Showing posts with label spiritual materialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spiritual materialism. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Dangerous American Myth of Corporate Spirituality (via Salon)

Spiritual materialism and spiritual bypassing are alive and well and sponsored by corporate America . . . because greed. This article from Salon barely scratches the surface.


The dangerous American myth of corporate spirituality

How invocations of "karma" and Zen are being used to justify deeply unequal systems of power 





The dangerous American myth of corporate spirituality  
Steve Jobs, Satya Nadalla (Credit: AP/Paul Sakuma/Brendan McDermid/rnl, Kaveryn Kiryl via Shutterstock/Salon)
Recently, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella gave some shocking advice to a young businesswoman who was concerned that her male peers were passing her up for promotions: Don’t question the systemic sexism of corporate America, just trust in “good karma” to get you ahead. While his attitude made waves in the blogosphere, in fact it accurately represents a form of spirituality that is becoming popular in the West.

You know what I’m talking about. When I go to yoga, I’m often surrounded by wealthy white women who can afford expensive classes and Lululemon threads. When I scroll through my Facebook feed, I see exclamations of bourgeois spirituality (“Staying at the Waldorf tonight! #gratitude #blessed #100happydays #livelife”). Moreover, my actor friends seem to use karma and positivity as tools to help them achieve commercial success.

We might call this a belief in spiritual meritocracy. The implicit idea here is that our professional and financial growth depends on our spiritual merit, not on the presence or absence of social structures and biases. We are told that if we are grateful enough, if we put enough happy energy into the universe, then we will be rewarded with material wealth and earthly pleasures. (Think The Secret.) We are told that we actually can have it all: a rich spiritual life, leading to a rich material life.

Of course, this is just the new-agey equivalent of the same old meritocracy myth that’s been floating around America since at least the 19th century; that in the land of the free, anyone can become rich if they just work hard enough, if they use the right brand of elbow grease.

Unless you are a rich Republican, decades of widening economic inequality should tell you how faulty this story is. While it is true that most successful people work hard, the meritocracy myth works more to justify an existing social hierarchy than to inspire us to make positive social changes.
So, for the same reason we look suspiciously on Horatio Alger-esque theories of social mobility, we ought to also be skeptical of their spiritual version, which says that underserved groups can get ahead not by standing up to power, but by focusing on love and positivity.

It’s times like these when I am reminded of Slavoj Zizek’s summary dismissal of “Western Buddhism.” Zizek cautions that while meditation may seem to come from an edgy counterculture, in fact Americans practice it in a way that is often consistent with consumerist capitalism:
“… although ‘Western Buddhism’ presents itself as the remedy against the stressful tension of capitalist dynamics, allowing us to uncouple and retain inner peace and Gelassenheit, it actually functions as its perfect ideological supplement … One is almost tempted to resuscitate the old infamous Marxist cliché of religion as the ‘opium of the people,’ as the imaginary supplement to terrestrial misery. The ‘Western Buddhist’ meditative stance is arguably the most efficient way for us to fully participate in capitalist dynamics while retaining the appearance of mental sanity … ”
In other words, rather than helping yogis become more socially conscious spiritual warriors, Buddhist meditation can get hijacked by the status quo. It only brings us a shallow peace that makes us less likely to question what counts as normal.

For the last seven years I have dedicated myself to a Buddhist meditation practice, and I believe that there is some truth to Zizek’s harsh critique. As I have become more skilled, I have enjoyed moments of sublime bliss. And the more mindfulness I developed, the better I got at daily activities. I got a little better at surfing, playing poker, driving; the truth is, meditation helps me achieve whatever goals I set for myself, whether that’s being kinder to my friends and family, or earning more money.

One problem with a capitalist-inflected Buddhism is that it can lead us to a kind of spiritual cul de sac. I found that my practice was in an uneasy tension with my leftist politics. I found myself attracted to a glamorous Santa Barbara lifestyle that left me feeling unfulfilled and disappointed. I found that it became easy to deal with disturbing images in the news by dismissing the suffering of others as the karmic products of their own poor decisions. (They’re just not being positive enough!)
Yes, I found myself tempted by tales of spiritual meritocracy.

Overall, I am happy that my Facebook friends and yoga moms are finding spiritual enrichment. But I believe that focusing only on the joyful aspects of spirituality can get us into trouble, if we aren’t careful. Every religion can get appropriated by the West’s consumerist ideology, and Buddhism is no exception. When we cultivate gratitude for our material wealth and ignore compassion for those less fortunate, comments like those of Nadella are a natural consequence.

In traditional forms of Buddhism, there are bits and pieces of teachings on karma that capitalism loves to pick up on. Our society emphasizes an interpretation of Eastern spirituality that does not threaten its own internal logic. It’s true, for example, that the Buddha taught that money was a blessing, and that one effect of an ethical way of life would be material prosperity. But it is hard for me to believe the Buddha would say that wealth inequality is solely the result of karmic patterns, and that we should ignore its hidden histories of slavery, colonialism and patriarchy.

The good news is that there may be a spiritual antidote for what Tibetan teacher Trungpa Rinpoche called “spiritual materialism.” And I’m not talking about intermittent bouts of Catholic guilt. I’m suggesting that if we work to complement our gratitude with mercy and compassion for those who are less fortunate, we can move away from the surface-level spirituality that is really just materialism in disguise. And this may be what the world needs more than ever.

There are plenty of opportunities for us to be compassionate. For example, as scientists’ long-term projections of the effects of climate change become more and more dire, somehow American denial of anthropogenic global warming is on the rise. This kind of denial is only possible if it is not met with compassion for those who are already facing the extreme weather of hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina, like the hard-hit women who are struggling to survive after flash floods destroy their communities. Cultivating compassion for those we usually ignore — whether that’s women in the global south who are facing the ugly end of natural disasters, inmates of American prisons, or businesswomen who make 20 percent less than men who do in the same job — is therefore both a spiritual and political imperative.
 
The point is not that we give up on Western spirituality, as Zizek seems to suggest. The teachings of Eastern religions are becoming more mainstream in America, but this is an opportunity as well as a cautionary tale. As we develop a more conscious lifestyle, let’s ask ourselves if we are deepening our spirituality, or just falling for the myth of spiritual meritocracy. May all beings be free from pain and suffering.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Buddhist Geeks 330: Quantifying Mindfulness


Vince Horn speaks with neuroscientist David Vago and philosopher Jake Davis in part two of this two-part Buddhist Geeks Podcast. Part one is here. Good stuff.

BG 330: Quantifying Mindfulness
by Jake Davis




Podcast: Download

Episode Description:

Jake Davis is a philosopher and Buddhist practitioner and David Vago is a Contemplative neuroscientist. Together they are at the forefront of the scientific investigation of Enlightenment.

In this episode David and Jake conclude a conversation with host Vincent Horn concerning the scientific investigation of states of Enlightenment. They elaborate on the methods and motivations involved when attempting to quantify Enlightenment, discuss the pitfalls of spiritual materialism, and invite criticism and discussion to help inform and guide this scientific inquiry.

This is part two of a two part series.

Listen to part one – BG 329: A Neuroscience of Enlightenment.

Episode Links:



Jake Davis is a long-time practitioner. He spent time as a translator and monk in Burma, is currently focused on philosophical and cognitive science, and is specializing in philosophy of mind and ethics.

Website: Jake Davis – PhD

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Rabbi Alan Lurie - The Allure of Narcissistic Spirituality

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcOVp4PGuXMz-GfqvsdN0Vk9TVDe9w16dgUaZTiwM-OAb0qd1oG7fja3UxhUTBbqcZjwu3WUcOm_a3Xhh8oZZ36SvVNFxCH9oa9vHZra5n1-_zQM82EQz3keE3jhrFpFq4EcPP/s320/narcissus.jpg

Nice article - he works from a different definition of spirituality, but at least he defines his terms. Here is his working definition:
My acting definition is, "The experience of a transformative connection." In other words, spirituality is experienced -- it is not a concept or construct. It transforms us. It changes how we act, think and feel in all environments. And it is a connection -- a profound contact with something and someone outside of our selves.
This is close to one of Ken Wilber's four basic definitions (#4 is the closest):
I suggest that there are at least four widely used definitions of spirituality, each of which contains an important but partial truth, and all of which need to be included in any balanced account: (1) spirituality involves peak experiences or altered states, which can occur at almost any stage and any age; (2) spirituality involves the highest levels in any of the lines; (3) spirituality is a separate developmental line itself; (4) spirituality is an attitude (such as openness, trust, or love) that the self may or may not have at any stage.[20]
Anyway - spiritual narcissism has become an increasingly serious issue in many spiritual communities, including Western Buddhism. We may often see this as spiritual materialism and/or spiritual bypass.

The Allure of Narcissistic Spirituality

By Rabbi Alan Lurie (BIO)
Posted: January 6, 2011

Several months ago, my wife and I attended a prayer service at a synagogue that is well known for its spiritual, and spirited, approach. As we entered, the rabbi was leading a meditation. "Close your eyes and breathe in the peace of Shabbat [the Sabbath]." she said. "And on the out-breathe imagine that you are sending healing love to all beings." We passed a man who appeared to be deep in meditation. His eyes were closed, and through a slightly opened smile he slowly breathed in and out. As we moved to our seats, I accidentally stepped on his toe. He quickly turned toward me; his smile vanished and he angrily hissed, "Hey, watch it, buddy!"

In the irony of a person being angry at a stranger for accidentally interrupting his meditation about universal, unconditional love, this man demonstrated the disturbing, alluring and all-too common phenomenon of "spiritual narcissism."

To understand spiritual narcissism we must first understand the word "spirituality." My acting definition is, "The experience of a transformative connection." In other words, spirituality is experienced -- it is not a concept or construct. It transforms us. It changes how we act, think and feel in all environments. And it is a connection -- a profound contact with something and someone outside of our selves.

All three of these components are needed in order for spirituality to occur, but the most essential is that it be a connection -- between a person and the Divine, or between one person and another. Spiritual practices are designed to facilitate these connections, and begin with the knowledge that we have two selves: an ego-self and a true-Self. The ego-self is built on our strategy for ensuring that we are physically safe, stemming from our interpretation of the experiences of our lives (primarily our childhood) in which we determined what was required in order to survive. The ego-self may need to impress, dominate or control and sees others as either threats or tools. There is nothing inherently wrong with the ego-self; it is a necessary structure put in place so that we can survive in physical reality. But it is not who we really are, and we can not make a spiritual connection from it. Our true-Self, however, which is often referred to as our soul, contains the very purpose that we incarnated, and is in constant connection with Spirit/Consciousness/Creation/God. It sees others as fellow souls with equally needed purposes, and has compassion for the suffering that comes from the ego-self's attachment to things.

Spiritual practices help us to loosen the grip of the ego-self and to connect to the true-Self, so that we can live purposefully, be of service and participate in love. The central Biblical injunction to "Love your neighbor as yourself" is usually interpreted to mean that we must learn to love others, with the assumption that we already love ourselves. Literally translated, though, this line actually reads, "And you will [in the future tense] love your fellow in the same way that you love yourself." In other words, we will love another to the extent and in the way that we love ourselves. If you are harsh with yourself, you will be harsh with others. If you can not forgive yourself, you can not forgive others. In this way, this line is not a commandment, but is a statement of fact. The truth is that most of us do not love ourselves very well, and consequently we hurt others. This is why spiritual practices so often seek to teach us how to love ourselves, so that we can better love others. Real love naturally flows in two directions.

Spiritual practices becomes narcissistic, though, when the ego-self hijacks the process and assumes that it is the object of self love, becoming enamored of looking in the mirror and claiming that its reflection is the true-Self. Then we loose our way, forgetting that the purpose of learning to love ourselves is to become more open, kind and effective in interactions with others, and instead of opening our hearts with humility and compassion, we assume a position of superiority -- exactly what the ego desires for its safety. Spiritual narcissism sees self-love as the end goal. Spirituality to the ego-self is an object of attainment, much like fame, wealth, an expensive car and a sexy body.

Spiritual narcissism creates the pretense of holiness as an ego strategy to mask insecurity, receive approval, or avoid struggle and growth. "I'm a spiritual person" it proclaims proudly. "I travel to alternate realities, see auras, heal chakras, predict the future, talk to spirits, commune with angels, manipulate energies, meditate for three hours a day, harness the powers of the Universe to attract success. ... The truth is that I'm more evolved than you!" Deep spirituality makes us more sensitive to the feeling of others, encouraging an open stance of courage where we can drop our protective shields and accept the vulnerability to be seen as we are. Narcissistic sensitivity, however, is focused solely on the subtle nuances one's own internality, and resists looking at hard, uncomfortable truths that may upset the self image. One who is narcissistically sensitive is easily offended by the "coarseness" of others, seeks to make his environment change to align with the contours of his needs, and gets angry or offended when this does not happen.

At a seven-day spiritual silent meditation retreat that I recently attended, devoted to nourishing equanimity, attendees routinely wrote messages to the retreat leaders with complaints about others: one attendee complained that two days of progress was "ruined" by another attendee, who sent a note with the words "I love you," and another complained about someone who was walking too loudly on the leaves outdoors. And the leaders publicly scolded an individual who broke the rules by reading a book in public (in Jewish tradition, embarrassing someone in public is considered a very destructive and violent act, and is strictly forbidden). While complaining about others and shaming a rule-breaker at an event intended to teach equanimity is -- like the story in the beginning of this blog -- ironic, it teaches an important warning: The desire to control others in order to create a "perfect" environment that nurtures our sensitivities is a calling card of spiritual narcissism. It is not a spiritual feat to feel equanimity only when everything is going exactly as one would like. True spirituality takes place in the holy messiness of the world, in open-hearted relationship with others, and in a kind smile to one who accidentally stepped on your foot. In that moment of connection, one can clearly see that the annoyances and upsets are actually wake up calls pulling us out of our self-involvement and in to relationship.

The holiest prayer in the Jewish prayer book is the Amidah -- the "standing" prayer -- in which we are in soul connection to God, so that we can praise our Creator for the beauty and bounty of the world, ask for peace, health and understanding and express gratitude for our lives. What is surprising to many is that most of these prayers are in the plural form; we do not pray alone and for ourselves, but for everyone. In this prayer are words that are, for me, the summation of an antidote to the lure of narcissism: "Purify our hearts to be of service in truth." With this one powerful sentence we yearn to move beyond our ego-selves, and to know our true-Selves so that we can be a blessing to others. This is why Judaism teaches us to focus on acts of kindness: inviting someone to your house for lunch, treating a stranger with kindness and giving money to charity are the highest levels of spirituality.

Spiritual narcissism can be very appealing. I know because I also feel the tug, and too often succumb. But once we see how we are tempted to use the guise of spirituality to shield us from criticism, impress others and make us feel wise, its appeal begins to loosen, and we even find the humor in this upside-down dynamic. Then, we slowly see this as an all-too-human inclination, and as we forgive it in ourselves we can forgive it in others, knowing that we are fellow suffering, struggling, holy beings. As Martin Buber, author of I and Thou wrote, "When two people relate to each other authentically and humanly, God is the electricity that surges between them."

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Exposing Rhonda Byrne's Pseudoscience Nonsense

Entertaining . . . I love a good take-down.

Fight ‘The Power’

Published: September 24, 2010

Here is a lengthy section from the review, with all the relevant points you will need to dismiss this crap.

The law of attraction states that whatever you experience in life is a direct result of your thoughts. It really is that simple. If you think about being fat, you will get fatter. If you think about thin people, you will become thin yourself. If you think about your bills, you will get more bills, but if you think about checks instead, your mailbox will overflow with them. According to “The Secret” and “The Power,” your thoughts and feelings have magnetic properties and “frequencies.” They “vibrate” and resonate with the “universe,” somehow attracting events that share those frequencies back to their thinker.

“The Secret” and “The Power” deliver their wisdom in an ex cathedra voice reminiscent of the “Saturday Night Live” segment “Deep Thoughts.” And Byrne offers no scientific evidence for the absurd physics behind the law of attraction. But that doesn’t mean her books don’t take advantage of up-to-the-minute science. The problem is, it’s not the science she thinks it is.

The law of attraction has been around for millenniums; Byrne cites Plato, Galileo, Beethoven, Edison, Carnegie, Einstein and even Jesus himself as adepts. Just in the past century, it has been repeatedly expressed in essentially the same form as Byrne’s version by Wallace Wattles (“The Science of Getting Rich”), Napoleon Hill (“Think and Grow Rich”) and many other writers. Byrne’s idea of “the universe” plays the same role as Wattles’s “intelligent substance” or Hill’s “infinite intelligence” — a godlike agent that provides whatever we desire. Why is this particular pseudoscientific concept so persistent?

The message of “The Power” and “The Secret” might best be understood as an advanced meme — a sort of intellectual virus — whose structure has evolved throughout history to optimally exploit a suite of weaknesses in the design of the human mind. Had Byrne and the other purveyors of “The Secret” (including Oprah Winfrey, who repeatedly plugged it on her show) set out to reap huge profits by manipulating cognitive biases wired into the brain, they could hardly have done a better job. More likely, they caught the virus themselves and are unwittingly spreading it as far as they can.

The first trick they use is what psychologists call “social proof.” People like to do things other people are doing because it seems to prove the value of their own actions. That is why QVC displays a running count of how many viewers have bought each item for sale, and why advice seems more credible if it appears to come from many different people rather than one. “The Secret” is peppered with quotations from a group of about 20 “teachers” or “avatars,” many of whom are themselves popular self-help gurus. In “The Power,” Byrne also quotes sages like Thoreau, Gandhi and St. Augustine. This ploy, an example of a related logical fallacy called the argument from authority, taps our intuitive beliefs so forcefully that we psychology professors spend time training our introductory students to actively resist it.

Byrne also activates what might be called the illusion of potential, our readiness to believe that we have a vast reservoir of untapped abilities just waiting to be released. This illusion helps explain the popularity of products like “Baby Mozart” and video games that “train your brain” and entertain you at the same time. Unfortunately, rigorous empirical studies have repeatedly shown that none of these things bring about any meaningful improvement in intelligence.

“The Power” and “The Secret” are larded with references to magnets, energy and quantum mechanics. This last is a dead giveaway: whenever you hear someone appeal to impenetrable physics to explain the workings of the mind, run away — we already have disciplines called “psychology” and “neuroscience” to deal with those questions. Byrne’s onslaught of pseudoscientific jargon serves mostly to establish an “illusion of knowledge,” as social scientists call our tendency to believe we understand something much better than we really do. In one clever experiment by the psychologist Rebecca Lawson, people who claimed to have a good understanding of how bicycles work (and who ride them every day) proved unable to draw the chain and pedals in the correct location.

Read the whole article.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

3 Quarks Daily - Positive Failure - A review of "The Power" by Rhonda Byrne

3 Quarks Daily offers a detailed and scathing review of Rhonda Byrne's sequel to The Secret (2006), the mega-selling handbook for spiritual materialism and narcissism promoted by everyone from Oprah to all the "law of attraction" hucksters on Twitter.

Apparently it's no longer sufficient to Ask, Believe, and Receive - now you must engage the "Creation Process": Imagine it, Feel it, Receive it.

Oooohh, NOW I get it. Damn, I was doing it all wrong. Uh, yeah . . . .

Here is the first section:

Positive Failure - a review of "The Power" by Rhonda Byrne

Review of Rhonda Byrne, The Power (London: Simon & Schuster, 2010) ISBN: 978-085-720-1706.

1. The Law of Attraction

Rhonda Byrne, author of 2006 best-seller The Secret, has released its sequel. Entitled The Power, it claims further depth into the insights gleaned from The Secret. As she humbly states: ‘You don’t need to have read The Secret for The Power to change your life, because everything you need to know is contained in The Power.’

According to Byrne and her publishers, Byrne’s oeuvre (The Secret movie, released prior to the book; and various cards, sayings and other fashionable accessories) focuses on readers’ abilities to get what they ‘deserve’, using what is known as ‘the law of attraction’. According to The Secret’s synopsis by her publishers: ‘fragments of The Secret have been found in oral traditions, religions, literature and philosophies throughout the centuries … By unifying leading-edge scientific thought with ancient wisdom and spirituality, this riveting, practical knowledge will lead readers to a greater understanding of how they can be masters of their own lives.’ We become ‘masters’ of our lives by invoking the ‘law of attraction’.

To understand the law of attraction would require either a casual or a long glance at the current trend in the self-help industry. This is the factory-produced, standardised answers to questions of human betterment, which elicits a solipsistic attitude as the touchstone for all problems in the world; a tethered link between religious guilt and nihilistic dismissal, self-help gurus claim to walk this fine line over the precipice of our banal existence.

This is how they do it. The three rules of the Law of Attraction – let us capitalise the letters now – according to Byrne are the following: Ask. Believe. Receive. As Byrne says, in The Secret, it means that: ‘like attracts like. What that means in simple terms for your life is: what you give out, you receive back. Whatever you give out in life is what you receive back in life. Whatever you give, by the law of attraction, is exactly what you attract back to yourself.’ If you want good things to happen, be a good person, think positive thoughts. By doing so, you can have many things granted: if one wants a parking-space, simply ask the universe to provide it for you; if you want that career, simply ask for it, believe in it and you will receive it. By this logic, Byrne then went on to state one of the worst sentences any literate, twenty-first century individual can make. She says, in The Secret: ‘The only reason any person does not have enough money is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts.’

Consider this claim. Repeat it to yourself. Then consider the poverty-stricken multi-tudes. We may reasonably assume that horrendously poor individuals desire poverty alleviation, i.e. money, more than many of us already maintaining a regular income. After all, if we are already making money, why do we need to desire it – unless, as Byrne is hinting, we desire more? Of course, Byrne might say our regular income is a result of our ‘desire’ for money (Ask) – but this does not answer the question of the poor. Byrne sickeningly implies that the poverty-stricken, sub-Saharan African mother, dragging her crumpled, dying infant through a diseased village, has brought such hardship on herself. The mother is, after all, ‘blocking’ money from coming to her, thus preventing herself from saving her child.

The problem of course is Byrne never explains how the Law of Attraction works. Quantum physics, the old canard of a dying industry constantly asked for verification, is hinted at – but never elaborated upon. This is a false analogy: quantum physics is spooky and mysterious; the law of attraction is spooky and mysterious; therefore the latter must work according to the same principles. One is reminded of Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Richard Feynman, who said that if you think you understand quantum physics, you don’t understand quantum physics.

In The Power, Byrne has ‘updated’ her ideas from The Secret, invoking something called the Creation Process: ‘Imagine it. Feel it. Receive it.’ Why does Byrne assume we can obtain things through simply feeling and desiring it? She states her reason on the first page: ‘You are meant to have an amazing life! You are meant to have everything you love and desire.’ She proceeds to list the most juvenile of desires; similar to an outline of life as perhaps imagined by comfortable Western teenage girls who have yet to face hardship in life. She outlines things like a happy marriage, a ‘perfect husband’ (yes she actually does say that), money, etc. Her outline is one cheesy sunset away from being a 1920’s Hollywood movie.

And it is an outline, but one drawn with chalk as reality lays waste, constantly, to our dreams and desires. This is not illusory pessimism but reality. To think otherwise is to confine oneself to juvenile denial (to coin a silly word: ‘juvedenial’). By what logic are we meant to have anything, let alone happiness? There is no one we can appeal to; contra Byrne, there is no force that cares about us. We have no reason to accept, as we will later see, Byrne’s assertion of the Law of Attraction. Byrne’s logic is tautological: the law of attraction works because we are meant to have a good life. We are meant to have a good life because of the law of attraction. This shows how vacuous this notion is.

She does attempt something approaching sophistication, as with most adults who can write a fairly coherent sentence. But her sophistication ends up displaying her utter ignorance on matters of the world: ‘Five thousand years ago, ancient scriptures recorded that all of creation was done and complete, and that anything approaching that could possibly be created already exists. Now, five thousand years later, quantum physics has confirmed that every single possibility of anything and everything actually exists now.’

This appeal to authority – an informal logical fallacy – also forgets that people, five thousand years ago, thought the earth flat and the sun a raging god. She does not list her sources for this blanket assertion, so we cannot verify – as usual – her claims. Two points: ‘ancient sources’ are not necessarily good – just as ‘ancient wisdom’ is not necessarily wise. Ancient sources are the sources of ‘ancient wisdom’; but wisdom, like medicine, is either applicable or not: from where and when it comes does not give it a further quality at all. Medicine is medicine, it cures or it does not – there is no such thing as ‘alternative’ or ‘complementary’ medicine, for example. It is simply medicine. Similarly, wisdom either aids us in living better, or it is fallacious, solipsistic statements made without foundation – as is the case here

The second point appears to be a misunderstanding of quantum physics or quantum theory’s ideas of non-locality, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, etc. Her statement is nonsense, of course. Many quantum physicists will agree ‘spooky’ things happening to your atoms is not completely out of the question but the likelihood is equivalent to, as physicist Brian Greene says, you randomly marrying Nicole Kidman or Antonio Banderas, as you read this sentence. (This does not apply to any potential lovers of either celebrity). The other important point is all the ‘spooky’ aspects of quantum physics – that we cannot at the same time tell the speed and position of an atom for example – all happens at the quantum level not the everyday or, as biologist Richard Dawkins would say, ‘middle world’: that is what we encounter without the aid of micro- or telescopes. For example, we see rocks as completely solid even though they are, according to scientifically-verifiable observation methods, mostly empty-space. Similarly we do not deal with the quantum, i.e. smallest, level of the natural world because it simply does not operate on a scale which would be useful to us everyday. (This does not invalidate quantum theory; it only highlights that Byrne’s claims that quantum theory has confirmed her own shows up to be nonsense, since quantum theory deals with the quantum level. I would also asked more informed readers on the current trends of quantum physics to correct me, if I am severely mistaken.)

Byrne’s assertion that ‘every single possibility of anything and everything actually exists now’ makes no sense. Surely she cannot ignore the progress of, for example, technology, government and medical science which will show up new inventions, policies and medicines in the future? This is not hope but a logical extrapolation from history: could we have imagined a cure for polio, before we even had a germ-theory of disease? There will be things beyond the imagination of anyone – because we do not have the means to create any of it. We cannot dogmatically assert that every possibility exists now – what does that even mean? It seems this appeal to a static existence is one more feather in the cap of apathy and egotism. Take no heed for the morrow because today everything is possible.

Her undermining of science is shown elsewhere: ‘the law of attraction is what holds every star in the universe and forms every atom and molecule. The force of attraction of the sun holds the planets in our solar system, keeping them from hurtling into space … it holds your car to the road, water in your glass.’ I am not sure why she asserts this, because she has not forgotten about that tiny thing called ‘gravity’. But after mentioning gravity, she implies the Law of Attraction actually subverts or governs gravity. She is remarkably unclear about this. Her idea that planets will hurtle into space if not held, makes it seem like planets ‘want’ to hurtle away; that the only thing preventing them is the law of attraction or gravity (do not worry: I am getting confused, too). Of course, planets are reacting in accordance with the physical laws in the universe – even if hurtled, they would still be operating according to physical laws, not undermining them. Perhaps it would undermine the Law of Attraction, but it only shows then that the Law of Attraction is not a testable, physical law of the universe – it is Byrne’s assertion that all is well because all is well. (We should also note her relating the story of water reacting to positive and negative emotions [p.205]. A view, I think, which has been thoroughly disproved.)

Please, continue reading, it gets better - although I have no idea why they take it seriously enough to spend this much time on it.

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Brendan O'Neill - The Truth about Tibetan Buddhism

http://www.philborges.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/aaa_0001-3.jpg

This is an interesting article to find in Reason Magazine - but it's also a look at what Tibetan Buddhism looks like when a rational scientific mind views some of the ritualistic prerational elements of Buddhist belief and practice. And it's also a look at the worst element of American spirituality and religious appropriation - spiritual materialism.

The piece has accumulated almost 300 comments, so this is another article on Buddhism that seems to have hit a nerve.

The author clearly has an agenda - and also knows little of the origins of Buddhism and why the Tibetan forms have developed the way they have. Despite the ignorance on display, some of the points are very valid.

The Truth About Tibetan Buddhism

There’s more to this ancient religion than Hollywood celebrities would have you believe

Many Westerners before me have visited Tibet, popped into some monastery on a mountainside, and decided to stay there forever, won over by the brutally frugal existence eked out by Tibetan Buddhists.

I have exactly the opposite reaction. I couldn’t wait to leave the temples and monasteries I visited during my recent sojourn to Shangri-La, with their garish statues of dancing demons, fat golden Buddhas surrounded by wads of cash, walls and ceilings painted in super-lavish colours, and such a stench of incense that it’s like being in a hippy student’s dorm room.

I know I’m not supposed to say this, but Tibetan Buddhism really freaked me out.

The most striking thing is how different real Tibetan Buddhism is from the re-branded, part-time version imported over here by the Dalai Lama’s army of celebrities.

Listening to Richard Gere, the first incarnation of the Hollywood Lama, you could be forgiven for thinking that Tibetan Buddhism involves sitting in the lotus position for 20 hours a day and thinking Bambi-style thoughts. Tibetan Buddhism has a “resonance and a sense of mystery,” says Gere, through which you can find “beingness” (whatever that means).

Watching Jennifer Aniston’s character Rachel read a collection of the Dalai Lama’s teachings in Central Perk on Friends a few years ago, you might also think that Tibetan Buddhism is something you can ingest while sipping on a skinny-milk, no-cream, hazelnut latte.

Or consider the answer given by one of Frank J. Korom’s students at Boston University when he asked her why she was wearing a Tibetan Buddhist necklace. “It keeps me healthy and happy,” she said, reducing Tibetan Buddhism, as so many Dalai Lama-loving undergrads do, to the religious equivalent of knocking back a vitamin pill.

The reality couldn’t be more different. The first devout Buddhists I encountered looked neither healthy nor happy. They were walking from their villages in southern Tibet to Jokhang Temple in Lhasa, Tibetan Buddhism’s holiest site, and the journey had taken them nearly three months. Which isn’t surprising considering that with every third or fourth step they took, they got down on their knees and then fully prostrated themselves on the ground, lying flat on their bellies and burying their faces in the dirt, before getting back up, taking a few more steps, and doing the painful prostration thing again.

It looked life-zappingly exhausting. They moved at a snail’s pace. Their foreheads were stained grey from such frequent, unforgiving contact with the bruising earth. They wore wooden planks on their hands, which made a deathly clatter every time they hurled themselves downwards. I’d like to see Jennifer Aniston try this. Tibetan Buddhism sans latte.

You soon realize that no Tibetan Buddhist sits cross-legged on cushions all day long while staring into space and thinking about the universe. No, worshipping Buddha is a full-on physical workout. At the Lamaling Temple on a hillside in Nyingchi County in south-east Tibet, I saw women in their 50s doing the prostration thing, like an archaic version of a Jane Fonda workout.

The temple itself is packed with weird statues. Red demons with contorted faces. Smug-looking Buddhas smiling patronizingly at the poor, exhausted worshippers. There’s a statue of the “Living Buddha” (now deceased) who administered this temple in the 1950s and 60s and it is wearing sunglasses. Terrifyingly, it looks like a cross between the Buddha and Bono.

The Lamaling Temple, like others I visited, is painted in the most obscene colors. No inch of wall or centimeter of roof beam has been left untouched by the possibly colorblind decorators of Tibetan Buddhism’s sites of worship. Everywhere you look there’s a lashing of red or green or bright blue paint, a weirdly fitting backdrop to the frequently violent imagery of this religion: the statues of sword-wielding demons, the fiery paintings, the images of androgynous Buddhas, some with breasts, others with balls. “Peace” and “calm” are the last words that come to mind when you’re inside one of these senses-assaulting places.

The Lamaling Temple also brings home the fact that Tibetan Buddhism, like every other religion on Earth, is made up of various, sometimes horn-locking sects. 

I excitedly lined up an interview with one of the monks and asked if he’s looking forward to the day when the Dalai Lama returns from exile in northern India. He patiently told me—dumb Westerner that I am—that he doesn’t worship the Dalai Lama, because he is a member of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism while the Dalai Lama is head of the Gelug school. Then there’s the Kagyu school and the Sakya school—making four in total—which have hot-headed disagreements and have even come to blows in recent years over which deities should be worshipped and which should not. Religion of peace? Yeah, right.

Tibetan Buddhism has a whole lotta hang-ups about gays and girls, too. It says gay sex is “unnatural.” The Dalai Lama declared in a talk in Seattle in 1993, during one of his whistle stop, U2-style world tours, that “nature arranged male and female organs in such a manner that is very suitable… same-sex organs cannot manage well.” (Someone needs to explain to His Holiness how gay people get it on.)

And as Bernard Faure of Columbia University says: “Like most clerical discourses, Buddhism is… relentlessly misogynist.” So while Tibetan women can become nuns, they can’t advance nearly as far as men. Because according to Buddhist teachings it is impossible for women to become “the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One,” “the Universal Monarch,” “the King of Gods,” “the King of Death,” or “Brahmaa”—the five highest, holiest positions in Buddhism.

Of course, this only means that Tibetan Buddhism is the same as loads of other religions. Yet it is striking how much the backward elements of Tibetan Buddhism are forgiven or glossed over by its hippyish, celebrity, and middle-class followers over here. So if you’re a Catholic in Hollywood it is immediately assumed you’re a grumpy old git with demented views, but if you’re a “Tibetan” Buddhist you are looked upon as a super-cool, enlightened creature of good manners and taste. (Admittedly, Mel Gibson doesn’t help in this regard.)

I am well aware of the fact that I am not the first Westerner to be thrown by Tibet’s religious quirkiness. A snobby British visitor in 1895 denounced Tibetan Buddhism as “deep-rooted devil-worship and sorcery.” It’s no such thing. But what is striking, and what caused me to be so startled by the weirdness, is the way in which this religion has come to be viewed in Western New Age circles as a peaceful, pure, happy-clappy cult of softly-smiling, Buddha-like beings. Again, it’s no such thing. The modern view of Tibetan Buddhism as wondrous is at least as patronizingly reductive as the older view of Tibetan Buddhism as devil-worship.

Frank J. Korom describes it as “New Age orientalism,” where Westerners in search of some cheap and easy purpose in their empty lives “appropriate Tibet and portions of its religious culture for their own purposes.” They treat a very old, complex religion as a kind of buffet of ideas that they can pick morsels from, jettisoning the stranger, more demanding stuff—like the dancing demons and the prostration workout—but picking up the shiny things, like the sacred necklaces and bracelets and the BS about reincarnation.

It is all about them. They have bent and warped a religion to suit their own needs. As the Tibetan lama Dagyab Kyabgon Rinpoche puts it, “The concept of ‘Tibet’ becomes a symbol for all those qualities that Westerners feel lacking: joie de vivre, harmony, warmth and spirituality… Tibet thus becomes a utopia, and Tibetans become noble savages.” Western losers have ransacked Tibetan Buddhism in search of the holy grail of self-meaning.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked in London.

Monday, August 02, 2010

Be Scofield - When Positive Thinking Becomes Religion: How “The Secret” and Law of Attraction Poison Spirituality

Be Scofield takes on the magical thinking and spiritual materialism crowd in his recent article at Tikkun Daily. I'm sure he will get some serious flack for this, but it's a necessary article. I've already taken a stand against this crap over the years, so it's good to see it getting into the mainstream a little more.

When Positive Thinking Becomes Religion: How “The Secret” and Law of Attraction Poison Spirituality

by: Be Scofield on August 1st, 2010

Esther-Hicks channels magnetic entities which she calls "Abraham"

Rhonda Byrne, author of the best selling DVD/book "The Secret" is releasing a sequel in August called "The Power."

We must understand that the founder of a cult or new religion has no room for compromise: absolutes are necessary. True believers in mystical psychotherapy will not embrace a gospel with modest claims: it must be all or nothing. – Martin Larson

“He could go to school and daydream.” That was the advice given by positive thinking guru, law of attraction teacher and “channel” Esther Hicks aka “Abraham” to a black woman who asked how her son should approach learning about the difficult history of slavery in school. After telling the curious mother “none of that [slavery] has anything to do with him,” and that “he won’t have to deal with it” Abraham-Hicks proceeded to equate the teaching of African-American history with a family legacy of passing down “bad” feelings. But this is nothing compared to what she said about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When the woman asked her about a way to interpret his life in an empowering way for her son Esther-Hicks launched into something that can be best described as an ignorant stream of psychobabble. She described his vision in the vaguest of terms and then said, “He lost sight of his dream momentarily…he began to push against. And when one pushes against in a very fast moving stream abrupt things happened…It’s trying to get others to agree with us about our dreams that causes backlash. But when we just dream them ourselves…the resources of the universe come into alignment with us.” Blaming Dr. King for his own death was paired with her instruction to the woman to not tell her son about the unjust things that Dr. King had to struggle against. Her point was that slavery, racism and segregation are all “negative” and so therefore we aren’t supposed to think about them. And if all of this wasn’t bad enough, when responding to a question on Oprah’s radio show about how the law of attraction would lead to a young girl attracting her own rape and murder, Esther-Hicks responded by saying parents don’t teach their children how to think properly and they are influenced by the negative thinking of the adults around them. She told Oprah, “if they are listening to the guidance within they could not comfortably ever settle on the thoughts that would lead them to attract something unwanted.”

Esther-Hicks is not a fringe teacher, nor an exception, but much more the rule amongst a chorus of spiritual teachers that ally themselves with the latest positive thinking fad known as the “law of attraction.” As the self-proclaimed original source of the modern craze for the law of attraction, Esther-Hicks was featured in the original version of Rhonda Byrne’s 2006 mega-bestselling hit The Secret. Reportedly paid $500,000 for her role she was removed from the second and current version once Byrne decided that no presenters would receive compensation. Esther-Hicks has also appeared on the Oprah radio show, has spoken to tens-of-thousands and has sold hundreds of thousands of books promoting this law which as I demonstrate below is anything but and nothing new. And like The Secret, Esther-Hicks gains credibility from other well known teachers. Dr. Wayne Dyer says Abraham are “great Masters of the Universe,” while Louise Hay says they are “some of the best teachers on the planet today” (apparently the channel Abraham are not just one magnetic energy but many and thus at times referred to in the plural). When speaking about Esther-Hicks’ book Ask and it is Given, Dyer even told his audience “Whether you believe in channeling or not, please open yourself to this information because it is the most valuable information you can hear.” Kathlyn and Gay Hendricks, law of attraction teachers themselves, support Esther’s teachings and state that Esther and Jerry Hicks are “two people of high integrity whom I admire very much.”

Cast members from "The Secret" being interviewed on the Oprah Winfrey Show

Despite the removal of Esther-Hicks, The Secret has done extraordinarily well, selling over four million copies with 19 million in print. Byrne’s skills as an infomercial and television producer paid off extremely well. The movie’s flashy graphics, creative storyline and Davinci Code-esque ink stamp logo with quill pen captured the imagination of spiritual America. Her gross misappropriation of such figures as Socrates and Emerson as Secret practitioners also helped convince her audience. And now she is set to release a new book called The Power. With a first printing of two million it’s almost guaranteed to be another blockbuster. But as I illustrate below The Secret is filled the same sort of ignorant, harmful and racist teachings that Esther-Hicks promotes and it is supported by media personalities and spiritual teachers. Will The Power be any different? Will Larry King and Oprah who have both featured the cast of The Secret on their shows multiple times continue to uncritically promote Byrne and law of attraction preachers? Oprah had a look of amazement on her face during The Secret show and concluded, “Watch it with your children. I think it would be amazing to start your children with this kind of thinking.” When will Michael Beckwith (one of only two black people in the movie) who continues to promote himself with The Secret take a stand against the racism of these new prophets of positive thinking? The Secret received a large amount of criticism in the press but where are the spiritual leaders taking a speak out against this new form of fundamentalism that hides behind the false layer of feel good, instant gratification, commercialized spirituality? And perhaps most importantly, what does a healthy and responsible spirituality grounded in the reality of structural inequality look like?

A Very Brief History of Positive Thinking

Exactly fifty years before Rhonda Byrne published The Secret the first positive thinking audio program was released on vinyl record. Named The Strangest Secret it was produced by Earl Nightengale in 1956 and its release was a breakthrough moment in the history of the audio self-help genre as it sold over one million copies. His LP also shares the same central message as The Secret, “we become what we think about,” and he appeals to the same sources of authority such as Emerson and Socrates. After his phenomenal success Nightengale went on to form Nightengale Content, one of the largest self-help audiobook publishers. Whether or not Byrne borrowed the title is something only she knows but what is certain is that the The Secret and law of attraction are nothing new. They draw from a variety of sources both religious and secular.

Byrne's inspiration behind "The Secret" states, "Do not talk about poverty; do not investigate it, or concern yourself with it...Get rich; that is the best way you can help the poor."

Nightengale’s LP was one of many secular teachings about positive thinking in the twentieth century. Two of the best selling depression era books were on the subject. Selling more than 30 million copies since it’s release in 1937 Napolean Hill’s Think and Grow Rich condensed the ideas of some of the most wealthy people of the era into 13 principles of personal achievement. The similarities to the modern day positive thinking movement are clear. The classic book states, “thoughts, like magnets, attract to us the forces, the people, the circumstances of life which harmonize with [them].” Thus the goal is to “magnetize our minds with intense desire for riches.” Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People also published in 1937 and another first amongst the positive thinking genre has sold over 15 million copies to date. The earliest source of positive affirmations comes from the french pharmacist Emile Coue who in the 1910’s began employing “auto-suggestion” by teaching his patients to repeat the affirmation “Everyday and in every way things are getting better and better.” The Science of Getting Rich published in 1910 by Wallace D. Wattles is the book that inspired Byrne to write The Secret. Because of the recent affiliation and promotion by Byrne it has achieved a renewed interest but it is filled with troublesome statements like this, “Do not talk about poverty; do not investigate it, or concern yourself with it…Get rich; that is the best way you can help the poor.” And in the 1950’s Norman Vincent Peale turned on America by merging Christianity with techniques for overcoming daily problems in The Power of Positive Thinking.

The religious origins of positive thinking and the law of attraction also known as New Thought are attributed to Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, a 19th century mesmerist and clockmaker. Rejecting the dominant Calvinism of his day, he recognized how this theology terrorized the hearts and minds of America by threatening them with God’s immanent and unpredictable judgment of hellfire and damnation. Quimby believed this was a primary cause of a predominant form of illness at the time labeled as “neurasthenia,” or invalidism. Its symptoms included weakness, insomnia, headaches, tiredness, digestive problems and aching backs. Thus one of his methods of healing was to simply explain to his patients that the harsh worldview of Calvinism wasn’t actually real and that the universe was fundamentally benevolent, loving and caring. As an alternative to the bleeding, purging and other rudimentary tactics used to cure this illness, the “mind-cure” method proved much more appealing. Prominent 19th century figures such as William James, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Jane Addams and Margaret Sanger all suffered with invalidism at some point in their lives. Mary Baker Eddy experienced this debilitating illness from a young age and it was only when meeting with Quimby in 1863 that she was healed. After Quimby passed away a few years later, Eddy stole his teachings, claimed them as her own and then branded them as Christian Science (Quimby used this label at least once in his writings.)

Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science

Decisively a Christian, Eddy and others believed they had discovered the same healing techniques of Jesus. An important point of clarification here is that this 19th century Christian root of New Thought (coined around 1895) is what distinguishes it from the later New Age movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s characterized by crystals, chakra healings, trance mediums and channeling. Based on the Bible, the various strains within the New Thought movement such as Christian Science, Unity, Divine Science and Religious Science appealed to disenchanted Christians who rejected the traditional forms of the faith. While not monolithic the movement drew from common sources of inspiration such as Emerson’s transcendentalism, the Gospels, Hinduism and the Swedenborgian influenced spiritism movement. Some of the general principles were that the kingdom of heaven is within us, God is universal love and wisdom and one with humans, mental states lead to sickness and health, and that humans can experience the infinite power of the divine through healing, creativity and beauty. There were numerous contributors and popularizers to this fast growing movement – too many to be named but among the most significant were; Emma Curtis Hopkins known as the “teachers of teachers” for the pivotal role she played teaching many New Thought leaders; Warren Felt Evans, author of six volumes of New Thought ideas; Horatio Dresser, editor of The Quimby Manuscripts and Ernest Holmes author of The Science of Mind and founder of Religious Science.

As one of the early contributors to the positive thinking and law of attraction movements Eddy, who was quite dogmatic laid the groundwork for the disturbing and irresponsible claims about the power of our minds to heal sickness. Look at how she spoke of the power of belief in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,

That the body can suffer from heat, cold or fatigue is only a false belief…The arm grows strong only because he believes that exercise will make it so…Man requires meat and bread only because of his delusions; when first created, man’s life was self-sustaining. Food neither helps nor harms. Eating never made a man live nor has abstention from it ever caused death…A boil cannot be painful, for it merely manifests by inflammation and swelling a belief which is called a boil…When a bone is broken or a head chopped off, the man remains unchanged.

It’s no wonder that many Christian Scientists to this day refuse medical treatment because of their magical beliefs in the power of the mind. But what is more striking is the similarity between Eddy’s early irrational claims about sickness and those of The Secret. Rhonda Byrne doesn’t get flu shots because, “if you’re feeling good, how can you attract any illness to you?” Bob Proctor states, “Disease cannot live in a body that’s in a healthy emotional state,” and Michael Beckwith claims because of The Secret “I’ve seen kidneys regenerated. I’ve seen cancer dissolved.” The Secret states, “if someone is overweight, it came from thinking fat thoughts.”

The Shadow of The Secret

You can have, be, or do anything you want, all you need to do is ask, believe and receive - The Secret

The Secret promises the power of God. Based on an absolutist version of the law of attraction it explains all phenomena, both positive and negative as the direct result of an individual’s thinking. The widely accepted principle that your thoughts affect your reality is taken to an extreme that can be best described as fundamentalism. The Secret states, “Likewise, there are no exclusions for the law of attraction. If something came to you, you drew it, with prolonged thought. The law of attraction is precise.” One of the contributors chiropractor Dr. Joe Vitale explains, “You’re going to immediately say, ‘I didn’t attract the car accident…I didn’t particularly attract the debt.’ And I’m here to be a little bit in your face and to say, yes you did attract it.” James Aurthur Ray told an audience, “The Law of Attraction says like attracts like…you lock into something…and BANG! You’ve got a Mercedes. And that’s how it works.” Joe Vitale states, “This is like having the universe as your catalogue and you flip through it and go, ‘Well I’d like to have this experience and I’d like to have that product and I’d like to have a person like that’ … It is you just placing your order with the universe. It’s really that easy.”The Secret describes example after example, cancer, huge bills and hardship are all results of people’s negative thoughts while checks arriving at the door, success and being cured from breast cancer are examples of the power of The Secret. Yes, the DVD advises you to visit their website, print out a copy of a blank check from the “Bank of the Universe,” fill in your dollar amount and wait for the money to start rolling in. To top this off the film shows a young boy in Africa being healed with a “gratitude” rock, advises abused women to write down all of the positive things about their abusive partners, a young boy manifesting a bike almost instantly and a woman visualizing an expensive piece of jewelry to have it appear moments later.

James Arthur Ray from "The Secret" said, "I know many people, for instance, of the Jewish faith and heritage, who don't necessarily believe that the Holocaust was bad."

The Secret employs a wide range of “authority” figures, all of whom are highly successful in their endeavors to provide the legitimacy for the principles being taught. 24 people (19 white men, one black man, one black woman and three white women) hold a variety of jobs including a business consultant, sales coach, investor, chiropractor, Feng Shui master, spiritual teacher, author, doctor, physicist, marketing specialist and personal coach among others. Although these titles aren’t always what they seem. James Aurthur Ray who is now facing three counts of manslaughter for deaths in his $10,000 per head sweat lodge ceremony claims to be a “philosopher.” However, he admitted in an interview that he is a few hours short of a B.A. in behavioral science. (ABC recently did a full length show on James Ray and his Sedona sweat lodge disaster.) And Joe Vitale is a doctor of chiropractic who now offers the “Rolls Royce Phantom Mastermind” experience. For a low price of $7,500 you can spend three hours riding in a Rolls Royce with Vitale while discussing your future riches. The movie also grossly missapropriates Socrates, Beethoven, Joseph Campbell, Buddha, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Emerson and Einstein to claim that they all used The Secret. When the Buddha said, “We are what we think” I’m doubtful that he meant as The Secret claims “Like Aladdin’s Genie, the law of attraction grants our every command.”

The Secret is overly obsessed with money and is filled with particularly disturbing claims in this respect. Bob Proctor states,

“Why do you think that 1 percent of the population earns around 96% of all of the money that’s being earned? Do you think that’s an accident? It’s designed that way. They understand something. They understand the Secret, and now you are being introduced to The Secret.”

Rhonda Byrne confirms this line of thought when speaking about those who have money,

“They focused on thoughts of wealth and the Universe moved people, circumstances, and events to deliver wealth to them. The wealth they have, you have also. The only difference between you and them is that they thought the thoughts to bring the wealth to them. Your wealth is waiting in the invisible, and to bring it into the visible, think wealth!…The only reason any person does not have enough money is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts.” [emphasis added]

Jack Canfield, author of the Chicken Soup for the Soul series describes the fruits of using the Secret while images of his Malibu mansion are shown in the background,

“Since I learned the Secret and started applying it to my life, my life has truly become magical…I live in a four-and-a-half million dollar mansion…I get to vacation in all the fabulous spots of the world. I’ve climbed mountains. I’ve explored. I’ve been on safaris. And all of this happened, and continues to happen, because of knowing how to apply The Secret.”

Read the whole article.


Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Mark Vernon - Self-centred Buddhism

http://theland.wikispaces.com/file/view/Spiritual_Materialism.jpg/31016761/Spiritual_Materialism.jpg

Vernon identifies a very real issue here, though he doesn't call it by name. He is writing about spiritual materialism, the ego's quest for spiritual experience or well-being. As long as we are striving toward something, we are on the wrong path, the path of ego. Enlightenment or awareness is not something we achieve, it comes from clearing away the obscurations hiding what is always already present.

Chogyam Trungpa's book, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, is still the best book on this subject. Here is a quote:
It is important to see that the main point of any spiritual practice is to step out of the bureaucracy of ego. This means stepping out of ego's constant desire for a higher, more spiritual, more transcendental version of knowledge, religion, virtue, judgment, comfort or whatever it is that a particular ego is seeking. One must step out of spiritual materialism. If we do not step out of spiritual materialism, if we in fact practice it, then we may eventually find ourselves possessed of a huge collection of spiritual paths. We may feel these spiritual collections to be very precious. We have studied so much. We may have studied Western philosophy or Oriental philosophy, practiced yoga or perhaps studied under dozens of great masters. We have achieved and we have learned. We believe that we have accumulated a hoard of knowledge. And yet, having gone through all this, there is still something to give up. It is extremely mysterious! How could this happen? Impossible! But unfortunately it is so. Our vast collections of knowledge and experience are just part of ego's display, part of the grandiose quality of ego. We display them to the world and, in so doing, reassure ourselves that we exist, safe and secure, as "spiritual" people.
So when you read the article below, keep this in mind. Vernon has either confused Buddhism with spiritual materialism or he knows very little about either. Bottom line is that he has misrepresented Buddhism practice and philosophy.

Self-centred Buddhism

At a meditation retreat, I learned to watch myself. But would it be more effective if the aim wasn't my own wellbeing?

Mark Vernon
Mark Vernon

Western Buddhism can be a serious business. If you travel to Newton Abbot in Devon, and then make your way a few miles further west – through the village of East Ogwell, and then the hamlet of West Ogwell – you arrive at Gaia House, one of the places in the UK where western Buddhism is being forged with impressive commitment. It's a meditation centre. Run by volunteers, who offer a year at a time to manage the place, it hosts retreats – periods of time, running from a single day to many weeks, during which retreatants meditate.

Silence is the watchword of the house. It's a mark of the seriousness of the place, and the element visitors are quite sternly asked to respect. Even the library was out of bounds on the three day retreat that I booked in for, along with about 30 others (accommodation is comfortable though lacks privacy). Reading would disturb the inner stillness that the outer observance is designed to engender. It would spoil the quality of the silence that together we were pursuing.

Meditation is the central activity of this style of Buddhism, and insight meditation in particular, the kind in which you are encouraged to develop an ability to hold your attention on one thing, usually your breathing. Apart from mealtimes and an hour doing household chores, the day is devoted to it: three quarters of an hour sitting in the meditation hall, followed by three quarters of an hour doing walking meditation – the same activity of concentration conducted whilst walking very slowly, and focusing on the sensations in your feet. Then back to sitting meditation. Then more walking. It adds up to about 7 hours a day.

The mind repeatedly and routinely wanders, of course. But you're not asked to attempt to control it. Rather, you are to become aware of the fact, and then draw your attention back to the breathing or the walking. Most of the meditation periods pass easily enough. A handful were a struggle. One was a real joy. But what's it for? What is meditation supposed to deliver?

The retreat was led by two teachers. They topped and tailed the sitting sessions with a few helpful words, and were also on hand lest any participants develop problems, an important safeguard as prolonged silence can be unsettling. One of them also gave a talk on the second evening, and she explained the central Buddhist doctrine that meditation is designed to address: the reality of suffering.

Suffering here is meant in a broad sense, everything from the faintest feeling that something is wrong, to the profound injuries that human beings inflict on themselves and each other. It's a worldview that is humanistic and tragic. The first of the Buddha's noble truths is that life is suffering. It's called a "noble" truth since that realisation is also the first step towards an ennobled life, namely one in which the suffering can cease.

That's where meditation comes in. It's a technique designed to develop mindfulness, the awareness and acceptance of suffering existence. Meditation itself needn't always be painful. It might be pleasant, even elating. But the aim is neither to cling to experience, nor to reject it, but rather to know it as it is. Hence, the "insight" in insight meditation. "To understand all is to forgive all," the proverb says, and the Buddhist version would be, "To understand all is to let go of all". It just takes practice.

It's religion as a kind of therapy, and points to one of the reasons that Buddhism is finding such a ready audience in the west. Modernity has damaged many egos, perhaps as a result of the Enlightenment teaching that we are autonomous selves, capable of self-creation, control and consolation. Only, it turns out that we are not so self-sufficient. Hence, if that's right, the spread of loneliness and alienation, stress and depression. Western Buddhism is developing a radical remedy for this condition. Look closely, it says, and you'll see that the self is an illusion. Let go of that, and liberation follows.

It is a plausible gospel to many, and committed Buddhists, like those at Gaia House, are devoting themselves to deepening the insight. My time in the place was good: how can a city-dweller not gain much from the silence? However, I did come away with questions. And they sprang from the nature of the project.

The raison d'être of Gaia House is the wellbeing of the those who come to stay in it. That seems like a pretty good raison d'être, and it is. However, it comes with risk. Meditation-as-therapy flirts with narcissism when it is devoted to observing yourself, for that can lead to self-absorption and self-obsession. It's a danger inherent in any community devoted to a particular task, though perhaps more so in one that lacks a reference point beyond the individuals taking part.

Religious houses in a Christian tradition would be different, in theory at least. Ultimately, they don't exist for the wellbeing of the occupants, but for the glory of God. That nurtures a way of life that has less to do with the self, and more to do with the service of something greater. You have to believe in God, of course. That many don't, and might say they are "spiritual but not religious", must be another reason why Buddhism appeals. But I did wonder whether a God-centred spiritual practice might offer a better way to get over yourself, and in turn offer a more satisfying "therapy".

I suspect this is a key paradox with which western Buddhism is currently grappling: the practice that tells you the self is a delusion could, in the modern context, deepen the very attitude it seeks to dislodge. It's a risk compounded when self-concern is arguably the secret of western Buddhism's current success.