Waking Up Sam Harris [Archive]

Jundo

09-16-2014, 01:29 PM

I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

It makes sense to speak from a theistic angle in one context, and an atheistic angle in another context. If I'm talking with a Christian friend it might feel right to use the language of God and Grace. If talking to a friend who is science minded, or an atheist, a different language makes sense. It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view become fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

I don't get it.

Gassho
Daizan

Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that there is life on other planets? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that we are alone in the universe? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha actually lived on this planet. Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha was a largely made up story by people long after his lifetime? Can one Practice with a deep belief in post-this life Rebirth? Without such a belief?

In no case have you any proof of their existence, or personal experience, only suspicions and beliefs learned from others. Yet if you do believe ... NO PROBLEM! One can still Practice Zen just the same!

Zen is no more impacted by whether there is a "God" or no "God" than it is impacted by whether there is a table or no table in the same room where you sit Zazen. In either case ... table/no table or God/No God ... the sitting is the same. That is because we always sit as "what is" ... and if there is a table, that is "what is. If there is no table, that is "what is".

I often say ...

f there is a "God" ... whether in the Judeo-Christian way or some other, whether named "Allah" "Jehovah" "Thor" "Brahma" or "Stanley" ... I will fetch water and chop wood, seeking to live in a gentle way, avoiding harm to self and others (not two, by the way).

If there is no "God" "Allah" or "Stanley", or any source or creator or point to the universe at all, I will fetch water and chop wood, seeking to live in a gentle way, avoiding harm to self and others (not two, by the way).

I do not know if, in the next life, that "gentle way, avoiding harm" will buy me a ticket to heaven and keep me out of hell ... but I know for a fact that it will go far to do so in this life, today, where I see people create all manner of "heavens and hells" for themselves and those around them by their harmful words, thoughts and acts in this life.

And if there is a "heaven and hell" in the next life, or other effects of Karma now ... well, my actions now have effects then too, and might be the ticket to heaven or good rebirth.

In other words, whatever the case ... today, now ... live in a gentle way, avoiding harm to self and others (not two, by the way) ... seeking to avoid harm now and in the future too.

Gassho, J

Anshu Bryson

09-16-2014, 01:40 PM

I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

It makes sense to speak from a theistic angle in one context, and an atheistic angle in another context. If I'm talking with a Christian friend it might feel right to use the language of God and Grace. If talking to a friend who is science minded, or an atheist, a different language makes sense. It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view becomes fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

I don't get it.

Gassho
Daizan

Hi Daizan,

I see absolutely no conflict between engaging in Buddhist practice and holding what would bee seen by most as being an atheistic position.

I don't see atheism as being an 'absolute' position at all; it can merely be a position one takes given all the available evidence (or in this case perhaps the lack of evidence) at a given time. Most atheists I know would be very willing to change their minds should evidence be made available to them.

Further, it doesn't even have to be a position taken (i.e. doesn't need to be a 'decision' to not believe). Atheism is surely a default position (?). For example, from birth, up until one is imbued with some sort of religious belief, would one not be an atheist?

I have been a Buddhist for over 30 years, but I don't subscribe to a divine agency or a supernatural realm. We can only know what we know, and can only speculate about what we don't. There is likely more than we know, but it seems to me that there is no need to believe on insufficient evidence in things about which we really don't know. This in no way precludes a search for the truth of things. In fact it leans well towards the importance of that search. Further knowledge can only come from that search. So, off I go to sit... [smile]

Theism? There seems to be a bit of that around, but, again, I don't subscribe... [smile]

Gassho,

Bryson

Ryumon

09-16-2014, 01:53 PM

Hmm... I may want to read this, but I have reservations about his description.

I have been waiting for more than a decade to write Waking Up. Long before I saw any reason to criticize religion (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation), or to connect moral and scientific truths (The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying), I was interested in the nature of human consciousness and the possibility of “spiritual” experience. In Waking Up, I do my best show that a certain form of spirituality is integral to understanding the nature of our minds.

There is no discrete self or ego living like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. And the feeling that there is—the sense of being perched somewhere behind your eyes, looking out at a world that is separate from yourself—can be altered or entirely extinguished. Although such experiences of “self-transcendence” are generally thought about in religious terms, there is nothing, in principle, irrational about them. From both a scientific and a philosophical point of view, they represent a clearer understanding of the way things are.

My hope is that Waking Up will help readers see the nature of their own minds in a new light. A rational approach to spirituality seems to be what is missing from secularism and from the lives of most of the people I meet. The purpose of this book is to offer readers a clear view of the problem, along with some tools to help them solve it for themselves.

First, I think the use of the words "spiritual" and "spirituality" is problematic. It's a word derived from religion, and which is used in too many ways.

Second, why does he think that anything is "missing from secularity?" That's another religious point of view. Is he, therefor, saying that all non-religious people have something missing in their lives? And that religious people don't have anything missing? If he's just highlighting the basic existential angst that we all feel, that has nothing to do with religion or atheism, it's just part of being human.

Third, he says that the self/ego can be "altered or entirely extinguished." I'm not sure of the latter. I think we all agree here that according to Zen, this isn't the case; I know some schools of Buddhism may think that, but has anyone ever experienced it?

Skeptical me may read it, but I hesitate...

Gassho,

Kirk

Nengyo

09-16-2014, 02:08 PM

I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

I don't get it.

Gassho
Daizan

It's because the argument is more nuanced in philosophy. There are agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, weak atheism, strong atheism, agnostic theist, gnostic theist, weak theism, and strong theism. There is also ignosticism. All are making different claims about the existence of a god or gods and our ability to know about this existence.

Sam Harris as far as I know is an agnostic atheist. His position is that there is no evidence for any of the claimed theistic gods. It is not a knowledge position on the possibility of a god. Ignostics take it a step further and say that god is a gibberish word that means nothing philosophically making all the arguments about this word silly. I would probably consider myself an atheistic/pantheistic buddhist if pushed for some philosophical position, but I don't really worry about it too much, I have dishes to wash and zazens to sit.

Gassho,
Nengyo

RichardH

09-16-2014, 03:05 PM

Kyotai

09-16-2014, 03:09 PM

Thanks for sharing your perspective Daizan.

Sitting in openness, and having an opinion, or a fixed one from one perspective may in a way seem not very open. But, many, like myself, sit with a fixed perspective that no god exists, (that is my real fixed opinion!) and yet sit with openness putting aside opinion and "just sit" with no thought of god or no god. That question, as well as "why is the sky blue?" Are not relevant during zazen.

And I think one with a belief in god can do that as well.

In my view, Harris strives to point out that one can be both atheist, while still reaping the benefits of living presently by maintaining a meditation practice. He seems to pull from Buddhism a lot. But one does not need to be a buddhist or label things as zen, god or whatnot to find peace and happiness in this moment.

Then again, what do I know. Lol

Gassho, Shawn

RichardH

09-16-2014, 03:17 PM

But what do you mean by God, Shawn? are you talking about Thor? I don't believe Thor sends thunder (though never say never), but that is totally different than views about being or non-being, or "what is this?". If we are just knocking around talking about old men in beards parting seas then I'm an atheist too (though never say never)

Gassho D

Got to get to work. Interesting thread. Thank you.

alan.r

09-16-2014, 03:23 PM

I guess what I am referring to is when , in course of sitting, views ..thoughts cease or pause, and questions no long arise. Everything is forgotten in immediate presence, and the forgetting is forgotten. I don't mean to sound fancy but that's about it, and it just happens from time to time by itself. The question of my own being is settled beyond doubt or no-doubt. When thinking/views return they have a different aspect, and it makes no difference how subtle or nuanced philosophical views are. They can't reach what has been directly realized. There are still questions and views about this-and-that, but only this-and-that. So when I hear about atheism, agnosticism, theism, it just sounds like trying to grasp the ungraspable.

Gassho
Daizan

Hi Daizan,

I understand what you're saying, and I don't agree or disagree, but just to play devil's advocate: isn't there something absolute about your position here? That it is impossible/contradictory (not sure which you're implying) to sit with an absolute concept (atheism in this case) because it is grasping/defining - isn't that also an absolute concept about what sitting should be? Or do you really "not understand"? Just questions, gentle ones.

I think there could easily be an open fluidity to a term like "atheist" or a term like "god," and that one just has to use words sometimes, but perhaps these words mean something beyond to the user, just as there must necessarily be an openness and something beyond to a term like "immediate presence." At the same time, I don't know Sam Harris at all.

Just some thoughts, already gone.

Gassho

Kyotai

09-16-2014, 03:36 PM

All of the man made ones!

Gassho, Shawn

Myosha

09-16-2014, 03:40 PM

Hello,

". . .he says that the self/ego can be "altered or entirely extinguished." I'm not sure of the latter. . . I know some schools of Buddhism may think that, but has anyone ever experienced it?

Gassho,

Kirk"

A quote describes a long-ago personal experience -

"A perception, sudden as blinking, that subject and object are one, will lead to a deeply mysterious wordless understanding." – Zen Master Huang-po

Could be Sam Harris's reference(?)

Gassho,
Myosha

Risho

09-16-2014, 03:54 PM

Third, he says that the self/ego can be "altered or entirely extinguished." I'm not sure of the latter. I think we all agree here that according to Zen, this isn't the case; I know some schools of Buddhism may think that, but has anyone ever experienced it?

I would guess our selves would be extinguished when we die. lol Seriously, if our "self" were extinguished, how could our "self" experience it? To me it sounds like a specious statement.

Daizan, I sit zen and I believe in God; although my view of God isn't some person with a beard sitting on a throne. I doubt many people believe in that mythos.

Gassho,

Risho

Kyotai

09-16-2014, 04:38 PM

Did not mean any disrespect in my above comment to those who have a strong belief in god. I certainly respect everyone's belief system and I love that we can have a healthy discussion in this sangha.

Gassho, Shawn

Risho

09-16-2014, 04:52 PM

Shawn,

Although I believe in God... I don't really take offense at people who do not. I don't really care about defending my beliefs or trying to push my beliefs on others. Beliefs are beliefs; you can't logically refute or prove them. Actually, differing beliefs interest me quite a bit.

I've never understood holding so tightly onto beliefs that you'd get angry at someone for believing something contrary. Or you might think my beliefs are silly.. but who cares? I mean that's what makes this Sangha great.. I really think that's what makes Zen practice great.... just keeping an open mind.

I don't really know how to articulate my belief in God. It's just something that I have. I am certainly not a traditionalist by any means, which I'm sure offends people too. hahahaha

Gassho,

Risho

Kyotai

09-16-2014, 05:04 PM

Thanks Risho. My comment ""all of the man made ones" after reflecting, kinda sounded as if I was saying those who believe in god, are believing in made up nonsense. And that wasn't my intention.

I wasn't suggesting you would take offence to those who don't believe in what you do.

Thanks Risho

Gassho, Shawn

Kyotai

09-16-2014, 05:19 PM

Risho, your inbox is full. Can't Reply lol.

Risho

09-16-2014, 05:33 PM

Ack -- I'll have to fix that. hahaha

I just responded:

Ha I was about to send you an email too! I understand what you are saying; I was just trying to say you didn't offend me. lol

Going back to belief... To tell you the truth I don't always fully understand my beliefs. A lot of my beliefs are due to what I was taught when I was younger. So I'm a skeptical believer if that makes sense. At the same time (and it could probably just be from my learning during my formative years) I just believe. Ah man, the craziness of belief and of being human :)

Now I'm going to add... although I believe in Jesus, I've never really cared too much about the miracles. I've always thought that miracle stories were sort of like sales pitches to get someone to join a religion, and I really have no interest in selling anyone on any of my beliefs or rejecting anyone's beliefs, unless those beliefs are harmful.

I believe that the message and the action is where the true strength of faith lies, which is why I actually also believe that Zen practice strengthens my life and the understanding of my own beliefs. No matter who we are, we have a set of beliefs that we've taken on voluntarily or involuntarily. If you are an atheist, that is a belief; if you are not, that is a belief. Belief is the center of what makes us human.

If we think that belief is non-existent in Zen that is a fallacy because unless we have fully experienced anuttara samyak sambodhi we are practicing wholeheartedly with faith in the Buddha's and all of the Buddha ancestors teachings that it is possible to live a life like that.. a full life of compassion, etc.

So belief is central to being human. We believed the planet was flat, we believed the earth was the center of the universe. We have a lot of beliefs now that will be shattered (I hope if we don't annihilate each other over differing beliefs).

So while I do believe in God, I also believe in letting other people have their beliefs, and I actually really like listening to how other people view things. I really find it fascinating. I work with a lot of people who are Hindu and believe in multiple Gods. I really have respect for their religion. I don't find any contention with that. In fact, some of the nicest people I know follow Hinduism, and they are great people.

People are people. We have all been raised and our beliefs most certainly reflect the culture that we've come out of. There's no escaping that.

I think we just need to always remain open and not restrict people based on belief. I do not follow any religion that would call a certain people less than another people. I don't believe that it is my place to judge anyone, when I have my own shit to deal with. In fact, I don't think those are authentic faiths anyway; I think those are just egoistic power systems that try to elevate the "in-group" over the "out-group"... another very human trait that all of us do. You are stupid because you believe in God; you are stupid because you don't believe in God.

Man, this universe is so incredible, I think if we'd all just shut up and appreciate this life, we could stop fighting over shit that we can't prove or disprove.

Anyway, short answer, no offense taken. lol

Gassho,

Risho

Kyonin

09-16-2014, 06:19 PM

Hi Daizan,

I'm a 100% atheist Buddhist. In my many years practicing I have never had the need to rely on any kind of gods at all.

Now perhaps what you mean is that atheist tend to be pretty hardcore religious about not believing in a god. That is not my case.

I don't think there is a god, but I'm open to be shown I'm wrong with the proper evidence.

For me Buddhism is a philosophic framework where one learns how to be free of suffering and to help all sentient beings. Having no god is actually liberating because I can focus on service, learning live without attachments. Plus, I really like Buddhist philosophy.

So being an atheist and a Buddhist is pretty compatible for me from my humanist point of view.

I believe in us humans and what we can do as species (both good and bad). Gods are irrelevant.

Gassho,

Kyonin

I do not understand how someone can practice Buddhism and be a committed theist or atheist. Aren't those the kind of ultimate positions that are undermined by sitting in openness?

It makes sense to speak from a theistic angle in one context, and an atheistic angle in another context. If I'm talking with a Christian friend it might feel right to use the language of God and Grace. If talking to a friend who is science minded, or an atheist, a different language makes sense. It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view become fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

I don't get it.

Gassho
Daizan

Daitetsu

09-16-2014, 06:49 PM

Hi there,

I see one problem that people add a lot of concepts when they hear the word "Atheism". Many people think it is a philosophy or a belief.
However, Atheism does only state one thing: Not Theism.
A Theist is someone who believes in a personal god who intervenes in his creation (someone who believes in a non-interfering god would be a Deist).
Atheist simply means - "Not a Theist".
If someone says Atheism is a belief then "Non-Skiing" would be sports or "Non-Smoking" would be an addiction.
So as an Atheist one can follow all kinds of philosophies.

Then of course it depends on how one defines the term "god".
Every religion gives their god some attributes - otherwise the word god would not make sense.
Mostly he is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely good, etc. However, if you ask a Catholic and a Protestant and then a Muslim, you will hear even more different attributes...
So "god" could also mean Osiris, Thor or a god from the Greek mythology.

In his latest book Brad Warner uses the term "god" as well, but I daresay many Christian believers would disagree vehemently with his definition, even saying it has nothing to do with god at all.

Anyway, since I came to this practice I don't care anymore. I don't care how I should call myself - it's all just drawers anyway. Drawers cause separation. I don't want separation.
If I had to use a category then yes, I'd be an agnostic atheist Zen Buddhist - but who cares?
I prefer to call myself a human - loving, angry, balanced, unbalanced, humble, an arrogant asshole, sociable, shy, *fill in the blank*.

Peace to all of you, however you call yourself (or not).

Gassho,

Daitetsu

Meikyo

09-16-2014, 07:26 PM

I'm totally with Kyonin here.

I specifically sought out a Sangha that could accommodate my worldview.
I get that in one sense we're all in it together and all the labels don't really matter.
On the other hand that should not mean that you don't process the information presented to you and live according to what you find. While there's a fundamental irrevocable niceness about in being in the world in general rather than not being here and it's cool if we could just get along critical faculties are indeed very much needed. They can also be overused and misused. A a sense of proportion (as with much else) is the key.

As a note on the original I can recommend Sam Harris. He's good at what he does. But whether you personally find his writing useful in your Practice is another matter. I did and his book "The End of Faith" helped me alot in reconciling atheism with Zen. But he's an academic and atheist first and foremost even though I would consider him the "softest" of the new atheist frontmen. Will read this new book in time. Thank you for the pointer.

Gassho

RichardH

09-17-2014, 12:28 AM

I'm a bit surprised by this thread. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion that leaves questions about Ultimate Truth to "Noble Silence" , while warning of the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. This is the A, B fricken C's right?

There are conceptions of God or God Unmanifest as "unconditional presence", "the cloud of unknowing" and so forth that are very much like Zen conceptions of True Mind, The Absolute, Original Nature, Unconditioned , and so forth. in fact some non-Zen Buddhists say Zen has a streak pre-Buddhism Brahmanism (Theism) in its ideas.

So I'll just say again I don't get it. and leave it at that. Different strokes for different folk, gassho2 Daizan

Anshu Bryson

09-17-2014, 12:37 AM

Hi Daizan,

I am surprised that you are surprised that some folk who practice a non-theistic religion happen to be non-theists... [morehappy]

Gassho,

Bryson

RichardH

09-17-2014, 12:52 AM

Hi Daizan,

I am surprised that you are surprised that some folk who practice a non-theistic religion happen to be non-theists... [morehappy]

Gassho,

Bryson I'm not surprised by non-theism , I'm a non-theist which means I can swing both ways ;). It's the atheism that surprises.. I mean.. Jeez. [morehappy]

Gassho
Daizan

Anshu Bryson

09-17-2014, 01:21 AM

I'm not surprised by non-theism , I'm a non-theist which means I can swing both ways ;). It's the atheism that surprises.. I mean.. Jeez. [morehappy]

Gassho
Daizan

[morehappy]

I'm hearing you Daizan, but I think maybe you are misreading the 'label'... 'Atheism' as a term actually isn't really very useful, or even indicative. There is no other form of non-belief that has a similar term. There is no word for people who don't believe in fairies (a-fairy-ism?) or leprechauns (a-leprechaunism?), for example. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is merely the lack of belief in divine agency, in a creator-God who answers our prayers, etc. (there is a distinct difference between a belief that there is no god and a lack of belief that there is one...). It also doesn't preclude feelings of kindredness and compassion to those who don't share those beliefs (sadly this is not always reciprocal...). Again, I see no conflict with Buddhist practice... As far as swinging both ways goes, to each their own... [morehappy]

Gassho,

Bryson

RichardH

09-17-2014, 01:51 AM

[morehappy]

I'm hearing you Daizan, but I think maybe you are misreading the 'label'... 'Atheism' as a term actually isn't really very useful, or even indicative. There is no other form of non-belief that has a similar term. There is no word for people who don't believe in fairies (a-fairy-ism?) or leprechauns (a-leprechaunism?), for example. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is merely the lack of belief in divine agency, in a creator-God who answers our prayers, etc. (there is a distinct difference between a belief that there is no god and a lack of belief that there is one...). It also doesn't preclude feelings of kindredness and compassion to those who don't share those beliefs (sadly this is not always reciprocal...). Again, I see no conflict with Buddhist practice... As far as swinging both ways goes, to each their own... [morehappy]

Gassho,

Bryson

Hi Bryson. Atheism is certainly a belief system, a belief system mirroring Theism. They are two sides of one coin... and the most subtle forms of Atheism and Theism are none other than Nihilism and Eternalism. It is none other than clinging to a view of No-self or True-Self. They are skillful means and both good in context, but not an end.

Maybe the term atheism means something different to different people.. that is what the it means to me.

Gassho
Daizan

Anshu Bryson

09-17-2014, 02:09 AM

Hi Bryson. Atheism is certainly a belief system, a belief system mirroring Theism. They are two sides of one coin... and the most subtle forms of Atheism and Theism are none other than Nihilism and Eternalism. It is none other than clinging to a view of No-self or True-Self. They are skillful means and both good in context, but not an end.

Maybe the term atheism means something different to different people.. that is what the it means to me.

Gassho
Daizan

Hi Daizan,

We'll have to agree to disagree... :)

Gassho,

Bryson

Byokan

09-17-2014, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Daizan

It makes sense to have an honest view or perspective and have passion around it, but how could that view become fixed in the mind? Staking out an absolute position might be effective politics, but is it really held absolutely?

...it makes no difference how subtle or nuanced philosophical views are. They can't reach what has been directly realized. There are still questions and views about this-and-that, but only this-and-that. So when I hear about atheism, agnosticism, theism, it just sounds like trying to grasp the ungraspable.

Buddhism is a non-theistic religion that leaves questions about Ultimate Truth to "Noble Silence" , while warning of the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. This is the A, B fricken C's right?

Yes. Any view or opinion, by definition, opposes other views and opinions, creating distinction and separation. Sitting in open awareness beyond thoughts, opinions, views, perceptions, formations and consciousness, one may directly realize Emptiness.

Any preconceived opinion or belief seems to only allow a partial apprehension of (for lack of a better term) Ultimate Truth. I always think about the blind men describing the elephant: one feels the trunk and says it is like a snake, one feels the leg and says it is like a tree, etc. The “truth” is to be found in realizing not only the complete form of the elephant, but that the blind men themselves are the elephant, everything is the elephant, and the elephant is all, while at the same time -- of course there is no elephant! And the idea that you can know the nature of the elephant by feeling it with your hand, is like thinking you can know Reality through belief or atheism or any other -ism.

And/but, even though there is no elephant, we feed the elephant, give him water, and try not to get stepped on. So the contradiction: in day-to-day life we have opinions, views and beliefs, and they drive our actions, hopefully for the “good”. We pick a side. If the side you pick enables you to live a good life, that’s great. And if it happens to be the “right” one ultimately, then maybe you win a prize! But I agree with Daizan (if I am understanding him correctly), that to grasp on to an absolute position, to have that view become fixed in the mind, and to come to the cushion holding it, seems to be an impediment to direct realization, and yes, to me that does seem like the A, B, fricken C’s.

But of course this is, you know, just an opinion. A view. My belief! And I say it with all respect to anything anyone else believes, because I can’t judge what is in someone else’s heart. I have no enlightenment, I don’t know what’s True, and it’s all philosophy, and philosophy is not Zen. I guess the best we can do is come to the cushion with an open heart and an open mind, as much as possible.

Gassho
Lisa

Anshu Bryson

09-17-2014, 04:38 AM

I see one problem that people add a lot of concepts when they hear the word "Atheism". Many people think it is a philosophy or a belief.
However, Atheism does only state one thing: Not Theism.
A Theist is someone who believes in a personal god who intervenes in his creation (someone who believes in a non-interfering god would be a Deist).
Atheist simply means - "Not a Theist".
If someone says Atheism is a belief then "Non-Skiing" would be sports or "Non-Smoking" would be an addiction.
So as an Atheist one can follow all kinds of philosophies.

What Daitetsu said... :)

Byokan

09-17-2014, 05:22 AM

What Daitetsu said... :)

Hi Bryson,

I get that, but I think not-a-theist could be an impediment just as well as theist. I have no idea what Ultimate Reality is. If someday Supreme Enlightenment should arise, and if it should encompass something theistic or deistic, I want to be open to that and not miss it because I’ve already set my mind one way or the other.

To be clear, this is an ideal. I don’t come to the cushion as an empty vessel; far from it! I have beliefs and opinions and stories about myself that inform and shape the way I move through the world. In fact I do identify variously as an atheist, pantheist, animist, and lots of other ists, but I hold all those identities with an open hand, and try to set all that aside when I come to the cushion.

Gassho
Lisa

Anshu Bryson

09-17-2014, 06:46 AM

Hi Bryson,

I get that, but I think not-a-theist could be an impediment just as well as theist. I have no idea what Ultimate Reality is. If someday Supreme Enlightenment should arise, and if it should encompass something theistic or deistic, I want to be open to that and not miss it because I’ve already set my mind one way or the other.

To be clear, this is an ideal. I don’t come to the cushion as an empty vessel; far from it! I have beliefs and opinions and stories about myself that inform and shape the way I move through the world. In fact I do identify variously as an atheist, pantheist, animist, and lots of other ists, but I hold all those identities with an open hand, and try to set all that aside when I come to the cushion.

Gassho
Lisa

Hi Lisa,

I think we are likely going in circles now, but I'll close with this. There is no reason to think that a non-theistic or atheistic view will 'set' ones mind one way or the other (i.e. be an 'absolute' position). Rational thinkers will always be open to a change of mind on the emergence of new evidence. As you've rightly pointed out, however, none of this thought process is necessary when we 'just sit'...

Gassho,

Bryson

Byokan

09-17-2014, 07:37 AM

Hi Bryson,

Ah! Circled in on a good point, my friend, I can definitely meet you there. This is the crux of the thing; not to become too attached to one’s views or opinions, but to hold them as “working hypotheses.” Cheers to rational thinking and open minds in the world, and dropping it all on the cushion!

Gassho
Lisa

Josan

09-17-2014, 07:40 AM

Byokan

09-17-2014, 07:47 AM

David,

Yup, fell off the wagon again. On my way to Overthinkers Anonymous meeting right now! :rolleyes:

Gassho
Lisa

Jundo

09-17-2014, 08:36 AM

Folks,
This thread has left my head spinning :(

Do we really need to analyse everything to the nth degree?

Can we not just keep things simple - sit, be present, chop wood. carry water, follow the precepts?

Gassho,

David

gassho1

If there is a God, I am sure She would not mind. In fact, if there is a God or something so, I believe there is no better way to get close to Her.

Daitetsu

09-17-2014, 10:10 AM

Hi Daizan,

I'm not surprised by non-theism , I'm a non-theist which means I can swing both ways ;).
You've just described how I define Atheism though. I don't distinguish between non-theism and atheism.

Here is why:

Let's say we have a cake.
Person A takes a piece from it and eats it. He is a Cakist.
Person B does not eat from it. He is an A-Cakist.
Person C thinks "I am not sure. Maybe I eat it later."
However, Person C has de facto not eaten from the cake either and is thus an A-Cakist, too.
And if Person C later decides to have his piece of cake, he is a Cakist.
So actually it is not necessary to give Person C a different category with regards to the Cake.

The funny part comes, when one of these guys realizes that he IS the Cake (in fact everyone).

OK, just wanted to add this as I'd like to end this on a funny note.
As I said, it depends a lot on definitions.

I had endless discussions like these in the past, but I am glad this time is over.
My boundaries began to melt some years ago and it's so relaxing now. And funny, and tragic, and everything.

I don't care (anymore) whether the glass of water is half empty or half full - I just drink it.

Gassho,

Daitetsu

Rich

09-17-2014, 11:44 AM

Being with God is JUST THIS. THIS is true God. You can call it Buddha nature, universal spirit, Allah, or anything that makes sense for you. IMHO

Kind regards. /\

RichardH

09-17-2014, 11:48 AM

First to respond to David W. This was an immediate and desperate (no exaggeration) problem for me as a kid... cause?, causeless cause?, no cause?, Self?, Being? , God?, The Divine?, Theos?, Ain Soph?, Brahman?... by any name or namelessness?, ..or not. It was settled in practice in a clear Yes and No, without any ambiguity. Now, getting older and tired , this discussion is not heavy or involving overthinking, it is just normal, basic, stuff. It is actually nice to talk about this normal stuff, to not be alone with this normal stuff.

So, maybe... this comes down to what “atheism” means. I would suggest that the narrow definition is out of touch with the world we live in today and the painful cultural divisions of today. The actual general and deeply held usage of the term is a rejection of much more than a certain narrow style of the Sacred, or Divine. If it is just about labels then, to declare oneself an Athiest Buddhist is to declare Buddhism as standing on one side. That is not helpful for the Dharma blooming in the west. It is narrowing. That's obviously just one opinion.

Gassho
Daizan

Kyotai

09-17-2014, 12:25 PM

Well said Daizan,

For me, if one is an atheist buddhist, one is an atheist buddhist. And that places buddhism no more on one side then a Catholic buddhist.

But, I do see what your saying. I agree. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand and that may cause confusion for those new or newly interested in buddhism.

And yes, the term atheist carries much more baggage culturally. In fact when I think of the word atheist I do think of the more aggressive atheists who have taken up a cause.

I would very much agree with Daizan on my personal defining of atheism and non - theism being one in the same, except that one of those words is a firecracker where you and I call home. And even more so Due South.

David, I agree sometimes it is best to end a discussion and go about your day. But, I too like to hear differing opinions sometimes.

(Plus I heat my home with propane so I have some extra time on my hands lol)

Gassho, Shawn

Anshu Bryson

09-17-2014, 12:32 PM

So, maybe... this comes down to what “atheism” means. I would suggest that the narrow definition is out of touch with the world we live in today and the painful cultural divisions of today. The actual general and deeply held usage of the term is a rejection of much more than a certain narrow style of the Sacred, or Divine. If it is just about labels then, to declare oneself an Athiest Buddhist is to declare Buddhism as standing on one side. That is not helpful for the Dharma blooming in the west. It is narrowing. That's obviously just one opinion.

Gassho
Daizan

I was going to weigh in again, not to argue with you, Daizan, but because I feel that somehow I haven't articulated myself well enough. But I have re-read the thread, and I'd only be repeating myself. Peace.

Gassho,

Bryson

Risho

09-17-2014, 05:00 PM

This is my last post on the thread (so I don't beat it to death. lol), but to follow up:

Daitetsu -- I see where you are coming from; I haven't thought about it like that

Daizan -- your questions always cut through to my heart; they are awesome

I've put a request in to my local library to request this book; it is very popular; there are 11 requests ahead of mine but I have plenty of reading to keep me busy. lol

Gassho,

Risho

Nindo

09-17-2014, 05:18 PM

Ummm... to maybe get back to the book, I only read a short summary online, but when I hear "A rational approach to spirituality" I immediately think of Unitarian Universalism. And secular (non-devotional) Buddhism. I wonder whether the "tools" offered by the book are similar to what these established traditions offer?

Unfortunately, both UU and Buddhism are minority congregations in the West. I truly believe that a) people are searching for spirituality that makes sense to them, but any religious references can be a barrier; and b) if the spiritual needs of more people were met with something other than consumerism, we could finally make progress on the pressing issues of the planet and our societies. Just my 2 pennies.

Hans

09-17-2014, 07:04 PM

Hello,

the book does contain some useful information about the current status quo regarding the philosophy of consciousness, brain physiology etc., as well as a personal account of Mr. Harris's own journey, which was mainly influenced by many years of Theravada, Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen practise. Steven Pinker is a friend if his, so although I am sure one can disagree with him, he does know how to research properly.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

Yugen

09-18-2014, 12:01 AM

To be an atheist requires a theism or "God" to reject, which is not a recognition of the latter's existence? In other words, a dualistic relationship....

I'm with Kyonin - I fall on the side of Buddhism as a philosophy and belief in other religions and spiritualities can inform this practice or not. This is an individual matter.

To pick and choose dualistic frames limits the boundaries of our exploration (and blue smoke comes out of my ears).

It's liberating for me to say "so what?"

Deep bows
Yugen

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RichardH

09-18-2014, 04:03 AM

Daizan -- your questions always cut through to my heart; they are awesome

Thank you, Risho. gassho2

Daizan

Daitetsu

09-18-2014, 09:31 AM

Hi Yugen,

To be an atheist requires a theism or "God" to reject, which is not a recognition of the latter's existence?
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

Hans

09-18-2014, 11:10 AM

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

Jundo

09-18-2014, 02:05 PM

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 :p

In any case, Harris or no Harris ... I sit Zazen as what is.

Gassho, J

Hans

09-18-2014, 02:07 PM

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

Meishin

09-18-2014, 02:22 PM

Hi,

I'm reading it now and finding it engaging. Thanks, Hans, for the reference.

Gassho

Risho

09-18-2014, 02:34 PM

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

Daitetsu

09-18-2014, 03:59 PM

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.
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/all-children-are-born-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

Rich

09-18-2014, 05:07 PM

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. /\

Peacemouse

09-23-2014, 08:36 AM

Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that there is life on other planets? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that we are alone in the universe? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha actually lived on this planet. Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha was a largely made up story by people long after his lifetime? Can one Practice with a deep belief in post-this life Rebirth? Without such a belief?

In no case have you any proof of their existence, or personal experience, only suspicions and beliefs learned from others. Yet if you do believe ... NO PROBLEM! One can still Practice Zen just the same!

Zen is no more impacted by whether there is a "God" or no "God" than it is impacted by whether there is a table or no table in the same room where you sit Zazen. In either case ... table/no table or God/No God ... the sitting is the same. That is because we always sit as "what is" ... and if there is a table, that is "what is. If there is no table, that is "what is".

I often say ...

Gassho, J
im not sure if firm beliefs of any sort are very compatible with Right View - but then again, neither is equivocation.

Jishin

09-23-2014, 11:20 AM

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

Ryumon

09-23-2014, 11:30 AM

Babies might not be atheists according to your definition of atheism. But that's the "problem" - people define things differently.

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

Kaishin

09-26-2014, 06:41 PM

So...

Anyone besides Hans read the book through? Worth checking out?

thanks,
Kaishin

Jinyo

09-26-2014, 06:55 PM

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

Epictetus

09-26-2014, 08:07 PM

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?

Myosha

09-26-2014, 09:38 PM

Hello,

"How can one be bored in such a state?"

Indeed. Thank you for the moment.

Gassho,
Myosha

Jinyo

09-27-2014, 10:06 AM

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

Daitetsu

09-27-2014, 11:07 AM

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

Yugen

09-27-2014, 12:45 PM

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

Rich

09-27-2014, 04:43 PM

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. /\

Jundo

09-28-2014, 02:49 AM

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.

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! :encouragement:

Gassho, J

Anshu Bryson

09-28-2014, 03:45 AM

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! :encouragement:

Gassho, J

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

Jundo

09-28-2014, 04:08 AM

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

Thing ... not thing ... or shwiiiing ... Just Sit.

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" ... [twisted] But that is probably also more about the experiencing than the philosophizing! :p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWPKKH6OCaE

Jinyo

10-05-2014, 09:41 PM

Anshu Bryson

10-06-2014, 12:41 AM

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

RichardH

10-06-2014, 01:17 AM

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

Daiyo

10-06-2014, 01:42 AM

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.

JohnsonCM

10-06-2014, 02:23 AM

Jundo

10-06-2014, 03:05 AM

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'.

VIDEO

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

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-purser/beyond-mcmindfulness_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/showthread.php?12734-Lay-robes-playing-house&p=136835&viewfull=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! :buddha: ). 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

Jundo

10-06-2014, 03:48 AM

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 ...

Tricycle 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

Gassho, J

Anshu Bryson

10-06-2014, 04:22 AM

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, J

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 (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

Anshu Bryson

10-06-2014, 04:33 AM

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

Jinyo

10-06-2014, 08:04 AM

Thank you for your replies.

I found this podcast on 'Stealth Buddhism' on Buddhist Geeks interesting.

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2014/08/bg-331-stealth-buddhism/

Gassho

Willow

Anshu Bryson

10-13-2014, 03:10 AM

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

Diarmuid1

10-16-2014, 09:04 PM

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!

Hans

10-17-2014, 09:24 AM

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

Diarmuid1

10-17-2014, 09:30 AM

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!

Diarmuid1

10-17-2014, 09:35 AM

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.

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!

Daitetsu

10-17-2014, 10:48 AM

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/showthread.php?12743-Theism-Atheism-Painting-and-God

Gassho,

Daitetsu

PS: The following link might be helpful (enough to read the first page): http://www.alternet.org/story/148555/is_atheism_a_belief?page=0%2C0