
The Problem of Mindfulness - gerbilly
https://aeon.co/essays/mindfulness-is-loaded-with-troubling-metaphysical-assumptions
======
jonbronson
While there are a lot of truths in this article, there's also a thread of
misconception running through it, embodied most prominently in the line
"Without some ownership of one’s feelings and thoughts, it is difficult to
take responsibility for them."

Mindfulness is about creating space between you and your thoughts, not
ignoring or discounting them. It allows you to look at them subjectively,
rather than being carried away by them. This in no way prohibits you from
being introspective, and analyzing the origin of these feelings/thoughts. If
anything, it empowers the individual to more rationally grapple with them,
without falling into the various psychological traps that often come with
certain feelings, such as rumination or avoidance. And whether or not we
believe that there is a self, this is no way invalidates the reality that your
thoughts ultimately reside inside the mind of a human being, with a real world
story. It's unclear to me why the author does not recognize this duality. Most
of the literature on mindfulness I've read, including Jon Kabat Zinn's,
explicitly mention this duality and its power.

~~~
JamesBarney
Exactly the definition of mindfulness is literally being aware of your mental
state.

If being carried away by emotions is like being lost than mindfulness is
developing a good sense of direction. And mindfulness meditation is the
practice through which one develops this skill.

~~~
dboreham
The tcpdump of the brain.

~~~
ivanhoe
More like setting a set of mental breakpoints on critical actions, so when
they run you can stop and analyze the situation before going any further.

------
sshekhar
The word mindfulness itself is a poor translation of the Pali word 'Sati'. The
Pali word actually means 'remembering to be aware of the objects that your
mind is attending to'. There is no word in western languages to capture that
phrase and hence word 'mindfulness' was used to convey in a confusing manner
what 'Sati' means.

I have been meditating for 1 hour to 1.5 hour every day for several years and
I finally got into a stage called 1st Jhana, where your mind becomes
temporarily free of all 'wants' and is completely at peace. In that state the
awareness becomes super sharp, breathing becomes very shallow (less than 5
breaths per minute) and experience of time distorts. Your awareness can
clearly watch thoughts coming up like 'lava bubbles' from your
subconsciousness into your consciousness. It is at that point you get a
glimpse into 'anatta' (non-self). The idea that there is no controller (or
soul or self) that is creating ideas. It is an automatic process that is
happening due to your past Karma (conditioning due to repeated practice).

It takes a lifetime to develop the wisdom and compassion that Buddha talked
about. It cannot be understood purely using logic. You have to get the
experience of a calm unbiased mind.

Even though people like her are well-intentioned but they should stop to think
of the possibility that they may not understand what they are talking about as
well as they think they do.

~~~
raincom
Whats the Sanskrit equivalent of 'Sati'?

~~~
urubu
स्मृति smṛti = remembrance, reminiscence, memory

~~~
rick22
The op asked about Sati not
smrti.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_\(practice\))

~~~
sshekhar
Smriti is correct Sanskrit of Pali 'Sati'. The 'Sati' you are talking about is
a different thing. This 'Sati' is related to mindfulness.

------
proverbialbunny
The author has fallen into nihilism and has mistaken it for Buddhism and
mindfulness meditation. Buddhism warns against falling into nihilism like
this, but I suspect mindfulness meditation practices do not.

Anatta doesn't mean no-self. It's a complex concept and is often mistaken.

Anatta has two parts to it:

1) Reality is broken up and labeled as two kinds. There is the present moment
reality, before it has been labeled by the mind called paramārtha, and a
reality of abstractions and labels over the first reality called saṁvṛti. (For
further reading checkout the Two Truths Doctrine.)

Self is an idea, so it exists within saṁvṛti. Self is an abstraction, as is
everything in this reality.

2) The abstraction of self is a combination of a bunch of elements, eg body,
mind, and so on, to make the concept of self.

Anatta, then, is a set (Set Theory). In the ultimate reality of paramārtha
there is no self. In the thought form reality, self is an
aggregate/abstraction.

"Why teach this?" you might be thinking. Because it doesn't seem like that big
of a deal. It's even obvious on a second examination.

The reason this is taught is if one thinks a thing is them (like their work)
and that thing gets insulted, they instinctively feel like they need to defend
it, which causes a lot of dukkha (psychological stress). If one realizes that
thing is not them, then there will be no dukkha when it is criticized.

People mix up anatta (non-self / no-singular-self / no-soul) with no-self. No-
self is a meditation practice, similar to noting, which one realizes bit by
bit, every single thing that comes into their mind is not self itself, even if
it is a piece that makes up the abstraction. All abstractions are made up from
a series of parts.

imho, anatta doesn't need to be taught to do mindfulness meditation, but
understanding impermanence is important, because without it most people try to
fight stressful thoughts and change them, instead of thinking of them like
rain clouds, to be observed, not modified.

Once the meditator sees the causal chain from observation to thought, action,
or feeling, that is all they need to change their habits and live a happier
and healthier life.

~~~
fsloth
Thanks, explaining anatta as set theory is a great analogue.

~~~
proverbialbunny
You're very welcome.

For further reading of the abstractions that make up self, checkout The Five
Skandhas
([https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Five_skandhas](https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Five_skandhas))

As Hofstadter once wrote, "It's turtles all the way down."
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down))

<3

------
mtalantikite
It seems like the author may have fallen into the common trap of the
nonexistence of self, which can lead to feelings of nihilism. When I first
encountered meditation as a teenager I also wandered into this trap and
subsequently stopped a daily meditation practice for maybe 10 years. Buddhist
teaching is very explicitly not nihilistic though.

In the Prajnaparamita literature of Mahayana Buddhism the teaching is the
emptiness of self and all phenomena, not the nonexistence of self and
phenomena. There is a difference. Thich Nhat Hanh’s translation of the Heart
Sutra explains it very clearly, and he argues that a lot of the confusion
comes from an unskillful translation of the sutra. I’d recommend it to anyone
that might be struggling with feelings of nihilism in their practice and is
working from the wrong understanding of there being no self.

Edit: I realized there are a couple publications of Thich Nhat Hanh’s Heart
Sutra, but the one I’m specifically referencing is published under the title
The Other Shore. I’d suggest getting a copy of the book in order to get the
full commentary, but the sutra and some motivation for it looks to be on his
website: [https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-
sutra...](https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-
translation/)

------
cggart
I’m a bit taken aback by the answers here. Everyone is throwing around terms
like knowing, evaluating, observing with the assumption that they are in a
position to be doing these thing effectively? What is the epistemological
foundation your espousing?

I think one post asked the rhetorical question “who is in a position to know
yourself better than yourself?”

To which I might reply: “Anyone but your yourself — especially your present
self?”

There seams to be a ton of hubris and confusion of goals and objectives here.

Most of these posts don’t talk about growing but conquering. They use
mindfulness as a tool to “learn about themselves” so that they might avoid
themselves.

This might feel great, but it’s delusion.

The best way humans have figured out how to know anything is reciprocal
accountability coupled with objectivity.

That either means opening up about your emotions honestly and presently with
another person you love/trust, or writing down (or otherwise recording) your
observations so you might evaluate them later over time.

We are more than ourselves, part of a collective, both presently amongst
ourselves, and in time.

The measure of knowledge is how well our evaluations resonate with others and
ourselves in time.

Mindfulness just allows us to make observations, not communicate them, or
judge them accurately.

Frankly, the best way to communicate an emotion is often to embody it. It can
also be the best way to observe it.

That’s how artists make art.

What matters isn’t what we feel but how we respond.

Mindfulness is a defense mechanism we use for short term relief from our
emotions. It gives a vantage point, not the vantage point. It is a tool, and
one that comes at the cost of using other just as valid tools.

Ultimately the measure of our well being doesn’t reside with our present
selves alone. We err in so far as we forget this in my opinion.

------
mromanuk
> Of course, it’s often pragmatically useful to step away from your own
> fraught ruminations and emotions. Seeing them as drifting leaves can help us
> gain a certain distance from the heat of our feelings, so as to discern
> patterns and identify triggers.

I try to do 10-15min daily meditation exactly for this and it work.

Counterpoint for “researching” where your thoughts come and searching for the
problem: As an anxious individual, my whole life was/is imprinted with
anxiety, there is no root cause of it in what I’m thinking. That’s the
brilliance of mindfulness, I can cope with the anxiety accepting my thoughts,
without trying to change them.

------
altonzheng
I've fallen into the trap of similar thinking as the author, and I agree, the
main issue is believing that mindfulness is a panacea. The more we suffer the
more we hope for simple solutions. I really wanted to believe that meditate
more == be happier. For my neurotic and driven personality, this meant
obsessively meditating, and I began deconstructing and disidentifying from
every negative emotion using mindfulness. I got to some interested states from
that and felt like I could "overcome" any negative emotion, but my general
sense is my practice was imbalanced and I don't feel like I'm much better
off... maybe a little disassociated from reality. Most serious meditation
practitioners are aware of pitfalls like this though, it's known as "spiritual
bypassing".

Meditation is just another tool, although a very powerful one. Use it wisely.

~~~
fhennig
I'll add to the "meditation is a tool".

In psychotherapy I have always encountered mindfulness as only a small part of
a full treatment, not as a solution to everything.

To me it is a specific tool as well, I use meditation to focus and gain
awareness of ruminating thoughts that have been bugging me throughout the day.
Sitting down, focusing on the breath and then having the thoughts come back to
me, I can see more clearly what is actually going on inside of me. It is
important to be non-judgemental at this point, to allow yourself to become
fully aware of the thought.

Afterwards I sometimes sit down and think about my feelings more. What
personal character traits lead to this, and what was the context in which the
feeling arose. This I connect to mentalization
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalization)).

------
negamax
> they’re explicitly instructed to disregard the content of their own thoughts

Seems like author is biased on purpose. Entire central idea behind mindfulness
is to be aware of your thoughts. i.e. not being lead into same issues by
subconscious conclusions (hence breaking the cycle/loop). Well at least that's
my interpretation anyways

Mindfulness works because it helps someone reach to conclusions on their own.
Who knows you better than yourself

------
Bizarro
I've been skirting around the idea of practicing mindfulness, but there's
something that bothers me about aeon and "magazines" like it.

The articles always seem to try to be "contrarian" or "unique" for the sake of
being different - "I've got something to tell you that you don't know and you
haven't thought about".

I get that it's pretty much the point of aeon, but at some point it just gets
annoying. It's almost like any kind of insight into something is way down the
totem pole, below some kind of "shock, contrarian, unique" factor.

~~~
Spearchucker
Exactly. Make the reader spend effort on attaining insight into the point and
the reader becomes more invested in the product. Classic Cialdini.

------
quakingaspen
While this article has a number of problems that have already people have
astutely already brought up, no one has yet mentioned his misrepresentation of
the content and location of _anatta_ in Buddhist philosophy. _Anatta_ is just
one the three characteristics of existence that mindfulness allows one to see
directly in one's own experience. The other two are _anicca_ (impermanence)
and _dukkha_ (sufferering). Defining any one of these on its own very
difficult because they are so interrelated, despite being distinct concepts.
In fact, it is traditional to define each of these in terms of each of the
other two (and especially _anatta_ , which is usually regarded as the most
difficult to gain direct understanding of). If you don't take care with your
definitions in this way, it's easy to argue with Buddhist philososphy on
Western metaphysical terms instead of on it's own terms. In this case, the
author represents _anatta_ as being roughly equivalent with the metaphysical
claim that there is no soul or "an underlying subject of our own experience".
But that is not at all the claim made by _annata_ : rather than simply being a
doctrine of no-self, _anatta_ holds that there is no permanent ( _anicca_ )
and coherent/satisfactory ( _dukkha_ ) self. From this definition it does not
follow that "one is not one's feelings" or that one's feelings are not
oneself. Though these are both true in a certain sense, the real insight of
_anatta_ (along with _anicca_ and _dukkha_ ) is that it allows one to see
right here and right now that neither of these statements make sense at all,
because the dualism they assume is experientially and metaphysically false.

That said, this kind of careful study is lacking from the vast majority of so-
called mindfulness meditation - which I think the author is totally right to
call out. Teaching mindfulness outside of the full context of the Buddha's
actual teachings (the Pali Suttas directly, or through teachers with years of
practice and study) is - as he argues - never going to get you farther than a
bit of destressing after work.

Here's Mahasi Sayadaw's discussion of selflessness for an example of defining
_anatta_ in terms of _anicca_ and _dukkha_ :
[https://www.budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-
anat/anat05.htm](https://www.budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-anat/anat05.htm)

------
gridlockd
_" Western metaphysics typically holds that – in addition to the existence of
any thoughts, emotions and physical sensations – there is some entity to whom
all these experiences are happening, and that it makes sense to refer to this
entity as ‘I’ or ‘me’. However, according to Buddhist philosophy, there is no
‘self’ or ‘me’ to which such phenomena belong."_

This reminds me of this quip by Richard Feynman:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo)

------
stevebmark
Mindfulness was a major step forward in the exploration of the self, at least
for western culture. I see this criticism as the next step forward. I too have
felt some ambiguous disconnect between mindfulness and experience that this
essay does a good job capturing. The goal of mindfulness is to make you
realize you don't exist, and to try to reach a state where you don't exist,
and teach you that your thoughts aren't your own and you have no free will.
That was a step forward in breaking down the self, and this next step is to
unify these ideas with the self and existence.

~~~
gridlockd
> The goal of mindfulness is to make you realize you don't exist, and to try
> to reach a state where you don't exist, and teach you that your thoughts
> aren't your own and you have no free will.

You _have_ spent billions of years not existing, you _will_ spend billions of
years not existing, yet you also want to achieve this state of not existing
within your comparatively short actual lifetime?

What a waste.

~~~
hooch
This brings to mind an illustrative example made by the Buddhist teacher
Alexander Berzin:

“You’re driving down the road, and another driver is doing something crazy,
swerving about and you almost have an accident, and you think what an asshole!

Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first
obscuration that prevents omniscience. Believing this thought to be true is
the second obscuration (paraphrased) that cements the prevention of
omniscience.”

It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally
accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we
project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to
reality.

~~~
gridlockd
> Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first
> obscuration that prevents omniscience

You know what else prevents omniscience? The second law of thermodynamics. So
what?

> It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and
> conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the
> ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t
> correspond to reality.

Again, so what? Even the simplest biochemical processes inside my body are so
complex and astounding, I have no hope of ever truly understanding even a tiny
part of them. I have no issue with this. I have no issue with not truly
knowing "reality", or with the prospect that understanding it is literally
impossible.

~~~
zzzeek
So...it might help you to realize that other people who you would normally
think are "assholes", people who you don't know yet hate nonetheless, are
nothing like that, and maybe you've been making all kinds of judgments about
people that aren't really true, and that in fact, reality calls for a vastly
larger degree of love and compassion for others, even people who cut you off
on the road. You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more
courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and
hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is
achieved. No biggie, so what!

~~~
gridlockd
I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to
help me realize that.

From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue that nobody has a free
will and that nobody is ultimately responsible for anything.

For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms,
the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans
call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work
better as a society. There's a _purpose_ for you to get upset about such
behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your _will
to live_.

Yes, sometimes your will to live makes you suffer. That doesn't mean killing
off that will is "enlightened", or that the people who "tune out" are to be
revered for it. You're rebranding a thinly veiled "sour grapes attitude" into
a virtue.

> You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous,
> less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility
> between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved.

This is a foolish belief. If there is no such thing as an "asshole", there is
no such thing as "murderer". Remember, nobody is responsible for anything.
It's all just part of the cosmic ballet! That's how Zen Buddhism helped the
Japanese commit all those atrocities:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War)

Remember, not everyone actually buys into this philosophy, by their nature.
Your brand of philosophy is one of weakness, of little resistance. It doesn't
have the "tools" for survival on its own and it's easily exploited.

~~~
hooch
I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my comment
just proves the point.

The comment I offered was an illustration that I found helpful in clarifying
the Buddhist concept of non-self.

In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere
effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on
track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never led to
disappointment.

Unless perhaps you were thinking I wrote omnipotence?

As for the traffic examples, having spent a while in countries where nobody
really bothers to sanction other motorists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, push
carts, cows, etc, strangely it works out okay. It’s almost like the drivers
stopping to blow their horn and yell “asshole” create exponentially more
problems further back up the web of traffic, than had they refrained from
doing that.

~~~
gridlockd
> I think your judgemental reaction against the intended substance in my
> comment just proves the point.

It doesn't. Drawn to its logical conclusion, your philosophy can't _prove_
anything. When challenged, you relegate to semantic games, diluting your terms
and statements to the point where they can mean anything and nothing. You
accuse me of being judgemental instead of actually defending your philosophy.

Well, so what if I'm being judgemental? When it comes to philosophy, judgement
is _in order_.

> In my book omniscience need not be some kind of superpower, even a sincere
> effort to comprehend and understand clearly, without heavy overlays, is on
> track. Learning to pierce those overlays with patience has never
> disappointed.

Omniscience not only is a superpower, it is a _godlike_ superpower. It means
"to know everything". Everything! Of course, if in "your book" omniscience
means something else entirely, you shouldn't use that word without
simultaneously giving your idiosyncratic definition. Otherwise, you're playing
that semantic game where you can retreat from any position by changing the
meaning of words after-the-fact. It's the cheapest trick in the book.

> Unless perhaps you were thinking I meant omnipotence.

No. To "know everything" is distinct from being able to "do anything".

~~~
hooch
Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind. I wasn’t presenting a
philosophy.

I just spent a fair amount of time trying to unpack the Buddhist concept of
non-self, and offered up something that I found to be a novel way of
elucidating the significance and usefulness of non-self, and shone a light,
for me at least, on the habits of mind which obscure the understanding.

In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term. In a practical
context, a literal adherence is not necessary to derive a meaningful
understanding and experience.

For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time
helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even some
mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be false, an
obscuration. The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the
second level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact.

Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is
all your creation.

I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism. That doesn’t automatically mean
that I came here to argue with you about that.

~~~
gridlockd
> Sorry, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind.

Of course not, you're a mindful person!

> I wasn’t presenting a philosophy.

You made statements of philosophical relevance, which were answered in kind.

> In the context of the quote, omniscience is a valid term.

Sure, in the context of psychobabble, any word can mean anything you want. If
you asked Deepak Chopra about quantum mechanics, you would get a "wealth" of
meaningless drivel that may nevertheless sound highly profound to the
uninitiated.

> For example, a child may say “I’m no good at maths”. Yet you spend some time
> helping them patiently, and in time they gain some confidence, maybe even
> some mastery, and that particular once firmly-held notion is proven to be
> false, an obscuration.

A child that says they're "no good at math" is probably telling the truth.
Let's suppose the child really wasn't good at math. They haven't had any
practice, why _should_ they be good at math? After all this practice, they may
_become_ good at math, but the child _wasn 't_ good at maths before. Their
earlier self-assessment _hasn 't_ been proven false. It was true at the time
and forever will have been true.

> The first level being the thought “I’m no good at maths” and the second
> level being the firmly-held belief that it’s an immutable fact.

The statement "I'm no good at maths" doesn't actually imply such a "firmly-
held belief". A statement like "I'm no good at math and I never will be no
matter what I do" would. Perhaps a child might make such a statement. They're
not really in the position to know, but the possibility exists that it _is_ a
more or less immutable fact. Dyscalculia is a thing, you know.

See, if I didn't make this distinction, you might get away with having said
something that _sounds profound_. It really isn't!

> Beyond all this, the identity you ascribe to me (“kook”, “my philosophy”) is
> all your creation.

I never called you a kook and I don't think you're kook. I think you're an
ordinary person that, like many people, found some appeal in mindfulness. I'm
not saying that mindfulness doesn't work or that subjectively it doesn't have
benefits that outweigh the drawbacks.

However, the foundational teachings behind it are ultimately meaningless. They
sound profound, but if you nail them down and try to get them to actually say
something with a concrete meaning, they tend to fall apart. They are left
intentionally vague to let your preconceived notions fill in the gaps. It's
very persuasive.

In any event, you can't entirely divorce the foundation from the practice.
That's the point of the article.

> I appreciate now that you don’t like Buddhism.

It's not that I don't _like_ it. I'd _like_ to like it! Nevertheless, I find
it misguided. It deserves scrutiny like any belief system.

> That doesn’t automatically mean that I came here to argue with you about
> that.

I don't expect you to. Nevertheless, I appeal to maintain your critical
thinking. Don't do too much non-thinking. You can do that when you're dead.

~~~
hooch
Sorry to disappoint you again, but like you, I also take issue with
“McMindfulness”.

Another commenter (one of the first) made the point that “mindfulness” is an
inaccurate translation of the Pali “sati”, which in the original context
doesn’t mean much more than “remembering to be aware of the objects that your
mind is attending to” - those objects being specific and often elaborate
mental and emotional faculties. Sati is no system in itself.

Anyway, I only ever set out here to share a single illustrative example of
“anatta” or non-self.

Have fun there.

~~~
gridlockd
> Sorry to disappoint you again...

Don't worry, I'm rarely disappointed. I try to keep my expectations low. In
any event, your presumed identity (or lack thereof) is not really important to
what I am saying.

> ... but like you, I also take issue with “McMindfulness”.

I don't necessarily have an issue with "mindfulness", that's just a technique
of meditation as far as I'm concerned. Like other techniques of meditation, it
clearly does _something_. I do think it _can_ be beneficial, in the same way
that hallucinogenic drugs _can_ be beneficial.

Biochemically, these are similar in many ways. Yet, few people would dare
claim that dropping acid can _actually_ give you a deeper understanding about
the nature of the universe. It sure can _feel_ that way though.

> Another commenter (one of the first) made the point that “mindfulness” is an
> inaccurate translation of the Pali “sati”, which in the original context
> doesn’t mean much more than “remembering to be aware of the objects that
> your mind is attending to” - those objects being specific and often
> elaborate mental and emotional faculties. Sati is no system in itself.

See, I much rather have an issue with these foundational teachings. That stuff
is woo-woo. That's the stuff you brought up.

------
badpun
I've had very similar thoughts about mindfullness. Mindfullness tells you to
observe your fears and other feelings and see that they come and go, while it
does not focus at all on whether and to what degree they are actual valid and
important. Feelings are often signals from your subconsciousness, which is
trying to tell that something. Of course, a lot of the time these signals can
be BS or blown out of proportions - but effectively ignoring them via
mindfullness is not a good approach in my opinion.

~~~
weddpros
I'm in that boat too. Before meditation, I used to practice self-hypnosis and
at the beginning, I thought they were similar. But self hypnosis helps you
change your thoughts, when meditation is simply acknowledgement of thoughts,
which feels useless to me.

In a sense, meditation seems very shallow, it's the very first step. Then come
the techniques of self-hypnosis which lead to change and the real self-help. I
don't think that acceptation is enough to make your life better, just a little
less miserable.

~~~
mapcars
>when meditation is simply acknowledgement of thoughts, which feels useless to
me.

I would say you clearly have not meditated enough :)

~~~
weddpros
Thank you, who doesn't like a condescendent comment...

I would reply you have no idea how much you're leaving on the table by
meditating instead of using auto-hypnosis.

------
osullip
Mindfull meditation may have its background in Buddhist beliefs, but that
doesn't mean that you have to apply them to your meditation.

The Australian author Eric Harrison does a good job at seperating the two.
[https://www.booktopia.com.au/the-foundations-of-
mindfulness-...](https://www.booktopia.com.au/the-foundations-of-mindfulness-
eric-harrison/prod9781615192564.html)

------
scooble
The main premise of the article seems to be that 'you are not your feelings'
in mindfulness covertly introduces the idea of 'no self'.

I don't find this compelling. If anything 'you are not your feelings'
reinforces the 'western' picture of a self that has (but is not identical to)
feelings.

~~~
Spearchucker
So if we're not our body, and we're not our feelings (both are as transitory
and regenerative as each other), then what are we? How do you define the self
that is accountable for this body and these feelings?

~~~
scooble
I don't have a definition to offer. But that doesn't seem relevant to the
truth value of the author's claim.

I can be ignorant of the nature of the self but still see that 'we are not our
feelings' and 'there is no self' are not the same claim, or that the former
implies the latter.

------
andreilys
_" With its promises of assisting everyone with anything and everything, the
mistake of the mindfulness movement is to present its impersonal mode of
awareness as a superior or universally useful one"_

It's difficult for me to imagine a person that would not benefit from taking a
break from the non-stop stream of thoughts and the overidentification that
comes with it.

------
username90
Some studies have shown that mindfulness helps, but is it the actual
"mindfulness" or is it the pause from life that helps? The alternative should
not be to do nothing, but to for example take a slow walk or a nice shower.
I'd bet that taking a walk would actually provide more benefits than
meditation and mindfulness since it is coupled with exercise. Personally I
have gotten nothing from mindfulness and meditation, however I do walk for
about an hour a day and in general spend a lot of time without a goal.

~~~
chewz
Gardening is the new mindfulness. :-)

Also sailing non-stop for nine weeks in the ocean had been for me much better
experience (in terms of emptying mind and getting in touch with myself) then
any retreat (and I did some).

~~~
chewz
And if you are in for a quick fix freediving puts you into the zone in
seconds.

[https://youtu.be/Od45T65pTaU](https://youtu.be/Od45T65pTaU)

------
narnianal
Not really, nope. You should not focus on anything. You should experience the
experience openly. If you eat a fruit and it reminds you of home, you should
experience the food and the memory and yourself, without blocking any of that
by focussing on something specifically.

Of course to get to that state of mind you first need to learn by naively
focussing on it, that there is more to the experience than what you can see at
first. But that is like the additional wheels you put on a child's bike. It's
supposed to be on there forever. It's just to get you started.

The goal is to oepn yourself to parts of the experience you didn't have
before. For instance have you realized how much your body is automatically
communicating your inner feelings through body language? Just keep thinking
about your shoulders over the day and see how often they are actually raised
as an unconcious way of protecting yourself. It can even happen when you brush
your teeth because of what you are thinking about in that moment.

So when you are able to combine all these observations, and are able to not
overwrite your observations by thinking too much, and be able to do it all the
time without needing to expend any kind of energy on it, then you have
achieved Mindfulness.

Even the guys in the text books that are praised so much probably haven't
achieved it btw. They themselves would not even claim so. But the people who
wrote the books were on a lower level where they thought they needed to expend
energy to achieve something, e.g. by telling a more enhanced version of the
story they might advertise the book or its philosophy to you.

------
bamboozled
So I didn’t realise that the commonly held believe in 2019 is Buddhism (and or
Mindfulness practice) = Nihilism until I read the comments section of this
thread.

------
want2know
I guess I will be downvoted for this but it always amazed me that so many
people in HN are religious when it comes to mindfulness, Buddhism and
meditation.

There is no scientific proof that there is any difference between relaxing in
an chair and meditating following a strict form. The core is: it is very good
to give the brain a brake in our busy times.

But it is also proven that it can be dangerous to give the brain a break when
you have a troubles mind. Things can emerge from the depths which you should
find help for.

A nice writeup about this is an article from 2016:
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindfulness-
wellbein...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindfulness-
wellbeing/201603/dangers-meditation)

But there is also more recent recearch that backs this up.

So: meditation/relaxing can be very good to reduce stress and to think more
clearly. But take care: "Meditation is not a therapy"

~~~
lm28469
I see it as a framework. It's easier to get into a relaxing state by following
known principles than just sitting in a chair and waiting for it to happen.

As long as you don't add a value judgment on top (my way is THE Way) I don't
see the issue. A bit like how religions are frameworks for faith. You could
make up your own gods and rituals but there is something reassuring in
following existing norms with set principles and communities.

You can see the same pattern emerging everywhere. Gym workouts are the same,
you can do random things until it feels right or you can follow one of the
main school of thoughts and get it 90% right on the first try.

For example I always thought hypnosis and affirmations were 100% useless and
borderline hippie bullshit. One day I tried a random hypnosis video on YouTube
and it got me in a state of relaxation I never reached before. Might be
placebo, but in the end it does the job.

------
gdubs
A long time ago, my advisor in college asked me to help him set up some
climbing ropes. They were all knotted up. He said, “instead of trying to pick
the knots apart, just pick up the ropes and let them fall to the ground, and
keep doing that over and over again — the knots will come undone.”

Thoughts can be like knots: if you try too hard, the knots just get tighter.
If you find a way to let go and be loose, the knots can come undone on their
own. (Funnily enough, my advisor had spent years in a Zen monestary when he
was younger.)

I’ve had the opposite experience as the author and have actually worked
through a lot of my own thoughts through meditation. Or, rather, many of those
thoughts have worked themselves out.

The thing to remember is that mediation _itself_ is the goal. It’s great that
meditating can have a lot of positive side effects; but chasing those side
effects kind of misses the whole point.

~~~
wavefunction
Climbing ropes shouldn't be stored like that for safety's sake. Knots should
always be unknotted by hand when putting away ropes and dropping the ropes on
the ground repeatedly is not a good idea.

------
eternauta3k
I'm surprised that the article doesn't reference this book:

David L. McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism

[https://www.amazon.com/Making-Buddhist-Modernism-David-
McMah...](https://www.amazon.com/Making-Buddhist-Modernism-David-
McMahan/dp/0195183274)

------
p0d
As a Christian I find other christian friends split on the topic of
mindfulness. Some embrace mindfulness and some think it should be avoided. I
am in the latter camp. I imagine the reason why is the spiritual nature of
mindfulness which is highlighted by all the comments here.

Most days I use the Lord Jesus’s prayer to reflect and pray about the day
before/ahead. It’s an important part of my life and well-being. I’m curious to
hear from other christians who embrace mindfulness. It is an alien concept for
me to reflect inwards without looking outside myself to God. How does
mindfulness rest with your christian faith in this regard?

~~~
Infinitesimus
(Former Christian my some standard here)

Some would argue that meditation, mindfulness and prayer are not necessarily
different.

Prayer - from the angle of communion with God - can be a two way street. You
speak, you listen.

With mindfulness and many other meditations, you listen a lot. You can call
what you're listening to yourself. Or God. Or Oneness. Or The Universe.
Whatever it is, it helps you turn the lens of your introspection away from the
noise and towards something quieter, deeper, and perhaps enlightening.

Don't forget that several monks from the 5th century to the present day
promoted meditation ( eg
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_meditat...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_meditation)
)

Even in the bible, all the times people went off to the desert to commune with
God, I bet they were meditating and practicing mindfulness.

~~~
p0d
Thanks. I was just chatting to my wife about your response and she was
recollecting what some call centering prayer. There seems to be some
comparison. I guess I do meditate and am mindful. There may just may be some
cultural baggage with those words in Christendom.

------
laser
“This error of understanding has dominated Indian culture for centuries and
has turned the principle of life upside down. Life on the basis of detachment!
This is a complete distortion of Indian philosophy. It has not only destroyed
the path of realization but has led the seekers of Truth continuously astray
... Indian scriptures are now so full of the idea of renunciation that they
are regarded with distrust by practical men in every part of the world. Many
Western universities hesitate to teach Indian philosophy for this reason.”

\- Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 12 January 1965, Preface to Bhagavad-Gita

------
semerda
I wonder if ppl overthink this and make it more complex then it should with
apps and references to ppl who really didn’t know much more than we do today
about the brain.

Anyone tried sensory deprivation tank (or floating as it’s now known)?

Floating to me is the easiest method to let go of the monkey mind without
trying. Dr John Lilly (the inventor) took it few notches further taking
various substances to heighten his experience. I’m sure some ppl need that
sort of journey to let go of memory loops/ptsd, but not required to float.

------
lukaa
I don't understand fuss about meditation. There are a lot of alternative
states of consciousness and many ways to achieve them with different benefits
in them. Why put one state on throne? For example drinking green tea,
exercise, sleeping, anestesia, different drugs. If there is one alternative
state in which quality you should invest your time than that is good night
sleep because it is most natural and necessary for both mental and physical
health.

~~~
prebrov
Mediation is exercise for the mind. One exercises the body to better control
their bodily functions, like movements, breathing, heartbeat, etc. One
meditates to develop better control of their thinking processes.

Mindfulness, concentration - these are just techniques to help you focus for
extended periods of time, and make better decisions.

You can meditate to understand your way to escape samsara, to build a better
software architecture, or to kill all humans.

Given enough practice, your mind functions in a permanently altered state,
becoming more alert, focused, open, and elastic whenever you’re awake (though
lucid dreaming is another potential kick some people chase). Now you can set
goals, prioritise better, procrastinate less, rather than just cruising along.
This gives you significant competitive edge over the rest of the population.

That’s what all the fuss is about.

Meditation can be exhausting, especially at the beginning - steering your
thoughts is hard. So, importance of sleep is often one of the first things
people very clearly realise when they try to consciously control their thought
process.

------
amriksohata
Ask a Hindu sage, the word mindfulness is literally as the article describes,
a watered down version. The same has happened to yoga, it's all commercialised
but in Hinduism yoga has a different purpose and use but it's been stripped of
its best values just as a physical thing. Mindfulness is bhakti in Hinduism, a
type of mediation but it's been taken by the west and made into something
different

------
SolarNet
I think mindfulness is a useful tool. From there one needs a framework from
which to operate on what it provides. Psychology for example. Though
personally I like rationality as a pop-culture-esque pairing better.
[https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality](https://www.lesswrong.com/rationality)

------
argd678
It’s mystifying how something so simple can be turned into something so
complicated. Just pay attention, that’s confusing now?

~~~
andreilys
Lol I couldn’t agree more. How can anyone be against paying attention?

Keep in mind this publications whole brand is posting “contrarian” articles,
so it’s not surprising to see this article which seems to be contrarian for
the sake of being contrarian.

------
lottin
What about... reflection? To me it seems a far more effective approach to
self-knowledge. Reflect on your life and experiences in a detached manner.
Have a conversation with someone you trust or with yourself. Ask yourself
unsettling questions. Answer them honestly. It's amazing the things you can
learn this way.

~~~
ElFitz
It can be hard when one is too... "entangled" with one's own issues, feelings
and deeply carved thought patterns.

Being able to distance oneself from them can definitely help. Just like it's
often easier to figure out someone else's issues and their solutions (unless
one is projecting or missing an important part of the picture)

------
raincom
Instead of looking at metaphysically, look at the way natural sciences do:
does the self exist? Just because we experience our 'selves' every day, it
doesn't mean that such an experience is veridical. What if mindfulness refutes
our daily experience?

------
abiro
This article highlights the problem with the mindfulness movement very well:
they teach technique instead of understanding. But it should be the other way
around: it is only after Understanding that one should seek out specific
techniques.

------
Mirioron
Does mindfulness work for everybody? I've read plenty about its effects on
some people and read about how it seems to work on average, but is it
something that helps everyone that tries it or are some people less benefited
by it?

~~~
chewz
> Does mindfulness work for everybody?

Deepends on your karma.

People who start meditating often get on a pink cloud and they mistake that
for a proof that meditation is working for them. As this feeling washes away
with time some people get disapointed and give up while some try chasing it.
Sort of like chasing runners high.

[meditation as any other sport attracts certain number of narcistic over-
achievers with compulsion for controling reality]

But some people - no matter what attracted them to meditation - make suprising
progress.

Also some people had been meditators in past lifes so they are naturals :-)

PS. Bear in mind that insight meditation / mindfulness is styling itself as
millenia old practice but in fact had been created in 2nd part of XIX century
as reaction to British colonialism.

First teaching of fan-down meditation for laypeople took place in Rangoon in
1911. Silicon Valey took it recently to next level with 10 minutes a day
mindfulness apps.

Does it work? Well there are also 7-pushups-a-day apps. Do they work? Do they
provide same benefits as professional years long athlete training?

[https://tricycle.org/magazine/meditation-en-
masse/](https://tricycle.org/magazine/meditation-en-masse/)

------
nkozyra
This seems extremely anecdotal and biased against newcomers to mindfulness.
Basically it doesn't sit right with the author and doesn't sit right with some
Buddhists. That's not a great argument against it.

------
njsubedi
Could be off topic but the site is asking for a donation, but using photos
from Getty Images, which I think is pretty expensive. Did anyone else have
this thought, or was it only me?

------
peterwwillis
After listening to Thich Nhat Hanh answer questions in a 3 hour long Google
Talk, I realized mindfulness's goal of removing pain also aimed to remove all
the little dramas of the human experience. Some people think of mindfulness as
a kind of cure to unhappiness, when it's really just a drug, or tool, wrapped
up in "Wisdom of the East" woo packaging. Don't just "do mindfulness", because
it's not a cure-all.

------
chewz
My mindfullness app makes me feel so much better then you

[https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/my-new-meditation-app-
ma...](https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/my-new-meditation-app-makes-me-
feel-so-much-better-than-you)

------
Barrin92
the thing that rubs me the wrong way about mindfulness is how it sits neatly
between secularism, spirituality and obsessive self-improvement, it's exactly
the sort of thing "high performers" who are full of themselves are drawn to.
No value commitments, little meaningful connection to the real world, it's the
sort of replacement for religiousness you expect to find in a tech mecca,
which is of course where it has been gaining popularity.

When I hear minfulness I think of Jack Dorsey meditating in a private retreat
in myanmar while the rohingya are being chased down the next street by a mob
organised on twitter. A few years ago it was reading Marc Aurel and the stoics
and now it's apparently meditation.

The irony of course being that the entire practise seems to have been
commodified already, now we can all medidate with the premium subscription
meditation app that wants us to get away from our subscription services.

~~~
randallsquared
> A few years ago it was reading [Marcus Aurelius] and the stoics

Well, Stoicism turns out to be difficult.

~~~
chewz
> Well, Stoicism turns out to be difficult.

SV couldn't make an app for that.. and profit

------
gridlockd
That's not awakening, that's going to sleep. Dare to be human, to have
desires, to have a will. Don't just "accept" the world, shape it. You have an
eternity to be nothing, be _something_ now.

~~~
bamboozled
One could say there are plenty of people on earth who practiced mindfulness,
had feelings and shaped the world.

~~~
gridlockd
I suppose they hadn't had enough practice then.

------
SirLJ
Mind tricks don't work on me, only money...

~~~
H8crilA
Money is a mind trick. It's literally an abstract concept that we trade for
physical goods and services. A very successful and useful one.

------
grayed-down
For me mindfulness has been like a flaming tire around my neck. Too much
thinking. And WTH does one do with a Masters in Philosophy? Nice article
BTW...

~~~
dsego
Seek the truth?

~~~
grayed-down
It was a rhetorical question based on a well established meme, but HN is
generally a humor-free zone. And does one really need a philosophy degree to
seek the truth? It's not that hard to find.

