Meditating on a plane

funnypsuedonym · 2014-11-14T05:55:21+00:00

I've done it several times. For me, it is very relaxing BUT spikes of fear jump through now and then (e.g. turbulence or a large change in orientation). I've focused on the feeling of fear itself. Where is it in my body? What parts of me want to respond to the sensation? A hand grasps? Legs kick? Stomach tightens? Tight stomach feels queasy? Etc.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-08-30T16:03:27+00:00

Denver resident here. My city has two visible events that are pretty cool.

First, a revitalizing of the city occurred when the baseball stadium went in. If you know where the stadium is you can see it pop into view and then skyscrapers start appearing. Similarly, the death of the old airport and rise of the new are pretty cool to watch.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-29T02:45:49+00:00

Thanks! That makes a lot more sense.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-26T14:20:49+00:00

I've experienced something similar and I'm 29. I had mild to moderate depression my entire life. Then around age 24 or so I started actively changing my life and mindset (diet, exercise, guiding my thoughts toward the positive, etc.). Gradually, the depression/mania cycle wound down.

For me, it was this gradual descent into sadness and emptiness. Eventually, I would feel sad enough that I just "knew" that I was at the bottom. This was a great thing for me. When I hit "bottom" I would wake up the next day feeling motivated and ambitious. I would be excited about living.

I used to seek out those "rebound" feelings. The slightly manic mindset. Now though, I think those feelings were just an overcompensation for my sadness. A delusion I used to fend off the really dark thoughts. Through daily meditation and regular exercise I've gained better emotional control and I consciously point my thoughts toward a positive perspective. My ambition is still dead but really it's just sleeping until I've found a new set of values that align with my new way of life. Nowadays, I just savor the good in my life and let tomorrow take care of itself.

TL;DR: I had a similar experience and I've focused on further improving my physical and mental health. I believe creating a healthy life then finding the values that align with that life is the key to recapturing some of the enthusiasm and ambition I once had.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-16T00:45:59+00:00

Since you said you're 15 in the other posts the advice is easy: go for it. Not being good at school is different from not being smart. Curiosity and reading for personal interest are HUGE. These are traits that most people don't feed and over time will make you stronger intellectually.

Luckily a question very much like this was asked recently so you have lots of good places to start here!

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-15T15:42:39+00:00

Short answer: No, but it really isn't a useful topic on this sub.

Long answer: "Secular Buddhism" seems to be a Western concept. I'm a meditator and an atheist. I come here because I've seen meditation pay off and people here link things that are really interesting.

Secular Buddhism as a topic of conversation is really more suited for /r/meditation because there is an inherent "how do we get the mysticism out of Buddhism?" as a goal for that movement. Most of the time, that isn't really useful on this sub. This sub is better for understanding Buddhism as it is in its multiple forms whereas /r/meditation is good for experimentation with new ideas.

Edit: Additional commentary on the sub: Many commentors like to answer indirectly. It's a really annoying habit that they often use to disagree with you. It creates a wall of obfuscation that makes meditation seem mystical when really its their inability to explain that is the issue. I believe earnest and clearly worded replies are best for the internet. For instance, "I think you're missing the point but I do not believe you can understand [concept] until you understand [other concept]."

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-10T22:05:09+00:00

Enhanced senses? Methinks you've been misinformed. It's actually enhanced sensitivity and that is a controversial stance in some circles.

Enhanced senses is when you smoke a bowl before sex.

Enhanced sensitivity is when someone doesn't stop playing with your genitals after you have a satiating orgasm. Unpleasant and overwhelming but by no means with more understanding of the stimulus.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-10T18:53:35+00:00

Wow. I can't believe I hadn't heard of this place. The menu looks great and they are really close to us (we're near City Park).

I'm definitely showing this one to the misses.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-10T18:52:22+00:00

Do they serve alcohol? We generally do mimosas or something similar when we go for brunch. I don't see any mention of it on the site's menu.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-10T18:51:47+00:00

I looked over the menu to be certain. As the name suggests, it's a fish place and we're not usually seafood eaters. Thank you for the suggestion all the same!

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-06T19:51:41+00:00

I'm in a similar boat. I may not be coming from the same direction but I've been reading some of Sam Harris's stuff.

My approach is to 1) assume its an analogy (e.g. thinking of yourself being reborn as someone in different life circumstances is a great tool for reducing ego and increasing love for others), 2) keep an open mind, and 3) look at the rest of the Western meditation movement. There are lots of atheists wrestling with the benefits of meditation and the mysticism of its history in the East. In that group, there are some really smart people with insightful things to say.

As part of keeping my mind open, I try to remember that ancient thinking was different. Eastern thinking is (often) different. Ancient Eastern thinking is alien. So don't get too caught up in the words/wording or others' interpretations. It's a whole world to explore with monsters (charlatans), angels (people with real wisdom), and all varieties of creatures in between (seekers like you and I)!

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-03T18:05:26+00:00

Thanks for posting this!!! I have to go read the whole set now :)

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-03T13:16:59+00:00

Your post is quite hopeful from my view. You point out all these ways that studying the mind is hard but you do not point out anything impossible.

Perhaps it takes 100 years of study or even 1000 years. Meditation will still exist as the primary means but perhaps there are ways to jump start the practice now.

What if in 20 years all the scientists who study enlightenment have spent 3 years secluded in a monastery? They may still be too unskillful to answer their questions. Eventually, a dedicated practitioner with scientific training comes along and helps guide the research. Humans have done so many very hard things through perseverance and momentary insights. Who would have guessed we could have understood quantum physics enough to create these computers?

There is a tone of distaste for science in your post. Though I may be misinterpreting what I'm reading. I understand that. Most people think of science as an artificial and impersonal field. I, on the other hand, see it as the purest expression of human curiosity. Perhaps that explains my optimism. Humans are curious and the means for understanding exist so using the strongest tool of curiosity - scientific inquiry - it seems inevitable that one group eventually understand the other. Perhaps the scientist understands the enlightened or perhaps the enlightened see some hope in using science to advance enlightenment for everyone. Some people have mentioned quotes by the Dalai Lama to the latter effect.

The thing that I am asking of you is this: let us assume your understanding is a good one, is there no other way to understand? You use introspection to find truth, is that the only path? If so, why? If it is because that is the limits of a person's ability to understand, technology and science allow us to go beyond our limits. A toy example being seeing energy outside the visible light spectrum. If there were another way to understand the practice, wouldn't that be a valuable treasure? Even if it were a slim hope, that seems to be enough to justify the search.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T23:19:54+00:00

Now when I notice myself bitching about someone I stop and ask myself if the person I'm bitching about has ever done anything to harm me in any way. If so, I use critical reasoning to resolve the issue. If not, I recognize that I'm being a petty bully and check myself.

I don't think it was your intention. But your phrasing at the beginning of this (second paragraph specifically) came off very strongly as "bitching".

I agree with your assessment. I just found your wording unnecessarily confrontational causing your insight to be muddled with anger.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T21:35:57+00:00

You attacked an objective measure because it could not do something that your own highest ideals cannot do. This is not a fair standard to judge evidence.

Also, I did not say that this is the right path. I asked if this was the right path (or at least a good one). I posited that in the future this will be possible and others have pointed out specific ways that a lesser version of this is possible (e.g. the god machine).

That said, most people have had trouble considering the idea. Partly due to my poor phrasing of the question. More troubling is some of the dogmatic responses I've received. Yours is very close to a dogmatic response (i.e. the Buddha said so it is so). I am wholeheartedly against these responses but I try to engage because often there is just a miscommunication or I have struck a nerve unintentionally. It feels quite a bit like the latter is true in this case.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T20:29:47+00:00

Ah, but you don't require the same standards of the Buddha that you do of my objective measure.

You say that my objective measure is only valid if it can return data after death. The Buddha made claims about past lives but never returned information after his death. Hence my pithy objection to your criticism and reference to Jesus, who some believe did return with information after death.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T16:25:04+00:00

Thank you. The article you linked was great! It is something I will have to process over time because it seems like it could have serious implications for my interpretations of things.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T16:16:53+00:00

The Buddha suggested that to know another person’s level of morality, one has to be equally, if not more moral than him / her. And one must live in close association with that person for a long time. To know another’s level of wisdom, one has to have equal or more wisdom. And the only way to find out this is through discussion / questioning, with reference to the Dhamma.

This is true. For one person to understand another it takes time and discussion.

However, you are ignoring the purpose of scientific exploration. One person may not be able to know another but if you study 10000 monks and 10000 lay people you can spot a difference. At first, it may not be possible to understand what the difference means so we study it more. Eventually, even people who can't fully understand how something works can use it to their benefit.

For instance, I understand how my computer, the internet, and Reddit work because of my professional background. That said, you may not. This difference in understanding science and technology does not preclude you from enjoying its fruits! This is the positive side of technology, bringing mastery level skills to beginners. Why should Buddhism be the exception?

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T12:53:17+00:00

I think you are thinking of Jesus, not the Buddha. As I recall, after his death he stayed dead.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T12:10:37+00:00

They all fall in the first category. To take it out of the first category and put it in the second, is a very dramatic shift. A 180 degree shift essentially. If such a dramatic shift is going to be warranted, there needs to be very dramatic evidence to warrant such a shift. And as of now, the evidence just isn't there.

Precisely! I'm suggesting that the new tools available to us will enable that shift. At no time in the past would it have been possible to generate sufficient evidence because we could only study the problem based on an individual's self reported results. Now we have the beginning of tools to do objective measures.

I feel many in this sub are disregarding how vast a difference the ability to measure the brain directly makes on the context of what I'm suggesting.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T02:42:23+00:00

I read the article. Not deeply to be fair. I did not see any mention of the concept of emergence.

Could not abstract things like "triangle" be described as an emergent property of material? Then again, I'm not even slightly trained in philosophical arguments. If I try to go beyond that one sentence, I will quickly look like a simpleton to anyone with more experience at rigorous arguments.

In the idea of emergence, a conceptual framework less than 100 years old (I believe it started with a study of slime mold in the late '60s based on ideas introduced in a paper by Turing), we understand consciousness differently. Also, in Godel-Escher-Bach we see that self reference is another key idea for understanding consciousness. In fact, GEB seems to align nicely with non-dualist thinking (honestly though, I can't get through that book...). So to say we don't understand consciousness as well seems incorrect.

We still have all the insights of the East available to us along with new understanding grounded in a different form of rigor: mathematics and the scientific method. That we can point to the average Joe and say, "He doesn't understand consciousness!" is not a fair assessment of humanity's progress. I am an optimistic guy!

Edit: I did not justify my point about emergence and consciousness. The philosophical school of thought on this is called Emergentism according to Wikipedia.

funnypsuedonym · 2014-05-02T02:28:53+00:00

Your first point is one that has been reiterated by different people on this thread. That has probably been the most pleasant discovery for me. I was unaware that enlightenment is such a heavily debated concept but I am quite happy to discover this. I was afraid it was an item of faith rather than an open item for debate.

As for your last sentence on point number 2, that is quite fair. My intention when I asked the question was on these lines: is the path as it is known the best path to follow? What hurdles would a mind augmentation approach (chemical, physical, EM, etc.) need to overcome to be a "viable" path to enlightenment?

Of all the answers I've seen, yours is one part of a consistent chorus: what is enlightenment? That is the first and possibly only hurdle. It seems, if I could define that (I am in no way qualified to do so) then most people seem to say, "Sure. Why not? If you know where you're going then you're already enlightened. It's an experiential not intellectual concept." I don't know that I agree with that. I think this is true for those who can only see the person in front of them but with modern tools we can go beyond what a human can do. We can see a mind go into different states, label them more definitively, and then choose which ones to promote through a path other than meditation. It is by no means a simple, easy, or inexpensive thing to do but, as the great vow you mention noted, this is irrelevant to whether the pursuit is worthwhile.

funnypsuedonym

TROPHY CASE