Thoughts on Buddhism
I apologize for the length of the entries but I have not been able to get the more tag to work. I use it in the entries but this page obviously ignores it. Please contact me if you know how to fix that!
- Buddhism is a Religion
- The End of Buddhist Spirituality
- The Cause of Suffering
- Criticism of Buddhism
Buddhism is a Religion
Before I embark on an attempt to show why Buddhism is a religion, let me provide my rationale for why this is important. Why does it matter if Buddhism is not categorized as a religion? Because it gives Buddhism false credibility. We are not practicing science when we meditate, for example. We meditate. Introspection is subjective, not objective. It is basically a pseudoscience. I don’t think that Buddhism can add anything to our understanding of the human mind. At best, it can serve to generate hypotheses. However, there is also a darker side to religion, which tends to support the status quo. This is also the case with Buddhism. As an example is the theocracy in the form of the Dalai Lama (though his power is not endowed by god; he is reincarnated into that position). It also perpetuates suffering by claiming that suffering is entirely caused by attachments and thus does not allow for critical analysis of other factors.
Most arguments against the fact that Buddhism is a religion are along two lines: (1) There is no god in Buddhism and (2) Buddhists don’t proselytize.
It is true that there is no all-powerful being in Buddhism. This definition of religion, though, is rather Judeo-Christian-Islamic centric. To presume that a religion has a god or gods that are similar to those historically seen in the large monotheistic religions is to make that the standard. It is not a universal definition. Other definitions focus more on belief and faith, which are certainly present in Buddhism, starting with the foundation that there has been a historical Buddha who has reached enlightenment. What is more important, though, is what practitioners consider Buddhism. Although many Western Buddhists insist, almost to the point of dogma, that Buddhism is not a religion, historical Buddhist leaders very much considered it a religion. Brian Victoria writes in his book Zen at War about the attendance of Buddhists at the World Parliament of Religion in 1893 (p. 14). These Zen Buddhists did not argue that Buddhism is not a religion. They argued that Buddhism is not only a religion but they were there to “recast Japan’s version of Mahayana Buddhism as a true world religion, if not the true world religion” (p. 15). In their opinion, Mahayana Buddhism was exactly what the West needed. A possible counter-argument might be that Mahayana Buddhism is surely a religion – after all the Tibetan form of it is riddled with gods and goddess. The Zen Buddhist delegation back in 1893 faced similar arguments, which they perceived as an “odd form of religious discrimination” (p. 13). To counter this discrimination, Zen Buddhists decided that they had to teach the West about Mahayana Buddhism, the delegation to the World Parliament was only the beginning. This participation was also the beginning of a concerted effort to “actively share their faith with the benighted peoples of the world” (p.15). They began proselytizing, which is entirely consistent with the idea of “turn[ing] the wheel of the Dharma in America” (p. 16). The Buddhist delegates upon their return to Japan consequently “called for increased missionary work” (p. 16). This was wholeheartedly embraced by the Buddhist leadership who also felt that this would give them the opportunity to ensure Buddhism’s entrenchment in the Japanese culture at a time when it was still recovering from open governmental hostility. They also saw this as a way to defeat Christianity in Japan, which was seen as a major threat to the country. Yet they also admired Christian missionary work, especially the way Christians used working for the poor as a missionary tool: Buddhist leaders “were forced to recognize the remarkable effectiveness of Christian philanthropy as a means of recruiting converts” (p. 17).
While these missionaries did not go out with the sword in hand, they still skillfully adapted Buddhism to the culture they were working in. They also were not as peaceful as most Westerners claim. Victoria points out that during the Sino-Japanese war “there was almost no peace movement among Buddhists, there was no lack of Buddhist leaders who justified the war” (p. 20). This echoes what the “Four Horsemen” were discussing regarding differences in religion: “So, it’s a matter of space and time, but no, they’re all, they’re all equally rotten, false, dishonest, corrupt, humourless and dangerous.” (Christopher Hitchens).
Interestingly, one of the Zen Buddhists most revered in the West, D.T. Suzuki, was a staunch supporter of the imperialist Japanese state. He is quoted by Victoria as saying “religion should, first of all, seek to preserve the existence of the state, abiding by its history and the feelings of its people” (p. 23). Moreover, he supports a “just war:” “Therefore, if a lawless country comes and obstructs our commerce, or tramples on our rights, this is something that would truly interrupt the progress of all humanity. In the name of religion out country could not submit to this. Thus, we would have no choice but to take up arms, not for the purpose of slaying the enemy, nor for the purpose of pillaging cities, let alone for the purpose of acquiring wealth. Instead, we would simply punish the people of the country representing injustice in order that justice might prevail. [...] This is what is called religious conduct.” (p. 24-5). Suzuki’s views remained important for the rational of institutional Japanese Buddhist leaders until 1945 (p. 23).
Most disturbing, though, was the idea perpetuated that Buddhist faith helps make better soldiers. One Shin scholar-priest, Ōsuga Shūdō, declared: “Reciting the name of Amida Buddha makes it possible to march onto the battlefield firm in the belief that death will bring rebirth in paradise” (p.31). I don’t see any difference in this argument from something that a Christian or Muslim scholar might espouse.
The argument that Buddhism is not a religion because there are no gods is a Western-centric, arrogant argument that ignores that there is more to religion than the belief in a deity. The argument that Buddhism is not a religion because Buddhists don’t proselytize ignores the history of the spread of Buddhism, which not only included active missionaries to bring Buddhism to the West. Missionaries originally spread Buddhism to other Eastern countries. It seems an entirely modern and Western attempt to redefine Buddhism as a philosophy, compatible with science. That strikes me as a “post-modern maneuver to change people’s perception by changing the language” (Wallace Sampson). It stems from an attempt to increase the credibility of Buddhism and Buddhists in an increasingly secular world. It probably also serves to distance Buddhism from critiques of the monotheistic religions.
Clearly, Buddhism has all the elements of a religion. Buddhism is also not a religion always supporting peace and thus less harmful than other religions. Buddhism contains the same fallacies of other religions and at the right time, it is just as dangerous as other religions. To quote Hitchens again: “I would never give up the claim that all religions are equally false. And for that reason, because they’re forced by preferring faith to reason, latently at least, equally dangerous. [...] Because of the surrender of the mind. The eagerness to discard the only thing that we’ve got that makes us higher primates, the faculty of reason.”
The End of Buddhist Spirituality
Buddhism is often touted as the religion for skeptics, even for atheists. Many people argue even that Buddhism is not really a religion but rather a philosophy because in its origin it was a non-deistic framework and thus cannot be a religion. Indeed religion is often defined as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power” (New Oxford American Dictionary), which is a rather Judeo-Christian-Islamic centric definition. Philosophy is “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline” (New Oxford American Dictionary).
The claim that Buddhism is a philosophy underlies many of the modern phenomena, including exchanges between scientists and the Dalai Lama. Such an exchange would be unthinkable between scientists and the Pope. Framing Buddhism as a philosophy, though, allows for that dialogue because that gives it more credibility in the eyes of the skeptics. This is a dangerous misconstruction of the reality of Buddhism. Especially the Buddhism that the Dalai Lama represents, Tibetan Buddhism, is steeped in religious traditions, including beliefs in various deities. Aside from the religious rites and stories, even if Buddhism does not contain a superhuman controlling power, it certainly is a “particular system of faith and worship,” another defining characteristic of religion (New Oxford American Dictionary). Buddhists have faith in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. And the reverence brought toward the Buddha sure looks like worship. However, even if we agree that Buddhism is not a religion, it would be dangerous to consider it a philosophy, especially on the same level as an academic discipline. While it takes discipline to meditate, the insights gained through meditation are hardly put through the same scrutiny as academic thought. Meditation is essentially a solitary practice and it is easy to get lulled into thinking that we are increasing our wisdom when in reality just the opposite is true. Buddhism lacks the safeguard of peer-review, which makes it essentially non-scientific. We could argue that this is exactly why the Dalai Lama is reaching out to scientists: so that they can scrutinize the Buddhist assumptions. It seems more like an attempt to safe Buddhism, though, by arguing that this millennia old religion has something to offer to modern science. This would be like suggesting that the world-view that the earth is flat has something valuable to offer. In science, including in philosophy, we do not try to integrate out-dated beliefs with current knowledge. We leave those beliefs behind. This ability to leave theories behind is the essential part of any philosophy that stems from the skepticism encouraged by philosophers. This skepticism is in stark contrast to Buddhism’s insistence that “truths” and “laws” have been found (as in The Four Noble Truths or the Law of Karma). Additionally, Buddhism suggests that “skeptical doubt” is a hindrance not a vehicle to obtaining enlightenment.
There are some tools of Buddhism that have proven useful, such as meditation, that bear integrating into our modern tool chest as tools that offer the benefits support by scientific research, such as relaxation or reduction in blood pressure. However, understanding how our brain works and how it effects our interactions with the world is too important to leave to the religions, including Buddhism. The essential danger with viewing Buddhism as something other than a religion is to suspend critical thinking, to believe that we can obtain knowledge – true knowledge – through introspection. Before we delve into this further, let’s first look at the argument that the pick-what-you-like approach to Buddhism keeps Buddhism around, or better yet, brings it back to its essential roots.
“To turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught” Sam Harris writes in his oft quoted essay on Buddhism (Sam Harris, “Killing the Buddha,” Shambhala Sun, March 2006, 73-75). He is suggesting, of course, to pick and choose from Buddhism what he finds useful and to leave behind the rest. Because, he argues, there is “[...] wisdom of the Buddha [is] currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism.” Harris elaborates about this wisdom: “One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.” Aside from the underlying assumption that the Buddha existed – and thus could espouse his wisdom like Plato or Socrates – the question arises: Has this hypothesis been tested? Actually, there are four hypotheses in Harris’ statement. It is interesting to note that the dictionary comments on empiricism as “a dated ignorant or unscientific practice; quackery” (New Oxford American Dictionary; see also the entry in the Skeptic’s Dictionary).
The four hypotheses Harris includes in his statement can be summarized as:
- Meditation leads to wisdom.
- Meditation leads to psychological well-being.
- Ethics leads to wisdom.
- Ethics leads to psychological well-being.
The numbering is for convenience and does not imply a hierarchy. What is the evidence that we have so far? Jon Kabat-Zinn has studied mindfulness meditation, one form of meditation taught in Buddhism, extensively in the context of pain management and stress reduction (see the work on Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction). Zindel Segal and colleagues studied it in the context of depression (see the work on Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy). This research supports #2 with evidence: Meditation can help with pain management and contributes to stress reduction; and meditation can be used to decrease the likelihood of recurrent depressive episodes. It even has physiological effects, including reduction in blood pressure. That is certainly one reason why Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program is now being taught extensively at hospitals. Meditation leads to psychological well-being, at least when that is defined as the reduction of stress, pain, or depression.
What about the other three hypotheses? As far as I know, nobody has studied formally whether meditation leads to wisdom. It sounds nice! But what is wisdom? We could use the famous AA slogan: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” This implies ethics: we can tell what is right and what is wrong, what is beneficial to us and what is not. So, wisdom leads to ethics, which leads to wisdom, according to Harris. A self-reinforcing structure, which is probably beneficial since a deepening understanding of ethics can be helpful. In order to test whether meditation leads to wisdom, though, we need to have a better understanding of what Harris means by meditation. He describes it as “using attention in the prescribed way.” Attention to what? Generally, in meditation attention is paid to something to focus the mind, such as the breath, a word, or a sound. How would that lead to more wisdom, which can formally be defined as “the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment” (New Oxford American Dictionary)? Even without studies, looking at the connection between wisdom and meditation, it becomes clear that the connection is weak, at best. Paying attention to one’s breath, for example, does not give a lot of experience interacting with other people, a component of wisdom (experience). Ethics evolve through these interactions, especially if we view ethics as going beyond moral codes to encompass a whole philosophy of life. Interaction becomes necessary: only when we interact with others, be they human or other “sentient beings,” can we determine what is right and wrong, something that is only necessary in interaction, and how the world works. Based on this alone, I would argue that meditation cannot lead to wisdom since it is essentially a solitary practice, directed onto the self. Wisdom could only be gained if meditation tapped into something bigger than the self, which would bring us into the realm of the supernatural, the religious. Now, we can use meditation, especially mindfulness meditation, to calm the mind, so that we are more receptive to wisdom, by paying better attention to reality rather than getting lost in our dream world. This would be a side-effect of meditation, though; wisdom would not be directly obtained through meditation then.
What about Harris’ assertion that ethics lead to wisdom and psychological well-being? Certainly, if we argue that someone who acts unethical and then feels guilty – decreases his or her psychological well-being – we can agree that ethics lead to psychological well-being. Although we could argue that the guilt feelings, the decrease in psychological well-being, are a direct result of the moral code and would otherwise be absent: If an act were not labeled as “wrong,” there would be no guilt feeling. Thus, ethics would decrease our psychological well-being, which, in fact, sometimes happens when absolutists rules are imposed on believers. This would undermine Harris’ hypothesis. Furthermore, as I have argued above, the wisdom-ethics relationship is self-reinforcing at best, circular at worst. There is, however, not the clear casual relationship that Harris implies.
Aside from the lack of evidence, there is no reason that these hypotheses have to be tied to Buddhism. In fact, Harris does not even do that since he argues for stripping these hypotheses out of the Buddhist religion. Thus, support for these last two hypotheses does nothing to argue for Buddhism, or any supposed wisdom of the Buddha. It simply suggests that ethics are an important element of living as a human being. Harris fails to advance arguments why Buddhist ethics are somehow better than, say, Christian ethics, or even more to the point, ethics developed within the secular humanism framework. Victor Stenger presents evidence in his book “God: The failed hypothesis” that shows that ethics developed in addition to the moral rules in Christianity that, in fact, most Christians use ethical guidelines outside of Christianity to evaluate the Christian moral code. We could do the same with Buddhism.
So, why then embrace Buddhism? Harris writes “For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence.” Buddhism is good because it sets up the four hypotheses and then asks us to test them. However, except for one of these hypotheses – that meditation leads to psychological well-being – there is not sufficient evidence for “the methodology of Buddhism.” At least not outside of Buddhism: Maybe Harris claims that we can find this evidence through contemplation, through meditation. If that is the case, he has fallen into the trap that was already identified in 1902 by William James (in his book “Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature“) and more recently supported by Timothy Wilson’s research (in his book “Strangers to Ourselves“). We cannot test hypotheses just by thinking about or contemplating on them, at least not in a way that is consistent with the scientific method. Harris also fails to give support for his contention that empiricism is a valuable way to scientific knowledge. Again James’ and Wilson’s work call this very much into question.
Harris, then, points – indirectly and presumably not intentionally – to the main danger of using Buddhism as a form for scientific inquiry: Contemplation is inward focused and thus can lead to wrong conclusions that parade as wisdom but do not hold up to scientific scrutiny, or even critical thinking. By elevating Buddhism to a philosophy, we are opening the door for these false conclusions to be entered into our understanding of the mind. Yet under the light of reason, Buddhism quickly turns into a religion that requires faith, maybe not in a superhuman controlling power, but faith into the possibility of enlightenment – ultimate understanding – through the path prescribed by Buddhism. Given how rare buddhas are, we could even argue that it requires faith in a superhuman being: The Buddha who attained that elusive state. Even Harris underlines that faith by writing that one can believe in the possibility of becoming a Buddha, an enlightened being.
Instead of using approaches that are far from scientific to understand the mind, we should spend our time to research the mind using truly scientific methods. Meditation has its uses but scientific inquiry is not one of them.
I am grateful to Meera Nanda for writing her excellent “Trading Faith for Spirituality: The Mystifications of Sam Harris,” which helped me crystallize my thinking on the issue of spirituality. The article can be read here.
I’ve also stumbled on an online book that seems related: The Shadow of the Dalai Lama. It is nice to see that I am not the only one who is critical of Buddhism. (Hat tip to Butterflies & Wheels!)
The Cause of Suffering
The Second Noble Truth
In his Second Noble Truth, the Buddha taught¹ the cause of suffering. The myth, as it is told at least within Western Buddhist circles, is that the Buddha went about finding the cause just like a doctor²: listing the symptoms, trying out what made those worse, and then prescribing a cure. And he did this across many cases³. What did he find? Well, that depends on the translation. Here are some variations of the causes of suffering:
- Thirst, which leads to rebirth, accompanied by pleasure and lust, finding its delight here and there. This thirst is threefold, namely, thirst for pleasure, thirst for existence, thirst for prosperity. (Chinese Cultural Studies)
- Craving and ignorance are the two main causes of suffering. People suffer with their craving for the pleasures of the senses and become unsatisfied and disappointed until they can replace their cravings with new ones. People suffer too when they are unable to see the world as it really is and live with illusions about life and fears, hopes, facts and behaviours based on ignorance. (Buddhist Studies for Secondary Students)
- The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. (Access to Insight)
What is suffering? Here are the Buddha’s answers (the First Noble Truth) from the same source, in the same order:
- Birth is suffering; decay is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering. Presence of objects we hate, is suffering; Separation from objects we love is suffering; not to obtain what we desire, is suffering. Briefly, clinging to existence is suffering.
- There are four unavoidable physical sufferings: birth, old age, sickness and death. There are also three forms of mental suffering: separation from the people we love; contact with people we dislike and frustration of desires.
- (Suffering was translated as “stress” in this case) Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
Basically, life is suffering. And we create our suffering by thirsting or craving for what we cannot have. But are these really all the causes of suffering? Do we really create all of our suffering? I would argue that there is more to suffering than what we cause with our craving. Fighting with reality surely adds to our suffering – if I do not accept that I am sick, for example, and moan the whole time that I shouldn’t be sick, I will suffer more. But the original illness is suffering as well – as the Buddha taught –and it is caused by some sort of germ or an autoimmune attack of the body. So, even in the simple case of, say, a cold, there are two elements of suffering: the actual cold, which is caused by a virus, and possibly my mental fight with reality. There are thus two causes: only one is caused by craving (“I wish I were healthy”), the other is caused by something unknown at the time of the Buddha. Yet, his Second Noble Truth is not questions, not amended.
Going beyond the simple, to the societal causes of suffering, the insidiousness of this teaching becomes clear. Despite what the Buddha taught, there is much that can be avoided about physical and mental suffering by changing things outside of ourselves. The story of a water pump spreading cholera might be a good example here. Cholera certainly creates suffering but the causes of this suffering are manifold: there is the cholera bacterium, there is the pump handle that is teaming with the bacterium, (going beyond the story) there is the city that is refusing to belief that the pump handle is the problem, and there is the merchant who charges more for a pump handle than the villagers can afford. True, some suffering might be caused because people afflicted with cholera are craving to be healthy again (who wouldn’t!). The many other factors that actually preceded the illness are never address by the Buddha. His teaching ignores any interplay between the personal and the larger society. He essentially teaches us that suffering is our fault and we can overcome it simply by changing our minds. This leads to a closed mind toward other potential causes.
It is clear that the Buddha’s teachings, just like Jesus’ teaching, are a product of the time he was supposed to have lived. But even then, without knowledge of germs, his teachings discouraged questioning the status quo by essentially blaming the victim. I do think that pointing to our own contribution to suffering – how we make it worse by fighting reality – is important. However, for something to be called a “truth,” it needs to include all the answers. The second noble truth does not list all the causes of suffering, hence a Buddhist is required to suspend critical thinking if she wants to accept it as a truth. It requires belief.
Please note considerable amount of work went into the comments below. If you are at all interested in getting a different take on these issues, I highly encourage you to read the comments, especially those from Buddhists (and especially because they think I don’t know what I am talking about). This post is meant to be thought provoking, not as the truth. I don’t have any formal training in Buddhism, so this is presented in the spirit of an outsider looking in. After reviewing the comments, you probably are in a better position to evaluate my ideas.
Notes:
¹ I am pretending throughout this essay that the Buddha was in fact a historical figure who existed and could have taught. That is highly doubtful. He is most likely a mythical figure who never actually lived.
² This is probably meant to suggest that the Buddha was doing this like a scientists thus giving these “truths” the aura of scientific knowledge.
³ This contradicts another part of the myth that the Buddha obtained the knowledge of these “truths” while meditating under a bodhi tree. His first lecture after his “enlightenment” was about the Four Noble Truths.
Criticism of Buddhism
I have stumbled upon a very well written criticism of Buddhism that I can highly recommend. Of course, I had to add my comments – this is what I posted in response to Vexen’s analysis:
Thank you so much for posting your criticism of Buddhism, Vexen. As I mentioned in another comment, it is so desperately needed here in the West because everybody – from Sam Harris to Richard Dawkins – seems to think that Buddhism is harmless, peaceful, and consistent with science.
I would like to add a few comments, though.
At least in Japan, the social programs you laud were developed as a competition to Christian programs to enable missionary success, i.e., get people to convert to Buddhism rather than Christianity (see Brian Victoria “Zen at War”, p.17)
3. Western Buddhism
I think there is a Sangha at least here in the US. But it is different and rather commercialized. People meditate together and listen to Dharma talks and paying for that with “dana” – donations that enable some teachers to afford luxury cars. I do agree with you that the Buddhism that is known in the West is a rather sterilized version that conveniently ignores any of the questionable beliefs or historical abuses.
5. Nirvana and Self (any reason for having 5 before 4 
)
It is interesting that a lot of the Buddhist apologists seem to miss the ultimate goal of Buddhism: to reach enlightenment or nirvana. Anybody who says that is criticized: Buddhists don’t have goals, you’re misunderstanding things, well, just look through the comments here… But if you read Buddhist text (I have only read them in English), it is clear, though, that this is what the goal is. And that’s why we’re reborn here on Earth because it’s the perfect middle ground. Of course, then your question comes up: why do so few of us reach that state? (changing your question slightly, hopefully, though maintaining the idea).
4. World Buddhist Morality
I am afraid that record is so clean because we Westerners are largely (kept) ignorant of the bloody parts. Read Brian Victoria’s “Zen at War” and your statement will, unfortunately, be shown to be false. Maybe there is less blood but Buddhism is not the peaceful religion that we’ve been led to believe. (Okay, so maybe I’d just reword the last sentence of your first paragraph: “Compared with other powerful religions, Buddhism appears to be saintly.” – rather than “is”).
6. Inhumane Dismissal of Suffering
I think this is really the most central element of Buddhist teaching: suffering. I would add to your arguments that “suffering” in Buddhism is defined solely as an individual problem and thus the solution can only be found at that level. Buddhism ignores completely any systemic creation of suffering, which makes the Four Noble Truths incomplete at best, false at worse. I will shamelessly advertise my own Website now, by asking you to look there for more details on that argument. Btw, the Zen priest Ichikawa Hakugen would agree with your assessment here, at least according to Brian Victoria’s summary of Hakugen’s argument (Victoria is a Soto Zen priest): “The doctrine of karma, with its corollary belief in good and bad karmic retribution, tends to serve as a kind of moral justification for social inequality.” Keep that quote handy the next time someone accuses you of ignorance – a Zen priest ignorant of Buddhism?!?
7. Buddhist Psychology is too idealistic
Wow! That is a point I hadn’t thought about yet.
8. Conclusion
Because of my comment to #4, I don’t agree with your assessment of Buddhism as “a wonderful religion socially, participating as a principle player in all forms of global peace & stability movements.” I think because of #6 and #7, it is inherently dangerous, just like any other religion. I completely agree with your second paragraph, though.
I would add that at least one of the tools developed in Buddhism might have some usefulness for some people: mindfulness meditation. It has been shown to reduce stress, help with pain management, lower blood pressure, and prevent the recurrence of depressive episodes (see the work around Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy). As you pointed out in #7, this tool is certainly no panacea and it might not be useful for everyone.
This page utilizes Aral Balkan’s Inline Posts Plugin, which allows you to create a blog within a blog. And I am using this trick to exclude the categories on this page from my front page.
Recent Comments