One Way: the reason why Christian ecumenicalism is impossible

[path_of_one]

As far as I have read, similar studies conducted with shamans, mystics, and priests from all sorts of religions show similar brain activity.

I don't see how that has anything to do with anything. We live in a body. Everything, including development of awareness and consciousness, will light up parts of our brain like a Christmas tree.

I think Buddhism is being misunderstood, and often is by most non-Buddhists in the West because it is a relative rarity and many people don't ever bother to get the basics correct.

Personally, I don't think you need an ego to have progress. It is neither inherently natural nor inherently social to "die to self" (as the Christians put it) or to become aware of nonself and impermanence (as I think the Buddhists would put it). The natural instinct is for the self to wish to feel that it is permanent and independent. It is not. When we awaken to this interdependency and impermancy, we are open to the type of transformation that I believe both Christ and the Buddha spoke of... a transformation that leads to presence in God, in the ground of being, and thus the end of fear and selfishness... liberation.

The two religious systems are quite different in their approach and explanatory model, but when I read Buddhist practioners' descriptions of nirvana, it is much like my own experiences of being in God's presence. By virtue of two very different cultural systems from which the religions arose, they are necessarily quite different.

But I dare to say the truth behind them is the same.

 

[Thomas]

Brain studies done of Buddhist monks while meditating.

This is the problem with the West — we are now orientated towards technological solutions — our approach to everything is technology-based, as if a meter will provide the answer to everything.

Brain activity reveals nothing other than brain activity ... and from a position of absolute ignorance, technicians then decide what must be going on in the soul/spirit ... so the obvious conclusion is, if you artificially create the same neural condition, you create the same order of experience ... which, of course, is demonstrably not the case.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Brain studies done of Buddhist monks while meditating. The monks said the closer they they thought they were coming to samsara(?) or nirvana the greater their success in stopping electrical activity in their brains' sense of self centers.

I'd like to see a link or a cite for the study. Thanks.

 

[nativeastral]

not quite stopping electrical activity but one video portraying changes in brain states with meditation
YouTube - Change your Mind Change your Brain: The Inner Conditions...

 

[Tao_Equus]

This is the problem with the West — we are now orientated towards technological solutions — our approach to everything is technology-based, as if a meter will provide the answer to everything.

Brain activity reveals nothing other than brain activity ... and from a position of absolute ignorance, technicians then decide what must be going on in the soul/spirit ... so the obvious conclusion is, if you artificially create the same neural condition, you create the same order of experience ... which, of course, is demonstrably not the case.

Thomas

Really? Well then demonstrate it.

 

[Thomas]

Really? Well then demonstrate it.

Easy.

Fred loves Susan. Poor fellah can't sleep, can't eat, got the jitters ... pick any set of symptoms you like.

Now medicate Jim, or stimulate the nervous system by other means, to achieve the same condition ... does that mean Jim loves Susan like Fred does?

On the other hand, with your 'beer-goggles' on, every wo/man can become the object of adoration. Even animals.

I think it's a given that you might be able to replicate the signs, but that does not necessarily means you've replicated the experience that gives rise to them.

+++

Then again, in all traditions that utilise meditation as part of their spiritual life and practice, they will tell you to ignore the phenomena that often accompanies the practice. Why? Because these 'signs' are not the fruit of the process, but a side-effect (or indeed a diversionary side-show). Similarly brain activity is a side-effect, easily demonstrated because you don't need faith nor even a belief to meditate.

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Now medicate Jim, or stimulate the nervous system by other means, to achieve the same condition ...

I do not believe that there is any "means" to achieve the "same" condition except making Jim fall deeply in love. You are assuming that there exists such an alternate means of inducing the condition, but that is begging the question.

 

[Netti-Netti]

As far as I have read, similar studies conducted with shamans, mystics, and priests from all sorts of religions show similar brain activity.

...when I read Buddhist practitioners' descriptions of nirvana, it is much like my own experiences of being in God's presence.

I haven't seen too many descriptions of nirvana; mainly I see explanations of what it is in relation to the goal of practice (even though there may be no functional link!) I wouldn't know what sources you may be referencing that would provide a basis for comparison.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it's not uncommon to describe G-d as a kind of attachment figure. The term "Heavenly Father" in particular suggests a surrogate parent. (My friend Lee Kirkpatrick suggested that G-d may be represented as a "particularly effective attachment figure--and may even compensate for what was lacking in the early parent-child attachment.") I'm not aware of any such imagery in Buddhism.

It is quite possible - and in fact likely - that meditation and religious experience are neurologically and phenomenologically quite different. Emotionally, they would appear to be very different. Conversion experiences in particular (a subset of religious experience) may have a dominant element of crisis and therefore would not be comparable to a peaceful/blissful meditative experience.

But I dare to say the truth behind them is the same.

This is not apparent from differences in experience and their stated goals. I believe there is a convergence between the two that actually relates to how different they are.

 

[holysmoke]

I wonder... would you want me to judge Christianity based upon a brain study of four priests?

No. You'd want me to judge Christianity based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Likewise, I'd ask you to judge Buddhism on the teachings of the Buddha.

He didn't tell his followers and others to manipulate their brain activity. He told them about suffering, the cause of it, that the cessation of suffering is attainable, and the path to end suffering.

He taught the eight-fold path...
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

There's much more to Buddhism than simply turning on brainwaves.

I'd want you to judge Christianity on the acts of Christians; "by their fruits ye shall know them" is such great wisdom because it cuts through all the verbal b.s. and gets right to the heart of spiritual teachings--the talk means nothing without the walk.

If the Dalai Lama as an enlightened Buddha in the flesh allows himself to be made a fool of by Mao Zedung and loses Tibet to the Chinese with many thousands killed in the process, what's this say about Buddhist "enlightenment"? Common sense would inform most intelligent people that spending most of your life in contemplation trying to shut out all existential thinking while listening to mantras repeated over and over again would eventually dull the mind. Buddhism dulls the mind in my opinion and that's why Buddhist nations, e.g. Tibet and Burma lag behind the Western nations in social progress and why the Dalai Lama got blindsided by Mao.

 

[citizenzen]

If the Dalai Lama as an enlightened Buddha in the flesh allows himself to be made a fool of by Mao Zedung and loses Tibet to the Chinese with many thousands killed in the process, what's this say about Buddhist "enlightenment"? Common sense would inform most intelligent people that spending most of your life in contemplation trying to shut out all existential thinking while listening to mantras repeated over and over again would eventually dull the mind. Buddhism dulls the mind in my opinion and that's why Buddhist nations, e.g. Tibet and Burma lag behind the Western nations in social progress and why the Dalai Lama got blindsided by Mao.

That's a pretty amazing bit of analysis. You encouraged me to look up the Invasion of Tibet on Wikipedia and I found this (bolding mine)...

The People's Liberation Army first entered eastern Tibet (Chamdo) on October 7 1950. The highly mobile units of the PLA quickly surrounded the outnumbered Tibetan forces, and by October 19 1950, 5,000 Tibetan soldiers had been killed, and the small Tibetan army had surrendered. After confiscating their weapons, the PLA soldiers gave their prisoners lectures on socialism, and a small amount of money, and allowed them to return to their homes.

The PLA then continued on to central Tibet, but halted its advance 200 km to the east of Lhasa, at what China claimed was the de jure boundary of Tibet.

Here they stopped and demanded Tibet's "peaceful liberation." The PLA, while possessing overwhelming military advantage, wanted to avoid intervention by other powers such as the US, and was also set on winning the hearts and minds of the Tibetan populace. At first, they treated the local populace very well, building roads, and paying locals for their labor. According to Tenzin Gyatso, the current Dalai Lama, the PLA did not attack civilians: "The Chinese were very disciplined. They were like the British soldiers (in 1904). Even better than the British, because they distributed some money (to villagers and local leaders). So they carefully planned."

The PLA sent released prisoners (among them Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme, a captured governor) to Lhasa to negotiate with the Dalai Lama on the PLA's behalf. The PLA promised that if Tibet was "peacefully liberated", the Tibetan elites would keep their privileges and power. At the same time, Jigme and other released captives testified to their good treatment by the PLA. The Tibetan government asked the UN for help facing the invasion of the Tibet by China. Only El Salvador supported Tibet's cause in the UN. As the PLA had stopped and was asking for peaceful negotiations instead of entering Lhasa unimpeded, the United Nations dropped the issue from the agenda. The combination of military pressure, reports of good treatment from locals and released prisoners, and the lack of international support convinced the Tibetan representatives to enter negotiations with the PLA.

Several months later, in May 1951, the Tibetan representatives signed a seventeen-point agreement in Beijing with the PRC's Central People's Government which the Chinese say affirms China's sovereignty over Tibet. The agreement was ratified in Lhasa a few months later. Point 15 of the agreement stated that the Chinese government would set up a military and administrative committee and a military area headquarters in Tibet. PLA troops entered Lhasa peacefully in the fall of 1951. An article released by the Tibetan Government in Exile in 1996 states that the treaty was imposed on Tibet by force and it "was never validly concluded and was rejected by Tibetans," a position that was supported by a UK parliamentary review.

But what does that have to do with Buddhism as a religion? Perhaps you could explain it to me a little more.

 

[seattlegal]

Easy.

Fred loves Susan. Poor fellah can't sleep, can't eat, got the jitters ... pick any set of symptoms you like.

Now medicate Jim, or stimulate the nervous system by other means, to achieve the same condition ... does that mean Jim loves Susan like Fred does?

On the other hand, with your 'beer-goggles' on, every wo/man can become the object of adoration. Even animals.

I think it's a given that you might be able to replicate the signs, but that does not necessarily means you've replicated the experience that gives rise to them.

+++

Then again, in all traditions that utilise meditation as part of their spiritual life and practice, they will tell you to ignore the phenomena that often accompanies the practice. Why? Because these 'signs' are not the fruit of the process, but a side-effect (or indeed a diversionary side-show). Similarly brain activity is a side-effect, easily demonstrated because you don't need faith nor even a belief to meditate.

Thomas

Taoism calls this the "flowery trappings of the Tao" that lead to confusion or "great folly," and urges the sage to go for the fruit, and not the flower.
Tao Te Ching 38

 

[path_of_one]

I haven't seen too many descriptions of nirvana; mainly I see explanations of what it is in relation to the goal of practice (even though there may be no functional link!) I wouldn't know what sources you may be referencing that would provide a basis for comparison.

When studying Buddhism in the comparative religion department at college, we read individual practitioners' descriptions of nirvana as a demonstration of the phenomenological approach to studying religion. The readings were selected by a professor who specialized in Buddhism. I was struck with how much they were like my mystical experiences, sometimes literally using the same language as I used in journals.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it's not uncommon to describe G-d as a kind of attachment figure. The term "Heavenly Father" in particular suggests a surrogate parent. (My friend Lee Kirkpatrick suggested that G-d may be represented as a "particularly effective attachment figure--and may even compensate for what was lacking in the early parent-child attachment.") I'm not aware of any such imagery in Buddhism.

I'm from the Judeo-Christian tradition and I do not experience or conceive of God this way. So perhaps that is why it is easy for me to experience Buddhism in a similar way as I experience Christianity. I know I am not the only one as I've read other Christians' writings in which God is not seen as only, primarily, or "really" a parent-figure.

It is quite possible - and in fact likely - that meditation and religious experience are neurologically and phenomenologically quite different. Emotionally, they would appear to be very different. Conversion experiences in particular (a subset of religious experience) may have a dominant element of crisis and therefore would not be comparable to a peaceful/blissful meditative experience.

I have never had a conversion experience, so I can't say. I started experiencing God mystically when I was a young child and it has been an ongoing relationship ever since. Sometimes the relationship is peaceful and sometimes it stands my world on its head, but it does not result in conversion to anything. It is just learning.

I also would not say that meditation is necessarily peaceful or blissful. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, can result in one facing demons in meditation. The Buddhist purpose of meditation is not just to be relaxed. I think that's a New Age/Western notion- that meditation results in a peaceful or blissful state. Sometimes meditation is difficult or induces experiences that are not peaceful or blissful.

One could say that a goal of meditation is peace. But then so is the goal of conversion, in many ways. Everyone wishes to have peace in themselves.

I think it is problematic to say that meditation is not religious experience. Buddhism is a religion, and meditation is a subset of practice that happens within that religion and within other religions. If you mean there are different types of religious experience, well yes, of course.

If there is no unity between Buddhist meditative experience and mystical Christian ones, then I am either doing only one or only the other, somehow without any training in Buddhism until I was an adult, but having had the same experiences when I was a child. So, I dunno. It seems to come down to one person categorizing things one way, and another person categorizing things another way. There are probably reasons for both systems of categorization, but my personal data indicates that though I was experiencing Christian mysticism, many of my accounts of what that experience was differed extremely little from Buddhists' accounts of nirvana.

 

[Netti-Netti]

When studying Buddhism in the comparative religion department at college, we read individual practitioners' descriptions of nirvana as a demonstration of the phenomenological approach to studying religion. The readings were selected by a professor who specialized in Buddhism. I was struck with how much they were like my mystical experiences, sometimes literally using the same language as I used in journals.

It seems there are similarities. I wonder if there are more differences. But I'd be interested: what were the similarities in language?

I'm from the Judeo-Christian tradition and I do not experience or conceive of God this way.

?? "The Heavenly Father" is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This imagery of a G-d who can be depended on through faith and good works is apparent throughout the Bible. I'd say the most consistent expression of this kind of imagery is found in the Psalms.

I also would not say that meditation is necessarily peaceful or blissful. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, can result in one facing demons in meditation. The Buddhist purpose of meditation is not just to be relaxed. I think that's a New Age/Western notion - that meditation results in a peaceful or blissful state. Sometimes meditation is difficult or induces experiences that are not peaceful or blissful.

Could be.

One could say that a goal of meditation is peace. But then so is the goal of conversion, in many ways.

It's possible people intentionally have conversion experiences that involve emotional upheaval because they want to discipline their mind. Not sure how that would work.

Everyone wishes to have peace in themselves.

I didn't know that.

I think it is problematic to say that meditation is not religious experience.

How do Buddhists see it?

but having had the same experiences when I was a child. So, I dunno. It seems to come down to one person categorizing things one way, and another person categorizing things another way.

You see no differences in the imagery?

There are probably reasons for both systems of categorization, but my personal data indicates that though I was experiencing Christian mysticism, many of my accounts of what that experience was differed extremely little from Buddhists' accounts of nirvana.

Do the Buddhist accounts include any mention of Jesus? Also, the union of the soul with the spirit is a dominant theme in Christian mysticism, especially Bridal mysticism. How is that like a Buddhist nirvana?

 

[holysmoke]

That's a pretty amazing bit of analysis. You encouraged me to look up the Invasion of Tibet on Wikipedia and I found this (bolding mine)...

The People's Liberation Army first entered eastern Tibet (Chamdo) on October 7 1950. The highly mobile units of the PLA quickly surrounded the outnumbered Tibetan forces, and by October 19 1950, 5,000 Tibetan soldiers had been killed, and the small Tibetan army had surrendered. After confiscating their weapons, the PLA soldiers gave their prisoners lectures on socialism, and a small amount of money, and allowed them to return to their homes.

The PLA then continued on to central Tibet, but halted its advance 200 km to the east of Lhasa, at what China claimed was the de jure boundary of Tibet.

Here they stopped and demanded Tibet's "peaceful liberation." The PLA, while possessing overwhelming military advantage, wanted to avoid intervention by other powers such as the US, and was also set on winning the hearts and minds of the Tibetan populace. At first, they treated the local populace very well, building roads, and paying locals for their labor. According to Tenzin Gyatso, the current Dalai Lama, the PLA did not attack civilians: "The Chinese were very disciplined. They were like the British soldiers (in 1904). Even better than the British, because they distributed some money (to villagers and local leaders). So they carefully planned."

The PLA sent released prisoners (among them Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme, a captured governor) to Lhasa to negotiate with the Dalai Lama on the PLA's behalf. The PLA promised that if Tibet was "peacefully liberated", the Tibetan elites would keep their privileges and power. At the same time, Jigme and other released captives testified to their good treatment by the PLA. The Tibetan government asked the UN for help facing the invasion of the Tibet by China. Only El Salvador supported Tibet's cause in the UN. As the PLA had stopped and was asking for peaceful negotiations instead of entering Lhasa unimpeded, the United Nations dropped the issue from the agenda. The combination of military pressure, reports of good treatment from locals and released prisoners, and the lack of international support convinced the Tibetan representatives to enter negotiations with the PLA.

Several months later, in May 1951, the Tibetan representatives signed a seventeen-point agreement in Beijing with the PRC's Central People's Government which the Chinese say affirms China's sovereignty over Tibet. The agreement was ratified in Lhasa a few months later. Point 15 of the agreement stated that the Chinese government would set up a military and administrative committee and a military area headquarters in Tibet. PLA troops entered Lhasa peacefully in the fall of 1951. An article released by the Tibetan Government in Exile in 1996 states that the treaty was imposed on Tibet by force and it "was never validly concluded and was rejected by Tibetans," a position that was supported by a UK parliamentary review.

But what does that have to do with Buddhism as a religion? Perhaps you could explain it to me a little more.

The Dalai Lama is touted as THE living Buddha and one must suppose after a childhood and life of Buddhist contemplation that he would have better sense about obvious conflict of interest between Communist "peaceful" annexation of Tibet and Tibet Buddhism vs. Communist ideology with its intolerance of religion. A political leader schooled in the ways of the world I think would not be so naive and would not have fallen for the Communists ruse. I recently watched an interview of the Dalai Lama and came away with the same opinion I had after talking with the head spiritual leader of the Sufis. Both of them talked about the world and their religious beliefs using platitudes that are a dime a dozen, i.e. I didn't hear anything profound but the same smiley face words every religious leader uses about peace and love and harmony. It's like when the Maharishi was on the Johnny Carson Show while the Vietnam War was going on and was asked his opinion of it. He said Americans should obey their President (Nixon) who after all, knew more about the situation than anyone else. Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation was going great guns in counterculture America at the time but as soon as he opened his mouth about Vietnam, zingo! there went most all his American TM membership. Concentrating on mind control by practicing no thought cannot but be detrimental to problem solving when No Thought dominates one's mentality.

 

[citizenzen]

The Dalai Lama is touted as THE living Buddha and one must suppose after a childhood and life of Buddhist contemplation that he would have better sense about obvious conflict of interest between Communist "peaceful" annexation of Tibet and Tibet Buddhism vs. Communist ideology with its intolerance of religion. A political leader schooled in the ways of the world I think would not be so naive and would not have fallen for the Communists ruse.

I posted excerpts from wikipedia of the Tibet Invasion to give everyone here (and me) a clearer grasp of what they faced when confronted by China.

The global community refused to help. The Chinese army was poised to overrun the capital. Tibet's army suffered a 60% casualty rate in the first days of fighting and were vastly outnumbered. If China invaded Lhasa how many more soldiers and civilians would perish?

But holysmoke, has little sympathy for the predicament that the Dalai Lama found himself in. I know some people think that negotiations are for wimps, and that if you go home with bullets in your gun you're a loser, but I don't see what you want from this situation. What could he have done?

Oh... and there's one other interesting fact to this story. At the same time this is happening in Tibet, China's fighting in Korea and giving the U.S. army all that it can handle.

So cut Tibet and the Dalai Lama a little slack, okay?

 

[nativeastral]

I'd want you to judge Christianity on the acts of Christians; "by their fruits ye shall know them" is such great wisdom because it cuts through all the verbal b.s. and gets right to the heart of spiritual teachings--the talk means nothing without the walk.

If the Dalai Lama as an enlightened Buddha in the flesh allows himself to be made a fool of by Mao Zedung and loses Tibet to the Chinese with many thousands killed in the process, what's this say about Buddhist "enlightenment"? Common sense would inform most intelligent people that spending most of your life in contemplation trying to shut out all existential thinking while listening to mantras repeated over and over again would eventually dull the mind. Buddhism dulls the mind in my opinion and that's why Buddhist nations, e.g. Tibet and Burma lag behind the Western nations in social progress and why the Dalai Lama got blindsided by Mao.

remember non violence is one of the main doctrines of buddhism, despite the fact they have been reduced to it. there is a new dalai lama 'inaugurated' by China, and not obviously accepted by the tibetans. pray for tibet.

 

[nativeastral]

When studying Buddhism in the comparative religion department at college, we read individual practitioners' descriptions of nirvana as a demonstration of the phenomenological approach to studying religion. The readings were selected by a professor who specialized in Buddhism. I was struck with how much they were like my mystical experiences, sometimes literally using the same language as I used in journals.

......> Rudolph Otto wrote a book on the mystical similarities between the christian meister eckhart and the indian shankara 'mysticism east and west'

I'm from the Judeo-Christian tradition and I do not experience or conceive of God this way. So perhaps that is why it is easy for me to experience Buddhism in a similar way as I experience Christianity. I know I am not the only one as I've read other Christians' writings in which God is not seen as only, primarily, or "really" a parent-figure.



I have never had a conversion experience, so I can't say. I started experiencing God mystically when I was a young child and it has been an ongoing relationship ever since. Sometimes the relationship is peaceful and sometimes it stands my world on its head, but it does not result in conversion to anything. It is just learning.

I also would not say that meditation is necessarily peaceful or blissful. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, can result in one facing demons in meditation. The Buddhist purpose of meditation is not just to be relaxed. I think that's a New Age/Western notion- that meditation results in a peaceful or blissful state. Sometimes meditation is difficult or induces experiences that are not peaceful or blissful.

One could say that a goal of meditation is peace. But then so is the goal of conversion, in many ways. Everyone wishes to have peace in themselves.

I think it is problematic to say that meditation is not religious experience. Buddhism is a religion, and meditation is a subset of practice that happens within that religion and within other religions. If you mean there are different types of religious experience, well yes, of course.

.....> pertinent here to mention l omitted the other 2 dimensions of smart in your 'year' post, ritual and experiental, obviously intertwined, as here!

If there is no unity between Buddhist meditative experience and mystical Christian ones, then I am either doing only one or only the other, somehow without any training in Buddhism until I was an adult, but having had the same experiences when I was a child. So, I dunno. It seems to come down to one person categorizing things one way, and another person categorizing things another way. There are probably reasons for both systems of categorization, but my personal data indicates that though I was experiencing Christian mysticism, many of my accounts of what that experience was differed extremely little from Buddhists' accounts of nirvana.

sociologists etc can study experience accounts but cannot study religious experiences themselves, it being a subjective phenomenon nevertheless embedded in traditions. We are talking of something transcendent therefore really beyond our conceptual grasp to totally categorize?

 

[Quahom1]

Why is it that there are those who insist on discussing Eastern faiths in the Christian forum? This thread had gone totally to seed, in that the last set of posts have nothing to do with Christianity...

Let's get back on track with the original thought that created this thread.

thanks.

v/r

Q

 

[citizenzen]

Personally, I think trying to control a thread is a rather futile endeavor. Why not let the conversations flow?



While Buddhists flow,

Christians control.

Or is that unfair?

 

[Quahom1]

Personally, I think trying to control a thread is a rather futile endeavor. Why not let the conversations flow?



While Buddhists flow,

Christians control.

Or is that unfair?

What purpose does Buddhist thought serve Christian concepts?

And Buddhists thought does not flow within Christian thought, or concepts.