The claim is that when the mind is stilled and rested then the illusion of self and other disappears, since they claim that the mind is something that is actively generating the illusion. But “stilling” it would just create the experience of no-self or other, it wouldn’t really prove it. Just like meditation creates the impression of oneness.
From what I can tell I am a body. Though they claim that before you there was the universe, that doesn’t make me the universe. It just means I was born of it (which is more believable). Of course some branches of philosophy might argue otherwise. Plus they are admitting a “me”. Doubtfully, if they were referring to the atoms that makeup my body (which I don’t think die) then maybe, but I still doubt it. Then there 's the “body is an illusion” which isn’t really explained just stated as some fact without support.
I won’t doubt that believing said things gives one a sense of relief and peace. In the moments where I believed it to be so there was a sense of peace and ease, but also no love or compassion. Well I guess you could call it warmth. Anyway it was interesting, but it was more like a product of believing their words and not knowing if they were true. It seems like the main strength behind all this is personal experience. But personal experience isn’t really proof, just a sense.
Then there is that small bit about how we are all just “expressions of the universe”, but aren’t we born of it but not the whole? But considering they say there is no self or “unchanging core” of you (or little man in the head pulling strings, like how you say you have a body instead of you are a body). But even if we abide by the “no self” bit that doesn’t make you the universe, just a body.
You say you’re unable to disprove their claims, but it looks to me like you just did.
I should disclaim again that I haven’t ever actually listened to these people, so I’m just reacting to your descriptions of your interpretations of what they say.
But it sounds to me like they’re not going as deep as “You are a member and resident of the universe whose molecules existed in it before they were part of it.” That’s science, and they’re not doing science - and it’s erroneous to assume that their made-up claims and principles align with reality.
And they can devalue and denigrate human existence all they like, but it’s the only existence any of us have got. They’re not the whole universe, no matter what they imagine in their heads.
If by that they meant that you are connected to other things and don’t exist in a vaccum (then I believe it). Because I wouldn’t exist without parents, without the Earth, food, water, the molecules from first stars. I am made up of the same materials as other things in the universe, and I might be generous enough to say that one is an expression (but not really) of the universe. But to say I am the whole is not true, even by my most generous concessions. Just like atoms and molecules are components of bigger structures I am a part of the whole, but not the whole.
I think in meditation you lose the sense of “seperateness” which might explain a few thinks in Eastern mysticism. Seems like much of their claims rest on the result of practices. But that’s just a result of a practice, not proof of it.
What still bothers me is the “pictures” bit. That there isn’t anything inherent (no inherent value) and therefor it doesn’t exist, it is just a phantom. But if that were true then they wouldn’t preach compassion or liberating sentient beings, because that is technically a value. If there is no “inherent” good or bad then letting suffering persist or “illusion” would be the same as liberation. There would be no difference or preference. In a sense it’s like calling subjectivity an illusion or false, or that something or someone is empty because if they were X or Y then they would be so all the time and without influence. But seeing how life is change I don’t understand. Our reactions and stances on things change all the time.
And then there was some bit about “you driving through you to get to you”, or “god pouring a cup of god to serve god”. It’s an extension of “you are the universe” but it doesn’t make any sense.
Because my mind registers it as some kind of cryptic wisdom from a sage. Like it’s some kind of riddle. Of course that leads to me believing all sorts of nonsense.
Like the bit about “pictures” and how things and people aren’t what our experiences say they are (or better yet what we believe them to be based on experience).
Plus the stuff about abandoning things is rooted in Buddhism nonattachment. Since no achievement, item, relationship is permanent and lasting then one shouldn’t pursue them. But that’s misery. Letting go of family, hobbies, a career I love. Why would they preach such things? Don’t pursue anything because it won’t last anyway?
Well, I consider all religions looneybats insane, so I’m not in a good position to defend Buddhism. My slim disinterested understanding of Buddhism is that they consider existence a problem and their entire religion is focused upon triggering the magic ‘cheat code’ of being so detached that reality allows them to cease existing. Why they think this is a good thing is their own problem - I reject the premise. Existence is not a bad thing - or at the very least nonexistence isn’t better.
And even if things have no inherent value (and for the record I think they don’t - value is always and only in the eyes of the beholder), that doesn’t mean that things don’t exist. That’s stupid.
And for the record, I also think the notion that being eternal is somehow valuable is stupid - what good does that do? What does it matter if our molecules are old have once been in ancestors or dinosaurs or stars or not? They still do molecule stuff, and only molecule stuff. What stuff was before is irrelevant.
I’m not thinking me and Buddhists would see eye to eye on much.
Looking at the two, it seems like this center is some variation of Buddhism.
The letting go of everything, how they tell you to forsake “lower” pleasures for some “higher” happiness (in Buddhism they cite some monks as proof), that it’s pointless to pursue relationships, items, experiences, etc because they only provide a brief and fleeting pleasure and they don’t last.
It reminded me of why I stopped with Buddhism, too depressing. I don’t want to give up everything I love for some imagined happiness that may or may not exist (and I might even die before getting there).
Though I guess the good news is that conditioned means “depends on” not brainwashed. Small favors. I just wish I could forget Buddhism.
Looking at something else, I don’t think they meant it literally. This is an excerpt but I guess it reminds me not to take Eastern sayings literally:
"Just as a piece of paper is the fruit, the combination of many elements that can be called non-paper elements, the individual is made of non-individual elements. If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud there will be no water; without water, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, you cannot make paper. So the cloud is in here. The existence of this page is dependent on the existence of a cloud. Paper and cloud are so close. Let us think of other things, like sunshine. Sunshine is very important because the forest cannot grow without sunshine, and we humans cannot grow without sunshine. So the logger needs sunshine in order to cut the tree, and the tree needs sunshine in order to be a tree. Therefore, you can see sunshine in this sheet of paper. And if you look more deeply, with the eyes of a bodhisattva, with the eyes of those who are awake, you see not only the cloud and the sunshine in it, but that everything is here: the wheat that became the bread for the logger to eat, the logger’s father—everything is in this sheet of paper.
The Avatamsaka Sutra tells us that you cannot point to one thing that does not have a relationship with this sheet of paper. So we say, “A sheet of paper is made of non-paper elements.” A cloud is a nonpaper element. The forest is a non-paper element. Sunshine is a non-paper element. The paper is made of all the non-paper elements to the extent that if we return the non-paper elements to their sources, the cloud to the sky, the sunshine to the sun, the logger to his father, the paper is empty. Empty of what? Empty of separate self. It has been made by all the non-self elements, non-paper elements, and if all these non-paper elements are taken out, it is truly empty, empty of an independent self. Empty, in this sense, means that the paper is full of everything, the entire cosmos. The presence of this tiny sheet of paper proves the presence of the whole cosmos."
I guess by that they mean that one is made of of elements of other things. Like we can’t exist without water, food, light, etc.
Actually now that I think about it I don’t think the “abandon” thing was meant literally either, more like just be there and meditate and then return to your regular life when the time is up. I guess then mean “just sit and meditate” and leave all that behind for a little while.
Right, they are pushing ideas that are mutually exclusive. That’s all the argument that you need against them. They’re saying nonsense that sounds good because they don’t have anything real to offer. They have no real philosophy, no real values, no therapy, no information, nothing of any benefit.
What bothers me is how they say that pursuits that don’t result in permanent happiness are pointless. They refer to such things as a child with toys. Art, music, sex, etc are pointless pursuits because they don’t last and lead to craving. They pale in comparison to the “ultimate” happiness. Makes me feel like jotting I do is worthwhile because it doesn’t last (even though it didn’t bother me).
The question, of course, is why these “relationships” matter. Yes, the granola bar I ate yesterday has been consumed by me, and that’s (sort of) a relationship. And the fecal matter I produced this morning was produced by me, so that’s also a “relationship”.
The question is what I’m supposed to get out of this. I mean, what I get out of it is that I need to eat to live, and that I need a bathroom to stay sanitary, but these aren’t spiritual or ‘meaningful’ facts - they’re the most prosaic and mundane of facts. And yes, sure, if I stopped eating I’d start feeling pretty empty pretty quick, and if the sun had been extinguished prior to my birth I wouldn’t ever have existed. So I’ve got “relationships” with all these things that effect me and effect things that effect me and whatever.
Nothing about that is spiritual and meaningful. And it certainly doesn’t devalue my existence by implying I’m empty of self or whatever. And based on that quote it’s not intended to - it’s more about increasing your value because you’re connected with everything, at least through esoteric causal chains. (How that’s supposed to matter one way or the other eludes me, but whichever.)
As for the whole “eschew temporary but real earthly happiness for an eternal higher better shinier suger-covered happiness that somebody imagined up” thing, that’s a pretty standard line, but you know what? I don’t buy fantasies. Anybody can invent a heaven. Lots of people have. And not a damned one of them is a guru because they did so - not until they can prove they’re not blowing smoke.
And if they could prove that they would have done it hundreds of years ago.
Well their “evidence” seems to be anecdotal. Like how it worked for the Buddha, some monks/teachers and practitioners. Of course there are other accounts about people who suffered from it.