The Contrarian

Brain Dharma.

Image: Alex Grey

David Brooks has a very interesting Op-Ed in today's New York Times, called "The Neural Buddhists." The piece posits a near future where advances in neuroscience lead to a new understanding of the transcendental experience. This means a major challenge to Judeo-Christian religious hegemony.

Instead of science reaffirming a trend towards materialism, it will present a broader view of mental processes and their mystical/ethical implications."The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible," Brooks writes.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. . . the mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is. . .

. . .the real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

I say right on. Read the full piece here.

The Nonconceptual Awareness of Intrinsic Reality.

Tibet Still Needs Freeing.

In case you were wondering. . .

Kicks My Ass.

"If you have not fully realized the nature of emptiness and are merely adept at talking about it, you have not perfectly understood the Middle Way. Awareness and wisdom both have to be present. Just to talk about emptiness will not bring about the intimate realization of the view in your own experience."

So-called great meditators who fail to realize this,
Afraid that their practice will starve itself to death,
Are zealously torturing themselves.
What's the point of that?

- The Great Medicine That Conquers Clinging to the Notion of Reality, Shechen Rabjam

Screw the Presidency. . . Is Hillary Clinton the Next Dalai Lama?

"Who's the most progressive Lama in exile? I can't hear you!"

Can Hillary Clinton prove herself worthy of shepherding sentient beings across countless kalpas of confusion to the nirvana of total awakening? She might wanna bone up on the Four Nobe Truths, 'cause the current Dalai Lama claims he's got no problem with a woman becoming the most holy figure in Tibetan Buddhism. And she doesn't have to be from Tibet, either. From the Buddhist Channel:

"If a woman reveals herself as more useful the lama could very well be reincarnated in this form," the 14th Dalai Lama told reporters in Milan, where he arrived for a private visit on Wednesday.

The Contrarian Media Group was unable to reach Clinton for comment.

The Dalai Lama's feminist declaration comes hot on the heels of his pronouncement that he may upend centuries of tradition by placing the Lama-pickin' before a popular vote.

This guy is just plain awesome.

Tuesday Trifles.

My Nadja review is up at Dusted. Check it out; there's an MP3 posted, too.

Just about to head off to Falls Church, VA, to bring back the guitars and sundry from last Sunday's house party.

One last thing, re: Buddhism v. Transhumanism: it seems accurate to say that science desires absoulutes, even when the only way forward is to indulge the theoretical. Buddhism, on the other hand, does not neccesarily require categorical definitives. Although it doesn't deny the validity of scienttific discovery, Buddhism's general cosmological orientation is based on the idea of "no fixed quality," which thereby undermines such demands for certainty. The nature of reality is apprehended subjectively, but Buddhist practice seeks to reframe said subjectivity in an infinitely vast field of possibility — spontaneously, and in the here and now. So I still intuit a subtle conflict between human enhancement and Buddhist tradition. But I certainly appreciate George Dvorsky's perspective.

Never got to see No Country for Old Men, but Candleblog also raves. Maybe this weekend. . .

Thanks for playing.

Buddhism vs. Transhumanism.

After yesterday's long-ass post about the Dalai Lama, I figured we might as well stay on the Buddhist tip.

Found an interesting article at thinkBuddha.org about Transhumanism — another abiding interest of mine.

The blogger at thinkBuddha was forthright in admitting his relative ignorance of Transhumanism; the reason he was writing about it at all was because of a seemingly unfavorable New Scientist article about cognitive scientist and Transhumanist Marvin Minski.

As a practicing Buddhist with a layman's interest in technological development and its impact on culture and civilization, I read the post with great interest.

According to current definitions, Transhumanism is an "intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death."

A lot of that seems at odds with the basic tenets of Buddhism, which regards the sloppy bad crap of life as the fertile manure from which the lotus of enlightenment sprouts. Of course, one could counter that Buddhism itself is a self-improvement trip. But that's somewhat off the mark. Buddhism seeks to improve conditions not through transcendence, but rather acceptance. This acceptance is hardly an ignorant, "oh well" approach to things, however. There's an almost scientific approach to the examination of consciousness, until the neurosis brought on by attachment to ego is exposed under the all-encompassing light of realization.

I'm also interested in Transhumanism, but recognize the enormous ethical implications human enhancement will bring about. We never really reconciled the last century's misguided stabs at eugenics, and I dare say that DNA tweaking and bio/nanotech "add-ons" will create a political shitstorm the likes of which humanity has never seen.

And this technology isn't in some far-off sci-fi future, either. Given technological measures such as Moore's Law, some observers suggest we're at the cusp of a Singularity. But that's another story. Kind of.

I haven't yet reconciled my personal Buddhist practice with possible technological "improvements" to my biological self. Like the Christian philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, I do believe that the universe (or God) seeks to know itself, and technological progress is a function of evolution. Hell, everything can be expressed by data.

Of course, it's probable that everything can also be expressed by feeling and karmic connectivity. You know, like, rocks having souls an' shit.

Are they both sides of the same coin? Is the universe an infinitely macro and micro orderly chaos machine? Are the mandalas of Buddhism actually spiritual representations of fractal expression?

Are you there, George Dvorsky? It's me, Casey.

Bye, Bye Dalai?

Photo by Phil Borges

Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, wants his followers to decide whether or not he reincarnates. Sorta like "American Idol," but with monks.

Unfortunstely, the Chinese government has declared authority in choosing the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Seems they're not satisfied with micromanaging the lives of their more than 1 billion citizens (including those in Tibet) — they want to meddle in their afterlives, too. That's right, those tainted-toy making commies r in ur Nirvana pickin ur Lamas.

But the 14th and current Dalai Lama — believed to be the reincarnation of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion — isn't taking it sitting down, in full-lotus position or otherwise. From The Buddhist Channel website:

The exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader proposed yesterday to hold a referendum among his 13-14 million followers around the world — before his death — on whether he should be reincarnated or not.

If the majority vote against it he said he would simply not be reborn, ending a lineage that tradition dictates dates back to the late 14th century, when a young shepherd was appointed the first Dalai Lama.

If the vote was in favour he said that he might appoint a reincarnation while he was still alive, breaking the 600-year-old tradition of being reborn as a small boy after his death.

His proposals not only raise some mind-bending metaphysical questions: they put China’s atheist Communist leaders in the unusual position of claiming to be the protectors of Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

The 72 year-old Lama is in excellent health, but wants to ensure that Tibet has a say in its spiritual leadership. How can you not love this guy? He's a Progressive Democrat! Could you imagine Pope Benedictine XVI allowing the world's Catholics to vote for their next Funny Hat Guy? Never happen.

As the Dalai Lama himself says:

"As early as 1969 I made it clear that [whether] the very institution of the Dalai Lama continue or not, is up to the Tibetan people. So [if] the majority of the Tibetan people should feel the centuries old institution of the Dalai Lama [is] no longer much relevant then the Dalai Lama institution automatically will cease. . . The very purpose of reincarnation is to carry the task which started by previous life, which is not yet accomplished. If my death comes while we are still as refugees then my reincarnation logically will come outside Tibet, who can eventually carry the work which I started."

What's amusing to me is how the Chinese government is fighting to preserve the traditions of a nation they refuse to recognize:

“The reincarnation of the living Buddha is a unique way of succession of Tibetan Buddhism and follows relatively complete religious rituals and historical conventions,” the Foreign Ministry statement said. “The Dalai Lama’s statement is in blatant violation of religious practice and historical procedure.”

This from the country that, a handful of decades ago, tried to wipe out Buddhist monks like the Empire eradicated Jedi.

I like that the Dalai Lama is placing the choice before worldwide practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism.

Does this mean I get to vote?

Here We Go Again.

Here's an interview with Thom Yorke, published by Shambhala Sun back in 1998. I actually remember reading it at Buddhist center in between sittings. Psyched to find it online. It doesn't necessarily shore up my thesis, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I Lied! Radiohead, from a Buddhist Perspective.

We're having a little discussion on the Dusted board about Charlie Wilmoth's review of In Rainbows. Wilmoth himself asked me to amplify my statement about Thom Yorke's "Dear John letter to samsara." So I did. I'm reprinting my reply here, because I think I made an OK (Computer!) case. . .

Radiohead started out sounding like a bright, sensitive kid who occasionally threw tantrums because of his/her inability to cope with the world's a): callousness b): aggression c): duplicity. The Bends provides great examples. Well, besides the outright love songs. But what are love songs really, besides a form of grasping?

Such tantrum-throwing takes a lot of energy. Eventually a kind of resignation emerges: too tired to fight, but still kvetching under the breath.

Yet the space between railing at the world and almost giving up creates an opportunity for self-examination, which can be quite painful.

Enter OK Computer. Let's not focus on the Floydian dystopic aspects for a moment and instead examine the emotional arc. The narrator is an observer, one who feels guilty in his own complicity with the myopic, greedy and self-serving world around him. He wears the garb of the Accuser, but the clothes don't quite fit right anymore. Could the problem be how he is relating to the world? Attempts are made to reconcile Self with Other, but there are still tantrums, such as in "Karma Police," which is a kind of pun on the whole process. The narrator again indulges in what he is coming to learn is an ineffective attitude; he lines up the "guilty" in the hopes that they receive their "Just" deserts. At the end of the song, he realizes his folly, exclaiming, "phew — for a minute there, I lost myself." Which I take to be both funny and deadly serious. There's still a safe home base to run back to. But for how long?

By Kid A, the narrator is truly committed to the act of eradicating Self. The accusatory tone is still somewhat present, but instead of casting aspersion, he tries to "disappear completely" and leave the whole sorry mess behind. Of course that's impossible.

Amnesiac follows the same theme.

The clouds have parted some on Hail to The Thief, but the result is a pretty generic political-rock album, as performed by Radiohead — a notoriously unspecific band. So it comes across as weak salsa.

The new one picks up where Amnesiac left off, but now the narrator seems to have made peace with the fact that there is no escape from samsara, being that all causes and conditions spring from mental activity. For the first time in a while, there is actually joy in
dealing with the world, and the perspective switches from that of accuser to instructor. There are admonishments to mindfulness and widened perspective throughout the record, with the overall message being, "It's OK, just remember that there is space, and nothing is fixed or permanent." I view this as a particularly Mahayana message. . .

So that's really it. I swear on Jonny Greenwood's cheekbones.