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.
Are meditative practices of only psychological significance?
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
Originally Posted by Thubten Namgyal
Are meditative practices of only psychological significance?
A question worth considering, don't you think?
0
Comments
It depends on how one defines psychological sigificance. There are various levels and stages in meditation which I would think are beyond the grasp of ordinary intellect as such -and therefore they can't really be classed as psychological in a certain sense. If we get into the area of psychology then its also in the realm of personality isn't it. If for example we have various levels of experiential understanding of emptiness, they're beyond personality issues, theyre a pure, intelligent clarity and awareness which is not dependent on conceptual thought.
Dazzle
.
Good post Dazzle. Well put.
Thank you, Dazzle.
Whilst your reply is similar to one which I might have made to this question, I remain slightly perturbed by it.
The reason is that it contains this statement: "There are various levels and stages in meditation which I would think are beyond the grasp of ordinary intellect as such". Of course, here among friends and followers, such a statement passes almost for granted but I fear that it partakes of the same nature as theistic or metaphysical statements - or the "you'll understand when you're older" avoidances by parents to their children's awkward questions.
As we know, senior and experienced meditators such as HHDL are supporting and encouraging research into the neurological effects of meditation, alongside other studies into the emotional/personality. I would also not exclude the physiological benefits. Meditation does appear to have significance for the mind/body complex.
But how are we to demonstrate anything more than that (although this is already important) and that the Buddhist 'method' is any more than a set of e post facto stories? I doubt that we can do so by asserting "a pure, intelligent clarity and awareness which is not dependent on conceptual thought" in a post-Enlightenement world.
Of course, if we want to hold to this view ourselves (i.e. that there is a truth that will always escape rational understanding) that is our choice but we must then, I suggest, give up any idea of convincing others or of proving it beyond a shadow of doubt.
This teaching can be understood in many ways. There are some current scientific theories which are vaguely groping towards it - but proving it? I don't think that will ever be possible, as it can't be scientifically quantified in any way I can imagine.
Experiencing it is another matter though. We don't have to "just accept", or "believe". We can get it here and now. Buddha doesn't teach us to wait until we die, which is very nice of him.
Namaste
Hi Simon.
Yes I'm aware of various kinds of research. I'm also not denying that there are physical benefits to be gained from meditation. However these can also be gained from the the general kinds of meditation used for relaxation and well-being in a number of complementary therapies which are separate from the context of Buddhism.
Buddhist meditation is different, there are additional factors according to Buddha's teachings which we have also considered. We are travelling the path to enlightenment rather than just towards 'feel good'. The fact also remains that certain levels of meditation can only be approximated with words. It has nothing to do with a 'you'll understand when you're older' attempt at elitism. It is simply a basic fact known to serious practitioners.
So beginners need to be encouraged to have a little faith to start out with -and then taste for themselves.
An approximate example might be if I give someone a recipe and method to cook a meal -even show them a photo of that meal, I still cannot tell them how it really tastes -they have to taste and digest it for themselves.
I'm sorry if my descriptions do not meet with your approval. They're the best that I have to offer at this time.
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
And then there are various experiences of kensho, and my understanding is those folks are looking from outside of the glass.
In terms of integrating the experience and practise of meditation into `every day` life then, yes, it is something that could be considered progressive but the actual meditation itself...
...how can that be any more or less than it is?
This begs the question of whether there is something ipso facto wrong about theistic or metaphysical statements. Personally, I think they can be tremendously clarifying in the proper context. I have found that those who are happiest to reject theism almost inevitably reify the phenomenal universe as some sort of ontological reality that can be actually known by science so I am not sure what we have gained.
Leaving that aside, saying that something is beyond the grasp of ordinary intellect doesn't mean that it is beyond the grasp of jnana or prajna and hence can be known directly. The fact of the matter is that nirvana is by definition nisprapanca. Buddhist epistemology depends on buddhavacana for evidence of such things, not empirical observation and proof. This will never count as evidence for non-believers.
I am sorry to say, Simon, but as someone who cohabited for some time with a brilliant Kepler scholar who was paradoxically a Positivist to the core... it is a collosal drag trying to explain anything to people whose brains are contaminated by the virulent reductionism of the Vienna circle.
Perhaps there is a Wittgensteinian approach a la Herbert Guenther, but there are less than a dozen people in the world that can read Guenther in English without much howling and gnashing of teeth. More likely the bridge between the Western and Buddhist intellectual tradition is through something like Derrida's idea of differance. It almost certainly is not through disciplines of hardcore modern scientific empiricism. These hardbitten chaps are very difficult people to convince and HH Dalai Lama is being very compassionate in trying to build a bridge.
Ratiocination is not the only, or even the best means of understanding. It depends on pairs of opposites and hence never rises above namarupa. I disagree that "others" all have the same criteria for proof. There are many people that are quite open to listen to an argument and put it into practice to see if it holds up. Sure there are some that demand "scientific proof" of these things, but they are altogether no fun to raise a pint with, and have no bloody sense of humour so to hell with them.
Moreover, it is hard to see what constitutes proof in the realm of language. There is an infinite regress of justifications in a "common sense" view of these things and the words we use are not that which is described. I'd like to see some of these scientists chew on apoha theory for a while. :-)
Dialectically yours,
Namgyal
You say:
I could hardly agree more with both highlighted statements.
It is interesting to contrast HHDL's statements to those within and those outwith the Buddhist fold. Perhaps I have failed to make the point that I find little of interest (or compassion for that matter) in 'preaching to the choir'. I live in a semi-rural, semi-industrial community with a significant minority of knit-your-own-muesli New Agers and old political activists. Very few of my neighbours have any time for any sort of -ism, including the Buddhisms: they want to live their lives as free from stress and from the dogma/doctrine machine as possible.
It is not my Buddhist practice or my attitude to the Christ message which bring them to talk to me: it is my meeting with HHDL. They view him as one of the few who speak in a common language and in solidarity with daily pain. Some have begun to apply Buddhist principles in their lives and it is the living of them that engages them.
If I were to talk, to them, of the apophatic way or the celebration of discipline. They want a way of life which will empower their parenting, their working day and their relationships. They are busy and, by and large, environmentally engaged.
I also agree with your first statements: This is why I tell 'stories', recast myths and legends, find "sermons in stones". And often find space to drop in my thought that reductionist materialism asks us to grant them a First Miracle after which they'll explain everything.
Are meditative practices of only psychological significance?
No, as it can transcend the psychological. _/\_
For example, when Kitsogotami could not find a single mustard seed for the Buddha, her liberation from suffering was of the intellect. The thing called 'truth' is truthful and more importantly, has efficacy, when either seen directly or applied by the intellect. Both ways will work. This is why it is 'truth'. It is universal.
Concentration, spacing out & the sphere of nothingness is 'beyond the intellect' but is neither enlightenment or truth.
Non conceptual clarity and awareness is not empty blankness, nor is it concentration. I am fully aware of what 'spacing out' in 'nothingness' is. That isn't what I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully )to describe.
Maybe it is better just to say less and keep practicing rather than wander round in circles with words.
Dazzle
Not intellect in the sense that an enlightened being would then automatically suddenly excell in their understanding of ..say..advanced mathematics if they previously hadn't though, surely?
In my tradition, I've heard it said that one doesn't need to be able to read or write to become enlightened - although I appreciate that maybe that wasn't quite what you meant, Element.
Oh joy! The whole post is beautiful Namgyal and so eloquent!
Simon, the point I've quoted above from Namgyal's post expresses what came to mind for me when I read yours. I think naming, proving and explaining the transpersonal benefits of meditation would be a bit like translating a beautiful foreign language poem into pidgin English. There are some things that we can simply feel and experience without questionning them. Thank goodness. We are too cerebral and boy, far too verbal as a culture and society.
Namgyal's original question could be answered by analysing the qualitative accounts of meditators. Without a need to count them and prove their worth. Although what HHDL is doing in colaborating with medical doctors and therapists such as Daniel Goleman, fills me with joy, because it satisfies my personal desire to make buddhism relevant to everybody and link it to our Western way of thinking, (us being very focused on symptoms in the body and medicines). Hopefully there will be a cross-fertilisation of knowledge between traditional East and the West resulting from this.
I guess every form of spirituality and religion has this come up. It's all bigger than us anyway by definition and so impossible to pin down and measure.
In psychotherapy -as you know - CBT and Psychosynthesis use the relationship between thoughts and feelings in the body - which can be dramatic and/ or very pronounced. How they prove this though I don't know as it's not empirical like psychology. Or is it? You will know better than me.
My two pence worth
Dear Simon,
I think your 'knit-your-own-muesli' comment has single-handedly made my Easter weekend. Thank you so much
OK, back to topic...