More Quotes to Bug James ;)
demibee
Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical
world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
- Albert Einstein
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
- Albert Einstein
Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we
live.
- Albert Einstein
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
- Albert Einstein
There is Being. Being is aware. Being acts. The action of Being (from our
perspective as participants) represents itself (in part) as the physical
universe in historical space and time. The universe enacts a pattern of
evolution in which accumulating action propagates as continuing process.
Evolution results in a nucleation of processes into complex process-
structures which are the physical representation of the nucleation of
Being into individual centers of awareness and action.
- Douglas J. Bilodeau,
Indiana University Cyclotron Facility - "Physics, Machines, and the Hard
Problem," Journal of Consciousness Studies (vol. 3, no. 5/6, 1996)
God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual
thought. It's as simple as that.
- Joseph Campbell
The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be
abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the
quality of the oneness in the universe.
- Dr. Larry Dossey
Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have to
experience it.
- Max Frisch
I like to think that: religion is for those who are afraid of going to
hell, and spirituality is for those who have already been there.
- Deepak Chopra
God, seen through the senses, is matter. God, seen through the intellect,
is mind. God, seen through the spirit, is Atman or the Self.
- Sri Swami Sivananda
Better the illusions that exalt us than ten thousand truths.
- Alexander Pushkin
[And my favourite...]
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious.
- Brendan Gill
========================================================================
db
demibee
> db
And one more that explains Einstein's position on religion...
========================================================================
... Einstein was absolutely not a pantheist, a label often applied to
Spinoza, and Isaacson quotes Einstein as saying so unequivocally,
I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The
problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the
position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books
in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those
books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in
which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order
in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it
seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being
toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying
certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
At a dinner party in Berlin (before Einstein emigrated to the United
States), a guest who asserted that religion was mere superstition was
silenced by his host who noted that even Einstein was religious. "'It
isn't possible!' the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if
he was, in fact, religious," Isaacson's account reports. "'Yes, you can
call it that,' Einstein replied calmly. 'Try and penetrate with our
limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the
discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle,
intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for that beyond anything we can
comprehend is my religion. To that extent, I am, in fact, religious.'"
- from _The Delusion of Disbelief_ by David Aikman, pp. 87-88
========================================================================
db
Warren
How about a few more quotations? I don't have the sources for many of
them, and haven't researched very deeply to confirm them either.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving
control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a
misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomachochistic, capriciously malevolent
bully."
-Richard Dawkins
The world holds two classes of men: intelligent men without religion,
and religious men without intelligence.
"In the beginning man created god!"
To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason
- to believe something by faith
- is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of
respect.
A.C. Grayling
In the 1980s a newspaper reported that Jesus is now here. If you put now
and here together you get nowhere.
When people say, "I'm with Jesus", what they really mean is, "I have an
imaginary friend"!
Bill Maher
All thinking men are atheists.
Ernest Hemingway
Faith based education is a social cancer which serves only to produce
new generations of ignorant bigots and I believe that indoctrinating
children with this repressive medieval bullshit should be vigorously
prosecuted as child abuse.
Pat Condell
"Nothing about atheism prevents me from thinking about any idea. It is
the very epitome of free thought. Atheism imposes no dogma and seeks no
power over others."
God did not make man in his own image. Evidently it was the other way
about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and
religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see
all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilizations.
(Christopher Hitchens)
" The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and
more people openly discuss the fact that "God" and "Allah" are
completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who
believe in "religion" look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion
becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless. "
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." - James Madison
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
"Science is a candle in the dark" - Carl Sagan
"Where knowledge begins, religion ends." Ulugh Beg, Viceroy of Samarkand
"So for scientists and others who worry about the grip of religious
faith, I say continue to light a brighter candle and chase back the
darkness." Edward O. Wilson, founder of the science of sociobiology -
The Philosophers' Magazine Autumn 1999
"To be an athiest requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than
to receive all the great truths which athiesm would deny.", Joseph
Addison 1672-1719
"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their
form but with regard to their mode of life." Aristotle
"Everybody who has undertaken in the last 300 years to stand against the
growth of scientific knowledge has lost." ,Paul Gross, biologist
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
Belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator who
created the universe is not only very childish and illogical, it's
simply ridiculous and (should be) highly embarrassing for any serious
adult to admit.
The clear cognitive dissonance displayed by followers of organised
religion is currently the world's most pressing mental health challenge.
Take responsibility to educate yourself. Knowledge is power. Beware of
strange men in strange clothing who inhabit strange buildings and ask
for money every Sunday.
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes, and he is turned
out for what he knows.
(Mark Twain)
“Knowledge is Freedom: hide it, and it withers; share it, and it blooms”
(P. Hill)
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
Imagination encircles the world.
Logics will get you from A to B, imagination will take you everywhere.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds.
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.
Albert Einstein
Imagine there's no heaven; it's easy if you try.
No hell below us, above us only sky.
Imagine all the people living for today ...
Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.
Imagine all the people living life in peace...
-- John Lennon, Imagine
Quote of the day.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=7594.0
Warren
simply the final destination for those who think. You will be pleased to
discover that the sky does not fall down on your head. If you still want
to pray, you can; the success rate of your prayers is unlikely to
change. (Guy P. Harrison)
Jack
> ========================================================================
>
> Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical
> world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
>
> - Albert Einstein
>
>
I'm sure JD can relate. A few years ago I was at a Naval-style Mess
dinner (yes, they are different from Army & Air Force ones) and we had a
senior navy officer (flag rank) as guest of honor. When it came time
for his speech all he did was recite old dead guys..as mentioned by OP.
This went on for quite a time period and out of the back of the room,
a slightly slurred voice, "we know what the dead guy think sir, what do
YOU think" ? There was silence..and a few red faces at the head
table...but it was a very valid point.
James Warren
> ========================================================================
>
> Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical
> world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
>
> - Albert Einstein
>
He's right. You gotta have data.
>
>
> Imagination is more important than knowledge.
>
> - Albert Einstein
Imagination is necessary to generate new knowledge, to create theories which
we then test.
>
>
>
> Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we
> live.
>
> - Albert Einstein
Maybe, the jury is still out.
>
>
>
> There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
> miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
>
> - Albert Einstein
Einstein was a hopeless romantic, like you DB.
>
>
>
> There is Being. Being is aware. Being acts. The action of Being (from our
> perspective as participants) represents itself (in part) as the physical
> universe in historical space and time. The universe enacts a pattern of
> evolution in which accumulating action propagates as continuing process.
> Evolution results in a nucleation of processes into complex process-
> structures which are the physical representation of the nucleation of
> Being into individual centers of awareness and action.
>
> - Douglas J. Bilodeau,
> Indiana University Cyclotron Facility - "Physics, Machines, and the Hard
> Problem," Journal of Consciousness Studies (vol. 3, no. 5/6, 1996)
>
If that makes sense to you then you can contort you mind better than I can.
>
>
> God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual
> thought. It's as simple as that.
>
> - Joseph Campbell
Right, God of the gaps!
>
>
>
> The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can be
> abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs the
> quality of the oneness in the universe.
>
> - Dr. Larry Dossey
One massive assumption, unverified, indeed rejected.
>
>
>
> Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have to
> experience it.
>
> - Max Frisch
Eh?
>
>
>
> I like to think that: religion is for those who are afraid of going to
> hell, and spirituality is for those who have already been there.
>
> - Deepak Chopra
>
Words signifying nothing. Does he mean spirituality is a comforting delusion
for those who have experienced emotional stress? I read it this way.
>
>
> God, seen through the senses, is matter. God, seen through the intellect,
> is mind. God, seen through the spirit, is Atman or the Self.
>
> - Sri Swami Sivananda
>
One cannot see through the spirit because there is no such thing as a spirit.
>
>
> Better the illusions that exalt us than ten thousand truths.
>
> - Alexander Pushkin
>
Better no illusions at all!
>
>
> [And my favourite...]
>
> Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious.
>
> - Brendan Gill
>
At last one we can agree on! :)
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
I heard David Aikman in a CBC interview. He's a nut.
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the
audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an
atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused
Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
Albert Einstein in Defense of Bertrand Russell
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of
understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions
courageously and honestly.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Morris Raphael Cohen, professor emeritus of philosophy at the College of the City of
New York, March 19, 1940. Einstein is defending the appointment of Bertrand Russell to a teaching position.
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of
honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle
can (for me) change this.
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
Albert Einstein & Spinoza's God: Harmony in the Universe
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns
himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science
Found God?, by Victor J Stenger
. Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically
repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is
in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas &
Banesh Hoffman
Albert Einstein: Human Fantasy Created Gods
During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by
the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.
- Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught
Albert Einstein: Idea of a Personal God Cannot be Taken Seriously
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also
cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but
the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and
needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
Albert Einstein: Morality Concerns Humanity, Not Gods
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit
in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a
certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely
superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of
reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
- Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
I'll stop here.
Einstein was somewhat enigmatic it seems. The best hypothesis is that he was a deist, one who equates God with the
laws of the universe, thus a synonym for the universe itself.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
John
Very good!
James Warren
If we're going to have a quotations war then I'll have to construct a database. :)
Your attributions look correct to me.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
Hey, even the Buddha was an atheist -- or, rather, he had no use for gods
if, in fact, they did exist. Unfortunately, those who followed him didn't
always think the same way. Some even deified *him*!
db
demibee
> How about a few more quotations? I don't have the sources for many of
> them, and haven't researched very deeply to confirm them either.
>
> "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
> in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving
> control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a
> misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
> pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomachochistic, capriciously malevolent
> bully."
> -Richard Dawkins
Agreed... wouldn't want that guy for a Dad! ;)
> The world holds two classes of men: intelligent men without religion,
> and religious men without intelligence.
Narrow view of "religion"; but if you're speaking of the literal
varieties, I can agree.
> "In the beginning man created god!"
Depends how you define "god"... As an anthropomorphic Bible writer, I
agree. As Joseph Campbell has put it -- "God is a metaphor for that which
transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." --
we've created *that* kind of god only by virtue of the fact that we don't
really know what's going on at core.
> To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to
> believe something by faith
> - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of
> respect.
> A.C. Grayling
To *believe* it... sure. To ponder it?... why not.
> In the 1980s a newspaper reported that Jesus is now here. If you put now
> and here together you get nowhere.
But what else exists for the individual other than the here and now? I
can rerun the past in my mind *now*; I can *imagine* a possible future
*now*... and wherever I go, for some strange reason, I end up being
"here."
> When people say, "I'm with Jesus", what they really mean is, "I have an
> imaginary friend"!
> Bill Maher
*Some* people -- literalists. Others think of Jesus metaphorically. I
admit I don't understand people who "talk to Jesus"; do they literally
hear a voice??
> All thinking men are atheists.
> Ernest Hemingway
Can't agree. Einstein wasn't an atheist... I recall him thinking a lot!
> Faith based education is a social cancer which serves only to produce
> new generations of ignorant bigots and I believe that indoctrinating
> children with this repressive medieval bullshit should be vigorously
> prosecuted as child abuse.
> Pat Condell
Bingo! I've seen born-again three-year-olds who believe every bad thing
they do adds to Jesus' suffering on the cross. That kind of "education"
oughta keep psychiatrists in business for the next generation.
> "Nothing about atheism prevents me from thinking about any idea. It is
> the very epitome of free thought. Atheism imposes no dogma and seeks no
> power over others."
It certainly prevents *some* from thinking about just *any* idea. I think
I agree with the rest.
> God did not make man in his own image. Evidently it was the other way
> about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and
> religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see
> all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilizations.
> (Christopher Hitchens)
There is, no doubt, truth in that. But like Dawkins, Hitchens has a
narrow view of God and of religion. Some use God as metaphor; some see
gods as irrelevant and possibly non-existent. Some are even atheistic!
> " The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and
> more people openly discuss the fact that "God" and "Allah" are
> completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who
> believe in "religion" look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion
> becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless. "
Again, this is anti-literalist. Not all spiritual people are that way.
The Sufi view of Allah, for example, is one of a person's unity with the
Divine... and the Divine, they say, is beyond imagination.
> "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
> every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." - James Madison
I certainly *can*. Does it always?
> "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
How can I disagree with that? ;)
> "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Referring to that "ol' time religion," no doubt. I wonder what he would
have said about the more enlightened free-thinking "spiritualists" (my
word) who were around during the turn of the 20th century?
Funny, nevertheless :)
> "Science is a candle in the dark" - Carl Sagan
... which doesn't cover the full spectrum of colours.
> "Where knowledge begins, religion ends." Ulugh Beg, Viceroy of Samarkand
Oh, not so! There are many who admire both! What's the context here? To
whom was this viceroy addressing his comment... and under what societal
conditions?
> "So for scientists and others who worry about the grip of religious
> faith, I say continue to light a brighter candle and chase back the
> darkness." Edward O. Wilson, founder of the science of sociobiology -
> The Philosophers' Magazine Autumn 1999
Agreed. What I see going on in the U.S. re Creationism, televangelism,
Religious Right-ism, is downright scary!
> "To be an athiest requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than
> to receive all the great truths which athiesm would deny.", Joseph
> Addison 1672-1719
Interesting.
> "Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their
> form but with regard to their mode of life." Aristotle
The ancient scriptures around that time certainly fit that bill. Aristotle
himself, and others before him, were open-minded... They accepted the
idea of a higher power. They were, however, careful to avoid the error
above -- i.e., anthropomorphism.
> "Everybody who has undertaken in the last 300 years to stand against the
> growth of scientific knowledge has lost." ,Paul Gross, biologist
And thank goodness! Otherwise, we'd still have celestial spheres; a
geo-centric universe; a flat Earth; perfect unchanging creatures; and on
and on. The great scientists are able not only to observe, but to
consider the implications of what they find... to think outside the box.
> "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts
Hmmm... I contend that we're all Yogacara Buddhists at heart. Those who
admit it merely believe in one fewer reality that the rest of us.
Do those who eat only one kind of meat count as vegetarians?
And to be sure, many Hindus, for example, don't believe in their gods
literally. They do, however, believe in an impersonal underlying order
they call Brahman (the "Universal Soul").
> Belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator who
> created the universe is not only very childish and illogical, it's
> simply ridiculous and (should be) highly embarrassing for any serious
> adult to admit.
Belief, yes. Consideration, no. And I'd like to think that intelligent
people could get beyond that kind of higher power anyway -- a holdover
from monarchism, perhaps?
> The clear cognitive dissonance displayed by followers of organised
> religion is currently the world's most pressing mental health challenge.
> Take responsibility to educate yourself. Knowledge is power. Beware of
> strange men in strange clothing who inhabit strange buildings and ask
> for money every Sunday.
Good advice!
> A man is accepted into a church for what he believes, and he is turned
> out for what he knows.
> (Mark Twain)
Twain's always a good read :) No church should be based on belief. It
should be based on what can be verified, either by science, or through
personal experience.
> “Knowledge is Freedom: hide it, and it withers; share it, and it blooms”
> (P. Hill)
Yep.
> Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
> Imagination encircles the world.
> Logics will get you from A to B, imagination will take you everywhere.
> Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds.
> The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday
> thinking. Albert Einstein
Take heed, James! ;)
> Lennon, Imagine
Great song by a great artist with a great mind!... and more compassion for
the world at large than most could ever muster.
One more quote I'll add...
"A strict agnostic says, you cannot pronounce, as knowledge, anything
you cannot demonstrate. In other words if you're going to call it
knowledge you have to be able to run an experiment on it that's
repeatable. You can't run an experiment on whether God exists or not,
therefore you can't say anything about it as knowledge. You can have a
belief if you want to, or if that is what grabs you, if you were called
in that direction, if you have a subjective experience of that kind,
that would be your belief system. You just can't call it knowledge."
- Margaret Atwood
db
demibee
> I'm sure JD can relate. A few years ago I was at a Naval-style Mess
> dinner (yes, they are different from Army & Air Force ones) and we had a
> senior navy officer (flag rank) as guest of honor. When it came time
> for his speech all he did was recite old dead guys..as mentioned by OP.
> This went on for quite a time period and out of the back of the room,
> a slightly slurred voice, "we know what the dead guy think sir, what do
> YOU think" ? There was silence..and a few red faces at the head
> table...but it was a very valid point.
If we take that approach, though, why honour the words of the dead at all?
If Twain or Churchill or Jefferson or Einstein had great insights then...
aren't they still worth considering?
Beyond that, what people quote usually reflects their own views; some now
dead simply said it better. What the guest of honour quoted was, likely,
very close to what he thought... Maybe he didn't have the words to say it
as eloquently??
As an example, *you* quoted the guy in the back of the room to make your
point, no?... In fairness, though, he may still be alive ;)
db
demibee
> I heard David Aikman in a CBC interview. He's a nut.
Irrelevant. He merely quoted what was said. Those were not *his* words.
Why attack the messenger?
> I'll stop here.
Your quotes about Einstein's beliefs miss the point. No, he wasn't
religious in the traditional sense, as already stated clearly in my OP...
but he was able to appreciate personal experience...
And why not? With our science -- our senses, our instruments -- are we
really studying the *universe itself*?... or merely humankind's
apprehension of it?
Maybe that's why Einstein had such reverence for the unseen order that no
person can imagine, let alone explain.
> Einstein was somewhat enigmatic it seems. The best hypothesis is that he
> was a deist, one who equates God with the laws of the universe, thus a
> synonym for the universe itself.
I think, from his quote, that it went a little deeper than that. Those
laws are a mystery.
db
demibee
> demibee wrote (or, rather, quoted):
>>
>> Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical
>> world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
>>
>> - Albert Einstein
>
> He's right. You gotta have data.
That's not what he said.
>> Imagination is more important than knowledge.
>>
>> - Albert Einstein
>
> Imagination is necessary to generate new knowledge, to create theories
> which we then test.
You should try it some time! ;)
> Einstein was a hopeless romantic, like you DB.
Then I'm in good company! :)
>> God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual
>> thought. It's as simple as that.
>>
>> - Joseph Campbell
>
> Right, God of the gaps!
"Transcends" is a little more profound than "don't know"; I think it
refers more to that which goes beyond what we could ever think by virtue
of our design. We're amazing, but we're limited... much more so than
science will often admit.
>> The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can
>> be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs
>> the quality of the oneness in the universe.
>>
>> - Dr. Larry Dossey
>
> One massive assumption, unverified, indeed rejected.
... by *you*. By others??
>> I like to think that: religion is for those who are afraid of going to
>> hell, and spirituality is for those who have already been there.
>>
>> - Deepak Chopra
>>
> Words signifying nothing. Does he mean spirituality is a comforting
> delusion for those who have experienced emotional stress? I read it this
> way.
He's contrasting religion (organized dogma) with the personal experience
that comes from the ups and downs of living life. That personal
experience centres a person... makes him realize his place in the
universe. My read, of course.
>> God, seen through the senses, is matter. God, seen through the
>> intellect, is mind. God, seen through the spirit, is Atman or the Self.
>>
>> - Sri Swami Sivananda
>>
> One cannot see through the spirit because there is no such thing as a
> spirit.
Ah! Well, we've settled that then!
>> Better the illusions that exalt us than ten thousand truths.
>>
>> - Alexander Pushkin
>>
> Better no illusions at all!
We all have 'em! Yours is that science can explain all... including what
may be inherently unexplainable.
>> [And my favourite...]
>>
>> Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is
>> serious.
>>
>> - Brendan Gill
>>
> At last one we can agree on! :)
Yep... a good one!
db
James Warren
You said you have been "considering" Eastern Mystical religions for 20 years.
When do you think you will decide whether or not you believe any of it?
Make up you mind already. :)
>
>
>> The clear cognitive dissonance displayed by followers of organised
>> religion is currently the world's most pressing mental health challenge.
>> Take responsibility to educate yourself. Knowledge is power. Beware of
>> strange men in strange clothing who inhabit strange buildings and ask
>> for money every Sunday.
>
> Good advice!
>
>
>> A man is accepted into a church for what he believes, and he is turned
>> out for what he knows.
>> (Mark Twain)
>
> Twain's always a good read :) No church should be based on belief. It
> should be based on what can be verified, either by science, or through
> personal experience.
>
>
>> “Knowledge is Freedom: hide it, and it withers; share it, and it blooms”
>> (P. Hill)
>
> Yep.
>
>
>> Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
>> Imagination encircles the world.
>> Logics will get you from A to B, imagination will take you everywhere.
>> Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds.
>> The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday
>> thinking. Albert Einstein
>
> Take heed, James! ;)
I told you Einstein was a romantic just like you. :)
>
>
>> Lennon, Imagine
>
> Great song by a great artist with a great mind!... and more compassion for
> the world at large than most could ever muster.
>
>
>
> One more quote I'll add...
>
> "A strict agnostic says, you cannot pronounce, as knowledge, anything
> you cannot demonstrate. In other words if you're going to call it
> knowledge you have to be able to run an experiment on it that's
> repeatable. You can't run an experiment on whether God exists or not,
> therefore you can't say anything about it as knowledge. You can have a
> belief if you want to, or if that is what grabs you, if you were called
> in that direction, if you have a subjective experience of that kind,
> that would be your belief system. You just can't call it knowledge."
>
> - Margaret Atwood
>
>
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
I told you Buddhism is hero worship.
I was in Chapters yesterday. I looked for a book entitled something like
"All you have to do is read this one little book to understand what
Buddhism is all about", but I didn't find it. Do you know of such a book?
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:10:23 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> I heard David Aikman in a CBC interview. He's a nut.
>
> Irrelevant. He merely quoted what was said. Those were not *his* words.
> Why attack the messenger?
>
>
>> I'll stop here.
>
> Your quotes about Einstein's beliefs miss the point. No, he wasn't
> religious in the traditional sense, as already stated clearly in my OP...
> but he was able to appreciate personal experience...
As must all of us. We have no choice do we? I can't have your experiences
and I can't perceive the universe directly.
>
> And why not? With our science -- our senses, our instruments -- are we
> really studying the *universe itself*?... or merely humankind's
> apprehension of it?
We can do nothing else. The goal is to make them coincide.
>
> Maybe that's why Einstein had such reverence for the unseen order that no
> person can imagine, let alone explain.
>
Einstein was a modest man. He did not like to rock the boat.
>
>> Einstein was somewhat enigmatic it seems. The best hypothesis is that he
>> was a deist, one who equates God with the laws of the universe, thus a
>> synonym for the universe itself.
>
> I think, from his quote, that it went a little deeper than that. Those
> laws are a mystery.
>
>
> db
Anything unknown can be said to be a mystery. The object of science is to reduce
the amount that is unknown.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:53:25 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> demibee wrote (or, rather, quoted):
>>> Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical
>>> world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
>>>
>>> - Albert Einstein
>> He's right. You gotta have data.
>
> That's not what he said.
Do you want me to believe that the universe begins and ends in my head?
>
>
>>> Imagination is more important than knowledge.
>>>
>>> - Albert Einstein
>> Imagination is necessary to generate new knowledge, to create theories
>> which we then test.
>
> You should try it some time! ;)
I do it all the time. Its only you (and Al) who say I don't.
>
>
>> Einstein was a hopeless romantic, like you DB.
>
> Then I'm in good company! :)
Indeed you are. :)
>
>
>>> God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual
>>> thought. It's as simple as that.
>>>
>>> - Joseph Campbell
>> Right, God of the gaps!
>
> "Transcends" is a little more profound than "don't know"; I think it
> refers more to that which goes beyond what we could ever think by virtue
> of our design. We're amazing, but we're limited... much more so than
> science will often admit.
Transcends is a silly word. It claims to be a mystical word. Transcendental
meditation is just another relaxation technique. Its self flattering.
It does mean only "don't know"; its just a pfancy way of saying it.
>
>
>>> The modern tradition of equating death with an ensuing nothingness can
>>> be abandoned. For there is no reason to believe that human death severs
>>> the quality of the oneness in the universe.
>>>
>>> - Dr. Larry Dossey
>> One massive assumption, unverified, indeed rejected.
>
> ... by *you*. By others??
>
>
>>> I like to think that: religion is for those who are afraid of going to
>>> hell, and spirituality is for those who have already been there.
>>>
>>> - Deepak Chopra
>>>
>> Words signifying nothing. Does he mean spirituality is a comforting
>> delusion for those who have experienced emotional stress? I read it this
>> way.
>
> He's contrasting religion (organized dogma) with the personal experience
> that comes from the ups and downs of living life. That personal
> experience centres a person... makes him realize his place in the
> universe. My read, of course.
>
>
>>> God, seen through the senses, is matter. God, seen through the
>>> intellect, is mind. God, seen through the spirit, is Atman or the Self.
>>>
>>> - Sri Swami Sivananda
>>>
>> One cannot see through the spirit because there is no such thing as a
>> spirit.
>
> Ah! Well, we've settled that then!
If you disagree show me a spirit; at least define it.
>
>
>>> Better the illusions that exalt us than ten thousand truths.
>>>
>>> - Alexander Pushkin
>>>
>> Better no illusions at all!
>
> We all have 'em! Yours is that science can explain all... including what
> may be inherently unexplainable.
I don't know what may be inherently unexplainable, do you? We may all have them
but the goal is rid ourselves of them not to gather warm and fuzzy ones.
>
>
>>> [And my favourite...]
>>>
>>> Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is
>>> serious.
>>>
>>> - Brendan Gill
>>>
>> At last one we can agree on! :)
>
> Yep... a good one!
>
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> You said you have been "considering" Eastern Mystical religions for 20
> years. When do you think you will decide whether or not you believe any
> of it? Make up you mind already. :)
Yeah, but Eastern religions, Buddhism & Taoism most notably, don't have
many beliefs as such. They have a worldview... And there have been
cultural additions over the millennia. To those who understand them, I
suppose those rituals add something.
Still... think of the practical moral aspects of the beliefs they *do*
have. If we're to accept, say, the Hindu contention that, in essence, all
people are instantiations of a single Ultimate (Taoism has that too), it
follows that...
- you would never do harm to another, since, deep down, that's *you*;
- you would feel compassion more easily;
- you would never judge, rob, slander what is essentially yourself.
There are other morals, but they're mainly for brahmins (religious
higher-ups) and those who've given up normal life to devote themselves to
asceticism. For the average person, the above suffices.
And while I could never truthfully say, "Yes, I truly *believe* we're all
instantiations of a single 'Divinity'," I can make a metaphorical leap --
i.e., we're all human, we're all descended from some original spark of
life.
Western religions seem to be about four things...
- scare 'em into submission;
- all things were created separately; they have no commonality, no
relationship to one another, save the fact they were all created by
God via separate acts of creation on different days;
- follow the list of 613 (or 10) commandments, which are given with
little or no explanation;
- oh... and "Do unto others..."
(Seriously, the character of Jesus was closer to the East than anyone else
in the Bible.)
So, while belief isn't necessary, if taken metaphorically, I think these
ideas are worth something.
Western religions did have a mystical (esoteric) side. But the
ritualistic (exoteric) side eventually dominated... at least among the
layfolk.
db
demibee
> I told you Buddhism is hero worship.
You were wrong. The plain ol' human, Siddartha Gautama, would even
disagree with you. Any teacher would have sufficed... and for some, other
teachers with similar messages *did* suffice. There were a lot of other
people who'd put forth similar ideas. The Buddha (which means nothing
more than awakened, aka "I get it!") was just the one that caught on in
India long enough for his ideas to make it to China (after which it all
but died out in India).
Buddhism, in essence, is an ancient practice of self-control -- an ancient
psychology. That's all.
It did inherit, to some degree, the ideas of Hinduism...
- gods... but in Buddhism, they're just other unenlightened beings; they
can be ignored assuming they even exist at all;
- reincarnation... but in Buddhism, the "soul" breaks down upon death;
individuals *die*.
In fact, that's the great Truth in Buddhism -- absolutely nothing is
immortal. Everything changes. Get used to it... or go crazy.
> I was in Chapters yesterday. I looked for a book entitled something like
> "All you have to do is read this one little book to understand what
> Buddhism is all about", but I didn't find it. Do you know of such a
> book?
Haven't seen it. I still recommend _How to Become a Buddha in Five Weeks_
by Giacobbe. It's the best, simplest, most practical explanation... no
lingering history of the Buddha himself (a few pages)... no delving into
metaphysical ideas. The author's a psychologist who treats Buddhism as
such.
Don't even buy it. Read the first 70 pages in the store, and you'll see
what I mean. It takes the so-called eightfold path, and simplifies it
into five basic steps, not dissimilar to what a good cognitive-behavioural
therapist might suggest. You can even skip the very brief chapter on "Who
was the Buddha."
db
demibee
> demibee wrote:
>> And why not? With our science -- our senses, our instruments -- are we
>> really studying the *universe itself*?... or merely humankind's
>> apprehension of it?
>
> We can do nothing else. The goal is to make them coincide.
... inasmuch as that's possible... or even necessary!
For example, you shared your little trick of holding your breath to cut
down on hyperventilation. That was your n=1 personal experience...
something you discovered within yourself. Before you ever shared it,
despite its being n=1, it was already the truth. The only verification
you needed was that it worked for you.
It's good that it *can* be shared, but what's true is true whether other
people know it or not. Multiple verification doesn't create truth, it
merely makes it possible to report it with confidence.
Today, I was looking for a receipt (I like to keep them all in one place).
I *think* it's in a box in the storage room... but my looking, 100 people
looking, won't change where it really is. It'd help me find out, but if
I'm right (and I think I am), it's there regardless.
db
demibee
> Do you want me to believe that the universe begins and ends in my head?
What you know of it does.
> I don't know what may be inherently unexplainable, do you?
I'd guess that "Where did all this come from?" is one.
Supposing M-theory is right, the branes in the bulk might explain it...
but where did *they* come from. When we ask, "Where did it ALL come
from?" I think we're looking at "inherently unexplainable," and,
therefore, transcendent.
It's the difference between "I don't know" and "We have no hope of ever
knowing." The question itself may not even be amenable to logic... which,
despite seeming commonsensical, may be nothing more than a practical tool
or idea that has no basis in reality.
Just as the best teacher can't teach the best dog algebra, maybe what we
feel to be rational -- what works for us on our very limited ground --
simply isn't rational due to there being no such thing... beyond being a
human concept. Seeing as we're animals, albeit impressive ones, I can see
that being the case.
So... we use math, logic, science for our needs. But as a description of
the full depth of reality itself?! I just don't think it's up to the
task.
db
James Warren
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:58:42 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> You said you have been "considering" Eastern Mystical religions for 20
>> years. When do you think you will decide whether or not you believe any
>> of it? Make up you mind already. :)
>
> Yeah, but Eastern religions, Buddhism & Taoism most notably, don't have
> many beliefs as such. They have a worldview... And there have been
> cultural additions over the millennia. To those who understand them, I
> suppose those rituals add something.
>
> Still... think of the practical moral aspects of the beliefs they *do*
> have. If we're to accept, say, the Hindu contention that, in essence, all
> people are instantiations of a single Ultimate (Taoism has that too), it
> follows that...
>
> - you would never do harm to another, since, deep down, that's *you*;
>
> - you would feel compassion more easily;
>
> - you would never judge, rob, slander what is essentially yourself.
>
To me it seems that the proposition of the "single Ultimate" was invented
to justify the above. That seems more logical to me. Its nice but no more
provable than Gods.
> There are other morals, but they're mainly for brahmins (religious
> higher-ups) and those who've given up normal life to devote themselves to
> asceticism. For the average person, the above suffices.
>
> And while I could never truthfully say, "Yes, I truly *believe* we're all
> instantiations of a single 'Divinity'," I can make a metaphorical leap --
> i.e., we're all human, we're all descended from some original spark of
> life.
I doubt they have this metaphor in mind when it was invented.
>
>
> Western religions seem to be about four things...
>
> - scare 'em into submission;
>
> - all things were created separately; they have no commonality, no
> relationship to one another, save the fact they were all created by
> God via separate acts of creation on different days;
>
> - follow the list of 613 (or 10) commandments, which are given with
> little or no explanation;
>
> - oh... and "Do unto others..."
>
> (Seriously, the character of Jesus was closer to the East than anyone else
> in the Bible.)
>
I agree. Jesus was likely a composite of many ideas or myths, prominent among
them eastern myths.
> So, while belief isn't necessary, if taken metaphorically, I think these
> ideas are worth something.
>
These ideas are nicer, for sure, but no more believable than any other traditions.
>
> Western religions did have a mystical (esoteric) side. But the
> ritualistic (exoteric) side eventually dominated... at least among the
> layfolk.
>
It seems to me that man has gone through great lengths to explain or justify his instincts.
Morality is very likely innate and man has made up many myths to explain its existence.
There is no need for myths. Morality evolved because it had survival value. We have only recently
become aware that man has many instincts like all animals. In fact man has more instincts
than animals and we make up stuff to explain them to ourselves.
James Warren
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:02:25 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> I told you Buddhism is hero worship.
>
> You were wrong. The plain ol' human, Siddartha Gautama, would even
> disagree with you. Any teacher would have sufficed... and for some, other
> teachers with similar messages *did* suffice. There were a lot of other
> people who'd put forth similar ideas. The Buddha (which means nothing
> more than awakened, aka "I get it!") was just the one that caught on in
> India long enough for his ideas to make it to China (after which it all
> but died out in India).
>
> Buddhism, in essence, is an ancient practice of self-control -- an ancient
> psychology. That's all.
In that case, may I suggest that we may have advanced the field a little
since his time. :)
>
> It did inherit, to some degree, the ideas of Hinduism...
>
> - gods... but in Buddhism, they're just other unenlightened beings; they
> can be ignored assuming they even exist at all;
>
> - reincarnation... but in Buddhism, the "soul" breaks down upon death;
> individuals *die*.
>
> In fact, that's the great Truth in Buddhism -- absolutely nothing is
> immortal. Everything changes. Get used to it... or go crazy.
>
>
>> I was in Chapters yesterday. I looked for a book entitled something like
>> "All you have to do is read this one little book to understand what
>> Buddhism is all about", but I didn't find it. Do you know of such a
>> book?
>
> Haven't seen it. I still recommend _How to Become a Buddha in Five Weeks_
> by Giacobbe. It's the best, simplest, most practical explanation... no
> lingering history of the Buddha himself (a few pages)... no delving into
> metaphysical ideas. The author's a psychologist who treats Buddhism as
> such.
>
> Don't even buy it. Read the first 70 pages in the store, and you'll see
> what I mean. It takes the so-called eightfold path, and simplifies it
> into five basic steps, not dissimilar to what a good cognitive-behavioural
> therapist might suggest. You can even skip the very brief chapter on "Who
> was the Buddha."
>
I just bought it from Amazon.ca 2-4 weeks to ship.
James Warren
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:09:46 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> demibee wrote:
>>> And why not? With our science -- our senses, our instruments -- are we
>>> really studying the *universe itself*?... or merely humankind's
>>> apprehension of it?
>> We can do nothing else. The goal is to make them coincide.
>
> ... inasmuch as that's possible... or even necessary!
>
> For example, you shared your little trick of holding your breath to cut
> down on hyperventilation. That was your n=1 personal experience...
> something you discovered within yourself. Before you ever shared it,
> despite its being n=1, it was already the truth. The only verification
> you needed was that it worked for you.
>
Ah yes, but I could be wrong. It has face validity but only a good experiment
with good measurements would confirm my theory. In fact, I think a study has
probably been done. In principle, its not different from the head in paper
bag idea. It accomplishes the same thing, except that I control the process
not a paper bag.
> It's good that it *can* be shared, but what's true is true whether other
> people know it or not. Multiple verification doesn't create truth, it
> merely makes it possible to report it with confidence.
Not only that, it reveals errors should the idea in fact be wrong. This is
very important.
>
> Today, I was looking for a receipt (I like to keep them all in one place).
> I *think* it's in a box in the storage room... but my looking, 100 people
> looking, won't change where it really is. It'd help me find out, but if
> I'm right (and I think I am), it's there regardless.
>
A drunk lost his keys and was seen by a cop as he staggered around and around
a lamp post. When the cop asked why, he answered that he had lost his keys and was
looking for them. "Did you lose them here?" the cop asked. "No" he said. "I lost them
over there." "Why are you looking here then?" asked the cop. "The light is better here"
replied the drunk.
demibee
> In that case, may I suggest that we may have advanced the field a little
> since his time. :)
Yes!... *very* little ;)
We've discovered a lot in the area of neuro-psychology... a reasonable
amount in the area of cognitive psychology. IOW, where there's something
biological to study, we've increased our knowledge; in the ways behaviour
correlates with stimulus, we know a fair amount, and can infer something
about how the brain processes things.
But when I took psych, I was *extremely* disappointed at how unrealistic
and undeveloped clinical psychology was. Compared to the rest, it was
shamanism...
In fact, some studies we covered showed that just about *all* therapies --
including that of just sitting and talking with one's minister -- had
roughly equal chance of success (for problems other than the very serious:
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorders). IOW, they didn't
know how their therapies worked... or *if* they worked.
Another study covered the efficacy of going to a psychologist (with a PsyD
or PhD) to that of going to a person trained in treating things like
anxiety and depression exclusively. These studies showed that the latter
had greater successes, even though they had only bachelor's degrees, or in
some cases, diplomas.
And some of the things they said with regard to anxiety -- e.g., that SD
is very successful for social anxiety -- simply didn't ring true. I know
several people who have it (for some reason, people with SA tend to find
each other), and I've not seen *anyone* who's reported success with SD.
And anyone who's ever gone to a support group (or, hell, check out the
forums online) has pretty much declared SD to be useless for SA.
That they were still teaching this bullshit (and lots more) in the late
'90s *really* disillusioned me toward the field -- well, that aspect of
psych, anyway... clinical. I came out believing a lot of it was so much
in its infancy that it wasn't worth pursuing. (If ever I returned to Dal
for something beyond a bachelor's degree in psych, I'd likely go with
neuro or cognitive.)
My chats with various pshrinks ended up with their saying little, save,
"Here's a prescription!"
And the one actual psychologist I saw? He taught meditation... which I
found worked much better than the SD two psychiatrists tried to teach
(recall the SD ladder conversation I mentioned in an earlier post).
So, yeah... *very* little! Seems I would have done just as well with a
teacher of Buddhism, Taoism, or even a Christian mystic had I been alive
back then.
And honestly, when I think of all the people I know who've overcome
depression and anxiety (at least, to some degree), they rarely credit
their therapists. It's usually, "I dunno... I just pulled myself out of
it; it's still there, but I've learned to manage it." The only person I
know who's credited her therapist for genuine improvement with her
condition is a friend with ADD-ish anger issues (I don't know her actual
diagnosis), dyslexia, and a history of emotional abuse. (Due to her
condition, her sessions with her psychologist were paid for; I'll have to
ask her now just what her therapist did.)
db
demibee
> Ah yes, but I could be wrong. It has face validity but only a good
> experiment with good measurements would confirm my theory. In fact, I
> think a study has probably been done. In principle, its not different
> from the head in paper bag idea. It accomplishes the same thing, except
> that I control the process not a paper bag.
LOL... I'm just imagining the paper bag at a staff meeting ;)
The thing is, it works. Some forms of meditation require *intentional*
breathing (rather than natural breathing... it's not recommended that
novices go beyond a few breaths, as hyperventilation can apparently set
in); one method I have here in a small text suggests inhaling deeply
through the nose, holding for a count of three, and exhaling very slowly
through slightly parted lips... pretty much the same thing.
> A drunk lost his keys and was seen by a cop as he staggered around and
> around a lamp post. When the cop asked why, he answered that he had lost
> his keys and was looking for them. "Did you lose them here?" the cop
> asked. "No" he said. "I lost them over there." "Why are you looking here
> then?" asked the cop. "The light is better here" replied the drunk.
Cute... heard it before, though :)
db
James Warren
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:14:50 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> Ah yes, but I could be wrong. It has face validity but only a good
>> experiment with good measurements would confirm my theory. In fact, I
>> think a study has probably been done. In principle, its not different
>> from the head in paper bag idea. It accomplishes the same thing, except
>> that I control the process not a paper bag.
>
> LOL... I'm just imagining the paper bag at a staff meeting ;)
Just pass 'em out so everyone can join in. :)
>
> The thing is, it works. Some forms of meditation require *intentional*
> breathing (rather than natural breathing... it's not recommended that
> novices go beyond a few breaths, as hyperventilation can apparently set
> in); one method I have here in a small text suggests inhaling deeply
> through the nose, holding for a count of three, and exhaling very slowly
> through slightly parted lips... pretty much the same thing.
Intentional or not, hyperventilation can make you light headed. You can even
pass out.
>
>
>> A drunk lost his keys and was seen by a cop as he staggered around and
>> around a lamp post. When the cop asked why, he answered that he had lost
>> his keys and was looking for them. "Did you lose them here?" the cop
>> asked. "No" he said. "I lost them over there." "Why are you looking here
>> then?" asked the cop. "The light is better here" replied the drunk.
>
> Cute... heard it before, though :)
>
A golden oldie. :)
demibee
> I just bought it from Amazon.ca 2-4 weeks to ship.
Another you might consider that really drives home the simplicity of it
all -- almost the "mundane-ness" of it all -- is this one...
No Self, No Problem - Anam Thubten
<http://www.amazon.ca/No-Self-Problem-Anam-Thubten/dp/1559393262>
It takes away all the illusions many people have of what so-called
enlightenment is supposed to be. It dismisses any ideas that it's a la-la
land, a "high," or some kind of dreamy paradise. In essence, he describes
it as an awareness of the world (and the body) to the extent that the self
disappears... even if only for a short while. What's left is just
awareness, which is very peaceful. He uses the word "bliss" but is
careful to explain that it's not a sensual bliss, but one of presence.
He even tackles the idea that the pursuit of enlightenment can unwittingly
*strengthen* the ego due to a false notion of what's being sought... or by
causing the seeker of enlightenment to label himself -- "I am a Buddhist";
"I am enlightened." (How does a SELF-less person sincerely make those
statements?) He says, essentially, Don't chase rainbows!
Unlike the Canadian site, the U.S. site has a few reviews (I wish they'd
fuse Amazon.com & Amazon.ca for that reason alone)...
<http://www.amazon.com/No-Self-Problem-Anam-Thubten/dp/1559393262>
Alan Watts -- British philosopher -- used to say much the same thing:
Whenever "I" appears, it's due to a problem. Thubten might replace
"problem" with "attachment," but it's the same basic idea.
In any event, I've already cost you some money ;) I'll include some
excerpts (I'm still in the middle of it), and you can see if it's worth
your $13...
========================================================================
Some Buddhist teachers say, "Don't wobble." It means don't lose
awareness. I love that expression. Don't wobble. It means be still and
sturdy and strong and disciplined in terms of maintaining that firelike
awareness in each and every moment. Once awareness is achieved then
awareness is self-sustained. We don't really have to squeeze our brain to
make sure that we are maintaining awareness. Awareness maintains itself.
That's why it becomes effortless.
Whenever we believe that we have a problem, whenever we believe that
we are real, the mind is actually lying to us, and deceiving us with a
mistaken belief. Ego is tricking us into believing in an unreal illusory
entity. Therefore our practice should be the constant work of being aware
and transcending and eradicating all of our concepts and limiting ideas.
We just get rid of all of our concepts, all of our painful concepts,
whatever concepts we are having an affair with. We are always having an
affair with concepts and there are plenty of them. Every concept has a
story line. Think about it. "I am poor." That is a concept. "I am
stupid." That is a concept. "I am a woman." That is a concept. "I am a
man." That is a concept too. They are all concepts. "I don't have
enough money, but if I had a million dollars, then I would be happy." That
is a concept. They are all concepts. Get rid of them in a single moment
without even taking the time to meditate, without taking the time to
analyze them. Transcend all limiting concepts as soon as they arise. Let
them go even before we have had time to meditate, before we have had time
to peel the skin to examine what's inside, before we have seen whether
they are real or not. The idea is simply to let go of them.
If we take this message into our heart and are openheartedly willing
to live up to each and every moment, then I believe we will be liberated.
We will be enlightened. We will be awake each and every moment if we take
this message to the bottom of our heart and live up to it as the ultimate
guideline of our life...
[pp. 38-39]
... When I first went to the monastery I had many fantasies. I thought
that it was going to be a journey full of visions, revelations, and angels
with flowers descending upon me...
[pp. 41-42]
Sometimes when we sit and pay attention to our breath, ego tries to
jeopardize our path. Ego tells us, "Well this is too simple. You are
getting nowhere. There is nothing special happening here. There are no
fireworks. This is not going to lead anywhere." Ego is trying to seduce
us into chasing some beautiful exotic illusion. But if we just surrender
and remain in that present awareness, paying attention to our breath, then
amazingly the self dies...
When the self dissolves, everything is already awakened...
[pp. 45-46]
========================================================================
It may sound kind of nihilistic to some, but it's quite the opposite. That
presence, even given what little experience I have with meditation, is
what meditation attempts to accomplish... and regular practice helps to
maintain it into daily life.
There may be some out there who do this naturally... always have... but
I'm not one of 'em! :)
db
Al Smith
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:14:50 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> Ah yes, but I could be wrong. It has face validity but only a good
>> experiment with good measurements would confirm my theory. In fact, I
>> think a study has probably been done. In principle, its not different
>> from the head in paper bag idea. It accomplishes the same thing, except
>> that I control the process not a paper bag.
>
> LOL... I'm just imagining the paper bag at a staff meeting ;)
>
> The thing is, it works. Some forms of meditation require *intentional*
> breathing (rather than natural breathing... it's not recommended that
> novices go beyond a few breaths, as hyperventilation can apparently set
> in); one method I have here in a small text suggests inhaling deeply
> through the nose, holding for a count of three, and exhaling very slowly
> through slightly parted lips... pretty much the same thing.
>
>
>
Controlled breathing, with retentions, can be used to awaken
kundalini. That's not something the average person wants to do.
Without retentions, it is probably safe enough.
-Al-
James Warren
When we are awake we are aware. When we are "in the zone" we are intensely
concentrating and aware of only one thing; we are on autopilot. Is this the
kind of awareness he's talking about.
Why make a religion out of this?
>
> Whenever we believe that we have a problem, whenever we believe that
> we are real, the mind is actually lying to us, and deceiving us with a
> mistaken belief. Ego is tricking us into believing in an unreal illusory
> entity. Therefore our practice should be the constant work of being aware
> and transcending and eradicating all of our concepts and limiting ideas.
Does this sound vaguely dualistic to you? It does to me.
>
> We just get rid of all of our concepts, all of our painful concepts,
> whatever concepts we are having an affair with. We are always having an
> affair with concepts and there are plenty of them. Every concept has a
> story line. Think about it. "I am poor." That is a concept. "I am
> stupid." That is a concept. "I am a woman." That is a concept. "I am a
> man." That is a concept too. They are all concepts. "I don't have
> enough money, but if I had a million dollars, then I would be happy." That
> is a concept. They are all concepts. Get rid of them in a single moment
> without even taking the time to meditate, without taking the time to
> analyze them. Transcend all limiting concepts as soon as they arise. Let
> them go even before we have had time to meditate, before we have had time
> to peel the skin to examine what's inside, before we have seen whether
> they are real or not. The idea is simply to let go of them.
This sounds to me like quieting the voice in your head. It can be done for a while.
One can also dampen emotions as soon as they arise if they are not too strong.
I think we all do this from time to time.
>
> If we take this message into our heart and are openheartedly willing
> to live up to each and every moment, then I believe we will be liberated.
> We will be enlightened. We will be awake each and every moment if we take
> this message to the bottom of our heart and live up to it as the ultimate
> guideline of our life...
I don't know how to take a message into my heart, as Oprah, televangelists
and others frequently tell me to do. Speech like this is for pep rallies and
revivalists. I am strongly emotionally affected by some scenes or words though.
>
> [pp. 38-39]
>
>
> ... When I first went to the monastery I had many fantasies. I thought
> that it was going to be a journey full of visions, revelations, and angels
> with flowers descending upon me...
>
> [pp. 41-42]
>
>
> Sometimes when we sit and pay attention to our breath, ego tries to
> jeopardize our path. Ego tells us, "Well this is too simple. You are
> getting nowhere. There is nothing special happening here. There are no
> fireworks. This is not going to lead anywhere." Ego is trying to seduce
> us into chasing some beautiful exotic illusion. But if we just surrender
> and remain in that present awareness, paying attention to our breath, then
> amazingly the self dies...
>
> When the self dissolves, everything is already awakened...
>
I don't pay attention to my breath. I attend to my muscles and let them
relax, breathing follows. Its nice and calming but it doesn't put me in tune
with the universe. :)
> [pp. 45-46]
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
> It may sound kind of nihilistic to some, but it's quite the opposite. That
> presence, even given what little experience I have with meditation, is
> what meditation attempts to accomplish... and regular practice helps to
> maintain it into daily life.
>
> There may be some out there who do this naturally... always have... but
> I'm not one of 'em! :)
>
Not being egocentric is a lifestyle and a personality trait. It probably has
high heritability.
James Warren
What's kundalini - a werewolf that shares your body?
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Al Smith
No.
-Al-
demibee
> When we are awake we are aware. When we are "in the zone" we are
> intensely concentrating and aware of only one thing; we are on
> autopilot. Is this the kind of awareness he's talking about.
Pretty much... but even when we're not doing anything specific. I don't
know about you, but when I walk somewhere, my mind is on the destination,
if you know what I mean. There are even times I can reach my destination
having essentially no recollection of the specifics of how I got there,
it's so routine... Maybe, for example, on this one trip, I meant to stop
at such-and-such a building along the way just to check the hours on the
door... and now that I'm at my destination, I can't even recall passing
the building at all... my mind was elsewhere.
So, if by autopilot, you mean that the pilot himself is asleep at the
wheel, then no, not that. But if you mean that you're present and
everything is just coming naturally as a result, then I think that would
be a reasonable description of what he's getting at.
> Why make a religion out of this?
Of that alone? No need. Recall that the Buddha and people like him
didn't think of this as a religion. Gods were unnecessary. Same with
Taoists. People talked about them because they were part of the culture,
but for these "new" traditions, they were irrelevant.
Still, there were certain insights that followed for them -- the
dissolving of self leads to that sense of oneness we've debated... a "the
world is my body" POV; how literally a follower would take that would
probably depend on the individual, the culture, the time period, the
school, and the specific experiences of the individual.
There's also a strong "tree falling in the forest" element to Buddhism and
Taoism... that the observer and the observed form a single system. Without
the ear to hear it, there is no sound. Are there pressure waves? Who can
say? That kind of thing.
Plus, for Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation wasn't completely lost. The
caste system and subjugation of women were thrown out (at least during the
Buddha's time... they were brought back to varying extent by different
schools). But ideas like reincarnation, although modified, remained.
Again, how literally a person takes it seems to vary considerably.
>Thubten wrote:
>> Whenever we believe that we have a problem, whenever we believe
>> that we are real, the mind is actually lying to us, and deceiving us
>> with a mistaken belief. Ego is tricking us into believing in an unreal
>> illusory entity. Therefore our practice should be the constant work of
>> being aware and transcending and eradicating all of our concepts and
>> limiting ideas.
>
> Does this sound vaguely dualistic to you? It does to me.
In the sense that we're dealing with brain vs environment, I suppose. But
isn't that what we generally do?... see ourselves as separate and "very
important" entities that lead to an "I come first" mentality? That
mentality, I think, is what leads to the general dissatisfaction with life
that seems to pervade our culture (and if my readings are any indication,
all cultures through all time).
[ I caught a bit of Dr Daniel Amen on PBS the other day. He was
discussing a cognitive approach to life... As best I can recall,
"Thoughts lie! They lie a lot.... Ask yourself if it's true. Ask
yourself if you can absolutely *know* that it's true." Very similar ideas
here, I think. ]
I think these traditions try to stress that we and the environment are
one. There's no ghost in the machine here. It's a matter of dispensing
with "me" and identifying with the Whole. The Whole never dies. (Matter/
energy can be neither created nor destroyed.) In contrast, due to the
fact that things change, every "me" *will* die. Buddhism & Taoism even go
so far as to say that "I" die every minute, constantly being born anew.
> This sounds to me like quieting the voice in your head. It can be done
> for a while. One can also dampen emotions as soon as they arise if they
> are not too strong. I think we all do this from time to time.
Yeah, the "chattering monkey mind," they call it.
Natural breathing meditation techniques are supposed to lead to a constant
awareness of the breath. Before any emotions arise, the breath changes...
So, awareness of natural breathing can allow you to quash an emotion even
*before* it arises. They talk about it in this video...
<http://video.server.dhamma.org/video/intro/vintro.htm>
> I don't know how to take a message into my heart, as Oprah,
> televangelists and others frequently tell me to do. Speech like this is
> for pep rallies and revivalists. I am strongly emotionally affected by
> some scenes or words though.
Well, I wouldn't take the "heart" thing too literally :) I'm not a very
heart-oriented person myself. Like the word "God," every time I hear it,
I have to substitute it with something I can relate to before it's of use
to me.
> I don't pay attention to my breath. I attend to my muscles and let them
> relax, breathing follows.
I find the opposite (re the video above) works for me. But whatever
works, works. So do what works, I guess.
> Its nice and calming but it doesn't put me in tune with the universe. :)
You may not word it that way, but I bet that it does... If it makes you a
more accurate judge of what's going on around you and inside you, I'd say
that's "in tune."
(Although, I read an article a while ago -- think it was SciAm? -- stating
that depressed and/or cynical individuals tend to have a more accurate
view of the world around them. Go figure! So keep an eye on Al's blog ;)
> Not being egocentric is a lifestyle and a personality trait. It probably
> has high heritability.
I don't think he's referring to ego in the Freudian sense here... i.e.,
it's not narcissism. It's being mired in thoughts, daydreams, worries,
and fears (ego) vs being aware of the environment, which includes the body
(less ego)... although the latter no doubt leads to a more giving person.
Myself, when I'm around others, I'm social. When I'm doing something
alone, I tend to live in my head.
db
demibee
> Controlled breathing, with retentions, can be used to awaken kundalini.
> That's not something the average person wants to do. Without retentions,
> it is probably safe enough.
Kundalini goes great with a cream sauce and a lager! ;)
db
Al Smith
Ah, no.
-Al-
demibee
> Ah, no.
Alright, alright... I looked it up... ;)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini>
'Kundalini ... Sanskrit, literally "coiled". In Indian yoga, a
"corporeal energy" - an unconscious, instinctive or libidinal force or
Shakti, envisioned either as a goddess or else as a sleeping serpent
coiled at the base of the spine, hence a number of English renderings
of the term such as "serpent power".
'Yoga and Tantra propose that this energy can be "awakened" by Guru, but
body and spirit must be prepared by yogic austerities such as
pranayama, or breath control, physical exercises, visualization, and
chanting. . .'
For the breath control, I'd first want someone who knows what he's doing
to spell out just how it's done. My own books on meditation warn that
intentional breathing exercises can be dangerous (can lead to
hyperventilation) if one hasn't been trained. That's one of the reasons
natural breathing is recommended.
db
Al Smith
You are safe enough if you refrain from holding your breath, and
if you do not try to over-fill your lungs with air. Over-filling
the lungs can cause damage that persists for days or weeks (gives
you a persistent cough).
Retention of the breath is the trigger for kundalini. It is
achieved by "locking" the throat with the lungs fully expanded
with air, but also "locking" the throat with the lungs fully
emptied. It is this retention with the lungs emptied that is the
strongest trigger of kundalini fire. You know you are performing
the breathing retentions correctly when a chill sweat erupts all
over the surface of your body.
But as I say, if you don't retain your breath by locking your
throat, you can do little harm to yourself.
-Al-
demibee
> Retention of the breath is the trigger for kundalini. It is achieved by
> "locking" the throat with the lungs fully expanded with air, but also
> "locking" the throat with the lungs fully emptied. It is this retention
> with the lungs emptied that is the strongest trigger of kundalini fire.
> You know you are performing the breathing retentions correctly when a
> chill sweat erupts all over the surface of your body.
Okay... but I'm still confused: What's the purpose of that cold sweat?
db
James Warren
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:22:36 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> When we are awake we are aware. When we are "in the zone" we are
>> intensely concentrating and aware of only one thing; we are on
>> autopilot. Is this the kind of awareness he's talking about.
>
> Pretty much... but even when we're not doing anything specific. I don't
> know about you, but when I walk somewhere, my mind is on the destination,
> if you know what I mean. There are even times I can reach my destination
> having essentially no recollection of the specifics of how I got there,
> it's so routine... Maybe, for example, on this one trip, I meant to stop
> at such-and-such a building along the way just to check the hours on the
> door... and now that I'm at my destination, I can't even recall passing
> the building at all... my mind was elsewhere.
>
> So, if by autopilot, you mean that the pilot himself is asleep at the
> wheel, then no, not that. But if you mean that you're present and
> everything is just coming naturally as a result, then I think that would
> be a reasonable description of what he's getting at.
>
There is another way to look at what is going on here. The brain is capable
of doing things in at least two ways. The frontal lobes can pass detailed commands
to the motor system to cause specific actions. This is what we do when
we attempt to follow instructions like how to hit a tennis ball. When we have
have learned it the sensory motor cortex can take over and execute the same action
much more smoothly and effortlessly. When the forebrain only gives general
instructions to the premotor cortex which plans and executes the action autonomously
then all seems effortless. We are in the zone. All sportsmen try to achieve this.
When they do they are at peak performance. Higher parts of the brain are not
interfering with or overriding lower parts. All works together. So everyone who has this as
a goal is a Buddhist. :)
>
>> Why make a religion out of this?
>
> Of that alone? No need. Recall that the Buddha and people like him
> didn't think of this as a religion. Gods were unnecessary. Same with
> Taoists. People talked about them because they were part of the culture,
> but for these "new" traditions, they were irrelevant.
>
> Still, there were certain insights that followed for them -- the
> dissolving of self leads to that sense of oneness we've debated... a "the
> world is my body" POV; how literally a follower would take that would
> probably depend on the individual, the culture, the time period, the
> school, and the specific experiences of the individual.
>
> There's also a strong "tree falling in the forest" element to Buddhism and
> Taoism... that the observer and the observed form a single system. Without
> the ear to hear it, there is no sound. Are there pressure waves? Who can
> say? That kind of thing.
This is sophistry of course.
>
> Plus, for Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation wasn't completely lost. The
> caste system and subjugation of women were thrown out (at least during the
> Buddha's time... they were brought back to varying extent by different
> schools). But ideas like reincarnation, although modified, remained.
> Again, how literally a person takes it seems to vary considerably.
>
Since there is no evidence one need not consider this at all.
>
>> Thubten wrote:
>>> Whenever we believe that we have a problem, whenever we believe
>>> that we are real, the mind is actually lying to us, and deceiving us
>>> with a mistaken belief. Ego is tricking us into believing in an unreal
>>> illusory entity. Therefore our practice should be the constant work of
>>> being aware and transcending and eradicating all of our concepts and
>>> limiting ideas.
>> Does this sound vaguely dualistic to you? It does to me.
>
No he seems to be referring to a part of us that is separate from the brain.
Well I guess the brain can be thought of as having parts that can be in
a kind of opposition. It can be a useful metaphor.
> In the sense that we're dealing with brain vs environment, I suppose. But
> isn't that what we generally do?... see ourselves as separate and "very
> important" entities that lead to an "I come first" mentality? That
> mentality, I think, is what leads to the general dissatisfaction with life
> that seems to pervade our culture (and if my readings are any indication,
> all cultures through all time).
>
> [ I caught a bit of Dr Daniel Amen on PBS the other day. He was
> discussing a cognitive approach to life... As best I can recall,
> "Thoughts lie! They lie a lot.... Ask yourself if it's true. Ask
> yourself if you can absolutely *know* that it's true." Very similar ideas
> here, I think. ]
>
I don't know this guy. I am in favour of a cognitive approach to life.
"Thoughts lie". Perhaps he's referring to wishful thinking. Try to identify
and question your assumptions. This is a good idea. Make sure you're including
all the relevant information and do entertain the notion that you might be wrong.
A sober second thought can sometimes save you from embarrassing yourself.
> I think these traditions try to stress that we and the environment are
> one. There's no ghost in the machine here. It's a matter of dispensing
> with "me" and identifying with the Whole. The Whole never dies. (Matter/
> energy can be neither created nor destroyed.) In contrast, due to the
> fact that things change, every "me" *will* die. Buddhism & Taoism even go
> so far as to say that "I" die every minute, constantly being born anew.
Well it doesn't actually die but it does change continuously.
Al has a blog? Al does have some accurate perceptions but then he imputes
motives that don't exist to agents that don't exist. He doesn't really see it
as a natural consequence of the running of the machine.
>
>> Not being egocentric is a lifestyle and a personality trait. It probably
>> has high heritability.
>
> I don't think he's referring to ego in the Freudian sense here... i.e.,
> it's not narcissism. It's being mired in thoughts, daydreams, worries,
> and fears (ego) vs being aware of the environment, which includes the body
> (less ego)... although the latter no doubt leads to a more giving person.
>
> Myself, when I'm around others, I'm social. When I'm doing something
> alone, I tend to live in my head.
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Al Smith
I have no idea. It just happens. It's a sign that the correct
degree of stress is being placed on the body.
-Al-
James Warren
Are these the kind of nutty things that your mysticism compels you to do?
Are you sure this isn't dangerous? Have you tried auto-erotic asphyxiation?
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
It means "stop doing this you idiot". :)
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Rick Walker
"James Warren" wrote:
>
> Have you tried auto-erotic asphyxiation?
>
No, grasshopper. :)
Al Smith
No.
-Al-
demibee
> There is another way to look at what is going on here. The brain is
> capable of doing things in at least two ways. The frontal lobes can pass
> detailed commands to the motor system to cause specific actions. This is
> what we do when we attempt to follow instructions like how to hit a
> tennis ball. When we have have learned it the sensory motor cortex can
> take over and execute the same action much more smoothly and
> effortlessly. . .
I thought it was the cerebellum. Regardless, if a simple method is
effective, I say, Use it.
> db wrote:
>> There's also a strong "tree falling in the forest" element to Buddhism
>> and Taoism... that the observer and the observed form a single system.
>> Without the ear to hear it, there is no sound. Are there pressure
>> waves? Who can say? That kind of thing.
>
> This is sophistry of course.
Actually, quantum physicists say much the same thing. Observer and
observed form a single system. I had a friend at Dal -- a grad student in
physics -- who insisted that if I close my closet door, I can no longer
say with certainty that my clothes are in there... or that they're even
clothes.
> db wrote:
>> Plus, for Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation wasn't completely lost.
>> The caste system and subjugation of women were thrown out (at least
>> during the Buddha's time... they were brought back to varying extent by
>> different schools). But ideas like reincarnation, although modified,
>> remained. Again, how literally a person takes it seems to vary
>> considerably.
>>
> Since there is no evidence one need not consider this at all.
Need, need... why not simply *entertain* the idea? It's been around for
millennia.
Take it less literally. (There are many Buddhists who do... some who've
even dispensed with it, after some thought.) You, right now, are made of
"stuff" that used to be other people... other living things... other parts
of the world.
> No he seems to be referring to a part of us that is separate from the
> brain. Well I guess the brain can be thought of as having parts that can
> be in a kind of opposition. It can be a useful metaphor.
No, he's not espousing any ideas of separation at all. But, yes, it can
be taken as a metaphor... He's aiming for what I would call an ecological
view -- i.e., that each of us is an ever-changing part of the world, made
of the world... our bodies continuously getting from and giving back to
that world.
> I don't know this guy. I am in favour of a cognitive approach to life.
> "Thoughts lie". Perhaps he's referring to wishful thinking. Try to
> identify and question your assumptions. This is a good idea. . .
He was referring to assumptions people have of themselves. As the mind
babbles on in the background, it brings up beliefs people have of
themselves -- beliefs that do damage, cause depression, etc. One example
he used in his talk was that of a 75yo woman, recently widowed, who said,
"No one would ever want a 75-year-old woman." Is that true? She
remarried, so the answer is clearly, No.
> Well it doesn't actually die but it does change continuously.
Cells die. And cells reproduce. Brain cells too... and connections among
them. If we see ourselves as "communities" of cells, then each of us is a
community that retains some core identity despite the constant change in
members.
That's one of the central messages of Buddhism -- change is constant...
but, ultimately, it doesn't matter. Some Buddhists see that as evidence
of a core identity across reality. But others, including Thubten, it
would seem, see it as evidence that *any* identity is ultimately illusory.
I dismiss neither: I think both are interesting notions.
> Al has a blog?
I was referring to his posts here ;) They form a blog of sorts.
> Al does have some accurate perceptions but then he imputes motives that
> don't exist to agents that don't exist. He doesn't really see it as a
> natural consequence of the running of the machine.
I think where gov't and business is concerned, he's on the mark. His
cynicism may not be applicable to *all* businessmen and politicians, but
there does seem to be a culture of self-centredness and control that
indoctrinates many well-meaning individuals... and stifles the selfless
efforts of others.
Simply put, I think our society is sick. If it were a person, it would
probably be diagnosed with some sort of personality disorder... probably
narcissistic.
db
demibee
> Are these the kind of nutty things that your mysticism compels you to
> do? Are you sure this isn't dangerous? Have you tried auto-erotic
> asphyxiation?
My concern is that it's probably *one part* of some more involved set of
techniques... normally practised together... by people who have adequate
instruction.
To use it by itself... well, what purpose does it serve?
Something similar -- although more benign -- is true of Western yoga. What
we see on TV is "hatha yoga," IIRC. In India, it'd be a part of a larger
tradition, intended (I think) to bring about some kind of "understanding."
(I don't know much about yoga.) Here, it's just an exercise routine
that's supposed to relax the body and mind.
db
Al Smith
There are all sorts of different yogas. Hatha yoga is the yoga of
physical postures. There is another type of yoga exclusively
dealing with the breath.
-Al-
demibee
> There are all sorts of different yogas. Hatha yoga is the yoga of
> physical postures. There is another type of yoga exclusively dealing
> with the breath.
The prof who taught Hinduism at Dal -- a Hindu himself -- mentioned that
each of the different yogas was a step in a set of exercises. Much as a
person stretches and warms up/down before and after, say, jogging, hatha
yoga is a step that prepares the practitioner for the step that follows.
Although hatha yoga by itself, he said, is fine if people want that...
just as stretching is fine, even if you plan on doing no aerobic or
strength-building exercises afterward.
db
demibee
> I don't claim to be an authority on all these mystical Eastern
> disciplines but how would you rate Kung Fu fighting? I'm thinking of
> taking that up in the new year.
If you do, consider what you want from it. If you want it as a fitness
routine, just about any place (or tradition) will do. I think Dalplex has
a Karate class.
If you want to compete in it as a sport, again, you're in luck: there's no
shortage of places that encourage that. Carabin's (Tae Kwon Do) is
heavily into the sports aspect of it; they even sponsor competitions.
There was one in Dartmouth near the water, too, not far from the ferry
terminal (don't know if it's still there), that's similar in that
respect... McKenna's?... something like that (again, Tae Kwon Do, although
it was the '90s that I was last there).
If you want it for self-defence or for "self-improvement," look around!
Don't get caught up in Karate vs Tae Kwon Do vs Kung Fu, etc. Get a
teacher who'll go beyond the physical aspects of the discipline and delve
into the mindset that *should accompany* self-defence. Carabin's is weak
here. This was my mistake: I wanted more than a sport; I got a yellow
belt back in the early '90s at his old location, but I'm sure it was
useless.
I left because he seemed to want the money more than anything... He was
always selling *something*. He even wanted us to pay for a bigger window
at the front of his school ("Hey, wouldn't it be *great* if while you guys
were practising, you had a big gush of air coming in all the time? Huh?")
What he really wanted, I suspect, was advertisement: people would stand
and watch as we practised. And every book I'd read on the subject
indicated the opposite should be the case -- that these traditions should
be taught in a way that keeps students humble... and it should be done out
of sight, not on display ("We learn self-defence so that we may never have
to use it," was the basic message.)
A month later, Carabin scolded the whole class for contributing so little
to his window. Hey, buddy, I think my $300 for the class was contribution
enough; if you want a bigger window, pay for it yourself!
A friend of mine, also in his class, got his uniform directly from Korea,
since his wife was Korean. Carabin took a strip off him for that: "I'm
your master; you should be buying these things from *me*!"
Also, I found him to be quite violent... He seemed to want to teach his
students how to do the most damage, regardless of the situation.
There may even be some multi-disciplinary schools around; from what
friends have told me, these are often better... and the teachers aren't so
much into the sports aspect.
Consider buying one of those martial arts magazines before joining
anything; they'll often tell you what you should look for.
Kung Fu (Chinese), Karate (Japanese), and Tae Kwon Do (Korean) are pretty
similar. They all have the same basic punches, kicks, and blocks. Tae
Kwon Do concentrates more on the kicks... Karate, on the punches. Kung
Fu, I'm not sure... but after a number of belt levels, you'll have the
same basic repertoire of moves, regardless of tradition.
There's also Judo, which is more of a response-to-threat tradition -- not
a lot of concentration on doing damage... more on protection, blocks, and
break-falls.
And Aikido, I *think*, is more about using an opponent's motion against
him. So, like Judo, it's less violent... more for protection.
db
Al Smith
> but how would you rate Kung Fu fighting? I'm thinking of taking that up
> in the new year.
>
>
>
>
> Punk
>
I can't look at the uTube clip -- I don't have Flash for 64-bit
architecture on my computer.
In general, all formal Eastern martial arts are flawed as combat
arts. That is to say, many of their techniques don't work very
well in the real world of street fighting. They are excellent for
strength and endurance training, and help to build
self-confidence. The grappling and throwing arts (akido, ju-jitsu,
judo) are generally more effective in the real world than the
striking arts (karate). At the higher level, karate in its various
forms teaches holds and throws, as well as weapons fighting. In
some respects, boxing is superior as a fighting art to karate,
because boxers actually hit each other, and learn to take hits --
they don't pull their punches. The best fighting art is probably
Graeco-Roman wrestling.
-Al-
James Warren
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:48:28 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> There is another way to look at what is going on here. The brain is
>> capable of doing things in at least two ways. The frontal lobes can pass
>> detailed commands to the motor system to cause specific actions. This is
>> what we do when we attempt to follow instructions like how to hit a
>> tennis ball. When we have have learned it the sensory motor cortex can
>> take over and execute the same action much more smoothly and
>> effortlessly. . .
>
> I thought it was the cerebellum. Regardless, if a simple method is
> effective, I say, Use it.
>
The cerebellum is probably involved in "well grooved" skills. It might
also be involved in smoothing cognitive skills as well. There doesn't
seem to be much study of the cerebellum. It think there are some surprises there.
>
>
>> db wrote:
>>> There's also a strong "tree falling in the forest" element to Buddhism
>>> and Taoism... that the observer and the observed form a single system.
>>> Without the ear to hear it, there is no sound. Are there pressure
>>> waves? Who can say? That kind of thing.
>> This is sophistry of course.
>
> Actually, quantum physicists say much the same thing. Observer and
> observed form a single system. I had a friend at Dal -- a grad student in
> physics -- who insisted that if I close my closet door, I can no longer
> say with certainty that my clothes are in there... or that they're even
> clothes.
>
More sophistry. Apparently grad students are not immune; possibly they are
among the most susceptible.
>
>> db wrote:
>>> Plus, for Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation wasn't completely lost.
>>> The caste system and subjugation of women were thrown out (at least
>>> during the Buddha's time... they were brought back to varying extent by
>>> different schools). But ideas like reincarnation, although modified,
>>> remained. Again, how literally a person takes it seems to vary
>>> considerably.
>>>
>> Since there is no evidence one need not consider this at all.
>
> Need, need... why not simply *entertain* the idea? It's been around for
> millennia.
>
Having entertained it, and rejected it, now what?
> Take it less literally. (There are many Buddhists who do... some who've
> even dispensed with it, after some thought.) You, right now, are made of
> "stuff" that used to be other people... other living things... other parts
> of the world.
>
Earth is a closed system with input from the sun. Stuff gets recycled.
>
>> No he seems to be referring to a part of us that is separate from the
>> brain. Well I guess the brain can be thought of as having parts that can
>> be in a kind of opposition. It can be a useful metaphor.
>
> No, he's not espousing any ideas of separation at all. But, yes, it can
> be taken as a metaphor... He's aiming for what I would call an ecological
> view -- i.e., that each of us is an ever-changing part of the world, made
> of the world... our bodies continuously getting from and giving back to
> that world.
>
>
>> I don't know this guy. I am in favour of a cognitive approach to life.
>> "Thoughts lie". Perhaps he's referring to wishful thinking. Try to
>> identify and question your assumptions. This is a good idea. . .
>
> He was referring to assumptions people have of themselves. As the mind
> babbles on in the background, it brings up beliefs people have of
> themselves -- beliefs that do damage, cause depression, etc. One example
> he used in his talk was that of a 75yo woman, recently widowed, who said,
> "No one would ever want a 75-year-old woman." Is that true? She
> remarried, so the answer is clearly, No.
>
OK.
>
>> Well it doesn't actually die but it does change continuously.
>
> Cells die. And cells reproduce. Brain cells too... and connections among
> them. If we see ourselves as "communities" of cells, then each of us is a
> community that retains some core identity despite the constant change in
> members.
>
> That's one of the central messages of Buddhism -- change is constant...
> but, ultimately, it doesn't matter. Some Buddhists see that as evidence
> of a core identity across reality. But others, including Thubten, it
> would seem, see it as evidence that *any* identity is ultimately illusory.
>
> I dismiss neither: I think both are interesting notions.
>
Talk about overextending the facts.
>
>> Al has a blog?
>
> I was referring to his posts here ;) They form a blog of sorts.
>
>> Al does have some accurate perceptions but then he imputes motives that
>> don't exist to agents that don't exist. He doesn't really see it as a
>> natural consequence of the running of the machine.
>
> I think where gov't and business is concerned, he's on the mark. His
> cynicism may not be applicable to *all* businessmen and politicians, but
> there does seem to be a culture of self-centredness and control that
> indoctrinates many well-meaning individuals... and stifles the selfless
> efforts of others.
>
> Simply put, I think our society is sick. If it were a person, it would
> probably be diagnosed with some sort of personality disorder... probably
> narcissistic.
>
Narcissism, hysteria, consumerism, all are rampant. We need a heavy dose of
rationality and reality checking.
demibee
> In general, all formal Eastern martial arts are flawed as combat arts.
> That is to say, many of their techniques don't work very well in the
> real world of street fighting. They are excellent for strength and
> endurance training, and help to build self-confidence. The grappling and
> throwing arts (akido, ju-jitsu, judo) are generally more effective in
> the real world than the striking arts (karate). At the higher level,
> karate in its various forms teaches holds and throws, as well as weapons
> fighting. In some respects, boxing is superior as a fighting art to
> karate, because boxers actually hit each other, and learn to take hits
> -- they don't pull their punches. The best fighting art is probably
> Graeco-Roman wrestling.
It was once explained to me that no martial art is the ticket for every
kind of self-defence, as you've said. Some (most?) developed for use on
uneven natural terrain; that's why the stances seem so odd to those of us
who grew up in places dominated by streets, sidewalks, fields, parking
lots, etc.
db
Al Smith
The problem is, Eastern martial arts are too stylized, and those
training in them seldom actually fight with full contact. All the
punches are pulled. When somebody is thrown, they let the other
student throw them, even if they are not aware of it. Katas are
almost worthless in actual fight situations. I speak from some
experience because I took karate for five or six years.
When a martial artist gets into a street fight, unless it is over
with one punch he is apt to completely lose all his style in the
flurry of punches and kicks. The effect of actually getting hit in
the face by his opponent is disorienting. Martial artists are
trained never to strike each other hard to vulnerable spots, such
as the groin and eyes, and this inhibits them in fight situations.
The habits they pick up in sparring matches in the do-jo stay with
them on the street. For example, in sparring they don't need to
protect their groin very carefully because they are never
deliberately kicked or hit in the groin.
-Al-
demibee
> More sophistry. Apparently grad students are not immune; possibly they
> are among the most susceptible.
This was no average student... Once Harvard knew of his accomplishments
at Dal, they gave him a full scholarship. And, IIRC, he was given the
opportunity to meet Hawking to discuss, well, whatever they'd discuss.
> Having entertained it, and rejected it, now what?
I guess you're done. But how long did you entertain the idea [of
reincarnation]? Did you dismiss it as soon as you saw no evidence? Did
you *look* for evidence? Did you try to see in in a less literal way?
> Earth is a closed system with input from the sun. Stuff gets recycled.
That's it??...... You have *no* emotional response to that?
That you *are* an instantiation of the world-become-human gives you no
grander view than... "stuff gets recycled"?!
You are, quite possibly, the least inspired person I've ever
encountered... Whatever! ;)
db
demibee
> When a martial artist gets into a street fight, unless it is over with
> one punch he is apt to completely lose all his style in the flurry of
> punches and kicks. The effect of actually getting hit in the face by his
> opponent is disorienting. Martial artists are trained never to strike
> each other hard to vulnerable spots, such as the groin and eyes, and
> this inhibits them in fight situations. The habits they pick up in
> sparring matches in the do-jo stay with them on the street. For example,
> in sparring they don't need to protect their groin very carefully
> because they are never deliberately kicked or hit in the groin.
I took it only for a brief time... ~3 months... mostly because friends
were also doing it. I found that most of the others there thought of it
purely as a sport: many came from hockey practice to the school. I felt
wayyy out of place! But, they were good guys, friendly, supportive.
The white belt classes were fun. But once I achieved yellow (which I
strongly suspect I didn't deserve... think Carabin moved whites up quickly
so they wouldn't become disillusioned and quit), the classes changed. It
was 90% free sparring, which I found odd... The Karate classes at Dal
didn't allow that until green or blue, IIRC. There was, at least at that
time (early '90s), only one day (Saturday) where there was *any* teaching.
That was it for me! Why pay for that?!
I considered the Dal Karate class... but eventually just forgot the whole
thing.
I was also taking Tai Chi at the same time. I figured that since I had an
interest in Taoism that the "Taoist Tai Chi" classes would "bring it out"
somehow. Nope! ;) It was pleasant, relaxing, but it didn't improve my
understanding of Taoism as well as time, reading, and a little meditation
did. I wouldn't rule out taking it again, though. Maybe I'd get
something out of it now that I didn't then.
db
James Warren
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:24:47 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> More sophistry. Apparently grad students are not immune; possibly they
>> are among the most susceptible.
>
> This was no average student... Once Harvard knew of his accomplishments
> at Dal, they gave him a full scholarship. And, IIRC, he was given the
> opportunity to meet Hawking to discuss, well, whatever they'd discuss.
>
If stuff disappears if you're not looking at it, then it follows that your
mind is all there is in the universe. Everything else is the work of your
imagination. Deepak Chopra apparently believes this ("We make our own reality")
but no sane person does. Solipsism anyone?
>
>> Having entertained it, and rejected it, now what?
>
> I guess you're done. But how long did you entertain the idea [of
> reincarnation]?
About three seconds.
Did you dismiss it as soon as you saw no evidence?
Of course. Its a preposterous idea.
> Did
> you *look* for evidence?
Nope. I wouldn't know where to begin.
> Did you try to see in in a less literal way?
You mean as star stuff getting recycled? Of course I did.
>
>
>> Earth is a closed system with input from the sun. Stuff gets recycled.
>
> That's it??...... You have *no* emotional response to that?
>
Yes I do.
> That you *are* an instantiation of the world-become-human gives you no
> grander view than... "stuff gets recycled"?!
That is a pretty grand realization I think. Don't you?
>
> You are, quite possibly, the least inspired person I've ever
> encountered... Whatever! ;)
>
I must be because I don't wax poetic on newsgroups. :)
Whatever indeed. :)
Al Smith
The physical training is good, as long as your are healthy -- it
would be hard on someone with a disability or a weak heart or
other weakness. As a marital art, in the sense of a fighting art,
most karate schools are not very good. They are better than
nothing, but it is unfortunate when someone gets overconfident
just because they received a green belt, or whatever.
To actually learn to fight, a lot of hitting the spring board and
the heavy bag, plus sparring with contact is necessary, and even
that has its limitations. The protective gear is pretty good at
keeping faces from getting damaged, and preventing stopped hearts
and whatnot (the breast protection spreads the force of blows).
You've got to have a good instructor, and the truth is, most
karate instructors are full of themselves and can't teach very well.
-Al-
tom
> the truth is, most karate instructors are full of
> themselves and can't teach very well.
that, and a quick spray with an uzi or sawed-off 12-gauge leaves pretty
much the same spatter pattern, regardless of belt colour