Science Based Mindfulness...
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
Right View is not an agenda, nor is Right View accepting every practice of every school.
It also isn't something one enters practice with fully formed.
But if one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
To be clear we're talking about people who decide that, for example, mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism, not someone who just happens to try a breathing technique for stress reduction.
This is all covered in remarkable depth in the thread I linked to in my reply to boda.
It also isn't something one enters practice with fully formed.
But if one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
To be clear we're talking about people who decide that, for example, mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism, not someone who just happens to try a breathing technique for stress reduction.
This is all covered in remarkable depth in the thread I linked to in my reply to boda.
Namu Amida Butsu
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
I doubt that anyone has ever thought that the 12 Nidanas are solely a description of one human's mental phenomena in one lifetime, besides yourself. People who put any thought into it usually understand that something lead to their existence and that they didn’t just spontaneously appear out of nothing and without cause.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:34 pmThe first link is ignorance. But notice how many links precede form and birth.
If someone thinks the 12 Nidanas are solely a description of one human's mental phenomena in one lifetime, such a view is incomplete.
You haven’t answered the question of why a secular view is nessisarily ignorant, assuming this is your claim.
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
Hi, boda!
I haven't made such a claim about the Nidanas but I have read that and similar claims in any number of books on Secular Buddhism. A common trend is to level all the transcendent teachings into one life and therefore one human's experiences because a foundation of SB is that rebirth is not real.
These topics and more have been fleshed out by people smarter than I in the thread I linked so I have nothing more to add on that.
"Ignorant" is also not a word I used.
I apologize for derailing this thread as much as I have already!
I haven't made such a claim about the Nidanas but I have read that and similar claims in any number of books on Secular Buddhism. A common trend is to level all the transcendent teachings into one life and therefore one human's experiences because a foundation of SB is that rebirth is not real.
These topics and more have been fleshed out by people smarter than I in the thread I linked so I have nothing more to add on that.
"Ignorant" is also not a word I used.
I apologize for derailing this thread as much as I have already!
Namu Amida Butsu
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
You’ve read a number of books on secular Buddhism? Anyway, dependent origination and the Nidanas are about BECOMING. Secular Buddhists don’t think that nothing lead to their existence. They simply have a different account of how they came about, and it goes beyond their individual lives.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:40 pm Hi, boda!
I haven't made such a claim about the Nidanas but I have read that and similar claims in any number of books on Secular Buddhism.
For anyone to address this claim you would need to clarify your unusual use of terms. For instance, what do you regard as “transcendent teachings”? One might regard all Buddhist teachings as transcendent teachings because they aim towards the goal of transcendence.A common trend is to level all the transcendent teachings into one life and therefore one human's experiences because a foundation of SB is that rebirth is not real.
The article linked to in the OP is about how mindfulness is overhyped and not backed up by scientific investigation. Hardly a newsflash or even remotely disagreeable to anyone on this forum, I would imagine.I apologize for derailing this thread as much as I have already!
Also the opening poster remarks:
As a scientist in evolutionary psychology, Robert Wright basically integrates Buddhist teachings into his model of human development. I’m sure his assumptions about reality have developed throughout his life, as they have for many of us.I'll just sit back and watch how meditative practices when taken seriously will screw up their models and cause them to question their assumptions about reality.
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
The amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable. Did I spell that correctly? For the secular and monk practitioner, it is the same practice of mindfulness if practiced from the instructions of the mahasatipatthana sutta. If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana. Perhaps you haven't read the actual sutta lately?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:12 pm Right View is not an agenda, nor is Right View accepting every practice of every school.
It also isn't something one enters practice with fully formed.
But if one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
To be clear we're talking about people who decide that, for example, mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism, not someone who just happens to try a breathing technique for stress reduction.
This is all covered in remarkable depth in the thread I linked to in my reply to boda.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
I don't know what you're talking about here. It has nothing to do with Mahayana v.s. Theravada, mala beads, Avalokiteshvara, or any of that. It's really simple, the Satipatthana Sutta doesn't exist in isolation, and the Pali Canon is full of references to rebirth, karma, etc. In short, the Buddhist View. If someone is doing 'mindfulness' without the Buddhist view, then they aren't actually doing anything from the Satipatthana Sutta. It's not wrong by any means, but it's also not the same animal.Anonymous X wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:45 pmI think this topic, Science Based Mindfulness, is beginning to spill into other areas of interest depending on each poster's agenda. For example, the secularist may not be interested in religious ideas or practices and wants to introduce order into his/her life to minimize suffering. The Buddhist may be interested in mindfulness as a way to approach a cosmology, what they think is beyond the secular interest. Within that Buddhist frame work, a very big schism has opened between Theravada and Mahayana teachings which some people use for sectarian warfare, so to speak. Many on each side feel their view is the one of the Buddha's, and the other is either limited, bogus, and unacceptable to the other. Some only go by the words of the Buddha in sutta form. Something like Vajrayana is unpalatable and culturally tainted, using rituals that the Buddha specifically spoke against. Where does one draw the line and simply jump into the basic practice of mindfulness, which is based on the mahasatipatthana sutta and the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. These instructions do not say that you have to believe in Avalokitesvara, mantra, tantra, mala beads or images of the Buddha. They are clear instructions of how to implement mindfulness practice that monk or secularist approaches by themselves. To put some kind of caveat on practicing this without having a Buddhist sentiment is to limit one's confidence in the practice and the Buddha's words. It introduces doubt and confusion into a beginner's mind where there should be openness and spaciousness to accommodate anyone's need no matter who or what they are.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:11 pmThe Dharma is broader than the four foundations of mindfulness and the three marks, isn't it? I'm a bit skeptical of a layman ever rediscovering dependent origination or the 12 nidanas, especially if the first link for them is birth because they have a secular worldview.Anonymous X wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:52 am
I don't see much of a difference between a Buddhist who practices mindfulness and a 'secular' practitioner. If you practice mindfulness, in a real sense, you are practicing what you call Dharma. To be in accord with body, feelings, mentations, & objects of mentations is to practice harmonizing your life to what is. A non-Buddhist can discover impermanence, dissatisfaction, & not self. These are universal truths no matter what one calls oneself. Isn't it mentioned that the Buddha discovered all of this as a 'lost way' that was not in common practice in his time?
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
Anonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:07 amThe amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:12 pm Right View is not an agenda, nor is Right View accepting every practice of every school.
It also isn't something one enters practice with fully formed.
But if one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
To be clear we're talking about people who decide that, for example, mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism, not someone who just happens to try a breathing technique for stress reduction.
This is all covered in remarkable depth in the thread I linked to in my reply to boda.
At least here, the number of people who think Buddhism is just breathing, vegetarianism, and smiles seems pretty sizeable.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
It unfortunately isn't infinitesimal (had to check the spelling too!) but that topic is covered by the thread I keep trying to get people to readAnonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:07 amThe amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable. Did I spell that correctly? For the secular and monk practitioner, it is the same practice of mindfulness if practiced from the instructions of the mahasatipatthana sutta. If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana. Perhaps you haven't read the actual sutta lately?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:12 pm Right View is not an agenda, nor is Right View accepting every practice of every school.
It also isn't something one enters practice with fully formed.
But if one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
To be clear we're talking about people who decide that, for example, mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism, not someone who just happens to try a breathing technique for stress reduction.
This is all covered in remarkable depth in the thread I linked to in my reply to boda.
No I haven't read the sutra lately but we don't disagree on the point you make in, "If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana."
Where I think we differ is where the "veering" takes place. If mindfulness practice is divorced from its Buddhist context of Right View, it is no longer the same thing, no matter the surface form. The purpose and intent of doing something matters a great deal.
As I said earlier in the thread, a secular approach to mindfulness may produce worldly benefit and merit. But it is no longer a Buddhist practice if removed from its context. This doesn't seem like it would be controversial to me
Namu Amida Butsu
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
You should hear what some of the Thais think Buddhism is. You'd be floored.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:09 pmAnonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:07 amThe amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:12 pm Right View is not an agenda, nor is Right View accepting every practice of every school.
It also isn't something one enters practice with fully formed.
But if one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
To be clear we're talking about people who decide that, for example, mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism, not someone who just happens to try a breathing technique for stress reduction.
This is all covered in remarkable depth in the thread I linked to in my reply to boda.
At least here, the number of people who think Buddhism is just breathing, vegetarianism, and smiles seems pretty sizeable.
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
People need to start where they are at. Why have little faith that it could develop into a real interest in Buddhist teachings? Why put such barriers up where none need to be?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:14 pmIt unfortunately isn't infinitesimal (had to check the spelling too!) but that topic is covered by the thread I keep trying to get people to readAnonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:07 amThe amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable. Did I spell that correctly? For the secular and monk practitioner, it is the same practice of mindfulness if practiced from the instructions of the mahasatipatthana sutta. If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana. Perhaps you haven't read the actual sutta lately?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:12 pm Right View is not an agenda, nor is Right View accepting every practice of every school.
It also isn't something one enters practice with fully formed.
But if one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
To be clear we're talking about people who decide that, for example, mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism, not someone who just happens to try a breathing technique for stress reduction.
This is all covered in remarkable depth in the thread I linked to in my reply to boda.
No I haven't read the sutra lately but we don't disagree on the point you make in, "If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana."
Where I think we differ is where the "veering" takes place. If mindfulness practice is divorced from its Buddhist context of Right View, it is no longer the same thing, no matter the surface form. The purpose and intent of doing something matters a great deal.
As I said earlier in the thread, a secular approach to mindfulness may produce worldly benefit and merit. But it is no longer a Buddhist practice if removed from its context. This doesn't seem like it would be controversial to me
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
I have heard and read about it. I remember reading in The Broken Buddha how when the author ordained many people referred to it as him "becoming Thai". I certainly wasn't saying that Buddhist cultures don't have their own forms of ignorance, but that does not excuse this particular one either.Anonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:15 pmYou should hear what some of the Thais think Buddhism is. You'd be floored.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:09 pmAnonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:07 am
The amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable.
At least here, the number of people who think Buddhism is just breathing, vegetarianism, and smiles seems pretty sizeable.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
Anonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:18 pmPeople need to start where they are at. Why have little faith that it could develop into a real interest in Buddhist teachings? Why put such barriers up where none need to be?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:14 pmIt unfortunately isn't infinitesimal (had to check the spelling too!) but that topic is covered by the thread I keep trying to get people to readAnonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:07 am
The amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable. Did I spell that correctly? For the secular and monk practitioner, it is the same practice of mindfulness if practiced from the instructions of the mahasatipatthana sutta. If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana. Perhaps you haven't read the actual sutta lately?
No I haven't read the sutra lately but we don't disagree on the point you make in, "If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana."
Where I think we differ is where the "veering" takes place. If mindfulness practice is divorced from its Buddhist context of Right View, it is no longer the same thing, no matter the surface form. The purpose and intent of doing something matters a great deal.
As I said earlier in the thread, a secular approach to mindfulness may produce worldly benefit and merit. But it is no longer a Buddhist practice if removed from its context. This doesn't seem like it would be controversial to me
That's not how it works though, especially now that some "secular" advocates of mindfulness and Buddhist meditation (Batchelor for example) have taken it upon themselves to claim their new sanitized version of Buddhism is actually the "correct" one, as opposed to the supposedly outmoded "traditional" models.
Unfortunately nothing exists in a vacuum, and how Buddhist-derived mindfulness is presented has a big effect on how people end up perceiving Buddhism as a whole.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
Who's putting barriers? My point is, again, a secular mindfulness practice can lead to worldly benefit and merit. But it is not the same as Buddhist mindfulness practice, as Right View and bodhicitta are absent. That's the claim I thought you were making, that a secular person practicing for instance anapanasati is doing the exact same thing as a Buddhist practicing anapanasati. If that isn't what you're saying, I apologizeAnonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:18 pmPeople need to start where they are at. Why have little faith that it could develop into a real interest in Buddhist teachings? Why put such barriers up where none need to be?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:14 pmIt unfortunately isn't infinitesimal (had to check the spelling too!) but that topic is covered by the thread I keep trying to get people to readAnonymous X wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:07 am
The amount of people who think mindfulness of the breath is the whole of Buddhism must be infintessable. Did I spell that correctly? For the secular and monk practitioner, it is the same practice of mindfulness if practiced from the instructions of the mahasatipatthana sutta. If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana. Perhaps you haven't read the actual sutta lately?
No I haven't read the sutra lately but we don't disagree on the point you make in, "If a secular teacher veers away from this into tangents of his or her making, it is no longer satipatthana."
Where I think we differ is where the "veering" takes place. If mindfulness practice is divorced from its Buddhist context of Right View, it is no longer the same thing, no matter the surface form. The purpose and intent of doing something matters a great deal.
As I said earlier in the thread, a secular approach to mindfulness may produce worldly benefit and merit. But it is no longer a Buddhist practice if removed from its context. This doesn't seem like it would be controversial to me
As for developing faith, I said earlier in this thread:
It took me years to come to terms with rebirth. That was only possible because of two pieces of advice I received: to set it aside completely for now if it's out of the question, as in don't think about it and don't make opinions about it; when ready, to examine why I felt uncomfortable with it, rather than coming up with theories about why the teaching is wrong.If one cannot see the difference between respectfully setting aside challenging teachings for now and outright rejecting them for good, the development of Right View will be that much harder.
The standard of knowledge in a secular worldview is different than in Buddhism: the former often holds material science or personal predilections as overriding; the latter holds the teachings of the Buddha and one's eventual teacher as overriding. At some point, if one wants to enter more deeply into the Buddhist teachings, this must be dealt with. To say more would begin to stray into the other topic.
Namu Amida Butsu
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
This is on topic, as outlined in the OP. Modern knowledge vs traditional and their respective efficacy as it relates to practice, essentially. This is not a subject that anyone can approach with certainty, so it's open to debate.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:46 pm The standard of knowledge in a secular worldview is different than in Buddhism: one often holds material science or personal predilections as overriding; the other holds the words of the Buddha and one's eventual teacher as overriding. At some point, if one wants to enter more deeply into the Buddhist teachings, this must be dealt with. To say more would begin to stray into the other topic.
The fact is there are modern models, such as Robert Wright's evolutionary psychology, that analog traditional Buddhist views. This doesn't mean that traditional views are wrong or lacking in efficacy, any more than Newtonian physics is wrong or useless compared to special relativity, or any more than seeing the world as composed of earth, fire, air, and water rather than chemical elements. Of course, you can do more things with that latter but spirituality is not about doing more things or manipulating the environment.
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
I was talking specifically about karma, rebirth, other realms, etc.
Basically things which one with a secular view may have trouble with at first.
The issue there for the ordinary person seeking to follow the Buddha is not certainty but where to put their faith since these things lie outside the purview of material sciences.
Basically things which one with a secular view may have trouble with at first.
The issue there for the ordinary person seeking to follow the Buddha is not certainty but where to put their faith since these things lie outside the purview of material sciences.
Namu Amida Butsu
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
You misunderstand me. I mean that no one can be certain which view is more efficacious, therefore the issue is open to debate. If the issue were certain then debating it would be useless.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:20 pm The issue there for the ordinary person seeking to follow the Buddha is not certainty but where to put their faith since these things lie outside the purview of material sciences.
Re: Science Based Mindfulness...
Efficacy depends on having a goal in mind. One can easily ascertain which knowledge is more effective depending on that sort of parameters has for one's goal. In other words, different sorts of knowledge cover different sorts of domains, and conventionally at least, they often contradict one another since most knowledge is not born in transcendental knowledge of the path.boda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:46 pmYou misunderstand me. I mean that no one can be certain which view is more efficacious, therefore the issue is open to debate. If the issue were certain then debating it would be useless.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:20 pm The issue there for the ordinary person seeking to follow the Buddha is not certainty but where to put their faith since these things lie outside the purview of material sciences.