Persistent Obsession

[ASL_v2.0]

Okay, so here’s an article from The Atlantic as a primer (I’m going to try and spare you the usual anti-apologetics stuff I get from various atheist YouTube channels).

Newberg is a pioneer in the field of neurotheology, the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences. In the 1990s, he began his work in the field by scanning what happens in people’s brains when they meditate, because it is a spiritual practice that is relatively easy to monitor.

Since then, he’s looked at around 150 brain scans, including those of Buddhists, nuns, atheists, Pentecostals speaking in tongues, and Brazilian mediums practicing psychography—the channeling of messages from the dead through handwriting.

What Happens to the Brain During Spiritual Experiences?

As you say, all the evidence we have points to the “mind” as being resident solely in the brain, and these intense spiritual experiences, while seemingly unique and profound and so far removed from anything (some people) would think could possibly be resident in the brain… are just that. They produce observable phenomena, repeatable in multiple studies. That Buddhists or Christians or Muslims or Jains or whoever might insist, with absolute certainty (as if absolute certainty is warranted) that their experience must have involved some supernatural transcendence to another plane of blah blah blah does not make it so.

Yes, the religious are often quite good at appearing certain. So what? I could sit across from you and tell you how certain I am that the world is flat, keep a totally flat expression on my face, and insist over and over again, with great fervor that I am correct and anyone who disagrees is either lying or deceived. But that wouldn’t make it so. I would hope you’d see through that too, and walk away from such a conversation without the slightest bit of doubt as to the world’s roundness.

Should someone insisting, however fervently, that there is no self convince you that they are right? Should it even be sufficient to give you cause to doubt? I say no.

To the extent that there could possibly be any basis for the notion that there is no self, I would say it must surely depend on a twisting of the very definition of the word to make it so. Like people who define god as “the universe” and conclude that since the universe exists, god exists (and not even in some sort of prime mover/cosmological argument sense, but strictly in the sense that they have defined god to be something other than what the bulk of the population would ever understand god to be, and concluded that since that thing—it might as well be a coffee cup—exists, “god exists.”)

There’s also this video of a lecture given at the Royal Institution (UK) about neuroscience and consciousness which touches on some issues relating to our understanding of consciousness and the mind or “self.”

The Neuroscience of Consciousness – with Anil Seth

And finally (also from the Royal Institution), there’s The Science of Psychedelics - with Michael Pollan, which talks about, among other things, how certain drugs can cause experiences very similar to the sort of spiritual or mystical experiences reported by people who practice meditation. Around the ten minute mark he relates a story about an atheist who, under the influence of drugs, described feeling as if they were “bathed in god’s love.” As an atheist… (and they remained an atheist after, the point is there’s that feeling).

Each video is about and hour long (hey, if this has been bothering you for a while, what’s a couple hours?) and the speakers are doctors and scientists who are interested in the truth (lower case), not spiritual gurus who want to be admired for their “certainty.”

Bottom line: Do not let those who pedal in certainties and absolutes brainwash you into thinking that you do not exist or that there is no “self.”

[Machinaforce]

I’ll give them a watch sometime today. But what concerned me the most was the arguments put forth in the tricycle link. I think the guy, Jack Hornfield, is a prominent voice in Buddhism and he has a PhD in psychology, so it makes it hard for me to dismiss him.

[Machinaforce]

I read the author in the first link and looked at the follow ups to his books but it seems like this guy is more “woo like” than I think you expected him to be.

[Telemark]

@Machinaforce

A video explaining all this would help tremendously because I don’t know of the other ways.

Based on your past experiences here, no it wouldn’t. As we’ve said dozens of times, your problem isn’t with Buddhism, it’s with your obsessive behavior. You can’t logic your way out of a problem you didn’t logic your way into.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I have no idea about Buddhism but I can relate to obsessing over a passage in the bible. Mine was " The meek shall inherit the earth" it never made sense to me but something always told me it must be true. That was about the only thing from the bible that I remembered. When social media came along it kind of satisfied the answer I was looking for as I can see that happening through social media.

[ASL_v2.0]

@Machinaforce

I read the author in the first link and looked at the follow ups to his books but it seems like this guy is more “woo like” than I think you expected him to be.

It’s a “woo like” topic. The point is that it’s true that it is possible to have an experience that would be described as separating from one’s ego or one’s self, but that:

1. Buddhism doesn’t have a monopoly on this, drugs and practices of other regions can invoke similar sensations.

2. Just because you have the experience and attribute a certain cause to it does not mean your attribution is correct.

The first video I linked sums up in talking about the self as a construct that is linked to… lesser functions of the brain and body (that’s me paraphrasing).

The second video, which I strongly recommend watching AFTER the first (not before or without), specifically discusses just how much responses from people who have undergone “trips” (drug-induced states, under controlled conditions) seem to correspond to Buddhist experiences with intense meditation. You might take that as evidence that there is something to Buddhist ideology and that it is indeed possible to feel that the “self” has gone away or been decoupled, but the point is that that is only a description of the experience. The reason the first video is important is because when they get to that point, you might want to remind you that experiences of “the self” reside in the interactions of the body, primarily the mind, but also based on sensations from all over. It doesn’t “prove” Buddhism just because a Buddhist positively asserts that it does anymore than it “proves” Christianity for a Christian to have a similar experience and then attribute it to the Holy Spirit.

As you (hopefully) watch those videos (and especially the last one, after the first) just remember: self is a product of bodily sensations. Just because one particular religion has posited and explanation for the sense of a loss of self (in the case of Buddhism, that there is no self) does not mean that that religion is correct in its explanation or in its other dogma.

[QuickSilver]

@HoneyBadgerDC

I have no idea about Buddhism but I can relate to obsessing over a passage in the bible. Mine was " The meek shall inherit the earth" it never made sense to me but something always told me it must be true. That was about the only thing from the bible that I remembered. When social media came along it kind of satisfied the answer I was looking for as I can see that happening through social media.

More like, “The Tweet shall inherit the earth”, then.

[Machinaforce]

@ASL_v2.0

It’s a “woo like” topic. The point is that it’s true that it is possible to have an experience that would be described as separating from one’s ego or one’s self, but that:

1. Buddhism doesn’t have a monopoly on this, drugs and practices of other regions can invoke similar sensations.

2. Just because you have the experience and attribute a certain cause to it does not mean your attribution is correct.

The first video I linked sums up in talking about the self as a construct that is linked to… lesser functions of the brain and body (that’s me paraphrasing).

The second video, which I strongly recommend watching AFTER the first (not before or without), specifically discusses just how much responses from people who have undergone “trips” (drug-induced states, under controlled conditions) seem to correspond to Buddhist experiences with intense meditation. You might take that as evidence that there is something to Buddhist ideology and that it is indeed possible to feel that the “self” has gone away or been decoupled, but the point is that that is only a description of the experience. The reason the first video is important is because when they get to that point, you might want to remind you that experiences of “the self” reside in the interactions of the body, primarily the mind, but also based on sensations from all over. It doesn’t “prove” Buddhism just because a Buddhist positively asserts that it does anymore than it “proves” Christianity for a Christian to have a similar experience and then attribute it to the Holy Spirit.

As you (hopefully) watch those videos (and especially the last one, after the first) just remember: self is a product of bodily sensations. Just because one particular religion has posited and explanation for the sense of a loss of self (in the case of Buddhism, that there is no self) does not mean that that religion is correct in its explanation or in its other dogma.

I get all that and I’m in the middle of the second video. It’s quite fascinating to hear him phrase it in a way that isn’t magical or supernatural, also how dream states and waking seeming to be similar in terms of patterns.

The same is true of our feelings. How many of us believe we control our feelings? As we pay attention, we see that they are more like the weather-moods and feelings change according to certain conditions, and are neither possessed nor directed by our consciousness or desires. Do we order happiness, sadness, irritation, excitement, or restlessness to come? Feelings arise by themselves, as the breath breathes itself, as sounds sound themselves.

Our body, too, follows its own laws. The body which we carry is a bag of bones and fluid that belong to no one. It ages, gets sick, or changes in ways we might not wish it to, all according to its own nature. The more we look, in fact, the more deeply we see that we possess nothing within or without.

But I’m still going to go back to the article I read because it doesn’t seem science based and more logic/philosophical, and it sounds convincing to me. It’s a little hard to wrap my head around but it’s called how we own nothing. It’s a troubling title and seems to suggest there is nothing I can call mine.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

I’ll give them a watch sometime today. But what concerned me the most was the arguments put forth in the tricycle link. I think the guy, Jack Hornfield, is a prominent voice in Buddhism and he has a PhD in psychology, so it makes it hard for me to dismiss him.

Who can you dismiss more easily?

Seriously, walk me through this. Tim Murphy has a PhD in psychology and served in Congress as a Republican; presumably he’d advise you to vote Republican. But, on the other hand, Judy Chu is currently serving in Congress as a Democrat, and has a PhD in psychology likewise, and would presumably advise you to vote for Democrats. What do you do, in that situation?

Someone who has credentials and seems rock-solid sure of themselves says stuff as if they truly believe it; and someone else is just as assuredly telling you the opposite. And people with PhDs must also sound pretty sure of themselves when talking about Judaism or Christianity or Islam or whatever. So how do you decide, in contexts other than this one, when PhDs (a) abound, and (b) talk up different stuff to you?

[ASL_v2.0]

@Machinaforce

But I’m still going to go back to the article I read because it doesn’t seem science based and more logic/philosophical, and it sounds convincing to me. It’s a little hard to wrap my head around but it’s called how we own nothing. It’s a troubling title and seems to suggest there is nothing I can call mine.

Again, only if you twist the definition of “mine” to some kind of fringe view that people don’t really mean. Pick up the nearest thing that is portable and was paid for by you, or at least given to you, and that were someone else to take it and refuse to give it back, other people might tend to refer to what this person has done as “theft,” which is frowned upon in most cultures.

That thing? That’s yours. Will you have it forever? No. One of these days, you will lose it for good and whatever happens to your “self” when that happens, you can’t take it with you, if there even is a “you” still left when that time comes.

But it’s still yours. It is yours because we recognize it to be so. Because we have a concept of property rights, perhaps coming from an advanced sense of fairness.

Anyone who tries to tell you there is no “mine” or “yours” is twisting the definition of words in disingenuous ways. It’s obfuscation and equivocation. You should strive not to be convinced, or even worried, by such nonsensical arguments.

If someone tells you “nothing is mine, nothing is yours,” the remedy is simple. Reply, with equal fervor, “Yes it is.” End of conversation. Doesn’t matter how much confidence they exude, they’re flat out wrong in all but the most trivial sense. Remember that word deepity? To the extent that what they say is true, it’s trivial. To the extent that what they say appears profound, it’s not true.

[Scribble]

<Nitpick> Aren’t all obsessions persistent by definition? ISTM that the difference between an obsession and any other thought is that the obsession persists, even if it would be preferable or more reasonable to put your attention elsewhere? </Nitpick>

[ASL_v2.0]

@Scribble

<Nitpick> Aren’t all obsessions persistent by definition? ISTM that the difference between an obsession and any other thought is that the obsession persists, even if it would be preferable or more reasonable to put your attention elsewhere? </Nitpick>

Obsession implies ownership. But if Buddhism is true, then nothing that is owned persists, ergo if Buddhism is true, then there is no obsession, only persistence.

I have achieved enlightenment.

Just now.

Fin.

[Machinaforce]

@ASL_v2.0

Again, only if you twist the definition of “mine” to some kind of fringe view that people don’t really mean. Pick up the nearest thing that is portable and was paid for by you, or at least given to you, and that were someone else to take it and refuse to give it back, other people might tend to refer to what this person has done as “theft,” which is frowned upon in most cultures.

That thing? That’s yours. Will you have it forever? No. One of these days, you will lose it for good and whatever happens to your “self” when that happens, you can’t take it with you, if there even is a “you” still left when that time comes.

But it’s still yours. It is yours because we recognize it to be so. Because we have a concept of property rights, perhaps coming from an advanced sense of fairness.

Anyone who tries to tell you there is no “mine” or “yours” is twisting the definition of words in disingenuous ways. It’s obfuscation and equivocation. You should strive not to be convinced, or even worried, by such nonsensical arguments.

If someone tells you “nothing is mine, nothing is yours,” the remedy is simple. Reply, with equal fervor, “Yes it is.” End of conversation. Doesn’t matter how much confidence they exude, they’re flat out wrong in all but the most trivial sense. Remember that word deepity? To the extent that what they say is true, it’s trivial. To the extent that what they say appears profound, it’s not true.

I have heard all that before and I tell myself that to try an convince myself they are wrong, but…well just read the link. It’s more about questioning the notion or idea of “me”.

[ASL_v2.0]

@Machinaforce

I have heard all that before and I tell myself that to try an convince myself they are wrong, but…well just read the link. It’s more about questioning the notion or idea of “me”.

I don’t find anything in that link or any of the sources advancing the spiritual or supernatural elements of Buddhism (to include the ones that deny the existence of self or the “me”) to be compelling. I know that beliefs of a spiritual nature (if you have them) can be tricky and, try as we might, we can’t just choose what we believe on a whim like flipping on a switch. It can take a lot of convincing to shift beliefs or eliminate doubts.

But if this persistent idea that you’re struggling with is really causing you trouble, maybe you should try talking with a neutral party about this IRL? And by neutral, I specifically mean someone who won’t try to take advantage of your sincere desire to get answers by proselytizing to you and seeking to convert you to their faith, whether they happen to be Buddhist or a follower of some other religion. I myself see a therapist regularly (though we don’t talk about the nature of the self and whether or not there is a “me”—other things).

[Machinaforce]

@ASL_v2.0

I don’t find anything in that link or any of the sources advancing the spiritual or supernatural elements of Buddhism (to include the ones that deny the existence of self or the “me”) to be compelling. I know that beliefs of a spiritual nature (if you have them) can be tricky and, try as we might, we can’t just choose what we believe on a whim like flipping on a switch. It can take a lot of convincing to shift beliefs or eliminate doubts.

But if this persistent idea that you’re struggling with is really causing you trouble, maybe you should try talking with a neutral party about this IRL? And by neutral, I specifically mean someone who won’t try to take advantage of your sincere desire to get answers by proselytizing to you and seeking to convert you to their faith, whether they happen to be Buddhist or a follower of some other religion. I myself see a therapist regularly (though we don’t talk about the nature of the self and whether or not there is a “me”—other things).

What I want to know is why don’t you find it convincing, I feel like that is a key aspect. I talked to my therapist about it, but I don’t think he knows enough about Buddhism to really help. The parts in the link are mostly the fleeting nature of our thoughts and feelings, which for me casts doubt about whether they are really mine or how we derive a self from that.

[Machinaforce]

In addition to what they mention about nothing being “solid” because things are always in a state of flux and change. Like how the body appears to be a “solid” entity but it’s really just a collection of processes that are always changes. Some of them even suggest that nouns are illusory because it suggests that something is permanent and unchanging.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Machinaforce

What I want to know is why don’t you find it convincing, I feel like that is a key aspect. I talked to my therapist about it, but I don’t think he knows enough about Buddhism to really help. The parts in the link are mostly the fleeting nature of our thoughts and feelings, which for me casts doubt about whether they are really mine or how we derive a self from that.

Does that work in reverse?

If the reason for your doubt is — as you say — that they’re fleeting, then would you be okay if you had some that weren’t fleeting?

In addition to what they mention about nothing being “solid” because things are always in a state of flux and change. Like how the body appears to be a “solid” entity but it’s really just a collection of processes that are always changes.

Uh, okay. But if there are stone walls or iron bars all around me, it does me no good to smugly declare that my surroundings and my body aren’t really solid, as it’s all just flux and change and a collection of processes that merely appear to be solid; I’m still blocked by the prison or the cage or whatever as if it is solid, right?

[RioRico]

Can I assume that Buddhist monks fighting each other, and Buddhists taking up arms against Muslims, haven’t quite managed to free themselves from attachments?

[Alessan]

Not to mention Buddhist millionaires and billionaires.

[Machinaforce]

@RioRico

Can I assume that Buddhist monks fighting each other, and Buddhists taking up arms against Muslims, haven’t quite managed to free themselves from attachments?

I have heard it said they weren’t truly following Buddhism but their own version of it.

As for the feelings and thoughts bit, I guess it would be problematic if I was angry all the time or sad, etc. But that doesn’t mean that some things or events that I respond to a certain way don’t make me…me. Like how two people can eat the same food and love it or hate it.

The Scientific Buddha by Donald S. Lopez, Jr.

But then I hear claims that Buddhism is a scientific religion and I do value science, so it sort of functions as an “in” into my brain.