Watts said “In the real world there are no things, there are no events.” Bullcrap. We only have an imperfect representation of things and events, by virtue of our senses, and by virtue of the “stories” we can concoct by using our complex verbal behaviors. But they represent real things and events. E.g., a photo of you is not you, it is only a very limited representation of you.
Watts is telling a story designed to help ppl do meditation behavior in the way that will be most effective. i.e., by absolutely ceasing all covert verbal behavior. He is using verbal behavior to get you to not use any verbal behavior when you meditate. The content of verbal behavior is always a symbolic representation of something. The verbal behavior itself exists, but the content exists as a representation of something. I think that we need somewhat complex verbal behavior to ever develop a coherent concept of self. So, is “I” or “you” no more than a concept? I think that it is a concept that represents the “I” or “you” that actually exists. But back to meditating, apparently one needs to temporarily rid one’s self of the concept of self, in order to most effectively meditate in the way that Watts is proposing.
He explains himself, if you listen to the whole thing, but Xian specifically doesn’t do that. He hears “there are no things” and sticks his mind there and doesn’t move, then annoys everyone else with his discovery.
What Watts goes on to say is that we looked up at the stars and saw a pattern and named it after some other pattern that we were familiar with and had already been named by someone before us. That pattern doesn’t exist as a thing in the stars. The stars are stars. We called it a pattern and give it meaning. He’s telling you this so you’ll let go of that natural pattern recognition thing you do and just be with what is. Xian takes that idea, then starts looking for some kind of pattern that is not the pattern, something that is that isn’t what just is. Completely missing the point.
Not really. It’s not just the pattern it goes on to talk about stuff like how hands are just arbitrary cutoffs and so is the neck. They don’t exist in reality and neither does a tree, just our idea of a tree. You are limiting yourself to just constellations, this refers to everything around us. That’s what he means by no objects and no events. With no subject and no object then nothing happens. You under state greatly what he means.
Even the bit about emotions is like saying that our feelings don’t matter since they are merely based on our thoughts about reality and not reality itself. It sounds like blaming the “victim” in a weird sense (victim I use in a not-so negative sense, just a subject).
I mean we are talking about a man who called life a game, which is pretty cold.
So what are you saying Xian? Are you saying Watts is wrong? Are you saying life isn’t a game? You’ve been heading toward this “no objects” thing for a long time. But then it seems to bother you when someone says that means emotions aren’t real. You’re bouncing all over the place.
A consciousness of, or presence of, one’s own thoughts is not always necessary for emotions to be elicited. For example, rats experience fear, basic empathy, and even laugh when tickled. I doubt, however, that they are also having coherent associated thinking that creatures who have more complex verbal behavior, could have.
Emotions are reflexive, i.e., elicited by stimuli, all of which are, initially, unconditional stimuli. An organism can learn to have all sorts of conditioned stimuli that can elicit emotional responses, by virtue of a history of unconditional stimuli being paired with conditioned ones. Thoughts, for instance would have to have some initial history of (or means of) association with unconditional stimuli, in order to elicit emotional responses.
I think the gist of what people like Watts are saying, which goes back to Buddhism, is that there are layers of abstraction. Words identify things for our convenience, so we can say something like “hand that to me” and know what is meant by it. Without that, we would have to go into a lengthy description of what a hand is as well as all the other concepts in that short phrase. What enlightenment is about is realizing there is that layer and it can separate us from our basic humanness. Our basic biology is mysterious and includes feelings that our culture might try to describe, or label as bad, or suggest we should try to eliminate. Buddhism says, just be with it. Don’t even have a goal for why you should be with it, just be with it.
Emotions are fleeting, unless they continue to be elicited. Without any further eliciting stimulus, any emotion will ebb. Thoughts can be conditioned stimuli that continue to elicit the same or other emotions.
What enlightenment is about is realizing there is that layer and it can separate us from our basic humanness. Our basic biology is mysterious and includes feelings that our culture might try to describe, or label as bad, or suggest we should try to eliminate. Buddhism says, just be with it. Don’t even have a goal for why you should be with it, just be with it.
I think that “basic humanness” is made up, just some magical nonsense. Buddhism is also about getting over those feelings like letting go of love, sadness, loneliness, etc. You essentially become less human.
But that’s not what enlightenment is. Apparently the saying goes that if you can describe it then it isn’t “it” (their words not mine).
I bounce around because there are a lot of issue I take with Buddhism and eastern philosophy. Their definition of the self as conditioned, which means there is no core you can call you, just a bunch of outside influences (aka the false mind that the broward people talk about, which no one has addressed yet). But it’s also the rather cold response they have to people in emotional turmoil. It reads a lot like victim blaming.
A buddha priest stay at the farm for a couple of days. He was here to bless the surrounding Asian farms. This was the first time I ever got to talk to a buddha priest.
And I have researched religion and understand the basic ideas of the religion. More than that. I understand some of the steps of evolution that the religion went thru. Now I had worked with the Catholic monastery for several years to help dairy workers. And had hired a monk from Mexico to teach the company employees the religious parts of how properly work with employees from Mexico and Central America. Then my good friend is the head of Saint Antony Monastery a Coptic orthodox church.
And I got to say the Buddha priest is the happiest man I have ever met in my life. I would really like to have him come back.
Your post here is about trying to understand or question the Broward Meditation thinking. The first word in your reference site is “Historically”. If that is wrong, then the whole pathway you are on is wrong. I posted a question for you on this. You never answered, and in my view, you are still going in circles.
And I got to say the Buddha priest is the happiest man I have ever met in my life. I would really like to have him come back.
Your post here is about trying to understand or question the Broward Meditation thinking. The first word in your reference site is “Historically”. If that is wrong, then the whole pathway you are on is wrong. I posted a question for you on this. You never answered, and in my view, you are still going in circles.
I am no expert and only have a viewpoint.
Happy doesn’t exactly correlate to truth. We can see that the results of meditation are really just a rewiring of the brain (which he likely doesn’t know). What he thinks is the truth of reality is likely just a different brain state. Their happiness is rooted in thinking they know the truth. A common occurrence. In my experience monks can be pretty cold about their mode of “compassion” (which is more like not doing bad instead of doing good). But then again I would be blissful if much of the societal heavy lifting is done by others and all I had to do was wear a robe and speak in vague words.
You haven’t posted any question about it on here so I know not of what you mean. And their “historically” isn’t correct since the mind has never been defined as that.
It it pretty much is. “Enlightenment” is about leaving everything behind. What we know to be human must be lost, it’s a common theme.
What I am contributing is a correction to the misunderstandings you have about what they actually mean. But more than that I’m trying to stay on topic about my original post, to which no one has made a proper answer to or about. 3pointRat believes they did but really just said it’s not valid, which is a cop out. Aside from that no one else has answered.
No one seems to get that if, as they claim, there is no “who you are” then how does one live their life? Are their dreams and desires just secondhand from others and not their own? How does one live? It feels like I’m the only one who gets what’s at stake and what eastern philosophy is really saying.
Pretty sure that Adayshanti said that enlightenment is leaving your world behind (metaphorically I’m guessing). That you can’t take your ego with you.
But that’s getting off base here. People still haven’t given an answer to the OP.
As for why I dislike Buddhism. They tend to make fundamental human aspects (love, emotional bonding, the need for friends, etc) seem like something you need to get over
You haven’t been answering my questions either. Leaving your ego behind metaphorically is not at all the same as “What we know to be human must be lost”.
As for your question, “No one seems to get that if, as they claim, there is no “who you are” then how does one live their life?” The answer is, there is a “who” that you are, so are our answers to how a live a life are given with that assumed. Attempting to answer your question is like answering if Batman can win a fight against Superman.
You either misread things, or you find things that are wrong and prefer to stick with them, despite whatever else you read or what others say. You are a troll of your own posts. You don’t look into the meaning of words, like “ego”. You just keep rolling along, going nowhere.
Here’s the first sentence on Adyashanti.org, the name you recommended as support for your argument.
Spirituality is not something set apart from life; rather, it is a plunge into the heart of existence.
Except it is. That first sentence (while vague) makes more sense when you see his other stuff. He literally says that to be “enlightened” you have to leave your world behind. Another part what about how when “someone” was standing in front of him it wasn’t any different from empty space. It’s pretty much throwing away what means to be human.
I am not trolling my own posts and I’m not misreading things. It’s more like people just don’t have answers to the questions or points being raised. I still haven’t heard a proper response against what I ORIGINALLY posted. I just got an off tangent video about Seth that had nothing to do with the topic and 3PointRat essentially just hand waving it away, likely because there was no answer.
I didn’t find something wrong and stuck with it, rather no one else seems to have an idea about what is really being said or argued. If I could solve this myself I wouldn’t be here. But I can’t. I don’t have an answer to their claims.
So nice to hear from you again Xian. I look forward to you repeating the same things over and over and telling everyone that they just don’t get it. I reviewed the Broward Meditation overview and I’m sticking with the fact that all the points have been addressed. It’s really not dismissive when someone makes an extraordinary claim. If someone claims you can sit quietly in a room and discover what life is like after death, but provides no additional information, then dismissing them with no additional information is valid.
You’re not going to get the answers you want here. You’re going to have to go to Florida and take the classes and find out for yourself. I don’t recommend wasting your money, but go ahead. I’m not proposing this as a solution because I don’t think there is a solution. They are making a false claim to sell meditation classes. I only recommend it as an experiment, because you aren’t interested in hearing any other experience that explains why you shouldn’t bother. I’ll give you one warning, if you go, and the meditation fails to open your mind to the real truth, they’ll tell you that you did it wrong and that you need to go the advanced class.