Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_TopicIcon
Is your life really like this?
April 10, 2008
9:16 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

on my way
10-Apr-08

Talking about non-duality you asked:

"... how do go about living this to the best of your ability on a day to day basis? Not a challenge, just interested in your perspective for yourself."

It is quite a challenge to put what I do into words.

The simple answer is that I meditate!

The word 'meditate' immediately raised Guest_guest's hackles. Why? Because the picture in his head that the word meditate evokes and what I do are as different as chalk and cheese.

When I go for my 1 hour 45 minute walks in the countryside, I meditate. as well I have about a half hour sitting meditation each day. In addition, I meditate as I go about my day's activities. What does this mean? It means that I strive for as much 'mindfulness' as I can.

This word 'mindfulness' is very deep. For me it means observing at the deepest level of my consciousness what is going on my the mind instant by instant. It means being aware of my changing emotional states as they flux, wax and wain, in collusion with my thoughts, in creating my deluded view of reality. The occasional glimmer of insight about the nature of this delusion flashes through my mind. I try to see deeper into this insight without grasping onto it and fouling it by more deluded thinking. I just observe, observe and observe. I see the little games my mind plays. I try not to get in the way of this 'way of seeing', on an instant by instant basis. Of course I do obstruct this clear vision with all my past conditioning. But like the momentary parting of the thick black thunder clouds that reveals the rays of the sun for a very short time, the insights continue to come as long as 'I' peek above the 'mindless auto-pilot' on a regular basis. What I have been talking about is Insight Meditation - the stuff that Guest_guest derides.

Perhaps when talking about Insight meditation(Vipassana), the Venerable Henepola Gunaratana says it better than I could below:

"Vipassana is the oldest of Buddhist meditation practices. The method comes directly from the Sitipatthana Sutta, a discourse attributed to Buddha himself. Vipassana is a direct and gradual cultivation of mindfulness or awareness. It proceeds piece by piece over a period of years. The student's attention is carefully directed to an intense examination of certain aspects of his own existence. The meditator is trained to notice more and more of his own flowing life experience. Vipassana is a gentle technique. But it also is very , very thorough. It is an ancient and codified system of sensitivity training, a set of exercises dedicated to becoming more and more receptive to your own life experience. It is attentive listening, total seeing and careful testing. We learn to smell acutely, to touch fully and really pay attention to what we feel. We learn to listen to our own thoughts without being caught up in them.

The object of Vipassana practice is to learn to pay attention. We think we are doing this already, but that is an illusion. It comes from the fact that we are paying so little attention to the ongoing surge of our own life experiences that we might just as well be asleep. We are simply not paying enough attention to notice that we are not paying attention. It is another Catch-22.

Through the process of mindfulness, we slowly become aware of what we really are down below the ego image. We wake up to what life really is. It is not just a parade of ups and downs, lollipops and smacks on the wrist. That is an illusion. Life has a much deeper texture than that if we bother to look, and if we look in the right way.

Vipassana is a form of mental training that will teach you to experience the world in an entirely new way. You will learn for the first time what is truly happening to you, around you and within you. It is a process of self discovery, a participatory investigation in which you observe your own experiences while participating in them, and as they occur. The practice must be approached with this attitude.

"Never mind what I have been taught. Forget about theories and prejudgments and stereotypes. I want to understand the true nature of life. I want to know what this experience of being alive really is. I want to apprehend the true and deepest qualities of life, and I don't want to just accept somebody else's explanation. I want to see it for myself." If you pursue your meditation practice with this attitude, you will succeed. You'll find yourself observing things objectively, exactly as they are-- flowing and changing from moment to moment. Life then takes on an unbelievable richness which cannot be described. It has to be experienced."

I hope that answers your question.

April 10, 2008
11:25 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Tez, that was the site I saw then and now after you mentioned and got me something out of it, I found out more:

After life in modern science (from wikipedia):

Others, such as Francis Crick in 1994, have attempted a ‘scientific search for the soul’.[3] Frank Tipler has argued that physics can explain immortality, though such arguments are not falsifiable and thus do not qualify as science.[4]

Some investigations have been conducted which failed to find evidence that “out-of-body” experiences transcend the confines of the brain. For example, one hospital placed an LED marquee above its patients’ beds which displayed a hidden message that could only be read if one were looking down from above. As of 2001, no one who claimed near-death experience or out-of-body experience within that hospital had reported having seen the hidden message. [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife#Afterlife_in_modern_science

This is a great review of a book co-authored by Shwartz, one of the authors of that article:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ORUFULAYB0WS/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Good points raised.

A comment by a poster on a forum, about the same paper you linked to:

- "Thats hardly adequate, looks like they're all already in the field of parapsychology. Wheres the validation from the medical and biology community as a whole, a validation from a probability expert would be useful too, because a lot of false positives in this area of research are attributable to random chance. Also just because you get papers published, doesnt mean your conclusions are right."

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62115&page=2

Which is true. If their findings were really something, the scientific community would have affirmed it.

Shwartz looks like to me he's trying to prove something. Scientists dont do that. They're objective about it. You can cite his education and stuff and everything else but the fact is, why hasnt the rest of the scientic community peer evaluated his claims?

I went to the site with an open mind, honestly. I thought, this looks like something and like you said, it looked like science is taking conciusness existing after death, seriously now. But now after my investigation, I'm still where I was i.e. no definite proof of any type of afterlife.

Yea, we can agree to disagree. I just thought you'd like that site. I read about it on wikipedia. Sorry, out of time, gonna sleep now, will respond to your other post later asap.

April 11, 2008
5:39 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez..
The word 'mindfulness' is very deep, I think so too. My first reaction to reading the word 'mindfulness' in your post?...I stood up and walked away from my computer. I really had a strong, negative reaction to that word. I had to ask myself why, then I calmed down. So that was deep enough for me...but moving on..

I will get back to this thread after the weekend.

April 11, 2008
8:53 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

"If their findings were really something, the scientific community would have affirmed it."

This statement says something about you and not much about the issue in question. You appear to me to be a man of great faith.

You appear to have absolute faith in the 'scientific community' as being the final arbiter of what is 'true' and what is not, as if the 'scientific community' was one cohesive body in totally agreement at all times.

History tells a different story and probably always will. Science has a history of 'getting it wrong' and is readily prepared to acknowledge that fact. That humility is one of the strengths of science.

You also seem to me to have great faith in your belief that truth has only one level or perspective from which it can be viewed - your level of understanding.

Yes - you are a man of great faith.

Do not think that I think that the URL you gave me leads to the font of all truth - I found it interesting - nothing else. I find Richard Dawkins absolutely fascinating not just interesting. So please don't jump to any wild conclusions based upon my scant response to you.

April 11, 2008
9:25 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

OMW

Regarding the word "mindfulness" you wrote:

"I really had a strong, negative reaction to that word."

That's interesting - what lies behind that reaction?

What connotations did your mind overlay onto that word?

Looking deeply into that reaction as it occurs is "mindfulness" in practice.

April 11, 2008
9:56 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Guest_guest.

Below is a link to a document that demonstrates how seriously the most renowned neuroscientists are taking meditation. It is not easy reading and required some academic education. Nevertheless, it shows the beginnings of neuroscience and Buddhist monks working together. It is a laboratory based research study titled: "Buddha’s brain: Neuroplasticity and meditation" (Davidson & Lutz, 1/2008)

Buddha's brain

April 12, 2008
9:18 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

tez, beleiving in science is not a faith. For one, they're not biased or motivated to prove a certain thing. They go in with an open mind and accept whatever the evidence tells them. It doesnt matter to them how contradicting or opposing the evidence is to what they beleive in or have found out before. Having faith in reason and wanting to see evidence and a clear proof of good unbiased testing (science is all that) doesnt mean having faith. Faith is, believing in things without evidence. It could be something right or wrong, I didnt say its wrong. But believing in science is not faith.

I'll tell you this too: I have a few friends who've seen objects at close range that werent from this earth (ufo's) and I believe them. Science has no evidence for these things, but I know what these people saw what they saw and that I'd have seen the same thing. In this case, I'm believing in something that science doesnt have much idea or opinion about. Why do I believe in it then? For one, its very possible and two, these people had no reason to lie, three, its possible that these kinds of experiences happen very rarely which is why most people dont come across it. So all this still makes sense in a way and thats why I beleive its very possible that ufo's and other civilizations exist in this infinite universe exist. As someone said, to believe that we're the only ones in this universe is being arrogant.

Anyway, favouring science over faith is not wrong. Science and faith are based on really different things. You cant say believing in science is a faith as well. Anyway

I'll look at that PDF paper, looks interesting and unbiased for now. I'll read it with an open unbiased mind, trust me. I wont read it with a preformed believe that I dont want to change about meditation. If evidence says something opposite of what I think, beleif or know about, I'll change my opinion about it after careful investigation to make sure that it really did make sense and cant be rebutted by skeptics, e.g.

You dont skeptics and people who want evidence, well.... thats ok with me. I'm not going to convince you to change yourself. Thats not my task or interest at all.

You know inspite of all our disagreements and periods when I irritated you, I'd still love to meet you one day in aussie land. Defiitely you think more about things than many other people who just sit on the couch and watch TV. I've seen those people. Anyway, yea. I'll get back sometime later after I've read this paper. I'm gonna print it out and read it carefully.

April 14, 2008
8:59 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Guest_guest.

"tez, beleiving in science is not a faith. For one, they're not biased or motivated to prove a certain thing."

I do not see the connection between "being motivated to prove a certain thing" and "faith". My understanding is that people of faith don't feel that they have to prove anything. For example, I have "faith" that the light will come on when I throw the switch. I feel no motivation to prove that to anyone.

Science is based upon "faith" in the veracity of the philosophy of science. Many people, yourself included, have blind faith in science as being the only arbiter of what is true and what is false. What is this if it is not blind faith.

Do you feel the need to prove that science is the only arbiter of truth and falsehood? I don't see that need arising in your posts!

And you said:

"Anyway, favouring science over faith is not wrong."

Did I say it was? Buddhism welcomes scientific advances. The Buddha said that we should not believe anything based on faith or even on some authority figure's say so. He even applied this to his own teachings. He said: " try 'looking' and see for yourself" or words to that effect. You seem to ignore this every time I write it. If you doubt me and want me to dredge up his exact words I will do so. Let me know. Again its all up to you. I don't feel the need at this stage.

I followed the way of science in studying the mind when I completed my studies in psychology at uni. I still do. I see the Buddha's excursions into the mind as being no less scientific in his approach - in fact more so. The difference is that the Buddha didn't reject other ways of knowing that are foreign to science AT THIS STAGE OF ITS EARLY CHILDHOOD. But the Buddha included the scientific way of knowing (the intellect) as well. I am not saying that the Buddha could have held a meaningful conversation with Niels Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg or Oppenhiemer in a scientific discourse on the 'particle' constituency of the atom. But these scientists would certainly have listened intently to the Buddha's words on the interdependent underpinnings of the material world and its interaction with the mind. I'm sure that the Buddha would have given them very deep and much more general food for thought about the ultimate nature of things. The lack of both scientific education and its language would certainly have inhibited the Buddha in communicating on the scientists' terms in this regard. Or so I believe - without the scientific proof to satisfy you of course!!!! But that's your problem, not mine.

Look up Matthieu Richard on the internet. Matthieu is the Dalai Lama's right hand man, a monk of some thirty years or more. He was also a scientist of some note in his earlier days. He is a biologist with a PhD in Cellular Biology. He is also an important subject in the research being carried out by Dr. Davidson a neuroscientist from the University of Wisconscon-Madison, who is an expert on the brain. After his experimental research scans of Matthieu's brain in action, Dr. Richard Davidson made some very complimentary remarks about Tibetan Buddhism. Based on Matthieu's brain scans (note scientific evidence) Davidson said that Matthieu Richard is, in his opinion, one of the happiest persons in the world, because of his buddhist training of his mind using Buddhist meditation techniques and knowledge. Davidson said that he hopes that in its own interests, the world sits up and takes notice of his findings.

Do yourself a huge favour and look up some of this stuff.

I don't feel the need to prove anything to you. But since it seems to be the only way to help you, I have persisted in giving you these scientific references.

I hope that in years to come you might look back with gratitude and recognise some of the 'stepping stones' these people have provided for you.

You do want to be happy don't you?

April 15, 2008
11:05 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,
I'm not sure what happened when I read that word. It is interesting isn't it. Go figure. Maybe I thought at first that it lacked heart and emotion, and that bothered me...just a strict mind set bothered me. Other than that I have no clue. But I'll coninue to ponder it, because it jarred me.

In all truth though, I do see how it is good and smart to be mindful. It lends sensitivity, thinking before acting, thinking before speaking, being more sensitive/aware of other's feelings, and being in tune with my own.

Insight Meditation:
I do this. I receive insights all of the time. I call it spiritual insight, and for me the thoughts nad insights are so profound that, well, you know me...it has to be from God.

I am very interested in where you get the insights...how did you get to this point, by meditation and practicing? See, we both do this, but we each seem to have a different source. This is what intrigues me.

April 17, 2008
3:24 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

On My Way.

You wrote:

"In all truth though, I do see how it is good and smart to be mindful. It lends sensitivity, thinking before acting, thinking before speaking, being more sensitive/aware of other's feelings, and being in tune with my own."

Judging by what you have written I suspect that you might have misunderstood the Buddhist meaning for the word "Mindfulness". It is about being aware of our thoughts, sensory inputs, feelings, body actions and responses of all kinds etc etc as opposed to thinking about our thoughts, feelings, body responses of all kinds etc etc.

This is very subtle way to be. Even in psychology classes the uni lecturers knew and observed how much we filter out of our sensory inputs, thoughts, feelings etc. before presenting highly filtered input into our conscious awareness. Our unconscious is largely blocked off from our conscious awareness most of the time.

Practicing mindfulness increases the scope of our conscious awareness in order to take in much more than we presently do. i.e. to see past the 'filters' as it were.

I re-quote the Venerable Henepola Gunaratana:

"The meditator is trained to notice more and more of his own flowing life experience. Vipassana is a gentle technique. But it also is very , very thorough. It is an ancient and codified system of sensitivity training, a set of exercises dedicated to becoming more and more receptive to your own life experience. It is attentive listening, total seeing and careful testing. We learn to smell acutely, to touch fully and really pay attention to what we feel. We learn to listen to our own thoughts without being caught up in them.

The object of Vipassana practice is to learn to pay attention. We think we are doing this already, but that is an illusion. It comes from the fact that we are paying so little attention to the ongoing surge of our own life experiences that we might just as well be asleep. We are simply not paying enough attention to notice that we are not paying attention. It is another Catch-22.

Through the process of mindfulness, we slowly become aware of what we really are down below the ego image. We wake up to what life really is. It is not just a parade of ups and downs, lollipops and smacks on the wrist. That is an illusion. Life has a much deeper texture than that if we bother to look, and if we look in the right way."

This is the fundamental aim in all Buddhist practices.

to "become aware of what we really are down below the ego image".

This entails seeing our Buddha nature - this is the humungous leap towards the enlightenment state of mind called Nirvana. To achieve this enlightened state of mind, or way of seeing, 100% of the time is to be a Buddha and to reside in Nirvana, here and now whilst in our body. The Buddha did it, I believe. He tells us that it is within all our reach.

April 18, 2008
9:05 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

"Interview with Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.

"Stroke of Insight"

Recently TED.com [1] featured an 18 minute clip about a brain researcher who had suffered a stroke in the left hemisphere of her brain. One morning Jill Bolte Taylor, PH.D, a brain scientist at Harvard, found herself in the midst of having a stroke. Being the curious neuroanatomist that she is, she proceeded to keep track of what was going on during the 4 hour deterioration of her left brain, which rendered her unable to walk, talk, read, write, or recall her old life.

In her book , "My Stoke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey [2]," Dr. Jill takes us through the process of her left brain injury, the discovery of what it was like to live almost entirely through her right brain, and the 8 years after the stroke that it took her to completely recover. With a golf ball sized clot rendering the full function of her left hemisphere non-existent, Dr. Jill recreates for us what it was like to exist and function from the perspective of her right hemisphere where time doesn't exist. This is the center for bliss and joy, the ability to think outside the box, intuition, empathy. Another fascinating aspect, this is where we live without the ego: no individuality or feelings of separateness."

April 18, 2008
9:24 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

There are questions that beg to be answered that are based on the above. More info, if desired, can be found at:

Interview with Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.

Is Vipassana Buddhist meditation about training using the meditation practices the right hemisphere to know, understand and control the left hemisphere of the brain?

Are Buddhist insights about realizing through right hemispherical brain development and usage that there is no self as we understand the self to be when using our left hemisphere predominantly?

We have a left and a right amygdala. Is it the left amygdala, fired up by the left hemisphere, that is responsible for the damaging emotions such as anger, that so disrupt our lives?

Thanks Guatama for your teachings.

April 18, 2008
9:40 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

From the above link, Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor's closing remarks are:

"Dr. Jill: A highly dominated left hemisphere extremist generally has a lot of stress in their lives. The difference, the advantage of living more in the right is that first of all, there is no measurement of time. If you are in your space creating something and the day goes by and you are not in a state of urgency, you're creating. You're being, you're evolving something, you're using the essence of what you are to create something new and there is a joy and a satisfaction in that.

That lack of urgency, that's very different from sitting in an office being on the phone, being on the e-mail, text messaging every moment, never really connecting to the essence of what you are. You're just acting like a machine that's in process. That doesn't mean that you're not being creative in what you're processing, but you have to have the pause. During the pause, it's an opportunity for healing, it's kind of like sleeping and waking. In so many of our jobs that are left hemisphere dominant, we're just output, output, output, there is not pause, there is no refueling, no regeneration.

Overall, if you're going to look at the health of the organism, our traditional society is very unhealthy. If you look at the mental health of our society, it's very poor and we don't even have a handle on how to create a mental health system that can help us. Most of us are not really tending to our own mental health, so how can we expect to have good overall mental health of our society?

BH: You talk a little bit in your book about studies that have been done with Tibetan meditators and Franciscan nuns that showed when a meditative climax was reached, certain areas of the left hemisphere had decreased activity.

Dr. Jill: The beauty of this is there are scientists who are open to recognizing these are realities. Just because we may not understand them is no reason to say they don't exist or they're not real. Now we have enough modern technology, and really open-minded scientists saying, "Let's explore this.” So, it's a very exciting time because the two worlds are facing one another with curiosity instead of resentment. And boy what a difference that is!"

Guest_guest, please note the good doctor of science's words above:

"Just because we may not understand them is no reason to say they don't exist or they're not real."

April 20, 2008
1:10 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

hi tez, responding to your post now

>> Science is based upon "faith" in the veracity of the philosophy of science. Many people, yourself included, have blind faith in science as being the only arbiter of what is true and what is false. What is this if it is not blind faith.

Thats the argument Christians use. Skeptis have debunked that well. I wont repeat their arguments, here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/ba.....ith-based/

So in summary of that science is not faith. You're using the exact same arguements that christians use and yet you dont like Christianity. Anyway.

>> Buddhism welcomes scientific advances. The Buddha said that we should not believe anything based on faith or even on some authority figure's say so. He even applied this to his own teachings. He said: " try 'looking' and see for yourself" or words to that effect.

I dont need Buddhism to tell me that. Thats pretty much common sense. I've been doing that since about 10 years now. Its like Muslims quoting the Quran or Muhammad teo tell us how they make sense "dont tell lies, be good to your neighbour, etc". Thats common sense. I dont need a holy book or another source to tell me that. I kow it already and people have known that before buddha came. These sattements shouldnt be attributed to Buddha but to common sense. What happens in Islam is that because of the 10 statements that make sense, the 2 which are full of hatred or violence are also believed in, because you cant beleive in 10 and be opposed to the 2. In order to make muslims accept the whole package, Muhammad mixed in good stuff with bad to increase the believability of the other real (bad) stuff which he wanted people to believe in.

In summary I'm suggested if buddhism says a few things which are just common sense, dont quote them to be from bhuddism. They are there to increase the believability of other stuff (nirvana, previous lives, rebirth etc.). I know you're not a buddhist but if a faith system is teaching me these false concepts of nirvana and rebirth etc, this is like a dictionary which invents 10 false words, or a guy who lies 2 out of 10 times. His whole crediblity is lost when he does that. When buddism talks about a fee false concepts for which there is no evidence at all (and which are thus as likely to be true as any other myths in Islam for example like Mohammad flying on a horse to see Heaven) and so which are not true, it brings down the credibility of the whole religion.

If Eitnstien praised buddhism, 1) hes not an absolute authority, 2) he was simply saying, out of the whole bunch of rotten apples, buddhism is the least rotten.

>> But the Buddha included the scientific way of knowing (the intellect) as well.

What did he say that common sense or other sources have not said before? You're free to say say you responded to my questions before and so you wont repeat them, thats ok with me.

>> But these scientists would certainly have listened intently to the Buddha's words on the interdependent underpinnings of the material world and its interaction with the mind. I'm sure that the Buddha would have given them very deep and much more general food for thought about the ultimate nature of things.

Again, what did he say or propose that was really out of this world that no one else could figure out?

Matthew Ricard. I'm checking him out. See his picture and you can tell. Its all aboutthe money:

From wikipedia: "His new book, Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill was also a major best-seller in France."

Good article on Davidson:

http://www.wired.com/wired/arc.....topic_set=

Rao is a nueroscientist as well, opposing Davidson. 544 signatures are included in a petition that includes his signature and it has other scientists in it as well. So there, if sane scientists have opposed a man, then I know something is up.

When sane people oppose something, it cant be the absolute truth.

Here's stuff you'll like:

Lutz asked Ricard to meditate on "unconditional loving-kindness and compassion." He immediately noticed powerful gamma activity - brain waves oscillating at roughly 40 cycles per second -�indicating intensely focused thought. Gamma waves are usually weak and difficult to see. Those emanating from Ricard were easily visible, even in the raw EEG output. Moreover, oscillations from various parts of the cortex were synchronized - a phenomenon that sometimes occurs in patients under anesthesia.

The researchers had never seen anything like it. Worried that something might be wrong with their equipment or methods, they brought in more monks, as well as a control group of college students inexperienced in meditation. The monks produced gamma waves that were 30 times as strong as the students'. In addition, larger areas of the meditators' brains were active, particularly in the left prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for positive emotions.

BUT, read the whole article. It says a lot of other stuff as well that I shouldnt repeat here. Be open minded and see it all.

Bottomline, this science and buddhism is not agreed by scientists. Its a marketing ploy or a hype which is not true and which has not gained the approval or acceptance of the scientific community. Thats enough for me.

Here's what Rao said: "Not everyone was impressed. Yi Rao, a professor in the neurology department at Northwestern University, dismisses Davidson's study as rubbish. "The science is substandard," he says. "The motivations of both Davidson and the Dalai Lama are questionable."

As for the claim thta meditation can alter the brain:

http://groups.ku.edu/~amtb/030.....ation.html

>> The fact that the brain can learn, adapt and molecularly resculpture itself on the basis of experience and training suggests that meditation may leave a biological residue in the brain -- a residue that, with the increasing sophistication of new technology, might be captured and measured. ''This fits into the whole neuroscience literature of expertise,'' says Stephen Kosslyn, a Harvard neuroscientist, ''where taxi drivers are studied for their spatial memory and concert musicians are studied for their sense of pitch. If you do something, anything, even play Ping-Pong, for 20 years, eight hours a day, there's going to be something in your brain that's different from someone who didn't do that. It's just got to be.''

Ok now, these guys are actually talking about meditation. Ricard was the happiest guy out of hundereds (-.45, instead of the -.3 to +,3 for all the other volunteers of the study) according to the experiment, yet he says he once felt extreme anger when someone poured flour on his laptop as a joke. So much so for controlling emotions?

Anyway, I was talking about "buddhism and science". Busshims is not the first to have talked about meditation. Meditation may be right but it doesnt give Buddhism any weight of truth, you get my point, right. Its like me saying "jog 1 an hour a day for better health", 1) Many people have said this before me 2) Its not something new that I invented. 3) This is not something that I can boast about and say that Guest-sim is thus scientific in nature.

So in your post you said two things:

1) beleiving in science is also faith

2) Meditation can produce positive results. My response: Its not exclusive to buddhism.

3) Dr. Jill? this person is the author of the book that promotes meditation. Again, this is not buddhism but meditation.

I was talking about Buddhism, you started talking about meditation which is not exclusive to busddhism. It has been around in ther world before buddhism came.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: UTC -8

Most Users Ever Online: 247

Currently Online:
45 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

onedaythiswillpass: 1134

zarathustra: 562

StronginHim77: 453

free: 433

2013ways: 431

curious64: 408

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 49

Members: 110819

Moderators: 5

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 74

Topics: 38534

Posts: 714189

Newest Members:

stepukhaDazy, joshrad, tyzifDazy, vbhjifDazy, vbifhfDazy, DimashaDazy

Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0

Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer