Episode 7
The Alchemist's Toolkit: Blending Science and Spirit for Transformation
Tracking Wisdom
Episode 7
The Alchemist's Toolkit: Blending Science and Spirit for Transformation
Recorded - 10/03/22
DESCRIPTION
We delve into the ongoing conversation about mindfulness and its role in personal growth. Is secular mindfulness, separate from religious traditions, enough to create a fulfilling life? This episode explores the limitations of relying solely on scientific or spiritual practices. The hosts discuss the metaphor of a toolbox - a well-rounded life requires both the "hammer" of technology and the "screwdriver" of spiritual exploration. Join us as we celebrate the potential for a powerful synergy between these seemingly disparate approaches.
New scientific discoveries suggest a deeper connection between the mind and the metaphysical, blurring the lines between science and spirituality. Learning to identify and address both the physical and non-physical aspects of life's challenges is crucial for true growth and well-being.
Takeaways:
- The podcast discusses the relationship between brain activity and near-death experiences, emphasizing the importance of understanding this phenomenon.
- Evidence is presented suggesting that brain activity may persist after clinical death, challenging traditional definitions of death.
- The speakers highlight the distinction between evidence and proof, noting that anecdotal evidence holds significance in discussions about consciousness.
- They explore the implications of scientific findings on metaphysical experiences, questioning the nature of reality and our perceptions of it.
- The conversation reflects on the integration of science and spirituality, advocating for a holistic approach to understanding human experience.
- Lastly, they emphasize the need for openness towards diverse perspectives in the discourse surrounding life, death, and consciousness.
Episode Resources
- Your Brain at the Moment of Death - proto.life - Resuscitation expert Sam Parnia studies near death experiences—and how your brain can give you access to new dimensions of reality. By David Levine Illustration by JR Duennweller
If this content has been meaningful or entertaining for you,
consider showing your support to help make this content possible.
Review us on Podchaser
We are grateful for your gifts.
Have a discussion topic idea or show feedback? Use the Suggestion Box link below!
Social Media:
License: Unless otherwise noted, all excerpts of copyright material not owned by ETH Studio are used under the Fair Use doctrine for the purposes of commentary, scholarship, research and teaching. Works are substantially transformed by means of personal insight and commentary as well as highlighting important corollaries to additional thoughts, theories and works to demonstrate alignments and consistencies.
Copyright 2025 Ears That Hear Media Corporation
Keywords: near death experiences, brain activity after death, consciousness and death, evidence of life after death, spiritual experiences, anecdotal evidence and proof, science and spirituality, brain function during dying, metaphysical reality, understanding consciousness, meditation and mindfulness, quantum physics and spirituality, Buddhist teachings on death, evidence of afterlife, brain waves and consciousness, the nature of reality, spiritual growth and technology, integrating science and spirituality, Buddhist philosophy, exploring consciousness beyond death
Transcript
Foreign views, interpretations and opinions expressed are not advice nor official positions presented on behalf of any organization or institution.
Speaker A:They are for informational and entertainment purposes only.
Speaker A:Now join Ryan and Peter for another episode of the Tracking Wisdom podcast.
Speaker A:There is a recent article that I was trying to find about what happens to your brain when you die.
Speaker A:I think it was about near death experiences.
Speaker A:I didn't read it, so I was looking it up.
Speaker A:I was.
Speaker A:I'll send it to you.
Speaker B:This.
Speaker A:Oh, I did send it to you.
Speaker B:You did send it to me and I read it.
Speaker A:Oh, okay.
Speaker A:Oh, so that's when I, I sent it to you.
Speaker B:So this was this from hospital staff.
Speaker B:It.
Speaker B:It talked about the brain activity and this is not the first time I had heard of this.
Speaker B:The measurable brain activity that occurs to some degree.
Speaker B:I don't know how prevalent it is, but that has been measured after death.
Speaker B:That and presenting that as possible evidence that there is activity and that can describe why some people have these things.
Speaker B:But it was very careful and specifically took the position that we're not saying that this is disproving this.
Speaker B:We're presenting it as evidence that corroborates what these people are experiencing more than, oh, it's just a biological thing because we can measure this in the brain and so it must be a brain biology thing and then what?
Speaker B:Right, right, presumably.
Speaker B:So the scientists have.
Speaker B:They stop there and near death experience testimonies, talk about frequently the amount of time and I air quote that, but that many times they feel like it was almost like a lifetime, like they were there for so long and literally they were dead for a matter of minutes.
Speaker B:So that maybe that's part of the transitioning and I don't remember the article well enough to really cite it, but that was the general idea.
Speaker B:It was that there's measurable.
Speaker B:The three brain ways.
Speaker B:Where are they?
Speaker B:So the article starts off basically setting the tone that death is not really the definition of death has been contemplated and agreed upon.
Speaker B:Goes into the delineation between cardiac death and the uniform declaration of act, bringing into irreversible cessation of brain function as well.
Speaker B:And I suppose just because there's legislation and consensus doesn't necessarily mean that that is absolute truth, but basically makes the point that we agree on what death is and when death occurs, and then talks about what happens when we die and basically saying, you know, as the heart stops, the brain becomes non functional and is flatlined.
Speaker B:However, using the electrical monitoring of the brain, there's growing evidence that as.
Speaker B:That as people transition through the dying process and pass away, that there's beta delta and even sometimes gamma wave activity for brief moments of time, which are usually found when people are having conscious experiences, but they're being presented over a backdrop of a flatline brain activity.
Speaker B:So that was the medical evidence of what happens as you die.
Speaker B:And talks about how those markers, what the significance is, and talks about how it can be explanatory of some of what near death experience experience errors testify to in their experience.
Speaker B:And then it states specifically as a caveat that it's not that the brain is creating these experiences as a hallucination or an illusion, but rather that the brain is enabling access to aspects of reality and a person's own consciousness, including the totality of a person's conscious experience throughout the entire lives.
Speaker B:That that is basically saying that the brain is conditioned to be able to access the totality of reality, but is presented to the person at the moment of their transition to whatever happens after we call death.
Speaker B:So I found it interesting.
Speaker B:It's not the first time I've heard of measurable brainwaves.
Speaker B:And in fact, usually people are taking the perspective that that's evidence that this is just a purely biological hallucination and maybe was a evolutionary trait to more comfortably transition into nothingness, essentially is what traditionally is presented as.
Speaker B:So this was uni in that it was taking the counter perspective that we're using this as evidence that the brain is capable and active even after death to enable that person through the transition, as opposed to being a hallucination.
Speaker B:Go ahead.
Speaker B:And then that's essentially was a short article, but is interesting and of course it's not conclusive.
Speaker B:So you have people weaponizing, for lack of a better term, the ev to support whatever position they want to take.
Speaker B:And therein lies, I guess, the breakdown.
Speaker B:And maybe it's not an intentional breakdown of classical science, it's that we're now living in an era where classical science doesn't cleanly explain things.
Speaker B:So now we have that controversy and debate, but it seems to be taking a more divisive turn as far as culture and society, that instead of trying to come together and understand as a people, we are rigid in our perspective and just battling, you know, the debate.
Speaker B:There's an artist, her name is Akiana something.
Speaker B:Have you ever heard of her?
Speaker B:I hadn't heard of her beforehand, but she's been relatively famous probably 15 years now.
Speaker B:She was a child, she was living.
Speaker B:I forget the circumstances that happened.
Speaker B:She has a whole story.
Speaker B:She went through some illnesses, her family went through some Illnesses.
Speaker B:They had an interesting life growing up.
Speaker B:But at some point when she was very young, she was outside and she went off into a bush or something and then was like, transported to sort of this sort of like an NDE where you would.
Speaker B:What.
Speaker B:Those kinds of things.
Speaker B:I was to a place and.
Speaker B:And saw people and interacted, and she was missing.
Speaker B:Her family was looking for her for a number of hours, I think it was.
Speaker B:And then she came back.
Speaker B:And when she came back, she's like this prodigy artist.
Speaker B:And she was.
Speaker B:She was on some shows, I think, in the 90s when she was very young and just kind of being discovered.
Speaker B:And the level of her artist history is.
Speaker B:Is amazing.
Speaker B:And she never was an artist.
Speaker B:She liked to kind of draw here and there.
Speaker B:But just like after that experience, her talent was exponential.
Speaker B:And she still does things, but she's kind of low key.
Speaker B:But I do watch some of her videos on YouTube and it's just interesting.
Speaker B:And I've mentioned my anecdote with Kylie.
Speaker B:When Emma was being born and she's taking a bath, she's like, oh, I'm gonna meet my sister tomorrow.
Speaker B:And we're like, oh, isn't that cute?
Speaker B:And Christine went into labor that night.
Speaker B:It's debatable whether that was just irony, you know, or happenstance, or if Christine's body was reacting to suggestion or, you know, I mean, it could be discussed in a number of different ways.
Speaker B:But the fact is, and I guess that's what we're talking about today, is that there is anecdotal evidence and even measurable evidence that the world we live in or the ultimate reality does not necessarily constrain to our culture, our classical understanding of mathematics and science.
Speaker B:And that with that growing evidence, I guess, or observed observations, it's important that we start to try and keep an open mind to the limitations of what that classical understanding can provide us in order to gain more understanding.
Speaker A:So I think we've both paused today over the word evidence.
Speaker A:And I think.
Speaker A:I know my discomfort is because of the.
Speaker A:The general public's lack of distinction between evidence and proof.
Speaker A:And so I just want to touch on that because I know.
Speaker A:I know we both.
Speaker A:And yet, I mean, it's not.
Speaker A:It's not a.
Speaker A:It's not a subtle thing.
Speaker A:And I would expect that many of our listeners would be completely aware of the distinction.
Speaker A:But at the same time, it's worth taking a moment to discuss.
Speaker A:It's the kind of thing that, you know, if you read an article on, like, how to read health claims, that kind of Thing you know, how to, you know, is this a good nutritional supplement or not?
Speaker A:Or how do you know that?
Speaker A:How do you read new health stories in the news, like, what are the things that you should look for?
Speaker A:That kind of thing.
Speaker A:You'll see this.
Speaker A:And evidence is not proof.
Speaker A:Right, right.
Speaker A:And so we shouldn't.
Speaker A:Anything, lots of stuff could be evidence, and anecdotal evidence is still evidence.
Speaker A:It's not not evidence.
Speaker A:And I think that this is why we get uncomfortable, because in the general public there can be a conflation of, or rather often offered as proof in arguments is anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is not proof.
Speaker A:But conversely, I think we get embarrassed because we're talking about anecdotal evidence as if it's not real evidence.
Speaker A:And it is real evidence.
Speaker A:It's just not proof.
Speaker A:But we're not talking about proof.
Speaker A:We're only talking about evidence.
Speaker A:And so anyway, I mean, I think.
Speaker B:It'S a good point.
Speaker A:It's a good point because as intellectuals, we're afraid of being heard as stating proof.
Speaker A:And like, no, we are not making, I don't, I don't think that we will probably ever make statements of proof in our conversations.
Speaker A:Right, right.
Speaker A:Because that's not what this is about.
Speaker A:So anyway, anecdotal evidence is valid evidence.
Speaker A:It's just not valid proof.
Speaker A:But I think it's going to take us a long time to kind of shake that.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:Discomfort.
Speaker B:Well, and many of these things are not easily set up in a, in a study.
Speaker B:You.
Speaker B:We're not going to kill people and try and bring them back to try and study the.
Speaker A:So that was the thing is I was going to make about evidence is that some evidence is reproducible and so reproducibility is very, very desirable in a scientific setting.
Speaker A:Well, it's a requirement, I guess.
Speaker A:And so that's why we place value.
Speaker A:We're more comfortable with reproducible evidence and we're less comfortable with anecdotal evidence.
Speaker A:But anecdotal evidence is still evidence.
Speaker A:It's just not, not strong.
Speaker A:Yeah, it's not strong evidence.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, and it, it's an observation.
Speaker B:It doesn't necessarily.
Speaker B:What we attribute the evidence to is our perspective.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker B:You know, the observation occurred, and then we can make some thoughts and theories and, and conclusions in our own mind off of that.
Speaker B:But that doesn't make those right or wrong.
Speaker A:So I had said I wanted to say something about the word Buddha.
Speaker A:It might have been evidence.
Speaker A:That might have been the other thing I was thinking About.
Speaker A:Because that book was offering evidence.
Speaker A:You know, it wasn.
Speaker A:It wasn't strong, reproducible evidence.
Speaker A:So the thing I learned recently about the word Buddha was that.
Speaker A:So we know that usually it refers to the historical Buddha air quotes.
Speaker A:The Shakyamuni.
Speaker A:Gautama Buddha is usually what Buddha refers to.
Speaker A:But we also know that, well, the teaching is that we all have.
Speaker A:We are all inherently Buddhist.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:So what's the difference?
Speaker A:So it's actually.
Speaker A:Now, I think it's a misstatement because Buddha is more specific.
Speaker A:Although Buddha doesn't necessarily mean Shakyamuni.
Speaker A:There are other Buddhas, but a Buddha is a being who can recognize the dharma without a teacher.
Speaker A:So essentially, we had talked about how Buddha was able to intuitively understand the nature of reality, and that is the definition of a Buddha.
Speaker A:Technically, we are all inherently Buddhas.
Speaker A:Loosely speaking, what we really are is we're all inherently enlightened, and that is an arahant is an enlightened being.
Speaker A:So they're the same in their level of enlightenment.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker A:So many of Buddha's disciples became enlightened.
Speaker A:They became arhan.
Speaker A:And once they were enlightened, they were as enlightened as the Buddha was.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:But the Buddha did it without a teacher.
Speaker B:Okay.
Speaker A:And that's the difference between a Buddha and.
Speaker A:So I just thought that was interesting.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:So I don't know why.
Speaker A:Well, I think that the.
Speaker A:The popular saying that we are all Buddhas is a bit inaccuracy because that's not actually the teaching, you know, that we can all go and maybe in another life.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But we can all, theoretically, in this life, become fully enlightened if we do the work.
Speaker A:So that's.
Speaker A:That's the difference.
Speaker B:Is there a teaching that states that one who is currently here can't become enlightened without a teacher?
Speaker B:Is that something that was only reserved for.
Speaker B:Right, okay.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:So I think even if you became spontaneously enlightened, it's a good question.
Speaker A:Would you then be a Buddha, like a full Buddha?
Speaker A:Because tradition, traditionally, there's only one Buddha per age.
Speaker A:Well, this is kind of like the.
Speaker A:The question.
Speaker A:This is like the missionary question of, like, would I be damned if you hadn't told me?
Speaker A:You know.
Speaker A:You know what I'm saying?
Speaker B:Right?
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:Because what?
Speaker A:Part of what I've been learning is that we are in an age of Buddha Dharma.
Speaker A:Okay.
Speaker A:So we know that there was this Buddha, and we have his teachings.
Speaker A:Right?
Speaker A:They're still in the world.
Speaker A:They have been lost, but they will be lost.
Speaker A:So this is.
Speaker A:Is the traditional Teaching is they will.
Speaker A:We are in this age of Dharma.
Speaker A:But there will become.
Speaker A:There will come a time when all these teaching will be lost, and then that's why there will be the next Buddha, because if this teaching is lost, then it doesn't exist until it is reintroduced.
Speaker A:And so apparently, prior to Shakyamuni, there was another Buddha.
Speaker A:He wasn't the first one to teach that.
Speaker A:It had been discovered before, but it was lost.
Speaker A:Okay, so interesting.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:Stories.
Speaker A:I mean, of course, you know, if you think about it historically, what's the word archaeologically, it's like, well, really, how much time was there to, you know, between.
Speaker A:So, yeah, I mean.
Speaker A:I mean, so this is the thing about Buddhist tradition has time on this crazy, crazy scale where there's a measurement of time, which is, if you had a mountain and a bird flew over the mountain with a silk scarf and brushed the top of the mountain, silk scarf, and that happened only once every hundred years, how long would it take to wear down the mountain?
Speaker A:Mountain?
Speaker A:And that time period is a culpa.
Speaker A:And then they talk about things that they say, well, this only happens once every thousand culpas.
Speaker A:And then they explain what that time frame is.
Speaker A:Well, that's probably beyond the, like, age of the solar system or something.
Speaker A:So it's an interesting mythology, it's an interesting tradition that seems to be an.
Speaker B:Interesting aspect to many of these teachings, which is the timeline.
Speaker B:You know, I mean, strict interpretation of the Bible in Genesis has people believing in strongly advocating that, you know, the earth is 4,000 years old or whatever it is.
Speaker B:You know, which is unfortunate because it opens the door for more conflict when you start when opponents to the religious teaching can point to, well, this can't be true because look at the timelines, which, you know, is not an indisputable thing.
Speaker B:And it's probably focusing on something that is really not important in the teaching.
Speaker A:So I think it's.
Speaker A:So I don't know that much about out most religions.
Speaker A:Right, agreed.
Speaker A:But my understanding is, well, okay, so there are the Abrahamic religions, right.
Speaker A:So Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that are based on essentially a central text, which is essentially Old Testament.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:In.
Speaker A:In different forms.
Speaker A:So that body seems to have a pretty tight timeline on the universe.
Speaker A:Like, it tends to be compressed and days and.
Speaker A:And then it seems that.
Speaker A:Because I think Buddhis, Hinduism are in similar timelines, which obviously makes complete sense since Buddhism came out of the Hindu region.
Speaker A:But it's weird that you have these very, very disparate perspectives.
Speaker A:You have this one that's an impossibly long time frame.
Speaker A:I mean, we're probably talking.
Speaker A:I haven't done the math.
Speaker A:Maybe I should do that just for kicks.
Speaker A:But I mean, is it, is it going like beyond the currently understood age of the universe, you know that they're saying this happened that long ago versus the earth is 4,000 years old.
Speaker A:And what, what's the significance?
Speaker A:Of course, you know, we've heard about God.
Speaker A:Remember the millennium Y2K?
Speaker A:Yeah, Y2K.
Speaker A:Because remember that's when they had all these things like, you know, like the Mayan calendar and the.
Speaker B:Oh yeah, that wasn't that long ago.
Speaker A:The apocalypse things.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But that are non Christian apocalypse though.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And, and so I'm wondering, like, what, what's that time frame?
Speaker A:Like, is that another time frame or does it fall into one of these two broad categories?
Speaker B:Yeah, and so I guess there's some complicating factors.
Speaker B:Number one would be language and trans.
Speaker B:Translation.
Speaker B:Another would be like, what?
Speaker B:Like, I had a conversation with my daughter similar to this the other day.
Speaker B:It's basically saying like, I think she said it was something along the lines of like, why is there 60 minutes in an hour or something?
Speaker B:Like.
Speaker B:And I went through this whole tangent.
Speaker B:My kids must hate talking.
Speaker B:Well, they keep asking questions, so it.
Speaker A:Can'T be that bad.
Speaker B:But basically I was saying it's.
Speaker B:I mean, there's obviously purpose behind the ticks, you know, the space that the time measures, but in its essence is somewhat arbitrary.
Speaker B:We decided, did this.
Speaker B:An hour is not naturally this long.
Speaker B:We took this measurement and called it an hour.
Speaker B:And we could have just as easily said there's 10 minutes in an hour, but that would make a minute much longer, you know, so my point was that what we call it is kind of irrelevant.
Speaker B:It's the measure that is the kind.
Speaker A:Of the relative duration.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker B:And so when the, when Moses is talking about a day, number one, it's within the context of his understanding at that time, 6,000 years ago or whatever it was, and also went through translations and everything.
Speaker B:But at the end of the day, what God calls a day doesn't have to be what we call a day or you know, whatever these timelines are, doesn't necessarily equate to the Gregorian calendar as we understand it in this time in the United States, using imperial measurements and all these other things, you know, And I guess at some point I would subscribe to the idea that we just came off of talking with the power of myth and that these stories are intended to teach something.
Speaker B:And those details are probably really Only muddying your understanding because they're not the things that you need to be focusing on.
Speaker B:But that's where we focus a lot.
Speaker A:Right, Right.
Speaker B:Because those are the measurable things that we can point to.
Speaker A:Exactly.
Speaker B:Not sure where we were going with that.
Speaker B:I forget.
Speaker B:We're all set with this.
Speaker A:Yeah, I guess so.
Speaker B:Do you have any.
Speaker A:I should.
Speaker A:I should read.
Speaker B:It's not long, but I mean, we basically went through it didn't.
Speaker B:It didn't really provide much other than there's hospital people and there's growing evidence that this happens and it's measurable.
Speaker B:And this article took the perspective that that's evidence.
Speaker B:I think what this article was trying to say is evidence that what these people are experiencing is real, that there is actual activity that is measurable after the fact that could be implicated in creating this experience that people report.
Speaker B:Now, other people take the converse of that perspective and say, because it's showing evidence on the brain sc.
Speaker B:That that's evidence that it's a purely biological thing.
Speaker A:So that's the.
Speaker A:So, yeah, I mean.
Speaker A:So the question is, what is real?
Speaker A:Yeah, I mean, a real experience is different from.
Speaker A:What's the word?
Speaker A:You can experience something that's not externally real.
Speaker A:That's so.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:And.
Speaker A:And I think that's.
Speaker A:That's the question that people want to know.
Speaker A:Is, is it externally real or is it only subjectively real?
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:So I think the brain chemistry in a way proves that it's subjectively real because people.
Speaker A:I guess the converse would be people are lying.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Or people are influenced.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:So I heard this story, and therefore that's what I remember, but it's not what I experienced at the time.
Speaker A:And what this sounds like this study is doing is this is what people are experiencing at the time.
Speaker B:It's what's measurable.
Speaker A:It's measurable.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:So therefore it's evidence that they're actually having the experience at the time, that they will later remember having the experience.
Speaker A:But what it doesn't tell us is whether there's an external reality to the experience.
Speaker A:So in other words, it could be that their soul is actually leaving their body and because of that, it is impinging these effects on their biological brain.
Speaker A:So if that were the case, this would be evidence, you know, the.
Speaker A:Yes, The.
Speaker A:The result of the activity of the soul.
Speaker A:Or it could be that this is what the brain is doing and the brain doing this is causing them to have that experience.
Speaker A:And so this is where the writers are.
Speaker A:They're not saying.
Speaker A:They're just saying it's evidence that people are having experience.
Speaker B:Yeah, I mean, I think that they specifically did take the perspective, but in this, this is what I took away from this paragraph.
Speaker A:It's not that the brain is the experience, but that the brain is enabling access.
Speaker B:So what they were saying in the article is that meta reality exists and our brains are tuned off to it until death, in which case, either evolutionarily or whatever, our brains are allowing us to access all that.
Speaker B:That the 10% thing kind of, I guess.
Speaker A:Right, yeah.
Speaker A:The idea there's a metaphysical physical existence, kind of like what we were talking about with quantum mechanics or quantum physics, that there's.
Speaker A:There's a metaphysical reality that is different from what we understand as our physical.
Speaker B:Reality, inaccessible in experience.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker B:In our current biological state.
Speaker B:But that when you transition through death, that maybe this is evidence to.
Speaker B:I mean, I'm putting maybe and stuff.
Speaker B:They, they said it, but, you know, it was beating around the bush a little bit.
Speaker B:But this in particular, I thought this article was going to take the perspective that I've seen other articles take, which is this is biological and this is causing hallucinations.
Speaker B:And so it's not a real afterlife kind of thing where this is saying.
Speaker B:Their theory is that the brain is opening its antenna to be able to experience this alternate or metaphysical existence.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:Oh, Neo do is the website, is it?
Speaker A:Oh, here we go.
Speaker B:Your brain at the moment of death.
Speaker A:Yeah, no.
Speaker A:I'm wondering about the overall position of this publication and I'm wondering Neo Life reports from the front lines of the neobiological revolution, where brain mapping, genome sequencing, gene editing, synthetic biology, 3D printing and artificial intelligence are not just feasible, but we're breaking out all over the planet how biology and technology are coming together to help us all live happier, healthier and longer lives.
Speaker A:So it's not a.
Speaker B:It's not scientific journal.
Speaker A:It's not a scientific journal, but it's not.
Speaker A:It's also not a metaphysical journal.
Speaker A:It's not a journal about the afterlife or people who are biased towards metaphysical things.
Speaker A:It's a technical orientation.
Speaker A:So that makes it interesting.
Speaker A:A little more interesting that they're basically being more leaning towards the metaphysical aspect of it.
Speaker B:Yeah, that's one thing I had.
Speaker B:So when I was reading the first, the first article here, the Science Rebirth, there was one thing I wanted to highlight which was interesting, actually.
Speaker B:Two parts that is really more of a comment than anything, but was the circuitous path of science.
Speaker B:And I think that this is not well accepted within the scientific institution that.
Speaker B:Well, I guess it leads to the second piece which was the linear, basically I related the two aspects, the intuition modality or method versus the scientific, classical scientific method as akin to the ultimate reality or the, the reunified reality, the super metaphysical reality that we talk about.
Speaker B:And you know, I said as far as like time doesn't really exist and it's all just like there, right?
Speaker B:You, you have this wealth and breadth of knowledge to know basically everything and you don't experience it in that linear fashion, whereas in biological existence it's all linear.
Speaker B:And science to me is that existence, right?
Speaker B:It's, it's linear and you go through and it's iterative and it's this process and instead of just like this all knowingness and the persistence in attitude that what we know as scientific fact or through scientific method is kind of like that end all, be all.
Speaker B:Instead of understanding that this is a process, it's a slow process, it's slower than the all knowing thing and you're not always going to have it right.
Speaker B:And new things will emerge.
Speaker B:And so having some humility, I guess in what, you know, might do some good, that was something that came out of.
Speaker B:When I picked up on the circuitousness of the scientific method, I'm like, yeah, okay, I can see how like yeah, we'll get there and we're getting there and we get closer, but we're not there yet.
Speaker B:And the tool is not maybe as strong as we like to think it is.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:I have a couple of thoughts from what you said.
Speaker A:So first is my first thought was you were talking about kind of the absolute, right, where there's access to all knowledge at once versus linear acquisition of knowledge.
Speaker A:And my first thought was, well, we're limited by our brains because our brains have mechanisms that function a certain way.
Speaker A:And then as you, you said some other things, I was like, well actually maybe not.
Speaker A:But we've built our tools based on certain limitations.
Speaker A:So it may not be an inherent limitation of our brains.
Speaker A:Maybe because I was at the beginning, I was thinking, well, humans can only understand so much.
Speaker A:I'm thinking that may not necessarily be true.
Speaker A:It's not obviously true.
Speaker A:Logically.
Speaker A:I think we have buil our knowledge systems, our civilizations, I would say our civilizations and our tools are predominantly built on, and this is obviously a very Western bias, but are predominantly built on this kind of linear way of thinking.
Speaker A:And you know what, I want to retract that.
Speaker A:I want to say our Western from our Western perspective that our knowledge systems and tools are built on this linear way of thinking to Good effect.
Speaker A:So we are the product dominant force on the planet.
Speaker A:The Western bias, I'm saying, unfortunately, or not, I mean, even though we may not be numerically dominant, but we have the most direct influence on the planet at the same.
Speaker A:So air quotes to good effect, meaning that we have that position.
Speaker A:Obviously there's a huge cost to that as well because we're on the verge of killing ourselves and everyone else along with us.
Speaker A:But as effective as it is, it's also very severely limited.
Speaker A:And that's a lot of what we've been talking about today is limitations of this.
Speaker A:But those limitations are not necessarily inherent to our capabilities.
Speaker A:They're limitations only to the structures that we've grown up with, the institutions, as we've been saying.
Speaker A:But I guess what I'm trying to add is by saying the institutions, it's also the way we think because we limit the way we think by our institution.
Speaker A:And there's a good reason for that because it's that discipline limiting discipline is limited.
Speaker A:Limiting, that's kind of the definite, another word for the same thing.
Speaker A:And by the discipline, it's enabled us to overcome a lot of confusion.
Speaker A:So we get to this endpoint where we are the dominant technology of the planet.
Speaker A:We have the most direct influence on the entire planet from I think, a relative minority.
Speaker A:I mean, in terms of the number of human individuals, there are fewer in Western societies, technological societies, than there are in Third World and Eastern and things outside of that, that group.
Speaker B:I would agree with that.
Speaker A:So it's entirely possible that we have the inherent capacity to understand everything that we're talking about.
Speaker A:Not being able to understand.
Speaker A:We have the inherent capacity to do it.
Speaker A:It's just that we're so tied to the limitations and discipline that we've enforced on ourselves that we're denying ourselves the ability to do that.
Speaker A:And I guess.
Speaker A:I guess this is another way of restating our central thesis, which is there's something big that we're not understanding.
Speaker A:I guess what I'm saying is that that's a really encouraging perspective to realize.
Speaker A:It's like, oh, all we have to do is not continue to agree to be limited, which is dangerous.
Speaker A:It's a scary thought because we know how much we rely on our discipline, on our limitations, our law, or all these things which are essential to our existence.
Speaker A:And so the question is, how do we relax our bondage to those things, our slave enslavement to the institution, and yet stay safe?
Speaker A:Because I think we can.
Speaker A:I don't.
Speaker A:I don't think we have to be anarchic spiritualists who abandon science in order to advance.
Speaker A:And this is, well, kind of hate to associate it with, but it is kind of the ideal of the New Age movement.
Speaker A:Although, again, I'm reluctant to associate myself with that because there's so much, you know, essentially bad end of the pendulum swing where people are just so undisciplined and so whacked out that it's very destructive.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:And we clearly need more of that.
Speaker A:And I think quantum physics isn't going to get us there because it's so slow, as you say.
Speaker A:And not only that, but as a scientific institution, it's dependent on the rest of Western institutions funding, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker A:So, you know, basically, if it doesn't have military medical application, it's not going to anywhere.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Quickly.
Speaker A:Except for these noble few who persist, you know, with scratching along through whatever funding they can manage and they're pursuing the knowledge, but it's not the.
Speaker A:The mainstream.
Speaker A:Which is what excites me about the Dalai Lama because he is cutting edge, doing that work to bridge the metaphysical and the physical.
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker A:Of course, my bias is I tend to pay attention to what he's doing more, but I don't really know of any, Any other clergy who are doing that.
Speaker A:I don't know.
Speaker A:I mean, I know the Vatican has an office of, you know, science and.
Speaker B:Yeah, and that's the thing.
Speaker B:I know, but just because the.
Speaker B:Dr.
Speaker B:Dominico.
Speaker A:Right, right.
Speaker A:But I don't know that they're actually.
Speaker A:That is as positive and productive.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:As what the Dalai Lama has done.
Speaker A:I know, but I.
Speaker A:I think that's where we need to go.
Speaker A:So what I was saying is that's what the New Age movement started and it's definitely what the kind of Western mindfulness community is about.
Speaker A:It's like the subtext of that is.
Speaker A:Or I don't know if it's even subtext.
Speaker A:That's pretty explicit.
Speaker A:We need to evolve.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:Humans have to evolve in this way, in a metaphysical way.
Speaker A:Meditation, mindfulness, and all those things work towards.
Speaker B:Right.
Speaker A:I guess the good thing is that.
Speaker A:Well, good and bad.
Speaker A:I was saying the good thing is that they tend to do it without kind of dragging you into religion.
Speaker A:Like.
Speaker A:But it's good and bad because without, without.
Speaker A:I think there's.
Speaker A:Without the traditional structures and contexts that people can go the wrong way.
Speaker A:And so it's really.
Speaker A:I think we're kind of in a we'll see how it works out position, you know, are people who are interested in mindfulness and meditation and this psychological, metaphysical work, are those people going to rediscover the old structures or are they going to basically just be very relaxed, relaxed people?
Speaker A:So that's my concern in terms of the way meditation life is used because I view it as a metaphysical tool.
Speaker A:I view it as helping us, I don't say intellectually, but using our brains, explicitly using our brains as opposed to believing things, but explicitly using our brains to learn more metaphysically, morally, or whatever you're going to call it.
Speaker A:And my concern, and kind of a general concern among some Buddhists is that west secular mindfulness is.
Speaker A:This is a question of whether secular mindfulness is destructive.
Speaker A:So my hope is that it inherently brings people to the more religious perspective.
Speaker A:It inherently increases your morality, independent religion.
Speaker A:But the concern is that it just occupies people's energy and makes them more relaxed and they're doing it, but it's in a sense wasted effort because they're not learning anything morally and they're not becoming better people.
Speaker A:Except that by being less stressed, they're doing less bad stuff, you know?
Speaker B:I think so, yeah.
Speaker B:It's funny though, because I find now I don't follow Buddhist tradition or culture, so I don't know what the opponents to that might be, but I find the safety, air quotes, I guess, you know, the, the intellectual safety of the general public to be able to engage in and use tools that have historically been reserved for more spiritual activities to benefit from them without feeling the pressure or stigma of pursuing something spiritual or religious.
Speaker B:And I think that that makes it more accessible to people.
Speaker B:And I think that accessibility is an important first step.
Speaker B:I think that ultimately I agree that the pursuit should go further than I think most people struggle enough with the routine that it's not going to occupy their time and we're just going to have a bunch of sloth people doing.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And I don't think, I don't think that's what I was saying.
Speaker A:I was saying that more like it's a waste of the technology.
Speaker A:And my, my inclination is that I agree with you, that's.
Speaker A:Well, worst case scenario, it's better to have a relaxed immoral process person than to be have a stressed out immoral person doing things from stress reacting.
Speaker A:And I'm not saying that I don't want to imply that someone who's not religious isn't moral, but Buddhist practice is very explicitly tied to morality, as are other religious practices.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Whereas if you extract the practice from the religiosity, you can lose the morality.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:And so that's a concern.
Speaker A:It's not my concern yet.
Speaker A:It's just one I'm coming into consciousness contact with.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:But really my, my inclination and my hope is that it's better to have the access, as you say, and better to have the more widespread practice.
Speaker A:And the thing is it's better to have kind of the cross pollination of practice so that say a.
Speaker A:What's the word, a pious Christian can practice meditation without being blasphemous.
Speaker A:Then that if know, they should say, well we don't do that because it's not Christian.
Speaker A:Not that there aren't Christian traditions for meditation which are great.
Speaker A:It's just not as it's not in the popular culture as much.
Speaker A:So I think that this is a good thing to pursue and promote for the planet, for humanity, for human beings.
Speaker A:Because as we've been saying, we need, we need to grow.
Speaker A:We just need to grow.
Speaker A:And we can't rely on technology and science for the growth that we need to do.
Speaker A:We need to continue to rely on technology and science, period.
Speaker A:Because it's, it's good stuff.
Speaker A:It's just not going to get us everything that we need to have.
Speaker A:Certainly not just in terms of understanding, but limited knowledge is limited power.
Speaker A:To really be able to survive, we need more knowledge.
Speaker A:And yeah, I think that technology has been limiting us.
Speaker A:So it's, it's hard to say clearly.
Speaker A:I feel like it's hard to say clearly and I want to say it really, really clearly, right, that we can't abandon technology.
Speaker A:There's no point to aband technology, but we can't totally rely on technology to help us survive as a species.
Speaker B:It seems like we went from one extreme to another in our growth as a species where it has become that these things must exist mutually exclusive of each other.
Speaker B:I think that is the inherent problem is that, you know, at one point in time it was all faith and spirituality and religion because that's the only tool we had.
Speaker B:And then we, we found another tool that helped us to understand, but then that became the predominant modality.
Speaker B:And then we start to use that tool to drive a wedge between what should be two interrelated tools.
Speaker B:You know, we're throwing out our hammer and grabbing our wrench saying this is the only tool we can use exactly.
Speaker A:Where we need the whole toolbox exactly.
Speaker B:In order to move to the next level.
Speaker B:And I think that we have regressed as a people, unfortunately because of that to some degree, because so much has, well, so much between the institutional issues that we've talked about.
Speaker B:And the wedge that's driven in worldview about a scientific method versus a spiritual pursuit and how they really are two different schools instead of really blending them and using the tools that is necessary for growth, both within the physical plane, and using that technology to help continue our growth, but also using the other tools for spiritual and mental health and growth.
Speaker B:I agree.
Speaker A:So I feel excited about this because I feel like we got back to our main thesis from a different place, which is we started.
Speaker A:We wanted to do this podcast because of.
Speaker A:We wanted to do this podcast because of our concern of people removing themselves from the metaphysical, people removing themselves from religion because of disenfranchisement and disillusionment with religion.
Speaker A:And now what we're saying is we're concerned about people who are removing themselves from the spiritual metaphysical because of the reliance on the technological, which is another way of rejecting the religious.
Speaker A:You know, it's not because, oh, religion is so bad, it's just technology is so good.
Speaker A:We shouldn't be wasting our time with religion because technology is what's going to bring us forward.
Speaker A:Technology is what has brought us forward so far, so fast.
Speaker A:But hopefully now we're seeing the limitations of that path.
Speaker A:And I really like what you said.
Speaker A:It's mastering all the tools into the toolbox.
Speaker A:It's not abandoning technology.
Speaker A:We need that hammer for nails and we need that screwdriver for screws.
Speaker A:So hopefully we're out of time.
Speaker A:And I think we are.
Speaker A:I mean, there's certainly evidence, not proof, but there's certainly a good deal of evidence that we are starting to turn, that people are interested in picking up the screwdriver now and continuing to work with the hammer, but starting to learn to apply the screwdriver.
Speaker A:And I guess the issue is identifying screws.
Speaker A:I think that's really what we're talking about to a large extent.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:We've been so constrained by our tool, by our hammer, to find all the nails that we can hammer on, that we've lost the ability to see screws.
Speaker A:We're so focused on the physical problems that can be solved by technology that we refuse to recognize or we're incapable of recognizing that there are non physical problems to solve.
Speaker A:There are metaphysical problems, there are spiritual problems that need to be addressed not just to be comfortable, but to survive and to be fully human.
Speaker A:So another way of putting it.
Speaker A:Yes.
Speaker A:Is that we've defined our humanity technologically and this is, I think, very explicitly true, very literally true for a lot of people.
Speaker A:It's what we were touching on about the Biology of death that oh, this proves that we're just biological beings, that whatever we experience is just a product of our brain activity.
Speaker A:In terms of neurochemistry, you know, our brain activity is only a representation of neurons firing and releasing certain neurotransmitters.
Speaker A:And that is all that, that exists when what the article is suggesting is that our brain activity could also reflect metaphysical activity.
Speaker A:So.
Speaker A:Oh, I'm, I'm excited just by, I'm excited by this idea because not having read that article, I think it's, it's interesting that there could be any evidence that our brain is functioning on a metaphysical level that's reflecting our meticulous physical activity, our spiritual activity.
Speaker A:I mean, for me, for me this is a very real practical concern because it's what I'm doing, right.
Speaker A:I'm retired.
Speaker A:I am interested in teaching mindfulness.
Speaker A:Why?
Speaker A:Because of what we're talking about.
Speaker A:Like is that a worthwhile thing to do or is that just me entertain myself during my retirement and I would like to believe.
Speaker A:No, it is a very practical, worthwhile thing to do now in the short, or what's the word?
Speaker A:Kind of the immediate view of things, you know, if I'm applying it to the hospice community, I'm helping, you know, stressed out clinicians and staff deal with providing service.
Speaker A:Sure, that's practical, but I would like to think that there's more to it than that.
Speaker A:I believe that there's more to it than that and it's nice to start to solidify what that belief is beyond just a feeling, you know, an intuition.
Speaker A:Oh, I, I think that's the way, you know, basically being able to be more intellectual about this apparently very non intellectual thing.
Speaker B:Sure.
Speaker A:Anyway, that's where, that's where my satisfaction is.
Speaker A:Because as much as I want to be spiritual, I'm so like in my head.
Speaker B:Yeah, well, and I think that that is, I mean that's what we're saying, right?
Speaker B:That's, that's the challenge now is to integrate, integrate the two things into a synergized, unified approach.
Speaker B:I think that the, the secular mindfulness also is a bit of a gateway or allows for it to be a bit of a gateway where people who might have had initial knee jerk reaction, opposition to a more religious centered approach to mindfulness.
Speaker B:Even in as born Buddhism, which I would venture to suspect Buddhism has less knee jerk reaction from non spiritual people than Christianity or Judaism.
Speaker B:That's my suspicion that they can have tangible activities that they can practice in a secular way that has physical, tangible benefits that they can experience and then become more intrigued by the experience.
Speaker B:Experience and then find out more that of its basis and root in Buddhism.
Speaker B:That's kind of where I see the secular.
Speaker B:You know, those who are trying it on for size and doing the fad of the day, they're not going to last and it's not going to have major effect.
Speaker B:But those that are really looking and seeking for something meaningful may find.
Speaker B:In fact, I mean, we know people in our circles that have discovered this and found meaning, and then I guess you would technically be one of them too.
Speaker B:You know, I know you were practicing Buddhism for a long time, but finding the meaning in the meditation and the exercises and wanting to then take it on to help share that knowledge.
Speaker A:Yeah, I mean, I definitely came to Buddhism by a secular path.
Speaker A:I was absolutely interested in the secular benefits of meditation.
Speaker A:No question.
Speaker A:I was absolutely not interested in Buddhism at all.
Speaker A:Had no familiarity at all with Buddhism until I became interested in meditation.
Speaker A:And then I was involved with meditation for years and years before I actually got an interest in Buddhism.
Speaker B:Interesting.
Speaker A:I mean, it started, as I've.
Speaker A:I've said before, with Zen Buddhism.
Speaker A:And the books that I read about Zen had so little about Buddhism in it that it took me years and years to actually get to Buddhism.
Speaker A:So what's interesting to me now is I've been kind of reconsidering Zen Buddhism.
Speaker A:So I'm kind of feel myself swinging back around.
Speaker A:I'm not there yet.
Speaker A:You know, I think I've said I'm starting to look for a teacher, which means finding a school or a temple or something.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And so you got to pick one.
Speaker A:Like.
Speaker A:Yeah, so there is.
Speaker B:What's bringing you around to Zen more, you think?
Speaker A:Well, it's not more.
Speaker A:I mean, I don't feel like I'm biased towards it.
Speaker A:It's just I'm more open to it than I was before because I got disench with Zen.
Speaker A:I found.
Speaker A:I mean, I'm sure this.
Speaker A:It's changed over recent decades, but the Zen approach to Buddhism is, I don't want to say reductionist.
Speaker A:It's very kind of extracted, abstracted, kind of.
Speaker A:The goal is to get at the core.
Speaker A:This is like a recurring idea, like, oh, this is the essence of Buddhism.
Speaker A:This is the essence of practice.
Speaker A:And so coming into it and learning meditation that way, with the emphasis on the.
Speaker A:The essence makes the kind of the origins and the context less accessible.
Speaker A:Because they're not talking about it, right?
Speaker A:Oh, no, we just want to talk about the essence.
Speaker A:And at the same time, so When I went to, in the 9 80s, 90s to a Zen temple, they were doing chants, and the chants were in Sanskrit.
Speaker A:Like, I now know some of the chants were in Sanskrit, but they wouldn't talk about it.
Speaker A:Like, it wasn't explained at level that I was involved.
Speaker A:It wasn't explained or referenced in any way.
Speaker A:And so it was just literally these nonsense syllables.
Speaker A:I mean, they weren't nonsense syllables because, you know, the book would have the translation in there, but you didn't know why or what or that it was Sanskrit.
Speaker A:It's just here's some syllables and here's what they mean.
Speaker A:So I just found it very frustrating trying to get to the essence without understanding what.
Speaker B:The background.
Speaker A:The background.
Speaker A:And it didn't work for me.
Speaker A:So I got.
Speaker A:I got disillusioned.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:And then eventually I was like, well, what is this really about?
Speaker A:Like, the essence of what.
Speaker A:What is.
Speaker A:What is this?
Speaker A:And that's what got me, like, okay, I know this originates with the Buddha.
Speaker A:So what did the Buddha say?
Speaker A:Like, what?
Speaker A:Not instead of like, what's Zen?
Speaker A:Which is what I was trying to get right.
Speaker A:I eventually started saying, oh, what's Buddhism?
Speaker A:And for me, that has been much more productive and probably because I started doing that when I was much more mature.
Speaker A:So who knows?
Speaker A:So now maybe I'm mature enough to go back to Zen Buddhism saying, and not have to be disillusioned and not have to say, oh, that's not a good way, or not away from me.
Speaker A:It's like, well, it wasn't a way for me then.
Speaker B:Just a great way to look at things.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:But lots of confusing.
Speaker A:And this is maybe where some of our listeners at.
Speaker A:Lots of confusing choices.
Speaker B:Sure.
Speaker A:Just within Buddhism, never mind trying to find a faith amongst all the thousands.
Speaker A:Yeah.
Speaker A:But, you know, I'm inclined towards Tibetan Buddhism for a number of reasons.
Speaker A:Reasons, I guess, unfortunately, partly of just because it's popular.
Speaker A:Like, why do I find the materials I find.
Speaker B:Yeah, sure.
Speaker A:You know, it's like, well, I find them because they're popular.
Speaker A:Like, because Google gives them to me.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:And, well, what says.
Speaker A:What does that mean?
Speaker A:Well, that means it's popular.
Speaker A:It doesn't mean.
Speaker A:Right, yeah, it doesn't mean that it's karmic.
Speaker A:Although that's what pretty much all the teachers say, really.
Speaker A:Right.
Speaker A:Oh, you're here karmically, like, so whatever you're.
Speaker A:Whatever you choose.
Speaker A:It's like, well, that's where you were supposed to be.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker A:So I mean, there's Tibetan, there's Sri Lankan There's Burmese there, Zen, Vietnamese.
Speaker A:Like all these subgroups.
Speaker A:Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
Speaker A:Join us next time as we continue the discussion.
Speaker A:Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, and visit www.ethstudio.com for more information and.
