Wow, he's missing life by trying to "be here now."

Could he ever be anywhere else?

When I was a child I heard a story about a woman who wouldn’t get out of bed because she didn’t want to interfere with the “Will of God.” Although I never thought that was anything other than silly, one of the primary ways in which I challenge myself has become the instruction to accept what might be called the “Will of God.” This is in the same spirit as that of the second commenter, the Byron Katie enthusiast who would like to “love what is.”

The above is only meant to be an example of how a single concept, such as “be here now,” could be meaningful in one situation and utterly ridiculous in another [such as if one were being chased by a large angry bear (and would in that case want to be somewhere else as soon as possible)]. Overall the enterprise of changing human behavior strikes me as a good idea when one considers the alternative. But like any human enterprise it will be fraught with error, particularly to begin with.

We should expect approaches to changing human behavior, including the enlightenment culture, to be characterized by strategies that are distinctly anti-human. Ambitions to eliminate desire, fear, anger, grief and/or thinking would fall into this category. I do not question that there are plenty of things to be criticized about the enlightenment culture. But there is also no shortage of people prepared to engage in such criticism. Oprah aside, unless I have wandered onto the wrong planet, it is still the majority position that the doctrines of enlightenment are a pile of crap.

My concern is that Judith has “thrown the baby out with the bath.” (I wouldn’t use such a tired, road weary, metaphor were it not so incredibly symbolic in this case) That is assuming that she ever had a clue to begin with, which I’m usually willing to assume. Regarding her friend however, I have no way of knowing that she is not simply so deeply committed to following the herd that any behavior deviating from the norm is a source of distress for that reason alone.

'it is still the majority position that the doctrines of enlightenment are a pile of crap.'

Essentially, Ron, it doesn't matter what the majority position is on anything, or who else throws whatever else out with the bathwater.

'Enlightenment' to use your term, needs no defence.

When that large angry bear turns menacingly in your direction your wants, needs, desires, thoughts and all else will go out with the bathwater and your natural human behaviour will do what it was designed to do, without recourse to doctrines, morals, strategies or ambitions.

This is not a criticism of 'enlightenment' or any other dogma.

"Wow, he's missing life by trying to be here now."

What exactly was he missing, looking at you while you passed by (looking at him)?

He wasn't looking at me

What I was pointing to in this post is the concept that some particular state that we label
"being in the now" is preferred or better than some other state.

And that the irony is, the *attempt* to get into that state can make us oblivious to what's going on around us.

This is a good debate. The way I see it is whether you practice meditation as an exercise, to relax, to become enlightened, or as part of your religious faith does not matter.

The benefits of meditation can be seen and felt when one begins to meditate. I've been a skeptic all my life and still am (its ingrained in me from being a lawyer).
Still, I can honestly say that since I've started meditating my personality Type A is a lot more tranquil and I am actually able to enjoy moments in my life much more.

I am also a lot less judgmental or worrisome. Whether that is labeled as living in the moment, being in the "now", or just becoming a better human being doesn't really matter. It's those labels and classifications that get in the way of our self-improvement and development.

Ah… and no, I definitely do not think that meditating makes us miss out on anything in life or make us oblivious to it. If anything, it leads you to enjoy life much more.

There are certainly all sorts of weird behaviors people fall into when on the path of meditation, and yes, we get to see lots of them here in Boulder.

The guy "eating mindfully" may have been experiencing waves of bliss, imitating a persona of mindfulness, or he may have been stoned, or just tired. It's difficult to say.

The NYT article was interesting, but I have to wonder if the author of it gave up too soon on the path of mindfulness. Yes, one can adopt strange behaviors temporarily when learning to be more present in the world, but with care and attentiveness, those behaviors can drop away as a different kind of mindful action is adopted that is beneficial both to the individual as well as relationally.

I think that Judith, Steven, and others may be confusing what mindfulness is intended to be. Meditation is not mindfulness. Meditation is an intense practice meant to increase one's mindfulness. During meditation certainly someone is not interacting with the world the way they would normally. To expand a person's behaviour during meditation to their daily, overall behaviour, I believe is a mistake.

Mindfulness is not the pursuit of "calm", "boring", or "suppression of feelings". If you are mad and need to yell, YELL! If you are being mindful, you are in touch with your feelings and "experiencing" the yelling, but mindfulness doesn't say you can't get mad and yell.

I think that some people do force "calm" and "tranquil" into their mindfulness because that is what they think mindfulness should look like. I think that a more tranquil or calm nature is often a result, but I would submit that mindfulness is being more in touch with reality and your feelings…not suppressing them.

Scattered comments by a pratyekabuddha …

Yes, the person who wrote the article gave up much too early in her practice. In my book these individuals are called dropouts.

It matters a great deal WHY we practice meditation because our expectations(or lack thereof) dictate our results.

Yes, meditation is not mindfulness. BUT mindfulness is certainly applied during the beginning states of meditation, followed by deep concentration, followed by even deeper mindfulness.

The only real people who are qualified to discuss the merits of enlightenment are those who are enlightened. If this is your goal, then meditation is simply ONE means to that end. Meditation was never meant to be THE end.

Ellen, I really enjoyed your bit "and your natural human behaviour will do what it was designed to do, without recourse to doctrines, morals, strategies or ambitions."

Jason, I agree entirely with the bit about freely expressing emotions.

I am so thrilled to find a string of comments that are so passionate about meditation, and with humor! Excellent.

Everyone is making good points and coming from different directions. What a shock. I would think that if you all became enlightened from all the meditating that you would absolutely agree on everything. Oh, wait a sec — Krishna dances while Buddha sits. Natural Diversity. Hmph.

As soon as you enter the marketplace (as Nietzsche so beautifully pointed out in Zarathustra) the discussion and poor communication begins. It is that timeless gorgeous center we know that will never be described.

In addition if you have not read "As One Is" by Krishnamurti, I highly recommend it. He can be annoying, but there is something in there about self awareness not being cumulative, and so who can say what meditation is? Life is so subjective and all of our ideas of ourselves are just mind-bunk.

That guy sitting there spacing out was probably tuning into downloaded music with his new wireless MP3 earpiece. Happening to have good posture triggered Steven who happened to walk by, inspiring this blog, and now we are all here writing nonsense about something actually completely unrelated…