Thinking about thinking to be free of thinking.
Vadim Golub
Karma: 9
First of all, I am not at all an authority on Buddhism and not apologetic for it. These are just my limited understanding and thoughts. As I view some of their models helpful on my path.
They do not remain indifferent to positive sensations. They are all about developing virtues. What they say, is to choose those positive sensations wisely with discernment. The whole of the eightfold noble path is about developing proper positive sensations irrespective of circumstances.
But the real goal is the reduction of suffering.
The real goal is complete transcendence of suffering through experiential insight. And Buddhists (as many others) are not above illusions of the self and the self itself, only awakened individuals among Buddhists are. They were those who wrote the texts. Describing the way to this state the best they could. And the awakened individuals exactly state that seeing through the mechanism of suffering experientially makes it illusory (not just theoretically accepting it). So they recognize the second axiom as such, but that’s only true for the awakened. One has to transcend suffering to see it as illusory. And no amount of theorizing will help.
With regards to nihilism, it’s not entirely correct that they are nihilistic, it’s deeper than that. They respond with the Middle Way, a way between nihilism and eternalism. Which basically states that all interdependent phenomena lack intrinsic nature (or essence). That is, to begin with. Nihilism assumes the absence of intrinsic nature but implicitly presupposes existence of such intrinsic nature. What Buddhism says, there is no intrinsic nature to begin with, that can be intrinsically absent or negated / ‘nihilized’. The thing is they recover the relative meaning exactly in terms of such non-existence of intrinsic nature and make claim that meaning can only exist if there is no intrinsic nature (I wrote a post about it in details). If there could be intrinsic nature change would not be possible (as essence doesn’t change) and meaning would not make sense as it would be either absolute or non-existent. Other absolutist errors would follow.
So they are not saying that what is not permanent is not worth the effort. They are exactly saying use one’s locally true environment to transcend it. And yes, they will claim that it will seem as an illusion in the result (again, not as a theory, but as experienced reality). But illusion in a sense that it appears in one way, and exists in another. One will still operate in terms of cause and effect. But one will see the illusory structure of absolutes in one’s thinking. Things neither have intrinsic nature, nor they lack such intrinsic nature (exactly because no intrinsic nature exists to begin with). Because of that the self, clinging and suffering are transcended if one gets insight into emptiness.
When one finds meaning in suffering that is only a palliative to cope with, not the final solution, that is the transcendence of suffering. And in its place it has its value, I don’t see they are denying that. They just direct in the way of complete transcendence by insight into emptiness of suffering.
Food taste better when you’re really hungry.
They do say to neutralize the paroxysms of joy and sorrow, but in order to have tranquility and one-pointedness to enable insight. All is tampered to this end only—to get the insight.
I do not agree that freedom is empty, it is empty of the absolutes of intrinsic meaning, but full of tranquility and peace. Something that has a positive meaning and value. That they don’t say about it much is their pedagogical choice. Life will not loose oomph, it will flow unruffled not depending on circumstances anymore. Pleasures will still be pleasures. Joy will still be joy.
Concerning the expectations (I may not get what you mean here), they approach them through the moral instructions, which kind of gamifies the whole experience, and train themselves to be happy with what comes one’s way naturally. That’s lowering the bar to the minimum. However, they also set up the scene for the epic win—the enlightenment. Also according to the doctrine one cannot “live in reality” pre-awakening, one will get lost in one’s cognitive models of it. That’s why they are lowering the bar for the “necessities”. Ideally you will feel joyful just by renouncing the concept of ‘how life is supposed to be’. Self-perpetuating joy (and yes a feedback loop) is implied.
What concerns immersion. When one is not immersed in suffering (or joy), one tends to immersion in being itself. And that’s not something ‘empty’ but indescribably full. It’s like you get the flow state just from being! The baseline of where you get your joy from changes. Instead of externally-driven it becomes autotelic, coming from the inside.
I don’t compare it with the first Jhana as it lacks paroxysm inevitable for all joyful states. In words I can describe it as all-permeating peace for no apparent reason. When it happens, you want to repeat it and are ready to do whatever is necessary to get there (sadly it’s quite unpredictable and rare in my case).
Concerning that what one needs strong concentration and doesn’t need Buddhism I cannot argue with that. Who said anyone at all needs Buddhism. If one gets strong concentration out of any activity, hopefully autotelic, that’s helpful for the brain to switch from the DMN to the TPN network, - that’s the way to diminish suffering. But that’s what Buddhism also says in different words… But eventually, whatever works!
They may tell me I’m a fool, I’m not bothered by that, but what they generally say, e.g. ‘craving leads to suffering’, they don’t prescribe one to get rid of suffering. That’s left up to oneself to decide what to do with it.
Concerning the denial of reality as an illusion based on theory. It is not entirely correct. They stress out experiential insight into the nature of reality. To see things as they are, and not as we perceive them in the default state. And based on that experiential understanding use the map wisely. They are not nihilistic, they stress out the need for the Middle Way between the opposites of ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’, they are quite utilitarian in that sense. Their task is to dissipate the views, not to establish new ones.
It is true, that we are not in control. But the illusion that we are keeps us tense, i.e. clinging to it results in suffering. So, yes, letting go is freeing. That’s why Buddhists express truth in apophatic terms. Always as a negation to what is experienced.
What concerns that Buddhists have a problem with pleasant sensations, it is not entirely correct, they have a problem with clinging to them. They acknowledge that some pleasant sensations (like joy in meditative absorption) are superior in the sense that they are enabling insights into impermanence, suffering and absence of intrinsic nature. So their approach is utilitarian in that sense. They even say that cultivation of joy through meditative absorption is a healthy way to reduce suffering.
It is not that they prefer a flat landscape, they are set on relief from clinging and suffering. In that scheme they even acknowledge that joy from meditative absorption is preferable to other pleasures. But eventually even that has to be transcended. As it is impermanent and lacks substance. It is not like they say, “Pleasure is evil”, they are saying, “Use it skillfully to get insight and transcend clinging”.
Nibbana is usually described in apophatic terms to avoid building concepts about it, so it is always in the negative, e.g. freedom from clinging, freedom from desire, etc. But. The texts don’t say what it is. In one place it is called “the highest bliss”. So it is preferable to mind laden with clinging, even if this clinging is of very subtle form (e.g. for joy of meditative absorption). It is also supreme freedom and relief from what we consider to be ‘normal tension’. But it is not flat. Experiences are still registered, pleasures are there, they just don’t lead to clinging and craving anymore. The inner tension is not there.
So although it’s described in negative terms, it is not flat but “the highest bliss” that results from freedom from craving and compulsive thinking.
And what concerns the second point, it is simple: freedom from suffering is better than suffering. It doesn’t mean pleasures will be absent, they will loose the oomph (clinging and craving) beyond them. In our usual state we cannot imagine how deep the roots of suffering are, only when we experience even temporarily relief from it (e.g. by experiencing the state of stillness in meditative absorption and absence of problematic thoughts), we start to notice how unhealthy our default state in comparison to it. Only then we start wishing to change the default state, when we’ve experienced the other mode of being, of stillness beyond thinking.
What you describe about the human body where the present and future states are compared, it is indeed how we operate by default. We now know it is the function of the DMN which builds an image of “self in time” and performs comparison. But the loss of motivation is not what happens after liberation. We won’t become a zombie. We can judge about it by experience of liberated people. What happens is that the image-building mechanism collapses and actions flow spontaneously in stillness. The body still feeds itself when it has to. Planning and problem solving happens when they have to. What’s different—there is no commentator on top of that, that appropriates the experiences to itself. No inner dialogue, ‘I should do this’ / ‘I shouldn’t do that’.
The model that is helpful to understand it: we can divide the brain operation into an elephant and a rider, where the elephant is highly complex sub-conscious mechanism that performs all computation and solves all problems, and the rider is the conscious part of it, that appropriates the results to itself and claims that it decided to solve a problem and has solved the problem. After awakening the rider is wiped out, but the elephant still functions very much (as it always has done). In the end, it’s all about letting go and letting the elephant do what it does. As you yourself mentioned in the beginning, the control is only imagined and beautifully stated:
It merely feels as if we’re holding up the world through our cognitive strain, but it’s possible to just let go of everything and discover that it was holding itself up all along.
That also applies to ourselves! We are not in control of our thoughts or we do not choose what to desire (“You can do what you will, but not will what you will”, Schopenhauer). All that happens is out of our hands, we only imagine we have control.
What concerns the enlightenment—it’s anyone’s guess until one reached it. But some experiences with meditative absorptions tell me that:
The experience is not neutral, it is blissful beyond compare! It is like everything is permeated by peace and thoughts stop (self-referential ones, which are about 95% of them). It’s like you are high just on your own being! Nothing else is required (which doesn’t mean the body won’t feed itself when hunger is felt, but even not feeding the body feels alright, if it happens).
Peak pleasures are experienced more deeply and feel more pleasurable than ever. But. There is one but. Pain is likewise experienced more deeply. It’s like there is no dissipation to other thoughts and current experiences are being amplified and you cannot hide from them. I think that transfers to liberated state as I’ve heard many liberated people describe it in the same way.
What concerns the answer to ‘Is it better to love and lose than to never have loved?’ as ‘No.’ It is not what they say. They just express the law that if one has great clinging, one will suffer a lot. They don’t prescribe ‘not to love’ (in fact the opposite is true, as loving-kindness and compassion are virtues to be cultivated). They say: love, but love wisely, without clinging and craving. And use such love (as that’s superior to pleasure) to come to insight concerning the insubstantiality of self. Love is a potent portal to understand ourselves.
To sum up, Buddhists are not prescriptive (what concerns laymen), they are descriptive. They say “do as you wish, but that’s how it works”. And for those who are already keen on removing the suffering they give directions on the best way to do it (that they knew of). But in the end, you yourself described everything beautifully in the first paragraph! To the extent to which we let go of illusory control (clinging), to that extent we are free.
Closure
To sum up the reply in simple terms to all raised questions concerning pleasure in the Buddhist model: for the unliberated all pleasures are concomitant with suffering.
That includes “positive pleasures” such as pleasure derived from the beautiful art or profound scientific thinking. It happens due to the fact that for the unliberated all pleasures imply craving (tanhā) of some sort and corresponding mental states bear the three marks of existence: impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and the absence of substantive nature (anatta). Even pleasure derived from well-being as a result of craving (bhava-tanhā) is not free from the three marks. As it is a subject to change (impermanence).
That said, some pleasures are higher in the scheme of things as they might lead to insight into the nature of the self (or rather non-self, anatta) or directly to the non-dual state (Nibbana). Those pleasures include joy states (pīti and sukha) experienced during deep meditative absorption (samādhi). Deep absorption states might arise during the periods of contemplation on a scientific problem or profound art form as well. Stillness of the mind which is the result of deep meditative absorption is propitious for insight into the nature of reality. In that sense it’s a preferable state. Albeit still not free from subtle craving therefore subtle suffering.
And for the liberated the mechanism of craving is absent. So pleasures (and sorrows) don’t lead to clinging (upādāna) and are experienced with equanimity and peace independent of the outcome. Whatever the pleasures may be. It doesn’t mean that the sensations are not registered or action is avoided. The key words here are equanimity and peace. Action flows naturally in accordance with the circumstances.
Sorry to bother you again, but I was wrong about joy (pīti and sukha) all this time! They are mental factors in Buddhism, so they have three marks of existence: impermanence, suffering and no substantive nature. When I was writing I was thinking about the term ananda from Advaita tradition. Which is usually translated as bliss and concomitant with liberation. I thought they were synonymous. And they are not!
Buddhists don’t use a positive term to describe that state, they only point to the unconditioned nature that results out of extinguishment of the fires of delusion, greed and hatred. Profound peace and freedom that results out of that extinguishment may be described as happiness. The happiness of release from craving. In one place they describe it as “the highest bliss” (parama sukha).
The stillness of the mind that I was referring to comes from Advaita tradition and called there sahaja sthiti (natural state or innate state) and may be partially experienced during the meditative absorption (samādhi). When the mind abides in the meditative absorption thoughts and craving cease and what is experienced is deep peace beyond description. I wrongly called it “joy”. But it is called bliss in Advaita tradition and Buddhist tradition in general describes it in negative terms, i.e. the absence of craving, etc.
Therefore, what I meant by “joy” was the extinguishment of craving and the resulting “highest bliss” (parama sukha). And what I meant by “stillness of the mind” was the pointer to that natural unobscured abiding—called sahaja sthiti in Advaita, which finds its ultimate consummation in the realization of Nibbana in Buddhism.
To sum up. Stillness of the mind is bliss. Craving is turbulence in the mind. As long as there is craving there is seeking for pleasure (or avoiding unpleasantness) to still the mind. Satisfying pleasure is not bliss, only a spasmodic glimpse of it, a temporary relief. The highest bliss is possible if we reach effortless stillness of the mind by getting rid of craving. Whatever we do in that state of stillness is unblemished by craving and excessive thinking. Until then we are subject to craving of one kind or another.
So to answer your initial question in terms of the Buddhist doctrine: all pleasures are concomitant with suffering (for the unliberated and for the liberated the mechanism of craving is absent).
To put it simply: everything we do with a still mind is pure joy (based on the doctrinal assumption and some personal experience). Craving is turbulence in the mind. We crave to be free from suffering or satisfy a desire. As long as there is craving there is seeking for pleasure (or avoiding unpleasantness) to still the mind (at least temporarily, to have a glimpse of joy the still mind entails). Pleasure is not permanent joy (happiness) only spasmodic glimpse (if at all). So craving and pleasure are interrelated. The Buddhist doctrine states that permanent joy is possible if we get rid of craving or still the mind.
What concerns great music, art, science and so on—they mostly come from deep absorption and one-pointed concentration to the point of detachment from everything else where craving subsides and the mind becomes still (at least for some time). Stillness of the mind or the absence of craving are the same.
This is a fascinating dialogue, thank you for sharing it! I want to jump on board of the Reassuring Voice and add some comments.
First, nirvana is not extinction of a person, life or experience. What is extinguished is suffering (dukkha) and its cause—craving (tanha). It’s the extinction of the fire of ignorance, clinging and aversion—not of consciousness or life. The result is described as the highest bliss, supreme security and freedom. All are positive terms. It is the end of problematic mode of being and not of being itself.
Second, the first noble truth doesn’t say “everything is suffering”. It says that life as conditioned by clinging (upadana) is pervaded by suffering (dukkha). It’s a statement about a process (clinging to the five aggregates), not a condemnation of pure sensory experience itself.
Eliminating the ‘knots’ (craving/clinging) is not like trimming a tree branch by branch until nothing is left. It’s like untying a knot in a hose. Once the knot (the obstruction) is gone, the water (life, energy, consciousness) can flow freely, without distortion or blockage. The goal isn’t to stop the flow; it’s to remove the distortions that cause the “painful pressure” and “blocked functionality”.
Third, the Buddhist path is about cultivating positive qualities, not just negating negatives (even more so!) The four noble truth, the noble eightfold path is a training in skillful action, not inaction. It cultivates: wisdom (prajñā), ethical conduct (śīla) and meditative absorption (samādhi). These states represent a re-orientation from “scratching itches” (craving-driven action) to skillful, compassionate and clear engagement with the world.
Last, on present day Extinctionists R is right to dismiss them. Extinctionism mistakes the problem (suffering born of craving and ignorance) for the vehicle of experience (life itself) and seeks to destroy the vehicle to solve the problem. The Buddhist solution is to repair the flawed navigation system of the driver (the mind), not to crash the car.
Your dialogue beautifully resolves the issue. The ‘knots’ metaphor is perfect. We aim to untie the painful, self-reinforcing knots of craving and aversion so that the muscle of our being can be strong, flexible, and capable of healthy, responsive tension—not perpetually knotted up in suffering, nor limp and atrophied in a pseudo-nirvana of inaction (stupor really).
The goal isn’t the extinction of life but the transcendence of a specific flawed operating system (the ‘itch-and-scratch’ or ‘knot-forming’ system) and its replacement with one of wisdom and compassion. That is the opposite of extinctionism, it’s about making life actually work.
This is a crucial question, thank you for asking it! It challenges the model’s boundaries and forces us to be precise about what we mean by ‘suffering’ (dukkha) and ‘craving’ (tanha).
Short Answer: The model does not necessarily deny the existence of such pleasures (they would be in a different category though, more on this later). It invites us to inspect them more closely. Are they truly free from the mechanism of ‘scratching a sore’, or do they contain subtle elements of it? The framework suggests a spectrum rather than a binary.
Distinguishing dukkha (the ‘sore’) from acute pain. First, it’s important to clarify that dukkha in the first noble truth is not just gross pain or misery. It encompasses a subtle, pervasive background of unsatisfactoriness, instability, or ‘dis-ease.’ This can include:
- boredom: seeking stimulation (music, study)
- existential restlessness or meaning-seeking: pursuing beauty (art) or truth (mathematics)
- a sense of incompleteness or lack of accomplishment: the drive to create
If the activity primarily functions to relieve that kind of background tension, then it fits the ‘scratch’ dynamics, even if the activity itself is sublime. The pleasure is, in part, the relief of that subtle lack.The concept of ‘non-craving joy’ (pīti, sukha). Buddhist sources themselves acknowledge states of joy that are not born of sensual craving. In deep meditation (jhāna and samadhi), one experiences rapture and happiness that arise from stillness, concentration, and letting go, not from fulfilling a lack. This is closer to the ‘no-sore’ state manifesting as positive affect. This is what Nāgārjuna means by “more pleasurable still”, abiding in this state is pure joy.
Could listening to Bach or contemplating an elegant proof trigger a similar non-acquisitive non-lacking joy? Possibly, if it is experienced with a mind free from craving—free from the ‘itch’ to possess it, to use it for status, to escape something else, or even to prolong the experience itself. The pleasure then is not a relief from a negative, but an appreciation of a positive that arises in a still mind. Then it should be called joy, really.The model itself might serve as a litmus test. To distinguish between pleasure and non-contrived joy one might ask:
- is it addictive? Does its absence create a craving or a sense of loss? (Suggests a ‘scratch’ dynamic.)
- what is its emotional aftertaste? Does it lead to contentment and release, or to a craving for more? (The former suggests satiation; the latter suggests the ‘sore’ remains.)
- could I enjoy this equally if no one ever knew I experienced it? (Helps isolate it from the ‘sore’ of social validation).
Creating great art or mathematics often involves immense struggle (a ‘sore’), but the moment of breakthrough can feel like a transcendent release from that very struggle. Yet, the appreciation of the final product by a still mind might be different—a pure non-contrived joy.
Therefore, the model doesn’t automatically categorize all pleasure on the same level (there is a non-contrived joy which is beyond the scope of pleasure). What it does: it asks us to discern the underlying mental state. A huge portion of what we chase is relief-driven (‘scratching’), and that a state of peace (‘no sore’) is superior and can itself be profoundly positive. So the pleasures you list could sit anywhere on this spectrum between pleasure and non-contrived joy. The final litmus test is whether there is craving or not.
Thank you for this comment! It’s an excellent response that gets to the heart of the matter. You’re absolutely right to focus on the metaphor, as its validity determines the model’s usefulness.
Let me clarify the intended meaning, because I think we use ‘pleasure’ in two different senses, which is exactly what the metaphor is trying to reveal.
Distinguishing ‘pleasure’ from ‘well-being’. The claim isn’t that the sensation of scratching is less intense than the sensation of neutrality. The claim is about the overall state of the system.
In a ‘scratching state’ the system has a problem (a sore/itch). The scratch provides a high-contrast relief from the negative state. This relief is intensely felt and is certainly ‘pleasurable’ in a hedonic sense. But the system’s baseline is compromised.In a ‘no sore state’ the system has no problem. There is no negative state to relieve, so there’s no high-contrast ‘pleasure event’. Instead, there is a steady unobstructed peaceful functionality. This is what Nāgārjuna calls “more pleasurable still”, not in terms of peak sensory intensity, but in terms of well-being and the absence of background suffering.
The metaphor argues that what we often chase as ‘pleasure’ is the first kind: the intense signal of a problem being temporarily solved. The second kind—the peace of a problem-free system—is quieter but constitutes a higher quality of existence.
A way to test this: would you choose to have a mild chronic itch in order to enjoy scratching it? Probably not. The pleasure of scratching 100% depends on unpleasantness of the itch. The pleasure is fundamentally parasitic on the problem. If you could magically have no-itch state, you would certainly choose that! This reveals that at a meta-level we value the problem-free state more, even if scratch provides a momentary peak experience of pleasure.
Translating this to worldly desires: the model suggests our worldly cravings often work the same way. The pleasure of satisfying a craving (for food, distraction, status, etc.) is often most intense when it relieves a background state of lack, anxiety, or boredom (the ‘sore’). The point is not to never scratch an itch—that’s impractical, the insight is:
To recognize the itch. In other words: is this craving arising from a genuine neutral need or from a background ‘sore’ I’m trying to pacify?
To aim to problem-free state. Prioritizing movement to ‘no sore state’ (by insight, resolution of conflicts, etc.) over optimizing for the most efficient ‘scratching’ routines.
So you point is valid, if we equate ‘pleasure’ with raw hedonic intensity. The model invites us to consider a wider perspective of well-being, where freedom from the need to scratch is superior (if less intensive) outcome.
Scratching the sore: how pleasure relates to suffering
Games as meditation
Does mindfulness meditation lead to awakening?
I also would like to clarify a point about mindfulness meditation and insight practice (vipassana). As they are sometimes mixed together. And while insight practice works, mindfulness, a stripped down version of it, doesn’t.
I’ll start by referencing a paper mentioned in the post, namely “Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity.” [7] There the authors have shown that Theravada monks clearly shut down the DMN by what they call “mindfulness meditation”. And describe three methods of mindfulness meditation: breathing meditation, Choiceless Awareness (the term coined by Krishnamurti Jiddu), and loving-kindness (metta) meditation.
That might confuse things a bit. But let’s look at the basic source for monk’s training—Pali Canon. The basic instruction for insight and concentration practices in the tradition of Theravada is Satipatthana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta which are unfortunately translated as “The Foundations of Mindfulness” and “Mindfulness of Breathing”. The word “sati”, which is translated as “mindfulness”, literally means “recollection”. And it is a term there that is used in developing concentration.
What do those texts say about practice? Is it only recollection of breathing and awareness? No. They are clearly set to contemplate the Four Noble Truths, the Five Hindrances, the Seven Factors for Awakening and so on. So they are loading contradictions in thinking to contemplate upon (e.g. “I suffer” / “Freedom from suffering is the goal”, “I feel desire” / “Desirelessness is the goal”, etc.). I would suggest that those act as koans to contemplate during practice. So both concentration is developed (samatha) and insight is cultivated (vipassana). In one practice!
So what does it say about the monks from the paper? First of all, they have selected monks who are awakened (who can switch off the DMN). Knowing the protocol of their practice they most likely have come to awakening through insight and concentration practices. And after that they can naturally abide in this place by just about any stimuli. But for the monks “mindfulness” means long-long years of vipassana and samatha practices. While for researchers it means the stripped down version of it (without accounting for the details how they reached that state)!
Long story short, mindfulness practice as noticing thoughts and sensations and coming back to awareness on itself seems to be not enough to shut down the DMN. It has to be full scale insight and concentration practices as described in the text (i.e. going through all the truths, factors, contemplating them, releasing attachments, etc.). And that’s what monks from the paper supposedly did.
There is a good video with one illuminating comment (pinned), Does Mindfulness Lead to Persistent Nonduality? In the comment it is said that the traditional vipassana practice by itself has a missing component:
He [the Dalai Lama] essentially gave his blessing to the Goenka retreats but said he felt that there was a missing element. He advised practitioners to look back and try to find the one doing the meditation.
So basically the Dalai Lama recommended self-inquiry practice on top of vipassana.
Why I decided to articulate those nuances? I feel like most of the time people confuse mindfulness meditation with insight practice and do it for years (I did so myself). I hope that clarifies things a bit.
Not necessarily. There are two points of interest here. First, it depends what one means by meditation. If that’s mindfulness meditation, there are studies that have shown that it doesn’t deactivate the DMN. If we add here the fact that some people dedicate 4-8 hours per day to meditation that’s a recipe for disaster as the ruminating network is working all those 4-8 hours under the hood. There is a useful post by Gary Weber, mindfulness meditation—religious vs secular—does it work? - new research that discusses this point.
Second, if the shift has occurred without the proper preparation (i.e. the “I” is not deconstructed enough) or suddenly during the insight practice, the DMN network might try to win control back and there will be a conflict as the DMN is not shut down. That might happen if awakening happens “out of the blue” and the ruminating network is strong. That might even lead to the Dark Night of the Soul. Here is another useful post by Gary, Dark Night of the Soul?...who/why/what to do.
The key point in both is that “I” has to be deconstructed enough, which means one has to learn to shut down the DMN properly. As even after awakening it might cause trouble if one didn’t learn to shut it down. A book by Suzanne Segal, Collision with the Infinite is an example how a person might struggle to integrate awakening after it occurred.
So in the end I would guess (and please keep in mind that it’s a speculation of a layman) that given the proper conditions it’s not meditation itself that causes psychosis but the DMN that is hyperactive. The issue with mindfulness meditation is that it doesn’t address the activity of the DMN.
If you experience it in this way you are already liberated! That’s what Buddhism points to as well.
Oh, no! Reduction is a process in thinking, and transcendence is holistic experiential insight into the nature of suffering’s emptiness (in Buddhist sense). It’s like writing down a formula for coffee and drinking it. One has to transcend suffering first to get what it is all about.
Superficially it is so. But the roots go much deeper. In short, it is the middle way in our tendency to live in absolutes in “something exists” and “nothing exists”, in “everything matters” and “nothing matters”. It is basically mental relativity stressing out interconnectedness of all “things” and their having no sense outside of relations. If you are interested what the middle way is, read my post on emptiness, I tried to express it there as best I could.
For me “free will” never made any sense, and I’ve been observing my thinking since my teens. All I see is the blind intention that is arising out of the blue and then the body acts, and sometimes it acts first and then the intention arises! You no doubt have heard about Libet’s experiments. Ivan Sechenov, a physiologist, also factored out “free will” out of equation.
Concerning the truth. What if the truth of the default state is different from the one of transcendence? Who is the judge of what is true? What I mean, if I’m blind and someone tells me of colors, it will sound gibberish, but if I’m capable to fix my vision, I will get what he was saying all this time. The state of transcendence according to the liberated is similar.
How do you know that?
I would not agree with that as there are states where the concept of “becoming” looses meaning. But in the end run that’s what works for you and how you call that is secondary (although better maps help to navigate the territory in healthier ways).
That’s exactly what it means: going beyond it. As for myself: not only I’m trying constantly, but I’m already sure that “the other shore” exists, it’s not a figment of imagination, liberation is a real deal. And what you imply by super- or less- human is still on the human level. The goal is to go beyond these concepts altogether. It’s exactly to be one with the flow of life. To the point that there is no one, just the flow of life remains.
On the contrary, it’s to be one with life as it goes. Your concept of freedom is somewhat different from mine. You imply that freedom is independence. But that’s not freedom, it’s a fiction (as no one can be truly independent). From my perspective freedom is the freedom from the self, i.e. from the associations that are built with regards to the body as the self, i.e. self-talk, desire, anger, hatred, delusion, etc. That which prevents me complete immersion with life as it is, instead of how I perceive it and regard everything through the prism of my body.
I agreed that it has its place. But still sure it’s not the final solution. It’s like in the metaphor: itching helps with the sore temporarily, but to be without sores is more pleasurable. We prefer the state of being without sores than chronic condition of itching and scratching them, don’t we? The same applies here.
The thing is that they are not essentially multiple. But represent different aspects of the same dynamics: the freedom reflex. Only superficially it seems they are about different things. Virtue is the foundation that helps one to ask deeper questions. And life cannot be integrated until such questions are pondered and resolved. All about the same dynamics.
Again, we have a different understanding of freedom. In my perspective freedom means openness to what is. I believe that’s what Buddhists also pursue. One cannot be outside of relations, but one can get beyond the travails of them. Which basically means to stop self-talk. Not by separating oneself, but by immersing in what is. The constant flow state.
Buddhists exactly say that eventually there is no one to blame for anything, only the set of causes and conditions. But it doesn’t mean one cannot change conditions to more favorable for awakening, and one of the ways is the morality, as it frees the energies which are otherwise dispersed. E.g. to be cunning requires more energy, than to be truthful, etc.
The trouble with it is that comparison operates in thought. Thought is limited by definition and operates by division. When you discover something that is beyond thought, free from thought completely, how will comparison match it? Freedom from thought is possible, it is not a state of zombie but full immersion in what is. Then the baseline will change accordingly (what would one need, if one gets happiness just from being, that lowers the baseline to the ground).
It is possible to reach those states but very-very hard (that’s why so few succeed). You can check the post Myths about Nonduality and Science that explores this question in depth.
You are close to the middle way here…