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

371–380 of 396 posts

Re: The new science of meditation

#371

Post by haswell »

darthrupert wrote: post #347
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…

Sam Harris is not religious, but he certainly has practiced meditation in a religious way. I'm not saying this as if it was a bad thing, or that it detracts from his scientificism or atheism, just an observation.

Harris practices meditation religiously in the same way that professional athletes train religiously.

The difference is that people don’t conclude that one must become a religious person to become an athlete.

Describing training as religious evokes a definition of the word that has nothing to do with:

> 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

> 2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion.

Meditation is often (incorrectly) explicitly associated with religion and religiosity, which are orthogonal to a “religious” dedication to the practice, a practice that requires no adherence to religious ideas.

I’m only splitting hairs here because the idea that there’s a religious connection remains pretty prevalent, and is a major misconception.

Re: The new science of meditation

#372

Post by kian »

speak_plainly wrote: post #183
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…

I learned how to meditate at a Soto Zen monastery, so just facing the wall. And I experienced the typical sort of makyo (hallucinations) you might expect such as faces, a sort of tunnel effect, colours, etc. I recently switched to a Chan method of facing outward and the hallucinations I experienced were extreme. At first, time felt as if it had completely stopped and what felt like days were going by as I sat there,…

Holding one's gaze still leads very rapidly to intense visual hallucinations. Just as the mind hallucinates the details in our blind spot, when you gaze fixedly long enough, the entire visual field begins to go - and in the process, becomes a recursive game of visual hallucination telephone.

A clarifying question - are you saying the experience itself that you described was unpleasant, but that afterwards it felt amazing? Was it unpleasant due to the nature of the time dilation?

Re: The new science of meditation

#373

Post by eep_social »

gregfjohnson wrote: post #344

On a light note: There is a difference between micro-wave meditation and slow-cook meditation! Personally, I'm a slow-cook kind of guy. This article seems to be describing various ways to short-cut or accelerate the process, and I'm not sure of the wisdom of that game plan. One important aspect of meditation practice for me has been the gentle unpacking of suppressed trauma. Thomas Keating refers to this as the evacu…

Yes, and crashing the door down may be the only option for others who think the door is a brick wall.

Re: The new science of meditation

#374

Post by eep_social »

chrispine wrote: post #83
haswell wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Based on these recommendations I tried it out. Content seems fine but in 2023 it’s hard to escape the connection between Sam Harris and so-called “effective altruism” which soured the experience in for me.

I like and recommend Smiling Mind from a company out of Australia. It feels like what would happen if PBS released a version of Waking Up.

Re: The new science of meditation

#375

Post by jules22 »

sambapa wrote: post #332
jules22 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem rather influenced by Indian right wing pseudohistory. It's similar to arguing Ayurveda isn't very harmful because it is ancient. An appeal to tradition. > stacking shit like rocks on top of each other They still do in India. Cow dung cakes are a rural fuel. I am not doubting that India is likely the first to write about derealization. But it was mistaken to be the ultimate reality.

I am european influenced by the suttas

> Philosophical concept that emerged during times when western people were still stacking shit like rocks on top of each other

And which European historian furnished you this tidbit?

Re: The new science of meditation

#376

Post by jules22 »

swayvil wrote: post #361
jules22 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The esoteric/mystical stuff always turned out to be little more than woo. So all the more reason to do "research" in a rigorous way. Individual research ends up little more than making up things. It cannot really be called "research" at all.

The "spiritual experience" is in fact rather common. Nothing esoteric about it, only the wacky explanations of it are. There is a lot of mainstream research about it that "individual researchers" just ignore.

Re: The new science of meditation

#377

Post by dottjt »

tasuki wrote: post #327
dottjt wrote: post #164

I think a key point that a lot of people miss is that meditation is just a single practice. The goal is mindfulness. This is to say that you can meditate mindlessly, as you can meditate mindfully. You can also be mindful without meditation, although it's a lot more difficult to do so.

> The goal is mindfulness. That's just, like, your opinion?

At least explain your perspective. How do you view meditation?

Re: The new science of meditation

#378

Post by dottjt »

3abiton wrote: post #181
dottjt wrote: post #164

I think a key point that a lot of people miss is that meditation is just a single practice. The goal is mindfulness. This is to say that you can meditate mindlessly, as you can meditate mindfully. You can also be mindful without meditation, although it's a lot more difficult to do so.

What is your recommendation gateway to meditation?

The Sam Harris Waking Up meditation course is pretty good from a doing it point of view.

But in terms of helping you understand why meditation is actually something you should do, there's a book called The Happiness Trap which outlines Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, which is basically western mindfulness.

Re: The new science of meditation

#379

Post by jules22 »

kagakuninja wrote: post #360
jules22 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Advaita denies only the duality between the soul and the world soul, while denial of the world is more of solipcism. Buddhism can deny self, but Buddha can also say, his self alone exists. In any case, these are just beliefs. We know the world exists and there are no souls around. So much for "enlightenment".

I am not knowledgeable about Advaita Vedanta, I'm just repeating some simplified statements from Michael Taft's course on non-duality. Enlightenment is profound, and unrelated to belief, or non-belief about the existence of the world. Mainstream Buddhism does not deny the existence of the world or individual persons, it states that our conception of the "self" is a mental construct. From a subjective perspective, eve…

According to wikipedia:

"Hoffman notes that the commonly held view that brain activity causes conscious experience has, so far, proved to be intractable in terms of scientific explanation"

That's just a fringe position. It may look good on Youtube or a TED Talk. But it has no scientific backing. It is certainly not a "movement" in science. They produced no evidence or even proposed any experiments. It's just idle speculation, not science.

Re: The new science of meditation

#380

Post by rollinDyno »

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…

What reasons do you have to trust your intuition? Why do you happen to have a certain intuition and why is it likely to give you the right answers?
Post reply on HN