Meditation Vs Medication

Meditation Vs Medication

9 months ago  ::  Jan 01, 2011 - 3:36PM #1
RenGalskap Posts: 1,250	Please post in this thread if you want to discuss Eyeofhorus's posts. I've quoted Eoh's two posts below. Dec 31, 2010 -- 9:39AM, Eyeofhorace wrote: It takes an ego to give it up in acts of selflessness. It takes an ego to overcome ego, i.e., the will to do altruistic work wouldn't naturally arise. The Christian path to ego reduction is through service to others while the Buddhist path to ego reduction is mind control of the self first which actually makes it self or ego directed--self control is the primary objective while for Christians it is just doing the selfless work for others because it needs to be done but of course I may be a tad prejudiced in my Christian viewpoint.. Dec 31, 2010 -- 3:18PM, Eyeofhorace wrote: Only one thing concerns me about Buddhism which is how Buddhists react to this brain science information that from an objective point of view would seems to debunk the major philosophical foundation of Buddhism, which is that the satori experience far from being enlightenment is much more akin to a drug experience aimed at altering one's mental state in order to avoid psychic pain. As I said I expect a denial of any such conclusion from such studies which so far is proving to be true as these calls to learn about Buddhist philosophy show which would be appropriate if I were interesting in learning Buddhist philosophy but I'm not. I can already see a huge fatal flaw in Buddhism which is basing a whole philosophy of life on the results of meditative attempts to arrive at a single brain state in which a major part of the brain is effectively tranquilized in order to achieve a specific kind of altered state of consciousness, one in which pleasure centers in the frontal lobes are activated giving the oceanic bliss experience. In other words, nothing at all has changed outside the Buddhist mind except his brain's filtered processing of it. The pain of attachment has been relieved by brain manipulation which brings us back to the original question of what exactly is the difference between the Buddhist goal of achieving satori and anyone in mental anquish reaching for their tranquilizers? Organic meditation vs. psychoactive chemistry? Personally, I'll stick to the rational conclusion that whole brain consciousness which entails many states of mind is in the long run far more beneficial to alleviating human suffering because overall creativity of a society thrives on as many sources of data to process as possible in order to arrive at new formulations. I would suspect that by narrowing brain functioning down to one state of mind that this has the effect of dulling the mind that does this for hours on end every day. And indeed, societies where Buddhism is the state religion reflect a cultural backwardness where traditions of the past rule the present.
9 months ago  ::  Jan 01, 2011 - 5:08PM #2
RenGalskap Posts: 1,250	Only one thing concerns me about Buddhism which is how Buddhists react to this brain science information So far you haven't presented us with any brain science that we can react to. :-) seems to debunk the major philosophical foundation of Buddhism, which is that the satori experience far from being enlightenment is much more akin to a drug experience aimed at altering one's mental state in order to avoid psychic pain. You're not clear about what you are claiming, but you seem to be claiming that Buddhists believe that the satori experience is enlightenment. That's not a teaching found in Buddhism. The word "satori" relates to Japanese Zen Buddhism. Zen Buddhists are only a small percentage of the total count of Buddhists in the world. Furthermore, satori is a concern for only a minority of Zen Buddhists. So we're talking about something that is a matter of concern only for a very small proportion of Buddhists. In addition, for this small proportion of Buddhists, satori is not a major philosophical foundation, nor is it considered equivalent to enlightenment. Satori is one of many experiences that a student encounters during their study. A person can have a satori experience without being enlightened and an enlightened person may never have had a satori experience. As I said I expect a denial of any such conclusion from such studies which so far is proving to be true as these calls to learn about Buddhist philosophy show which would be appropriate if I were interesting in learning Buddhist philosophy but I'm not. On the other hand, if you were to actually learn something about Buddhism, you would be able to criticize it, rather than criticizing Buddhism for things that aren't actually part of Buddhism. I can already see a huge fatal flaw in Buddhism which is basing a whole philosophy of life on the results of meditative attempts to arrive at a single brain state in which a major part of the brain is effectively tranquilized in order to achieve a specific kind of altered state of consciousness, one in which pleasure centers in the frontal lobes are activated giving the oceanic bliss experience. I agree, that is rather deluded. What does it have to do with Buddhism? In other words, nothing at all has changed outside the Buddhist mind except his brain's filtered processing of it. Buddhists are taught to take responsibility for their emotions and for their perceptions of the world. The mind's filtering of perceptions and its processing of information are things that we can control easier than we can control the actions of cold viruses or other external agents. Buddhists actively seek to manage the mind's filtering and processing activities. So do people in many other religions. When this is successful, it leads to greater emotional stability, but I would never promise someone that Buddhism will lead to oceanic bliss. The pain of attachment has been relieved by brain manipulation which brings us back to the original question of what exactly is the difference between the Buddhist goal of achieving satori and anyone in mental anquish reaching for their tranquilizers? Organic meditation vs. psychoactive chemistry? Again, it's doubtful that just having a satori experience is going to make much difference in a person's life. If a person were able to reduce their attachment to whatever was causing them suffering, then they would have made a permanent improvement in their life, without the side effects of drugs. If they reach for tranquilizers, they make only a temporary change and they have to deal with the side effects of their drug. I would suspect that by narrowing brain functioning down to one state of mind that this has the effect of dulling the mind that does this for hours on end every day. I'm not sure it's even possible to restrict the brain to one state of mind. Whether it's possible or not, it's not something that Buddhists do.
9 months ago  ::  Jan 02, 2011 - 4:12PM #3
Eyeofhorace Posts: 14	I would suggest that the satori state of mind which is the stated goal of Buddhist meditation is a single brain state in which the sense of self region in the Buddhist brain is deactivated. I would suggest that Buddhist philosophy is based upon looking at the world through this single brain state and the resulting philosophy of Buddhism is highly flawed in its conclusion that human beings should likewise deactivate their sense of self centers in order to avoid the pains of existence that come from the ego or self's attachment to things of this world.
9 months ago  ::  Jan 02, 2011 - 9:17PM #4
RenGalskap Posts: 1,250	Jan 2, 2011 -- 4:12PM, Eyeofhorace wrote: I would suggest that the satori state of mind which is the stated goal of Buddhist meditation Stated by who? What's your source for this information? Jan 2, 2011 -- 4:12PM, Eyeofhorace wrote: is a single brain state in which the sense of self region in the Buddhist brain is deactivated. I have some familiarity with research on the brain and the sense of self. There is good evidence that the self-region of the brain is inactive in any person who is completely absorbed in some activity, regardless of whether the person is Buddhist or not. Experienced meditators tend to become absorbed in their meditation, so the self-regions of the brains of experienced meditators, Buddhist or otherwise, are often quiescent while they are meditating. On the other hand, I can tell you that the self-regions of the brains of Buddhists who aren't meditating function quite normally. Jan 2, 2011 -- 4:12PM, Eyeofhorace wrote: I would suggest that Buddhist philosophy Which Buddhist philosophy? There are several. Jan 2, 2011 -- 4:12PM, Eyeofhorace wrote: is based upon looking at the world through this single brain state I know of no Buddhist philosophy based on deactivating the self-region of the brain. The self-area of the brain is the area that tracks what is self or belongs to self, and what is other or belongs to other. This is useful and probably necessary for functioning in human societies. What you are claiming is that Buddhism teaches that we should shut down a part of the brain needed for social functioning. There isn't a school of Buddhism anywhere that teaches that. Nonattachment in Buddhism doesn't mean shutting down the self-region of the brain. It means not identifying with the inferences generated by that part of the brain. It also means not getting attached to a particular state of mind.
9 months ago  ::  Jan 03, 2011 - 9:23AM #5
Eyeofhorace Posts: 14	Then you'll need to show us how those Buddhist goals are achieved by not shutting down the brain's sense of self center. The studies of Buddhist monk brains are pretty conclusive about showing a one to one correspondence in the meditation goal of reaching the satori state. Non-attachment and the ego-less state of mind go hand in hand. As for the brain's sense of self center deactivated during concentration on engrossing mental activity, well, it's a more extreme degree of deactivation I would venture to guess that would help set in motion brain energy going into altered state of bliss consciousness, i.e., a type of pleasurable "high" found when pleasure center areas of the frontal lobes are activated. Would Buddhism have ever attracted followers if there wasn't a pleasurable reward for all the meditation work involved? It's akin to the endorfin high that comes from great exertion in running.
9 months ago  ::  Jan 03, 2011 - 2:24PM #6
vacchagotta Posts: 297	Eyeofhorus, If Buddhism's goal, as given per tradition by the Buddha, was merely to "alleviate" suffering, your comparative evalution might prove useful. But that's a wrong premise, so the comparison is useless.  There already existed innumerable ways of manipulating the environment and one's own person (as a whole, the Buddha referred to this complex in a number of ways, but "the world" is a useful one) to alleviate suffering when the Buddha addressed for himself the problem of suffering.  Among these were various entertainments, medical practices, sensual pleasures, intellectual pursuits, etc. So is the history of mankind.  "Alleviation" of death was not his goal (his goal was literally referred to by him as an "immortality").  These alleviations included but were not limited to the "meditative bliss" you refer to, which he learned thoroughly through teachers quite prior to his independent enlightenment.  But this meditative bliss was not recognized by the Buddha as thorough enlightenment nor the extinction of suffering.  It was merely, as intimated by the Mahaparinibbana Sutta when he says the suffering of his body was only made more bearable through jhana (blissful meditation), a temporary eclipsing of painfulness or to use your term an "alleviation".   Going further, all the myriad ways to alleviate suffering could be called "world manipulation"...in a previous post you referred to a similar concept as "creativity" in your comparison to a Christian Humanist approach.  For the Buddha, the manipulation of the world to alleviate suffering was not only ineffective as a true solution to the problem of suffering, but was on a deeper level actually symptomatic and potentially perpetuative of that suffering.  Unless one has understood that he was aware of such a distinction and taught it, one will fail to make such a distinction in one's own comparisons. Now, regarding such studies and such blissful meditation, a number of errors have occurred.  Your use of the term "satori," as Ren has pointed out, is telling.  Satori is a technical term in Japanese Zen Buddhism and should not be applied in a broader context.  Scientists performing such studies, and would-be philosophers like yourself attempting to interpret the results of such studies should take care to be conceptually precise in describing what they are actually studying. It is without scientific rigor to conflate the brain-derived pleasure in meditative states with Satori with enlightenment with Nirvana the goal.  It is also problematic to rely on self-diagnosed accomplishment, though honestly it would be difficult to use anything else.  But by your account of these "studies," the assumption would be that scientists are measuring brain activity during a subject's experience of the Buddha's enlightenment.  This means they are studying Arhats/Buddhas!  This is a huge presumption that is extremely dangerous.  I want to meet these people, for they would be extremely remarkable.    For example, some of the descriptions you bandied about sound like they may describe one of the jhana states described by the early Buddhist suttas.  If this is the case a serious mistake has been made on somebody's part, whether the scientists, the subject's, or your own, to equate this particular brain state with the accomplishment of the goal of the Buddha's path.  Being able to reliably enter these states is a useful tool for the Buddhist learner, but it does by no means make one an Arhat/Buddha.  As above, such a state would merely be an alleviation of pain and an elevation of perspective with which the Buddha was already familiar prior to his enlightenment and Nibbana and so could not be equated with such.  The Buddha never equated any of the jhana states to enlightenment itself nor to Nibbana, so that is another potential giant error either in the studies themselves or in your application of them as indicative of what the goal entails.  The jhanas are a means to the perfection of a detached perspective, so to speak, but are in no way in Buddhism considered the accomplishment of the goal. in friendliness, V.
9 months ago  ::  Jan 03, 2011 - 10:47PM #7
RenGalskap Posts: 1,250	Jan 3, 2011 -- 9:23AM, Eyeofhorace wrote: Then you'll need to show us how those Buddhist goals are achieved by not shutting down the brain's sense of self center. Are you still trying to claim that the goal of Buddhism is a "satori state of mind"?
9 months ago  ::  Jan 04, 2011 - 9:03AM #8
Kwinters Posts: 12,569	Jan 1, 2011 -- 3:36PM, RenGalskap wrote: Please post in this thread if you want to discuss Eyeofhorus's posts. I've quoted Eoh's two posts below. Dec 31, 2010 -- 9:39AM, Eyeofhorace wrote: It takes an ego to give it up in acts of selflessness. It takes an ego to overcome ego, i.e., the will to do altruistic work wouldn't naturally arise. The Christian path to ego reduction is through service to others while the Buddhist path to ego reduction is mind control of the self first which actually makes it self or ego directed--self control is the primary objective while for Christians it is just doing the selfless work for others because it needs to be done but of course I may be a tad prejudiced in my Christian viewpoint.. Dec 31, 2010 -- 3:18PM, Eyeofhorace wrote: Only one thing concerns me about Buddhism which is how Buddhists react to this brain science information that from an objective point of view would seems to debunk the major philosophical foundation of Buddhism, which is that the satori experience far from being enlightenment is much more akin to a drug experience aimed at altering one's mental state in order to avoid psychic pain. As I said I expect a denial of any such conclusion from such studies which so far is proving to be true as these calls to learn about Buddhist philosophy show which would be appropriate if I were interesting in learning Buddhist philosophy but I'm not. I can already see a huge fatal flaw in Buddhism which is basing a whole philosophy of life on the results of meditative attempts to arrive at a single brain state in which a major part of the brain is effectively tranquilized in order to achieve a specific kind of altered state of consciousness, one in which pleasure centers in the frontal lobes are activated giving the oceanic bliss experience. In other words, nothing at all has changed outside the Buddhist mind except his brain's filtered processing of it. The pain of attachment has been relieved by brain manipulation which brings us back to the original question of what exactly is the difference between the Buddhist goal of achieving satori and anyone in mental anquish reaching for their tranquilizers? Organic meditation vs. psychoactive chemistry? Personally, I'll stick to the rational conclusion that whole brain consciousness which entails many states of mind is in the long run far more beneficial to alleviating human suffering because overall creativity of a society thrives on as many sources of data to process as possible in order to arrive at new formulations. I would suspect that by narrowing brain functioning down to one state of mind that this has the effect of dulling the mind that does this for hours on end every day. And indeed, societies where Buddhism is the state religion reflect a cultural backwardness where traditions of the past rule the present. Well the OP clearly misunderstands Buddhism.  I wonder where this poster gets his/her information? The idea that meditation is about narrowing brain function down to one state of mind is evidence the author has not attempted serious meditation based upon Buddhist teachings or training. I would suggest that the author start here to learn about what meditation does to the physical brain here: psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/26/meditat... And then practice this guided meditation here: diydharma.org/guided-metta-meditation-he... I would also point out that it was white, Western, Christians who went out and enslaved the rest of the world, using economic, cultural and physical violence as their methods of exploitation and subjegation. If one wants to look at why other societies struggle we must look to the Western Christains who exploited and enslaved them for centuries - not to Buddhism.