Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
hermitwin
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:35 pm

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by hermitwin »

someone asked ajahn brahm about the book 'the secret'.
his reply was 'come on, you dont really believe this nonsense do you?'

its very simple, if i want to marry a woman that looks like megan fox.
i will visualise her every day, imagining every detail of our wedding.
and then, a few months later, i am married to a sexy beautiful woman
that looks like megan's twin sister.

dont believe? try it, it worked for me.
ps. just dont tell my wife about it.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by danieLion »

Some factoidal-like interjections:

-Mystical according to Merriam-Webster.

the "law" of attraction does not equal this:
"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will, abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness.

MN 19
as this guy illustrates:
-“What you think, you become” (Fake Buddha Quotes)

-Theravada per se (see the M-B def.) qualifies as "mystical" but it seems like it's being used here to mean something else? Perhaps "not scientific"? Are modern Theravadins more scientifically (and more inclined to philsophical materialism?) oriented than early Buddhists?
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

No One ever said the world was fair, V. :P

Incidentally, a recent study (published in Scientific American) suggests that very creative people have thought patterns almost identical to people with schizo-affective disorders. Including so-called magical thinking. I would rather have a world that embraces its magical thinkers than a world devoid of whacky creative individuals. Of which I am one. Sixteen books, over thirty DVDs, drawing and panting, and playing piano, harmonica and theremin. Make my living as an entertainer. And believe, thoroughly believe, in Santa Claus.

John R
Flying the freak flag for 53 years and counting.
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by BlackBird »

Theravada is not mystical in nature. It may arguably meet the letter of one of your supplied dictionary definitions, but it does not fit the meaning. Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma. The Buddha's Dhamma is Sanditthiko, something quite at odds with mysticism.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by Buckwheat »

BlackBird wrote:Theravada is not mystical in nature. It may arguably meet the letter of one of your supplied dictionary definitions, but it does not fit the meaning. Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma. The Buddha's Dhamma is Sanditthiko, something quite at odds with mysticism.
Sandhitthiko indeed!!!
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by kirk5a »

BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by BlackBird »

kirk5a wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.
I think we might be splitting hairs here, most probably we both have a similar view point and what is on the table right now is semantics. But nevertheless, would you like to clarify your position, perhaps with some sutta references? I equate one's understanding with intellect, one's knowledge - All eggs of the same basket in my mind, therefore a necessary function of a putthujana and ariya one in the same.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by danieLion »

BlackBird wrote:Theravada is not mystical in nature. It may arguably meet the letter of one of your supplied dictionary definitions, but it does not fit the meaning. Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma. The Buddha's Dhamma is Sanditthiko, something quite at odds with mysticism.

Theravada has a "nature"? You seem to be very unaware of how you've been conditioned by western-philosophical-materialism and how that is quite at odds with the Buddhadhamma.

They're not my dictionary defitinitions. They're ours. The meaning of a word is it's use in language. Many aspects of Buddhist practice are mystical, e.g., the abhiññā, even by your semantic restrictions.

Of course the dhamma is sanditthiko, but where is it so? In the phenomenon or noumenon? Is it self-evident within, without, both? Is it immediately apparent objectively, subjectively, both? Is it known by direct experience of the world without or the world within--or both? Which "eye" is it "visible" with?

If you want to stipulate a defintion for "mystical" or "mysticism" delineate clearly and distinctly what you believe that is and then try to gain the consensus of all participants in this discussion. Otherwise you'll just appear to be talking to and at us and over us instead of with us.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by danieLion »

kirk5a wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.
That sounds kind of mystical.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by kirk5a »

BlackBird wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma.
The intellect is a means towards wisdom, but wisdom is beyond intellectual notions.
I think we might be splitting hairs here, most probably we both have a similar view point and what is on the table right now is semantics. But nevertheless, would you like to clarify your position, perhaps with some sutta references? I equate one's understanding with intellect, one's knowledge - All eggs of the same basket in my mind, therefore a necessary function of a putthujana and ariya one in the same.
Are we splitting hairs? You say you equate understanding with intellect. I say there is intellectual understanding, and then there is the understanding which intellectual understanding points towards. Your last sentence regarding eggs I'm afraid is a bit scrambled for me. Perhaps you could clarify.
This Dhamma that I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.
-SN 6.1
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by danieLion »

Buckwheat wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Theravada is not mystical in nature. It may arguably meet the letter of one of your supplied dictionary definitions, but it does not fit the meaning. Vijja can be grasped by one's intellect, if it were not so there would be no Dhamma. The Buddha's Dhamma is Sanditthiko, something quite at odds with mysticism.
Sandhitthiko indeed!!!
Some other things the dhamma is besides just sandhittiko.
...deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.
And the reason?
...this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
-Ayacana Sutta, SN 6.1

Not much has changed from the Buddha's generation to ours.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by BlackBird »

danieLion wrote: Otherwise you'll just appear to be talking to and at us and over us instead of with us.
There is no 'us', there's just you. You exhbit classic manipulative behaviour. Trying vainly to set up and 'us and them' situation, or in this case a 'you and us', where no such situation exists. I'm not gonna play ball with you man, it's a forum, not a school yard. You might see me as quote "permanently" on your "list of foes" but I don't see you as anything, just words on a page that I disagree with, and which annoy me.

I'm really in two mind here. Part of me wants to say if you continue to misrepresent something (i.e. calling Theravada mystical) I will continue to offer a contrary point of view, so that people passing by don't happen to think you're an authority on such matter. The other part just wants to put you on ignore, because your attitude problem and arrogance is getting under my skin, and I see no benefit to myself or others of allowing any further negative mind states to arise in me as a result of my dealings with you.

I think the best thing is just to put you on ignore. So it's done.
Last edited by BlackBird on Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by Polar Bear »

danieLion wrote: Of course the dhamma is sanditthiko, but where is it so? In the phenomenon or noumenon? Is it self-evident within, without, both? Is it immediately apparent objectively, subjectively, both? Is it known by direct experience of the world without or the world within--or both? Which "eye" is it "visible" with?
I don't think the Buddha, for the purposes of putting an end to dukkha, is concerned at all about noumena.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
But maybe that was your point. Anyway, the dhamma isn't about abstracting in our minds the 'out there' but about seeing what's right here, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, mental phenomena.
mystical (2nd definition): involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality
Also, I think in part that Awakening is abandoning notions of the mystical, letting go, relinquishing the craving for union with god or the experience of ultimate reality. Nibbana is not ultimate reality, it is the destruction of passion, aversion, delusion, craving, self-identity views, the conceit 'I am', the giving up and letting go of everything you've ever thought or experienced, the renunciation of all acquisitions, and is the unexcelled sublime state of peace that results. We could get into semantics about what ultimate reality means but I'll just go ahead and say that by definition ultimate reality would be "out there" and experience by definition never gets out there.

Metta

:anjali:
Last edited by Polar Bear on Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by danieLion »

BlackBird wrote:
danieLion wrote: Otherwise you'll just appear to be talking to and at us and over us instead of with us.
There is no 'us', there's just you. You exhbit classic manipulative behaviour. I'm not gonna play ball with you man, it's a forum, not a school yard. You might see me as quote "permanently" on your "list of foes" but I don't see you as anything, just words on a page that I disagree with. But if you continue to misrepresent something (i.e. calling Theravada mystical) I will continue to offer a contrary point of view, so that people passing by don't happen to think you're an authority on such matters.
You attack my character? I'm not the one who just made a confidential and private statement public without my permission. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. And I'm the maniuplative one (we all manipulate each other all the time; sometimes skillfulyl and sometimes not; qualifying it with "classic" is unskillful)? What's more school yard than betraying a privatate, confidential statement? You've made a great mistake. I hope you understand that gravity of what you've done.

You appear to be at odds with yourself. You're not going to "play ball" but you're going to continue to argue with me? I think your emotions are getting the best of you.

How can you deny that Theravada is "mystical" when you haven't even properly defined "the meaning" of mystical. Here's some text from William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience to calm your emotions and clear up your muddled intellect.
The words 'mysticism' and 'mystical' are often used as terms of mere reproach, to throw at any opinion which we regard as vague and vast and sentimental, and without a base in either facts or logic. For some writers a 'mystic' is any person who believes in thought-transference, or spirit-return. Employed in this way the word has little value: there are too many less ambiguous synonyms. So, to keep it useful by restricting it, I will do what I did in the case of the word 'religion,' and simply propose to you four marks which, when an experience has them, may justify us in calling it mystical for the purpose of the present lectures. In this way we shall save verbal disputation, and the recriminations that generally go therewith.

1. Ineffability.—The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. In this peculiarity mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists. One must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony; one must have been in love one's self to understand a lover's state of mind. Lacking the heart or ear, we cannot interpret the musician or the lover justly, and are even likely to consider him weak-minded or absurd. The mystic finds that most of us accord to his experiences an equally incompetent treatment.

2. Noetic quality.—Although so similar to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time.

These two characters will entitle any state to be called mystical, in the sense in which I use the word. Two other qualities are less sharply marked, but are usually found. These are:—

3. Transiency.—Mystical states cannot be sustained for long. Except in rare instances, half an hour, or at most an hour or two, seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day. Often, when faded, their quality can but imperfectly be reproduced in memory; but when they recur it is recognized; and from one recurrence to another it is susceptible of continuous development in what is felt as inner richness and importance.

4. Passivity.—Although the oncoming of mystical states may be facilitated by preliminary voluntary operations, as by fixing the attention, or going through certain bodily performances, or in other ways which manuals of mysticism prescribe; yet when the characteristic sort of consciousness once has set in, the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power. This latter peculiarity connects mystical states with certain definite phenomena of secondary or alternative personality, such as prophetic speech, automatic writing, or the mediumistic trance. When these latter conditions are well pronounced, however, there may be no recollection whatever of the phenomenon, and it may have no significance for the subject's usual inner life, to which, as it were, it makes a mere interruption. Mystical states, strictly so called, are never merely interruptive. Some memory of their content always remains, and a profound sense of their importance. They modify the inner life of the subject between the times of their recurrence. Sharp divisions in this region are, however, difficult to make, and we find all sorts of gradations and mixtures.

These four characteristics are sufficient to mark out a group of states of consciousness peculiar enough to deserve a special name and to call for careful study. Let it then be called the mystical group.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Some dangerously misleading New Age thinking

Post by danieLion »

polarbuddha101 wrote:
danieLion wrote: Of course the dhamma is sanditthiko, but where is it so? In the phenomenon or noumenon? Is it self-evident within, without, both? Is it immediately apparent objectively, subjectively, both? Is it known by direct experience of the world without or the world within--or both? Which "eye" is it "visible" with?
I don't think the Buddha, for the purposes of putting an end to dukkha, gives a flying duck about noumena.
So you think he experienced the abhiññā and nibbanna phenomenally only?
polarbuddha101 wrote:
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
But maybe that was your point. Anyway, the dhamma isn't about abstracting in our minds the 'out there' but about seeing what's right here, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, mental phenomena.
mystical (2nd definition): involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality
Also, I think in part that Awakening is abandoning notions of the mystical, letting go, relinquishing the craving for union with god or the experience of ultimate reality. Nibbana is not ultimate reality, it is the destruction of passion, aversion, delusion, craving, self-identity views, the conceit 'I am', the giving up and letting go of everything you've ever thought or experienced, the renunciation of all acquisitions, and is the unexcelled sublime state of peace that results. We could get into semantics about what ultimate reality means but I'll just go ahead and say that by definition ultimate reality would be "out there" and experience by definition never gets out there.
So you think ultimate reality, or nibbana as the Buddha called it, happens noumenally and phenomenally?

If you're not going for consistency, then I suppose there's some sense to this.
Post Reply