Photo by Ben | Copyright 2009 Dreaming Life

Last night I went to an introductory Buddhist class here in my town.

I had a great time!

And as can be expected, the experience got my brain cells moving around and you know I love it when that happens…

I have been having a slow yet steady love affair with Buddhism for quite some time now. I feel that the theories laid out in the Buddhist philosophy, or religion, if you prefer, mostly make sense.

To cut to the chase, I think that the Buddhist framework for identifying the causes of suffering and removing those causes . . . → Read More: So I Went To This Buddhist Class Last Night … Part I]]>

Photo by Ben | Copyright 2009 Dreaming Life

Last night I went to an introductory Buddhist class here in my town.

I had a great time!

And as can be expected, the experience got my brain cells moving around and you know I love it when that happens…

I have been having a slow yet steady love affair with Buddhism for quite some time now. I feel that the theories laid out in the Buddhist philosophy, or religion, if you prefer, mostly make sense.

To cut to the chase, I think that the Buddhist framework for identifying the causes of suffering and removing those causes are realistic, tangible, practical, and meaningful.

Furthermore, I also think this framework inherently has nothing to do with theology or God, which in my search for truth,  I find incredibly seductive.

You see, I have a kind of unspoken motto I follow when it comes to all spiritual stuff: I don’t want to fool myself.

I strongly feel this way!

I’ll say it again: I don’t want to fool myself!

And that is why Buddhism is so wonderful to me because it presents such a well thought out method for being happy and living life; something that it testable and doesn’t rely on faith, in order to “believe” it.

That’s the thing really – there’s nothing to “believe.”

Yet there is one prominent aspect of Buddhism that is faith based.

And it’s the biggest hurdle I see that Buddhism has to jump here in the West in order for it to be applicable in the modern world: it’s those pesky ideas having to do with rebirth and reincarnation!

Even the teacher noted as such when he stated that the concept of rebirth was a big speed bump for him. He went on to say that if it was a problem for you, to simply set it aside and not worry about it. I really like that open mindedness but at the same time, I think it’s something that ultimately holds back Buddhist ideas from being applicable and relevant to a couple billion people. It’s a cultural speed bump, and one that many secular people are not going to accept because it doesn’t make sense to them.

Recently, Buddhist teacher and writer Stephen Bachelor took a nice step in jumping over that speed bump by publishing Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. I have not had a chance to fully read this book (yet) but it points to what I think is an inevitable evolution of Buddhism in an increasingly scientific world: Buddhism eventually is going to drop theological ideas concerning rebirth, reincarnation, and to the small extent that it’s even present now, it will also drop any emphasis on worship or deification of Siddhartha Gautama, aka The Buddha.

At least that is what will happen if Buddhism continues to spread in the Western world, where these two partners will evolve together in the ongoing dance that all cultures and religions take part in as each one adapts to the other.

Case in point: when was the last time you read a book on Buddhism written for Westerners that put any emphasis on reincarnation? For sure, it is in some, but even then, my point is that it’s not emphasized. And for many teachers, when talking to Western students via their books, rebirth is rarely mentioned at all.

A sign of things to come?

Theology and Faith: Just A Distraction from What Matters?

Atheist Sam Harris states that:

“The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism.”  (Source: Shambala Sun)

I felt much the same way during a Q&A session of the class, wherein which people asked such questions as:

Can an animal be enlightened in a single lifetime?
Are people born into poverty and suffering because of their previous lives?
Can a human being be reborn into a lower realm?

(By the way, the teachers answer was no, yes, and yes, respectively.)

Now by no means am I mocking the individuals asking these questions. I don’t know their motivation for seeking clarifications on such things, but either way, I don’t have any personal ill will towards them for seeking answers to these questions.

But I couldn’t help thinking:

Isn’t this just a huge distraction from what really matters?

To put it in Buddhist terminology, if the goal is to eliminate all negative qualities of mind and instead to actualize or realize all positive qualities of mind, then to me, these questions surrounding rebirth and reincarnation are a pointless distraction.

Nothing in my day to day life has anything to do with the theological concept of whether or not an animal can become enlightened or whether I might be reborn as a roach or an ant.

And in this way, I see a connection between how when Buddhism (or anything) steers into theology, you quickly get steered into activities that are somewhat meaningless.

What do you guys think?

See, per my motto of “not fooling myself” I tend to get really hung up on points like this. I need everything to make sense, to add up. In a way, the idea that these things are distractions has become a self fulfilling prophecy for me – the irony being that (even the absence of ) these beliefs has still become a distraction. Oh vey!

Note: I really would love to hear others thoughts on the points raised in this article. And to clarify, I have much love and respect for the millions of Buddhists who believe in rebirth, which includes nearly every Buddhist teacher I’ve studied and learned from by reading their books.

Authors Jayne Gackenbach and Jane Bosveld tackle lucid dreaming at many, many different angles. While they explore the basic concepts of dreaming, what dreams are, interpretation, and techniques for working with your dreams on up to controlling your dreams via lucid dreaming, they go far beyond this.

The authors talk extensively on the connection between dreams and lucid dreaming to positive visualization, the power of the mind to heal the body, the similarities between meditation and the dream state, near-death and out . . . → Read More: One of the Best Books On Lucid Dreaming… (that you’ve probably never heard of)]]> Control Your Dreams takes in a much wider scope than, say, the wonderful books on lucid dreaming written by Stephen LaBerge.

Authors Jayne Gackenbach and Jane Bosveld tackle lucid dreaming at many, many different angles. While they explore the basic concepts of dreaming, what dreams are, interpretation, and techniques for working with your dreams on up to controlling your dreams via lucid dreaming, they go far beyond this.

The authors talk extensively on the connection between dreams and lucid dreaming to positive visualization, the power of the mind to heal the body, the similarities between meditation and the dream state, near-death and out of body experiences, and even the dreaded UFO abduction story. It is the discussion of all these additional subjects in relation to dreams that makes this book worth reading.

If you have an aversion to relate lucid dreaming with eastern mysticism or meditation, than steer clear of this book! It becomes apparent early on that the authors are fascinated by meditation and they relate its practice to lucid dreaming constantly throughout the book, more than any other subject mentioned above.

This culminates in the chapter entitled “Dreaming Buddhas” where we are given an in depth analysis of meditative practices, techniques, the results and the meditation experience itself as it relates to the higher states of consciousness present in both lucid dreaming and meditation.

One aspect of this book I’ve not seen in others is the citation of so many studies and research programs on lucid dreaming! The writing is liberally sprinkled again and again with stories of people using of lucid dreaming in many contexts I had never heard much about before. This includes the skater who used his lucidity to perfect his skating moves or people who used the lucid experience to focus on healing their bodies, which led to a corresponding change in their actual physical body.

I commend the authors for citing dozens of scientific studies and research projects on lucid dreaming as a basis for much of the material in this book. It’s great to see this in a book on dreams – and rare too, as most of the books on dreams are just…well, don’t get me started on that subject!

Yet it drives me crazy that they’re paradoxically and simultaneously guilty of referring to uncited sources throughout the book. I don’t see how you can get away with writing lines like “Two studies have found that people who have near death experience’s are more likely experience dream lucidity,” and then note cite the source or give any further informationon the study. I saw examples of this throughout the book, side by side with cited examples. What gives?

…

ULTIMATELY, this book is about more than lucid dreaming. It’s about taking in our experience of reality and trying to make sense of it. Lucid dreaming then becomes just one piece of a bigger puzzle the authors navigate through in trying to solve the biggest questions of them all.

Buy the Control Your Dreams book from Amazon.com

I’ll grant you that the idea of God existing, an omnipotent creator of all that is, is at least an interesting explanation worth pursuing. This theory might not be right, but it’s not a totally crazy idea to start with and pursue. (Intelligent design does have that “common-sense” feel to it, right?)

But many people (billions, actually) believe not only the above bit about God existing, but that we humans have the ability to know and understand the mind of God and . . . → Read More: Co-Dependence, Casuality and God from a Buddhist Perspective]]> The nontheistic aspect of Buddhism intrigues me because I have a hard time identifying with anything that strikes of theism.

I’ll grant you that the idea of God existing, an omnipotent creator of all that is, is at least an interesting explanation worth pursuing. This theory might not be right, but it’s not a totally crazy idea to start with and pursue. (Intelligent design does have that “common-sense” feel to it, right?)

But many people (billions, actually) believe not only the above bit about God existing, but that we humans have the ability to know and understand the mind of God and carry out God’s wishes! (This is, actually, a damn good working definition of religion, one that I heard at an athiest/Christian debate earlier this year.)

Furthermore, God wishes to be worshipped and in fact, commands it.

This perspective completely alludes me. (I have struggled on how to elaborate on this point without sounding like an ass so I will leave it at that.)

However, I tend to walk the line on using the label athiest – I prefer (perhaps weakly) the term nontheist instead of atheist, because I do feel what you could call the “spiritual impulse” (thank you evolution!) because, well, I’m in awe of everything that is. Exploring questions & answers about the nature of reality, quantum mechanics, string theory, consciousness, artificial intelligence, how we (and all of this) came to be… this is what I live for, really.

A few weeks ago I saw a semi-famous Buddhist nun speak at a local Buddhist center. Overall the experience was unfortunately negative, but the best thing about hearing Robina Courtin speak was learning more about the Buddhist perspective on God and casuality, and the inherent nature of God’s existence, if God does exists.

In a nutshell, she said Buddha taught something like this:

• Everything exists in relation to everything else, literally. (casuality, co-dependence)

• God cannot exist outside of the universe, without cause.

• Therefore, if God exists, God must be included within this co-dependent framework of existence.

I don’t claim to have a deep understanding of Buddhist thought, but I find this bit of thinking fascinating and even logical when coming from the perspective of an eternal, infinite, intertwined and co-dependent reality.

What I don’t get though is this:

If by God we mean a Creator, how can God exist within – completely and without seperation from, at all points in the past and future- the universe which God created, which exists infinitely?

Maybe more simply the question is this:

How can God create something infinite and exist entirely within it at the same time?

…then why should you have compassion for someone who was murdered?

Let’s get to a real world example:

If Daniel Pearl’s throat was slit ear to ear by Muslims extremists, according to the concept of karma, quite literally, wasn’t he was getting exactly what he deserverd? Wasn’t this the karmic fruition of his previous actions?

Is this what all Buddhists are really saying? If not, then what am I missing?

This is where the jump from embracing the benefits of meditation to embracing faith-based ideas like reincarnation and karm quickly leads to dangerous ideas!

. . . → Read More: If everthing that happens is a result of karma…]]> If everything that happens is a result of karma…

…then why should you have compassion for someone who was murdered?

Let’s get to a real world example:

If Daniel Pearl’s throat was slit ear to ear by Muslims extremists, according to the concept of karma, quite literally, wasn’t he was getting exactly what he deserverd? Wasn’t this the karmic fruition of his previous actions?

Is this what all Buddhists are really saying? If not, then what am I missing?

This is where the jump from embracing the benefits of meditation to embracing faith-based ideas like reincarnation and karm quickly leads to dangerous ideas!

It’s a slippery slope, man!

Sigh…

I had this thought while seeing a live presentation tonight from Robina Courtin, a world famous Buddhist nun, known for her blunt and to-the-point teaching style. I wanted to ask her how can you have compassion for someone who was murdered since their karma dictates they’re simply getting what they deserve, but honestly, she is quite intimidating. Judging from the way she answered other questions from the audience, I was too scared to ask mine for fear that she’d bully me around.

Still though, I want to know the answer. If people who are murdered – and even the people murdering them – are simply fulfilling their karmic “duties” or whatever, then why feel compassion & empathy for them?

In fact, if you combine the ideas of an infinity existing universe, in which we are all infinitely manifested, infinitely carrying out our karma, in a way…

…doesn’t this make everything pointless?

!!!

Never has Buddhism seemed so much like a religion as it does now after seeing this presentation from Robina Courtin.

Note: Meetup allows you to organize events based around a common interest. Anyone can start or attend a meetup. There’s topics for everything, everywhere. Check it out.

….

I was disheartened by the discussion on reincarnation when it was referred to as a bottleneck to get through to progress through Buddhist principles.

Despite what someone might think by visiting this blog and seeing . . . → Read More: Some Thoughts on Buddhism]]> Tonight I attended a Buddhist meetup discussion on the concept of the mind, and how the mind is actually seperate from the brain. Here’s some thoughts I jotted down while I was there. Please add your comments.

Note: Meetup allows you to organize events based around a common interest. Anyone can start or attend a meetup. There’s topics for everything, everywhere. Check it out.

….

I was disheartened by the discussion on reincarnation when it was referred to as a bottleneck to get through to progress through Buddhist principles.

Despite what someone might think by visiting this blog and seeing the subjects I focus on, I am a hardcore skeptic and the concept of reincarnation is something I have a very hard time with.

It’s easy enough to accept what I what call “materialistic reincarnation.” All the atoms that make up my entire being were once part of stars a billions of years ago, and surely existed before that too. And all they will continue to exist beyond this body of mine. They will certainly become part of a larger whole that is alive, whether plant or animal, and that includes becoming part of other sentient beings.

But a continuance of consciousness? A transference of consciousness? That’s a brick-wall for me. I can’t find any good reason to believe in it – and that’s part of the struggle here. I don’t want to believe in something. I want it to stand up to reason.

Admittedly, I’ve only skimmed the scientific literature on reincarnation and people remembering past lives. It’s worth taking a look at whatever body of evidence currently exists.

As I’m just now skimming the surface with Buddhism, maybe what I’ll find is that I’m actually more interested in some sort of “Secular Meditation” combined with the Buddhist ideas and concepts that I can liberally apply to my life?

….

I think I am so attracted to entheogens like DMT because the experience potentially can provide proof –admittedly, subjective proof – of concepts and ideas that I otherwise struggle to grasp or find evidence for objectively. And the experience wouldn’t be a wishy washy faith-based type of exercise; it would hit me like a brick in the face.

And I guess that’s what I want – something tangible, real, applicable.

….

We did a 15 minute guided meditation at the meetup tonight.

I’ve still hardly meditated at all – I’m not even sure I know how, really.

But tonight we did a 15 minute meditation and the minutes just soared by! It felt more like 7 minutes.

Knowing I can actually sit still and meditate like this is really exciting!

Anyhow, I found this gem of a passage that I want to share where the author compares lucid dreams to our experience of reality while awake.

On page 82, we learn that:

“…clinical studies indicate that the practice of meditation extends the . . . → Read More: An excerpt from the The Joy of Living by Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche]]> Yesterday I was at Whole Foods drinking a Yuengling and reading The Joy of Living by Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche in the outside cafe. This book is the best I’ve found so far on Buddhism – especially because it intertwines an understanding of quantum physics and neuroscience into a Buddhist framework for understanding the mind and the nature of reality. I love it!

Anyhow, I found this gem of a passage that I want to share where the author compares lucid dreams to our experience of reality while awake.

On page 82, we learn that:

“…clinical studies indicate that the practice of meditation extends the mechanism of neuronal synchrony to a point where the perceiver can begin to recognize consciously that his or her mind and the experiences or objects that his or her mind perceives are one and the same. In other words, the practice of meditation over a long period dissolves artificial distinctions between subject and object – which in turn offers the perceiver the freedom to determine the quality of his or her own experience.”

What does last bit remind you of? Ah-hah! Lucid dreaming!

As soon as one becomes consciously aware in a dream that they are dreaming, they understand that nothing in their experience is separate from the mind, and furthermore, the response to the experience becomes something you feel you have great control over.

He says this better when he continues with:

“In a dream, if you recognize that what you’re experiencing is just a dream, then you also recognize that whatever you experience in the dream is merely occurring in your own mind. Recognizing this, in turn, frees you from the limitations of “dream problems.” “dream suffering,” or “dream limitations.” The dream still continues, but recognition liberates you from whatever pain or unpleasantness your dream scenarios present. Fear, pain, and suffering are replaced by a sense of almost childlike wonder: “Wow, look what my mind is capable of producing!

He finishes by saying:

“In the same way, in waking life, transcending the distinction between subject and object is equivalent to recognizing that whatever you experience is not separate from the mind that experiences it.”

I read these paragraphs, literally, 5 or 6 times in a row trying to take it all in. Even now, I’m still digesting this.

What do you think?

I’ll give you a hint: he’s a famous religious figure.

“Given that one of the primary characteristics of consciousness is its subjective and experiential nature, any systematic study of it must adopt a method that will give access to the dimensions of subjectivity and experience.

A comprehensive scientific study of consciousness must therefore embrace both third-person and first-person methods: it cannot ignore the phenomenological reality of subjective experience but must observe all the rules of scientific rigor. So the critical question is this: Can we envision a scientific methodology for the study of consciousness . . . → Read More: Science & Religion: having my cake and eating it, too…]]> Can you guess where the quote below comes from?

I’ll give you a hint: he’s a famous religious figure.

“Given that one of the primary characteristics of consciousness is its subjective and experiential nature, any systematic study of it must adopt a method that will give access to the dimensions of subjectivity and experience.

A comprehensive scientific study of consciousness must therefore embrace both third-person and first-person methods: it cannot ignore the phenomenological reality of subjective experience but must observe all the rules of scientific rigor. So the critical question is this: Can we envision a scientific methodology for the study of consciousness whereby a robust first-person method, which does full justice to the phenomenology of experience, can be combined with the objectivist perspective of the study of the brain?”

Survey says:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The quote is from his fascinating book The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. It’s relatively new – circa 2005 – and I’m about half-way through it at the moment.

It boggles my mind how intelligent and fearless the Dalai Lama is in integrating science with Buddhism. Other famous religious figures walk away with their tail between their legs when it comes to the realm of science – that is, even they even dare to acknowledge science!

Yet the Dalai Lama actively pursues the scientific community and a scientific understanding of Buddhism.

For me, an integration of Buddhist practices with a scientific understanding of the world is like….having my cake and eating it too.

It wasn’t too long ago that I realized that expanding consciousness is the same as eradicating consciousness. When one exclaims a feeling of oneness with the universe they are paradoxically expanding their consciousness at the expense of their individual sense of self. Meditation, rhythmic dancing, etc all lessen the connection to ones self in order to feel a sense of self that has expanded to encompass all that is around them.

In a recent discussion on life after death with a shamanic acquaintance of mine, he tells me that dying is to life as sleeping is to . . . → Read More: Philosophical Speculations on Life, Death, Reincarnation, and Consciousness]]> Disclaimer: emphasis on the word speculation.

It wasn’t too long ago that I realized that expanding consciousness is the same as eradicating consciousness. When one exclaims a feeling of oneness with the universe they are paradoxically expanding their consciousness at the expense of their individual sense of self. Meditation, rhythmic dancing, etc all lessen the connection to ones self in order to feel a sense of self that has expanded to encompass all that is around them.

In a recent discussion on life after death with a shamanic acquaintance of mine, he tells me that dying is to life as sleeping is to waking. In his view, death is just a transition of consciousness from one state to another.

My question to him on this point is this:

The part of you that is easily identifiable; your memories, your personality, your dreams, desires, and wishes, your faults, and your fears – are these part of the consciousness that transcends and survives after the death of the physical body?

And if not, what is it that moves on?

I’m still waiting for his email response – and I don’t mean to put words in his mouth – but my guess is that the part of who we are that makes up our personality, our wishes, desires, dreams and so forth – in other words, what makes you you; this is not what he’ll say transcends death.

It’s something primordial, something deeper that carries on.

And what is it?

Could it be that it’s the part of you that’s accessed when you experience yourself as one with the world? I’m speaking of that something deep down inside you, buried by your layers of self-hood and self-identity, existing beyond conscious awareness, accessible only in those euphoric, spiritual moments when we feel connected to the rest of the world. The part of you that experiences that sensation, is that the aspect of consciousness that carries on after the death of the physical body?

This brings up an interesting realization. Using this framework of thought, we’ve established a sense of life after death, but at the same time, it means little in regards to our personal sense of identity and has little meaning in any personal sense of surviving death.

But if the Buddhists and the cognitive scientists are right, our sense of self is just an illusion anyway.

And so….does this mean that are “true self” is actually this selfless essence that survives death and is accessible in life only in moments of ego-loss and conscious expansion?

Oh I feel like I’m going in circles.