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

The new science of meditation

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#81

Post by haswell »

darthrupert wrote: post #70
jules22 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supernatural claims made by meditators that are obviously not true are what keep me from experimenting with meditation. I don't want to mess up my brain. I value it. All the senior meditators I know have some element of irrationality. The openness that meditation seems to promote seems to also promote a certain level of gullibility that I did not expect from them. Obviously, an out of body experience is not really tr…

One probably needs a bit of religiousity to be able to meditate as much as senior meditators do.

I think this is a misconception. I do think there’s a greater likelihood that someone with religious tendencies will pursue a path like this, but the religiosity is not the key.

Sam Harris is the polar opposite of religious, but is arguably one of the leading meditators/teachers in western culture right now. I’m as allergic to religion as someone can probably be, but I’ve gotten serious about meditation and have made it a central habit in my life, because I’ve found that it works.

The ultimate goal is to bring the “here-ness” of the present moment first experienced in meditation into ordinary waking moments as much as possible. Sitting is just a focused form of training that helps condition the mind and improve focus. When I discovered how impactful sitting was for me, it formed the motivation for deepening the practice. No religiosity here.

The non-religious/non-sectarian meditators are a rapidly growing group, and this is encouraging because the religious part was never necessary, and the perception that it is kept people like me from exploring this sooner.

Re: The new science of meditation

#82

Post by chrispine »

jules22 wrote: post #67
curo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ramana Maharshi says anything transient is false CBT and other psychotherapies challenge X or Y as false

There is no reason why he should be taken as an authority. "anything transient is false" is wrong at so many levels.

Not disagreeing, but it's also correct on some levels.

Re: The new science of meditation

#83

Post by chrispine »

haswell wrote: post #21
borg16 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you provide some resources to understand this "advanced" meditation? my attempts with calm/headspace etc always stop at the same theme of 'concentrate on breathing, distractions are fine'. I wanted to understand what is out there, especially outside of these apps and folks who pursue meditation seriously.

I’ve tried Calm and Headspace, and they never really worked for me. The “Waking Up” app has been a complete game changer. The core introductory course helped me get it for the first time, and the library of content and meditation approaches from various teachers in the app gives you a rabbit hole to explore as deeply as you want. It’s been truly transformative, starting with the gradual realization that my thoughts a…

Strong +1 for the Waking Up app. (I also ready the Waking Up book, and found it to be quite hit-or-miss for me. But the app is just wonderful.)

Re: The new science of meditation

#84

Post by cracoucax »

jules22 wrote: post #67
curo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ramana Maharshi says anything transient is false CBT and other psychotherapies challenge X or Y as false

There is no reason why he should be taken as an authority. "anything transient is false" is wrong at so many levels.

I believe since Maharshi was a practitioner of hinduism for him "the self" (what they call Atman) was to be seen in all things, and the same everywhere.

So anything transient cannot be the self, hence is an illusion, or false.

But yes i also believe it's quite wrong ^^

Re: The new science of meditation

#85

Post by johndhi »

haswell wrote: post #81
darthrupert wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One probably needs a bit of religiousity to be able to meditate as much as senior meditators do.

I think this is a misconception. I do think there’s a greater likelihood that someone with religious tendencies will pursue a path like this, but the religiosity is not the key. Sam Harris is the polar opposite of religious, but is arguably one of the leading meditators/teachers in western culture right now. I’m as allergic to religion as someone can probably be, but I’ve gotten serious about meditation and have made…

I suspect you just have a different definition of 'religious' than I do. Why are you so anti-religion?

Re: The new science of meditation

#86

Post by DrThunder »

jules22 wrote: post #56

Whenever someone talks enthusiastically about meditation, I remind myself that all the popular meditation gurus I see on Youtube talk nonsense, pseudoscience, lack common sense and use manipulative psychological tricks. None of them admit any errors and ironically are quite conceited for those who claim to have conquered ego. I am sure meditative states must feel nice. But all I see beyond that are cults and none of…

There are multiple scientific studies show the positive affects of meditation and a myriad of health benefits....

I'm not sure what "gurus" you're seeing but it's not really relevant to objective studies that show it works and makes changes in the brain. I'm sure they are making some claims that are pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean meditation in its entirety is just a "feel nice" routine.

Here's just one of several I found in a quick search-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4895748/

I think of meditation as exercise for your brain. Just like you need to physically exercise to "prepare" your body you need to be doing stuff to keep your brain from going haywire and jumping from though to though like its hopped up on caffeine all the time. There are various ways to do "train your brain" but meditation/mindfulness is one very good way to do it.

Re: The new science of meditation

#87

Post by russelldjimmy »

mjthrowaway1 wrote: post #66
choxi wrote: post #57

I’ve been meditating casually for almost 10 years, I couldn’t sit still for a minute when I started and can sit regularly for an hour now. I still have a lot of skepticism about the sensations that other meditators describe feeling, like jhanas and profound states of tranquility and whatnot. I have experienced deeper calmness and have made some insights about my brain (eg thoughts are like a sensor organ not unlike a…

Question: have you sat for a retreat? The reason I’m asking is I’m curious if it’s a “dosage” issue. I sat for a 10 day goenka retreat and was shocked at how psychedelic the experience was for how little warning I was given.

I’ve been for a 10 day Goenka retreat and did not experience anything psychedelic. However I did experience much calmness and continue to practice the techniques to this day. They have changed my life and made me a much more patient, kind, and reflective person.

Re: The new science of meditation

#88

Post by iamatworknow »

johndhi wrote: post #73
oldstrangers wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always sort of intuitively done this since I was a kid ( https://zchry.org/words/questioning-my-quantum-leap-an-ongoi... ). I have zero experience with meditation in the traditional sense but I'm really interested in going down that path next as I try to broaden my scope.

I used to play a game as a kid where I'd close my eyes and try not to see or imagine anything. To keep a black empty universe as the only thing I see, for as long as possible. It isn't easy!

I did the same as a kid. Like if I was in a classroom with noisy classmates ("study hall") I'd shut my eyes and actively try to not hear them and embrace the nothingness "around" the voices. Kinda interesting that I have distinct memories of doing this _years_ before I was ever exposed to "meditation".

Re: The new science of meditation

#89

Post by haswell »

johndhi wrote: post #85
haswell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a misconception. I do think there’s a greater likelihood that someone with religious tendencies will pursue a path like this, but the religiosity is not the key. Sam Harris is the polar opposite of religious, but is arguably one of the leading meditators/teachers in western culture right now. I’m as allergic to religion as someone can probably be, but I’ve gotten serious about meditation and have made…

I suspect you just have a different definition of 'religious' than I do. Why are you so anti-religion?

That’s possible! But that’s also why I’m calling attention to it here. Religiosity is a negative signal for many folks, and I think it’s important to debunk the need for religious thinking to gain the benefits of meditation.

My stance comes from growing up in an extreme fundamentalist religious bubble. It set me up for a lifetime of unwinding unhealthy beliefs and patterns of thought, not the least of which was deep confusion about my self worth when hearing leaders of the church openly discuss stoning gay people as the truly appropriate consequence biblically. That kinda fucks with your head when you’re coming to terms with your own sexuality (I’m bisexual). I’ve seen first hand what these systems of belief do to families and communities, and while I’m not one to claim that all religion is awful, I do think it’s a bigger problem than help in the current social climate.

The ideas of most religions also set up a fundamental misconception about our relationship with the world/environment (that we’re separate from it) that is an existential threat to reaching some kind of environmental balance.

I’m curious what religious means to you.

Re: The new science of meditation

#90

Post by DrThunder »

waterheater wrote: post #39
triyambakam wrote: post #8

In Hinduism, meditation is not just a calming practice, but an actual movement toward God. And in the tradition I follow, it is also not for beginners. Basic discipline — the following of the Yamas (restraints of non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, etc.) — is recommended first.

Exactly. How many Westerners are trying to meditate without a conscious belief in a Higher Power, an Infinite Creator, God, or such? I wonder if there may be negative spiritual effects by employing meditation without seeking closeness with divinity.

Eh, my guess is it just isn't quite as effective. Belief in a higher power makes things a lot easier to accept and meditation in many aspects is the practice of accepting emotions and thoughts.

I would also say prayer like you see in Abrahamic religions is its own type of meditation. You also enter a sort of meditative state in sports where you kind of feel in the moment and "in the flow" where there's not God involved... at least not consciously.

Post reply on HN