mindfulness

There seems to be a popular or broad  version of everything. Thich Nhat Hanh uses to distinguish this kind of Buddhism from the deep one he represents. He says that in popular Buddhism people use to pray to Buddha for wealth, fortune, career and so on. He says that in the version of reincarnation in popular Buddhism has a wrong view. His view is that our actions or karma "reincarnates" in other persons: In our children, in the people we interact with, but also in nature and animals. Thich Nhat Hanh, for instance, will be with us after he is gone in his disciples, in his books, in the films about him and also in these lines. But his soul will not reincarnate in another body. And this is because we have no permanent soul, we interare with the objects that we study. No mind without a world. In fact, the seer and the seen are the same. This is a sympathetic view with an ecological touch. And I think it has more in common with philosophy, psychology and science than ot

Ar her homepage Kristin Neff, a professor and author from Texas, explains the difference between self esteem and self compassion. In a TED-video found on the page she sums up that self esteem is ok but self passion is better. If you listen to the video you will understand why. At her homepage you also can follow some guided meditations based on loving-kindness and so on. And as I have mentioned before, it's important to start with yourself. You have to show compassion for yourself first. Then you can show it to others. This kind of mindfulness is called Metta-meditation. It comes from buddhist tradition, but Kristin has added some own aspects. She even has written a book about the topic. A buddhist or not, everyone is suffering to some degree. And it's no use to condemn ourselves for that fact. You can't take away the suffering, but you can handle it in a better way. And you can understand what you have in common with everyone else. Kristin Neff is also known fo

Thich Nath Hanh - the buddhist monk that knows a lot about phronesis use to talk about two types of love- Romantic and true love. Eros and Agape in the greek mythology. But, true to his non-dualistic view, he means that also romantic love can express true love. At least if it has the four ingredients; Loving kindness, compassion, joy/happiness and inclusiveness. Can you make your partner happy, can you help her or him, can your partners problems be your own problems? I guess this can happen. But what about inclusiveness? Doesn't that mean that you have to love all just the same? That you don't differente black and white, east and west, and that you will try to understand everyone, even the ones that hurt you? Can you do that in romantic love? Is it even possible? If  Mr Thich where here I would ask him. Meanwhile I can listen to this man on youtube. Mostly he sings about romantic love with it's up and downs - but when I yesterday listened to him at a little st

Phronesis is often translated as "practical wisdom". The Greek word was used by Aristotle. He wrote about three kinds of knowledge; episteme, techne and phronesis. In brief the words stands respective for scientific, practical and political/ethical knowledge. We all know what scientific knowledge or episteme stands for:  Exact knowledge, facts, evidence, theories and experiments to give proof. Math is an example. Techne stands for silent knowledge, it's knowledge of the body, like bicycling, playing soccer, swimming, baking, carpentry and so on. To some degree you can use a manual, but you anyway have to exercise until the knowledge is "in your body". For me, phronesis is the most interesting kind of knowledge. It is often described as practical wisdom. Wisdom is not exactly the wright word, as it not theoretical knowledge, you cannot read and get it. You have to live it to learn it, partly from mistakes, I guess. Aristotle names as a virtue: arete. It

I cannot leave this questions. When I look at my face I can see traces of my ancestors. I look a bit like some of them. A bit like my father, my uncles and so on. And they surely looked a bit like even older ancestors. But if  we look a bit longer it's not difficult to understand that I am related to the whole humankind. Our genes are nearly the same. Scientist believe that we all come from 10 000 people or less who survived a global catastrophe about 70 000 years ago;  The Toba catastrophe.  Other animals has often more differentiated genes. And if we look even longer back we can see that we all are relatives to the first bacterias on earth. So the statement, "All is one" is in many ways true... Many philosophers think the most relevant question is, why is there anything at all? A really big question and of course impossible to answer. But we can anyway see that life on earth  has developed to more and more complex structures. And the human brain is often sai

These terms are very important in Buddhism and in the practise of mindfulness. But they are not easy to understand. First of all; both are really true. You see a table. And you can use it as a table, have your plate and your cup of tea on it, and of course call it a table. That is the conventional truth, and everyone has to use this truth, even Buddha and you and me... But you can look at the table in another way; it is made of different parts, legs, table top and so on. It is dependent on this parts and of the carpenter who made the table, and of his parents and of the tree who was cut down to make the table- and the tree needed sun, water and minerals to grow, and so on. So where are the essence of the table, are there even one...? That is the ultimate truth, which also says that if nothing has an solid essence, you can not be sure of where one thing ends and another thing starts.... For instance, you are influenced by your parents in many ways, by the genes and by their upbring

The meaning of life... What an embarrassing question ;~} Wittgenstein would probably have said that this is a question without an answer. But for some of us it's like a little wound, we cannot let it be... My view is anyway that there are no meaning outside of this life. If there are a meaning it's inherent  in life... It's in your actions and in your speech and even in your thoughts. And of course your actions and thoughts always include an object; other people, animals, things and so on.... You interact all the time..... Perhaps just with your own breath. And when you interact you influence your surroundings. Terry Eagleton, member of the British Academy, suggests agape as answer to the title of his book; "The meaning of Life." And he sees it in the metaphor of a jazz-orchestra. The jazz-orchestra is, at it's best, a group with a lot of freedom for the members. You have to give space for your fellow musicians to join in and to improvise. He conclude