--- In [email protected], ChrisAustinLane <ch...@...> wrote: > > Understanding the changes that meditation makes in the brain seems pretty far removed from the action of sitting. Sitting is sitting. Understanding is understanding. Apples and oranges. If it feels right to do both, do so. If not, not. > I understand the science of why smoking is bad and why eating a morbid veggies is good, but I viscerally enjoy the smoke and not the brussel sprouts (as cooked by me at least). Same response as above. > Faith in the context of sitting is not about some beliefs, it is a stance of being open to what sitting actually is, with some humorous recognition that the down side is real. If faith is OK by you, that's great; but again, it may not be the choice of all. Thanks, ED > It is like the faith you act with when you have made a mistake and are making amends; there is a bite of shame, sure, but you plunge into it, feeling how it is appropriate action. > Of course, I do note each study showing benefits from meditation, with pleasure. > Thanks, > Chris Austin-Lane
Mike, Not only one way. Different strokes for different folk. --ED > Bill!, > > The thing for me though, is that Zen is (or can be) too cloaked in arcane and > esoteric language placing it on the borders of religious/spiritual thinking - > something it definitely is *not*. A basic scientific understanding of the > process of meditation and what physiologically happens to the brain as a result > of zazen grounds a person much more than faith will do. > > Mike > Mike, > > I understand what you are saying below, and even support your sentiments, > but I worry that an emphasis on understanding just how meditation affects > your body might take someone in the wrong direction, or at least down a > useless side road in which they could get entirely lost. No "emphasis", just knowing the truth, rather than floudering in a sea of 'faith', illusions and delusions. > As you know I already believe zen is the ââ¬Ëart of livingââ¬â¢, and have long > since jettisoned the ââ¬Ëreligious mumbo-jumboââ¬â¢, including Buddhism. I don't > want to replace that with 'scientific mumbo-jumbo'. To me there is not any > difference. > > Bill! IMHO, 'scientific mumbo-jumbo' is *your* illusion/delusion. Zen, being a natural phenomenon, is quite amenable to observation, meaurement and logical scrutiny - like all natural phenomena are. The degree of "emphasis" on this scientific inquiry is an indivudual's choice - the one that works best for the temperament of the individual. Surely, you are not frozen in the stance of "only one way"? --ED > ED, Bill, Mayka et al, > > If I can just jump in here. There is scientific data to suggest that the > brain has a kind of plasticity and so can be neurologically changed > according to how it is used. I think this isà should hold aà huge interest for > those of us interested in zen/meditation. Learning to pay attention to the > moment and letting go of negative thoughts can be seen as a 'skill' just > like learning a language or playing the piano. If one incorporates sitting > into their daily lives it'd be possible to change the physiology of the > brain to better respond to internal/external stimuli with happier results. > Zen, as an art of living, could then jettison all the religious mumbo-jumbo > that it's wrapped up in now. > > Mike
