6 ms·

“which they describe as a profoundly nihilist state of being.” This is very important to point out and I think is actually the big trap when approaching medita

“which they describe as a profoundly nihilist state of being.” This is very important to point out and I think is actually the big trap when approaching meditative practices. I fell into this nihilism trap when I was starting meditation in college and I abandoned my practice almost completely for the next 10 or so years. It’s very easy to confuse the emptiness of self with the nonexistence of self. The latter is an extreme view that leads to nihilism. At least in the Buddhist traditions I’m aware of, nihilism is a wrong view and the teachings are explicitly not nihilistic. Yet it’s exceptionally easy to get confused and fall into it if you’re just meditating without any real notion of what the teachings are. All the corporate “meditate for productivity” that has invaded the dialogue in the west I find at least misguided, and at the worst actually harmful. For anyone that is interested I’d suggest reading Thich Nhat Hanh’s translation and commentary on the heart sutra called “The Other Shore”. It clears up a lot of the teaching on emptiness and will help you not fall into the nihilism trap. (It’s also useful to note that the modern vipassana movement that is so popular in the west comes from a tradition that doesn’t emphasize the teachings on emptiness, even though they are in fact there in the Pali cannon.)

Igelau 6y ago
> It’s very easy to confuse the emptiness of self with the nonexistence of self. I think part of the issue is that the words/concepts really don't translate into modern english well at all. Another example is how frequently the first of the Four Noble Truths is misrepresented as "Life is suffering". We don't have good ways of saying or explaining shunyata or dukkha that preserve the nuance of the concepts. Edit: Thich Nhat Hanh is always a solid recommendation. I'll have to find his commentary on the heart sutra.
- mtalantikite 6y ago
  “I think part of the issue is that the words/concepts really don't translate into modern english well at all. Another example is how frequently the first of the Four Noble Truths is misrepresented as "Life is suffering".” Absolutely, translations are difficult and imprecise, having multiple meanings even in the original Sanskrit or Pāli. Even different lineages place concepts in different categories, like whether or not suffering is one of the three dharma seals or not. Vipassana as taught by the Theravada would say it is, whereas Mahayana and Vajrayana would sometimes say it’s not. No wonder new meditators get confused when they try to start a practice with all these modern apps and books that avoid teaching any of the lineages!
- tyre 6y ago
  Is there a longer translation that gives more nuance than "suffering"? Often times we settle for less precise words in favor of pithiness/conciseness.
  - mtalantikite 6y ago
    For sure, the word is duhkha and has a lot of alternative meanings and explanations beyond just “suffering”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duḥkha https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duḥkha
  - hvs 6y ago
    I prefer "unsatisfactoriness" rather than "suffering". "The word is commonly explained as a derivation from Aryan terminology for an axle hole, referring to an axle hole which is not in the center and leads to a bumpy, uncomfortable ride."
    - taneq 6y ago
      Sounds like a better translation would be ‘slipshod’.
  - dhimes 6y ago
    “Out of balance” is yet another way to think of it (Steve Hagen’s term IIRC)
fsloth 6y ago
"It’s very easy to confuse the emptiness of self with the nonexistence of self." Yeah, basically you have to realize that the fact you observe all of the normal brain noise is gone does not mean you are gone. You still observe. And most critically, you are not your brain noise, but something beyond that.
- thevardanian 6y ago
  Not beyond. Not becoming. The beyond implies a spatial expanse in which one progresses. Becoming implies a temporal expanse in which one progresses. The cessation of these spatiotemporal limits is fundamental to that "state of being" (this phrase itself betrays that). In that sense memory itself creates that time-space substance, because it is through that, that it exists. This is something that is very difficult to reconcile with, because this would also imply that cause and effect are non-objects. So then what is it that one "realizes"?
  - joseluis 6y ago
    We are but vehicles for the realizing itself.
  - fsloth 6y ago
    "because this would also imply that cause and effect are non-objects" Cause and effect are no less real than, say, the sun. But the sensation of them and the conceptualization of them as we conceive them is a figment of the brain. Brain itself can be wired in any way. All of our senses of external world are hallucinations inside our head driven by stimuli from sensory organs. All we can ever 'observe' is this hallucination. Yet it would be folly to believe that the external world would not exist. But! Our interpretation of the sensory experience can create lots of unreal things which are not true nor real. I think the difficulty and key is separating the figments in our heads which reflect actual things from associations and fantasies made by our mind.
dhimes 6y ago
You might find my comment above to be relevant to yours. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24191507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24191507
pvarangot 6y ago
The ego-death experience that meditation usually leads you to also strongly seeds the feeling that other consciousness are "unreachable" and therefore should be left as alone as possible while it reaches it's own enlightenment. I think it's a very narrow view of a richer theory like Jungian individuation. That being said you can have a non-nihilistic ego-death or medidate only until your more intrusive thoughts "go away" without you loosing your complete identity, that's kind of like a scientific fact. Of course if you get "addicted" to it or start chasing the "ego-death" experience it can be harmful.
friedman23 6y ago
Why are we saying nihilism is bad?
- groby_b 6y ago
  Because it is not conducive to maintaining any kind of organized group of human beings. The idea that "life is meaningless" means that society cannot rely on you, because you'll do whatever strikes your fancy, whatever the consequences. Worse, it is also a philosophy that contributes absolutely nothing to actually understanding the nature of the world, which is kind of the point of philosophy. In short, nihilists are utterly useless, to themselves and the world. On the upside, they won't care.
  - mpax 6y ago
    > The idea that "life is meaningless" means that society cannot rely on you, because you'll do whatever strikes your fancy, whatever the consequences. How does "life is meaningless" imply "life is useless"? Also, why would nihilism entail radical individualism? The core of nihilism is that since the indifferent universe is without meaning humans have to give it meaning, quite the opposite of what you're implying.
    - sysalphUS 6y ago
      That sounds more like absurdism.
    - xdavidliu 6y ago
      > The core of nihilism is that since the indifferent universe is without meaning humans have to give it meaning. I'm not that familiar with nihilism, but I'm rather surprised that "humans have to give it meaning" is part of the core. That's somewhat non-obvious to me; intuitively I would have expected nihilists to believe that meaning cannot exist. Can you point me toward some sources that say nihilists actually believe that humans are capable of creating meaning?
      - 6y ago

Igelau 6y ago

> It’s very easy to confuse the emptiness of self with the nonexistence of self. I think part of the issue is that the words/concepts really don't translate into modern english well at all. Another example is how frequently the first of the Four Noble Truths is misrepresented as "Life is suffering". We don't have good ways of saying or explaining shunyata or dukkha that preserve the nuance of the concepts. Edit: Thich Nhat Hanh is always a solid recommendation. I'll have to find his commentary on the heart sutra.

mtalantikite 6y ago
“I think part of the issue is that the words/concepts really don't translate into modern english well at all. Another example is how frequently the first of the Four Noble Truths is misrepresented as "Life is suffering".” Absolutely, translations are difficult and imprecise, having multiple meanings even in the original Sanskrit or Pāli. Even different lineages place concepts in different categories, like whether or not suffering is one of the three dharma seals or not. Vipassana as taught by the Theravada would say it is, whereas Mahayana and Vajrayana would sometimes say it’s not. No wonder new meditators get confused when they try to start a practice with all these modern apps and books that avoid teaching any of the lineages!
tyre 6y ago
Is there a longer translation that gives more nuance than "suffering"? Often times we settle for less precise words in favor of pithiness/conciseness.
- mtalantikite 6y ago
  For sure, the word is duhkha and has a lot of alternative meanings and explanations beyond just “suffering”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duḥkha https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duḥkha
- hvs 6y ago
  I prefer "unsatisfactoriness" rather than "suffering". "The word is commonly explained as a derivation from Aryan terminology for an axle hole, referring to an axle hole which is not in the center and leads to a bumpy, uncomfortable ride."
  - taneq 6y ago
    Sounds like a better translation would be ‘slipshod’.
- dhimes 6y ago
  “Out of balance” is yet another way to think of it (Steve Hagen’s term IIRC)

fsloth 6y ago

"It’s very easy to confuse the emptiness of self with the nonexistence of self." Yeah, basically you have to realize that the fact you observe all of the normal brain noise is gone does not mean you are gone. You still observe. And most critically, you are not your brain noise, but something beyond that.

thevardanian 6y ago
Not beyond. Not becoming. The beyond implies a spatial expanse in which one progresses. Becoming implies a temporal expanse in which one progresses. The cessation of these spatiotemporal limits is fundamental to that "state of being" (this phrase itself betrays that). In that sense memory itself creates that time-space substance, because it is through that, that it exists. This is something that is very difficult to reconcile with, because this would also imply that cause and effect are non-objects. So then what is it that one "realizes"?
- joseluis 6y ago
  We are but vehicles for the realizing itself.
- fsloth 6y ago
  "because this would also imply that cause and effect are non-objects" Cause and effect are no less real than, say, the sun. But the sensation of them and the conceptualization of them as we conceive them is a figment of the brain. Brain itself can be wired in any way. All of our senses of external world are hallucinations inside our head driven by stimuli from sensory organs. All we can ever 'observe' is this hallucination. Yet it would be folly to believe that the external world would not exist. But! Our interpretation of the sensory experience can create lots of unreal things which are not true nor real. I think the difficulty and key is separating the figments in our heads which reflect actual things from associations and fantasies made by our mind.

dhimes 6y ago

You might find my comment above to be relevant to yours. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24191507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24191507

pvarangot 6y ago

The ego-death experience that meditation usually leads you to also strongly seeds the feeling that other consciousness are "unreachable" and therefore should be left as alone as possible while it reaches it's own enlightenment. I think it's a very narrow view of a richer theory like Jungian individuation. That being said you can have a non-nihilistic ego-death or medidate only until your more intrusive thoughts "go away" without you loosing your complete identity, that's kind of like a scientific fact. Of course if you get "addicted" to it or start chasing the "ego-death" experience it can be harmful.

friedman23 6y ago

Why are we saying nihilism is bad?

groby_b 6y ago
Because it is not conducive to maintaining any kind of organized group of human beings. The idea that "life is meaningless" means that society cannot rely on you, because you'll do whatever strikes your fancy, whatever the consequences. Worse, it is also a philosophy that contributes absolutely nothing to actually understanding the nature of the world, which is kind of the point of philosophy. In short, nihilists are utterly useless, to themselves and the world. On the upside, they won't care.
- mpax 6y ago
  > The idea that "life is meaningless" means that society cannot rely on you, because you'll do whatever strikes your fancy, whatever the consequences. How does "life is meaningless" imply "life is useless"? Also, why would nihilism entail radical individualism? The core of nihilism is that since the indifferent universe is without meaning humans have to give it meaning, quite the opposite of what you're implying.
  - sysalphUS 6y ago
    That sounds more like absurdism.
  - xdavidliu 6y ago
    > The core of nihilism is that since the indifferent universe is without meaning humans have to give it meaning. I'm not that familiar with nihilism, but I'm rather surprised that "humans have to give it meaning" is part of the core. That's somewhat non-obvious to me; intuitively I would have expected nihilists to believe that meaning cannot exist. Can you point me toward some sources that say nihilists actually believe that humans are capable of creating meaning?
    - 6y ago