Re:

“but you are so confident you have nothing much to learn from us ….”

I never said anything like that. All I’ve been saying (primarily) is that K, R, N are speculative devices – & thus, basing your life on them is optional. Also, I am not sure who the “us” is that you are referring to – Buddhists? Sri Lankans? – I’ve learned a lot from both & work with both groups (or individuals that belong to both groups) & will most likely will continue to do so.

Re: the east vs. west stuff:

I do not believe in the east/west division. Humans are humans, most adapt to their time & place, some don’t, & some change things about their time & place to benefit themselves & others better – happens all over the world – not something unique to “the east” or “the west”. As I’ve said before, I do not see a significant different between the east & the west – some things have been better in the “east” at some points in time, & other things have been better in the “west” in some points of time – at this point in time both the “east” & the “west” largely follow – or try to follow – democracy & capitalism related developments, & struggle with changes, individual vs. groups conflicts, etc (except in Muslim gov areas, which are dealing with theocracy vs. development struggles). Any differences between “east” & “west” are mostly cosmetic, & are there largely because some people choose them/benefit from them or do not yet know how to change things for the better – a temporary situation.

- S

RE: “Then why did Prabhakaran die the way he did?”

Prabhakaran died the way he did because, after 25+ years of war, the SL gov/military finally developed the capability to capture & kill him. Very simple. There are far more, hmmm, what’s a good term to use here – perhaps less evil by human behavioral standards warriors who have died in far worse ways in the history of human warfare – karma or any other speculative device most likely does not have anything to do with how a warrior dies in battle or because of warfare.

A good way to illustrate this point is to ask why 3 year olds who have not done any evil activity die of hunger in various parts of the world. The believers may write off such deaths to karmic influence. But I would say that 3 year olds die of hunger because they do not have enough food, the society that they live in is not capable of producing, or importing, & managing the food supply well. And once those skills are mastered, then kids won’t die of hunger in those communities – very simple – no need to pin the blame on speculative religious devices such as karma.

I do not know if this is a real “Eastern” proverb, but I think I heard it on a TV show ones (attributed to “the East”): “do things & things will get done” So, whether killing a military dictator or feeding a starving child, both require just the mastery of skills necessary to accomplish the job, not meditating or praying to ancient wise men (unless of course such activity is tied to developing the skills necessary to do what needs to get done).

- S

Ordinary Lankan,

In my view, the experience of meditation is not unique to any particular culture. But in history different cultures interpreted it differently. Even today it is given a religious spin by all religions, in their own individual ways. And non-religious people like me interpret the experience as I have.

However, the physical world is actually real to most of us. No amount of ‘escaping from reality’ is going to ‘change’ reality (all I can do is change how I perceive reality from the ground up, for me). When I open my eyes I still have taxes to pay, go to work etc.

So, while I recommend it to all I do not recommend it as an alternative to reality – only as a means of helping make a better job of it.

But I can see how a person taking up this avenue ‘for the purpose of escape’ finds the submersion into ‘nothingness’ exactly what he seeks (‘nothingness’ = my interpretation through my experience). It is perfect for a forest monk, for instance.

There are realists and there are dreamers. Both are planted firmly in the world of their choosing.

Where we have a conflict, when there is one, is when we (some of us) use the ‘dreamer’ philosophy to explain things that a realist can explain more reliably (or what a dreamer can explain when a realist cannot, and vice versa). Or the religious-political front that uses the dreamer’s experiential conclusions to drive a realist’s agenda in the real world, with real people dealing with physical things.

So OL, you and Sujewa are actually not in opposition – as long as it is remembered what ‘world’ is being discussed – the real one in the physical sense (Sujewa), or the real one that lives somewhere inside us (yourself), in our minds or the ‘universe’ as it’s called these days in New Age spirituality.

Excellent piece. I think that’s precisely the kind of philosophy that anyone can contemplate seriously. However, please notice that your explanation made *no use whatsoever* of grand claims without reasonable evidence. i.e. Physical rebirth, cosmic karma etc. Your entire post was a sensible piece with sensible reasons to think that way. Unfortunately, most of this debate has been about insensible claims with insufficient reason.

RE: “western style thinkers find it difficult to accept introspective Indian style meditative approaches to self-discovery.”

I simply do not agree with this east west dichotomy. There are things that makes sense, and things that don’t. There are many people who will accept these things if sensible reasons are provided to investigate them.

For example, watch this video by Sam Harris, where he provides a stellar defence of exactly the kind of meditative experience you talk of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox1aN3Bbi-s&feature=related
As I mentioned earlier, this guy spent several years meditating for 18 hours or so a day and talks about the transcendence of self in much the same way as you do.

The point is, talking about these kinds of things do not and *should not* require us accepting things in the absence of evidence and reason. Yet this is precisely what most Buddhists do. I would like to see more people following these different paths to understanding and awareness and all of us having an honest and open discussion about it. I would personally like to see more scientific studies into the nature of these meditative experiences. However, I do not think it necessary to humour those who make cosmic scale claims and believe in dogma with a shameless level of gullibility and a complete absence of reason, and who still expect to be taken seriously for it. Such thinking only gets in the way of finding truth and meaning because they think it’s already been found and there’s nothing more to do.

I hope you have a better understanding of my own position on this.

Once again, thanks for a very nice and thoughtful post.

you say –

“I think meditation just gives the mind a break from normal activity.”

the key words are “I think” –

unless you listen to those who have meditated and are going to be open to their experiences – and in this thread BM and I have done that – we will be pitting what you “think” against our experience – cannot proceed. I have made this point over and over again – in prose and in verse …

just for the information of everyone – I dont really call myself a buddhist the way you label me … that I dont find helpful – I have USED buddhism and find meditation a true guide – but I find many other religions and also non religious thinkers like Da Vinci quoted below of great help.

the thoughts put down below take you further into meditation – if ONLY you would pause to let something different into your heart. Btw – I have found in reading Gandhi and Churchill that the latter simply could not relate to the former. western style thinkers find it difficult to accept introspective Indian style meditative approaches to self-discovery. so I believe – remember i believe when I say i believe – not when you say it that you follow the western approach – which is simply different – not really inferior to the Indian style. In some ways this thread has perhaps showed you to be somewhat stubborn in a Churchillian way … just leave some room to doubt your own conclusions – and I will do likewise

In meditation we shift from reactive to pro-active mode. A shift from reaction to action. It is NOT, as viewed from outside a shift from action to non action.

And meditation operates from thought moment to thought moment. It follows that what we refer to as life is just one moment in time. The appearance of continuity obscures the reality of rise and fall. We are in fact born and we die every moment. This is the conclusion from a minute observation of the stream of physical events and mental events that we call our self. The self turns out to be a momentary bubble. This is scientific observation – except that in the process of observation the observer becomes merged in the same reality to disappear altogether. There is no thinker – just the thought. No actor – just the action.

Karma is the extraneous force applied through our ignorance. It takes the form of craving or aversion and strings a set of loose beads into one circle. It is an integral part of our mental energy that keeps grasping from moment to moment. Ignorance and the false imagining of a solid self that continues from moment to moment is what ensures our bondage. When we realize that there is no self the beads are freed and we are free to live from moment to moment without the burden of this heavy self.

Then why did Prabhakaran die the way he did? He was responsible for many killings so we may not be able to pin point that it is karma for x killing or y. We need to find the reason – or karma within his own consciousness. It follows that one of the key components of karma is our own consciousness. It is not the only factor. Pl remember the doctrine of dependent origination where events are shaped by a combination of events. But within that combination the course of action and behaviour of P himself was decisive. In my view he was the key determinant of the way he died. Others we know die of traffic accidents due to no fault of their own. Here again you must apply the teaching of dependent origination. Karma works thru a combination of conditions – the previous actions of the individual have a force that may be more or less. There is an interactive aspect as well. I am only trying to set out some principles – a full explanation requires study and meditation – a process that at least some agnostics are not prepared to undertake themselves. At this point we get stuck and must agree to disagree.

Obsessive desire and hatred is a refusal to let go of what has ceased to be in fact. It is a refusal to die with what has died and be reborn again. This holding on is a conflict with the way things rise and fall in actual life. It is a conflict that is normalized by our habitual pattern of clinging to a personalized existence with its self driven and self defined objectives. We thus try to hold on to our sense of self, our relations, our time, job, house etc etc when these things don’t exist except on a moment to moment basis with absolutely no guarantee of continuity. This is why Leonardo Da Vinci said “to learn to live – is to learn to die.

Ajahn Chah – the great Thai meditation master summed up the dharma with the following questions – WHY DO YOU EAT? HOW DO YOU EAT? HOW DO YOU FEEL WHEN YOU EAT TOO MUCH?

This applies to both food for the mind and food for the body. If we don’t observe moderation – if we either make it too little or too much we suffer. Samsara is basically that – either too little or too much. I know you dont buy into suffering – but feelings of happiness and suffeting are both subject to the 3 laws

transience – instability and breaking up – no self

as i said I am not a flag carrying buddhist – but these three insights are unique to the Buddha in that they formed the core of his teachings – the concepts are very useful – if you would like to gain something from B.

but you are so confident you have nothing much to learn from us ….

all the very best – dont know how I got here today – but thanks I learned a lot here -

Re:

“so meditation is an inside out process”

All thought, planning, etc. are inside out processes (if you follow through with the planning).

“– objective fact becomes subjective experience due to our acquired conditioning – we learn in meditation to de-condition the mind –”

I think meditation just gives the mind a break from normal activity.

“to de programme it and remove the accretions that had got attached through what we feel is many lifetimes of mindless living”

This idea of lifetimes of mindless living is purely speculative. As we know, rebirth cannot be proven, and, meaningfulness or meaninglessness of life is a matter of human perspective, there is no clear answer re: this matter offered by life.

“next point is that we proceed from bad karma to good karma and finally NO karma as we realize the truth of selflessness.”

This all depends on what you mean by karma & whether you believe karma exists.

“so at the mundane level people will learn not to acquire bad karma and then store good karma – this can also be a selfish pursuit as we know. meditation is really the bridge out of karma – ”

Many nonsensical religious terms & ideas (or stuff that makes sense only as symbols), but it probably means well

“with karma we created a little world for our ego – this small self – by letting go of karma we rejoin the big world with our big selves – a journey from heena manaya to abhimanaya to use our terms”

I am not sure how this is some kind of a special religious thing – any learning, any education, any acquisition of new knowledge usually helps people grow. Anyway, probably makes sense (what you say using the religious term karma, etc.) to the believers

Anyway, though I do not see a lot of value in meditation (beyond relaxation, lowering stress, etc.) or following Buddhism (an ancient set of ideas with very limited use & with speculative items at its core), if it helps you lead a peaceful life, I am all for it* OL

(* and by “it” i mean OL following Buddhism, meditation, etc.)

- S

RE: “Therefore I don’t think it is reasonable to say that K, R, N are purely speculative without having made some attempt to gain knowledge of the method described to gain direct understanding of these concepts and applying that method first.”

Based on my readings of history (since the introduction of the Buddhist K, R, N concepts 2500+ years ago, significant proof of effects that can be attributed to K, R, N do not apppear in historical records that I’ve encountered), and my direct experience (not able to see rebirth or karma in action in the world, also not seeing any Enlightened people/people who’ve attained Nirvana), K, R, N appears to be speculative or appear to be a set of ideas that are used for teaching & maintaining a way of looking at the world and living in the world (also, for many Sinhalese in Sri Lanka – part of a community/national organizational tool, identity building & maintanance tool, for centuries).

However, I am not arguing that K, R, N ideas are without value. They have value/use for humans just as the idea of heaven & hell have value/use, or any sets of ideas that prevent people from doing some horrible things (such as the concept of a creator god who punishes the wicked) have value.

However, truth – of the what actually exists/what is real & affects the living & the use of those facts to control human behavior/encourage positive human behavior – is more important & valuable, in the long run, than fantastic stories/fictional or speculative devices that “trick” people into behaving a certain way, I think.

Following the Eight Fold Path or any other set of behavioral guidelines that promote responsible living (of which there are many, in virtualy all cultures, and also individuals can construct their own) is a great idea. However, belief in speculative items such as K, R, N are not necessary for that.

Re: “Sujewa also argues that critical reflection / discussion should be with the “full engagement of the critical/thinking faculties” and suggests that meditation is somehow an escape into a passive non-verbal state. I feel this view misunderstands the purpose of meditation, which is to gain experiential understanding of the nature of our consciousness. Without this knowledge, how can one have an informed discussion / critical reflection on the Buddha’s teaching on matters such as Kamma, Rebirth and Nirvana?”

First, I think meditation, though it can be of use to some people, is not essential for living a good life or a productive life. Also, I am not certain that meditation somehow offers any more experiential understanding of the nature of our conciouness than any other activity that we do – such as driving or watching a movie – all three activites use our consciousness – and all in different ways – I don’t see how one way (mediation) is more important than the other two. Also, the discussion here has not been about Buddha’s teaching on K, R, N (various interpertations of the teachings, was such and such actually taught?, etc.) but about whether K, R, N are a set of ideas only (most likely) or are real things that exist in the world and affect the living (outside the realm of ideas & outside the range of influence of believers who are motivated by the ideas).

So, to clarify – there is the idea of the thing – let’s say a giraffe, and there are people who like to talk about giraffes – let’s say a Wilderness Tour Guide, and then there is the actual animal – the giraffe itself. So, someone who has never heard of the idea of the giraffe nor have heard of or heard from the Wilderness Tour Guide may still directly experience the fact that giraffes exist by running into one. So, in the same way – the idea of K, R, N is well established – these are well known, well recorded ideas. The idea of the Buddha, including the possibility that he was a real person, is also well established, well recorded. However, almost no one, or none that can be verified by a non-believer, have directly encountered K, R, N. Which leads me to conclude the following; the giraffe is both an idea and a real thing, but K, R, N are most likely ideas only – used to teach a worldview and a way to live in this world.
So, the giraffe is real, but K, R, N are speculative (but still of use even if they are ideas only).

::

This discussion also brings up a couple of other interesting ideas/questions;

1 – could, at some early point in time, Buddhism have existed simply as a school of philosophy (material, earth bound, useful to this life only, not based on speculative things philosophy) and not an other world focused/lfe after death concerned religion (such as Christianity, Islam, or modern Buddhism)?

2 – Is Buddhism still useful if K, R, N are proven to be speculative? Or if it is proven that the Buddha never existed as a single person – that Buddhism is a set of accumilated wisdom – authored by many teachers over many years, centuries even?

(my answer is “yes” to both questions, of course

- S

Re. Meditation (my experience) Part 4: Glad it was useful.

Analysis
———
A little reflection on this post and the previous one on the self-hypnotic technique I learned two years earlier (1994 and 1992 BTW).

For me, the experience was identical in that in both cases I was in trance. Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry on Mindfulness
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(Buddhism))
the section titled “Examples from contemplative and daily life” describes almost word for word the process (script) that Paul McKenna uses in his hypnotic CDs – removing the constant mental chatter, letting go of thoughts, being aware of what’s happening around you but being detached from it, being aware of what’s happening within you etc. He uses these instructions when he talks you into trance, and it helps focus on what’s required.

It would help if we can establish definitively whether getting into trance is central to, and necessary for, mindfulness meditation? Can LT and OL comment?

A note on specifics
———————
SD, I’m sure you have figured out that the particular method used by my teacher (using a journey into the edge of the universe) is in itself not significant. In all probability, he has a bunch of different ones he uses for different people – I guess I looked like someone who will easily identify with an astronautical adventure. It could well have been a relaxing afternoon on a quiet beach on a warm day – Anything on which we can go into trance and detach ourselves from the physical and get completely immersed/absorbed into our ‘inner self’.

Note 2: when you have learned the technique you can practice it at any time. Even when walking, with eyes wide open. Not when operating machinery though! So it is not necesary to sit in a lotus position (no, I don’t mean sitting as if in a racing car!). It is not necessary to have a mantra, or count beads, though both these help the process of ‘concentrating on one thing’ in order to go into trance. However, there is a significance in touching a finger with your thumb (it’s called anchoring. look it up).

As you can see, this practice has come a long way since discovered by ancient people in possibly every culture (though they may have called it different things, gaving it different interpretations, mostly religious), and it is used in medical practice today in many different ways (described in the above Wikipedia entry), and of course in popular self-improvement programmes in the past 40 years (Paul McKenna is one, The Silva Method, books by Chopra, Zukav, Tolle put their own spin on it, and my favourite ‘Get Rich While You Sleep’!).

Repeating my warning (disclaimer!) – do not do this when in a negative frame of mind, or if having mental problems, depression etc. I’m sure these techniques would help a lot but safer under supervision in that case.

different routes to the truth I suppose …

Like the way the debate is moving – and I would like to pin point the buddhist contribution to public policy and the form it should take –

compassion must really be the true basis of public and social policy – when the Fabian Society worked for over half a century to establish the British welfare state after WWII – they were establishing a compassionate foundation – this provides the most substantive basis for consensus – and this is a strong contribution that true religions must make.

so meditation is an inside out process – objective fact becomes subjective experience due to our acquired conditioning – we learn in meditation to de-condition the mind – to de programme it and remove the accretions that had got attached through what we feel is many lifetimes of mindless living

next point is that we proceed from bad karma to good karma and finally NO karma as we realize the truth of selflessness. so at the mundane level people will learn not to acquire bad karma and then store good karma – this can also be a selfish pursuit as we know. meditation is really the bridge out of karma –

with karma we created a little world for our ego – this small self – by letting go of karma we rejoin the big world with our big selves – a journey from heena manaya to abhimanaya to use our terms

Fantastic post. This is the kind of detached, calm, self-scrutiny that anyone wanting to get at the truth would be interested in. It’s only through such honest, objective analysis of such experiences that we can establish a shared understanding of these phenomena.

As a side note, I would point out that Sam Harris too had spent up to 2 years of his life with meditation masters, practising about 16 hours a day. This is just for those who think that “westerners” are not interested in finding out the truth or reject everything offhand. We are all deeply interested in the truth, provided that it is discussed sensibly. All parties need to be committed to understanding it, being fully aware of one’s own biases, as BalangodaMan has done.

Many thanks for sharing your experiences, it has vastly improved my own understanding. I look forward to part 5!

“BalangodaMan has taken the view that *all* meditation is self-hypnosis and therefore rejected all forms of meditation as being a method to understand consciousness.”

Not so. To clarify, my contention is that *some* forms of meditation either involve going into a trance-like state or unintentionally leads to a trance like state. When it does, the subject is susceptible to hypnotic suggestion, by intent or otherwise. Therefore, the resulting change is one at the basic level of subconscious programming as observable during hypnosis.

I am interested in understanding how we differentiate the above (my experience) from the experience described by both Ordinary Lankan and yourself in mindfulness meditation. This I think is the key to the matter regarding meditation/self-hypnosis in this discussion.

My entry to meditation was from a teacher (who unexpectedly turned out to be originally from Sri Lanka). However, by then I had already learned, and already had had startling results from self-hypnosis techniques from two years earlier. So I have to declare that possible bias on my part. (Further, my father who practised meditation, taught me as a child that it is not a religious activity, that it is self-hypnosis put into a practical useful purpose. So I could be biased by that too)

Meditation – Part 4
——————–
Here is a short piece on my experience. Firstly, my teacher was teaching ‘meditation technique’ within a generic Eastern spiritual context, not branded as ‘Buddhist’ though the decor I remember was traditional saffron/orange. This could be a long way off from the meditation you mean.

We sat in a quiet room. I closed my eyes and relaxed, feeling my limbs get heavy as I realeased the tension in my body. He was speaking in a calm voice and took me through some steps which I already recognised from my existing knowledge of self-hypnosis. I was soon in a trance state. This was familiar territory for me. I was now feeling more and more detached from my physical self, from the world around me although I could hear his voice clearly. He gently made me imagine floating up in the air and this came very naturally to me. Up towards the ceiling and beyond looking down at the ground, and even further into the upper atmosphere and away into space watching the Earth further and further away. Still this was familiar to me, although this particular space travel fantasy experience was new to me. We stopped when we had got to way beyond our galaxy to the edge of the universe – I say ‘we’ because although my eyes were closed my teacher’s voice was still with me and had taken the form of some ‘god like/imaginary friend like’ person. By the way, there was no mantra.

The key point about where I was, in my perception, all I could be certain about in that state was my consciousness – not the consciousness I normally have day to day when I relate to the material world (reality as we normally know it) but a deeper, inner, ‘real’ me. And in this state it was like ‘reality does not, or does not need to exist’. I think, in that state if someone tried to persuade me that the ‘real world’ exists in reality, including ‘me’ as I have known all my life as a real person, I might have found it hard to believe. Also I could have made ‘reality’ anything I wanted it to be, for instance, I could have been seeing life as an elephant or Superman or an ant, or even a tree, or someone who lived in the past or the future. Like a fantasy which actually was very calming and blissful. My teacher was directing me to positive thoughts all the time though I was already doing this.

After about 10 mins (I had lost all concept of time, it could have been a 100 years!) I was ‘persuaded’ to return by a reversal of the journey with a countdown from 10 to 1 and I opened my eyes.

I booked a few more lessons when my teacher took me further into ‘my real self’.

The point about this is (1) it was very refreshing (for my mind) (2) it was non-religious (3) I became generally better at things I was struggling with (4) I became increaingly less affected by things that would normally bother me in the ‘real world’ possibly because I have become acquinted with a ‘more real’ reality and the reality I knew is now ‘less real’ (5) it was no different from the self-hypnosis techniques I already knew, though now with a teacher.

The key point about this expererience is, from this excercise I can see how the subject becomes completely confident about his understanding of the ‘state of his being’ – who he really is, unconstrained by material world (physical world) definitions. So, who I am in real life (say, a beggar, a disabled person, a king) becomes the unreal, the immaterial. I may be completely wrong but I understood this to be what is known as ‘mindfulness’, becoming deeply/genuinely aware of the real person, as opposed to the ‘role’ that the real world life has cast you in.

I want to see for myself how the Buddhist process/meaning differs from this. Any help welcomed.

(also you can see how a perception of past lives, KRN can come about from this experience)

If I get to Part 5 it will be about how my meditation experience influenced how I feel about ‘Peace and Conflict’, particularly the the ones in SL in recent times – ethnic, religious, political.

BalangodaMan has taken the view that *all* meditation is self-hypnosis and therefore rejected all forms of meditation as being a method to understand consciousness. I think this is an example of skepticism based on incorrect knowledge and understanding. Having done some mindfulness meditation, I submit that it does not have the characteristics of the self-hypnosis described by BalangodaMan and therefore it is necessary to investigate this further before concluding that K,R,N is a self-imagined construct. My own meditation practice hasn’t revealed the truth of K,R,N to me but at the same time I am honest enough to admit that my practice has been quite limited and sporadic. As I explained in my previous posts, my observation of the relationship between some actions and resulting mental states have given me confidence that there is some link between these phenomena. But as far kamma that extends to past life, I have no problem with saying that ‘I don’t know’. However, is our inability / unwillingness to apply the method of investigation with sufficient rigour a reason to say that the conclusions of those who applied this method are most likely invalid?

Sujewa stated that “meditation alone will not help a practitioner improve himself or a community improve itself” as a reason to be skeptical of the value of Buddhism in modern society. I would argue that Buddhism is not about meditation alone – in fact the practice of Buddhism as described in the Noble Eightfold Path includes morality/ethics (sila), meditation (samadhi) and reflection/investigation (panna). Indeed, I don’t see how the factors Sujewa lists (ethics, criticism & self-criticism, reflection, dialogue, debate) are in conflict with Buddhism as described in the pali cannon and explained by Buddhist scholars who have experiential knowledge of following the Noble Eightfold Path. I would argue that rather than distancing itself from the discipline taught in the Noble Eightfold Path, humanity should be striving to practice it more diligently.

Sujewa also argues that critical reflection / discussion should be with the “full engagement of the critical/thinking faculties” and suggests that meditation is somehow an escape into a passive non-verbal state. I feel this view misunderstands the purpose of meditation, which is to gain experiential understanding of the nature of our consciousness. Without this knowledge, how can one have an informed discussion / critical reflection on the Buddha’s teaching on matters such as Kamma, Rebirth and Nirvana? For this reason I agree with the importance given by Ordinary Lankan to experiential knowledge and hope he continues with his exposition on his meditation experience.

RE: “Modern day physicists and philosophers seem willing to seriously entertain the possibility that consciousness is a quantum-level phenomenon that can be interconnected across space-time via mechanisms such as quantum entanglement (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOvpF4tKTRU and http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html). So, is it fair to say that the Buddha’s teachings are pure speculation?”

Mind-body dualism is not a uniquely Buddhist construct. I would argue that it’s a fairly common construct given how often we feel that the mind is external to the body. In any case, validating mind-body dualism in no way validates KRN, because it *simply does not follow*. The argument would be of the form: since Buddha was right about some thing X then he must be right about Y and Z too – a clear logical fallacy.

Secondly, regarding your argument about quantum entanglement. I raised a hypothetical argument here: http://www.groundviews.org/2010/05/07/the-agnostics-vs-the-believers-regarding-karma-reincarnation-nirvana-as-described-in-buddhism-being-real-aspects-of-this-world/comment-page-22/#comment-21082

If we take this imaginary religion named “shilboot”, on what grounds would you refute it? Can we not connect quantum entanglement to that too, as has been demonstrated?

I think this is once again falling into the trap of pattern seeking. We are trying to find reasons to validate our beliefs, often reasons which are completely unrelated. So what if conciousness is a quantum level phenomenon? Would that not validate the statements of *all the people in the past* espousing mind-body dualism? Why choose only the Buddha out of all those people?

My point is this. I think it’s quite absurd that we should believe that the philosophies of the iron age will always trump our understanding 2600 years later. Any human being alive today has more access to information at his/her fingertips than the Buddha did in his entire lifetime. All he had to go on were contemplative, self-reflective ideas, and that clearly shows in the corpus of his work. In his time, there was simply no concept of neuroscience. No concept of evolution. Indeed, not even a concept that the world was round. We should bear that in mind before we simply accept *everything* said by an intelligent human being 2600 years ago. Why do we do this? Should we accept Plato’s statements wholesale? Should we accept Epicurus? What about Jesus? Why is there this uncritical acceptance of the Buddha’s word?

I would argue that it’s completely cultural. It has been drilled into our heads than the Buddha is an omniscient being and we are simply seeking out ways to confirm that “truth”.

RE: ” One way to do this would require that we first understand how consciousness arises in a living being and then determine if the actions of a being from the past can affect that consciousness.”

How the consciousness works is not completely understood at the moment. This is a fact. However, that does not mean that any arbitrary claim about conciousness automatically becomes fact either, which seems to be a position that some have adopted. i.e. Because it is unknown, therefore, what the Buddha said must be true.

I think you would agree that such logic is clearly faulty. We cannot say that there’s a mind-body dualism any more than we can say for certain there isn’t one. As matters stand right now, there are perhaps stronger reasons to believe that there is no mind-body dualism. I refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

I specifically recommend the “argument from brain damage” and the “argument from biological development”. Regarding the second argument, our evolutionary history does not suggest any point at which consciousness suddenly invaded the body or indeed even a *necessity* for it. But still, all this is pure speculation, and we don’t have the facts to make a conclusive decision.

However, it’s important that we are not fooled into thinking that this somehow validates the Buddhist world view. The Buddhists are left with far more explaining to do. Not only is mind-body dualism itself suspect, what evidence is there to suggest that through meditation, one can actually understand the fundamental nature of the universe? What has the Buddha said, that would be simply impossible for anyone other than an omniscient being to fathom?

I don’t say this to insult or denigrate the achievement of the Buddha. But blind worship without reason is not a virtue either. It is entirely plausible that, while the Buddha was correct about many things, that he may have been entirely incorrect about KRN. (perhaps under a hypnotic self-imagined construct, already established as highly likely) He may have, unknowingly, confirmed to himself, a prevailing worldview at the time, in his attempt to fathom the nature of the universe. On what grounds would a Buddhist eliminate this possibility? Is that not a far more likely possibility than him achieving omniscience? Is there any statement of his that could not have originated from a normal mind at that period in time? i.e. A modern physics equation?

Last but not least, what about all the *misses*? The faults in the Agganna sutta have been clearly outlined. Out of that Sutta, about 10% could be vaguely, with the greatest stretch of the imagination, be considered to refer to a big bang or something. But that’s *only* if you selectively ignore the 90% that’s completely off the mark and directly contradictory to evolutionary theory. We human beings are pattern seeking mammals. We are always eager to see patterns which confirm our worldview, which is why we see animals in clouds and ghosts in rustling leaves. We already know how prone we are to such things, yet why do we not apply the same reasoning to our beliefs?

Re: “You are speaking for yourself from a nice balanced and rational position. This is precisely the perspective that has failed in Sri lanka.”

Was such a balanced, rational position ever really advocated or taught or widely used in Sri Lanka (thus far, since 1948, let’s say up to mid-2009, end of the civil war)? I think widespread education, security (economic & from militant groups), significantly low levels of corruption in public & private sectors are necessary before a majority of the people are able to approach problem solving from a balanced & rational position. Anyway, all that requires being able to tell myth from reality apart, from being able to tell religious “truths” from actual truths apart. Thus, the increase in secular, critical thought re: SL history, & the religious outlook (specially negative effects of approaching the world with the belief that one’s religion is the most important piece of information out there or the highest truth) will assist, I think, in helping more people approach the solving of old problems in SL with better mental tools, w/ a higher potential degree of eventual success. This topic (how can SL get out of underdevelopment, ensure future peace,, etc.) is beyond the focus of this article – as to whether K, R, N are real or not – but obviously how we choose to determine what is real & what is myth or speculative does factor in to the bigger topic mentioned.

Remember, religion is ultimately a dishonest & risky tool for controlling people. In order to control people via religion you have to sell them on the lie that the religion tells the truth – which is impossible to do since at the core of all major religions, including Buddhism – lies speculative, cannot be proven to be true items. So, though it may be easier on the short run to control people via the use of religion, on the long run, it can & most likely will create significant problems. Better to deal with the known facts, verifiable truths, & try to improve things in a more honest way. This way also ensures that a country will not be held captive by a priestly class (or a combination of a small ruling class & a priestly class – as most ancient monarchies have been, & as many countries still are). The benefits of promoting the use of reason, observation, verifiable truths, choices that strengthen individual rights & liberties are many – and can lead to the creation of great places/nations to live in.

- S

There is a commonality that joins both your positions and I am tempted to write a piece explaining my view right now. But I’m a bit busy in the next few days so it will have to wait a while.

OL, there are parallels between your experience and mine in meditation (by whatever name called), both positive. Equally I’m fully supportive of SecAg. And I believe the outcome you desire for SL is similar to that of Sujewa’s, SD’s and mine, and I expect Lankan Thinker too.

I am encouraged that this thread will begin to climb upwards from the recent ‘low’, from intellectual lack to intellectual lakhs (!)

I think I can understand your perspective perfectly. You are speaking for yourself from a nice balanced and rational position. This is precisely the perspective that has failed in Sri lanka. I am not in the either/or mode at all. You are privileging reason over emotions. I am not privileging emotions over reason. i am saying we must start with a full engagement with our heart and emotions before we start thinking, rationalizing and justifying.

Our difference boils down to a very important point and this can only be tested by our own experience. What comes first in our experience? The heart or mind? feelings or thought?

It is in meditation that we discover that the reaction of the heart precedes the mental appropriation of experience. a little later I will give a minute description of the evolution of sensory contact to an active thought.

I am fully prepared to give reason its due. but lets see what it is based on.

our country paid the price of ignoring the emotions that drove sinhala nationalism by simply relying on the elitist secular nationalism of DS. we must now engage these raw and elemantal emotions because they must be related to before we can reason our way out of this mess.

The ground of our being is not the seat of reason. It is our primordial emotions. We cannot patch over and plaster these things and carry on – we must search inside. We must engage directly with the ego instead of letting our ego take us on its self centred path to self destruction.

“In this dialogue one unhelpful tendency has been to affirm or deny karma as an absolute. The written language can objectify things and also distort them. In this way God has been objectified and rendered absolute and in sri lanka where the tripitaka was first codified in the Buddhist world concepts like karma, nirvana etc have all been solidified. So we have a historical background of verbal domination which needs to be shaken off.”

I am not certain that this is wise in all or even many cases when it comes to things that are important for living. By this I mean “shaking off” written language, or well constructed thoughts, or analysis (which requires carefully identifying what is being analyzed, which requires careful thought/language/written language). Escaping into non-verbal or non-verbalized experience – such as joy that one may experience while dancing, or the rush of energy one may experience while running in a race, etc. may be adequate for certain limited past time/leisure activities, but I think regular living, & the process of attempting to transform self into a better/more effective person (by the standards of this world, not speculative religious aims) require careful thinking, planning, updating plans, etc. So, other than the relaxation usage that may result from escaping into a non-verbal meditative experience (which is similar to watching a movie or just hanging out somewhere & watching the sunset or something), I do not think meditation alone will help anyone with most of the goals of Buddhism or even most positive, non-religious, secular/regular life goals. Unless you are saying that K, R, N are simply symbols, & not real things (other than symbols) & that the most important thing about Buddhism is meditation. That is a valid view, but, meditation alone will not help a practitioner improve himself or a community improve itself – for that you need ethics, criticism & self-criticism, reflection, dialogue, debate, devising of methods that may aid in following a useful set of behavior guidelines (such as the Eight Fold Path). Or, it may be possible for an incredibly evil person to be a great meditator, & without the ethical & intellectual guidelines that accompany religions, the person may continue to live an evil life – even though they are very good at the type of meditation that you describe. Anyway, meditation is one thing, K, R, N is/are another – for the purpose of this discussion. The agnostic position is that K, R, N are not real (outside being a set of ideas only). As far as meditation goes, in my opinion it can be useful for calming oneself down, which probably has positive health effects. But as far as dealing with whether what one is being taught by monks is accurate, that requires the full engagement of the critical/thinking faculties, & not escaping from active thought into a passive non-verbal meditative state.

- S

1. It will fall Heads
2. It will fall Tails
3. We don’t know

Which answer is correct 100% of the time?

Thinking about this, the position of the Believers reminds me that there is a 4th possible answer.

4. It will fall on its edge

To me this is the most improbable. IMO this answer would be correct 0% of the time, as would an even more improbable answer that (no 5) the coin would defy gravity and shoot off into space.

Needless to say, neither 4 nor 5 have ever been proven to happen, except in cartoons.

The question therefore is, why would anyone attach a 100% certainty to the most improbable outcome (ie. never seen) in preference to the outcome/answer that is always seen – the honest answer that ‘we simple do not know’?

Just for those who may be a little less patient and wish – ‘oh can he cut the crap and get to the point’ I want to give the sequence in which I will go. First I will deal with the access to meditation – because there is a way to approach it. I mentioned about the attitudinal and experiential basis and that without it – if we are simply going to apply logic and our undoubted powers of reasoning then we will miss what Buddhism is telling us – and I promise you that it has something valuable – on karma as well. So first the access – then meditation itself and finally I will deal with karma.

One other point about the middle way.

In this dialogue one unhelpful tendency has been to affirm or deny karma as an absolute. The written language can objectify things and also distort them. In this way God has been objectified and rendered absolute and in sri lanka where the tripitaka was first codified in the Buddhist world concepts like karma, nirvana etc have all been solidified. So we have a historical background of verbal domination which needs to be shaken off.

When concepts are written down – when a way of life becomes a religion of the book – it is easy to ascribe a sort of external authority to these concepts – which in reality are simply desire driven projections of the uncritical religious mind. Buddha actually taught his disciples to experience and realize the 3 characteristics of phenomena – transience (impermanence), instability (suffering) and selflessness (absence of an unchanging core) within. Buddha himself – as a human being was subject to these three things and in fact there is nothing that falls outside these three laws. When this is the Buddhist worldview it is not possible to affirm anything as an absolute. Everything evolves and this process does not even stop after enlightenment. So to affirm or deny that something exists is to go to extremes and ignore the solid experiential basis of Buddhism.

To realize the truth is not to just think of something or abstract that truth and hold it as something apart. To truly realize the truth is to live it and if you don’t live it then you have not realized the truth sufficiently.

By the way – take another look at the very first two posts by citizen and Chula – they are saying the same thing… but the stampede swept their important points aside.

We are still on the access to meditation – will come back tomorrow with meditation itself – it is useful to note that in meditation we deactivate the thinking mind – as much as possible and seek a more authentic base of knowledge – the deep knowledge of the heart and this physical self. It is a descent rather than an ascent – and it is getting into the heart of the problem than looking somewhere elsewhere for a solution. It is looking for a way IN rather than looking for a way out. So I would add to the categories below – a 4th and this is certainly not the least.

1.Buddhism as an intellectual concept
2.Buddhism as a mainstream concept and its relation to politics
3.Buddhism as an emotionally vested concept
4.Buddhism as guided experience (praxis) and a way of life (meditation in action)