Tag: Buddhist Practice

Consciousness After Death: Strange Tales From the Frontiers of Resuscitation Medicine

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Source

The main substance of the linked piece is an interview with Sam Parnia, who practices resuscitation medicine. Below is a quote from the interview.

It takes time for cells to die after they’re deprived of oxygen. It doesn’t happen instantly. We have a longer period of time than people perceive. We know now that when you become a corpse, when the doctor declares you dead, there’s still a possibility, from a biological and medical perspective, of death being reversed. – Sam Parnia

In Buddhist traditions it is widely believed that consciousness stays with or near the body long after the point in time that standard Western medicine says this is not possible.

Mindfulness

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

 

And what, monks, is the faculty of mindfulness? Herein, monks, a noble disciple is mindful and is endowed with the highest prudence in mindfulness; he is one who remembers and recollects even what is done or said long ago. This, monks, is called the faculty of mindfulness.

— S V 197 (Source)

Forgiveness

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

We don’t have the power to forgive. But we can hope that those who have harmed us will feel shame and reform.

That outcome—their feeling shame and reforming—is far better than our forgiving them and  infinitely better than wishing harm on them, wishing for revenge.

Forgiveness should mean “forbear until those who have harmed us reform.”

When we have been harmed we have a choice between forbearance and revenge. If we choose revenge our minds will be clouded and we will bring more harm into the world. If we forbear, the harm that has been done will stop with us.

And if, as we forbear, we hope—indeed, pray—that those who have harmed us reform, we will feel little or no need to want revenge. The desire for revenge will be weak if it arises at all. For what could be better than the person who has harmed us reforming completely? That is, feeling shame, vowing never to repeat their harmful act, making amends for their harm.

What could be better than that?

We do not desire that the person who has harmed us feel shame to cause them pain, but only because shame is essential to reform, to making the vow to never repeat the harmful act against anyone. Shame cleanses the harm and ensures it will not recur.

When we have been harmed, there is nothing better to wish for.

And there is no need for public shame. All that is needed is real shame leading to the complete renunciation of harm.

This is how all of us—for all of us have been harmed—can reduce suffering in the world.

FIML and karma

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML illustrates karma in the sense that karma is an action that initiates a cycle of cause and effect.

For example, if you do not care about what your partner is saying, you will not understand how you are listening and thus you will not understand yourself. If you are not honest with your partner, similarly, you will not be able to perceive the depths of meaning in your own listening and speaking. Your not caring and/or not being honest are actions that will initiate a cycle of delusion, a cycle of less than optimal communication, less than optimal mutual understanding, and less than optimal self-understanding.

You harm yourself when do not care or are not honest. Of course, there are degrees of caring and honesty. But if partners do these actions well-enough, they will see for themselves that caring even more and being even more honest has very real and very important benefits for each of them.

If you care about what your partner is saying, you will come to understand how ideas, values, and meanings actually function in your mind during dynamic moments of communication. And this will save you from a great deal of delusive thinking and feeling. The same is true for being honest. If you are honest with your partner, you will help them free themselves from delusive thinking and feeling. They will see that you are being honest and respect you for that. In return they will be more honest with you.

And all of this will become clearer and clearer to both partners as they progress in FIML practice. These cycle of good karma—good cause and effect—will enrich and liberate both partners

In addition to the above, it is good to see that there are significant selfish reasons to be honest and to care about your partner.

Holocaust: The Ignored Reality

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

by Timothy Snyder

Link

Well-worth reading.

_____________________

One way to comprehend the madness of the 20th century as described in Snyder’s essay is through semiotics as we define and use the term in FIML practice. In FIML practice the active, functional semiotics of the individual are constantly being questioned and resolved with the help of a partner. Without FIML, individual semiotics are never fully understood by the individual, who is consequently forced to adopt public semiotics to define their, now, entirely elusive “self.”

During the 2oth century, and still today, many people assert public meaning/semiotics in place of having authentic individual comprehension of themselves. The more assertive the person, the more their “meaning” seems to have meaning, or value. Others simply follow assertive people. Dictators and other maniacs described in Snyder’s essay are fundamentally asserting violent public “meaning,” rather than acquiring genuine individual meaning on their own.

This also goes a long way to explain why so much of the world today, as yesterday, willingly follows less violent psychopaths and/or shallow media personalities: their assertions of meaning are simply stronger than what the individual is capable of finding for themselves.

In contrast, individuals who practice FIML will notice that their need to take meaning from strong public-asserters decreases in proportion to their capacity to comprehend their own individual and much more authentic meaning.

On Solitude

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ sanctuary. Now at that time a certain monk by the name of Elder[1] was one who lived alone and extolled the virtues of living alone. Alone he entered the village for alms, alone he returned, alone he sat withdrawn [in meditation], alone he did walking meditation.

Then a large number of monks went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they informed him: “Lord, there is a certain monk by the name of Elder who lives alone and extols the virtues of living alone.”

Then the Blessed One told a certain monk, “Come, monk. In my name, call the monk named Elder, saying, ‘The Teacher calls you, my friend.'”

“As you say, lord,” the monk answered and, having gone to Ven. Elder, on arrival he said, “The Teacher calls you, my friend.”

“As you say, my friend,” Ven. Elder replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Is it true, Elder, that you live alone and extol the virtues of living alone?”

“Yes, lord.”

“But how do you live alone and extol the virtues of living alone?”

“Lord, alone I enter the village for alms, alone I return, alone I sit withdrawn [in meditation], alone I do walking meditation. That is how I live alone and extol the virtues of living alone.”

“There is that way of living alone, Elder. I don’t say that there isn’t. Still, listen well to how your living alone is perfected in its details, and pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” Ven. Elder responded.

The Blessed One said: “And how is living alone perfected in its details? There is the case where whatever is past is abandoned, whatever is future is relinquished, and any passion & desire with regard to states of being attained in the present is well subdued.[2] That is how living alone is perfected in its details.”

That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone further said this:

“All-conquering, all-knowing, intelligent; with regard to all things, unadhering; all-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: him I call a man who lives alone.”
_____________
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Is God a Taoist?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Mortal:
And therefore, O God, I pray thee, if thou hast one ounce of mercy for this thy suffering creature, absolve me of having to have free will!

God:
You reject the greatest gift I have given thee?

Mortal:
How can you call that which was forced on me a gift? I have free will, but not of my own choice. I have never freely chosen to have free will. I have to have free will, whether I like it or not!

God:
Why would you wish not to have free will?

Mortal:
Because free will means moral responsibility, and moral responsibility is more than I can bear!

God:
Why do you find moral responsibility so unbearable?

Source

This piece is a bit long, but fun and worth reading.

Buddhism and ethical signalling

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
Buddhism is very much a system of ethics. Buddhist practice is founded on the Five Precepts of refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and the irresponsible use of alcohol. In most Buddhist traditions, these precepts are often taught as if they were fundamental to the workings of the universe. But how can morality be fundamental to the workings of the universe? How does it really even matter to human beings? If we think of a human being as a signaling system, we may be able to show that ethical thoughts and behavior are of fundamental importance to the system itself. Human signaling systems signal internally, within themselves, and externally, toward other people. Our most important signaling system is the one we share with that person who is most important to us, our mate or best friend. Let’s confine our discussion to this sort of primary signaling system. If I lie to my partner or cheat her, I may gain something outside of our shared signaling system, but that signaling system will suffer. And when that shared system suffers, my own internal signaling system will also suffer because it will contain errors. It will no longer be in its optimal state. Similarly, if she lies to me or cheats me, our mutual signaling system will become less than optimal as will both of our individual, or internal, signaling systems. My own signaling system cannot grow or become optimal without my partner treating me with the best ethical behavior she can muster. And the same is true for her with respect to me. And we both know this. We would be good to each other anyway, but it is helpful to see that our being good to each other has a very practical foundation—it assures us optimal performance of our mutual and internal signaling systems. FIML practice is designed to provide partners with a clear and reasonably objective means to communicate honestly with each other. FIML practice will gradually optimize communication between partners by making it much clearer and more honest. In doing this, it will also optimize the operations of their mutual and individual signaling systems. To my knowledge, there is nothing like FIML in any Buddhist tradition. But if I try to read FIML into the tradition, I may be able to find something similar in the way monks traveled together in pairs for much of the year. I don’t know what instructions the Buddha may have given them or how they spoke to each other, but it may be that they did a practice with each other similar to FIML practice. In any case, if we view human being as a signaling system, we may be able to claim that clear signaling—that is, ethical signaling—is fundamental to the optimization of that system.

Very good photo essay on Chinese workers

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

This photo essay is very good. It gives a much better picture of China than the ones we often conjure in our imaginations.

Chinese Factory Workers & the Toys They Make

Having lived in China for a number of years, I see the country more as this photo essay portrays it—more ordinary, more human, more realistically wonderful, and maybe a little sadder than the many Americans see it. Just my two cents. Take from it what you want. They are good pictures and it’s a good collection.

Related: Enslaved Children Freed After Being Forced to Make Christmas decorations

FIML changes the personality and sense of group allegiance

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

793 words

FIML practice changes your personality, your sense of self, because the basis of who you tell yourself you are changes. It changes from a static notion/story/semiology of a solid, if elusive, “me” to an active function. The active function, a process of understanding, happens because when you do FIML you interact with your partner on a truly active basis. This basis is mutually agreed upon and admits far more “objective”/external data into your core self-assessment than is possible without FIML. FIML teaches both partners the value of micromanaging their communication and being completely honest about every moment of communication, every “psychological morpheme” that transits between them.

FIML practice changes your sense of group allegiance by gradually allowing partners to shift their sense of allegiance away from the static ideals of an external group to the dynamic, functional processes of their mutual FIML practice, their honest and very accessible “interpersonality.”

For example, if both partners are “Buddhists,” they will gradually be able to shift their understanding of the Dharma from static, imitative notions of how to be to much richer conclusions based on honest interactive experience. They will grow away from their reliance on two-dimensional ideals toward a mutually understood experience of Buddhist truths. Nothing wrong with ideals in the right place and time, but individual Buddhists must advance beyond merely acting them out, pretending they feel ways they don’t. The core of the mind is accessed in FIML practice because FIML accesses core communication processes. An individual all alone can gain many insights, but without the help of a FIML partner how can they check their insights?

Buddhists who practice FIML will find their practice informed by Buddhism at almost every turn, but this is different from modelling a static personality on static Buddhist ideals. It is so radically different, I suspect it is much closer to what the Buddha actually meant and probably a major reason monks traveled in pairs for most of the year. How can you know yourself, your being, your reality, if you aren’t sure of what people are saying to you or how they are hearing you? Not only not sure, but wrong much of the time? The answer is you cannot. It’s not possible. FIML will wake you and your partner from that major aspect of the dream. As the Diamond Sutra says:

All conditioned dharmas
are like dreams, like illusions,
like bubbles, like shadows,
like dew, like lightning,
and all of them should be contemplated in this way.

Psychology recapitulates sociology, and the other way around is true, as well—sociology recapitulates psychology. Groups of people when they are bound by static ideals/beliefs are worse than individuals. Groups like that—and that is how almost all groups are—are sociopathic; that is, the group acts like a psychopath. Individuals within the group may be “nice” to other group members, but the group itself rarely will eschew all “callous disregard for” other groups, the very definition of a psychopath. Even Buddhist groups do this. The only ones that don’t are so small and weak, they dare not.

The same is true as much or more so for all other groups—religious, national, ethnic, gender-based, racial, psychological, whatever. This is because all groups are based on static ideals, which when internalized, reduce the functionality of the individual and corrupt their morality.

Science in many ways is an exception because as a group “science” is objective, rational, parsimonious, evidence-based. In practice of course, the sociology of how science is actually done can be fraught with delusion. Science works very well at a high level of abstraction, but many individual scientists will feel low-grade sociological pressures and many of them will belong to groups that are based on ideals that are very different from science and that are sociopathic.

Yes, I believe all large groups are dangerous and will lead individuals to make serious ethical mistakes. And yet, we have to belong somewhere. It is torture to be all alone. This is where FIML can help greatly. You can fulfill many of your group needs by identifying your core group as you and your partner. FIML partners must continue to be deeply informed by other groups—science, Buddhism, good politics, your friends and neighbors, etc.—but they need not take in the sociopathic ideals of those groups. Go to your temples, enjoy them, do the meditations, participate, but don’t be a damn fool about it. With the help of your partner, you will be able to separate out the dreams, illusions, shadows, and lightning of the Dharma from the profound reality of your actual lives as you are actually living them. You will discover, with the help of the Dharma, the suchness of your actual being, not someone else’s.

Ask your partner, ask yourself

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Ask your partner: “How often do you deliberately send me ambiguous messages?”

If you have a good relationship, their answer will be “rarely if ever.” Some people may interpret humor or banter as a type of ambiguous message and answer differently.

To control for that ask your partner: “How often do you deliberately send me ambiguous messages that could reasonably be interpreted in a negative or unpleasant way?”

I hope that your partner will answer “very rarely, if ever.” If they don’t, maybe you two should pay more attention to the messages you are sending each other.

Let’s say that your partner answered “very rarely, if ever” to both questions, and especially the second one.

Now ask yourself: “How often do you receive messages from your partner that are ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted in a negative or unpleasant way?” Or, more to the point: “How often do you receive ambiguous messages from your partner and interpret them in a negative or unpleasant way?”

You have to be honest with yourself and a good observer of your own quiet mind to answer that question accurately, truthfully. I bet most people are burdened with a fairly large group of ambiguous messages from their partner that they have interpreted in a negative or unpleasant way. You may not recall the actual message, but you will recall the interpretation.

Compare your feelings about those interpretations with your partner’s answers to the first two questions above. They told you that they “rarely, if ever” send you ambiguous messages that could reasonably be interpreted in a negative or unpleasant way.

And yet your mind holds many such interpretations. Either your partner is lying or you are doing too much misinterpreting.

Now turn the tables and take them through the same line of thought. I am quite sure that if they are honest, they will confess that they, too, are burdened with a fairly large group of ambiguous messages from you that they have interpreted in a negative or unpleasant way.

If you two have a good relationship, you should be able to get to this point, but even if you can’t get there with your partner, you as an individual, may be able to get there alone.

Now what do you do? If both partners see the problem, it’s easier to fix. If only one partner sees the problem, the fix is more difficult but still eminently doable.

What is the fix? Why do we have a problem like this?

The reason we have this problem is we do not pay enough attention to the minute bits of information that make-up all communicative acts. The fix for this problem is to pay attention to those minute bits of information.

How do you do that?

To answer, first let’s determine what we mean by a minute bit. Definition: A minute bit of communicative information in this context means the smallest discernible unit of psychological communication. Let’s call these units “psychological morphemes.” (In linguistics, a “morpheme” is the smallest semantic unit of language.)

A psychological morpheme is the smallest unit of communication between two or more people that carries an emotional charge, or that leads to an emotional or psychological interpretation. It is the smallest unit that can be interpreted by the hearer as either “positive,” “negative,” or “neutral.”

These units move between people very quickly. Within just a few seconds a psychological morpheme can move out from one partner, generate a new morpheme in the other partner, and get shot right back for a third interpretation. This is the primary origin of the vague and unreliable underbelly of so many interpersonal relations. If this underbelly is not addressed, it will grow and cause partners to suffer. The underbelly is the result of misinterpreted psychological morphemes, probably a great many of them. They tend to grow quickly and compound if they are not addressed.

How do you address them? How do you fix the problem?

The way you fix the problem is both partners must agree to pay close attention to all psychological morphemes. Both must agree to pay close attention to very small units of communication, units that are measured in seconds. If you hear something your partner said and notice that your mind is interpreting it as unpleasant, negative, or ambiguous, you must ask them immediately for clarification. If you wait, the psychological morpheme will lodge in your brain and you may not be able to remove it later. Sometimes you can, but don’t count on it. Ask immediately.

It is of great importance that both partners understand this and make a prior agreement to allow each other to ask as often as they like. Both partners must also make a prior agreement to be honest about what they meant. Once you get used to it, you will find this practice to be very beneficial and a much better way to talk as it allows you to take up a great many new subjects that will touch both of you deeply. More information on this technique can be found on our How to do FIML page and elsewhere on this site. This practice greatly supports Buddhist practice.