4 ms·

>'Maladaptive neuronal connections' That's a mouthful, and just as obscure for most people. Might as well go with "Sarkana" - it's easier to pronounce. Besides

by DenisM 14y ago

>'Maladaptive neuronal connections' That's a mouthful, and just as obscure for most people. Might as well go with "Sarkana" - it's easier to pronounce. Besides, the script worked well for a few thousand years now, there is hardly a reason to change it now. But yeah, if you're scientifically inclined and the ancient Indian mythology is rubbing you the wrong way, you can safely skip it, and it still makes perfect sense in the end.

uberuberuber 14y ago
I should have fleshed out that thought more fully. I agree it's a mouthful, but I was trying to convey that we no longer have to believe in such strange (bad) ideas because we have a new set of strange (better) ideas (connectomes and such) that actually have evidence underlying them. The way the course described Sakarnas was as 'bad non-physical spirits/objects/states' that were generated by the body, and that meditation would enable one to "release" them, and prevent their development in the future. Obviously the more evidence-based interpretation of meditation is that it in some way re-wires certain neural connections in a manner that seems to be generally positive. I'm not in favor of change for the sake of change, but when better reasons are available to describe a phenomenon, I think we should adopt those reasons. Surviving for thousands of years is not a virtue when it comes to the validity of ancient texts or the actions of (historical?) individuals (Buddha, Jesus, Big-Mo, etc.).
- initself 14y ago
  If you think sankharas are non-physical, you missed the point. They are entirely physical and experienced as "vedana", bodily sensations. Nothing woo-woo. You just feel your body objectively.
- hosh 14y ago
  I wouldn't be in a hurry to be so dismissive. Attachment to bad ideas is the same as attachment to better ideas: they arise, they pass. Sit long enough, and you will encounter all the interesting attachment surrounding the notion of rationality.
initself 14y ago
I think by "Sarkanas" you really mean "Sankharas". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra Nothing woo-woo about "conditioned phenomena".
xk_id 14y ago
(following up on uberuberuber's reply) > Besides, the script worked well for a few thousand years now, there is hardly a reason to change it now. Imo, that is a big fallacy. I believe religious beliefs can no longer provide sound ground for adjustment in today's world. It is harmful to have within your semantic environment both "spiritual" factors such as the notion of "aetheric body", and scientific factors such as the notion of "space-time" (which currently shape our civilisation). This is because the two belong to inconsistent sets, so they conflict. Edit: For a more relevant example, consider the implicit assumption of many "spiritual" doctrines that there is a "soul", which is separated from a "mind", which is separated from a "body". This contrasts with our modern scientific assumptions, that there is just an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment, which functions as such. The word "organism" is more recent than "Sankharas"! As such, it doesn't carry with itself the older metaphysics. Also, consider our modern scientific perspective that we don't drop into this world from a vacuum – we come from an environment, the uterus. This, again, stands in sharp contradiction with many "spiritual" doctrines.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Your point of view is certainly not unique, but neither is it anything close to universal. Many people myself included comfortably reconcile belief in a "soul" and a "higher power" with the demonstrated accomplishments of scientific research and study.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  > This contrasts with our modern scientific assumptions, that there is just an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment, which functions as such. The rubber hand illusion shows that mind and body are far from unified.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  > It is harmful to have within your semantic environment both "spiritual" factors… and scientific factors such as the notion of "space-time" (which currently shape our civilisation). This is because the two belong to inconsistent sets, so they conflict. Harmful to what? Prove it—and not from first principles, because the human mind seems to have no trouble at all with combining arbitrary and contradictory concepts into one big mushy whole. Ask any non-programmer for software requirements, or really anybody why they did anything and not something else. The only tangible harm is that it annoys people who attempt to apply logical reasoning to every situation and interaction, even where other human faculties are obviously more appropriate.

by DenisM 14y ago

uberuberuber 14y ago

I should have fleshed out that thought more fully. I agree it's a mouthful, but I was trying to convey that we no longer have to believe in such strange (bad) ideas because we have a new set of strange (better) ideas (connectomes and such) that actually have evidence underlying them. The way the course described Sakarnas was as 'bad non-physical spirits/objects/states' that were generated by the body, and that meditation would enable one to "release" them, and prevent their development in the future. Obviously the more evidence-based interpretation of meditation is that it in some way re-wires certain neural connections in a manner that seems to be generally positive. I'm not in favor of change for the sake of change, but when better reasons are available to describe a phenomenon, I think we should adopt those reasons. Surviving for thousands of years is not a virtue when it comes to the validity of ancient texts or the actions of (historical?) individuals (Buddha, Jesus, Big-Mo, etc.).

initself 14y ago
If you think sankharas are non-physical, you missed the point. They are entirely physical and experienced as "vedana", bodily sensations. Nothing woo-woo. You just feel your body objectively.
hosh 14y ago
I wouldn't be in a hurry to be so dismissive. Attachment to bad ideas is the same as attachment to better ideas: they arise, they pass. Sit long enough, and you will encounter all the interesting attachment surrounding the notion of rationality.

initself 14y ago

I think by "Sarkanas" you really mean "Sankharas". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra Nothing woo-woo about "conditioned phenomena".

xk_id 14y ago

(following up on uberuberuber's reply) > Besides, the script worked well for a few thousand years now, there is hardly a reason to change it now. Imo, that is a big fallacy. I believe religious beliefs can no longer provide sound ground for adjustment in today's world. It is harmful to have within your semantic environment both "spiritual" factors such as the notion of "aetheric body", and scientific factors such as the notion of "space-time" (which currently shape our civilisation). This is because the two belong to inconsistent sets, so they conflict. Edit: For a more relevant example, consider the implicit assumption of many "spiritual" doctrines that there is a "soul", which is separated from a "mind", which is separated from a "body". This contrasts with our modern scientific assumptions, that there is just an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment, which functions as such. The word "organism" is more recent than "Sankharas"! As such, it doesn't carry with itself the older metaphysics. Also, consider our modern scientific perspective that we don't drop into this world from a vacuum – we come from an environment, the uterus. This, again, stands in sharp contradiction with many "spiritual" doctrines.

ams6110 14y ago
Your point of view is certainly not unique, but neither is it anything close to universal. Many people myself included comfortably reconcile belief in a "soul" and a "higher power" with the demonstrated accomplishments of scientific research and study.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Daniel_Newby 14y ago
> This contrasts with our modern scientific assumptions, that there is just an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment, which functions as such. The rubber hand illusion shows that mind and body are far from unified.
fusiongyro 14y ago
> It is harmful to have within your semantic environment both "spiritual" factors… and scientific factors such as the notion of "space-time" (which currently shape our civilisation). This is because the two belong to inconsistent sets, so they conflict. Harmful to what? Prove it—and not from first principles, because the human mind seems to have no trouble at all with combining arbitrary and contradictory concepts into one big mushy whole. Ask any non-programmer for software requirements, or really anybody why they did anything and not something else. The only tangible harm is that it annoys people who attempt to apply logical reasoning to every situation and interaction, even where other human faculties are obviously more appropriate.