Live data from Hacker News

The new science of meditation

vox.com

361–370 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if you have a dozen peers around to compare notes. But the subject is esoteric. Peers are in short supply.

> But the subject is esoteric. Peers are in short supply. Yes, which is why individuals cannot do research alone. We need a well organized effort with proper subject recruitment so that there is a sufficient pool to investigate and all the research precautions are taken. Modern research does not just happen casually and individually. It is a sophisticated activity with a lot of planning and organization.

The subject is esoteric therefore individuals cannot do research alone?

I don't see how that follows.

Re: The new science of meditation

#362
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.

I see a lot of broken people on the streets here in Seattle, but as far as I know, most of them are because of meth or opioids, not psychedelics.

Re: The new science of meditation

#363
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have done zazen over 20 years and know many people who have ADHD and do it a lot. You need less than a second attention span. What you need is the ability to bring mind back endlessly. It's like learning to juggle, picking up juggling pins from the ground again and again. "The faculty of voluntarily bringing back a wandering attention, over and over again, is the very root of judgment, character and will." – Willia…

How long am I supposed to bring my mind back for? Based on my past experiences: Every time I try, it's gone again so fast that that it's like an endless loop. And that's if I am conscious enough to catch it. Hell, my mind can wander for minutes at a time without me even realizing that I was supposed to be focusing on something else. Not trying to argue against your recommendations, but I am really trying to dig deepe…

> Every time I try, it's gone again so fast that that it's like an endless loop.

Only advice I have to you is:

1. Do no take meditation advice from the internet. Or try to battle with your difficulties endlessly alone, with books, or the internet. Internet is full of fools. Deeply into the mediation who just try to be helpful, but have no experience (even if they claims so).

2. Start training in a group where teacher has trained for decades and taught others for a very long time to give you instructions (Happens often in religious Buddhist setting, but if they know what they are doing it does not matter, mindfulness teachers for profit generally don't know shit, they just repeat what they learned in the course).

Re: The new science of meditation

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems weird to call Mormonism a Christian denomination because of the whole extra book where Jesus visits North America. That's a massive deviation. It's the same as saying Catholicism or Rastafarianism are denominations of Judaism. You're leaving out a lot! Mind that I don't think Jesus talking to Native Americans, hying to Kolob, and sacral underwear are any more farfetched than anything in the King James, but I…

Do Catholics or Rastafarians call themselves Jewish? If a group self-identifies as Christian, they're probably Christian. At the very least, they're much more Christian than all the people that don't identify as Christian. If a religious group is based on following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and claims to be Christian, I don't see how you could ever claim they're not without going full No-True-Scottsman.

> If a religious group is based on following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and claims to be Christian, I don't see how you could ever claim they're not without going full No-True-Scottsman.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word ¨is¨ is."

_Is_ the Catholic Church following the teachings of Jesus Christ? According to many Protestant churches, it is not.

(I'm ignoring for the moment that many Protestant churches don't define "Christian" as "following the teachings of Jesus Christ".)

Christianity isn't a membership club; individual churches usually are, but the religion as a whole is not. I can tell you who the Catholic Church recognizes as "Christian"; I can tell you who Protestant churches broadly recognize as "Christian"; I can tell you who the LDS and the Jehovah's Witnesses each recognize as "Christian"; they're not going to be the same.

And so I look at Daoism and I wonder, is there a chain of authorities all the way back to Laozi (Lao Tzu)? Is there a single, dominant sect with some/ many smaller sects? Are there multiple large, dominant sects? Who's defining what is and isn't Daoism?

Re: The new science of meditation

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > There are plenty of different doctrines and interpretations but you can tell what is and isn't a Christian church. > Are Mormons Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so. > Are Catholics Christian? Lots of Christians don't think so (despite the Roman > Catholic Church being the largest Christian church). > You're assuming agreement that does not exist. These are all Christian denominations [0], i.e. distinct…

It seems weird to call Mormonism a Christian denomination because of the whole extra book where Jesus visits North America. That's a massive deviation. It's the same as saying Catholicism or Rastafarianism are denominations of Judaism. You're leaving out a lot! Mind that I don't think Jesus talking to Native Americans, hying to Kolob, and sacral underwear are any more farfetched than anything in the King James, but I…

I think you're missing the points made earlier. The definition of Christian varies depending on who you ask. The word itself conveys nothing other than perhaps "worships Christ." All the rules added for what "Christians" must accept are disputed. If "worships Christ" is the definition, Mormons clearly are Christian (cue all the "but that's a different Jesus!" cries). If your definition is "believes what Pastor Johnson believes" then they wouldn't be. This is no different than any other ill-defined word.

Re: The new science of meditation

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems weird to call Mormonism a Christian denomination because of the whole extra book where Jesus visits North America. That's a massive deviation. It's the same as saying Catholicism or Rastafarianism are denominations of Judaism. You're leaving out a lot! Mind that I don't think Jesus talking to Native Americans, hying to Kolob, and sacral underwear are any more farfetched than anything in the King James, but I…

I think you're missing the points made earlier. The definition of Christian varies depending on who you ask. The word itself conveys nothing other than perhaps "worships Christ." All the rules added for what "Christians" must accept are disputed. If "worships Christ" is the definition, Mormons clearly are Christian (cue all the "but that's a different Jesus!" cries). If your definition is "believes what Pastor Johnso…

No, I hedged for that in my language. You're attributing far too much certainty to me.

Re: The new science of meditation

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the aims of mediation is to gradually understand that this self is really an illusion Yes this is a standard Buddhist (and not even exclusively Buddhist) point, and I'd say it's basically correct, but the problem is that it can, and has been understood in dozens of ways. Some more profound than others, and plenty contradicting one another. Let me give a fairly psychological interpretation. One of our major c…

That seems like a fantastic explanation -- can I ask a couple of questions, since you seem to be able to explain so well? Because I've never found much success with meditation, but the split between present-experience and self-representation has always seemed... well, easy to me. This idea of them being "fused" is only something I discovered in discussions around meditation. But then that makes me wonder if I misunde…

Thanks for your kind words :) Now I really need to answer something, and it's not so easy based on the info you give.

I'll skip the standard religious answer to your question in terms of existential unsatisfactoriness - you can find that in the 1st chapter of any decent Buddhist book.

On the one hand, you could be someone whose mind is already fairly flexible, creative, open and not very compulsive, so you don't see much point in doing explicit work to make it even more like that. In which case, I'd say, just enjoy life and go with it!

The other possibility is that you could be (like many of us here probably) so deeply fused with your thinking mind that you have little experience or appreciation for the things consciousness can do beyond that.

Either way, maybe the point here is to remember that meditation is a tool among others, not a must or a panacea.

Do you sometimes feel a sense of awe? Exhilaration from music or some other source? Deep compassion for someone's misfortune? The thrill of riding a bike or some sense of flow from bodily exertion? The sense that time just stops in some special situations? The warm feeling of being part of something greater than you? A sense of mystery in life?

These are examples of things that most of us value when they happen, and yet they are neither happening at the level of the mental map (in the way that e.g moral philosophy is), nor reduced to bare sensory experience.

Deep meditation is about going deeply within yourself, and whatever you find along the way just becomes part of your journey of integration. There is no universal blueprint, bc the material you find yourself wrestling with is just whatever happens to have lodged itself in your unique psyche - traumas and all.

This should not be confused with the light meditation that has been popularized as "mindfulness" - that's a fairly safe technique that most everyone can probably benefit from having in their toolbox to help handle stress or bad times.

To the basic question "am I missing something", the only real answer is that if you feel curious, you can only know by giving it a try - thinking won't give you the info. If you were wondering about e.g learning to play the saxophone, you could get a pretty good idea whether it's worth your effort by listening to some on a cd. But this music is silent.

It takes at least 3 day immersive retreat, or (alternatively) a few months following e.g a weekly course with a bit of practice at home every day, to get a first feel for the space that meditation can open up, and decide whether you're interested in further exploring that.

Re: The new science of meditation

#368
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

van Norden is an award-winning scholar who has dedicated his entire life to classical Chinese philosophy. He has taught the subject at universities for decades. I think his PhD earns him the privilege of being seen as more of an authority on this particular subject than Benjamin Hoff, whose credentials are a BA in Asian art and learning a Japanese version of Qigong as a hobby.

None of that means anything. Classical != right/accurate/useful. That mindset just gives authority to age, which does not correlate.

Re: The new science of meditation

#369
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…

" I couldn’t sit still for a minute when I started " This is me now. Do you have any advice on what meditation to do?

Some random resource recommendations:

I got started a few years ago when I saw the book "The Mind Illuminated" recommended here. There's a subreddit for it. (Fwiw, the author had a mini-scandal/non-scandal near the end of his life, which bothered a lot of people. You might look it up before getting too invested in the book.)

Many individuals that started out in "The Mind Illuminated" subreddit seem to have since shifted over to https://midlmeditation.com/ It also has a subreddit.

Both resources have step-by-step guides for absolute beginners. They both present Buddhist meditation practices, with varying degrees of Buddhist spirituality mixed in.

Re: The new science of meditation

#370

Reminds me of a blogpost by Scott Alexander that I can't find right now about the last unenlightened person, as far as he can see, in the world.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/04/samsara/

That's the one. Thank you very much.
Post reply on HN