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

281–290 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#281

Post by mistermann »

jules22 wrote: post #249
uoaei wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard such explorations referred to as 'reality safari' which I love. Immersing yourself in an entirely different philosophy to really feel it from the inside, to understand it completely and intuitively. The fear many have about attempting such things mirrors the fear of e.g. psychedelic experiences -- the fear of "never coming back". Ironically, only living through this fear is what causes the bad trip in the…

> Ironically, only living through this fear is what causes the bad trip in the first place Where is the evidence for this? None. > the fear of "never coming back" Psychedelics sound like fun, but I have seen quite a few broken people on the streets, all because of them. It's not just fear, it is a serious concern.

[flagged]

Re: The new science of meditation

#282

Post by ReactiveJelly »

mirekrusin wrote: post #197
johndhi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 something similar but always tried to imagine things - shapes like cube, rotate it, move it around, slice it etc. - not easy. I always found it odd you'd want to deprive yourself from excercising mind this way by medidating = practicing not thinking. I believe it helped me a lot when programming and thinking about problems in general.

> odd you'd want to deprive yourself from excercising mind

Rest is part of exercise

Re: The new science of meditation

#283

Post by hirvi74 »

akomtu wrote: post #274
hirvi74 wrote: post #263

Anyone have any recommendations for those of us without attention spans? I've always wanted to mediate, but after a few attempts, I have started to question if it's more possible for some to partake in than others.

"A newbie once met a dzogchen master: - Do you meditate? - Why meditate? - So you aren't distracted. - Am I distracted?" It's from one book about dzogchen. Rephrasing it: "- Do you practice balancing? - Why would I do that? - So you can stand upright. - Am I not standing upright?" (while the newbie is still crawling)

I do not think I understand what this means.

Is the point that the newbie does not understand what they are failing to achieve? Is the newbie just supposed to know it when they finally achieve whatever the goal is?

Speaking of, what even is the goal? I understand mediation has benefits, and people that can succeed at it are usually never shy to sing its praises. However, I still do not understand what benefits one actually gets from it.

If you want the honest truth, I have only wanted to mediate to fix various aliments in my life -- anxiety, stress, negative emotions, etc. in a healthy manner (assuming it even works for that).

Perhaps it's my impulsive tendencies coming to light again, but I do not actually care about mediation, spiritual journeys, enlightenment, etc.. I just want to find some god damn relief that isn't just another form of copium.

Re: The new science of meditation

#284

Post by ReactiveJelly »

beardedmoose wrote: post #22
freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This pretty much lines up with what meditation has done for me. However, the pursuit of "states" can be a trap in of itself. Interesting, after a certain point you get diminishing returns and once you've eliminated or solved the things conflicting you, then staying in a meditative state becomes an illusory trap to avoid life and living. I knew a guy who did just that. Would spend hours meditating to the point where…

Interesting take. With this line of thinking would Buddhist monks just be practicing excessive escapism much like those who turn to drugs and alcohol? Just some random thoughts but there seems to be a reoccurring theme in life in which too much of a good thing is indeed too much. Life is about balance, all that meditating and no action does what exactly? What good is all that enlightenment if you aren't experiencing…

Usually drug and alcohol addiction ends up hurting other people and being a drain on social safety nets, right?

I guess if the monks can live cheaply and not bother anyone, it's fine. It's not for me, though.

Re: The new science of meditation

#285

Post by ReactiveJelly »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #252
uoaei wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This revulsion only makes sense if you firmly believe that rationalism is the highest good, and that the only right way to engage with the world is through rationality, ie, dividing the world into "false" and "true" ideas. There are good reasons that so many people realize for themselves that non-dual perspectives hold more value than dualistic ones.

The older I get, the more some paradoxes really tickle my brain in a way they never did when I was younger. It’s like they express some reality that transcends our understanding while still reaching out and grabbing us by our mind grapes to show us that something deeper is at hand. It’s nearly impossible to describe this in English well.

Sometimes it makes more sense for me to think that I'm not a rational being, I'm an animal with a rational brain glued on top.

If you do a "5 Whys" type thing, there isn't really a reason to live. It's just an instinct. So I can say, I'm a hedonist, I live because life pays off eventually. No big deal.

I don't think rationality is opposed to anything like love or sentiment. I just like feeling good. Rationality is a tool I can use to feel more good, if I want.

Re: The new science of meditation

#286

Post by mjthrowaway1 »

kagakuninja wrote: post #151
mjthrowaway1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many schools, including Goenka downplay or ignore the risks from meditation. Goenka is infamous in the serious meditation community, as they do not use qualified teachers in their retreats. The teaching is in the videos, the guides may not be able to help you if you start to freak out.

This was 100% my experience. The assistant teachers had no experience with anything beyond goenka vipassana courses. Was not helpful when I was encountering partial dissolution of the Self and high bliss states.

Re: The new science of meditation

#287

Post by celtoid »

The best teachings on meditation are found in the Pali texts, imo. They purport to be a reasonable recording of the Buddha's teachings. In this text, one of the repeated internal exercises is "subduing greed & distress" while practicing meditation.

“Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four establishings of mindfulness to their culmination. The four establishings of mindfulness, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." -Ānāpānasati Sutta [0]

[0] https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN118.html

Re: The new science of meditation

#288

Post by Baeocystin »

hirvi74 wrote: post #263

Anyone have any recommendations for those of us without attention spans? I've always wanted to mediate, but after a few attempts, I have started to question if it's more possible for some to partake in than others.

I have ADHD, and meditation is one of the tools I use to help control my mind. It's the practice of acknowledging a passing thought without letting it consume my focus that has been most useful, not paying attention to a particular mind state itself, if that makes sense.

Re: The new science of meditation

#289

Post by brightlancer »

dorchadas wrote: post #152
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…

Sadly the Tao of Pooh does not outline the basic tenets of Daoism. As van Norden says in the chapter on the Daodejing in his Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy : > The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff ... is a charming work that has attained a wide readership. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it for itself. But it reveals much more about how the Daodejing as been appropriated to illustrate Western Romantici…

I know virtually nothing about Daoism, but I know a lot about Christian theology and there is not agreement on what Christian belief _is_. It gets even funnier when we compare Christian theology and its interpretations of the Old Testament to Jewish theology and its interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (which Christians made their Old Testament).

So, who decides what Daoist belief _is_? And isn't?

Re: The new science of meditation

#290

Post by kgwxd »

dorchadas wrote: post #152
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…

Sadly the Tao of Pooh does not outline the basic tenets of Daoism. As van Norden says in the chapter on the Daodejing in his Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy : > The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff ... is a charming work that has attained a wide readership. There is nothing wrong with enjoying it for itself. But it reveals much more about how the Daodejing as been appropriated to illustrate Western Romantici…

Why should anyone care what van Norden has to say on the subject anymore than anyone else? Anyone who adopts an idea to paint themselves an “authority” on it shouldn’t be trusted, especially in this domain.
Post reply on HN