Buddhism has enlisted some universal truths. That doesn’t mean that everything presented as Buddhist wisdom is true. Impermanence is a universal truth. I think that was a premise of I Ching - the only constant is change. All organisms are impermanent. They live and change until they no longer live. Then their decaying bodies change. So?
Figure out what is true and get used to it.
Buddhism has enlisted some universal truths. That doesn’t mean that everything presented as Buddhist wisdom is true.I'm assuming you are responding to the article I posted for @snowcity (#311248).
Figure out what is true and get used to it.I think Xain has spent a very long time trying to "figure out what is true." I'm not sure any of us can do that.
However, he has also mentioned that Buddhism seems to have been proven by science… and that no one here has provided anything to counter that point, specifically.
The article I posted is a direct counter to the claim that Buddhism correlates with science. Among other things, it points out that the Buddhist concept of anatta (no self) is actually quite different from the mind as being revealed by cognitive science.
The author, John Horgan – himself a former Buddhist – is a multi-aware winning science journalist for National Geographic, Scientific American, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek.
He’s written several pieces on how Buddhism really doesn’t correlate with science the way people claim it does.
Here is another one:
... Brain scans do not yield consistent results, either. For every report of heightened neural activity in the frontal cortex and decreased activity in the left parietal lobe, there exists a contrary result....Blackmore looks favorably, however, upon the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. “Where, exactly, is your self?” Buddha asked. “Of what components and properties does your self consist?” Since no answer to these questions suffices, the self must be in some sense illusory. …
…Actually, modern science—and meditative introspection—have merely discovered that the self is an emergent phenomenon, difficult to explain in terms of its parts. The world abounds in emergent phenomena. The school where I teach can’t be defined in strictly reductionist terms either. You can’t point to a person or classroom or lab and say, “Here is Stevens Institute.” But does that mean my school doesn’t exist?..
I thought this was interesting, in terms of whether someone can ever arrive at an answer:
Stephen Batchelor, one of my favorite Buddhist authors (see my profile of him here), described an epiphany in which he was suddenly confronted with the mystery of being. The experience "gave me no answers," he recalls. "It only revealed the massiveness of the question." That was what I felt during my experiences, a jaw-dropping astonishment at the improbability of existence.Also, I feel a bit vindicated. Some weeks back, Xain posted something on this and I expressed concern that if some mindfulness/meditative principles were applied IRL, it lead to apathy and disregard for others. No one addressed it at the time. This author expresses what I was trying to say:
Then there is the claim that contemplative practice will make us gentler, more humble and compassionate. ...Like an astronaut gazing at the earth through the window of his spacecraft, the mystic sees our existence against the backdrop of infinity and eternity. This perspective may not translate into compassion and empathy for others. Far from it. Human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. Instead of becoming a saint-like Bodhisattva, brimming with love for all things, the mystic may become a sociopathic nihilist.
Why I Don’t Dig Buddhism _ Scientific American
Anyway, I’m certain Xain is aware of this guy, and has probably discounted all he says. But, for the record, here is a counter to the claims he claims he has not seen.
, and IEEE Spectrum. His awards include two Science Journalism Awards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award. His articles have been included in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 editions of The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Since 2010 he has written the “Cross-check” blog for ScientificAmerican.com
Xain has said several times that Buddhism has been proven true by science, and he feels compelled to believe it but
I was responding to the article about impermanence in post # 311233.
And sure we CAN figure out what is true, generally speaking. We decide to believe our senses that there is an actual puddle in front of us and act accordingly. Maybe the puddle is not “real”, but if you get wet walking thru it, it might as well be real. We make our best guess about what is true, and go from there.
Now if the Buddha would just ask me “Where, exactly, is your self?” “Of what components and properties does your self consist?” I would say that myself is in my thoughts. My thoughts are made of combinations of patterns of neurological chemical/electrical firings. So, Mr. Buddha, don’t tell me that no one can answer these questions.
And sure we CAN figure out what is true, generally speaking. We decide to believe our senses that there is an actual puddle in front of us and act accordingly. ...Of course. But the specific question at hand, that plagues @snowcity, is "Is Buddhism true?" That's what I'm talking about.
Maybe the puddle is not “real”, but if you get wet walking thru it, it might as well be real.
The article I posted by Mr Horgan would make it clear that the puddle is real, according to science, and in contrast to the understanding of Buddhism. This is just something for Xain to think about.
Whoops, I see I accidentally left some extraneous text in my post last night. Won’t let me edit it now.
I read something that the self isn’t something that is “located” somewhere but is itself an emergent phenomenon and that trying to analyze it in terms of it’s parts is a failed venture. Like how some functions of the brain aren’t really localized but the result of different areas in concert.
I’m still hounded by that article I read that I can’t find. It mentioned that if Buddhism wasn’t true then we would have to cling to things for joy and that our worries would be true, in a sense saying that how we operate now would be right (essentially doing the opposite of Buddhism). But I can’t remember it well.
.
I read something...Is this in reference to the two articles I posted for you? Actually having taken time to look for them, read them, and post relevant quotations from them based on specific things you have mentioned?
They literally counter, on a scientific basis, the claims about Buddhism.
Does it mean anything to you whatsoever?
Who cares about the article you can’t find?? Not me.
It seems like your preoccupation with Buddhism has resulted in the very thing mentioned in the second piece. You are as self-centered as many Christians. Congratulations.
Xain, I think you are correct that some functions of the brain aren’t really localized but the result of different areas in concert. This will be a complex task, no doubt. And we do not yet have good enough technology to make much sense of it. But that looks like, just a matter of time, until we do.
You can’t say that the self does not exist because it is spread about in a complex way. It still exists.
I mean the Wikipedia definition under Buddhism still has me in doubt. I know that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts but some people would take that to mean that since everything is made of the same stuff that it is all the same and that it just appears different. Something is funny about that but I can’t say what.
Just for your sake, I hope you mean funny “ha ha”. Because I don’t want you to be in misery. But I imagine you just mean funny “strange”.
Not haha funny, and that HuffPost link still bothers me. To think that we see people as unified wholes and solid but really they are mostly water and made of trillions of cells
...and that HuffPost link still bothers me. To think that we see people as unified wholes and solid but really they are mostly water and made of trillions of cellsThat's reality though. It's always been like that and always will.
A stegosaurus eating some ferns 155 million years ago was “mostly water and made of trillions of cells”. A muskox eating moss and lichen today is “mostly water and made of trillions of cells”. Whatever animal is alive eating whatever plant is alive 155 million years from now will be “mostly water and made of trillions of cells.”
Don’t let the way things are get you down. Look at things with awe, not fear- things are awesome, not scary.
Good point, 3point. If Xain could use all that anxiety as a positive fuel, he would be a veritable dynamo.
Look at things with awe, not fear- things are awesome, not scary.If you want to be right things are neither.
Yeah, but fear/anxiety and “feeling awe-inspired” are just emotions. Why hold on to a dysfunctional emotion if you could substitute a functional one? (Of course you have to know which emotion is dysfunctional and when, according to context).
If you want to be right things are neither.What Tim said.
It’s true that things are never inherently awe inspiring or scary or funny or gross or anything like that. Those are all personal reactions to certain features and aspects of whatever you’re reacting to.
That said, on a personal level things certainly are awe inspiring or scary or funny or gross, because they are all legitimate emotional reactions.
The trick is to reduce the harmful reactions (fear of something that can’t hurt you) and increase the positive ones (feeling happy by seeing an awe inspiring sight in nature).
It’s not easy to stop feeling an emotion you legitimately feel, especially if it’s an irrational feeling. So don’t be too upset if you can’t immediately get over your fears. Acknowledge them and work on reducing them. And most importantly, stop denying or justifying them.
It’s not easy to stop feeling an emotion you legitimately feel, especially if it’s an irrational feeling. So don’t be too upset if you can’t immediately get over your fears. Acknowledge them and work on reducing them. And most importantly, stop denying or justifying themThat's not exactly true, I stopped feeling joy or wonder once I realized that nothing in life is inherently so. So if you want to live according to reality then you can't pretend things are wonderful or awe-inspiring.
Unless reality is wonderful and awe inspiring
That’s not exactly true, I stopped feeling joy or wonder once I realized that nothing in life is inherently so. So if you want to live according to reality then you can’t pretend things are wonderful or awe-inspiring.F.Y.I.- nothing has color.
The wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation reflected or emitted by an object has no color. Only when our brains interpret the signals sent from the rods and cones in our eyes does color exist in any sense.
Knowing that, are you now going to deny your ability to enjoy the colors of a harvest moon at sunset or mountain valley in autumn or coral reef bursting with life? Personally, that fact makes the fact I can enjoy color more fascinating and amazing.
You need to release yourself from the crazy idea that your emotions aren’t ‘real’ because they are not universal. They are absolutely real because you experience them.