Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Problem of Mindfulness

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#41

Post by ElFitz »

lottin wrote: post #26

What about... reflection? To me it seems a far more effective approach to self-knowledge. Reflect on your life and experiences in a detached manner. Have a conversation with someone you trust or with yourself. Ask yourself unsettling questions. Answer them honestly. It's amazing the things you can learn this way.

It can be hard when one is too... "entangled" with one's own issues, feelings and deeply carved thought patterns.

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)

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#42

Post by quakingaspen »

While this article has a number of problems that have already people have astutely already brought up, no one has yet mentioned his misrepresentation of the content and location of anatta in Buddhist philosophy. Anatta is just one the three characteristics of existence that mindfulness allows one to see directly in one's own experience. The other two are anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (sufferering). Defining any one of these on its own very difficult because they are so interrelated, despite being distinct concepts. In fact, it is traditional to define each of these in terms of each of the other two (and especially anatta, which is usually regarded as the most difficult to gain direct understanding of). If you don't take care with your definitions in this way, it's easy to argue with Buddhist philososphy on Western metaphysical terms instead of on it's own terms. In this case, the author represents anatta as being roughly equivalent with the metaphysical claim that there is no soul or "an underlying subject of our own experience". But that is not at all the claim made by annata: rather than simply being a doctrine of no-self, anatta holds that there is no permanent (anicca) and coherent/satisfactory (dukkha) self. From this definition it does not follow that "one is not one's feelings" or that one's feelings are not oneself. Though these are both true in a certain sense, the real insight of anatta (along with anicca and dukkha) is that it allows one to see right here and right now that neither of these statements make sense at all, because the dualism they assume is experientially and metaphysically false.

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

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#43

Post by fhennig »

altonzheng wrote: post #31

I've fallen into the trap of similar thinking as the author, and I agree, the main issue is believing that mindfulness is a panacea. The more we suffer the more we hope for simple solutions. I really wanted to believe that meditate more == be happier. For my neurotic and driven personality, this meant obsessively meditating, and I began deconstructing and disidentifying from every negative emotion using mindfulness.…

I'll add to the "meditation is a tool".

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).

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#45

Post by mtalantikite »

Barrin92 wrote: post #38

the thing that rubs me the wrong way about mindfulness is how it sits neatly between secularism, spirituality and obsessive self-improvement, it's exactly the sort of thing "high performers" who are full of themselves are drawn to. No value commitments, little meaningful connection to the real world, it's the sort of replacement for religiousness you expect to find in a tech mecca, which is of course where it has bee…

Yes, all of this. The idea that meditation can and should be a productivity hack to serve capitalism is perverse.

Also, ignoring the genocide of the Rohingya while going on a Vipassana retreat speaks loudly about one’s personal ethics.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#46

Post by crazygringo »

badpun wrote: post #3

I've had very similar thoughts about mindfullness. Mindfullness tells you to observe your fears and other feelings and see that they come and go, while it does not focus at all on whether and to what degree they are actual valid and important. Feelings are often signals from your subconsciousness, which is trying to tell that something. Of course, a lot of the time these signals can be BS or blown out of proportions…

> while it does not focus at all on whether and to what degree they are actual valid and important

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.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#47

Post by Theodores »

Barrin92 wrote: post #38

the thing that rubs me the wrong way about mindfulness is how it sits neatly between secularism, spirituality and obsessive self-improvement, it's exactly the sort of thing "high performers" who are full of themselves are drawn to. No value commitments, little meaningful connection to the real world, it's the sort of replacement for religiousness you expect to find in a tech mecca, which is of course where it has bee…

Your anecdote is hilarious. But so true!

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.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#48

Post by jazzabeanie »

edejong wrote: post #25
caser wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is actually the exact problem the article talks about. 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 belief…

Well, the problem is rather simple. If you decide to only engage in mindfulness, you'll have a great time discovering things about yourself and your environment. You will feel better about yourself . That will work for a while and it might set you on a larger, longer path with more peril. In (Mahayana) Buddhism you train more. Like the opposite: concentration. Think about the same topic for one hour, repeatedly. Who…

But if you don’t have Buddhist beliefs then there is no problem.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#49

Post by Bizarro »

I've been skirting around the idea of practicing mindfulness, but there's something that bothers me about aeon and "magazines" like it.

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.

Post reply on HN