Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism as the science of the mind.
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
Buddhism has been aptly described as the "science of the mind". It is everything to do with the investigation of personal experience, and nothing to do with beliefs and metaphysics.
Discuss!
5
Comments
I agree. (Will that count?)
Yeah! Scraping the barrel here.
Even Science demands belief when unquestionable proof is tabled....
I've always felt that the Buddha was the first psychologist. And I didn't even know about the 32 realms of existence until after joining this forum! I didn't know there was a metaphysical aspect to Buddhism, except for the 6 realms portrayed in Tibetan diagrams.
The view of the world from the first person will likely always be out of the reach of material science. You can show another person how your experiment reached its result, they can see it for themselves and attempt to reproduce it. You can't show another person your mind from your perspective.
I've been doing some internet learning about the branch of philosophy called epistemology, the study of knowledge. There is a lot about what is knowledge and how do we reliably come by it. One thing I haven't really seen is a distinction between intellectual knowledge and the kind of visceral, in your bones, first person type of knowledge. For example, many of us have the knowledge that we will die one day, I think its pretty obvious though that the average teenager and a person diagnosed with a terminal illness have a different kind of knowing about it.
Relating that to spiritual knowledge and the first person knowing, it seems like there is some sort of genuine knowledge only available by personal experience. Its not that hard for us to believe someone who says they love their parents as that is pretty common and relatable. But what about someone who says they've experienced a state of mind that is free from delusion and suffering?
Such a claim stays within the realm of belief and metaphysics if there is no way to check the work and peer review it. Buddhism doesn't leave it there though, it shows us how to do the personal experiment ourselves to verify something that can only be personally verified. That's the science of mind side.
You could also use inference to gain some insight into the truth of a spiritual claim. Just as you can see some of the outward signs of a person in love or consumed by anger, it should be possible to see outward signs of an enlightened person. Of course this method isn't fool proof, but its also not nothing.
at the end analysis, 'the movement of mind move the physical forces' and in reality what is there is the 'change' in time and present, nothing else
@person love your response. Terrific explanation. It's one of those posts I could read several times and get something new out of it each time.
I have trouble trusting people who claim awakenness or enlightenment. I'm sure much because I can't compare my experience and come to an agreement that they are experiencing what they say they are as compared to how I would explain it. Which is funny because obviously I haven't experienced it to be able to explain it, LOL. So it's all based on what I thin it would be like versus what they say it is like. Despite liking much of what he says, I dislike Eckhart Tolle for that reason, which makes no logical sense whatsoever! It's like there is a war in my head over him, where a part of me loves who he is and what he says and I believe he's a master/teacher. But it's that other part of my brain, the same part that judges anyone, that isn't sure he can be trusted.
But overall, I don't think that matters much. Just like I've read many after-life accounts that are all different, some seem to make more sense than others, some I chalk up entirely to mid-death brain experiences or "dreams" and others seem more plausible. In the end, it doesn't matter because I have to experience it to know how I or not-I will perceive it. But I try to be cautious and investigate those "he's full of crap" nigglings to figure out where it comes from, because I don't want to close the door to an opportunity to learn and experience things other ways.
Yeah, what to do between the other's claim of enlightenment and your "peer review"? I struggle with how to gain confidence in any one claim over any other. It kind of seems like it comes down to some sort combination of gut feeling, logical reasons and trying to infer from words and behavior.
It's funny because this morning I attended a workshop on CBT , the counsellor we employ to see clients in need was asked to do a short intro workshop for us staff ....It was quite interesting, because our counsellor has also studied Buddhism and from what I gather she incorporates Buddhist techniques into her therapy practice....
I'm quite familiar with the technique, partly due to studying the Dharma and dabbling a bit with Western psychology, so when listening to her explaining the technique, I was automatically associating it to/with areas of the 4NTs & 8FP ....
So conclusion ....much of the approach is just plain Buddhism ie, the Dharma without the frilly bits attached...
On a personal level I see Buddhism as applied "Inner Science"
My auto response to dubious enlightenment claims...
If you guys only knew the number of new member applicants we get, claiming they're enlightened and wanting to teach us all...
Tee Hee. You screen these enlightenment trolls out? Tsk, tsk. The deluded, ignorant and those of high repute but limited understanding are a great resource/illustration ... ah well ... [I likes to kick them up the ass - for their and others edification of course ... ]
- straight to naughty corner with me ... 
My own understanding [worth little more than an empty tin of sardines] is that Buddhism is the Arte or Crafte of Awakening.
Nothing more and nothing less.
In other words it is a 'soft science' because it is not as precise as some imagine. So in that sense it is similar to psychology.
However psychology and in particular 'positive psychology' is just about developing a good starting ego point for dharma practice.
We path walkers go well beyond.
We are attempting to break the bonds or sleep fetters that bind us to dukkha. Each of us dreams in a slightly different way but obviously needs to first acknowledge the sleeping state. Aka NT1 the truth of dreaming/dukkha/suffering/living in a fantasy bubble ... We then have a path and range of applied cushions tactics to awaken the dreamer ...
Oh lordy, I think I am a born-again secular Buddhist, or as my mum would say, a "circular" Buddhist.
When I'm awake, I'm awake. But I regularly sleep
The whole approach of "test the teachings, and if you find them to be false, discard them" is something I value greatly about Buddhism. For me that is what makes it scientific in the spirit of the word, the reliance on the personal proof. But more, it allows you to put the personal feeling for correctness in the driving seat, it is a clear adherence to Truth over Dogma and it encourages you to develop that within yourself. That is truly an enlightened approach.
On the nature of enlightenment I find it difficult to say anything sensible. Sometimes you come across the words of a master and it rings a bell or opens something within you, and then I think there is a strong indication of someone who has reached beyond. But I've known some people who have had long personal experience of people like Osho who claim the state, and it makes you wonder how much of it was exercise in public relations. In the end I decided that yes, the dhyanas and the state of enlightenment seem to exist, but human beings who reach it are not all equally developed and wise.
Buddhism tends to create people who have an inner beauty and wisdom and learning, while some of the people who merely master the inner art of meditation may reach the outer gates of that domain without those things. Where do you draw the boundaries of who is enlightened?
Exactly so.
Being wise, especially in public is a two edged sword. As you cut through others delusion, you may be cutting back on the requirements of others or yourself ...
Fortunately being wise in appearance and nature is the remit of enlightened Buddhist teachers such as Shinzen Young and Jack Kornfield.
If you want to observe an ant your going to see a lot more if you use a magnifying glass or a microscope. So observing our phenomenal experience using just our monkey mind won't be as effective as using a mind that is calm and concentrated. Alan Wallace uses the analogy of trying to use a telescope while riding on the back of a camel in a sandstorm.
I think of the Abhidharma tradition and lists like the 51 mental factors and think about how someone in meditation observing the mind saw, this is anger here, this is volition over here, these set of factors are wholesome, these are unwholesome.
It wasn't just the Buddha who saw these things and from there on we just stick to his word. Lots of others have done the investigation and verified his findings. I think there is certainly cause to be skeptical though, no doubt some untrue things have slipped in.
That is one of the things the Buddha tried, according to the lost suttas of the Spiny Nikaya.
Unless it's global warming.
Does someone who is awake (I prefer that to enlightened since the term is so over used) need to announce it? Do they have to write books and contribute to materialism and division? My problem with Tolle and others like him is that they rely on people looking for help on how to navigate life, and as people buy their product, they become more and more elite and out of touch with the people who put them there. Just like any other rich person. I haven't looked, but I'm betting a retreat with Tolle probably costs a pretty penny. Meaning that many many of the people who might benefit from teachings can no longer access these people other than just by buying the book at a used book store. It seems to me that people who are truly awake would offer their wisdom without getting rich off of it. And perhaps they can't even control when people throw money at them. But they do have the choice of how much they need to keep. Most people who become rich suddenly find themselves having a much higher level of need than any human being has. And anyone who falls victim to that, I guess I do not trust when they say they are awake.
Not that someone awake has to live in poverty in a box or something. But for them to claim they are awake/englightened but need multiple houses and to charge $1000 for someone to spend a couple days listening to them talk, I am not so sure they are as awake as they think they are. If the people who are awake are only available to our elite members of society, it seems pretty worthless to me.
I think this makes your point, actually...
https://www.eckharttollenow.com/event/
If people want to charge a small fortune just for people to get the privilege to hear them speak, then whatever, they are free to do so. But they are self-help folk more akin to Tony Robbins, and not enlightened masters. They very well may have things of value to share and say with the world. But I wouldn't put them on the same level as Buddha by any means.
It's no doubt that TNH makes plenty of money from all of his books and drawings and so on. But he's not living the rich life, either. While obviously his aids and advisors keep money available to him in the event of his need (as with his recent medical emergency and subsequent treatment) I'm betting a lot of his money goes back into Plum Village and his community. The prices for retreats are MUCH more reasonable (like $438 for a week) and include your room and board,and if you can't afford it, they will take 50% off just for you saying you can't afford it. And if you still need help you can ask about scholarships, no questions asked.
TNH won't call himself enlightened. He's just helping people. Whether he is awake or not, I don't know. But I trust him far more. He cares for people. You can see and feel it in everything he says and every one of his mannerisms. I don't get that sense about Tolle at all. He fits the mold of a scam artist more than a master, more like Chopra than Buddha. I know Tolle isn't a Buddhist but he's giving himself the same label.
But perhaps it doesn't matter. Why should it bother me that a man is using the same label as we use to revere Buddha? Buddha was a man who overcame, and we look to his example. I don't think Tolle has overcome and I think him using the same labels leads some people to believe he's like Buddha. And I don't think he is at all.
In the end, every single person, no matter how much you pay for retreats in Costa Rica or France, you have to do the work yourself.
Although @karasti put that very well and I have mixed feelings about Tolle as well, that one stung a bit.
Give me 1500 smakaroos and together we can change the world. Solunds like Homer Simpsons get rich quick scheme... Send one dollar to "Happy Dude"
ug.
I think the Power of Now is a very good book but it's all in there. No need for sequels or a television special.
What I find the most ridiculous is, $147 for the live stream?
At least for Osho he never charged for attending his discourses, and all his lectures are freely available at oshoworld.com.
Same thing with Kornfield.
Enlightenment is like technology with all these constant upgrades.
I do like Osho actually even with the apparent scandal. I wouldn't take him as a guru but I wouldn't take on a guru.
Maybe Eckhart Tolle's fees are so high because there are only 2 places on every course and.... no. I didn't think so....
Well that proves it then. Enlightenment doesn't come cheap.
I have exercised my Free Will and decided to not go.
It's not the money of course.
It's the night of my knitting circle and I cant miss that.
That's pretty much what I do now. I have been interested in phenomenonemolologogy for some time but couldn't spell it, let alone pronounce it.
@karasti I've heard TNH speak of "enlightenment" as an ongoing process, not so much a destination. He reiterates the importance of practicing.
I too am weary of certain authors and speakers, especially if they offer easy answers that seem to cater to convenience. Just do this and you'll get this. Or some utopian vision, looking for something "better."
That just blows my mind. Ouch. All those poor enlightened masters who thought they had 'made it', lol. But he may well be right. Osho late in life also asked others who he thought might have been enlightened about "an enlightenment beyond enlightenment".
I came across this TNH quote, from "The Heart of Buddha's Teaching"
"Buddhism is not a collection of views. It is a practice to help us eliminate wrong views".
Nifty!
@SpinyNorman Indeed!
On a side note, a documentary that's been a few years in the making is coming out early next year that follows TNH and his Plum Village monastics around the world.
http://walkwithmefilm.com/
I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Perhaps as one awaken to Buddhism , all personal experiences / all form of knowledge / all teachings even the direct words of Mr Siddharta himself is just like the wind that blows to the face but never stay on the face ..... as one awaken to Buddhism , nothing is referral to Buddhism even own experiences ..........and one realize he is the emotion and constantly travelling in a natural process back into the state before existence ... a state of nothingness .....and this natural process is Buddhism . So as he awaken to Buddhism , he no longer holds the mind and as he travel in this path all emotion will gradually and naturally decreases
I hope not. I don't personally believe emotions are necessarily a bad thing. I don't want a reduction in my emotions, but at the same time, I strive to remain detached and leave them be once manifested and understood.
Emotions are not WHO we are. But without them, I still believe I would be less of a person, not more.
Exactly @federica Its not about getting rid of emotion, that's just reacting to the emotion with aversion. Its about being at peace with emotion as well as anything else that arises at the six sense doors.
Living without feeling... Sounds like a waste of time.
When it comes to emotions, I live in denial.
That's enough science of the mind for me.
I dig nothing that digs my brain... Who knows what could be buried there?
I came to Buddhism through science. I had been reading books about physics and quantum theory (books written for curious laypeople) when it suddenly dawned on me that what I had read about Buddhism seemed compatible with quantum theory. I did some more research and next thing you know I had read a dozen or so more books by various monks and had a daily meditation practice!
Buddhism "is" the science of the mind...What else could it be ????
Bravo. My kind of science. Always remember, 'idiot compassion', reactive fury [lobster sheepishly puts claws behind back] and unthinking, kindless, compassionless and unthinking action is not part of the Buddha's Middle Way.
The dharma science is the skilful means to a new mind and a new emotive calm ...
We iz scientists ... iz plan ...
You all make a very good point. As @lobster said, the Middle Way is where it's at. No matter what I do each day, I seem to find myself reminding myself to take a route more in the middle. It's so easy to get caught up in emotions taking over your logical mind, which is itself something of an extreme... but going all the way over to emotionless nothingness robotics does also seem pretty extreme. I'm always looking for the middle. Hope I can find it one day!!!