Meditation people roll call!

Well that's what bothers me about modern Buddhism, and particularly branches that really dwell on reincarnation. The Buddhas message was one of letting go of the self in order to escape suffering, and yet here we are concerning ourselves almost non-stop with where our 'self' has been and where it is going. It seems contradictory.

> if you think about consciousness as a kind of energy

My (pop-sci level) understanding of current cognitive science developments is that thinking and consciousness and emotion and creativity and all that stuff that we consider the soul or self or whatever generally is about completely chemically explicable.

Or put another way - there is no body/mind divide. The mind is a product of the body, specifically the brain, and that's about all there is to it.

excessively literal interpretations of reincarnation strike me as fairly ridiculous

you know, you can say that, but then are you also saying that people who do have illuminations about the subject also strike you as fairly ridiculous?

not sure what a less "literal" interpretation of reincarnation might involve.

Just in terms of reasoning through it it simply doesn't make sense to me is all. Could be that it happens, but I have no rational model which tells me it is possible.

> not sure what a less "literal" interpretation of reincarnation might involve.

The whole "Lion King" circle of life returning to the environment as wormfood and nourishing future generations with your body (and if you're lucky) your genes and thoughts thang.

Yes. That's why I have babies.

Oilyrags I don't disagree about the mind/body divide, but that's pretty reductionist. Sure its all chemicals/biology at work, but don't kid yourself that modern science has any notion about HOW the mind actually works - we don't even have an explanation for how the mind processes visual signals from the eye.

altho OTM about what I meant by a less literal version of reincarnation (ie, one that doesn't emphasize discrete personalities and encourage "I was once Queen of Babylon!"-type wish-fulfillment baloney)

x-post

But ... I WAS once the Queen of Babylon.

If you're just going to call all insight about past lives "baloney," it's silly for me to continue with the conversation.

Frankly, you seem hung up to me about demographics of people whom you deem to be idiotic and charlatans (i.e., "what is the point of having "past lives" if you need to pay someone money to tell you about them?").

well okay let's start at the beginning. What is the "I" that is purportedly reincarnated.

The soul. I don't have much insight for you beyond that.

let me put it another way, what unique characteristics do your current incarnation and whatever past incarnations you have had share, and in what way can they be defined as a consistent and, most importantly, unique personality/identity.

consider the classic zen excercise of discovering the impossibility of defining an object (ie, they show you a chair and ask you to describe it and then point out the deficiencies in each and every possible description)

holy shit this thread

I believe you mean "holy shit OHM this thread"

From how I understand it, we choose lives as a means of evolving from positions held in previous lives. The existence of the soul is "consistent" simply in the sense of its own continued existence, but using words like "identity" and "personality" are probably not so helpful in explaining how things operate on the spiritual level.

are you a scientologist?

Me? I'm a Movementarian.

Yeah, see, I shouldn't bother. That comment is upsetting to me. I'm merely interested in spirituality, have spent a good part of my life in meditation, and have had certain experiences in life.

x-post

I have been trying to think of a way of asking this that doesn't come off as immediately dismissive, because I don't want to be dismissive in that way, because this discussion is touching on topics that I find strange and alien but which I find interesting because so many people think it's important. But this has been really bugging me, so I'll ask:

Yeah. I just bristle a little at the stereotype because the only really progressive things going on spiritually in this country do still fall under the "new age" umbrella.

How can spirituality be "progressive"? What do you mean by that?

(Also I more or less agree with where Shakey is going with this argument but definitions don't work like that! Although I've never heard of such a Platonic Zen exercise.)

Tim if specific souls are being reincarnated over and over that implies that they have discrete characteristics that distinguish them from one another - so, what are these characteristics? (ie, what is the "we" in your "we choose lives" statement?)

Well, that's an interesting statement, but there isn't necessarily more life on the planet now than there was in prior centuries. Also, I don't know as that souls always necessarily reincarnate immediately.

-- Tim Ellison, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:42 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Link

where did this life initially come from?

I only meant "progressive" in terms of actually seeking out growth, truth, etc. We are a culture that is fairly spiritually bankrupt so I see "new age" mysticism - and I think there's a lot of good in it but certainly don't dismiss the idea that there might be a lot of bad at the same time - as really the only kind of umbrella where people are at least considering the whole subject.

Shakey, I'm afraid I don't have the insight to answer that question. I do think it's an attempt to answer scientifically what mystics have known implicitly throughout the ages, though.

x-post - life evolved on the planet Earth - what is your point?

Tim, if you could give us some kind of logical argument that would suggest that reincarnation of a 'soul' was at all possible, that would be interesting. Otherwise, saying that it's true because someone told you it was is not convincing to me.

Tim I'm with you, bro.

keep ya head up

I mean I have an easier time accepting the idea that we're all incarnations of a limited number of archetypes (ie, 12 astrological signs, or the Hindu trinity, or Greek or Voodoo gods, or whoever), because those personalities are constructed around discrete concepts (science, music, war, love, etc.). But individual human personalities (ie, you and me) aren't like that - we aren't archetypes, we aren't larger-than-life concepts.

x-post

I do think it's an attempt to answer scientifically what mystics have known implicitly throughout the ages, though.

I don't consider it knowledge if it can't be independently verified.

Well, let's not get into a semantic debate. You can call it "insight" if you want.

Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors Melinda Wenner
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com
Fri Apr 6, 9:25 AM ET

People who believe they have lived past lives as, say, Indian princesses or battlefield commanders are more likely to make certain types of memory errors, according to a new study.

The propensity to make these mistakes could, in part, explain why people cling to implausible reincarnation claims in the first place.

Researchers recruited people who, after undergoing hypnotic therapy, had come to believe that they had past lives.

Subjects were asked to read aloud a list of 40 non-famous names, and then, after a two-hour wait, told that they were going to see a list consisting of three types of names: non-famous names they had already seen (from the earlier list), famous names, and names of non-famous people that they had not previously seen. Their task was to identify which names were famous.

The researchers found that, compared to control subjects who dismissed the idea of reincarnation, past-life believers were almost twice as likely to misidentify names. In particular, their tendency was to wrongly identify as famous the non-famous names they had seen in the first task. This kind of error, called a source-monitoring error, indicates that a person has difficulty recognizing where a memory came from.

Power of suggestion

People who are likely to make these kinds of errors might end up convincing themselves of things that aren’t true, said lead researcher Maarten Peters of Maastricht University in The Netherlands. When people who are prone to making these mistakes undergo hypnosis and are repeatedly asked to talk about a potential idea—like a past life—they might, as they grow more familiar with it, eventually convert the idea into a full-blown false memory.

This is because they can’t distinguish between things that have really happened and things that have been suggested to them, Peters told LiveScience.

Past life memories are not the only type of implausible memories that have been studied in this manner. Richard McNally, a clinical psychologist at Harvard University, has found that self-proclaimed alien abductees are also twice as likely to commit source monitoring errors.

Creative minds

As for what might make people more prone to committing such errors to begin with, McNally says that it could be the byproduct of especially vivid imagery skills. He has found that people who commonly make source-monitoring errors respond to and imagine experiences more strongly than the average person, and they also tend to be more creative.

“It might be harder to discriminate between a vivid image that you’d generated yourself and the memory of a perception of something you actually saw,” he said in a telephone interview.

Peters also found in his study, detailed in the March issue of Consciousness and Cognition, that people with implausible memories are also more likely to be depressed and to experience sleep problems, and this could also make them more prone to memory mistakes.

And once people make this kind of mistake, they might be inclined to stick to their guns for spiritual reasons, McNally said. “It may be a variant expression of certain religious impulses,” he said. “We suspect that this might be kind of a psychological buffering mechanism against the fear of death.”

(and btw I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of mystics in various disciplines who have no use for the concept of reincarnation - which is specifically Hindu in origin and was subsequently adapted to Buddhism)

and btw yr gonna find me easier to deal with than ethan, Itellyawhat

x-post

It's not a semantic debate though. It's a key cleavage between two concepts - scientific knowledge and belief.

I have to go get acupuncture! Sending vibes out now to balance ILX karma before I go.

x-post - I understand, but the spiritual insights we're talking about often go beyond what you mean by "belief" and into areas of actual experience and practice

Like Shakey professed an interest in the "occult" earlier. Is this merely because "occult" is cooler than "new age?" Are occult experiences more scientifically verifiable than new age experiences?

I don't see that having anything to do with anything.

well that IS a semantic debate, and I wouldn't say I've had any "occult experiences", unless you count reading a bunch of books, meditating, being fascinated with tarot, watching Jodorowsky perform his "psychomagic" etc.

"Occult" as a descriptive term just has different connotations than "new age", though they often overlap in terms of subject matter and who they're marketed to.

like, goths are into the "occult", middle aged hippie moms are into "new age", knowhutimean

But naturally your interest in the subject is predicated on the idea that people actually have had "occult experiences," yes?

Watts relates this helpful Zen tale:

A monk said to Master Bodhidharma, "Master, I can't find peace of mind. Please help me."

Bodhidharma said, "Place your mind before me and I'll pacify it."

The monk said, "When I look for my mind, I cannot find it."

Bodhidharma said, "There, I've pacified it for you."

-- wanko ergo sum, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:10 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

I dunno Tim what do you consider an "occult experience"...? Some experiences, like hallucinating during a ritual and gaining insight from it, seem perfectly valid (not to mention scientifically explicable) to me.

This anecdote always made plenty of sense to me:

One day it was announced by Master Joshu that the young monk Kyogen had reached an enlightened state. Much impressed by this news, several of his peers went to speak to him.

"We have heard that you are enlightened. Is this true?" his fellow students inquired.

"It is," Kyogen answered.

"Tell us," said a friend, "how do you feel?"

"As miserable as ever," replied the enlightened Kyogen.

Crowley, for example, performed the Rites of Eleusis in public in the UK in the early 1900s, and I'm sure that was a pretty intense experience for many of the participants. On the other hand, Crowley also makes all kinds of wild and contradictory claims and was undeniably an unreliable charlatan in many respects, I don't accept all of his purported "experiences" at face value. I do admire his propensity for research and his unprecedented attempt at integrating the various spiritual disciplines in the world and connecting them together by exploring shared systems of symbolism and practice, etc.

We are a culture that is fairly spiritually bankrupt

I don't have any sense what this might mean either, though I hear it often enough.

this thread is icky.

I'm not sure I really want to soil this thread with my opinions of the Cosmic Serpent and the sort of person that takes it seriously, but c'mon guys, seriously? Stuff is some armchair scientist bullshit, though the journalistic bits were very good.

I am down with the laws of thermodynamics

This is possibly my favorite line on this thread.

Well that's what bothers me about modern Buddhism

Though I'm sure you're aware, just for the sake of clarification, not all modern Buddhists believe in reincarnation (cf big hoos). I see it as a metaphor for the completely verifiable "cycle of life and death" that everything experiences regularly: cells degenerate, new ones take their place. Fruit rots, the seeds inside are ready to be planted. etc

btw for the interested Buddhism

Though I'm sure you're aware, just for the sake of clarification, not all modern Buddhists believe in reincarnation (cf big hoos). I see it as a metaphor for the completely verifiable "cycle of life and death" that everything experiences regularly: cells degenerate, new ones take their place. Fruit rots, the seeds inside are ready to be planted. etc

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:32 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

^^^ this, I can get behind. "Literal" reincarnation makes my eyes glaze over, and seems like wish-fulfillment and totally missing the point.

lol I started this thread

Narby is totally an armchair scientist and he's pretty up-front about that. I don't hold this against him - he's more Terence McKenna than Stephen Jay Gould. I still thought the book contained a lot of interesting stuff I didn't know (cf phosphorescent DNA) or hadn't considered before.