Mindfulness Discussions

Discussion1

The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.

The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.

Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.

.

Integrity of Reality

The integrity of reality underlies the very concept of universe. The word UNIVERSE is derived from a Latin root, which means “entire, all, literally, turned into one.” The integrity of reality leads to the universe being continuous, harmonious and consistent.

The scientific method follows this law as best as it can when investigating a phenomenon. 

A violation of the integrity of reality would be an anomaly. This may manifest as discontinuity (missing data), inconsistency (contradictory data), or disharmony (arbitrary data). An anomaly flags the presence of a hidden impression on the mind in the form of an assumption. When the assumption, and the underlying impression is discovered it produces a realization that resolves the anomaly.

A discussion seeks to restore the integrity of reality by discovering the anomalies present and resolving them.

.

Rules of Discussion

In mindfulness discussion one is guided by mindfulness, as learned through the practice of mindfulness meditation. Here are some specific instructions.

.

(1) Do not defend a viewpoint, instead look for some anomaly generated by it.

For example, a person may believe that God is a being who has created this world. He may reject those who think differently. This viewpoint generates an inconsistency. A being has a form, but all forms are created only when the world gets created. So either God must have been created along with the world, or God is not a being. The person may not be aware of this inconsistency caused by his belief, and he may be willing to engage in a mindful discussion.

But when a person refuses to engage in a discussion despite inconsistency, and continues to defend his belief, then he may be using that belief to hide some confusion. He may be afraid that if his belief is shaken, some confusion will overwhelm him. But as he gets exposed to mindfulness, he may be willing to examine his confusions. Mindful discussion could then help resolve that confusion. Everybody wins.

.

(2) Focus on the data being presented and not on the person presenting it.

Many people feel so invested in their beliefs that they feel attacked when they are unable to uphold their viewpoint in a discussion. They start commenting on the perceived characteristics of another participant holding a different viewpoint. They may even become accusative, emotional and combative.

Any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. It must be avoided.

.

(3) In a disagreement never call the other person wrong, instead provide further clarification regarding your viewpoint.

In any disagreement effort should be made to clarify one’s viewpoint as much as possible. Not doing so, and simply saying that the other person is wrong, does not resolve anything. It only produces distraction.

.

(4) Furthermore, in a disagreement, ask for clarification and, when it is provided, consider it with mindfulness.

A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification. He would not even listen if the other person offers any clarification. He simply would not engage in a discussion. This kind of behavior also produces much distraction.

.

(5) Do not complain that the other person is not answering your question, instead discuss what you are expecting.

When a person is committed to certain expectations, he may not even see an answer when it is given to him. An indication of that is his continual complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the expectations he has committed himself to and compare it to answers he is getting. If he then finds an anomaly, he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying his expectations in his mind, no discussion is possible.

.

(6) Always focus on anomalies and isolate them as best as you can. Never be discouraged if others are taking time to recognize it.

An anomaly is a discontinuity (missing information), an inconsistency (contradicting information),  or disharmony (arbitrariness of altered importance). It is something that does not make sense. Mindfulness discussion is very successful because it focuses on anomalies only. When an anomaly is difficult to resolve simply look around for more data on that area of discontinuity, inconsistency, or disharmony, and consider it carefully.

.

Summary

A disagreement doesn’t mean that what is being disagreed with is untrue. To show untruthfulness of something one needs to point out the anomaly. Then that anomaly needs to be resolved to find the actual element, which makes the observations free of anomalies. That element shall qualify as the truth.

.

What Religion You should follow

.

Absolutism and Philosophy

The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without. – Buddha.

.

Absolutism:  any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Philosophy:  the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

 .

My understanding is that

  1. Absolutes are unattainable. This means that nothing can be defined with absolute certainty. Any certainty that one holds is subject to re-examination in the face of inconsistency.

  2. Philosophy is an investigation of what is really there. It makes progress by thoroughly examining inconsistencies to the point of eliminating them.

.

Nothing that exists is so sacrosanct that it is beyond re-examination.

.

This stance may seem to be inconsistent with the principle of Confusion and Stable data promoted by L. Ron Hubbard, but it is not really so. According to Hubbard’s principle, mental confusions are held at bay by beliefs, and if those beliefs are destabilized then a person may be overwhelmed with confusion. This is apparently true.

However, it is always possible to replace a belief with a more consistent belief. But this may be regarded as addressing a conditioning with another conditioning. This seems to take place in the subject of Scientology.

An optimum course would be to remove the confusion altogether so a belief is no longer required. This seems to be the approach in Buddhism.

[NOTE: The above essay was inspired by an exchange with Geir Isene here: Comment-3712. The problem with Geir’s article ON WILL is its absolutist tendency to look at will and other things.]

.

References:

Is there an absolute Will?

Considerations and Free Will

.

A Family Picture (1996)

My children have been a lot of fun when they were growing up. They are still a lot of fun.

Enjoy your children while they are with you.

.

Is there an absolute Will?

My friend Geir Isene has written this article ‘On Will.’

According to this article the idea of will essentially depends on the idea of choice. But what is not clear is who or what is this thing called ‘I’, which makes the choice. The whole logic of this article depends on the underlying assumption that there is a spiritual element called ‘I’, which is absolute, permanent and independent in itself.

That is an assumption, which I do not see challenged in the western philosophy. But I do see it challenged in the Eastern philosophy. If there is no absolute, permanent and independent ‘I’ then there is no absolute, permanent and independent power to make choice; and there is no absolute, permanent and independent will – even potentially.

According to Buddhist philosophy, what we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’ is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.

One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self, individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. But when these physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea of self. There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these aggregates.

There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you move the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’

Everything in the physical universe is relative to each other. According to Buddhism, this is the case with everything in the spiritual universe as well. There is nothing absolute… not even the soul.

The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without. – Buddha

.