One Woo For Another?

[DesertBob]

The understanding and experience of reality is not an isolated affair, not one that originates from the "real" world into the inner space. It's in a mutual exchange of information, being processed through complex feedback mechanisms in our conscious minds. Reality, is a messy affair and those who claim they know what it really is are frankly delusional.

O,IC. Thanks for the clarification. I'm on board with what you're saying here. In fact this was the core of my objection to the doctrine of the infallibility of scripture. Even if that doctrine were true, those pesky "complex feedback mechanisms" would still cause us to disagree about the meaning of scripture and therefore if you were a deity who wanted an absolutely objective way to communicate with people, the written word is a really lousy choice of medium.

[Yrth]

Thank you. It makes me smile to see it provoked such a response in you.

 

Actually, these terms make perfect sense as expressions of deep internal experience. How do you describe a sunset? How do you describe love? The experience of a "higher" self, is just that - an experience of self. It is called that, because that is its mental impression, its experiential reality. It is a "higher" experience than just your average mundane, rationalistic mind trying to figure crap out and call that reality. It goes beyond rationality into deep internal awareness and experience. It is a real experience. The word are just attempts at describing it.

I don't have a problem with expressions of deep internal experience - aka metaphor? It just didn't seem like it was being used as a metaphor.

 

As far as I can tell, you're describing some kind of hypnosis. The method's efficacy derives from Christian cultural leftovers.

Quite incorrect. Thank you for bringing this up! I have been thinking of starting a topic on just this question, after our resident Christian-blinders apologist Thumbelina first called mediation, "emptying the mind so the devil can fill it with his evil suggestions" (some nonsense to that effect), which betrays a view that mediation is a type of hypnosis. Please allow me to explain for you the difference.

 

I am going to provide a link to an article from a Ph.D in psychology specializing in the study of Consciousness, hypnosis, and various altered states of consciousness. He addresses quite beautifully what you bring up. In short, no, definitely not, hypnosis is demonstrably not what mediation is! This idea you have came from the ignorant minds of Christianity, which scooped up the ignorance of those of British Imperialism when they took over India and saw these quaint little brown-men in these what appeared to be schizoid states (yogic meditation). Being the "superior" conquering force, they immediately assumed an arrogance that they had the superior understanding of this over these mere primitives whom they were dominant over, and falsely called it some sort of self-hypnosis, having no frame of reference in their own experiences in the Christian West.

 

This article does side by side comparisons of Consensus Consciousness (what we call normal 'reality'), Hypnosis, and the two other basic types of mediation: Quieting Mediation (consentrative), and Insight Mediation in all areas of functioning consciousness. You will see how hypnosis is anything but meditation! Mediation fully engages the mind, in higher states of awareness. Please refer to the charts he provides on pages 17, and on 21, 22. Of course I highly suggest you educate yourself by reading the entire presentation. It is good to be informed, rather than speaking out of ignorance. I'm sure you can agree with the value of that.

 

Link to article: http://www.paradigm-...ds/2001HAPA.pdf

Thanks for the link, I really enjoyed the article. I have been wanting information about meditation and this was perfect. One thing that I appreciated was the absence of unnecessary life philosophies that often accompany explanations. I'm pretty stoked to try this stuff out -- any suggested readings?

 

There is also a theory here about how different cultures have integrated meaning into their religious beliefs? And that this meaning is transferred to the religion? That's all true, but the thing is that the religion loses its meaning when it's outed as false.

Only if it is stuck on a mythic-literal mindset. If it's symbolic nature is recognized and transcended, it in fact finds an ultimate fulfillment in actual self-realization and transformation.

... After reading the article, I get the impression that when you talk about transcending religion's symbolic nature, you're referring to meditation. That's as far as I can go without 'speaking from ignorance.' : / Can you rephrase this sentence in terms of the article?

 

For me, this is about foundationalism and Jenga. How would meditation salvage meaning from the rubble? I went to a candlelit compline service tonight. They're choir is the best I've ever heard. If you're in Rochester NY in the school year, it may be worth a trip to Christ Church @ 9pm Sundays. Or maybe not -- the English chants sometimes irked me because of their meanings. Here is an excerpt:

Psalm 31In te, Domine, speravi

 

1 In you, O LORD, have I taken refuge;

let me never be put to shame: *

deliver me in your righteousness.

2 Incline your ear to me; *

make haste to deliver me.

3 Be my strong rock, a castle to keep me safe,

for you are my crag and my stronghold; *

for the sake of your Name, lead me and guide me.

4 Take me out of the net that they have secretly set for me, *

for you are my tower of strength.

5 Into your hands I commend my spirit, *

for you have redeemed me,

O LORD, O God of truth.

Bothered, I tried to think about whether there were salvageable ideas embedded in the jargon, but I couldn't. I think its too wrapped up in the whole paradigm: sanctity, worship, surrender, helplessness. The Jenga tower is down for me, the "wire" is dead -- there is no foundation for these ideas. The music was totally unaffected, but the content didn't mean what it did 6 years ago. I'm very curious about how practicing meditation would change this story -- not because I want it to, but because I can't imagine how it would. Or why you would want to.

 

You're just conflating terms and meanings and pretending that you're engaged in some kind of 'Higher Form Of Human Existence.'

Pretending to whom? To myself? To you? Does this make you feel more secure in your beliefs to imagine I in fact don't realize this depth and substance within myself? I can only tell you, my life is more deeply fullfilled, grounded, centered, aware, alert, peaceful, calm, free from most anxieties, insightful, etc, in ways I have not experienced my whole life. And it is not moments of this, but a permanent transformation through those moments of higher insight grounded back into my daily world. Every moment of every day is different, without effort. Pretending? Wow, no.

 

BTW, they are not conflated terms, they are expressive of that experience. Our language is not constructed around this sort of reality. Language frames how people perceive reality, and if that average-mode perception lacks this, then so do the words. They are at best, metaphorical, symbols of a reality beyond them.

'Pretending' was a poor word choice, I apologize. I'm not saying this to be offensive, but I don't imagine anything about what you realize because I honestly haven't understood you, though I think I'm getting closer.

 

The conflation (and 'Christian leftovers') I was thinking about was with the term "god." Using it as a tool -- conflating the meaning of "god" in some part of the mind process and thereby empowering that process for people affected by the religious imagery. That's what it seemed like to me and that's what I was thinking when I wrote about conflation.

 

You ought to be able to talk about something specific that is invulnerable to competing interpretations. Explain why the Higher Self talk isn't a psychedelic substitute woo.

Well, read the article first. But that you raise psychedelics, and then stick on the word "woo" to it, shows your ignorance in these areas. I don't use psychedelics, but the purpose of them in religious ritual is in fact for insights, that help break the bonds of conventional perception of reality. That you assume, how you perceive reality is expressive of *real* reality, is in fact an illusion. I can go into scientific depth explaining that without the need for you to experience higher states of consciousness to see it. But to be sure, if you did, what I said would become readily apparent to you that reality is what the sciences have in fact shown us that it is a mediated reality. You appear to be operating off the myth of a pre-given world - that by just examining the world you can know reality in truth. That is a myth.

 

I look forward to being able to go deeper into this with you after you've spent some time with this.

I understand what you mean about an illusion, but I think this was fleshed out by desertbob. No need for monads, humean skepticism, or even hp lovecraft. I know that, technically, invisible shadow-horrors could be swarming my apartment. I think I just did not realize that you were speaking in metaphor.

[Antlerman]

As far as I can tell, you're describing some kind of hypnosis. The method's efficacy derives from Christian cultural leftovers.

Quite incorrect. Thank you for bringing this up! I have been thinking of starting a topic on just this question, after our resident Christian-blinders apologist Thumbelina first called mediation, "emptying the mind so the devil can fill it with his evil suggestions" (some nonsense to that effect), which betrays a view that mediation is a type of hypnosis. Please allow me to explain for you the difference.

 

I am going to provide a link to an article from a Ph.D in psychology specializing in the study of Consciousness, hypnosis, and various altered states of consciousness. He addresses quite beautifully what you bring up. In short, no, definitely not, hypnosis is demonstrably not what mediation is! This idea you have came from the ignorant minds of Christianity, which scooped up the ignorance of those of British Imperialism when they took over India and saw these quaint little brown-men in these what appeared to be schizoid states (yogic meditation). Being the "superior" conquering force, they immediately assumed an arrogance that they had the superior understanding of this over these mere primitives whom they were dominant over, and falsely called it some sort of self-hypnosis, having no frame of reference in their own experiences in the Christian West.

 

This article does side by side comparisons of Consensus Consciousness (what we call normal 'reality'), Hypnosis, and the two other basic types of mediation: Quieting Mediation (consentrative), and Insight Mediation in all areas of functioning consciousness. You will see how hypnosis is anything but meditation! Mediation fully engages the mind, in higher states of awareness. Please refer to the charts he provides on pages 17, and on 21, 22. Of course I highly suggest you educate yourself by reading the entire presentation. It is good to be informed, rather than speaking out of ignorance. I'm sure you can agree with the value of that.

 

Link to article: http://www.paradigm-...ds/2001HAPA.pdf

Thanks for the link, I really enjoyed the article. I have been wanting information about meditation and this was perfect. One thing that I appreciated was the absence of unnecessary life philosophies that often accompany explanations. I'm pretty stoked to try this stuff out -- any suggested readings?

It depends what you mean by suggested readings. I myself didn't read any books on 'how to meditate', outside some basic techniques from others about posture, lighting, etc. I had been practicing trying to still the mind while walking 2 miles a day after my lunch break at work downtown. Through that I learned a few things that were helpful towards that end and the effects were beneficial. Then I would sit for 10 minutes before work and just try to still the mind while in my house with far less distractions, such as crowds of people navigating the skyway system. That had a very positive effect where I found myself much calmer and more aware of the world around me as moved into the day.

 

Then I took Rev R's suggestion about a sitting meditation in a dimly lit room. I sat for a full 30 minutes, and the world began to truly open for me! Much different than before. Following this I did no less than 30 minutes a day and began moving deeper and deeper within. I now mediate no less than 60 minutes every morning, sometimes up to two hours, and have gone into some profound insight meditations, where it's hard to talk about with someone who hasn't gone there. It goes beyond just mindfulness, or becoming the Witness. Those are the first steps upon which the rest unfolds.

 

To use language in those spaces in fact is highly symbolic. I have sat in the 'inner chambers', streams of light, the Divine within, the temple, the gods, and so forth. It is a place of deep symbology arising from the subconscious to the conscious as your superconscious moves you deeper within, become sorts of object lessons for our own minds and bodies and spirits from the deep within us. After these spaces comes an opening into absolute stillness and awareness. All is silence. The best words to describe that are Clear Mind, Buddha Mind, Christ Consiousness. You come to a place where you realize the emptiness of all symbols, yet we use them to guide our 'consensus conscious' mind, into a place of higher consciousness, superconsciousness.

 

As I look at all religions, I see how the symbols are understood at all the vaious stages of awareness. People who see them literally are as the Bible itself says, "thinking like a child". The consciousness is at the mythic-literal stage of development. As you move up, the symbols take on an internal meaning, as opposed to the mythic external. To see these as literal is like the training wheels on a bike for those who can't ride using their own inner balance to guide them. At a certain point, one of the deeper inner chambers, to use that term, the symbols drop altogether.

 

In that article I linked you to, I learned that the type of meditation that just simply evolved organically for me is that Insight Mediation. My experiences so far are pretty regularly at the "Pseudo Nirvana" state, and on a few occasions (when I allow myself to continue going deeper) I experience the Realization stage, and once I've gone into Effortless Insight (using this model). The latter is was a place of basically, I don't know how to describe it, complete clarity. Everything was stable, everything was apprehended. Another description of these states I'll link you to is from one of my favorite philosophers, Ken Wilber (If you ask for recommended reading he is good for understanding this in wonderful models he has come up with, but believe me, the theoretical is nothing compared to the actual). Link here: http://integrallife....view-ken-wilber

 

The only thing I would say is check what others have to say, but find it within yourself to attain that goal. It is your process, and will be unique to you. A thing I'll share that may help, the saying "seek and you shall find" is valid, however here is the secret to that. The seeking you do is not for you, but for the sake of what you find - its sake. Don't say, "I want to feel good" and let that be your goal. To do that, places the focus on your self, and the goal is to move beyond 'self' into a greater identity. Your goal is to become That. It is a transformative process. The experiences are insights that you incorporate into your growth into that, as you are becoming. Living this is literally 'being and becoming'.

 

... After reading the article, I get the impression that when you talk about transcending religion's symbolic nature, you're referring to meditation. That's as far as I can go without 'speaking from ignorance.' : / Can you rephrase this sentence in terms of the article?

Yes this is correct. I touched on this above just now and perhaps that address your question. Even if someone is not in a deep meditative, mystical state, these symbols definitely place a role and have a strong effect on the collective consciousness of a society and culture. They have power as they are expressive of higher ideals in one form or another. Within meditative states, specifically the deeper mystical insights, those symbols may arise as "links" from the conscious mind to that higher state of mind. They are 'satoriological' or mandelic in nature, salvific symbols, not literal gods and whatnot. Those will obviously flow from the active symbols set from owns culture and experiences. The Christian sees Christ, the Hindu sees Krishna, etc. Sometimes there may be overlaps, depending on ones cross-cultural awareness.

 

Honestly, I can see why some in a prerational average mode consciousness experiencing these would take them as literal encounters with the gods. How they have learned to translate the world will take these higher experiences and the emergence of these symbols in the space and go forth into the world understanding them as external deities. But as a said, to a rational mind, these are images emerging from the subconscious mind in highly symbolic forms in order for our brains to try to interpret what it is opening up into, that deeper spiritual nature. The reason it is spiritual, or called Spirit, is simply because it is ultimately formless - just simple being itself, undefined, just presence. That, is what I mean when I say our true Nature. And once that is experienced directly, in an unmediated manner, all the symbols that we use to interpret the world disappear. The gods are gone, so is your 'self', so is 'other', all that is, Is.

 

For me, this is about foundationalism and Jenga. How would meditation salvage meaning from the rubble? I went to a candlelit compline service tonight. They're choir is the best I've ever heard. If you're in Rochester NY in the school year, it may be worth a trip to Christ Church @ 9pm Sundays. Or maybe not -- the English chants sometimes irked me because of their meanings. Here is an excerpt:

Psalm 31In te, Domine, speravi

 

1 In you, O LORD, have I taken refuge;

let me never be put to shame: *

deliver me in your righteousness.

2 Incline your ear to me; *

make haste to deliver me.

3 Be my strong rock, a castle to keep me safe,

for you are my crag and my stronghold; *

for the sake of your Name, lead me and guide me.

4 Take me out of the net that they have secretly set for me, *

for you are my tower of strength.

5 Into your hands I commend my spirit, *

for you have redeemed me,

O LORD, O God of truth.

As for these sorts of meditation, they are fine so long as on your journey they don't drag you back into a literalistic mode of thinking, that these are messages from the sky gods that we must recite to perform magic incantations.

 

Mediations on scriptures, or sayings, or mantras, have value as a point of mental focus. I you recite the words with meaning, your mind is drawn away from other things to something internal. Personally, I like Om Mani Padme Hum. It's Sanskrit for "Divine, Jewel, Lotus, Unity.' It is said this contains the entire Dharma of the Buddha. By saying the words one after another focusing on their deeper meaning, (Source of Inner Light; the Diamond of the Heart filled with the Divine; the unfolding pedals of the lotus in compassion to the world; the unity of love in the body and mind, or whatever imagery evokes this depth in you), it still the mind and centers it. From this then, you can move deeper in mediation as I described before. What I have learned then, is that in those deeper places, the words begin to take on significantly deeper meaning. Why? Because you are opening to what is deep inside you.

 

Therefore, it really depends where your mind is at as to the value, or meaninglessness of words like these.

 

Bothered, I tried to think about whether there were salvageable ideas embedded in the jargon, but I couldn't. I think its too wrapped up in the whole paradigm: sanctity, worship, surrender, helplessness.

I don't care for the Christian views of helplessness, sinfulness, dependency, slavery to a god, etc. I find them unhelpful and limiting. It puts a padlock on the interior doors before you've even begun.

 

'Pretending' was a poor word choice, I apologize. I'm not saying this to be offensive, but I don't imagine anything about what you realize because I honestly haven't understood you, though I think I'm getting closer.

Hey no problem. This is good news though that I'm starting to make sense to people! I owe it to the practice of meditation. It really helps with clarity of thought.

 

The conflation (and 'Christian leftovers') I was thinking about was with the term "god." Using it as a tool -- conflating the meaning of "god" in some part of the mind process and thereby empowering that process for people affected by the religious imagery. That's what it seemed like to me and that's what I was thinking when I wrote about conflation.

It depends how embedded the meaning of the word is in someone's experience. God is not a word that makes me stumble. I can speak with Buddhist monks and nuns and say God and they know I am not meaning the external sky god of Christian myth. It is a good word actually, so long as you have an understanding of it in a larger context. I find use for it myself in both external and internal dialog.

 

 

This was rather long. I hope some of this helps.

[asanerman]

It becomes apparent how well-meaning but still meaningless virtually everything being written and discussed about spirituality is.

 

Spiritual treatises are mostly an endless series of ontic assertions about spiritual realities.

They are, in every sense, meaningless metaphysics, not only plagued with extensively elaborate myths of the given, but riddled with staggering numbers of ontic and

assertic claims devoid of justification.

 

Discussions on spirituality never get very far because the definitions that the discussants are using contain hidden variables of meaning and the variables keep sliding all over the place without anybody being able to figure out why and the discussions slide with them.

 

And yet, many of the spiritual realities referred to by writers and discussants do in fact have all the requisites for converting them from meaningless metaphysics to meaningful post-metaphysics. (p. 102 Integral Spirituality)

 

I trust the simple facts of consciousness as almost every person knows them: that consciousness is real, that the inward observing self is real and that the soul as I understand it is real and that spirit is real, however much we might debate the details--any thing else does not “feel” authentic or alive, at the moment.

 

Authentic spirituality for me is not about simply changing my beliefs or ideas. It is not about translating the world differently, (however necessary and vital those are) but about transforming my consciousness. Ideas are important, but ideas (beliefs) are merely way to think about the interior and exteriors--they are not ways that experience transformational states or traits.

 

Everywhere the bright promise of spiritual intelligence is crippled, cropped, and crucified, run into blind alleys of horrifying neglect, mugged in rational parking lots, suffocated with clouds of materialism, regressed to new-age infantilism, housed in mythic and metaphysical nonsense, this bright promise of my own ultimate concern.

 

What I’m finding is that modern science and matriarchal religions all agree that we are parts of the great Web of Life. I find no hints about how interior transformations occur and what I can do to foster them in my own unique situation.

 

The problem is more than a temporary inadequacy of the technology. It is rather that modern empirical science does not have a framework within which to conduct experimental research.

 

A competitive science of the mind is in order. One that draws form both our global spiritual heritage and our scientific heritage.

 

A discipline embracing a range of modes of scientific inquiry into the nature of consciousness, that takes first hand experience seriously and devises means of exploring it with scientific precision.

 

Such a discipline has the potential to be profoundly contemplative as well as rigorously scientific.

 

But until these types of integral updates occur, religion and spirituality will remain metaphysics dismissed by intelligent men and women, or reduced to their mythic-level manifestations.

 

Keep in mind one point that I think is central in all of this. “Metaphysics”—were simply ways that philosophers and sages used to interpret their experience. and Metaphysics in general-is simply a superb way to interpret reality if you are trying to account for God, the soul, mystical oneness, and the manifestation of a material world in a way that seems to be an illusion compared to the reality experienced in a state of unio mystica.

 

It is still a superb way to interpret reality. But many aspects deeply, desperately, achingly in need of updating and revising.

 

You can sit on your meditation mat for decades and will never see anything resembling a system of psychosocial understanding of people’s worldviews, values, and the stages of meaning-making that human beings go through. And you can study systems theory until the cows come home and you will never have a satori. The point being, if you don’t include both, you will never understand human beings or their relation to Reality, divine or otherwise.

 

Problems like the proof of God’s existence are problems faced by metaphysics, but they are not problems faced by post-metaphysics. It’s not that those problems are solved, but that they simply don’t arise in the first place. Instead, an genuine post-metaphysics faces issues of Integral Methodological Pluralism and how best to proceed with that in order to create, among other things, various sorts of GigaGlossaries that replace problems of proof with problems of specifying Kosmic addresses and injunctions for enacting them. But those are merely extremely difficult issues; the issues faced by metaphysics are extremely impossible issues. (Ken Wilber)

 

Generally speaking, before I go tossing into the garbage pail what the ancient sages taught us---that reality is multi-layered with physical, emotional, mental and spiritual dimensions--reality is not simply a one-leveled affair for all sundry to see: that one must be adequate to the level he or she wishs to understand--then I’d better have something at least as good to replace it with.

[Antlerman]

Wow. That was great. I couldn't say it better.

[Noggy]

It becomes apparent how well-meaning but still meaningless virtually everything being written and discussed about spirituality is.

...

Discussions on spirituality never get very far because the definitions that the discussants are using contain hidden variables of meaning and the variables keep sliding all over the place without anybody being able to figure out why and the discussions slide with them.

 

And yet, many of the spiritual realities referred to by writers and discussants do in fact have all the requisites for converting them from meaningless metaphysics to meaningful post-metaphysics. (p. 102 Integral Spirituality)

 

Why do you think these discussions on metaphysics are meaningless? I've gotten a lot out of writings and discussions on metaphysics and the like. Because something isn't a direct study of something it is meaningless? Why does this make it so meaningless? I don't think intelligent people throw away the ideas of metaphysics. Everyone discusses it, yes, whether from a Christian to a Hindu to a Buddhist to a Taoist to an Atheist to a Philosopher discusses metaphysics, just not on the same level.

 

I agree that your idea of post-metaphysics type study would be fantastic. It would be amazing, but I don't see why the discussions that we have here, for instance, is "meaningless". It's like saying that you're only allowed to listen to music, or study its theory, but it is meaningless to discuss it with one another.

[asanerman]

It becomes apparent how well-meaning but still meaningless virtually everything being written and discussed about spirituality is.

...

Discussions on spirituality never get very far because the definitions that the discussants are using contain hidden variables of meaning and the variables keep sliding all over the place without anybody being able to figure out why and the discussions slide with them.

 

And yet, many of the spiritual realities referred to by writers and discussants do in fact have all the requisites for converting them from meaningless metaphysics to meaningful post-metaphysics. (p. 102 Integral Spirituality)

 

Why do you think these discussions on metaphysics are meaningless? I've gotten a lot out of writings and discussions on metaphysics and the like. Because something isn't a direct study of something it is meaningless? Why does this make it so meaningless? I don't think intelligent people throw away the ideas of metaphysics. Everyone discusses it, yes, whether from a Christian to a Hindu to a Buddhist to a Taoist to an Atheist to a Philosopher discusses metaphysics, just not on the same level.

 

I agree that your idea of post-metaphysics type study would be fantastic. It would be amazing, but I don't see why the discussions that we have here, for instance, is "meaningless". It's like saying that you're only allowed to listen to music, or study its theory, but it is meaningless to discuss it with one another.

 

Pardon me Noggy, I was speaking in general terms. I was oblivious to the notion that what I was saying could be read as applying to this forum in particular.

 

That was not my intention. I will be careful with my generalizations in the future.

 

With that said, it is obvious, at least to me, while is a superb way to interpret reality, many aspects of traditional metaphysics are deeply, desperately, achingly in need of updating and revising.

 

As an example: How did the variable of my "generalization " effect a meaningful give and take?

 

Now consider the myriad meanings we give the word "spiritual" mushed all together in discussion, and the results is ...mush, hard feelings and misunderstanding.

 

Should that stop us from discussing spirituality with one another? No. How else are we to come to that "amazing" idea that consciousness is real, that the inward observing self is real and that the soul as, I understand it, is real and that spirit is real, however much we might debate the details?

 

We will get there eventually. The time is right for the beginning of an integral approach! There are many signs that this is well underway (The Journal of Consciousness Studies, The View from Within, Investigating Phenomenal Consciousness, Transpersonal Research Methods for the Social Sciences, www.integralinstitue.org etc.).

 

Hints about how interior transformations occur and what I can do to foster them in my own unique situation.

 

Spirit is more than theory or a metaphysics. What would be truly amazing, indeed, would be to discuss with one another the promise of our own particular ultimate concern in terms that avoid misunderstanding and promote harmony!

[Yrth]

A look behind the curtain (the skull, not kant / spinoza) as to what's going on with meditation. It's actually exactly what I wanted to see when I was reading about this stuff last week. It's literally different states of mind. Boom. Now I want me some meditation because let me tell you I drift off a lot, a lot, a lot... a lot.

 

At any rate, it's another reasons for me to start -- but this is like the busiest 2 weeks of the year for me... so I'm thinking I will push it back to post-finals/papers/presentations... egh fml

http://thechart.blog...rain/?hpt=hp_c3

 

How Meditating May Help Your Brain

 

[...]

 

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the latest in a hot emerging field of research examining how meditation relates to the brain. It shows that people who are experienced meditators show less activity in the brain's default mode network, when the brain is not engaged in focused thought.

 

The default mode network is associated with introspection and mind wandering. Typically, drifting thoughts tend to focus on negative subjects, creating more stress and anxiety. It has also been linked to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and Alzheimer's disease.

 

Researchers looked at experienced meditators and trained novices. There were 12 in the "experienced" category, with an average of more than 10,000 hours of mindfulness meditation experience (Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" suggests that it takes 10,000 hours to be an expert at something), and 12 healthy volunteers who were novices in meditation.

 

Each volunteer was instructed to engage in three types of meditation: concentration (attention to the breath), love-kindness (wishing beings well) and choiceless awareness (focus on whatever comes up). Scientists looked at their brain activity during these meditations with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

 

Across all of these types of meditation, the experienced meditators showed less activity in the default mode network than in the novices. The experienced participants also reported less mind wandering than the novices. Interestingly, experienced meditators also showed increased connectivity between certain brain networks during meditation and non-meditation.

 

"It doesn't matter what they're doing, they have an altered default mode network," said Dr. Judson Brewer, medical director of the Yale University Therapeutic Neuroscience Clinic and lead author of the study. "We were pretty excited about that, because it suggests that these guys are paying attention a lot more."

 

From this particular study, researchers can't say whether meditating is beneficial to the brain. But, viewed in conjunction with other studies showing the positive effects of mindfulness training for depression, substance abuse, anxiety and pain disorders, it seems to have promise. Also, a 2010 study found that people tend to be more unhappy when they their mind is wandering.

 

"Putting all those together, we might be able to start get at what the mechanisms of mindfulness are," Brewer said.

[Antlerman]

A look behind the curtain (the skull, not kant / spinoza) as to what's going on with meditation. It's actually exactly what I wanted to see when I was reading about this stuff last week. It's literally different states of mind. Boom. Now I want me some meditation because let me tell you I drift off a lot, a lot, a lot... a lot.

Excellent. I cannot begin to tell you the transforming effects it has on you! My relationships changed, everything about me has changed. I am clear, calm, focused, more alert, aware, insightful, mindful, and even intelligent as a result. It is altered states, but in a way that clears the garbage and allow insight into the true mind, the true nature. Believe me when I say it is spiritual, but not in a way that is a violation of rationality. It is transrational, beyond mere reason, into the depth of deep symbolic meaning and experience. It is a place of healing from within as you learn to hear your own subconscious speak to your conscious mind. Trust me, it's not some recreational sort of high deal. It is like deep therapy for the soul.

 

Anything I can offer in my own limited experience I'll be happy to share.

[izzytheterri]

This has been a very interesting thread.

 

I study Buddhism. I go to a Unity Church, on occasion. I dabble in paganism, but then don't we all?

 

After all, don't most people paint eggs at Easter? Don't most people light their Yule log, or rather Christmas Tree?

 

There are so many rituals and traditions that can be experiences without the literalism. One thing that sets my path apart from my life as a Christian, is that I don't have to take every-single-word of a religious text as the inerrant word of GOD or go to hell. I don't feel the need to prove the existence of a higher power, I don't know if one exists, but the cool thing is - that I don't HAVE to. I just do what's cool for me, and if one exists, he/she/it would be happy that I'm happy.

[izzytheterri]

*Meaning my spiritual search is no longer black-and-white as Christianity makes it.

[asanerman]

*Meaning my spiritual search is no longer black-and-white as Christianity makes it.

 

 

Good for you izzytheterri!

 

Spirited living includes and transcends All.

[lunaticheathen]

The term "woo" fills me with such. fucking. anger. Just saying.

[badpuppy]

From my perspective, my main issue with Christianity wasn't "being asked to believe weird things", it was morality. Christianity was psychologically harmful to me. It also has done a LOT of harm and seems to have more baggage than most other religions (with a few exceptions). I have no problem with faith or religion or spirituality as long as it is used for a tool of good and enhances someone's life. I think at Ex-C (I'm a new poster/member but longtime lurker), that a lot of people who have deconverted, have done so based largely on logic and then other things like morality were also important.

 

For me, the main issue was morality/pain the religion causes people. I have, of course, picked Christianity apart also from the logic angle. For me the issue isn't that extraordinary claims require extraordinary truth. It's... something empirically evil better be true in an empirically provable way to ask ANYONE to accept it. I know many say they wouldn't accept Christianity if it were true. I would like to say that I wouldn't. However, the instinct to survive and not be tortured forever is fairly strong, so if I truly believed it was true, i can't say what I'd do to live and not be tortured. And I know a lot of people SAY they wouldn't follow Christianity anyway. Either they are far braver than me or it's just lip service because I think most people don't know what they'd do to survive and spare themselves unrelenting pain.

 

If Christianity were just illogical but not especially harmful either in the past or currently, I wouldn't have a beef with it and I probably wouldn't have left it. And that's why I have spiritual beliefs now, because I found a path that doesn't cause me any psychological distress, and that works for me, and that I don't feel carries the baggage of the Christian faith.

 

Plus, like many people here, probably, my ancestors came from a place where Christianity took over by force. Nobody held a sword to me, but for someone at some point in my ancestry someone did. People who are forced to follow a belief system they don't believe are slaves, in essence. That slavery became generational until people couldn't even see their chains anymore. That link went to me and I broke that chain. I refuse to accept that type of spiritual enslavement. But I also refuse to be pressured into giving up ALL spirituality because that's not how I'm wired or what's best for me.

 

The Puppy (who is a girl, but who stupidly didn't fill out any of the personal profile information and so defaulted to male.)

[badpuppy]

*Extraordinary proof. (*head desk*)

[badpuppy]

I mean, if one believes in spirit and the afterlife, isn't one taking a rather large risk abandoning Christianity for an alternate god or gods or goddesses, as the case may be

 

What is one "risking"? A God or gods that wants to punish people for picking the wrong theology simply does not, cannot exist and be "good" or worthy of worship (unless one is motivated by fear of this deity, in which case I'd argue you'ld have a duty despite your fear, to not worship anything malevolent). So one is not taking a big risk in exploring other religions. Christianity is not the default choice if one rejects western scientific naturalism (which I most certainly do... while being scientificly minded, I don't treat scientific data and theories as dogma).

 

I'm also interested in Buddhism, I practice Pure Land Buddhism nominally, meeting other western oriented folks on the net in a virtual world to listen to Nianfo. But I also have an interest in qi gong, energy healing, and taoism.

 

 

Have you read the book: "Biocentrism" by Dr. Robert Lanza. I found it very interesting and it goes beyond the Newtonian materialistic understanding of science and starts looking at integrating the parts of Quantum Physics most in that box want to ignore... without resorting to bizarre pseudo-science like in "What the Bleep?"

[Deva]

But I also refuse to be pressured into giving up ALL spirituality because that's not how I'm wired or what's best for me.

 

Badpuppy, I like the way you think.

[badpuppy]

But I also refuse to be pressured into giving up ALL spirituality because that's not how I'm wired or what's best for me.

 

Badpuppy, I like the way you think.

 

Thanks, Deva! I noticed you said you were Buddhist, I hope, if you get a chance and haven't already that you'll check out a thread I started in this forum section. Definitely i'd love another Buddhist's opinion on this. And you seem like you may be much more well-versed in the path than me.

[Deva]

Well yes, Badpup, I am a Buddhist, but a new one. Just since 2008. I don't know very much. I go the the Dharma Center once a week and I try not to confuse myself and just stick to my Tibetan Nyingma kind of Buddhism which is complicated enough. I did see your other thread, but do not know really how much I ought to say, since I am a very new student of Buddhism.

[badpuppy]

Well yes, Badpup, I am a Buddhist, but a new one. Just since 2008. I don't know very much. I go the the Dharma Center once a week and I try not to confuse myself and just stick to my Tibetan Nyingma kind of Buddhism which is complicated enough. I did see your other thread, but do not know really how much I ought to say, since I am a very new student of Buddhism.

 

Hey I got your reply. You'd actually replied to me before I replied to you here. lol. As for me, I'm not sure if I want to label with a specific school, though I am drawn to a lot of aspects of Tibetan Buddhism. But I'm also drawn to some aspects of Zen Buddhism. I mainly stick to "dharma seals, noble truths, 8-fold path, general goal to minimize suffering for myself and others... though I'm a total smartass so... sometimes I'm not very Buddhist-y lol. The temptation to snark back at people is high and if someone starts with me, I tend to take that opportunity. Because I find such back and forth mentally stimulating. LOL. But sometimes I take it too far, so the goal right now for me is to know where that snark line is where it goes from just being stimulating/entertaining for all involved to where it actually starts upsetting people.

 

And of course there is the karma, reincarnation, samsara, nirvana issues that I have opinions about. My cosmology fits strongly within Buddhism as well (I really click with Biocentrism as a cosmological theory). Then there are some various pagan-y rituals and such that get lumped on for their personal significance to me. I'd like to include Buddhist ritual in my life beyond meditation but I'm still trying to determine what would be personally meaningful to me and not just a rote activity.

[Kurari]

Well, many folks here deconverted because of the corruption, religious pain/abuse, and feelings of awkwardness and not "fitting in" that Christianity has brought them, not necessarily because their beliefs changed. So it really isn't that large of a leap in that case that they changed over to other religions that made more sense to them.