brain stimulation #2: freedom is a state of mind

[anglaismoyen]

Are you are practicing Buddhist or do you just take inspiration from its ideas, like me?

[junior00bacon00chee]

both. i do meditate, altho i dont feel ive experienced any significant transformation.

[09m]

But for the elephant to get away from that shrub would still take SOME effort. Yes the elehant could easily break away from the shrub, but you made it seem like to be free takes NO effort.

[peanarchist]

Every time I watch this I get the butterflies...

What an incredibly genius video.

[junior00bacon00chee]

why thank you sir, im glad u enjoy!

[Gettinghitonattheban]

By the way, I'm thinking of using that story.

Can I borrow the source?

[junior00bacon00chee]

buddhism (d0t) kalachakranet (dot)org/resources/buddhist_st­ories (dot) html#other

[Cres45]

Awesome!

[jasonnm72]

Good post.

Freedom is inherent.

[samuelmichaud]

Thanks for sharing. I've been thinking this way for quite some time. Good to see this all wrapped up in a nice little video.

[D4Shawn]

After being very "into" Buddhism for many years, I finally came to the conclusion that it's one of the least productive movements on the planet. It's always about doing absolutely nothing. I'm far more impressed by someone who can play the guitar, or build a house than I am with someone who can wax eloquently about doing absolutely nothing.

[junior00bacon00chee]

thats ok the buddha still loves you

[samuelmichaud]

I heard somewhere that it's about killing the ego. Isn't that a little bit like killing the self? lol

[D4Shawn]

Yeah... self-denial could be considered psychic suicide just as dropping out of society to join a monastery could also be seen as a pointless negation of life.

[samuelmichaud]

Exactly, but 'could be considered' does not establish a fact. I think it's just another form of explorationism*. It's not a word apparently, but you get the point.

[D4Shawn]

We're dealing with metaphors here. You can't literally "kill" the ego (which is just a concept anyways), so facts have no bearing on the discussion. One thing I don't like about Buddhism is the way they never explain anything in a straightforward/literal way. For example, they don't say "focus on what you're doing". Instead they say, "Be in the moment". "Ego annihilation" might mean something, but until someone explains it in concrete/non-metaphorical terms, we can't know what it refers to.

[samuelmichaud]

I guess it's the mode of thinking they suggest is the best. A lose sort of thing where you're left flexible to interpret things in your own style...but as a religion they don't want it in your own logic. When you're thinking is concrete you limit yourself to a few interpretations of the thing in question. I don't know if Buddhism frowns upon certain pieces of knowledge... certain types of book....science and whatnot. do you know? Maybe they're just an interesting attempt at proficiency.

[D4Shawn]

Even if Buddhists prefer to express themselves poetically/philosophically, I

a) don't think they're particularly great at it (it's not like all the best poets and philosophers in the world are Buddhists), and

b) don't see how denial of the self, society, and productivity is at all advantageous to contemplation, intellectual growth, or poetic/philosophic excellence. They're no better at any of that stuff than any other secular artist/intellectual.

[junior00bacon00chee]

yeah. it is just a bunch of ideas and ways of thinking, you can take from it whatever you want. i don't consider myself a buddhist, i just try to judge ideas based upon their own merits, not what particular words they happened to be attached to.

i would tend to disagree with letter b) somewhat, but i can see your points here.

[samuelmichaud]

As I said, It's a flexibility in thought. The dimensions in which you think. It's not a Buddhist thing. Nor a religious thing. But Buddhism seems to promote it, ad least on some level. I don't know much about it.

[D4Shawn]

I don't think it's flexibility of thought; I think it's laziness of thought. Poetry is not philosophy - it's art (which is totally different). When people speak in metaphors, but aren't poets, it usually means they're full of crap (talking nonsense). If people want to consider Buddhism a form of performance art, that's fine. But usually, Buddhism is marketed as having philosophical value, in which case, the ideas put forth by Buddhists can be evaluated/scrutinized for meaning/logic/truth.

[junior00bacon00chee]

not to my knowledge, i know the dalai lama likes to meet with scientists.

but if you take anything from buddhism it should be some interesting ideas and ways of thinking, etc., no reason to engage in every last scripture and cultural tradition, unless that is your thing.

[junior00bacon00chee]

yeah i mean im not an expert or a buddhist, i just think it is interesting.

they don't try to "kill the ego" so much as "realize that there is no ego already."

[D4Shawn]

The only thing dissolving the ego could refer to is getting high (more or less). Since the ego is the self/sense of self, for there to be no ego would be to say that one was able to cease drawing conceptual distinctions between individual things. If that were possible, the only practical application of such a mental state would be pleasure (since one could hardly function in such a state). To me, it's no more impressive than doing heroin or LSD (which is a much easier way to get high).

[junior00bacon00chee]

Not sure id agree so much with that analysis. The whole concept of the self seems, to me, to be based in the assumption that oneself is separate from the world, which I could not agree with. You are composed of the same reality as the rest of the universe and are not fundamentally different from it. The sense of self makes you feel like you are some independent entity that exists on its own.

[D4Shawn]

Obviously, everything is composed of atoms and whatnot (matter/energy), so yes, everything shares the same underlying building blocks. Also, we DO live in an environment/universe. I would disagree with none of that. However, the ego is an aspect of consciousness (which is not shared by all matter). Consciousness (by definition) is individual (subjective). The "sense of self" comes from being conscious (not from being composed of matter or existing within the universe).

[MABUS01]

I would have to disagree in that there are many possible types of consciousness. Consciousness is not a result of the ego, but ego is one of the many products of a consciousness just as memory and perception. I would have to say that the self is probably an emergent defense mechanism for the survival of an organism, but that is not to say that it is entirely rational.

[samuelmichaud]

Exactly. I like that they promote this equilibrium. To realize that there is many sides to one object.

I guess what is attractive about it is the fact that it is flexible as a "religion" and romantic(aesthetics). It promotes evolution of thought;cumulative consensus.

This religion thing is usually a conservative thing. This one is an alternative for people who must have religion.

But religion imo can be anything. Religious.

Something like... a rockstar's fanbase. Or punk rock. A way of life?

[junior00bacon00chee]

I usually define religion as engaging in a belief system founded on faith and dogma rather than reason and logic. For many i think politics fits this criteria.

Buddhism does make claims which are more than "poetic" but i can see how its tendency to be vague on certain things can rub people the wrong way. Reason and logic are important in Buddhism, but experience is the most important.  It is about trying to transform your experience of the world.

[D4Shawn]

"It promotes evolution of thought"

I'd say that's pretty much the opposite of the truth. Religions (including Buddhism) don't evolve. They are ways of thought that were invented thousands of years ago when people were very ignorant and they haven't really changed since. Religions don't adapt. We can see this just by looking at the clothes religious leaders wear. They are stuck in ancient times (both in thought and way of life). It is anti-evolution (stagnation).

[samuelmichaud]

I agree. They ARE still religions.

Although more people have the choices of atheism and agnosticism now days... Not very many live free without the dogma of corrupt government.

[junior00bacon00chee]

i know, yet i cant stop running all the scenarios and factors through my head. i want to know now dammit. guess we will just have to wait and see.

[junior00bacon00chee]

haha not really. that is the question, isn't it?

my hope is that when the economy has completely crumbled that people will stop complying to a great extent, ie, with tax revolts and the like. or maybe people will just surrender the rest of their sovereignty easier. who knows.

all empires fall apart though, right? hopefully no one complies with whatever new powers try to take hold.

[AnarchyIsForMe]

I completely disagree I am not free, I am bound by the stupidity of others (the alternative is to leave it or use it, which I don't want to). Even if the masses get smarter I will still be at the mercy of their intelligence and whether or not they regress or not.

[survivalstuffonline]

nice

[seneca4295]

Yup, that pretty much sums it.

We are born free, we don't need government approval for it!

[UcanbeGOD]

Right on! Good philosophy, I don't care that much for the religions that those teachings are based on but sometimes there are some beautiful and clever writing connected to them.

[junior00bacon00chee]

definitely. there is a lot to appreciate in buddhist teachings, and im no expert or buddhist, but they have some interesting ways of thinking. but of course you have to take it with some serious salt since scriptures are ultimately ancient scribblings.

[Chandlerbin2006]

Good video.