4 ms·

I think we in the modern era have some tremendous advantages in understanding Eastern spirituality in light of developments in neuroscience, Western philosophy,

I think we in the modern era have some tremendous advantages in understanding Eastern spirituality in light of developments in neuroscience, Western philosophy, and a longitudinal overview of several traditions like Advaita, Neo-Advaita, Taoism, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Mahayana, and the original Zen. I think they point toward the ability to shift one's way of being in the world using one's whole capacity as a human being. Generally, an interconnectedness or oneness counts as a fundamental insight; however, I think these traditions have doctrines like karma so that such an insight does not become a regressive excuse for lackluster moral behavior. For instance, the human frontal lobes give us distance in the world, the ability not to react, to take a different perspective. This enables the Bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism using the highest faculties available to man--necessary distance to be guardians of the world, not merely to, say, become stoically un-reactive, or to distance one's self from moral responsibility. The "supreme insight" preached by Alan Watts seems ironically potentially harmful if not well-understood and grounded, a flight crashed halfway so that it would've been better not to get on the plane--to let the original error of separation in through the back door, ethereal "insight" not bound together with the rest of relative existence. Spiritual traditions have these proverbial cracked jugs with real insight of a sort, like Chogyam Trungpa.

duvenaud 4y ago
Can you explain a bit what neuroscience adds to the picture? To use your example, once we know that humans can take a difference perspective, what does it help to know which structure in particular is responsible for that ability?
- theonemind 4y ago
  It helps to know that the shift has a solid foundation, that it's not some kind of act one just needs to put on forever. We know, for instance, about mirror neurons, and that seeing some else's pain can light up some of the same parts in the brain of the observer. You can tune them out, or strengthen them. We know that the right hemisphere has entirely non-verbal modes of thought and generally sees the whole without breaking things into pieces--we don't have to put together some mystical oneness, but just tune into those aspects of our own being. Without understanding these things about the brain, I'd take pointing out the potential for transformation as just moralizing and conceptualizing, just a draining act to put on for all time. There's a solid foundation to build on--it will run on the hardware, it's not just emulation.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    It sounds like you have just almost like contempt for these beliefs until they're validated by an authority in the form of materialist science? That what neuroscience contributes is not anything to the practice itself, but just permission for you to participate.
    - theonemind 4y ago
      I'd agree it's not anything to the practice itself, but I would argue that it is something to a path to practice. Arguably, Elon Musk found out what happens if you commit to large purchases without due diligence. What else would make me think that it's even an executable algorithm? How do you get from non-belief to belief at all? Why investigate if the whole thing looks shaky or like some kind of weird scam just to invest society with morality? A lot of religious trappings seem partially to function as theater, show, or advertising. This generates some interest without understanding. The first understanding and further interest will probably come intellectually thereafter. The Dalai Lama has characterized one of the strengths of Tibetan Buddhism as laying out a complete path, no "missing steps." In his Introduction to Buddhism, he describes how a beginner might start out with analytical contemplation before meditation, getting familiar with the idea. I think that understanding this sort of thing can help the thing scale. Quite a few traditions hold that you must have living transmissions of sorts, or need a guru. I think that serves, in part, to show in a living being that it is possible and not an act...but we don't have 3.5 billion spiritual masters to mentor 3.5 billion other people, and I don't see anything wrong with replacing a little trip or roadblock on the path with intellectual understanding. The traditions, understanding, and concepts all exist to create a workable path. Scaffolding doesn't have anything to do with having a building in the end, but if you want a building, you'll probably find scaffolding useful along the way.
  - c4ptnjack 4y ago
    I find this post and your original comment quite elucidating. It illustrates the main dilemma I have with Alan watts' and western new philosophy. At the least bit, it's all incredibly ambiguous to the point of losing most meaning and lending itself to interpretation in any direction. Not to say most religious do not have a similar nature, but that this particular view is incredibly easy to turn into what lever perspective or belief system you want that's just as dogmatic as traditional western systems of belief. The 'you are IT' and everyone is "it" and perfect at nature is just too easy to reduce in literally any direction you want. From anarchy to magical thinking to justified narcissism. Hints the section mentioned in which watts and his swami guy argue over the exact point.

duvenaud 4y ago

Can you explain a bit what neuroscience adds to the picture? To use your example, once we know that humans can take a difference perspective, what does it help to know which structure in particular is responsible for that ability?

theonemind 4y ago
It helps to know that the shift has a solid foundation, that it's not some kind of act one just needs to put on forever. We know, for instance, about mirror neurons, and that seeing some else's pain can light up some of the same parts in the brain of the observer. You can tune them out, or strengthen them. We know that the right hemisphere has entirely non-verbal modes of thought and generally sees the whole without breaking things into pieces--we don't have to put together some mystical oneness, but just tune into those aspects of our own being. Without understanding these things about the brain, I'd take pointing out the potential for transformation as just moralizing and conceptualizing, just a draining act to put on for all time. There's a solid foundation to build on--it will run on the hardware, it's not just emulation.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It sounds like you have just almost like contempt for these beliefs until they're validated by an authority in the form of materialist science? That what neuroscience contributes is not anything to the practice itself, but just permission for you to participate.
  - theonemind 4y ago
    I'd agree it's not anything to the practice itself, but I would argue that it is something to a path to practice. Arguably, Elon Musk found out what happens if you commit to large purchases without due diligence. What else would make me think that it's even an executable algorithm? How do you get from non-belief to belief at all? Why investigate if the whole thing looks shaky or like some kind of weird scam just to invest society with morality? A lot of religious trappings seem partially to function as theater, show, or advertising. This generates some interest without understanding. The first understanding and further interest will probably come intellectually thereafter. The Dalai Lama has characterized one of the strengths of Tibetan Buddhism as laying out a complete path, no "missing steps." In his Introduction to Buddhism, he describes how a beginner might start out with analytical contemplation before meditation, getting familiar with the idea. I think that understanding this sort of thing can help the thing scale. Quite a few traditions hold that you must have living transmissions of sorts, or need a guru. I think that serves, in part, to show in a living being that it is possible and not an act...but we don't have 3.5 billion spiritual masters to mentor 3.5 billion other people, and I don't see anything wrong with replacing a little trip or roadblock on the path with intellectual understanding. The traditions, understanding, and concepts all exist to create a workable path. Scaffolding doesn't have anything to do with having a building in the end, but if you want a building, you'll probably find scaffolding useful along the way.
- c4ptnjack 4y ago
  I find this post and your original comment quite elucidating. It illustrates the main dilemma I have with Alan watts' and western new philosophy. At the least bit, it's all incredibly ambiguous to the point of losing most meaning and lending itself to interpretation in any direction. Not to say most religious do not have a similar nature, but that this particular view is incredibly easy to turn into what lever perspective or belief system you want that's just as dogmatic as traditional western systems of belief. The 'you are IT' and everyone is "it" and perfect at nature is just too easy to reduce in literally any direction you want. From anarchy to magical thinking to justified narcissism. Hints the section mentioned in which watts and his swami guy argue over the exact point.