[toshk]

Mindfulness took one small technique out of the Buddhist system that feels rational & scientific.

It kind of works. But the corpus of Buddhism is what makes it powerful. And this is hard to make palatable for the West.

The main goal of buddhism is giving you meaning & joy in life despite of stress or tragedy.

Very important aspects of Buddhism that make the whole much more powerful are:

- Living & acting out of compassion (boddhicitta): if your main focus is other not yourself, a huge relief of worries is gone, and meaning arises naturally.

- Accepting change. There are 2 ways to see change: "nothing matters" or "no need to worry, just relax". Buddhist meditation is geared to getting you to the positive kind.

- Understanding emptiness (or space) as the nature of all experiences, both rationally but in the end resting in this experience in meditation means dissolving into everything and experiencing deep bliss.

And of course the power devotion & social aspects of all religion can not be overlooked, good & bad.

My teachings are from Tibetan kind, which is more mystical & compassionate oriented then the southern countries which are more focus on self-actualization (they teach the Vispasanna retreats)

[ShamelessC]

You seem very fond of making huge generalizations about people based on their country of origin.

The "western way" is only (strictly) in opposition to Buddhism in the narrative you are subscribing to. The reality is that many Americans are acutely aware of just how toxic aspects of mainstream American culture. It is probably best to approach debate from this point of view, particularly if you want to convince people rather than simply pissing them off.

If someone says Buddhism is not for them - drop it. You don't understand their problems better than they do and your religion - like all religions - requires an irrational leap of faith whether you like it or not. This is off putting to a lot of people who favor rationality - particularly those who are so fed up with the aforementioned mainstream culture I describe (but don't subscribe to your religion).

Just to clarify again, my contention is not that you're arguing incorrectly per se. It is that you are being overconfident and righteous, which appears smug and indicates you aren't _really_ looking to empathize with contradicting points of view. It's rude. If I came up to you and told you about how Jesus was going to change your life, smiling the whole time and speaking only of the positives you might feel similarly? I don't know.

[NoZebra120vClip]

There are a couple of categories, and let's apply it to Mindfulness according to TFA.

1) People who don't actually know what Mindfulness is, other than secondhand sources, word of mouth, etc.

2) People who've tried Mindfulness, and they know a little more than (1) due to direct experience, and possibly a minister who guided them.

3) People who were born into a family whose members fervently pratices Mindfulness, teach Mindfulness to others, and promote it in public.

Now let's see why people hate Mindfulness or say it's not for them.

(1) may say that it sounds weird or foreign, it can't be efficacious, it's too abstract, because they don't know what it's about.

(2) may say that it was hard to concentrate, they kept getting distracted, the classes were expensive, they traveled too far, they didn't feel it working fast enough, it was boring, too spiritual / not spiritual enough.

(3) perhaps their family life was bad, they were neglected or abused, their family members seemed to care more about Mindfulness than this person, and being that "Family" and "Mindfulness" are inextricably linked in their mind, they must reject Mindfulness because it's tarnished by the behavior of its adherents.

So I'd say, don't attack someone who is acting as an evangelist for something, because perhaps they act in good faith. Particularly in HN, this thread is optional for you and me, and so if you feel like it's proseltyzing, just flag it and move on, don't attack a guy because he believes that Emacs and Lisp are the best apps to install on your Linux machine.

[ShamelessC]

I'm not against mindfulness _at all_. At no point did I say that I am.

[NoZebra120vClip]

What is "Mindfulness"? How do you define this?

[ShamelessC]

The way it is defined in the article we're commenting on.

[amriksohata]

and for completion that buddhist philosphy was taken from hindu scriptures which detail the reasoning for what we call "mindfulness"

[scns]

There are the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama and there is the religion Buddhism created by his followers. He said: This is my truth, see for yourself if it is true for you too. This is the reason i take him seriously, in contrast to the monotheistic myths that all claim to have the only truth.

> Understanding emptiness

The other points are valid to me, this one belongs in the realm of metaphysics for me.

Buddha said a lot of good things IMHO, but very questionable stuff too. "Monasteries are allowed to own slaves, individual monks not." for example. If you mention that, Buddhists get uneasy and/or defensive.

There is a nice App called Buddha Quotes on F-Droid. I recommend to install it via Foxy Droid:

https://f-droid.org/repo/nya.kitsunyan.foxydroid_4.apk

[yadingus]

> Understanding emptiness

> The other points are valid to me, this one belongs in the realm of metaphysics for me.

Isn't this something both the Buddha and modern science agree on? Matter if comprised of mostly empty space. It's physics, no meta.

[scns]

That makes sense for me. Thank you.

[toshk]

The metaphysical view of Buddhism is definitely different from Western view.I think both lack empirical evidence, because both are very hard to prove.

But also emptiness as a meditative state (Samatha) can be experienced. Whether or not you end up believing it's the essence of reality, you can experience it as the essence of your experience through meditation.

[scns]

I take Buddha seriously, because he said "This is my truth, look if it is true for you." ie zero dogma.

Buddhism is for me the religion people worshipping him created.

Now i get it! Thank you for explaining it that way!

[mensetmanusman]

Few monotheistic groups claim to have the only truth. E.g. Catholicism highlights facets of truth present in many other spiritual traditions.

[scns]

The three big ones do, are there more?

"I am the Word, the truth and the light. Nobody get's to the father (ie god) then through me." Ascribed to Jesus, whos' life story got written down 40 years later.

> facets of truth

Since Immanuel Kant we "know", that we can never get to the truth, since our senses are easily fooled. The basis of rational science for me. We can only say what is least likely to be wrong.

[Addendum] Socrates knew he knew nothing.

[FrustratedMonky]

It is hard to communicate the uncommunicable.

>"The main goal of buddhism is giving you meaning & joy in life despite of stress or tragedy."

See. I'm a buddhist and don't agree with this at all.

[fuzztester]

>My teachings are from Tibetan kind, which is more mystical & compassionate oriented

Any links or book names to read more about this?

[toshk]

There are many books, but in the end this can't be thought in a book. Bodhipath is probably a good place, they also have lots of online things to read: https://bodhipath.org/.

It's more focused on the compassion part. The mystical is something which is easy to find online, but hard to find someone with the experience.

But there are different schools, more focused on study, mediation etc. Some are more formal, others informal.

[fuzztester]

Thank you.

[rramadass]

1) Words of My Perfect Teacher: A Complete Translation of a Classic Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by Patrul Rinpoche translated by Padmakara Translation Group.

2) Essential Mind Training: Tibetan Wisdom for Daily Life translated by Thupten Jinpa.

[fuzztester]

Thank you.

[varispeed]

> Living & acting out of compassion (boddhicitta): if your main focus is other not yourself, a huge relief of worries is gone, and meaning arises naturally. Of course here articial part.

You'll easily become a victim of people who exploit "caretakers". You'll become an unpaid servant. People need to look after themselves first.

[tmpX7dMeXU]

This is Western attitude right down to the implication that you have some sort of insight that invalidates what the parent is saying.

A society of people acting as isolated islands because they all think that they’re out to get eachother is how society crumbles.

You can put others first with boundaries. You can put others first and remain vigilant. The “look after yourself first”. It’s all a false dichotomy, and the basis for an attitude that especially on this website tends to just be privileged tech workers justifying their own ambivalence toward one ethical issue or another.

[varispeed]

> This is Western attitude right down to the implication that you have some sort of insight that invalidates what the parent is saying.

This is my experience and it is true. Getting people to apply philosophy of other cultures without taking into account the context, it's a recipe for disaster. You can't blindly follow the advice of the OP in the western society - at least no without awareness and being vigilant that there are always people ready to exploit something that they perceive as weakness.

[hummusandsushi]

This is an overly paranoid response to someone suggesting to have compassion for others as a form of self-care. The idea is that worrying exessively about yourself can be harmful in itself, not "allow yourself to be exploited".

[varispeed]

It's more in the vein of advice you get on the plane - when oxygen masks drop you need to put the mask first before putting another over the face of someone you care for.

[yadingus]

In that analogy, compassion and love are the oxygen. If you hold on to anger and defensiveness in order to "fend for yourself" it's like failing to put on your oxygen mask because you hold on to your valuables, thinking someone is going to steal them in the middle of a plane crash.

[wholinator2]

Well you could've stated it that way from the get go. As it stands your comment reads like a strong denial of helping others in favor of helping yourself.

[hliyan]

This is a somewhat cynical attitude that assumes compassion must come conjoined with suspension of good judgement. I'm a naturally analytical and anxious individual who has, as of late, found a measure of stress relief by directing some of my mental energy toward the wellbeing of others. Beyond basic necessities and financial security, obsessing over your own wellbeing/financials can be its own torture. Sometimes, something as simple as feeding a stray dog or buying someone meds can relieve stress. Interestingly, writing checks or transferring funds online, does not have the same effect.

[astrange]

This is overly dualistic. (that's a word Buddhism likes to use to mean "wrong")

Another way to think of it is to consider them and you as a single thing (a mandala) and improve that.

And of course Buddhists are not necessarily going to see being victimized as bad anyway. What's that to a monk?

[catstoic]

Buddhism is meant to tailor teachings in accordance with sentient beings' cravings and faculty so there's no right or wrong methods. You can mediate, count breath, contemplate about emptiness or chant the pure land sutras. It doesn't matter as long as there's practice under proper guidance.

[yadingus]

The first step in looking after yourself is getting to know your own mind.

[aftoprokrustes]

Not necessarily. You can be compasionate to a narcicist manipulator while being perfectly aware that he is trying to manipulate you and not playing hus game. Being compasionate does not means doing everything someone asks for, but trying to understand where they come from, see their actions as their (likely unskillfull) attempt at avoiding discomfort/suffering (dukkha), and orient your actions based on that understanding.

[thoui242342343]

It's not just about this.

There is a systematic effort to plagiarize from Indian traditions and then claim them to be rediscoveries of the West, inline with historical racist-supremacist constructions. You can see this historically across Mathematics, Astronomy and Medicine in very concrete terms. That they're now doing it with Yoga, Vipassana, Ayurveda etc. is quite disappointing.

Andrew Huberman at Stanford has an entire lab (and a very popular podcast) designed to rip off Indian traditions to the point where news-releases will neither mention the ripped off name, nor even mention India. The Americans will at-best mention 'South Asia' as if Pakistan/Bangladesh, who are actively genociding followers of India's native faiths, were creators of this.

They've also tried patenting Basmati and Turmeric and many other things. It's amusing to see 'alt-right' geniuses sell things like Ashwagandha/Turmeric and other Ayurvedic nutraceuticals to their 'Murcan audiences' while hating on Hindus as 'satan worshippers who are destroying US'.

On a more important note: this raises a big point. Modern 'Western culture' is not universal, but is in fact very much Christian and with that, has inherited its extremely deep-rooted and vicious irrational hate for so-called 'devil worshipping pagans'.

Western academics will never talk about cultures they've marked for destruction either. Very much like the Anglo-media almost never lets out the real reason for why they are going for war on random far-off countries (it's not 'democracy and freedom').

I moved out of the US when I realized all this and today generally avoid US/Europe, both for business and travel.

[astrange]

> There is a systematic effort to plagiarize from Indian traditions and then claim them to be rediscoveries of the West

That's just inverting Tibetan Buddhism; if you wanted anyone to believe in something you invented there, you had to claim it was old and from India.

Old and from Tibet was okay sometimes, but only if you claimed your ancestor's spirits dictated it to you or pointed you to the ancient rock it was buried under. (these are called air and earth termas)

[Knee_Pain]

Breathing practices objectively have an effect on our body and nobody can counter this.

Buddhist ideology on the other hand is up to debate and everyone is free to try it or believe it.

Maybe in your experience meditation is enhanced by believing all that stuff, but that is your prerogative. I can do mindfulness and go to a psychologist instead of doing meditation and going to a temple because maybe that oriental stuff feels too alien and doesn't seem right to me.

[yadingus]

The other practices also have an effect on your body and mind, you just don't bother verifying it for yourself because you want an external authority to do it for you first.

You don't need to buy into the esoteric teachings, or even the core belief of reincarnation. But you don't have to reject them either. Just inform yourself on the basics and keep them in mind. "If this bit was true, what would the world be like? How would my actions impact the world? How would they impact my future self?"

In the end the whole point is reducing suffering, and the longer you wait for someone else to verify one claim or another, the longer you're going to be bound to your habitual suffering.

[roenxi]

The irony here is that hardcore Buddhism does debate the benefits of breathing. Nirvana is not something to be shunned. Not necessarily lusted for either. The correct attitude is ... up for debate.

[Etheryte]

This is such a silly notion, what does countering have to do with any of this? Life is not an internet argument.

[Knee_Pain]

>Life is not an internet argument.

except when you tell someone they should try mindfulness and they look at you as if it was voodoo crap

[0xEF]

I mean, it's not your responsibility to change anyone's mind. If you want to put info out there, back it up, etc, there's a good way to do that without going on the attack.

I say to each their own, so long as "their own" does not harm others. If Buddhism works for someone, cool. If going to a psychologist works, also cool. When it comes to mental health, I think we can all agree that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn't exist.

[Knee_Pain]

I simply said that breathing exercises have objective benefits which cannot be handwaved away. This whole spiel about argumentation was made up by a biased interpretation

[flangola7]

>that oriental stuff

Really?

[toshk]

Walking or exercise also have that effect, similar to mindfulness, if that's your goal.

Therapy in itself has limited scientific backing (specific types for specific diagnosis often do). But it feels rational.

However the main point is: Buddhism, and all religions, focus on why you do what you do.

The Western Way is confusing, partially career & material, bit of humanism, etc. Now that's fine. You can figure it out in this system and some people do. But there is no clear road. There is freedom in that, but it comes with a huge amount of anxiousness & confusion.

The western reason for doing things: focusing on getting external circumstances in order (friends, career, house, family) will cause a huge amount of anxiety. Buddhism, and perhaps also Christianity, give non-personal teachings to elevate your focus to a point where it's less about what you do & who you are.

You don't have to believe me and can wait for science to figure this out. But seeing the rise of anxiety, depression & pill usage, I don't have much confidence in the current understanding of the Western world in mental health.

[NoZebra120vClip]

I agree. I come from a contemplative Christian tradition, and we've adapted Mindfulness to Christocentric meditations. I also practice centering prayer, and this is in the Hesychasm tradition of Christian contemplation.

Hesychasm, and in modern times, Centering Prayer as well, are not without controversy. There are people who accuse us of attempting to "empty the mind" and push out all thought, but my goal is to fill my mind with Christ's abiding presence and peace, shifting focus away from my ego and physical body.

Focusing first on the breath is a fundamental building block of this technique, but it is thoroughly a spiritual technique. To rob this contemplative prayer of its Christocentric nature is to eviscerate all meaning and all purpose from it as well.

Mindfulness is not merely a meditation technique, even when understood by mental health clinicians. It is a state of being in the moment and aware of what we're doing, and why, while we're doing it. Mindfulness is especially helpful to people who tend to dissociate, such as a defense against emotional flashbacks or stressful situations. Contemplative prayer is also a way of life and a state of mind, and likewise helpful for this, but only when it's been practiced on the regular, because under stress, we revert to our basic training and become reactive, so it is necessary to internalize those breathing techniques and exercise control of conscious thought.

Many people, myself included, don't realize that we are in control of our thought processes. It's common to helplessly obsess and ruminate over something good or bad. It's common to expend so much energy on unproductive thinking. But there is a more excellent way. Saint Paul tells us: "the weapons of our battle are not of flesh but are enormously powerful, capable of destroying fortresses. We destroy arguments and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ..." (2 Cor 10:4-5).

[zuzuleinen]

If someone is interested on reading more on contemplative Christian tradition I recommend them:

The Philokalia Vol 5 [1]

I started reading more on it after reading The Experience of God[2]

I was suprised to find out there was a breathing component as well and being so close to the eastern meditation practices.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09X9HRWXH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00E64EH0K/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...

[NoZebra120vClip]

There is so much prayer that is designed to regulate and temper the breathing. Where should we begin? Any antiphonal (call-and-response) singing or recitation is a breathing exercise: the participants are alternately vocalizing a prayer, breathing out, and meditating upon the meaning of the words, or they are listening to the prayer, inhaling, and meditating upon the meaning of those words as well. This pattern can be observed in the Responsorial Psalm portion of the Christian liturgy. In Byzantine liturgy, the first antiphonal chant that comes to mind are the petitions, where the leader (priest/deacon) prays for peace and favors from the Life-Giving Trinity, and the faithful repeat, "Lord have mercy/Christ have mercy/Gospodi, pomiluj". But there are many more.

Some languages are better than others for this purpose. Latin and Greek have excellent word formations with good vowel sounds, and these languages easily become legato, connected syllables throughout a smooth phrase. English and German, not so much. The Eastern Churches worship using the vernacular tongues, or sometimes using sacred, ancient languages, and so YMMV there.

The Rosary itself is a meditation and a regulation of breath. Jesus admonished us not to "babble like the pagans" because their "many words" were meaningless and fruitless, calling upon created things, rather than the Creator. So praying the Rosary (auricular, in groups) is not liturgical, but it is a discipline. The leader chants half of the prayer, then the participants chant the other half, and they take turns breathing. It is an intimate, primal, profound experience in itself, but the breathing is not a mere goal or object. The object is to enter into each Mystery, meditating upon its meaning for us, in full context: the context of the prayer, the place and time, our individual lives, and the life of the Church herself.

[Kbelicius]

> I come from a contemplative Christian tradition, and we've adapted Mindfulness to Christocentric meditations.

> Focusing first on the breath is a fundamental building block of this technique, but it is thoroughly a spiritual technique. To rob this contemplative prayer of its Christocentric nature is to eviscerate all meaning and all purpose from it as well.

So you've robbed mindfulness of its "budacentric" nature and it still works but if we rob it of the christocentric nature that you've added it wont work?

> It is a state of being in the moment and aware of what we're doing, and why, while we're doing it.

This is basically what every western source also says so I don't see why you think that "western" mindfulness doesn't work.

[NoZebra120vClip]

While I'm not a Buddhist, I'm fairly certain that the Buddha is the last guy to want to be the center of anyone's attention. Weird.

Buddhist contemplative traditions predate Christianity, and arose in distinct geographic locations, so nobody's de-Buddhizing anything here. Authentic understanding of the practices doesn't need to be a sectarian monopoly.

The uniquely indifferent, secular practice of "cafeteria Mindfulness" is the only novelty. It's exactly the M.O. of science: dissect a living thing and run tests until you think you know what substance makes it tick, then you isolate it, independently synthesize that substance, patent it, mass produce it, and then you wonder why you've got such shitty results in practice, and then you cover that up along with the adverse side effects, and charge the insurance companies triple profits.

[jinder]

How do Christian contemplative traditions predate Buddhism if Buddhism arose in the 5th century BCE?

[Kbelicius]

> The western reason for doing things: focusing on getting external circumstances in order (friends, career, house, family) will cause a huge amount of anxiety.

As somebody who doesn't practice mindfulness but has read a fair bit about it this sounds like a strawman. What I've read is about internal circumstances that have a spill over effect on external. Which doesn't sound much different than the eastern teachings.

> You don't have to believe me and can wait for science to figure this out.

This discussion is happening under a link to a scientific paper ... what are we waiting and what is wrong with this paper that is being discussed?