3 ms·

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

by hooch 7y ago

Sorry to disappoint you again, but like you, I also take issue with “McMindfulness”. Another commenter (one of the first) made the point that “mindfulness” is an inaccurate translation of the Pali “sati”, which in the original context doesn’t mean much more than “remembering to be aware of the objects that your mind is attending to” - those objects being specific and often elaborate mental and emotional faculties. Sati is no system in itself. Anyway, I only ever set out here to share a single illustrative example of “anatta” or non-self. Have fun there.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Sorry to disappoint you again... Don't worry, I'm rarely disappointed. I try to keep my expectations low. In any event, your presumed identity (or lack thereof) is not really important to what I am saying. > ... but like you, I also take issue with “McMindfulness”. I don't necessarily have an issue with "mindfulness", that's just a technique of meditation as far as I'm concerned. Like other techniques of meditation, it clearly does something. I do think it can be beneficial, in the same way that hallucinogenic drugs can be beneficial. Biochemically, these are similar in many ways. Yet, few people would dare claim that dropping acid can actually give you a deeper understanding about the nature of the universe. It sure can feel that way though. > Another commenter (one of the first) made the point that “mindfulness” is an inaccurate translation of the Pali “sati”, which in the original context doesn’t mean much more than “remembering to be aware of the objects that your mind is attending to” - those objects being specific and often elaborate mental and emotional faculties. Sati is no system in itself. See, I much rather have an issue with these foundational teachings. That stuff is woo-woo. That's the stuff you brought up.

by hooch 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

> Sorry to disappoint you again... Don't worry, I'm rarely disappointed. I try to keep my expectations low. In any event, your presumed identity (or lack thereof) is not really important to what I am saying. > ... but like you, I also take issue with “McMindfulness”. I don't necessarily have an issue with "mindfulness", that's just a technique of meditation as far as I'm concerned. Like other techniques of meditation, it clearly does something. I do think it can be beneficial, in the same way that hallucinogenic drugs can be beneficial. Biochemically, these are similar in many ways. Yet, few people would dare claim that dropping acid can actually give you a deeper understanding about the nature of the universe. It sure can feel that way though. > Another commenter (one of the first) made the point that “mindfulness” is an inaccurate translation of the Pali “sati”, which in the original context doesn’t mean much more than “remembering to be aware of the objects that your mind is attending to” - those objects being specific and often elaborate mental and emotional faculties. Sati is no system in itself. See, I much rather have an issue with these foundational teachings. That stuff is woo-woo. That's the stuff you brought up.