Evidence of Buddhism

[Ryokan]

3. There have been neurological studies on Buddhist practitioners that definitely show them as happier and less stressed than other people.
4. Buddhist meditation practices have been clinically shown to be helpful to people suffering from stress, anxiety & depression.

These are claims. Show us the evidence.



Scientists say they have evidence to show that Buddhists really are happier and calmer than other people.
Tests carried out in the United States reveal that areas of their brain associated with good mood and positive feelings are more active.

The findings come as another study suggests that Buddhist meditation can help to calm people.

Researchers at University of California San Francisco Medical Centre have found the practise can tame the amygdala, an area of the brain which is the hub of fear memory.

------------------------------

Paul Ekman, who carried out the study, said: "The most reasonable hypothesis is that there is something about conscientious Buddhist practice that results in the kind of happiness we all seek."

------------------------------

In a separate study, scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison used new scanning techniques to examine brain activity in a group of Buddhists.

Their tests revealed activity in the left prefrontal lobes of experienced Buddhist practitioners.

This area is linked to positive emotions, self-control and temperament.

Their tests showed this area of the Buddhists' brains are constantly lit up and not just when they are meditating.

This, the scientists said, suggests they are more likely to experience positive emotions and be in good mood.

Source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3047291.stm)

The scans provided remarkable clues about what goes on in the brain during meditation.

"There was an increase in activity in the front part of the brain, the area that is activated when anyone focuses attention on a particular task," Dr Newberg explained.

In addition, a notable decrease in activity in the back part of the brain, or parietal lobe, recognised as the area responsible for orientation, reinforced the general suggestion that meditation leads to a lack of spatial awareness.

Dr Newberg explained: "During meditation, people have a loss of the sense of self and frequently experience a sense of no space and time and that was exactly what we saw."

Source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1847442.stm)

"What science and Buddhism really share is the goal of understanding the nature of reality," Adam Ingle of the MindLife Institute, who organised the experiment, told BBC World Service's Reporting Religion programme.

"The difference is that science uses the scientific method and a lot of technology and objectives - it starts from the outside and probes the nature of reality.

"Buddhism uses the human mind, reformed through meditation, starting from the inside, looking at the same questions."

Source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3142874.stm)

Ten volunteers were tested before and after 40 minutes of either sleep, meditation, reading or light conversation, with all subjects trying all conditions. The 40-minute nap was known to improve performance (after an hour or so to recover from grogginess). But what astonished the researchers was that meditation was the only intervention that immediately led to superior performance, despite none of the volunteers being experienced at meditation.

“Every single subject showed improvement,” says O’Hara. The improvement was even more dramatic after a night without sleep. But, he admits: “Why it improves performance, we do not know.” The team is now studying experienced meditators, who spend several hours each day in practice.

---------------------------------------

They found that meditating actually increases the thickness of the cortex in areas involved in attention and sensory processing, such as the prefrontal cortex and the right anterior insula.

“You are exercising it while you meditate, and it gets bigger,” she says. The finding is in line with studies showing that accomplished musicians, athletes and linguists all have thickening in relevant areas of the cortex. It is further evidence, says Lazar, that yogis “aren’t just sitting there doing nothing".

Source. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8317)

Regular meditation has been touted as a stress reducer for years, but a recent study says practitioners benefit from a brain boost as well.

CNN anchor Fredericka Whitfield spoke with Sara Lazar, a research scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, about the study and meditation's apparent benefits.

WHITFIELD: Explain to me why, based on your study, have you learned that meditation really has a calming effect and perhaps even may boost brain power?

LAZAR: What we found was that people who have been practicing Buddhist insight meditation have a thicker cortex in some parts of their brain than people who don't meditate.

Source. (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/11/16/cnna.sara.lazar/index.html)

Evidence enough for you, epepke?

[KingMerv00]

I wonder what the failure rate of Buddhism is. (Seriously)

It can't be for everyone, can it?

[epepke]

Evidence enough for you, epepke?

Well, it's a start, and better late than never.

But, no, it's not really enough, assuming that you're actually asking the question and are not just being shirty and petulant.

I'm not sure why I have to explain this on a skepticism board, but fluff pieces in popular science magazines or from news sources are one thing, and papers in peer-reviewed journals are quite another. I also think that I was fairly clear about being interested in the latter.

And, no, I'm not just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or picking unfairly on Buddhism.

[Ryokan]

Well, it's a start, and better late than never.

To be fair to me, I quoted these articles in the very first sceptical to Buddhism thread, but it was ignored by almost everyone.


But, no, it's not really enough, assuming that you're actually asking the question and are not just being shirty and petulant.

I'm not sure why I have to explain this on a skepticism board, but fluff pieces in popular science magazines or from news sources are one thing, and papers in peer-reviewed journals are quite another. I also think that I was fairly clear about being interested in the latter.

And, no, I'm not just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or picking unfairly on Buddhism.

Pick one of the articles then, and I'll track down the scientists that did the research. Just because it was reported in the news and in a popular science magazine doesn't mean it wasn't peer reviewed as well.

[epepke]

To be fair to me, I quoted these articles in the very first sceptical to Buddhism thread, but it was ignored by almost everyone.

OK. I must have missed that.

Pick one of the articles then, and I'll track down the scientists that did the research. Just because it was reported in the news and in a popular science magazine doesn't mean it wasn't peer reviewed as well.

I'll pick the penultimate one, then, because it seems to me that the others aren't saying much. And it's the only one that claims some concrete benefit and distinguishes Buddhism from other practices.

[Ryokan]

I'll pick the penultimate one, then, because it seems to me that the others aren't saying much. And it's the only one that claims some concrete benefit and distinguishes Buddhism from other practices.

According to the article, the scientist that did the research was Paul Ekman.

Background info on Paul Ekman :

http://www.paulekman.com/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman

Looks like a 'real' scientist to me. However, on the 'contact' page of his site, he makes it clear he's unavailable for questions.

So my task then is to track down a peer reviewed article that supports the claims quoted in the OP.

http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/perez/Psych612/Psych612_files/Ekman_Buddhist_psych_2005.pdf#search='%20Paul%20Ek man%20Buddhism'

Here's (http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/perez/Psych612/Psych612_files/Ekman_Buddhist_psych_2005.pdf#search='%20Paul%20Ek man%20Buddhism') a peer reviewed (I assume it is, I'll admit to not being knowledgable about American academic circles) article that at least shows that Paul Ekman is involved in research on Buddhism. No reference to actual scientific research, however.

I'll keep looking.

[Kopji]

As with many things our mileage may vary. I dunno, I like Buddhism but I also don't see how we would apply a scientific philosophy like falsification to it. The examples below hopefully show what I mean. There is always a way to believe, but there is always an exception.

The basic idea of "all things are possible" is not a scientific one because science does what it does by placing limits on what can be called 'true'.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Buddhism does not / should not conflict with science, but it is not a scientific idea because it does not limit truth the way science does.

There's plenty of stuff like below around, but if Buddhism is not making specific testable claims, so what?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4743741.stm
A prison in Norway has stopped holding yoga classes after it found that instead of calming inmates, they were actually making some more aggressive.
High-security Ringerike jail near Oslo offered the classes to eight inmates on a trial basis earlier this year.

Prison warden Sigbjoern Hagen said some of the inmates became more irritable and agitated and had trouble sleeping.



http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=426
Even more alarming is that there has long been evidence that meditation can have an unambiguously negative effect on some of those who take it up - something that rarely, if ever, gets mentioned in popular press articles on the subject. In one study (Shapiro, DH, Adverse effects of meditation: a preliminary investigation of long-term meditators. Int J Psychosom 1992 39:62-7), two thirds of the subjects experienced some kind of adverse effect, ranging from increased anxiety to depression and a sense of disconnection from reality. Seven percent reported profoundly disturbing and lasting side effects.

Furthermore, many experts who have worked with former cult members have long described numerous meditation-related problems, including a symptom called "floating" in which people become unable to concentrate and feel a loss of their sense of themselves.

[Year Zero]

Obviously Buddhism is not something that you can prove the effectiveness of through experimentation, but it is not surprising that many practitioners seem happier or have a generally better mood. This is not due to any metaphysical beliefs per se but simply the philosophy of Buddhism that trains your mind to better handle problems you encounter in life. It helps you put things into perspective, and stand back from "the big picture" at times so as to better organize your thoughts and figure things out. In many ways Buddhist philosophy, particlarly of the Zen form, is a lot like critical thinking and science. You train yourself to recognize emotional attachments and judgements and look at things objectively to see the stark reality of things.

[username]

There's plenty of stuff like below around, but if Buddhism is not making specific testable claims, so what?

I find the quotes very interesting. I have seen others like them before, but when I see statements like "feel a loss of their sense of themselves." expressed as a negative I wonder what the words mean. To a buddhist, losing the sense of self is a good thing, not a bad thing, but the words in the quote might mean something entirely different.

I find that meditation is amazing in it's ability to evoke powerful experiences. It seems somewhat odd that it should be able to given that one of the most common techniques is to simply sit still and focus concentration on the breath, but it does.

Recently I stopped meditating for a few days because of a very 'unpleasant' experience. I had an insight into the suffering caused by gossip for all parties involved. I won't go into the details, but the effect of this insight was that I realized I could never gossip again. To gossip again would cause me (and others) pain just as real as if I stuck my hand into a flame (or someone elses). I no more wanted to gossip than stick my hand into a flame, both were painful.

The reason I stopped meditating for a few days wasn't because of this insight, which I regard as valuable, but because of it's real world effects and their repercussions.

I was standing around with some people at work, shooting the breeze and the conversation got a little gossipy. I couldn't take it. I had to excuse myself and leave. Wasn't hardcore gossip, just normal everyday, not really that bad kind of stuff, but I simply couldn't be a part of it.

I feared that if I never engaged in the casual conversations that involved a little gossip here and there I would alienate myself from my friends. Was I to become some fuddy duddy?

I avoided the meditation for a few days because I wanted to allow the sharpness of this insight to fade so I could do some light gossiping again without being aware of the pain it was causing. (I was choosing to return to a delusion out of fear)

So I learned something about the nature of gossip in a very powerful way and I also learned something about myself, and my fear of not being socially accepted within my peer group, potentially losing friendships etc. and how powerfully this affects my behavior. Just from sitting in meditation focusing on my breath.

Now, how this would ever be tested or evaluated scientifically is beyond me, I doubt it is possible, yet it is the kind of thing that buddhists and meditators in general are likely to experience.

I can see how some persons could experience what would be regarded as adverse effects from meditation, but it almost seems silly to think that mediation should come with a warning label. I mean it is just sitting still and focusing on the breath for 20-30 minutes (as a common example). How can something so innocuous be so powerful?

That is something I would like to see science explore.

[cajela]

Obviously Buddhism is not something that you can prove the effectiveness of through experimentation,

Nonsense. It was my OP up there and it's all about testable claims.

Now, I actually started writing this twice, once to have a browser crash and one to lose it myself through my own dumb actions so I'm feeling a bit bloody cross and terse, and also a bit inclined to go home rather than do it a-bloody-gain. Also, epepke, sweetums, snide "welcome to skepticism" remarks don't fly well with people who may possibly have been sceptics for longer than you've been alive, unless you happen to be an old crusty net user who predates http like me... The hostility I referred to was as you yourself noted, from yyreg, with whom I was previously unacquainted, not from you per se. There was no need to be snide. Please note that there is a difference between scepticism and hostility. There's a reason I frequent iidb much more than here...

But enough of being cross.

Right, my claims. Some seem to have wandered off so I shall summarise.

Buddhism is a large area, There are many sects and many beliefs. In order to do Buddhist meditation you do not have to subscribe to anything mystical at all. I explicitly restrict my claims to the practice of meditation. In fact I pointed out that the Dalai Lama can be a bit woo on some subjects, and that this was irrelevant to the practice.

The general claim.
Buddhist meditation is a practice which can be and is being studied by serious scientists.
Evidence: try google scholar and PubMed. Duh.

My broader knowledge is in part from Zen and the Brain (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3236), a book from that well known woo press (MIT press), with its dubious merits unacknowledged by any scientific peers (merely being Winner of the Scientific and Medical Network Book Prize for 1998), by an author with a mere 50 years experience as a practising and academic neurologist. Quick bio: http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/325.html Sceptics will no doubt be deeply unimpressed by the "guide to testable hypotheses" in the contents page...


More specific claims.
Thanks to Ryokan for tracking down some of the popular science. In fact, as I stated explicitly I am not an expert in the field, I have merely done some reading and had some experience with psychology as a patient/client. My factoids did indeed come from popular science reading and clinical handouts.

On the effectiveness of meditation for treating depression & anxiety disorders:
The Mayo clinic seems to think it's a good idea
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/meditation/HQ01070
One of the big guys here: Jon Kabat-Zinn http://www.umassmed.edu/behavmed/faculty/kabat-zinn.cfm thoughtfully provides a bibliography: http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/bibliography/index2.cfm

An example paper: Kabat-Zinn, J., Massion, A.O., Kristeller, J., Peterson, L.G. Fletcher, K., Pbert, L., Linderking, W., Santorelli, S.F. Effectiveness of a meditation-based stress reduction program in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry (1992) 149:936-943. (yes,m the conclusion is that it can be quite effective.) That was from 1992. This is not cutting edge stuff any more, which is why you get it in clinical practice these days.

On meditation and happiness - this is tad more cuttting edge.

Depressives have less activity in the left prefrontal cortex
http://www.thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_08/i_08_cr/i_08_cr_dep/i_08_cr_dep.html

A while ago an experienced meditator showed dramatically increased activity in this region
Wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,60452,00.html

The lab that did the studies: http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/
One of their press releases: http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/front/News/Wallstreet%20Journal.htm says there's forthcoming results in PNAS.
The lab's publications list: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/publications.htm
I recommend this one for an overview: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2005/Ekmanet.al_CurrDirPsychSci.pdf
And Science had a piece a while back: http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/front/News/buddhism%20and%20science.pdf Some other labs are mentioned in that Science piece - one at UC Davis, iirc.

I can't find the popular science article I read over Xmas, but I'm pretty sure it was from this lab, and they had EEGs of 175 people, some monks, some not. I suspect it's in press, or they shouldn't have talked.

Nevertheless, I think it's safely established now that there's testable real science going on.

OK, I really need to go home now. Catch you next week, perhaps.

[Dancing David]

I wonder what the failure rate of Buddhism is. (Seriously)

It can't be for everyone, can it?

Good question, I think it would be hard to study however.

There are many misconceptions about what the buddha taught, most rejection of buddhism comes from those misconceptions. I would assume the rates are similar to those who reject 'talk therapy' and psychiatry.

[Dancing David]

Obviously Buddhism is not something that you can prove the effectiveness of through experimentation, but it is not surprising that many practitioners seem happier or have a generally better mood. This is not due to any metaphysical beliefs per se but simply the philosophy of Buddhism that trains your mind to better handle problems you encounter in life. It helps you put things into perspective, and stand back from "the big picture" at times so as to better organize your thoughts and figure things out. In many ways Buddhist philosophy, particlarly of the Zen form, is a lot like critical thinking and science. You train yourself to recognize emotional attachments and judgements and look at things objectively to see the stark reality of things.


This can be studied very easily through the use of stress scales and quality of life surveys, so it is potentaily a verifiable hypothesis.

[epepke]

I'll keep looking.

I appreciate your good faith.

[epepke]

Now, I actually started writing this twice, once to have a browser crash and one to lose it myself through my own dumb actions so I'm feeling a bit bloody cross and terse, and also a bit inclined to go home rather than do it a-bloody-gain. Also, epepke, sweetums, snide "welcome to skepticism" remarks don't fly well with people who may possibly have been sceptics for longer than you've been alive, unless you happen to be an old crusty net user who predates http like me.

Which I am, of course, sugar lump snookie-pants. For just online skeptical discussions, I've been doing them since 1976, and of course I was a skeptic long before that.

So I got my snide put-down in, and you got yours.

.. The hostility I referred to was as you yourself noted, from yyreg, with whom I was previously unacquainted, not from you per se. There was no need to be snide.

Well, then, you had no reason to write "some people" then, as it was only one person, and as far as I can tell, in this thread cycle, yyreg and I are the only charter members.

But enough of being cross.

Agreed.

Buddhism is a large area, There are many sects and many beliefs. In order to do Buddhist meditation you do not have to subscribe to anything mystical at all. I explicitly restrict my claims to the practice of meditation. In fact I pointed out that the Dalai Lama can be a bit woo on some subjects, and that this was irrelevant to the practice.

OK, my position is thus. First of all, I have a distrust of the concept of "woo." It seems to me that it is a social category that sometimes says more about the culture of skepticism than it does about actual evidence for claims.

With respect to Buddhism, I see a potential problem in that it is a large area. Specifically, I see the possibility of and some degree of suggestive evidence for a kind of "good cop/bad cop" process. Because there are supernatural concepts in some forms of Buddhism, other aspects of Buddhism may seem non-pseudoscientific by comparison. Many people, in order to appear more attractive, invite uglier friends to go out with them so that they can look good by comparison. There's also the old story of the guy who hit himself in the head with a hammer because it felt so good when he stopped.

If you just want to rule the Dalai Lama out of bounds, that's fine. But I think it's also valid to point out that non-Buddhists aren't responsible for the Dalai Lama, either. In any event, what's left shouldn't get automatic plus marks just because it isn't the Dalai Lama.

Oh, and thanks for the cites.

[epepke]

There are many misconceptions about what the buddha taught, most rejection of buddhism comes from those misconceptions. I would assume the rates are similar to those who reject 'talk therapy' and psychiatry.

Honest, I hadn't read this before composing my response to cajela, but I think this is an example.

There are many valid reasons to question the value of talk therapy. As I've pointed out, Freudian therapy went on for a long time without any good studies, and when studies were done, they turned out not to support it very well. As a result, Freudian is now widely considered pseudoscience.

What I am concerned about is this kind of argument: "most rejection of buddhism comes from those misconceptions." This is problematic. First of all, it can lead to the tacit assumption that acceptance of Buddhism should be the default position, by the fact that it is necessary to come up with reasons why people do not accept Buddhism without evidence. Second of all, as I've pointed out, the "woo" concepts within Buddhism as a broad category can make the "non-woo" concepts seem good by comparison and divert attention away from the idea that they are amenable to skeptical testing just as any other claim is.

In my view, from a skeptical position, this is nonsense. However, there was a recent thread about what one has learned from this forum, and several people have pointed out that even self-identified skeptics can exhibit faith and dogmatism. This seems to me to be true, and it's just part of the environment I have to deal with, even though I don't like it. It relates to the specific here, because in my observation, Buddhism gets a free ride that is not granted to, say, Christianity.

So let me put it this way, if it makes it clearer. There is a practice called "Christian counseling," which involves claims substantially similar to the psychological claims about Buddhism. However, in my estimation, people on this forum would be more "skeptical" of these claims simply because there is a higher probability of suspecting Christianity than there is of suspecting Buddhism. This is irrational, of course, but it happens all the time.

I, however, don't think that skepticism of the claims of Christian counseling, qua Christian, should be any different from skepticism of the claims of Buddhist self help qua Buddhist, or the claims of CBT qua secular.

I am pleased that people are actually looking up papers now, but I do have to point out that this has happened only after some prodding.

[Ryokan]

I am pleased that people are actually looking up papers now, but I do have to point out that this has happened only after some prodding.

I just got back from work, and I'm leaving for Oslo in an hour to attend a political seminary. For that reason, I'm not able to pursue the research of Paul Ekman this weekend.

I will resume so when I get back on monday, and have some ideas on where to go. Those research papers have to be out there somewhere, I just hope they're online.

Personally, I haven't even thought of looking for scientific proof of Buddhism. Getting to Buddhism was a long and random path for me, and I readily admit I was extremely sceptical of it at first. However, after trying it for a while, I can honestly say it has changed my life.

Thanks for taking the wheels from Yrreg, Epepke. I've always been of the opinion that Buddhism can handle having the light of criticism shine on it. No matter who 'wins' or 'loses', I'm enjoying this.

Have a good weekend folks!

[username]

Personally, I haven't even thought of looking for scientific proof of Buddhism. Getting to Buddhism was a long and random path for me, and I readily admit I was extremely sceptical of it at first. However, after trying it for a while, I can honestly say it has changed my life.


That is how I viewed it as well, applying skeptical criticism to the claims of changed lives seemed, I dunno, out of place. Not really out of place as in it isn't possible to examine whether or not buddhist practice leads to this, but out of place in that it seemed like it is the kind of thing one experiences for themselves.

Kind of like sitting around looking for evidence of whether or not water is wet. Why look for evidence when we all have water nearby? Stick a finger into water and see if it is wet. Experience it and see for ourselves. Paralysis by analysis also came to mind.

Either one obtains a benefit from the practice or they do not. This may be entirely subjective, but it doesn't seem like it matters.

That is why I initially figured skeptical criticism would focus on the more woo elements like reincarnation and various concepts of karma.

This has been an interesting thread for me to follow though and I look forward to watching it unfold. I am not hostile to the idea of examining the practice and the claimed result at all, I am just saying that initially it never even occured to me to do so, it seemed - not necessary given how easy it is to experience personally.

[UserGoogol]

Which I am, of course, sugar lump snookie-pants. For just online skeptical discussions, I've been doing them since 1976, and of course I was a skeptic long before that.

Where online? To my knowledge, neither Usenet nor BBSes were around in 1976, although I suppose email mailing lists should've been around back then. (Not doubting you neccesarily, just honestly curious. The great thing about the Internet is that most people from the earliest days are still alive and well. On the Internet, ten years is old, and thirty years is pre-historic.)

[epepke]

Where online? To my knowledge, neither Usenet nor BBSes were around in 1976, although I suppose email mailing lists should've been around back then.

The PLATO system. Originally developed at the University of Illinois, there was a daughter project at FSU, and they had a satellite in Sarasota, Florida, where I happened to live, as well as many other satellites distributed throughout Florida.

The PLATO system was an amazing system, many years ahead of its time, and in some respects many years ahead of anything available today. It was designed for teaching. I got into it doing some lessons based on the Florida Functional Literacy program.

The discussion fora were called NOTES, and they were pretty much indistinguishable in essence from modern fora and USENET. There was also a real-time TALK program, essentially indistinguishable from instant messaging.

The terminals had 512 by 512 screens with 16 by 16 touch panels, pretty much unheard of at the time. The programming language, TUTOR, later known as PAL (PLATO Author Language) is still pretty advanced by modern standards. Tolerance for misspellings (similar to agrep) was built into the language. Certain kinds of variables allowed seamless and easy multithreading and persistence.

Some terminals had videodisc players, music synthesizers (the earliest was the Gooch Synthetic Woodwind, developed at FSU), speech synthesizers, and even slide projectors to project optical graphics behind the screen (the earliest terminals uses a plasma screen).

It also had downloadable fonts, both bitmap- and line-based.

PLATO was one of the reasons that I eventually transferred from MIT to FSU. Yeah, FSU was a podunk university, but ironically, they had the freedom to explore this rather exciting technology.

[Marc L]

[QUOTE=Ryokan;1373179

3. There have been neurological studies on Buddhist practitioners that definitely show them as happier and less stressed than other people.
4. Buddhist meditation practices have been clinically shown to be helpful to people suffering from stress, anxiety & depression.



Evidence enough for you, epepke?[/QUOTE]

I'm not epepke, but I've got a question. Were studies done comparing the effects of Buddhist meditation versus non-Buddhist meditation?

Marc

[nosho]

This point probably already has been made, but I think there's a difference between offering evidence of Buddhism and offering evidence of the effectiveness of a certain meditation technique.

The Buddhist practice of concentration on the breath is a technique that probably is much older than Buddhism and that can be found in other traditions. One of the experts cited in a post above (Kabat-Zinn) has a stress-reduction clinic in a hospital where mindfulness meditation techniques are used to help people deal with stress, disease, etc. His approach mirrors basic Buddhist meditation practice, but there is no mention of "Buddha" or Buddhism.

Meditative states of concentration featured prominently in the Christian mystic tradition, as well. In some Catholic circles, there is an attempt to revive non-discursive prayer. I'm sure we could find examples of meditative practice in virtually every religious tradition.

These states of concentration (or absorption) appear to be real, physiological phenomena that can be measured and that can have an effect. I think that the effect on an individual probably is tied to how an individual interprets what is happening. For one person, loss of a sense of self can be frightening. For another, it can be uplifting. For another, it might just be annoying. Meditation might be powerful precisely because human health cannot be separated from human self-perception.

Buddhism, as I understand it, adopts meditation practice as part of a broader path that must include an attempt to do the right thing. That means, from a Buddhist perspective, meditation is not going to be effective if the practioner is out breaking the precepts of right conduct when he's not meditating.

I doubt there's any way of coming up with "evidence for Buddhism," since Buddhism is such a huge tent with so many different traditions, as these threads have made plain. But if one views Buddhism as an ancient self-help course rather than a religion, it puts a little different spin on things. A self-help course is only valid for the people it helps. If someone tries a self-help course and doesn't benefit, then the course is not valid for that individual. So it's really not useful to talk about evidence for the effectiveness of a self-help course. As others already have pointed out, the only way to evaluate a self-help course properly is to try it and see if it works. If it doesn't for you, then it's not valid for you.

So I guess a person could spend weeks or months debating whether there is evidence to support a self-help course, but that doesn't really accomplish anything unless the person actually decides to try out the self-help course. And if that person decides not to try it out, fine. But I don't see the benefit in spending too long debating it. To me, that seems like a way of avoiding the issue, or of avoiding some other issue.

[yrreg]

Let's talk about something very concrete, like equanimity or not getting angry.

Here is a study that anyone can do about Buddhism on equanimity or dissimulation of anger, or not letting annoyances get to your goat.

Please read all my posts here from the very first, use the search link here.

In the process you will come across people who react to my posts; among them mostly Buddhists or people who call themselves Buddhists, or people who defend Buddhism or who react adversely to my skeptical criticism of Buddhism.

Now, tell me, who is more possessed of equanimity, Yrreg or his controverting respondents.

If you produce all the instances where Yrreg calls people names here, and all the instances where people here call Yrreg names, I will give you a surprise reward.

Hahaha and hehehe!


According to my favorite student of human behavior, one Pes Oir Amsus:

"When you can't laugh at your own religion or craving and attachment, then you have not attained genuine gentleman and erudite status."


Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Honest, I hadn't read this before composing my response to cajela, but I think this is an example.

There are many valid reasons to question the value of talk therapy. As I've pointed out, Freudian therapy went on for a long time without any good studies, and when studies were done, they turned out not to support it very well. As a result, Freudian is now widely considered pseudoscience.

And believe me I do question the value of talk therapy that is not behavioral and goal directed.
Freudian therapy as practised by Freud is in adifferent category that the Alderian and postmodern schools. Freud was able to admit his failings.



What I am concerned about is this kind of argument: "most rejection of buddhism comes from those misconceptions."

And it was meant as a general response, in general when people object to buddhism, it is grounds that are mistaken beliefs of what buddhism is. Such as 'Buddha is god, idol worship and world rejecting'.

This is problematic. First of all, it can lead to the tacit assumption that acceptance of Buddhism should be the default position, by the fact that it is necessary to come up with reasons why people do not accept Buddhism without evidence.

That would be problematic, and was not my intention.

Second of all, as I've pointed out, the "woo" concepts within Buddhism as a broad category can make the "non-woo" concepts seem good by comparison and divert attention away from the idea that they are amenable to skeptical testing just as any other claim is.

As true of any human endevour that does not have peer review and open evidence based practise.

I am very sceptical of all woo beliefs, including mine.


In my view, from a skeptical position, this is nonsense. However, there was a recent thread about what one has learned from this forum, and several people have pointed out that even self-identified skeptics can exhibit faith and dogmatism.

A mischaracterization of scepticism by those seeking shelter in self delusion. OOOOK

This seems to me to be true, and it's just part of the environment I have to deal with, even though I don't like it. It relates to the specific here, because in my observation, Buddhism gets a free ride that is not granted to, say, Christianity.

Well I would say the opposite, in the US people are very rarely sceptical of Xianity, they just accept it and all the cultural baggage of americans as 'the right stuff'.
Sceptics not withstanding.
I hope that buddha does not get a free ride, he should pay full fare!


So let me put it this way, if it makes it clearer. There is a practice called "Christian counseling," which involves claims substantially similar to the psychological claims about Buddhism. However, in my estimation, people on this forum would be more "skeptical" of these claims simply because there is a higher probability of suspecting Christianity than there is of suspecting Buddhism. This is irrational, of course, but it happens all the time.
/quote]
Hmm I said that the practices of buddhism are similar to CBT, but I made no claims that they were counseling.
The only issue I have with Xiam counseling is two fold:
1. They don't observe very good boundaries.
2. They use suspect techniques and call it counseling.

But I agree that it may be the concepts of buddhism are not put to the fire the way Xian concepts are, in a sceptics forum.
[quote]

I, however, don't think that skepticism of the claims of Christian counseling, qua Christian, should be any different from skepticism of the claims of Buddhist self help qua Buddhist, or the claims of CBT qua secular.

snif , CBT is research based, as least in theory.


I am pleased that people are actually looking up papers now, but I do have to point out that this has happened only after some prodding.

Poke , poke.

[Dancing David]

Let's talk about something very concrete, like equanimity or not getting angry.

Here is a study that anyone can do about Buddhism on equanimity or dissimulation of anger, or not letting annoyances get to your goat.

Please read all my posts here from the very first, use the search link here.

In the process you will come across people who react to my posts; among them mostly Buddhists or people who call themselves Buddhists, or people who defend Buddhism or who react adversely to my skeptical criticism of Buddhism.

Now, tell me, who is more possessed of equanimity, Yrreg or his controverting respondents.

Hmm, lets see.
You misquote the buddha, you mischaracterise buddhism, you refuse to answer questions, you refuse to debate you ideas or even defend them.

It is impolite to act the way you do as well.

I didn't read your Troll's Credo, why won't you answer questions?
Because you can't defend your ideas?


If you produce all the instances where Yrreg calls people names here, and all the instances where people here call Yrreg names, I will give you a surprise reward.

Hahaha and hehehe!


According to my favorite student of human behavior, one Pes Oir Amsus:

"When you can't laugh at your own religion or craving and attachment, then you have not attained genuine gentleman and erudite status."


Yrreg

You are ignorant yrreg, it is not a name, it classifys your behavior of pontification based upon ignorance.

You are a troll, that is why you don't answer questions, and can't or won't debate.

Your attidue that buddhists sit around all day doing nothings and not participating in life is just as insulting as any name calling.

[Dancing David]

The PLATO system. Originally developed at the University of Illinois, there was a daughter project at FSU, and they had a satellite in Sarasota, Florida, where I happened to live, as well as many other satellites distributed throughout Florida.

Go PLATO, 1977 for me, in Shampoo-Bannana, the home of PLATO!

[Kopji]

I find the quotes very interesting. I have seen others like them before, but when I see statements like "feel a loss of their sense of themselves." expressed as a negative I wonder what the words mean. To a buddhist, losing the sense of self is a good thing, not a bad thing, but the words in the quote might mean something entirely different...

...I can see how some persons could experience what would be regarded as adverse effects from meditation, but it almost seems silly to think that mediation should come with a warning label. I mean it is just sitting still and focusing on the breath for 20-30 minutes (as a common example). How can something so innocuous be so powerful?

That is something I would like to see science explore.

I'm not sure how we would set up an ethical study on meditation. In a study on prayer a few years ago, some of the subjects 'prayed for' got worse. Nobody stopped praying. Prayer studies only seem to count hits, and meditation studies seem very similar.

I agree that the 'losing sense of self' seems weird wording. My short experience with a group that did meditation was probably a good example of "bad experience meditating". I'll see if I can put something down into writing later.

[SirPhilip]

Let's talk about something very concrete, like equanimity or not getting angry. Here is a study that anyone can do about Buddhism on equanimity or dissimulation of anger, or not letting annoyances get to your goat. Please read all my posts here from the very first, use the search link here. In the process you will come across people who react to my posts; among them mostly Buddhists or people who call themselves Buddhists, or people who defend Buddhism or who react adversely to my skeptical criticism of Buddhism.Yeah, but you are just referring to your own self-restraint and maturity and calling it Buddhism. The practice of Buddhism alone can't accomplish that any more than poetry. It is the rarely known, greater upliftment and satisfaction of living in hidden accord with nature and reason - that is always possible no matter what hell one finds themselves in through hard work, that Buddhism points to. Buddhism doesn't point to Buddhism, or advocate Buddhism.

When you can't laugh at your own religion or craving and attachment, then you have not attained genuine gentleman and erudite status. You never slammed a beautiful woman in the ass while snorting lines off her back and beating your chest like a Greek God, I take it. Oh well, perhaps in the next life. Why would anyone want to be a gentleman or a erudite anyway? Both don't really exist, except as pretentiousness. Craving and attachment don't go away until the very end, they just become felt as lesser forms of satisfaction. Everything in balance.

[SirPhilip]

How the hell do you go about being skeptical about Buddhism, anyway. It's like being skeptical about nonviolence and self-discipline. The religious trappings it turned into of course, are undeniably nonsense. But is that even worth debating?

[Complexity]

First used Plato IV (around 10,000 workstations around the world, most in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois) at the Univ. of Illinois in 1974. Played with it and used it for some courses (Computer Calculus, Chemistry, Physics) through 1980. Awesome workstation for the time - orange-on-black touch-sensitive plasma display, able to project microfiche onto the back of the display, state-of-the-art authoring and user environment. Plato was sold to a private company years ago. Plato educational software is still being produced in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area.

[yrreg]

Buddhism is a moralistic religion of the negative type bordering on pessimism, nihilism.

Now if you just disregard the non-self, karma, rebirth, and the nirvana end of the world scenario for all sentient life forms, as some kind of parousia or Buddhist eschatology or end things, Buddhism as I said is a moralistic system of a religion or even philosophy; indulging in it might render you a peaceable person within yourself and also with neighbors, yet not make you useful for solving the problems of the world like hunger, disease, and the scorch of natural disasters, very important also ignorance.

And should you want to give yourself the best health care and the most number of years before you finally opt for definitive nirvana, Buddhism can't help you.

If you have to support a family and run a home, and give your kids the best preparation for life, then Buddhism practiced full time can't help you; quite the contrary it is tantamount to some kind of premature retirement, like the kinds I have seen in guys who use some kind of sickness to not do anything in life anymore, being occupied with their sickness, like for example easily prone to dizziness.

Why should I have to see any resources in Buddhism for ordering my moralistic existence? when I can fashion my own and get to be a happy, productive person, decently adjusted in society, having a purpose in life and finding life meaningful and satisfactory.

So, I invite Buddhists here to do the same.

For those Buddhists who don't accept the non-self, karma, rebirth, Nirvana in Buddhism, then I apologize to them. But then I don't see why they have to defend Buddhism, and get all worked up with people like myself doing skeptical criticism on Buddhism.


Yrreg

[SirPhilip]

Buddhism is a moralistic religion of the negative type bordering on pessimism, nihilism.
[quote]
Now if you just disregard the non-self, karma, rebirth, and the nirvana end of the world scenario for all sentient life forms, as some kind of parousia or Buddhist eschatology or end things, Buddhism as I said is a moralistic system of a religion or even philosophy; indulging in it might render you a peaceable person within yourself and also with neighbors, yet not make you useful for solving the problems of the world like hunger, disease, and the scorch of natural disasters, very important also ignorance. I'm speaking soley on behalf of the Zen and Mahayana philosophical schools when forming my responses. With that said, solving issues in your enviornment or even becoming a celebrity is moot, if you are mindful of your actions, and it developing into an attachment.

If you have to support a family and run a home, and give your kids the best preparation for life, then Buddhism practiced full time can't help you; quite the contrary it is tantamount to some kind of premature retirement, like the kinds I have seen in guys who use some kind of sickness to not do anything in life anymore, being occupied with their sickness, like for example easily prone to dizziness. They can be preoccupied or not be preoccupied, as long as they follow the four rules of conduct or some variation.

Why should I have to see any resources in Buddhism for ordering my moralistic existence? when I can fashion my own and get to be a happy, productive person, decently adjusted in society, having a purpose in life and finding life meaningful and satisfactory.It is a cultural tradition with philsophical and religious underpinnings, and some people enjoy that as opposed to puritan pragmatism.


For those Buddhists who don't accept the non-self, karma, rebirth, Nirvana in Buddhism, then I apologize to them. But then I don't see why they have to defend Buddhism, and get all worked up with people like myself doing skeptical criticism on Buddhism What Buddhism points to is very difficult to learn, much less practice, in life, but acting like religious fundamentalists is the height of idiocy.

[yrreg]

The way I size it up, there are two kinds of evidence being pursued in this thread: one the laboratory evidence, and the other the personal experience evidence.

Ryokan maintains that at least for the advantages of Buddhist meditation there is evidence in the laboratory.

As regards the evidence from personal experience, it can prove everything in Buddhism to the true believers, and it proves nothing in the laboratory.

I have to read the thread more carefully as regards the evidence in the laboratory firming up the advantages of Buddhist meditation.

But I would like to suggest maybe too simplistically that there is the laboratory that is like the operating room in the hospital, and there is the laboratory that is the streets and homes and offices and even war fronts, and above all personal interactions among people who have to live and work together, exist together in the same place at the same time.

And the situation I see it here in this JREF forum, in regard to skeptical criticism of Buddhism, the Buddhists here are not as conspicuous for equanimity of which Buddhism is supposed to be famous for, as I would or people would reasonably expect.

But that is my personal observation and tentative conclusion. I have seen here Buddhists who started calm and peaceable but ended up with harsh words, and one or two after crossing over the threshold of self-equanimity have not returned to their Buddhist imperturbability, as they might imagine that they have acquired with their meditation.

There is an essential insecurity with Buddhists here, that they have to explain and defend and get annoyed to the extent of resorting to harsh words, to kind of abolish any criticism on Buddhism, like people with a gun would shoot others who criticize their ways.

I am losing my equanimity, so I will recite:

Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum -- Om Mani Padme Hum

[For people who are curious what questions D David is asking me and I am refusing to answer, ask him. Om Mani Padme Hum. Okay? If anyone has any serious complaint against me, please report me to the authorities here; use the complaint link. Otherwise let's all just have a good time here.]


Yrreg

[jjramsey]

So it's really not useful to talk about evidence for the effectiveness of a self-help course. As others already have pointed out, the only way to evaluate a self-help course properly is to try it and see if it works.

Not necessarily. One can also read reviews and research about it, and that might be wiser if there is a heavy investment required for the course, monetary or otherwise (and in the case of Buddhism, it would mostly be otherwise).

I'm not sure how we would set up an ethical study on meditation. In a study on prayer a few years ago, some of the subjects 'prayed for' got worse.

I would think that would depend on how much worse the subjects would get, and whether the resulting problems were temporary or reversible.

[Kopji]

I would think that would depend on how much worse the subjects would get, and whether the resulting problems were temporary or reversible. --jjramsey


I can agree with that. If laboratory tests do not account for potential harm as well as potential benefits of a practice, it is evidence of measurement bias. A casual glance at previous 'meditation' testing shows a bias toward a positive outcome. If they want to have meditation taken seriously as science we need to see better designed tests.

[Kopji]

I wanted to add something on the topic of meditation doing harm without titling it something like how crazy is kopji?

'Crazy' runs in my family enough for me to just call it plain old 'crazy' instead of something more PC. Schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, autism... sheesh we got it all. All people I love and care about.

I see dim reflections of them in myself sometimes. One of those ways is that things sometimes 'fold up'. If you typed a sentence on a page, and then fan-folded the paper into "z". You would see the beginning of the sentence and the end, but the middle had 'vanished' in the fold.

Time can be like that if I'm working on a difficult problem. I got in huge trouble once when I was working on a programming problem a few years ago. I looked down at 12 noon, and looked up a 'second' later and it was 3pm. (Unfortunately I was supposed to pick up someone from school...)

I am not conscious of these 'quirks' most of the time. I notice it mostly with numbers (and really long Internet posts), where they are not so much reversed or 'dyslexic', just 'missing the middle'.

Anyway, mediation needs to be practiced regularly and that was the real problem for me. Once started there was no way to stop it. It would be like words echoing around in my head - like a twisted version of the 'folding' thing, where there was no middle, only slamming against the rails at each end. Thinking about nothing but the next meditation - sort of like 'mind hic-cups'. Add that to two parts 'feeling like you are slowly becoming transparent' - not really here. And then, fear that you are going crazy just like those frigging' relatives.

Am I better now?

Well I lost all religious faith and that is a bittersweet thing sometimes. I still don't think people can choose to not believe. They either never did, or it is burned out somehow. I have the scars to prove I once believed.

The 'quirky' folding is mostly harmless, but a way of understanding new things broadly and then more narrowly. It is easier to explain with paint than words. I compensate by being careful when it happens and not get too upset about it. It is embarrassing to be caught doing it but I get over it.

I hike and draw instead of meditate, and I do them when I feel like it and at my own pace. The 'transparent' feeling can be called upon without too much effort: A quiet and still place. It is a place like where the 'folded up sentences' go. :)

The real battle for me is avoiding feeling nothing. I think a Buddhist might feel that is a kind of enlightenment but I do not. I lean more toward the Taoist way, compassion is something that grounds and orients us.

I could be wrong, but to the Buddhist pov meditation itself must just be another form of attachment, because it is. I can't see arguing a scientific basis for Buddhism being more than a straw man. Whatever science would prove must be someday let go of.

[Dancing David]

The evidence that meditation is benefiacial would require the usual controls, good baseline, longitudinal basis and then tools designed to capture the alleged benefit, the hard part would be the control group design and matching for the different groups.

The effects that I feel benefit the user of meditation are the one tauted by the buddha

'the ub-reflecting mind is like a house without a roof'.

But how do you prove that meditation allows a person to reflect upon thier emotions and thought before acting upon them?

[yrreg]

Meditation is no different as an operation from memorization, like memorizing the multiplication table.

Now, we would like to request the Buddhists here, in particular Ryokan, to inform us what are the concrete effects in a person Buddhist meditation is supposed to produce?

If it is going to make a person attain enlightenment, or experience Nirvana, or become convinced of karma and rebirth, then I can't imagine how evidence can be obtained that is useful in the laboratory.

I really don't know what laboratory certifiable effects and evidence are entertained in the minds of Buddhists here, who maintain the scientific validity of meditation, Buddhist style.

Tell us, Buddhists here, please.


Yrreg

[Meadmaker]

Meditation is no different as an operation from memorization, like memorizing the multiplication table.

What is the sound of one mouth yapping?



ETA: Ok. That sounds worse than I meant. I'm being bad.

yrreg, I'm sure you mean well, but you really don't get it, and you never will until you stop making statements, and start asking questions. But, about those questions, I'm reminded of a story my father used to tell. He said he had a professor who, on the first day of class, told the class to ask questions, but he added. "There are three kinds of questions. One kind is meant to show how smart the person asking the question is. Another kind is the kind meant to show how stupid somone else is. Then, once in a while, someone actually wants some information."

Buddhism is much more, and much less, than you give it credit for.

[jjramsey]

This is perhaps a silly question, but if one part of the Eightfold Path is "right meditation," but meditation is harmful for a particular person, would the right meditation for such a one be no meditation?

[Meadmaker]

The PLATO system. Originally developed at the University of Illinois,

I wondered if there were any other PLATO alums around. I was U of I from 1980 to 1987. (I did get two degrees, so it isn't quite as bad as it sounds.)

A fair number of people know that a lot of work on what became the WWW came out of the advanced computing lab in Champaign. They don't know that the people who invented it were inspired by PLATO.

[RandFan]

Buddhism is much more, and much less, than you give it credit for. And how would this be demonstrated? Couldn't this apply to just about anything? What "questions" would you suggest?

[Meadmaker]

And how would this be demonstrated? Couldn't this apply to just about anything? What "questions" would you suggest?

1. It wouldn't be demonstrated. It would be understood.

2. Yes. (at least if someone were saying more and less about something else)

3. The same ones that have been asked, but actually paying attention to the replies.

yrreg seems to consistently misunderstand Buddhism, and especially Buddhism as applied by skeptics. When I saw him compare meditation to memorizing a multiplication table, it was obvious that he just didn't get it, despite the efforts. In his first attempts at "skeptical criticism of Buddhism", there was a lengthy discussion of the meaning of anatta (no-self or no-soul) in which he consistently twisted words to mean anything other than what the poster was saying.

He likes to say he is doing skeptical criticism of Buddhism, but the first step in skeptical criticism of anything is to try and understand it. It doesn't seem to me that he is doing much of that.

[Meadmaker]

Now, we would like to request the Buddhists here, in particular Ryokan, to inform us what are the concrete effects in a person Buddhist meditation is supposed to produce?


For me, it makes me calmer. If I don't seem very calm, perhaps it is because I don't meditate enough.

I really don't know what laboratory certifiable effects and evidence are entertained in the minds of Buddhists here, who maintain the scientific validity of meditation, Buddhist style.

"Scientific validity of meditation". What does that mean? I am scientifically able to say that when I meditate, I sit in a dim room not moving much, unless I am doing walking meditation. As for its effects, this thread started with pretty good evidence of brain changes among people who do it a lot.

I don't know if it makes you smarter, happier, or a better person, because I don't know how to measure any of those things. The first one I might be able to measure a little bit, but even that one is problematic. Who is smarter, the person who memorizes 100 digits of pi, or the person who didn't bother to memorize 100 digits of pi?

Tell us, Buddhists here, please.


Yrreg[/QUOTE]

[username]

This is perhaps a silly question, but if one part of the Eightfold Path is "right meditation," but meditation is harmful for a particular person, would the right meditation for such a one be no meditation?

I really don't know. I have found meditation to release profound revelations, and some have been almost catastrophic in terms of my ability to deal with them. Others meditate and wish they had such experiences. Others meditate and are nearly destroyed by them. I would guess the percentage of people who fall into the latter category is quite small and predisposed to mental illness.

There actually are mental illnesses categorized that are related to meditation. I don't think they are common, but it just underscores the reality that meditation does seem to unlock things that normally would never see the light of day. Nothing supernatural or even metaphysical about it, just the way it is.

[Kopji]

If we could improve the lives of 99 people with meditation and only harm one person, that seems like an acceptable sacrifice.

Or religious faith, being so helpful to so many people. It is good to promote even if false because only a few people suffer because of it.

If your product is potentially toxic and yet marketed as being safe, what does that say about you?

[Kopji]

A certain amount and type of irrationality is natural, and has the potential to be a healthy part of being human.

Maybe we call it 'mental illness' when it starts wrecking our lives. Like many things it is a spectrum of characteristics that have a range of possible outcomes. People often get better and go on with their lives.

I find that examining how various religions view 'mental illness' is sort of like 'the canary in the mine'. If the canary is dead but nobody cares, there is a problem with the miners or the management (not to mention the mine itself). If the canary is set high on a pedestal and called a great prophet of doom, well that's a problem too...

And if the canary is staggering around gasping for breath, surrounded by miners trying to exercise its demons - there's a kind of dark humor no?

Here's my problem with religions claiming to be 'scientific'.

A common misconception of "anti skeptics" is that evil materialist skeptics think things should always be done like this:

"To get to 10 we must show steps 1 through 9":

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*yawn* boring. if it were really like this I would hate skeptics too.

The mistake, is that to get to "10" we should proceed logically through the all steps. 10 is caused by 9 is caused by 8...

The outstanding thing about science and people like Sagan and Popper and Gardner and countless others is that they teach science really goes more like:
10?
And then we go on to show why it is 10, or why it could not be anything else but 10. Always with a litte doubt left over. Falsification is not a linear process, it is much more creative.

So if Buddhism is "scientific" in some sense, what? Is is a very good philosophy that might indeed help scientific thinking, but not something we can apply scientific method to itself.

[epepke]

And believe me I do question the value of talk therapy that is not behavioral and goal directed.
Freudian therapy as practised by Freud is in adifferent category that the Alderian and postmodern schools. Freud was able to admit his failings.

Well, I think that I am not getting my point across. There were some things that you said that I let slide, even though they weren't to the point.

Frued is dead, just like Gautama Buddha. They are truly history. I've read a lot of Freud, and it seems to me that he presented a lot of hypotheses, but partially due to his cult of personality, they got turned into pseudofacts. I don't have any problem with Freud the person, because I think he did about the best that could have reasonably been expected.

And it was meant as a general response, in general when people object to buddhism, it is grounds that are mistaken beliefs of what buddhism is. Such as 'Buddha is god, idol worship and world rejecting'.

Fine, but we don't have a general audience here. At least, I hope we don't have a general audience. If I wanted a general audience, I'd go to the bus stop. I hope that we have an audience that is more perspicatious with respect to skepticism than the average bear.

Hmm I said that the practices of buddhism are similar to CBT, but I made no claims that they were counseling.

Well, let's dont get too hung-up on the difference between counseling and self-help, because there are enough red herrings in the water already.

snif , CBT is research based, as least in theory.

Psychological theory and $2 will get you a cup of black water at Starbucks.

[yrreg]

Meditation is an operational process of the human entity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meditation is no different as an operation from memorization, like memorizing the multiplication table.

Now, we would like to request the Buddhists here, in particular Ryokan, to inform us what are the concrete effects in a person Buddhist meditation is supposed to produce?

If it is going to make a person attain enlightenment, or experience Nirvana, or become convinced of karma and rebirth, then I can't imagine how evidence can be obtained that is useful in the laboratory.

I really don't know what laboratory certifiable effects and evidence are entertained in the minds of Buddhists here, who maintain the scientific validity of meditation, Buddhist style.

Tell us, Buddhists here, please.


Yrreg



Meditation is an operation of the mind/brain just like memorizing the multiplication table is an operation of the mind/brain. So it can be studied in the laboratory, like how people memorize data, how fast people can memorize, and how they can improve their memorizing capacity.

If we look at meditation in this manner, then it is very possible to study it as it is very possible to bite a donut.

What we should do is to organize a panel of impartial scientists who are experts in studying mind/brain operations correlative to emotional and physical conduct.

For example, I am sure there are scientists who study ways and means to memorize data faster and retain the memorized data longer; so we can get them to study meditation correlative to emotional and physical conduct, its acquisition or habituation and its actual implementation in daily life in every day circumstances.

Now, these scientists will have to map out exact effects in emotional and physical conduct that meditation is supposed to produce or improve or instill for longer duration in the human subject.

Since the Buddhists here are not scientists and I am not a scientist -- Buddhists so far have not come up with concrete effects Buddhist meditation is supposed to produce -- and certainly both they and I are not impartial, we have to look for impartial expert scientists to design such a study.

Then we will have the answer from impartial experts, instead of arguing with words forever.


Yrreg

[Kopji]

There's no such thing as an impartial expert, that's why we design blinded studies.

[yrreg]

There's no such thing as an impartial expert, that's why we design blinded studies.

What I know is that a single-blind study is one where the subject being studied does not know he is being studied.

A double-blind study is one where both the subject being studied does not know and the personnel doing the material study do not know about the study; for example, drinking ginseng tea is being studied in a subject, but he and the people dispensing the ginseng tea do not know that a study is going on.

Please correct me if I am wrong or imprecise.



Impartial experts are those publicly known and have an established reputation, and admitted by both sides in a study of the pro and con of an issue, to not harbor any sympathy for one or the other side of the issue; but they know what the study is all about as they conduct the study.

I can't imagine experts conducting a study to be blind to what they are conducting the study about; how then are they going to design the study?


Yrreg

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg :
Meditation is no different as an operation from memorization, like memorizing the multiplication table.

----------------------

What is the sound of one mouth yapping?



ETA: Ok. That sounds worse than I meant. I'm being bad.

yrreg, I'm sure you mean well, but you really don't get it, and you never will until you stop making statements, and start asking questions. But, about those questions, I'm reminded of a story my father used to tell. He said he had a professor who, on the first day of class, told the class to ask questions, but he added. "There are three kinds of questions. One kind is meant to show how smart the person asking the question is. Another kind is the kind meant to show how stupid somone else is. Then, once in a while, someone actually wants some information."

Buddhism is much more, and much less, than you give it credit for.



See?

So, when Buddhists complain here that I don't attend to their answers, maybe what they mean is that I don't accept their answers but prefer to keep a polite silence.

And when Buddhists complain that I don't answer their questions, you have to ask them what those questions are; besides, I have written enough messages for them to have read the answers to their questions.

Yrreg

[Kopji]

I can't imagine experts conducting a study to be blind to what they are conducting the study about; how then are they going to design the study?


Eliminating bias is one of the hardest things to do. There may be some kinds of topics where I'm not sure it can be done.

Let me try and give an example in a nutshell of how hard the testing would be and things we would need to watch for.

First, we must expect subject/observer bias and somehow account for it or eliminate it. In the US alone, well over 50% believe in the possibility of supernatural effects on a study. Additionally, there is a population who feel that such belief is a fundamental good. Even if they did not experience any effect they might well choose to pursue that 'good' despite the evidence. So, we should expect measurement bias from testers and participants.

We might think that the best way to test meditation is with some really experienced Buddhists, but that is probably not the case. Things like diet, culture, and social standing need to be eliminated, and a good Buddhist is not going to just meditate, they are going to eat well. (or we would study diet). They may live in a less industrialized society with different stresses etc.

That might be very interesting to study but let's say we want to only study the benefit of meditation.

A team of experts who knew what the study wanted to show would need to design some test questions that measure expected results - "enlightenment". this group cannot know anything about how the study will actually be done. These experts will not do any interviewing.

For the test group itself, what we'd really want is a large group who have little or no experience with meditation. They would need to be from similar socio economic background, and similar diets.

We then need a group of interviewers. These interviewers know nothing about anything but the questions before them. Each test group member is interviewed and scored by the 'blind' interviewers.

The test group would then be split into three or more subgroups:
1: One group does meditation (how do we verify that happens?)
2: One group does nothing (no sneaking in any side meditation)

3: But there needs to be a third group. What would they do? It would need to be something like a placebo that was like meditation but not meditation. Give them something like a pill and tell them it produces the effects of meditation like calmness and serenity.

The test subjects don't know what the study is really about. The interviewers don't know either.

It would be best if the experts knew nothing about the test protocols until the testing was over and everyone was scored. The people who handle managing the actual groups cannot be involved in the testing.

At the end of six months, the entire group is reinterviewed with the same questions. The testers know nothing about the methodology, and simply reinterview.

These interview questions would then be turned back over to the experts and evaluated. The experts should be able to identify which subjects meditated to more than chance. (To be determined).

Whew. ok, I think that is a triple blind study.

Even with all that, I can see places where bias might enter. Remember that both the test subjects and testers might want to believe or not. The experts could design poor questions, or include subtle clues about who was tested for meditation. The questions might not measure what I mentioned before - potential for harm.

There's a lot that can go wrong. A big question would be - could the study be duplicated with similar results just by following the protocols?

[Meadmaker]

besides, I have written enough messages for them to have read the answers to their questions.

Yrreg

Indeed you have.

[yrreg]

Thanks, Kopji, for your reply.

I am certain that we are all here after anything that is good for attaining a healthy lifestyle, one that enables us to do the things we like to do, like strolling in the park with ease and comfort, or sleeping soundly longer hours at night.

That might be very interesting to study but let's say we want to only study the benefit of meditation.

A team of experts who knew what the study wanted to show would need to design some test questions that measure expected results - "enlightenment". this group cannot know anything about how the study will actually be done. These experts will not do any interviewing.


Can you know of or imagine benefits from Buddhist meditation, for which we might agree on a panel of impartial scientists to study? like relief from:

insomnia,

constipation,

allergy to milk products,

stuttering or stammering,

tics (local and habitual twitching especially in the face),

erectile dysfunction,

frigidity,

and similar anatomical and physiological symptoms.


Would you not agree with me that the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, or non-self, karma, rebirth, nirvana are not subjects for scientific studies? maybe philosophical if at all?


I work in an environment where there are employees who habitually report late for work, use office stationery excessively, go to the bathrooms too often, I believe a scientific study on the efficacy of Buddhist meditation can be designed, to find out whether it might modify such behaviors as to gladden the heart of the employer.


Yrreg

[Kopji]

Thanks, Kopji, for your reply.

y'welcome

Can you know of or imagine benefits from Buddhist meditation, for which we might agree on a panel of impartial scientists to study?...
There's a scene in the movie "O God" (the good one, with John Denver and George Burns). They ask God if Jesus is his son. He says yeah. And so was Buddha, Mohammed...
All hell breaks loose.

The 'experts' meeting would go something like that.

Would you not agree with me that the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, or non-self, karma, rebirth, nirvana are not subjects for scientific studies? maybe philosophical if at all?

Be sort of like doing a study on a large poem wouldn't it?

I work in an environment where there are employees who habitually report late for work, use office stationery excessively, go to the bathrooms too often, I believe a scientific study on the efficacy of Buddhist meditation can be designed, to find out whether it might modify such behaviors as to gladden the heart of the employer.

Oh that would be much less rigorous. Those are all measurable workplace things where a baseline could be created, initiate a change, and then measure again after. You don't need to prove Buddhism works other than produces some results for a limited population. A placebo might have the same effect. The trick of course with a placebo, it that you have to believe it will work. And do not underrate placebos, a good placebo effect is sometimes worth 25-30%. A lot of meds aren't that high.

Businesses are decidedly non scientific sometimes.
Business loves woo, remember that.
There are already businesses who hire clergy to do counseling at the workplace. Happy workers are productive workers... It does not matter if it works more than a placebo, a placebo that improves productivity 25-30% is called a "business solution".

[yrreg]

Dear Kopji:

Tell me, are you a Buddhist who do meditation the Buddhist way with guidance from a Buddhist master?

Maybe you can tell me also whether you believe in non-self (however which way it is explained to you), karma, rebirth, Nirvana, ultimate Nirvana for all sentient beings, or you are just into Buddhist meditation for attaining all the right behavioral traits of Buddhist Eightfold path.

Next, do you know at least ten Buddhists who do practice meditation as you do?

Do you know them well: how they are doing in work, in social life, in their home and family, as regards their physical health and their emotional life?

You see, I observe that where I am trying to interest Buddhists here doing meditation to pick up some very concrete good effects that are supposed to be attainable with meditation, like for example, to remedy constipation, insomnia, lack of punctuality reporting to work, erectile dysfunction, stammering and stuttering, tics, etc., they seem to be skirting this issue. And you keep harping about the parameters of a laboratory study.

Perhaps, then -- if you are a Buddhist in any sense and to any degree, at least you call yourself one and feel that you should explain and defend Buddhism -- without telling any of your fellow Buddhists about this idea, observe how they are doing everywhere in their personal interactions with all kinds of people they live with or come in contact with regularly or occasionally, casually, at home, in the office, and everywhere. You can make discreet inquiry from others who know them intimately.

The objective is very simple, to find out whether they are now more polite and courteous with people of various backgrounds, work circumstances, status and ranks, that they have to deal with, more polite and courteous than before they took up meditation.

That is a very simple study to do, and you can do it without falling prey to any biases from your part, for you do know -- from what I read of your messages here, about how to achieve clinical impartiality in such an endeavor.

What do you say?


Yrreg

[yrreg]

According to the article, the scientist that did the research was Paul Ekman.

Background info on Paul Ekman :

http://www.paulekman.com/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman

Looks like a 'real' scientist to me. However, on the 'contact' page of his site, he makes it clear he's unavailable for questions.

So my task then is to track down a peer reviewed article that supports the claims quoted in the OP.

http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/perez/Psych612/Psych612_files/Ekman_Buddhist_psych_2005.pdf#search='%20Paul%20Ek man%20Buddhism'

Here's (http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/perez/Psych612/Psych612_files/Ekman_Buddhist_psych_2005.pdf#search='%20Paul%20Ek man%20Buddhism') a peer reviewed (I assume it is, I'll admit to not being knowledgable about American academic circles) article that at least shows that Paul Ekman is involved in research on Buddhism. No reference to actual scientific research, however.

I'll keep looking.

Last edited by Ryokan : 12th January 2006 at 09:43 AM.



Well, I just clicked on the refresh button of the browser, and still no new post from the author of this thread, Evidence in Buddhism, to show us peer-reviewed scientific studies on Buddhism as a scientific system, or at least Buddhist meditation.

So, let's continue to wait, and in the meantime put out a paging for Ryokan.

Paging Ryokan, paging Ryokan: Please report to your thread on Evidence in Buddhism.

Om Mani Padme Hum ----- Om Mani Padme Hum ----- Om Mani Padme Hum


Yrreg

[Ryokan]

Paging Ryokan, paging Ryokan: Please report to your thread on Evidence in Buddhism.

I wasn't going to bump the thread until I had a definite answer for what epepke is asking for. I've e-mailed some of the scientist involved in the project, but so far no answer.

[Ryokan]

I've e-mailed scientists involved with both projects mentioned in the first quote in the original post, as well as their universities.

I've had no reply from any of them.

This is, of course, not evidence that there has been no such research with the stated result, but it must be discarded as evidence regardless.

[krelnius]

Actually, this is really not evidence of Buddhism at all. Infact, its evidence against it once you know all the facts. Let me explain.

In Bernard Wards book "Think Yourself Well" he talks in depth about meditation and its benefits. In the book you can read that "Dr.Dean Ornish of the University of California at San Francisco advocates the use of meditation and relaxation to reverse the effects of heart disease." and "Dr. Herbert Benson was the first modern researcher to demonstrate the value of relaxation in treating and healing a host of human ailments."

Basically what I'm getting at is that relaxation, or meditation is good for you, period. But so is working out and stretching. Relaxation techniques like meditation help calm a person down and relieve stress in most cases. This is in no way an argument for Buddhism. Buddhism is not the only religion that practices meditation and in no way is belief in Buddhism required to perform meditation.

Just because a Christian that works out every other day is in good shape does not mean that if working out gets him into shape then Jesus Christ exists.

You see, meditation is good WITHOUT Buddhism. Just like normal stretching is good without believing in any religion that practices Yoga. Which is why I consider this to be an argument AGAINST Buddhism and not FOR it.

[SirPhilip]

Basically what I'm getting at is that relaxation, or meditation is good for you, period. But so is working out and stretching. Relaxation techniques like meditation help calm a person down and relieve stress in most cases. This is in no way an argument for Buddhism. Buddhism is not the only religion that practices meditation and in no way is belief in Buddhism required to perform meditation. Just because a Christian that works out every other day is in good shape does not mean that if working out gets him into shape then Jesus Christ exists. You see, meditation is good WITHOUT Buddhism. Just like normal stretching is good without believing in any religion that practices Yoga. Which is why I consider this to be an argument AGAINST Buddhism and not FOR it. If you sit down quietly for several hours, the only benefit you will notice is your attention span feels more in control, as a result of you stabilizing your brainwave patterns while awake. This lasts a short time, however. I liked to sit silently while awake daily when I was very young; today it is a big part of my life - but not for that reason.

Buddhism is one of several different religious and philosophical traditions from India based on the same humanistic truths. Jainism, which predates Buddhism, is thought to have originated in pre-history. Meditation isn't an exercise, it is a result of the emergence of pure conscience, which is attained by right-action and daily contemplation. Depending on your karma, when you attain this state, you naturally want to avoid activity, as you are self-sustained and don't find it satisfying anymore. People who are very unhappy, have a lot of afflictions, and are amoral, can't stand to face that and are always moving about, looking for contentment in impermanent things. The most obnoxious thing these people would want to do is turn down the volume.

[SirPhilip]

Can you know of or imagine benefits from Buddhist meditation, for which we might agree on a panel of impartial scientists to study? like relief from:

insomnia,

constipation,

allergy to milk products,

stuttering or stammering,

tics (local and habitual twitching especially in the face),

erectile dysfunction,

frigidity,

and similar anatomical and physiological symptoms. In Buddhism, you eliminate affliction by destroying it's causes through practicing the eightfold path, which is:

1. Right Understanding
To understand the Law of Cause and Effect and the Four Noble Truths.

2. Right Attitude
Not harbouring thoughts of greed and anger.

3. Right Speech
Avoid lying, gossip, harsh speech and tale-telling.

4. Right Action
Not to destroy any life, not to steal or commit adultery.

5. Right Livelihood
Avoiding occupations that bring harm to oneself and others.

6. Right Effort
Earnestly doing one's best in the right direction.

7. Right Mindfulness
Always being aware and attentive.

8. Right Concentration
To making the mind steady and calm in order to realise the true nature of things.

The Mahayana tradition holds that affliction can be lifted by others by tranference of karma, while the Zen, Theravada and other schools don't consider that important. Inevitably though, like a dream, circumstances will arrange themselves in a positive way accordingly, without you consciously making any effort to change them. This is what is meant by seeing the emptiness of mind while seeing nothing.