Buddhism and the Brain § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM

Buddhism and the Brain § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM.

More from the same guy.

But he REALLY needs to beef up a bit on Buddhist thought, before he writes further on the matter. (told him..)
Some of the lines hurt: “When considering a Buddhist contemplating his soul” “Buddhism posits an immaterial thing that survives the brain’s death and is reincarnated.”…. no comment…

He seems to have snatched up a few Buddhist key-words and now thinks he can talk about it in a condescending way.

Of course the realization of a non-permanent mind (no-self) does not spring up in the way this author claims. That the mind is not unified and that there is no permanent self to hang on to are inescapable insights that spring from a deep meditation-based inquiry. Which is what I would wish the author would get himself into before he writes more of the same.

Still, interesting enough, in a wrong kind of way.


About Armin

Hermit, free-lance monk, laughing pessimist, hopeless optimist, standing upright after being bowled over too often, crawling when he should fly and flying without a pilot's licence. Clinging to bushes and grasses in his free time.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Buddhism and the Brain § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM

  1. James Hegarty says:

    This was my comment to Seed Magazine – I suppose a more important question is why did I bother to respond


    “I have just read the piece Buddhism and the Brain by David Wiseman. Unfortunately Mr Wiseman has made many errors. Of course he doesn’t understand Buddhism, and seems to conflate some of the more culturally driven schools which involve a lot of magical thinking with Buddhism, rather than considering the core elements of the philosophy itself. But, his main, and most glaring error is to conflate Neuroscience and Neurology with Psychology. It was psychology, long before the modern coining of the term “neuroscience” which showed us that the world is a construction of our own making and not a set of objective facts or objects. “Neuroscience” as it is now generally practiced is really correlational, and does not really prove a lot. More importantly, it does not provide a level of analysis that is useful in daily life. Thus, the importance of Buddhist type practices for many people. They seem to provide a level of analysis, and a practice that is some how useful in their lives. Those of us who have worked in the sciences, particularly Psychological science have long understood the implications of brain behaviour relationships, and the impermanence of phenomena, or its lack of a stable reality. This intellectual knowing, while it can be interesting, and fun, certainly does not change anything. Babbling about the importance of “neuroscience” and Buddhism is basically meaningless for both serious neuroscience and for Buddhist practice. Unless it helps you get a research grant of course.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s