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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.:
lsusr’s review has more quotes.
More objective psychometrics like neuroticism and the reports of friends, family, partners.
This seems totally non-responsive to the question, though (which did not mention evolution at all).