Jed McKenna is a perfect example of psychopathic spiritual teacher:
"My worldview is not informed by any teacher or teaching. I assert no belief, original or second-hand. I am not passing anything down that was passed down to me. Every square inch of my understanding comes from exploration, perception, reason, and logic. You might say there are higher ways of knowing than reason and logic, and being heart-centric, you might believe it, but it’s not true. It’s the heart that will mislead you, every time. Reason and logic drive me straight into the absolute certainty and inevitability of nonduality, and all else follows naturally from that. That's the way the world unfolds."
"Frankly, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you are on in the religious space. Fully for, fully against, it’s still a belief. You will never know until you die, and you may not even know then."
This is exactly why I regard atheism (and Scientism, its most modern iteration) as a modern religion. They believe not having faith, but their faith involves believing in nothing insubstantial.
I'm a Omnist, myself. A meta believer, an apostle of Life.
I feel as though beliefs are of the essence, when it comes to shaping the believer, which is why institucionalized religions are invariably a two edged sword... that purports to liberate but ultimately ensnares adepts in paradoxes seemingly designed to arrest critical thought from the onset - as the ones from your Sunday school memories.
The true religious spirit ( as hinted in the etimology of the word) is all about reconnecting us incarnate souls to the unnamable Source, and overcoming all illusory attachments to this transient reality. This is observable in the philosophy of Buddhism indeed, although it's worth noting that it too has its own politized branches - much like other religions also usually have their philosophical merits.
I concur with your hypothesis that Buddhism may have been established by a well meaning person having the psychopathic mindset. At very least there are striking similarities in attitude between that and the enlighnened mind, as attested by Kevin Dutton. Well... at least, where it concerns the psychopathic mind that is not weighed down by hubris - for that which happended to be could very well decide to go the opposite direction, to become a cult leader.
There was an interesting quote, and I don't recall who said it though that all religions were simply fingers of the same hand that lead back to the same place of origin.
It is a mistake to regard atheism and belief in science as a new kind of religion, or to see the beliefs as in some way equivalent, just because they are both things that people can be enthusiastic (even tribal) about. The similarity is superficial and doesnt stand up to analysis.
I have seen many people that treat their idea of what science is as their ideology. They are not actually speaking about real science, as they know very little about it, but that doesn't stop them from speaking about it as though it is beyond reproach.
We live in a dualistic reality (subject-object, emotion-reason, etc.), and sometimes we focus on one side at the expense of the other, depending on our natures. I believe this could be the root of all ideological bias and tribal flair - whether it's religious or scientific.
I know from past experience that there are X-tian fundies who will appeal to all manner of quackery, archeological expeditions of dubious intent, and outright frauds who make claims that this or that "scientific discovery" validates their "faith"
But the Apostle Paul said that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
I take that to mean that the person looking for validation of faith in fact has no faith at all
The proper term is hypocrisy.
Now for "atheist", again when I was involved in fundie shenanigans we are tried to lead "unbelievers" to "salvation"
An unbeliever is functionally an atheist in the most literal sense of the word. Indeed among the faithful there were scores of functional atheist who didn't lead a lifestyle away from the congregation that in any way involved their professed religious beliefs
Now me personally, I did because I was convinced that there was some sort of payoff in religion and I'd seen and experienced odd happenings that to this day make me think that there's more to the world than just the physical.
So, perhaps I sound harsh but as you should know, I don't care. Throwing around words like "Scientism" with is a description of a hypocritical tactic and "atheist" which as far as I can tell is the actual default human belief as if they mean anything at all only serves to discredit oneself
Hey, that is VERY interesting - but I don't feel your views is at odds with mine. I do see how I may need to clarify my premises. Don't worry about sounding harsh by the way, and I think it's good that you state your position clearly.
Basically, the hypocritical tactics you describe are what I regard as the political side of religion. I think this dark side can potentially apply to any creed. Up to here, I suppose we're in agreement, right? It sounds like you have personally experienced the bad side of a religion.
I imagine where I may reasoning may go off-track from your perspective is when I equate Scientism to the political side of something you likely don't associate with either a creed or a religion: Science. Let me elaborate on this comparison:
People who regard Science as their substitute for a deity do exist, and they to tend to be atheist.
Both them, as well as you, seem to readiily disagree with the notion of comparing Religion with a Science and Scentism with the quasi-religious politization of science that is not at all uncomoon, these days.
Butif you think it through, their attitude is of such reverence and Faith in Science as the only avialable gateway to making perfect sense of the world (even though it hasn't happened and they don't even know if it's actually possible); their unassailable Faith in the Scientific Method, in practical terms, it holds a similar weight to a religious belief ( in its positive expression).
The atheistic minded do have their natural-science based version of Faith. And sometimes they too go overboard in trying tto "evangelize" people into their creed, while unreasonably deriding any other expresison of faith, and in doing so they too can be hypocritical... because they act not unlke the religious zealots they criticize.
This is the crucial point:
So tough I'm putting "scientific atheism" in the same bag as religion (and remember I'm a professed omnitheist, so I think all religions have some valid aspects, most certainly incuding Science)...
I'm also pointing that all religions have a corrupted politicized dark side - including atheism/science, which has scientism (the blind unresonable, quasi-fanatic faith in science as the only gateway to Truth, as opposed to a most vital tool in the sistematization of knowledge about the natural world, which derives best results when combined with other tools like Religon, Art and Philosophy - as being demonstrated in the field of Quantum Physics that is currently bridging the gap between these disciplines/tools, and ultimatley pans out as the modern take on Mysticism).
To be clear: I do believe there is much more to the world than just the physical. But I also believe that it's trough the physical that we get to explore the other realities. Both sides matter as much, in my view. Like Form and Content are just as meaninful to me. I dont suppose we are of this world. But I do suppose we came into this sort of purgatory for a reason.
That reason may very well to know ourselves so we can derive insight that improves our understanding of the capital Self from which we all derive. I rather like the Spinozan take on God.
After some thought I have realized that spirituality is reflective of some state of the brain. Psychopathy seems to track with Buddhist meditation. Other states of the brain will relate more or less to different sorts of spiritual experiences.
For me this syncs with calling this or that whether real or imagined a religion being meaningless sophistry. There is no state of the brain that being an atheist would map to. Likewise with the whole "Scientism" term. That's just old school whataboutism as perfected by the Soviets being applied to people you don't agree with.
Also... omnitheist??? Does that indicate a belief in every possible god everywhere? What is that suppose to do for you?
When I began practicing dzogchen buddhist meditation I had a natural knack for it and was able to advance rapidly to the point of the "having no head" practice and then that was the end of that.
My claim to Omnitheism implies the recognition of elements of spirituality in any religion, along with elements of politicized corruption.
What it does for me is allow to to relate to people across the spectrum of ideology without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
I'm not a disagreeable person, really. I care about refining my understanding of reality, and to that effect I think everyone has their valid points. But everyone likewise has less than valid points, myself included.
But of one thing I'm fairly sure:
We're more than just brains. We also have bodies. And we also have affects bridging the gap between our mind and bodies. And we additionally have a little ephemeral extra that is otherworldly and antithetical to logic and seemingly unknowable; spirit, some would call it.
So looking just at brain scans could keep us from seeing the whole picture.
I have no more particular attachment to the Adam and Eve story than I do to, say, a Greek myth. But do you mind if I take a crack at the interpretation? If such things are annoying just tell me and I'll stick to other topics in the future.
A lot of religious texts are esoteric and have a meaning behind the direct physical meaning.
Adam means "man" in Hebrew, from adamah (dirt.) So ... the physical stuff of humanity. Eve means 'eternal spirit.' So in the native Hebrew the story has a much more allegorical tone with two characters named "man" and "eternal spirit."
Child Athena asked: "How on earth are these two people supposed to understand the gravity of that tree or the choice that they are making?"
Eve wouldn't have understood before she ate the apple. But after she ate the apple she should have had knowledge. Despite this, she shared the apple with Adam. That was the only informed choice that was really made in the story, where a character both had knowledge of Good and Evil and also acted badly despite that knowledge. If Adam and Eve are individuals, it doesn't make sense if they're both punished. If Adam and Eve are humanity and its Eternal Spirit the allegory makes a bit more sense.
Of course, you were very right to point out the problems with your teachers telling you that God doesn't tempt people in the JudeoChristian tradition.
In any case, I think we both understand that Genesis is a story made up by a fallible human a very long time ago and the indoctrination of young children kindof sucks. In Sunday School I was told that the 'Red Sea' was actually the Reed Sea and that the Hebrews crossing it were able to do so because they were lighter than the chariots behind them. The miraculous re-telling came later, I was told. So there was a different tone to the education, with less focus on lockstep belief and literal interpretation. And I've probably had less of an aversion to religion because of it, though I'm by no means devout or orthodox.
In any case, I do like your interpretation of some strains of Buddhism. (I have heard you make the comparison before.)
The Koan makes far more overt sense than most Zen Koans.
That is an interesting point about Eve, and I agree with you. She did know, and chose to offer it to Adam, but even in that knowledge, when she offers it to Adam, he makes the same choice as she does. She is acting in the serpent's place, but I don't think she had the serpent's intention, which opens a new can of worms that I got kicked out of Sunday school for, which was the role of Lucifer in general.
It's interesting to me that the bible seems to track an immature God, who grows along with the story. This is a very human aspect to God, but he is angry and wrathful at the beginning of creation only to settle and become forgiving later on.
If I were to guess, humans were meant to fall because it is the only way that we can understand the nature of choice, and the burden of responsibility. That then brings up the argument of free will, and the notion of its existence. If we are meant to fall and know these things was her choice truly her own. Perhaps they are the catalyst for the human journey and without them we remain cloaked in innocence. They did fall, which means we are supposed to live a life that tracks back to God through choice. Sort of like the saying, if you love something, let it go. If it comes back it is truly yours.
All of this is assuming that this particular mythos is correct, but as I said, I have no idea.
" It's interesting to me that the bible seems to track an immature God, who grows along with the story. "
That is interesting. I was part of a syncretist Taoist group at one point where they specifically argued that "spirits" behaved that way, evolving along with a people. It seems to be a notion that gets some affirmation outside the JudeoChristian tradition. I've heard NeoPagans talk about the evolving ethics of Greek gods. I don't know how to map this to my own experiences except as a metaphor or allegory, but as a shared narrative or myth it is interesting.
"She is acting in the serpent's place, but I don't think she had the serpent's intention, which opens a new can of worms that I got kicked out of Sunday school for, which was the role of Lucifer in general. "
Interesting point. What were her motives? I have no idea. For what it's worth, Christianity tends to conflate Satan (the tempter figure in the Old Testament) with Lucifer ( an ancient king who sought to 'set himself up above God.')
"If I were to guess, humans were meant to fall because it is the only way that we can understand the nature of choice, and the burden of responsibility."
I wonder if her motives were to complete what her role in this world was. She was the mother of all humans in this particular mythos, so I would imagine that for the mother to exist the mother must be flawed. Perfection is the enemy of progress. For humans to evolve they would have to have a reason to strive. Perfection is the epitome of laziness.
Yes, you are correct about Lucifer, and my argument with him as an entity is this. Humans are the only creation of God's that has free will. Angels did not have this. Lucifer lacked the ability to rise against God. It is a fatal flaw in the narrative, and one that cannot be ignored. Also, the conflation of the two has always provided me this argument. If Lucifer is Satan, but had no free will to rise up against God, then either the stories about him doing so aren't true, or it was God's will, and he is still doing the will of God in his current role.
I think my angular gyrus is not wired the NT way... it is connected to my perceptions of CHOCOLATE. Just saying. Dark chocolate, in particular.
I only know a few other autistics, but they don't seem to have the NT religious thing going on either... As a kid, I thought that belief would be nice to have, after viewing how certain it seemed to make some adults, but I could never actually feel it -- and I don't want to anymore after seeing more human behavior. I'd agree that the Buddha was likely not NT, but I'm not sure which neurotype he was... I know very little about Buddhism though, just going by the logic part you describe; some of us autistics have cognition a lot more separate from emotions than many NTs seem to. A difference between autistics and psychopaths might be that the latter would mostly have muted emotions - per your description - but some of us autistics have very strong emotions... for me, more in a bubble at times; I'm not "in" them always, but if they get very strong, they expand and include "me" in them. I bet that makes no sense... But my understanding of Buddhism would let me conclude that some autistics could find it very attractive/helpful.
I can feel a strong sense of wonder, beauty, and love, and I can feel a part of life and existence, sometimes, in a pretty wonderful way... but not the same way as people describe their connection to a personified deity... and I don't conflate my inner experiences with reality as much as some NTs. I think. Would I know? Hmmm, not sure.
I too was raised in a very religious environment and also had lots of questions but I incorrectly deduced that there was something that they weren't telling me and I wanted to know what that could be so I was extremely patient with their bullshit
Until I wasn't
I laugh when I think about how long I abided with that foolishness now but it is what it is.
ROFL!! I gather that both my parents had "that did not go over well" stories of their own. So I was raised by atheists. OTOH, I agree about hubris. While I haven't had any odd experiences myself, I know people who have.
Oh that's a good one. There must be some secret key that would make it all make sense! I can imagine when it no longer made sense, someone more NT might feel hollowed out and bereft and directionless, betrayed, foolish and humiliated by their credulousness and misplaced trust, a whole cascade of unwelcome emotions. I hope you felt something more like just dismissive annoyance!
Lovely article Athena. I've had a similar hypothesis about the Buddha. I'd definitely be more interested in your thoughts on the similarities between psychopathy and Buddhism.
All right. I will see what I can do. It definitely won't be a deep dive into Buddhism, but rather covering the overall ideas that it is meant to instruct in.
I have a different perspective on the Buddhist concept of enlightenment. Actually, the concept isn't unique to Buddhism - the public just associates thethe concept with Buddhism. The Bhagavad Gita leads up to Arjuna's enlightenment, and even the Bible speaks of it when you interpret it in a mystical way (the Bible has an infinite variety of interpretations).
Although there are the similarities that you note, there are also quite a few differences between psychopathy and enlightenment.
With enlightenment, there's no sense of individual self. It's real difficult to describe the experience, but it's a broadening of that sense of self to include everything that exists. I feel like my edges - whatever that means - are diffuse, but people tell me I'm more defined.
Because there's no sense of self, desires disappears. Desire served as motivation for action, but now, it's all immersed in flow.
The mind becomes very still. Thoughts arise, but theres no attachment, no identification with them. After a lifetime of defensive emotions and busy thoughts, I find the experience fascinating.
There's no compartmentalization. It's all one level, one awareness. The focus is on what's happening now, a moment-to-moment awareness. I don’t get bored. The last time I was bored when I was waiting for surgery a year ago - boredom came from nerves at that time.
My feeling is that this is our natural state. When we "make the unconscious conscious," as Jung suggested, refrain from judgment, forgive, and work through trauma, this is what is left.
I didn't compare psychopathy with enlightenment. I compared what it is trying to teach, which is detachment from emotions. Enlightenment is neither here nor there to a psychopath. We have nothing to detach from.
That would be an intriguing state of mind to experience, but why do you think this is our natural state, when so few people experience existence like that without putting in a lot of work?
Athena, I liked your take on Buddhism. Very interesting. I'm a Buddhist. One thing that is true is that there are (at least some) similarities between the enlightened state(s) we seek and the psychopathy you describe from your own experience. But they are not identical at all. An enormous part of Buddhist motivation is the wish to end not only one's own suffering, but the suffering of all others. This wish comes from the heart. I can't speak to every Buddhist's specific motivation, but for me, I wouldn't do what I do at the level of intensity I do it, without the clear prospect of helping others..And this wish comes from the heart (all that icky chemical stuff).
This loving kindness and compassion stuff is implicit in classical Buddhism but is at the heart of all the Mahayana disciplines. It's even at the heart of the stories about the Buddha himself. One of the most striking pieces of that story for me, is that once he had established himself as a teacher, he went back home and made it up to his family for running out on them.
I don't see him as a psychopath. Living on the road, sleeping outdoors, barefoot all the time, begging for his bread, teaching people, many of whom had to have been highly resistant to what he was trying to tell them, for 40 years, does not sound like the way you describe yourself.
But then in defense of what you had to say, I do not "know" this on any sort of intellectual level. No one does. For some three to five hundred years after the Buddha lived (depending on whose chronology of his life you accept) the Buddhists didn't write any of the stories or teachings down. So we have no "hard facts" on which to hang any of our stories or theories..
But in the end Buddhism is experiential. However well read one is, one cannot know Buddhism from outside. On one level it's a straight-up mind training program, and on another it's very much a religion. Most if not all we NT's as you note above, are hard-wired for that sort of thing. Also, uncanny things do happen from time to time. You've even copped to having had a few such experiences yourself.
But again,it's experiential. I have no idea what you would find if you sat down to meditate. It could be very interesting indeed, or it could be a total bore (I've experienced both). There are plenty of books and online spaces about how to do it, and depending on where you live, there is a variety of places in which you could learn in company. It might be worth a try to as we sometimes say, sit and see what arises.
You seem to have missed my point. I did not say that the person that came up with Buddhism wrote the rules and purpose with themselves in mind, but rather watch neurotypicals and their emotional noise and came up with Buddhism as a pathway for them to basically knock it off as it causes enormous problems in their lives and the world.
If I were creating this process it would be very simple to understand how to tool it and create mythos that get people to the end goal that I consider valuable to them. Basically I would use what I know about them so they will find value in what I am telling them. Otherwise, they will stubbornly refuse to even consider it, because that's how many of them are.
“I mean, he might as well have placed a big neon sign over the tree with arrows pointing to it saying, ‘eat me eat me’.”
I laughed at that!
Pretty convenient how Cain was able to find a wife and have children with her after being banished to where he was too I’ve also long thought. If Adam and Eve were the only people to exist before Abel and he did how could this be possible? I also don’t see how the flood and Tower of Babel stories reflect the nature of an all perfect loving benevolent god either. All utter nonsense imho!
I would bring that one up all the time as well. I'm sorry, he was born to the first two people. He grew up with those same two people and had one brother. He kills the brother and gets banished, but just f*cks off over here to a town that has people in it, gets married, and has kids?
In the old testament, God is not a loving God at all. He is wrathful. Those stories do correlate with that description of him. You could make the argument that his change was when he decided to come here in the body of Jesus to experience strife and suffering, ending with his death on the cross. The argument is that while called the Son of God, in reality Jesus was just an aspect of God separated off to live in the world, which is why Jesus calls to his Father when he has doubts about the sacrifice.
I get that thinking, because if I were God, and I separated off this aspect to learn about and experiencing the suffering of others, and had this plan of cleansing people of their sins, but while living with them I see a lot of their problems are self inflicted, I don't think that I would be very convinced that my plan was going to have any effect at all.
I die, and they're just going to keep being assh*les to one another, so what's the point?
This was a good one. I was raised in a religious cult that eventually went horribly belly up, and for a while it turned me off from everything with even a whiff of spirituality. Knee jerk reactions and slammed shut mind.
But a little older and hopefully a tad wiser now, I recognize that there is more than just the physical in this universe. If you really look/feel, it’s obvious.
However, I still don’t listen to humans who say they have The Answers or “a corner on the market” of the afterlife or the meaning of life. That’s still NG to me.
Buddhism is interesting, and I know several people in my circle who are Buddhist. Sometimes they lack personal responsibility and humility under the guise of being a beacon of enlightenment and that…annoys me. Maybe they need to meditate some more, as you say.
As with any beliefs, if it makes them happy, I don’t mind. But if they try to influence my behavior, emotions, or thoughts, I very much do.
Imperfectly, I’m living as morally sound as I can. Do no harm, try to do some good, etc. If I learn something else down the road, so be it. But for now that’s enough.
Ooo that would annoy me as well. Why do so many people look for an excuse to be a d*ck? It amazes me the number of excuses that I have heard to justify a lack of personal responsibility.
To escape uncomfortable emotions? I get it, but I also don’t. I know when I’ve been a d*ck, and usually, if the situation warrants it, I acknowledge and apologize. If I repeatedly don’t get the same courtesy back though, I won’t keep debasing myself for that relationship for no reason.
I have been wondering about this since I started following you.
I had all the same questions and I have (over years) come to my own conclusions. I had to start from zero and figure it out from the inside out. I have noticed that most people’s complaint(s) with God are based on whichever religious mythos their culture accepts.
If you have no emotional basis for needing to believe in your image of God, go forth and prosper 😃.
I have always felt like there was "nothing" but came across instances that made me think there might be "something". Atheist my whole life, despite being raised around the religious, though I have a strong focus in morals and "the right path" as I learned it was later coined.
Your same questions on Christians have been the same ones I have also brought about.
I have never read that story regarding Tanzan, the one that relates to attachment within Buddhism, and it left me pondering quite a bit. But what I can say is: Buddhism helped me learn to detach so much, that I can not even feel hunger nor feel any emotion. It's at a level where I can barely control it. It's my Way of Being. Yet when I look back, I wonder if I ever felt any love at all. Any emotion at all. Or if this was just something I had learned to do, to feel.
Looking back, I never yelled or cried and was always so calm and collect. Always "driven" and "logical". Like an animal. Always able to make the tough calls, like parting ways with a pet when others may not even do what needed to be done - emotionless through it, and this was before I explored Buddhism.
I had to laugh at your behavior at church, as I think most children have those kinds of thoughts but are afraid to express them. My son and I have had numerous discussions about religion, he to relates to Buddhism. Personally I think native Americans have it closest to what is and what could be .
I should have responded to this post when the iron was hot. There is a lot of "decontamination" I could have done with respect to the Biblical texts and their use... but that will have to happen at another time.
I will get this off my chest: People's use of the biblical text or response to it is as often a diagnostic of the beholder as a second hand transmission of the text itself. Step back, take a breath, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters (yes, that means kising cousins in the beginning*cough*founders effect*cough*) , analogical readings do serve a purpose but they aren't always right; however, related texts can elucidate which ones are; source language is VERY important as all translations are judgment calls and therefore also interpretations; the high council of "the gods" v. YHWH is a case where they accuse him of having bad judgment and YHWH vindicates himself when the whole thing is done; Most people do not learn that there are 2 parallel messages - law/condemnation and promise/hope which are related but distinct; I could go on, but it's the wrong time. Sorry for the grave-robbing...
Hm, how did I miss this? I must have been busy with a funeral or something...
People make inferences about what the Bible says all the time. It's bad form to "go beyond scripture" and yet most confessional stances do just that. I see this happening in your case. In fact, the biblical accounts are such that they create more questions than answers, except for the parts where directives, assertions, and encouragements from God ARE given... meanwhile there is a lot of stuff "God doesn't talk about" and it is best to leave it at that. That is hard for the vast majority of people. I have learned to do this with considerable difficulty but it's incredibly liberating and yields abundant insight.
That's interesting , I myself have tried "psychopathic meditation". Since I tend towards psychosis which I believe is the opposite of psychopathy.
One thing though to add to your theory , there is a modern misconception about the doctrine of Anatta (no-self). Buddhists take it as a fact: there is no self. But the original Pali Sutras always used anatta as an adjective, not a noun. That is: thoughts are anatta (not the self, not the atta/atman), feelings are anatta etc. But "the wise find refuge in the self (atta)". Why did modern Buddhism evolve to be against the self it's a bit puzzling
About the myth of Eden, I ponder about it frequently. I think it is the snake who gave us free will. The whole point of Eden is being under the protection of God where free will is not needed. And the snake could well be an archetype of psychopathy.
It is said that the gift of free will comes from God. If it did not exist and was not given by God, Eve would not be able to consider what the serpent suggested to begin with. It would have fallen on literal deaf ears. It would be a concept she could not comprehend.
I do not see how the snake would relate to psychopathy. Please tell me more.
Firstly because the snake, being a reptile represents a part of our brain (remnant of our evolutionary past, on which other structures were built upon). I'll leave you to figure out the rest.
I'm just using your intellectual currency though (neuroscience)
Psychosis is also a lazy term. When people say psychosis they think of schizophrenics: poor executive functioning, frank hallucinations, paranoia, delusion of grandeur, social seclusion. Only a handful of psychiatrists and researchers (mainly based in London) know that there is a type of psychosis that is different: no actual sensory hallucinations, no paranoia, no delusion of grandeur, good or above average cognitive functioning, no social seclusion, yet.. they are definitely acting 'off', crazy. So they end up in the same ward as schizophrenics, given the same medication, and diagnosed under the umbrella term 'psychotic disorder'. What's going on with them? They are to schizophrenics what psychopaths are to antisocials.
Think about these two scenarios please:
1) Mary is a colour-blind scientist that does paintings as a hobby. She can replicate any object, landscape etc with photographic precision, using black and white colours. Her technique is flawless. One day a person comes and tells her: "I see your technique is incredible, I would like to commission a painting from you, the pay is really good. I want you to paint a beautiful snake for me, with golden wings. Mary says 'I'll see what I can do'. She spends the day going through her nature books trying to find a snake with wings so she can reproduce it, to no avail. While she's doing that she also asks herself; 'Golden'?
2) Ezequiel is an engineer, as a hobby he collects oils and acrylics from every colour, to the point that he managed to create a palette of myriads of tones of every nature. He also has great ideas and rich concepts which he shares with friends about potential paintings he could make. One day a person comes to him and says ' I see you have these so many colours I've never seen before, and I heard about your aesthetics and concepts, could you paint this ___ for me? He says 'why of course I can, you can come by tomorrow morning and it'll be ready'. So he sits in front of the canvas, pictures the painting flawlessly in his mind, maybe even better than what was asked, he wets the brush and when he looks at the canvas he is struck with this realization: he has no clue where to start. Even more, he thinks 'have I even ever painted something before?'.
To sum up: the objective current worth of these two artists is zero.
You advice neurotypicals to get a (functional) psychopathic friend. I advice you to get a (functional) psychotic friend. I am open for an exchange with you, if you want you can drop a line here: enneas.vittoria@protonmail.com. Good day ^_^
I wonder if that type of psychosis is external, not internal.
I have seen enough things in my life to know what we perceive and what exists are not the same thing. Perhaps there is something in the brain that makes that membrane separating the two worlds and making them far more able to be perceived by the person with that difference in the brain. It isn't something that I know a great deal about, but I know enough to know that I don't know, and am not interested in trying to have a concrete position on a nebulous subject.
Another subject that I am very mildly aware of, but have no deep understanding of is that brain making DMT, and that children have higher concentrations of it. Perhaps it means nothing, but children are often thought of as more able to see things that adults simply cannot. Also that when people use DMT intentionally they can share the experience, or they can have an experience that relates to one that someone that they know had previously.
An example of this was a guy that did DMT on a somewhat regular basis, and while in his experience he met a purple lady that he conversed with several times. His friend also decided to try DMT, and did so without knowing the first guy's experience. While in his own, he also met the purple lady, and she told him that she knew his friend, as well as relayed information that he otherwise would not have known about their interactions. It is also of note that people theorize that when we die, our brains release a flood of DMT, which in turn is why people see things like the tunnel of light.
Looping back to the shared or somewhat shared experience that some people claim to have had on DMT, perhaps when is seen when death arrives is not a hallucination as scientists have been suggesting, but instead it is seeing beyond the veil. Perhaps it is also this world that some people are able to see. No matter if it is or isn't, so long as the people around them can't see it, they will be considered out of touch with reality.
Your way of thinking and writing about abstract things is: A->B->C etc, you jump from detail to detail, this review on DMT for example. You start with hallucinations, mention children, one guy who took DMT saw X, then the other. I can connect back to my metaphor of the two artists, but maybe you don't think in analogies/metaphors and allegories. For me it's all about that, when you want to process complex non-scientific topics you need something else, you just can't arrive to any meaningful conclusion if you go linearly like you do.
It's not about meeting beings that most people don't see, I think that qualifies as hallucinations and I can't say much about them because I never had them, not even with psychedelics. I think my nature is simply connection with Myth. Which of course can be maladaptive and it's something I also need to hide on a daily basis and basically tone it down. While you might use a mask to hide your lack of 'humanity' on one end, I use it to hide my 'heroism' which is that connection with Myth. Of course that sounds crazy and actually better that way. So I don't have much problems with hiding my identity online etc. Now of course there's schizophrenics who believe they're God. There's a difference between the Myth and the 'Divine'. I don't think I actually have any kind of power, it's not about that, though if it's time to put down the mask I can be very intense. Intellectually It's more like eagle vision, you might be good deciphering individuals, I don't pay much attention to that, yet I see the macro instantly. Why does the world as a whole behave in this way? What cards are being played on a grand level?
Yes you could be right. If God forbid something it means they had already the capacity to disobey. However he did not say why, just 'dont'. The fruit was from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So true, the snake tempted them 'he does not want you to eat from this fruit because if you do you will become like God yourselves'.
What I meant was there is no free will if you don't understand the consequences of your actions. Is simply obeying , even out of respect or love, really a free choice, when you don't even know why you should do or not do something? There is no morality without freedom (from clockwork orange) rings a bell here, and I'd add: there's no freedom of choice without knowledge.
That's an interesting perspective, I like it. It does bring to mind the idea of kids who commit murder. We know that their brains are immature and unable to truly understand the consequences of their behavior, yet they are often charged and sentenced as adults. I have wondered for quite some time if that is justifiable.
Yes because when you think 'religion' you must think 'for the good of everyone' while the truth is Buddha simply offered individual salvation. Why he shared his path is a mystery (compassion?). The only other religion I can think of that focuses on self is Church of Satan. Which for me it's more like a parody religion and unappealing for most people. Also they do wrong in associating Evil (Satan) with Ego.
If he was wired like me, it would have been because watching the emotional noise all around is sort of vexing. On the one hand people bemoan their emotional pain, on the other they believe that their emotions define them. Irrational decisions are all about, things decided without logic, but rather emotional impulses that bring about bad and predictable endings.
From the outside it looks like people spinning wildly out of control with the firm belief that they have no ability to stop the ride, but to someone like me there is a big red button with arrows pointing at it all around and signs that say, to stop the ride, press here and then a ramp that says, ride exit. The people on the ride keep screaming for help, but no one even notices the button. Buddha just walked over and pressed the button, watched the ride spin down and then stop, told people about the button, pointed to the ramp, but only one or two people leave. The others brace themselves for another ride, and ignore the advice all together.
Buddha said he 'rediscovered an ancient path'. I don't think he was wired like you, though he might have been able to 'activate' psychopathy. The thing with equanimity, detachment etc for someone who looks at it on an intellectual and emotional level (from the outside) feels like death. Yes, I'd get rid of hell, but is the cost letting go of heaven? Psychopathy feels to me again, like uprooting the whole tree in order to deal with a diseased half.
Hm, in that I disagree. it makes more sense to me that it is something that is meant to be overcome. Much like an addiction, they are something that are often harmful even when or especially when they are extremely enjoyable.
Being powerful as they are, they are difficult to let go of, and the person uses these chemical reactions in the brain to define themselves. In my thinking they are the opposite. They are the noise that the self must be found through. They are the test, not the goal.
Yes I can see why they look like some sort of trap. There's definitely duality and you wouldn't be saying your nature is an advantage if all 'neurotypicals' experienced only pleasant emotions, constantly. It's an advantage for now, if you compare yourself to others. Of course I'd rather not have a sense of smell if all there was to smell is shit. But is the problem having a sense of smell or is it that we're somehow, now, surrounded by shit.
Beats me, I think they took the whole concept of detachment so seriously and promising, in the face of dukkha ('suffering' but actually more like 'un-ease') that they even dreamt of getting rid of themselves. I mean you don't have to worry about a diseased branch if you uproot the whole tree.
It seems like people believe that they would be happier if they never suffered in any way ever, but at the same time, when there is nothing to cause suffering they seem to look to imagine that it exists all around them. There seems to be a need for the mind to be both simultaneously protected from the actual discomfort that suffering brings, but also create in their minds a world that is nothing but suffering, when in reality it is very comfortable.
I'm not sure I understood you fully on this one, but the following image came to mind: say I desire to be suffering -free, yet a primitive thought that could arise right after is: I need to protect this state of freedom from suffering from the rest of the world. A thought that has inherent anxiety, meaning I wouldn't actually be free in that sense. I think as you said, we're so used to suffering to the point that we'd feel guilty trying to get rid of it. Suffering is our punishment , and if there was no punishment, we'd be free to act as willed. I can see how that's beneficial for a group in a primitive setting. Reward and punishment, most of biology is based on that. Yet humans took it to a whole new level. A common fear that arises in people when you present them with the thought experiment of getting rid of their negative emotions and experiences is : I'll also lose the positive ones, you need the bad to have the good.
Jed McKenna is a perfect example of psychopathic spiritual teacher:
"My worldview is not informed by any teacher or teaching. I assert no belief, original or second-hand. I am not passing anything down that was passed down to me. Every square inch of my understanding comes from exploration, perception, reason, and logic. You might say there are higher ways of knowing than reason and logic, and being heart-centric, you might believe it, but it’s not true. It’s the heart that will mislead you, every time. Reason and logic drive me straight into the absolute certainty and inevitability of nonduality, and all else follows naturally from that. That's the way the world unfolds."
https://jedvaita.com/
Interesting
"Frankly, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you are on in the religious space. Fully for, fully against, it’s still a belief. You will never know until you die, and you may not even know then."
This is exactly why I regard atheism (and Scientism, its most modern iteration) as a modern religion. They believe not having faith, but their faith involves believing in nothing insubstantial.
I'm a Omnist, myself. A meta believer, an apostle of Life.
I feel as though beliefs are of the essence, when it comes to shaping the believer, which is why institucionalized religions are invariably a two edged sword... that purports to liberate but ultimately ensnares adepts in paradoxes seemingly designed to arrest critical thought from the onset - as the ones from your Sunday school memories.
The true religious spirit ( as hinted in the etimology of the word) is all about reconnecting us incarnate souls to the unnamable Source, and overcoming all illusory attachments to this transient reality. This is observable in the philosophy of Buddhism indeed, although it's worth noting that it too has its own politized branches - much like other religions also usually have their philosophical merits.
I concur with your hypothesis that Buddhism may have been established by a well meaning person having the psychopathic mindset. At very least there are striking similarities in attitude between that and the enlighnened mind, as attested by Kevin Dutton. Well... at least, where it concerns the psychopathic mind that is not weighed down by hubris - for that which happended to be could very well decide to go the opposite direction, to become a cult leader.
There was an interesting quote, and I don't recall who said it though that all religions were simply fingers of the same hand that lead back to the same place of origin.
It is a mistake to regard atheism and belief in science as a new kind of religion, or to see the beliefs as in some way equivalent, just because they are both things that people can be enthusiastic (even tribal) about. The similarity is superficial and doesnt stand up to analysis.
I have seen many people that treat their idea of what science is as their ideology. They are not actually speaking about real science, as they know very little about it, but that doesn't stop them from speaking about it as though it is beyond reproach.
Perhaps a theological study of Hareanism and the venerable PCL-R is in order.
I did a pretty complete examination of Hare and the PCL-R previously. Let me know if you would like the links.
Your arguments against Hare and the PCL-R are a thing of beauty.
Yes please.
We live in a dualistic reality (subject-object, emotion-reason, etc.), and sometimes we focus on one side at the expense of the other, depending on our natures. I believe this could be the root of all ideological bias and tribal flair - whether it's religious or scientific.
The root, perhaps, but certainly a factor.
Scientism is not a thing.
I know from past experience that there are X-tian fundies who will appeal to all manner of quackery, archeological expeditions of dubious intent, and outright frauds who make claims that this or that "scientific discovery" validates their "faith"
But the Apostle Paul said that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
I take that to mean that the person looking for validation of faith in fact has no faith at all
The proper term is hypocrisy.
Now for "atheist", again when I was involved in fundie shenanigans we are tried to lead "unbelievers" to "salvation"
An unbeliever is functionally an atheist in the most literal sense of the word. Indeed among the faithful there were scores of functional atheist who didn't lead a lifestyle away from the congregation that in any way involved their professed religious beliefs
Now me personally, I did because I was convinced that there was some sort of payoff in religion and I'd seen and experienced odd happenings that to this day make me think that there's more to the world than just the physical.
So, perhaps I sound harsh but as you should know, I don't care. Throwing around words like "Scientism" with is a description of a hypocritical tactic and "atheist" which as far as I can tell is the actual default human belief as if they mean anything at all only serves to discredit oneself
Hey, that is VERY interesting - but I don't feel your views is at odds with mine. I do see how I may need to clarify my premises. Don't worry about sounding harsh by the way, and I think it's good that you state your position clearly.
Basically, the hypocritical tactics you describe are what I regard as the political side of religion. I think this dark side can potentially apply to any creed. Up to here, I suppose we're in agreement, right? It sounds like you have personally experienced the bad side of a religion.
I imagine where I may reasoning may go off-track from your perspective is when I equate Scientism to the political side of something you likely don't associate with either a creed or a religion: Science. Let me elaborate on this comparison:
People who regard Science as their substitute for a deity do exist, and they to tend to be atheist.
Both them, as well as you, seem to readiily disagree with the notion of comparing Religion with a Science and Scentism with the quasi-religious politization of science that is not at all uncomoon, these days.
Butif you think it through, their attitude is of such reverence and Faith in Science as the only avialable gateway to making perfect sense of the world (even though it hasn't happened and they don't even know if it's actually possible); their unassailable Faith in the Scientific Method, in practical terms, it holds a similar weight to a religious belief ( in its positive expression).
The atheistic minded do have their natural-science based version of Faith. And sometimes they too go overboard in trying tto "evangelize" people into their creed, while unreasonably deriding any other expresison of faith, and in doing so they too can be hypocritical... because they act not unlke the religious zealots they criticize.
This is the crucial point:
So tough I'm putting "scientific atheism" in the same bag as religion (and remember I'm a professed omnitheist, so I think all religions have some valid aspects, most certainly incuding Science)...
I'm also pointing that all religions have a corrupted politicized dark side - including atheism/science, which has scientism (the blind unresonable, quasi-fanatic faith in science as the only gateway to Truth, as opposed to a most vital tool in the sistematization of knowledge about the natural world, which derives best results when combined with other tools like Religon, Art and Philosophy - as being demonstrated in the field of Quantum Physics that is currently bridging the gap between these disciplines/tools, and ultimatley pans out as the modern take on Mysticism).
To be clear: I do believe there is much more to the world than just the physical. But I also believe that it's trough the physical that we get to explore the other realities. Both sides matter as much, in my view. Like Form and Content are just as meaninful to me. I dont suppose we are of this world. But I do suppose we came into this sort of purgatory for a reason.
That reason may very well to know ourselves so we can derive insight that improves our understanding of the capital Self from which we all derive. I rather like the Spinozan take on God.
After some thought I have realized that spirituality is reflective of some state of the brain. Psychopathy seems to track with Buddhist meditation. Other states of the brain will relate more or less to different sorts of spiritual experiences.
For me this syncs with calling this or that whether real or imagined a religion being meaningless sophistry. There is no state of the brain that being an atheist would map to. Likewise with the whole "Scientism" term. That's just old school whataboutism as perfected by the Soviets being applied to people you don't agree with.
Also... omnitheist??? Does that indicate a belief in every possible god everywhere? What is that suppose to do for you?
When I began practicing dzogchen buddhist meditation I had a natural knack for it and was able to advance rapidly to the point of the "having no head" practice and then that was the end of that.
My claim to Omnitheism implies the recognition of elements of spirituality in any religion, along with elements of politicized corruption.
What it does for me is allow to to relate to people across the spectrum of ideology without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
I'm not a disagreeable person, really. I care about refining my understanding of reality, and to that effect I think everyone has their valid points. But everyone likewise has less than valid points, myself included.
But of one thing I'm fairly sure:
We're more than just brains. We also have bodies. And we also have affects bridging the gap between our mind and bodies. And we additionally have a little ephemeral extra that is otherworldly and antithetical to logic and seemingly unknowable; spirit, some would call it.
So looking just at brain scans could keep us from seeing the whole picture.
I have no more particular attachment to the Adam and Eve story than I do to, say, a Greek myth. But do you mind if I take a crack at the interpretation? If such things are annoying just tell me and I'll stick to other topics in the future.
A lot of religious texts are esoteric and have a meaning behind the direct physical meaning.
Adam means "man" in Hebrew, from adamah (dirt.) So ... the physical stuff of humanity. Eve means 'eternal spirit.' So in the native Hebrew the story has a much more allegorical tone with two characters named "man" and "eternal spirit."
Child Athena asked: "How on earth are these two people supposed to understand the gravity of that tree or the choice that they are making?"
Eve wouldn't have understood before she ate the apple. But after she ate the apple she should have had knowledge. Despite this, she shared the apple with Adam. That was the only informed choice that was really made in the story, where a character both had knowledge of Good and Evil and also acted badly despite that knowledge. If Adam and Eve are individuals, it doesn't make sense if they're both punished. If Adam and Eve are humanity and its Eternal Spirit the allegory makes a bit more sense.
Of course, you were very right to point out the problems with your teachers telling you that God doesn't tempt people in the JudeoChristian tradition.
In any case, I think we both understand that Genesis is a story made up by a fallible human a very long time ago and the indoctrination of young children kindof sucks. In Sunday School I was told that the 'Red Sea' was actually the Reed Sea and that the Hebrews crossing it were able to do so because they were lighter than the chariots behind them. The miraculous re-telling came later, I was told. So there was a different tone to the education, with less focus on lockstep belief and literal interpretation. And I've probably had less of an aversion to religion because of it, though I'm by no means devout or orthodox.
In any case, I do like your interpretation of some strains of Buddhism. (I have heard you make the comparison before.)
The Koan makes far more overt sense than most Zen Koans.
That is an interesting point about Eve, and I agree with you. She did know, and chose to offer it to Adam, but even in that knowledge, when she offers it to Adam, he makes the same choice as she does. She is acting in the serpent's place, but I don't think she had the serpent's intention, which opens a new can of worms that I got kicked out of Sunday school for, which was the role of Lucifer in general.
It's interesting to me that the bible seems to track an immature God, who grows along with the story. This is a very human aspect to God, but he is angry and wrathful at the beginning of creation only to settle and become forgiving later on.
If I were to guess, humans were meant to fall because it is the only way that we can understand the nature of choice, and the burden of responsibility. That then brings up the argument of free will, and the notion of its existence. If we are meant to fall and know these things was her choice truly her own. Perhaps they are the catalyst for the human journey and without them we remain cloaked in innocence. They did fall, which means we are supposed to live a life that tracks back to God through choice. Sort of like the saying, if you love something, let it go. If it comes back it is truly yours.
All of this is assuming that this particular mythos is correct, but as I said, I have no idea.
" It's interesting to me that the bible seems to track an immature God, who grows along with the story. "
That is interesting. I was part of a syncretist Taoist group at one point where they specifically argued that "spirits" behaved that way, evolving along with a people. It seems to be a notion that gets some affirmation outside the JudeoChristian tradition. I've heard NeoPagans talk about the evolving ethics of Greek gods. I don't know how to map this to my own experiences except as a metaphor or allegory, but as a shared narrative or myth it is interesting.
"She is acting in the serpent's place, but I don't think she had the serpent's intention, which opens a new can of worms that I got kicked out of Sunday school for, which was the role of Lucifer in general. "
Interesting point. What were her motives? I have no idea. For what it's worth, Christianity tends to conflate Satan (the tempter figure in the Old Testament) with Lucifer ( an ancient king who sought to 'set himself up above God.')
"If I were to guess, humans were meant to fall because it is the only way that we can understand the nature of choice, and the burden of responsibility."
That makes sense.
I wonder if her motives were to complete what her role in this world was. She was the mother of all humans in this particular mythos, so I would imagine that for the mother to exist the mother must be flawed. Perfection is the enemy of progress. For humans to evolve they would have to have a reason to strive. Perfection is the epitome of laziness.
Yes, you are correct about Lucifer, and my argument with him as an entity is this. Humans are the only creation of God's that has free will. Angels did not have this. Lucifer lacked the ability to rise against God. It is a fatal flaw in the narrative, and one that cannot be ignored. Also, the conflation of the two has always provided me this argument. If Lucifer is Satan, but had no free will to rise up against God, then either the stories about him doing so aren't true, or it was God's will, and he is still doing the will of God in his current role.
Of course in the Book of Job, the Tempter/Lucifer/Satan, isn't an adversary at all. He's God's prosecutor..
That makes sense to me. He is still doing the will of God, and the will of God is to adjudicate sin.
My take on the story is that it is an intended explanation about when man came to be aware of mortalities.
I can understand that
Damn that should have read, moralities. I really gotta start proof reading my posts. Lol
I read it as moralities, so it all worked out.
I liked this post very much, thanks Athena.
I think my angular gyrus is not wired the NT way... it is connected to my perceptions of CHOCOLATE. Just saying. Dark chocolate, in particular.
I only know a few other autistics, but they don't seem to have the NT religious thing going on either... As a kid, I thought that belief would be nice to have, after viewing how certain it seemed to make some adults, but I could never actually feel it -- and I don't want to anymore after seeing more human behavior. I'd agree that the Buddha was likely not NT, but I'm not sure which neurotype he was... I know very little about Buddhism though, just going by the logic part you describe; some of us autistics have cognition a lot more separate from emotions than many NTs seem to. A difference between autistics and psychopaths might be that the latter would mostly have muted emotions - per your description - but some of us autistics have very strong emotions... for me, more in a bubble at times; I'm not "in" them always, but if they get very strong, they expand and include "me" in them. I bet that makes no sense... But my understanding of Buddhism would let me conclude that some autistics could find it very attractive/helpful.
I can feel a strong sense of wonder, beauty, and love, and I can feel a part of life and existence, sometimes, in a pretty wonderful way... but not the same way as people describe their connection to a personified deity... and I don't conflate my inner experiences with reality as much as some NTs. I think. Would I know? Hmmm, not sure.
Chocolate.
I too was raised in a very religious environment and also had lots of questions but I incorrectly deduced that there was something that they weren't telling me and I wanted to know what that could be so I was extremely patient with their bullshit
Until I wasn't
I laugh when I think about how long I abided with that foolishness now but it is what it is.
They really hate it when you start poking holes in their stories, but my response to that was, then write better stories. That did not go over well.
ROFL!! I gather that both my parents had "that did not go over well" stories of their own. So I was raised by atheists. OTOH, I agree about hubris. While I haven't had any odd experiences myself, I know people who have.
Oh that's a good one. There must be some secret key that would make it all make sense! I can imagine when it no longer made sense, someone more NT might feel hollowed out and bereft and directionless, betrayed, foolish and humiliated by their credulousness and misplaced trust, a whole cascade of unwelcome emotions. I hope you felt something more like just dismissive annoyance!
Lovely article Athena. I've had a similar hypothesis about the Buddha. I'd definitely be more interested in your thoughts on the similarities between psychopathy and Buddhism.
All right. I will see what I can do. It definitely won't be a deep dive into Buddhism, but rather covering the overall ideas that it is meant to instruct in.
Yes, please write more about it.
I have a different perspective on the Buddhist concept of enlightenment. Actually, the concept isn't unique to Buddhism - the public just associates thethe concept with Buddhism. The Bhagavad Gita leads up to Arjuna's enlightenment, and even the Bible speaks of it when you interpret it in a mystical way (the Bible has an infinite variety of interpretations).
Although there are the similarities that you note, there are also quite a few differences between psychopathy and enlightenment.
With enlightenment, there's no sense of individual self. It's real difficult to describe the experience, but it's a broadening of that sense of self to include everything that exists. I feel like my edges - whatever that means - are diffuse, but people tell me I'm more defined.
Because there's no sense of self, desires disappears. Desire served as motivation for action, but now, it's all immersed in flow.
The mind becomes very still. Thoughts arise, but theres no attachment, no identification with them. After a lifetime of defensive emotions and busy thoughts, I find the experience fascinating.
There's no compartmentalization. It's all one level, one awareness. The focus is on what's happening now, a moment-to-moment awareness. I don’t get bored. The last time I was bored when I was waiting for surgery a year ago - boredom came from nerves at that time.
My feeling is that this is our natural state. When we "make the unconscious conscious," as Jung suggested, refrain from judgment, forgive, and work through trauma, this is what is left.
I didn't compare psychopathy with enlightenment. I compared what it is trying to teach, which is detachment from emotions. Enlightenment is neither here nor there to a psychopath. We have nothing to detach from.
That would be an intriguing state of mind to experience, but why do you think this is our natural state, when so few people experience existence like that without putting in a lot of work?
Athena, I liked your take on Buddhism. Very interesting. I'm a Buddhist. One thing that is true is that there are (at least some) similarities between the enlightened state(s) we seek and the psychopathy you describe from your own experience. But they are not identical at all. An enormous part of Buddhist motivation is the wish to end not only one's own suffering, but the suffering of all others. This wish comes from the heart. I can't speak to every Buddhist's specific motivation, but for me, I wouldn't do what I do at the level of intensity I do it, without the clear prospect of helping others..And this wish comes from the heart (all that icky chemical stuff).
This loving kindness and compassion stuff is implicit in classical Buddhism but is at the heart of all the Mahayana disciplines. It's even at the heart of the stories about the Buddha himself. One of the most striking pieces of that story for me, is that once he had established himself as a teacher, he went back home and made it up to his family for running out on them.
I don't see him as a psychopath. Living on the road, sleeping outdoors, barefoot all the time, begging for his bread, teaching people, many of whom had to have been highly resistant to what he was trying to tell them, for 40 years, does not sound like the way you describe yourself.
But then in defense of what you had to say, I do not "know" this on any sort of intellectual level. No one does. For some three to five hundred years after the Buddha lived (depending on whose chronology of his life you accept) the Buddhists didn't write any of the stories or teachings down. So we have no "hard facts" on which to hang any of our stories or theories..
But in the end Buddhism is experiential. However well read one is, one cannot know Buddhism from outside. On one level it's a straight-up mind training program, and on another it's very much a religion. Most if not all we NT's as you note above, are hard-wired for that sort of thing. Also, uncanny things do happen from time to time. You've even copped to having had a few such experiences yourself.
But again,it's experiential. I have no idea what you would find if you sat down to meditate. It could be very interesting indeed, or it could be a total bore (I've experienced both). There are plenty of books and online spaces about how to do it, and depending on where you live, there is a variety of places in which you could learn in company. It might be worth a try to as we sometimes say, sit and see what arises.
You seem to have missed my point. I did not say that the person that came up with Buddhism wrote the rules and purpose with themselves in mind, but rather watch neurotypicals and their emotional noise and came up with Buddhism as a pathway for them to basically knock it off as it causes enormous problems in their lives and the world.
If I were creating this process it would be very simple to understand how to tool it and create mythos that get people to the end goal that I consider valuable to them. Basically I would use what I know about them so they will find value in what I am telling them. Otherwise, they will stubbornly refuse to even consider it, because that's how many of them are.
“I mean, he might as well have placed a big neon sign over the tree with arrows pointing to it saying, ‘eat me eat me’.”
I laughed at that!
Pretty convenient how Cain was able to find a wife and have children with her after being banished to where he was too I’ve also long thought. If Adam and Eve were the only people to exist before Abel and he did how could this be possible? I also don’t see how the flood and Tower of Babel stories reflect the nature of an all perfect loving benevolent god either. All utter nonsense imho!
I would bring that one up all the time as well. I'm sorry, he was born to the first two people. He grew up with those same two people and had one brother. He kills the brother and gets banished, but just f*cks off over here to a town that has people in it, gets married, and has kids?
In the old testament, God is not a loving God at all. He is wrathful. Those stories do correlate with that description of him. You could make the argument that his change was when he decided to come here in the body of Jesus to experience strife and suffering, ending with his death on the cross. The argument is that while called the Son of God, in reality Jesus was just an aspect of God separated off to live in the world, which is why Jesus calls to his Father when he has doubts about the sacrifice.
I get that thinking, because if I were God, and I separated off this aspect to learn about and experiencing the suffering of others, and had this plan of cleansing people of their sins, but while living with them I see a lot of their problems are self inflicted, I don't think that I would be very convinced that my plan was going to have any effect at all.
I die, and they're just going to keep being assh*les to one another, so what's the point?
This was a good one. I was raised in a religious cult that eventually went horribly belly up, and for a while it turned me off from everything with even a whiff of spirituality. Knee jerk reactions and slammed shut mind.
But a little older and hopefully a tad wiser now, I recognize that there is more than just the physical in this universe. If you really look/feel, it’s obvious.
However, I still don’t listen to humans who say they have The Answers or “a corner on the market” of the afterlife or the meaning of life. That’s still NG to me.
Buddhism is interesting, and I know several people in my circle who are Buddhist. Sometimes they lack personal responsibility and humility under the guise of being a beacon of enlightenment and that…annoys me. Maybe they need to meditate some more, as you say.
As with any beliefs, if it makes them happy, I don’t mind. But if they try to influence my behavior, emotions, or thoughts, I very much do.
Imperfectly, I’m living as morally sound as I can. Do no harm, try to do some good, etc. If I learn something else down the road, so be it. But for now that’s enough.
[edited for typo]
Ooo that would annoy me as well. Why do so many people look for an excuse to be a d*ck? It amazes me the number of excuses that I have heard to justify a lack of personal responsibility.
To escape uncomfortable emotions? I get it, but I also don’t. I know when I’ve been a d*ck, and usually, if the situation warrants it, I acknowledge and apologize. If I repeatedly don’t get the same courtesy back though, I won’t keep debasing myself for that relationship for no reason.
I have been wondering about this since I started following you.
I had all the same questions and I have (over years) come to my own conclusions. I had to start from zero and figure it out from the inside out. I have noticed that most people’s complaint(s) with God are based on whichever religious mythos their culture accepts.
If you have no emotional basis for needing to believe in your image of God, go forth and prosper 😃.
I have always felt like there was "nothing" but came across instances that made me think there might be "something". Atheist my whole life, despite being raised around the religious, though I have a strong focus in morals and "the right path" as I learned it was later coined.
Your same questions on Christians have been the same ones I have also brought about.
I have never read that story regarding Tanzan, the one that relates to attachment within Buddhism, and it left me pondering quite a bit. But what I can say is: Buddhism helped me learn to detach so much, that I can not even feel hunger nor feel any emotion. It's at a level where I can barely control it. It's my Way of Being. Yet when I look back, I wonder if I ever felt any love at all. Any emotion at all. Or if this was just something I had learned to do, to feel.
Looking back, I never yelled or cried and was always so calm and collect. Always "driven" and "logical". Like an animal. Always able to make the tough calls, like parting ways with a pet when others may not even do what needed to be done - emotionless through it, and this was before I explored Buddhism.
I am exploring this, me, deeper.
You seem to have followed the exact path I intend to illustrate in the more detailed post about it.
It certianly sounds like you had a good head start on this with your pre-Buddhism nature!
I had to laugh at your behavior at church, as I think most children have those kinds of thoughts but are afraid to express them. My son and I have had numerous discussions about religion, he to relates to Buddhism. Personally I think native Americans have it closest to what is and what could be .
I should have responded to this post when the iron was hot. There is a lot of "decontamination" I could have done with respect to the Biblical texts and their use... but that will have to happen at another time.
I will get this off my chest: People's use of the biblical text or response to it is as often a diagnostic of the beholder as a second hand transmission of the text itself. Step back, take a breath, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters (yes, that means kising cousins in the beginning*cough*founders effect*cough*) , analogical readings do serve a purpose but they aren't always right; however, related texts can elucidate which ones are; source language is VERY important as all translations are judgment calls and therefore also interpretations; the high council of "the gods" v. YHWH is a case where they accuse him of having bad judgment and YHWH vindicates himself when the whole thing is done; Most people do not learn that there are 2 parallel messages - law/condemnation and promise/hope which are related but distinct; I could go on, but it's the wrong time. Sorry for the grave-robbing...
Hm, how did I miss this? I must have been busy with a funeral or something...
People make inferences about what the Bible says all the time. It's bad form to "go beyond scripture" and yet most confessional stances do just that. I see this happening in your case. In fact, the biblical accounts are such that they create more questions than answers, except for the parts where directives, assertions, and encouragements from God ARE given... meanwhile there is a lot of stuff "God doesn't talk about" and it is best to leave it at that. That is hard for the vast majority of people. I have learned to do this with considerable difficulty but it's incredibly liberating and yields abundant insight.
That's interesting , I myself have tried "psychopathic meditation". Since I tend towards psychosis which I believe is the opposite of psychopathy.
One thing though to add to your theory , there is a modern misconception about the doctrine of Anatta (no-self). Buddhists take it as a fact: there is no self. But the original Pali Sutras always used anatta as an adjective, not a noun. That is: thoughts are anatta (not the self, not the atta/atman), feelings are anatta etc. But "the wise find refuge in the self (atta)". Why did modern Buddhism evolve to be against the self it's a bit puzzling
About the myth of Eden, I ponder about it frequently. I think it is the snake who gave us free will. The whole point of Eden is being under the protection of God where free will is not needed. And the snake could well be an archetype of psychopathy.
It is said that the gift of free will comes from God. If it did not exist and was not given by God, Eve would not be able to consider what the serpent suggested to begin with. It would have fallen on literal deaf ears. It would be a concept she could not comprehend.
I do not see how the snake would relate to psychopathy. Please tell me more.
Firstly because the snake, being a reptile represents a part of our brain (remnant of our evolutionary past, on which other structures were built upon). I'll leave you to figure out the rest.
I'm just using your intellectual currency though (neuroscience)
Psychosis is also a lazy term. When people say psychosis they think of schizophrenics: poor executive functioning, frank hallucinations, paranoia, delusion of grandeur, social seclusion. Only a handful of psychiatrists and researchers (mainly based in London) know that there is a type of psychosis that is different: no actual sensory hallucinations, no paranoia, no delusion of grandeur, good or above average cognitive functioning, no social seclusion, yet.. they are definitely acting 'off', crazy. So they end up in the same ward as schizophrenics, given the same medication, and diagnosed under the umbrella term 'psychotic disorder'. What's going on with them? They are to schizophrenics what psychopaths are to antisocials.
Think about these two scenarios please:
1) Mary is a colour-blind scientist that does paintings as a hobby. She can replicate any object, landscape etc with photographic precision, using black and white colours. Her technique is flawless. One day a person comes and tells her: "I see your technique is incredible, I would like to commission a painting from you, the pay is really good. I want you to paint a beautiful snake for me, with golden wings. Mary says 'I'll see what I can do'. She spends the day going through her nature books trying to find a snake with wings so she can reproduce it, to no avail. While she's doing that she also asks herself; 'Golden'?
2) Ezequiel is an engineer, as a hobby he collects oils and acrylics from every colour, to the point that he managed to create a palette of myriads of tones of every nature. He also has great ideas and rich concepts which he shares with friends about potential paintings he could make. One day a person comes to him and says ' I see you have these so many colours I've never seen before, and I heard about your aesthetics and concepts, could you paint this ___ for me? He says 'why of course I can, you can come by tomorrow morning and it'll be ready'. So he sits in front of the canvas, pictures the painting flawlessly in his mind, maybe even better than what was asked, he wets the brush and when he looks at the canvas he is struck with this realization: he has no clue where to start. Even more, he thinks 'have I even ever painted something before?'.
To sum up: the objective current worth of these two artists is zero.
You advice neurotypicals to get a (functional) psychopathic friend. I advice you to get a (functional) psychotic friend. I am open for an exchange with you, if you want you can drop a line here: enneas.vittoria@protonmail.com. Good day ^_^
I wonder if that type of psychosis is external, not internal.
I have seen enough things in my life to know what we perceive and what exists are not the same thing. Perhaps there is something in the brain that makes that membrane separating the two worlds and making them far more able to be perceived by the person with that difference in the brain. It isn't something that I know a great deal about, but I know enough to know that I don't know, and am not interested in trying to have a concrete position on a nebulous subject.
Another subject that I am very mildly aware of, but have no deep understanding of is that brain making DMT, and that children have higher concentrations of it. Perhaps it means nothing, but children are often thought of as more able to see things that adults simply cannot. Also that when people use DMT intentionally they can share the experience, or they can have an experience that relates to one that someone that they know had previously.
An example of this was a guy that did DMT on a somewhat regular basis, and while in his experience he met a purple lady that he conversed with several times. His friend also decided to try DMT, and did so without knowing the first guy's experience. While in his own, he also met the purple lady, and she told him that she knew his friend, as well as relayed information that he otherwise would not have known about their interactions. It is also of note that people theorize that when we die, our brains release a flood of DMT, which in turn is why people see things like the tunnel of light.
Looping back to the shared or somewhat shared experience that some people claim to have had on DMT, perhaps when is seen when death arrives is not a hallucination as scientists have been suggesting, but instead it is seeing beyond the veil. Perhaps it is also this world that some people are able to see. No matter if it is or isn't, so long as the people around them can't see it, they will be considered out of touch with reality.
Your way of thinking and writing about abstract things is: A->B->C etc, you jump from detail to detail, this review on DMT for example. You start with hallucinations, mention children, one guy who took DMT saw X, then the other. I can connect back to my metaphor of the two artists, but maybe you don't think in analogies/metaphors and allegories. For me it's all about that, when you want to process complex non-scientific topics you need something else, you just can't arrive to any meaningful conclusion if you go linearly like you do.
It's not about meeting beings that most people don't see, I think that qualifies as hallucinations and I can't say much about them because I never had them, not even with psychedelics. I think my nature is simply connection with Myth. Which of course can be maladaptive and it's something I also need to hide on a daily basis and basically tone it down. While you might use a mask to hide your lack of 'humanity' on one end, I use it to hide my 'heroism' which is that connection with Myth. Of course that sounds crazy and actually better that way. So I don't have much problems with hiding my identity online etc. Now of course there's schizophrenics who believe they're God. There's a difference between the Myth and the 'Divine'. I don't think I actually have any kind of power, it's not about that, though if it's time to put down the mask I can be very intense. Intellectually It's more like eagle vision, you might be good deciphering individuals, I don't pay much attention to that, yet I see the macro instantly. Why does the world as a whole behave in this way? What cards are being played on a grand level?
Yes you could be right. If God forbid something it means they had already the capacity to disobey. However he did not say why, just 'dont'. The fruit was from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So true, the snake tempted them 'he does not want you to eat from this fruit because if you do you will become like God yourselves'.
What I meant was there is no free will if you don't understand the consequences of your actions. Is simply obeying , even out of respect or love, really a free choice, when you don't even know why you should do or not do something? There is no morality without freedom (from clockwork orange) rings a bell here, and I'd add: there's no freedom of choice without knowledge.
That's an interesting perspective, I like it. It does bring to mind the idea of kids who commit murder. We know that their brains are immature and unable to truly understand the consequences of their behavior, yet they are often charged and sentenced as adults. I have wondered for quite some time if that is justifiable.
Quite interesting. I wonder if it changed because neurotypicals found the notion of self-interest to go against their tribal wiring.
Yes because when you think 'religion' you must think 'for the good of everyone' while the truth is Buddha simply offered individual salvation. Why he shared his path is a mystery (compassion?). The only other religion I can think of that focuses on self is Church of Satan. Which for me it's more like a parody religion and unappealing for most people. Also they do wrong in associating Evil (Satan) with Ego.
If he was wired like me, it would have been because watching the emotional noise all around is sort of vexing. On the one hand people bemoan their emotional pain, on the other they believe that their emotions define them. Irrational decisions are all about, things decided without logic, but rather emotional impulses that bring about bad and predictable endings.
From the outside it looks like people spinning wildly out of control with the firm belief that they have no ability to stop the ride, but to someone like me there is a big red button with arrows pointing at it all around and signs that say, to stop the ride, press here and then a ramp that says, ride exit. The people on the ride keep screaming for help, but no one even notices the button. Buddha just walked over and pressed the button, watched the ride spin down and then stop, told people about the button, pointed to the ramp, but only one or two people leave. The others brace themselves for another ride, and ignore the advice all together.
Buddha said he 'rediscovered an ancient path'. I don't think he was wired like you, though he might have been able to 'activate' psychopathy. The thing with equanimity, detachment etc for someone who looks at it on an intellectual and emotional level (from the outside) feels like death. Yes, I'd get rid of hell, but is the cost letting go of heaven? Psychopathy feels to me again, like uprooting the whole tree in order to deal with a diseased half.
Hm, in that I disagree. it makes more sense to me that it is something that is meant to be overcome. Much like an addiction, they are something that are often harmful even when or especially when they are extremely enjoyable.
Being powerful as they are, they are difficult to let go of, and the person uses these chemical reactions in the brain to define themselves. In my thinking they are the opposite. They are the noise that the self must be found through. They are the test, not the goal.
Yes I can see why they look like some sort of trap. There's definitely duality and you wouldn't be saying your nature is an advantage if all 'neurotypicals' experienced only pleasant emotions, constantly. It's an advantage for now, if you compare yourself to others. Of course I'd rather not have a sense of smell if all there was to smell is shit. But is the problem having a sense of smell or is it that we're somehow, now, surrounded by shit.
Beats me, I think they took the whole concept of detachment so seriously and promising, in the face of dukkha ('suffering' but actually more like 'un-ease') that they even dreamt of getting rid of themselves. I mean you don't have to worry about a diseased branch if you uproot the whole tree.
It seems like people believe that they would be happier if they never suffered in any way ever, but at the same time, when there is nothing to cause suffering they seem to look to imagine that it exists all around them. There seems to be a need for the mind to be both simultaneously protected from the actual discomfort that suffering brings, but also create in their minds a world that is nothing but suffering, when in reality it is very comfortable.
I'm not sure I understood you fully on this one, but the following image came to mind: say I desire to be suffering -free, yet a primitive thought that could arise right after is: I need to protect this state of freedom from suffering from the rest of the world. A thought that has inherent anxiety, meaning I wouldn't actually be free in that sense. I think as you said, we're so used to suffering to the point that we'd feel guilty trying to get rid of it. Suffering is our punishment , and if there was no punishment, we'd be free to act as willed. I can see how that's beneficial for a group in a primitive setting. Reward and punishment, most of biology is based on that. Yet humans took it to a whole new level. A common fear that arises in people when you present them with the thought experiment of getting rid of their negative emotions and experiences is : I'll also lose the positive ones, you need the bad to have the good.
Suffering isn't the punishment, as it exists without emotion. It is there regardless of the emotional attachment to it.