[DenisM]

>'Maladaptive neuronal connections'

That's a mouthful, and just as obscure for most people. Might as well go with "Sarkana" - it's easier to pronounce. Besides, the script worked well for a few thousand years now, there is hardly a reason to change it now.

But yeah, if you're scientifically inclined and the ancient Indian mythology is rubbing you the wrong way, you can safely skip it, and it still makes perfect sense in the end.

[uberuberuber]

I should have fleshed out that thought more fully. I agree it's a mouthful, but I was trying to convey that we no longer have to believe in such strange (bad) ideas because we have a new set of strange (better) ideas (connectomes and such) that actually have evidence underlying them. The way the course described Sakarnas was as 'bad non-physical spirits/objects/states' that were generated by the body, and that meditation would enable one to "release" them, and prevent their development in the future. Obviously the more evidence-based interpretation of meditation is that it in some way re-wires certain neural connections in a manner that seems to be generally positive.

I'm not in favor of change for the sake of change, but when better reasons are available to describe a phenomenon, I think we should adopt those reasons. Surviving for thousands of years is not a virtue when it comes to the validity of ancient texts or the actions of (historical?) individuals (Buddha, Jesus, Big-Mo, etc.).

[initself]

If you think sankharas are non-physical, you missed the point. They are entirely physical and experienced as "vedana", bodily sensations. Nothing woo-woo. You just feel your body objectively.

[hosh]

I wouldn't be in a hurry to be so dismissive. Attachment to bad ideas is the same as attachment to better ideas: they arise, they pass.

Sit long enough, and you will encounter all the interesting attachment surrounding the notion of rationality.

[xk_id]

(following up on uberuberuber's reply)

> Besides, the script worked well for a few thousand years now, there is hardly a reason to change it now.

Imo, that is a big fallacy. I believe religious beliefs can no longer provide sound ground for adjustment in today's world. It is harmful to have within your semantic environment both "spiritual" factors such as the notion of "aetheric body", and scientific factors such as the notion of "space-time" (which currently shape our civilisation). This is because the two belong to inconsistent sets, so they conflict.

Edit: For a more relevant example, consider the implicit assumption of many "spiritual" doctrines that there is a "soul", which is separated from a "mind", which is separated from a "body". This contrasts with our modern scientific assumptions, that there is just an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment, which functions as such. The word "organism" is more recent than "Sankharas"! As such, it doesn't carry with itself the older metaphysics.

Also, consider our modern scientific perspective that we don't drop into this world from a vacuum – we come from an environment, the uterus. This, again, stands in sharp contradiction with many "spiritual" doctrines.

[ams6110]

Your point of view is certainly not unique, but neither is it anything close to universal. Many people myself included comfortably reconcile belief in a "soul" and a "higher power" with the demonstrated accomplishments of scientific research and study.

[microtonal]

> Imo, that is a big fallacy. I believe religious beliefs can no longer provide sound ground for adjustment in today's world.

The Buddha himself rejected to answer metaphysical questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_unanswerable_questions

Buddhism puts the emphasis on direct experience of impermanence and how it leads to suffering.

Apart from that, most people have not trouble believing in contrasting theories or living by contrasting morals ;).

[xk_id]

> Apart from that, most people have not trouble believing in contrasting theories or living by contrasting morals ;).

Please see my reply to fusiongyro, which is currently below yours.

[fusiongyro]

> It is harmful to have within your semantic environment both "spiritual" factors… and scientific factors such as the notion of "space-time" (which currently shape our civilisation). This is because the two belong to inconsistent sets, so they conflict.

Harmful to what? Prove it—and not from first principles, because the human mind seems to have no trouble at all with combining arbitrary and contradictory concepts into one big mushy whole. Ask any non-programmer for software requirements, or really anybody why they did anything and not something else.

The only tangible harm is that it annoys people who attempt to apply logical reasoning to every situation and interaction, even where other human faculties are obviously more appropriate.

[xk_id]

> The only tangible harm is that it annoys people who attempt to apply logical reasoning to every situation and interaction, even where other human faculties are obviously more appropriate.

You are applying logical reasoning at any given time. What varies only are the assumptions you're concsciously or unconsciously making about yourself and the world.

As time passed by, humanity made various conscious and unconscious assumptions about the structure of the world. These assumptions got captured into language, which enabled passing the assumptions from one generation to the next. This is what happened with words like "soul" and "mind" (which assume possibility of absolute separation between elements). But as scientific revolutions occurred, assumptions were revised, and we created new terms, like "network" (a very important term from the semantic pov, as it assumes connectedness). Unlike thousands of years ago, today (year 2013), we know that the impossibility of absolute separation between elements is a fact of the world in which we live. By subscribing to the older systems of thought, you are going against scientifically (i.e publicly) accepted facts in your thought and actions.

>human mind seems to have no trouble at all with combining arbitrary and contradictory concepts into one big mushy whole.

The "mind"? Yes, maybe. The nervous system? Not so sure.

We know from neurology101 that observations are given by impulses received from the senses and processed in the thalamus. The cortex enables more abstract processing of observations (i.e interpretation, ideas, theories, etc.); the impulses reach the cortex after they have been processed by the thalamus. The entire thing is cyclical [1]. As the brain is one connected whole, it is neurologically important that the cortical and thalamic processes remain coordinated. This means it is undesirable that ideas are in a mushy relationship within themselves and with the empirical observations. If they were, this would essentially disconnect the activity of the brain. A very handy example of this is (my Western understanding of) mantras: they are not words, yet they are treated as if they have meaning (i.e, if I start repeating a mantra, I will deal will purely cortical products, instead of starting from observations and facts – that is, starting with thalamic products, and afterwards proceed by processing those cortically).

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7d4ROvZ6I

[fusiongyro]

And people call me crazy.

[xk_id]

My advice is not to dismiss it so easily, and instead try to understand.

[fusiongyro]

"As the brain is one connected whole, it is neurologically important that the cortical and thalamic processes remain coordinated."

You have two things you have to prove. One, that it is neurologically important that these processes remain coordinated. Two, that unscientific thoughts somehow cause them to become uncoordinated. I'd settle for any sort of proof that thinking unscientific thoughts has any sort of detectable physiological effect. From there, I'd want to see that the effect is meaningful.

I expect your definition of "logical" is gerrymandered to include certain kinds of illogical thinking of which you approve and ignore others. People engage in superstitious behavior constantly despite it being illogical, even after having the illogicalness of the behavior explained. This doesn't seem to cause them physical harm. Your allegation that people are always being logical seems incoherent in the face of your allegation that holding inconsistency in the mind is detrimental--either we can do it or we can't.

I'm not especially open to continuing the debate. If you have proof of whatever these effects are bring it, but I'm not otherwise interested in continuing a conversation about your weird pseudo-scientific mysticism. I'm happy you found something that works for you, I guess.

[Daniel_Newby]

> This contrasts with our modern scientific assumptions, that there is just an organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment, which functions as such.

The rubber hand illusion shows that mind and body are far from unified.