Buddhism may not be a religion in its quintessential form, but it seems fair to say there are religions that call themselves Buddhism. (I would say reincarnation is a religious concept, for example.) Meditation itself seems more a technique for attaining a particular sensation of enlightenment and well-being. This in turn (I’d say) is a psychological state.

The term “rational” essentially means dividing into discrete components. (Think rationing during wartime, or even rational numbers. Same root concept.) The rational mind (or the rational function within the mind) is the part that divides things into appropriate divisions. There is a sense of finality to a rational statement, just as a rational number can be expressed by a finite fraction.

Irrational statements have no really definite interpretation. You can approximate them rationally but not nail them down. I tend to think the brain has seperate processes for dealing with these kinds of things. I’d expect they fall into sensation and intuition categories, depending on whether they fit into the experience of the present or represent anticipation of future possibilities.

The conscious/unconscious dichotomy is interesting as well, but I think it is a different aspect than rational/irrational. We can be aware of sensations or intuitions consciously, without having yet made a judgment about them, and we can make decisions based on feelings or logic without being aware of having done so.

I don’t really like the notion of rational and irrational minds. I think it makes more sense to talk of conscious and unconscious minds. I can totally relate to the existence of the conscious mind and how it can interfere with the wisdom of our unconscious mind.

I think the brain overall is quite rational as a result of evolution. But our “conscious” self (a recent addition), has trouble understanding the rest of the brain. That’s where buddhism comes in I think. Buddhism is about understanding the nature of self, life, pleasure, etc.

I think buddhism is not a religion, but rather much more philosophical but also practical because it is about people learning how their brains and their sense of self works.

Koans seem like tools to encourage philosophical thinking and to explore the sense of self and reality. With a combination of detachment and attachment, there’s enlightenment. I wonder if enlightenment needs to be described as religious though.

There’s some ambiguous words that I try to get away from like spirit, soul, religious, etc.

The statement is utter nonsense, of course, from the rational perspective (and Huston admitted such to be the case.) Which I think is kind of the point… the religious experience is actually something that only happens when the rational mind is suspended. The irrational mind then steps in and performs a sort of reconciliation on the opposites.

I do think the rational mind is supreme, as a way to properly live your life. However, I can see the logic that perhaps the rational brain function needs a break sometimes for purely psychological reasons. If this really induces a state of reduced stress, it could lead to a longer life and more productive relationships — which is a rational goal, after all. You just probably don’t want to become an insane mystic over it…

From a Jungian perspective, it could be a J/P thing. The N/S functions are irrational, in that they don’t call for a resolution of every seeming paradox or contradiction. Instead they recieve the information passively. T/F functions are more aggressive about defining things in a way that brings closure. My theory is that by temporarily shutting down the rational functions, you can exercise the irrational ones and get better use out of them, and perhaps less biased information.

Perhaps some people today are fuzzy in their thinking because they don’t understand (or admit to) the distinction between the rational experience and the religious experience. If they drew a sharper line in the sand between the two, it might make more sense.