the deep flaw in both PRAYER and MEDITATION

[path_of_one]

I make coffee every morning, open my curtains and then check if my plants need water, (and usually give breakfast to a partially disabled herring gull I call Livingston), then plug in here to see how much trouble I'm in.

I get what you're saying. I tend to use a more carefully delineated definition, as I have long been interested in the difference between ritual and habit. The pop culture parlance isn't very useful for studying and distinguishing between very different types of human behavior. Unless there is deep symbolic meaning and a social statement behind making your coffee, it just ain't the same thing as taking communion or attending a funeral.

Much of art is ritualistic, artists tend to stick to a ritual formula that makes it consistent, and thus recognisable. I think there is an artist in everyone.

I would agree, though I would again bring up the problem of distinguishing rituals from habits. Otherwise, it's a big ball of activities that are just not a categorically useful bunch of stuff to lump together for study.

So I think I was not using the word ritual out of context but rather you were using one definition where I was using another.

I agree. There is some blurring between the two types of ritual, but the type I'm talking about is useful in social science for studying a particular way that people move about socially and symbolically, while the stuff that is not like this is habitual actions that do provide order but not necessarily meaning.

I am using the word ego to mean the combined whole. Which I think is valid as none of them are ever entirely independent in expression.

I understand. I tend to call the ego the ego and the superego the bigger self, higher self, whatever you want to call it. Well, not entirely, because I distinguish between that which is interconnected to all beings and that which is socially conditioned. They may be intertwined, but I don't find it as useful to lump them all together. I think in evolutionary terms, you are a lumper and I am a splitter. Maybe due to my background, I don't know, I feel the need to delineate a great many things about humans and work on the complexity there.

I wrap them tightly together in the context of the OP and would say that the practice, (of prayer/meditation), would not exist without at least the hope that there will be some reward from it. The practice is not independent, it is co-dependent.

That is not true, however. One can pray or meditate without thought of reward. One can just do a behavior without an ulterior motive.

That is like saying I think it problematic my friendly herring gull does not ask for a book to read. What you say implies that I would judge a person without the capacity based on someone who did have the capacity. I am able to discriminate a little better than that

But who are you or I to judge another's enlightenment? Who are you or I to judge who is subject to which limitations or disabilities, and therefore has become enlightened as it pertains to them? Some disabilities, like my uncle's are "worn" on the outside. But everyone has limitations, and to say enlightenment is bound to knowledge, rather than enlightenment is sometimes intertwined with knowledge, presumes a level of capacity in the population as a whole. Instead, I look at actions- are people more understanding of others? Loving? Patient? Kind? Joyful? Peaceful? Then they have something going on.

There is a deeper issue here, and that is the difference between what you might think is enlightenment as an atheist and what I think it is as a panentheist. I don't think enlightenment is simply bettering one's wisdom or becoming a nice person, though both are results of enlightenment. There is a question of what is really going on that relates to this issue of who is the proper judge of enlightenment in another.

Enlightenment is another one of these words that is easilly contextually missapplied or missunderstood. And in this case you seem to first apply it to knowledge then change to spiritual, makes for wobbly goal posts

I have always viewed enlightenment as a spiritual endeavor. It can be, for some individuals, related to knowledge (more appropriately to understanding or wisdom). But my point is the two are not at all the same, and one needn't have knowledge to be enlightened. It all depends on the individual and their unique learning style and purpose whether or not knowledge is part of their becoming enlightened. I think we can observe humanity and note a great deal of individual difference, and so while enlightenment (or in Christian parlance, deliverance or salvation) is open to all and will show the same transformational results (more loving, understanding, etc. individuals), the path to get there is a very personal, individualistic one. What transforms me may not be what transforms you.

I am poetic and artsy about science and knowledge, and if science is not about possibility then I do not know what it is about. Every answer in science seems to throw up a myriad of new questions, a sea of possibilities. To say that it lacks richness is wrong.

I have never said it lacks richness. However, science is not only about possibility. It is limited by its methodology and tools for measurement, which are ever expanding but always behind human thought (naturally). This is why a lot of physicists talk about ideas that they can express in language or math (another language) but may not be able to prove. You spoke of real and virtual knowledge... and said you wished to confine yourself to the real. I speak of potentiality and the human imagination, and say I don't wish to confine myself at all. Science plays catch up to the human imagination- and my love affair with both science and mysticism is dancing on the edge of new ideas and questions without regard for their current designation as "real" or "virtual." It is the ideas, the new thoughts, that I am after.

Yet despite such accusations I am also regularly called 'slippery', even by you

I think you're a flip-flopper, depending on your mood, what you've recently read, and whether or not you're posting in the morning.

Some people cannot seem to accept that I have no solid foundational doctrine as my start point. Even though I have often said "I make it up as I go along". Not that I make it up from nothing, I have opinions huen from my educational experience. What I do not do, and I think this is what makes some people uncomfortable, is adopt a doctrine and pass everything through it and reject or remould it to be consistent with that doctrine.

Likewise, for me. This really isn't something that original. Now, if you ask me to believe that you have no beliefs, I'll say that's hogwash. It's simply not how human brains operate. But if you ask me to believe you have no foundational doctrine, I would entirely agree that is consistent with your writings here.

I think I am 'spiritually' at peace with chaos. Where as 'believers' are determined to find order, and adopt paradigms designed to give them the succour they crave. I fully accept that I will one day die and everything I am and everything I learned will be lost forever. And it does not bother me. I am just grateful that I had the chance to look at all. I think many believers have a tendency to take themselves far too seriously. Prayer and meditation, as described in the OP, are all to often merely tools to take oneself too seriously.

I agree with this. It's about how I see it, except that I guess I could pass on what I've learned through writing and touching other human lives. We live on socially.

I think there is an afterlife, as it is consistent with my own experience, but I don't know what that looks like and it wouldn't change things for me if there wasn't one.

My experience of prayer and meditation is that it is its own reward. Maybe I am just one who enjoys it and it comes naturally to me. It is a way of living, for me, not something that I do. Prayer, to me, is giving thoughts and feelings over to the Divine. Meditation, to me, is listening to the Divine. Since for me, the Divine is in all things, all of it chalks up to living a life in which I am open to the world around me and to what any being might share with me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The world of forms is perpetually in flux, but the Buddha nature is eternal.

Eternal in what sense? It's easy to believe that Buddha nature exists where the causes and conditions that give rise to conscious organisms have successfully produced such organisms. However, what about where or when conscious organisms do not exist? Is Buddha nature in existence in such times/places?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[citizenzen]

Eternal in what sense?

I'm with you Eudaimonist.

Who knows what is eternal and what is not? If the definition is that it's been around as long as anybody can remember... I guess that's okay. But it's a term that I try to avoid.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I get what you're saying...
I would agree, ...
I agree.

That is a good start

I understand. I tend to call the ego the ego and the superego the bigger self, higher self, whatever you want to call it. Well, not entirely, because I distinguish between that which is interconnected to all beings and that which is socially conditioned. They may be intertwined, but I don't find it as useful to lump them all together. I think in evolutionary terms, you are a lumper and I am a splitter. Maybe due to my background, I don't know, I feel the need to delineate a great many things about humans and work on the complexity there.

For all that I am a "lumper" as you put it, and I agree, that lumping is not just blanket inclusion, it is derived from a developed appreciation of holistic principles. Even a champion of the SuperEgo like Ghandi was a slave to the other components of self. I am human, I do fail, but I go to great effort to be as inclusive as possible, (lumper), in that I consider far more information than may be apparent before making a statement. The problem seems to come in the writing, where it is conciseness and readability that cause limitations. Where as you wish to seperate out ritual from habit I see them both as inextricably bound in the psyche. To the point that seperating them is actually impossible. If you are not praying out of ritual obligation nor with deliberate purpose then you must be doing so out of habit. You can come up with any number of clever rejoinders but nobody prays or meditates for no reason. And that reason always springs from the self. Which takes us to..

That is not true, however. One can pray or meditate without thought of reward. One can just do a behavior without an ulterior motive.

I am amazed that you, having a solid grasp of biology, would state this. What you are saying is that human beings at prayer are the only organisms that expend effort for no reward. Sorry PoO, but that does just not wash.

But who are you or I to judge another's enlightenment? Who are you or I to judge who is subject to which limitations or disabilities, and therefore has become enlightened as it pertains to them? Some disabilities, like my uncle's are "worn" on the outside. But everyone has limitations, and to say enlightenment is bound to knowledge, rather than enlightenment is sometimes intertwined with knowledge, presumes a level of capacity in the population as a whole. Instead, I look at actions- are people more understanding of others? Loving? Patient? Kind? Joyful? Peaceful? Then they have something going on.

What is enlightenment but a self-made claim of gnosis? What real value does it have? As Alan Clements says in the above videoclip he spent years on his ass figuring out...."I breathe". Thats it. There is nothing deeper. Nothing more than wishful thinking anyway. Nobody changed anything sat on their ass counting their breathes. Sure it gives you plenty of time to think things through, but that is not meditation, that is thinking things through. Meditation without thought and without purpose is just pure self-indulgence, a little bit of time out from worrying about whatever it is that worries you. If you are lucky/ good at it. This is not the kind of prayer/meditation the OP addresses, though it does include it.

There is a question of what is really going on that relates to this issue of who is the proper judge of enlightenment in another.

So who is this proper judge?

What transforms me may not be what transforms you.

And how many people seek "transformation". Are not most of them not really seeking escape?

I have never said it lacks richness. However, science is not only about possibility.

I agree. It is also about turning possibility into reality. And is remarkably successful at it. Yet all these people praying and meditating through the lens of their 'enlightenment' contribute nothing concrete at all. In fact most of them are busy building walls that separate each group from the other groups, each claiming a superior enlightenment. Science does not do favouritism, it either works or it does not. What is real in China is real in Brazil.

I think you're a flip-flopper, depending on your mood, what you've recently read, and whether or not you're posting in the morning.

It is a highly complex body of knowledge we have access to, plenty of scope for dissonance... and I am not immune

My experience of prayer and meditation is that it is its own reward. Maybe I am just one who enjoys it and it comes naturally to me. It is a way of living, for me, not something that I do. Prayer, to me, is giving thoughts and feelings over to the Divine. Meditation, to me, is listening to the Divine. Since for me, the Divine is in all things, all of it chalks up to living a life in which I am open to the world around me and to what any being might share with me.

And I would still maintain from everything I have seen you write that what you call divine is an externalisation of self. It is your own sense of poetry. It is your own appreciation of feeling alive. Of living, breathing, loving, feeling and all our human emotions all wrapped up in a stabilised answer to existential angst. In your case it seems to be entirely healthy. But all too often it is not. Usually when fear is imposed. Which is why religions love a hefty portion of fire n brimstone.

 

[earl]

Tao, if your contention is that all human behavior-including scientific pursuits-is goal-directed, OK, yeah. But so what? Speaking of science, here is a short article on how Buddhist meditation affects the structure and function of the brain:
Netscape Search

So, this is a case of the quality of consciousness causing the brain to function in a particular manner, not the other way around. Implications? Gets back to that whole is consciousness merely an epiphenomenon of the brain or a semi-autonomous phenomenon itself. Though the deeper question-a Buddhist koan if you will that they sometimes use-is "Who/what" is being enlightened? Koans are in part the Buddhist way of continually pointing the practitioner beyond all pat, conceptual answers to the question of what is mind? The "answer" is the ultimate mystery of consciousness itself. earl

 

[citizenzen]

What is enlightenment but a self-made claim of gnosis? What real value does it have? As Alan Clements says in the above videoclip he spent years on his ass figuring out...."I breathe". Thats it. There is nothing deeper.

Alan Clements could have saved himself a lot of knee pain if only he understood the words of zen master Rinzai, who 1,000 years earlier described his enlightenment as, "When I'm hungry I eat, when I'm tired I sleep." Why does anybody have to sit in meditation for years in order to realize this simple, basic thing?

Maybe you should sit and think about that.

 

[nativeastral]

Tao, if your contention is that all human behavior-including scientific pursuits-is goal-directed, OK, yeah. But so what? Speaking of science, here is a short article on how Buddhist meditation affects the structure and function of the brain:
Netscape Search

So, this is a case of the quality of consciousness causing the brain to function in a particular manner, not the other way around. Implications? Gets back to that whole is consciousness merely an epiphenomenon of the brain or a semi-autonomous phenomenon itself. Though the deeper question-a Buddhist koan if you will that they sometimes use-is "Who/what" is being enlightened? Koans are in part the Buddhist way of continually pointing the practitioner beyond all pat, conceptual answers to the question of what is mind? The "answer" is the ultimate mystery of consciousness itself. earl

maybe l've posted this before but its the same monk in the above article

YouTube - Change your Mind Change your Brain: The Inner Conditions...

 

[iBrian]

Alan Clements could have saved himself a lot of knee pain if only he understood the words of zen master Rinzai, who 1,000 years earlier described his enlightenment as, "When I'm hungry I eat, when I'm tired I sleep." Why does anybody have to sit in meditation for years in order to realize this simple, basic thing?

Maybe you should sit and think about that.

It's funny - I remember about 12 years ago I felt my mind was so empty of distractions, my ego so suppressed, that I had reached a certain level of enlightenment.

And in that state, simplicity was everything.

Enlightenment was not about having a "higher awareness", as much as just being able to see through all the noise of daily life to those things which matter, have meaning, are important.

And, I saw and heard people speak of things which were true and enlightened, only the simplicity of their explanations didn't easily wash with others, or they felt intimidated, because such explanations lacked a certain human complexity in their description.

I would therefore suggest enlightenment is about seeing the simple in the complex, rather than the human habit of trying to make the simple complex.

"All is love" is one of the most enlightened comments anyone can make. However, others may demand an explanation of what that means. In trying to explain, you move away from a position of enlightenment and towards one filled with irrelevant human noise.

Just a rambling 2c.

 

[nativeastral]

It's funny - I remember about 12 years ago I felt my mind was so empty of distractions, my ego so suppressed, that I had reached a certain level of enlightenment.

And in that state, simplicity was everything.

Enlightenment was not about having a "higher awareness", as much as just being able to see through all the noise of daily life to those things which matter, have meaning, are important.

And, I saw and heard people speak of things which were true and enlightened, only the simplicity of their explanations didn't easily wash with others, or they felt intimidated, because such explanations lacked a certain human complexity in their description.

I would therefore suggest enlightenment is about seeing the simple in the complex, rather than the human habit of trying to make the simple complex.

"All is love" is one of the most enlightened comments anyone can make. However, others may demand an explanation of what that means. In trying to explain, you move away from a position of enlightenment and towards one filled with irrelevant human noise.

Just a rambling 2c.

l agree, enlightenment isn't about knowledge but a realisation of non duality, a lack of separation between supposed subject/object, of other minds, and a general feeling of at ease 'in the world' even when life seems complicated. Distress come when the ego or false self sets up barriers against 'the world' [ie everybody else]; prayer or mediation, or any activity which provides a space to dissolve ego [fishing?!] carries out positivities into normal public space.

'silence is the altar of G#d' yogananda

 

[earl]

It's funny - I remember about 12 years ago I felt my mind was so empty of distractions, my ego so suppressed, that I had reached a certain level of enlightenment.

And in that state, simplicity was everything.

Enlightenment was not about having a "higher awareness", as much as just being able to see through all the noise of daily life to those things which matter, have meaning, are important.

And, I saw and heard people speak of things which were true and enlightened, only the simplicity of their explanations didn't easily wash with others, or they felt intimidated, because such explanations lacked a certain human complexity in their description.

I would therefore suggest enlightenment is about seeing the simple in the complex, rather than the human habit of trying to make the simple complex.

"All is love" is one of the most enlightened comments anyone can make. However, others may demand an explanation of what that means. In trying to explain, you move away from a position of enlightenment and towards one filled with irrelevant human noise.

Just a rambling 2c.

I think you're quite right. Seems the nature of the human mind is to over-complicate things and the living of life itself. That's why when you read all the ancient statements made by ostensibly enlightened Buddhists particularly of the Chan/Zen variety, they are ones of startingly "everyday" simplicity. But, it seems that even millenia ago it took folks to engage in meditative disciplines to achieve such, not just in today's world of increasing social complexity and stress. earl

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think, and this goes to what NE was saying, that ego is indispensable. What makes us unique as humans is that we somehow evolved the ability to wait and delay action long enough to consider various responses and outcomes. Ego gives us the ability make reasoned choices. We have an ego to make up for not having instincts. Instincts are triggered immediately by environmental stimulus leaving no time to ponder hypothetical outcomes. Ego makes us anxious creatures because of the constant dithering, and because ego constantly compares at least two points of reference in time it sets up the sense of duality which makes us feel as if we are split into multiple "selves." A "self" is dispatched to each location, as it were, that our ego is using to triangulate its world view. The essential sense of duality created by the ego isn't polar, or inter-penetrative like Yin and Yang, it simply arises from the ego's process of holding more than one point in mind at all times.

In psychological rather than metaphysical terms, I think that there are two main impulses that drive us: the will to individuate with its accompanying narcissism, and the urge to incorporate, to submerge ourselves once again with the mother. We are programmed as children to pursue both impulses. We push children to show independence and reward them with enfoldment. All of our institutions combine to reinforce, facilitate, and perpetuate this paradoxical urge complex. It’s us. It’s how we are as humans. It’s how we cope with the anxiety of being multi-aware. The trick is, I suppose, to strike the right balance, and we have crafted the fine furniture of our existence: our art, architecture, science, religion, sport, education, and governance to this pinnacle of efficiency we call “civilization” in order to facilitate an ever more complex rendering of the dual urge. It is what drives us.

We can't live independently without an ego. The closest thing to an ego-less existence would be something like extremely severe autism. So, what are we actually talking about when we say that the ego and duality are to be dissolved with, or within prayer and meditation? Religion is one of the most sophisticated ways we humans have come up with to synthesize both the urge to individuate and the accompanying urge to reintegrate with the whole. Religion facilitates this on a number of levels. From its public social and institutional functions to the personal, interpersonal, and transcendent activities that make up its custom, ceremony, and ritual, to the personal aspects of its adherents observance including prayer and meditation, to the internal synergetic logic of its theology. Specifically, then, prayer and meditation are ways to approach the unification urge. One through active thought and the other through inactive repose which is, none-the-less purposeful because it is not sleep.

Beyond the question of the objective rationality of belief in XYZ god, or indeed the tenets of any system of thought, lies the question of the efficacy of spiritual activities like prayer, meditation and personal ritual in alleviating existential anxiety and striking the beneficial balance between the twin urges. In that sense I think that it’s hard to deny the obvious benefit of prayer and meditation.

Chris

 

[wil]

We can't live independently without an ego. The closest thing to an ego-less existence would be something like extremely severe autism. So, what are we actually talking about when we say that the ego and duality are to be dissolved with, or within prayer and meditation?

I always think of the likes of Dali Lama, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, am I wrong?

 

[immortalitylost]

Our ego is our personal identity. It is what is to be shaped in this life. There's kinda no getting rid of it without getting rid of ourselves, who we are. And we are important. Part of the glorious whole. Prayer can be a part of that shaping of ourselves. It all depends on perspective.

What I see when I hear the word prayer, from my perspective, from what I've seen of the Christian perspective, is a whole lot of "wish apon a God."

Prayer is talking. Talking is alright, but when do we listen?

Meditation is listening, thinking.


Both are cool. Both useful. Both serve their purpose, to help shape our ego, make it spiritually stronger, wiser.

They both might be flawed in our minds, but they work well enough to get the job done, and I haven't seen anything better, lol.

See ya!

 

[shawn]

There is a big difference between wishful thinking and self actualization.
Even Paul touched on this when discussing prayer, saying not to do mindless repetitions and to speak what one needed with thanksgiving.
It has to do with one's self image.
Do you see yourself as a part of the family, or as a desperate beggar, or some other less than connected person.

 

[immortalitylost]

Not wishful thinking, making a wish. How many prayers have you heard asking for this, "we pray that you" to God.

"We pray that you'll shine your healing light on "_____'s" grandmother who is struggling with cancer."

"God, I pray that you will give me strength in my upcoming trials, whatever they may be."

"God, make sure that my son is safe. Watch over him, and protect him."

We ask for these things from God in prayer. Not all of the time, but a lot of the time.

I didn't mean to belittle prayer, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. As far as self actualization, that's most of what I believe happens when you pray. God might answer, but only if it's part of his plan. He has no need to answer every prayer, but maybe not receiving an answer is the answer to some prayers.

But perception can definitely shape an outcome. Perception of hope, of healing, has been known to heal. And perception of failure has been known to cause people to fail.

Thoughts are very powerful. And along those same lines, prayers are very powerful things.

All I was trying to say, was that I liked to listen as well as talk. It keeps things balanced. And also that prayer and meditation may be flawed, but they are our tools, and we have no others.

 

[shawn]

It is kind of a butt covering thing when people who did not receive what they thought they were asking for then rationalize it with the statement of, It wasn't in God's plan or it wasn't God's will so we just have to accept our sorry lot and move on.
People for the most part haven't a clue as to what real prayer is.
Now I don't speak as an expert who therefore does, but I am a thoughtful critic who sees the anomalies in what people believe and what they base their beliefs upon.
(I have read the same texts, for years, thought deeply upon them, discussed them with others and listened to people discuss their ideas about them)
My conclusions are that people are lost in the woods. Still.
And the alleged experts in the field (the religious pundits) do not really do all that much to alleviate that wretched condition.
Some even make it worse, or at best, keep people going round in circles.
I expect more, and so should we all.

 

[immortalitylost]

Very true. Even in Christianity, what supposed version of the truth should we believe?

And why?

Because the people who broke off from the main thought that their truth was better?

I look at everything I see carefully, as do you. Nice to meet someone else that does, really. It's kind of a rarity for me, most just follow what their told blindly or haven't thought much at all. (none of the folks I've met here fall into either category)

So yes, most people don't know what prayer really should be. But I still find it useful. And I would never put the bad on God if my prayer wasn't 'answered'. That would be all on me. What was that about only needing faith as much as a mustard seed? lol.

So my prayers not being answered are down to my ack of faith. Not God's lack of power.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Very true. Even in Christianity, what supposed version of the truth should we believe?

And why?

Because the people who broke off from the main thought that their truth was better?

I look at everything I see carefully, as do you. Nice to meet someone else that does, really. It's kind of a rarity for me, most just follow what their told blindly or haven't thought much at all. (none of the folks I've met here fall into either category)

So yes, most people don't know what prayer really should be. But I still find it useful. And I would never put the bad on God if my prayer wasn't 'answered'. That would be all on me. What was that about only needing faith as much as a mustard seed? lol.

So my prayers not being answered are down to my ack of faith. Not God's lack of power.

I would rather say if a prayer is not working it is because prayers, of themselves, do not work. The best a prayer can be is a focus of energy prior to an action. It is actions that change things, not prayers.

 

[immortalitylost]

Well, of course there is always the placebo effect of prayer as well. I was mainly tackling the subject from a Christian viewpoint, but when people believe that their prayers will be answered, the placebo effect comes into the picture. There's always the self actualization aspect as well. And maybe that is the extent of an 'answered prayer.'

That whole mustard seed and faith thing is just one interpretation of a verse in the bible that I was presenting, not necessarily my views in particular.

Thanx 4 the input.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well, of course there is always the placebo effect of prayer as well. I was mainly tackling the subject from a Christian viewpoint, but when people believe that their prayers will be answered, the placebo effect comes into the picture. There's always the self actualization aspect as well. And maybe that is the extent of an 'answered prayer.'

That whole mustard seed and faith thing is just one interpretation of a verse in the bible that I was presenting, not necessarily my views in particular.

Thanx 4 the input.

There have been numerous studies into what you call the placebo effect of prayer. It is a myth. It holds no water. In Carefully controlled studies carried out by 'believers' who were determined to prove an effect they found no difference than they would for chance alone. Peoples prayers are no more likely to achieve their aim than doing nothing at all. The only slight anomaly they found was that people did worse if they knew they were being prayed for by others. This seemed to increase stress in the individual.
There is a difference between ritual prayer and the pleas of prayer made in the desperate hope of intervention. I think the ritual prayer does have some placebo effect over the long term but it entwined in a much broader indoctrination. Drawing comfort in ones prayers is still not about prayer, it is about comforting the self. The placebo is the goal, not the implied objective of the prayer. Prayer is from self to self for self. Like I have said that is not in itself bad. But we should still be aware of what it is and not call it what it is not.