The Dharma Overground's very own Jinxed P (real name - Jevan Pradas)  new book is in the top ten hottest new releases in Buddhism on Amazon. As high as number 3 yesterday. You can check out the book here.

 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MSJN3Q4

I wrote this book because I felt there was a lack in the dharma community and psychology world in a few areas. And with my background in evolutionary psychology and brain & behavior research, I felt I was qualified to address these holes. 

• We needed a good explanation of human happiness and suffering from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Why did we evolve happiness and suffering in the first place? And how can we use this knowledge to improve well-being?
• We needed a scientific explanation of how enlightenment works, and a scientific explanation of no-self that matches up with the latest findings in cognitive science about how consciousness operates.
• Many people know that enlightenment leads to a decrease in suffering, but they don't understand why.  I wanted to answer why. 
• Many people have claimed enlightenment, but have noticed that their suffering has not decreased to the degree they expected. I had a hunch that this is because they haven't gotten their morality worked out. 
• The majority of this book is about working on 'morality', although I don't call it 'morality'. I call it living in tune with your genetics. Stuff like getting the proper amount of sunlight, how to get great sleep, how to exercise for mental well-being, social reliationships, proper diet, etc. It's about 2/3 morality, 1/3 meditation.
• I had worked in a lab studying happiness, and found that the two happiest groups on earth were hunter-gatherer tribes and buddhist monks. No had ever before synthesized the wisdom from these two seemingly disparate groups into one, cohesive philosophy, to be as maximally happy and healthy as possible. 

Obviously I am plugging my own book here, but I don't want cost to be an issue. If you have kindle unlimited you can read it for free. Otherwise it's only a few bucks. And the paperback is about as cheap as I can make it. If you want to read my book, but can't afford it, let me know. I will send it to you for free. 

If you have any questions, let me know.

The title is brilliant, and the price nice. Congratulations!  

Thanks man.

Nice! Congrats! Just ordered a copy, adding it to the reading pile...

D

Thanks Daniel. Let me know whenever you get around to it. I would love to hear your thoughts on it. 

Congrats! Looks good, will check it out.

Thanks DZ

Read a few pages. Seemed very interesting

Bought a copy. I like it, esp. the evolutionary explanations for emotions.

Appreciate it man. 

Congratulations Jinxed P.  

Given I am beginning to write a book about the emotions and happiness based on a framework I developed over the course of my academic and clinical career, I'm happy to find academic who has summarized the literature and presented their own theories since I haven't stayed on top of all the latest material for a while.  

I just bought it and look forward to the read!

Thanks Doug, let us know when you finish your book. 

Nice! This is inspiring to me because I am slowly working on my first book.
May it be helpful to many practitioners!

Constance

Paleobuddhism ?

My original title for the book was "The Paleo Buddha".

Just bought it. It's an topic I was hoping for to read one day. Congrats!!

Looks really interesting, right up my alley, have added it to my to-read list

Looking forward to it! Especially "great sleep". 

Loved the book! Great introduction to pragmatic dharma for a crowd that maybe normally wouldn't be introduced to it. Already bought it for a friend.

(only thing I didn't love was the subtitle, but I guess the publishers decide that for you)

Thanks man. That means a lot. I agree, I would probably change the subtitle if I could, take out the word biohacker, but it tested well in focus groups. Can you do me a quick favor and write up a brief review on Amazon (doesn't have to be long or anything)? I love getting feedback, and obviously it helps potential buyers, giving them more info to see if the books is for them.  

And that goes for anyone, even if you didn't like the book. Let me know! All feedback is good feedback. 

Thanks man,  I really appreciate it. 

Done!

Thanks bud!

Anyone else finish it?

Why don't you post it at reddit.com/r/streamentry as well? that's right now the busiest pragmatic dharma forum online. I'm sure they would be into it.

Just got it on Kindle, and am preparing to dig in. 

Good idea Ooch. Just posted it there.

Thanks Laurel. Hope you like it.

The Buddha is pretty clear that indulgence in sensual pleasure is definitely not part of the holy life in many sutras. It's clear that you chose some obscure bhutanese charlatan as an example of 'buddhism' in order to advance your own mistaken views.

The divine eye is free of thoughts, lust, craving of any kind. If you claim to have attained stream entry, those maps are of little use.

This is pretty obvious stuff. Mindfulness is gone when I check out a girl's ass. Relationships cause a whirl of thoughts. If I ejaculate every night, I wouldn't be able to keep my job, let alone become an arahant.

Who the f#&$ would support a homeless bhikku who is trying to bang all the hot chicks in the village? That'll get you dismembered in India.

1.What do you think my mistaken view is? That it is possible to be enlightened and still have sex? I know the Buddha was against this for his monks, but just because the Buddha said it doesn't mean it's absolutely true. Plenty of people here are enlightened and still engage in sex. I'm a pragmatist, not a dogmatist. I think whether or not you engage in sex is dependent on the person. 

2. Drukpa Kunley is not obscure, he is probably the most famous person to ever come out of the country of Bhutan. Also Drukpa Kunley is a master of tantric buddhism, which is practiced in Tibet and Bhutan. Tantric masters can actually use sex as a vehicle to help them awaken. And plenty of Buddhist masters from the tantric tradition, including the most famous of them have numerous children, so they clearly have sex. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche comes to mind. 

3. The difference between us seems to be that you are dogmatic that Awakening can happen only as the Buddha taught it in the suttas 2500 years ago. I'd ask you to be a little more open-minded. I think Vajrayana buddhists are also awake, and their methods while different also work. I also think many modern secular teachers are awake, and I know they have sex too. 

4. I can assure you that you won't lose your job if you ejaculate every night

The Buddha wanted to ensure that his disciples would have nothing to trouble their minds and that householders would consider his disciples worthy of giving alms to. Hence the rules about not storing up food, not touching money, minimal clothing and posessions, celibacy, etc. So that a disciple of the Buddha can leave his home and work and devote himself to mindfulness, concentration, free from thoughts.

Now if I'd been a disciple of someone like Drukpa Kunley, instead of meditating, I'd thinking of getting some of the girls my guru is screwing, if I could fuck the hot milf who appears to be checking me out when I go on my alms round. Getting irritated that the girl I like is talking to that rich landlord's son. I'd worry about getting enough meat and milk so that I could put on some muscle.

Due to the drain of ojas from constant sexual fantasies, masturbation and sex, I'd be unable to make any progress in meditation. Before long, I'd tire of the holy life, go back to my parent's house, get a job and a GF.

I'm not disputing that a married layman can attain nibbana. Only that it's wrong for a monk or a teacher living on alms from householders to pursue women. That this is not part of Buddhism or monastic life in any religion. I despise the parasitical tyranny of the lamas of Tibet.

But it is part of Tantric Buddhism. Drukpa Kunley's reason for pursuing women was to make them enlightened using tantric methods. 

Now could he have been a charlatan? Sure, it is possible. But if we take his story at face value, that he went around and had sex with women, introduced them to tantra and helped to get them enlightened, what is wrong with that?

Are you open to the possibility that just because you would do better in a monastic setting, being celibate and following the buddhas strict rules that others may not be?

Are you open to the possibility that if one uses the techniques of theravada, that the Buddha's rules are the best advice, but if one uses the techniques of tantra, then a different set of rules apply?

I actually only mention Drukpa Kunley, who lived in the 1400's, in one paragraph, and solely as an example of someone who is on one end of the extreme of renunciation spectrum, with a total celibate monk on the other end. My sole point in bringing him up in the book is to show that the level of renunciation needed to make gains in meditation can vary widely from person to person. 

Personally, I find myself closer to the 'more' renunciation side, and do my best meditation in Theravada monasteries.  

I think it's a great question you ask - were there women who didn't have a positive enlightenment experience after having sex with Drukpa? I don't know. 

What I do know is that he is revered as a hero in Bhutan, and women hang a statue of his erect penis on their doorways. You can read more about him here, and come to your own conclusion..

http://www.perceptivetravel.com/issues/0111/divine_bhutan.html
https://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/03/the-flaming-thunderbolt-of-wisdom-a-penis-over-every-doorway-simon-hollington/

I think it was one of the biggest mistakes of Buddha (him being probably asexual) to think that when you abstain from sex your mind will be free of distractions. Precisely the opposite is true: The longer you sexually abstain (especially if you are young) the more your mind is obsessed with sex. And one more thing: In the past I had to take antipsychotics and antidepressants that completely annihilated my libido. I was completely uninterested in sex with my wife, porn etc. How is it then possible to overpower the mighty Maro (or however the buddhist "Devil" is called) just by taking pills? And just one of my observations: Once I stopped to ejaculate I developed inflammations of the urogenital system, enlarged prostate, painful urinating etc. Normal man needs to ejaculate regularly, it is a natural physiological need just like breathing and there is absolutely nothing immoral about it provided you cause no harm to your partner e.g. by infidelity (but there are exceptions, someone may be happy by practicing candaulism or a cuckold--I don't know precisely what are the names of all the varieties of sexual experiences, preferences or deviations). But I don't believe anyone can get enlightened just by having sex with his guru. Yes, a satiscactory sexual life is conducive to a better psychological health. I sometimes dream about a girl that would be "more evil" in the bed but I am infinitely more happy that my real wife is immensely good and warm hearted in everything else.  

One of the great schisms in Buddhist history was caused when two different sects could not reconcile their different beliefs about whether enlightened monks had nocturnal emissions. 

You should read the Pali canon thoroughly before you comment on the Buddha. And you should reflect on the position of monks as religious beggars dependent on alms.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

It's not at all true that abstinence causes obsession with sex. Especially if you're meditating. 'There is an organ between my legs. The more I feed it, the hungrier it grows'. 

As seen in some sects of Korean buddhism and in all Japanese Buddhist sects not all Buddhist nuns and monks are required to be celibate.

And Buddha was a great expert on sexuality, he believed that for a man it is impossible to satisfy a woman even if he had supernatural powers.

Precisely the same claimed Aquinas, who believed that women are sexually insatiable and Tertulian tells us: "

Woman is the gate to hell and her gaping genitals the yawning mouth of hell"

It is a very strange psychological effect that all men who live in celibacy have such a profoundly wrong opinion on female sexuality. As every psychologist knows it is in most cases husband who complains about the lack of sexual desire of his wife and rarely vice versa.
 

This book is super good
https://www.amazon.com/Transcendent-Sex-When-Lovemaking-Opens/dp/0743482174

Wow, so I just received a message from a prison inmate who ordered my book off Amazon. He said he couldn't put it down and read through the whole thing right away. Not only that, he now wants to be a buddhist and dedicate himself to enlightenment. 

I would like to learn where the Buddha claimed his expertise and the impossibility to satisfy a woman. Although I can imagine being a man and
therefor only capable of giving conditioned pleasure that might have been it.

What Buddha preached was transmitted orally and written down only after about 450 years. My guess is that after such an extremely long time every sentence in the Pali canon is attributed to Buddha correctly with 50% probability and falsely also with 50%.

But it is extremely difficult to find the truth in such emotionally laden issues.

It is similar to the question if Jesus existed at all. Look at "Testimonium Flavianum". The general concensus of experts on early Christianity is that some nucleus of it is authentic. But: Almost all experts on early Christianity are Christian believers, who are extremely interested in the historicity of Jesus. If Jesus didn't exist at all they would have no hope in an afterlife and they devoted probably their all their life to an illusion. There are also atheist experts on early Christianity who claim the whole "Testimonium Flavianum" is a later Christian forgery. These experts are also interested but much less: Even if Jesus existed, he was some of the many conjurers who have been treading the earth ever since.

I am personally not interested in finding some "original buddhism". You probably know what was the original thought about the shape of earth.  

I'm doing one of those Amazon specials where the Ebook is only 99 cents for the new few days for those who want grab it on the cheap. 

I started reading your book and I have a couple questions:

Do you use deodorant when you quit soap and shampoo?

What's with the "surprise" example where the wife deprives her husband of sex for months and then  tricks her husband into getting naked at the surprise party? That seems so cruel. I feel like I've heard that before somewhere, as a joke or urban legend - did that actually happen to someone you know? Who would do that and why? And why did you use such a horrible story as an example?

Do you have more info on the wet dream schism?

Great questions!

1. I very rarely wear deodorant, and for the most part do not have a problem with it. The only times I have been told I smell (maybe 3x over 4 years) a bit was after not showering for a day or two and while playing sports. So if I haven't showered in over 36 hours and am out playing sports I might put on some Toms deodorant.  My brother, who also doesn't use soap or deodorant has never been told he smells and works out every day. 

There will be an adjustment period when you first start, so if you don't want to go cold turkey, it can be a good idea to keep using deodorant when you stop using soap, and then quit the deodorant later on (which might require it's own adjustment period as well). Cold showers also help, I notice I am more likely to smell in my arm pits after warm showers. I think because a warm, moist environment can cause bacteria growth. Diet can also play a role as well as stress levels. If you are stressed your body will release a bad odor. 

2. You may have misinstepreted the story. She did not trick him into getting naked. She expected him to go down the stairs fully dressed. He got naked on his own. It was his own silly fault. Story is real. 

3. Here is a bit more info on the wet dream schism http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=491

I agree, It was you though who claimed that and I quote :"And Buddha was a great expert on sexuality, he believed that for a man it is impossible to satisfy a woman even if he had supernatural powers."

I just asked where you got this idea from. As for the shape of the earth. There's still tons of people re-discovering it is flat. Just goes to show that knowing anything is no prerequisite for enlightenment..

Thanks for the answers! A couple follow-ups:

What about shaving or trimming armpit hair or other body hair? Do you do that?

Regarding the story - do you know the person it happened to?

I had a feeling you'd object to the word "tricked" - fair enough, her intent at the time was not to have him get naked.

That said, I still don't understand and I still think she was rather cruel and callous and thoughtlessly unkind. You mention that he had experienced months of sexual frustration - how could she do that to him?

And it does seem like he had a reason to feel teased or let on. I don't think it's fair to say it was his own silly fault, especially if she had been rejecting him for months. In any case, I don't understand how she could do that. And I don't see why you'd use that kind of horrible situation as an example for "surprise." I'd love to know your thoughts though.

In the summer I will trim armpit hair and other body hair. Not sure if this has any affect on smell, I do it more for aesthetics.

If you think a married couple not having sex for a few months is a horrible situation -- Clearly you aren't married haha. This is practically par for the course unfortunately. I think something like 20% of all marriages are classifed as sexless. There are some TedTalks as to why this is if you are really curious. On the more comedic side..

Here's a Chris Rock bit for you.

Why did I include that story as an example of surprise? Because everyone thinks it is hilarious, including the person it happened to. It was a prank with the intention of a happy ending.

To clarify, the horrible situation I was referring to was not just that they went months without sex (although I do think that is a horrible situation) - it was that she knew her constant refusal was making him miserable, and still decided to pull a "prank" on him teasing him, making him think they might have sex.
That seems horribly cruel to me.

Please clarify - what exactly was the "prank"? Why is it hilarious to be married to someone denying him sex, and to add insult to injury, who builds his hopes up and then lets him down?

There's probably cheating or abuse in 20% of marriages as well - that doesn't make it ok or par for the course.

I'm confused at your suggestion that being married means that you have no boundaries or standards and that you would put up with a horrible situation?

Who says he was let down? She also threw him an enormous party!  Of course he fumbled the situation up a bit..but laughed about it in the end. 

The "prank" is simply the misdirection - trying not to let on that she was throwing him a party with all his friends. She probably planned for him to just walk downstairs, see all his friends, Go WOW! Have a great party.  Maybe she still planned to have sex later. 

"Denying" him sex wasn't the hilarious part. Him falling down the stairs without his pants is the hilarious part. 

Also, isn't it possible you are being a bit judgmental? You don't know the details of their relationship or what she was going through. Women's libido drops during marriage for many reasons, hormonal, stress, when women are stressed out they can lose their sex drive, depression, a medicine she could be taking, or she fell out of love. Maybe she just didn't find him attractive anymore. When you say things like "denying" or "refusing" him sex, what do you think she should do? Force herself to have sex even if she didn't want to? Would you force yourself to have sex with someone even if you had no desire to?  Are married couples obligated to perform pity sex?

Seriously, what do you think? No judgment on my part whatever you say. Because I certainly don't have the answers. 

These are tricky questions. 

Now of course rarely having sex in marriage is not ideal. But I would be surprised if most marriages didn't go through periods where they didn't have sex for months. You get bored of having sex with the same person over and over. Your wife becomes more like a sister after a while. 

If you read farther in my book, I have a chapter on sex, love, and relationships. I don't think lifelong monogamy is natural for most people. Which is why marriages aren't easy, and there will be good periods and bad periods. Read that and get back to me. 

Edit: JC , I just read how your fiancee left you recently. Well that certainly explains your reaction here. That sucks man. Hope all is well.

Hey Jinxed P, I started reading your book a while ago. Nice work and well written.

Thanks! Appreciate it. Would you mind writing a quick, honest review on Amazon?

Things ended with my fiancee almost 2 years ago, and I'm for the most part ok with it, but I still feel very sad about it sometimes - it came up a lot lately. Thanks for your good wishes. I'm not sure how it explains my reaction here though - my thoughts on this topic haven't changed because of that.

Agree completely about lifelong monogamy being unnatural. Hell, even without monogamy, I'm not sure lifelong relationships are natural - as you say, there are good periods and bad periods, times where you need a break or aren't feeling it with the other person.

Your estimate that "most" marriages have periods where there's no sex for months seems unlikely to me - that's an extreme. But I don't know the statistics and I'm not someone who would stay in a relationship without sex for weeks, let alone months. I do think that this idea that it's normal to refuse your partner for months on end is harmful and damaging - that's not something most relationships can recover from.

You ask if I'm being too judgmental because libido can drop for many reasons and she might not find him attractive anymore, and ask what I think people in that situation should do and what their obligations are. That's a good question. I personally wouldn't stay in a relationship in that situation - for me sex is required in a relationship and if the sex stops the relationship stops. Maybe I'm weird that way, I don't know. But if they really want to stay and try make the relationship work, I think they are obligated to be honest, communicate fully, make an effort to compromise and give pleasure to each other, and be sensitive and respectful to their partner.

So for instance, he needs to tell her - and not just once, but every day - if he's feeling miserable, depressed, and unloved due to being rejected. She needs to tell him whether or not she's willing to make an effort to rebuild her sex drive and what effort she's making. She needs to tell him whether or not she still feels attracted and in what ways she's willing to compromise, and what she thinks the future will hold. Regarding compromising, I don't think it needs to be "forced" or "pity sex" - if you genuinely care about your partner you shouldn't have a problem taking a little time and putting a little effort in to give them pleasure, whether it's a massage, a footrub, sex, or whatever, out of the genuine desire to make them happy. That doesn't require any level of attraction or desire for sex, just effort and compassion. I don't really see any excuse for refusing to make that effort for months on end - how is it she cared enough about him to throw him a big party but couldn't take a few minutes for sex over the course of months?

Part of being sensitive and respectful is being aware that, according to your description, this is an issue causing him a lot of pain. Her actions demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to his frustration and a lack of awareness for how he's feeling. That's why the story you told bothered me - she didn't seem to care or be sensitive to it and even thought it would be a good idea to pull a "prank" while he was suffering. The misdirection involved using sex to entice him to go downstairs, correct?

It's one thing for a couple to be struggling with a libido difference and be honestly and respectfully talking about it and working on it - as you say, that happens sometimes. But it's a completely different thing for one partner to just stop caring about the other's feelings entirely and treat it as subject matter for a prank. It doesn't seem like she thought for a second "hey, I know this is a sensitive issue for him, so if I do this, he might feel very hurt." So no, I don't think I'm being too judgmental. That's why it was bizarre for me that you chose that as an example for "surprise" when it came off as her being callous and insensitive. That was really my main point.

^Ok. Good points. But in the end, he wasn't hurt by her 'prank', he thought the whole thing was rather funny. Although I could see why you think he could have been. 

Let's move on. 

This thread has gone too far into a discussion about sex. People are probably thinking my book is the Kama Sutra 2.0 haha, when it is not about that at all. I'm far more curious as to what people here think about my descriptions of Awakening, my other lifestyle recommendations, and if they are implementing them into their lives and finding them useful, or if they enjoyed the read. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism

Nirvana sutra, volume 9, chapter Bodhisattva, Buddha stated that women can't be satisfied with their lust - even unlimited men having sex with a women cannot make her content.

Eelco ten Have, I have question for you too. What do you think happens with the Englightenment of a person who suffers a stroke or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? 

And we have an example of a Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh who suffered a severe hemorrhagic stroke
(in my opinion he wasn't lucky enough like Mahasi Sayadaw and he survived this dismal event), what we know is that he suffers a complete aphasia.

As to the showering: Usually I don't wash myself from october till april at all because of my exhaustion and if I can believe my beloved wife I don't smell at all.

Thank you. I was unaware of these remarks made by the buddha himself. For what it's worth I don't believe it and feel its a remark made by the sign of those times where the patriarchy was allready well established.

As for your question. I have no idea. If I were to venture a guess. I'd say the realization may very well vanish. I can't say if the defilements would reappear though. As people often change personalities if their brains are afflicted by disease or injury I thing the personality would change. I can't comment on the state of attainments.

With Love

I don't think the realization could vanish. Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it. Enlightenment is a removal of a very bizarre misperception and it's very unlikely that any kind of disease or injury could reinstate that exact same misperception.

There are cases of people who say that their enlightenment wasn't permanent. Do you think they were just mistaken about being enlightened in the first place? 

I'm unsure if this question is directed at me or at JC.
I think that with the practice of the buddhist path we can realize a natural base state that is independent of condition.
That state is there always. The realization of it however need continual practise it seems at the ealier paths and possibly 4th as well. As long as we have our cognitive abilities we can remind ourselfs to be mindfull of the enlightened state.

With the onset of dementia, aquired brain impairment or another brain disease. I think someone could stop reminding themselves to be mindfull and get lost in samsara again.  I couldn't possibly comment on the aquisition of new kamma in such a state. I'd like to think that one would somehow still reap the benefits of being a non-retuner..

With Love
Eelco

Some of the changes I've made to my life have been happening over a period of time but your book has insipred me to live more like a hunter / gatherer.

I'm going to do a 6 week elimination diet as outlined by the book "The UltraMind Solution". Basically I'll be eating like a hunter / gatherer throughout the duration. I'm stoked because I'll know myself on a deeper level in the sense that I'll know the foods that I can and can't eat.

I'm now exercising three days a week (running and lifting weights) and I'm hiking once a week.

I've also decided to take one camping trip per month so I can decompress and spend more time in nature.

I'm pretty stoked about this adventure.

That's great Ivory! Keep us informed how it goes. If only everyone had the conviction to put what they read into use like you. 

Would you mind doing me a small favor, and writing a quick little review of my book on Amazon? 

Quite frankly, I would not have started down this path if I didn't have to. I remember one teacher saying, "you have to get to the point where you're willing to chew your own leg off." That motivator is pain and anxiety. That said, once some major illusions are seen through, there is a more playful, curious, and experimental relationship with life.



Sure thing.

That's a great quote by that teacher. Reminds me of the Gampopa quote, where he says you must be motivated like an animal escaping from a trap. 

I just heard that my book is getting passed around a lot in prison, getting a lot of prisoners into meditation. 

Every prison should have a meditation program for prisoners. Prison should be less like Oz and more like a monastery focusing on metta.

I discovered your book via this thread, and bought / read it a few months ago, but never got around to write a 'review'.

The style and structure of the book may be a bit uneven or unpolished, and could have benefited from some extra proofreading/editing; but I guess this is to be expected for a first book. Personally, I also miss references and footnotes, which you keep to a minimum. Probably this was a conscious choice, to make the book more accessible for the general reader. But since you tackle some pretty academic stuff and make a lot of controversial claims, it would have been nice to be able to look some things up and check the sources. Especially for the brainiacs that tend to visit this forum!

But the main thing is the content, which I found all-around fascinating, informative and to the point. Especially the chapters about the connection between primeval thought and traditional or eastern wisdom. I never could see any link between the way our ancestors lived and 'enlightenment', but you make a convincing case. One of the reasons I never really bought into buddhism as a philosophy was that I couldn't see a way to make it fit within a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective. Why would a brain have evolved, hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago, that has these big illusions about self and reality, creating massive suffering? And how would it recently have acquired a strategy to overcome these illusions, in just a few thousands of years?

​But your picture of hunter-gatherers as living in a constant hyper-focused state, like natural born buddha's, makes sense to me. Enlightenment, in your story, wouldn't be progressing away from the ape, like it's usually portrayed, but more like a return home. The old monkey mind turns out to be not so bad after all! This opened my eyes to the possibility of enlightenment as a natural process (instead of some magical place), and I'm inspired by it, though many parts are still a bit hazy to me. Did our ancestors live in a constant and unforced state of meditative attention, or were we always to some extent deluded? Is the illusion of self a modern invention, or did this concept provide some kind of evolutonary advantage? Are apes, or all animals for that matter, awakened by default, and is enlightenment just our natural brain state, or is there more to the matter? If you would care to share your thoughts, I'd be grateful.

Anyway, congrats on this original and thought provoking book, and the cool title, a nice addition to my buddhist bookshelve! 

Hi, Pieter thanks for giving such a kind and thorough review!

Yes you are right, I left out the footnotes for accessibility, and hopefully I have since purged the book of any typos in my recent updates! Although I'm not sure one ever truly gets rid of all editing mistakes. 

Now to answer your questions. 
 Our ancestors had far better concentration and attention than we do today. But they were deluded. They were not Awakened. Although there is evidence that some shamans Awakened by accident.  
It provided an evolutionary advantage. In my book, in the chapter "No-Self" there is a subsection called "Why Evolution Programmed Us That Way". You might want to re-read that, but I'll give the cliff notes version here. One way the sense of self evolved was when we began to be able to imagine ourselves in future scenarios. "What will I do if someone steals my mate?" "What should I say when x?" "What do people think of me?" Answering these questions required making up a concept of a 'self', and we began to have all sorts of self-referential thought patterns.   Being able to think in this way was a beneficial adaptation. 

The Awakened person will still have these self-referential thoughts when they are practical to think about (although much much fewer in number than an unawakened person), but will know that the self these thoughts are referring to is merely a concept, and not something substantial, and therefore will have far less reactivity towards things that might impact or judgments about the self. The subject of other animals is a fascinating question. My guess would be that other apes,  dolphins, etc. have a sense of self (albeit somewhat different than ours, as the sense of self is so dependent on language and their language is rather primitive to ours) and these animals are certainly not aware that it is an illusion. They would not be enlightened in that case.

Does a lizard have a sense of self? I don't know. If it does, it is certainly not anything like our sense of self. It is totally possible that there are plenty of animals, perhaps nearly all, with no sense of self, and who don't partake in self-created mental stress. 

The book is only 99 cents for the next 24 hours for anyone that hasn't checked it out already.

You might be interested in Julian Jaynes' book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" - it's pretty brilliant. He persuasively argues that what we think of as the self is a relatively recent cultural innovation (a few thousand years old) and before that, our minds had a completely different structure.

As far as evolution - it doesn't work how you think it does. Not everything that evolves provides some kind of advantage. For instance, structures can evolve that have no purpose because they're a side effect of other adaptations. So even if the self evolved, it may not have necessarily provided any evolutionary advantage. It may just have been an accidental side effect of the way the brain evolved for other purposes.

Why would it be surprising if we have only recently (last few thousand years) developed technology to heal this problem? Antibiotics are recent. Painkillers are recent. Psychology is recent.

Bump for the New Year.

I suppose I'm getting a hand-delivered copy soon?

Hi Jevan,

I thought you should know that I tried dowloading your book but it only downloaded the first 33 pages (if I remember correctly).  I got onto Amazon and they weren't able to resolve the issue, so they gave me a refund.  Have they contacted you about this?  It may be just a one-off but it seemed like they have a corrupted file.

Conal

Hey Conal, thanks for letting me know. I'll ask Amazon, but my guess (hope!)is that it's just a one-off, as I just downloaded the book myself without problem. It's also been downloaded thousands of times, and this is only the second time I've heard of this problem. The first 33 pages sounds like they just sent you the sample? Could that be it?

If you try again, and it still doesn't work. Let me know and I'll send you a free copy!

Hey Jinxed,

This captured my attention a few days ago and I just finished reading. Truly great work. A brilliant way to approach pragmatic buddhist practice while getting a few other birds stoned along the way. So honest, pure and accessible. You had me running the gamut of emotions from sadness (Realizing I'm a physically and mentally deformed human mutated by the modern way of life) to frustration (Realizing paleolithic man was happier and heathier than current man and how I've been lied to about it for my whole life) to happy insights (your fresh explanation of the no-self paradox and its scientific backing). It's one of those reads that got me thinking how this person and that person in my life need to read it! Even though sadly those persons probably won't make the time or have the attention span to take it in.

I've began making adjustments to my diet (my sister has a degree in nutrition and has been preaching at me Paleo for years) and trying out the no soap no shampoo to see if it resolves some minor skin ailments. I'm just laughing to myself thinking about when the first person asks me, "EW, WHAT ABOUT YOUR BUTT!?"

I had one question for you regarding hunter-gatherers if you have the time to answer.

At any point during your time with the Amazonian tribes or in your research did you learn anything about their processing of grief as compared with modern day man?

Thanks for writing the book. Thoroughly enjoyed it.    

Thanks Nick, that's really kind.

And great question. Hunter-gatherers do grieve, but they get over it relatively quickly compared to modern day man. The grief would never turn into depression. I think this is because they are so accustomed to death. Not just seeing other tribespeople die, but also the act of hunting, when you have to kill animals all the time in order to survive, you become very acquainted with death and see it as a natural part of the life cycle. 

Thanks for trying to spread the book to friends and family members, even if they may never read it. But if you have a minute, you could write a review on Amazon, and that might help someone decide if the book is for them. 

Appreciate it,

Jevan.

Jevan,

Your answer is about what I supposed. Modern day man act like deer in the headlights when it comes to preparing for the death of loved ones. Out of sight, out of mind and when it hits, it really hurts.

Will definitely head over to Amazon and give you a shout.

Thanks again,

Nick

Hi Jevan,

I tried it again and the same thing happened.  I only received 22% of the book!

Conal

Just letting everyone know, the book is on sale right now for 99 cents. Check it out.


Conal,

I'm just seeing your message. I'm not sure why that happens for you, as it seems to work for everyone else. PM your email and I'll send you a free copy. 

Hi Jevan,

How do you do a private message here?

Conal

I've also heard suffering does not decrease as expected. There is another explanation that I tend to favor: They are not practicing what the Buddha taught.

Explained here: http://www.dhammasukha.org/ven-bhante-vimalaramsi.html

"What started as two weeks to study suttas turned into three months of deep practice. Out of this was born TWIM or Tranquil Wisdom Insight Meditation completely based on the suttas in the Majjhima Nikaya. He found the Jhanas had an entirely different explanation and experience. Nibbana was possible!"


Does the book tell you how to experience ecstasy? How long does it take to learn? Or is it just about people who have leanred?

Look near the top ot the page there is a row of links under the site logo. One of those is "Messags". Click it. I've never used it so don't know if it really works or not.

Sent.

The Book is on Sale now for 99 cents. 

I read your book and found it quite interesting. I am happy that the author can be reached in this forum.

You have your skeptic say: " if my ex-girlfriend is just a bunch of quantum particles, and I am just a bunch of quantum particles, where is the suffering inherent in that?" And you confirm that he got it!

I beg to disagree! What charecterize his girl friend is NOT that she is a bunch of quantum particles BUT the fact that those particles are orgaganuzed in a certain way!

It is NOT matter or energy that characterizes living beings but "complexity" or "information". The suffering is inherent not in our materiality but in our organization! In "information", and information is as real as matter or energy.

Similarly, I have read elswhere what could be summerized as: "I am a bunch of atoms and atoms do not die so I am immortal"! But the catch is that when the poor fellow disintegrates, even if we could gather all his atoms and keep them in a container, what will be in the container will no longer be him! Without the particular organization that made him, he is no longer there! Sure the atoms are eternal, or as close to it as possible, but equally sure that guy is "mortal".

What I have found useful is Shinzen Young distinction between pain and suffering! Our pains are real and may be really great but we do not have to experience "suffering" as a result. This is what meditation is for.

Todo,

I agree with you that saying we don't really die because our atoms are still in existence is silly. Death is the end of sentience. 


And I agree with you that the suffering stems from the way the 'information' is organized. The key point to understand though, is that the information does not need to be organized in a way that causes suffering(A belief is a function of the way the brain organizes information). After all, your relationship to your girlfriend did not always cause you suffering, you weren't always attached to her, and you didn't always want to be in a relationship with her. There are billions of other people on the planet who do not suffer from not being in a relationship with her, so is it inherent that you must? Clearly not. The important realization is that it is not the situation that is causing you suffering, but your beliefs about the situation. The way you currently 'organize information' is not the way you must 'organize information'. 

Only 99 cents in the UK right now.

Bump...on sale again. 99 cents. Enjoy.