Links to Spirituality Found in the Brain

[tiltbillings]

Scientists have identified areas of the brain that, when damaged, lead to greater spirituality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/lin ... inthebrain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ben]

As I said in the other thread, their idea of spirituality and what I consider spirituality are two different things.

[tiltbillings]

As I said in the other thread, their idea of spirituality and what I consider spirituality are two different things.

Oh, I don't know. It seems rather than all those austere hours on the cushion, one might just the part of one's head a good whack with a hammer. A bit of pain at first, but if the right amount of brain damage is inflicted - god (or whatever).

[Ben]

The problem is that the spiritual paradigm that the researchers are testing seems to correlate with the spirituality of the Na'vi from Avatar.
To me, the researcher's basic assumptions of what spirituality is, appears to be erroneous.
No doubt, they'll pathologize spirituality, or their version of it, and we'll see it in a future edition of DSM.
metta

Ben

[tiltbillings]

The problem is that the spiritual paradigm that the researchers are testing seems to correlate with the spirituality of the Na'vi from Avatar.
To me, the researcher's basic assumptions of what spirituality is, appears to be erroneous.
No doubt, they'll pathologize spirituality, or their version of it, and we'll see it in a future edition of DSM.
metta

Ben

Whatever the basis of the actual research, I rather doubt the news article is doing it any justice, thusly it is a bit silly, thusly, funny.

As for the spirituality of the Na'vi, beats the bejezuz out somethings I could point to.

[Ben]

Point away, my friend!
But no rush...I;m going off for a bit of self-induced brain damage.
Cheers

Ben

[tiltbillings]

Point away, my friend!
But no rush...I;m going off for a bit of self-induced brain damage.
Cheers

Ben

"I could point to," but being ever so polite and sensitive and thoughtful, I shan't.

[Sanghamitta]

I bet I can guess.

[appicchato]

...a good whack with a hammer.

That's what I was thinking...

[tiltbillings]

...a good whack with a hammer.

That's what I was thinking...

Maxwell's Silver Hammer, no doubt.

[Kare]

If you have a wall near by, here is how to enter into the first jhana:

[meindzai]

I agree with Ben, and actually I have had trouble with the word "Spiritual" for awhile as it relates to Buddhism. I'll use it in context becuase it's what people understand. But really, it's kind of a nonsense word since we're not dealing with spirits of any kind. The trascendental "woo-woo" type experiences reported by mystical types or usually downplayed in Buddhism as a distraction to the path. I'd say the word "transcendental" does apply in that we are transcending samsara, but I that most people use it to refer to some super-spiritual-orgasm thing. Buddhism seems to be more about what Thanissaro Bhikkhu refers to as normalcy - something that doesn't sell a lot of books.

"Sometimes you read that in the stages of insight you get into weird
psychophysical experiences. Those descriptions are designed by people who are
trying to sell a particular kind of meditation. You're going off to spend a week
where you want to have something to show for it, something you can talk about
when you return. It's hard to tell your friends, "You know, I maintained my mind
in a state of normalcy for the entire week." It doesn't impress anybody. But
you're not here to impress people; you're not here to impress yourself. You're
here to see things clearly. The best way to see things clearly is to get the
mind into a state of stillness.

We tend to think of the stages of jhana as very strong trance states, but
actually they're the mind in a state of genuine normalcy where it's very
perceptive, very clearly perceiving things as they are, as they come as they go,
able to see distinctions. That's what we're working on, trying to keep the mind
in a state of normalcy, as with all the elements of the path. The qualities of
the path are things we've already experienced, things we've already tasted. It's
simply that we haven't seen the strength they can develop if they're made
continuous, if they're made all-around. This state of centered, clear normalcy
in the mind, if you could really maintain it, would build up a lot of strength."

http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writ ... rmalcy.pdf

-M

[IanAnd]

Buddhism seems to be more about what Thanissaro Bhikkhu refers to as normalcy — something that doesn't sell a lot of books.

"We tend to think of the stages of jhana as very strong trance states, but
actually they're the mind in a state of genuine normalcy where it's very
perceptive, very clearly perceiving things as they are, as they come as they go,
able to see distinctions. That's what we're working on, trying to keep the mind
in a state of normalcy, as with all the elements of the path. The qualities of
the path are things we've already experienced, things we've already tasted. It's
simply that we haven't seen the strength they can develop if they're made
continuous, if they're made all-around. This state of centered, clear normalcy
in the mind, if you could really maintain it, would build up a lot of strength."

Excellent quote from Thanissaro Thera. This is exactly how I would describe what one is endeavoring to achieve using Buddhist meditation techniques and training.

Unfortunate that it doesn't sell more books because when one actually is able to achieve this "state of normalcy," as Thanissaro characterizes it, it changes one's perspective on the world and life in general. One stops looking for or toward authorities (either secular or religious) to guide one and, rather, becomes one's own authority for self-guidance, which is what the Buddha was after in his practice and teaching of ultimate "liberation" through the use of the Dhamma. (The word "self" here referring to the "relative and conventional self" of worldly endeavor, just to clarify for those Buddhist purists out there.)

[zavk]

As I said in the other thread, their idea of spirituality and what I consider spirituality are two different things.

But really, it's kind of a nonsense word since we're not dealing with spirits of any kind.

Ooohh.. 'spirituality', a pet subject of mine--a subject I've been researching for some two years now. So WARNING: long rambling posts ahead!

Heh.... but yeah, you're right, Ben and meindzai. 'Spirituality' or the idea of 'the spiritual' is a vague, amorphous concept that can and has been used to mean many things and nothing all at once. The malleability of the term--its ever shifting boundaries--is what allows it to be misused and exploited. Yet, it is this same malleability that gives it its transformative, and even, revolutionary possibilities.

'Spirituality' can be described as a 'Humpty Dumpty' word:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.

However, an important point to note here is not the fact that a word can be used to mean many things, or that one can give many meanings to a word. The important point is:

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

What this suggests is that that these sorts of research are not simply uncovering the 'true', 'original' or 'authentic' meaning of spirituality. Rather, in claiming to make 'discoveries' about spirituality, they are actually shaping the meaning of spirituality around a 'master' set of ideas, around a particular outlook--in this case, a predominantly medico-neuroscientific one. And whatever set of meaning is attributed to 'the spiritual', it is never neutral. It would always be skewed towards some interest or another. In this instance, we see 'the spiritual' being cast as a kind of pathology, as a kind of illness. Should such a view of spirituality become dominant, there would be real social, cultural, and political implications.....

Anyway, it's kinda late. I'll post again tomorrow or when I have the time. I think it would be interesting if we look at how the notion of 'spirituality' has evolved since its inception (the word first appeared in French as spiritualité around the 17th century). Different parties have attempted to shape 'spirituality' around different 'master' sets of meanings, and each of these attempts have produced interesting consequences, some positive some negative.

Buddhism, as we understand it today, has been influenced by some of these attempts to shape 'spirituality'. It has, particularly, been influenced by those attempts at the turn of the twentieth century to articulate the notion of 'Eastern spirituality' over and against Christianity, which was on the decline in Western societies.

[Avery]

There are many Westerners who say that they tried Buddhism and "experienced enlightenment/satori" but it didn't work for them... maybe this is what's being talked about.

That's what happens when D.T. Suzuki says satori is a flash of insight