Thank you for starting this thread! I have no questions yet, but I do feel overwhelmed at this point so I’m trying to let it all sink in.
I feel so drawn to the simplicity of the Truths and the Path seems like something I’ve been on for a long time already without knowing much at all about Buddhism. But clearly I have a lot to learn.
I’d say the biggest similarity is that both depend on direct evidence, but in the case of Buddhism that is necessarily of a purely subjective sort (insights gained thru meditation and so on which are absolutely 100% subjective). It may not be all that dogmatic, as others have pointed out-the Eightfold Path is just the starting point, at some point you must necessarily go beyond it.
Do you expect to reincarnate?
If this happens, why are young people so reckless? If you can recall a past life, you should (it seems to me) be a bit more cautious in the present one.
My point about the pinworms was simply to point out that Fancytalk does not keep us from having to live in this life, and since there is no rebirth, there is no next life, and therefore no escape from suffering.
Here are the four nobles, at least as I would word them. With which of them do you agree, as a Buddhist? (And my comments in plain text.
***Being alive in this world leads to suffering (or, perhaps, to floof it up, uneasiness of spirit, aka anxiety in the soul. etc etc., for those who want to pretend Gautama was more struck by mental anguish rather than leprosy when he went trucking around the countryside, which I seriously doubt). ***
I agree. Which is to say, being alive means, on average, suffering according to one or another definition.
Desire/craving causes suffering.
No; pinworms and stubbed toes and anxiety disorders and stuff like that causes suffering, unless you use Fancytalk to pretend that suffering is something else, or that “craving” could possibly mean a “craving to not have pain.” Which is not just Fancytalk; it’s doubletalk.
Getting rid of delusion will end craving, ending suffering.
It most certainly will not, unless, again, you pretend that the whole world is a delusion, in which case you most certainly do not believe in science. You believe in some mystical otherworld if you think this whole world is a delusion. Generally you need creature comforts, medicine and a positive mental outlook. At best, Buddhism can only address the third one–the equivalent of a philosophic toke as a substitute for Valium.
Following the eightfold path will get ya where you need to be.
(Eightfold path is basically Understand Reality, Be Nice, Meditate)
You have agreed that Buddhism is not at odds with science, so we can get rid of Fancytalk around Enlightenment as if we are going to chance upon a world with reborn spirits and cyclic existences and higher states of being and so on. What then, does following this path achieve, exactly? A better state of mind that stops being anxious over This World? That’s enlightenment? If not, what is enlightenment?
It seems to me that what we have here if we get rid of the religious/superstitious aspects of Budhhism is a vague philosophy around developing a better attitude. Sort of a positive thinking around not trying to change your current reality. If you don’t want to suffer, then change the meaning of suffering.
But then those pinworms come back and drive you crazy.
So I guess my next question for the non-superstitious Buddhist is: What is the appeal of this? Why not just accept reality and change it where it is possible to change it? And oh yes; definitely keep a positive attitude?
Okay, sounds like we’re 25% in agreement so far. 
Yup, pinworms suck. So does being hit by a bus. These are kinds of suffering, and some Buddhists (not, I suspect Thich, nor Olives, nor particularly me) would say, yadda yadda, karma, you got it for being a bitch in your last life. Nonetheless, suffering.
Lets say that I live a shallow but so far healthy life. I’m not mindful of my pinwormlessness, rather I lie, and cheat and steal and strive every day to get money to buy a Rolex, and bag that girl in accounting. Soon as I bag her, I dump her, and start trying to bag the next babe, and maybe get a car to go with my Rolex I’m trying to get. Again, I’m not living particularly mindfully of my day to day existence, it’s mostly just mental accounting - am I getting ahead? I want that thing. I want a Mercedes. Then, I get pinworms and suddenly I realize that this is the worst thing that has ever happened to me, and that really, I would have been happier if I had just enjoyed not having pinworms back then. In other words, I had no happiness then, because I was always aspiring to the next thing. I have no happiness now, because I’ve got pinworms.
So. How does the enlightened mind deal with this life?
- When I stub my toe, it hurts. I feel the hurt, then I move on. I don’t complain about the hurt, or obsess about the hurt, or cringe from a toe-stub filled future. I’m aware of the fact that life is short, and full of craving and pain and pinworms,
- so I don’t worry about my Rolex so much. I’m not saying I can’t have a watch, just that I don’t live a Rolex-centric life.
- I don’t lie and cheat and steal, cause I’m less concerned with a Rolex centred life. If I have a roof over my head and food, I’m cool. I still go to work though, but maybe I don’t work at a place where lying and cheating and stealing are good choices, and maybe I adjust my sexual life to be less ooky. Maybe I run with this to its logical conclusion, and divest myself of all my possessions and live under a bridge, begging for my food - or not - maybe I just keep to a middle path.
- I also meditate, and practice mindfulness, and all that other stuff, that allow me to be aware of the delusions in life -the illusions of self, permanence, that stuff*
Then, I get pinworms. :D. But, I no longer regret my pinwormless time, and I’m more accepting of the fact that I have pinworms. I view the pinworm experience as a call to mindfulness, helping me live in the moment. (Note to my brother - in this scenario, I’m enlightened, I’m not the whiner we all know and love.)
Then, because I don’t reject science, I’m just a Buddhist, I go to a doctor, and get my pinworms sorted out.
Again, I don’t have access to my books, but I’m pretty certain that Shakyamuni Buddha said to feed people, clothe people and help make their lives more reasonable before you blah at them about religion. I’ll cite this when I get home if necessary. I don’t recall a discussion of pinworms per se, but there is one story where he takes a disciple to see a singed she-monkey, so maybe I just need to look harder.
A big delusion is that anything in life is permanent. Once you accept that nothing is permanent, craving drops off a lot, and the suffering from losses intrinsic to craving drops off. Another is that the self, the ‘I’, is in any way a permanent thing, that is, the delusion that you exist as anything other than a quickly changing aggregate. You can perhaps see that accepting yourself as a constantly changing impermanent approximation is going to go a long way towards ending cravings.
A state of mind that doesn’t believe in permanence. A state of mind that sees the world clearly for what it is, and is free of the bullshit that most people have in their minds. A mind that understands itself for what it is.
typing the word pinworms this many times is suffering.
Accepting reality is exactly what we’re talking about. One aspect of reality is the realization that everything - shoes, watches, love, fame, money, life, health and especially one’s own personality, or self - is impermanent, and will pass away, and in fact, is already passing away, even as we regard it. There is no ‘I’ in me, and the only time that exists is right now, and that most of the way we live is predicated on the illusion that these things do exist.
Further, Gautama Buddha advocated an experimental approach: “As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it so are you to accept my words after examining them and not merely out of regard for me.” (Kalama Sutra)
I really appreciate your participation in this thread.
- The above was an attempt at the eightfold path - right sexual practice, right speech, etc.
I’ve explained multiple times the difference between pain and suffering. Pain almost always leads to some degree of suffering, so people generally interpret them as the same thing, but they aren’t. This is not Fancytalk, this is common sense.
Are you familiar at all with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? That empirically supported, strongly researched method for alleviating depression and anxiety, increasing pain tolerance and even treating IBS? The ‘‘cognitive’’ aspect of CBT is all about retraining your mind to shut the hell up whenever you experience something painful or uncomfortable. Because that’s where anxiety and depression come from – your constant yapping that the world shouldn’t be that way and the future is doom and your toe hurts so bad it’s probably broken. Everybody does that at some point.
The CBT method to shut up your mind is usually to counter your irrational thoughts with more realistic ones. Though some subsets of CBT, such as Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, take a Mindfulness approach ripped straight from Zen Buddhist doctrine. DBT trains the brain to let go of black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking and see the nuance inherent in every situation. It focuses on the present moment. It integrates meditation. It works. There are at least 9 randomized controlled studies out there proving it works (RTCs are expensive–this is a lot.) So far we know it works for Borderline Personality Disorder, depression and substance abuse.
You seem to want to interpret Buddhism in your own way without listening to actual Buddhists explain the meaning of their own practice. It’s like you keep screaming that the Bible says Mary Magdalene is the mother of Christ when it obviously doesn’t. Just because you don’t understand what the Fancytalk means doesn’t mean you get to define Buddhism.
AVERSION = Not wanting something unpleasant to happen
CRAVING = Wanting something good to happen
aversion and/or craving = attachment
Reducing the amount of craving and aversion in your life absolutely reduces suffering. As I have stated countless times before, THIS IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE. Exposure therapy is in fact PREDICATED on the fact that aversion to an unpleasant stimulus intensifies anxiety associated with that stimulus. Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck have thoroughly documented how our beliefs about what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT happen lead to misery. Ellis calls it ‘‘musterbation.’’
If you’re going to call bullshit on the 2nd Noble Truth, I want a cite.
I see you noted above you feel perfectly at leisure to be shitty to Buddhists because we’re all ‘‘zen’’ about it. Well I’m not a Grand Master or anything and I have no problem saying I think your tone is completely disrespectful and inappropriate. Not to mention willfully obtuse.
What makes someone an “actual Buddhist”?
I’ve just skimmed the thread, but I’m getting that Buddhists are not required to meditate, go to services, go to retreats, believe in an afterlife or agree with other Buddhists.
I (don’t) do all of these things too. And I mindfully give thanks for all of my meals, and try to enjoy them mindfully. Could (should) I call myself a Buddhist? Why or why not?
We’ve answered that question too. Generally speaking, The Four Noble Truths and Buddha, Dharma, Sangha are universal values of all Buddhists. The belief that attachment leads to suffering is pretty key.
Here’s another perspective:
So according to Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse (a Tibetan Buddhist), it’s not even belief in the the Four Noble Truths, but rather the Four Seals. It may be obvious how those two are related though. He has a book called What Makes You Not a Buddhist which looks like it could be pretty interesting.
Personally, in my own practice I place heavy emphasis on the Three Marks of existence – impermanence, suffering and equanimity. And all of these things–seals, truths, and marks-- become pretty self-evident during regular meditation. I would argue that a hallmark of ZEN practice is meditation. Over the last eight years I’ve meditated on and off, sometimes consistently every day for months, other times (like now) I’ve had long dry spells. I’ve been in and out of Zen temples, done shikantaza and walking meditation, and have found that you can save months of trying to understand Buddhist doctrine by just sitting down and paying attention. The fact that I am not always consistent with my practice doesn’t challenge the authenticity of my beliefs nor does it have anything to do with Western eclecticism. It means I’m human.
How do they value these concepts?
Four Noble Truths–can also be Four Seals; I’ll ask about it below.
Buddha–what about the Buddha? Do you have to believe he existed? I heard an interview with Pema Chodron that she believed that Buddha to her meant an open mind. Is that what it means?
Dharma–you defined as Scriptures earlier. What about them? Do you have to have read them? Believe in them? Is it like a text. . .like a Bible?
Sangha–you defined as community earlier. If one doesn’t go to services or anything else involving Buddhists, does this just mean the secular community? What about the community makes it Buddhist?
The belief that attachment leads to suffering–How do “actual Buddhists” manifest this? I’ve read that monks renounce possessions and attachments to people, so they don’t get married. How do other Buddhists manifest this?
I’ve read that article before, but thought it seemed pretty contradictory. It wasn’t very explanatory.
This would seem to mean that you can’t believe in God, certainly not the Christian God because the whole idea about the Christian God is that He is eternal. And people have said that you can be Christian and Buddhist. That would seem to be negated here.
He then says:
But isn’t joy an emotion? How is he defining emotion?
Again, this contradicts the Christian God concept. And whether or not you believe in the Christian God, it seems to contradict many people interpretations of Buddhism, which just means that there isn’t really any one set of beliefs that makes one an “actual Buddhist.”
What does enlightenment mean? Is it related to the cessation of suffering?
Yes, you’ve noted that before.
May I just focus on this one point then? I don’t want it to appear that I attack only Buddhism–as a rule of thumb I am opposed to all nonsensical, non-scientific approaches to a worldview, particularly ones which advocate superstitions such as being reborn (see Attack’s comments, above).
While I agree that reducing craving and aversion might diminish suffering, so does satisfying craving and taking steps to actually change the world rather than simply avoiding worrying about it.
So the Fancytalk part is the idea that the road to reduction of suffering is essentially a mental readjustment instead of an adjustment of the world itself. If you are without resources and don’t understand what reality is (i.e. do not understand science) this is a pretty good approach to mollify the masses. But once you understand the way the world works–once you understand science–the way to reduce suffering is to try and fix this world, and unfortunately a mental approach simply promulgates suffering.
Consider Gautama trucking outside the palace and seeing the suffering of the world as it really is: hunger and pinworms, say. Now one approach is mental: Recognize that this world is more or less an illusion. It’s not Real. Create a philosophic approach that diminishes suffering by essentially changing your mental approach to life. Noble this; eightfold that.
Now take a more scientific approach: Decide the world as we see it is Real. Learn how to grow and distribute food, and develop mebendazole. Poofda: no hunger and no pinworms.
Ok, I get it a lot more than you think about Buddhism, having been exposed to its practitioners for many years. They are lovely folk.
But when I criticized Fancytalk I am criticizing all the BS which makes up all the scriptures; all the nonsense about rebirth this and enlightenment that; all the oblique rubbish about things having no inherent existence, and crap like that. Utterly meaningless pap that leaves a hungry and worm-ridden world with a “solution” that essentially tries to approach their suffering by getting them to care about it less.
Have at it, if it works for you. I simply maintain that it is utterly without foundation, it’s all made up, and it works to relieve suffering about like a good valium or a toke. In terms of Reality the entire structure of it is completely bogus. It’s a placebo. A mind trick. And it’s a terrible way to get to a better world, except for the “Be nice to others and Be Good” parts.
It was, like most religions, developed at a time when there was no science and there was no hope for fixing suffering. It still sounds good–it’s very fancy talk–but it’s kind of silly, innit?
If you just boil down Buddhism to “Chill out for the things you can’t change, Be a good person and be nice to others” I am all over that in agreement. Anything beyond that is just fairy tales.
Wha? I’m not sure if I’m the example, the citation or getting slagged. Really, I feel a bit shortchanged.
That said, I’m generally opposed to people who make strawmen, and then demolish them with evident relish -(see Chief Pedant’s comments, above)
Perhaps, Chef, you and I might both like to read this bookthen. As I’ve been interested in hearing the Daili Lala’s words on the topic, as he’s given several neuroscience talks among others that’ve been described quite positively. So I’ve been meaning to try to get my hands on it. Perhaps you might like to read it as well?
Also, as for your mebendazole example, I like the paraphrasing at the end of this article. Just the metaphor itself is apt.
I don’t believe Buddhism is a way that seeks to try to stand in the way of scientific progress, the quote puts it best: The medicine must be of the right content and right amount to the right patient at the right time.
If you’ve got worms, sure you can use your Buddhist teachings to sit there in pain, and just point out how you can use this as an example of how you’ve strengthened your thoughts and will use your mind to overcome the idea of feeling pain until you no longer feel the suffering and now you a stronger for it for you no longer feel the worms and are pleased to have them there. Or you can simple realize that you can go to the doctor and take your medication. Progress is progress, and Buddhism (in my opinion) does not seek to stand in front of it. Both methods above would be practical and correct.
Here are my thoughts on the issue:
In my own views/learning which tend to deal with Hinduism (since I’m a bit more intimately familiar with that one) the key is to know when to use it. Religion should be for the metaphysical and the mind/soul. If you wish to try to help yourself in this realm then you should consider looking into religion as a way of helping. But not everyone needs, this nor does everyone have any issues with these concepts, if they dismiss them and are perfectly happy then they’re not at odds with anything. They’re doing just fine. But now, when you have a physical ailment or a PHYSICAL problem with the world around us- that is when you must select the right tool for the situation [choosing the right medications for the job as it were], and this is where modern medicine and science become essential. The key is look at the issue and try to see what method works for it- if you are hurt or saddened, you should use science to deal with it. You should use logic, reason, and rational means to manipulate the physical world around you to solve your problems- things such as going to the doctor, SSRI’s, CBT and such are all useful tools. If you have solved your physical problems, and yet still feel empty, or perhaps still have some questions or thoughts about things which aren’t being dealt with in the physical realm- then you should turn perhaps to other thoughts and ideas. This is where religion can play a part- not just Hinduism, not just Buddhism, but whatever seems to reach out for you and helps you feel whole again. If you search out and you reject all them, then so be it. It wasn’t for you. And that’s fine. The key though is to select the right tool for the job. The physical realm and the scientific one works hand in hand. But for the questions science cannot yet answer, then perhaps you can turn to the metaphysical and/or religious means. Until science catches up to the ideas. Then once science has explained it- it is no longer in the metaphysical but in the physical realm and once again you can strive forwards w/ both schools of thought having expanded each- it no longer becomes a religious issue, but a scientific one, and you can move on in your studies of both.
I THINK Buddhism has a similar vein/idea to that, where if your goal is to overcome physical suffering, by all means use your science and all other methods. When you wish to deal with the concepts of Samara and attaining Nirvana though, that’s not something that science has the answer to right now, and so using your teachings that you’ve learned could certainly try to further you in that direction. Until science catches up. Once science has explained it, then you can use scientific means to try to achieve those goals. Both religion and science has to evolve over time as more advancements are made and as we learn more and more about the realms of the world around us.
I fully agree with many of your ideas on how to deal with reality, and I think you are in agreement with some of my thoughts on the same ways.
Thanks for listening.
~R
The problem I find with books on physics and spirituality is that the author invariably knows a lot more about one than the other, and its usually spirituality. So the physics is either just a bit…off, or physics moves on a bit, and suddenly the book is completely dated.
Well, I assume the Dalai lama’s going to be talking about Spirituality more than physics. I’ve got plenty of science textbooks of my own, his stuff, not so much. So I wish to read it for the former rather than the latter as I’m curious to hear his thoughts in general, but since I like science and I know that realm well, I’m curious to read his thoughts on a subject that I like.
Sure; I may even order it up.
My dilemma with those who preach or practice mystic and spiritual things is that while they may say they embrace science, and there is no real conflict between the spiritual and the scientific, what they won’t admit is that there is no scientific support for the spritual. In the realm of science, the various religious paradigms are essentially as meaningless as any other fairy tale.
As mentioned above, the universe neither knows nor cares (nor supports) the various mystic inventions to explain how things Really Are.
By the same token, Buddhist practice/belief can be seen as a psychological formula for dealing with the way the physical world is. As Olives said above–it’s like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: You can’t point to CBT, you can’t touch it, it’s just a set of concepts. However, those concepts when practiced in the aggregate have measurable effects on the mental state. (Interestingly, I’ve known a lot of Buddhists who are veterans of CBT therapy) The same applies to Buddhism, from my point of view. As I’ve said above, I practice Zen Buddhism primarily because it works–I meditate, I do my best to stick to the Four Truths and the Eight Precepts, and in the process of doing so I find I’m able to react to the world with a greater degree of equanimity and from a place where I’m able to be at peace with the realities of the world.
For example, my mother-in-law might right now have cancer–I should be hearing about the biopsy results today. I’m under no illusions that my meditation or her meditation, should she decide to start, will cure her cancer. However, primarily because of the mental training associated with my Buddhist practice, I have been able to take the information on her condition as we’ve received it and at face value. I can, being at least somewhat detached from the desire that my mother-in-law remains alive, look at a statistic (if she has this form of cancer, which is about 50% likely, she has a 25% chance of five-year survival) and see that for what it is rather than the subjective view that her children have (where that same statistics are seen as an implacable death sentence) which enables me to be a calming influence which in turn makes everyone more effectively able to deal with the situation as it is rather than as it is feared to be. Were I to have a direct sort of input into her treatment progress, I would hope that this state of emotionally detaching from the problem would enable better decision-making in line with the actual risks/benefits.
Now, that’s not all to say that one couldn’t also come to the same conclusions starting from, say, a grad degree in statistics. Buddhist practice is just the specific thing that works for me. I don’t really see the supernatural components as necessary to calling oneself a Buddhist, to be honest.
It might or might not interest you to know that, at least in Zen practice, it’s considered highly against the spirit of Buddhism to stay in the monastery and meditate away the problems of the outside, and I’m given to understand (and it’s true of the temple I attend here in the US) that Buddhist groups are generally known for being particularly charitable in terms of donations of labor, time, and excess money.
It’s simply not reconcilable with actual Buddhist practice to meditate until you can ignore the pinworms and stop there, the practice in reality is often closer to using the reduction of suffering through Buddhist means to clear one’s head to enable greater progress and effectiveness in real-world work.
Being lazy, I’ll just quote myself from the other Buddhist thread -
Nice post.
I discovered Buddhism a few years ago by reading Karen Armstrong’s book. There are many nice resources online like Access Insight and Buddhanet. Those are Theravadan. I stumbled on the Soto Zen online Sangha called Treeleaf Zendo. The Roshi was right here in the Miami area so I met up with him for personal instruction (and friendship) and participated with the online zendo (http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/index.php#). He moved to Japan and has started a zenod there but still maintains his online zendo if anyone is interested. We have daily zazen and retreats, all with video conferencing. At the same time I started going to a real life sangha on Miami Beach dedicated to Thich Nhat Hahn.
Anyway, I started to get ready for the soto Jukai ceremony (taking vows as a soto zen lay member, not a clergy type) and backed out. I’m not sure why but part of the reason was that mixing practices was discouraged (Vietnamese Zen is pretty different from Soto Zen) and I was really gravitating to Thich Nhat Hahn. Also, I guess I decided to “kill the Buddha” at this point. I felt like I was ready to make life my zazen as opposed to rituals and vows.
Why did I get into this? As a scientist, I’m am skeptical of anything but a materialist worldview. However, I wanted some sort of practice that would allow me to see the world with more clarity and ACT as though I see the world with more clarity. Through experimentation, I found some practices that gives me a more open perspective.
My favorite sources are:
Buddhism Without Beliefs - Stephen Batchelor
Anything from Thich Nhat Hahn but Miracle of Mindfullness is very sweet and poetic.
Hardcore Zen by Brad Warner is fun
The Mind of Clover by Robert Aiken
Zen Mind Beginners Mind - Shunryu Suzuki
I did not like Three Pillars of Zen - Philip Kapleau (Makes Rinzai Zen seem so dramatic. Maybe it is and therefore not for me).
I hesitantly suggest Big Mind by Genpo Roshi. His philosophy is controversial and his book should not be read without reading other Buddhist books first. OTOH, he is simply mixing some aspects of Western psychology in with zen and I found his approach somewhat interesting.
My apologies for resurrecting this thread. I’ve been traveling down snow covered mountain roads and thinking about these issues, and I’ve only now had a chance to write down some thoughts.
At some prior point Chief Pedant asked something like ‘how would a rational or scientific buddhist look at the world’. I apologize that my prior post was rather trying to answer the question ‘How would a traditional conception of an enlightened being put this in practice.’ Since this is an Ask the…thread, I should answer from my own perspective. Speaking as a scientist, here’s the leanest, least BS laden version I can come up with of how I look at Buddhism.
Reincarnation - I don’t care about it. The only aspect of reincarnation that is important to me how we are all constantly changing and impermanent, the issue that Olivesmarch4th raised earlier. The thing that happens after I die is no big deal to me. I think the emphasis on reincarnation is a otherwise a holdover from Hinduism.
**
Karma - I don’t care. Things either go around or they don’t. On a personal level, I worry about karma in the sense that if I don’t do what I ought to do, I’ll pay for it - not necessarily in some kosmic fashion, but rather I’ll feel like an ass about it, or I’ll be angry for days over it, and I’ll incorporate it into my life. I don’t really worry about future extrinsic universal account balancing. I think for me, karma is another holdover from Hinduism, and is as important to me as Leviticus is to most Christians
**
Noble Truths: Suffering exists. (Noble truth #1) The insight that Buddhism provides is that even the good stuff has the seeds of pain (Noble Truth #2). To fall in love is to lose love at some future time. To desire a thing has seeds of pain and disappointment as an intrinsic part of the desire. Knowing this right down to the bone allows one some perspective, and a way to step back from desire and lusting after things, or getting caught up in anger (Noble truth #3), Practicing the way (Noble Truth #4) helps with this detachment, and deepens the realization of how the world really is.
Nirvana - Doesn’t mean much to me on a day to day level, however Sattori or Kensho have meant a lot. That is, an absolute buddha-level understanding of the universe is not part of my daily practice, however, on a few occasions, I have had a taste of satori, a momentary flash of insight into the nature of things.
However, for me,** impermanence** (anicca) and nonsoulness (anatman) are the fundamental insights. There is nothing that lasts, nothing that is permanent. Not love, not self, not mind. Watching some elderly person with dementia, or a young person with a brain injury rapidly makes you wonder about what personality is. Sure, part of it is the structural nature of the brain, at least according to Phineas Gage. [ Phineas Gage - Wikipedia ] but even on a short time scale we are transitory and inconstant.
This leads to the issue of time and mindfulness. Scheming and lusting and dwelling in the past or future are part of a broader delusion of permanence, while in fact, the only time that really exists is right now, the less than a second moving frame of the present moment. Two seconds ago is a memory, and two seconds from now is a plan. I know the future exists as a mental construct, but only ‘now’ is demonstrable. Uh oh, it’s gone, now it’s over here.
Thus, if I am an impermanent consciousness living in a short time frame, it behooves me to live it hard, to live it well, to go for the gusto - to live as though this were the only time in my life, since tomorrow doesn’t exist, and I won’t be there anyway. Instead, I should really pay attention to right now.
Doesn’t mean I can’t plan ahead, but it does suggest that I shouldn’t just live mentally in the future. In fact, these ideas are the source of the small amount of compassion that I have, and galvanize a practical approach to the world - this is the only existence that is happening now, how should I be living it, what can I do to improve it.
Okay, so there’s my coal-face view of Buddhism, as practiced by this scientist. Any comments are welcome.