Meditation as Wakeful Relaxation: Unclenching Smooth Muscle
psychotechnology.substack.com
psychotechnology.substack.com
It's great that westerners are exploring these things, but I can't help but think the strong aversion people have for things not being "proven" by western science is holding everyone back. This is literally yoga and meditation practice and has been studied for at least a couple thousand years.
Even if we exclude the modern invention of yoga as exercise in the 20th century, there are seated practices of releasing these tensions in the body. It's not even framed in mystical terms, it's literally just opening the body and getting rid of discomfort, pain, and stress in the body so that you can sit and focus for longer periods of time in your formal meditation practice.
Even in the author's teacher's capital V Vipassana tradition, invented in the 20th century, it is known that the piti that arises even in the first stages of meditation can be directed. That weak piti is just the piloerection response, which is an autonomic response, and if you can control it it would seem to imply we of course have facility over things science assumes we have no control over.
What are the objective benefits of meditation - what is the exact/specific process and what specifically does it accomplish?
I can see how being in a silent reflective state and similar practices could have various effects and benefits (not that I know specifically what those are) - but what separates me zoning out in the shower/on the bus from actual meditation? How is 'guided' meditation when you're actively listening to someone else even the same thing?
Whenever I ask my meditating/'spiritual' friends about these things the response is basically vague undecipherable gibberish and allusions that it is unexplainable to someone like me who is not ready to accept the truths lol.
This seems like a red flag because it can be used to justify anything, even being in a cult. I think there probably are benefits to some of these things, but we shouldn't shut down when someone asks what the mechanism is. Perhaps they want to get some of those benefits, but want to go about it a different way, and therefore want to know how they might go about doing that.
Telling them that someone who wants to be "sold" on it isn't going to benefit just makes the whole thing seem less legit, IMO.
You’re unlikely to see a buddhist missionary asking if you’ve heard to truth about emptiness on a street corner ;)
My point was simply that, at least in my personal experience, if i had found zen as a tool to achieve something, e.g it was sold to me as having some effect other, it would not have worked.
And if you do, kill him! ;)
That made me lol, because yes I've never experienced that. But then I remembered that SGI had a lot of controversy due to their aggressive proselytizing in Japan in the 20th century. [1]
Also, we do have to bear witness to Theravadin monks in Myanmar advocating for (and participating in) genocide against the Rohingya due to their religious beliefs. Similarly in Sri Lanka against Tamils and Muslim populations there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dsei_Toda#Aggressive_pro...
If you had never read a book before, and someone was trying to convince you to try it, what could they point to that would fulfill all your criteria? Would it be enough to say it makes you smarter? That's not very specific. It sharpens your thinking? Makes you more empathetic? That would all seem like 'vague undecipherable gibberish' if you had no experience with it. They might resort to saying that it can connect you with a great dialogue that has been occurring for over two thousand years, but as you say, the fact that people have been doing it for thousands of years doesn't make it interesting or valuable.
Seeing a study that some part of the brain responds more quickly for up to 90 minutes after reading or that people with gardens live 0.28 years longer on average would not make me want to do those things more, because those are NOT the benefits of doing those things. You have to figure out what you're supposed to do with your one human life. Science is one tool, culture is another. Neither of them makes the other superfluous.
It accomplishes many things - specifically granting entertainment, pleasure, etc that practitioners like.
> It seems to me that you are starting from the viewpoint that everything has to prove its worth before you accept it
I'm starting with the viewpoint that there are literally thousands of various different practices out there have have existed for a long time and have been practiced by many people. Many of these are complete bullshit. How do you filter out the good from the bad/useless?
> even if millions of people before you have found it fulfilling and worthwhile
Millions of people have found many many different things fulfilling and worthwhile over the ages, some of these things we've since realized are bullshit/bad. Do you accept every single belief/practice based on how popular it has been?
> If you had never read a book before, and someone was trying to convince you to try it, what could they point to that would fulfill all your criteria?
They could say: it's entertaining/interesting/pleasurable, they could say that knowledge/insights are contained in books, that different/interesting perspectives and other people's thoughts are contained in books (which are objective facts), etc. Saying 'it makes you smarter' is vague and unconvincing.
You try them for yourself. Accept no substitutes for this.
Also, many practices confer the best benefits after a significant time commitment, so even if you optimize for number of things, you still won't actually be experiencing them in the same way as their proponents do.
Given the vast amount of experiences, practices, and tools available to us, I think it's pretty reasonable that most people seek out at least some level of external curation.
He wants to know for sure, he'll have to see for himself. That's actually one of the very useful generalizable lessons you can learn on this path.
Of course you won't be able to experience everything? That's a feature of the universe. You won't even be able to hear about everything. It's up to the individual to decide their breadth/depth ratio, but at a certain point you need to, pardon my french, "shit or get off the pot".
A lot of beginners are so bad at this that some amount of guiding back to the goal is helpful. Many can only go a few seconds without getting fixated on passing thoughts.
Practicing one's ability to focus on a single thing and reducing mind-wandering will improve one's capability for concentration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatha-vipassan%C4%81#:~:text...
But this is only one form of meditation. There are others, such as Maitrī/mettā meditation.
(can't remember their exact chat about that EBT translation compared to Bodhi or Brahm in whichever of the miriad of Buddhist Society of Western Australia talk/retreat videos I heard it discussed)
e.g. in https://suttacentral.net/mn44/en/sujato
mindfulness of body sensation, feeling, thought and principle bringing enough equanimity to start ignoring it all really easy, though the moral aspect can't be separated because doing not wholesome actions will leave you thinking about them
Generally speaking, meditation shouldn't be interrupted by too many instructions. Most common is no instructions during meditation, or instructions only when a shift in practice is being done. Otherwise, most of the instructions are before starting meditation.
There is no one form of meditation, and each practice has different results, but the majority of them share proven reductions in anxiety, stress, depression, and improvements in all sorts of gauges of mental well being.
One of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism is the interdependence of all phenomena [1], and when you begin your practice you'll start seeing that when you sit, you might notice less daily anxiety, which might translate into better physical health. Or you might notice that being slightly less depressed makes you engage in your relationships with friends and family better. You might notice that your hips open up, which might mean less lower back pain.
The point being there are tons of positive benefits from a meditation practice that don't include some metaphysical nonsense that might be hard to take at face value. As my meditation teacher often emphasizes, if the practice doesn't deal with your day to day, quotidian problems of being alive, then it's just nice philosophy and nothing else. The Buddha taught that we should put first things first, and that's dealing with the suffering and stress of our lives. [2]
Also, "zoning out" is pretty much the opposite of meditation. Meditation is to be fully without distraction, whereas "zoning out" is giving in completely to the distraction.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow
What does “western” have to do with anything? There is plenty of pseudoscience, snake oil and magical thinking in the west. I’d wish people were much more skeptical of anything not scientifically proven.
Or do you imply there is a racist component to it? That could certainly be true.
The concrete results would thus be highly specific to the subject and their learning process on what they themselves deem relevant.
I-ching / tarot can be looked at strictly as systems for structured introspection.
There are methods to prove subjective things like "feeling better." There is in fact a lot of research that shows that meditation and exercise like Taichi is good for you.
Humans will not be able to evolve until we eradicate religion from the earth.
Longevity of ideas is not correlated with usefulness. Our belief systems are not optimized; they are, like genetic evolution, just 'good enough' to allow survival.
This is it exaclty. These folks always forget that it's not the only idea we've heard today. It's basic cost/benefit. This takes 45 minutes to an hour to try out. If it works you "feel better" where "better" is hard to define. Cost = 45 minutes. Benefit = Meh.
Since there are about 1 billion things in the world that claim to make me "feel better" at a cost of 45 minutes each I have to really narrow my focus. I can't spend 45 billion minutes for "Meh."
In my case this made enough sense that I tried it when I was young and liked it. A lot of folks spent those 45 minutes on something else that seemed more likely to succeed. It's perfectly rational.
> This is literally yoga and meditation practice and has been studied for at least a couple thousand years.
> Even if we exclude the modern invention of yoga as exercise in the 20th century, there are seated practices of releasing these tensions in the body.
You are very clearly opposing eastern meditation practice and science, saying science held westerners back but let me give an example...
I've got a tense spot somewhere, I do practice meditation since a long time and I definitely can relax myself using breathing techniques etc. That's great.
But one of my very best friend lost, 15 years ago, both kidneys and had a kidney transplanted from his mom (she was compatible and willing to give one). As to my wife, she suffers from an auto-immune disease: but thanks to medication she lives a normal life (and thankfully doesn't have a reduced life expectancy).
So my questions is simple: you talk about "thousands of years". Easterners had "thousands of years" and they can... Release tension in the body?
Shall we now have a talk about science and ask the inverse question: weren't easterners held back by their meditation practice while westerners invented: MRI, X-ray, antibiotics, insulin, kidney transplantation, heart transplantation, artificial heart, in vitro fecondation, polio vaccine, anesthesia, chemotherapy, stethoscope, microscope, ...
And that's just a tiny list. I could go on and on. Versus... Relaxing tension in the body?
I'm not exactly sure who's been held back by what here.
This is a common misconception among those used to modern “western” medicine: while “eastern” medicine does have a range of options to deal with existing medical conditions the emphasis is always on prevention (there’s a famous Chinese medical maxim along the lines of it being better to fight the enemy outside the city walls than inside) whereas Western medicine mostly pays lip service to the idea (for reasons that unfortunately mostly come down to money).
There is no denying that our modern medicine is superior in treating the immediate symptoms (which may well be life threatening) including surgery.
The relaxation exercises being discussed are really there just for the purpose of making sitting meditation effective, essential to stop the body getting in the way of the practice and that is all. In a way the body (and the associated work required to keep it in health) is seen as a necessary evil by those on the spiritual cultivation path.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, what I take issue with is that many westerners try to ignore thousands of years of investigation and practice, to only waste a lot of time trying to come up with things on their own. And not even by following a map already laid out while collecting data or whatever, they're trying to discover the map on their own.
The author was contemplating an idea that is a pretty basic, known concept. Like absolutely, let's collect a bunch of data with some meditators doing various practices and see what's going on with transformations of smooth muscle over time. But let's not push away the millions of people that have done these practices just because they're Asian or wearing robes or talk about Nirvana/Samsara and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I'm grateful to modern scientific discovery and I'm also grateful to all the teachers on this path that have helped liberate my mind. Both can be true at the same time. We shouldn't get caught up in thinking of things in binaries.
[1] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.th...
Science is characterized by objective empiricism; it relies on third-person observation, quantifiable data, and the principle of falsifiability to build a predictive model of the external, material world. Its goal is to establish "public" knowledge that remains true regardless of who is observing it.
In contrast, many traditions within Eastern philosophy are rooted in disciplined phenomenology or first-person inquiry. Rather than seeking to measure external objects, these traditions provide a systematic framework for investigating the nature of consciousness and the "felt" quality of experience from within.
While science seeks to explain the mechanisms of reality through a detached lens, Eastern philosophy seeks to realize the nature of being through direct, subjective realization.
That's only really true of the natural sciences. Cultural sciences (humanitas) are of a different kind. Here, we don't look for universal truths and laws but for meanings and interpretations. And they come from the Western philosophical tradition.
In a scientific world where we have already acknowledged that perception itself can change the quality of the objects observed, that the obsever himself stands within an economy of the material he is observing, why is there an insistence here on a strong subject/object distinction? I think this is only because of a misunderstanding of “oriental” philosophy against “western” philosophy. But there is a reason Oppenheimer qoutes the Bhagavad Gita, it wasn’t arbitrary—if you read the text yourself, you will find the distillation of the grammatical principles above as an ontology.
In the Gita, there is a “detached,” method of accessing being, but it is moreso reccomended for those who are not capable of living in the world, whose Dharma is not to live a life of activity. As Krishna tell Arjuna, nobody cannot avoid acting at any moment, the world is composed of myriads of actions and reactions, the results of which we cannot ever fully know and should live at a remove from. This would be an embrace of an “objective” universe, an unpredictable universe, a universe full of movement and energy—far more objective, I would say, far more immersed in the object, than any “subjective” understanding could possibly fulfill. But here there are no subjects, there are no objects, there are only, as Latour might’ve said (though he abandoned it later), actors and actants, there is only activity.
I would like to learn the Gita. Everytime I feel is overly repetitive with to much Krishna praising. Do you have any Bagavad Gita book recommendations that goes into the kernel of the teaching without all that noise?
Goldman’s Devavanipravešika [0] was what I learned Sanskrit from, that will teach you the grammar but Sanskrit grammar is notoriously difficult to learn, it functions almost like a computer language (though, not quite), it was the first formalized language, formalized into a system of thousands of rules that young kids of the upper castes would spend years memorizing. This book is a much simpler way to learn the grammar, but it still won’t be easy.
>Do you have any Bagavad Gita book recommendations that goes into the kernel of the teaching without all that noise?
Any interpretation you read will have some measure of sectarian influence, even my interpretation is quite contemporary, I’m drawing from more recent currents of thought to discuss the Gita in terms of an economy of force—-a good stepping stone between the text itself and this contemporary thought would be this volume of essays, in particular “The God and the Warrior,” by Mario Tronti, which touches on these things directly [1]. In the end it will be up to you, after your own studies, to form your own interpretation and your own relationship to the work.
[0] https://avg-sanskrit.org/avgclasses/Books&PDFs/TextBooks/Dev... [1] https://assets.kingston.ac.uk/m/ced5eece7fb5ed9/original/Voc...
But what I do find to be a little misguided is what I pointed out from the author's statement. There is a tendency in western circles to push away everything and not only just try to recreate based on first principles, but push those first principles away as well. The author was pondering a question that millions before her have done the practice of, without looking to any of those millions for a guide. Instead, I'd say listen to them, practice it, and if it doesn't work, discard it.
[1] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.th...
That has been my experience as well. I have developed my own little technique around this idea, where you invite tight areas of your body to soften and spontaneously make tiny stretching or unwinding movements - without forcing, bracing, or following a scripted routine. I call it Intuitive Release.
This evolved from my meditation practice, I simply observe sensations in my body. (I tried meditating "normally" (focus on breath) but all this pain kept coming up!)
One of the techniques I arrived on through trial and error is simply asking the energy if it wants/needs to release itself. And then just allowing it to do so. Giving it permission as you say!
So far in every case I have tested, every bundle of pain in my body, the answer has been yes.
The hardest part is just being willing to let it do whatever it needs to do, which can be very odd and a little overwhelming sometimes. But you get used to it very quickly!
the idea is to observe with clarity the counteraction and let the sharp sensation arise and pass without the counteraction/resistance.
There could be many other effects as well. There can be sharp pain. There could be dull throbbing. It can feel like stuff is moving around (especially in the gut area, which seems to respond to such a process with actual physical movement).
Basically it's pretty weird if you're not used to it.
But in my experience, the fear of what we might experience is almost always greater than what we actually do experience. Which I think applies to life in general as well.
It sounds like you have come to a practice very similar to a lot of the Burmese traditions of insight meditation, which is quite fascinating.
his program is basically exactly this, body awareness and manipulations. i felt better when i was doing it, need to get back on the horse too probably.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness#Watching_the_breat...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_muscle_relaxation
Tried it, works, does exactly what the author wants. And while it is a meditation technique, it skips all the religious nonsense and focuses on the relevant.
this school of thought even often ignores a fair portion of the abhidama texts ("about dhamma", the meta commentaries) that started to form a number of years after the death of the Buddha
if anyone wants a seriously good deep deep deconstruction of the main mindfulness sutta/sutra from this perspective, podcast kinda form, see https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL70fWqztn7OXdbGqWEOvhOVqf...
For years afterwards I had pain that floated everywhere from my head to my upper back, neck, shoulders, etc, also had something like sciatia affecting one leg that I blamed from overdoing Yoga. It was definitely exacerbated by stress.
In 2021 I had something that was half midlife crisis and half mental health crisis that had me on my back foot until quite recently. My dentist had long told me I ground my teeth and should get a bite guard but I didn't take any action until the summer of 2021.
Within two days the pain focalized completely to my jaw and became agonizing. I definitely had the jaw clicking sign of TMJ disorder. For about six months I was on a strict regimen of eating very little solid food, instead I would throw random foods into a pot (like turnips, seaweed, beef, crazy stuff) and cook them like soup then grind them up with an immersion blenders. And I drank shakes from Burger King whenever I wanted.
I had a lot of emotional growth in that time and the pervasive anxiety I had went away. There was a day when I looked back and realized I just hadn't thought about the pain in my jaw for a long time. Maybe one day every few months my jaw bugs me a little.
I had another time when I was self-employed and not getting enough work and had terrible tendinitis in my hands which cleared up when I started doing push-ups.
That's my model for chronic pain and getting over it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110928024235/http://jerome.let... (PDF)
Machine brain interfaces can reliably model thought to action of using ones arm, for example.
But it cannot model "feeling". It's, as of that interview, an intractable problem to map all electrical activity in us given external stimuli. Every body "feels" a cold stimulus in a different part of their. This wasn't qualitative either; imaging technology shows activity unevenly occurs across every human body. Put an ice cube on someones hand, their left knee tissues may react. Put ice cube on another person's hand, back of their neck reacts not their left knee.
Then there are stories of people missing the majority of their brain but only learned this medically after living a normal life; going to college, holding a career together for a couple decades.
Brain-centrism was just as dumb as our other takes that attempt to demarcate a center to our center-less universe. Even just practically speaking, I know a lot of PhDs who cannot cook or rotate a tire. Where is the intelligence in letting oneself end up such a helpless, and thus codependent, tool?
Even what we consciously experience as the brain is really only a tiny part of the brain.
The little language centre and the capacity to imagine are only a tiny subset of a multitude of brain functions and yet we believe that those two functions make up “me”. Actually it’s just those two functions telling a story that they are me.
What differentiates this practice from the natural science is its study of subjective phenomena, as opposed to objective physicalities.
https://firekasina.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-fire-k...
What should it be if there is no burden of stress or negative impression of any emotion? Why rid of stress? It comes and goes, it is as fleeting as relaxation.
I guess meditation is a insight into there being no problem to solve, once that insight is clear, there is no need for meditation.
It's usually from some person that has not spent very much time meditating at all or invested much time around the various cultures which treasure and pride themselves in their meditative practices. It usually goes something like:
"[Some kind of reasoning], therefore, there is no need to meditate."
I'd like to provide an analogy which I think fits:
We use our muscles every day. If you just use your muscles well, there's no need for strength training!
And sure, I mean, that KIND of works. But like... There's a LOT of research around the benefits of strength training. And there's a multitude of reasons why someone might want to get involved in strength training. Very few people aspire to become powerlifters, etc.
IMHO, it's a dangerous view to take, as it can lead to dismissal of a lot of fantastic use cases, and it leads to people dismissing meditation outright ("No doctor, my friend said that if I just move correctly, I don't need strength training!").
And yes, similar to strength, there's no upper limit on training for things like focus, concentration, mindfulness.
There's no 'need' for meditation sure, but by that logic there's no 'need' for most things.
What seems to be true to me is that it's absolutely fantastic in terms of technologies available to us for self (and also society)-improvement.
Strength training is a good example because it is an immensley stressful activity with adaptations that sometimes go into tics.
I believe I’ve read accounts of experienced meditators also stressing themselves to the verge of lunacy. Some even deal with panic attacks , unannounced, despite lecturing on inner peace.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8380174/
In general psychosis-proneness is a quantity that people have more or less, some people have harmless hallucinations or "unusual experiences" but psychosis-prone people have more trouble when they are under more stress. Some researchers think that meditation practice could be protective
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01856-y
Personally mindless use of the word "mindful" is a pet peeve of mine because I knew somebody who would talk about mindfulness just before he walked into an open pit. Also back when I was more anxious I always thought my mind was "full" by default and wanted to empty it, I found that many practices would just fill my mind up with more noise.
Ironically (or not), there is a Buddhist story about this...
A monk comes to see his master, and announces that he had achieved perfect mindfulness.
The master said, "That is wonderful! And, when you came in, how many umbrellas were by the door?"
The monk realized he had not achieved perfect mindfulness.
https://www.skepticspath.org/blog/what-is-the-science-of-med...
The idea of no longer needing formal meditation after enlightenment isn't new.
Maybe you should actually share a link if you're so sure, instead of crying about being antagonized?
> I often have very strong knee-jerk reactions to these kind of comments.
OK, YOU have an overwhelmingly emotional reaction to these comments. That is not a very successful path to understanding anything.
> It's usually from some person that has not spent very much time meditating at all or invested much time around the various cultures which treasure and pride themselves in their meditative practices. It usually goes something like:
> "[Some kind of reasoning], therefore, there is no need to meditate."
I do not see anyone arguing anything remotely like this. Perhaps your "knee-jerk reactions" are distorting what people are saying.
Your comment makes as much sense as saying that once you've moved the heavy weight to a new position there's no more need for weightlifting.
It is often said that if you go into meditation with a goal to improve yourself that you will probably be disappointed. I guess I would say that meditation is as much about unlocking your intuition as it is about anything else, so consciously trying to improve yourself through meditation does seem to miss the point of the practice.
That may be your goal and it’s a fine one. It’s a not accurate as a blanket statement.
For context I am speaking in the context of being a practicing Zen Buddhist. But that’s only one other of many perspectives.
The thinking mind cannot simulate its effects.
The thinking mind assumes it is the whole mind. Meditation reveals it to be a tiny subset. Which cannot experience or simulate its superset.
A discussion at the level of this subset is by definition limited.
Among other things, the practice changes the meaning of “I”.
Very western version of meditation to view it as a tool to achieve something with.
Thats exactly what makes meditating so hard for westerners, just sitting, not actively doing anything, no external constant stimulation.
Instead, the ultimate role of meditation is to experience your inner reality. And it's really the experience that is important, just thinking about it doesn't have the same effect
I thought that the point was to reduce suffering.
You also need to calm your mind, reduce your anxiety etc but as a prerequisite
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samatha-vipassan%...
Meditation as a form of relaxing is practicing Samatha, and meditation to see things as they are is Vipassana. in reality both work in tandem, but Vipassana is the goal. (Vipassana is Buddha's innovation here - meditation in other religions is more like Samatha)
The main thing is that learning about the true nature of things at an intellectual level isn't enough in Buddhism. It's, like.. there are parts of your mind that are unaffected by what you learn intellectually, you need to actually experience things yourself to influence your unconscious mind
It becomes insight if it actually feels true.
"It feels like there is no problem to solve" is a synonym of being relaxed.
All perceived sensory information is thought.
I've discovered recently the two indeed are opposites and meditation is considered to be a kind of wakefulness, that I personally find no benefit in.
People who are in need of relaxation I therefore find do not want or need meditation as it enforces a moderate kind of wakefulness.
They either should in this alternative view, rest (which is an unfocused and unforced state whereas meditation maintains some kind of focus and attention) or engage in something "wakeful" which might naturally involve having attention.
Its basically guided meditation with visualization, but you guide yourself. It does exactly this, but faster, once you master it. It also allows you to fall asleep quickly.
Search "stair step induction" for a quick example to try out.
https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/sujato
anecdotally, I had a late PoTS (postural static tachycardia syndrome, blood vessels don't autonomically constrict correctly depending on posture) diagnosis, then hypermobile EDS (tissue that's more floppy)
I realised on body scan relaxations that
a) a pain arose in most body parts as I tried to gently allow a letting go of tension in that part, like something I had to shake off, kinda like DOMS though also similar to the body tension pain I get as a certain kind of autistic person repeatedly failing a task,
n b) that any however much relaxed part very quickly subconsciously tensed up once again within seconds of my focus moving to a new part. chronic tension from 1) needing to tense for blood to better flow, n 2) trauma. I've had masseurs tell me my muscles fight back, n fwiw prolapse op from the EDS, n I get pregabalin for the tension pain
The less reactive we are to the need to reset, the less the distractions control us.
And, the more reseating our mind becomes an instinctive habit, the more wind is lost for distractions. And the more likely the distraction cycle fades or lengthens.
The goal isn’t to never have to reseat our minds. Just be better at holding our minds. On what we choose. Something simple at first, like breathing. Wider focused awareness as we get meditation muscle, like listening to our physical body, then our feelings, then our day, then the trajectory of our life, our values, etc. Whatever is important to visit regularly with the whole focus of our mind.
The ability to meditate spills into our days. We get better at choosing and maintaining our focus on what is important.
We can view the distractions as the workout of a steep hike. Not the problem at all, but the terrain, chosen precisely to require adaptation to overcome.
But everyone is different, and our minds and nervous systems are complex, so that’s just one take.
You must learn to sit perfectly still with every muscle tense for long periods.
Various things will happen to you while you are practising these positions; they must be carefully analysed and described.
Note down the duration of practice; the severity of the pain (if any) which accompanies it, the degree of rigidity attained, and any other pertinent matters.
When you have progressed up to the point that a saucer filled to the brim with water and poised upon the head does not spill one drop during a whole hour,
and when you can no longer perceive the slightest tremor in any muscle; when, in short, you are perfectly steady and easy, you will be admitted for examination;
and, should you pass, you will be instructed in more complex and difficult practices.