Yoga and Meditation Increase Narcissism

[possibility]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

To put it another way, I believe that Love 'waits for all time' until all become love (divinity dwelling in humanity), all become new men and women (sons an daughter of the first born Son who because of degree of his love became Human (because he embodied the Divine, the Absolute

I like this. I believe that love is the actualising of potentiality, insofaras we are aware of that potentiality. For you that potentiality appears to be limited to Human, so that (eventually) divinity is dwelling in humanity, whereas for me it is unlimited: 'humanity' as a limitation falls away and we become all, divinity, love.

I hope I'm following your understanding of these terms, but I get the feeling this is not quite what you mean. 

[possibility]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Given what you have said, you might take the mother's "No!" when her child reaches for the hot oven as warning whereas I take it as judgment. The child is stopped dead in their tracks and made (invited) to see, to consider and decide. This judgment is always for the other. In biblical understanding the Word of God is always redemptive, mean to heal or make whole the beloved, so too judgment. And man is meant to 'judge' the same way, lovingly.

I understand that the Word of God is always redemptive, but the word 'judgement' as written in both the Old and New Testament seems to always follow the action rather than preempting choice as in your examples, and also suggests a conclusion or decision in its context. I don't think I'm reading that into the text, and I'd be interested in hearing a non-catholic point of view on the use of 'judgement' in scripture, for clarity.

I can see, however, how 'judgement' implied by Catholic tradition and read into the text can be interpreted in the way you describe. But that discourse can also be interpreted by fundamentalists, atheists and anyone who has not read Baum, in terms of the commonly held understanding of 'judgement' outside of this 'loving' interpretation. 

Because of this, I will continue to distinguish 'warning' from 'judgement' according to commonly held understanding of the terms rather than Baum's interpretation of Catholic discourse. I sincerely hope you don't mind.

Edited July 21, 2018 by possibility

[possibility]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually I think just the opposite. I think Christianity and those who have thought deeply on subjects important to them and it over the centuries have great insights into life, meaning, God and man. I also think there is a great wisdom in the reality of 'ordinary' human beings - and by that I mean those who merely live and have neither the time or interest in such discussions. I think it is important to look to and appreciate the lived experience of 'most humans.'

I don't deny this, and I'm not dismissing their value. I just don't think we should confine ourselves to these sources. In appreciating the diversity of the universe, we can welcome the subjective experiences of the anomalous and the marginalised as indicative of the potentiality that exists beyond our current understanding. This how we have grown to accept the diversity of gender identity, for example.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

I think there is a humility is most serious religious thinkers in that they know they can never definitively know and I extend that wisdom to the scientific quest.

Humility is a strange word - it suggests an acceptance of limitation. I am aware that I cannot definitively 'know' potentiality in terms of subjective experience, such is its infinitude. That would be like striving to 'know' Pi in terms of its full digital expression - any articulation of it would either be an abstraction or an approximation at best. Yet we 'know' that a number exists which, for all intents and purposes, is 'infinitely diverse' in its expression. At any moment we can choose to accept the symbol, confine or expand it to x decimal places or strive to actualise the absolute potentiality of its unique expression, confident that it can occur even if we 'know' that no full actuality will occur in time or space. In all but the last option, there is danger in losing sight of the infinity of its full expression, in settling for or believing the chosen approximation as actual.

That the frontiers of science and mathematics refuse to settle for anything less than this last option is an admirable quest, in my opinion. That both scientific and religious thinkers very often choose to settle within certain apparent limitations is unfortunate.

[thormas]

9 hours ago, possibility said:

I understand that the Word of God is always redemptive, but the word 'judgement' as written in both the Old and New Testament seems to always follow the action rather than preempting choice as in your examples, and also suggests a conclusion or decision in its context. I don't think I'm reading that into the text, and I'd be interested in hearing a non-catholic point of view on the use of 'judgement' in scripture, for clarity.

I can see, however, how 'judgement' implied by Catholic tradition and read into the text can be interpreted in the way you describe. But that discourse can also be interpreted by fundamentalists, atheists and anyone who has not read Baum, in terms of the commonly held understanding of 'judgement' outside of this 'loving' interpretation. 

Because of this, I will continue to distinguish 'warning' from 'judgement' according to commonly held understanding of the terms rather than Baum's interpretation of Catholic discourse. I sincerely hope you don't mind.

Again, I disagree on biblical judgment - as shown in the parables that we discussed. I take the broader understanding of judgment in that even when reading a book or watching a movie, you can hear/see something that causes you to look at yourself, your actions and consider them in this new light. Again, an opportunity is presented/realized and if you take it, it can make all the difference whereas if you don't, the danger is that you have lost the opportunity (at least in that moment and perhaps longer) and might be or do 'less' than you could. I don't understand judgment as negative but rather, life-giving. Choice is not preempted, possibilities are revealed and the choice is before us. The possibilities are presented to both the adulteress and the crowd and their choice is to be made, not only that day but in their futures.  

Not sure which Catholic tradition you refer to since there is more than one and understanding changes (plus I would think many Catholics, down through the ages, would understand judgment as condemnation). Further, I know that a fundamentalist or an atheist might have a different reading, nevertheless, it is always interesting to ask, since the gospel is 'good news' which news is better and goes to the healing (redemption) of those who receive that news. This understanding (of judgment) is not implied by but presented in the stories and there is or can be an "Aha" moment.

You may of course distinguish what you will and I don't mind. The point was not to convert but to present and I know from teaching experiences, many/most 'get' this understanding when presented in that setting.

p.s. your 'warning' is also a moment of chaos, presenting an opportunity and danger if the opportunity is ignored, The simple difference is either that, as we have discussed, I am stretching language or simply recognizing what judgment actually means. So, likewise, I hope you don't mind.

[thormas]

8 hours ago, possibility said:

 I just don't think we should confine ourselves to these sources. In appreciating the diversity of the universe, we can welcome the subjective experiences of the anomalous and the marginalised as indicative of the potentiality that exists beyond our current understanding. This how we have grown to accept the diversity of gender identity, for example.

You are changing the argument, you said it was restrictive and I disagreed - but I did not state we should confine ourselves to this source. And, actually, I don't. 

Actually humility is not all that strange and it does not preclude confident or lose sight of the infinite in creation.

As indicated, I too admire and encourage the quest of science; the science and the religious thinkers I know don't settle but are wise enough to realize that they will never capture the Absolute.

 

[thormas]

12 hours ago, possibility said:

I like this. I believe that love is the actualising of potentiality, insofaras we are aware of that potentiality. For you that potentiality appears to be limited to Human, so that (eventually) divinity is dwelling in humanity, whereas for me it is unlimited: 'humanity' as a limitation falls away and we become all, divinity, love.

I hope I'm following your understanding of these terms, but I get the feeling this is not quite what you mean. 

Love is not limited to humans but humanity has been the topic under discussion and the one we know best. However, I do allow that humanity, seemingly the only self-conscious beings (although I am open to and excited about the grand possibilities of other such beings) seemingly has a different degree of participation in Consciousness and the 'potential' to be the likeness of God.

I do like Paul's image of all of creation groaning for fulfillment. Obviously all that is, participates in Being but what this suggests about their 'destiny' I don't have a firm handle on (as none do since all is speculation/belief).

Perhaps it is in the wording: for me, humanity does not fall away - rather it is Fulfilled in Divinity or we become Human by 'becoming' Divine: incarnation (not traditionally understood) is oneness. What that means for the entirety of the created order, I don't know but I believe it is not 'left behind' but also fulfilled. The analogy for me is human love (in spite of the flaws): there is fulfillment in such love, there is the two becoming one (in some real way), in losing self (with self-centeredness falling away) and fulfilling self in the other. Neither self or person 'falls away' yet there is oneness (as finite beings, so to speak).

I am always struck with two thoughts when trying to 'figure' this out: first, that one is the loneliest number and second, that the (true) Lover does not want the Beloved to fall away but to be, to thrive, to live abundantly. So, for me, creation is 'real' -  it is not merely the Absolute throwing itself out there to know itself, express itself or for some other reason and it is not merely the One doing whatever to still, merely, be One. Rather, it is the creating of the beloved, on behalf of the beloved: Love (especially 'Absolute Love') must always be given away, must always be gift, must always be about and for the Beloved so they (can) have life and have it in abundance. So too, (and obviously expressed from the human perspective), would the Lover ever want or desire the Beloved to 'fall away' or rather to Live and live Abundantly? I also always remember Alfred North Whitehead's concept of Beauty that the unity of the many is a higher Beauty than the unity of the one. So, we (seemingly) agree on the 'end' - we just think in different images.

 

[JosephM]

I think one could biblically say to judge someone is synonymous with measuring especially in the reported teachings of Jesus. Judgement to me is measuring one against one's own or perhaps a society created standard commonly held. Since it is subjective in nature and not necessarily the same for all societies or individuals for all time i see it as the justification for wars and many atrocities which precedes suffering. Hence the advice for one not to measure or judge others lest we are found in condemnation of self. 

 

[thormas]

12 hours ago, JosephM said:

I think one could biblically say to judge someone is synonymous with measuring especially in the reported teachings of Jesus. Judgement to me is measuring one against one's own or perhaps a society created standard commonly held. Since it is subjective in nature and not necessarily the same for all societies or individuals for all time i see it as the justification for wars and many atrocities which precedes suffering. Hence the advice for one not to measure or judge others lest we are found in condemnation of self. 

I disagree with this reading of the bible, specifically the NT. If judgment is understood as measuring others against one's or society's 'created' standard, Jesus, in contrast, is presented as speaking from his experience/insight of God. Within this 'perspective,' the Words of Jesus call others to Life and, when placed in the context of judgment, serve as an attempt to make others aware of what they are born to be (or in our present parlance, their potential) and the danger or loss that comes if one does not hear, change and realize this 'potential.'

Furthermore, a similar call to life that is linked with leaving self(centeredness) behind transcends this particular culture and time and can be found in other cultures and times. So subjective truth can align with Truth.    

I would agree that a misunderstanding of judgment or forcing one's truth on others can (and has) lead to war and other atrocities. However, if we are looking at Jesus, there was no misunderstanding, no such judgment and no forced truth that dismissed others. Dismissal of other human beings only occurs when one person or a group measures others against a subjective, self-centered truth (which therefore is not truth). Jesus' Truth was (is) always for the other. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the history of Christianity (and other religions) which bastardized his Truth on far too many occasions (dismissal of another makes it easier to see him/her as a thing or an inconvenience and therefore easier to murder or commit other atrocities against them).   

To 'measure' another as failure or success is done on behalf of the measurer; to call the other to life, to encourage and support a sometimes painful opportunity or chance to change, to indicate the danger to self if life is ignored is a completely different reality. The former is measurement, the latter is judgment as lived by Jesus (and what should be lived by Christians).

 

[Burl]

 Biblically several different words are translated as judgment both in Hebrew and Greek.  There is a final judgment which is God's, but God and mankind are also judged in relation to the divine covenant.  Mankind is clearly expected to judge itself in relation to the covenant and provide an earthly approximation of God's justice.

[thormas]

5 hours ago, Burl said:

 Biblically several different words are translated as judgment both in Hebrew and Greek.  There is a final judgment which is God's, but God and mankind are also judged in relation to the divine covenant.  Mankind is clearly expected to judge itself in relation to the covenant and provide an earthly approximation of God's justice.

It seems that pre-Final judgment always calls for and allows time for change; it is always for man. Does Final judgment allow for change also and if it doesn't, is it not for man, not on his behalf? And did you mean to say that God is judged in relation to the covenant?

[Burl]

Divine justice is always tempered with mercy.  Change is not relevant; God does what he wills.

I intended to say that when the word judgment appears in relation to mankind it is usually the relationship with the covenant that is the reference.  Justice, judge and judgment are used differently in the biblical languages than in our common tongue.

[possibility]

15 hours ago, Burl said:

 Biblically several different words are translated as judgment both in Hebrew and Greek.  There is a final judgment which is God's, but God and mankind are also judged in relation to the divine covenant.  Mankind is clearly expected to judge itself in relation to the covenant and provide an earthly approximation of God's justice.

Hi Burl

I'm not sure where this is so 'clearly' laid out as an expectation of mankind. I would have thought "Judge not, that Ye not be judged" and "turn the other cheek" suggested an expectation to refrain from judgement or any approximation of justice? I am expected to make adjustments to my own way of being, to my future actions, in relation to the covenant, and to interact with others in recognition of their potential to do the same - but in my opinion judgement is a form of measurement that invites one to interact with the decision (conclusion based on past actions) instead of the potentiality. Jesus speaks against human judgement of individuals (which both leads to, and seeks avoidance of, suffering), and instead speaks to a final judgement which is God's.

The original question was whether the term judgement was to be understood as 'a conclusion or decision' (the standard English definition) or alternatively as 'a moment of chaos, presenting opportunity and danger' (which I understood to be more warning than judgement).

Edited July 23, 2018 by possibility

[Burl]

Hello Possibility.  You are confounding the differences in biblical judgment vis á vis the covenental relationship(s), Roman law, Torah (esp. the decalogue) and divine righteousness.

I do not find the op particularly interesting, but caution against taking a few random snippets of Scripture out of context and using them to support predetermined and sweeping conclusions.  

[thormas]

1 hour ago, Burl said:

I do not find the op particularly interesting, but caution against taking a few random snippets of Scripture out of context and using them to support predetermined and sweeping conclusions.  

op??

[Burl]

20 minutes ago, thormas said:

op??

Sorry, I mean the "original question" referred to by possibility.  I know the op -original post- is long gone.  

[possibility]

On 24 July 2018 at 5:59 AM, Burl said:

I do not find the op particularly interesting, but caution against taking a few random snippets of Scripture out of context and using them to support predetermined and sweeping conclusions.  

Fair enough, but that was not my intention. I agree these were brief examples, but I believe my interpretation reflects their original context, and I wouldn't suggest that context be ignored.

Neither did I intend to make any 'sweeping conclusions' myself - I only queried that this expectation might not be as 'clear' as one might assume. It was an invitation to demonstrate this clarity, and to weigh in on the original question. You have done neither, but that's your choice.

Edited July 25, 2018 by possibility

[thormas]

29 minutes ago, possibility said:

but I believe my interpretation reflects their original context, and I wouldn't suggest that context be ignored.

.........seems there are a few different interpretations that reflect the original text, perhaps for the same reason there are 4 original (actually more) gospels that 'reflect' the original Jesus.

[Burl]

6 hours ago, possibility said:

Fair enough, but that was not my intention. I agree these were brief examples, but I believe my interpretation reflects their original context, and I wouldn't suggest that context be ignored.

Neither did I intend to make any 'sweeping conclusions' myself - I only queried that this expectation might not be as 'clear' as one might assume. It was an invitation to demonstrate this clarity, and to weigh in on the original question. You have done neither, but that's your choice.

I wrote two detailed posts on the antitheses earlier.  Essentially they need to be taken as a single rhetorical group of examples on the same point, and they all use hyperbole.   "If your eye offends you, pluck it out" and " turn the other cheek" are rhetorical equivalents and none of the antitheses meant are to be interpreted literally.  They are examples for a reason.  Peterson's summary as a dramatic exposition on the value of generosity over legalism is exactly on point imo.

Remember Jesus came to fulfill the law and not to change it.  The Torah is correct; it was the legalistic and sterile literal interpretation of his fellow Pharisees that Jesus was arguing against by using absurd examples.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Burl

[possibility]

12 hours ago, thormas said:

.........seems there are a few different interpretations that reflect the original text, perhaps for the same reason there are 4 original (actually more) gospels that 'reflect' the original Jesus.

I agree, and didn't say it was a correct interpretation. I only wanted to address the assumption that I intended to take random snippets out of context.

 

6 hours ago, Burl said:

I wrote two detailed posts on the antitheses earlier.  Essentially they need to be taken as a single rhetorical group of examples on the same point, and they all use hyperbole.   "If your eye offends you, pluck it out" and " turn the other cheek" are rhetorical equivalents and none of the antitheses meant are to be interpreted literally.  They are examples for a reason.  Peterson's summary as a dramatic exposition on the value of generosity over legalism is exactly on point imo.

Remember Jesus came to fulfill the law and not to change it.  The Torah is correct; it was the legalistic and sterile literal interpretation of his fellow Pharisees that Jesus was arguing against by using absurd examples.

I agree that the Torah should be understood as essentially correct but not literally so, and this illustrates the point that whatever words are used (in verbal and written accounts of Moses' revelations or Jesus' teachings or even in human 'judgement') can only point to a subjective and limited experience of the truth - they cannot definitively state it. 

However, I don't believe Jesus was only arguing against the literal interpretation - or that his examples were as 'absurd' as you might think.

I recognise that from a broader, societal perspective, Jesus' call to 'turn the other cheek', for example, to love those who persecute you, might seem 'absurd'. But at the level of personal interaction with the world, the words also point to individual acceptance of suffering as a part of life, rather than the active avoidance and retaliation that assumes: 'I don't deserve to suffer - others do'. Jesus then follows through on this call by willingly accepting pain, humiliation and death himself beyond what anyone would deserve: suffering inflicted by others without cause. In my opinion, this call is also reflected throughout the Old Testament, from the stories of Cain and Joseph to Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as in Buddhist teachings and more.

[thormas]

5 hours ago, possibility said:

I agree that the Torah should be understood as essentially correct but not literally so, and this illustrates the point that whatever words are used (in verbal and written accounts of Moses' revelations or Jesus' teachings or even in human 'judgement') can only point to a subjective and limited experience of the truth - they cannot definitively state it. 

However, I don't believe Jesus was only arguing against the literal interpretation - or that his examples were as 'absurd' as you might think.

I recognise that from a broader, societal perspective, Jesus' call to 'turn the other cheek', for example, to love those who persecute you, might seem 'absurd'. But at the level of personal interaction with the world, the words also point to individual acceptance of suffering as a part of life, rather than the active avoidance and retaliation that assumes: 'I don't deserve to suffer - others do'. Jesus then follows through on this call by willingly accepting pain, humiliation and death himself beyond what anyone would deserve: suffering inflicted by others without cause. In my opinion, this call is also reflected throughout the Old Testament, from the stories of Cain and Joseph to Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as in Buddhist teachings and more.

Something, such as the Torah, that is not to be taken literally, can be both correct (as you indicated) and, also, point beyond the subjective and limited to Truth. 

Most serious biblical scholars acknowledge that Jesus, an Apocalyptic Prophet, was preaching the Kingdom: his focus was not on the broader, societal perspective - it was solely on the coming Kingdom of the Father (the kingdoms of men would pass away). Jesus fully expected the world (of suffering and injustice) as we know it to end in the lifetime of his followers; his words didn't point to an acceptance of suffering (now and in the future) because there would be no suffering.

When that did not come to pass, Christianity had to pivot (which seemingly was valid) and it is here that it gets complicated. I agree with the idea of turning the other cheek and forgiveness for many of the slights of the world that we all encounter in our lives. However, suffering and pain are not merely to be accepted. As the co-creators, we (should) seek to enhance life, to relieve suffering and pain and, where not possible, seek to comfort those who suffer. And where, suffering is caused by the evil that men and women do, we (should and do) seek to put an end to those actions and stop those who cause evil and suffering in the world.

Many/most who suffer illness, for example, don't wish it upon others (especially after their experiencing the physical suffering and mental anguish that comes with disease, illness and horrific accidents). And many who suffer at the hands of others cry out for justice and relief, as they should and 'pray' that this injustice and suffering ends (as it should). It seems, even in war, the primary motivation is to stop the pain and suffering and to deal with those who perpetrated it. Retaliation, is not the main thought of those who suffer greatly at the hands of others; their main thought is relief and justice. Retaliation, as it is commonly understood, is typically desired by those who suffer slights to their ego and 'hate the other' for their own sake.

Jesus never lost sight of the point of his life: the announcing and living out of the Kingdom. Being human, I suspect he didn't welcome the suffering, pain and death but accepted it as a consequence of living in the Truth. He would not stray from his (or God's) course, no matter the cost. This, however, is not primarily (or even) a statement of the acceptance of suffering, it is, rather, a statement of Loving, no matter the consequences.

There is some pain we 'accept' (sickness, disease, accidents), yet, at the same time, do not accept as we fight against it, we fight to recover (and most of us do try to actively avoid such suffering) and we are aided in this by the human community that is closest to us. And there comes a time when we have to accept that there is no recovery.  There is other pain and suffering we do not and should not ever accept: that which is caused by others because of their lack of love from bullying and racism to war, rape and murder. 

We still wait for the Kingdom of God (on earth) yet the timing of its completion is unknown (even to the man Jesus), so, as it's co-creators, we continually try to establish it and this means discerning the suffering that must be accepted and that suffering which is not acceptable. Bart Ehrman in his book, 'God's Problem' did a study of the Bible and showed there were, I believe, at least 7 or 8 different reasons the various books gave for why there was suffering in the world, so it would be interesting to see what is reflected. But that is for another time.

 

[Burl]

I am discussing only Matthew 5:38-42 (ESV) and its context.  If anyone cares to follow this, please put the bible in front of you and follow along.  Please do not try to work from memory.  

Matthew 5:19-20 are the basis of Jesus statement to his disciples:  "Whoever relaxes the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great . . ." " . . . unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

This is a shocking statement, so Jesus provides six hyperbolic examples in the form of "You have heard it said, but I tell you . . ."  The repetitive use of this phrase definitively groups the antitheses as a single rhetorical unit.

5:21-26  (Anger) murder and calling someone a fool make one subject to the same judgment.  Note judgment is clearly a reality.

5:27-30 (Lust) Lustful intent is the same as adultery.  Tear out your eye and cut off your hand if they lead you in this direction.

5:31-32 (Divorce) Divorce makes one guilty of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced person is guilty of adultery.

5:33-37 (Oaths) Never take an oath.  Only say yes or no (present tense).

5:38-42 (Retaliation) "DO NOT RESIST THE ONE WHO IS EVIL."  This is the verbatim basis for the turn the other cheek statement, but we do not use this statement with the same frequency or authority.  Nobody preaches, "Jesus said, 'Do not resist the one who is evil' but many will preach only the second half of the sentence. 

5:43-48 (Love your enemies) Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.  Clearly an impossibility.

There is always a kernel of truth in the hyperbole, but it cannot be extracted or extended.  These statements were spoken only to the disciples as a very early part of their education.  Their purpose was to destroy traditional blockages to deeper understanding, not to be a stand-alone doctrinal foundation.

 

 

 

 

[JosephM]

Quote

5:43-48 (Love your enemies) Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.  Clearly an impossibility.

I would not share that conclusion as i see the word perfect meaning in the eyes of God without sin. If one does not measure or judge the other one will be neither measured or judged. It is a spiritual truth as in reality one would be merely judging oneself and bringing condemnation on oneself. We are free from the law of sin and death. Without the law sin is dead and not imputed and in Christ we are delivered from the law. By faith i am made perfect. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world but rather to show a way to walk perfect before God.

[Burl]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

I would not share that conclusion as i see the word perfect meaning in the eyes of God without sin. If one does not measure or judge the other one will be neither measured or judged. It is a spiritual truth as in reality one would be merely judging oneself and bringing condemnation on oneself. We are free from the law of sin and death. Without the law sin is dead and not imputed and in Christ we are delivered from the law. By faith i am made perfect. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world but rather to show a way to walk perfect before God.

Fair enough.  The word teleios has a number of related meanings and the author of Matthew is in the process of ending the antitheses and moving towards a more straightforward sermon. 

My issue is with a partial or a selective reading of scripture.  One should read as accurately as possible, and certainly not with the idea of finding support for a predetermined personal opinion.  

As to judgement, which is several complex word families with many meanings, I would suggest starting with a general dictionary such as Eerdmans.  The theme runs throughout the entire text, and it is not easy to develop an informed opinion.

[FireDragon76]

On 6/18/2018 at 6:28 PM, Burl said:

New study on effects of yoga and meditation on personality.

https://qz.com/1307380/yoga-and-meditation-boost-your-ego-say-psychology-researchers/

 

It could be because as the article says, that meditation and yoga is presented differently in a western context, typically, as a way to be a more effective agent in the capitalist system.    This has been criticized by some Buddhists themselves, particularly from the Tibetan tradition (Chogyam Trungpa) but also some from the Zen tradition (Rev. Kevin Malone, a NY prison chaplain), and Marxists such as Slavoj Zizek.    There are whole schools of Buddhism that do not even practice meditation as commonly understood, and for those that do, it is not necessarily considered a basic practice.

 

Also, the western psychology and phenomenology of the self tends towards autonomy as implicit, whereas the eastern understanding is that the self is relational.  Concepts like "ego" have different nuances, depending on the context.

Edited July 27, 2018 by FireDragon76
typo

[Burl]

4 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

 

It could be because as the article says, that meditation and yoga is presented differently in a western context, typically, as a way to be a more effective agent in the capitalist system.    This has been criticized by some Buddhists themselves, particularly from the Tibetan tradition (Chogyam Trungpa) but also some from the Zen tradition (Rev. Kevin Malone, a NY prison chaplain), and Marxists such as Slavoj Zizek.    There are whole schools of Buddhism that do not even practice meditation as commonly understood, and for those that do, it is not necessarily considered a basic practice.

 

Also, the western psychology and phenomenology of the self tends towards autonomy as implicit, whereas the eastern understanding is that the self is relational.  Concepts like "ego" have different nuances, depending on the context.

Certainly.  The reason I posted this is because it offers some data that may be of interest to the members who are interested in this sort of thing.  I do not recommend taking conclusions from this sort of semi-science without discussion, but the data and experimental method are more valuable than mere personal opinions.

 

4 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

 

It could be because as the article says, that meditation and yoga is presented differently in a western context, typically, as a way to be a more effective agent in the capitalist system.    This has been criticized by some Buddhists themselves, particularly from the Tibetan tradition (Chogyam Trungpa) but also some from the Zen tradition (Rev. Kevin Malone, a NY prison chaplain), and Marxists such as Slavoj Zizek.    There are whole schools of Buddhism that do not even practice meditation as commonly understood, and for those that do, it is not necessarily considered a basic practice.

 

Also, the western psychology and phenomenology of the self tends towards autonomy as implicit, whereas the eastern understanding is that the self is relational.  Concepts like "ego" have different nuances, depending on the context.