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

Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

thereader.mitpress.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#11

Post by meindnoch »

bowsamic wrote: post #10
monero-xmr wrote: post #2

I suffered from panic attacks in my youth. Mindfulness meditative practice enabled me to breathe in a such a way that I could stop the panic attack in its tracks. I further extended this breathing pattern to enter a state of deep calm on command. It drives my wife crazy, but if I so choose, I can completely zen out within 30 seconds and enter a state of total relaxation. In this state I may acknowledge her talking to…

This is textbook spiritual bypassing. You are misusing Buddhist teachings in order to run away from your life. Buddhism especially (but also related religions) is about facing the difficulty in your life as it is, not "blissing out for 30 minutes while you wife is talking to you"

Oh no! If Buddha said so then it must be true.

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#12

Post by meindnoch »

locuscoeruleus wrote: post #4
monero-xmr wrote: post #2

I suffered from panic attacks in my youth. Mindfulness meditative practice enabled me to breathe in a such a way that I could stop the panic attack in its tracks. I further extended this breathing pattern to enter a state of deep calm on command. It drives my wife crazy, but if I so choose, I can completely zen out within 30 seconds and enter a state of total relaxation. In this state I may acknowledge her talking to…

This sounds like spiritual bypass, which is a failure mode of mindfulness a lot of people can fall into. You say it drives your wife crazy, so it seems that being in this state doesn't actually help you resolve issues between you and your wife. It only numbs you to the conflict and puts the whole burden on your wife.

You say "failure mode", but it sounds like a superpower to me.

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#13

Post by bowsamic »

meindnoch wrote: post #11
bowsamic wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is textbook spiritual bypassing. You are misusing Buddhist teachings in order to run away from your life. Buddhism especially (but also related religions) is about facing the difficulty in your life as it is, not "blissing out for 30 minutes while you wife is talking to you"

Oh no! If Buddha said so then it must be true.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that. I'm sure you can manage to refute me without lying.

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#14

Post by meindnoch »

bowsamic wrote: post #13
meindnoch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no! If Buddha said so then it must be true.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that. I'm sure you can manage to refute me without lying.

Why did you bring up your religion in the first place? OP said that he found this cool technique for instant relaxation, and then you started talking about whatever religious bullcrap.

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#15

Post by bowsamic »

meindnoch wrote: post #14
bowsamic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that. I'm sure you can manage to refute me without lying.

Why did you bring up your religion in the first place? OP said that he found this cool technique for instant relaxation, and then you started talking about whatever religious bullcrap.

Because mindfulness meditation is taken from a specific religion.

Also, is "facing your suffering" really "religious bullcrap"?

I'm saying that using techniques taken from religions to avoid your suffering is spiritual bypassing. Please explain how that is "religious bullcrap"

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#16

Post by throwbadubadu »

bowsamic wrote: post #15
meindnoch wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you bring up your religion in the first place? OP said that he found this cool technique for instant relaxation, and then you started talking about whatever religious bullcrap.

Because mindfulness meditation is taken from a specific religion. Also, is "facing your suffering" really "religious bullcrap"? I'm saying that using techniques taken from religions to avoid your suffering is spiritual bypassing. Please explain how that is "religious bullcrap"

> is taken from a specific religion.

It hasn't been only "discovered" there, definitely not... and even if so, religion or whatever is the truth and noone dare to use it differently ( what OP even not said), bad cultural appropriation or what?

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#17

Post by meindnoch »

bowsamic wrote: post #15
meindnoch wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you bring up your religion in the first place? OP said that he found this cool technique for instant relaxation, and then you started talking about whatever religious bullcrap.

Because mindfulness meditation is taken from a specific religion. Also, is "facing your suffering" really "religious bullcrap"? I'm saying that using techniques taken from religions to avoid your suffering is spiritual bypassing. Please explain how that is "religious bullcrap"

Religions have a history of making up bullshit reasons why suffering and being unhappy is the righteous path. Christianity promises you a happy afterlife for suffering in real life, Hinduism tells you that you're getting karmic credit points for your next life, etc. "facing your suffering" is just another iteration of this.

A more rational take on these teachings is that historically they were a tool of pacifying the masses to accept their abject poverty and squalor without revolting and imploding the social hierarchy. They make no sense in a post-scarcity world.

This is what I mean by religious bullcrap.

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#18

Post by bowsamic »

meindnoch wrote: post #17
bowsamic wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because mindfulness meditation is taken from a specific religion. Also, is "facing your suffering" really "religious bullcrap"? I'm saying that using techniques taken from religions to avoid your suffering is spiritual bypassing. Please explain how that is "religious bullcrap"

Religions have a history of making up bullshit reasons why suffering and being unhappy is the righteous path. Christianity promises you a happy afterlife for suffering in real life, Hinduism tells you that you're getting karmic credit points for your next life, etc. "facing your suffering" is just another iteration of this. A more rational take on these teachings is that historically they were a tool of pacifying the…

I didn't mention any of that stuff though.

Facing your suffering is the only way to understand truly how to solve it.

You can keep running from it if you want but it will just catch up to you.

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#19

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

Huxley was a very persuasive writer, witty and engaging, with good insights. But I doubt that making an already unreliable pattern recognition apparatus go haywire can produce anything useful. Entertaining, maybe, useful, no.

Re: Aldous Huxley's Deep Reflection

#20

Post by dredmorbius »

hutzlibu wrote: post #9
locuscoeruleus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like spiritual bypass, which is a failure mode of mindfulness a lot of people can fall into. You say it drives your wife crazy, so it seems that being in this state doesn't actually help you resolve issues between you and your wife. It only numbs you to the conflict and puts the whole burden on your wife.

"It only numbs you to the conflict and puts the whole burden on your wife." Or it prevents the conflict from escalating. Panic and anger are connected, so if he found a way to be calm and stop the conversation, I guess this is way better than having the conflict in a mode of distress. So later, when both are calm, the issues can get resolved.

Persistent antagonists and provocateurs tend to become antagonised and provoked when their attempts to antagonise and provoke fail.

That is a secondary consideration to preventing further antagonisation, provocation, and escallation of the situation itself.

That said, there seems to be an underlying interpersonal conflict, and possibly incompatibility, here.

Post reply on HN