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.
> 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.
There's a lot going on here. So, I don't exist, and yet an effort to reach the state of non-existence needs to be made (sounds like some faith/belief is required here to even begin). And, thoughts are without a self, which follows from the non-self notion. That all makes sense within this philosophy, but what about free will?
It sounds like the state of non-self would be the essence of freedom, and therefore, choice, and not a fixed universe in which everything is preordained.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
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!
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:
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.
Your posting in this thread and particularly this comment is well-reasoned, civil, and on target, and I think it's a shame you're being censored. If you (or any bystanders of similar mind) email the address in my profile, I will reach out with an invitation to a forum for hard-skinned rationalists if/when I get around to creating it. Cheers.
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.
> 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".
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
What if one of your family members accidentally cut you off on the road, is your Aunt Bea now an "asshole", seeking to hurt you or otherwise recklessly endanger your life, or did she make an unfortunate mistake? What if she feels really bad about it? Do you still decide she's an "asshole"?
It is hate when you write someone off like that, and being angry at someone is not the same as hating them. You seem to have missed the larger point that a lot of strife around the world is caused by people who decide to hate others. This hatred arises from an emotional place and is the cause of a large majortiy of human conflict. Being in control of unbridled hatred for anyone that causes you an unpleasant emotion at some point is not a weakness, it's a strength. Being able to not write off someone who cut you off on the road is a very novice practice case in developing the same skill one would use when they decide not to hate an ethnic minority moving into their country, and this is a skill worth having.
It is taught to children in preschool, in fact, in the form of, don't go beating on that kid who took your toy, go and talk to them instead. This isn't religiosity or mysticism or anything else, it's simply taking the practice of being a considerate person into more of a real lifestyle.
Also this has nothing to do with buddhists and whether or not they've managed to be non-hateful people or not. You can pretty easily argue that humans are essentially hate-filled and that it's impossible to eradicate. It is our nature after all. But living a life drowned in hate is not how everyone chooses to live.
Metzinger, Being No One (2004) may be just the step forward to which you refer. The prereflexive sense of self (as, say, a point-source of will and identity) is empirically inaccurate and faulty, and Metzinger attacks philosophy grounded in this untranscendable experience. But, unlike many philosophers, European or Buddhist, who satisfy to negate the ontological status of the self, Metzinger develops a theory of the self which is conceptually constrained by clinical medicine's empirical totality.
Two warnings about Metzinger, though: (1) a mood leaks through his writing, a sort of nihilistic determinism that his rigorous philosophy relentlessly evokes, but which his assertions do not imply; and (2) it is quite difficult reading, like a new Kant, lucid yet dense, requiring of a layman to assiduously infer and integrate the language of cognitive science.
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.
The same coping mechanism is being used in NLP. I have a feeling it's just a way of dealing with an environment which isn't healthy for the human being. It would be better to adjust the environment.
Sure, but fixing the bigger problems, such as stress in the workplace, would have many more benefits.
Ans as far as the analogy goes, it might be hard to fix the entire surface of the earth, but that's a strawman, because we have plenty of urbanised and indoor areas where you don't need shoes.
What's the easiest? To cover the entire earth in asphalt, or make all cars be 4wd?
I think it's more like the stress in the workplace (for example) is caused by two things. Greedy or power hungry people deliberately harming others (for example) and then other people over reacting to this but also to just the normal shit you have to deal with anyway. So the mindfulness is to deal with the over reaction but ethics and morality are needed to deal with the action. You need both, seems to be the criticism that some people are making about having mindfulness without some ethical framework like Buddhism.
There is a lot of confusion here as well as in the article
>Mindfullness tells you to observe your fears and other feelings
>but effectively ignoring them
How is observing equals ignoring? Observing allows you to detach and not take things too closely and as a consequence to act more "easily" if you choose consciously rather than unconsciously.
> while it does not focus at all on whether and to what degree they are actual valid and important
That hasn't been my understanding at all. The idea is to observe the feelings and name them so they no longer hold uncontrollable emotional sway over you, but rather you can recognize them for what they are, judge their validity, and act on them rationally and maturely rather than out of unexamined emotionality.
It's a kind of version of "if it's mentionable it's manageable" -- mindfulness turns "unmentioned" vague feelings into "mentioned" feelings you're now aware of and can deal with.
Mindfulness doesn't distinguish between what's valid or not -- it allows you to recognize things in the first place, then it's your own job to make those distinctions later.
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.
> 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.
"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."
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.
Spot on. In my case, mindfulness practice (at the moment with the Waking Up app from Sam Harris) has transformed my life in three short months. I thought I was insightful and deep before, yet was a victim of ephemeral thoughts and emotions far more than I realized.
At no time have I given myself a pass or shirked responsibility in the way the article implies...rather, mindfulness practice has given me the time and quiet to turn these thoughts around, examining them and their source.
I can't express in words how much I feel I've gained from practicing, and I encourage each of you to do so. While I still can't say I always look forward to it, I'm always glad after the fact to feel it's affects. If everyone practiced mindfulness, the world would be a FAR better place...
The problem with the mindfulness approach is that it only leads you knee-deep. Enough to enjoy the waves and the joy of water, but too little to start swimming.
For example, I can still see you are not accepting your past self for what it is ("I thought I was insightful and deep before") or how the world is ("would be a FAR better place").
You are on a path towards awakening. Some of us have come to understand that there are seven factors [1] to master, not one.
I think this is actually the exact problem the article talks about.
It’s possible to engage with mindfulness practices without buying into the entire Buddhist belief system.
This comment reinforces the author’s (I believe mistaken) point, that mindfulness sneaks in a bunch of Buddhist ideology. In my experience, it’s been possible to benefit from the practices while deciding some of the more doctrinal Buddhist beliefs (like non-self / anatta) don’t resonate.
Well, the problem is rather simple. If you decide to only engage in mindfulness, you'll have a great time discovering things about yourself and your environment. You will feel better about yourself. That will work for a while and it might set you on a larger, longer path with more peril.
In (Mahayana) Buddhism you train more. Like the opposite: concentration. Think about the same topic for one hour, repeatedly. Who am I? Who do I think I am? What thoughts am I suppressing?
Fundamentally, it teaches you that all these things are like sliders on a big mixing console. Pushing one slider will bring the others down. Pushing mindfulness might reduce equanimity and concentration.
In the end, it is the art of letting go. If you want to hold on to something, you should be able to let it go.
> I think this is actually the exact problem the article talks about.
The article doesn't make it explicit, but I think that you have it backwards: the problem is that mindfulness is divorced from the Buddhist tradition. As an analogy, it's like the spread of corn as a staple without nixtamalization [1]. I.e. the surrounding context that Buddhism provides with other supporting and subsequent practices makes it more "stable".
[1] In the United States, European settlers did not always adopt the nixtamalization process, except in the case of hominy grits, though maize became a staple among the poor of the southern states. This led to endemic pellagra in poor populations throughout the southern US in the early 20th century
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization
Now that Buddhists like you are coming in here and telling us to be more Buddhist and read and think Buddhist things, I think it's important to stress that anyone interested in mindfulness doesn't need to become a Buddhist.
In fact there is a clinical application of mindfulness which is called cognitive behavioral therapy, it is proven through research to have great benefits for a lot of people, it is secular, and unlike Buddhism, it has never been a justification for murder and ethnic cleansing.
We should strip away the religion and focus on the scientifically studied and observed benefits, in my opinion.
Mindfulness is practiced in any religion. Though, most churches will for political reasons push back anything bringing in too much mysticism and spirituality. That's why the content of many religious books outside of institutional restrictions are more or less interchangeable.
CBT isn’t mindfulness. DBT is the one that incorporates mindfulness. CBT is specific analysis and can say it has mindfulness as part of it just as any introspection or analysis pertaining to your self does.
It was not my intent to convert anyone to Buddhism (in any of it’s hundreds of mostly peaceful substreams). I am merely pointing out that mindfulness requires a wider context.
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.
Right. Living mindfully simply means that I'm aware of my gestures, words and actions. A good meditation does just that. For this awareness to remain at all times with you, a certain sense of detachment is inevitable but that doesn't imply that you are no longer supposed to care about what's going inside you. IN fact it should be opposite; once you're aware of content of your mind, you need to do cleansing to rise above conditioning that binds you [0].
0: In Mind Full to Mindful (book on Zen/mindful meditation https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Full-Mindful-Wisdom-Monks-ebook/... ) Om Swami has given a method to do Emotional Hygiene and Cleansing (Osoji). It is about emptying the baggage we carry in our minds. Believing Zen, if everything is empty, we may as well realize that essence in practice and not think of it merely as a philosophical proposition.
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.
It is a Hindu religious practice of taking the life of a Hindu widow after her Husband dies( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) ). The central idea is to prevent remarriage with other caste men and preserve the purity of caste system.
I think I got to that stage by pure luck for a brief moment two decades ago when I kept looking at a dot above my bed very intentionally.
Never could reach that feeling ever again. But, it was transforming in the way that I humbly accepted that there are mystical cognitive states that are not produced by drugs.
Congratulations on reaching 1st jhana, or dhyana in Sanskrit. Are you studying under a teacher? A good teacher can guide you much faster. I have witnessed people reaching 1st dhyana in two weeks ( in a retreat) without prior meditation practice, and even faster.
My practice took off after reading Dr John Yates (Culadasa) "The Mind Illuminated". He is well versed in Pali texts and I believe he was a professor of neuroscience at Univ of Arizona.
I wish I could read the original Suttas in Pali but my language command is almost non-existent. So I have to rely on English translations by monks like Bhikku Bodhi and Bhikku Analayo.
Man, I don't need mindfulness to feel depersonalization and derealization, it comes naturally to me due to my mental state. And it's making me miserable.
> 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
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...
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.
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.
In my personal experience, enlightenment is realizing, at the depth of my being, this prospective that nothing, absolutely nothing in this world, including my body, relationships, wealth and my possessions are going to last for ever; everything is impermanent and my problems are extremely tiny compare to the immensity of the universe, so I should take it easy and live life compassionately and kindfully. These positive emotions help me to experience and retain the bliss, peace and happiness
How to know someone is enlightened? Since I know what being enlightened is, the job becomes simple. Just observe that the person carries out himself in enlightened manner at all times; if he loses it in adverse/unacceptable situation, it means that he might be on the path but haven't reached to the other side yet.
In one word: selflessness. Acts of a truly enlightened or awakened being will be selfless. He has already realized the futility of doing actions for sense gratification. Please note the word realized. Intellectual understanding is different from realization. With the former your subconscious mind continues to propell you to strive for fulfilling selfish desires while realization will clean the slate. When we study the lives and sayings of great people, we find in them the quality of selflessness, no matter what their religious or cultural background might be.
There are also physical signs. There are no unnecessary bodily movements. The speech also becomes pleasing. Gestures are graceful. Such a person seems to emit a unearthly glow. People experience unconditional love and calmness in his presence. However physical signs aren't the definitive teller as most of these can be imitated for a limited public appearance. Hence the most important factor is the conduct.
That’s still not answering my question. How do I tell the difference between myself achieving enlightenment and merely having an opinion that I have achieved it?
Things you describe are perceived subjectively, so they can also be victims to my brain deluding myself.
> How do I tell the difference between myself achieving enlightenment and merely having an opinion that I have achieved it?
How would you describe a state of mind in which you remain thoughtless as long as you want? Thoughts will only arrive in your conscious mind when you summon them and you can hold a thought as long as you want. You remain perfectly peaceful, tranquil without blabbering and urges of the mind without exerting as in meditation. Meditation is no longer an act but a state of your mind.
When your mind is perfectly under control without effort, you have become awakened (or enlightened), because now you truly possess a free will in the truest sense of the word. Earlier when your mind was in control, your innate tendencies were driving your actions, based on external stimuli. Anger, greed, lust, envy, fear and other negative emotions thrive in such a state of mind naturally and one has to exert to check them.
I'd urge you to try concentrative meditation, wherein one tries to hold a thought (could be visualizing a form, or listening to a sound ETC) and see the power of conditioned mind. Observe how long you can hold it. For instance, if you're visualizing a form, you may discover that within matter of few seconds it starts fading, dancing or completely gone. Similarly If you are meditating on sound, you will find that within few seconds your mind has distracted and you have to exert to retain your focus. The mind is not in your control and such a conditioned mind can form opinions and dilute you. But an enlightened mind, perfectly in control cannot have delusion and ever lives in present moment. Opinions and judgement are tools of a conditioned mind, ever fearful and constantly striving to ensure survival of the body.
That said, I'm not yet an enlightened being; I'm striving for it by walking path of meditation, kindness and chanting [0]. I do have experiences and glimses confirming most of what I've written, but I have not attained the final state yet. If you're truly curious and want to read, learn and practice more about this, I'd encourage you to read Om Swami's books. The one on meditation [1] takes you through the journey of a meditator with states and stages of mind and awareness that you'll find intriguing and hopefully interesting to pursue. Simple yet precise methods and practices have been given along with a method to measure one's progress.
First of all, how do you know that all these people claiming enlightenment - exactly as you describe it - aren't all full of shit?
Secondly, let's say it's all true. Why is that so desirable?
> But an enlightened mind, perfectly in control cannot have delusion and ever lives in present moment
It's perfectly possible to live in the present moment and disregard the future even without meditation. That's not generally considered a good thing, though.
> Opinions and judgement are tools of a conditioned mind, ever fearful and constantly striving to ensure survival of the body.
Yes, your body has adapted to survival. What's wrong with that, why do you want to turn that off? You'll die anyway, are you really that impatient?
I guess if you're somehow in constant terror about the plight of existence, that might be a useful skill to have. Otherwise, I'd rather learn something else.
> First of all, how do you know that all these people claiming enlightenment - exactly as you describe it - aren't all full of shit?
Exactly as in any other field of expertise. Through your practice, knowledge/experiences you gain from that practice. Mere reading the books doesn't take one far in any field.
> Secondly, let's say it's all true. Why is that so desirable?
Who says it's desirable to everyone? It's individual's choice. If you get pleasure in learning something else, feel free to do that.
But someone might also want to go to the source of pleasure so he can maintain state of pleasure at all times regardless of circumstances outside, meditation is one sure way to that. Just like a hard core engineer may want to know how the whole thing works down to transistor, some people eventually get this desire to experience their whole being down to one's soul and even the super soul. Such people aren't satisfied being mere servant to the needs of body or mind for whole of their lives. They want to experience the eternity if there's such a thing. It's an arduous but a rewarding journey, with wonderful experiences at every little milestone on the path. But this thread isn't an appropriate place to write details about them.
Btw if you are thinking meditation or enlightenment means withdrawal from the world, or becoming something inert or passive, or stop enjoyment/learning, then you've not understood it correctly.
> Exactly as in any other field of expertise. Through your practice, knowledge/experiences you gain from that practice.
But as you said, you're not quite there yet. How do you know that what you described is really achievable? What else can you do but take other people by their word? Some people claim that through meditation, they could literally levitate. What's to stop anyone from just claiming something that's impossible to prove wrong?
It's not that I doubt meditation can have profound effects on one's psyche and well-being, but at some point I just don't don't buy it, like when you speak of a "constant state of pleasure". I don't think that's physically possible, at some point the receptors in your brain will need time to recover.
> But as you said, you're not quite there yet. How do you know that what you described is really achievable? What else can you do but take other people by their word?
I've read somewhere that it takes 10k hours to master anything. Let's consider example of a musical instrument, say Piano, that you're learning. It will take you 10k hours of sincere practice to reach to a state of mastery in which playing piano will be a subconscious, effortless act, you'd be able to listen to any song and start playing it. However, this effortless will be preceded by state of conscious competence in which you can play a song after listening it, but it takes some effort and even then, it's not perfect. You know you're progressing but you're not there yet. You can see the goal but you also know that it'll take good effort to reach there.
Another advantage you have at this stage is you can appreciate the expert player from a charlatan. It's not easy to fool you anymore.
>> The Really Unexpected My forehead caught on “fire”. No--really. This was the single strangest event of the entire challenge, and I have no explanation for it, but what took place was that after about 30 days, the centre of my forehead felt like it was emitting or radiating what I can only describe a kind of heatless, lightless flame.
I started in June2014 and my first experience happened in about a month. I've never stopped meditating daily ever since (apart from some not-so-frequent days of urgent work/function/illness) (I try to do it in three sessions in morning/evening/night)
The experiences continue to come. Then if you read books by expert meditator, you'll be able to relate their experiences with yours.
> Some people claim that through meditation, they could literally levitate. What's to stop anyone from just claiming something that's impossible to prove wrong?
Why do you believe such a claim? Let that person demonstrate it if he's so claiming. You don't have to believe anything or anyone. But at the same time, you shouldn't reject something without giving it a chance. Both of these are functions of a conditioned mind blinded by a sense of superiority that what it knows is the truth and that it cannot be wrong.
ON a related note, the problem for spirituality is that people get attracted to it by these stories of wonderful powers that they can gain, and lose the sight of true goal of Yoga: to reach to a state of union with one's eternal, imperishable atman (soul). That's actually a good test of expert: he will not sell meditation or other practices as a means to attained powers. He knows such powers (even if considered possible for a moment) are a hindrance in awakening and these are just another form of material entertainment for the conditioned mind while the goal is to rise above conditioning to experience state of oneness with the universe; with atman. Once you have become that, you can yourself verify if you really can get these powers, chances are, you will no longer be interested in them.
> but at some point I just don't don't buy it, like when you speak of a "constant state of pleasure". I don't think that's physically possible, at some point the receptors in your brain will need time to recover.
Who says you won't need rest? As long as you're in this physical body, you'll need rest. But the source of your joy will be within rather than dependent on external factors like money, appreciation, fame, success ETC. which keep on changing. You'll be able to maintain your state of inner peace and bliss even in absence of these.
> Let that person demonstrate it if he's so claiming
that's the point - with ridiculous claims like levitation there's simple way to verify them. with psychological claims of enlightenment - there's no way to verify them. you basically took people on their word and are trying to achieve the same, but how can you know they didn't fool you and you're not fooling yourself? how can you know your brain isn't creating an illusion of enlightenment just so you stop depriving it of dopamine?
It's possible to give not one but multiple proofs to a genuanly curious mind; however, it's impossible to prove anything otherwise to a mind which has already made up an opinion.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
A bit after the battle, but I suggest you should take a look a Daniel Ingram's _Mastering the Core Teaching of the Buddha_ (available more or less freely online, or through normal distributors).
He filled up pages after pages on how to balance one's practice and avoid pitfall like that. The guy is a bit controversial (which I personally embrace), but he sure wrote more than anyone else about all those issues and a lot more. As the subtitle indicates, it is quite the hardcore reference.
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...
“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
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.
However I suspect that the early adopters have moved on and the people preaching mindfulness are not the same sort of people as those that have moved on from it. We are in 'Eternal September' and 'Who ruined Burning Man' territory.
Those that are actually 'mindful' and can 'do it' would probably never think they were being 'mindful', would not be going to the classes or even doing the formal meditation. Instead of plucking a raisin and focusing on how it fits in their navel they are more likely to be walking the dog with smile for friends they see en-route.
It is the same with Buddhism. Those that are first to claim to be in to it are highly unlikely to be in an way Buddhist. Their neighbour who happens to do a few things for a few people and help others out financially is far more likely to make the grade. You don't brag about being Buddhist, it is not how it works. But 'Buddhists' do.
It is like those people that insist on being called a grand title that they haven't necessarily earned. If 'a lady' insists on being referred to as 'a lady' then she probably isn't. Mindfulness is one of those things where 'mindful' people probably almost certainly aren't. The universe works this way.
A thing to watch for is that the topic of 'mindfulness' can be discussed ad-nauseum as per creationism. Anyone who hates it is going to be somewhat less than mindful about those deep in the cult. Equally those caught up by the fad are going to be going deeply un-mindful when it comes to chastising those that call the whole thing bogus.
The catch to this is that there is a bigger picture. Right now we don't have a lot of useful political involvement in the West, for instance the new UK leader was selected by 0.1% of the population, with them being very much drawn from the 1%. So we have these fairly insane politicians running the show whilst the mindful crew are telling people to do things with raisins. Exactly as per your anecdote.
The creationism idea was a deliberate 'wedge strategy' to get people talking about something silly whilst funding for serious science is whittled away. Who knows, but maybe some Heritage Foundation is behind 'mindfulness' with it being Wedge Strategy for containing dissent.
I think the analogy of the camera phone is useful for understanding these things. Cameras can default to point to the outside world or to point the other way, at the self. If you have the camera pointing at the self rather than the world then you aren't going to see the world but the world might see (and like) you. We are culturally okay with people who only post pictures of themselves, we idolise them as rock stars.
There is also a low barrier to entry when it comes to 'mindfulness'. Compared to learing something real - e.g. playing a musical instrument, speaking a foreign language, writing code in object oriented modules, being good at a sport, 'mindfulness' is pretty easy. You can't pretend to be fastest doing the local sport run, you have got to actually do it. Mindfulness is not something objective like that.
> 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.
What's wrong with that? I don't mind good stuff to be commodified (like food, housing, health care, transport). Also you don't need to use an app, but if it's a good way to do it - why not? Also2: not sure why would meditation apps want you to get rid of, say, Netflix.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
160 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 338 ms ] threadThere's a lot going on here. So, I don't exist, and yet an effort to reach the state of non-existence needs to be made (sounds like some faith/belief is required here to even begin). And, thoughts are without a self, which follows from the non-self notion. That all makes sense within this philosophy, but what about free will?
It sounds like the state of non-self would be the essence of freedom, and therefore, choice, and not a fixed universe in which everything is preordained.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
What if one of your family members accidentally cut you off on the road, is your Aunt Bea now an "asshole", seeking to hurt you or otherwise recklessly endanger your life, or did she make an unfortunate mistake? What if she feels really bad about it? Do you still decide she's an "asshole"?
It is hate when you write someone off like that, and being angry at someone is not the same as hating them. You seem to have missed the larger point that a lot of strife around the world is caused by people who decide to hate others. This hatred arises from an emotional place and is the cause of a large majortiy of human conflict. Being in control of unbridled hatred for anyone that causes you an unpleasant emotion at some point is not a weakness, it's a strength. Being able to not write off someone who cut you off on the road is a very novice practice case in developing the same skill one would use when they decide not to hate an ethnic minority moving into their country, and this is a skill worth having.
It is taught to children in preschool, in fact, in the form of, don't go beating on that kid who took your toy, go and talk to them instead. This isn't religiosity or mysticism or anything else, it's simply taking the practice of being a considerate person into more of a real lifestyle.
Also this has nothing to do with buddhists and whether or not they've managed to be non-hateful people or not. You can pretty easily argue that humans are essentially hate-filled and that it's impossible to eradicate. It is our nature after all. But living a life drowned in hate is not how everyone chooses to live.
Two warnings about Metzinger, though: (1) a mood leaks through his writing, a sort of nihilistic determinism that his rigorous philosophy relentlessly evokes, but which his assertions do not imply; and (2) it is quite difficult reading, like a new Kant, lucid yet dense, requiring of a layman to assiduously infer and integrate the language of cognitive science.
Adjusting the environment is much more difficult and, in many cases, simply impossible.
To paraphrase an old folk tale, what is easier: making the entire land-surface of the Earth easier to walk on, or just putting shoes on one's feet?
Ans as far as the analogy goes, it might be hard to fix the entire surface of the earth, but that's a strawman, because we have plenty of urbanised and indoor areas where you don't need shoes.
What's the easiest? To cover the entire earth in asphalt, or make all cars be 4wd?
>Mindfullness tells you to observe your fears and other feelings
>but effectively ignoring them
How is observing equals ignoring? Observing allows you to detach and not take things too closely and as a consequence to act more "easily" if you choose consciously rather than unconsciously.
That hasn't been my understanding at all. The idea is to observe the feelings and name them so they no longer hold uncontrollable emotional sway over you, but rather you can recognize them for what they are, judge their validity, and act on them rationally and maturely rather than out of unexamined emotionality.
It's a kind of version of "if it's mentionable it's manageable" -- mindfulness turns "unmentioned" vague feelings into "mentioned" feelings you're now aware of and can deal with.
Mindfulness doesn't distinguish between what's valid or not -- it allows you to recognize things in the first place, then it's your own job to make those distinctions later.
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.
I would say you clearly have not meditated enough :)
I would reply you have no idea how much you're leaving on the table by meditating instead of using auto-hypnosis.
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.
This reminds me of this quip by Richard Feynman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
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.
At no time have I given myself a pass or shirked responsibility in the way the article implies...rather, mindfulness practice has given me the time and quiet to turn these thoughts around, examining them and their source.
I can't express in words how much I feel I've gained from practicing, and I encourage each of you to do so. While I still can't say I always look forward to it, I'm always glad after the fact to feel it's affects. If everyone practiced mindfulness, the world would be a FAR better place...
For example, I can still see you are not accepting your past self for what it is ("I thought I was insightful and deep before") or how the world is ("would be a FAR better place").
You are on a path towards awakening. Some of us have come to understand that there are seven factors [1] to master, not one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Awakening
It’s possible to engage with mindfulness practices without buying into the entire Buddhist belief system.
This comment reinforces the author’s (I believe mistaken) point, that mindfulness sneaks in a bunch of Buddhist ideology. In my experience, it’s been possible to benefit from the practices while deciding some of the more doctrinal Buddhist beliefs (like non-self / anatta) don’t resonate.
In (Mahayana) Buddhism you train more. Like the opposite: concentration. Think about the same topic for one hour, repeatedly. Who am I? Who do I think I am? What thoughts am I suppressing?
Fundamentally, it teaches you that all these things are like sliders on a big mixing console. Pushing one slider will bring the others down. Pushing mindfulness might reduce equanimity and concentration.
In the end, it is the art of letting go. If you want to hold on to something, you should be able to let it go.
The article doesn't make it explicit, but I think that you have it backwards: the problem is that mindfulness is divorced from the Buddhist tradition. As an analogy, it's like the spread of corn as a staple without nixtamalization [1]. I.e. the surrounding context that Buddhism provides with other supporting and subsequent practices makes it more "stable".
[1] In the United States, European settlers did not always adopt the nixtamalization process, except in the case of hominy grits, though maize became a staple among the poor of the southern states. This led to endemic pellagra in poor populations throughout the southern US in the early 20th century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization
In fact there is a clinical application of mindfulness which is called cognitive behavioral therapy, it is proven through research to have great benefits for a lot of people, it is secular, and unlike Buddhism, it has never been a justification for murder and ethnic cleansing.
We should strip away the religion and focus on the scientifically studied and observed benefits, in my opinion.
Both:
1. Are a method that aim to reduce suffering
2. Focus on habits and
3. Observation of the current self
But they are really not the same, or related on a practical level.
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.
I think you meant, "objectively"?
0: In Mind Full to Mindful (book on Zen/mindful meditation https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Full-Mindful-Wisdom-Monks-ebook/... ) Om Swami has given a method to do Emotional Hygiene and Cleansing (Osoji). It is about emptying the baggage we carry in our minds. Believing Zen, if everything is empty, we may as well realize that essence in practice and not think of it merely as a philosophical proposition.
David L. McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Buddhist-Modernism-David-McMah...
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Never could reach that feeling ever again. But, it was transforming in the way that I humbly accepted that there are mystical cognitive states that are not produced by drugs.
I wish I could read the original Suttas in Pali but my language command is almost non-existent. So I have to rely on English translations by monks like Bhikku Bodhi and Bhikku Analayo.
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
In my personal experience, enlightenment is realizing, at the depth of my being, this prospective that nothing, absolutely nothing in this world, including my body, relationships, wealth and my possessions are going to last for ever; everything is impermanent and my problems are extremely tiny compare to the immensity of the universe, so I should take it easy and live life compassionately and kindfully. These positive emotions help me to experience and retain the bliss, peace and happiness
How to know someone is enlightened? Since I know what being enlightened is, the job becomes simple. Just observe that the person carries out himself in enlightened manner at all times; if he loses it in adverse/unacceptable situation, it means that he might be on the path but haven't reached to the other side yet.
There are also physical signs. There are no unnecessary bodily movements. The speech also becomes pleasing. Gestures are graceful. Such a person seems to emit a unearthly glow. People experience unconditional love and calmness in his presence. However physical signs aren't the definitive teller as most of these can be imitated for a limited public appearance. Hence the most important factor is the conduct.
Things you describe are perceived subjectively, so they can also be victims to my brain deluding myself.
How would you describe a state of mind in which you remain thoughtless as long as you want? Thoughts will only arrive in your conscious mind when you summon them and you can hold a thought as long as you want. You remain perfectly peaceful, tranquil without blabbering and urges of the mind without exerting as in meditation. Meditation is no longer an act but a state of your mind.
When your mind is perfectly under control without effort, you have become awakened (or enlightened), because now you truly possess a free will in the truest sense of the word. Earlier when your mind was in control, your innate tendencies were driving your actions, based on external stimuli. Anger, greed, lust, envy, fear and other negative emotions thrive in such a state of mind naturally and one has to exert to check them.
I'd urge you to try concentrative meditation, wherein one tries to hold a thought (could be visualizing a form, or listening to a sound ETC) and see the power of conditioned mind. Observe how long you can hold it. For instance, if you're visualizing a form, you may discover that within matter of few seconds it starts fading, dancing or completely gone. Similarly If you are meditating on sound, you will find that within few seconds your mind has distracted and you have to exert to retain your focus. The mind is not in your control and such a conditioned mind can form opinions and dilute you. But an enlightened mind, perfectly in control cannot have delusion and ever lives in present moment. Opinions and judgement are tools of a conditioned mind, ever fearful and constantly striving to ensure survival of the body.
That said, I'm not yet an enlightened being; I'm striving for it by walking path of meditation, kindness and chanting [0]. I do have experiences and glimses confirming most of what I've written, but I have not attained the final state yet. If you're truly curious and want to read, learn and practice more about this, I'd encourage you to read Om Swami's books. The one on meditation [1] takes you through the journey of a meditator with states and stages of mind and awareness that you'll find intriguing and hopefully interesting to pursue. Simple yet precise methods and practices have been given along with a method to measure one's progress.
0: I use Black Lotus app for logging and measuring my meditation and chanting sessions as well as random acts of kindness (RAKs) (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rt.pinpric...) - inspired by same author 1: https://www.amazon.com/Million-Thoughts-Meditation-Himalayan...
Secondly, let's say it's all true. Why is that so desirable?
> But an enlightened mind, perfectly in control cannot have delusion and ever lives in present moment
It's perfectly possible to live in the present moment and disregard the future even without meditation. That's not generally considered a good thing, though.
> Opinions and judgement are tools of a conditioned mind, ever fearful and constantly striving to ensure survival of the body.
Yes, your body has adapted to survival. What's wrong with that, why do you want to turn that off? You'll die anyway, are you really that impatient?
I guess if you're somehow in constant terror about the plight of existence, that might be a useful skill to have. Otherwise, I'd rather learn something else.
Exactly as in any other field of expertise. Through your practice, knowledge/experiences you gain from that practice. Mere reading the books doesn't take one far in any field.
> Secondly, let's say it's all true. Why is that so desirable?
Who says it's desirable to everyone? It's individual's choice. If you get pleasure in learning something else, feel free to do that.
But someone might also want to go to the source of pleasure so he can maintain state of pleasure at all times regardless of circumstances outside, meditation is one sure way to that. Just like a hard core engineer may want to know how the whole thing works down to transistor, some people eventually get this desire to experience their whole being down to one's soul and even the super soul. Such people aren't satisfied being mere servant to the needs of body or mind for whole of their lives. They want to experience the eternity if there's such a thing. It's an arduous but a rewarding journey, with wonderful experiences at every little milestone on the path. But this thread isn't an appropriate place to write details about them.
Btw if you are thinking meditation or enlightenment means withdrawal from the world, or becoming something inert or passive, or stop enjoyment/learning, then you've not understood it correctly.
But as you said, you're not quite there yet. How do you know that what you described is really achievable? What else can you do but take other people by their word? Some people claim that through meditation, they could literally levitate. What's to stop anyone from just claiming something that's impossible to prove wrong?
It's not that I doubt meditation can have profound effects on one's psyche and well-being, but at some point I just don't don't buy it, like when you speak of a "constant state of pleasure". I don't think that's physically possible, at some point the receptors in your brain will need time to recover.
I've read somewhere that it takes 10k hours to master anything. Let's consider example of a musical instrument, say Piano, that you're learning. It will take you 10k hours of sincere practice to reach to a state of mastery in which playing piano will be a subconscious, effortless act, you'd be able to listen to any song and start playing it. However, this effortless will be preceded by state of conscious competence in which you can play a song after listening it, but it takes some effort and even then, it's not perfect. You know you're progressing but you're not there yet. You can see the goal but you also know that it'll take good effort to reach there.
Another advantage you have at this stage is you can appreciate the expert player from a charlatan. It's not easy to fool you anymore.
So, you can consider me that 3k hours pianist re meditation. I started practicing meditation in 2014 inspired by this HN post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041
>> The Really Unexpected My forehead caught on “fire”. No--really. This was the single strangest event of the entire challenge, and I have no explanation for it, but what took place was that after about 30 days, the centre of my forehead felt like it was emitting or radiating what I can only describe a kind of heatless, lightless flame.
I started in June2014 and my first experience happened in about a month. I've never stopped meditating daily ever since (apart from some not-so-frequent days of urgent work/function/illness) (I try to do it in three sessions in morning/evening/night) The experiences continue to come. Then if you read books by expert meditator, you'll be able to relate their experiences with yours.
> Some people claim that through meditation, they could literally levitate. What's to stop anyone from just claiming something that's impossible to prove wrong?
Why do you believe such a claim? Let that person demonstrate it if he's so claiming. You don't have to believe anything or anyone. But at the same time, you shouldn't reject something without giving it a chance. Both of these are functions of a conditioned mind blinded by a sense of superiority that what it knows is the truth and that it cannot be wrong.
ON a related note, the problem for spirituality is that people get attracted to it by these stories of wonderful powers that they can gain, and lose the sight of true goal of Yoga: to reach to a state of union with one's eternal, imperishable atman (soul). That's actually a good test of expert: he will not sell meditation or other practices as a means to attained powers. He knows such powers (even if considered possible for a moment) are a hindrance in awakening and these are just another form of material entertainment for the conditioned mind while the goal is to rise above conditioning to experience state of oneness with the universe; with atman. Once you have become that, you can yourself verify if you really can get these powers, chances are, you will no longer be interested in them.
> but at some point I just don't don't buy it, like when you speak of a "constant state of pleasure". I don't think that's physically possible, at some point the receptors in your brain will need time to recover.
Who says you won't need rest? As long as you're in this physical body, you'll need rest. But the source of your joy will be within rather than dependent on external factors like money, appreciation, fame, success ETC. which keep on changing. You'll be able to maintain your state of inner peace and bliss even in absence of these.
that's the point - with ridiculous claims like levitation there's simple way to verify them. with psychological claims of enlightenment - there's no way to verify them. you basically took people on their word and are trying to achieve the same, but how can you know they didn't fool you and you're not fooling yourself? how can you know your brain isn't creating an illusion of enlightenment just so you stop depriving it of dopamine?
But you're right, there's no need to make it a life commitment. There's no need to do anything, really.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20544412 and marked it off-topic.
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)
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.
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.
Meditation is just another tool, although a very powerful one. Use it wisely.
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).
He filled up pages after pages on how to balance one's practice and avoid pitfall like that. The guy is a bit controversial (which I personally embrace), but he sure wrote more than anyone else about all those issues and a lot more. As the subtitle indicates, it is quite the hardcore reference.
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...
- Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 12 January 1965, Preface to Bhagavad-Gita
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.
Also, ignoring the genocide of the Rohingya while going on a Vipassana retreat speaks loudly about one’s personal ethics.
We aren't at peak mindfulness yet:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=mindfuln...
However I suspect that the early adopters have moved on and the people preaching mindfulness are not the same sort of people as those that have moved on from it. We are in 'Eternal September' and 'Who ruined Burning Man' territory.
Those that are actually 'mindful' and can 'do it' would probably never think they were being 'mindful', would not be going to the classes or even doing the formal meditation. Instead of plucking a raisin and focusing on how it fits in their navel they are more likely to be walking the dog with smile for friends they see en-route.
It is the same with Buddhism. Those that are first to claim to be in to it are highly unlikely to be in an way Buddhist. Their neighbour who happens to do a few things for a few people and help others out financially is far more likely to make the grade. You don't brag about being Buddhist, it is not how it works. But 'Buddhists' do.
It is like those people that insist on being called a grand title that they haven't necessarily earned. If 'a lady' insists on being referred to as 'a lady' then she probably isn't. Mindfulness is one of those things where 'mindful' people probably almost certainly aren't. The universe works this way.
A thing to watch for is that the topic of 'mindfulness' can be discussed ad-nauseum as per creationism. Anyone who hates it is going to be somewhat less than mindful about those deep in the cult. Equally those caught up by the fad are going to be going deeply un-mindful when it comes to chastising those that call the whole thing bogus.
The catch to this is that there is a bigger picture. Right now we don't have a lot of useful political involvement in the West, for instance the new UK leader was selected by 0.1% of the population, with them being very much drawn from the 1%. So we have these fairly insane politicians running the show whilst the mindful crew are telling people to do things with raisins. Exactly as per your anecdote.
The creationism idea was a deliberate 'wedge strategy' to get people talking about something silly whilst funding for serious science is whittled away. Who knows, but maybe some Heritage Foundation is behind 'mindfulness' with it being Wedge Strategy for containing dissent.
I think the analogy of the camera phone is useful for understanding these things. Cameras can default to point to the outside world or to point the other way, at the self. If you have the camera pointing at the self rather than the world then you aren't going to see the world but the world might see (and like) you. We are culturally okay with people who only post pictures of themselves, we idolise them as rock stars.
There is also a low barrier to entry when it comes to 'mindfulness'. Compared to learing something real - e.g. playing a musical instrument, speaking a foreign language, writing code in object oriented modules, being good at a sport, 'mindfulness' is pretty easy. You can't pretend to be fastest doing the local sport run, you have got to actually do it. Mindfulness is not something objective like that.
Haha, and all the rest well said.
Well, Stoicism turns out to be difficult.
SV couldn't make an app for that.. and profit
What's wrong with that? I don't mind good stuff to be commodified (like food, housing, health care, transport). Also you don't need to use an app, but if it's a good way to do it - why not? Also2: not sure why would meditation apps want you to get rid of, say, Netflix.
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.
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
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.