5 ms·
What Monks Know about Focus
- mewpmewp2 3y agoThe suggestion is to escape from toxic thoughts, immersing yourself in prayers instead?
- duncan-donuts 3y ago> It’s not about the wisdom we glean. It’s about what wisdom we grow. I think the author does a good job of actually testing the original point—questioning if all but a handful of books are a worthless distraction. I think the entire piece has almost nothing to do with prayer. The monks are used as a thought experiment around the value of thought for the sake of thought.
- mewpmewp2 3y agoOkay, I guess I misunderstood the article. What is the takeaway?
- theptip 3y agoSpending time and energy to engage in reading a book can change the way you think, and subsequently change your interpretation of the text. A good book is not just a bag of facts, but a tool to change your cognitive processes.
- mewpmewp2 3y agoWhich book should I try?
- coldtea 3y ago>What is the takeaway? That we should not take shortcuts and expect we'll gain anything by exchanging an extended treatment of a subject with a distilled short talking point.
- jamiek88 3y agoBravo!
- scooke 3y agoMost likely these were set prayer phrases, like recitations of the Psalms, and not a meandering, "Dear God/Santa, here is my Christmas list and help my dog and heal granny" kind of prayers. So the content is already set to lead ones focus to "heavenly" thoughts above the toxicity of the worldly plane.
- devjab 3y agoI think the easiest way to think of it is having a single word mantra that you repeat while you meditate to keep your focus on meditation and not let your mind wander in different directions. If you try the single word mantra thing you’ll probably find that it’s not exactly enough to keep your focus. But it’s an easy way to explain that it’s less like “praying” than about the recitation of the prayer because focusing your mind on the recitation will help you focus.
- doc56 3y agoA superb writeup. Thanks for posting. Reminded me of Herbert Simon saying Learning required "Drill and Kill". And how our education systems were tending more towards entertainment by undervaluing rote or practice. Had to dig up the quote - "The criticism of practice (called "drill and kill," as if this phrase constituted empirical evaluation) is prominent in constructivist writings. Nothing flies more in the face of the last 20 years of research than the assertion that practice is bad. All evidence, from the laboratory and from extensive case studies of professionals, indicates that real competence only comes with extensive practice... In denying the critical role of practice one is denying children the very thing they need to achieve real competence. The instructional task is not to "kill" motivation by demanding drill, but to find tasks that provide practice while at the same time sustaining interest."
- creer 3y agoThat would be very useful but I don't think the current style of school practice is doing it. "Sustaining interest" is missing. Both the textbook or class are abstract (they have enough trouble describing a math concept and don't spend much or any time showing where that concept is headed for example - what it will later be useful for). And the exercises are narrow: they make no reference to real world problems. Granted that created exercises grounded in real world problems is far more time consuming than isolated questions. Would still be more useful.
- hyperliner 3y ago[dead]
- dandanua 3y agoFocusing on solving hard problems, like in programming, is a good option too. Because when we solve something we keep our minds in motion on fixed tracks.
- quickthrower2 3y agoExercise too. The question is how long. Doing intense stuff needs breaks.
- mellutussa 3y ago[flagged]
- angel- 3y agoI think you might be misunderstanding the statement. He's summarizing what Richard Hannia is saying, not the author's opinion. He's actually against the idea that old books are worthless.
- mellutussa 3y agoHe sums it up and then he confirms it. But yes, he might have missed out a word.
- Dr_Birdbrain 3y agoRead paragraph 2: the best counter argument is the classics themselves.
- graeme 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- carlossouza 3y ago> But that mistakes what a book is for. A book is a tool. It’s a machine for thinking. Best quote in the article. Taking the time to read, absorb and apply a book changes us in a way no summary or audiobook could ever change.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoAbsolutely. That's why people who use blinkist and stuff are doing it wrong. For a book to be useful it needs to work on you, you have to let yourself marinate in it. The time spent is in itself the biggest part of a book being useful. Just plucking the main ideas by themselves into bullet points do nothing.
- evross 3y agoBlinkist and skimming a book have their place for getting some of the key points, it's hard to find the time to read all useful books. But I agree that to really get the most out of a book, reading cover to cover is likely most immersive, impactful, maybe followed by listening to the auduibook from start to finish.
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoI think this is another wrong idea. You can never read all useful books. The whole idea of "all" useful books is faulty. You should read a book you really like and immerse yourself in it. The only time I think it's close to what you are suggesting is if you're prepping for a test.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI wasn't expect a "audiobooks aren't real books" argument coming in. What's your beef against "reading" in audio format ?
- 3y ago
- iainctduncan 3y agoThe linked article on the value of old books is a really nice read too. Great writing. https://www.millersbookreview.com/p/vital-necessity-of-very-old-books https://www.millersbookreview.com/p/vital-necessity-of-very-...
- twelfthnight 3y agoArticle sets itself up a rebuttal against another post. The other post argues you shouldn't read books because they are too long and mostly filler. This article then suggests the classics themselves are a demonstration that disproves that anti book sentiment. Personally, I disagree with both points of view, I think reading books is valuable, but I don't think "the classics" are a good argument why. For me, reading is good because it is _both_ enjoyable and informative. The antibook argument suggests you read the most information dense material you can, but like, that's not going to stick because it's boring and minds work on narrative / spaced repetition. Likewise, many folks find the classics boring, so they aren't a good example of why reading is good either. The best argument for why reading books is good is to help someone find a book they like! Once you get started reading, you'll likely do more of it and learn a lot more than (a) just reading blogs and (b) trudging through classics that aren't appealing to you (although there are very like classics you will like)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cyberpunk 3y ago[flagged]
- carrolldunham 3y agoI thought you had rules against indulging in mindless entertainments (social media (hn)) and fraternizing with laypeople?
- cyberpunk 3y agoEh? I’m not sure who the you you are referring to is but it sure doesn’t sound like me… we have no such thing.. I am a layperson…
- virtualwhys 3y ago> However as an ordained Buddhist monk... Then perhaps you meant to say you've taken the precepts, as ordaining and a layperson taking the precepts are obviously entirely different levels of commitment.
- CrzyLngPwd 3y agoTen years is a long time to repeat the same mistake. I hope you now spend your hour a day with no expectations, and I also hope you spend it outside of the cult of achy legs and standing in nature instead.
- cyberpunk 3y agoHaha, I loved this. Thanks :)
- VelesDude 3y agoThere are some folks now pushing the idea of wall meditation. Literally just grab a chair, take 10 minutes at first to just stare at a wall. See where the mind goes. I like the idea in its simplicity to define. Chair + wall + time. But eventually in many meditative traditions like Buddhism, a little context can be allocated as needed.
- makeitdouble 3y agoIt's worth pointing out that it's an article from a book reviewer, arguing based on a classical book about monks (who spend their life basically reading and copying books) that reading is really great all around. There might be a kernel of truth in there, but there's a very clear lack of distance between the subject and the author, and the writing style exacerbates this point. I feel it's the very definition of preaching to his choir, with little to no light coming from a different side with at least some ressemblance of neutrality towards the subject. Arguably reading people's rambly praises about their passion can be nice, but there's a weird grandiose tone here that hurts the enjoyment.
- bdjsiqoocwk 3y agoWhat would "neutrality" look like in this case? Should this person start their discussion from "should we read? It's 50-50 we don't know"?
- barbazoo 3y agoJury is still out.
- makeitdouble 3y agoNeutrality would look like putting upfront that some people enjoy reading and others don't as much, and we should be ok with it. He can then dig all he want about how reading is great to him and his peers. This is not a post in a vacuum, he is answering a specific argument made elsewhere, yet dwelves in his bubble until basically the last few paragraphs to throw some plausible deniability in the end: > If you’re Richard Hanania, no. You don’t possess a telos that would justify the effort. But if you see classics such as John Cassian’s Conferences as valuable, then most definitely yes. Perhaps I'm just frustrated to have read the whole thing expecting something more.
- Tomte 3y agoI suppose you start a report about a football match with long disclaimers that not everybody likes football, not everybody can play football because of disabilities, and not everybody has the time to play football besides their three jobs to make ends meet, and that all of that is okay and nothing in the report should be construed as a debasement of people not playing football? Doesn‘t sound exciting.
- fernly 3y agoAll those words about focus, concentration, taming the wandering mind -- and never even a passing reference to Buddhism, whose central practice is exactly that. Certainly a Christian hermetic deals with the same problems as does a Buddhist monk, but I note one profound difference in their approaches. The Christian faces a dualistic world, and trains the mind to, as the article quotes one monk saying, "become strong enough to drive off the enemy’s stimuli.” The "enemy" being Satan, trying to divert the faithful. The Buddhist does not see the world as divided between warring good and evil influences, but rather views the wandering mind non-judgementally, as needing only constant gentle correction.
- gloryjulio 3y agoThere are mythic branches of the Christianities. In fact, most of the religions have mythic branches and the ideas about these topics on self are strikingly similar and convergent. On the other direction, Buddhism is not so 'spiritual directed' in the prescientific history. The difference is just that Buddhism is very malleable. People can easily pick and choose the text and practices and even treat it as non religion. You can easily practice Buddhism in the modern context without the baggage.
- Lyngbakr 3y ago> You can easily practice Buddhism in the modern context without the baggage. An excellent book on this exact topic is Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor[0]. Very readable & super short. Recommended! [0]https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564 https://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Without-Beliefs-Contemporary...
- korginator 3y agoIn a discussion about what monks know about focus, I too find it strange that other schools and practices are ignored. The core of the Buddhist practice is about cultivating the mind for insight and clarity. In the linked article, I find the reasons offered by Nestorus to engage in reading rather specious and elementary, hardly scratching the surface of a vast and well practised domain. His first point - that reading helps avoid toxic thoughts - is avoiding instead of getting to the root of the problem and fixing it. His third and "most mysterious" reason for immersive reading - that it deepens our understanding of the reading material because our minds are changing - is how education works in the first place. The basic Buddhist teachings and practices even for lay people cover this vast domain concisely, with clear prescriptions to practice and try it out for ourselves, iterate and progress. In fact, the very first of the seven factors of awakening that we're advised to cultivate is mindfulness which underlies everything else. This commentary [1] provides an overview. The practices are covered in more detail in one of the core teachings, MN10 - Satipatthana Sutta [2]. While reading/listening/remembering are valued as aids (it's called suta-mayā pañña - knowledge based on learning), pretty much every Buddhist monk and practising upāsaka / upāsika (layperson) are taught to practice the techniques and realise this clarity, focus, mindfulness, etc., for themselves. The instruction mentioned above - MN10 - instructs you on attention and mindfulness wherever you are and whatever you're doing, in the section on clear comprehension - you're cultivating the skill (bhāvana) where you're clear about what you're doing, why you're doing it, the consequences of your actions, etc., whether you're defecating, urinating, reading, lying down to sleep, whatever - a constant practice of mindfulness and a full-time job. [1] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel0... [2] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html
- throw1234651234 3y agoI found the article to be entirely useless, since it doesn't cover concrete techniques from any traditions, whether that's St. Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle or Buddhist works. The best "focus techniques" are usually found in "occult" books - I quote because there is no real system and it's all disjointed and makes no sense. Anyway, here are some decent focus exercises: 1. Take a book. Count the words on a random page. Remember the word count. Count them again, confirm the word count. This is HARD - you stay focused for several minutes, avoid the temptation to actually read the content, and have to hold the current number + the last total in your mind, which stresses your WM. 2. Just count to 500+ while laying down and not moving (usually before bed). I find counting heart beats and breath affects the natural rhythm and messes with it, though Buddhism loves that. 3. Spill a bunch of marbles / legos on the floor and pick them up ONE piece at a time. 4. Dual n-back from the Brain Workshop (free, I am not associated) app. See more info here: https://gwern.net/dnb-faq https://gwern.net/dnb-faq Overall, all of these were never really proven to do anything and the question whether "perfect focus" impedes creativity is open. Furthermore, one of the true tests of "perfect focus" is when you forget yourself in the moment and lose track of time - that only seems to happen when the situation is extremely stressful / interesting, and none of the techniques reproduce it. It's also unclear if any of the exercises carry over to work. They teach you what focus feels like though - you definitely can't be on your phone and doing the word count exercise. Funnily enough, video games or movies also teach you what focus should be - you are staring at the same thing for hours without needing to get up, get tea, or otherwise distract yourself. Anyway, that was a bit of a rant, but as an "expert" in the subject matter, I am pretty hard-pressed to find anything concretely useful there. It definitely doesn't fall into the "universally good" category like "Get enough sleep, lift, do cardio, don't eat sugar, brush your teeth, don't get sun burnt every day", etc. club.
- BigParm 3y agoIf you need to think about focusing it’s a lost cause. Focus comes from being so addicted to your project that it’s a problem. You get pissed off that you have to eat. You find the perfect time for a two minute power shower. You stay up late and wake up after 4 hours saying “woohoo let’s fucking go!”. That’s focus. It only happens if you love what you’re doing. If you don’t have that addiction then you don’t care about what you’re working on in the first place, so why do you want to find focus anyways? Just clock in and clock out and look for a better path.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- antwerp1 3y agoThank you for sharing, this was a nice contrast to the usual mindfulness approaches. Also appreciated the takedown of Mr Hanania