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

141–150 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#141

Post by kagakuninja »

cracoucax wrote: post #84
jules22 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ^^

He practiced Advaita vedanta. When exploring the non-duality of self vs world, there are fundamentally 2 approaches. Advaita Vedanta denies the existence of the world, only the (true) self is real. Buddhism denies the existence of the self.

Re: The new science of meditation

#142

Post by everydayDonut »

I've practiced mindfulness and meditation for many years until I found "The Tao of Pooh", which, if you're not familiar, outlines the basic tenets of taoism. It has completely changed me and made me feel whole for the first time in my life, and I don't have to practice anything to achieve it.

Early on in my life I was drawn in by proverbs and other pieces of wisdom, in an attempt to fill in the gaps of what I thought was missing, to fix myself and make me feel whole. Then mindfulness presented itself to me and it gave me a feeling that everything just worked - it was simple and applied to everything; but I couldn't hold onto it. I wanted to just be, and be ok. Non-dual mindfulness felt like the answer to that problem, but while it sounded right in theory, I still felt that it was something I had to achieve or maintain.

When I read The Tao of Pooh, everything clicked for me. I could be myself without trying. My whole life has become open-ended. It also helped me to understand something that always nagged at me - how could some people appear to be mindful from birth, without having read anything about mindfulness? - People who seemed to always grow and learn in a way that upends their nature continually (nature vs. nurture?), while I felt that there was always something I was missing.

The answer(for me) was 2 things -an ability to see myself as whole, despite the capacity for personal growth; -and complete/lazy faith in my intuition.

(Intuition being this kind of thing that everyone is born with - and so in my view, the only thing that could transcend the differences between every living being. The differences in access to teachings, wisdom, philosophies, religion, culture, etc.)

I'm curious if anyone here has felt similar with meditation/mindfulness, or has had experience with both that and taoism and what that journey was like for you.

Re: The new science of meditation

#143

Post by kagakuninja »

borg16 wrote: post #14
mohave529 wrote: post #5

"Along a less-traveled route, meditation remains what it long was: a deeply transformative pursuit, a devoted metamorphosis of the mind toward increasingly enlightened states." This pretty much lines up with what meditation has done for me. However, the pursuit of "states" can be a trap in of itself. As my practice has gotten deeper, I've started to reframe meditation for myself as the process of unrelenting inquiry…

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 would suggest reading the book The Mind Illuminated.

Re: The new science of meditation

#144

Post by kagakuninja »

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.

No, many of the meditation practices, such as Jhana and nirodha sammapati do not require any religious beliefs at all. Of course, the skeptic is unlikely to spend the vast amount of time needed to master such skills.

Re: The new science of meditation

#145

Post by patrickscoleman »

borg16 wrote: post #14
mohave529 wrote: post #5

"Along a less-traveled route, meditation remains what it long was: a deeply transformative pursuit, a devoted metamorphosis of the mind toward increasingly enlightened states." This pretty much lines up with what meditation has done for me. However, the pursuit of "states" can be a trap in of itself. As my practice has gotten deeper, I've started to reframe meditation for myself as the process of unrelenting inquiry…

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.

http://leighb.com/jhanas.htm

Re: The new science of meditation

#146

Post by lootsauce »

everydayDonut wrote: post #142

I've practiced mindfulness and meditation for many years until I found "The Tao of Pooh", which, if you're not familiar, outlines the basic tenets of taoism. It has completely changed me and made me feel whole for the first time in my life, and I don't have to practice anything to achieve it. Early on in my life I was drawn in by proverbs and other pieces of wisdom, in an attempt to fill in the gaps of what I thought…

I picked up the Tao Te Ching in middle school and would reread it frequently. The personal insights would evolve as I grew up and faced different issues in my life. I found an abiding peace in those personal insights and they have held with me since. One of those insights is something like having instead of seeking as an identity. I don’t feel that I want to seek to find myself or some great answer, it’s already there, I already have it. YMMV bits a wonderful ancient text. I recommend the S. Mitchel translation.

I could never get into the sitting and breathing kind of meditation, but I do find different times I am able to practice very meditative activities such as walking in the woods, aimless wandering, puttering about with no intention just taking in the world. I used to do zen inspired landscape photography and that whole process felt very meditative to me.

Re: The new science of meditation

#147

Post by maleldil »

nprateem wrote: post #123
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…

I see, so you can confidently discount someone else's experience as obviously not true, especially without any real attainment yourself? That just doesn't work on so many levels.

If you're a materialist, which sounds likely to be true given the available evidence, any claims to the supernatural are disqualified by, for example, the Sagan standard.

Re: The new science of meditation

#148

Post by Karrot_Kream »

crazygringo wrote: post #42
lcuff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't help but feel the recent societal interest in meditation and psychedelics is wrongheaded in that it's treating a symptom rather than a cause. I agree, but the question emerges "what is treatable?" Many of the thousands of causes of stress in modern life can't be changed by an individual: I can't unelect politicians I disagree with, clean up the air where I live, or make the roads I travel significantly less…

> Many of the thousands of causes of stress in modern life can't be changed by an individual The counterpoint is essentially that if people engaged in social outward-looking collective action , as opposed to solitary inward-looking meditation, then you can change the world -- as has been demonstrated countless times. You certainly can unelect politicians in the next election. Environmental movements have made giganti…

> The counterpoint is essentially that if people engaged in social outward-looking collective action, as opposed to solitary inward-looking meditation, then you can change the world -- as has been demonstrated countless times.

Why do these two actions contradict each other? People can do both. Gandhi was not only a community organizer who affected broad, collective action but also practiced meditation.

Re: The new science of meditation

#149

Post by haswell »

Jimpulse wrote: post #126
cracoucax wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychotherapy works on the "self": your problems, your history. One of the aims of mediation is to gradually understand that this self is really an illusion, hence there are in fact no problems and no history. Past does not really define who you are, and problems are only problems if you think reality should be different that what it currently is the moment you experience it (which is of course totally impossible. Wh…

Meditation and therapy aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, for people who have traumas, I would say both are necessary. Very few meditation teachers are trained in handling a psychological crisis and mental break downs happen often in retreats and self-led practice.

This very much aligns with my experience.

Meditation helps me be with what is and remember that I’m ok.

Therapy helps me permanently untangle the thoughts and feelings that lead to distress in the first place.

They both complement each other and provide benefits that can’t be found in either alone. Meditation seems universally useful. Therapy somewhat less so, but still a powerful tool. If you’re not dealing with trauma, a good friend/mentor can provide the same feedback.

Re: The new science of meditation

#150

Post by kagakuninja »

jules22 wrote: post #65
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…

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…

The human brain is far less rational than we tend to believe. Recent research indicates that we hallucinate our world: we guess what we are likely to see, based on prior experience. If wrong, our brain adjusts and reevaluates the sensory data. In some cases, we even ignore unusual experiences that do not fit into our internal model.

Senior meditators spend vast amounts of time examining their personal reality, and learn that it isn't as neat and clean as we thought. That said, some do believe in outlandish things.

Jhana and nirodha sammapati are not irrational, they have been studied by scientists during the last several years. What is irrational are the belief systems built on top of those experiences by some buddhist traditions.

Out of body experiences can be had by any person who spends enough time meditating. The teachers I work with understand that it is not a supernatural experience.

Post reply on HN