Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Buddhism, Peace, and Ecology
How Buddhism could be a way out of the environmental mess we are in
There is something extraordinarily child-like about the 84-year-old Zen Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh.
To portray him out of context could make him appear naive and unworldly. It is therefore understandable that he does not like to be interviewed by journalists who have not already spent some time in his presence and meditated with him. Perhaps that is why refused on interview with the Daily Mirror after the paper apparently demanded that the piece be illustrated with a photo of him alongside a group of celebrities.
After having a rare personal audience with him for five days during a retreat in Nottingham which nearly a thousand other people took part in, I have come to recognise that his way of being could be an antidote to our politicised and intellectualised world.
He has an uncanny ability to help clear away the complexities of our lives by reminding us to think about the essence of who we are and offering some simple steps to challenge our habitualised problems and neuroticism.
In recent years, he has turned his full attention to the dangers of climate change and recently published the best-selling book The World We Have – A Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology.
He discusses in the book how he sat and consulted with the Buddha for many hours and came away with the recognition that we could be facing the end of our civilisation unless we can achieve a spiritual awakening and change our individual and collective behaviour.
"In my mind I see a group of chickens in a cage disputing over a few seeds of grain, unaware that in a few hours they will all be killed," he writes.
Above all else, Thay – as he is known – teaches that the world cannot be changed outside of ourselves. The answer is for each one of us to transform the fear, anger, and despair which we cover-up with over-consumption. If we are filling our bodies and minds with toxins, it is no surprise that the world around us also becomes poisoned.
He also argues that those who put their faith in technology alone to save the planet are bowing to a false god.
Like many other spiritual leaders, he sees the genesis of our pain as coming from our dualistic mindset that sees our connection to god, or Buddha, or spirit as outside ourselves and accessible only after our death. As a result we have developed a strong ego that sees itself as separate and threatened and needs to amass things like wealth to feel strong and protected. But none of these can fill the chasm created by our deep sense of separation.
He condones eco-activism but only if done with the right motives:
"I know ecologists who are not happy in their families. They work hard to improve the environment, partly to escape their own unhappy family lives. If someone is not happy within herself, how can she help the environment?"
"The energy we need is not fear or anger, but the energy of understanding and compassion. There is no need to blame or condemn. Those who are destroying themselves, societies and the planet aren't doing it intentionally. Their pain and loneliness are overwhelming and they want to escape. They need to be helped, not punished. Only understanding and compassion on a collective level can liberate us."
Thay believes that within every person are the seeds of love, compassion and understanding as well as the seeds of anger, hatred and discrimination. Using a gardening metaphor, he says our experience of life depends on which seeds we choose to water.
To help water those positive seeds and create a new global ethic, Thay's Order of Interbeing has distilled the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path into five core principles.
The Five Mindfulness Trainings, updated in the last year to make them relevant to our fast-changing world, are not a set of strict rules but a direction to head in.
Thay explains that in the First Training we vow to cherish all life on Earth and not support any acts of killing. In the Second Training we pledge to practice generosity and not support social injustice and oppression. In the Third Training we make a commitment to behave responsibly in our relationships and not engage in sexual misconduct. The Fourth Training asks us to practice loving speech and deep listening in order to relieve others of suffering. The practice of mindful consumption and mindful eating is the object of the Fifth Mindfulness Training.
While Thay sees following these trainings as a way out of the environmental mess we are in, he is not certain that people are yet ready to change their consumerist way of life.
"Without collective awakening the catastrophe will come," he warns. "Civilisations have been destroyed many times and this civilisation is no different. It can be destroyed. We can think of time in terms of millions of years and life will resume little by little. The cosmos operates for us very urgently, but geological time is different."
132 Comments so far
Show All"They are words that try to lead us more to prayer beads and mantras more than anything else. Why should be be studying Buddhist religious 'trainings here' anymore than Catholic ones?"
Your first sentence shows that you simply do not understand the article, which clearly answers the question in your second sentence.
q
Buddhism--at least that of Thich Nhat Hanh--is not a New Age religion. It has to do with mindfulness--simply being aware of things--and with compassion--caring about people and organisms in general. It is not a religion as I understand it. No scripture, no priests, no prayer, no soul, no afterlife, no reincarnation. It is a religion an atheist could accept--this one does in certain of its aspects--and books have been written about that very subject: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor. You might want to read it.
Good comment and good advice!
Is this the same drosera i was having a lengthy discussion with on CD just the other day?
What a difference a day makes .....
Buddhism is not about spirituality. There is nothing in Buddhism that points to that dualistic mode of perceiving the world: spirit and matter. That is what makes it so different from Hinduism. No Atman, no Brahma. No purification rituals. Simply be aware of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, fantasies, whatever. The purpose is not Enlightenment. Buddha never used a term that could be translated that way. He did use the Pali term for awakening, Bodhi. Buddha did not claim to have a truth others lacked; he just said "Try it out!" and you will see that suffering (defined here as dissatisfaction) will lose its grip as you become more aware. That is not a scientific truth, because it cannot be verified in an objective sense. But each person can try it out and see what the effects are. All of this is different from most religions: no revelation, no mantras, no priests, no attention to god or the "afterlife," something Buddha said was a distraction in the first place. I see nothing in this kind of practice that is inconsistent with science.
So, Buddhism is not about spirituality, or enlightenment, and apparently not about "truth" either as you said the other day the only kind if truth was the objective scientific kind.
So what is it about? What is nirvana?
"That is not a scientific truth, because it cannot be verified in an objective sense. But each person can try it out and see what the effects are .... I see nothing in this kind of practice that is inconsistent with science."
Not inconsistent with science, just outside of it - sort of another way of discovery, perhaps? A legitimate way? An alternative way? Will it help you to discover or experience things science cannot?
The word 'spiritual" is derived from the Latin, meaning 'breath' or 'soul.' In a way, Buddhism is not about the spirit at all, since it rejects that idea. Buddhism, in its modern form, is about suffering (dissatisfaction) and loosening its hold on people. Because all things change (humans, too), aging, getting sick, and death happen. That makes for--problems--as people try to cling to an image they have constructed for themselves. The point is to observe the process, see it for what it is, and then walk on. By simply observing it (mindfulness) the dissatisfaction disappears. As for Nirvana, I do not use the term, even though its history is long in Buddhism. I do not know what it means.
Any insights derived through mindfulness cannot be verified by others. Consequently, it is not scientific. A way of self-discovery, perhaps--at least for some. Buddhism has to do with how individuals experience the world and how life might be made better. It is like Stephen J. Gould's separate domains; science deals with objective truth and can be verified; Buddhism and other such disciplines deal with subjective experience and cannot be verified. What I said previously is that I prefer inquiry that deals with verifiable truth--especially when it comes to understanding the social and physical world. It leads somewhere--while the "esoteric" disciplines do not.
Spiritual simply means not concerned with material values or pursuits, it's opposite is material. (It's derivation is from the Latin "spirare" - breathe.) So if Budhism is about suffering, is that a material or non material issue?
"Any insights derived through mindfulness cannot be verified by others." As the statement that "By simply observing it (mindfulness) the dissatisfaction disappears" cannot be verified by others, it cannot be called "truth", per se, correct?
'What I said previously is that I prefer inquiry that deals with verifiable truth--especially when it comes to understanding the social and physical world. It leads somewhere--while the "esoteric" disciplines do not."
So you prefer science over Buddhism for the "social, physical world" but Buddhism for the non-physical? What's another term for non-physical, hmmmm, let's see now - mental. Oh but science has reduced that to chemical interactions, so hmmm, maybe spiritual? Isn't "esoteric" in the eye, or the mind, or the mind's eye, if you will, of the beholder?
"What I said previously is that I prefer inquiry that deals with verifiable truth--especially when it comes to understanding the social and physical world. It leads somewhere-- "
So Buddhism doesn't lead anywhere? Or is it, perhaps there are other kinds of truth that are non-verifiable?
Look, drosera, I think you know perfectly well what i'm getting at. After our lengthy conversation the other day, i was quite astonished, among other things, to see your original post here, and if you had been a bit more open the other day about your "belief" in Buddhism, the conversation would have gone in quite a different direction, or, perhaps not occurred at all.
My whole point in that last conversation was that there are other legitimate non-scientific ways of knowing, and other non-scientific ways of obtaining such knowledge, a point which you would never concede. At the point at which i asked you "what is truth" you decided to leave the conversation. i will not bother to ask you to clarify here, because it is apparent, to me at least, that you are, now, sub-categorizing truth into the "verifiable", or scientific kind, and the non-verifiable, or "other kind" which you stubbornly refuse to label "spiritual" even though that is a common description of it. But, also apparently, you don't think such truth "leads anywhere", i.e. is not useful, i.e. doesn't "work", so why pursue it?
Aside from the value of such "non-scientific" methods in dealing with the non-material world, the "non-verifiable" ways of knowing, in fact, have a great deal to say about the "physical world" especially with regard to our interactions with it - the mindfulness practices that you speak of showing demonstrable, verifiable, effects on the physical world, as i mentioned before. They do, indeed, "lead somewhere", in the "real" world, a fact which you also refused to concede, but which fact, may, in fact, be the most "scientifically" powerful basis for making the claims the author makes here - such practices can, indeed, change the world.
What is it about the term "spiritual" that really ruffles your feathers?
if your complaint is about "junk spirituality", no argument there. But the fact that there is "junk science" as well, does not disqualify that entire discipline's usefulness.
OK, you "win." All I can say is, the word "spiritual" leaves a sour taste in my mouth because of its implications of duality, because of its adherents' wild claims concerning health, the afterlife," "enlightenment," the virtue of spiritual people, human origins and human brain function (which some call the mind), as well as the flimflam artists that are always out there selling forms of yoga that offer too muc, palmistry, past life regression, crystal therapy, astrology, tarot, and more. The word "spiritual" comes from the West--so does the word "Buddhism", for that matter. (The dharma is what Buddhists would talk about). The word is inappropriately used when it refers to Buddhist teaching.
Drosera: You referred to "human brain function (which some call the mind)." This glosses over one of the most profound questions of existence!
For a very different point of view from one of the founders of modern science, whose mastery of the scientific and rational modes of thought are beyond reproach, see "Mind and Matter" by Erwin Schrodinger. [These essays appear as part of "What is Life? with Mind and Matter" by Cambridge University Press; "What is Life?" is a different book, but they're both included in this single publication].
A very cogent and articulate critique of "scientism" in one of its more typical forms appears in Leon Wieseltier's review of Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", New York Times Book Review, Sunday February 19, 2006.
I respect Schroedinger, though I think his ideas may need to be brought up to date. We know much more now about learning, perception, consciousness, and other cognitive functions now as compared to the time he lived. Remember: not so long ago Skinner referred to mental activities as being in a 'black box'--his conception of the opaqueness of mental function to ordinary scientific methods of observation. The black box is now open. We can literally look inside the brain to see which circuits are activated when we feel emotion, when we reason, when we enjoy music, when we learn, when we remember. The mind is the brain at work. Of course, that shouldn't surprise us: when we die, mind disappears.
A scientific description of consciousness will not be satisfying to most people. It will tell about molecular changes and the development of neural pathways in the brain. That will not make those who see consciousness as something existing outside the brain very happy. We've developed quite a vocabulary describing mental states, after all: love, memory, dream, planning, etc. Still, the scientific description is basic: without the physiological things happening there can be no mental processing, no consciousness. Though a little dated (it was written six or seven years ago), Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis summarizes the thinking of those of us who feel that mind = brain function. There are many scientists that accept that point of view. I do not think Crick practices scientism, a word that implies someone is going through the motions of doing science but actually is just spouting empty words.
The "you win" comment was probably uncalled for. Sometimes this interchange of ideas sounds more like an argument than a discussion. You are unwilling to accept my formulation of the way things are (i.e. the word spiritual does not apply to Buddhism)--and the 'you win' statement meant--whatever, dude. I take it back.
Science is great, but it's 'knowledge' is always only an approximation of the principle or quality it seeks to explain--meaning there is always more to learn. Also, it will always remain in the domain of thought and logic. There are those--even many scientists--who are not satisfied with that limited way of knowing, and are asking if there is a kind of perception which transcends thought, or something bigger than thought alone.
Since any discovery, thereof, would not be quantifiable or provable in the conventional sense, it is often dismissed as having little value, especially to those of the atheistic mindset. It's a kind of perception that is invisible to any known measuring device but, which governs the psychology and motivation of human beings. Modern psychology only studies man as he is, and not what he is ultimately capable of becoming--the norm or so-called norm it establishes may in fact be quite insane with respect to our potential development. Is this all verifiable? Absolutely, otherwise it would be a pointless endeavor. Since it cannot be externally 'proved,' it must be personally apprehended, and can only be expressed or explained by metaphor.
Amen!
"You are unwilling to accept my formulation of the way things are (i.e. the word spiritual does not apply to Buddhism)"
The way things are - you mean they way they are for you ....
i still would like you to explain the "mechanism" by which deliberate, repetitive focusing of attention can actually, verifiably, change brain circuitry - it is not enough, iMO, to say "exercise makes anything grow stronger". Mechanism, mechanism, mechanism - what is the mechanism?
The fact that thoughts, feelings and emotions may have demonstrable chemical correlates does not prove that those correlates are, ipso facto, causative agents. Even the fact that the introduction or removal of certain chemicals can produce mood changes could merely indicate it's a two way street .....
Drosera: Yes, we know more now about the structure and mechanisms of the brain and how they relate to mental phenomena than was known in Schrodinger's time, but Schrodinger's argument was not based on a mere "quantitative gap" in our understanding of the relations between brain function and mental phenomena. The argument he lays out in the section of the book titled "The Mystery of the Sensual Qualities" is not weakened by recent progress in understanding the details of the correlation between these two kinds of phenomena, since the argument explicitly recognizes that such a correlation exists. Nor will it be weakened by future progress of the same general kind.
As Aquifer pointed out in his (or her?) response of September 4th, 2010 2:32 pm, the existence of such a correlation does not imply one-way causation. More importantly, correlation does not imply identity. Your view that "the mind is the brain at work" is an a-priori metaphysical stance, not a scientific conclusion. It amounts to solving the mind-body problem by denying the existence of the mind, or more precisely, by simply redefining "mind" to mean "brain function". This is an evasion, not an explanation.
The materialist solution of the mind-body problem that you support effectively denies the existence of conscious thoughts and perceptions. It suggests no mechanism by which the known laws of physics and the properties and behavior of physical systems give rise to conscious phenomena. It essentially just sweeps away this profound mystery by saying "these two things are, as far as we know, inextricably correlated, therefore they must be the same thing."
Thank you for making the point better than i ....
There are lots of reasons to believe brain function is the same as 'mind.' If the brain stops functioning, the activities of 'mind' stop. When emotions are active, certain parts of the brain 'light up' when scanned--and not at other times. When parts of the brain are stimulated, certain predictable behaviors occur. Animals that lack certain parts of the brain do not exhibit the kinds of behaviors attributed to that part. If a person suffers a stroke damaging a part of the brain, the corresponding brain function is disabled. Administration of chemicals that affect brain function change behavior in predictable ways. That is a lot of evidence pointing to causation. It isn't just correlation.
It comes down to Occam's Razor" if you can explain a phenomenon using a smaller set of assumptions, then that simpler explanation is to be preferred over others. You folks that accept non-material explanations must add a new assumption: that the non-material world exists. You aren't practicing science.
I do not understand your statement that "the materialist solution of the mind-body problem denies the existence of conscious thoughts and perceptions." Consciousness is a real phenomenon from the materialist point of view; it has not yet been explained fully by experiment or observation. Progress is being made, however. Perception is something else entirely different; progress has been made in areas of vision, hearing, taste and smell. I do not follow scientific progress in scientific journals but I do read popular science magazines from time to time. That is where I get my information.
"If the brain stops functioning, the activities of 'mind' stop."
And you know this, how? Of course your explanation is an example of circular reasoning - if you start with the assumption that mind=brain, then of course it follows that no brain=no mind.
"When emotions are active, certain parts of the brain 'light up' when scanned-and not at other times."
That, of course, could simply mean that brain activity relies on mind and not the other way around.
"When parts of the brain are stimulated, certain predictable behaviors occur."
Behaviors? As in what? For motor activity, no one, I think, is suggesting that brain activity is not necessary for motor activity, although there's always the issue of reflex, or is that what you are suggesting that all "activity", including emotion, is simply a series of chemical reflexes? The problem with that is, from whence the stimulus for self-initiated activity, other than that required to meet the basic physical needs?
"If a person suffers a stroke damaging a part of the brain, the corresponding brain function is disabled. Administration of chemicals that affect brain function change behavior in predictable ways."
Aside from the fact that there is more plasticity in the brain than heretofore thought - other parts of the brain can be retrained, and again i keep referring to the ability of the mindfulness exercises you are a fan of to reprogram the brain, all you are saying is that those functions that do indeed depend on the integrity of neuro-chemical pathways to function, will, under those circumstances, not function. Again that says nothing about "mind". Chemicals can and do affect brain function, not always in predictable ways, (would that it were so - life would be so much easier for folks in the medical field ...) but, again all that says is that, duh, chemicals affect brain function, which is not too surprising when you consider that the physical substance of the brain is made of - chemicals. Again, that is not to "prove" chemical activity is co-terminal with mind, nor even that, as mentioned above in the case of self-initiated activities, there are no other potential activators of that activity - you are still avoiding answering my question about the mechanism by which exercises of focused attention likewise activate or change brain activity.
"Consciousness is a real phenomenon from the materialist point of view;"
And, how, from a materialist point of view, do you evaluate and "measure" consciousness. You may be able to design experiments to measure the "effects" of consciousness to a limited extent, but do you really think science can ever completely wrap it's arms, or test tubes, around it?
"it has not yet been explained fully by experiment or observation."
Has it been "explained" at all - or only in terms of chemicals? If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail .....
As far as Occam's Razor is concerned, too many misdiagnoses have been made using that rule ...
Here's another thing i have always been curious about - how do you "feel" thinking of yourself and your fellows being, in essence, just big beakers of chemicals interacting? In your universe, feelings should have no effect on whether something is "true" or not, but they do affect what we do with that "truth", n'est pas?
No room to answer all the points you make. As to which comes first emotions and thoughts or physical changes, I can only point to medical research: you remove the pancreas and the patient gets diabetes. Diabetes doesn't come first. You change something physical and you get a behavior change.
The last point: how do I feel about humans as 'beakers of chemicals'? Have thought about that. The human species has come about after billions of years of evolution. It deserves the same respect as Bowhead whales. Also, by accepting the 'soul' is a fiction, then you can discard the narrow ideas of religion in exalting individual human life and you can begin looking at the entire ecosystem as central to human activity. That changes the way society is conducted.
The 'soul' as you put it may not be a 'fiction' so much as not a 'given.' Let me explain. The human being is said to possess an ESSENCE beyond his or her MECHANICAL FUNCTION, which can be scientifically elucidated, even down to the organelle, and molecular structure of a cell. We know that structure determines function to a great extent. But function alone does NOT capture the ESSENCE of the WHOLE. A human being is more than the sum of various parts working in symbiosis. For example, tendency seems to be inborn, and can be DIFFERENT even with regard to identical twins. On the other hand, PERSONALITY is said to something that is acquired in time. Essence, on the other hand, seems to go beyond what genetics alone can explain, and would include a talent or ability that cannot be totally defined by environmental conditioning.
The 'purity' of essence is most prevalent in a young child before a sense of "I" or strong identity supplants it. As he or she grows older, that feeling of freedom and wonder is generally squelched in favor of what many call ego, which is embodied in a feeling of psychological separation. Spiritual transformation has been equated with the unification or fragmented self--or going back to a child-like state with a mature and undivided mind. One must transcend 'ego-dominance' to 'attain' such a state, and it is also been said to be a state of heightened awareness where one 'thinks' much less. Excessive thinking is said to be a waste of energy, and keeps one grounded in ego.
To be awakened and live from essence means to live from intuition and insight in the present, rather than from past conditioning. Science will never be able to measure that; nevertheless, it is possible to personally validate or invalidate this, only not in an external, measurable way, except perhaps for a dramatic change in the awakened individual, which not everyone will recognize or acknowledge as such.
Talk about circular reasoning! This ESSENCE thing is exactly what we are debating. You say it exists--any credible biologist would say it does not. To me, it is simply a way one class of human beings--those interested in the "spiritual"--feel superior to another class--those that are not.
Shucks, i don't feel superior to you, maybe you just came across folks who misused their spirituality. Don't judge the whole barrel by a few bad apples ...
Diabetes isn't an emotion, nor even a "behavior", you are comparing apples and oranges.
"by accepting the 'soul' is a fiction, then you can discard the narrow ideas of religion in exalting individual human life and you can begin looking at the entire ecosystem as central to human activity."
You don't have to accept the "soul" as fiction in order to discard those ideas. Besides, i thought we were talking about "mind" and whether or not it is a material, as opposed to a non-material (spiritual) concept.
It's interesting which points you have "room" to answer, and which points you don't, like my perpetual question about mechanism re focused attention and brain changes ... Shucks, if you need more room, why not go to the bottom and put it in the "new comment" box - i can find that ....
You claimed the 'mind' comes first, then mental activity follows. I say that mental activity comes first because if you do something to the brain, you can see behavioral changes readily. If you removed the hypothalamus and observe an effect in behavior, that would not be due to the 'mind' doing anything. It would be due to the surgery causing a change in behavior. The change in behavior does come first. That is like removing the pancreas causing diabetes.
Drosera: We're running out of room, so this discussion will have to end soon, but I want to make a few more points.
William James wrote a short essay pointing out the logical weaknesses in the kind of argument you make in your first paragraph. If someone who knew nothing about technology came upon a radio broadcasting a live performance of a singer, he (or she) might start investigating the radio and eventually discover how its structure and function affect the music, and conclude that the music necessarily originates (in some as yet unexplained way) solely from the electronic functions in the radio. Clearly, in this case the explanation misses something (e.g., the singer, the radio waves used to broadcast the singer's voice, etc.). I don't remember the title of the essay, but if you're not familiar with it, I think it would be of some interest to you. The point is not to deny the connections between brain function and mental phenomena, but to show that from a strictly logical point of view, the reduction of the latter to the former is not justified.
Regarding your second paragraph, I will defer to Thomas Huxley for a rebuttal, since we're running out of room and he is more articulate than I could be. In his essay "Science and Morals" (In "Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays", Barnes and Noble, 2006, originally published in 1893), Huxley (who as you probably know was one of the main defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution) clearly states his rational grounds for rejecting materialism. He then states equally rational grounds for his rejection of spiritualism (which you seem to think is the only possible alternative to materialism; I think that mistake is one reason some people cling so tightly to materialism). Huxley writes, "I am not aware that I am under any compulsion to choose either the one or the other." He then coins the term "agnostic" to describe his position on this and other "big" questions of life. I suggest that you read his essay if you haven't already done so. He's an extremely careful and an extremely rational and scientific thinker.
In your third paragraph, you wrote "consciousness is a real phenomenon from the materialist point of view", but in this statement you use the word "consciousness" as a synonym for "brain function", which once again evades the problem by building the desired conclusion into the argument as an axiom. Of course consciousness is a real phenomenon - we have thoughts, we have perceptions and sensations (images, sounds, feelings). But these things are not, as they are directly known to us, identical to chemical reactions, electromagnetic waves, and other such "physical" phenomena (which are not even directly known to us; as Huxley wrote, "our one certainty is the existence of the mental world, and that of Kraft und Stoff [force and matter] falls into the rank of, at best, a highly probably hypothesis.") We "non-materialists" simply refuse to jump to the conclusion that these two things, whose prima facie form and qualities are so clearly different, are identical, or that one can be reduced to, or is merely an "emergent quality" of, the other. And when we ask the materialists to show us their theory, to explain the mechanism by which one set of phenomena arise from the other, we get no answer, but only the accusation that we, the ones who ask for proof and evidence, are not being scientific!
When Boltzmann claimed that thermodynamic phenomena could be reduced to the statistical behavior of collections of a very large number of small systems (e.g., molecules or atoms), he did not merely claim that the pressure, temperature, volume, and entropy were clearly nothing more than large-scale attributes of a mechanical system of small particles bouncing around and leave it at that - he provided a theory and a mathematical formalism that showed how the former can be derived from the latter. The the phenomena of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are both "physical" in nature; the problem of showing that mental phenomena are derivable from (or reducible to) biophysical phenomena is not just more difficult, it's of an entirely different nature, since as Schrodinger points out in "Mind and Matter", science excluded mental phenomena (not brain function!) from its domain from the very start.
We don't have time to reply adequately. Your quote from James illustrates your point but it does nothing to support your position. I say there is no singer, you say there is.
Consciousness is being explored by neuroscientists. They are trying to figure out what questions to ask as they proceed. You have given me lots of books to read: may I suggest you read a current book about brain function that represents my point of view? Scientific American articles will do.
I didn't say mental function is derivable from basic laws of physics. There are other laws that have an effect as you go from microscopic to macroscopic. Natural selection is a good example. You can't predict population behavior using the laws of chemistry and physics. But this is off point. What I am arguing is that human brain phenomena can be explained through physiological mechanisms. No ESSENCE. No vitalism. No spirit. You write as if you have familiarity with science formally. Do you?
"What I am arguing is that human brain phenomena can be explained through physiological mechanisms."
No argument there, but that wasn't the original issue - it was whether "mind" is nothing more than "human brain phenomena", and you still haven't made a case for that, other than stating it is so.
I don't understand why you simply cannot be agnostic on the issue. Would admitting there is something "science" cannot give a "scientific" explanation for destroy your "faith" in science?
That is exactly it, Aquifer. Many 'scientific atheists' are as rigid in their faith as religious fundamentalists. They will not admit that there are any limits to thought-knowledge, and that every mystery can be resolved in terms of mechanical cause and effect, even consciousness itself. Thom Hartman calls them evangelical atheists. They have a strong faith that everything can be reduced to logical and mechanical terms. In my view, they are the other side of the religious myth coin, and believe that the scientific and logical knowing is the only valid instrument we have. Some of us know that consciousness goes beyond this limitation, but cannot be proved empirically--because it is not a mechanical process to begin with.
Drosera:
Your pronouncement that "I say there is no singer, you say there is" shows that you misunderstood the point of James's analogy (which I merely paraphrased; I suggest that you read the original essay). The purpose of the analogy is not to argue in favor of a particular solution to the mind-body problem ("there is a singer"), but to expose the logical error in the materialist "solution" by applying the same reasoning that materialists use to "reduce" the mind to brain function to a similar situation in which the conclusion of that reductionist argument is patently false. In the analogy of the radio, you are like the person saying "Of course the song originates entirely within the radio, without any 'outside' influences! The fact that I can change the nature of the music or eliminate it altogether by twiddling with the radio's electronic components proves that!" If your logic falls flat in the one case, you cannot legitimately apply the same logic to the other case, without adding anything further, and claim that you've proven something.
You wrote "may I suggest you read a current book about brain function that represents my point of view? Scientific American articles will do."
If you'd care to suggest particular articles or books that you think help make your point, I'd be happy to take a look at them when I can find the time. I've already read articles and books on this and related topics that present varying points of view. In an effort to be open minded, I even went so far as to read a book by Daniel Dennet, but that only confirmed my opinion of him as an intellectual impostor. The NY Times Book Review piece by Leon Wieseltier that I mentioned earlier gives a very lucid account of the many flaws in Dennet's "reasoning" (which is really just arrogant prejudice).
You wrote "I didn't say mental function is derivable from basic laws of physics". I intentionally avoided framing my replies in that way. I'm well aware of the fact that different levels of description require different kinds of laws. But that observation alone does nothing to resolve the mind-body problem.
You then write "What I am arguing is that human brain phenomena can be explained through physiological mechanisms." Aquifer pointed out explicitly that no one here is arguing with THAT statement. The fact that you used the phrase "brain phenomena" instead of "mental phenomena" is very telling. Once again, your a-priori ASSUMPTION that mental phenomena are IDENTICAL TO physical processes in the brain colors your thinking on this topic so deeply that you repeatedly misstate the objections to your materialist stance.
You also wrote "No ESSENCE. No vitalism. No spirit." If this comment is addressed specifically to me, I would point out that I have made no claims about essence, vitalism, or spirit. I even tried to forestall this type of comment by noting that Thomas Huxley gives good reasons for rejecting both materialism and spiritualism before coining the term "agnostic" to describe his stance on this issue. But as I said before, you seem to believe that one must choose either materialism or spiritualism, and so you conclude that anyone who doubts materialism must be an unscientific spiritualist. In my previous posts, I chose to refer to careful thinkers in different fields of science such as Erwin Schrodinger, William James, and Thomas Huxley, whose understanding of the scientific mode of thought is beyond doubt, specifically to try to avoid this unwarranted charge, but apparently to no avail.
Finally, you wrote "You write as if you have familiarity with science formally. Do you?" I wonder why you ask this question. A core principle of the scientific mode of thought is that ideas should be considered on their own merits. If I told you that I was a poet, would that affect your opinion of the validity of my arguments? If so, it reveals a lack of respect for the scientific mode of thought that you claim to adhere to. I also hesitate to answer that question because my response, if I said that I do have a formal scientific background, could easily be misinterpreted as a form of argument by authority. But since you asked, and although I think the question is misplaced and my answer is irrelevant, I will answer you, in hope that my answer might lead you to consider all the responses to your posts (not just mine) with a more open mind, knowing that we're not just a bunch of scientific illiterates. As an undergraduate, I studied mostly mathematics and physics, including several graduate-level physics courses. My physics classes included mechanics, electro-magnetism, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and some classes in the foundations of physics. I eventually received a Ph.D. in mathematics.
What did i "win"?
Yes dros, unfortunately the New Age movement has co-opted many teachings that do not support its interpretation of them, and most are just not interested to bother sorting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak; it's so much easier to lump them together with their New Age distortions, including astrological mumbo-jumbo. Oprah has co-opted Tolle, Depak Chopra various other teachings, and let's not forget Wayne Dyer (as seen on PBS, who is a Kucinich supporter by the way) with his pop-psychology-mystical mix. Few here read or have read the writings of J. Krishnamurti, Vernon Howard, Guy Finley, or Gurdjeiff-Ouspensky, to name a few.
Further, they think that 'inner development' is a selfish, self-absorbed practice that precludes selfless external action. It's really quite the opposite, and something that transcends 'me,' and 'my wants,' at least in its unvarnished form.
Much of the New Age stuff says man is God, or God godding (whatever that means), and they promote a strange kind of 'secular humanism,' meaning they are actually atheists at heart; they are the only 'god' they need, which is really a subtle kind of self-worship, as is organized religion (i.e., organized religion 'worships' an invented or derived IDEA about God, meaning they worship their preferred emotionalized THOUGHTS ABOUT (in the form of belief) what they CALL god, and organize around whatever distortion unconsciously coincides with what they DESIRE god to be--They would vehemently deny this, of course). Thus, new-agers believe that human potential is god, while Christian and other sects believe in an invented deity that reflects what they unconsciously want god to be.
Authentic spirituality is really apolitical; it is about transformation of being through self-honesty and awareness and, especially, the abolition of ego-centered ignorance. If you look deep enough, past the distortions and mistranslation of the original religious texts, you can find this thread running through all of them. The biggest problem with the 'ancient' religions is that none of them are first-hand accounts, and have mutilated--to a greater or lesser extent--the original message.
Authentic Spirituality is not only found in religious texts either; it can be found in the writings of Emerson, Thoreau, and many others. Though it can be labeled conservative or progressive, it does not promote or support any agenda of its own. In fact, it says that any ego-invested promotion and/or imposition is part of the same spiritual ignorance that ultimately leads to violence and heartache because genuine 'goodness' cannot be forced upon anyone--it can only be offered, but must be welcomed, much like the fragrance of a flower. And that some of the most horrendous deeds were committed under the guise of 'goodness.'
Authentic spirituality seeks to abolish ignorance in any form through awareness. Simple to state, but exceedingly difficult to achieve; thus, it is extremely rare. On the other hand, its distortions and imitations are painfully abundant.
chess,
Pretty much accept what you said in your post. I do not choose to use the word 'spiritual' because of its origins in the Latin word for 'soul,' a concept I cannot go along with.
Your assertion that the God of Christianity is, in a sense, self-worship is something I have thought about. Genesis has it that God made man in his own image, that statement confirming that the Abrahamic religions were constructed on a muddy foundation, a base that puts humans first and denigrates everything else. Of course, I cannot accept an outside agency creating everything either, so the whole idea of this sort of God does not resonate at all with me.
I could only accept a religious viewpoint that is not dualistic, that recognizes the limitations of being human and does not exalt humans over other forms, that embraces the notion that the universe is very ancient and evolved to its present state over billions of years, that aims to make human life a little better while abandoning grand visions of enlightenment. Modern Buddhism can lead in this direction, though insights from eclectic sources are illuminating as well.
You have a piss poor understanding of Buddhism. Here's your first lesson, in the original Buddhist teachings, there is no God, no heaven, no soul. When you grasp that you can ponder this Zen (Rinzai) advice, "If you meet the Buddha, kill him".
Once again you show a poor understanding and are putting words in our mouths. The is no purity of soul, or heavan. Zen is simply a "way of understanding" that is unexcelled in extinguishing the anguish that unavoidably co-arises with sentience.
For a good introduction of Zen, first read the late Alan Watts: "The Wisdom of Insecurity" - a book in which I don't think the word "zen" is ever used. Then read his book "The Way of Zen".
Note that some of the world most greatest physists - Nils Bohr, Oppenheimer, and others, were practitioners of various eastern ways of understanding.
I repeat, you have a very limited and distorted understanding of Buddhism. No one I know who practices Buddhism tries to emulate god, or reach heaven, or purify their soul. If such are doing so then they are not practicing Buddhism.
And how does the 17th letter of the alphabet equate to Buddhism as "Spiritual, yet spitting mean."? You've got one hell of an imagination, but little understanding.
Buddhism is in the main a religious philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
having practised a form of modern non theistic non religious buddhism for over twenty years and then leaving two and a half yearsd ago as being unhealthy
I came to the realisation that all things in moderation is best
even buddhism
"It is a total sickness to try to eliminate all desire! However this is what this sick religion holds up highest, trying to become lifeless. Spare us please from evangelicalism of this sort. Eat, drink, have sex, and be merry! The Buddha was opposed to doing nay and all of this though... All he wanted was to become supposedly God-like."
Your twisting of the meaning of Buddhism is as bad as those New-Agers you accuse of doing the same. Eliminating desire more relates to a state of internal freedom. Desire, especially that which leads to psychological attachment, it at the root of suffering, where it leads one to resist what is. I concede that distortions entered into the original meaning, as with all religious texts, but your attack on the meaning of Buddhism is more prejudicial and distorted. Buddha was not trying to become God-like, and never used the terms God-consciousness (that I'm aware of, and so what if he did?); you merely plucked that out of your own bias to disparage what YOU interpret to be the meaning of Buddhism. Remember, also, that 'god' is just a word, and you have to look at the context in which it's being used, just like the word 'love.'
Ardent, you seem to be full of venom with regard to just about everything, even that which might be helpful to you personally. That's exactly what it means to be lost and to live in ignorance. And you have to gall to call others sick.
Actually, it's an article showing one mans opinions and insights on how he views climate change.
I don't see it as pushing religion down anyone's throat. It's more a mind opening to news ideas - sharing what someone else thinks.
Zen, or Buddhism for that matter is in no way "new age". It isn't a religion either - it is simply a disciplined practice that enhances a person's human-ness.
The authors remark about Tich Nyat Hanh consulting with the Buddha shows that he has no understanding of Zen either. Zen doesn't have prayers or prayer beads. Just a cushion for sitting, some trees, rocks, the sigh of the wind; clouds in the sky. It might include slaps in the face from the zen master if you are caught nodding off during your zazen.
Then, it is sweeping and mopping, tending the garden, preparing food, and washing your bowl.
"The answer is for each one of us to transform the fear, anger, and despair which we cover-up with over-consumption. If we are filling our bodies and minds with toxins, it is no surprise that the world around us also becomes poisoned."
"'The energy we need is not fear or anger, but the energy of understanding and compassion. There is no need to blame or condemn. Those who are destroying themselves, societies and the planet aren't doing it intentionally. Their pain and loneliness are overwhelming and they want to escape. They need to be helped, not punished. Only understanding and compassion on a collective level can liberate us.'"
Hmmm. It certainly doesn't seem to be too difficult to understand that a generalized belief in self-control and personal responsibility would provide more stability and happiness than one rooted in self-indulgence and personal cowardice.
This is a lovely discussion of the elemental principles of Buddhism and their role in our lives.
It should make very clear the reasons for which Christian clergy continually demonize Buddhism. Buddhists are simply better people than Christians.
q
Very fine for you of the educated upper half of society, but what about we the 49% of society that has not a high school diploma, is it not all Greek to us? For having grown up in the slums of Milwaukee, Minneapolis and LA, may I assure you that there is no Buddhism comprehended or practiced by my laboring class.
I know of several Buddhist mindfulness meditation courses in the prison system that have proven popular with many prisoners. The mindfulness/meditation practice gives them some mental and emotional tools to help them survive the oppression of their daily lives in incarceration.
Yes, I've heard of that too, nosurrender. I read Stephen Levine's "A Gradual Awakening" more than 20 years ago and that made such an impact on me (at that time, at least). I've also heard that he and his wife teach mindfulness practice to prison inmates. I know he (or both?) used to teach people living in hospices. It makes me so humble when I hear of such people reaching to the somewhat "forgotten" sections of society.
Isn't it sad that you have to be in prison or on death's door to have these options freely offered to you ....
John:
I appreciate your thoughts, and I have to reply. It's my belief, having been raised in what you call the "educated upper half of society", that there isn't any % of society that is able to claim a hold on the "truth". Fact is, brothers and sisters on the "lower" end are folks I felt were more in tune with reality, and the ones I have felt closest to.
Although it may not be "comprehended", I don't doubt that many Buddhist beliefs and practices can be seen in your environment: caring for family, compasssion for friends and neighbors, trying to avoid intentional harm to others.... I mean to say, goodness, caring, compassion, morality...I'm sure your "laboring class" can provide plenty of everyday examples.
I sense a bit of resentment in your words. Perhaps they're justified. The wisdom of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Confuscius(sp?), George Wallace, George Bush, Stalin, Marx, Hitler...Hell, they all have SOMETHING to say. Don't feel isolated and don't count anyone out.
Oh, boo-hoo, John. Did you have it tough as a child?
I was born in fucking West Virginia, dude. The slums about which you whine had far more amenities than the mountain on which I grew up.
q
No matter how many times you repeat the lie that 49% of society does not have a HS diploma, no matter how many times you repeat the lie even after changing your login name, it is still a blatant lie.
Spare me all the lies about "your" labouring class.
LIGHT -- ALWAYS FORCES DARKNESS TO GIVE WAY
DARKNESS
“We see our connection to god, or Buddha, or spirit as outside ourselves and accessible only after our death. As a result we have developed a strong ego that sees itself as separate and threatened and needs to amass things like wealth to feel strong and protected.”
LIGHT
Actually, people being greedy has absolutely nothing to do with any God, or our need to feel the presence of some spiritual being.
Does your physical mind believe that it deserves more physical things? If so, then you are physically greedy. Then with a guilt-free conscience, you will feel that you deserve to be all you can be, to own all you can own and to be a dictator over all who are on land that you own. For what a man feels he deserves, this is his highest priority in life to achieve and it controls every aspect of his mind, character and personality.
Does your physical mind believe that this physical day of life is more then you deserve? If so, then you have a grateful harmless brain that will always give all it can give.
You Christians who believe in your bible, does it not say in Romans that those who have no knowledge of the law of God, but do the full and perfect will of God, that they have the law written in their hearts? And does not your bible say that many will be in heaven, who had no faith in God or knowledge of heaven?
RELIGIONS -- ALL OF THE DEVIL
quickstepper
“Your first sentence shows that you
simply do not understand the article.”
LIGHT
And all your sentences show that you do not understand physical reality, thinking that spiritual concepts, spiritual emotions and spiritual beings control the physical realm.
For the physical minds of the rich have ruled man since the beginning of civilization and our salvation can only come from a greater knowledge of the physical world. And for those of you who claim to be spiritual, your nature’s God establishes it in a most physical way, see Romans 1:20
For Buddhism like all modern concepts of religion, they were all created by the deceitful minds of the rich, to keep people hating people and in submission to the rich.
"And all your sentences show that you do not understand physical reality, thinking that spiritual concepts, spiritual emotions and spiritual beings control the physical realm."
Spiritual factors control how we as humans interact with the physical realm.
"For Buddhism like all modern concepts of religion, they were all created by the deceitful minds of the rich, to keep people hating people and in submission to the rich (sic)."
This statement is simply untrue of Buddhism.
q