5 ms·

How Understanding the Process of Enlightenment Could Change Science

27 points by rikibro 13y ago

pallandt 13y ago
This is only vaguely scientific and that only in the beginning of the article. It then progressively reads more like some excited, clueless retelling of other people's psychotic-like experiences. I can't even begin to understand the parallel to set theory mentioned in the piece.
- trekky1700 13y ago
  Yeah, the set theory bit was kinda bull shit. It's really nothing like set theory other than the word "contains". And the "Mathematicians have seen that far" sounds like typical snake oil selling.
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
I am somewhat not sure how altering brain to achieve disassociation from ones senses could change science.
ChuckFrank 13y ago
My family knows Har-Prakash Khalsa well, and while this work appears to rely heavily on anecdotal descriptions of this condition called 'cessation', his photographic work that he develops in tandem to his meditation practice is pretty impressive. I'm not sure if that ads anything to the discussion, but the pictures are nice to look at. http://art.harprakashkhalsa.com/exhibitions/true-nature.php http://art.harprakashkhalsa.com/exhibitions/true-nature.php If people are interested in his meditation practice, he has some youtube videos up. Steps to meditation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUR0DNDnj8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUR0DNDnj8 Nature of the intellect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPrm7YaaU1Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPrm7YaaU1Y
- ChuckFrank 13y ago
  I do want to add that one of the frustrations that I've had with this type meditation work, specifically the Kundalini meditation practice that is the basis for this study, and that is that there's always a heavily structured pseudo-scientific process instructing a participant in the right ways of meditation. There will be the different stages of the mind, or the different parts of the brain, all of which is simply taxonomic and not in any way related to anything scientific. So the learning of the 'ancient' or 'revered' system becomes the method to which true meditation can be achieved. Naturally this process, this method is nothing but fiction. Compelling perhaps, but still fiction.
  - ph4 13y ago
    So? Why does do you need science's permission to do anything?
    - trekky1700 13y ago
      I would say you need the laws of science's permission to do anything.
      - byjazz 13y ago
        Actually, you need the Laws of Nature's permission. Science is a human attempt to get at them. Showing that you can do something in spite of the current laws of science is how you make them evolve and progress.
blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago
Surely...this guy doesn't mean that the subject actually disappeared.
jostmey 13y ago
I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?
- trekky1700 13y ago
  I agree, who would want to stop thinking? Though I'm sure we'll be told by someone we "just don't understand" and that it's ambiguously deeper than that.
  - kordless 13y ago
    I hear that you are questioning whether other's desires to reach enlightenment is right for you or not. To answer that, I'm going to point out you made two you/blaming statements in your comment. Bear with me here, I'm not attacking you. The first blaming statement is "who would want to stop thinking?". Logically this parses into asking a generalized question of whether there exists anyone at all who would want to 'stop thinking'. It seems obvious to me, based on personal observation, that I am someone that wants to "stop" my thinking process now and again. Given I'm one person who desires this, your question then turns into this question: "why would kordless want to stop thinking". I can answer that quickly: I periodically enjoy damping the chatter that goes on non-stop in my brain while I'm awake. I get the most joy out of getting to a place where I'm thinking of nothing and just letting things be the way they are without my input. Now, the conclusion of that is that you might agree that I have the right to make this a rational choice, or you may not. The only way I could tell you meant one over the other is if you told me that already - which you did! The 'tell' was that you 'agree' with jostmey's statement that he "doesn't want to experience" it right before you ask the leading/blaming question. For me, that indicates you don't agree with my choice to 'stop thinking'. And that is a blaming statement because it's my choice to make, not yours. :) A better way to put it would be "I'd like to understand why someone would want to stop thinking. I'm not sure I want it for myself and I have no data from anyone I know that helps me understand why I would." Or something along those lines. Those statements are more inline with being present and being receptive to other's thoughts. The second blaming statement is "I'm sure we'll be told". That point is easier to make because clearly until someone says "trekky1700, you simply don't understand" (a blaming statement in and of itself) it won't be truthful statement. Even if they did that, they'd be wrong for doing it. Your blaming statement indicates you are expecting (simulating?) someone coming in and making their own blaming statements. I learned about all this via exposure to non violent communications (NVC), which has it's roots in Buddhism. It's also why I bothered to write all of it in the first place. Listening and hearing others is the most effective when you turn down the volume of your own brain! I hope I didn't make any blaming statements in my comment. I still screw it up at times...but I mean well.
jonstewart 13y ago
I thought HN stood for Hacker News, not Hokum News? What's up with meditation crapola today? Moar space rocket stories, plz.
- rikibro 13y ago
  The biggest Hack is hacking yourself
mping 13y ago
Enlightenment is beyond words. It's not to be intellectualized. So I believe science will never truly understand enlightenment, because science is intellectualization. Besides there are several grades of enlightenment, don't think you meditate a few years and you get it. As for meditation, although it is the best path for enlightenment, turns out there's alot of benefits for common people. When you bring your thoughts to a halt, your true mind manifests. The true mind is unimpeded - it is effortless - and this true mind allows you to solve your daily problems more easily. You shut off your "stupid" brain, and the true wisdom starts to manifest. You won't become a zombie; you will naturally discard your stupid habits and become better focused at whatever is that you do. What this means is that throughout the day we are able to gain a better understanding of ourselves and our environment; we will become gradually less scattered (due to the meditation process) and we will focus on what is important to us, wheter its programming or science or anything else. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I think it's a good basic description.
- PeterWhittaker 13y ago
  If science works the way we believe it does, then nothing is beyond intellectualization. Either the world and everything in it is accessible to empirical observation and the formation and validation of models (i.e., hypothesis formulation and testing, theory development) or it is not. If there are things that are inaccessible to this process, then there is magic beyond the veil. Where is the veil? Given accessibility as described above, then there are those things that we have learned to measure and those things we have to learn to measure. Neuroscience is busily taking things from the latter set and placing them, slowly in the former.

27 points by rikibro 13y ago

This is only vaguely scientific and that only in the beginning of the article. It then progressively reads more like some excited, clueless retelling of other people's psychotic-like experiences. I can't even begin to understand the parallel to set theory mentioned in the piece.

trekky1700 13y ago
Yeah, the set theory bit was kinda bull shit. It's really nothing like set theory other than the word "contains". And the "Mathematicians have seen that far" sounds like typical snake oil selling.

TrainedMonkey 13y ago

I am somewhat not sure how altering brain to achieve disassociation from ones senses could change science.

ChuckFrank 13y ago

My family knows Har-Prakash Khalsa well, and while this work appears to rely heavily on anecdotal descriptions of this condition called 'cessation', his photographic work that he develops in tandem to his meditation practice is pretty impressive. I'm not sure if that ads anything to the discussion, but the pictures are nice to look at. http://art.harprakashkhalsa.com/exhibitions/true-nature.php http://art.harprakashkhalsa.com/exhibitions/true-nature.php If people are interested in his meditation practice, he has some youtube videos up. Steps to meditation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUR0DNDnj8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUR0DNDnj8 Nature of the intellect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPrm7YaaU1Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPrm7YaaU1Y

ChuckFrank 13y ago
I do want to add that one of the frustrations that I've had with this type meditation work, specifically the Kundalini meditation practice that is the basis for this study, and that is that there's always a heavily structured pseudo-scientific process instructing a participant in the right ways of meditation. There will be the different stages of the mind, or the different parts of the brain, all of which is simply taxonomic and not in any way related to anything scientific. So the learning of the 'ancient' or 'revered' system becomes the method to which true meditation can be achieved. Naturally this process, this method is nothing but fiction. Compelling perhaps, but still fiction.
- ph4 13y ago
  So? Why does do you need science's permission to do anything?
  - trekky1700 13y ago
    I would say you need the laws of science's permission to do anything.
    - byjazz 13y ago
      Actually, you need the Laws of Nature's permission. Science is a human attempt to get at them. Showing that you can do something in spite of the current laws of science is how you make them evolve and progress.

blahbl4hblahtoo 13y ago

Surely...this guy doesn't mean that the subject actually disappeared.

jostmey 13y ago

I am not sure how this will be received by others. I don't want to experience a cessation of ideas and thoughts. Being able to quell my brain activity so that no thoughts or ideas remain is the opposite of enlightenment to me. I am proud that I am an intellectual, self-aware being. It separates me from the rest of the organisms in Nature. So why would I want to turn it all off?

trekky1700 13y ago
I agree, who would want to stop thinking? Though I'm sure we'll be told by someone we "just don't understand" and that it's ambiguously deeper than that.
- kordless 13y ago
  I hear that you are questioning whether other's desires to reach enlightenment is right for you or not. To answer that, I'm going to point out you made two you/blaming statements in your comment. Bear with me here, I'm not attacking you. The first blaming statement is "who would want to stop thinking?". Logically this parses into asking a generalized question of whether there exists anyone at all who would want to 'stop thinking'. It seems obvious to me, based on personal observation, that I am someone that wants to "stop" my thinking process now and again. Given I'm one person who desires this, your question then turns into this question: "why would kordless want to stop thinking". I can answer that quickly: I periodically enjoy damping the chatter that goes on non-stop in my brain while I'm awake. I get the most joy out of getting to a place where I'm thinking of nothing and just letting things be the way they are without my input. Now, the conclusion of that is that you might agree that I have the right to make this a rational choice, or you may not. The only way I could tell you meant one over the other is if you told me that already - which you did! The 'tell' was that you 'agree' with jostmey's statement that he "doesn't want to experience" it right before you ask the leading/blaming question. For me, that indicates you don't agree with my choice to 'stop thinking'. And that is a blaming statement because it's my choice to make, not yours. :) A better way to put it would be "I'd like to understand why someone would want to stop thinking. I'm not sure I want it for myself and I have no data from anyone I know that helps me understand why I would." Or something along those lines. Those statements are more inline with being present and being receptive to other's thoughts. The second blaming statement is "I'm sure we'll be told". That point is easier to make because clearly until someone says "trekky1700, you simply don't understand" (a blaming statement in and of itself) it won't be truthful statement. Even if they did that, they'd be wrong for doing it. Your blaming statement indicates you are expecting (simulating?) someone coming in and making their own blaming statements. I learned about all this via exposure to non violent communications (NVC), which has it's roots in Buddhism. It's also why I bothered to write all of it in the first place. Listening and hearing others is the most effective when you turn down the volume of your own brain! I hope I didn't make any blaming statements in my comment. I still screw it up at times...but I mean well.

jonstewart 13y ago

I thought HN stood for Hacker News, not Hokum News? What's up with meditation crapola today? Moar space rocket stories, plz.

rikibro 13y ago
The biggest Hack is hacking yourself

mping 13y ago

Enlightenment is beyond words. It's not to be intellectualized. So I believe science will never truly understand enlightenment, because science is intellectualization. Besides there are several grades of enlightenment, don't think you meditate a few years and you get it. As for meditation, although it is the best path for enlightenment, turns out there's alot of benefits for common people. When you bring your thoughts to a halt, your true mind manifests. The true mind is unimpeded - it is effortless - and this true mind allows you to solve your daily problems more easily. You shut off your "stupid" brain, and the true wisdom starts to manifest. You won't become a zombie; you will naturally discard your stupid habits and become better focused at whatever is that you do. What this means is that throughout the day we are able to gain a better understanding of ourselves and our environment; we will become gradually less scattered (due to the meditation process) and we will focus on what is important to us, wheter its programming or science or anything else. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I think it's a good basic description.

PeterWhittaker 13y ago
If science works the way we believe it does, then nothing is beyond intellectualization. Either the world and everything in it is accessible to empirical observation and the formation and validation of models (i.e., hypothesis formulation and testing, theory development) or it is not. If there are things that are inaccessible to this process, then there is magic beyond the veil. Where is the veil? Given accessibility as described above, then there are those things that we have learned to measure and those things we have to learn to measure. Neuroscience is busily taking things from the latter set and placing them, slowly in the former.