Interesting, comprehensive discussion. The bit about the "shared attention" aspect of the social construction of the self (somewhere just before 1:00:00 mark) is a take I haven't heard before.
I am one of the commenters and longtime viewers of this channel who is very critical of the same trends of which Evan is so astutely and eloquently critical-namely the misuse of spiritual traditions to advocate for bad philosophy, rather than just enjoying and accepting the practices and traditions for what they are and the benefits they confer. Sometimes I think we simply live in an era (in the collective “west” anyway) in which critique or critical analysis is met with a great deal of hostility if it does not fall within a certain accepted vein of rhetoric. In addition, the vast and saturating influence of the happiness/self-help/self-care industry seems to require a kind of uncritical validation of all systems of meaning-making (no doubt arising from the positive psychology movement), such that critical analysis is unacceptable because it may cause distress in some persons who rely on such meaning-making for emotional comfort and personal validation. Once again, I thoroughly appreciate Dr. Thompson’s lucid and eloquent analysis, as always. Thank you so very much for having him on again. This convo was absolutely brilliant. Steve, you are so darn good at what you do, thank you most kindly for continuing to do it☺🙏
@@breathspinecore I think-given the state of our global civilization, our behemoth bubble perhaps teetering on the brink, and from many directions at once-that it is most crucial we discuss these things without delay. I am always heartened to know there are others. Thank YOU.
@@baizhanghuaihai2298 theres nothing to discuss. there are those who metaphysically believe colors etc exist somewhere inside or outside the skull ie. everyone and thus design their society culture etc based on being such physical automatons, and there are those who have developed rigorous methods of investigating the phenomenon they wish to understand (the mind) and have the results to show it
Ha. These topics are my Jam. Whenever I awake at night, I meditate a bit and am almost guaranteed a lucid dream. Energy practices are fascinating in a metabolic/cellular communication sense as well. Can hardly wait! Keep up the great work.
23:24 Buddhists coming from a non-dual tradition aren't threatened by science, in a way that historically other traditions have been. I can't see Buddhists ever denying the results of a well thought out experiment. I don't think Buddhists claim scientific privileged, but they aren't juxaposed to science- they are in dialogue with it. I don't know if other faith traditions have conferences on neuroscience and quantum physics- perhaps other Eastern traditions do. As far as science is an idea, it is certainly more scientific than Christianity- or other Abrahamic traditions which are dominant in the west.
I still consider Buddhism to be a science. If we define science as a ‘systematic understanding’ about anything, then Buddhism is about deeply penetrating into the question of the _nature of human experience._ This is understood by first training the mind to pay attention to *present moment* experiences (i.e., engaging in mindfulness practice, without constantly drifting to the past and the future), and then understanding the mind in terms of things like how phenomena are constantly changing moment by moment. Buddhist suttas provide a great deal of theory that one can contemplate on, to develop insights. These include teachings like the nature of the five aggregates, the conditioned nature of all thoughts, how attachments towards the five aggregates happen and how that can influence our experience, the teaching of dependent origination, and also how there is no unchanging entity to be found in any of the arising and ceasing manifestations that are only happening in the present moment (i.e., the non-self nature). Buddhism also talks about *conventional reality,* which is what Thompson is constantly talking about, when he talks about 'understanding.' Material science operates only at this level - i.e., when Thompson talks about things like ‘the influence of developmental maturation,’ ‘mother’s influences of a child’s progress,’ the brain in cognitive science, and stating that self is interdependent going through ongoing construction, etc., he is talking only about conventional reality. This level of understanding represents just one level. The analyses of the mind that Buddhism does when experientially understood (rather than theoretically understood) leads to a great deal of peace and happiness. Buddhist teachings are deep and profound, and it takes a lot of effort to practice and to understand the teachings by reflecting on the teachings, etc. If Thompson does these practices as a self-inquiry into the present moment, etc., (instead of doing them to get good for heath, energy, and to feel good - as he described) I think he would be able to appreciate these profound teachings. At the very end of the interview, the 'two selves' that he talks about also relate to conventional reality and ultimate reality.
Response to Evan Thompson’s view of meditation and integration of ‘the social’ as a necessary aspect of development I think an interesting point to make here is that Thompson stresses the importance of the social aspect of the development of metacognition and its relationship to mindfulness. Mindfulness meditation is an act of observing one’s self with a metacognitive awareness. This metacognitive awareness thought is build socially in relation to others throughout childhood and then applied to one’s own experience to reveal more about one’s own mind. This suggests an intrinsic social aspect in the relation to oneself in meditation, but also the positive effect that the training of metacognition can have on relations with others. Thompson also says that just the watching of oneself in meditation does not inherently lead to less suffering, it must be done in conjunction with the correct intentions and with a good social purpose in mind. We want to make ourselves and others happier via wisdom, this is the general principle of Buddhist practice. This point also renders meditative practice as a social endeavour. At the London buddhist society this is the exact reason why there is such a large emphasis on the inherently ‘religious’ aspect of zen Buddhist practice and thought in the zen training. Because within this ‘religious’ context we have the sangha, we have the positive stress on ethical development as vital for meditative and spiritual development. We also tie the idea of reverence to the Buddha, sangha and dharma as putting these things before ourselves. I understand Buddha, Sangha and dharma, as reverence to the teaching, other people, and the nature of the world/perception. A deep respect of these things is entailed in the word religious and these things are also deeply social and linked to the helping of others. I think that Thompson would agree that all of these things are very important in spiritual practice whether Buddhist, perennial or something else. I wanted to add that this social importance could be an argument against the viability of ‘unaligned mysticism’ to someone who maybe doesn’t have the same time as a philosopher does to gain a deep knowledge of many traditions to come to this conclusion in a more perennial way. Just a thought as an offshoot of this conversation. Deeply thought provoking anyway, Evan Thompson is a really awesome thinker, thanks for having him on 🙏
Beautifully stated. Thank you. My own Zen training for over a decade was overtly religious, and gratefully so, since it instilled in me a profound appreciation for not equivocating about that point. I ultimately felt that I found what I had been initially looking for there, and moved on to other spheres of activity and intellectual traditions. The one constant in my socio-spiritual-intellectual life, is that faith is just not for me, it does not work for me as a social being, it simply isn’t in my habit or inclination. And Buddhism, like all religions, requires faith, as it well should. When I began to no longer consider myself Buddhist, I have done so remaining always in gassho to that tradition which gave me so much by kindly taking so much unnecessary crud away.
I dislike when practitioners refute that Buddhism is _not_ a religion. It is. I believe that it's possible to find happiness, fulfillment, and true moral/ethical compass through self reflection and thought experiments. Religion at its worst is a control mechanism and a blight to progress and spiritual evolution. This sounds like an attack on belief systems, but I assure you it's not. Remove the omnipotent being from the equation and insert consciousness, and the results of these parables are the same or actually better outcomes. ✌️
Buddhism is a religion. People say otherwise to distance themselves from the superstitious beliefs found in religions. When in fact Buddhism has fairy tales and superstitious beliefs. Groups can also operate like a cult with a central figure beyond reproach. When you directly criticize or challenge the leader. Who will go by a title like lama, bhikku, etc? Then you are told you are not qualified or dismissed as not having a valid opinion on a topic. I have yet to see a Buddhist group not having cultish aspects. When you address someone as your holiness you are defiantly in a religion. The methods and techniques of mind training can be separated from the Buddhist religion. When done it is considered new age and frowned upon by the Buddhist religion.
@@shaunlindsey5132 In an academic institute like a university, professors have titles like ‘senior professor,’ etc., and addressing someone as a “professor,” does not mean that science is a religion. These titles help in issues like organization, etc. Perhaps you interpret rituals that Buddhists engage in as ‘cults’ - but remember that we all engage in various daily rituals. Shaking hands is a ritual. Saluting when the national anthem is played is a ritual, and rituals are also done at weddings, graduation ceremonies, funerals, parties, etc. In Buddhism, rituals have various reflective meanings. For example, prostrating and bowing in front of a Buddhist stature is carried out to show gratitude to the teachers (and their teachings). Lighting lamps symbolize the light of wisdom, offering flowers (that would soon fade and die) enables one to contemplate the universal law of impermanence. The temple I attend (Theravada tradition) does not frown upon what you refer to as “techniques of mind training.” Also, although stories in Buddhism might seem like fairy tales to some, no one is forced to believe in them. I have found however that they illustrate (in an abstract way) some aspects of the teachings that can be helpful for some. Please also read the other comment I posted here.
Bertrand Russell would write absolutely nothing these days, because as a brilliant rationalist he would be an instantly obvious target for cancel culture.
Interesting, comprehensive discussion. The bit about the "shared attention" aspect of the social construction of the self (somewhere just before 1:00:00 mark) is a take I haven't heard before.
Fascinating conversation offering clarity on issues either overlooked or not expressed with such depth of understanding. Thank you once again Steve.
I am one of the commenters and longtime viewers of this channel who is very critical of the same trends of which Evan is so astutely and eloquently critical-namely the misuse of spiritual traditions to advocate for bad philosophy, rather than just enjoying and accepting the practices and traditions for what they are and the benefits they confer. Sometimes I think we simply live in an era (in the collective “west” anyway) in which critique or critical analysis is met with a great deal of hostility if it does not fall within a certain accepted vein of rhetoric. In addition, the vast and saturating influence of the happiness/self-help/self-care industry seems to require a kind of uncritical validation of all systems of meaning-making (no doubt arising from the positive psychology movement), such that critical analysis is unacceptable because it may cause distress in some persons who rely on such meaning-making for emotional comfort and personal validation. Once again, I thoroughly appreciate Dr. Thompson’s lucid and eloquent analysis, as always. Thank you so very much for having him on again. This convo was absolutely brilliant. Steve, you are so darn good at what you do, thank you most kindly for continuing to do it☺🙏
Thank you! 🙏
Thank you for so clearly stating what I feel and have experienced so many times trying to discuss this with people.
@@breathspinecore I think-given the state of our global civilization, our behemoth bubble perhaps teetering on the brink, and from many directions at once-that it is most crucial we discuss these things without delay. I am always heartened to know there are others. Thank YOU.
@@baizhanghuaihai2298 theres nothing to discuss. there are those who metaphysically believe colors etc exist somewhere inside or outside the skull ie. everyone and thus design their society culture etc based on being such physical automatons, and there are those who have developed rigorous methods of investigating the phenomenon they wish to understand (the mind) and have the results to show it
@@5piles Whatever you say oh wise and all knowing one. Thank you for enlightening us all.
Ha. These topics are my Jam.
Whenever I awake at night, I meditate a bit and am almost guaranteed a lucid dream.
Energy practices are fascinating in a metabolic/cellular communication sense as well.
Can hardly wait!
Keep up the great work.
23:24 Buddhists coming from a non-dual tradition aren't threatened by science, in a way that historically other traditions have been. I can't see Buddhists ever denying the results of a well thought out experiment. I don't think Buddhists claim scientific privileged, but they aren't juxaposed to science- they are in dialogue with it. I don't know if other faith traditions have conferences on neuroscience and quantum physics- perhaps other Eastern traditions do. As far as science is an idea, it is certainly more scientific than Christianity- or other Abrahamic traditions which are dominant in the west.
I understand his perspective and agree with it also though.
I still consider Buddhism to be a science. If we define science as a ‘systematic understanding’ about anything, then Buddhism is about deeply penetrating into the question of the _nature of human experience._ This is understood by first training the mind to pay attention to *present moment* experiences (i.e., engaging in mindfulness practice, without constantly drifting to the past and the future), and then understanding the mind in terms of things like how phenomena are constantly changing moment by moment. Buddhist suttas provide a great deal of theory that one can contemplate on, to develop insights. These include teachings like the nature of the five aggregates, the conditioned nature of all thoughts, how attachments towards the five aggregates happen and how that can influence our experience, the teaching of dependent origination, and also how there is no unchanging entity to be found in any of the arising and ceasing manifestations that are only happening in the present moment (i.e., the non-self nature).
Buddhism also talks about *conventional reality,* which is what Thompson is constantly talking about, when he talks about 'understanding.' Material science operates only at this level - i.e., when Thompson talks about things like ‘the influence of developmental maturation,’ ‘mother’s influences of a child’s progress,’ the brain in cognitive science, and stating that self is interdependent going through ongoing construction, etc., he is talking only about conventional reality. This level of understanding represents just one level. The analyses of the mind that Buddhism does when experientially understood (rather than theoretically understood) leads to a great deal of peace and happiness.
Buddhist teachings are deep and profound, and it takes a lot of effort to practice and to understand the teachings by reflecting on the teachings, etc. If Thompson does these practices as a self-inquiry into the present moment, etc., (instead of doing them to get good for heath, energy, and to feel good - as he described) I think he would be able to appreciate these profound teachings. At the very end of the interview, the 'two selves' that he talks about also relate to conventional reality and ultimate reality.
nice one again
His next project should be fixing his sound! There was constant distortion of his voice throughout the interview.
Response to Evan Thompson’s view of meditation and integration of ‘the social’ as a necessary aspect of development
I think an interesting point to make here is that Thompson stresses the importance of the social aspect of the development of metacognition and its relationship to mindfulness. Mindfulness meditation is an act of observing one’s self with a metacognitive awareness. This metacognitive awareness thought is build socially in relation to others throughout childhood and then applied to one’s own experience to reveal more about one’s own mind. This suggests an intrinsic social aspect in the relation to oneself in meditation, but also the positive effect that the training of metacognition can have on relations with others.
Thompson also says that just the watching of oneself in meditation does not inherently lead to less suffering, it must be done in conjunction with the correct intentions and with a good social purpose in mind. We want to make ourselves and others happier via wisdom, this is the general principle of Buddhist practice. This point also renders meditative practice as a social endeavour.
At the London buddhist society this is the exact reason why there is such a large emphasis on the inherently ‘religious’ aspect of zen Buddhist practice and thought in the zen training. Because within this ‘religious’ context we have the sangha, we have the positive stress on ethical development as vital for meditative and spiritual development. We also tie the idea of reverence to the Buddha, sangha and dharma as putting these things before ourselves. I understand Buddha, Sangha and dharma, as reverence to the teaching, other people, and the nature of the world/perception. A deep respect of these things is entailed in the word religious and these things are also deeply social and linked to the helping of others. I think that Thompson would agree that all of these things are very important in spiritual practice whether Buddhist, perennial or something else. I wanted to add that this social importance could be an argument against the viability of ‘unaligned mysticism’ to someone who maybe doesn’t have the same time as a philosopher does to gain a deep knowledge of many traditions to come to this conclusion in a more perennial way. Just a thought as an offshoot of this conversation. Deeply thought provoking anyway, Evan Thompson is a really awesome thinker, thanks for having him on 🙏
Beautifully stated. Thank you. My own Zen training for over a decade was overtly religious, and gratefully so, since it instilled in me a profound appreciation for not equivocating about that point. I ultimately felt that I found what I had been initially looking for there, and moved on to other spheres of activity and intellectual traditions. The one constant in my socio-spiritual-intellectual life, is that faith is just not for me, it does not work for me as a social being, it simply isn’t in my habit or inclination. And Buddhism, like all religions, requires faith, as it well should. When I began to no longer consider myself Buddhist, I have done so remaining always in gassho to that tradition which gave me so much by kindly taking so much unnecessary crud away.
@@baizhanghuaihai2298 thank you for this comment.
I dislike when practitioners refute that Buddhism is _not_ a religion. It is.
I believe that it's possible to find happiness, fulfillment, and true moral/ethical compass through self reflection and thought experiments. Religion at its worst is a control mechanism and a blight to progress and spiritual evolution. This sounds like an attack on belief systems, but I assure you it's not. Remove the omnipotent being from the equation and insert consciousness, and the results of these parables are the same or actually better outcomes. ✌️
If you carefully study Buddhism, you will be able to see that it is NOT a blind belief system (i.e., it is not a 'religion').
@@mindfulmoments4956 Case in point.
Buddhism is a religion. People say otherwise to distance themselves from the superstitious beliefs found in religions. When in fact Buddhism has fairy tales and superstitious beliefs. Groups can also operate like a cult with a central figure beyond reproach. When you directly criticize or challenge the leader. Who will go by a title like lama, bhikku, etc? Then you are told you are not qualified or dismissed as not having a valid opinion on a topic. I have yet to see a Buddhist group not having cultish aspects. When you address someone as your holiness you are defiantly in a religion. The methods and techniques of mind training can be separated from the Buddhist religion. When done it is considered new age and frowned upon by the Buddhist religion.
@@shaunlindsey5132 Well said. And let's not forget the immaculate conception of Buddha. It's okay that it's a religion, but at least own it.
@@shaunlindsey5132 In an academic institute like a university, professors have titles like ‘senior professor,’ etc., and addressing someone as a “professor,” does not mean that science is a religion. These titles help in issues like organization, etc. Perhaps you interpret rituals that Buddhists engage in as ‘cults’ - but remember that we all engage in various daily rituals. Shaking hands is a ritual. Saluting when the national anthem is played is a ritual, and rituals are also done at weddings, graduation ceremonies, funerals, parties, etc.
In Buddhism, rituals have various reflective meanings. For example, prostrating and bowing in front of a Buddhist stature is carried out to show gratitude to the teachers (and their teachings). Lighting lamps symbolize the light of wisdom, offering flowers (that would soon fade and die) enables one to contemplate the universal law of impermanence.
The temple I attend (Theravada tradition) does not frown upon what you refer to as “techniques of mind training.” Also, although stories in Buddhism might seem like fairy tales to some, no one is forced to believe in them. I have found however that they illustrate (in an abstract way) some aspects of the teachings that can be helpful for some. Please also read the other comment I posted here.
Bertrand Russell would write absolutely nothing these days, because as a brilliant rationalist he would be an instantly obvious target for cancel culture.
"Why Evan Needs Psychoanalysis: Growing Up in Daddy's Religious Blender and Defeating Uncle Bob's Skillful Means"