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

121–130 of 161 posts

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#121

Post by kieranmaine »

want2know wrote: post #108

I guess I will be downvoted for this but it always amazed me that so many people in HN are religious when it comes to mindfulness, Buddhism and meditation. 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 brai…

If you're interested in what studies into meditation show I would highly recommend The Science of Meditation (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0241975697/). It provides a great summary of where the science is at and what benefits can, and cannot, be attributed to meditation.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#122

Post by p0d »

As a Christian I find other christian friends split on the topic of mindfulness. Some embrace mindfulness and some think it should be avoided. I am in the latter camp. I imagine the reason why is the spiritual nature of mindfulness which is highlighted by all the comments here.

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?

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#124

Post by urubu »

raincom wrote: post #103
sshekhar wrote: post #11

The word mindfulness itself is a poor translation of the Pali word 'Sati'. The Pali word actually means 'remembering to be aware of the objects that your mind is attending to'. There is no word in western languages to capture that phrase and hence word 'mindfulness' was used to convey in a confusing manner what 'Sati' means. I have been meditating for 1 hour to 1.5 hour every day for several years and I finally got i…

Whats the Sanskrit equivalent of 'Sati'?

स्मृति smṛti = remembrance, reminiscence, memory

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#125

Post by keymone »

kr4 wrote: post #120
keymone wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t answer my question.

In one word: selflessness. Acts of a truly enlightened or awakened being will be selfless. He has already realized the futility of doing actions for sense gratification. Please note the word realized. Intellectual understanding is different from realization. With the former your subconscious mind continues to propell you to strive for fulfilling selfish desires while realization will clean the slate. When we study th…

That’s still not answering my question. How do I tell the difference between myself achieving enlightenment and merely having an opinion that I have achieved it?

Things you describe are perceived subjectively, so they can also be victims to my brain deluding myself.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#126

Post by lm28469 »

want2know wrote: post #108

I guess I will be downvoted for this but it always amazed me that so many people in HN are religious when it comes to mindfulness, Buddhism and meditation. 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 brai…

I see it as a framework. It's easier to get into a relaxing state by following known principles than just sitting in a chair and waiting for it to happen.

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.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#127

Post by Infinitesimus »

p0d wrote: post #122

As a Christian I find other christian friends split on the topic of mindfulness. Some embrace mindfulness and some think it should be avoided. I am in the latter camp. I imagine the reason why is the spiritual nature of mindfulness which is highlighted by all the comments here. 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…

(Former Christian my some standard here)

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.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#128

Post by hooch »

gridlockd wrote: post #118
zzzeek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So...it might help you to realize that other people who you would normally think are "assholes", people who you don't know yet hate nonetheless, are nothing like that, and maybe you've been making all kinds of judgments about people that aren't really true, and that in fact, reality calls for a vastly larger degree of love and compassion for others, even people who cut you off on the road. You treat people completely…

I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. 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 simil…

I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point.

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.

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#129

Post by gridlockd »

hooch wrote: post #128
gridlockd wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. 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 simil…

I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point. 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 ha…

> I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment just proves the point.

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".

Re: The Problem of Mindfulness

#130

Post by abiro »

This article highlights the problem with the mindfulness movement very well: they teach technique instead of understanding. But it should be the other way around: it is only after Understanding that one should seek out specific techniques.
Post reply on HN