My gut tells me that years of practicing meditation probably has a consciousness altering effect on the brain that can be described as a feeling of “one-ness with the universe”, “dissolution of self”, or “awakening”… but the same can be said of psychedelic drugs, and people call that “hallucinations” or “delusions”… still, sounds like a pretty nice delusion to have.
A person can experience a sense of “one-ness with the universe” as an altered state of consciousness through many ways via drugs, meditations, stress, mentally ill [schizo, epileptic, etc.] and even brain damage [note Jill Bolte - a neuroscientist].
What is critical to the above experience is how one can apply to optimize one’s well being. The 4NT-8FP life problem-solving technique provide one the path to such an optimization.
Buddhism has the principle of the Middle-Path to ensure one do not get stuck in one extreme, thus via the Two-Truths principles holds there is oneness with the universe [non-duality] in one perspective while in another perspective one is independent within the universe [duality].
There is this neo-advaita movement [of madness];
Neo-Advaita, also called the Satsang-movement[1] and Nondualism, is a New Religious Movement, emphasizing the direct recognition of the non-existence of the “I” or “ego,” without the need of preparatory practice. - Wiki
who keep preaching and telling the world there is no-you, no-me, no-self and all sort of one-sided extreme thus the call to abandon what we would term as the ordinary real world.
In normal everyday life, a Buddhist will acknowledge the independent external world. However where the impulses of the existential crisis is active, the Buddhist adopt the oneness with the universe, i.e. there is no independent God to offer salvation to the independent individual.
Since in this perspective of oneness, there is no independent soul to be lost and need to be saved, thus avoiding the sufferings from any “imagined” threat of loss upon mortality.
To be in state of holding to two extremes at the same time but not in the same perspective require one to cultivate the necessary skills supported by the effective algorithm within one’s brain/mind via proper meditations [a requisite of Buddhism] and reflections.
In general most of those who experienced an altered states of consciousness of one-ness via other means [drugs, etc.] do not convert their experiences to the practicals of life.
In the case of Buddhism, the ordinary believer do not start with an expectation of an experience of one-ness but rather such an experience of oneness spontaneously emerged after some time in the course of practicing Buddhism and reflections on its doctrine.
The problem with the above is at present there are so many schools and sects of Buddhism promoting a range of confusing and opposing interpretations of Buddhism-proper.
Thus there is a need to get to what is Buddhism-proper which can be extracted from the teachings of the Buddha in alignment with universal philosophy-proper.
So, following this gut reaction, that you have right now, what do you want to do? (for now)
A Buddhist would say that people have “hallucinations” and “delusions” and that meditation(,etc) helps a person to recognize and remove them. An awakened person sees the world clearly, as it actually is.
Nothing! I want to keep going as I’ve always been going, pursuing my life goals, trying to get my shit together, keep striving up the ladder of my career, none of which requires intensive meditation practices or following the advice of Buddhist gurus. So I’ll just keep doing that.
Of course they would say that. Everybody thinks they see the truth. A hippie would say drugs open his eyes and awakened him to the truth about the way the world really is (incidentally, it often seems to align quite well with Eastern/Buddhist thought).
If you can only see the world as it really is when you are high on drugs, then that’s a serious limitation to that method. An awakened Buddhist can do it at any time.
That’s why you try it and see if it’s something that works for you and that you want to pursue.
You already answered here:
Well, there’s that answered.
Sure, in most cases, but that doesn’t mean some aren’t right or more right than others.
Can he manage it without the drugs? Are the drugs damaging his nervous system and slowly dulling him? Is using drugs a way of forcing the mind to experience something, especially if one is doing them regularly? What if Buddhist thought is off and the hippy is just taking a somewhat damaging short cut to an off way of being?
Can he? Or can he just remember what he experienced in his deepest meditative states and brought the insights back to his everyday state of consciousness? After all, the same could be said about a drug user. When I used to do drugs, I used to have deep spiritual experiences of all kinds, and I would be able to bring the memories/insights back with me after I sobered up, giving me a new perspective with which to see the world from that point forward regardless of my state of consciousness.
I wouldn’t presume to know whether Buddhists can or can’t experience the world in that awakened state all the time, even if one tells me he can. This is the crux of this thread. I don’t know what they mean when they say things like that.
That’s not the point. The druggie probably is doing some damage to, if not his brain then his life in some way, a way that Buddhist practitioners probably don’t. I’ll be the first to agree that the Buddhist path is most likely far more healthy and positive than the drug user’s life. But my point is… does the Buddhist experience something real or is it just an epiphenomenon of a rare and unusually neurochemical state that he has a method for putting his brains into. He’s going to say it’s real for the same reason the druggie says it’s real–because it seems real (all mental states do)–not to mention it’s embedded in their millennia long doctrine, the beginnings of which emerged long before we knew anything about neurology and its effects on altered states of consciousness.
Again, not saying this makes it a bad thing–if such a state, regardless of the reality of the things experienced therein, appears to bring about feelings of well-being, peace, compassion, etc., then maybe we should all strive to be in that state–maybe it’s a healthier state than even the drug-free well-adjusted common person. But the devil’s advocate in me always wants to demythologize religious and spiritual interpretations of experiences and folklore events, so I do.
(I actually get kinda annoyed at those who just “go with the flow” of something based only on how deep and spiritual and inspirational it sounds; I like to be critical and analytical.)
One habit I’ve noticed, and it’s a tricky one to break or figure out when to use because it is useful, is the habit of assuming that if X is right about B, C, and D, it is right about R. That said, the problem is, essentially we are all religious. We all have daily practices - reading the newspaper, fantasizing, surfing the net, whatever - we all have an ontology (and most modern people have a muddle of several ontologies - and heuristics about what will help us, and we dedicate our time and energy to theses things. As much time as any dedicated monk. We are all true believers, even the skeptics, who spend their time doing that without any proof it leads to a better life by any criteria. Practices, ontology, heuristics. And dedication, even if to laziness and skepticism. Committment to an approach to life. So, we’ve all made a choice, and that choice is perhaps the one to notice, cause that’s our religion, like it or not. Then when we aim skepticism at other approaches, it is in the context of our own radical choice, the ones we have already made and live by. There is no neat way to not be fooled, we may have already fooled ourselves.
There are no sidelines in life. We are all in, utterly committed to an approach to life. We may change that approach, but we’ve all got one. Even Iambiguous is as utterly committed as any objectivist to a lifestyle that he has no evidence is better than any other. In fact it might be a terrible choice for all he knows - which he admits, though not with the certainty he admits he is unconvinced by others. We can demand proof from others, but we are already dedicated believers and practitioners of ‘religion’ X.
And that religion has specific brain states and experiences.
So, even though some people make a real mess out of being strongly informed by desire and intuition…
that does not mean we have an option that is purely rational - whatever that would mean for an embodied mammal -
and he’re we are
already dedicated to practices, an ontology, and heuristics.
Notice your own religion because you are already priest and practioner in that religion.
And on what grounds?
I suppose what I am saying could also be:
we are immanent but we think we are transcendent. I see hints of this in Iambiguous and other skeptics, and then in people in general who think they are not committed believers. We cannot via skepticism, nihilism, not choosing a religion or other objectivism
avoid full and utterly fanatic committment to attitudes and heuristics we can’t know are good ones.
And we are all doing that right now, today.
It seems that he can:
It’s not just a memory, it’s an altered brain developed through practice:
You can’t know unless you try:
“Matthieu Ricard is a Buddhist monk, an author, and the French interpreter for the Dalai Lama.”
“Wolf Singer is the emeritus director of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt.”
Quotes are taken from this article:
theatlantic.com/internation … ce/548120/
One cannot possibly know the philosophical position of every single individual with regard to the meaning of life as internal mental states are unknowable
And for exactly the same reason one cannot just assume that everyone will have a definitive approach to the fundamental question of the meaning of life
Also how can one for example be utterly committed to detachment and slowly letting go in order to make mental space for the inevitability of ones own death
As detachment by definition is not something that one can be utterly committed to because there is no attempt at control but in actual fact the total opposite
I think that approaches to the question of the meaning of life exist on a spectrum and detachment / apathy / nihilism / misanthropy are a place on that spectrum
These positions would definitely be on the sidelines and even more so if they were not expressed as ideology but simply as a general view on the human condition
Accepting ones own mortality by understanding that one is merely passing through should not be considered remotely ideological
For it is a pragmatic position above all else since it happens to be true in an objective sense so is one that everyone can agree on
I mentioned, in that post, that modern people probably have a mix of ontologies and the practices i mentioned were mundane ones, which I specifically chose, in part because they indicate that while everyone is utterly dedicated to their specific or mixed lifestyle/problem solving heuristics and ontology (ies) it may not look like a discipline. This is because only some ways of making life better involve what we would call disciplines or have singular viewpoints. But even mixed approaches are utterly committed. They are working or not. You are committed to the results of your choices. They may be poor ones. You life is utterly affected by them, down to the bone.
You committ yourself to practicing those states. And there are ways to do this. I don’t like that approach to life and yes, it seems paradoxical, because you must start with a goal of being goalless or a desire to not have desires or…etc. But Buddhists are very aware of this seeming paradox. That desire is seen as the least damaging, and so moving towards it prepares the ground for letting it go also. But it damn well takes committment to sit and be uncomfortable and stifle desires and be bored and resist urges and distractions.
What I mean when I say on the sidelines is this: if you decide to detach, you may be on the sidelines of debates, and certain other activities and emotional expression. However you are still in the middle of life, making a choice, one that affects you to the bone and one that may be wrong. Remember this is all in the context of Gib not wanting to commit to Buddhism and the way he framed his skepticism.
I am reminding him that he is making a choice of how to live with no guarantee that it is a good one. And that was part of his criticism of Buddhism.
Most people do not consider their beliefs an ideology since that latter term is pejorative. They think of it as the right choices and attitudes.
The attitude you are presenting may or may not be a good one and it may not be right for everyone. Of course you think it is simply a fact, but attitudes are not facts.
I simply meant that the inevitability of death was a fact everyone can agree on
Whatever ones philosophical position about death is is another matter entirely
I dont think that everyone is committed to the results of their choices as they may not fully understand the consequences or may not accept responsibility for them
It may also be that they need time before they can truly understand them . Human beings are not machines . They are complicated and messy and they dont always know what they are doing even when they want to . And a lot of the time they are probably on auto pilot because their life is to a greater or lesser extent relatively predictable . I dont think everyone necessarily considers their philosophical position on the meaning of life . For there are by the laws of averages bound to be those who either hardly ever think about it or never at all . Introspection is after all not for everyone
the second point you make was precisely one of the things I was saying. IOW Gib looks at Buddhism and says, hey what are the guarantees Buddhism will do what it says and that it is a good thing. To me that is as if his choices either have some kind of guarantee or he is outside the universe looking in at option of ways to live. But he is already in the universe, having made choices about how to deal with pain, improve, solve problems, and these have no guarantees. He may or may not take responsibility for this, but, precisely, many don’t. Further I think people think ideology is X, Y and Z and they don’t have these things. Precisely because they do not follow a single organized system. But the fact is they follow a hodgepodge system, one that pulls from many authorities.
Further they are utterly committed, since whether they take responsbility or not their choices have affects on them and others around them. I am not saying they are consciously committing, make an overt or ritual commitment. But they have a defacto committment, cause man they got skin in the game.
I agree completely. If you go back to the way I approached Gib, I asked him where he was now, suggested he follow his intuition and analysis and see what that told him and reevaluate later if he felt the urge. Further I was pressing him and people in general to notice that they have skin in the game, they have already got a lot of lifestyle heuristics in place and these likely have no guarantees and they may not be aware but these may or may not be working at all.
I agree, but again, that fits well with what I was saying. If someone looks at a philosophical or spiritual system and says ‘oh, there are no guarantees, so I won’t do that’ I want to point out that they are already in a philosophical system or mix of them without guarantees. Here we are in a philosophy forum, so I am pressing people to notice that there is no sideline. They are in the game. Maybe they have a system, maybe they just have a lot of half digested not really thought about trickle down half philosophies. But even in the latter case, these still counts as an approach to life. And they are using it all the time. Is it working?
Sure.
My point is consciously committe or not, they are betting their lives on the choices they are making. Thinking about it or not. Evaluating it or not. Here they are, in life, that their ontology, heuristics and attitudes are affecting them profoundly, be they Buddhist, Christian, Existentialist, or just some mish mash of common sense stuff they’ve gotten from parents, tv, peers and advertising. They are committed in that sense, regardless.
Even if everyone is committed that commitment will be on a very wide spectrum indeed . Between the most dedicated follower of a prescriptive
belief system at one end and the most detached misantrophic nihilist at the other end . And with everyone else somewhere in between these two
Certainly those people on that spectrum are committed to many different things. But they are all totally committed. It’s like if you are playing poker and you put the keys to you car in the pot, the keys to your house and you put in a contract that you will give away your life if you lose the bet. That’s really committing to a bet. Well, here’s the thing. Our lives, relations, property, feelings, experiencing are all in the pot, whether we consciously bet them or not. That’s part of what it is to be alive: we have everything bet on our choices. Now we can not notice this, not question our choices, but we are making them, have made them, and everything is on the line.
Yes, I’ve read similar studies myself. Note that the only difference between the drug user and the meditation practitioner is that the drug user needs an external mechanism to bring him into his altered state of consciousness whereas the meditation practitioner can do it from within. But that doesn’t answer my question about whether the state of consciousness the meditation practitioner experiences is any less a delusion or hallucination than the drug user.
I did take that back, saying guarantee was too strong a word and faith was a bit better. I don’t have enough faith in Buddhism to make a decision to try meditation seriously.
But what happens when we look at our own lives and notice that we have just as little guarantee that our own methods and practices work as other methods and practices? Is the logical thing to do to switch from our own methods and practices to other methods and practices? How many different methods and practices should we try? How many can we try all at once?
Or are you saying a lack of guarantee can’t be the real reason we don’t abandon our own methods and practices for others, that there must be another reason since we obviously don’t abandon them? What do you think that is?
It’s more than not wanting to commit, it’s not knowing how to relate to Buddhism, how to regard it. If I could feel certain that Buddhism is just another of the world’s religions, I could easily dismiss it the way I do other religions (and continue on my life’s path the way I’ve always been doing), but I’m intrigued by this intuitive sense I have that there’s something more to it, which keeps drawing me back to it and asking questions, wanting to know.
And I would guess that decision includes what it feels like to meditate. IOW if Buddhist practice was walking three times a week for 20 minutes through some woods and you liked that and there were woods nearby, you might say, hm, I’m not convinced this will bring me to some great state, but I like this so I’ll give a try for a few months or until I don’t want to. But since the process is not particularly appealing AND you lack faith, you find yourself not doing it. I think this is a perfectly valid way to decide things. Are we drawn to it? if there are unpleasant or seemingly hard aspects, do we have the motivation (which will include our faith and desperation as factors.)
No, I never argued that. But if the criterion we decide not to do something is: it has no guarantee, I think it is important to acknowledge that what we are doing already has no guarantee. So what is really making us not choose Buddhism. Well, probably, we don’t want to sit and meditate, for example. Or perhaps the idea of no-self sounds unpleasant. I raise the issue because I think it leads to a more honest appraisal of why we choose and do not choose. And as I said above, I think those reasons are good ones. Why should I sit on a mat and meditate if I don’t want to?
yes, more like that. But also I think it is a pure good to notice that we already have a system. I think that gives us a realistic focus. We can walk around making it seem like a rational decision, but I think it is an intuitive one. Reason can play some role, but when it comes down to it, likes, dislikes, impressions, feelings play a large part. I think it is good to accept, acknowledge and respect this. Maybe path Z is right for some people but not others. Maybe they lead to different ends. We are humans with feelings and desires and preferences. These leads us places. I think that’s no only fine, but lovely. I am glad you don’t force yourself to do something you are not convinced will help you that isn’t really appealing to you (now). I mean, it is almost weird that that would be an issue. What lovely self-care. What a perfect way to determine your life path by including all of you in the decisions and evaluations.
[/quote]
[/quote]
So, there’s a draw and there’s some not liking. I get that. It’s not settled. Not enough to make you want to join. Not enough to make you say ‘never’.