Atheist trying to understand Meditation

The only claim I making with respect to meditation is that there are methods of training our powers of attention, such that we can come to observe the flow of our experience with astonishing clarity. And this can result in a range of insights that, for millennia, people have found both intellectually credible and personally transforming (mostly in the East). The primary insight being that the feeling we call "I"-- the sense that we are the thinker of our thoughts, the experiencer of our experiencer -- really disappears when looked for in a rigorous way. This is as empirically confirmable at looking for one's optic blind spot. Most people never notice their blind spot (caused by the optic nerve's transit through the retina), but it can be pointed out with a little effort. Loss of the feeling of "self" can be pointed out and discussed in a very similar way. It's just a little harder to get someone to notice it, because most people can't stop thinking for more than instant.

—Sam Harris, interview at Raving Atheist

Reading evolution and science blogs does tend to lead one into the realm of atheists and antitheists. The rational ones are quite interesting to read. The irrational ones...well, they're slightly better than reading extreme fundamentalist writings, but not by much. It's interesting to me that most of the people who call themselves atheists have little or no knowledge of eastern thought. Of course, some Buddhists would also describe themselves as atheist, but that's another story. What I like about this interview is that the self-proclaimed Raving Atheist is actually making an effort to understand Harris's POV. He's not convinced he agrees with it, but he doesn't dismiss it out of hand.

The All

If you cannot see
God in all,
you cannot see
God at all.

—Unknown, found on a Yogi Tea tag

If you like tea, I highly recommend Yogi Tea. All the tea bag tags have a nice saying on them as well, which I see as a bonus. This is the first one I've found that I felt like posting. Yogi Tea's green tea (both regular and decaf) has an incredibly good flavor.

Unknowing, unthinking

Indeed he knows not
how to know who knows
not also how to un-know.

—Richard Francis Burton, 28 Sept. Zen calendar

Apply yourselves day after day, year after year, to the study of the "unthinkable."

—Soen Nakagawa, 29 Sept. Zen Calendar

I accidentally tore off today's calendar page, as I was behind, and tomorrow's went so well with today's that I thought I would post them both. They say that an ordinary student spends each day adding on new bits of knowledge, and that a Taoist student spends each day removing unnecessary knowledge. The Way cannot be found by thought or deed, but only by experience.

Science + Religion = ????

However, when people attempt to mix the realms of religion and science � attempting, for example, to use science to promote a given religious or philosophic view -- in the long run, given the very nature of the relationship between religion and science, the results will be the reverse of what is intended, and may end up damaging what in fact they hold most dear. For example, a proponent of science who believes that faith in God is absurd in the age of Science may end up creating a religious backlash against science itself among those who take a different view. But properly, empirical science cannot speak of the metaphysics of that which lies beyond the empirical realm and the ontology required by its naturalistic explanations.

Alternatively, those who attempt to use science to prove the existence of God will end up with a God susceptible to empirical criticism, when belief in God should be a matter of faith. A religious view rooted in science will be grounded in the shifting sands of scientific discourse, placed in constant threat of being uprooted by the newest scientific discoveries. For the better among those who initially accept this substitute for true faith, such a view will at first seem intoxicating, but will soon prove poisonous to their religious beliefs.

—TimChase, Religon and Science

Nicely sums up my feelings on both fronts. It is not that science and religion are at odds with one another directly; it is that there are people who insist that they should be at odds. Antitheism is rampant in many scientific communities, and it is just as poisonous as the antiscientism of many fundamentalist religious groups. Science, by its very nature, is constantly changing. A religion that does not allow its doctrines to change should certainly not tie itself to science. I do not object to archaeological digs trying to establish the accuracy of historical events, so long as the results are accepted whether or not they agree with what is written in the Bible. When religious groups sponsor these digs, they are likely tempted to gloss over inconsistencies, and this is not science. It's also not scientific if an antitheist group ignores evidence that supports the biblical accounts. Science is all about the inconsistencies. The error bars are often more important than the data itself. As soon as religious beliefs—whether pro or anti—enter data analysis, it stops being scientific and becomes dogmatic. The only dogma in science is, "Can it be repeated? Would another scientist reach the same conclusion? What are the sources for error?"

Happiness

Being happy
doesn't mean everything is perfect;
it just means you've decided to see
beyond the imperfections.

—Unknown, borrowed from Deeshan

It is so easy to think that we need something to be happy. Something more, something less. Something perfect. But all we really need is to allow ourselves to be happy. Sometimes this is harder than others. Sometimes it's so easy we don't even notice.

Dogma

Originally, Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian ideas were simply referred to as teachings. The notion of a dogmatic religion was entirely foreign to the Chinese until the intervention of Western beliefs. So when the Taoist speaks of a Supreme God, the language is not the same as when a Western Christian speaks of God. Whereas the Christian speaks of something external and distinct from himself, the Taoist is speaking of something external but simultaneously connected to his own inner being. Heaven and the Jade Emperor are seen not only as truly existing, but also as symbols. Externally, they reflect what is going on here, but aren't involved or necessarily concerned with our affairs.

—Stuart Alve Olson, The Jade Emperor's Mind Seal Classic

I don't know much about the Taoist pantheon of gods. It's not that I'm not interested; it's more that I see them as external and I focus more on the internal. Olson argues that they are both, and as this is very Taoist, I will need some time to consider it. Another interesting line from a page or so back: "Taoists view gods and spiritual beings as still engaging in the process of cultivating their spiritual growth...whereas Western religious Christains tend to perceive God as a manifestation of fixed perfection." To me, anything that can be labelled and pointed to is necessarily less than The-All. So the Christian notion of a supreme God separate from His creation is very, very foreign to me, because how can He be supreme if He is separate? He is less than the Whole in that case. So somewhere beyond that conception of God there must be something more, and less. Something with no label or name, something that cannot be named or described. Lao Tzu said "I call it Tao." Smullyan has a discussion of the named Tao versus the nameless Tao that is quite entertaining. By naming it, we set it apart, so that it is no longer Tao. :-)

Dalai Lama

I found out the day after it happened that the Dalai Lama had visited Idaho. Not my town. It's a three or four hour drive, and I had to work, so perhaps it's just as well I heard about it after the fact. :-) A summary indicates that the emphasis was on interfaith cooperation.

I have read the Dalai Lama's autobiographical account of the flight from Tibet. The book "In Exile from the Land of Snows" contains most of that story, plus details from others during the flight, and accounts of what came after. The section on Chinese prison camps was particularly difficult to get through. It is hard to believe that human beings can do that to one another, and sickening to realize that they can.

The closest I generally get to prayer is to express this wish for everyone in the world: "Strength to those who need it. Peace to those who seek it." To my mind, anything more specific is...likely to cause problems. For instance, I could wish for world peace; but the world could be peaceful under a tyrannical dictator. I could wish for an end to hunger, but largescale deaths in poverty-stricken countries could fulfill such a wish. So I keep it simple and small. "Strength to those who need it. Peace to those who seek it."

Meditation: Reclaiming it?

I posted the title link because it was unusual enough to catch my attention. Now, it's true that most Christians don't associate meditation with their faith. I like seeing someone point out that it is a valuable tool for them as well. I see it as a valuable tool for anyone.

Some troubling things, though. One is Gerrish's idea that this is taking meditation back from the forces of Satan. So... any non-Christian who meditates is automatically a Satanist? I realize some Christians think this way, and I pity them. But that's not the strangest thing. How can he reclaim something that has been done in the east for 5000 years? Yoga goes back at least that far in India, and I would be very surprised if meditation was not part of it from the beginning. But his breed of Christian always has to make it seem like the evil pagans and easterners stole the beautiful, pure ideas from Christians. *sighs*

More troubling is his "check your insights with your pastor/the bible" idea. Meditation is about self-exploration. Your insights are yours. They came out of you. They tell you about your own current internal state. Maybe you're angry, or sad, or happy. The whole point of meditation is to actually experience something for yourself. A Christian might say he was trying to experience the mind of God. I think of it as tuning into that-which-is. But, wait, Gerrish says that experience is only valid if your pastor says it is. Your own sense of the event doesn't matter at all! So, ask your pastor's permission to meditate then ask his permission to believe in your own experiences. Uh-huh. That's a great road to self-exploration.

However, the very act of meditation (if practiced sincerely) is likely to change a person for the better. And not necessarily in ways that an authoritative Church will like. Why? Because they are experiencing the Divine for themselves, without all the filters and safety-nets put up by the Church to safeguard the power of its clergy. Wasn't that the point of the Protestant Reform? Priesthood of all believers? Everyone to read and interpret the Bible for themselves? But, wait, too independent. Too much room for actual individuality. Let the new regime of authorities rule. :-) I hope Christian meditation catches on. I think it could really shake things up.

Letting Go

Many people do not know how to free themsleves from science and religion. The more they study science, the more they create destructive power. Their religions are mere outer garments too heavy when they walk in the spring breeze. Books are burdens to them and prayers but their beautiful excuses. They consume potions, pills, and drugs, but they do not decrease their sickness physically or mentally. If they really want peace, friendship, love, and a life of usefulness, they must empty their precious bags of dust and illusions to realize the spirit of fredom, the ideal of this country.

—Nyogen Senzaki, The Iron Flute

Attachment is the enemy. Let go. Most of us have a death grip on what we think of as "reality". Let go. Fall into the emptiness below. Then maybe, just maybe, you can find the "really real" world.

Perception and Reality

Perception is more important than people commonly realize. How I perceive the world has a direct effect on my experiences in it. Obviously it will affect whether I perceive things as overall positive or negative, but it does more. My attitude affects the way I interpret events around me, which in turn will affect the way I respond and interact, which will affect the way others interact with me, which will affect the way they relate to the world... If you believe the world is basically a horrible and evil place, you will find that you are right. If you believe that the world is basically a good and beautiful place, you will also find that you are right. If you believe the world is fallen and full of sin, you will find that you are right. If you believe that here, and now, is paradise, you will still find that you are right. You choose your own reality. The hard part is finding the "really real" reality behind all those other realities. The even harder part is determining if such a reality exists.

One level of reality is the scientific one. This is the completely objective and measurable reality, accessible to all observers and repeatable to anyone who replicates the original conditions. Within its own realm, scientific reality is perfectly valid. Most scientists will even claim it's the only reality, the "really real" reality. I can't prove them wrong, but I don't think they are right either. The scientific reality is completely consistent and predictable. On a certain level, so are people. They have set patterns and routines. But throw a monkey wrench into the routine, and there's no telling what will happen. Perhaps on a statistical level you can say X% will do A and Y% will do B, but that's a far cry from knowing what any given individual will do.

So what about other realities? There are mental realities, religious realities, local realities, universal realities, statistical realities, monetary realities... all with their own flavors and personalities. The important thing to note is that these realities need not agree on any particular observation. The more closely related they are to one another, the closer their observations will be.


For example, scientists tell me the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is somewhere around 12 billion years old. From a completely empirical standpoint, I agree. In the realm of science, this is truth. Yet on another level, I know that nothing has existed before this very moment. Time is an illusion. Thus the earth has no age at all; neither does the universe. I hold both of these views as correct, simultaneously, and see no contradiction between them (making this different from Doublethink :-). So it doesn't make sense to me to get all worked up because your Bible says the earth is no more than 6000 years old and the scientists say it's over a billion. I see no contradiction between these views. They are on different levels of reality. I can tell you that I am ancient, born before the stars had even been dreamed by the gods (or God if you prefer), and I can tell you that I have never existed before this very moment, or that I was born more than 28 years ago in a Pocatello hospital, and in each case I am telling the complete and absolute truth. I am a tiny speck in this vast universe yet the entire universe is contained within me. So how much of a stretch can it be for the universe to be simultaneously zero, 6000, and 12 billion years old? None at all (for me). Admittedly, 6000 seems a bit arbitrary (2^4*3*5^2), but why not?

For those who see a contradiction in these values... well, I'm not you (or am I ;-), but I would guess you're trying to cram all the levels of reality into one. But why? In a single day, some moments will fly by, while others drag. On a psychological level of reality, it would be explained that time itself does not vary, only your perception of it does, yet one time I measured 18 minutes outside a room that went by as five inside the room. Could I replicate the result? Almost certainly not. I doubt I was anywhere near the scientific level of reality on that particular day. So to tell me there's a contradiction between Biblical reality and scientific reality... is meaningless. Why should they be the same?

Oh, I suppose you'd like your God to create a complete and consistent reality for you, all contained on a single level. Hmmm..., I can think of three levels of reality experienced by most humans on a daily basis: being asleep, being alert and aware, and being relaxed and unware. So much for a single level of reality. Oh, but maybe there's a completely objective reality hiding underneath that! Nope. Uncertainty principle does that one in. The more accurately you measure, say, velocity, the less you know about position. Even more disturbing (to anyone seeking a complete, objective reality), any logical system of axioms with sufficient power to describe the universe has been proven to be incomplete (i.e. there are statements within the system which cannot be proven or disproven). So even (especially?) if we steal the scientist's position that the universe is entirely logical and follows an entirely logical set of rules, it is, a priori, incomplete. So logic implies uncertainty and incompleteness. Lack of logic implies...who knows? Perhaps it implies 0 = 6,000 = 12,000,000,000. :-)

(Read Gödel, Escher, Bach for a discussion of incompleteness, or ask Fibonacci about it sometime)

Life's Little Ironies

The mind creates the chasm which only the heart can cross.

—Stephen Levine, 11 Sept. Daily Zen calendar

I thought this was a beautiful quote (and relates to a semi-rant from a month or so ago; sorry Fibonacci :-). This is, indeed, how most Taoists, Buddhists, and New Agers see it. The terminology may be slightly different, but the sentiment is the same. So I was curious to see who Stephen Levine was. So far, there's not a lot of detail, but he has served as a "death counselor" for many years (counseling the terminally ill and their families), and has studied meditation techniques from some well-known figures, including Ram Dass. His homepage is somewhat amusing, in that he has left it barebones, not even labelling what Page1, Page2, etc. are. The most detailed biography I could find is here.

Acceptance

Chapter 21

Harmony is only in following the Way.

The Way is without form or quality,
But expresses all forms and qualities;
The Way is hidden and implicate,
But expresses all of nature;
The Way is unchanging,
But expresses all motion.

Beneath sensation and memory
The Way is the source of all the world.
How can I understand the source of the world?
By accepting.

—TaoteChing.org

I figured out a long time ago that it was impossible to change something unless you first accepted the way it already was. More briefly: "You must accept reality if you want to change it." Perhaps in accepting it, you will be changed. Perhaps not. But you may then have the chance to make a change; more properly, to allow a change. Nothing can be forced. Force begets force and nothing is done. You cannot force an image onto the world and expect it to be accepted. Until you observe how the world actually is, you are at its mercy.

As an example, Mark Otis came down to help out with my taiji class today (thank you, Mark; I hope your gas bills aren't too astronomical :-), and we did a bit of push-hands. We started with circling, then after I'd already reacted, I noticed Mark had switched to the four-form. Without any need to consciously categorize it (to think), I responded appropriately. I accepted the change and responded appropriately. A few years back there would have been a stutter, a pause, as I struggled to process what had happened.

Untainted

The lotus flower is unstained by mud. The single dew drop, just as it is, manifests the real body of truth.

—Ikkyu, 5 Sept. Zen Calendar

The lotus is highly revered because though it grows in the murkiest of water, it produces a vibrant, beautiful flower, 'unstained by mud.' It is a symbol of enlightenment and truth. Our gross physical nature is the mud, the murk, the filth of the swamp, yet it can produce the brilliant flower of truth and enlightenment. (Photo is the Meditation Pool at Sunrise Ranch in Colorado)

Forging

The bellows blew high the flaming forge;
The sword was hammered on the anvil.
It was the same steel as in the beginning,
But how different was its edge!

—Nyogen Senzaki, The Iron Flute

Untrained, undisciplined, we are like raw steel. Without the forge, without training and discipline, we can never carry a proper edge and be put to use. We sit rusting in the corner instead.

Taoism in a nutshell

Taoism is for a special kind of person. Although anyone can benefit from it, it's not for everyone, at least not this day in age and place. The true benefit in Taoism is found by those who are ready to question what they've been taught. Furthermore, the more one learns of Taoism, the more they learn they must question. As Lao Tzu put it, "in pursuing knowledge, one accumulates a little more each day. In pursuing the Tao, one takes away a little more each day." Everything we've been taught, all the technicalities, categories, and descriptions of nature, keep us from experiencing nature itself. For nature is not something that needs to be categorized. It is the only category.

—Bill Mason

This may be why I'm a Taoist. Given a piece of information, one of my first responses is always to question it. Where did it come from? Whose point of view is it? Has it been filtered through many points of view? Is it even remotely accurate or useful? Most of the information in the media is so filtered as to be meaningless.

But the section on Nature hits especially close to home. When I look at a sunset, I can think "sunset" and move on, or I can really look at the sunset without thinking and experience its full wonder and beauty. Thought interferes with experience.

And now I consider that questioning may seem to be about thought... And it's true that one can be so busy questioning a piece of information that its meaning does not penetrate. Which is where the Taoist principle of "Balance in all Things" comes into play. :-)