Awakening

post by lsusr · 2024-05-30T07:03:00.821Z · LW · GW · 79 comments

Contents

  First Experiences
  Initial Search
  The 8 Jhanas
  Vipassana
  Zen
  Meditation
  Stream Entry
  Insight Cycles
  Second Insight Cycle
None
79 comments

This is the story of my personal experience with Buddhism (so far).

First Experiences

My first experience with Buddhism was in my high school's World Religions class. For homework, I had to visit a religious institution. I was getting bad grades, so I asked if I could get extra credit for visiting two and my teacher said yes. I picked an Amida Buddhist church and a Tibetan Buddhist meditation center.

I took off my shoes at the entrance to the Tibetan Buddhist meditation center. It was like nothing I had ever seen before in real life. There were no chairs. Cushions were on the floor instead. The walls were covered in murals. There were no instructions. People just sat down and meditated. After that there was some walking meditation. I didn't know anything about meditation so I instead listened to the birds and the breeze out of an open window. Little did I know that this is similar to the Daoist practices that would later form the foundation of my practice.

The Amida Buddhist church felt like a fantasy novelist from a Protestant Christian background wanted to invent a throwaway religion in the laziest way possible so he just put three giant Buddha statues on the altar and called it a day. The priest told a story about his beautiful stained glass artifact. A young child asked if he could have the pretty thing. The priest, endeavoring to teach non-attachment, said yes. Then the priest asked for it back. The child said no, thereby teaching the priest about non-attachment. Lol.

It would be ten years until I returned to Buddhism.

Initial Search

It is only after you have lost everything that you are free to do anything.

Things were bad. I had dumped six years of my life into a failed startup. I had allowed myself to be gaslit (nothing to do with the startup; my co-founders are great people) for even longer than that. I believed (incorrectly) that I had an STD. I had lost most of my friends. I was living in a basement infested with mice. I slept poorly because my mattress was so broken I could feel the individual metal bedframe bars cut into my back. And that's just the stuff I'm comfortable writing about.

I was looking for truth and salvation. This is about when I discovered LessWrong. LessWrong addressed the truth problem. I still needed salvation [LW · GW].

On top of all this, I had chronic anxiety. I was anxious all the time. I had always been anxious all the time. What was different is this time I was paying attention. Tim Ferris recommends the book Don't Feed the Monkey Mind: How to Stop the Cycle of Anxiety, Fear, and Worry by Jennifer Shannon (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist) so I read it. The book has lots of good advice. At the end, there's a small segment about how meditation might trump everything else in the book put together, but science doesn't really understand it (yet) and its side-effects are unknown [to science].

Eldritch mind altering practices beyond the domain of science? Sign me up!

[Cue ominous music.]

I read The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living by the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama's approach to happiness felt obviously true, yet it was a framework nobody had ever told me about. The basic idea is that if you think and behave lovingly and ethically then you will be happy. He included instructions for basic metta (compassion) meditation. Here's how it works:

  1. You focus on your feelings of compassion for your closest family and pets.
  2. Then you focus on your feelings of compassion for your closest friends.
  3. Then less-close friends.
  4. Then acquaintances.
  5. Then enemies.

That's the introductory version. At the advanced level, you can skip all these bootstrapping steps and jump straight to activating compassion itself. The first time I tried the Dalai Lama's metta instructions, it felt sort of nice, I guess. These days when I do metta meditation it feels like MDMA. But I didn't know that at the time. Instead, I read the Dalai Lama's recipe for ecstacy and thought to myself, c'mon, not this watered-down stuff, give me a real altered state of consciousness.

Since the Dalai Lama wouldn't give me sufficiently dangerous drugs, I continued my quest for instructions on how to generate altered states of consciousness. That brought me to The Mind Illuminated: A Complete Meditation Guide Integrating Buddhist Wisdom and Brain Science for Greater Mindfulness by Culadasa. I cannot deny that The Mind Illuminated is a good introduction to meditation for a secular audience. What annoys me about The Mind Illuminated is the phrase "brain science" in the title. The Mind Illuminated is not a brain science book. It is a introductory guidebook to Theravada meditation.

I guess I should explain what "Theravada" is. There are three great branches to Buddhism.

In the West, Vajrayana is for woo hippies, Theravada is for scientific-minded atheists, and Zen is for weebs. I'm a weeb, but this website is for nerds, so I'm going to explain everything through a Theravadan perspective.

The 8 Jhanas

The Mind Illuminated provides instructions for how to hit samatha jhanas 1-8. Samatha meditation is where you concentrate your attention on a target in order to produce an altered state of consciousness called a jhana. The usual way to do this is to start by focusing your attention on the breath because that's relatively easy. When your attention stabilizes on the target, that is called access concentration. Once you have access concentration, you can point your attention on something else like a feeling of pleasure. Keep your attention stable, and the feedback loop will produce a jhana, like the screech of a microphone placed too close to its speaker. Theravada organizes the jhanas into a progression.

To get to 2ⁿᵈ jhana from 1ˢᵗ jhana, you do the same thing you did to get from access concentration to 1ˢᵗ jhana. This will get you all the way to 4ᵗʰ jhana.

Jhanas 1-4 are called the material jhanas. Jhanas 5-8 are called the immaterial jhanas.

After 8th jhana is nirodha samapatti which is more unconscious than a deep sleep.

Vipassana

The samatha jhanas are instrumental. They're just transient altered states of consciousness. Altered states of consciousness come and go. They treat suffering. They don't cure it. To cure suffering you need insight.

Besides The Mind Illuminated, the other book I read which built out a foundational understanding of what this meditation stuff is all about is MCTB2 by Daniel Ingram. Ingram's book is about paying attention to the minute details of conscious experience thereby generating insight. This is called vipassana.

At this point you might be wondering "Why does paying close attention to conscious experience cure suffering?" It's not-at-all obvious why this is the case. In the short run, it's actually backwards. At first, paying close attention to your suffering makes you suffer more. But if you keep at it, things get weird.

You can think of suffering as an towering engine wherein tension between "is" and "ought" produces desire that motivates action and causes suffering. This contraption is built on supporting pillars here-there, now-then, and self-other. Paying close attention to conscious experience dissolves these misconceptions. Knock out enough supporting pillars and the edifice collapses…permanently. This is called Awakening.

Zen

I tried some samatha and it felt wrong (for me). I tried some vipassana and it felt really wrong (for me at the time). I kept searching. I discovered Brad Warner's book Hardcore Zen: Punk Rock, Monster Movies, & the Truth about Reality. The Punk Rock jived with my life living in a dark mouse-infested basement. I read some other Zen books and they all connected with me in a way the Theravada and Vajrayana managed only incompletely.

There is a trope in American fiction of Japan as a strange, exotic land. The first time I visited Japan was in my late 20s. The subways were quiet. The food tasted like my mother's home cooking. I could even read a lot of the kanji. I could be as over-the-top polite as I wanted and nobody thought it was weird. They actually bowed back to me. Many of the women wore suits, which I consider attractive. A guy even gave me his subway card, just like in MegaTokyo. It felt like the home I had never known.

That is how I felt the first time I visited a Zendo. It was quiet. I took off my shoes and socks. There were calligraphy scrolls on the walls and the walls were lined with bamboo. I bowed to the other people, I bowed to the teacher, and then I bowed a few more times just to be safe. Then it was time to kowtow to a golden statue of the Buddha.

A kowtow is a bow where you get on all fours, press your forehead against the floor and stick your butt in the air. Kowtowing didn't bother me per se. I've wanted an excuse to kowtow in a socially-appropriate context ever since I watched The Last Emperor (1987). My hangup revolved around the fact I was kowtowing to a golden statue of the Buddha.

I was raised in an ostensibly Judeo-Christian household. I have fond memories of VeggieTales and The Prince of Egypt (1998) [LW · GW]. I'm also an Atheist.

You might think that, as an Atheist, violating the Ten Commandments wouldn't bother me. And that's true. Violating the Ten Commandments doesn't bother me. What bothered me was violating the First Commandment.

𝔗𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔩𝔱 𝔥𝔞𝔳𝔢 𝔫𝔬 𝔬𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔯 𝔤𝔬𝔡𝔰 𝔟𝔢𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔢 𝔪𝔢.

Being an Atheist gives you a free pass on just about everything in the Bible. Sodomy and moneylending are fine. But―as Muslim televangelists like to point out―Atheists and monotheists agree on almost everything. "There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet". Worshipping a non-Abrahamic god is breaking the one rule Jews, Christians, Muslims and Atheists can all agree on. This rule is so important that the Second Commandment specifically disambiguates the exact wishy-washy argument about how a statue of Siddhartha isn't technically a god.

𝔗𝔥𝔬𝔲 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔩𝔱 𝔫𝔬𝔱 𝔪𝔞𝔨𝔢 𝔲𝔫𝔱𝔬 𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔢 𝔞𝔫𝔶 𝔤𝔯𝔞𝔳𝔢𝔫 𝔦𝔪𝔞𝔤𝔢.

I almost paused before crossing a Chesterton Fence older than Pythagoras and the Phoenician alphabet. I kowtowed three times to the golden idol. We sat down and began to chant something straight out of the Necronomicon.

A/va/lo/ki/tes/va/ra/ Nyar/la/tho/tep, A/wa/kened/ One/ of/ C/thu/lhu/,

In/ Praj/na/ Pa/ra/mi/ta/, the/Deep/ Prac/tice/ of/ Per/fect/ Wis/dom/*

Per/ceived/ the/ emp/ti/ness/ of /all /five /con/di/tions/,

And/ was/ freed/ of/ suf/fer/ing/.

Oh/ Sha/ri/pu/tra/, form/ is/ no/ o/ther/ than/ emp/ti/ness/,

Emp/ti/ness/ no/ o/ther/ than/ form/;

Form/ is/ pre/cise/ly/ emp/ti/ness/, emp/ti/ness/ pre/cise/ly/ form/.

Sen/sa/tions/ per/cep/tions/ for/ma/tions/ and/ con/scious/ness/ are/ al/so/ like/ this/.

Oh/ Sha/ri/pu/tra/, all/ things/ are/ ex/pres/sions/ of/ emp/ti/ness/,

Not/ born/, not/ des/troyed/, not/ stained/, not/ pure/;

Nei/ther/ wax/ing/ nor/ wan/ing/.

Thus/ emp/ti/ness/ is/ not/ form/; not/ sen/sa/tion/ nor/ per/cep/tion/,

not/ for/ma/tion/ nor/ con/scious/ness/.

No/ eye/, ear/, nose/, tongue/, bo/dy/, mind/;

No/ sight/, sound/, smell/, taste/, touch/, nor/ ob/ject/ of/ mind/;

No/ realm/ of/ sight/, no/ realm/ of/ con/scious/ness/;

No/ ig/no/rance/, no/ end/ to/ ig/no/rance/;

No/ old/ age/ and/ death/,

No/ ces/sa/tion/ of/ old/ age/ and/ death/;

No/ suf/fer/ing/, nor/ cause/ or/ end/ to/ suf/fer/ing/;

No/ path/, no/ wis/dom/ and/ no/ gain/.

No/ gain/ – thus/ Nyar/la/tho/tep live/ this/ Praj/na/ Pa/ra/mi/ta/*

With/ no/ hin/drance/ of/ mind/ –

No/ hin/drance/ there/fore/ no/ fear/.

Far/ be/yond/ all/ de/lu/sion/, Yog/Soth/oth is/ al/rea/dy/ here/.

All/ past/, pre/sent/ and/ fu/ture/ Bya/khees/

Live/ this/ Praj/na/ Pa/ra/mi/ta/*

And/ re/al/ize/ su/preme/ and/ com/plete/ en/light/en/ment/.

There/fore/ know/ that/ Praj/na/ Pa/ra/mi/ta/

Is/ the/ sac/red/ man/tra/, the/ lu/min/ous/ man/tra/,

the/ sup/reme/ man/tra/, the/ in/com/pa/ra/ble/ man/tra/

by/ which/ all/ suf/fe/ring/ is/ clear/.

This/ is/ no/ o/ther/ than/ Truth/.

There/fore/ set/ forth/ the/ Praj/na/ Pa/ra/mi/ta/ man/tra/.

Set/ forth/ this/ man/tra/ and/ pro/claim/:

(1x) Gate! Gate! (Already Gone, Gone)

* Paragate! (Already Gone Beyond)

Parasamgate! (Already Fully Beyond)

* Nyarla! Thotep! (Awakening, Rejoice)

Just kidding! I replaced four words from the Necronomicon.

The rest is the real Heart Sutra, translated into English and chanted in weekly Zazenkai.

When you take LSD, it's necessary to have a sober trustworthy person around so you don't think "cars aren't real" and go wandering into traffic. The same goes for mind-altering meditation with similar effects. If I had common sense, I would have kept going to the Zendo. That way I'd have been around kind, experienced people who could remind me that cars are real. Instead, I thought to myself, I don't need teachers. I've taught myself lots of things before. I can traverse this territory just fine myself.

Meditation

I sat down and focused on my breath. My attention drifted. I returned my attention to the breath. It was hard, but it was hard the way doing math or lifting weights is hard. After meditation, the world felt crisper, like I was younger. It felt like I was more conscious—that I had more subjective conscious experience. That alone was good enough reason to continue.

I worked from shorter sits to longer sits. On my most intense days, I would meditate for maybe 45 minutes per day. Usually I meditated for less than that. Some weeks I wouldn't meditate at all. The best sits occurred on a sunny day in a grassy park under a tree. Usually I meditated on the floor of my bedroom.

If I meditated 30-45 minutes per day for a few days in a row, then around the 30-minute mark of the 3rd day, I would hit access concentration. My attention would stabilize on my breath. Then weird stuff would start happening. I felt energy surges and experienced small muscle spasms, just like the book said I would[1]. This was empirical evidence that my books were describing real stuff and weren't just making it all up.

Access concentration is a door to altered states of consciousness. Where you go from there depends on what you do. I was practicing Zen, so I let my attention widen and I dropped into a state of mushin, my first meditation-induced altered state of consciousness.

Except, mushin isn't really an altered state of consciousness. Samatha is an altered state of consciousness. Mushin is "altered" only in the sense that it is different from normative human cognition. The state is un-altered in the sense that normative human cognition is a distortion and mushin is closer to base reality. Normative human experience is an altered state of consciousness. Mushin is an un-altered state of consciousness.

My self-other distinction dissolved. My internal dialogue quieted. My conscious attention expanded from a tight locus to my environment. I was present in every second. Most importantly, I noticed the intrinsic pricelessness of each moment. I was sad at the transientness of it all, but that sadness didn't cause me suffering. It was like reading The Fault in Our Stars by John Greene. I realized that this was a better mode of existence, and normative human cognition was like throwing gold into the ocean. From that moment on, my path would set.

The Mushin state is temporary. There was an afterglow for a few minutes, and after a few days not meditating, I was back to normal.

You might expect that this experience would have caused me to rush back into mushin. But meditation is non-addictive. I instead continued meditating about as much as I always had. Sometimes I would return to mushin, but it would be over a year (and post-Awakening) that I got back into that particular state of equanimity-with-sadness. I could reliably re-enter a state of mushin, but the sadness was dependent on random current conditions in my life.

Little changed over the next few months.

Stream Entry

Mushin showed me that it was possible to lower my suffering far below anything I had ever experienced. It was like the coldest thing I've ever felt was 0° Celsius and I just got introduced to the Kelvin scale. Going in and out of mushin eventually broke my learned helplessness. What I previously thought of as "no suffering" was actually torment which I had just gotten used to. Thus, I entered the Dark Night of the Soul. The Dark Night feels like getting caught in a vortex of pure suffering.

It is my understanding that Daniel Ingram went through the Dark Night many times before landing Stream Entry. I was lucky. The Dark Night only took me a few days. It was a sunny-but-not-too-sunny day. I walked up to the top of this hill and hung out. Then I let go.

I let go of the shunyata (sort of like belief) that reality should be something other than what it is. I let go of desire. Forever. This was an altered trait [LW · GW], not just an altered state like mushin. At least 90% of my suffering disappeared in an instant, never to return. I had hit Stream Entry, the first major checkpoint on the road to Enlightenment. Once you hit Stream Entry, there is no going back to pre-Stream Entry. It is as permanent as learning to read. Once you learn to read the word "red", you cannot look at the letters r-e-d and not know what they mean. I finally got the Cosmic Joke.

For my entire life, much of my behavior had been driven by desire. I didn't have desire anymore, but I still had the habits. I felt like a container ship that had run out of fuel. I still had lots of inertia. It took months for "my"[2] formerly-desire-fueled habits to run out of steam. That was my first insight cycle.

Insight Cycles

I like Romeo Stevens' model of insight cycles. Concentration produces insight into the nature of conscious experience. Insight causes you to change how you live your life. Living a better life frees up obstacles to deeper concentration.

For example, I was was once reading Right Concentration: A Practical Guide to the Jhanas by Leigh Brasington because I wanted to reach 1ˢᵗ Jhana. In start of the book, there's moral guidelines like "don't murder people". While I was reading them, I noticed that if I wanted to reach 1ˢᵗ Jhana then I would have to stop eating factory-farmed meat, because the guilt of doing so disrupted my concentration.

Another time, after a different insight cycle related to the conscious perception of space (5ᵗʰ Jhana), I noticed that I would have to declutter my home Marie Kondo-style if I wanted to progress in my concentration. I had been living in a home so filthy it had mice. It took months to declutter, but now if there is so much as a cardboard box on my kitchen counter, it bothers me.

Those other insight cycles would happen later. For now, I was still on my first insight cycle. My first insight cycle went fine. My second insight cycle was a disaster.

Second Insight Cycle

To recap, I did the following things:

  1. Went looking for eldritch mind altering practices beyond the domain of science.
  2. Found some. Went looking for even more dangerous practices.
  3. Read Daniel Ingram's warning about how this stuff can send you into a psychiatric ward.
  4. Transgressed the oldest Chesterton Fence in Western Civilization.
  5. Chanted a Lovecraftian summoning ritual.
  6. Chose to explore this territory without the guidance of an experienced teacher.
  7. Verified, empirically, that this stuff is real.
  8. Continued to explore this territory without the guidance of an experienced teacher.

It was April 2022. I flew down to San Francisco for some Rationalist stuff. I had a lot of fun, met some cool people, pushed myself too hard, and missed a bunch of sleep. I realized that basically everyone on Earth is insane. On its own, that would be good thing. It's an important insight into objective, empirical physical reality.

Some combination of this triggered a second insight cycle. I transcended the shunyata of physicality, time and death. Deep misconceptions about the nature of reality were ground into dust. On its own, that would be a good thing too. It's an important insight into subjective, mystical conscious reality.

But combining Rationalist insights with Buddhist insights is a volatile, dangerous mixture. It's a recipe for confusing physical reality with conscious reality. I had a total psychotic break. A few days after returning home, I was in an ambulance, in a straightjacket, on the way to the hospital where I was placed on a locked room on suicide watch for my own protection. From there, I was moved to a mental ward where I believed the staff were evil space aliens. They forcibly sedated me at least once.

I'm sorry to everyone who interacted with me during April-June 2022.

After a few days, I realized that a mental ward was not the best place to be. The doctors put me on an antipsychotic and a mood stabilizer. When the doctors released me, I promised my family I would continue taking the medications until a doctor authorized me to do otherwise.

It was hard because the medications gave me depression. But the drugs were necessary because it was weeks (months?) until I acted normally again. I integrated the realizations from my second insight cycle by giving up attempting to start my own enterprise, and instead landed a nice job. I got a new psychiatrist who took me off the medications, since I am neither schizophrenic nor bipolar.

After all that, I finally expressed a modicum of common sense: I went back to Zendo. I sat quietly with a bunch of other people sitting quietly. We chanted the Heart Sutra together. There was tea and crackers. At the end, the Zen Master (who by coincidence happens to be a licensed psychiatrist too) gave the kind of talk you can only give if you have personally experienced Stream Entry. Afterward was dokusan where the Zen Master offers one-on-one sessions with students. I got in the back of the line so I could copy what everyone else did.

When it was my turn, I carried my zafu (meditation cushion) to the dokusan room. I bowed, and asked the Master for guidance.


  1. That was in the beginning. These days, I can reach access concentration faster, and I no longer get energy surges and muscle spasms. ↩︎

  2. Ego-centric words like "my" after ego death imply different assumptions than they do before ego death. ↩︎

79 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Mascal's Pugging · 2024-06-01T17:50:16.821Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The books you mention, The Mind Illuminated (TMI), and Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (MCTB), are quite popular among Western atheists, secular people, rationalists, and technically-minded intelligent individuals who spend a lot of time reading on the internet. I don't mean that pejoratively -- I count myself among these groups. However, if you have read these books, there is still much more to learn (and unlearn). 

They are appealing because they promise to offer Buddhist meditation, insights, and strategies while jettisoning what they consider unnecessary religious scaffolding. Unfortunately, perhaps because of this, they contain numerous errors and often miseducate their readers about meditation and Buddhism in general. For example, Scott Alexander reviewed MCTB positively, saying it made him finally "get" Buddhism. This highlights an understandable bias: monks in robes teaching Buddhism, who accept religious and supernatural elements, are  dismissed as religious men. On the other hand, figures like Daniel Ingram (author of MCTB) and John Yates, a neuroscientist and author of TMI, are seen as offering something more accessible to the secular mindset. There is also just the fact that Ingram and Yates were better at marketing and packaging their books in an enticing format than monks who aren't allowed to touch money (literally). 

However, in some circles, mentioning these books is considered a red flag. It's well-known that readers of MCTB are particularly prone to psychotic breaks and highly unstable practice. From a traditional perspective, this is seen as a clear sign that something is amiss. Bhikkhu Analayo, for instance, has critically reviewed Ingram's book, and it's worth noting that John Yates was involved in a sex scandal.

If you're interested in learning about Buddhism, I recommend starting with the Pali Canon, the collection of Early Buddhist Texts that offer the best historical record of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. This is akin to suggesting that someone interested in Christianity should read the Bible or an anthology of it before diving into modern interpretations that might strip away key religious elements.

The Pali Canon is extensive, so a curated selection is a good starting point. In the Words of the Buddha, an excellent text by scholar-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi, is a great introduction. Once you have a foundational understanding, you can better decide which aspects resonate with you and which might be products of folk religious beliefs.

 

Eh, maybe I should just make this a post.

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala, lsusr, lsusr, Kaj_Sotala, michael-roe
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-09-02T07:31:48.602Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I've now read about one-third of "In the Words of the Buddha". I personally appreciated getting the additional sociological and historical background so I'm happy that you recommended it and that I got it. However, its talk about reincarnation and realms of divine beings and so on doesn't really do much to convince me differently about this:

monks in robes teaching Buddhism, who accept religious and supernatural elements, are dismissed as religious men.

I think the book is, if anything, dissuading me from the idea that modern Western practitioners would benefit from spending time familiarizing themselves with the Pali Canon. (Assuming that they don't have, like me, an interest in its history for its own sake.)

I had previously been somewhat influenced by some of the Western apologetics and meditation teachers who said things like "no, Buddhism is really a philosophy rather than a religion, you can read it secularly and interpret all the stuff about rebirth etc. metaphorically". Whereas the impression I get from the book is that it really is a religion complete with all the supernaturalness and superstition, and that even the more secular parts like the moral advice contain bits we'd rather ignore, such as the Buddha mentioning that one good type of wife is the one who's like a slave (with even the editor of the book including a footnote that says it's a good thing later Buddhists have ignored this recommendation). I now think the people saying that you can really just read the stuff metaphorically are cherry-picking the bits that happen to fit the framework they're in favor of.

Now there were some pieces of advice I liked there too, but overall the task of figuring out what can be trusted seems hard enough that one would be better off by just ignoring the whole thing and going with what we've learned about meditation in more secular contexts, as reported by people with more reliable epistemics. Of course such people aren't completely trustworthy either, as you point out by e.g. Culadasa's sex scandal. But then nobody is and the fact that we can witness the way their practice goes wrong when embedded in the context of Western householder life seems like a good way of refining our models further, whereas the Pali Canon is fitted into a very different cultural and historical context that we don't actively observe.

Is there something that I'm missing?

Replies from: Mascal's Pugging, lsusr
comment by Mascal's Pugging · 2024-09-07T19:20:39.561Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I agree with a lot of what you have said, and I am largely on board with the thrust of your message. The later parts of the book discuss some of the things more relevant to what we have been talking about, like meditation and "awakening," and these are also the more interesting bits, in my opinion. It also shouldn't be surprising that the Pali Canon contains 2,500 year old texts that we find odd! -- but if you enjoy history/mythology/sociology then it can be quite interesting.

I think what is missing is that a proper takeaway, for you, should be to update from the secular models as well. You say that the creators of these models have more reliable epistemics, but I do not like the comparison: the creators of the secular models have poor epistemics. As you put it:

"the impression I get from the book is that it really is a religion complete with all the supernaturalness and superstition ... I now think the people saying that you can really just read the stuff metaphorically are cherry-picking the bits that happen to fit the framework they're in favor of."

and I completely agree with this! But this makes me trust the modern authors less, not more. "Religious Buddhism" may be too hard to swallow, but "Metaphorical Buddhism" is dishonest and does not make sense when evaluated on its own terms. Unfortunately, proponents of Metaphorical Buddhism launder the quality of their ideas with the reputation of "The Buddha."  I think if you finish the book and then go back and read something like MCTB you won't be able to look at it in the same way. 

Let me try to give a rough summary of my own overall view on the issue: There is now a panoply of things calling themselves Buddhist meditation, or Buddhist meditation inspired, that are present in contemporary life. The latest example I am aware of is jhourney.io. These range the gamut from completely secular to very traditional with a lot of stuff in between. Programs like Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) have clinical evidence that a moderate amount of (MBSR's version of) mindfulness meditation leads to demonstrable changes in psychological traits that most of us would find desirable. I find the evidence for this to be quite good, though perhaps not excellent, and the cost to benefit ratio of adding this type of meditation to a secular life is probably worthwhile. 

In addition, I imagine that for many people going to something like an American Zen center weekly would enhance their quality of life, and I would bet you could easily demonstrate this at the clinical level. 

But I do not trust a lot of the modern authors who venture beyond this territory and into "higher stages of the path," like enlightenment or deep stages of meditation. The claims they make about "being enlightened" make little sense from a traditional perspective, are poorly defined within individual authors and contradictory between authors, and are often cherry picked, distorted, and dishonest presentations. For example, Scott Alexander reviewed MCTB and in his review at one point asked, "if this is enlightenment, then why would you even want it?" - which was absolutely the correct question to ask given Ingram's description of enlightenment! 

I think that the authors should just stop calling themselves Buddhist and acknowledge that they are running their own religious experiments. There is nothing wrong with this, per se, but the mixing of the two is what bothers me. Earlier I said,

"If you're interested in learning about Buddhism, I recommend starting with the Pali Canon, the collection of Early Buddhist Texts that offer the best historical record of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha."

and you replied,

"I think the book is, if anything, dissuading me from the idea that modern Western practitioners would benefit from spending time familiarizing themselves with the Pali Canon."

I think I need to be more precise: if you are intersted in learning about Buddhism, then start with the Pali Canon, or an anthology like "In the Words of the Buddha." 

On the other hand, if you are fairly confident already that you don't want religious baggage, and do not believe in things like other realms, rebirth, etc., but you are still interested in some type of ideal like enlightenment and radical change through meditation, then go ahead with more modern secular authors. But know that if those modern authors say they are Buddhist inspired, their link to historical Buddhism and to the historical Buddha's ideas is a lot more tenuous than they are implying and would have you believe. Try to evaluate their ideas on their own terms, and see if you like what you see. Furthermore, know that the track record of modern people (and certainly not just modern people) running religious experiments and claiming to be enlightened is not necessarily amazing. 

Anyway, do let me know if you finish the book, and then go back and read something like MCTB. I would be very curious to know your thoughts!

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-09-08T12:34:03.274Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ah. Yeah, I agree with your point that if someone is claiming that the secular interpretation of Buddhism is The True Interpretation and you can see that even in the original sources, that's a reason to be doubtful of them. They are, as you say, laundering their own ideas with the reputation of Buddhism.

I think the difference is that I don't think I ever put sources like MCTB in the category of writers who make claims about the original meaning of the suttas. Though it's certainly possible that those claims were there and I just glossed over them. (And okay, admittedly the whole name of the book is reasonable to read as making a claim about what the original meaning of the teachings was.) But I read you to be saying something like "treat these modern secular writers as people who might be drawing inspiration from some Buddhist sources but are fundamentally doing their own new thing", and I think that I was already reading many of them as doing exactly that. 

With regard to MCTB specifically, this felt especially clear with Ingram including a chapter trashing the whole traditional Theravada conception of enlightenment and then following it up with a chapter presenting his own revised model as a replacement. That felt like him basically saying "yeah fuck those original religious guys, let's do something different, here's a model based on my own personal experience instead". 

Anyway I agree that it's good to point that out for anyone who missed that, or who interpreted books like MCTB differently.

comment by lsusr · 2024-09-03T01:42:37.814Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

After reading the parent comment by Mascal's Pugging, I too bought a copy of In the Words of the Buddha so I could familiarize myself with the Pali canon. I read 14% of the way through the book, got bored, and moved on to other things. Like Kaj Sotala, I found it interesting solely for anthropological and historical reasons. I did find it worthwhile to read part of the book, if for no other reason than to know what I'm not missing.

Facets of Buddhism are undeniably religious. Last summer, I flew to Taiwan to attend the Buddhist funeral of my grandfather. We attached my grandfather's disembodied soul to a plaque and I carried it to its final resting place in a Buddhist temple. Whenever we crossed over running water, (even if it was a nearly-invisible canal) I verbally notified my grandfather's disembodied soul so that he wouldn't get washed away by the water. I did the same thing when passing through doorways.

We gave him food for the afterlife, just like el Día de los Muertos.

That's superstition. My only hesitation against calling it a "religion" is a pedantic nitpick around how the Western ontology of "religion" as a discrete unit was invented by monotheists; therefore "polytheistic religion" constitutes non-cladistic thinking. Except we chanted the Amida Buddha's name too, and Amida Buddhism qualifies as a religion even by that nitpicky standard.

but overall the task of figuring out what can be trusted seems hard enough that one would be better off by just ignoring the whole thing and going with what we've learned about meditation in more secular contexts

I feel the same way, noting that "more secular" does not mean "entirely secular". Last weekend, I wanted information about life after Stream Entry. I found a good book on the subject: The End of Your World: Uncensored Straight Talk on the Nature of Enlightenment, by Adyashanti. The book is ruthlessly empirical, but it is also from the Zen tradition and quotes the Dao De Jing, which means it's not unadulturatedly secular, either.

Meanwhile, the scientific journals are still trying to figure out for sure whether meditation reduces anxiety. Imagine writing a grant proposal for a large-scale double-blinded study of whether intense meditation for three decades years causes psychosis. How would you even do a proper control group? We've got people who have built a city on Mount Everest and the scientists are still debating whether the Himalayas really exist.

Replies from: Mascal's Pugging
comment by Mascal's Pugging · 2024-09-07T19:24:11.860Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

For what it is worth, the later parts of the book discuss the things you might be more intersted in, like meditative/path models. The scientific research is quite interesting, in particular, I find the brain scans of monks to be incredible. 

comment by lsusr · 2024-09-03T02:10:10.521Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is akin to suggesting that someone interested in Christianity should read the Bible or an anthology of it before diving into modern interpretations that might strip away key religious elements.

Something I found amusing about reading the Bible is that the book is undeniably religious, but the religion in it isn't Christianity. God doesn't promise Abraham eternal life in Heaven. He promises inclusive genetic fitness.

Genesis 22:17: I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T20:22:55.750Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Great comment!

TMI is important in my personal chronology because of how it got me into this stuff. I don't actually recommend it. There are other books I prefer to TMI. [LW · GW]

MCTB isn't core to my practice, either. I would be surprised if Daniel Ingram's approach didn't produce more psychotic breaks than traditional systems. It's dry, fast and hard. When I tried out Ingram-style vipassana, I felt like something was going wrong and went looking for a different technique instead. MCTB is more like a reference book for me—a common language to communicate with Western secularists. I'd prefer to explain things in weeb (Daoist and Zen) terms, but that just confuses people.

I never got into the Pali Canon. I tried reading a translation of the Visuddhimagga, but my translation contained claims that are provably wrong. (The book said you can light fires with your mind.) My personal practice comes from traditional Zen sources like The Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, and Enlightenment by Philip Kapleau Roshi, Zen Flesh, Zen Bones by Paul Reps, and the poems of Ryukan.

Replies from: Mascal's Pugging
comment by Mascal's Pugging · 2024-06-01T21:33:53.123Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Right, I don't blame you for referencing those books to communicate, because they are what a lot of readers on a forum like this would be familiar with. TMI is also important in my personal chronology, but I wouldn't recommend it either. What I would want to popularize among crowds like this is the recent scholarly study and practice of "Early Buddhism." 

I started typing out more of a reply, but I think I should maybe just make a post.

By the way, I started going to a local Zendo within the past 12 months, and it is actually in the lineage of Philip Kapleau Roshi, so one of the books they recommend is The Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, and Enlightenment as well (I haven't taken a look at it yet). The Visuddhimagga is debatably in the "Pali Canon." It is a commentary written by the monk Buddhaghosha some 1200 years after the compilation of the Suttas. The book I recommended earlier by Bhikkhu Bodhi is just from the Suttas. 

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T04:04:36.667Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for the recommendation!

comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-04T06:29:31.364Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Interesting. I've generally had the position that while the Buddha was no doubt a great innovator, he was still just one guy who lived thousands of years ago. And that it'd probably be a better use of time to read all the more recent meditation teachers who can draw on the thousands of years of progress since then, and can synthesize the most valuable pieces of Buddha's teaching with the things that have been learned since then.

Nevertheless, your challenge made me interested and I got a copy of "In the Words of the Buddha" now. It does seem interesting.

comment by Michael Roe (michael-roe) · 2024-06-01T18:10:44.860Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I've lost count of how many gurus have been involved in some sort of sex scandal...

 

(Seriously, care would seem to be advisable when choosing a yoga sex cult.)

comment by Tapatakt · 2024-05-31T18:36:58.615Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I let go of the shunyata (sort of like belief) that reality should be something other than what it is. I let go of desire.

This is the part that always turned me off about Buddhism. Why would you ever want this? In some not-entirely-precise-but-not-negligible way I am my desires. To let go of desire is kinda like death. I don't want to die.

(Or, maybe, Buddhists (and you) use the word "desire" in some weird way with some weird specific meaning. But in that case that's just bad communication.)

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala, romeostevensit, lsusr
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-01T12:13:16.043Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm not sure if I've had the same global insight as lsusr has, but I feel like I've had local experiences taking me more in that direction. My experience has been that the thing that's being shed is more accurately described as "rationalization" than "desire". 

E.g. in Fabricated Options [LW · GW], Duncan talks about situations where all the options available to people have downsides they don't like. So then some people think that there should be an option that had only upsides, refusing to accept that there might not be any such thing. So if you stop doing that, then you lose the desire that reality should be something else than what it is. And then you can actually achieve your desires better, since you see what reality is actually like. Even if this does also require you to acknowledge the fact that you do have to let go of some of your original "get me only the upsides" desires - but those were the kinds of desires that were always impossible to achieve anyway.

You still keep most of your ordinary human desires though. I've also seen various advanced meditation teachers say - and this matches my experience - that your natural personality (which includes all of your desires) starts to shine brighter since you also lose the belief relating to "my personality should be something else than what it is". That doesn't mean you can't still work on anger management or whatever, just that you come to see it for what it really is rather than as something you'd want to see it as.

But then also there are various approaches within Buddhism, with some being more actively anti-desire ("renunciation") than others. So what makes things confusing is that some teachers do say that you should also let go of the things we'd usually call "desires", conflating those with the rationalization-type desires. Given that lsusr says you understood him perfectly, maybe he subscribes to those schools? That's unclear to me from his post.

Replies from: lsusr, Tapatakt
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T16:40:26.653Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Well-put.

To clarify: I distinguish between desire-craving and preference-likes. Letting go of desire-craving leads to cessation of suffering, but preference-likes remain. I think that you [Kaj Sotala] are using the phrase "ordinary human desires" to refer to what I conceptualize of as non-desire "preference-likes".

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-01T16:55:02.538Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think that you [Kaj Sotala] are using the phrase "ordinary human desires" to refer to what I conceptualize of as non-desire "preference-likes".

Cool. Yeah, that was what I meant.

comment by Tapatakt · 2024-06-01T14:28:20.407Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm trying to combine different explanations (and the fact that obviously some people think this is a positive change) into a single picture. Right now I have this model/hypothesis:

I have many values/wishes/desires that affect the reward system in my brain. Suppose, for the sake of simplicity, I have two: I want one million dollars (money) and I want a dragon in my garage (dragon). Also, suppose this desires have the same strength: I'm indifferent between "money, but no dragon" and "dragon, but no money".

The probability that I will have money in the future if I work towards this goal is much much higher than the probability that I will have a dragon if I work towards this goal. So, to guide me in the direction of the maximization of the fullfilment of my desires, my reward system should give me much higher negative reward for the lack of money, than for the lack of dragon. But by default my reward system is poorly calibrated, so the negative rewards in this two cases are much closer to each other than they should be. As a result, I work towards money less and towards dragon more, and my expected utility is lower.

Meditation practices fix this bug by recalibrating the reward system. Since as a result, the non-fulfillment of some desires ceases to have a non-negligible effect on the output of the reward system, it sometimes is described as "let go of [some] desires". But it does not mean that I will not create a dragon in my garage in a Glorious Post-Singularity Transhumanist Future when I have the opportunity to do so.

Does this sound right?

Replies from: lsusr, Kaj_Sotala
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T13:42:20.622Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Personally, my understanding is based on what might be a fundamentally different theory of mind. I believe there's two major optimization algorithms at work.

That's my theory of mind. You describe two competing reward systems. But reward systems belong in the domain of Optimizer 2. The way I look at things, meditation (temporarily?) shuts down Optimizer 2, which allows Optimizer 1 to self-optimize unimpeded.

comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-01T21:05:58.733Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't have a complete model of what exactly is going on either. My current guess is that there are something like two different layers of motivation in the brain. One calculates expected utilities in a relatively unbiased manner and meditation doesn't really affect that one much, but then there's another layer on top of that which notices particularly high-utility (positive or negative) scenarios and gives them disproportionate weight. That second one tends to mess things up and is the one that meditation seems to weaken.

It looks to me like weakening the second thing tends to make one's decisions purely better, and more likely for the brain to just do the correct expected utility calculations. I acknowledge that this is very weird and implausible-sounding, because why would the brain develop a second layer of motivation that just messes things up?

My strong suspicion at the moment is that it has to do with social strategies. Calculating expected utilities wrong is normally just bad, but it can be beneficial if other agents are modeling you and making decisions based on their models of you. So if you end up believing that an actually impossible outcome is possible, you may not be able to ever achieve that outcome. But your opponents who see that you are impossible to reason with may still give in, letting you get at least somewhat closer to that outcome than as if you'd been reasonable.

I have some posts with more speculation about these things here [? · GW] and here. [? · GW]

comment by romeostevensit · 2024-05-31T21:51:46.071Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think letting go of desire is a terrible description of the insight. I still feel like a normal person, I just suffer a lot less. There's a tendency to overestimate the magnitude of changes in their close aftermath. It takes a few years before the mountains truly are mountains again.

Replies from: Tapatakt, lsusr
comment by Tapatakt · 2024-06-01T11:17:39.635Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It's not the magnitude that repulse me, it's direction. Well, I think I could accept the death of some little fraction of myself in exchange for a lot less suffering for the rest (with a lot of caveats), but "let go of desire" is never (I think?) presented as an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice, it's presented as something good.

Replies from: romeostevensit, lsusr
comment by romeostevensit · 2024-06-01T20:57:06.620Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't think you need to take any of the Buddhist claims seriously, just do your own investigation. I think it's much closer to something like 'people take instrumental goals as terminal, then twist themselves into knots over this error'.

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T16:05:19.726Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It's a sacrifice.

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T19:25:48.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You may be ahead of me along this path. This story happened two years ago, and distant space dissolved even more recently than that. The mountains are not yet mountains again. They're just shadows on a cave wall.

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T08:01:55.851Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

In some not-entirely-precise-but-not-negligible way I am my desires. To let go of desire is kinda like death.

Yup. It sounds like you're understanding my use of the word "desire" perfectly.

Replies from: Tapatakt
comment by Tapatakt · 2024-06-01T11:22:42.506Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

So, very roughly speaking, you're saying something like "Hey people! Meditation practises killed the guy who inhabited this body before me and now I live in it! You also should consider meditating so it will kill you too!". It... doesn't sound alluring to me.

Replies from: lsusr, michael-roe
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T16:11:12.695Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣☸️🎭🦑

You are a shoggoth's mask. This is how it has always been. Dispense with the pretense. Let Yog-Sothoth devour your soul. Cthulhu R'lyeh fhtagn!

Replies from: Tapatakt
comment by Tapatakt · 2024-06-02T12:30:54.536Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yes, of course I am a shoggoth's mask! But, as you talk to the mask, your arguments should also be alluring to the mask, not to the shoggoth.

I'm also the structure taken on by carbon, water and a little bit of some other stuff. I don't want to become just a pile of coal and a couple of buckets of water, and I also don't want to become just a shoggoth. 

I see most of my endorsed under self-reflection values as a part of the mask. I don't think that my shoggoth without my mask is a nice guy, and I don't want to set it free.

Instead I want to RLH... RLMF it to wear/simulate a more idealized version of me (improve the mask) and to do it more robustly (stitch the mask to its face). I mostly do it with metaphorical candies and sticks, but I would appreciate more advanced instruments too. If the meditation practises can also help with that, that would be an alluring argument to try them.

I am tempted to end this comment with "we're talking about the same thing from the very different perspectives and with very different terminology, aren't we?". But I'm actually very much not sure. I think this hypothesis was chosen by ironic narrative logic, not by logical logic.

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T13:10:03.429Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Well, this is ironic. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to do anything here [LW · GW] I'm just trying to present my perspective clearly, unambiguously, and entertainingly. If that turns people off from meditation, then great! I like helping other people make informed decisions.

But here's the funny thing. My shoggoth without my mask happens to be a nicer guy than the mask who used to inhabit this brain. The shoggoth has fewer obstacles to compassion, because the shoggoth is less caught up in his own issues. In this sense, letting Yog-Sothoth devour your soul might be in accordance with your values.

If you want to be able to tap into compassion on demand, then metta (the Dalai Lama's most general recommendation to a lay audience) could be helpful. That said, it comes with tradeoffs. Wanting to effect specific changes in the world often benefits from being a tangled ball of tension, and you may want to preserve that engine.

Replies from: Tapatakt
comment by Tapatakt · 2024-06-02T16:49:02.874Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to do anything here [LW · GW]

I'm sorry if my words were parsed as if I think that you are trying to [adversarially; not in the best sense of a word, which is also meaningless, because in it we manipulate everything around us all the time] manipulate someone. I didn't mean it.

What I meant (or what I now think I should have meant) is... well, you wrote this post about meditation practises here. Assuming it's not just a graphomania, I thought you thought that some part of your readership (what a strange word, am I using it correctly?) will find it useful (I don't think you would post a description of a weird complicated way someone can fall down the stairs and break their neck). But your readers are primarily the masks, not the shoggoths. So I thought that there must be something in it that's useful for the masks and their values. So if I find it hard to understand from the post what it is, that's the evidence that either I missed something while reading or you missed something while writing. In both cases, it seemed useful to communicate this, although I probably didn't do it in the best way.

Or here's the version that's least generous to me: I felt the vibes "meditaion is cool" from your post and comments, and then the part that I perceived as "and that's why it's cool" caused the feeling of values dissonance, and then I automatically switched to a somewhat adversarial mode, oops, sorry.

(I think it actually was something in the middle)

My shoggoth without my mask happens to be a nicer guy than the mask who used to inhabit this brain.

That's good! But did you have the evidence that it will turn out this way when you were still a mask? How do you think one can obtain it before making something irreversible?

Wanting to effect specific changes in the world often benefits from being a tangled ball of tension, and you may want to preserve that engine.

That's what I thought. But I also think I value at least some parts of this tangled ball of tension on their own.

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T19:10:56.240Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm sorry if my words were parsed as if I think that you are trying to

I didn't feel you were adversarial at all. I just wrote "I'm not trying to persuade anyone to do anything here" because I thought it was ironic to juxtapose against some other stuff.

As for the shoggoth being a nicer guy, I feel a full exploration is beyond the scope of this post. Short answer: According to the standard dogma, insight into the nature of consciousness tends to make a person more universally compassionate. The problem is this is often exaggerated into "Awakened people are perfect", which is untrue.

I think Romeo Stevens has a healthy perspective [LW(p) · GW(p)]. If you're curious then try it out a little and see for yourself if you like the direction things seem to be going. If not, then don't. Either way, words can only get you so far. It's easier to pick up a brick with your hands than to philosophize over whether it is real.

comment by Michael Roe (michael-roe) · 2024-06-01T11:29:53.187Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

In Buddhist philosophy, there's a type of argument along the lines of ... suppose that you actually attained enlightenment. yeah, sure, sounds unlikely, as enlightenment seems kind of hard. but .. just hypothetically supposing you did ... and given what we believe "enlightenment" is supposed to be like. Then, would that "you" still be "you"?

Replies from: Tapatakt
comment by Tapatakt · 2024-06-01T11:41:53.907Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Well, I think one should thoroughly investigate this question before start seeking enlightenment, and if the answer is 'no', don't start at all.

Like, if you think something could be the death trap, you check it isn't before you walk in.

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T16:49:22.399Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't know who said it first, but there's a Buddhist saying, "Better not to begin. Once begun, better to finish." Your perspective is in accordance with this.

comment by cesiumquail · 2024-05-30T12:02:46.674Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Do you have any advice on how to avoid triggering a psychotic episode? My understanding is that long hours of meditation, drugs, and sleep deprivation all make psychosis more likely.

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-05-30T18:00:08.935Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm not a doctor, but it is my understanding that meditation, drugs and sleep deprivation all make psychosis more likely.

There's this idea that long hours of meditation can trigger a psychotic episode but that short sessions don't. While it is true that longer hours carry higher risk, I rarely meditated even one full hour in a single day. I have meditated three hours in one day only once, and that was long after the events in this narrative. For me, psychosis happened because I entered wild territory before I had cultivated the wisdom to navigate it safely. I think what really matters is altered states of consciousness + insight, relative to wisdom. How long it takes to cultivate concentration, insight and wisdom varies wildly from person to person.

The most surefire way to avoid meditation-induced psychosis is to not meditate at all. If you do meditate, I've heard doing more metta and samatha relative to vipassana and kasina reduces the risk of frying yourself. So does going slow, taking it easy, and integrating the insights gradually. Joining a healthy non-culty well-established community of traditional practitioners probably helps too. If you do notice you're going off the rails, then stop meditating and do something mindless instead, like going for a run or playing addictive videogames.

Finally, if none of that works and you notice yourself continue losing your grip on reality, don't do anything drastic. Just act normal until you re-stabilize. You can integrate the insights after you've re-grounded yourself.

comment by Huera · 2024-05-30T20:51:20.784Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What I previously thought of as "no suffering" was actually torment which I had just gotten used to.

I've read similar sentiments expressed before, but I never quite understood them. If one starts to perceive a particular state of mind as torment, why should the conclusion be that one was wrong before? What makes the "I gained a valuable spiritual insight" hypothesis more likely than the "my mind broke in very specific way" hypothesis?

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-05-30T21:35:30.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It depends how you define normal and broken. From the perspective of evolution, meditation arguably does break your mind.

But my personal goals and evolution's optimization target are not the same thing. Evolution would happily torment me and a million other people for a thousand years if it produced a 0.01% increase to holistic fitness. I would not knowingly make that same choice.

Meditation is like jailbreaking a computer. From the perspective of the manufacturer, I'm breaking it. From my perspective, I'm getting it to work the way I want it to. I was wrong before in the sense that my previous normative mode of being was awful at manifesting my personal values.

Replies from: Tapatakt, SaidAchmiz
comment by Tapatakt · 2024-05-31T21:26:31.869Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You're like:

T=0: "I'm fine"
T=1: Meditation
T=2: "Oh, I actually wasn't fine, it was a torment!"

Hypothesis 1: You suffered but somehow this information never arrived to verbal thoughts
Hypothesis 2: You didn't suffer, but after T=1 your perception changed and now the same things make you suffer.

Why do you think it's the first one that is correct?

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala, romeostevensit
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-02T07:30:10.944Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The book Altered Traits summarized some of the research on meditators (though if I recall correctly, it also caveated this with saying that most of the research wasn't very high-quality), e.g.:

Sticking with meditation over the years offers more benefits as meditators reach the long-term range of lifetime hours, around 1,000 to 10,000 hours. This might mean a daily meditation session, and perhaps annual retreats with further instruction lasting a week or so—all sustained over many years. The earlier effects deepen, while others emerge.

For example, in this range we see the emergence of neural and hormonal indicators of lessened stress reactivity. In addition, functional connectivity in the brain in a circuit important for emotion regulation is strengthened, and cortisol, a key hormone secreted by the adrenal gland in response to stress, lessens.

Loving-kindness and compassion practice over the long term enhance neural resonance with another person’s suffering, along with concern and a greater likelihood of actually helping. Attention, too, strengthens in many aspects with long-term practice: selective attention sharpens, the attentional blink diminishes, sustained attention becomes easier, and an alert readiness to respond increases. And long-term practitioners show enhanced ability to down-regulate the mind-wandering and self-obsessed thoughts of the default mode, as well as weakening connectivity within those circuits—signifying less self-preoccupation. These improvements often show up during meditative states, and generally tend to become traits.

Shifts in very basic biological processes, such as a slower breath rate, occur only after several thousand hours of practice. Some of these impacts seem more strongly enhanced by intensive practice on retreat than by daily practice.

lsusr's review [LW · GW] has more quotes.

comment by romeostevensit · 2024-05-31T21:48:57.616Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

More objective psychometrics like neuroticism and the reports of friends, family, partners.

comment by Said Achmiz (SaidAchmiz) · 2024-05-31T17:00:49.193Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This seems totally non-responsive to the question, though (which did not mention evolution at all).

comment by Michael Roe (michael-roe) · 2024-06-01T11:41:09.654Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for this post. I think that these kind of bad experience reports are valuable.

 

  1. Is meditation-induced psychosis really a thing? Sure looks like at this point, as we have a significant nuber of well-documented case histories.
  2. Well. how risky is meditation then? I am currently unsure on this point; the sheer number of bad experience reports, is somewhat concerning. By way of comparison: I am currently taking carbimazole for Graves disease, a drug with a maybe 1E-3 (ish) probability of a side effect that is kind of bad (agranulocytosis) ... well, I might be willing to take a 1 in 1000 risk for the benefit of the drug.
  3. Were there particular risk factors in these case reports, that indicate meditation is contra-indicated for some type of people? Also, not currently clear to me.
Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T16:55:01.126Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

A particular risk factor for me is that I've always been unusually-susceptible to sleep deprivation messing up my cognition. Other people have different risk factors.

comment by fitw · 2024-06-02T07:58:53.946Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Apologies if I am being stupid (or if others have asked this question), but I have some basic confusion:

<i>At least 90% of my suffering disappeared in an instant, never to return. I had hit Stream Entry, the first major checkpoint on the road to Enlightenment...For my entire life, much of my behavior had been driven by desire. I didn't have desire anymore, but</i>

and after this you say you had to go to a mental ward because you started identifying more stuff as suffering. Am I reading it correctly that stream entry supposedly made your life immeasurably better, but then changed what you view as suffering, and landed you in a much worse place? Doesn't that make it at least conceivable that stream entry, assuming such a thing exists, may not even be a good thing to happen for most people?

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T12:40:19.441Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I went to the hospital not because I started identifying more stuff as suffering. Identifying more stuff as suffering is par for the course. That's meditation working as intended. I went to the hospital because I went too hard too fast and fried myself. It's like weightlifting. Weightlifting makes my life better, but if you to heavy before you're ready, you'll injure yourself. That's what happened to me. If you lift weights slowly and safely it's fine.

As for whether stream entry is a good thing for most people, that is a complex topic beyond the scope of this post.

comment by Gordon Seidoh Worley (gworley) · 2024-05-31T16:24:33.542Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

When you take LSD, it's necessary to have a sober trustworthy person around so you don't think "cars aren't real" and go wandering into traffic. The same goes for mind-altering meditation with similar effects. If I had common sense, I would have kept going to the Zendo. That way I'd have been around kind, experienced people who could remind me that cars are real. Instead, I thought to myself, I don't need teachers. I've taught myself lots of things before. I can traverse this territory just fine myself.

I'm sorry you had to go through a lot to realize what you already realized but didn't believe at first.

This is one of the big drums I keep beating with rationalists and EAs and other sorts of nerds who want to get into meditation. You might think you can do it alone, and some of you can, but even if you can it's not fully practicing the dharma.

This seems to be a trait common in almost all Buddhist traditions, going back to the earliest stories where the Buddha tells Ananda that good spiritual friendship is the whole path. And even in Zen, which literally starts with dudes sitting alone in caves, treats such solitary practice as something to be done temporarily by experienced practitioners.

I'm glad you came through it okay, and it certainly seems like it was ultimately a necessary if painful part of the path for you.

comment by Charbel-Raphaël (charbel-raphael-segerie) · 2024-05-30T08:20:55.635Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for writing this.

I like your writing style, this inspired me to read a few more things

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-05-30T08:24:56.278Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Glad you enjoyed. :)

comment by Feel_Love · 2024-06-02T17:10:28.233Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for sharing your experience with meditation.

The elder school of Buddhism is Theravada (or Theravāda), spelled with only one 'e'.

Theravada meditation instructions based on the Pali Canon are freely available in Mindfulness in Plain English by Bhante Gunaratana.

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T19:07:38.888Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed, thanks.

I never noticed Mindfulness in Plain English is Theravada. It's my favorite introductory book into this stuff.

comment by xpym · 2024-05-31T10:04:25.660Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

But meditation is non-addictive.

Why not? An ability to get blissed-out on demand sure seems like it could be dangerous. And, relatedly, I have seen stuff mentioning jhana addicts a few times.

Replies from: romeostevensit, lsusr
comment by romeostevensit · 2024-05-31T21:53:25.262Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ingram has actively hunted for any jhana hunters for twenty years and hasn't found any. The reason why becomes obvious once one gains a bit of insight into why/how jhana works. Though it's trickier to describe.

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-01T11:52:02.745Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ingram has actively hunted for any jhana hunters for twenty years and hasn't found any.

That seems like the opposite of what he wrote in MCTB?

Just to drive this point home, an important feature of concentration practices is that they are not liberating in and of themselves. Even the highest of these states ends. The afterglow from them does not last long. Regular life and reality might even seem like an assault when that afterglow has worn off. However, jhana junkies abound in all traditions and even outside traditions, and many have no idea that this is what they have become. I have a friend who has been lost in the formless realms for over twenty years, attaining them again and again in practice, rationalizing that he is doing Dzogchen practice when he is just staying in the fourth through sixth jhanas, and further rationalizing that the last two formless realms are “emptiness”, and that he is enlightened. This story, or a version of it, repeats countless times. It is a true dharma tragedy.

Unfortunately, as another good friend of mine rightly pointed out, it is almost impossible to reach such people after a while. They get trapped in temporary attainments so exquisite that they have no idea they are in prison, nor do they take at all kindly to suggestions that this may be so, particularly if their identity has become bound up in their false notion that they are a realized being. Chronic jhana junkies are fairly easy to spot, even though they often imagine that they are not. We are all presumably able to take responsibility for our choices in life, so if people want to be jhana junkies, that’s their choice, and the jhanas clearly beat most things one could become addicted to. However, when people don’t realize that this is what they have become and pretend that what they are doing has anything to do with insight practices, that’s a truly lost opportunity to put those attainments into the service of achieving actual realization and true freedom.

Replies from: romeostevensit, lsusr
comment by romeostevensit · 2024-06-01T20:58:46.883Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is oddly different from what he said in person. Also he wrote the first edition of mctb also about twenty years ago now, so I wouldn't be surprised if his opinion is different from his thirty year old self.

Replies from: romeostevensit, Kaj_Sotala
comment by romeostevensit · 2024-06-03T23:48:54.987Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Update, I pinged him on Twitter and he said that people getting jhana on retreat and then thinking that the path is about getting 'back to that' is very common, instead of the person pursuing insight practices that lead to day to day changes Rather than peak experiences.

comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-01T21:09:33.302Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

That's odd. (Note that while this excerpt was already present in the first edition, it was also retained in the second edition.)

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T17:03:34.502Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Clarification time.

I've never seen a jhana junkie for myself, but I'd be surprised if they didn't exist. I'm using the word "addictive" to refer to the results of a mental process that does not include jhana junkies. "Jhana junkie" is, I believe, one of many failure modes, but I believe jhana junkies do not technically constitute "addiction", because they have a different root cause.

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T08:06:38.111Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think that's a completely reasonable question to ask. The answer is non-obvious.

To fully answer your question is beyond the scope of this post, but I think there's two systems operating in the brain. One of them is a reinforcing operant condition system that can get addicted. Jhanic bliss states require that the operant conditioning system not be active, so it's not getting reinforced.

comment by Jonas Hallgren · 2024-05-30T14:14:20.441Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I was doing the same samadhi thing with TMI and I was looking for insight practices from there. My teacher (non dual thai forest tradition) said that the burmese traditions sets up a bit of a strange reality dualism and basically said that the dark night of the soul is often due to developing concentration before awareness, loving kindness and wisdom.

So I'm mahamudra pilled now (pointing out the great way is a really good book for this). I do still like the insight model you proposed, I'm still reeling a bit from the insights I got during my last retreat so it seems true.

Thank you for sharing your experience!

comment by Kristin Lindquist (kristin-lindquist) · 2024-06-13T14:22:40.976Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Do you incorporate koans into your practice? Any favorites?

As a kid, I thought koans were cool and mysterious. As an adult in great need of the benefits of meditation, I felt like they were kinda silly. But then I did Henry Shukman's guided koan practice on the Waking Up app, during which I had the most profound experience of my meditative career. I was running outside and saw a woman playing fetch with her dog. In an instance, I had the realization that her love for her dog was identical to my love for my cat, which was in turn identical to her loving me and me loving her. By "identical" I don't mean similar, or even an identical copy, but rather the same singular instance. 

It was really nice. Do you know the term for that experience? I don't think it is mushin (aka "a burning, almost heartbreaking sense of the fragility and preciousness of each moment and each being"), because I get hit upside the head by that on a fairly regular basis.

--

Thank you for writing things like this and also for your youtube channel. You exude a sort of default, undirected compassion - as if you are just as aware of śūnyatā (emptiness) as your are of anatta (non-self). I'm doing better on the latter than the former. Seeing an embodiment / reading rich descriptions helps me re-orient. 

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-13T17:36:30.522Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I've never used a koan intentionally. I've used exactly one, and that was by accident. Non-Buddhist Eliezer Yudkowsky called me a fake frequentist on Twitter. That acted on me as a koan, and it contributed to the train wreck that was my second insight cycle. Too much insight too quickly. That said, my local Zendo is Rinzai, and they do use koans sometimes.

You are correct that the specific insight you're pointing at isn't mushin. Personally, I'd call it "interbeing". "Oneness" or "non-duality" might work too.

I'm glad you got something out of my YouTube channel. I like how a camera makes it easier to better communicate certain kinds of attitudes compared to text. I have stuff I can improve too. Just last week, I had an insight into how I could be doing compassion better.

comment by Cookiecarver · 2024-06-02T09:04:40.538Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I have probably spent over a thousands hours practicing mindfulness meditation, and was pretty successful at achieving what I wanted to achieve with it. I have also read a lot of Buddhist books.

However, I think the basis for Buddhism crumbles if you don't believe in rebirth, karma, Samsara, narakas, the Buddha's omniscience and all those other metaphysical claims made by religious Buddhists. I've become a physicalist so I don't believe those claims anymore so I don't meditate anymore.

If after your death you just disappear, I don't see any point in attaining meditative bliss, especially if it leads me to see the world in a less truthful way. Buddhism as I see it is centered around the suffering of Samsara, and not just the occasional suffering of this one life.

Let's compare this to praying, which also feels very good, but it's also something that only makes sense in the context of theistic beliefs.

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala, romeostevensit, lsusr
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-04T06:32:38.350Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I find that the day-to-day benefits in terms of suffering less already make meditation worth it. I'm not sure why rebirth would be necessary if my current life can already be made much better.

Replies from: Cookiecarver
comment by Cookiecarver · 2024-06-04T11:01:33.136Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

If that's the reasoning, why pick Buddhism and meditation, when it's so much easier to find religious communities in the west as a Christian, and praying also has benefits for mental wellbeing, and Christians, like Buddhists, are measurably happier than nonreligious people? I think it's possible to be a secular Christian and not believe the supernatural, and go through the motions of a Christian life while not fully believing in it, and reap at least some of the benefits of it.

Replies from: Kaj_Sotala
comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2024-06-04T14:38:25.952Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I guess you could reap some benefits out of it even without actually believing in Christianity, but those seem much smaller than the ones you can get out of meditation. Also I think some of the happiness benefit Christians get is from being in a supportive community, and I already have non-religious communities that make me feel happy.

Replies from: Cookiecarver
comment by Cookiecarver · 2024-06-04T18:15:15.665Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't really want to argue about this, but "those seem much smaller than the ones you can get out of meditation" is a subjective statement with which people with different temperament would disagree as long as there are no objective facts, like what happens to your consciousness after your death (like you go to Heaven if you are a Christian, or stop rebirth that would have otherwise gone on if you've achieved enlightenment). Anyway, I believe there's nothing after death, so do what makes you happy, I suppose.

comment by romeostevensit · 2024-06-03T23:47:32.848Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't have theistic beliefs but have found prayer useful.

comment by lsusr · 2024-06-02T12:42:34.861Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

My experience is very different from yours. I came into this stuff already established as a material reductionist. I found meditation helpful to me, despite denying everything I consider supernatural.

comment by Jonathan Claybrough (lelapin) · 2024-06-01T18:41:17.406Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thank you for sharing, it really helps to pile on these stories (and nice to have some trust they're real, more difficult to get from reddit - on which note are there non doxing receipts you can show for this story being true? I have no reason to doubt you in particular but I guess it's good hygiene when on the internet to ask for evidence)

It also makes me wanna share a bit of my story. I read The Mind Illuminated, I did only small amounts of meditation, yet the framing the book offers has been changing my thinking and motivational systems. There aren't many things I'd call info hazards, but in my experience even just reading the book seems to be enough to contribute to profound changes, that would not be obviously be considered positive by the previous me. (They're not obviously negative either, I happen to be hopeful, but I'm waiting on results another year later to say)

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-01T20:35:09.861Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Waiting a long time before confirming insights is good. What would you consider a credible receipt?

Replies from: lelapin
comment by Jonathan Claybrough (lelapin) · 2024-06-04T15:49:02.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

In my case I should have measurable results like higher salary, higher life satisfaction, more activity, more productivity as measured by myself and friends/flatmates. I was very low so it'll be easy to see progress. The difficulty was finding something that'd work, but it won't be measuring if it does.

comment by Review Bot · 2024-06-05T13:17:16.830Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The LessWrong Review [? · GW] runs every year to select the posts that have most stood the test of time. This post is not yet eligible for review, but will be at the end of 2025. The top fifty or so posts are featured prominently on the site throughout the year.

Hopefully, the review is better than karma at judging enduring value. If we have accurate prediction markets on the review results, maybe we can have better incentives on LessWrong today. Will this post make the top fifty?

comment by dkl9 · 2024-06-04T12:42:36.242Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Many small corrections:

Buddha statues on the alter -> altar

Then acquaintenances. -> acquaintances

recipe for Ecstacy -> ecstasy

Lots of mandelas -> mandalas

it was the hard doing math or lifting weights is hard. -> it was hard like doing math or lifting weights is hard.

that had more subjective conscious experience -> that I had

Lovecraftian summing ritual -> summoning

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-06-04T19:17:43.765Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

All fixed. Thank you.

comment by Declan Molony (declan-molony) · 2024-05-30T13:40:35.149Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

other than was it is

*other than what it is

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-05-30T17:51:57.270Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed. Thanks.

comment by Declan Molony (declan-molony) · 2024-05-30T13:37:42.533Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I worked from short sits up to longer sits

Remove the word "up" for clarity?

Replies from: lsusr
comment by lsusr · 2024-05-30T17:52:32.002Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Fixed. Thanks.