I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#12I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#13I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#14I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
It's not "cessation of ideas and thoughts", and the fact that the story gets it wrong could mean that science gets it wrong, which suggest science will never figure it out.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#15I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
It's not "cessation of ideas and thoughts", and the fact that the story gets it wrong could mean that science gets it wrong, which suggest science will never figure it out.
http://lifehacker.com/what-happens-to-the-brain-when-you-med...
So why would I want to shut off my brain?
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#16I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
I do wonder, though, whether the more advanced practices are worth the time. The states described in the article sound a bit alarming rather than helpful.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#17I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
I agree, who would want to stop thinking? Though I'm sure we'll be told by someone we "just don't understand" and that it's ambiguously deeper than that.
The first blaming statement is "who would want to stop thinking?". Logically this parses into asking a generalized question of whether there exists anyone at all who would want to 'stop thinking'. It seems obvious to me, based on personal observation, that I am someone that wants to "stop" my thinking process now and again.
Given I'm one person who desires this, your question then turns into this question: "why would kordless want to stop thinking". I can answer that quickly: I periodically enjoy damping the chatter that goes on non-stop in my brain while I'm awake. I get the most joy out of getting to a place where I'm thinking of nothing and just letting things be the way they are without my input. Now, the conclusion of that is that you might agree that I have the right to make this a rational choice, or you may not. The only way I could tell you meant one over the other is if you told me that already - which you did! The 'tell' was that you 'agree' with jostmey's statement that he "doesn't want to experience" it right before you ask the leading/blaming question.
For me, that indicates you don't agree with my choice to 'stop thinking'. And that is a blaming statement because it's my choice to make, not yours. :) A better way to put it would be "I'd like to understand why someone would want to stop thinking. I'm not sure I want it for myself and I have no data from anyone I know that helps me understand why I would." Or something along those lines. Those statements are more inline with being present and being receptive to other's thoughts.
The second blaming statement is "I'm sure we'll be told". That point is easier to make because clearly until someone says "trekky1700, you simply don't understand" (a blaming statement in and of itself) it won't be truthful statement. Even if they did that, they'd be wrong for doing it. Your blaming statement indicates you are expecting (simulating?) someone coming in and making their own blaming statements.
I learned about all this via exposure to non violent communications (NVC), which has it's roots in Buddhism. It's also why I bothered to write all of it in the first place. Listening and hearing others is the most effective when you turn down the volume of your own brain!
I hope I didn't make any blaming statements in my comment. I still screw it up at times...but I mean well.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#18I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
A lot of thinking is really useless, you worry about things you can't do anything about right now or just flit from thing to thing, it is pointless. When the flitting around thoughts stop you can use your mind more willfully, more like a tool.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#19I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
I think the best way to describe what these practices teach is a way to realize your mind is something else, and you can choose what to do with stimuli (external and internal) instead of just responding mechanically to it, or being dragged away by it.
This is what I've been taught about meditation anyway.
Re: How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science
#20I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
I have experienced this a couple of times while meditating, I think turning off thoughts is a bad description. It is more like divorcing yourself from your thoughts. Your thoughts become just another something that is happening, like a sound, something not you but external to you. Once that happens enough times you get used to the weird feeling of observing yourself think and you notice that sometimes the thoughts ju…
The brain is a product of an Evolutionary process. Dawkins described Evolution best as "The Blind Watchmaker". Evolution leaves a lot of room for improvement. It is like a terrible engineer who only ever gets things right by sheer luck. Evolution is probably a pretty sloppy process. This is why I believe the brain, although amazingly-awesome, is poorly put together.
So what does any of this have to do with meditation? If you had a poorly constructed computer with lots of bugs in the software that crashed all the time, what would you do? You would probably frequently save your work and then reboot your computer. By rebooting your computer you prevent errors from propagating through the software and the operating system. I am going to extend this analogy to the human mind. Without periodically resetting our minds, more and more errors may begin to accumulate. Perhaps neural circuits begin to feedback endlessly on themselves in an escalating positive loop . Perhaps mediation is a way to dampen down mental activity, allowing the mind to reset.
It is just a crazy, bat-sh*t crazy idea. So don't take it too seriously.