consciousness requires rationality but is not dependent on it.
>
> There is a hierarchy. Each level includes the one below it. A plant
> has minerals but minerals don't have a plant. A human has reptile and
> so on.
>
> Levels of consciousness are holistic as well. Each level subsuming the
> level before it.
>
I figured that was where you were going with "post rational," but didn't
want to presune. You know already that I'm not comfortable with "levels"
and hierarchical explanations. The very notion of progress disturbs me.
After all, these are mental constructs. Why should I trust them to
explain the world any more than any other explanation. If Buddhism has
taught my rationalistic streak anything, it is that there is no way to
measure the truth value of any clever little universal explanation for
the world that I happen to come up with.
>
>
> I wonder. He posts these things to get something going and leaves.
>
I would imagine that it is either a form of ego gratification or a form
of trolling. At least he got us on to an interesting set of topics.
>
>
> Exactly. One must also ask what are the benefits of this myth? It does
> take care of some of the burning questions about life and death.
I've never understood why that, or the concept of a heavenly afterlife,
is any more comforting that death simply being an end. In fact, I find
that more comforting.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-08 04:32:10 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
> I figured that was where you were going with "post rational," but
> didn't want to presune. You know already that I'm not comfortable with
> "levels" and hierarchical explanations. The very notion of progress
> disturbs me. After all, these are mental constructs. Why should I trust
> them to explain the world any more than any other explanation. If
> Buddhism has taught my rationalistic streak anything, it is that there
> is no way to measure the truth value of any clever little universal
> explanation for the world that I happen to come up with.
I hear you loud and clear. I have had an ongoing argument at work on
this very subject. From one point of view it seems that human culture
has not advanced at all. Still tribes and territories. Wars,
Genocide, Starvation. Looking at the present middle east it is
possible to see that nothing has evolved in the last 2500 years of
Western Civilization. I have a feeling you and I would both feel quite
comfortable hanging around ancient Athens. We could even be having
same conversations. The topic of metaphysics has not changed at all.
On the other hand, we are now having this conversation miles a way from
each other (I am in Los Angeles, don't even know where you are) through
electrons beamed through cyberspace. Is that progress?
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Stu wrote:
> On 2005-06-08 04:32:10 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
>
>
>
> I hear you loud and clear. I have had an ongoing argument at work on
> this very subject. From one point of view it seems that human culture
> has not advanced at all. Still tribes and territories. Wars, Genocide,
> Starvation. Looking at the present middle east it is possible to see
> that nothing has evolved in the last 2500 years of Western
> Civilization. I have a feeling you and I would both feel quite
> comfortable hanging around ancient Athens. We could even be having same
> conversations. The topic of metaphysics has not changed at all.
>
> On the other hand, we are now having this conversation miles a way from
> each other (I am in Los Angeles, don't even know where you are) through
> electrons beamed through cyberspace. Is that progress?
>
LOL My suspicious side wants to say that it is regress, that we are more
whole if our relations are face to face. But I can certainly see your
side of the argument as well.
I think if I were to choose a time to live it would be pre-Athens,
something like Catal Huyuk about 7500 years ago. The discussion might
not be framed in the same manner, but I suspect our lives would be fuller.
| |
|
| On 2005-06-09 04:00:36 -0700, David <David@home.org> said:
> Stu wrote:
> LOL My suspicious side wants to say that it is regress, that we are
> more whole if our relations are face to face. But I can certainly see
> your side of the argument as well.
>
> I think if I were to choose a time to live it would be pre-Athens,
> something like Catal Huyuk about 7500 years ago. The discussion might
> not be framed in the same manner, but I suspect our lives would be
> fuller.
Fuller? You not going hierarchical on me are you? ;-)
--
~Stu
|
| |
|
|