Originally Posted by Risho
Thank you, Risho.
Daizan
Thank you, Risho.
Daizan
Hi Yugen,
Lets imagine I say to you: "Yugen, I belive in pink unicorns."
And then you say: "Er, Daitetsu, with all due respect, but I don't."
According to the logic of your statement in the quote above, wouldn't this also be your recognition of the pink unicorn's existence?
An Atheist does not reject God, he just does not believe there is one.
If you don't believe there is X, there is no need to reject X.
A newborn has never heard about God and is thus an Atheist. So Atheist is the default state that can change into Theist, Deist or whatever. (And then maybe change back again.)
It's only because of belief systems that there is a need to give that default state a name.
The newborn also does not smoke. However, since there are smokers in the world, there is a need to give that default state a name - Non-smoker. If there were no smokers in the world, nobody would need to call themselves a non-smoker when they go to a party/restaurant.
So being an Atheist, Non-Smoker, etc. should not be seen as a conscious choice at the beginning of ones life. For that state to change something additional is required, like religious indoctrination and being offered a cigarette, respectively.
Anyway, words, words, words - like you said, it's good to not care about that.
(It can be interesting and entertaining to talk about such things from time to time though.)
Gassho,
Daitetsu
Last edited by Daitetsu; 09-18-2014 at 09:33 AM. Reason: Deleted unnecessary part
no thing needs to be added
Hello dear folks,
how about some of you open another thread, since it seems that almost no one has read the book this thread was supposed to be about and the discussion is focussed on a different (albeit interesting) topic?
Gassho,
Hans Chudo Mongen
I have never met Mr. Harris, yet I believe in him. There is a book which purports to be written by him, but so is there a book purporting to have been written by Him, so can't be sure
In any case, Harris or no Harris ... I sit Zazen as what is.
Gassho, J
ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE
Hello Jundo,
but do you believe in the true threefold Sam Harris or the heretics' Sam Harris, whom they consider to be a mere human being with some fancy degrees to his name
Gassho,
Hans Chudo Mongen
Hi,
I'm reading it now and finding it engaging. Thanks, Hans, for the reference.
Gassho
ok look to say that a baby is an atheist, is like saying they are safe drivers because they haven't gotten into accidents. Baby's are not atheists; they just have no concept of God or Gods.
But I think that our argument atheist or non-atheist is just us arguing with ourselves about our concepts of what we posit God to be in our head.
Anyway, I can appreciate both sides of this argument, and I'm going to read the book.Now, I promise I will no longer post in this thread unless it directly relates to reading this book.
Gassho,
Risho
It does not matter whether one is a non-believer, because one has no concept of God or because of a consious decision - both cases are Atheism.
If the baby never learns how to drive a car and thus never makes the driver's license she will never drive a car for the rest of her life - whether with 1 year, 15 years, or 21 years.
If the baby is not indoctrinated or actively influenced, chances are high that she'll stay a non-believer. And the older she gets the more likely she won't adopt a belief. Such a scenario is highly unlikely in the US, where you cannot escape religion, but if you take certain Scandinavian countries, not believing in a god is more or less the norm.
Here in Germany I know lots of people who were raised a-religious (careful, I don't mean anti-religious!). Most of them stayed non-believers for the rest of their lives - just because their parents did not care about whether they believe or not.
So the default state is IMHO that which is the case when we come to this earth and requires something to happen in order to change.
Babies might not be atheists according to your definition of atheism. But that's the "problem" - people define things differently.
I don't presuppose a concious decision for being an atheist (although in lots of cases there is a conscious decision). An Atheist in my book (and according to the majority of most Atheists I know) is simply someone who does not believe in a personal god - which is not dependent on the fact that it was a conscious decision (e.g. a Christian who does not believe anymore) or not (someone who grew up in a neutral environment and never developed a belief).
We would also have to define what we mean by "god". This requires characteristics/attributes, otherwise the term "god" would not make sense.
If you take Brad Warner's definition - then yeah, you can call me a believer!
If you talk about a god who had a son of flesh and blood that came to our planet, born by a woman that was still a virgin at his birth, then call me an Atheist.
The same holds true for Thor, Zeus, Osiris, etc.
Anyway, we are running in circles.
As Hans suggested we should split this thread.
Before I bow out of the discussion, I'd like to recommend these two short posts:
http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/04/what-is-atheism.html
and
http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/al...-atheists.html
Just a short disclaimer: I don't know any of the other posts on that page, so what you'll find there won't necessarily be shared by me. I found those two posts helpful though.
@Hans:
Sorry for that discussion - I will read Harris' book, thanks for the recommendation.
Gassho,
Daitetsu
no thing needs to be added
daitetsu, you just said that depending on how god is defined you are a believer or an atheist. What are you before anything is defined, believed or thought of? Harris has some interesting ideas but I'm not buying all his leaps of logic. Even he admits in his analysis of belief that no one really knows how it works. His condemnation of Islam because the Koran says kill the infidels is off the chart. All faiths are evolving and his catch phrase 'the end of faith' was just to sell books, right?
Kind regards. /\
_/_
Rich
MUHYO
無 (MU, Emptiness) and 氷 (HYO, Ice) ... Emptiness Ice ...
https://instagram.com/notmovingmind
im not sure if firm beliefs of any sort are very compatible with Right View - but then again, neither is equivocation.
I once read a book on comparative religion of people's in the world over time from cave man to native american indians to christians etc. Interesting how people tend to come up with a higher power for explanations of what they don't understand.
Gassho, Jishin
Last edited by Jishin; 09-23-2014 at 11:22 AM.
Well, there can't be any such thing as an atheist if there is no concept of a god in society. And being an atheist does require a choice, unlike that of simply being "non-religious." So, when born, a baby has no religion, though some religions impose their religions automatically on children because of their parents' beliefs.
It's all a big waste of time, splitting hairs with these definitions. But, unfortunately, in the world we live, we have to have these discussions, especially when atheists are reviled by many people.
Gassho,
Kirk the a-theist
流文
I know nothing.
So...
Anyone besides Hans read the book through? Worth checking out?
thanks,
Kaishin
Hi Kaishin,
I'd like to read the book sometime but I had a look at the footnotes given in the sample (I think on Amazon or his web site?) and they are very long - more like PhD footnotes ( I think I read that part of the book is a re-hash of a PhD. ) The footnotes seemed to involve huge chunks of philosophy - and though there's nothing wrong with that it's probably not where my head needs to be just now.
Gassho
Willow
A few days ago I wrote a short piece based on Sam Harris's new book for a discussion forum that speaks to older Australian men from all walks of society, many of whom experience depression, anxiety and ennui. I intended it to be a review but it didn't quite come out like that.
It may be a naive piece for participants in the Treeleaf forum, but as it's on the topic, and the book is so recent (9 September), I'm posting it as a contribution that reflects the context in which it appeared - among men of all levels of education, many of whom who find life in retirement hard to deal with.
Gassho
Adrian
___________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________
"Nothing is intrinsically boring - indeed, boredom is simply a lack of attention."
(Sam Harris, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, Simon & Schuster, NY, 2014)
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................
The quote above actually appears as a mere aside towards the end of Sam Harris's new book on atheist spirituality, but it struck me for the seamless way it flows from the rest of his argument and for its affirmation of my own experience since I began some years ago to renounce transient and material pleasure, the result of which has been not only a personal liberation but a magnification of the simple experience of being alive.
In case the above paragraph may appear self-congratulatory let me add that the mere fact of ageing has made it easier to renounce pleasures one no longer has much energy or appetite for; however, I'm not sure how it accounts for the compensatory joy that one then experiences in merely "settin' and thinkin'", or even better, sitting without thinking (not that the latter is easy to do).
The answer may be in Harris's oft-repeated affirmation of the idea that real and continuing contentment can only be attained if one accepts that there is no "self" to experience either transitory pleasure or enduring contentment. If we look for the "self" as a continuing, permanent entity to which all of our experiences refer and the subject of our consciousness, we can't find it. No one has ever found a "self" either in the geography of the brain or in the stream of consciousness we call thinking.
We know there is something "within" ourselves, or at least something that we think of as our subjective response to the world of our experiences, and this something feels anger, fear, pain, pleasure, hope and love, but it is reliably unstable and impermanent. We are angry at what someone has said or done and our brows darken and thoughts of revenge assail us, but then our infant child runs to us, or the love of our life beckons, and anger and thoughts of revenge sail out the window never to visit us again with such force. Why? Because they have no real force in a balanced mind. They are mere thoughts and feelings that come and go, to be replaced by others.
Our sense of being an enduring and permanent influence upon a universe that is illuminated from within ourselves is a delusion. The sense of selfhood (the Ego) is an illusion that deludes us into thinking that we are each fundamentally unique and separate from all other beings rather than just conscious organisms made up of incredibly intricate, complex and interdependent processes that respond to the different experiences over time that we call our lives. So saith Sam Harris in this book, and so saith Buddhists, Hindu Vedantists, mystics of all religions, and some philosophers and scientists.
The thing that we all do have in common, however, is consciousness, the one thing that cannot be an illusion (because to be conscious of an illusion is still to be conscious) and something that, so far, is not explained by the findings of physical science. That thoughts and sensations can be referred back to the brain's activity can be affirmed empirically, but that one is conscious of thought and feeling at all cannot be. So far it is a mystery even to the most ardent physicalist. The contents of the mind can be explained by emergence from the physical, but not that which enables the mind to be aware of itself.
So, according to Harris, we share consciousness, and consciousness is divisible into you and me. All else, however, is the product of cause and effect and interdependence. We are not separate egos or selves; we are simply differentiated participants in a universal field of consciousness, which, fortunately, when we let it break through the walls of our egos, is benign, overwhelmingly so.
Just being alive in a world without ego, attending to the reality we share, is literally awesome. How can one be bored in such a state?
Last edited by Epictetus; 09-26-2014 at 08:12 PM. Reason: Formatting a cut and paste
Hello,
"How can one be bored in such a state?"
Indeed. Thank you for the moment.
Gassho,
Myosha
"Recognize suffering, remove suffering." - Shakyamuni Buddha when asked, "Uhm . . .what?"
Hello Adrian,
as I haven't read the book I'll just relate to the context of your thread.
This pesky sense of self does seem to be at the root of all buddhist thought - how do we view it, how do we negotiate it, how do we accept that it's unstable and illusory?
For myself, I'm not too bothered as to what defines 'consciousness' - the drive to explain the mechanism echoes Freud's determination to present his theories as 'science'. At the end of the day - ego, super-ego, the unconscious - is just a topography of the mind.
In many ways - though I'd like to be free of dukkha - it would make for a strange existence to be free 'all' of the time. Where would our humanity be - where would our empathy be - where would creativity be?
Boredom is pretty essential to change - boredom is the flip side to reverie. Sometimes we need to experience ennui.
I don't think we can banish the ego (or the self) - as Jundo often points out - it's pretty necessary to survival in the world.
But we can be in an ongoing dialogue with it. Maybe the ego isn't the bad guy - perhaps it just needs relating to and pointed in the right direction.
Are 'the walls of the mind' wholly composed of the ego - the Heart Sutra seems to imply so - but this facet we call 'ego' - it reminds me of humpty dumpty. The wall comes crashing down and humpty with it - but sooner or later we have to put him together again else we're not living in the real world.
Just some jumbled thoughts,
Gassho
Willow
Hi there,
I like what Willow says above.
Having an ego is part of this game called life.
We should just not take it so damn seriously.
Had to think about that story, where a man had problems and hoped the Buddha could help him with them.
The man explained all his problems to the Buddha, but he just replied:
"I'm sorry, but I can't help you."
The man asked "Why?"
The Buddha replied: "Everyone has 83 problems. When you try to fix one another crops up."
The man: "But your're supposed to be a great teacher! I thought you could help me!"
The Buddha: "Maybe I can help you with your 84th problem."
The man: "84th! What's that?"
The Buddha: "You want not to have any problems."
IMHO it's not about getting rid of the ego and all our problems.
I think the Buddha did not teach the end of problems, but the end of dukkha. That's a decisive difference IMHO.
EDIT:
Of course there is no fixed, permanent self. The Sam Harris quote above puts that well.
I think we need to achieve a balance between realizing that it's just our brain that models a permanent self for us, making us believe there is one, and on the other hand using our modelled ego to get along in everyday life.
If then anger, disappointment, etc. arise in our daily lives, we need to wake up to the moment to see how much storytelling is actually involved. And then take a step back and let it be or find comfort or even have a good laugh (depending on the situation).
Gassho,
Daitetsu
Last edited by Daitetsu; 09-27-2014 at 12:02 PM.
no thing needs to be added
Remember what Shunryu Suzuki said about the ego? Something to the effect that you need just enough not to be hit by a bus -
People die
People live
We raise families
Bills need to be paid
The sun goes up
The sun goes down
We need to cross the street
The eightfold noble path and the precepts provide a framework within which to make choices about how we live as well as how our ego and selves present in the larger flow of life - and whether we tread lightly or heavily.
Sometimes all the spinning and philosophizing leaves me wondering what our goal is....
I have Harris' book and appreciate his contribution to the debate.
Please also remember the word faith means something very different in Buddhism than it does in other religions and belief systems. Harris' own journey suggests his definition is in a process of development as well.
Deep bows
Yugen
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My ego is fine, when I'm not attached to it 😊.
Thanks Adrian, willow, daitetsu.
Harris has caused me to reevaluate my thinking about religion and faith. I agree with much of what he says in The end of faith, its just that it is not the end of faith but a new beginning of faith without religion. Faith that not knowing is enough.
Kind regards. /\
_/_
Rich
MUHYO
無 (MU, Emptiness) and 氷 (HYO, Ice) ... Emptiness Ice ...
https://instagram.com/notmovingmind
And yet, and yet ... at the same time, there is a self who is sometimes bored, sometimes old, sometimes sick in ways "he" (me) does not want to be. If we did not have this "self" we could not function in the world, not to mention that our life would be a lot emptier to say the least! I like my "self" and want to keep "him" (me).
That being said, we can fully transcend and see right through "him" all at once, such that "self" and "not self" are not two. (We can also become aware of, and moderate, "his" excesses and other bad habits).
Then there is some Golden Joy which is present even when "he" is sad (both at once), some Contentment that is present both when bored stiff or thrilled to one's hearts content (both at once), some Timelessness beyond and right through young or old (both at once).
I have no problem keeping my self even as (both at once) I drop the self ... I have no problem living a life that is sometimes boring and sometimes exciting (even terrifying), sometimes rain and sometimes sun.
Now GO SIT SHIKANTAZA! Sometimes Sitting is really Boring too ... and that's OK!
Gassho, J
Last edited by Jundo; 09-28-2014 at 02:53 AM.
ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE
In the 'real' sense, surely all we have is self? I can understand letting go of self, and, by that means, coming to a state, or at least some sort of understanding of non-self. But I find it difficult to grasp the non-self as a 'thing' (which is surely fair enough, given that it is a 'non-thing', right...?!! Haha!). Peter Harvey, in his 'The Selfless Mind' (Curzon Press, 1995) opines that the concept of non-self is simply a mechanism for 'letting go' and that there is no reason to "prove that there is no self" or to "give some philosophical denial of self". He says further that "it is not so much a thing to be thought about as (it is) to be done, applied to actual experience...". That has always been a definition that I could grasp. And hopefully (one day!) achieve. Time to go sit?And yet, and yet ... at the same time, there is a self who is sometimes bored, sometimes old, sometimes sick in ways "he" (me) does not want to be. If we did not have this "self" we could not function in the world, not to mention that our life would be a lot emptier to say the least! I like my "self" and want to keep "him" (me).
That being said, we can fully transcend and see right through "him" all at once, such that "self" and "not self" are not two. (We can also become aware of, and moderate, "his" excesses and other bad habits).
Then there is some Golden Joy which is present even when "he" is sad (both at once), some Contentment that is present both when bored stiff or thrilled to one's hearts content (both at once), some Timelessness beyond and right through young or old (both at once).
I have no problem keeping my self even as (both at once) I drop the self ... I have no problem living a life that is sometimes boring and sometimes exciting (even terrifying), sometimes rain and sometimes sun.
Now GO SIT SHIKANTAZA! Sometimes Sitting is really Boring too ... and that's OK!
Gassho, J
Gassho,
Bryson
Last edited by Anshu Bryson; 09-28-2014 at 03:50 AM.
Thing ... not thing ... or shwiiiing ... Just Sit.In the 'real' sense, surely all we have is self? I can understand letting go of self, and, by that means, coming to a state, or at least some sort of understanding of non-self. But I find it difficult to grasp the non-self as a 'thing' (which is surely fair enough, given that it is a 'non-thing', right...?!! Haha!). Peter Harvey, in his 'The Selfless Mind' (Curzon Press, 1995) opines that the concept of non-self is simply a mechanism for 'letting go' and that there is no reason to "prove that there is no self" or to "give some philosophical denial of self". He says further that "it is not so much a thing to be thought about as (it is) to be done, applied to actual experience...". That has always been a definition that I could grasp. And hopefully (one day!) achieve. Time to go sit?
Gassho,
Bryson
Do ... not do ... or not do not not not do MU! ... Just Sit.
Don't debate ... Just Realize ... Just Sit.
Gassho, J
PS - My "shwiiiing" is not to be confused with the Wayne's World "schwiiing" ...But that is probably also more about the experiencing than the philosophizing!
Last edited by Jundo; 09-28-2014 at 04:33 AM.
ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE
Hi - not wanting to interrupt the 'just go sit' imperative of this thread but a Sam Harris video came up on my Secular Buddhist facebook link.
He does seem to be making a case for abandoning buddhism or the language/ narrative of buddhism in favour of a purely secular methodology. I think I read somewhere that this approach is termed as a 'first-person science'.
This doesn't seem to quite resonate with the teaching here?
I do tend to err on the side of throwing the baby out with the bath water but wouldn't want to see it disappear all together?
Gassho
Willow
Last edited by Jinyo; 10-05-2014 at 09:47 PM.
Harris' view resonates very deeply with me. We have to remember, the Buddha wasn't 'a Buddhist'... What is labeled as 'Buddhism', as a 'religion', is actually just the Dharma, along with a bunch of cultural baggage from each of the cultures through which Buddhism has been filtered. But it is the essential teachings that are important, not the label, and not the cultural accretions. That is no different to what Harris is saying. Even though Harris' experience has been with Vipassana, the essence of what he is talking about is the same (same path, different vehicle). IMHO, Zen has gone a long way to strip much of the cultural 'religious' baggage from Buddhism and distill it into the practice of Shikantaza. Each successive change in cultural context has brought with it a different view. Chinese Buddhism was different to Indian Buddhism. Japanese Buddhism different to Chinese, etc. It is only proper that, as Zen is further assimilated into Western culture, that it be adapted accordingly. I feel that the Zen that is likely to come out of secular Western culture is likely to look much more like Harris' model than it is like Indian Buddhism, for example.
Gassho,
Bryson
The opinion expressed by Harris in the video is his truth. Some share it, some don't. I am familiar with the view-set and do not share it. The good news is that there is room for everything. There is no need for a zero-sum attitude.
Gassho
Daizan
I've watched the video and couldn't but wonder: What's so wrong about having a religion?
I know that many atrocities have been done (and are still being done) in the name of religion, but how many good deeds have also been done out of beliefs?
How many slaughters were performed for political reasons? Would someone dare to say politics should not have influence in our lives?
I think it's just bad news sell better than good ones. And these days it is cool, sounds smart to be against religion.
Sorry if I was too rudimentary.
Gassho,
Walter.
Gassho,Walter
If you want to read something interesting read into the kabalah. Many people would agree that people of the Jewish faith are extremely devout, more so their rabbis and holy persons. Yet the words of Rav Ashlag and the Ari are so amazingly similar with Buddhist thought that it is truly beautiful to see how the two worlds mesh
Gassho,
"Heitetsu"
Christopher
Sat today
Thank you Willow.
I only have reservations about so-called modern "mindfulness" movements and certain very "stripped down" ways if certain vital Teachings are left out of the mix.
I do feel that "Mindfulness" or other like meditation courses and therapies stripped of their Buddhist elements miss the real "powerhouse" medicine this Way has to offer, to wit, the embodying of basic Buddhist Teachings on "non-self", "Emptiness" "Dukkha/the Four Noble Truths" "Impermanence" the Precepts and Bodhisattva Vows and others. These must be a doorway (doorless doorway) to Awakening.
Without allowing someone to fully transcend the small "self", and to truly embody "Emptiness", meditation is often little more than a relaxation technique or watered down medicine. (Can we keep these in a very secular format? Possibly. The jury is out.)
Let me note that David Loy and Ron Purser had some additional criticisms of the "mindfulness" movement in a recent essay (such as its being co-opted merely as a tool to up corporate and military efficiency) ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-pu...b_3519289.html
Folks for centuries have turned to Zen just to relax, improve their health, improve their performance in their career. Is that a problem? Well, perhaps not, especially if it leads some to delve deeper later on. But it is a shame that they are missing the real power of the Practice, like someone who gets on an airplane but never takes off.
What about all the Chanting and Incense and Oryoki and Robes and such. Well, this came up again recently on another thread: Bottom Line is that some folks may find these powerful Practices and "Dharma Doorways", and some not. (Time for a link to my "Turning Japanese" post) ... Take 'em or leave 'em. We Practice a bit of the Traditional around our Sangha ... like Bowing and Oryoki and such ... because of what they Teach. But what about a lot of the superstition, baseless legend and hocus-pocus fiddle-faddle that surrounds Buddhism (and traditional Zen too, Bryson, is not an exception)? Well, we would all do better to throw much of it in the Dharma Dumpster, if you ask me (although, even then, some of the myths and magic have a certain power too, and resonate with some folks).
http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showt...l=1#post136835
I also have no trouble to using the word "Buddha" in various ways (we actually do so now, although really all three ways are one way ultimately!). One is to refer to the "historical" person who was a psychologist/philosopher some 2500 years ago who understood much about the human condition and Suffering (Dukkha) and the various other principles mentioned able. One is as "Big Buddha", which stands for that which is the Flowing Empty-Wholeness of All Reality (i.e., the Big Enchilada), although all labels are ultimately inappropriate and it is just a name for an impossible to name. And then there is "Buddha", this archetype model of a fully enlightened being who may exist mostly as an aspiration in our hearts more than as a "real" being, a way of living free of all greed anger and ignorance which we all are targeting to become somewhere down the road (and even now can manifest when we manifest such qualities in our life).
I have no trouble to use "Buddha" in such ways. When it comes to tossing away mention of the "Historical Buddha" (just because, as Sam Harris says, the term "Buddha" is sectarian), I feel this is going to far. I see no more reason to ignore him any more than I ignore Plato or Freud. If, on the other hand, one wants to call the other two "Buddhas" by some other name ... or no name at all ... no problem by me. The names are just conveniences anyway. Call em what ya want or nothing at all ... but don't toss away the Reality and Aspiration they stand for.
Gassho, J
Last edited by Jundo; 10-06-2014 at 03:16 AM.
ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE
Another critical article on the Mindfulness movement from a recent Tricycle, pointing out that much of the recent scientific research is too cherry-picked and too hyped ...
Gassho, JTricycle October 01, 2014
Don’t Believe the Hype
Neuroscientist Catherine Kerr is concerned about how mindfulness meditation research is being portrayed in the media.
... Assistant Professor of Medicine and Family Medicine at Brown University, Kerr directs translational neuroscience for Brown’s Contemplative Studies Initiative and leads a mindfulness research program at Providence’s Miriam Hospital. She takes no issue with the value of mindfulness practice; Kerr has personally reaped enormous benefit from Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction (MBSR) in a two-decade-long battle with cancer, and as a researcher she has studied the beneficial effects MBSR has had on others. But as a scientist committed to facts, she was worried. “I think we are all going to need to take responsibility and do something so that the coverage looks slightly more balanced,” she wrote to her Facebook friends who are scientists, clinicians, philosophers, and contemplatives in the meditation research community. “Otherwise, when the inevitable negative studies come, this whole wave will come crashing down on us.”
... The Huffington Post is the worst offender. The message they deliver becomes a ubiquitous, circulating meme that people put up on their Facebook pages and that becomes “true” through repetition alone. The Huffington Post features mindfulness a lot and tends to represent only the positive findings (and in the most positive light imaginable) rather than offering a balanced reading of the science. They use that approach to justify the idea that every person who has any mental abilities should be doing mindfulness meditation. I don’t think the science supports that. The Huffington Post has really done mindfulness a disservice by framing it in that way.
... he clinical trial data on mindfulness for depression, for example, is not a slam-dunk. The results are really not better than those for antidepressants. In general, mindfulness is not orders of magnitude stronger than other things that people are doing right now to help manage stress and mood disorders. So you have to look at mindfulness in the context of a range of options. Unlike other therapies, mindfulness can be self-led at a certain point—it becomes a practice rather than a therapeutic modality in the same way that exercise is a training or practice. But mindfulness doesn’t work for everything and is not suitable for everyone.
... [And not just for studies on meditation, but for all medical studies in the news] ... a report published in Nature reviewed preclinical cancer studies and found that over 80 percent of the findings reported in top journals were nonreplicable. That means we can’t trust them. They’re likely not true!.
... It is a big problem in science communication across the board. That is how things work in these TED-style forum talks—it is not about skepticism or careful thinking; it is about who can tell the most dramatic story.
... I’ve heard reports of people who have abandoned chemotherapy to do mindfulness. I don’t know if that has really happened. Certainly there are people who go off their antidepressants or lithium and think that mindfulness is going to manage their serious depression or bipolar disorder. That’s a concern we have with the current hype around mindfulness. People might see it as being more active than it really is. It doesn’t resolve those situations.
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/don%E2%80%99t-believe-hype
ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE
Harris, being a neuroscientist, would likely not disagree with Professor Kerr's viewpoint.
There were, however, also some points for reflection for followers of the Dharma in that article - http://www.tricycle.com/blog/don%E2%80%99t-believe-hype - as follows:
...When promoters of mindfulness only focus on its effects on brain mechanisms—and I say this as a brain scientist—they are missing a big part of the story. Similarly, when Buddhist critics of mindfulness attack secularized mindfulness because they are worried it is corrupting the dharma, they too are missing something important... I worry that our tendency to parse the world into competing abstractions—scientific reductionism on the one hand or dharma purism on the other—may cause us to miss this hard-to-see qualitative shift that may be the true source of the power of mindfulness...
...People who think of mindfulness as “training their brains” are taking refuge in an idea that has not been proven; they are either unaware of or unable to process the problem of scientific uncertainty. Similarly, people who are concerned that “McMindfulness” could be watering down the dharma could also be viewed as ideological and intolerant of the uncertainty that comes with something new. Insistence on surefire answers, whether in science or about a received notion of the dharma, can be an avoidance of the existential problem of uncertainty...
Gassho,
Bryson
Oh, and one more point she made, which tracks with things you have said on another thread recently, Jundo:
"It seems like the dynamics of ritual are very important..."
Gassho,
Bryson
Thank you for your replies.
I found this podcast on 'Stealth Buddhism' on Buddhist Geeks interesting.
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2014/08...alth-buddhism/
Gassho
Willow
A combination of late flights both going and coming, and a great bookshop at the airport, meant that not only I could buy Harris's book, but I had time to read it over the weekend. Actually, it is very good. Some very interesting commentary on self/non-self.
As readers of this thread will be aware, he is keen to get rid of the sectarian religious trappings surrounding meditation practice. Rather than seeing that as a negative, though, I see it as a door for people who might not normally look to Buddhism (because of the sectarian religious frameworks they have grown up in themselves) to explore the practice.
He has said before: "One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. In a world that has long been terrorized by fratricidal Sky-God religions, the ascendance of Buddhism would surely be a welcome development..."
He just doesn't think that the majority of people, because of those sectarian differences, are likely to embrace Buddhism. So, he chooses to tread perhaps a narrower path to get a broader audience of people to take up the practice than just Buddhists... That, however, doesn't stop the Buddhist from continuing on their own path!
Harris doesn't seem to be peddling the 'mindfulness as therapy' line; he is much more talking about overall human wellbeing. But, in the end, he seems to be saying "just sit"...
Gassho,
Bryson
Last edited by Anshu Bryson; 10-13-2014 at 03:13 AM.
What makes me uneasy about Harris are
a) his anti-Islamic rhetoric at a time when developing countries in the Muslim world are being bombed into the open arms of extremist ideologies;
b) his self-publicism.
When he rationalises killing of non-combatants (and combatants, for that matter) and is clearly caught up in the image of Sam Harris, "author, philosopher, neuroscientist", I wonder what exactly his meditative practice does for him? Perhaps I need to read the book!
Last edited by Diarmuid1; 10-16-2014 at 09:06 PM.
Hello,
just to clarify my initial posting: I did not say that Sam Harris is a great spiritual teacher, nor do I claim that his understanding of certain areas of science must mean that he is particularly knowledgable about other aspects of life.
In a world where thousands of books are simply written to continuously make the readers feel good ad nauseam, I felt that this book was like a well researched breath of fresh air.
Please let's not have a political discussion about his views on Islam. We can all read and learn from Kodo Sawaki despite his political POVs after all, so I don't see that as a problem, unless one wants to make Sam Harris one's Guru
In my humble opinion a book should be read and criticised based on what it actually says, not based on whether one agrees with the author's world view.
Gassho,
Hans Chudo Mongen
You are right, Hans. I do not want to discuss politics. I don't really see much point to politics. My question is more about Sam Harris's use of meditative practice. He seems hooked to the ego and hooked to the idea of the Other (to the point where he can rationalise killing it). In my hopefully equally humble opinion, what a book says should be weighed up alongside what its writer does. But I must also repeat that I have not yet read the book, so perhaps I should not be trying to discuss what it says!
Wouldn't it be slightly more accurate to say that actually an atheist believes that there is no god? It's a small nuance, but it seems to me that an atheist defines him or herself just as much by their belief as a theist does. The difference being that atheists tend to use logic and scientific reasoning to support their beliefs whereas theists use logic and faith to support theirs.
Both are believers though!
I have to disagree here.
According to that logic, non-skiing would be sports, non-smoking an addiction, and abstinence a sex position.
According to that logic, if I said I believe in pink unicorns, that would make you automatically a believer as well (i.e. someone believing there are no pink unicorns).
People could claim all sorts of weird things and say that you are equally just believing (namely the opposite).
Atheism is a lack of belief though.
So it makes more sense to say that Atheism is a non-belief.
BTW, in order to avoid further off-topics in the Sam Harris thread the discussion was continued in another thread:
http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showt...inting-and-God
Gassho,
Daitetsu
PS: The following link might be helpful (enough to read the first page): http://www.alternet.org/story/148555...ief?page=0%2C0
Last edited by Daitetsu; 10-17-2014 at 11:03 AM. Reason: added PS
no thing needs to be added
A short podcast interview with Sam Harris. Although he is a mindfulness\vipassana practitioner, the meditation he recommends seems very close to Shikantaza in flavor.
http://www.ttbook.org/listen/79466
Expanded interview here ...
http://www.ttbook.org/book/our-segments-sam-harris
Gassho, J
SatToday
ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE
Great interview!
Yes, this is a recurring question I get: how can I be spiritual if I'm an atheist?
People seem to feel ashamed to say publicly that they meditate or that they have had a deep moment of connection to the universe while hiking or while traveling.
I have always believed that spirituality tries to answer our classic questions about ourselves like who am I? what am I? why am I here?. Those questions are natural and we all have them. The thing is we almost never believe we can answer them without religion.
For what I have read in books and science outlets, a lot of science people are spiritual and the marvel at the magic and profoundness of the Universe. Regardless of religion, spirituality is part of the experience of being human.
Thank you for the link, Jundo.
Gassho,
Kyonin
#SatToday
Hondō Kyōnin
奔道 協忍
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
