Entertaining opposites, releasing attachment to positions.

TheBardWest

Occasionally, as a form of self-torture, I like to check in on the A&A forum to see what folks are talking about, debating, and to see at which group they're poking fun today.

A recent thread got me thinking: How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition? To phrase it another way: how many skeptics, agnostics, and atheists make a practice of reading and studying the works they so vehemently oppose? Likewise, how many religious fanatics, sometime-spiritualists, and would-be-seekers spend time reading the latest scientific debunking of the power of positive thinking, faith or religion?

I find myself getting wound up in such arguments, because most of the time neither side leaves room for its opposite. The atheists think all religion and spirituality is hogwash, and all followers fools. The spiritualists think the atheists are all Cartesian quarterbacks, riding the self-righteous wave of scientific inquiry - "I think, therefore your position is wrong."

What is most frustrating to me is that the majority on both sides cannot find the value in the other position. Scientists don't see the very real value that the modern spiritual movement has brought in increasing compassion, fulfillment, and positive change in the world - instead choosing to focus on fundamentalist religion as representative of all 'woo-woo' faith. Spiritualists don't see the value in critical reasoning, scientific inquiry, or exploring the very real ways in which science can shed light on some of the more questionable and objectionable practices and beliefs to make way for something more open, truthful, and universal.

I'd love to hear how and if you have entertained opposite positions in this way. Myself - I just added the book "The End of Faith" to my library queue. :-)

King Mob

Well as both an atheist and skeptic and a former believer in most things woo woo, I can confidently say that I have considered both sides.

Personally I don't find any value in spiritualism or other woo beliefs simply because there is no way to really have a "positive change in the world" or "fulfilment" when you you have to rely on something that is false.
Especially when the vast majority of woo leads to people getting scammed.

TheBardWest

Sorry, I'm not tracking you there, King Mob. I think you may be confusing my question - which is more about spirituality in general vs. religious fundamentalism. The two are not the same, and they're no more similar than medical science of early man is to medical science today.

Someone who, for example, meditates daily, and sees a positive change in their life that is tangible: improved health (with scientifically verifiable changes in blood pressure, etc.), improved clarity of thought, and a greater sense of peace in their life is relying on "something false"?

To offer another example, someone who spends time daily making affirmations and focusing on 'gratitudes' (calling out the things for which they are grateful) achieves a greater sense of contentment with their life and even feels their life moving in a positive direction - they, too, are relying on something false?

Are you suggesting that the changes those people experience aren't real? That means that you're asserting your own personal viewpoint as the only verifiable lens for truth in the world, which to me is akin to the worst type of religious fundamentalism. Even though you say you don't believe in woo-woo, you're insistence that someone else's experience isn't 'real' because it doesn't measure up to your lens of reality really speaks more to your own inflated sense of ego than anything else.

The logic of your statement even contradicts medical science, which I can only assume you would not classify as 'woo woo'. Case in point: the placebo effect is extremely valuable in science, and is widely recognized as being as effective as a whole variety of medical intervention depending on the scenario. But inferring from your statement, you're implying that the placebo effect can't be really effective, and isn't positive because it is relying on something false. It also implies that medical studies that use placebo are 'scams'.

Unless you're arguing that the placebo effect is somehow 'not false', in which case you'd have to provide a clearer definition of what constitutes true vs. false. Again - your definition here seems to be rather narrow and narcissistic rather than objective.

I think the last point speaks more to your personal viewpoint vs. actual fact. If a person feels they are getting value out of a thing, who are you to say whether or not they're getting scammed? Someone who buys a McDonald's Hamburger - scam or not? Someone who buys a sports-car - scam or not? Again - this judgment is purely subjective and certainly can't be taken for any kind of scientific fact.

Personally, I think people who use most pharmaceuticals are getting scammed. For example, I think anyone who uses statin drugs are getting scammed because there is a growing body of evidence showing that it is ineffective at actually treating high cholesterol. (http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-statins-20100809,0,7145506.story) Yet the medical industry rakes in about $26billion per year on these things. You tell me, who is getting scammed? The person spending hundreds a month on an ineffective drug treatment, or the person who buys the latest self-help book and finds some fulfillment in reading it and practicing some of its teachings?

What I'm talking about, more specifically, is what Ken Wilber describes as an 'integral' viewpoint on science and spirituality - one that is inclusive of all viewpoints, recognizes them for the value they provide on various levels, doesn't feel the need to assert its position as the sole 'right' way to exist, but rather recognizes that, based on the level of awareness and understanding of a given person, each perspective has some level of truth to it...

King Mob

Hooo, boy...
Write a few lines a get an essay...
Now first of all I answered your question: How do you entertain the opposite view? by stating the fact that I used to be a believer.
This will be important later.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not tracking you there, King Mob. I think you may be confusing my question - which is more about spirituality in general vs. religious fundamentalism. The two are not the same, and they're no more similar than medical science of early man is to medical science today.

I am specifically not referring to religious fundamentalism.
Never said or implied anything about it.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Someone who, for example, meditates daily, and sees a positive change in their life that is tangible: improved health (with scientifically verifiable changes in blood pressure, etc.), improved clarity of thought, and a greater sense of peace in their life is relying on "something false"?

To offer another example, someone who spends time daily making affirmations and focusing on 'gratitudes' (calling out the things for which they are grateful) achieves a greater sense of contentment with their life and even feels their life moving in a positive direction - they, too, are relying on something false?

Well one, I would ask to actually see some kind of survey or paper that these things are true.
But even assuming they are true I didn't say their experiences are false, just their explanations.
Many other activities that are specifically non-spiritual/supernatural can produce similar effects.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the changes those people experience aren't real? That means that you're asserting your own personal viewpoint as the only verifiable lens for truth in the world, which to me is akin to the worst type of religious fundamentalism. Even though you say you don't believe in woo-woo, you're insistence that someone else's experience isn't 'real' because it doesn't measure up to your lens of reality really speaks more to your own inflated sense of ego than anything else.

No I am not suggesting that the changes those people experience aren't real.

The rest of this paragraph is you making a lot of assumptions about my position and character that aren't true. Kinda ironic in your thread about "entertaining the other side."

TheBardWest wrote: »

The logic of your statement even contradicts medical science, which I can only assume you would not classify as 'woo woo'. Case in point: the placebo effect is extremely valuable in science, and is widely recognized as being as effective as a whole variety of medical intervention depending on the scenario. But inferring from your statement, you're implying that the placebo effect can't be really effective, and isn't positive because it is relying on something false. It also implies that medical studies that use placebo are 'scams'.

Unless you're arguing that the placebo effect is somehow 'not false', in which case you'd have to provide a clearer definition of what constitutes true vs. false. Again - your definition here seems to be rather narrow and narcissistic rather than objective.

The placebo effect isn't that important to medical science beyond making sure thier drugs and treatments are better than an inactive ingredient or non-treatment.

I never implied that the placebo effect wasn't a real thing. You really seem to be inferring a lot from my very few words.

The placebo effect is distinctly not supernatural or spiritual in anyway.
In fact most of the Alt med crowd are very insistent that their treatment is not the placebo effect, that is is much better than the placebo effect and relies on some sort of unknown energy or something. All in deference to the evidence.

Hence the placebo is real where as the explanations are false.

TheBardWest wrote: »

I think the last point speaks more to your personal viewpoint vs. actual fact. If a person feels they are getting value out of a thing, who are you to say whether or not they're getting scammed? Someone who buys a McDonald's Hamburger - scam or not? Someone who buys a sports-car - scam or not? Again - this judgment is purely subjective and certainly can't be taken for any kind of scientific fact.

I'm sure people get a benefit out of heroin too.

But are you arguing that if some people are getting a benefit out of something, no one should actually investigate it and in the event of trickery or false hood not educate people and tell the truth?

If people want to buy the hamburger knowing it's fatty or the sports car knowing it's going to guzzle gas or if the guy uses heroin knowing it's going to mess him up, they can go nuts.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Personally, I think people who use most pharmaceuticals are getting scammed. For example, I think anyone who uses statin drugs are getting scammed because there is a growing body of evidence showing that it is ineffective at actually treating high cholesterol. (http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-statins-20100809,0,7145506.story) Yet the medical industry rakes in about $26billion per year on these things. You tell me, who is getting scammed?

I ain't going to get side tracked by a discussion on the enormous benefits of modern medicine. So to end it quick: smallpox vaccine.

TheBardWest wrote: »

The person spending hundreds a month on an ineffective drug treatment, or the person who buys the latest self-help book and finds some fulfillment in reading it and practicing some of its teachings?

And what about the people who get sucked into the various cult like organisations that are out there?
If you have no problem using the worst cases to illustrate your point you'd have no problem with me doing the same right?

TheBardWest wrote: »

What I'm talking about, more specifically, is what Ken Wilber describes as an 'integral' viewpoint on science and spirituality - one that is inclusive of all viewpoints, recognizes them for the value they provide on various levels, doesn't feel the need to assert its position as the sole 'right' way to exist, but rather recognizes that, based on the level of awareness and understanding of a given person, each perspective has some level of truth to it...

Well considering you've been putting a lot of words into my mouth before you considered my viewpoint, this paragraph is kinda empty...

TheBardWest

King Mob - go back and re-read my original question, re-read your response, and tell me how I'm not supposed to draw the conclusion that you're making gross generalizations based on "worst cases"?

You say, "How do you entertain the opposite view? by stating the fact that I used to be a believer."

The problem I have with this is that it implies that once you've made a decision based on the information you have at a particular moment in time, that becomes your gospel. You used to be a believer, now you're not. Now, being a believer is wrong because you aren't one any longer. My original question speaks more to a willingness to ongoingly question our own systems and beliefs.

I used to be a vegetarian. Now I'm not. Not because I think it is wrong, or that there isn't some value in vegetarianism, but because, based on my ongoing research and life experience, it isn't the choice for me. Does that mean that I'm never going to read anything about vegetarianism again? Certainly not - I continue to read about diet and nutrition and adjust my choices accordingly.

My example re: modern medicine is there specifically to illustrate that you can't make an assumption about an entire thing when even 1 instance of that thing illustrates the opposite. I can't write off all modern medicine or pharma based on the fact that statins are being pushed on an unwitting public (you've provided an example that proves the opposite). Nor can you write off all 'spirtualism' because one huckster manages to con a few sheep into believing his spaceship is waiting for them behind a comet. I can provide examples of science supporting spiritual teachings and techniques such as meditation if you'd like.

But then you might say, "There are other ways to explain the tangible benefits of meditation, etc." True - but then it raises the question, as in the placebo: does it matter? If the person undertaking the practice benefits, and they 'believe' in a certain philosophy or spiritual approach to it, does it somehow negate or invalidate their experience?

In any case, if you want to talk about falsehood and trickery, shouldn't you aim for the worst offenders? This is what ultimately fascinates me about people who swear by science and scandalize anything 'spiritual'.

Who are the ones who are bilking people for billions of dollars a year, or the ones who are developing weapons of mass destruction for financial benefit? I mean really - attacking a spiritual guru who writes a few books and makes a few million in royalties (without actually endangering lives, and quite frequently actually giving people a sense of empowerment - even if it is 'false' by your standards) vs. a huge pharmaceutical company who keeps a dangerous drug on the market, despite evidence that it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and even further endangers people? What criteria are you using for your targets?

King Mob

TheBardWest wrote: »

King Mob - go back and re-read my original question, re-read your response, and tell me how I'm not supposed to draw the conclusion that you're making gross generalizations based on "worst cases"?

By asking my full position before inferring all manner of untrue things maybe?

TheBardWest wrote: »

You say, "How do you entertain the opposite view? by stating the fact that I used to be a believer."

The problem I have with this is that it implies that once you've made a decision based on the information you have at a particular moment in time, that becomes your gospel. You used to be a believer, now you're not. Now, being a believer is wrong because you aren't one any longer. My original question speaks more to a willingness to ongoingly question our own systems and beliefs.

You mean like engaging believers in online discussions?
Or by using my experience to try and understand other peoples positions?

TheBardWest wrote: »

My example re: modern medicine is there specifically to illustrate that you can't make an assumption about an entire thing when even 1 instance of that thing illustrates the opposite. I can't write off all modern medicine or pharma based on the fact that statins are being pushed on an unwitting public (you've provided an example that proves the opposite). Nor can you write off all 'spirtualism' because one huckster manages to con a few sheep into believing his spaceship is waiting for them behind a comet.

Well for one I'm not writing off all spiritualism. And two I'm not writing off any spiritualism based on one case.
However if you feel it's ok to use the worst cases of failures in modern medicine to illustrate your point then surely you'd have no problem with me using the worse cases either?

TheBardWest wrote: »

I can provide examples of science supporting spiritual teachings and techniques such as meditation if you'd like.

That depends on if you are talking about spiritual as another word for mental or using the word with it's proper meaning.

TheBardWest wrote: »

But then you might say, "There are other ways to explain the tangible benefits of meditation, etc." True - but then it raises the question, as in the placebo: does it matter? If the person undertaking the practice benefits, and they 'believe' in a certain philosophy or spiritual approach to it, does it somehow negate or invalidate their experience?

Because that would make their explanations false.
Can you please explain the benefit of sticking to a false explanation?

TheBardWest wrote: »

In any case, if you want to talk about falsehood and trickery, shouldn't you aim for the worst offenders? This is what ultimately fascinates me about people who swear by science and scandalize anything 'spiritual'.

Who are the ones who are bilking people for billions of dollars a year, or the ones who are developing weapons of mass destruction for financial benefit? I mean really - attacking a spiritual guru who writes a few books and makes a few million in royalties (without actually endangering lives, and quite frequently actually giving people a sense of empowerment - even if it is 'false' by your standards) vs. a huge pharmaceutical company who keeps a dangerous drug on the market, despite evidence that it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and even further endangers people? What criteria are you using for your targets?

Well for one I'm not attacking any one.
Secondly there are plenty of spiritual gurus out there doing tons of harm.
The difference between them and the evil pharmaceuticals (except you know actual medicine) is the fact that the "gurus" have no oversight.

Also I kinda care about the truth....

TheBardWest

King Mob wrote: »

By asking my full position before inferring all manner of untrue things maybe?

Shall I then assume that every post you make is only a partial statement of your position? If that's the case, you're inviting debate.

King Mob wrote: »

Secondly there are plenty of spiritual gurus out there doing tons of harm.

Define 'tons of harm' and cite some examples please. Also note that "The Taliban" doesn't count, as I'm clearly not talking about religious fundamentalism here. The only one I can think of in recent memory is James Ray, and he has effectively been 'taken off the market' for his wrongdoings. Cite me some examples of, say, how Dr. Wayne Dyer is doing 'tons of harm'.

King Mob wrote: »

The difference between them and the evil pharmaceuticals (except you know actual medicine) is the fact that the "gurus" have no oversight.

The difference is money. I can think of numerous spiritual teachers willing to share their insights and practices at no cost. I can't think of any pharmaceuticals willing to treat patients for free.

And oversight? You're kidding, right? As if the 'oversight' hasn't been wholly bought and sold by the companies which they oversee.

Oversight is only as good as its weakest link - and in the case of spirit or medicine, the weakest link is the mind of the consumer unwilling to question.

King Mob wrote: »

Also I kinda care about the truth....

Or at least a version of it...

King Mob

TheBardWest wrote: »

Shall I then assume that every post you make is only a partial statement of your position? If that's the case, you're inviting debate.

Or instead of assuming anything why not just ask me to clarify?

TheBardWest wrote: »

Define 'tons of harm' and cite some examples please. Also note that "The Taliban" doesn't count, as I'm clearly not talking about religious fundamentalism here. The only one I can think of in recent memory is James Ray, and he has effectively been 'taken off the market' for his wrongdoings. Cite me some examples of, say, how Dr. Wayne Dyer is doing 'tons of harm'.

Tons of harm: financial, mental or physical harm as a result of their teachings.
Some examples:
Sai Baba

Good old L. Ron Hubbard.

Or closer to home, a fella called Gundhi Gunderson and his modern mystery school.

TheBardWest wrote: »

The difference is money. I can think of numerous spiritual teachers willing to share their insights and practices at no cost.

And I know plenty of crazy people who'd rant without end for free.
And I can show quite a lot of "spiritual teachers" who are charging ridiculous amounts of money.

TheBardWest wrote: »

I can't think of any pharmaceuticals willing to treat patients for free.

Pharmaceuticals don't charge patients, doctors do.
Doctors provide a tangible service.

Some doctors join volunteer organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières.

TheBardWest wrote: »

And oversight? You're kidding, right? As if the 'oversight' hasn't been wholly bought and sold by the companies which they oversee.

Again judging the entire based on a very small amount of incidents.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Oversight is only as good as its weakest link - and in the case of spirit or medicine, the weakest link is the mind of the consumer unwilling to question.

So exactly what oversight does spiritualism and spiritual teachers have exactly?

TheBardWest wrote: »

Or at least a version of it...

The one based on facts and clear of deception, delusion and other factors?

But it's pretty clear you're not particularly interested in my opposing position despite what you say in your OP....

Nevyn

While it can be good to have such debates to gain an insight it will invariably come down to personal gnosis which is subjective and not empirical, so pure logic will only lead a person so far down any path and atheists can think I am wrong and deluded if they wish, but it's rude to call a person that.

TheBardWest

Ultimately, I didn't post this thread to stir a debate, but rather to find out how others might seek to find common ground with the viewpoints that appear opposite their own. Unfortunately, it has devolved into a logic debate, which as you point out, isn't really winnable in any objective sense.

Quid pro quo seems the order of the day...

King Mob wrote: »

Or instead of assuming anything why not just ask me to clarify?

Noted - when next I read a post of yours, I'll be sure to ask if that is your full position or partial position.

King Mob wrote: »

Sai Baba

Good old L. Ron Hubbard.

Or closer to home, a fella called Gundhi Gunderson and his modern mystery school.

How many deaths are these people responsible for? I'm not at all opposed to the idea that there are sheisters and scam artists in the self-help and spirituality industry. But I'm under no delusion that they are a) inherently more evil than big pharma, the military industrial complex, or any other number of more 'scientific' or 'rational' fields of study which are misused for the personal gain of a few, which not only exploit people, abuse their trust, and steal their money, but they also kill people. So...yeah...Hubbard was a nut job, but his belief system can hardly be called a 'clear and present danger' to the people.

King Mob wrote: »

Pharmaceuticals don't charge patients, doctors do.
Doctors provide a tangible service.

Some doctors join volunteer organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières.

Orthogonal to the original question, but I also like Doctor Who. He's a good guy.

King Mob wrote: »

So exactly what oversight does spiritualism and spiritual teachers have exactly?

None aside from the critical mind of the consumer. But again, people are people. Some may follow a madman down his path to their untimely demise via magical kool-aid, and others (by orders of magnitude) will be sold a bill of goods in the name of science and medicine that is, ultimately, not in their best interest, but in the best interest of those who sell their services and products. There are wackos in either field. The primary difference, in my mind, is the contrast between the perceived value of the service provided vs. the inherent dangers. I'd much rather a thousand people lose their money than a thousand people lose their lives. The former may instill a moment's pause when they're offered the next "Secret", whereas the latter will have to wait until they're reincarnated and insure they choose a different health-care provider.

Again - I'm choosing western medicine here because it offers some fairly clear examples where reason, logic, and science have failed due to the abuse of a select few.

King Mob wrote: »

But it's pretty clear you're not particularly interested in my opposing position despite what you say in your OP....

And I haven't seen you directly entertain any of my points of perspective either, so I'm content to leave my debate with you at this. I'll try to find some common ground with someone else who's willing to entertain the possibility that their world-view may not, in fact, be all-knowing and all-encompassing.

King Mob

TheBardWest wrote: »

How many deaths are these people responsible for?

L. Ron and his cult have been implicated in a few.
Sai Baba has been accused of some nasty stuff.
The other guy, none. But plenty of financial damage.

TheBardWest wrote: »

I'm not at all opposed to the idea that there are sheisters and scam artists in the self-help and spirituality industry. But I'm under no delusion that they are a) inherently more evil than big pharma, the military industrial complex, or any other number of more 'scientific' or 'rational' fields of study which are misused for the personal gain of a few, which not only exploit people, abuse their trust, and steal their money, but they also kill people.

So then how is anyone to tell the difference between the scam spiritualist fella and the "real" one?
In science you can check the scientific literature about a certain treatment...
There is nothing similar for spiritual stuff.

TheBardWest wrote: »

So...yeah...Hubbard was a nut job, but his belief system can hardly be called a 'clear and present danger' to the people.

Actually it very much can. But that's another discussion.

TheBardWest wrote: »

None aside from the critical mind of the consumer. But again, people are people.

In that case, what's wrong with investigating spiritual claims and pointing out when they are shown not to be as claimed or lacking in evidence etc?
Surely you're not against educating people before they make decisions?

TheBardWest wrote: »

Some may follow a madman down his path to their untimely demise via magical kool-aid, and others (by orders of magnitude) will be sold a bill of goods in the name of science and medicine that is, ultimately, not in their best interest, but in the best interest of those who sell their services and products. There are wackos in either field. The primary difference, in my mind, is the contrast between the perceived value of the service provided vs. the inherent dangers. I'd much rather a thousand people lose their money than a thousand people lose their lives. The former may instill a moment's pause when they're offered the next "Secret", whereas the latter will have to wait until they're reincarnated and insure they choose a different health-care provider.

But you see for every one failure of medicine there are thousands and millions of lives saved.
The most you can say about the spiritual stuff is some people feel better about themselves, maybe.

Furthermore the science of medicine does not require you to block out other explanations like you think you need to do with the spiritual stuff.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Again - I'm choosing western medicine here because it offers some fairly clear examples where reason, logic, and science have failed due to the abuse of a select few.

Well unless you can show a spiritual thing equivalent to the smallpox vaccine, it's not really a comparison.

TheBardWest wrote: »

And I haven't seen you directly entertain any of my points of perspective either, so I'm content to leave my debate with you at this. I'll try to find some common ground with someone else who's willing to entertain the possibility that their world-view may not, in fact, be all-knowing and all-encompassing.

No, I haven't. This is because I don't fully understand your position.
Hence my questions which will help me understand it.

padma

Just a thought to quickly sum up Maya, and what some of the great and wise worked out.

If you think you know, for sure you don't know, if you know you dont know for sure your going in the right direction.

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

L. Ron and his cult have been implicated in a few.
Sai Baba has been accused of some nasty stuff.
The other guy, none. But plenty of financial damage.


So then how is anyone to tell the difference between the scam spiritualist fella and the "real" one?
In science you can check the scientific literature about a certain treatment...
There is nothing similar for spiritual stuff.


Actually it very much can. But that's another discussion.


In that case, what's wrong with investigating spiritual claims and pointing out when they are shown not to be as claimed or lacking in evidence etc?
Surely you're not against educating people before they make decisions?


But you see for every one failure of medicine there are thousands and millions of lives saved.
The most you can say about the spiritual stuff is some people feel better about themselves, maybe.

Furthermore the science of medicine does not require you to block out other explanations like you think you need to do with the spiritual stuff.


Well unless you can show a spiritual thing equivalent to the smallpox vaccine, it's not really a comparison.


No, I haven't. This is because I don't fully understand your position.
Hence my questions which will help me understand it.

Have you ever meditated yourself? In fact the vast majority of your time on this planet should be in a meditative state, otherwise you won't enjoy the life that you are nearly as much. When you meditate you are ultra alert, thoughts and emotions cease to possess you. This is spirituality.

I'm an atheist and think religions are ridiculous, but I'm also spiritual and my life wouldn't be the same if I hadn't discovered spirituality through the work of Eckhart Tolle. I actually believe that many of the religions around today were originally based on spirituality but were hijacked by others and derived into the religions we see today.

padma

In my experience having a Guru/Teacher is essential to getting proper guidance in order for the growth of your spirit/spiritual growth. However any teacher who has followers, who follow him instead of themselves growing spiritually becomes trapped in a lineage/tradition. Any Teacher/Guru who does not direct you to learning the truth for yourself, and tells you the truth is and hasn't fully realised the truth themselves.

For this reason, and this reason alone I have no interest in reading books, because for all the knowledge they may possess it is pointless without direct experience. Without direct experience one becomes a student of an idea or becomes in awe of those who have experiences. This leads to the start of belief systems which may in later years turn in to a religion.

In no way am I knocking the messenger here but what I am knocking is the worship of messengers. Instead of actually listening to the message people (in the past) tended to worship the messenger. So what generally happens is devotional energy towards another Human being/Spirit. This directs one to another being instead of towards Love and Truth etc.

By meditating properly you are having direct experience, but I'll use the analogy of a march through a jungle. The one in front uses his machete to clear the BEST path for the 2 behind who clear a path for the three behind, who clear a path further and further. In this way having a Proper Guru who is in the front makes it easier. Whereas reading a book you tend to be on your own in the jungle. Sure workshops etc crop up around the book which may help the student by giving them the right direction of that particular method and this is advised if you are to follow these methods rather than on your own in the jungle.

mr fog light

That is well put

King Mob

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Have you ever meditated yourself?

Have before, don't regularly.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

In fact the vast majority of your time on this planet should be in a meditative state, otherwise you won't enjoy the life that you are nearly as much. When you meditate you are ultra alert, thoughts and emotions cease to possess you. This is spirituality.

That doesn't seem like spirituality. Frankly in sounds like empty faff.
I don't mediate at all and I enjoy life quite well.
I don't let emotions "possess" me, yet still feel them.

If you have become some kind of zen monk who doesn't exhibit emotion, bully for you, but I seriously doubt you have.

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

Have before, don't regularly.


That doesn't seem like spirituality. Frankly in sounds like empty faff.
I don't mediate at all and I enjoy life quite well.
I don't let emotions "possess" me, yet still feel them.

If you have become some kind of zen monk who doesn't exhibit emotion, bully for you, but I seriously doubt you have.

How do you know you don't meditate? you could be spiritual and you don't know it.

I have plenty of emotion, but when you take a perspective behind it, it becomes it does not possess you. Ever see people arguing and you can tell they don't really care about the reasoning, they just want to one up the other person. That's your ego controlling you. When someone is rude to you or maybe beeps at you on the road and you automatically react to reassert a superior postion you are being controlled by your ego. When you can observe those ego thoughts and emotions as they happen they dissapate over time and lose they're effect. You can almost become amused by them as they happen.

You see this ego behaviour all the time on boards, people feel diminished if someone makes comments to make them look wrong. Being wrong hurts them. Thats caused by the ego. To be wrong doesn't matter through presence which is to be spiritual. That voice in your head denies you access to presence. If your thinking I don't have a voice in my head. Thats the voice in your head speaking.

King Mob

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How do you know you don't meditate? you could be spiritual and you don't know it.

Because I don't?
I don't do proper breathing or any of that "empty your mind" stuff.

I am not spiritual because I don't think people really have any spiritual or supernatural components.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I have plenty of emotion, but when you take a perspective behind it, it becomes it does not possess you. Ever see people arguing and you can tell they don't really care about the reasoning, they just want to one up the other person. That's your ego controlling you. When someone is rude to you or maybe beeps at you on the road and you automatically react to reassert a superior postion you are being controlled by your ego. When you can observe those ego thoughts and emotions as they happen they dissapate over time and lose they're effect. You can almost become amused by them as they happen.

You see this ego behaviour all the time on boards, people feel diminished if someone makes comments to make them look wrong. Being wrong hurts them. Thats caused by the ego. To be wrong doesn't matter through presence which is to be spiritual. That voice in your head denies you access to presence. If your thinking I don't have a voice in my head. Thats the voice in your head speaking.

And again, I don't get super pissed off at every slight either. Most people in fact don't.
And can you explain how saying that you've evolved past ego unlike everyone else, isn't egotistical?

Scanlas The 2nd

I don't believe in anything supernatural either.

If I claim that I don't have an ego and feel superior to others because of it that means I do have an ego at that moment in time, and sometimes I do, I'm not always present. Sometimes I lose presence and become egotistical.

The best athletes are present a lot of the time, you don't need to do breathing techniques to be present.

King Mob

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't believe in anything supernatural either.

Well spiritual implies a supernatural spirit.
But I get the feeling that you're not using the actual definition of the word.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If I claim that I don't have an ego and feel superior to others because of it that means I do have an ego at that moment in time, and sometimes I do, I'm not always present. Sometimes I lose presence and become egotistical.

Like when you claim to have evolved beyond the rest of us hu-mans and have a better control of you ego?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The best athletes are present a lot of the time, you don't need to do breathing techniques to be present.

And I'm not exactly a top athlete either.

So unless I'm secretly meditating without me knowing it....

Nevyn

If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!

Oryx

King Mob wrote: »

I don't do proper breathing or any of that "empty your mind" stuff.

It doesnt have to work like that. Meditation takes many forms, and is more focus of the mind than emptying it. Its can be about being right here, right now, with no thoughts of past or future, or it may have a purpose, where your mind goes on a kind of journey, which you can be guided through.

You may unwittingly do it to music, as part of martial arts, or by some other means. Or like you say, not at all.

As for the op, I always like to look at both sides of something. I study mediumship, so I also study how it is faked (to make sure Im not fooling myself, or anyone else with what I do). I have often been prompted by the forums here to research things like the scientific stance on alternative therapies, and the placebo effect. Its led onto some pretty interesting reading and definitely broadened my knowledge. For anyone involved in an esoteric field that attitude is neccessary, as the saying goes, If youve got an open mind, make sure your brains dont fall out.

King Mob

Oryx wrote: »

It doesnt have to work like that. Meditation takes many forms, and is more focus of the mind than emptying it. Its can be about being right here, right now, with no thoughts of past or future, or it may have a purpose, where your mind goes on a kind of journey, which you can be guided through.

Then by your definition, watching TV counts as meditation.
So then why bother with the breathing and the robe and the Ohming?

Oryx wrote: »

You may unwittingly do it to music, as part of martial arts, or by some other means. Or like you say, not at all.

No, I don't do it at all.
That is my point.

Scanlas The 2nd

No need at all for robes and ohming as you say. That's just the way meditation is portrayed in the media. Washing the the dishes can be meditative. Just focus on the feelings in your hands and movements of your arms as you do it. Thoughts make washing the dishes irritating. Resistance to the present moment makes washing the dishes irritating.

Oryx

Watching tv is not meditative.

King Mob

Oryx wrote: »

Watching tv is not meditative.

But you said:

and is more focus of the mind than emptying it. Its can be about being right here, right now, with no thoughts of past or future, or it may have a purpose, where your mind goes on a kind of journey, which you can be guided through.

This applies to TV as well as any of the other stuff you think counts as meditation.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

No need at all for robes and ohming as you say. That's just the way meditation is portrayed in the media. Washing the the dishes can be meditative.

Well I think Oryx would disagree with you.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just focus on the feelings in your hands and movements of your arms as you do it. Thoughts make washing the dishes irritating. Resistance to the present moment makes washing the dishes irritating.

I don't do this, because it's just washing the dishes.
But if we apply your increasingly silly definition of mediation, any action I apparently take is mediation.

Oryx

Tv is an external distraction. You can pick apart what Im saying, but I do meditate, you admit you dont. So if I can explain it to you in a way that confuses you less, let me know, because your definitely confused about what constitutes meditation. I agree you can meditate while washing up. You can meditate in a single breath. And Ive never omd in my life.

King Mob

Oryx wrote: »

Tv is an external distraction.

And so is washing the dishes.
Your definition makes no sense.

Oryx wrote: »

You can pick apart what Im saying, but I do meditate, you admit you dont.

I know I don't. that's what I said. But I'm being told that I am meditating for some reason.

Oryx wrote: »

So if I can explain it to you in a way that confuses you less, let me know, because your definitely confused about what constitutes meditation. I agree you can meditate while washing up. You can meditate in a single breath. And Ive never omd in my life.

A stricter definition that makes sense and with less hand waving perhaps?

Oryx

Hand waving? Really? I never said you meditated. I said you, or anyone, might unwittingly reach a meditative state without knowing they were doing it, as its not such a mysterious thing as people imagine. Meditation is a state of mind. Some people study for years and go very deep, but it can be something you learn to reach on a lighter level, and as part of doing other things. The main component, always, is to be present in your own mind, totally focussed on what you are doing, right now. Because mostly, we dont do that. We think about what we did earlier. What we are going to do. What someone else is doing. Meditation to me is about totally removing all that distraction. But others who work say, in yoga, may explain it differently. I can only give my own experience.

King Mob

Oryx wrote: »

Hand waving? Really?

Yea really.

Oryx wrote: »

I never said you meditated. I said you, or anyone, might unwittingly reach a meditative state without knowing they were doing it, as its not such a mysterious thing as people imagine.

And considering that your definition of a meditative state is so nebulous and wide, that's not very surprising.

Oryx wrote: »

Meditation is a state of mind. Some people study for years and go very deep, but it can be something you learn to reach on a lighter level, and as part of doing other things. The main component, always, is to be present in your own mind, totally focussed on what you are doing, right now. Because mostly, we dont do that. We think about what we did earlier. What we are going to do. What someone else is doing. Meditation to me is about totally removing all that distraction. But others who work say, in yoga, may explain it differently. I can only give my own experience.

And what exactly is this "being present" stuff?
Sounds a bit like a tautology.

And why exactly does watching TV not fit into this definition?

Scanlas The 2nd

Watching television is not meditative because of the perspective of your focus it puts you in. You get stuck in the thoughts that it stimulates in you. It disconnects you from life. Intead of being the observer of thoughts and emotions, you think you are the thoughts and emotions. That can be confusing when you first hear it.