the deep flaw in both PRAYER and MEDITATION

[Snoopy]

I kind of regret getting into this one as when I first read the OP's I was relating it to my thoughts on another thread and suddenly its all a lot more complicated.

Blame it on the font colour, it's the colour of madness!!!

With reference to the definition of ritual, I do not define ritual as a formalised group activity. Ritual, in this sense, to me means any activity that is carried out as a part of ones belief system. Meditation, for a Buddhist, definitely falls in that category.

Fair enough.

And you cannot embark on a Buddhist meditative session without having done a lot of preparatory work in understanding what to do.

Oh I think I see that very big brush again.
eg Zazen (look it up if you're fussed) is "simple" to "do."

Choosing a system of belief like Buddhism, or any religion, is itself an enormous choice made solely by the ego. You cannot suddenly expect to be rid of that when entering a meditation as you would never have contemplated the meditation save for the ego. Its like building a skyscraper then thinking you can knock down all the floors exept the penthouse and expect it to remain floating free. I appreciate what you, and others, are trying to say that the meditation is an effort to restrict the ego, my argument is that because the act of meditation is built on a scaffold of ego that is impossible. Not to say that it cannot still be beneficial or rewarding, but if its aim is to be free of ego it is destined to failure. To use another analogy it is like building a fire then trying to smother it with wood, it may work for a while, but really you are still just fuelling it.

We shall make a tactical withdrawal then! My last comment is there is not an aim to be free of ego (whatever that is). An ego is required to function. A sense of duality is constantly maintained by the mind. It is the health of said ego that matters, I think!

s.

 

[earl]

Snoopy,

I kind of regret getting into this one as when I first read the OP's I was relating it to my thoughts on another thread and suddenly its all a lot more complicated. With reference to the definition of ritual, I do not define ritual as a formalised group activity. Ritual, in this sense, to me means any activity that is carried out as a part of ones belief system. Meditation, for a Buddhist, definitely falls in that category. And you cannot embark on a Buddhist meditative session without having done a lot of preparatory work in understanding what to do. Choosing a system of belief like Buddhism, or any religion, is itself an enormous choice made solely by the ego. You cannot suddenly expect to be rid of that when entering a meditation as you would never have contemplated the meditation save for the ego. Its like building a skyscraper then thinking you can knock down all the floors exept the penthouse and expect it to remain floating free.

I appreciate what you, and others, are trying to say that the meditation is an effort to restrict the ego, my argument is that because the act of meditation is built on a scaffold of ego that is impossible. Not to say that it cannot still be beneficial or rewarding, but if its aim is to be free of ego it is destined to failure. To use another analogy it is like building a fire then trying to smother it with wood, it may work for a while, but really you are still just fuelling it.

There is 1 thing in here I most certainly agree with, that one's "ego" probably plays a role to varying degrees in the choice of belief system, at least initially, including the materialist belief system. The Buddha was actually a "scientific" sort in that he exhorted his followers never to believe something solely because he or anybody else said it, but rather try out his recommended "research methods," i.e., meditation and see what they discover themselves. And in reference to your last comment directed to me in this thread, Tao, no I do not think myself superior. My comment about you not agreeing to intellectual honesty was in reference to that other odd post of yours wherein you simply derided me for quoting what a Buddhist view of their own practice is as opposed to simply accepting your rather (er) unique and one-sided terms of debate and framing of the issue being discussed. But, I'll admit that you do occasionally prompt me to use Tao-like, somewhat searing words with you just because you've been so Tao-like in your scathing posts for years. earl

 

[path_of_one]

Ritual, in this sense, to me means any activity that is carried out as a part of ones belief system.

But Tao, that isn't ritual. I mean, you can think it is ritual, but you'd be far off from any usual definition used in academic circles on the matter. Ritual is a very specific type of human activity, and it doesn't have to be attached to a belief system. A boat-naming ceremony, for example, before its first launch (you know, where you waste champagne by breaking it over the bow and all that) is a ritual, but has naught to do with belief systems.

Ritual, by most academic definitions, is behavior that is:
Performed as a social act (makes a social statement)
Formal
Stylized
Repetitive
Stereotyped
Held at certain times/places
Has a liturgical order

A liturgical order is when an action is pre-scripted. That is, the words and actions are planned before the performance.

Prayer and meditation can be ritual acts, but they don't have to be. They have to fulfill the definitional attributes of ritual to be considered ritual.

Otherwise, you're just kind of making up definitions as it suites you and this makes the boundaries around things very fuzzy. If I understand you correctly, you don't really mean you have a problem with ritual action, but rather you have a problem with belief systems. To which I would again say that in studying human culture and behavior, I have failed to see people who exist without belief systems of some sort. Our lives are based on social conditioning, which depends largely on accepting information which we have not personally experienced or observed. In so doing, we create beliefs about how the world works and our place in it.

Meditation, for a Buddhist, definitely falls in that category. And you cannot embark on a Buddhist meditative session without having done a lot of preparatory work in understanding what to do.

I'm with Snoopy. Some forms of Buddhist meditation require virtually no preparatory work. Grabbing a cushion and sitting and breathing isn't something you have to work toward. You just do it.

Choosing a system of belief like Buddhism, or any religion, is itself an enormous choice made solely by the ego.

How do you know it is made solely by the ego? Evidence? Otherwise, it is assumption about how the mind works.

Not to say that it cannot still be beneficial or rewarding, but if its aim is to be free of ego it is destined to failure.

In Druidry, our meditation is not aimed at being free of ego. I don't think that's the point in Buddhism either. It is to heighten self-consciousness, to be aware of one's own internal dialogue and where thoughts and feelings arise from and lead to. It is to know oneself better. Interestingly, as this occurs, the chattering and clamoring of the "ego" (in the sense of the little self, the self-centered, fearful, grabby-hands self ) goes away on its own; it's as if simply being noticed by oneself reduces its influence and balances it. Then, my experience of Druidic meditation is that it is has many uses, and this is only one of them.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Perhaps chastise was the wrong word. In a thread earlier in the week, you seemed to indicate that whereas you thought that I enjoyed my feelings, you enjoyed science.

I was trying to say I think we enjoy exactly the same feelings, no surprise there as we are both, despite allegations to the contrary against me, normal humans with a normal range of human feelings. We just attach different inspirations to them.

Penelope is saying that decisions are better made with emotion

I'll leave that for Penelope. Its certainly not what I took from it. Emotions have their complex roots in every branch of this Freudian trinity and are a primary cause of people to choose belief systems and indulge in the rituals the OP discussed. Maybe I misunderstood Penelope.

Indeed, and that is a statement that runs both ways, n'est pas? One can't criticize one approach of human thought whilst ignoring that the same criticism applies to the criticism itself. One can't call out flaws in one thing by using the same flaws to do so. It doesn't make any sense (except in a circular fashion).

And this is the Tao Monologue forum? You already say I am all over the shop... imagine what it would be like if I started debating full on with myself! I trust implicitly that there will always be others here to shine light on different perspectives.

Why is ritual a bad thing to you?

Its not! I have my own rituals, they are just not centred round a belief system, nor have superstitious attachments.

You'll have to provide some examples and evidence here, because to be honest I don't know what you are talking about in terms of "an invitation to self-indulgence," "reliance on the ego" and "removal of the ego." Perhaps start with explaining what you are meaning by "ego" and then how this relates to reliance on it for meditation.

Ego is "I" or "Self". It is mind, both consciously and unconsciously schooled to wherever it finds itself. What I mean by self indulgence is that in order to give merit to the power of prayer or meditation your ego has to give the system itself merit, its a feedback loop of sorts in that too. To give it merit you are drawing on ego that you have the faculties to make such an informed decision. As soon as you blur the line from possibility to belief I think it is entirely ego steering the ship.

That assumes enlightenment is tied to knowledge.

And it is. You may get poor doctors but you cannot have a good doctor without that knowledge. You can throw in as many 'mights' as you like but ignorance is no substitute for knowledge.

Either one fails to grasp the reality of any one aspect of the universe, having only a passing knowledge of a great many things or one grasps only a tiny sliver of the universe in depth and fails to have the knowledge to connect the dots to everyone else's knowledge.

I work off a kind of rating model. For a bit of information to get a top rating it needs empirical weight and to fit without compromising any earlier information or clearly supersedes the earlier data. I see the universe as a sort of vast jigsaw puzzle I have no chance of ever completing. But sometimes I get a glimpse of a few pieces that fit together...and I draw an emotional high from that. There are so many pieces that are observable using the scientific method that I simply have no time for inventing nor wasting time thinking about virtual pieces. And by virtual pieces I mean everything that is beyond science to study for answers. And when bodies of people or individuals try to tell me that their virtual puzzle is complete and is the whole truth then I say.... well you know what I say. You do draw value and meaning from areas I would call virtual which in your case is entirely harmless. But it is not always so harmless, which is why I put effort not into discrediting the concept of personal spirituality, which is like an appreciation of art, but the promoting the truth they are still just virtual pieces.

The knowledge itself is a network, a system of distributed cognition in society. It isn't an indepedent entity that any one person can fully access.

Not fully fully no. But the WWW has given any individual a capacity that never existed before. I think this will in time throw up geniuses that make our current greats look like they were still in kindergarten. And despite the best efforts of some western governments to dumb kids down again I think there is a new generation on the way that will change everything.

Yet one needn't despair that enlightenment is impossible because the system of knowledge is distributed rather than concentrated. I think there are ways around this, but I don't think Tao would like my views on that.

My views feed on the views of you and the others here. Without you all I would not be expressing them

 

[Tao_Equus]

Oh I think I see that very big brush again.
eg Zazen (look it up if you're fussed) is "simple" to "do."

I can say "OM" and have a cushion, that does not make me a Buddhist

We shall make a tactical withdrawal then! My last comment is there is not an aim to be free of ego (whatever that is). An ego is required to function. A sense of duality is constantly maintained by the mind. It is the health of said ego that matters, I think!

s.

Yeh I know, sorry, we are at crossed purposes sometimes, mostly because you 'practitioners' like to shift the bleedin goalposts!!

Its all good

 

[Tao_Equus]

There is 1 thing in here I most certainly agree with, that one's "ego" probably plays a role to varying degrees in the choice of belief system, at least initially, including the materialist belief system.

Hope you are not waiting for me to deny being egotistical!

 

[Tao_Equus]

'hell is other people' - sartre. thought l'd stick that in

In this case its you!!
You make me dizzy with your words... your schooling in these subjects is several levels above my casual reading. But please feel free to spoon-feed me

 

[Tao_Equus]

But Tao, that isn't ritual. I mean, you can think it is ritual, but you'd be far off from any usual definition used in academic circles ...

Otherwise, you're just kind of making up definitions as it suites you....

Come on PoO!! You having to descend into pedantry when it is absolutely clear what I mean!!

I'm with Snoopy. Some forms of Buddhist meditation require virtually no preparatory work. Grabbing a cushion and sitting and breathing isn't something you have to work toward. You just do it.

Already covered that I think.

How do you know it is made solely by the ego? Evidence? Otherwise, it is assumption about how the mind works.

Because everything is.

In Druidry, our meditation is not aimed at being free of ego. I don't think that's the point in Buddhism either. It is to heighten self-consciousness, to be aware of one's own internal dialogue and where thoughts and feelings arise from and lead to. It is to know oneself better. Interestingly, as this occurs, the chattering and clamoring of the "ego" (in the sense of the little self, the self-centered, fearful, grabby-hands self ) goes away on its own; it's as if simply being noticed by oneself reduces its influence and balances it. Then, my experience of Druidic meditation is that it is has many uses, and this is only one of them.

Which is to commune with ego ritually.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

I would not use a screwdriver to bake a cake.

Neither would I use a Freudian model of the mind to describe prayer.

VC

 

[Tao_Equus]

I would not use a screwdriver to bake a cake.

Neither would I use a Freudian model of the mind to describe prayer.

VC

A thin shafted screwdriver is absolutely perfect to see if the cake is baked

 

[nativeastral]

In this case its you!!
You make me dizzy with your words... your schooling in these subjects is several levels above my casual reading. But please feel free to spoon-feed me

is this better?! really am just getting to grips with something completely new to myself without reading [heideggers] difficult texts itself and seem to be relating it to many threads, particularly any 'theory of mind' mentioned here; but as others have mentioned there is more to mentality than the thinking process itself, the whole shebang is involved, though we have the capability to choose a different 'paradigm' or to 'control' our emotions or thoughts, with practice [will power or ego control?]. He is just reminding us that we are already in a world that has background norms that are so pervasive we are not even aware of them unless critically examined. And they can't be examined as discrete substances or objects separate from the rest of the 'frame of reference', else significance or meaning will be incomplete.

 

[Quahom1]

A thin shafted screwdriver is absolutely perfect to see if the cake is baked

Well that is a good point, but there are better tools to test the cake's status...

Kinda like using a crescent wrench as a hammer...it can be done but...

 

[Quahom1]

Fantastic post Penelope!!....did not even take a pitstop!


Seriously a wonderful post, mirroring some ideas I have been failing miserably to expound over on another thread. I am not meant to use the word but what the hell, one more broken rule aint gona kill anybody, it goes with what I have said in the past saying that prayer/meditation is a purely masturbatory act. It is that inverted into self.

I think that's why I love science, it is the best tool for freeing oneself from self.

5 Star post

The problem here I think is the confusion between meditation and prayer. One is self oriented (meditation), and the other is oriented on another (if one believes in the existence of that "other"). Unlike meditation (seeking answers from within), prayer is a dialogue with one who is allegedly greater than us and understands where we are and where we are coming from.

Kinda hard to act "Io solo" when one is "communicating" with someone else....

 

[wil]

The problem here I think is the confusion between meditation and prayer. One is self oriented (meditation), and the other is oriented on another (if one believes in the existence of that "other"). Unlike meditation (seeking answers from within), prayer is a dialogue with one who is allegedly greater than us and understands where we are and where we are coming from.

Kinda hard to act "Io solo" when one is "communicating" with someone else....

this is a matter of semantics...

in my view G!d is within...

Prayer is talking to G!d, meditation is listening.

 

[Tao_Equus]

is this better?! really am just getting to grips with something completely new to myself without reading [heideggers] difficult texts itself and seem to be relating it to many threads, particularly any 'theory of mind' mentioned here; but as others have mentioned there is more to mentality than the thinking process itself, the whole shebang is involved, though we have the capability to choose a different 'paradigm' or to 'control' our emotions or thoughts, with practice [will power or ego control?]. He is just reminding us that we are already in a world that has background norms that are so pervasive we are not even aware of them unless critically examined. And they can't be examined as discrete substances or objects separate from the rest of the 'frame of reference', else significance or meaning will be incomplete.

Thanks I hope I'm with you now. To be honest outside of a few posts here I have thought little on ego, mind, existentialism and the like for many many years but I just had a bolt of awareness, thanks to you, of just how influenced I have been. Though to be fair I think growing up as a first generation punk nihilism, or at least the concepts of anarchy, were already in my blood before I read any Dostoevsky or Sarte. I think the undercurrent of nihilism in me must be pretty clear for others to see but I myself have become far more interested in the questions that the hard sciences deal with. As I have already satisfactorily drawn what I found meaningful from these theories, and have had no temptation to devote time to extracting further meaning from them, I can see it would appear as though I am being dismissive or inflexible without clarification as to why. The nihilism I take for granted as my "frame of reference" is indeed a cultural artefact, but a tiny minority one. Which perhaps takes me to why I am so quickly dismissive of religion and any claimed esoterica.... if its not 'measurable'...it's not real....for me. And I am inflexible on that... not because I do not want to look but because I have looked and found it inadequate to me personally. I am aware that looking at everything critically seems to lack a romance and I think this is what belief is for most people, a romanticised suspension from critical thinking. I want to say more...but my eyelids are demanding I shut them...I'm not finished tho...

 

[Quahom1]

this is a matter of semantics...

in my view G!d is within...

Prayer is talking to G!d, meditation is listening.

It depends on the person and their beliefs. If there is no God in their beliefs, then the meditation is exactly as Tao describes it. If there is a belief, then there is a give and take conversation between "God" and self...

But that God has to be other than self...yes?

 

[nativeastral]

no it can be the higher self, beyond ego, which both prayer and meditation are transcending [unless the prayer is directed at achieving personal sustenance and the meditator cannot rid the monkey brain]; so in this respect, as in the OP, it is creative imagination that is being tapped, an intentional conscious 'dreaming' that is an interlude, a space, that benefits the self [which buddhists negate] or soul [which religions affirm] or beings in their human condition, ultimately a means to control their ends, to allieviate the reality of finitude

 

[wil]

It depends on the person and their beliefs. If there is no God in their beliefs, then the meditation is exactly as Tao describes it. If there is a belief, then there is a give and take conversation between "God" and self...

But that God has to be other than self...yes?

o n eye r 1


eye n the father r 1.....

gotta go wirhin to find out

 

[citizenzen]

It depends on the person and their beliefs. If there is no God in their beliefs, then the meditation is exactly as Tao describes it. If there is a belief, then there is a give and take conversation between "God" and self...

But that God has to be other than self...yes?

"Self" is an illusion, or at least a limited perspective that we've been trained to focus on and see as the primary source of our being. Zen meditation reveals that there is a larger aspect to our being. Some choose to call it God, others don't. In some ways it is "self" in that it informs and influences our lives every moment. In other ways, it is not self, as it is not solely connected to this body which in time will die. It is both self and not self.

 

[earl]

Thanks I hope I'm with you now. To be honest outside of a few posts here I have thought little on ego, mind, existentialism and the like for many many years but I just had a bolt of awareness, thanks to you, of just how influenced I have been. Though to be fair I think growing up as a first generation punk nihilism, or at least the concepts of anarchy, were already in my blood before I read any Dostoevsky or Sarte. I think the undercurrent of nihilism in me must be pretty clear for others to see but I myself have become far more interested in the questions that the hard sciences deal with. As I have already satisfactorily drawn what I found meaningful from these theories, and have had no temptation to devote time to extracting further meaning from them, I can see it would appear as though I am being dismissive or inflexible without clarification as to why. The nihilism I take for granted as my "frame of reference" is indeed a cultural artefact, but a tiny minority one. Which perhaps takes me to why I am so quickly dismissive of religion and any claimed esoterica.... if its not 'measurable'...it's not real....for me. And I am inflexible on that... not because I do not want to look but because I have looked and found it inadequate to me personally. I am aware that looking at everything critically seems to lack a romance and I think this is what belief is for most people, a romanticised suspension from critical thinking. I want to say more...but my eyelids are demanding I shut them...I'm not finished tho...

Tao, the Hindu term "maya," which meant the illusion of the ordinarily perceived world is etymologically related to the term for "to measure." earl