Meditation without God works just as well

I don't believe in God.

Yet I also don't know that God doesn't exist. I just see no compelling evidence for God. So, like space aliens, I choose not to believe in something about which rumors abound without demonstrable proof of them being true.

I do believe in the value of meditation.

I've meditated almost every morning since I was twenty years old. Given that I'm sixty-one now, meditation has been part of my daily activity for two-thirds of my life. I enjoyed meditating when I was churched, and I still enjoy it in my churchless phase.

A book that I'm reading by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and Mark Robert Waldman helps explain why. Though it might seem from the title that "How God Changes Your Brain," would have a religious slant, actually it has a very different focus.

Contemplating God will change your brain, but I want to point out that meditating on other grand themes will also change your brain. If you contemplate the Big Bang, or immerse yourself in the study of evolution -- or choose to play a musical instrument, for that matter -- you'll change the neural circuitry in ways that enhance your cognitive health.

But religious and spiritual contemplation changes your brain in a profoundly different way because it strengthens a unique neural circuit that specifically enhances social awareness and empathy while subduing destructive feelings and emotions. This is precisely the kind of neural change we need to make if we want to solve the conflicts that currently afflict our world.

And the underlying mechanism that allows these changes to occur relates to a unique quality known as neuroplasticity: the ability of the human brain to structurally rearrange itself in response to a wide variety of positive and negative events.

So with meditation, notions of God or any other supernatural entity are entirely optional.

Buddhists, atheists, and agnostics happily meditate away -- just as I do -- without bringing God into either the foreground or background of their contemplative practice. In the chapters I've read so far, Newberg and Waldman offer up numerous examples of this, including a guy who learned Kirtan Kriya meditation.

Gus had never meditated, and he wasn't interested in religion. He just wanted his faltering brain to function better. Gus was a relatively large man, a bit rough around the edges, but very pleasant. He seemed more like a plumber you'd meet on a construction site -- you know, someone who was likely to zone out in front of the television with a couple of beers by his side.

Nonetheless, Gus took to this practice, which Newberg had him do for twelve minutes a day.

Before and after brain scans showed that after just eight weeks there were noticeable changes in Gus' anterior cingulate, "a structure that is involved with emotional regulation, learning, and memory, and is particularly vulnerable to the aging process."

When I read that, I decided to give Kirtan Kriya a try. The book said that it involves chanting "sa ta na ma" either audibly or silently while performing a mudra with your fingers.

Detailed instructions are given on an Alzheimer's prevention web site. A much more religious'y explanation is offered up on this You Tube video by a Sikh-looking Westerner. I dutifully watched the whole ten minutes, but found his style unduly reminiscent of a holier-than-thou guru.

Anyway, for a few days I did twenty minutes of Kirtan Kriya (barely audible or silent version) during my morning meditation period. I liked it.

Having to simultaneously focus on moving my fingers in concert with the "sa ta na ma" (which must refer to sat nam, a central Sikh concept) seemed to bring my body and mind into closer than usual connection.

I'm sure that Gus didn't view "sa ta na ma" as having any meaning -- which those sounds do to religiously minded Kirtan Kriya practitioners. But they don't have to. And the benefit of exercising the brain in a certain way will be about the same (or exactly the same) whether or not one has a spiritual goal in mind.

Later in the book -- I peeked ahead -- Newberg and Waldman say that it's absolutely fine for someone to make up his or her own meditative practice, silently or audibly repeating any word or words that are meaningful, positive, and pleasant to the individual.

No God required.

If you custom design your own memory-enhancing program, you'll show even greater improvement, along with an increased willingness to practice. So why not apply this strategy and create a personalized memory-enhancement meditation?

The key elements are simple.

Maintain a state of relaxed awareness, regulate your breathing, and peform a simple or complex movement with any part of your body. As you do this, sing, chant, or silently repeat a sound or phrase that has personal meaning, and practice for at least twelve minutes each day.

And don't forget the most important step: Be clear about the goal you wish to reach. Make the meditation as simple or as complex as you like, and feel free to vary it from week to week.

However, the more complex your meditation becomes, and the longer you do it, the more you will strengthen the neural circuits that tend to deteriorate with age.

Comments

[albert]

A light year is just under six trillion miles...our galaxy is thought to be about 100,000 light years in diameter. The Milky Way is but one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

The closest sun to our own is about 4 light years away - approximately 25 trillion miles. The Milky Way is comprised of billions of suns and, again, the Milky Way is but one of hundreds of billions of other galaxies.

We have Hubble to thank for this data about the physical universe, which has "opened the heavens" to our observation.

But this mind-boggling grandeur is all concerning the world "outside" of our own body. What about the world(s) inside? Can there be an equally, or exceedingly, grand and cosmic internal reality, one which has been historically documented by the Saints and Mahatmas Who have left detailed accounts? Is there an "internal telescope" that is just as illuminating internally as the orbiting Hubble Telescope is to the starry night existing outside of ourselves?

I would be a fool not to think so. The Saints tell us that the human microcosm is a perfect replica of the entire macrocosm. If ever there was given instrumentation for ascertaining the secrets of creation, it is the human body and mind, illuminated by the indwelling spirit. The path to such exalted knowledge is internal, not external.

What is needed is simply a humble desire to know, beginning with the realization that one does not know. To know nothing and have the belief that one knows everything is the height of ignorance. To know much, and yet consider that one knows nothing, marks the beginning of real anguish and angst. One then feels the pains of separation from the Maker, the Supreme Being...i.e. God.

There is an Original Author of this incomprehensibly enormous and refulgent creation and He has provided a means whereby all the secrets of the microcosm, as well as the macrocosm, can be known. The secrets are hidden within the human cosmology. One need only find the medium and correct methodology to proceed within, under the tutelage of the True Guide.

I don't know anything except that I would like to meet the Original Author and get His Darshan - indeed, this is the very purpose of my existence as an individual conscous entity.

[Brian Hines]

albert, your sentiments are sincere, and I can understand your desire to experience a hypothesized "inner" cosmos that is even more majestic than the outer.

However, what you speak of is analogous to what all religious believers consider to be true. Meaning, belief isn't reality. Followers of every faith believe that marvelous truths are open to them which are closed to non-believers.

What you said in your comment makes sense to you, but there is no demonstrable truth behind it, just like there is no demonstrable truth behind the dogmas of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other organized religious belief system.

So I respect your desire to know a greater inner reality, but I have to look upon it as just that -- a personal desire that is quite different from the goal of scientists to understand the majestic reality of the physical universe that you described quite well.

[albert]

Thanks for your hearfelt and tolerant reply. I appreciate your openness, as well as your own sincerity. One's individual search is always personal and intimate. In my case, it is and has been intensely so. For this reason I cannot exclude or denigrate the beauty and sacredness of anyone's path, beliefs or attempts to find joy and meaning in this very complex and ever-changing world. Life, itself, is a very efficient teacher. Death can be a moment away or decades away but its certainty is unquestionable and its advent unknown.

The world ever seduces our attention outwards...the Lord ever is attracting us inwards, towards Him and the imperishable, undecaying realities internally. May you have deep and abiding success in growing closer to your own truth and love essence, Brian.

[Sasha]

We are strange creatures - humans. Unlike animals, we are rarely content with the basic physical requirements of existence, food, warmth, clothing, shelter etc. These alone do not bring us contentment, we also want social standing, power, authority, a sense of importance, structure, and activities for the mind. But even these do not complete the list of our needs, apart from physical and mental needs, we have a deeper sense of needing purpose, its not enough to have physical and mental contentment, we humans alone seem to need to ask the question why are we here, whats it all about, for what purpose?
If Albert has found his sense of purpose, to seek the inner worlds, then why should anyone attempt to take this away from him by declaring there is no physical evidence to support any inner realm.

It is those like Albert whose determination to and commitment to discover that which is not known who lead humanity forward and it is those who keep stating the same old same old, there is no evidence, there is nothing to see, nothing to explore nothing to discover, who hold humanity back.

That others find no evidence to justify an area of research is fine, but do not discourage those who feel there is evidence, they have no need to convince others, just do it Albert, and I hope you find what you are looking for. There is no need to come back to this forum to explain your findings, the more active on here would not accept anything except a peer reviewed paper in New Scientist of the like.

[Mike in Wisconsin]

Both of you are interpreting the available data from your particular bias. None of us knows what’s ultimately true.

[Brian Hines]

Mike, if none of us knows what is ultimately true, then you don't either. So how do you know that "none of us knows what is ultimately true"?

Your solipsistic "we all choose our own reality" philosophy is popular nowadays, but nobody lives by it. Do you really believe that life is just people interpreting available data from their own particular biases?

I doubt it. You trust science by the fact that you're using a computer, and many other technological devices, I'm sure.

Plus, we aren't talking about ultimate truth here. We're talking about evidence that a supernatural realm exists, that certain humans have supernatural powers, that a part of human existence (soul) is linked to a supernatural realm.

This isn't ultimate reality stuff. This is just reality, and there should be some evidence for those things. Asking for evidence of Albert isn't impolite or challenging. It's simply respectful of reality, of truth, of the commonality of experience that is the foundation of love.

Sasha, no one is discouraging Albert from pursuing any personal quest that he wants to engage in. But when Albert comes on the Internet and chooses to make public statements about what he believes to be true and what false, then it's entirely appropriate for people to respond to his comment(s) with their own.

This is what a conversation is: back and forth talking. If people want to remain in their own private truth-seeking world, and not get any feedback about it, they shouldn't be going on a blog and talking.

[Bharat Bhushan]

I believe in God. However, I am convinced that if instead of saying Satnam, Radhasoami, Om, Ram or Krishna I repeat 1,2,3,4,5… with love it gives benefit of meditation. If I repeat 100 to 1, it gives better results.

[Brian Hines]

Bharat, I've found the same thing. The less meaning we give to our mantra, the less we're inclined to think about the words that are being repeated. It isn't the words that are important, but the concentration, the focus, the letting go of ourselves.

[Mike in Wisconsin]

Brian, I said that "none" of us knows; that includes me. There are plenty of well-informed people of good will who take some form of an idealist position or who take a purely materialist position. Again, none of us (including me) knows for sure. Any one of our positions may turn out to be true, but for now, no one knows which one (if any of us) is right. I never said that you can "have your own reality," as you put it. I simply said that no one knows for sure. Which, of course, is my particular bias.

[Brian Hines]

Mike, I hear you. And agree with you. I just wanted to make sure that I understood what you were saying.

Which seems to be that until we reach the "ultimate truth" level, there are indeed ways of determining what is true and false about objective reality, and we should be engaging in conversations about this.

That, after all, is basically what science is all about -- an ongoing conversation about the nature of reality.

[Mike in Wisconsin]

Brain, It seems to me that there are two ways of determining the value of one’s views regarding ultimate truth and/or spirituality. One is the plausibility test. That is, evaluating a spiritual outlook by how it relates to everything else we know about the world. In other words, does it make any sense. The other way of determining the value of a spiritual outlook is to see how it impacts someone’s life. That is, does it give them meaning and hope, and does it encourage them to be a better, more compassionate person. My personal preference is the plausibility test, but I suspect that the second way has a much more positive impact on society. The really fortunate people have views that pass both tests.

[Roger]

"one’s views regarding ultimate truth"

--this ultimate truth may be beyond one's view and mind. Utimate being a absolute.

Nothing wrong with having both ways of determining.
And, I like, "The really fortunate people have views that pass both tests."

The "really fornunate" term sounds totally KOOL........
What title can I get if I absolutely know the Absolute Truth? This is the one I need.

[Catherine]

Brian, humming or singing in a choir would cover the breath control and the chorus repetition for 12 minutes or more.

Many traditional meditations and the approaches to life promoted by their accompanying philosophies, in fact cause disassociation as highlighted in your previous posts. In other words,social awareness may be promoted but not necessarily the accompanying empathy.

An advantage of repeating a bunch of words that one does not understand (as opposed to numbers for instance) is that one can sort out all the problems from the day before while doing the repeating- clear the charge of what happened.

[Sasha]

Brian said, "What you said in your comment makes sense to you, but there is no demonstrable truth behind it, just like there is no demonstrable truth behind the dogmas of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other organized religious belief system."

It is also like many areas of science, for example, quantum mechanics. There was no demonstrable truth behind the concept until Max Plank came up with an idea, note - an idea with no demonstrable truth behind it.
Many other ideas have been dreamt up in science only to be later put on the back burner or deemed wrong. For example, aether, ZPF, Big bang and inflation, and so on.
That you refer to Alberts interest as a dogma is to immediately categorise it as a religious faith, whereas it remains a valid scientific field of enquiry until such time as it can be proven to be wrong. Unless you have some proof that the ideas and concepts put forward by Albert are indeed proven wrong, then the open conversation to which you refer should be that, open in the true spirit of enquiry.

[Brian Hines]

Sasha, you don't understand the scientific method, or common sense, very well. It is up to the person making a claim to prove that it is correct, not for other people to prove them wrong.

Can you prove that I am not God? Can you prove that I don't have miraculous powers, such as the ability to know what you are doing right now? Can you prove that I can't levitate and turn iron into gold?

No, you can't.

Sure, when evidence is presented for something miraculous, then a conversation about it's validity should take place. But there is no reason to take crazy claims seriously when there is no demonstrable evidence for them. In that case, like I said, they are just religious dogma.

Or crazy talk, like the claims I made about myself above.