Far fetched theories

I've developed another far fetched theory.

Vajramati used to make fun of my "nostril theory". When you're meditating, I think this has been proven in experiments, you rebalance your brain. Western society slants towards the left side, language and reasoning. The right brain is art. Now some of this left/right brain stuff has been debunked and the history of insights in the academic subject of psychology is that they make too much of something and move on, but the residue is still kind of interesting.

So when I have a cold, supposedly if you're breathing out of one nostril, that's the side of your brain that is dominant. Everything reverses as it goes to your brain, so the right nostril goes to your left brain. So if you're meditating and you find your left nostril is the one you're breathing through, there's some good rebalancing going on. That's the far fetched theory that Vajramati would playfully make fun of.

So today I'm reading in Buddha Nature (p.49):

"Thusness, then, is the fundamental basis of the tathagatagarbha. The author expands on the meaning of this Thusness by identifying it as the sum of two elements: the knowledge of Thusness and the realm of Thusness. The term translated here as "knowledge" (shi) is, as mentioned earlier, a standard term for the subjective, whereas "realm" (jing) is a standard term for the objective. Ordinarily the shi is the cognizer and the jing the cognized. In the case of the knowledge of Thusness (ru-ru-shi) and the realm of Thusness (ru-ru-jing), the former is the knowing that accords with the principle of Thusness, and the latter is the known that accords with that principle. Because, the author says, the two "stand together," the term Thusness as ru-ru is coined to embrace them simultaneously. As such it represents the unity of their mutuality. All of this-the ru-ru Thusness with both its subjective and objective constituents-is given in explanation of the single "Thus" of tathāgatagarbha (the ru of ru-lai-zang)."

Now I'm sure this all makes sense, but it doesn't easily go into my mind, and it kind of demonstrates a kind of complexity to Buddhism thought. 

Buddhist practice consists of study, meditation, ethics, fellowship and devotion. You don't have to have hyperbolic theory chops to be a good Buddhist. Unpacking Sallie King's paragraph doesn't necessarily make you a good Buddhist.

In anapanasati you calm mental processes and the mind. What's the difference. I could be wrong about this, but I think of mental processes as the animal mind, fear based, emotional, and the mating mind. I can't help but look at women and imagine what I'd like to do with them. 

The human brain is the peacock feathers of our species. The complexity of the human mind is unnecessary, like peacock feathers, it's about attracting a mate. The mating mind is unnecessary. I'd say a part of the spiritual life is about coming to grips with that.

I would argue that the complex Dharma is food for the mating mind, it gives it something to do instead of chasing a mate. Something to chew on instead of. In a way, the question of existence is what are you going to put your supercomputer to work on. For me it's Dharma, chess, reading, cooking, psychology, compassion, recovery, nature and beauty.