The brain scans are more to show how the practice causes significant changes to their biology. It would be difficult to prove that emotions aren’t real, but that is in the Heart Sutra.
And Lausten you are mistaken, this is not the “no true scotsman”. It’s far more complicated. It’s similar to Zen where the teachings are just a way to lead you to the point where the teachings no longer hold. In essence the “truth” of Buddhism isn’t something that can be written down and why you can’t read about it. At least that’s what they claim. But no, this is not the “no true scotsman” not even close.
Wherein they claim a universal or global consciousness by making an argument about how the structure of our brain is what enables consciousness.
I find it interesting that you consider your beliefs to be spiritual, aside from the undoubtedly profound emotional involvement you have in them. To me, when someone says ‘spiritual’, this connotes ideas of the immaterial, the supernatural, and the unreasonable (in the non-subtextual sense of being impossible to consider using the faculties of reason). But the idea of a global-consciousness-which-is-tied-in-with-simply-WHAT-exists appears (to me at least) to carry none of these features necessarily.
I actually have similar views about the nature of reality, but they came to me in pretty much the opposite fashion. I started with belief in God, which mature gradually into atheism, but eventually this seemed to mature even further into a belief in universal consciousness that is substantiated with scientific philosophy, based on the fairly normal empirical assumption that it is the structure of my brain which imbues what I call ‘me’ with consciousness. I don’t consider this belief spiritual to me, but I do feel that it is nearly ineffably beautiful and in a similar way to how you consider your beliefs, both powerfully comforting yet horribly strange.
It makes me really curious about what dying will feel like. Will it be similar to falling asleep? Certainly ‘I’ will cease to exist, along with any functional structure suggesting memory, reason, or emotion. But something that once experienced itself in these ways will begin to experience itself in a way that is much simpler, yet more akin to the basic laws of nature. In fact, presumably a lot of the matter of which I consist is doing just that as we speak, but the ‘I’ is to complex to functionally relate to these activities.
I find it very amusing that two very different paths can lead to the same place. Makes it seem all the more meaningful, doesn’t it?
Xain: " It would be difficult to prove that emotions aren’t real, but that is in the Heart Sutra."
TimB: "Oh well, in the Heart Sutra, eh? You should have said so. I mean they could be in the carburetor for all that.
Oremotions could even be respondent behaviors that we evolved with, back through the ages of our phylogenetic development back through our pre-existing ancestors, many species back. Yep that could be. And what da ya know? Them emotions were real back then, since then, and now then.
In essence the “truth” of Buddhism isn’t something that can be written down and why you can’t read about it.
I'll give you this one Xian. In fact, the Lao Tzu quote I altered is actually,
The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be defined is not the unchanging name. Non-existence is called the antecedent of heaven and earth; Existence is the mother of all things.
But it's still also true that a statement like this can be used to confuse and abuse. I've worked with actual spiritual teachers and I know actual people who have been psychologically abused by people claiming to be teachers. Some of them were sincere. This is especially true in men's groups where you are encouraged to take risks and find your warrior spirit. This can degrade into the equivalent of a bad high school football coach. That's why it's dangerous to use the internet for information on something that is so personal. It can also be dangerous to seek a guru who then tells you to cut yourself off from family or tells you that your thoughts aren't real and you can't trust your emotions, so you must trust the guru.
FYI Xian, that quote does not appear to be from bendedbrains. I like it though, even though it contains the usual logical problems that you can’t seem to spot.
Edit: Ahh, found it in the comments. Apparently those are indexed anywhere. So, it’s an anonymous commenter on an anonymous blog. Neither of which site any of their “science”.
But it’s still also true that a statement like this can be used to confuse and abuse. I’ve worked with actual spiritual teachers and I know actual people who have been psychologically abused by people claiming to be teachers. Some of them were sincere. This is especially true in men’s groups where you are encouraged to take risks and find your warrior spirit. This can degrade into the equivalent of a bad high school football coach. That’s why it’s dangerous to use the internet for information on something that is so personal. It can also be dangerous to seek a guru who then tells you to cut yourself off from family or tells you that your thoughts aren’t real and you can’t trust your emotions, so you must trust the guru.
I would agree with that, it's why I got red flags from the guy at actualized.org. I couldn't pin it down to be honest, but he seemed like a snake to me. He mentioned debate being self deception and that was an red flag, among MANY others.
But the thing about Buddhism is that they has teachings (like The Heart Sutra) which isn’t what these modern gurus do.
It’s like what the Broward people mentioned about clearing the “picture world” that we build through our senses in order to get a clear picture of reality (I.e. one without our judgments and opinions on things). In a sense it seems like getting rid of subjectivity. Like when I say someone means the WORLD to me or something like it, that would be the “picture world”. The only thing that stopped me from going to them was the $200 a month fee and the fact that they would answer my questions without payment, and kept trying to get me to sign up for it. But I was unable to craft a rebuttal to their argument and convinced myself they were wrong for an unrelated reason.
But the parallels with Buddhism are the same, which makes me think they ripped it off, that you must clear your mind of the false images you construct of reality in order to see clearly and live/be truth.
The genius of this book is the way it brings us inside the mind of it's main character, an Italian man named Vitangelo, who becomes obsessed with the notion that his version(s) and understanding of himself are not at all the same as the personas that others believe him to be--nor are they likely who he thinks them to be. In any gathering of two people A and B, for example, we will at minimum have four definitive personas present: the person A believes A to be, the person A believes B to be, the person B believes A to be, and the person B believes B to be. In truth, there are far more likely a great deal more personas present even than that, as this fascinating novel vividly describes.
...substantiated with scientific philosophy, based on the fairly normal empirical assumption that it is the structure of my brain which imbues what I call ‘me’ with consciousness
There's no connection from the brain being associated with consciousness to a universal consciousness. That "substantiates" nothing. Logic problem, bomb.
But as I linked in the heart sutra the “no true scotsman” doesn’t apply to Buddhism
The "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy wouldn't apply to Buddhism or to any belief. It applies to the person who is defining a belief, in this case you, Xain.
There’s no connection from the brain being associated with consciousness to a universal consciousness. That “substantiates” nothing. Logic problem, bomb.
Well he said the structure of the brain, which i guess is trying to say that the structure of matter is what enables consciousness, so it's not a logic problem. I don't think you read it right.
Also in regards to the self and being the universe it seems as though the model is one of those “one thing with many eyes watching itself” (as best as I can imagine it). That without a soul or “ghost in the machine” then there is no “you” and therefor no self, just the illusion of one due to the brain
It also fits into what they mention about the body being an illusion (and that we are often attached to the body and have forgotten what we truly are and our true nature) and that there is no individual consciousness but universal consciousness.
The truth of suffering is a wake-up call — we realize we are not aware of who we really are. Everything is impermanent, ungraspable, and not really knowable, including ourselves.
Someone else posted this for a different type of believer, but it fits everything Xian talks about. He talks about the “substrate” underlying consciousness. It’s not “universal consciousness” or some other reality, it’s the reality that we know about through science, things the early Buddhists could not have known. He uses the wave analogy, the water drops in the wave are “just” spinning in a pattern, they aren’t aware they are creating the wave. Most important, he says, we aren’t “just” particles, we are the patterns formed by those particles. Skip to about 7:30 for these critical points.
