RE: UN-LEARNING M I N D L E S S N E S S - NeuroScience and the Art of Meditation
I upvoted this earlier, in support, but did not read. It's been one of those weeks. Up and down. Playing with collages again. This time took stronger measures so I hope everything will be up, up, up.
So here I am, fit to read your very thoughtful blog, which deals with weighty concepts. I'm not sure I can do the blog justice, but did pick out the parts that were especially meaningful to me (ego?).
Personally, I don't meditate, but could sit in a room for an hour by myself without difficulty. I've got a really great imagination. That's not what you're talking about, I know, but I easily achieve a state that is separate from wherever I am. A hypnotist once told me I was the easiest subject he ever had. And yet, I don't meditate. I get impatient with meditating. Maybe because meditating is a state of mindlessness, and I am totally lost in wherever I direct my mind. I don't empty it. I fill it.
I think your discussion of the Buddhist regard for the dead captures something essential about the difference between a scientific concept of being and the Buddhist concept of being. Basically, science doesn't address being. It looks for utility--if we can't measure it, see it, it's not there. Therefore, it has no value. I actually view this as dangerous.
The Buddhists remind me of the anecdote I heard about an elephant who lost her calf. She would not leave the side of the calf for days, although it was clearly not alive. She would leave occasionally to feed and scavengers would descend immediately. So she went without nourishment for days. To her the essence of her young one was still there. Like the Buddhists, she would not forsake her calf until extreme hunger drove her from its side.
I think it is a worthy goal to have a trained mind. The example of the self-immolating monk is persuasive. The important part is not to attempt to achieve that state because of its utility, but to achieve it for itself. Have to think about that :)
You do write long blogs, but they're unique and always ask us to think, for the good.
Thank you. Thank you. It motivates me how you judge my blog posts.
translated that from here
The natural sciences can only approach what is called "being" in an abstract way, but human experiences cannot be interpreted quantitatively. Everything a person has ever experienced, what he perceives, interprets, feels and thinks, is accustomed to, encompasses his entire life span and breaks its ground in moments when he is confronted with decisions. It is impossible to make the superstructure of the human psyche comprehensible by means of cut-out and isolated thought games. People decide, for example, on the basis of a chosen identity in one moment and on the basis of another identity in another moment. Depending on external conditions and inner resonance and reflecting thoughts or non-reflecting impulses to these conditions.
Some things simply lie outside the empirical measurability and thus outside the classical scientific experiment and investigation arrangement. In my opinion, the dangerous thing you are talking about is that nothing that is not scientifically verified may claim reason.
But if reason is only reserved for the natural sciences, then we do indeed have a new religion.
I suppose this is what you meant?
The anecdote about the mother elephant is a nice analogy to the wake. Thank you for this example.
That you pick out what produces the greatest resonance in you is interesting in the sense that one could say that you either feel inspiration there that is positively motivated. Or even lets a problematic aspect sound, in which you reflect what might still need to be contemplated, as you have also hinted. You could call it "selfish", but the ego is also a very good servant.
Everyone gets impatient with meditation. It's one of the most difficult things to do when one is not practiced. I train myself on being mindful (present to the moment and not on autopilot) but I am not a regular mediator myself. Still fearing the lack of being successful in it :-(
<Some things simply lie outside the empirical measurability and thus outside the classical scientific experiment and investigation arrangement. In my opinion, the dangerous thing you are talking about is that nothing that is not scientifically verified may claim reason
There is a saying, which I don't particularly like, "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and unto God those things that are God's". I think the concept may be applied to science. There are whole areas of concern where I insist upon the scientific method for validity. And then there are areas that science cannot possibly measure. It doesn't have the tools. Doesn't even have the ambition. We need the monks, and ourselves, to sort out questions of being. Consciousness is a kind of hybrid: science can measure certain values and certain I think will always be beyond its reach. The idea of "knowing" becomes profound. We know somethings because we can prove them. But knowing, as in awareness of ourselves and others--that's another matter.
As always a thought-provoking discussion. Just got up. Just beginning to drink my coffee and you awaken my awareness :)