The Problem of Mindfulness
aeon.co
aeon.co
Mindfulness is about creating space between you and your thoughts, not ignoring or discounting them. It allows you to look at them subjectively, rather than being carried away by them. This in no way prohibits you from being introspective, and analyzing the origin of these feelings/thoughts. If anything, it empowers the individual to more rationally grapple with them, without falling into the various psychological traps that often come with certain feelings, such as rumination or avoidance. And whether or not we believe that there is a self, this is no way invalidates the reality that your thoughts ultimately reside inside the mind of a human being, with a real world story. It's unclear to me why the author does not recognize this duality. Most of the literature on mindfulness I've read, including Jon Kabat Zinn's, explicitly mention this duality and its power.
At no time have I given myself a pass or shirked responsibility in the way the article implies...rather, mindfulness practice has given me the time and quiet to turn these thoughts around, examining them and their source.
I can't express in words how much I feel I've gained from practicing, and I encourage each of you to do so. While I still can't say I always look forward to it, I'm always glad after the fact to feel it's affects. If everyone practiced mindfulness, the world would be a FAR better place...
For example, I can still see you are not accepting your past self for what it is ("I thought I was insightful and deep before") or how the world is ("would be a FAR better place").
You are on a path towards awakening. Some of us have come to understand that there are seven factors [1] to master, not one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Awakening
It’s possible to engage with mindfulness practices without buying into the entire Buddhist belief system.
This comment reinforces the author’s (I believe mistaken) point, that mindfulness sneaks in a bunch of Buddhist ideology. In my experience, it’s been possible to benefit from the practices while deciding some of the more doctrinal Buddhist beliefs (like non-self / anatta) don’t resonate.
In (Mahayana) Buddhism you train more. Like the opposite: concentration. Think about the same topic for one hour, repeatedly. Who am I? Who do I think I am? What thoughts am I suppressing?
Fundamentally, it teaches you that all these things are like sliders on a big mixing console. Pushing one slider will bring the others down. Pushing mindfulness might reduce equanimity and concentration.
In the end, it is the art of letting go. If you want to hold on to something, you should be able to let it go.
The article doesn't make it explicit, but I think that you have it backwards: the problem is that mindfulness is divorced from the Buddhist tradition. As an analogy, it's like the spread of corn as a staple without nixtamalization [1]. I.e. the surrounding context that Buddhism provides with other supporting and subsequent practices makes it more "stable".
[1] In the United States, European settlers did not always adopt the nixtamalization process, except in the case of hominy grits, though maize became a staple among the poor of the southern states. This led to endemic pellagra in poor populations throughout the southern US in the early 20th century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization
In fact there is a clinical application of mindfulness which is called cognitive behavioral therapy, it is proven through research to have great benefits for a lot of people, it is secular, and unlike Buddhism, it has never been a justification for murder and ethnic cleansing.
We should strip away the religion and focus on the scientifically studied and observed benefits, in my opinion.
Both:
1. Are a method that aim to reduce suffering
2. Focus on habits and
3. Observation of the current self
But they are really not the same, or related on a practical level.
If being carried away by emotions is like being lost than mindfulness is developing a good sense of direction. And mindfulness meditation is the practice through which one develops this skill.
I think you meant, "objectively"?
0: In Mind Full to Mindful (book on Zen/mindful meditation https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Full-Mindful-Wisdom-Monks-ebook/... ) Om Swami has given a method to do Emotional Hygiene and Cleansing (Osoji). It is about emptying the baggage we carry in our minds. Believing Zen, if everything is empty, we may as well realize that essence in practice and not think of it merely as a philosophical proposition.
I have been meditating for 1 hour to 1.5 hour every day for several years and I finally got into a stage called 1st Jhana, where your mind becomes temporarily free of all 'wants' and is completely at peace. In that state the awareness becomes super sharp, breathing becomes very shallow (less than 5 breaths per minute) and experience of time distorts. Your awareness can clearly watch thoughts coming up like 'lava bubbles' from your subconsciousness into your consciousness. It is at that point you get a glimpse into 'anatta' (non-self). The idea that there is no controller (or soul or self) that is creating ideas. It is an automatic process that is happening due to your past Karma (conditioning due to repeated practice).
It takes a lifetime to develop the wisdom and compassion that Buddha talked about. It cannot be understood purely using logic. You have to get the experience of a calm unbiased mind.
Even though people like her are well-intentioned but they should stop to think of the possibility that they may not understand what they are talking about as well as they think they do.
Never could reach that feeling ever again. But, it was transforming in the way that I humbly accepted that there are mystical cognitive states that are not produced by drugs.
I wish I could read the original Suttas in Pali but my language command is almost non-existent. So I have to rely on English translations by monks like Bhikku Bodhi and Bhikku Analayo.
Anatta doesn't mean no-self. It's a complex concept and is often mistaken.
Anatta has two parts to it:
1) Reality is broken up and labeled as two kinds. There is the present moment reality, before it has been labeled by the mind called paramārtha, and a reality of abstractions and labels over the first reality called saṁvṛti. (For further reading checkout the Two Truths Doctrine.)
Self is an idea, so it exists within saṁvṛti. Self is an abstraction, as is everything in this reality.
2) The abstraction of self is a combination of a bunch of elements, eg body, mind, and so on, to make the concept of self.
Anatta, then, is a set (Set Theory). In the ultimate reality of paramārtha there is no self. In the thought form reality, self is an aggregate/abstraction.
"Why teach this?" you might be thinking. Because it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. It's even obvious on a second examination.
The reason this is taught is if one thinks a thing is them (like their work) and that thing gets insulted, they instinctively feel like they need to defend it, which causes a lot of dukkha (psychological stress). If one realizes that thing is not them, then there will be no dukkha when it is criticized.
People mix up anatta (non-self / no-singular-self / no-soul) with no-self. No-self is a meditation practice, similar to noting, which one realizes bit by bit, every single thing that comes into their mind is not self itself, even if it is a piece that makes up the abstraction. All abstractions are made up from a series of parts.
imho, anatta doesn't need to be taught to do mindfulness meditation, but understanding impermanence is important, because without it most people try to fight stressful thoughts and change them, instead of thinking of them like rain clouds, to be observed, not modified.
Once the meditator sees the causal chain from observation to thought, action, or feeling, that is all they need to change their habits and live a happier and healthier life.
For further reading of the abstractions that make up self, checkout The Five Skandhas (https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Five_skandhas)
As Hofstadter once wrote, "It's turtles all the way down." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)
<3
Of course nihilism by definition is impossible. A belief in nothing is still a belief.
In the Prajnaparamita literature of Mahayana Buddhism the teaching is the emptiness of self and all phenomena, not the nonexistence of self and phenomena. There is a difference. Thich Nhat Hanh’s translation of the Heart Sutra explains it very clearly, and he argues that a lot of the confusion comes from an unskillful translation of the sutra. I’d recommend it to anyone that might be struggling with feelings of nihilism in their practice and is working from the wrong understanding of there being no self.
Edit: I realized there are a couple publications of Thich Nhat Hanh’s Heart Sutra, but the one I’m specifically referencing is published under the title The Other Shore. I’d suggest getting a copy of the book in order to get the full commentary, but the sutra and some motivation for it looks to be on his website: https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra...
I think one post asked the rhetorical question “who is in a position to know yourself better than yourself?”
To which I might reply: “Anyone but your yourself — especially your present self?”
There seams to be a ton of hubris and confusion of goals and objectives here.
Most of these posts don’t talk about growing but conquering. They use mindfulness as a tool to “learn about themselves” so that they might avoid themselves.
This might feel great, but it’s delusion.
The best way humans have figured out how to know anything is reciprocal accountability coupled with objectivity.
That either means opening up about your emotions honestly and presently with another person you love/trust, or writing down (or otherwise recording) your observations so you might evaluate them later over time.
We are more than ourselves, part of a collective, both presently amongst ourselves, and in time.
The measure of knowledge is how well our evaluations resonate with others and ourselves in time.
Mindfulness just allows us to make observations, not communicate them, or judge them accurately.
Frankly, the best way to communicate an emotion is often to embody it. It can also be the best way to observe it.
That’s how artists make art.
What matters isn’t what we feel but how we respond.
Mindfulness is a defense mechanism we use for short term relief from our emotions. It gives a vantage point, not the vantage point. It is a tool, and one that comes at the cost of using other just as valid tools.
Ultimately the measure of our well being doesn’t reside with our present selves alone. We err in so far as we forget this in my opinion.
I try to do 10-15min daily meditation exactly for this and it work.
Counterpoint for “researching” where your thoughts come and searching for the problem: As an anxious individual, my whole life was/is imprinted with anxiety, there is no root cause of it in what I’m thinking. That’s the brilliance of mindfulness, I can cope with the anxiety accepting my thoughts, without trying to change them.
Meditation is just another tool, although a very powerful one. Use it wisely.
In psychotherapy I have always encountered mindfulness as only a small part of a full treatment, not as a solution to everything.
To me it is a specific tool as well, I use meditation to focus and gain awareness of ruminating thoughts that have been bugging me throughout the day. Sitting down, focusing on the breath and then having the thoughts come back to me, I can see more clearly what is actually going on inside of me. It is important to be non-judgemental at this point, to allow yourself to become fully aware of the thought.
Afterwards I sometimes sit down and think about my feelings more. What personal character traits lead to this, and what was the context in which the feeling arose. This I connect to mentalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalization).
He filled up pages after pages on how to balance one's practice and avoid pitfall like that. The guy is a bit controversial (which I personally embrace), but he sure wrote more than anyone else about all those issues and a lot more. As the subtitle indicates, it is quite the hardcore reference.
Seems like author is biased on purpose. Entire central idea behind mindfulness is to be aware of your thoughts. i.e. not being lead into same issues by subconscious conclusions (hence breaking the cycle/loop). Well at least that's my interpretation anyways
Mindfulness works because it helps someone reach to conclusions on their own. Who knows you better than yourself
The articles always seem to try to be "contrarian" or "unique" for the sake of being different - "I've got something to tell you that you don't know and you haven't thought about".
I get that it's pretty much the point of aeon, but at some point it just gets annoying. It's almost like any kind of insight into something is way down the totem pole, below some kind of "shock, contrarian, unique" factor.
That said, this kind of careful study is lacking from the vast majority of so-called mindfulness meditation - which I think the author is totally right to call out. Teaching mindfulness outside of the full context of the Buddha's actual teachings (the Pali Suttas directly, or through teachers with years of practice and study) is - as he argues - never going to get you farther than a bit of destressing after work.
Here's Mahasi Sayadaw's discussion of selflessness for an example of defining anatta in terms of anicca and dukkha: https://www.budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-anat/anat05.htm
There's a lot going on here. So, I don't exist, and yet an effort to reach the state of non-existence needs to be made (sounds like some faith/belief is required here to even begin). And, thoughts are without a self, which follows from the non-self notion. That all makes sense within this philosophy, but what about free will?
It sounds like the state of non-self would be the essence of freedom, and therefore, choice, and not a fixed universe in which everything is preordained.
You have spent billions of years not existing, you will spend billions of years not existing, yet you also want to achieve this state of not existing within your comparatively short actual lifetime?
What a waste.
“You’re driving down the road, and another driver is doing something crazy, swerving about and you almost have an accident, and you think what an asshole!
Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first obscuration that prevents omniscience. Believing this thought to be true is the second obscuration (paraphrased) that cements the prevention of omniscience.”
It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to reality.
You know what else prevents omniscience? The second law of thermodynamics. So what?
> It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to reality.
Again, so what? Even the simplest biochemical processes inside my body are so complex and astounding, I have no hope of ever truly understanding even a tiny part of them. I have no issue with this. I have no issue with not truly knowing "reality", or with the prospect that understanding it is literally impossible.
From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue that nobody has a free will and that nobody is ultimately responsible for anything.
For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live.
Yes, sometimes your will to live makes you suffer. That doesn't mean killing off that will is "enlightened", or that the people who "tune out" are to be revered for it. You're rebranding a thinly veiled "sour grapes attitude" into a virtue.
> You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved.
This is a foolish belief. If there is no such thing as an "asshole", there is no such thing as "murderer". Remember, nobody is responsible for anything. It's all just part of the cosmic ballet! That's how Zen Buddhism helped the Japanese commit all those atrocities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War
Remember, not everyone actually buys into this philosophy, by their nature. Your brand of philosophy is one of weakness, of little resistance. It doesn't have the "tools" for survival on its own and it's easily exploited.
The comment I offered was an illustration that I found helpful in clarifying the Buddhist concept of non-self.
In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never led to disappointment.
Unless perhaps you were thinking I wrote omnipotence?
As for the traffic examples, having spent a while in countries where nobody really bothers to sanction other motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, push carts, cows, etc, strangely it works out okay. It’s almost like the drivers stopping to blow their horn and yell “asshole” create exponentially more problems further back up the web of traffic, than had they refrained from doing that.
It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't prove anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy.
Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement is in order.
> In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never disappointed.
Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a godlike superpower. It means "to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book.
> Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence.
No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".
I just spent a fair amount of time trying to unpack the Buddhist concept of non-self, and offered up something that I found to be a novel way of elucidating the significance and usefulness of non-self, and shone a light, for me at least, on the habits of mind which obscure the understanding.
In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. In a practical context, a literal adherence is not necessary to derive a meaningful understanding and experience.
For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration. The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact.
Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation.
I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that.
Of course not, you're a mindful person!
> I wasn’t presenting a philosophy.
You made statements of philosophical relevance, which were answered in kind.
> In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term.
Sure, in the context of psychobabble, any word can mean anything you want. If you asked Deepak Chopra about quantum mechanics, you would get a "wealth" of meaningless drivel that may nevertheless sound highly profound to the uninitiated.
> For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an obscuration.
A child that says they're "no good at math" is probably telling the truth. Let's suppose the child really wasn't good at math. They haven't had any practice, why should they be good at math? After all this practice, they may become good at math, but the child wasn't good at maths before. Their earlier self-assessment hasn't been proven false. It was true at the time and forever will have been true.
> The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact.
The statement "I'm no good at maths" doesn't actually imply such a "firmly-held belief". A statement like "I'm no good at math and I never will be no matter what I do" would. Perhaps a child might make such a statement. They're not really in the position to know, but the possibility exists that it is a more or less immutable fact. Dyscalculia is a thing, you know.
See, if I didn't make this distinction, you might get away with having said something that sounds profound. It really isn't!
> Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is all your creation.
I never called you a kook and I don't think you're kook. I think you're an ordinary person that, like many people, found some appeal in mindfulness. I'm not saying that mindfulness doesn't work or that subjectively it doesn't have benefits that outweigh the drawbacks.
However, the foundational teachings behind it are ultimately meaningless. They sound profound, but if you nail them down and try to get them to actually say something with a concrete meaning, they tend to fall apart. They are left intentionally vague to let your preconceived notions fill in the gaps. It's very persuasive.
In any event, you can't entirely divorce the foundation from the practice. That's the point of the article.
> I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism.
It's not that I don't like it. I'd like to like it! Nevertheless, I find it misguided. It deserves scrutiny like any belief system.
> That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about that.
I don't expect you to. Nevertheless, I appeal to maintain your critical thinking. Don't do too much non-thinking. You can do that when you're dead.
Another commenter (one of the first) made the point that “mindfulness” is an inaccurate translation of the Pali “sati”, which in the original context doesn’t mean much more than “remembering to be aware of the objects that your mind is attending to” - those objects being specific and often elaborate mental and emotional faculties. Sati is no system in itself.
Anyway, I only ever set out here to share a single illustrative example of “anatta” or non-self.
Have fun there.
Don't worry, I'm rarely disappointed. I try to keep my expectations low. In any event, your presumed identity (or lack thereof) is not really important to what I am saying.
> ... but like you, I also take issue with “McMindfulness”.
I don't necessarily have an issue with "mindfulness", that's just a technique of meditation as far as I'm concerned. Like other techniques of meditation, it clearly does something. I do think it can be beneficial, in the same way that hallucinogenic drugs can be beneficial.
Biochemically, these are similar in many ways. Yet, few people would dare claim that dropping acid can actually give you a deeper understanding about the nature of the universe. It sure can feel that way though.
> Another commenter (one of the first) made the point that “mindfulness” is an inaccurate translation of the Pali “sati”, which in the original context doesn’t mean much more than “remembering to be aware of the objects that your mind is attending to” - those objects being specific and often elaborate mental and emotional faculties. Sati is no system in itself.
See, I much rather have an issue with these foundational teachings. That stuff is woo-woo. That's the stuff you brought up.
What if one of your family members accidentally cut you off on the road, is your Aunt Bea now an "asshole", seeking to hurt you or otherwise recklessly endanger your life, or did she make an unfortunate mistake? What if she feels really bad about it? Do you still decide she's an "asshole"?
It is hate when you write someone off like that, and being angry at someone is not the same as hating them. You seem to have missed the larger point that a lot of strife around the world is caused by people who decide to hate others. This hatred arises from an emotional place and is the cause of a large majortiy of human conflict. Being in control of unbridled hatred for anyone that causes you an unpleasant emotion at some point is not a weakness, it's a strength. Being able to not write off someone who cut you off on the road is a very novice practice case in developing the same skill one would use when they decide not to hate an ethnic minority moving into their country, and this is a skill worth having.
It is taught to children in preschool, in fact, in the form of, don't go beating on that kid who took your toy, go and talk to them instead. This isn't religiosity or mysticism or anything else, it's simply taking the practice of being a considerate person into more of a real lifestyle.
Also this has nothing to do with buddhists and whether or not they've managed to be non-hateful people or not. You can pretty easily argue that humans are essentially hate-filled and that it's impossible to eradicate. It is our nature after all. But living a life drowned in hate is not how everyone chooses to live.
Two warnings about Metzinger, though: (1) a mood leaks through his writing, a sort of nihilistic determinism that his rigorous philosophy relentlessly evokes, but which his assertions do not imply; and (2) it is quite difficult reading, like a new Kant, lucid yet dense, requiring of a layman to assiduously infer and integrate the language of cognitive science.
Adjusting the environment is much more difficult and, in many cases, simply impossible.
To paraphrase an old folk tale, what is easier: making the entire land-surface of the Earth easier to walk on, or just putting shoes on one's feet?
Ans as far as the analogy goes, it might be hard to fix the entire surface of the earth, but that's a strawman, because we have plenty of urbanised and indoor areas where you don't need shoes.
What's the easiest? To cover the entire earth in asphalt, or make all cars be 4wd?
>Mindfullness tells you to observe your fears and other feelings
>but effectively ignoring them
How is observing equals ignoring? Observing allows you to detach and not take things too closely and as a consequence to act more "easily" if you choose consciously rather than unconsciously.
That hasn't been my understanding at all. The idea is to observe the feelings and name them so they no longer hold uncontrollable emotional sway over you, but rather you can recognize them for what they are, judge their validity, and act on them rationally and maturely rather than out of unexamined emotionality.
It's a kind of version of "if it's mentionable it's manageable" -- mindfulness turns "unmentioned" vague feelings into "mentioned" feelings you're now aware of and can deal with.
Mindfulness doesn't distinguish between what's valid or not -- it allows you to recognize things in the first place, then it's your own job to make those distinctions later.
In a sense, meditation seems very shallow, it's the very first step. Then come the techniques of self-hypnosis which lead to change and the real self-help. I don't think that acceptation is enough to make your life better, just a little less miserable.
I would say you clearly have not meditated enough :)
I would reply you have no idea how much you're leaving on the table by meditating instead of using auto-hypnosis.
The Australian author Eric Harrison does a good job at seperating the two. https://www.booktopia.com.au/the-foundations-of-mindfulness-...
I don't find this compelling. If anything 'you are not your feelings' reinforces the 'western' picture of a self that has (but is not identical to) feelings.
I can be ignorant of the nature of the self but still see that 'we are not our feelings' and 'there is no self' are not the same claim, or that the former implies the latter.
It's difficult for me to imagine a person that would not benefit from taking a break from the non-stop stream of thoughts and the overidentification that comes with it.
Also sailing non-stop for nine weeks in the ocean had been for me much better experience (in terms of emptying mind and getting in touch with myself) then any retreat (and I did some).
Of course to get to that state of mind you first need to learn by naively focussing on it, that there is more to the experience than what you can see at first. But that is like the additional wheels you put on a child's bike. It's supposed to be on there forever. It's just to get you started.
The goal is to oepn yourself to parts of the experience you didn't have before. For instance have you realized how much your body is automatically communicating your inner feelings through body language? Just keep thinking about your shoulders over the day and see how often they are actually raised as an unconcious way of protecting yourself. It can even happen when you brush your teeth because of what you are thinking about in that moment.
So when you are able to combine all these observations, and are able to not overwrite your observations by thinking too much, and be able to do it all the time without needing to expend any kind of energy on it, then you have achieved Mindfulness.
Even the guys in the text books that are praised so much probably haven't achieved it btw. They themselves would not even claim so. But the people who wrote the books were on a lower level where they thought they needed to expend energy to achieve something, e.g. by telling a more enhanced version of the story they might advertise the book or its philosophy to you.
There is no scientific proof that there is any difference between relaxing in an chair and meditating following a strict form. The core is: it is very good to give the brain a brake in our busy times.
But it is also proven that it can be dangerous to give the brain a break when you have a troubles mind. Things can emerge from the depths which you should find help for.
A nice writeup about this is an article from 2016: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindfulness-wellbein...
But there is also more recent recearch that backs this up.
So: meditation/relaxing can be very good to reduce stress and to think more clearly. But take care: "Meditation is not a therapy"
As long as you don't add a value judgment on top (my way is THE Way) I don't see the issue. A bit like how religions are frameworks for faith. You could make up your own gods and rituals but there is something reassuring in following existing norms with set principles and communities.
You can see the same pattern emerging everywhere. Gym workouts are the same, you can do random things until it feels right or you can follow one of the main school of thoughts and get it 90% right on the first try.
For example I always thought hypnosis and affirmations were 100% useless and borderline hippie bullshit. One day I tried a random hypnosis video on YouTube and it got me in a state of relaxation I never reached before. Might be placebo, but in the end it does the job.
Thoughts can be like knots: if you try too hard, the knots just get tighter. If you find a way to let go and be loose, the knots can come undone on their own. (Funnily enough, my advisor had spent years in a Zen monestary when he was younger.)
I’ve had the opposite experience as the author and have actually worked through a lot of my own thoughts through meditation. Or, rather, many of those thoughts have worked themselves out.
The thing to remember is that mediation itself is the goal. It’s great that meditating can have a lot of positive side effects; but chasing those side effects kind of misses the whole point.
David L. McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Buddhist-Modernism-David-McMah...
Most days I use the Lord Jesus’s prayer to reflect and pray about the day before/ahead. It’s an important part of my life and well-being. I’m curious to hear from other christians who embrace mindfulness. It is an alien concept for me to reflect inwards without looking outside myself to God. How does mindfulness rest with your christian faith in this regard?
Some would argue that meditation, mindfulness and prayer are not necessarily different.
Prayer - from the angle of communion with God - can be a two way street. You speak, you listen.
With mindfulness and many other meditations, you listen a lot. You can call what you're listening to yourself. Or God. Or Oneness. Or The Universe. Whatever it is, it helps you turn the lens of your introspection away from the noise and towards something quieter, deeper, and perhaps enlightening.
Don't forget that several monks from the 5th century to the present day promoted meditation ( eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_meditat... )
Even in the bible, all the times people went off to the desert to commune with God, I bet they were meditating and practicing mindfulness.
- Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 12 January 1965, Preface to Bhagavad-Gita
Anyone tried sensory deprivation tank (or floating as it’s now known)?
Floating to me is the easiest method to let go of the monkey mind without trying. Dr John Lilly (the inventor) took it few notches further taking various substances to heighten his experience. I’m sure some ppl need that sort of journey to let go of memory loops/ptsd, but not required to float.
Mindfulness, concentration - these are just techniques to help you focus for extended periods of time, and make better decisions.
You can meditate to understand your way to escape samsara, to build a better software architecture, or to kill all humans.
Given enough practice, your mind functions in a permanently altered state, becoming more alert, focused, open, and elastic whenever you’re awake (though lucid dreaming is another potential kick some people chase). Now you can set goals, prioritise better, procrastinate less, rather than just cruising along. This gives you significant competitive edge over the rest of the population.
That’s what all the fuss is about.
Meditation can be exhausting, especially at the beginning - steering your thoughts is hard. So, importance of sleep is often one of the first things people very clearly realise when they try to consciously control their thought process.
Keep in mind this publications whole brand is posting “contrarian” articles, so it’s not surprising to see this article which seems to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
Being able to distance oneself from them can definitely help. Just like it's often easier to figure out someone else's issues and their solutions (unless one is projecting or missing an important part of the picture)
Deepends on your karma.
People who start meditating often get on a pink cloud and they mistake that for a proof that meditation is working for them. As this feeling washes away with time some people get disapointed and give up while some try chasing it. Sort of like chasing runners high.
[meditation as any other sport attracts certain number of narcistic over-achievers with compulsion for controling reality]
But some people - no matter what attracted them to meditation - make suprising progress.
Also some people had been meditators in past lifes so they are naturals :-)
PS. Bear in mind that insight meditation / mindfulness is styling itself as millenia old practice but in fact had been created in 2nd part of XIX century as reaction to British colonialism.
First teaching of fan-down meditation for laypeople took place in Rangoon in 1911. Silicon Valey took it recently to next level with 10 minutes a day mindfulness apps.
Does it work? Well there are also 7-pushups-a-day apps. Do they work? Do they provide same benefits as professional years long athlete training?
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/my-new-meditation-app-ma...
When I hear minfulness I think of Jack Dorsey meditating in a private retreat in myanmar while the rohingya are being chased down the next street by a mob organised on twitter. A few years ago it was reading Marc Aurel and the stoics and now it's apparently meditation.
The irony of course being that the entire practise seems to have been commodified already, now we can all medidate with the premium subscription meditation app that wants us to get away from our subscription services.
Also, ignoring the genocide of the Rohingya while going on a Vipassana retreat speaks loudly about one’s personal ethics.
We aren't at peak mindfulness yet:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=mindfuln...
However I suspect that the early adopters have moved on and the people preaching mindfulness are not the same sort of people as those that have moved on from it. We are in 'Eternal September' and 'Who ruined Burning Man' territory.
Those that are actually 'mindful' and can 'do it' would probably never think they were being 'mindful', would not be going to the classes or even doing the formal meditation. Instead of plucking a raisin and focusing on how it fits in their navel they are more likely to be walking the dog with smile for friends they see en-route.
It is the same with Buddhism. Those that are first to claim to be in to it are highly unlikely to be in an way Buddhist. Their neighbour who happens to do a few things for a few people and help others out financially is far more likely to make the grade. You don't brag about being Buddhist, it is not how it works. But 'Buddhists' do.
It is like those people that insist on being called a grand title that they haven't necessarily earned. If 'a lady' insists on being referred to as 'a lady' then she probably isn't. Mindfulness is one of those things where 'mindful' people probably almost certainly aren't. The universe works this way.
A thing to watch for is that the topic of 'mindfulness' can be discussed ad-nauseum as per creationism. Anyone who hates it is going to be somewhat less than mindful about those deep in the cult. Equally those caught up by the fad are going to be going deeply un-mindful when it comes to chastising those that call the whole thing bogus.
The catch to this is that there is a bigger picture. Right now we don't have a lot of useful political involvement in the West, for instance the new UK leader was selected by 0.1% of the population, with them being very much drawn from the 1%. So we have these fairly insane politicians running the show whilst the mindful crew are telling people to do things with raisins. Exactly as per your anecdote.
The creationism idea was a deliberate 'wedge strategy' to get people talking about something silly whilst funding for serious science is whittled away. Who knows, but maybe some Heritage Foundation is behind 'mindfulness' with it being Wedge Strategy for containing dissent.
I think the analogy of the camera phone is useful for understanding these things. Cameras can default to point to the outside world or to point the other way, at the self. If you have the camera pointing at the self rather than the world then you aren't going to see the world but the world might see (and like) you. We are culturally okay with people who only post pictures of themselves, we idolise them as rock stars.
There is also a low barrier to entry when it comes to 'mindfulness'. Compared to learing something real - e.g. playing a musical instrument, speaking a foreign language, writing code in object oriented modules, being good at a sport, 'mindfulness' is pretty easy. You can't pretend to be fastest doing the local sport run, you have got to actually do it. Mindfulness is not something objective like that.
Haha, and all the rest well said.
Well, Stoicism turns out to be difficult.
SV couldn't make an app for that.. and profit
What's wrong with that? I don't mind good stuff to be commodified (like food, housing, health care, transport). Also you don't need to use an app, but if it's a good way to do it - why not? Also2: not sure why would meditation apps want you to get rid of, say, Netflix.
This reminds me of this quip by Richard Feynman:
In my personal experience, enlightenment is realizing, at the depth of my being, this prospective that nothing, absolutely nothing in this world, including my body, relationships, wealth and my possessions are going to last for ever; everything is impermanent and my problems are extremely tiny compare to the immensity of the universe, so I should take it easy and live life compassionately and kindfully. These positive emotions help me to experience and retain the bliss, peace and happiness
How to know someone is enlightened? Since I know what being enlightened is, the job becomes simple. Just observe that the person carries out himself in enlightened manner at all times; if he loses it in adverse/unacceptable situation, it means that he might be on the path but haven't reached to the other side yet.
There are also physical signs. There are no unnecessary bodily movements. The speech also becomes pleasing. Gestures are graceful. Such a person seems to emit a unearthly glow. People experience unconditional love and calmness in his presence. However physical signs aren't the definitive teller as most of these can be imitated for a limited public appearance. Hence the most important factor is the conduct.
Things you describe are perceived subjectively, so they can also be victims to my brain deluding myself.
How would you describe a state of mind in which you remain thoughtless as long as you want? Thoughts will only arrive in your conscious mind when you summon them and you can hold a thought as long as you want. You remain perfectly peaceful, tranquil without blabbering and urges of the mind without exerting as in meditation. Meditation is no longer an act but a state of your mind.
When your mind is perfectly under control without effort, you have become awakened (or enlightened), because now you truly possess a free will in the truest sense of the word. Earlier when your mind was in control, your innate tendencies were driving your actions, based on external stimuli. Anger, greed, lust, envy, fear and other negative emotions thrive in such a state of mind naturally and one has to exert to check them.
I'd urge you to try concentrative meditation, wherein one tries to hold a thought (could be visualizing a form, or listening to a sound ETC) and see the power of conditioned mind. Observe how long you can hold it. For instance, if you're visualizing a form, you may discover that within matter of few seconds it starts fading, dancing or completely gone. Similarly If you are meditating on sound, you will find that within few seconds your mind has distracted and you have to exert to retain your focus. The mind is not in your control and such a conditioned mind can form opinions and dilute you. But an enlightened mind, perfectly in control cannot have delusion and ever lives in present moment. Opinions and judgement are tools of a conditioned mind, ever fearful and constantly striving to ensure survival of the body.
That said, I'm not yet an enlightened being; I'm striving for it by walking path of meditation, kindness and chanting [0]. I do have experiences and glimses confirming most of what I've written, but I have not attained the final state yet. If you're truly curious and want to read, learn and practice more about this, I'd encourage you to read Om Swami's books. The one on meditation [1] takes you through the journey of a meditator with states and stages of mind and awareness that you'll find intriguing and hopefully interesting to pursue. Simple yet precise methods and practices have been given along with a method to measure one's progress.
0: I use Black Lotus app for logging and measuring my meditation and chanting sessions as well as random acts of kindness (RAKs) (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rt.pinpric...) - inspired by same author 1: https://www.amazon.com/Million-Thoughts-Meditation-Himalayan...
Secondly, let's say it's all true. Why is that so desirable?
> But an enlightened mind, perfectly in control cannot have delusion and ever lives in present moment
It's perfectly possible to live in the present moment and disregard the future even without meditation. That's not generally considered a good thing, though.
> Opinions and judgement are tools of a conditioned mind, ever fearful and constantly striving to ensure survival of the body.
Yes, your body has adapted to survival. What's wrong with that, why do you want to turn that off? You'll die anyway, are you really that impatient?
I guess if you're somehow in constant terror about the plight of existence, that might be a useful skill to have. Otherwise, I'd rather learn something else.
Exactly as in any other field of expertise. Through your practice, knowledge/experiences you gain from that practice. Mere reading the books doesn't take one far in any field.
> Secondly, let's say it's all true. Why is that so desirable?
Who says it's desirable to everyone? It's individual's choice. If you get pleasure in learning something else, feel free to do that.
But someone might also want to go to the source of pleasure so he can maintain state of pleasure at all times regardless of circumstances outside, meditation is one sure way to that. Just like a hard core engineer may want to know how the whole thing works down to transistor, some people eventually get this desire to experience their whole being down to one's soul and even the super soul. Such people aren't satisfied being mere servant to the needs of body or mind for whole of their lives. They want to experience the eternity if there's such a thing. It's an arduous but a rewarding journey, with wonderful experiences at every little milestone on the path. But this thread isn't an appropriate place to write details about them.
Btw if you are thinking meditation or enlightenment means withdrawal from the world, or becoming something inert or passive, or stop enjoyment/learning, then you've not understood it correctly.
But as you said, you're not quite there yet. How do you know that what you described is really achievable? What else can you do but take other people by their word? Some people claim that through meditation, they could literally levitate. What's to stop anyone from just claiming something that's impossible to prove wrong?
It's not that I doubt meditation can have profound effects on one's psyche and well-being, but at some point I just don't don't buy it, like when you speak of a "constant state of pleasure". I don't think that's physically possible, at some point the receptors in your brain will need time to recover.
I've read somewhere that it takes 10k hours to master anything. Let's consider example of a musical instrument, say Piano, that you're learning. It will take you 10k hours of sincere practice to reach to a state of mastery in which playing piano will be a subconscious, effortless act, you'd be able to listen to any song and start playing it. However, this effortless will be preceded by state of conscious competence in which you can play a song after listening it, but it takes some effort and even then, it's not perfect. You know you're progressing but you're not there yet. You can see the goal but you also know that it'll take good effort to reach there.
Another advantage you have at this stage is you can appreciate the expert player from a charlatan. It's not easy to fool you anymore.
So, you can consider me that 3k hours pianist re meditation. I started practicing meditation in 2014 inspired by this HN post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041
>> The Really Unexpected My forehead caught on “fire”. No--really. This was the single strangest event of the entire challenge, and I have no explanation for it, but what took place was that after about 30 days, the centre of my forehead felt like it was emitting or radiating what I can only describe a kind of heatless, lightless flame.
I started in June2014 and my first experience happened in about a month. I've never stopped meditating daily ever since (apart from some not-so-frequent days of urgent work/function/illness) (I try to do it in three sessions in morning/evening/night) The experiences continue to come. Then if you read books by expert meditator, you'll be able to relate their experiences with yours.
> Some people claim that through meditation, they could literally levitate. What's to stop anyone from just claiming something that's impossible to prove wrong?
Why do you believe such a claim? Let that person demonstrate it if he's so claiming. You don't have to believe anything or anyone. But at the same time, you shouldn't reject something without giving it a chance. Both of these are functions of a conditioned mind blinded by a sense of superiority that what it knows is the truth and that it cannot be wrong.
ON a related note, the problem for spirituality is that people get attracted to it by these stories of wonderful powers that they can gain, and lose the sight of true goal of Yoga: to reach to a state of union with one's eternal, imperishable atman (soul). That's actually a good test of expert: he will not sell meditation or other practices as a means to attained powers. He knows such powers (even if considered possible for a moment) are a hindrance in awakening and these are just another form of material entertainment for the conditioned mind while the goal is to rise above conditioning to experience state of oneness with the universe; with atman. Once you have become that, you can yourself verify if you really can get these powers, chances are, you will no longer be interested in them.
> but at some point I just don't don't buy it, like when you speak of a "constant state of pleasure". I don't think that's physically possible, at some point the receptors in your brain will need time to recover.
Who says you won't need rest? As long as you're in this physical body, you'll need rest. But the source of your joy will be within rather than dependent on external factors like money, appreciation, fame, success ETC. which keep on changing. You'll be able to maintain your state of inner peace and bliss even in absence of these.
that's the point - with ridiculous claims like levitation there's simple way to verify them. with psychological claims of enlightenment - there's no way to verify them. you basically took people on their word and are trying to achieve the same, but how can you know they didn't fool you and you're not fooling yourself? how can you know your brain isn't creating an illusion of enlightenment just so you stop depriving it of dopamine?
But you're right, there's no need to make it a life commitment. There's no need to do anything, really.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20544412 and marked it off-topic.