en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1176083 Comments by Duncan http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/11/are-you-choosing-to-die-already/#IDComment115811693 Nice, provocative article! Some more thoughts on the age issue: agree that older people 'die' through succumbing to fixed habits, but younger people 'die' too. The young tend to be very hung up on how they appear to others, and on what others think of them, so it's very often social conformity that 'kills' the young rather than habits. Through my ancient eyes I sometimes notice how many of them don't even seem to be aware of this. Although I've noticed myself becoming more set in my ways as I've aged, I'm far less concerned and influenced by social pressures than I used to be. I just don't care so much about what people think of me. This seems liberating in many respects and has helped me with my practice (or so I currently believe). Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:41:43 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/11/are-you-choosing-to-die-already/#IDComment115811693 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/science-buddhism-and-the-near-death-experience/#IDComment107849088 On this path I've been left feeling stupid and amazed over and over again regarding what it is and what it isn't possible to experience. :-) Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:59:51 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/science-buddhism-and-the-near-death-experience/#IDComment107849088 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/science-buddhism-and-the-near-death-experience/#IDComment107778287 A 'fact', or a view? And certainly not a Buddhist view, because *what* is this person that is dead and no more? If we can't even find or define *what* has died, how can we say it's dead? Buddhism looks to a lot of people in the West simply like liberal secularism with its ass on a cushion. It might not be so simple. Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:34:28 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/science-buddhism-and-the-near-death-experience/#IDComment107778287 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/science-buddhism-and-the-near-death-experience/#IDComment106377339 Nice article! Well put! But there are dangers here also... We shouldn't need to rely on extraordinary states (e.g. NDEs) to support our views. The safest (most 'Buddhist') route is to base our views in ordinary experience, in what is apparent right now, not in ideas about it. Looking and seeing how our consciousness is utterly conditioned does not concede truth to the materialists. Indeed, we must see precisely that in order to encounter Emptiness / The Unconditioned. Materialism is not the positing of a causal relationship between brain and mind so much as the identification of the brain as something with a necessary priority, as a 'self'. So what, if my brain conditions completely my behaviour and experience? So what, if someone knows where to stick an electrode in order to make certain behaviours arise? This simply makes it even more apparent that what is being influenced is not a 'me', even though it may arise prior to consciousness. Buddhism trains us to see how consciousness may be completely determined, but is always empty of self. Regardless of whether the brain is 'transmitter' or 'generator'. You don't have to have any unusual experiences (e.g. NDEs, psychic experiences) to see that. And this is not a view that's necessarily incompatible with modern science or neurology. Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:22:55 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/10/science-buddhism-and-the-near-death-experience/#IDComment106377339 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/07/bg-179-an-evidence-based-spirituality-for-the-21st-century/#IDComment89806464 Hi Joel - My difficulty is with the definition of enlightenment as a 'state', which it can't be if it is the realisation of the unchanging and the non-contingent. Otherwise, should we suppose that the Buddha was more enlightened at some times than others, or that his enlightenment depended on what his circumstances happened to be at a particular moment? I don't think we should - and we don't have to, if we discard the idea of enlightenment as state. 'The God helmet', on the other hand, certainly produces a state - which ceases when the helmet is switched off. A so-called 'enlightenment drug' would be unlike any medicine that I can think of, in that it would have to produce an effect that never wore off and wasn't contingent upon the organism of the taker. All drugs so far invented produce states, wouldn't you say? It's like supposing there might be a drug which enabled us to speak and understand Russian when we took it! Maybe that's possible (although I personally doubt it), but I'd hazard that it's somewhat further off than your friend might suggest. These imminent promises of devices to store 'neurological data' also provoke my scepticism. They may turn out to be as indefinitely postponed as our personal jet-packs and our holidays on the moon! As I mentioned in my last post, such ideas seem to contradict the teachings on emptiness. How are we to regard our experience as 'data'? Imagine a coin pressed into some putty - certainly, it leaves an impression or an image, but where is the 'data' in this? What has been 'stored' and in what? Call me a cynic! ;-) Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:07:46 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/07/bg-179-an-evidence-based-spirituality-for-the-21st-century/#IDComment89806464 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/07/bg-179-an-evidence-based-spirituality-for-the-21st-century/#IDComment89158941 'We have such an extraordinary paucity of any hard evidence that people have ever been reborn', was Stephen's wording, according to the podcast transcript. Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:17:32 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/07/bg-179-an-evidence-based-spirituality-for-the-21st-century/#IDComment89158941 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/07/bg-179-an-evidence-based-spirituality-for-the-21st-century/#IDComment88455227 My reaction to all this is that I don't think we can exclude 'magick' from Buddhism, and I don't think that we can reconcile Buddhism with materialism. If we adopt materialism, then matter is the fundamental source of all our knowledge. Matter is taken to be real and substantial and the teachings on Emptiness fall by the wayside. If matter is reality and not Emptiness then enlightenment is a 'material' configuration also - presumably some kind of brain state. Enlightenment would therefore be a 'seeming' and not the underlying nature of all things, in which case the practices of Buddhism would lead merely to this 'seeming' also, rather than insight into the truth of things. So there would be no special advantage to Buddhism above any other religious or ethical system. Hence: Buddhism could not survive materialism. The term 'magick' has been used disparagingly above, but it should be noted how many traditions of Buddhism include magical practices to a greater or lesser degree. What magick is very good at enabling us to realise is the contingent nature of reality. Our desire shapes our belief, which shapes our perception, which shapes our reality. Magick is the fundamental art of bending reality with our desire, employing this chain of dependencies. There is no objective evidence for magick. Likewise there is no objective evidence for Emptiness, for enlightenment, or for your most amazing experience on the meditation cushion being what it seemed to be. Magick depends upon subjective experiences. The evidence of science for magick is often statistical, yet it's the subjective experience that is the vital aspect of magick. The lack of such evidence for magick should not be something that troubles Buddhists - unless they also believe they will reach enlightenment by being presented with evidence of its reality, rather than through first-hand practice. In other words, as with Buddhist practice, so with magick: you will only experience and find 'evidence' for them in your own experience. Although magick is great for demonstrating to us immediately the contingent nature of reality, people can get hung up on the simple trick of bending reality to their will without taking that extra step of realising that the 'self' performing the magick is also a part of a contingent reality. It is in this sense that the Buddha warned against the siddhis. Magick itself is an essential but implicit aspect of Buddhist practice. Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:40:15 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/07/bg-179-an-evidence-based-spirituality-for-the-21st-century/#IDComment88455227 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment85525399 Hi Benoit - Okay, so let's take the teaching that 'an Arahant is someone who has automatically become celibate'. How could we possibly verify this if we're expected to ask an Arahant? Who do we go to? Presumably to someone who has automatically become celibate, if this is the criteria for an Arahant, but in that case the teaching is merely a self-fulfilling article of faith. Or do we turn to someone who is sexually active, in which case how do we know we're talking to an Arahant?! I'd suggest that who we regard as 'the wise' is therefore also a matter of personal experience. I think that personal experience and logic are very valuable faculties indeed, because I don't think we can escape the view that some of the suttas are far more valuable than others! Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:50:40 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment85525399 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment83133621 Hi Benoit - Surely, mindfulness of sensations is what makes sex so pleasurable? Being mindful of our arousal and our desire makes the experience far more pleasurable than if we're not. Mindfulness of the sensations of an erection - for example - surely makes one *more* horny, rather than making the horniness go away?! If mindfulness of something destroyed the arising of that thing, then mindfulness of anything would be impossible. It's not the presence or absence of 'tanha' that is at issue, in my view, but the recognition of the nature of 'tanha' - impermanent, devoid of essence, and unsatisfactory. And if we look, we can see that these apply even to mindfulness itself! Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:41:31 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment83133621 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment81378976 Sexual activity can weaken the impression of self, in that it produces certain powerful sensations which are seen to be impermanent, unsatisfactory and devoid of essence. Sexual activity can strengthen the impression of self, in that it produces certain powerful sensations which are *not* seen to be impermanent, unsatisfactory and devoid of essence. Sexual sensations arise in living beings according to instinct. We might argue that identifying with these sensations can strengthen the impression of self, but you seem to be arguing that the self somehow precedes these sensations and is strengthened by them - which is an odd view to take, for someone who asserts there is no self! Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:19:13 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment81378976 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment81374766 What you've just described is my understanding of 'middle way' too. Sorry if I misunderstood, but in your original post it seemed you were applying this term to the practice of seeking a compromise between any and all conflicting terms or views. This is guaranteed to land us in trouble because it's often the case that one view is simply more helpful than another. If we automatically assume that the best path lies between the two then we opt for something less helpful than if we considered each view on its merit and simply chose the one that was better. In Buddhism there's the important concept of 'right view'. But if Buddhism held to the principle that a compromise between all views is best, then there could be no such thing as 'right view' - unless 'right view' were that 'a compromise between all views is best'. But that's not what it is! ;-) Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:35:20 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment81374766 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment81115508 @Alex: I disagree that enlightenment is an escape from samsara. This view runs the risk of aversion towards everyday reality. An aversion of this kind might seem like 'non-attachment', but may actually be a denial or shunning of experience. The Buddha's ultimate statement was that samsara and nirvana are not different. If they were different then enlightenment would be impossible. Having and enjoying a sexual relationship does not entail 'clinging' to sex any more than speaking entails 'clinging' to language. Indeed, some traditions employ sexual experience as a means advancing towards awakening, which is possible because it's not the experience itself that is at issue but the practitioner's insight into the nature of experience (impermanent, unsatisfactory, empty). @Dan: I'm sure you're aware that if there are two views, it doesn't necessarily follow that an intermediate compromise between them is necessarily more true. That would be a style of thinking guaranteed to land us in trouble, and it's not what I understand as the meaning of 'the middle way'. Sun, 20 Jun 2010 17:51:10 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment81115508 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment80822752 I don't think that people abandon practice because it doesn't feel right, but because it doesn't feel good. I agree that people may abandon practice because it doesn't feel good, but I don't understand how telling them they are not at liberty to do so is any help, because the experience of being told one must do something generally doesn't feel very good either. I agree that some people may kill because it feels good, but telling them it's not right doesn't stop it feeling good. In the same way, telling someone that dharma *is* right doesn't stop it feeling bad. Insight always comes from within, so it's pointless trying to impose it from outside by treating Buddhist practice like the letter of the law. Solitude is not necessary for enlightenment because the nature of reality is already there to be understood whether we are with people or alone. And I assume it's not necessary for me to go into detail about how being alone doesn't eliminate in the slightest the opportunity for sexual desire, fantasy, activity, enjoyment and satisfaction! Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:52:58 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment80822752 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment80572372 Sure you can pick and choose! Because the Buddha advised us not to accept any teachings on the basis of authority alone but to try them, test them, and accept as true only that which proved itself in personal experience - which is what it sounds as if Christopher Titmus is indeed speaking from. So if something doesn't work for us we can chuck it out - although it might be the case, of course, that what we took for a 'teaching' was actually our own misunderstanding in the first place, such as the absurd notion (as the interview highlighted) that Buddhism aims at or is a cure for sexual desire. The bad news is that dharma won't make our sexual insecurities or impulses go away. But the good news is that these don't stand in the way of enlightenment either. You don't have to give up sex in order to arrive at an understanding of the nature of reality, because sex is a part of that nature, not an obstacle to it. (How could it be? Stupid, when you think about it...) My favourite part of the interview was when Christopher mentioned 'the beautiful, very beautiful, I might add, women I had been in a relationship [with]'. Ha, ha! This was excellent! So it seems, in fact, that being involved in the dharma may not be all that bad for our sex appeal at all... ;-) Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:51:11 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-176-the-place-of-the-erotic/#IDComment80572372 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79481406 But the problem with this view is precisely that it doesn't lead to any results if, as you are claiming, the results of contemplative practice are necessarily an interpretation. All that this view therefore leads to is interpretation, interpretation... Again: this is not Buddhism. It's postmodernist nihilism. Was the Buddha's enlightenment 'an interpretation' of an experience and not the actual experience of truth? 'Getting out the arrow' is enlightenment - i.e. the experience of absolute truth, reality as it is. This is what the Buddha told us to aim at through our practice. I don't recall anything about 'interpreting' experience. That would be so incredibly dull! ;-) Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:42:55 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79481406 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79469328 I don't think we can expect karma to furnish us with any causal laws, because karma is (pretty much) causality itself. Karma is causality expressed at the human level. No-self means that everything is a universal process. What we think of as a human life is therefore not separate from this process or from other human lives in the way it is our habit to suppose. Life is a series of effects and our consciousness of those effects is actually included among the effects, rather than somehow standing outside them. For my part, I'd say I'm hesitant to ditch reincarnation because this view seems the logical corollary to the fact of no-self: there is no self to witness the fruits of our acts, but only the act of our witnessing them. This is all very murky and difficult, but perhaps we can't ditch reincarnation without ditching a more accurate and inclusive view of what life without a self really means. This may be what the kind of evidence that Dr. Tart has highlighted is pointing to: karma persists, but it doesn't belong to a self. Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:44:38 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79469328 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79442948 That approach doesn't cut it for me, because it can't specify what 'getting out the arrow' actually is. If 'understanding the nature of reality' is really 'the felt sense of understanding the nature of reality', then surely 'getting out the arrow' is just 'the felt sense of getting out the arrow', in which case this view doesn't lead anywhere. If we are uncomfortable about asserting that something is 'true' then we have nothing to argue about, and no basis on which to argue it. This is not a Buddhist position, in my view, but nihilist. You don't need Buddhism in order to lead a 'better' life. There are lots of ways to do that. But you do need Buddhism to arrive at certain truths concerning the nature of reality. Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:09:37 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79442948 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79292009 I thought Dr. Batchelor said not that we shouldn't look for evidence, but (worse than that) that we shouldn't even look - period. Unless what we're looking at has to do with easing suffering. Having now listened to the podcast in full, to be honest I disliked this view of Buddhism. For instance: 'I honestly don’t think the Buddha was interested in the nature of reality.' I mean - WTF?! If Buddhism is not concerned with the nature of reality then why do we meditate? On the question of God, if we directly realise the truth of no-self then what the hell else do we suppose is left in the universe apart from God?! Granted, it may not be helpful to call it 'God', because that makes it a 'thing' or imputes a self to it, which contradicts its nature (and hence Buddhism's inclination to ditch the term, I suspect). But, speaking personally, it was the encounter with Buddhism that enabled me to see how the experience of something we might call 'God' is not a matter of belief at all, but of direct experience. Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:42:21 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79292009 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79253519 But what *kind* of reincarnation does the evidence point to? I'm thinking of that hoary old question: if Buddhism is correct and there is no soul, essence or self, then what exactly gets re-born? The standard reply in Buddhism is that it's not self that is reborn, but karma. Is the child's ability to recall the memories of a recently deceased person evidence that the child 'was' that person in a former life? Or is it perhaps evidence for telepathy, or perhaps for some kind of Akashic record of human experience? So, is the evidence to which Dr. Tart refers evidence for reincarnation? I'd certainly agree that it's evidence for something very interesting that cannot be dismissed simply by an appeal to belief. Good stuff! ;-) Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:31:44 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-175-the-buddhist-atheist/#IDComment79253519