Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sadly the good times never last and there was always a goodbye to the beach, my GF and LOS.

 

 

If the good times never last, shouldn't the 'bad times' also never last?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

If the good times never last, shouldn't the 'bad times' also never last?

Obviously. If the bad times lasted forever I suspect the suicide rate would be higher.

 

If I split life into good, bad and boringly routine, boringly routine ( neither good nor bad ) would be 70%, the bad times 20% and the good times 10%.

The really bad times would be 5% of the 20%, the really good times 1% of the 10%.

 

This might be an appropriate place to post a poem that explains much about my condition.

The Men that Don't Fit In by Robert Service

[save the frogs]

17 hours ago, ravip said:

I always wonder why this type of guys wear a funny, almost stupid fancy dress. Is that thing on the forhead some sort of an antenna receiving/transmitting some signals?

 

Because often funny costumes give the illusion that there is sth special about the person wearing the funny costume that you, the average person, doesn't possess. 

Or, alternatively, it may actually signify something.

But I doubt the Pope's 6 foot tall hat signifies anything except he's full of himself. 

 

Often wisdom is found in the most unsuspecting places, like cartoons. 

 

The story of a rodent's unrelenting quest for happiness and fulfillment.

 

 

 

[save the frogs]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously. If the bad times lasted forever I suspect the suicide rate would be higher.

 

If I split life into good, bad and boringly routine, boringly routine ( neither good nor bad ) would be 70%, the bad times 20% and the good times 10%.

The really bad times would be 5% of the 20%, the really good times 1% of the 10%.

 

This might be an appropriate place to post a poem that explains much about my condition.

The Men that Don't Fit In by Robert Service

 

This poem is depressing and not accurate.

People who stay in the stable careers and never roam also will need to face that their "prime is past".

It's stupid to look back on your life as one giant regret. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, save the frogs said:

 

This poem is depressing and not accurate.

People who stay in the stable careers and never roam also will need to face that their "prime is past".

It's stupid to look back on your life as one giant regret. 

 

 

I find the poem very accurate. I assume you were/ are not a wanderer then.

 

When one is just waiting for the great adventure to begin and AN is about as good as it gets, it's hard not to be filled with regret. My life was interesting and full of adventures and then I started posting on TVF. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that my life went on a nose dive at that time, but it's a fact that it did.

 

The good thing about living in a "free" country is that my life does not have to conform to your opinions.

[Red Phoenix]

A couple of fitting quotes on happiness by the German philosopher Arthur SCHOPENHAUER (1788–1860), who was deeply influenced by Buddhist thought.

Note that I do not endorse Schopenhauer's utterly pessimistic world-view, but imo he is spot on in these quotes:

 

# It is difficult to find happiness within oneself, but it is almost impossible to find it anywhere else.

 

#  Happiness belongs to those who are sufficient unto themselves. For all external sources of happiness and pleasure are, by their very nature, highly uncertain, precarious, ephemeral and subject to chance.

 

# Money is human happiness in the abstract: he, then, who is no longer capable of enjoying human happiness in the concrete devotes himself utterly to money.

 

# There is no more mistaken path to happiness than worldiness, revelry, high life.

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

# There is no more mistaken path to happiness than worldiness, revelry, high life.

I'm pretty sure that having a bevy of beautiful maidens pandering to my every whim would make me happier than I am now, but a bevy of willing maidens requires much treasure to employ.

If that's a mistaken way to happiness I'm sure I could live with that.

[save the frogs]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm pretty sure that having a bevy of beautiful maidens pandering to my every whim would make me happier than I am now, but a bevy of willing maidens requires much treasure to employ.

If that's a mistaken way to happiness I'm sure I could live with that.

yeah, we're supposed to feel empathy for you because you don't have a harem.

your posts are having the opposite effect on me. 

 

[Sunmaster]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

 

I sense a certain imprecision in the language used in your above quote. I would rephrase it as follows.

 

"Happiness results from activities in several areas of the brain, including the right frontal cortex, the precuneus, the left amygdala, and the left insula. This activity involves connections between awareness (frontal cortex and insula) and the “feeling center” (amygdala) of the brain."

 

The external sources that often stimulate those feelings of happiness in the brain, vary enormously, and are related to each individual's background, lifestyle, and genetic characteristics.

 

The Marcus Aurelius quote from Red Pheonix is very relevant in this context.
 

Maybe it would be even more precise to say that the source of happiness is in the mind first, which then translates into physical effects such as the release of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin. The brain doesn't release these hormones by itself but needs an input from the mind. 
I'm sure you'll agree to this. Science does.

Take sport for example. Practicing sport can be a source of happiness for some and a source of pain for others. We can't say it is a universal source of happiness. It's a variable. 
Or fishing, or mountain climbing. It makes some people happy and leave others completely unfazed. Some brains produce happiness hormones, some don't. Why? Different temperaments, different expectations. Where are these expectations formed? In the mind. The mind then interprets which activity gives pleasure and which doesn't. In this process, the brain is the last one in line, producing the physical results we can measure. 

So be careful....the brain and the mind are not the same thing. 

Red Phoenix's quote of M Aurelius is relevant because it highlights exactly this. Thoughts are formed in the mind.
The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. The mind also changes the brain. People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. There would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions.

[owl sees all]

Nature is god. 

 

It is sometimes vicious, sometimes violent but never ugly. It's humans that make the world ugly.

 

Understand nature. Understand the world. Understand one-self.

 

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Maybe it would be even more precise to say that the source of happiness is in the mind first, which then translates into physical effects such as the release of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin. The brain doesn't release these hormones by itself but needs an input from the mind. 
I'm sure you'll agree to this. Science does.

Take sport for example. Practicing sport can be a source of happiness for some and a source of pain for others. We can't say it is a universal source of happiness. It's a variable. 
Or fishing, or mountain climbing. It makes some people happy and leave others completely unfazed. Some brains produce happiness hormones, some don't. Why? Different temperaments, different expectations. Where are these expectations formed? In the mind. The mind then interprets which activity gives pleasure and which doesn't. In this process, the brain is the last one in line, producing the physical results we can measure. 

So be careful....the brain and the mind are not the same thing. 

Red Phoenix's quote of M Aurelius is relevant because it highlights exactly this. Thoughts are formed in the mind.
The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. The mind also changes the brain. People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. There would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions.

 

I agree that the brain needs an input from the mind to trigger the release of endorphins and so on, which result in happiness, but the mind, through perception from the five senses, also needs an input. 

 

I think it's more precise to say, 'the conditions which allow happiness to occur are in the mind and the brain, in the form of past events and experiences which are stored in the brain'.

 

For example, it's known that the developed fetus in a woman's womb, prior to birth, can hear music and experience the mother's pleasure or displeasure, and associate that pleasure or displeasure with the type of music the mother is listening to.
If the mother experiences great pleasure when listening to Mozart, whilst pregnant, and that same music is later played to the child after birth, the child will show great joy. 

 

However, if the music of Mozart is never played, the joy related to Mozart will not arise.
The mind and the brain are essential for all knowledge and all experience, but so is the external environment. However, the mind and brain cannot exist without an accommodating environment. But the environment can exist without a human mind and brain, so what is the true source of all experiences?
 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I agree that the brain needs an input from the mind to trigger the release of endorphins and so on, which result in happiness, but the mind, through perception from the five senses, also needs an input. 

 

I think it's more precise to say, 'the conditions which allow happiness to occur are in the mind and the brain, in the form of past events and experiences which are stored in the brain'.

 

For example, it's known that the developed fetus in a woman's womb, prior to birth, can hear music and experience the mother's pleasure or displeasure, and associate that pleasure or displeasure with the type of music the mother is listening to.
If the mother experiences great pleasure when listening to Mozart, whilst pregnant, and that same music is later played to the child after birth, the child will show great joy. 

 

However, if the music of Mozart is never played, the joy related to Mozart will not arise.
The mind and the brain are essential for all knowledge and all experience, but so is the external environment. However, the mind and brain cannot exist without an accommodating environment. But the environment can exist without a human mind and brain, so what is the true source of all experiences?
 

 

What is the source of all experience?
One thing we all have in common is the fact that we are all conscious/aware. Without that, we wouldn't be here discussing anything. So, I would say that this consciousness is at the base of all experience. Our 5 senses perceive the environment and send signals to the brain. The mind then evaluates those signals and categorizes them in 2 main boxes: good "I want more of that." or bad "I don't like that, avoid!". 
Perhaps we can agree on this.

Where we might not agree is on the nature of consciousness. As a materialist, you probably believe that consciousness is a product of brain activity. It's a belief as good as any, because ultimately there is no concrete scientific evidence either way. Sure, the brain and the mind are linked to consciousness, but correlation is not equivalent to causation. 

We can say that the 5 senses are like sensory tentacles that take inputs from the external world, feeding data to the mind by way of the brain.
So, in this case, the mind is turned outwards.
But the mind can also be turned inwards. To do this, we don't need the 5 external senses. Actually, when we do this, we try to "switch off" the 5 senses (sitting still, eyes closed, in a silent room), and only focus our attention on a mantra or the breath or a personal God (whatever the personal preference is). We become a detached observer of the breath. We learn to observe the mind itself. That's why we can say "We are not the mind". If we can observe it, it logically means that we are not it.

In regard to happiness then, I can see 2 sources: one is from the outside, perceived through the 5 senses, and one is from the inside. 
I think we all start out to find happiness in the first one, and we all know that this type of happiness is temporary. Fame, wealth, sex, relationships...they come one day and are gone the next. 
There comes a point when a person gets tired of this endless chase and starts questioning the whole rat race. Such a person will then look for a different type of happiness, one that is not dependent on external factors, but always available, wherever they are. In my case, I found it on the inside. 
Don't get me wrong, I still experience happiness from the outside (a good meal, good company, a walk in the forest, playing with my cats, creating art). In fact, these external joys are amplified by the happiness I find within. So, it's not a renunciation of the outside at all, but rather a full embrace of it, while being firmly anchored in the inside. 

You haven't answered the first question though. What is your source of happiness?
 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

But the mind can also be turned inwards. To do this, we don't need the 5 external senses. Actually, when we do this, we try to "switch off" the 5 senses (sitting still, eyes closed, in a silent room), and only focus our attention on a mantra or the breath or a personal God (whatever the personal preference is). We become a detached observer of the breath. We learn to observe the mind itself. That's why we can say "We are not the mind". If we can observe it, it logically means that we are not it.
 

 

Even if you are meditating in a cave, focussing on your breath, you are still totally dependent upon an accommodating environment. If there's no atmosphere, there's no breath to concentrate on, and you die.

 

If one meditates in a quiet and safe forest where the atmosphere is not polluted and the temperature is not too cold or too hot, and your seating position is comfortable, you are more likely to experience calmness and happiness. However, you cannot completely separate such experiences from the environment, although, with a strongly developed 'observing' mind you can reduce the negative effects of a disturbing environment.

 

This concept of 'observing the mind' is problematic, because it's also the mind that does the oberving. What makes sense is that one part of the mind can observes other parts of the mind, such as arising thoughts. In other words, there are two main aspects of the mind, a 'thinking mind' full of chatter, and an 'observing mind'. I would suggest that separating the 'oberving mind' from the 'thinking mind' is the process of meditation.

 

"You haven't answered the first question though. What is your source of happiness?"

 

There are many sources. Here are some of them.

 

I'm retired with an adequate pension, so I no longer have to do uninteresting work to sustain myself, or follow the orders of others. I feel free and independent. I take care of my own health by eating nutritious food and exercising regularly. I have a 5 acre property outside the city area where I can enjoy the quietude of the countryside and can often get close-up to the wild wallabies that freely jump around as I do my gardening.

 

I'm surrounded by beautiful mountains, forests and landscapes which I enjoy hiking through, and taking photos, and I've trained my mind not to worry about anything. Reading about Buddhism has helped.

[Sigmund]

I always worship and believe in the happy end at the local soapy churches.

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Even if you are meditating in a cave, focussing on your breath, you are still totally dependent upon an accommodating environment. If there's no atmosphere, there's no breath to concentrate on, and you die.

 

If one meditates in a quiet and safe forest where the atmosphere is not polluted and the temperature is not too cold or too hot, and your seating position is comfortable, you are more likely to experience calmness and happiness. However, you cannot completely separate such experiences from the environment, although, with a strongly developed 'observing' mind you can reduce the negative effects of a disturbing environment.

 

This concept of 'observing the mind' is problematic, because it's also the mind that does the oberving. What makes sense is that one part of the mind can observes other parts of the mind, such as arising thoughts. In other words, there are two main aspects of the mind, a 'thinking mind' full of chatter, and an 'observing mind'. I would suggest that separating the 'oberving mind' from the 'thinking mind' is the process of meditation.

 

"You haven't answered the first question though. What is your source of happiness?"

 

There are many sources. Here are some of them.

 

I'm retired with an adequate pension, so I no longer have to do uninteresting work to sustain myself, or follow the orders of others. I feel free and independent. I take care of my own health by eating nutritious food and exercising regularly. I have a 5 acre property outside the city area where I can enjoy the quietude of the countryside and can often get close-up to the wild wallabies that freely jump around as I do my gardening.

 

I'm surrounded by beautiful mountains, forests and landscapes which I enjoy hiking through, and taking photos, and I've trained my mind not to worry about anything. Reading about Buddhism has helped.

 

Excellent.
Very nice life you have carved out for yourself. The perfect time and environment in life to direct the focus within. 

Astute observation about the mind observing the mind. I think it's true that the mind is observing itself, at first. It's the ego looking at itself, playing both the role of the thief and the policeman simultaneously. At a certain point however, something else emerges behind the mind, and the mind becomes just another object that can be observed. This perspective allows you to see the body and the mind as parts of a bigger "I". They appear like a costume you have to wear for a limited period of time. And when you slip into that costume and take on the role it comes with, you also take up its duties and responsibilities. You are also given the tools (a body with senses and a mind to process them) to enjoy life if you choose to do so. From this perspective, life looks a lot different. 

The bit you said about the environment is also true, to a certain point. As a beginner in meditation, I'm still easily distracted by the environment. It's much easier to quieten the mind in an environment that promotes this silence. Silence in the sense of sound and in the sense of other senses. Meditating in a cave has a different quality compared to a room or in a forest. I've tried. 
However, people more advanced than me have mastered this "shutting down" the outer senses that they are not perturbed by external inputs. Some people can meditate on the snow in the Himalayas, for example. Of course, these are 2 extremes and there are many shades of grey in between. But the important thing here is to remember that you can train your mind to shut down the outer senses and thus find the silence within. Silence is the fertile ground from which all else emerges. 

As you see, so far the instructions are very simple and straightforward. They don't require you to change your beliefs. There is no admission fee, nor do you have to read any manuals. They only require you to divert the focus from the outside to the inside. Not just by thinking about it, but really taking the time to sit down and practice. It might sound extreme, but I think that if you are not the master of your mind, then you are its slave. If you believe you are the mind/body, then you are its slave. There is only one way to find out whether this is true or not. Practice looking within regularly. 
Of course, the question for all of us is, is there a desire to do so?

[Red Phoenix]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This concept of 'observing the mind' is problematic, because it's also the mind that does the observing. What makes sense is that one part of the mind can observes other parts of the mind, such as arising thoughts. In other words, there are two main aspects of the mind, a 'thinking mind' full of chatter, and an 'observing mind'. I would suggest that separating the 'observing mind' from the 'thinking mind' is the process of meditation.

Excellent comment.

But may I suggest to use the term 'reacting mind' instead of 'thinking mind' as there is very little thinking gong on in that part of your mind, because it are mere automatic responses to external stimuli. The responses can be physical, emotional or mental, which each type of person having a preference (or rather a routine habit response).

Silencing that 'reacting mind' will allow the 'observing mind', the quiet spectator at the back of the room, which is your real I or essence to momentarily take over. And with that comes the realization that 99.95 % of the time we are nothing more than automatons jumping like monkeys from one branch to another with no control over that reacting mind which we mistakenly see as our True I.

But with 'self-remembering' practice the glimpses of Real I can become longer, and once the Master has awakened - even if it is only for less than a minute every week - he won't be satisfied with his pure spectator role and will start whispering to you.  And as a result your outlook and what you encounter in life will slowly but drastically change.  Once you tasted this, it will dawn on you that there is NOTHING more important in life than awakening that 'observing mind' but of course it will be a long hard struggle with your 'reacting mind' which does not want to give up its illegitimate Master role.  

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Maybe this whole thing of external or internal happiness is based on the physical body  i.e. the relaxedness or clearness or happiness of our mind is 100 per cent linked to our physical state e.g. how tight is your neck, how relaxed are your hips, how healthy your insides. The state of your physicality will be affected by 1 perceptions of external events e.g. good news, fun times, by 2 actual physical events e.g. massage, sex, and by 3 personal ways of doing things and how you live that affect you physically e.g. quiet times, solitude, exercise and good food. Point being it all comes down to physicality and doesn't require a god, or a spirituality, or even really a separate mind.  

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

However, people more advanced than me have mastered this "shutting down" the outer senses that they are not perturbed by external inputs. Some people can meditate on the snow in the Himalayas, for example.

 

I bet they are not naked when meditating in the snow. They surely must rely upon external, material clothing to prevent frostbite. Are you suggesting that deep meditation can prevent frostbite?

 

Frostbite can cause permanent damage to the limbs. I don't believe even the most experienced guru or meditator can prevent frostbite occurring in an extremely cold environment without the material protection of clothing.

 

The suffering that Buddhism addresses is the unnecessary suffering resulting from the mental exaggeration of the basic processes of pain. The basic feeling of pain is an essential biological process for our survival. It's a message which informs the mind that something is wrong with the body. If one is able to completely ignore such messages of pain, and one does so in certain circumstances, then one could die.

 

"It might sound extreme, but I think that if you are not the master of your mind, then you are its slave. If you believe you are the mind/body, then you are its slave. There is only one way to find out whether this is true or not. Practice looking within regularly. "

 

I completely agree that we should strive to be in control our mind, thoughts, and desires, as much as possible. Most people seem unable to have sufficient control of their thoughts and desires, which is the cause of many (if not all) of the problems in the world.

 

An obvious example is the prevalence of obesity. It should be obvious to anyone with basic intelligence, that overweight and obesity is not healthy and is caused by eating too much. The solution is very simple. Eat less and exercise more.
When I see a politician, or religious leader, who is significantly overweight, I tend to think 'this is crazy'. Here's a man (or woman) who is seeking a position of control over other people, yet they don't even have a basic control over their own eating habits.

[Sunmaster]

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I bet they are not naked when meditating in the snow. They surely must rely upon external, material clothing to prevent frostbite. Are you suggesting that deep meditation can prevent frostbite?

 

Frostbite can cause permanent damage to the limbs. I don't believe even the most experienced guru or meditator can prevent frostbite occurring in an extremely cold environment without the material protection of clothing.

 

The suffering that Buddhism addresses is the unnecessary suffering resulting from the mental exaggeration of the basic processes of pain. The basic feeling of pain is an essential biological process for our survival. It's a message which informs the mind that something is wrong with the body. If one is able to completely ignore such messages of pain, and one does so in certain circumstances, then one could die.

 

"It might sound extreme, but I think that if you are not the master of your mind, then you are its slave. If you believe you are the mind/body, then you are its slave. There is only one way to find out whether this is true or not. Practice looking within regularly. "

 

I completely agree that we should strive to be in control our mind, thoughts, and desires, as much as possible. Most people seem unable to have sufficient control of their thoughts and desires, which is the cause of many (if not all) of the problems in the world.

 

An obvious example is the prevalence of obesity. It should be obvious to anyone with basic intelligence, that overweight and obesity is not healthy and is caused by eating too much. The solution is very simple. Eat less and exercise more.
When I see a politician, or religious leader, who is significantly overweight, I tend to think 'this is crazy'. Here's a man (or woman) who is seeking a position of control over other people, yet they don't even have a basic control over their own eating habits.

You'd be surprised at what the mind is capable of doing when trained properly:
Meditation changes temperatures — Harvard Gazette

[HK MacPhooey]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:38 PM, quandow said:

I believe life had some sort of intelligent design, and as I've pulled human remains out of a submerged plane crash and observed the lack of life, there is something about humans having a soul. It's even been weighed. As much as the method used to weigh the soul was sloppy science, I think the bible is sloppy narrative. Jesus was a short dark guy, not the European with flowing brown hair currently selling His book. It's been rewritten so many times with so many inconsistencies that it's difficult to fathom anyone taking it 100% seriously. There ARE many good parables, the lessons are good standards to apply to your walk through life. Do I believe we were created? Yes. Do I believe in the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God? No.

Hope you're not offended by CharlieH above😅

[owl sees all]

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Excellent comment.

But may I suggest to use the term 'reacting mind' instead of 'thinking mind' as there is very little thinking gong on in that part of your mind, because it are mere automatic responses to external stimuli. The responses can be physical, emotional or mental, which each type of person having a preference (or rather a routine habit response).

Silencing that 'reacting mind' will allow the 'observing mind', the quiet spectator at the back of the room, which is your real I or essence to momentarily take over. And with that comes the realization that 99.95 % of the time we are nothing more than automatons jumping like monkeys from one branch to another with no control over that reacting mind which we mistakenly see as our True I.

But with 'self-remembering' practice the glimpses of Real I can become longer, and once the Master has awakened - even if it is only for less than a minute every week - he won't be satisfied with his pure spectator role and will start whispering to you.  And as a result your outlook and what you encounter in life will slowly but drastically change.  Once you tasted this, it will dawn on you that there is NOTHING more important in life than awakening that 'observing mind' but of course it will be a long hard struggle with your 'reacting mind' which does not want to give up its illegitimate Master role.  

Have to be happy within oneself. Have to come to terms with all those little things that we would - turning the clock back - do differently. Must be content/happy that the future is the best we can make it.

 

We are all accidents of birth. People in the world are suffering; they always have done so down the ages. Are we simply lucky; or they unlucky?

 

Must be content to know that we are on nature's trail. But! Is that enough? Is it our duty to love. We are a part of nature. We can live with it; or fight against it. Humankind is nature.

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You'd be surprised at what the mind is capable of doing when trained properly:
Meditation changes temperatures — Harvard Gazette

 

That's an interesting article, Sunmaster, but the subject does need more research.

 

As I understand, the human body adapts to cold temperatures, given a sufficient amount of time. The monks in the study you linked, appear to be used to cold weather, but not the scientists doing the study. From the article: "Working in isolated monasteries in the foothills of the Himalayas proved extremely difficult." 

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the mind/body often over-reacts to experiences  which are interpreted as some sort of threat to our well-being, such as various types of stress, loss, discomfort, anxiety, pain, feelings of extreme cold or heat, and so on. I believe that control of the mind through meditation and mindful practices does help to reduce such over-reactions.

 

I would expect anyone who has been living in a cold climate in the Himalayas for a significant period would be able to withstand the cold weather much better than someone who is used to a warm climate. If they are well-practised meditators who have also acclimatised to the cold weather, as in this study, they should be able to increase that acclimatisation when meditating.

 

I'll address a couple of quotes from the Harvard Gazette artticle.
(1) "In a monastery in northern India, thinly clad Tibetan monks sat quietly in a room where the temperature was a chilly 40 degrees Fahrenheit."

 

40 degrees F is above the freezing point, and 'thinly clad' is a rather imprecise term for a scientific study. I imagine a 'thinly clad' Eskimo, who is used to much colder temperatures, would feel very comfortable  at 40 degrees F, without engaging in any meditation.

 

(2) "They also documented monks spending a winter night on a rocky ledge 15,000 feet high in the Himalayas. The sleep-out took place in February on the night of the winter full moon when temperatures reached zero degrees F. Wearing only woolen or cotton shawls, the monks promptly fell asleep on the rocky ledge, They did not huddle together and the video shows no evidence of shivering."

 

Now zero degrees F is certainly cold. That's around minus 17 degrees C. But note, 'temperatures reached zero degrees F'. That suggests the minimum temperature was zero degrees F. But for how long? 10 minutes? Perhaps most of the night was much warmer.

 

Also, 'wearing only woolen or cotton shawls'? One shawl, or perhaps two or three per monk? A woolen shawl can be used like a blanket.

 

The scientists engaged in this study, should have compared the Tibetan monks' reaction to the cold weather, with some Thai monks' reaction to the same weather. They would then be able measure the difference between normal adaption to extreme cold, and the controlled effect resulting from meditation.

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

That's an interesting article, Sunmaster, but the subject does need more research.

 

As I understand, the human body adapts to cold temperatures, given a sufficient amount of time. The monks in the study you linked, appear to be used to cold weather, but not the scientists doing the study. From the article: "Working in isolated monasteries in the foothills of the Himalayas proved extremely difficult." 

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the mind/body often over-reacts to experiences  which are interpreted as some sort of threat to our well-being, such as various types of stress, loss, discomfort, anxiety, pain, feelings of extreme cold or heat, and so on. I believe that control of the mind through meditation and mindful practices does help to reduce such over-reactions.

 

I would expect anyone who has been living in a cold climate in the Himalayas for a significant period would be able to withstand the cold weather much better than someone who is used to a warm climate. If they are well-practised meditators who have also acclimatised to the cold weather, as in this study, they should be able to increase that acclimatisation when meditating.

 

I'll address a couple of quotes from the Harvard Gazette artticle.
(1) "In a monastery in northern India, thinly clad Tibetan monks sat quietly in a room where the temperature was a chilly 40 degrees Fahrenheit."

 

40 degrees F is above the freezing point, and 'thinly clad' is a rather imprecise term for a scientific study. I imagine a 'thinly clad' Eskimo, who is used to much colder temperatures, would feel very comfortable  at 40 degrees F, without engaging in any meditation.

 

(2) "They also documented monks spending a winter night on a rocky ledge 15,000 feet high in the Himalayas. The sleep-out took place in February on the night of the winter full moon when temperatures reached zero degrees F. Wearing only woolen or cotton shawls, the monks promptly fell asleep on the rocky ledge, They did not huddle together and the video shows no evidence of shivering."

 

Now zero degrees F is certainly cold. That's around minus 17 degrees C. But note, 'temperatures reached zero degrees F'. That suggests the minimum temperature was zero degrees F. But for how long? 10 minutes? Perhaps most of the night was much warmer.

 

Also, 'wearing only woolen or cotton shawls'? One shawl, or perhaps two or three per monk? A woolen shawl can be used like a blanket.

 

The scientists engaged in this study, should have compared the Tibetan monks' reaction to the cold weather, with some Thai monks' reaction to the same weather. They would then be able measure the difference between normal adaption to extreme cold, and the controlled effect resulting from meditation.

Your points are valid on some level, but I think you are overthinking it. The point is not to find some alternative explanation to what is being described, but to examine the explanation given by those who are studying the phenomena and more importantly, those who are actually doing it. In this case it is mastering a specific mediation technique that, as a byproduct, allows for a remarkable control over the body and the senses.

Would this explanation be really so preposterous that other even less likely scenarios have to be conjured up?

I mean, you could think of a hundred different explanations, but why not focus on the one given? Instead of investigating 100 different explanations, investigate the one offered and come to your own conclusion whether it is true or not. That's just common sense really.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/22/2024 at 2:42 PM, save the frogs said:

yeah, we're supposed to feel empathy for you because you don't have a harem.

your posts are having the opposite effect on me. 

 

I didn't ask you to have empathy or any other emotion for me, so go take a long hike with your faux complaints.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/22/2024 at 4:25 PM, owl sees all said:

Nature is god. 

 

It is sometimes vicious, sometimes violent but never ugly. It's humans that make the world ugly.

 

Understand nature. Understand the world. Understand one-self.

 

Ugly is a human construct. Nature just is, and we interpret it as we will. I'm sure a farmer seeing his crops drowned sees the rain as an enemy, while I love it ( as long as I'm looking at it and not getting wet in it ).

 

I think a cockroach is very ugly, but I'm sure that a male cockroach thinks a female cockroach is just peachy.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:01 PM, VincentRJ said:

But the environment can exist without a human mind and brain, so what is the true source of all experiences?
 

Isn't that like asking if a tree falling without any animal to hear it makes a sound?

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Have to be happy within oneself. Have to come to terms with all those little things that we would - turning the clock back - do differently. Must be content/happy that the future is the best we can make it.

 

We are all accidents of birth. People in the world are suffering; they always have done so down the ages. Are we simply lucky; or they unlucky?

 

Must be content to know that we are on nature's trail. But! Is that enough? Is it our duty to love. We are a part of nature. We can live with it; or fight against it. Humankind is nature.

Are we simply lucky; or they unlucky?

 

Excellent question.

Some on here apparently think that we make our life ourselves ie we make the things happen that make us happy or otherwise. I disagree, as if I made my life happen I must hate myself.

 

Apparently some believe that a higher power can intervene and provide the means by which they can be happy, and pray to ask the higher power to give them stuff.

 

Others, myself included, think life happens all of itself, and we just react to it.

 

Obviously, the last cohort believe it's just luck. I was lucky to be born of reasonably well off middle class parents in a safe country, who were able to have me educated and stay healthy, till I went off on my own. Would I be of the same mind if I had been born in Gaza? I doubt it.

 

Did I create my life myself, do I think God intervened and implanted me into a certain egg in a certain woman or do I think it's just random chance that put me where I was born? Obviously the last option.

[Hummin]

On 2/22/2024 at 4:25 AM, owl sees all said:

Nature is god. 

 

It is sometimes vicious, sometimes violent but never ugly. It's humans that make the world ugly.

 

Understand nature. Understand the world. Understand one-self.

 

Simple and beautiful as it is!

 

Enjoy the pure moment, a fraction of time we are here, right here right now. Thats all we have to understand

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I would expect anyone who has been living in a cold climate in the Himalayas for a significant period would be able to withstand the cold weather much better than someone who is used to a warm climate.

I can vouch for that. During the year I spent in Antarctica ( outside temperature from - 4 degrees C to more than - 30 degrees C, and I spent most of my day outside ) my shirt neck size got larger by 1 inch, and I was able to stay outside comfortably, wearing only a thin track suit, which would never have happened at the start.

 

We all learned the 30 30 30 rule on orientation

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,914801,00.html

when exposed to a 30-m.p.h. wind at —30° F., human flesh freezes solid in 30 seconds.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Your points are valid on some level, but I think you are overthinking it. The point is not to find some alternative explanation to what is being described, but to examine the explanation given by those who are studying the phenomena and more importantly, those who are actually doing it. In this case it is mastering a specific mediation technique that, as a byproduct, allows for a remarkable control over the body and the senses.

Would this explanation be really so preposterous that other even less likely scenarios have to be conjured up?

I mean, you could think of a hundred different explanations, but why not focus on the one given? Instead of investigating 100 different explanations, investigate the one offered and come to your own conclusion whether it is true or not. That's just common sense really.

 

 

Did you miss the following point I made in the post you are responding to?

 

"As I mentioned in a previous post, the mind/body often over-reacts to experiences  which are interpreted as some sort of threat to our well-being, such as various types of stress, loss, discomfort, anxiety, pain, feelings of extreme cold or heat, and so on. I believe that control of the mind through meditation and mindful practices does help to reduce such over-reactions."

 

The results of this experiment are interesting, as I mentioned, but not surprising.
Science is a continuous process of experimentation and enquiry, in order to improve our understanding.
To continue this experiemnt and increase our understanding of the potential power of meditation, I would suggest comparing the reactions of experienced Thai monks, who are used to warm weather, with the reaction of non-meditating Eskimos who are used to cold weather, both sleeping with the same type of clothing in the same cold weather.

 

If it was discovered that the Thai monks were able to sleep as peacfully as the Eskimos, or even more peacefully, in those same conditions, that would be remarkable, and surprising for me.