Wittgenstein, mindfulness and oneness



 

Well, Wittgenstein didn't write directly about mindfulness. 

 But his first book. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, ends with the world;"Whereof one cannot  speak, thereof one must be silent."

That resembles meditation; If you want to experience the absolute reality you have to stop thinking. If you will have some space between your thoughts you will feel less separated from everything else. 
And then again -we always have to return to the conventional truth – it's where we live.

In the book Wittgenstein also claim that religion and science speaks different languages and shouldn't be mixed up. 

As religion is about myth's it show us way to live our lives. 

That can also be said about mindfulness in the Buddhist context. 

It is for sure shown in the five mindfulness trainings. A version of the eightfold path prepared by Tich Nath Hanh in Plum Village. 

It is meant for a guide for lay-Buddhists but can also be a guide for secular people like me. 

Maybe Wittgenstein thought that thinking could save him, but for a practitioner of mindfulness it's the opposite; non-thinking  can make us happier: To be here and now; even when you cook or do the dishes. 
 If you not are occupied by our thoughts, you can see wonderful thing everywhere,  even ordinary bridges can seem to be wonders: 






But mindfulness exists also in a secular context. There you don't use the words karma or reincarnation and even not Buddhism.
Instead one tries to scientifically prove the benefits of mindfulness.

One of the differences between the contexts are that in secularism seldom promise miraculous turns. One example is Dan Harris's book “10% happier”,
Harris, a US news anchor and probably an atheist, who tried mindfulness after a breakdown.
No salvation, but it is anyway proven that the brain changes after a long  period of regulare meditation.

Another difference is the eight fold path in Buddhism, by Thich Nath Nanh simplified in the five mindfulness trainings. Mindfulness has some moral implications, that goes hand in hand with meditation.

But if we use Wittgenstein's eyes, we see that this differences is because of the different purposes the two language games have. One wants to understand reality, the other wants to show a way to live.

The peculiar thing with mindfulness is that it's hard to separate the two ways. They interare, so to say.

Take for example Dalai Lama's meetings with neuroscientists.






But Buddhism is also often claimed to be more a philosophy than a religion, since it has no need of a God.

But if, as Karen Armstrong puts it, religion is a search for transcendence - then for sure, Buddhism also is a religion. A transcendence of the self.

But, then also much of modern psychology, and for sure evolutionary psychology also can be seen as religions – but without any moral implications. As they also emphasize the view of the no-self

What if mindfulness, in meditation and in practice in daily life makes you aware of your no-self.
Should that not lead you to be a better person?

Should not the insight of that all in the end is one influence you in some way?













Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more