Church of the Churchless

"The Surprising Allure of Ignorance," an essay by Mark Lilla

My wife subscribes to the print edition of the Sunday New York Times. As I was taking the discarded December 8 edition to our recycling bin, I noticed an essay in the Opinion section, which was on top of the pile, that looked interesting: "The Surprising Allure of Ignorance," by Mark Lilla.

(That's a gift link from my digital New York Times account, so it should be readable by everybody. But I've also copied in Lilla's essay in its entirety below, as it isn't all that long.)

Lilla is a professor of humanities at Columbia University and the author of the forthcoming book “Ignorance and Bliss: On Wanting Not to Know,” which I've gotten but haven't read much of yet.

I liked his entire essay.

My favorite part, though, because it rings so true with my own personal experience, which is decidedly not ego-less, is where he speaks about how we consider our opinions being extensions of ourselves. So when they're attacked by someone with a differing opinion, we take that personally, as if we were being accosted in a dark alley by a would-be thief of our money. 

But it's just our beliefs being attacked. And no one can forcibly remove them from our brain. Well, not without a lot of work, such as torture and psychoactive drugs used by intelligence agencies (I enjoy reading spy novels). In everyday life, we have nothing to fear from our opinions and beliefs being interrogated to see if they hold up under skeptical questioning.

Yet it sure seems like we do.

This appears to be one of the benefits of meditation: not reacting so strongly to discomfort, whether it be physical or psychological. The June 2025 issue of National Geographic had an article, "An Antidote to Stress," about meditation. Here's an excerpt about an experiment that contrasted the pain felt by a group that had gotten mindfulness training and a control group that listened to a "pretty tame" book.

Volunteers who meditated reported feeling less pain. "We see a 33 percent drop in pain intensity and unpleasantness during meditation, while the pain levels in the control group actually go up," Zeidan says.

Why does meditation provide relief? Zeidan says analysis of the meditators' scans showed pain relief induced by meditation was associated with reduced activation in neural networks involved in self-awareness. The greatest decrease in activation is seen in the medial prefrontal cortex -- a neural hub that plays a prominent role in self-reflection and valuing oneself.

"During the meditation, the self-value is deactivating," Zeidan says. "And the more it goes down, the greater the analgesia, the greater the pain relief." Pain signals are still being received by the brain, but "they are not going into the brain networks that are saying, This is my pain," he explains. In essence, mindfulness appears to help detach the self from the suffering.

This is the essay by Mark Lilla. It's encouraging to think that mindfulness meditation may be able to reduce the discomfort we feel when our beliefs are being attacked, allowing us to be more open and welcoming to those who view those beliefs skeptically. 

Aristotle taught that all human beings want to know. Our own experience teaches us that all human beings also want not to know, sometimes fiercely so. This has always been true, but there are certain historical periods when the denial of evident truths seems to be gaining the upper hand, as if some psychological virus were spreading by unknown means, the antidote suddenly powerless. This is one of those periods.

Increasing numbers of people today reject reasoning as a fool’s game that only cloaks the machinations of power. Others think instead that they have a special access to truth that exempts them from questioning, like a draft deferment. Mesmerized crowds follow preposterous prophets, irrational rumors trigger fanatical acts, and magical thinking crowds out common sense and expertise. And to top it off we have elite prophets of ignorance, those learned despisers of learning who idealize “the people” and encourage them to resist doubt and build ramparts around their fixed beliefs.

It is always possible to find proximate historical causes of these surges in the irrational — war, economic collapse, social change. But doing so can distract us from recognizing that the ultimate source lies deeper, in ourselves and in the world itself.

The world is a recalcitrant place, and there are things about it we would prefer not to recognize. Some are uncomfortable truths about ourselves; those are the hardest to accept. Others are truths about the reality around us that, once revealed, steal from us beliefs and feelings that have somehow made our lives better, easier to live — or at least to seem that way. The experience of disenchantment is as painful as it is common, and it is not surprising that a verse from an otherwise forgotten English poem became a common proverb: Ignorance is bliss.

We can all find reasons we and others avoid knowing particular things, and many of those reasons are perfectly rational. A trapeze artist about to climb the pole would be unwise to consult the actuarial table for those in her line of work. Even the question “Do you love me?” should pass through several mental checkpoints before being uttered.

But each of us also has a basic disposition toward knowing, a way of carrying ourselves in the world as experiences come our way. Some people just are naturally curious about how things got to be the way they are. They like puzzles, they like to search things out, they enjoy learning why. Others are indifferent to learning and see no particular advantage to asking questions that seem unnecessary for just carrying on.

And then there are people who, for whatever reason, have developed a particular antipathy toward the search for knowledge, whose inner doors are fastened tight against anything that might cast doubt on what they believe they already know. These attitudes are not limited to the uneducated: We have all also fallen into moods where they emerge in ourselves, however uncharacteristically.

Why does this happen? Because seeking and having knowledge is not just a cognitive pursuit; it is also an emotional experience. The desire to know is exactly that, a desire. And whenever our desires are satisfied or thwarted, our feelings are engaged.

Given how rapidly everything changes in life today, doesn’t it often feel better to rest on our intellectual and moral laurels? Why seek truth if truth will require us to do the hard work of rethinking what we already know? Just as we can develop a love of truth that stirs us within, so, too, we can develop a hatred of truth that fills us with a passionate sense of purpose. There can be a clash of emotions, with the desire to defend our ignorance standing as a powerful adversary to the desire to escape it.

One source of this clash is that we consider our opinions to be an extension of our selves, a prosthetic device. When they are attacked or dismissed, we feel that something intimate has been touched. And when our opinions are shown to be wrong, we feel ashamed. Socrates maintained that there is no shame in being wrong, just in doing wrong. He was right. But it’s not the way we initially feel, especially when someone else exposes our errors.

No argument is disembodied. Behind every assertion there is an asserter, and it is he, not his assertion, who wounds our pride. Strange as it may seem, mathematicians and scientists debating matters at the furthest remove from their daily lives can be as dogmatic and touchy as any political partisan. A new elementary particle has been discovered: Is that one giant leap for mankind or one point for our side?

At some point we all decline the opportunity to discover what really is the case. We willingly give up a shot at learning the truth about the world out of fear that it will expose truths about ourselves, especially our insufficient courage for self-examination. We prefer the illusion of self-reliance and embrace our ignorance for no other reason than it is ours. It doesn’t matter that reliance on false opinion is the worse sort of dependence. It doesn’t matter that through stubbornness we might pass up a chance at happiness. We prefer to go down with the ship rather than have our names scraped off its hull.

So as we shake our heads at those charmed by charlatans and demagogues, let us not exempt ourselves. We all want to know — and want not to know. We accept truth, we resist truth. Back and forth the mind shuttles, playing badminton with itself. But it doesn’t feel like a game. It feels as if our lives are at stake. And they are.

"The Mindful Geek" is a meditation guide for secular skeptics

Do I really need another book about meditation? No, I've got lots of them at the moment and have read many more over the 55 years I've been engaged in daily meditation.

But do I want another book about meditation? Absolutely.

That's why Amazon delivered The Mindful Geek by Michael W. Taft to me recently. I was in the mood for a meditation guide that was based on secular non-religious principles that were in accord with modern neuroscience. Taft has a strong background in various sorts of traditions. His first paragraph is:

From Zen temples in Japan to yogi caves in India, I've been meditating for over thirty years. As a result, I have extensive experience in both Buddhist and Hindu meditation techniques. I started in the late 70s, because I was experiencing so much teenage anxiety. Meditation gave me some relief and I was hooked. In the 1990s, I worked as editorial director for Sounds True, a publishing company specializing in spiritual and psychological teaching programs. While there, I had the good fortune to meet dozens of the most popular and interesting spiritual teachers in the world. I produced their programs, which meant that I got exposed to the workings of dozens of traditions.

Taft starts out by talking about the benefits of mindfulness meditation, then observes:

If you are a card-carrying geek, however, the upside of all these possible benefits may be strongly counterbalanced by the downside of having to deal with religion, spirituality, or other things you may consider nonsense. Mindfulness meditation is mainly associated with Buddhist religion, and for that reason can seem deeply suspect to skeptical, rational people.

I'm here to lay that worry to rest. In my experience, you can get many of the benefits of meditation without joining any religion, going to church, or believing in reincarnation or karma. By treating mindfulness as a scientifically-based psychological technique, you can keep your atheistic or agnostic secular skepticism and still maintain a powerful, regular, and deeply effective meditation practice.

Meditation is really a technology. And like any good technology, if you use it correctly, it will do the job reliably whether you believe in it or not. At its heart, meditation is a technique for hacking the human wetware to improve your life. And this book is a manual for how to make the most of that technology for yourself. Let's look more deeply at what meditation actually is.

The definition of meditation offered by Taft is: a psychological practice which makes the unconscious conscious and which improves life. 

For me, "unconscious" points to that part of the brain which is hidden from conscious view. Taft notes that this is the majority of the brain. So I prefer "unaware," making the definition something like a psychological practice which makes us aware of what we're often unaware of and which improves life. This fits with Taft saying:

What does it mean to make the unconscious conscious? It means that meditation calls your attention to things you wouldn't have noticed otherwise. It gives you insights, in other words... When you use meditation to become more aware of what you're feeling, the unconscious or semi-conscious flavors of emotional experience begin to come into focus.

Speaking of neuroplasticity, the brain's ability to change, Taft says that "all learning is neuroplasticity at work," adding:

It means that you can almost "sculpt" your brain in an intentional and directed manner. Whatever you focus your attention on, regularly over time, will change the brain itself -- physically alter it, some parts becoming larger or smaller -- to get better at processing the thing you're focusing on. Within limitations, you can make the brain you want.

He describes what mindfulness is.

What is the difference between meditation and mindfulness? Why use two different words? In short, mindfulness is a type of meditation, a subset of meditation. Specifically, mindfulness means paying attention to your present moment sensory experience in a nonjudgmental manner. That's the basic definition. 

The way the word is used in modern America, mindfulness not only means to meditate, but can also mean a way of directing attention in everyday life, even when you're not practicing formal meditation. 

"Mindfulness" is the modern American translation of at least two words from the ancient Pali language: vipassana and sati. When we're talking about a type of meditation, mindfulness represents the term vipassana, which actually means "insight" or "clear seeing" in Pali. This technique (really a whole group of techniques) is sometimes called insight meditation or vipassana.

When we're talking about a way of directing attention at any time, during formal meditation or not, mindfulness is the translation of the Pali term sati.  Sati actually means "mindfulness," to pay close attention to what you're doing. To go even deeper, sati literally means "to remember," as in "to remember to pay attention to what you're doing."

I like how Taft points out misconceptions about mindfulness meditation. 

The first is that mindfulness meditation means to "clear your mind" or to "have no thoughts." Nothing could be further from the truth. In mindfulness meditation, it doesn't matter how much thinking is going on during the meditation. It literally doesn't figure into the equation. The goal is not to empty your mind of thoughts; the goal is to pay attention to some aspect of your current sensory experience.

...Remember that there are a lot of different kinds of meditation. And some of these techniques do, in fact, ask you to clear your mind. For some reason, those techniques became one of our cultural images of what meditation is about, and that's unfortunate, because "stopping thinking" is not only very difficult to do, even for an advanced meditator, it's also not all that useful. So just let go of that image completely.

The second misconception is that meditation is something that is supposed to be blissful or pleasurable. The cultural image attached to this idea is that of a yogi seated in full lotus posture, fingers curled into a mudra (gesture) of perfection, face suffused with radiant ecstasy. The process of meditation, in this misconception, involves disappearing into a cloud of bliss.

Again, nothing could be further from the case. Mindfulness meditation involves paying attention to your present moment sensory experience nonjudgmentally. That counts no matter if your present moment sensory experience is painful or pleasant, positive or negative. Rather than acting like Ren wearing the "happy helmet" (from the Ren & Stimpy episode "Stimpy's Invention"), in mindfulness meditation, you welcome whatever experience is arising whether it's "happy, happy, joy, joy" or not.

It's possible to have a perfectly good mindfulness meditation while meditating on the body sensations of a headache, for example, or sitting in line at the DMV. There is no need to invoke, produce, or expect any sort of bliss. If bliss happens, that's fine, but you're not trying for it, and you're not trying to hold onto it if it does arise. That's the nonjudgmental part.

Drone fever and prosperity gospel point to religious myth-making

A couple of news stories I came across today are examples of both the limitations of human reason, and how those limitations help to produce religious myths.

The New York Times had a story about the drone sightings that have gotten lots of people in New Jersey and New York all excited. Everyone should be able to read "How Drone Fever Spread Across New Jersey and Beyond," because I'm a digital New York Times subscriber and am sharing the story as a gift link.

Here's some excerpts:

It was a dry and cool Wednesday evening outside the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, a longtime military installation that once made the bombs and shells that led to victory in World War II. A contractor there knocked off work and decided to wait out rush hour traffic. He picked up some takeout from Wawa, parked outside a nearby wildlife preserve and settled in to watch an episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast on his phone. Then he saw a flash in the side mirror.

A light rising straight up from the tree line and toward the arsenal. He started recording. Could it have been a plane?

Or was it a drone?

And so began what seems to be the origin story of the ongoing drone saga. The contractor called in his sighting to his superiors on Nov. 13, and others followed quickly, first throughout the county, then the rest of New Jersey, then into neighboring states.

Countless people have reported mysterious hovering objects dotting the night skies and posted blurred images — a white light, a black background — on social media. Every day, for weeks. Drones. Drones?

Small drones. Drones big as vans. Blinking, stationary, speeding and zipping and buzzing.

...Was it a foreign government? Our own government? Kids? Visitors from space?

The story grew to consume police departments, sheriffs, the F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, a former reality TV star with a supposed inside line to NASA, mayors, governors, the White House and the president-elect.

But now it appears increasingly likely that if there were any drones at all, it was very few, and that most of the drones people did see — stay with this — were up there looking for the drones people thought they were seeing.

Mounting evidence, and lack thereof, suggests that perhaps the whole craze has been a sort of communal fever dream fueled by crowd mentality, confirmation bias and a general distrust in all things official.

Mass hysteria, by whatever name it is called, is a well-recognized phenomenon. Afflictions can spread in a school system after one child reports some mysterious symptoms. Soon after, many other children claim to have the same health problem. They aren't lying. They're just manifesting a form of social contagion.

In the drone case, conspiracy theories have been thrown around with no evidence to back them up. Whenever government officials reassured residents of New Jersey and New York that there wasn't any reason to be concerned about the drone sightings, this didn't stop the conspiracy theory of a government cover-up, it served to strengthen it.

"Obviously the government is hiding something," went the crazy reasoning, "because they're assuring us that everything is fine." Of course, the more likely explanation for why government officials were saying everything is fine is because everything is fine. 

But simple truth is less interesting than complex myths. The most likely explanation for why there's no compelling evidence for the existence of God is that God doesn't exist. That's not an entertaining explanation, though. So religions use faith as an explanation, saying that God's absence from the world is a test of religious faith.

Belief in an unseen God requires strong faith. If God was obvious, no faith would be required, so religious believers wouldn't need to exercise their faith muscle.

Which brings me to a second story in the Washington Post, "For some Latinos, 'prosperity gospel' led them to Trump." I also am a digital subscriber to this newspaper, so that gift link should be readable by everybody. Excerpt:

The Lehigh Valley Barbershop was bustling with the next generation of American strivers. The mood among the young men, mostly first- or second-generation migrants from the Caribbean, was hopeful. Their candidate, Donald Trump, had just won the presidential election.

Sitting in high-end silver chairs, the young men talked about the businesses they had built, or would build. That would be more possible, they hoped, with the return of Trump, someone to whom they could relate — a businessman who has made mistakes, they said, but still keeps striving.

“Kamala said, 'Trump is for the rich, I fight for the poor.’ But I don’t want to be low-class — I hope that’s not a bad way to say it. But I don’t want to be there,” said Christian Pion, 31, referring to Vice President Kamala Harris. He became a U.S. citizen last year, a decade after coming to the United States from the Dominican Republic, and cast his first presidential ballot for Trump. “God doesn’t want you to be poor.”

Next to him, his best friend, Willy J. Castillo, 39, who owns the shop and others, worked the register as he talked about Trump’s drive to succeed, overcome and survive. Castillo, who also voted for Trump, identifies with that: “The Bible says ‘God helps those who help themselves,’ right?”

The mix of hope, drive for success and belief in a God who rewards faith, sometimes with financial accomplishments, has become dominant across the United States and Latin America, experts on Latino religion say. The belief system is sometimes called “seed faith,” “health and wealth gospel,” or “prosperity gospel.”

In the past half-century, driven by larger-than-life pastors, it has overtaken other more traditional theologies centered on God’s priority being poor and disenfranchised people, some experts said. This belief system, they said, helps explain what exit polls showed was a significant shift among Latino Christian voters to Trump, who they see as an uber-successful, strong and God-focused striver.

What happened to this passage from the Bible? I guess it is no longer operative for believers in the prosperity gospel.

Matthew 19:23-26 King James Version (KJV) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

The most obvious absurdity here is Christians believing that they know what God wants, even though there isn't even any demonstrable evidence that God is real, leaving aside the question of what God values -- which supposedly is making a lot of money.

Another absurdity is related to the familiar adage, correlation is not causation. Meaning, just because two things happen in proximity to each other, doesn't mean that one thing caused the other thing.

In this case, some Christians believe that God wants them to be financially prosperous. They then go and work hard to make money, in part because they feel this pleases God (as well as themselves). But many other people simply work hard to make money, with no belief in God. The Post story says:

The movement started in the United States with healers and televangelists such as Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn, who told followers that giving them money would lead to divine blessings, conjuring a transactional God. By extension, personal wealth was seen as a goal for the faithful. It focused on the power of the self, and the idea that God would reward positivity, hard work and confidence.

Well, positivity, hard work, and confidence typically bring their own rewards, no God required. But just as with the drones, many people prefer a complex myth to simple truth. 

Here's our 2024 Holiday Greetings letter

I'm not a Christian, but I have no problem with saying "Merry Christmas." After all, tomorrow is as much a secular day devoted to giving and receiving presents as it is a celebration of Jesus' supposed birthday.

The problem with this celebration is that it's virtually certain Jesus wasn't born on December 25. Wikipedia says:

In the third century, the precise date of Jesus's birth was a subject of great interest, with early Christian writers suggesting various dates in March, April and May.

Steven Hijmans of the University of Alberta writes that "cosmic symbolism" inspired the Church leadership in Rome to choose 25 December, the Roman date of the winter solstice and the birthday of Sol Invictus ('Invincible Sun'), as the birthday of Christ.

Regardless, my wife and I are pleased to flow with the Christmas river, even though we have no interest in the religious side of this holiday. For me, it's a reason to write an annual Christmas letter, which we prefer to call a Holiday Greetings.

Here's this year's letter in PDF and JPEG formats. Because I've written a Christmas letter since 1995, as documented in my regularly updated Collected Christmas Letters post, I didn't feel like breaking that string this year. I do note in the 2024 letter that I'm feeling increasingly like a soon-to-be-extinct creature. 

Download 2024 Christmas Letter PDF

The greatest sin is certainty

If I believed that the universe communicates with us, I'd view what happened during some television watching a little while ago as being a message to me from the universe. But since I don't have such a belief, I'll go with coincidence.

My last blog post was called "A clear mind sees a foggy world. A foggy mind sees a clear world." I found this wonderful notion in Tim Urban's book, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies. Urban does a masterful job arguing against zealotry, where a person is so sure that a belief they hold is correct, they're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the belief could be wrong.

I mentioned the clear mind/foggy mind adage to a friend today in the course of our usual Sunday get-together at a coffeehouse where we talk politics, sports, television, life in general, and any other subject that comes to mind. I told Jim that after watching a gripping, though rather unrealistic disaster movie (La Palma) on Netflix, now I was going to turn to a higher quality movie, Conclave.

Conclave is about the election of a new pope after the previous pope died unexpectedly. I've just started watching it, so don't spoil my enjoyment of it by mentioning an important plot point in a comment. As I was eating dinner, grilled tofu and mushrooms in a whole wheat tortilla, I watched the beginning of Conclave. 

The actor Ralph Thiennes plays Thomas Cardinal Lawrence, the Dean of the College of Cardinals whose job is to select the next pope. He gives a homily, or short sermon, to the assembled cardinals prior to them beginning the process of choosing a new pope. Lawrence starts with some boring and predictable remarks, then changes gears. 

Here's a two-minute You Tube video of his from-the-heart portion of the sermon, which I like a lot. I've also shared a transcript that I made from the Netflix subtitles. 

Let me speak from the heart for a moment. Saint Paul said, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ." To work together, to, uh, to grow together, we must be tolerant. No one person or - or faction seeking to dominate another.

And speaking to the Ephesians, who were of course a mixture of Jews and gentiles, Paul reminds us that God's gift to the Church is its variety. It is this variety, this diversity of people and views, which gives our Church its strength. 

And over the course of many years in the service of our mother the Church, let me tell you, there is one sin which I have come to fear above all others.

Certainty.

Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance. Even Christ was not certain at the end. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? He cried out in agony at the ninth hour on the cross.

Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery. And therefore no need for faith.

Let is pray that God will grant us a pope who doubts. And let him grant us a pope who sins and asks for forgiveness and who carries on.

Certainty is indeed undesirable, whether we see it as a sin or some secular term.

Certainty eliminates any possibility of taking a scientific view of reality, for science knows that nothing is 100% certain, that even the most well understood laws of nature could prove to be incomplete or even wrong as more evidence about them is gathered.

Certainty precludes our being able to engage in productive discussions with others. Take this blog, for example. I've become a proud atheist after being a religious believer for about 35 years. But I'm not completely certain that God doesn't exist. If someone who believes in God isn't completely certain that God does exist, we can have a reasonable conversation about God, for each of us is at least somewhat open to the other person being correct about God. 

Zealotry requires certainty. A zealot has no doubt that what they believe is absolutely true. Not only does this make them annoying, it also makes them unable to have a reasonable discussion with anyone who doesn't share their certainty. 

Uncertainty is a mark of humility, as is doubt. Uncertainty and doubt point toward mystery, as Cardinal Lawrence says in Conclave. Mystery makes life much more interesting. It opens the door to increased knowledge, while certainty closes the door.

A clear mind sees a foggy world. A foggy mind sees a clear world.

In my previous post I talked about how science is viewed in Tim Urban's creative and engaging book, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies. I've continued reading the book, finding Urban's writing style highly appealing.

Here's a terrific passage that offered up a compelling way of looking upon the difference between a Scientist and a Zealot.

While the Scientist's clear mind sees a foggy world, full of complexity and nuance and messiness, the Zealot's foggy mind shows them a clear, simple world, full of crisp lines and black-and-white distinctions. When you're thinking like a Zealot, you end up in a a totally alternative reality, feeling like you're an omniscient being in total possession of the truth.

As explained in my "Your Higher Mind thinks like a Scientist" post, Urban views the Scientist's dedication to truth as the top rung of how beliefs are formed. Next comes Sports Fan, followed by Attorney, and the bottom rung, Zealot. 

Sports Fan. I was pleased to see this get such a high ranking, as I enjoy sports. I've stopped playing competitive tennis, but I like watching sports on television, primarily college football and baseball. (The University of Oregon has the #1 football team in the country!)

Urban says this about thinking like a Sports Fan.

Most real-life sports fans want the games they watch to be played fairly. They don't want corrupt referees, even if it helps their team win. They place immense value on the integrity of the process itself. It's just...that they really, really want that process to yield a certain outcome. They're not just watching the game -- they're rooting. 

When your Primitive Mind infiltrates your reasoning process, you start thinking the same way. You still believe you're starting at Point A, and you still want Point B to be the truth. But you're not exactly objective about it. Weird things happen to your thinking when the drive for truth is infected by some ulterior motive. Psychologists call it "motivated reasoning."

...Sports Fans are stubborn, but they're not hopeless. The Higher Mind is still a strong presence in their head, and if dissenting evidence is strong enough, the Sports Fan will grudgingly change their mind. Underneath all the haze of cognitive bias, Sports Fans still care mostly about finding the truth.

Drift down any further, though, and you cross the Ladder midpoint and become a different kind of thinker entirely. Down on the low rungs, the Primitive Mind has the edge in the tug-of-war.

Attorney. I've always admired how our legal system is centered around the idea that in a court of law, opposing attorneys will do their best to argue the merits of their client's case, even when the defense attorney seems to be representing an obviously guilty person or entity.

However, when it comes to thinking like an Attorney, there are downsides if our goal is truth. Urban writes:

An Attorney and a Sports Fan have things in common. They're both conflicted between the intellectual values of truth and confirmation. The critical difference is which value, deep down, they hold most sacred. 

A Sports Fan wants to win, but when pushed, cares most about truth. But it's as if an Attorney's job is to win, and nothing can alter their allegiance... When you're thinking like an Attorney, you don't start at Point A at all. You start at Point B. The client is not guilty. Now let's figure out why. 

From there, you'll go through your due diligence, cherry-picking evidence and piecing together an argument that leads right where you want it to. 

...In the hypothesis-testing phase, the Attorney's refusal to genuinely listen to a dissenter, combined with a bag of logical fallacy tricks and their strong sense of conviction, ensures that they're an absolutely infuriating person to argue with.

The Attorney's opponents will feel like they're arguing with a brick wall, and by the end, it'll be clear that nothing they could have said -- nothing whatsoever -- would have made the Attorney say, "Hmm that's a good point. I need to think about that. Maybe I'm wrong."

The result of thinking like an Attorney is that your brain's incredible ability to learn new things is mostly shut down. Even worse, your determination to confirm your existing beliefs leaves you confident about a bunch of things that aren't true.

Zealot. This is the bottom rung of the thinking ladder. "Zealot" often has a religious connotation, for good reason. Some of the most dangerous Zealots have been religious fanatics. But zealotry comes in other forms, such as political. 

Urban says about thinking like a Zealot:

Imagine you've just had your first baby. Super exciting, right? And every day when you look at your baby, you can't believe how cute it is.

This is the relationship Zealots have with their sacred ideas: the ideas aren't rugged experiments to be kicked around, they're fragile, precious babies to be adored and protected.

Just like no parent has to research whether their baby is lovable, the Zealot doesn't have to go from A to B to know their viewpoints are correct -- they just know they are. With 100 percent conviction. 

Likewise with skepticism. If someone told you your actual baby was super cute, you wouldn't assess their credibility, you'd be in automatic full agreement. And if someone told you your baby was an asshole, you wouldn't consider their opinion, you'd just think they were a terrible person.

That's why the Zealot's flip-flop goes from one extreme to the other, with no in-between. When a Zealot hears confirmation, It's obviously true. When a Zealot hears dissent, It's obviously not true. 

When Zealots argue, things can quickly get heated, because for someone who identifies with their ideas, a challenge to those ideas feels like an insult. It feels personally invalidating. A punch landed on a Zealot's idea is a punch landed on their baby. 

When the Primitive Mind is overactive in our heads, it turns us into crazy people. On top of making us think our ideas are babies, it shows us a distorted view of ourselves.

It's easier to see when other people are acting like a Sports Fan, Attorney, or Zealot than when we ourselves are. But with some introspection and being open to how other pe0ple see us, we can spend more time as a Scientist whose focus is centered strongly on truth, and less time on the lower rungs of the thinking ladder.

The way I see it, and I believe Tim Urban has the same viewpoint, we're all prone to thinking like a Scientist, Sports Fan, Attorney, and Zealot at different times and in different circumstances. However, it also seems to be true that each of us has a dominant style of thinking, and it can be difficult for us to recognize when we're not seeking truth, but confirmation of a cherished belief that could be wrong.

Your Higher Mind thinks like a scientist

I've followed Tim Urban and his Wait But Why blog off and on for quite a few years. Not long ago Urban published a book online, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies. I took a look at it, but I much prefer reading print books. Fortunately, Urban eventually came out with a "real" book.

When I got an offer from Urban to buy his book directly from the printer (it's self-published), I did just that. It arrived a few days ago. I'm enjoying it, in part because I like the quirky illustrations crafted by Urban. The book also is on Amazon, for a higher price.

Here's what Urban has to say about the difference between our Higher Mind and Primitive Mind, and how the Scientist is a manifestation of the Higher Mind. You'll see that dissent and skepticism is how the Scientist pursues truth, which is why these are values I promote on this blog and aspire to myself.

Your Higher Mind is aware that humans are often delusional, and it wants you to be not delusional. It sees beliefs as the most recent draft of a work in progress, and as it lives more and learns more, the Higher Mind is always happy to make a revision. Because when beliefs are revised, it's a signal of progress -- of becoming less ignorant, less foolish, less wrong.

Your Primitive Mind disagrees. For your genes, what's important is holding beliefs that generate the best kinds of survival behavior -- whether or not those beliefs are actually true. The Primitive Mind's beliefs are usually installed early on in life, often based on the prevailing beliefs of your family, peer group, or broader community.

The Primitive Mind sees those beliefs as a fundamental part of your identity and a key to remaining in good standing with the community around you. Given all of this, the last thing the Primitive Mind wants is for you to feel humble about your beliefs or interested in revising them. It wants you to treat your beliefs as sacred objects and believe them with conviction.

So the Higher Mind's goal is to get to the truth, while the Primitive Mind's goal is confirmation of its existing beliefs. These two very different types of intellectual motivation exist simultaneously in our heads. This means that our driving intellectual motivation -- and in turn, our thinking process -- varies depending on where we are on the Ladder at any given moment.

In the realm of thinking, then, the Ladder's four rungs correspond to four ways of forming beliefs. When your Higher Mind is running the show, you're up on the top rung, thinking like a Scientist. 

When you're thinking like a Scientist, you start at Point A and follow evidence wherever it takes you...The Scientist's default position on any topic is "I don't know." To advance beyond Point A, they have to put in effort, starting with the first stage: hypothesis formation.

Top-rung thinking forms hypotheses from the bottom up. Rather than adopt the beliefs and assumptions of conventional wisdom, you puzzle together your own ideas, from scratch. This is a three-part process. 

(1) Gather information. When Scientists want to learn something new, they try to soak up a wide variety of information on the topic. The Scientist seeks out ideas across the Idea Spectrum, even those that seem likely to be wrong, because knowing the range of viewpoints that exist about the topic is a key facet of understanding the topic.

(2) Evaluate information. If gathering info is about quantity, evaluating info is about quality. There are instances where a thinker has the time and the means to collect information and evidence directly -- with their own primary observations, or by conducting their own studies. But most of the info we use to inform ourselves is indirect knowledge: knowledge accumulated by others that we import into our minds and adopt as our own.

...That's why perhaps the most important skill of a skilled thinker is knowing when to trust. Trust, when assigned wisely, is an efficient knowledge-acquisition trick... But trust assigned wrongly has the opposite effect. When people trust information to be true that isn't, they end up with the illusion of knowledge -- which is worse than having no knowledge at all.

So skilled thinkers work hard to master the art of skepticism. A thinker who believes everything they hear is too gullible, and their beliefs become packed with a jumble of falsehoods, misconceptions, and contradictions. Someone who trusts no one is overly cynical, even paranoid, and limited to gathering new information only by direct experience. Neither of these fosters much learning.

The Scientist's default skepticism position would be somewhere in between, with a filter just tight enough to consistently identify and weed out bullshit, just open enough to let in the truth.

(3) Puzzle together a hypothesis. ...As the gathering and evaluating processes continue, the Scientist grows more confident in their puzzling. Eventually, they begin to settle on a portion of the Idea Spectrum where they suspect the truth may lie. Their puzzle is finally taking shape -- they have begun to form a hypothesis. 

Imagine I present to you this boxer, and we have this exchange.

You'd think I was insane.

But people do this with ideas all the time. They feel sure they're right about an opinion they've never had to defend -- an opinion that has never stepped into the ring. Scientists know that an untested belief is only a hypothesis -- a boxer with potential, but not a champion of anything. 

So the Scientist starts expressing the idea publicly, in person and online. It's time to see if the little guy can box. In the world of ideas, boxing opponents come in the form of dissent. When the Scientist starts throwing ideas out into the world, the punches pour in. 

Biased reasoning, oversimplification, logical fallacies, and questionable statistics are the weak spots that feisty dissenters look for, and every effective blow landed on the hypothesis helps the Scientist improve their ideas. This is why Scientists actively seek out dissent. 

As organizational psychologist Adam Grant puts it in his book Think Again:

I've noticed a paradox in great scientists and superforecasters: the reason they're so comfortable being wrong is that they're terrified of being wrong. What sets them apart is their time horizon. They're determined to reach the correct answer in the long run, and they know that means they have to be open to stumbling, backtracking, and rerouting in the short run. They shun rose-colored glasses in favor of a sturdy mirror.

...It's a long road to knowledge for the Scientist because truth is hard. It's why scientists say "I don't know" so often. It's why, even after getting to Point B in the learning process, the Scientist applies an asterisk, knowing that all beliefs are subject to being proven wrong by changing times or new evidence.

...When you're thinking like a Scientist -- self-aware, free of bias, unattached to any particular ideas, motivated entirely by truth and continually willing to revise your beliefs -- your brain is a hyper-efficient learning machine.

 

Sabrina Wallace's ("Sheena") connection to a far-out conspiracy theory

I'm sharing this information not because I believe in it, but for other reasons.

(1) The person at the heart of the conspiracy theory is Sabrina Wallace. I've been told by someone who knows her that Sabrina is the "Sheena" who wrote a book about her spiritual experiences in India that included some unflattering references to Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas. (See here, here, here, and here.) 

(2) The person who knows Sabrina said that she now is fine with being identified as "Sheena." Before, she wanted her real name kept confidential. The web page link that was given to me by that person in an email message, Snowdens Phoenix: Sabrina Wallace, contains this cryptic description of Sabrina:

Sabrina worked at CISCO, at the backend of the space force servers and facilitated the shift to broadband. She was responsible for 300000 dollar a minute in case of issues and only one other person in the USA knew what to do. She is from the top end of the spystate, currently in an EMF free zone, 4 clearances over law enforcement (Her authenticity has been background checked multiple times, old handwritten wedding lists of her parents, family photos, etc.).

(3) If that sounds like part of a conspiracy theory, that's because it is. Of course, just because the web page sounds almost completely crazy to me doesn't mean there's no truth to it. I simply strongly suspect that the grains of truth in the Snowdens Phoenix web page are vastly outweighed by the falsehoods. By sharing this information in a blog post, basically I'm crowdsourcing my skepticism for review by others.

I admit that I haven't studied the Snowdens Phoenix web page very closely. I lost interest in it after reading enough to convince me how unlikely it is that the conspiracy theory revelations have any basis in fact.

It's a difficult document to summarize, due to its incoherence. That said, I have to admire whoever wrote this for their dedication to revealing what they must believe is a danger to humanity. There is just enough solid science in the document (neurons in the brain can indeed be activated by a certain type of light, if dyed in a certain way) to give it some credence -- if you put your skeptical mind on hold.

Here's some excerpts to whet your appetite for looking at the whole thing. I've chosen some of the more sensational claims. 

What Sabrina Wallace reveals to us- is nothing short of groundbreaking:

A human bodypart, the bioenergetic field- got purposefully erased from scientific & public discourse, for about 100 years- and is being abused to route data through our body, aided by self assembling biosensors2 in the blood, for the WBAN 802.15.63 (wide body area network). Neural Lace has already been deployed, since 1995 (hydrogel, mesogens, qdots, aluminium, titanium, nickel, cadmium… then GO & other metamaterials, self assembling plasmonic nanorectennas etc.)!

“Sensor hunters” can log in to people, with EEG headsets and controllers, to change biophysical parameters through electromagnetic pulsing, by using the “light frequency” language of our own DNA (photonics): the biophotons from our bioenergetic field.

Companies like your insurance company, can log into your body, abusing the telemetry of your aura/biofield- based on your veins, arteries, chakras, meridians & nodal points. Welcome to remote controlled humans like SIMS.

...The Weaponisation of our bio-electrical field…
…to manipulate our biology, read and write data, interface human brains, cells, tissues, bone marrow.

“I’m not sure if people are grasping the importance of Sabrina Wallace’s information. Her information is consistent with and helps to explain a whole raft of hitherto unexplained or inadequately understood phenomena, including the TI program. 

Here are some of the capabilities of this system, which has been evolving over many decades:

1) Remote covert Transhumanism; the creation of cyborgs/bio-robot slaves, per the original 1952 memo-mandate for CIA’s Project Bluebird, MKULTRA and MONARCH.

2) Life extension technologies, electromagnetic tissue healing and genetic alterations via CRISPR-Cas-9. Now the elite can live forever and everyone else can be “offed” or “cyborged,” as desired.

3) Precision AI-driven Health Care, a cover for the above two operations as well as many others.

4)Electronic/ Information/ Cognitive/Netcentric/ Mosaic Warfare operations.(Thank you Joint Chiefs of Staff and DOD for torturing your own citizens and soldiers via Project MAVEN, Project SALUS, Project Pegasus, and other “Peacetime Operations.”)

5) Telecommunications industry, police, Sheriffs, military, black ops, para-military, civilian groups, Silicon Valley, etc. carry out these (network killing) operations.

6) Bill Gates’ demented 060606 crypto-currency4 to body activity patent of 2020.

7) WEF’s (World Economic Forum’s) “under the skin surveillance” using biosensors, intra-body nano-network, EM frequencies and WBAN, and drones and cube satellites. This is HOW they do it.

8) Mik Anderson and La Quinta Columna’s graphene- and Radio Frequency -supported Intra-body nano-network. The same principle is used in geoengineering and weather warfare: First, add electrically conductive nano-materials into the system (be it human or atmospheric), then second, zap with electromagnetic radiation/frequencies. Now you get to CONTROL the systems.

9) Operation Pegasus: Israeli Defense Forces’ (NRO’s) application of Phoenix(civilian torture-murder) Program to dissidents, journalists, whistleblowers (i.e., the Targeted Individual Program),

10) Operation/Project SALUS: Drones watch everyone think and everyones cells phase and phage states in real time with DoD’s Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System (C2TWS). Project SALUS is watching your biosensors and YOU from the inside out, using your body area network (WBAN). Project SALUS has been around since 1969.

11) The real purpose of the COVID jab (and the creation of COV-BAN) is to get more metamaterials such as graphene into the body, for greater electronic WBAN throughput. (Again, see La Quinta Columnas work and that of Mik Andersen on graphene, self-assembling nano-technology, and intra-body nano-networks.)

12) THE TI PROGRAM involves all of the above and much more. Please study Sabrina’s videos (NonVaxer420 Channel)

13) OPERATION CRESTONE/BACA New age-interfaith religious cum mind/behavioral control experiment in crestone/baca, colorado from the 1980s to present.

If we can help people to understand these technologies and connections, Sabrina Wallace’s information may provide a huge breakthrough. And yet, even this is apparently the tip of a much larger iceberg, that has to do with the creation of a transhuman/ posthuman world. Most of humanity and indeed all the biosphere, could be wiped out and changed to silicon-based EBE’s (engineered biological entities) with these technologies.

Well, though I don't believe 99.9% (at least) of what was said above, the good news for me is that whatever crazy stuff Donald Trump says during the next four years of his presidency, it can't be any crazier than the message of the Snowdens Phoenix web page.

But if anyone wants to argue that this stuff is true, have at it in a comment on this post. Some of the people who visit this blog believe in some really strange things, so maybe this particular strangeness won't seem so weird to them as it does to me.

 

I've had little direct exposure to conspiracy theories. This one is interesting, being so detailed and filled with pseudo-scientific jargon. Of course, maybe that's common with conspiracy theories of this sort. So at least I've gotten some education in that regard. 

 

(Note: if my brain is turned to jelly while I'm sleeping tonight through the remote destruction capabilities of nefarious individuals and agencies made possible by the nanomachinery I ingested through my Covid shots, I'll admit that I was completely wrong about all this. Of course, I'll be dead, hence the need to make this extremely low probability admission now.)

 

Here's a video that supposedly supports some of the contentions made by Snowdens Phoenix. I haven't watched the video. 

Plotinus, a Greek philosopher, spoke a lot about the One

My previous post was about the current guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas referring to oneness, rather than duality, as being a characteristic of God. So much so, the guru, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, says that you can't get to God through meditation if you think that God is there and I am here.

Osho Robbins, who messaged me about Dhillon's remarks, viewed this as being in accord with the teachings of Advaita, an Indian philosophical system centered on the notion of not-two, the meaning of Advaita. Which does indeed sound a lot like One.

However, I believe that Dhillon's discussion of divine oneness is closer to the teachings of Plotinus, a 3rd  century Greek mystic philosopher, than to Advaita. I can claim this with some confidence, because I wrote a book about Plotinus's teachings, Return to the One.

When I wrote the book, I was still an active member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB). It was Dhillon, the RSSB guru, who suggested several names of Western mystics that I could write about on behalf of RSSB. Plotinus was one of those names, obviously the one I chose. I have no idea if Dhillon has read my book, but I had several discussions with him about the book.

Now, before sharing some quotations from Return to the One pertaining to the nature of the One, I want to be clear about this: I have no idea if what Plotinus says about the One (or what Dhillon says about oneness) is objectively true. Meaning, part of the nature of reality. This is different from a subjective sense of oneness -- which almost everyone has from time to time.

Here's what I said about the One on the first page of the Introduction to Return to the One.  The Enneads is Plotinus's collection of writings, which were edited by one of his students, Porphyry.

A central message of the Enneads is that what each of us truly longs for, even if we don't consciously realize it, is to return to the One -- which may be thought of as "God," if this more familiar term for ultimate reality is stripped of its personal or theistic connotations.

The One, for Plotinus, is unequivocally and indisputably one. It is the root of everything in existence, for the One is both the source of being and the ground of being (even though, as we will learn, it also is beyond being). So at a deep, mystical level you are the One, I am the One, this book you are holding is the One, and everything else outside and inside of us is the One.

Why is it, then, that the world appears to be constituted of so many distinct entities? I certainly seem to be separate from you, and you from me. Each of us feels closer to some objects, people, and concepts than to other objects, people, and concepts, but always there remains a gap between one's self and all that is other than one's self.

It is natural to try to bridge this gap because humans have an innate longing for intimacy and union, not isolation and separation. Indeed every urge -- such as to worship, to act rightly, to love, to create, to know -- flows from a primal drive for fulfillment. We want to make whole what has been broken, to find what has been lost, to do what demands to be done, to return from where we have come.

It isn't easy to summarize the means by which Plotinus said it is possible to return to the One, in part because Plotinus was a notoriously difficult-to-understand author. But I attempted to encapsulate his teachings in this regard in a final substantive chapter, Vision is Veracity. Again, I'm struck by how similar Dhillon and Plotinus seem to be. But like I said, this doesn't mean they are objectively correct.

Consciousness is its own confirmation. I may be misled about how real something is within my consciousness, since it is possible to see and hear things that exist only within my own mind. But consciousness itself must be accepted as a given, the bedrock on which stands all else I am and do.

This allows Plotinus to move beyond what the Greek Skeptics considered an impassible barrier to knowing absolute truth: the seeming fact, as Richard Tarnas puts it, "that any conflict between two apparent truths could be settled only by appeal to some criterion; yet that criterion could itself only be justified by appeal to some further criterion, which would thereby require an infinite regress of such criteria, none foundational. 'Nothing is certain, not even that,' said Arcesilaus."

In contrast, Plotinus teaches that the One serves as the immutable foundation of reality. Everything in existence emanates from the One and the human soul is able to return to the One, sharing in a universal consciousness of what is true and eternal. 

This is accomplished not by perceiving the One as something separate from ourselves, for then, as the Skeptics argued, we would indeed need some means of determining whether the object within consciousness was real or unreal, and then need some means of determining the reality of that means, and on and on and on it would go, endlessly seeking validation of the highest truth but never finding it.

Rather, Plotinus says that when the soul is purified its seeing is identical to what is seen. To disbelieve in the sight of God at that point would be to disbelieve in our very seeing, consciousness itself, an impossibility. 

...Plotinus tells us that the means by which we now know the creation must become the end we seek. Like a snake that swallows its own tail, the sage turns his attention back upon the consciousness that usually attends to outer things and thoughts. Uniting within himself the knower and the known, the One is revealed as the ground of the sage's own self. We've seen this quotation before but it is well worth repeating.

We must believe that we have seen him when, suddenly, the soul is filled with light, for this light comes from him and is identical with him... This is the real goal for the soul: to touch and to behold this light itself, by means of itself. She does not wish to see it by some means of some other light; what she wants to see is that light by means of which she is able to see.

...Presently each of us lives in a realm of duality. There is an individual and there are entities other than that individual. It is extremely difficult to break out of this manner of being, even to merely envision the possibility of existing as simultaneously one with ourselves and one with the cosmos. Thus Plotinus warns us not to assume that spirituality can be confined within the bounds of what is familiar.

To be spiritual isn't a matter of moving this way or that along the customary dimensions of everyday life: time and space. We can't know God by becoming as small and insignificant as an atom or by becoming as large and momentous as the universe. Spirit and the One do not lie in a particular direction, nor is divinity realized by having more or less of anything possessed now.

Returning to the One means embracing mystery, cultivating another way of seeing, leaving aside visions and becoming sight.

...There, in the higher reaches of the spiritual world, the light that dazzles the soul doesn't illuminate anything, for manyness has not yet emanated from oneness. Here, we see things that are separate from the light that makes seeing possible. But when all separateness and multiplicity have been eliminated from the soul, what remains is awareness of the conscious power that produces separateness and multiplicity, spirit, the creative energy of the One.

...Becoming the One is the only way of knowing the One.

The RSSB guru appears to be teaching Advaita

Today I got a message from Osho Robbins, which I've shared below. He titled it "Radha Soami guru is teaching Advaita." Advaita can be described simply or complexly. Here's a simple description. 

Advaita is a philosophical and spiritual tradition of self-realization. At the heart of Advaita is the concept of unity. The Sanskrit word Advaita means "not two," or nondual. This philosophy asserts that there is something essentially good, intelligent and awake in each of us—and that something is no different from the essence of this creation.

Advaita’s approach is fundamentally experiential. Deep peace and connection to the love and consciousness that underlies all can be understood and experienced with guidance, practice, and self-examination.

Previously Robbins has shared his views on this blog about how the teachings of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, a guru-centered religious organization headquartered in India that I belonged to for 35 years, have been updated by the current guru (Gurinder Singh Dhillon) to Versions 2.0 and maybe even 3.0.

Here's how I summarized the differences between Versions 1.0 and 2.0. Sant Mat is another term for the RSSB teachings.

Sant Mat v. 1.0
--The guru is God in human form
--The guru is perfect, possessing God’s divine qualities
--God has chosen certain souls to return to Him
--God delegates the guru to initiate these “marked souls”
--Without initiation by a perfect guru, God-realization is impossible

Sant Mat v. 2.0
--The guru is a human who is seeking God, just like us
--The guru is imperfect, just like us
--Whether we want to pursue God-realization is up to us
--The guru is a spiritual guide, not a savior
--There are many paths to God, not just Sant Mat

Five years later, I wondered if the RSSB guru had moved to Version 3.0, quoting someone who is familiar with what Dhillon has been saying in his talks.

I was at the national satsang [gathering of disciples] in the UK last weekend. Gurinder has changed from the old days. His teachings are going through a noticeable change - and so is he himself.

What I noticed is that
(1) He talks a lot about The ONE
(2) He laughs and jokes a lot
(3) He tells people not to be so serious
(4) He tells them that the master will not come at the time of death - that they have mis-understood the teachings. Just as it does not take four lifetimes.
(5) He says there are no regions - that Sach Khand does not exist - neither does Sat Purush. He says they are levels of consciousness

He says the purpose is to REALIZE that there is only the ONE - and that we are caught in maya - duality.

Having the darshan of the physical master is not even mentioned anymore. He says seva will not help you make any progress - it simply makes you humble if done correctly. There is no spiritual merit.

You will NOT be able to succeed through meditation. Meditation is just to make you give up. You can never get there through your efforts.

Now these kind of teachings have never been given before in rssb.

With that background for those unfamiliar with the RSSB teachings and how they appear to have changed under the leadership of the current guru, here's the message from Robbins. Sach Khand is basically heaven in the traditional Sant Mat teachings. Seva means volunteer service. GSD means Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the RSSB guru.

Hi Brian, I just uploaded this video:

I am just pointing out that the Radha Soami Guru is saying THERE IS ONLY ONE - no separate soul. He also says "You will never get to God through meditation as long as you think of it as duality - I am here - God is there."

 

Now in the old days, others would object and say I have misunderstood. However, now the videos are on YouTube. Now there can be no doubt about what He has said

 

So another strange phenomena happens now. Satsangis DISAGREE with the Guru - they say he is just pretending.

 

He has said many times "I am not coming at your death" because obviously there is nobody that can come and nowhere to take the soul.

 

There is no Sach Khand.

 

My conversation with Him back around the year 2000 (early days).

 

Me: My God is here!

GSD: My God is also here.

Me: No, the God of RadhaSoami resides in Sach Khand - the fifth region.

The soul has to go through four regions to reach Sach Khand and meet Sat Purush.

GSD: There are NO REGIONS - it was just a way of explaining. They are levels of awareness.

Me: But the books explain... in detail...

GSD:  Burn the books.

Audience member: Turn off his mic.

GSD: Then turn my mic off too. 

 

What all this shows is that the Guru does advocate the non-dual path.

 

However, he has inherited a duality path and cannot just transition to non-duality without objections from followers.

 

He used to say "I am not coming at your death" but followers were offended, so after a while he changed it to:

 

"The Guru does not come - GOD himself comes...He comes for EVERYONE - not just satsangis...and He is also here NOW - the question is do you recognize Him?"

 

This is just a way of saying ONENESS - non-duality. Without spelling it out.

He still says "meditate" because that is his method of getting people to be serious about God-Realisation. He also adds "You will not reach through meditation..."

 

The obvious question is "Why meditate then?" But nobody asks that question.

 

He says "Just do - don't count..." but that is impossible. Nobody can do that unless they are already beyond duality.

 

Whatever we do - the counting comes first. The motivation comes first - then the action. If the motivation is gone - the action will not take place.

 

You go to work because you will get paid at the end of the week. No pay - no work.

 

Seva is an attempt to do the impossible. Do seva, for no reward. But it's not what is really happening. The reward is just hidden. The hidden reward is "I get promoted to a higher seva position. OR Guru is watching and giving me the credit OR I can't meditate - so I'll do seva instead." The counting is still there.

 

If there is no benefit - nobody will do the seva.

 

How do most of the followers take all this? Their conclusion:

 

The Guru IS coming at death - he is just saying he won't come to make me meditate - but he will definitely come anyway. So they remain in duality and cannot even understand ONENESS. ALL they have is belief and they think that ONENESS is just another belief.

 

Chances of getting realized: zero

 

Osho Robbins

Robbins told me which Radha Soami Satsang Beas video on the RSSB YouTube channel contained the question for Gurinder Singh Dhillon that he shared in his own video. Here's that video. I made it start at the second question in the Q&A session, the one Robbins shared in part. The entire question and answer is worth watching as it gives additional context for the guru's remarks.

Meditators need to avoid mistaking subtle dullness for meditative joy

As noted in a previous post, I've been re-reading the first part of a book by Culadasa (John Yates), The Mind Illuminated: A Complete Meditation Guide Integrating Buddhist Wisdom and Brain Science for Greater Mindfulness. 

I'm almost back to where I stopped my reading about six years ago for a reason I can no longer recall. The book is an amazingly detailed and comprehensive approach to Buddhist meditation. I find it refreshing, because there's hardly any mention of Buddhist scriptures, Buddhist terms, or Buddhist stories. 

The whole focus is on guiding the reader through ten stages of meditative practice. So far I've read about  the first five, each of which I'm fairly competent at. Which shouldn't be surprising, since I've been meditating every day for about 55 years.

Stage One: Establishing a Practice
Stage Two: Interrupted Attention and Overcoming Mind-Wandering
Stage Three: Extended Continuity of Attention and Overcoming Forgetting
Stage Four: Continuous Attention and Overcoming Gross Distraction and Strong Dullness
Stage Five: Overcoming Subtle Dullness and Increasing Mindfulness

There's also Interludes in-between some of the stages where Culadasa discusses general principles that apply to various stages. I've read these.

First Interlude: Conscious Experience and the Objectives of Meditation
Second Interlude: The Hindrances and Problems
Third Interlude: How Mindfulness Works
Fourth Interlude: The Moments of Consciousness Model

I find the discussion on dullness both interesting and helpful. Here's how strong dullness is described.

Dullness occurs when we turn the mind inward, which reduces the constant flow of thoughts and sensations that usually keep the mind energized and alert. Therefore, the overall energy level of the mind drops. With less stimulation, the brain winds down toward sleep, and the mind grows dull. This normally happens when we're fatigued or at bedtime.

In meditation, it's not just turning inward that decreases mental energy, but when we focus on the breath too intensely and for too long, we are also excluding the thoughts and sensations that usually keep the mind alert. This is another reason why "looking beyond" the meditation object with peripheral awareness is so important. When we stay aware of things in the background, we continue to stimulate brain activity and won't sink into dullness.

This helps explain why some meditators practice with their eyes open, and why it isn't important to block out noises, like in my case, the sound of our heat pump blowing air into the room or a dryer/washing machine operating in the nearby utility room. When I'm meditating, those sounds are part of my peripheral (background) awareness, while my main focus is on my breath.

Subtle dullness is, not surprisingly, not as easy to recognize as strong dullness. That makes it more difficult to deal with. This is discussed in the Stage Five chapter.

This new level of stable attention is precisely what makes us more vulnerable to slipping into a deeper state of sustained subtle dullness. That's because the mental agitation that stimulated the mind and helped keep us awake in the earlier Stages has subsided. As subtle dullness deepens, it causes both peripheral awareness and subtle distractions to fade. 

If we don't recognize this as a sign of subtle dullness, it can easily be mistaken for the strong exclusive focus of Stage Six. The pleasant feelings that accompany subtle dullness can also be misinterpreted as first signs of the meditative joy of advanced stages. Without guidance, meditators often confuse a deeper state of subtle dullness with having achieved the more lofty states of later Stages.

We can sustain this type of subtle dullness for very long periods. It's often described in these kinds of terms: "My concentration was so deep, an hour seemed like only minutes." Or, "I don't know where I went, but I was just gone, and felt so peaceful and happy." 

When the pleasure of dullness is particularly strong and our peripheral awareness of thoughts and sensations fades completely, our meditation can even seem to fit the description of a meditative absorption (jhana). We can quickly get attached to such experiences, prizing them as proof of our meditative skills. Yet, relative to the practice goals in this book, they are complete dead ends. It's crucial we learn to recognize and overcome subtle dullness to progress in your practice. Therefore, do not skip this Stage!

...At first, it may be difficult to distinguish between the wholesome pleasure of stable attention and the pleasure of subtle dullness, but in time, you will recognize the warm, soft, quiet pleasure of subtle dullness as something quite different from the bright, alert enjoyment of being in the flow of mindfulness.

There are various ways to detect and combat subtle dullness. Here's a couple of them.

Remember, dullness arises when perceiving moments of consciousness become non-perceiving mind moments. A strong intention to perceive actually reverses this process by producing more perceiving moments of consciousness. By just setting the intention to observe the breath clearly and vividly while sustaining introspective awareness, you directly influence the root cause of dullness.

Sharpen up your observation of the meditation object when you notice a decrease in the quality of awareness and attention. Use the techniques of following and connecting. Follow the sensations of the breath while intending to perceive the details as clearly and vividly as possible. It's especially important to connect changes in the breath with the degree of alertness or dullness of the mind.

When you're more alert, does the breath tend to be deeper or shallower, longer or shorter, and how do the pauses change? What about when you're dull?

Another way to counter subtle dullness is by expanding the scope of your attention to include the sensations of the body. This works to energize the mind because we automatically use more conscious power to observe sensations in a larger area. You will even find that your scope of attention tends to spontaneously expand at this Stage. 

For instance, you might find yourself observing the sensations of the breath in both the chest and abdomen when you were intending to focus only on the nose.

...You've mastered this Stage when you're able to consistently sustain a high level of intense and clear perception -- of both attention and introspective awareness -- during most or all of your session. 

Attention will gain intensity, making all the details of the meditation object quite vivid. It will also gain in clarity, so you experience the actual arising and passing away of individual breath sensations.

Your brain has three gears. Gear 2 is the best.

Buddhism has the middle way. There's a saying, "Everything in moderation." The fable of Goldilocks and the Three Bears involves three choices where "the first is wrong in one way, the second in another or opposite way, and only the third, in the middle, is just right."

So it isn't surprising that, according to a recent article in New Scientist, Take control of your brain's master switch to optimize how you think, the human brain has three gears that are coordinated by a small bundle of cells called the locus coeruleus, Latin for 'blue dot."
Download Take control of your brain's master switch to optimise how you think | New Scientist

This research has now reached a critical mass, with multiple scientific papers calling for a greater appreciation of the locus coeruleus. Of particular interest is the discovery that it has four different modes of activity, each with distinct effects on our thinking and behaviour. It is this that led Storoni to describe the blue dot as the brain’s “gear system” in her new book Hyperefficient: Optimise your brain to transform the way you work.

According to this metaphor, Gear 0 is the state of the locus coeruleus when you are asleep. It is almost completely silent at this point, apart from transient bursts of activity that seem to enhance the long-term storage of memories.

,,,Once we awaken, the locus coeruleus moves into Gear 1 – a low hum of baseline activity. The noradrenaline eases the brain into consciousness, but it is a state of low arousal. As a result, sharp focus is lacking and we may be prone to mind-wandering.

As levels of noradrenaline increase, communication across the different regions of the brain becomes easier. Neurons in the prefrontal cortex, the area typically associated with self-control and abstract reasoning, respond first because they are sensitive to low levels of noradrenaline. Crucially, the hum of activity in the locus coeruleus is now accompanied by spikes of noradrenaline released in response to relevant stimuli.

This combination of moderate baseline activity and short-lived bursts of neurotransmitter release is characteristic of Gear 2 and allows the brain to process new information more efficiently. If they are large enough, these spikes can trigger a “network reset” – a shift in focus to new and important information – which is essential for flexible thinking. “It reorganises the forebrain, precisely at the moment when you need to switch your attention and adapt your behaviour,” says Sara.

Problems may arise when the hum turns to a roar. This is what happens in Gear 3. Here, high levels of noradrenaline streaming from the locus coeruleus can activate areas of the brain associated with emotional processing. These tend to have receptors that respond only when concentrations of the neurotransmitter have reached a higher threshold.

This can lead to the fight-or-flight response – useful if we are in danger and need to be hyperalert. Unfortunately, many situations that don’t involve danger, such as pressure at work, can also put the locus coeruleus into its top gear. We may then feel overwhelmed when what we need is greater focus.

In people with anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, the locus coeruleus may become too easily locked into the high-arousal mode of Gear 3. “We know that there is increasing release of norepinephrine, both in wakefulness and sleep, in patients suffering from PTSD,” says Sara.

...Given these findings, many neuroscientists now consider moderate locus coeruleus activity – that is, Gear 2 – to be key to optimum cognitive performance, a sweet spot between dreamy and frantic. “It’s when the prefrontal cortex is completely engaged and working at its best,” says Storoni.

So how do we get our brain to spend more time in Gear 2, which is associated with the pleasant "flow state" marked by being totally engaged in a task and losing track of time? The article contains some tips.

Flow occurs when you engage in an activity that is just challenging enough for you. So choosing the right task difficulty may be one way to change mental gears and harness the power of the locus coeruleus. Shine also points to evidence that practices like meditation can enhance overall focus and emotional regulation. “I think of it as a way of training the arousal system – which the locus coeruleus is a part of – so that you have much more conscious control in everyday life,” he says.

Another strategy is to make the most of the mind-body connection. Storoni says the locus coeruleus has a direct relationship with the autonomic nervous system, which regulates things like our heart rate and breathing. This means physical movement can influence its gearing. For instance, light exercise – such as a brisk walk – in the early morning can move us from Gear 1 to Gear 2. To wind down from Gear 3, meanwhile, we might engage in yoga and controlled breathing.

...We might also reconsider the way we manage our work. Monotonous or boring tasks can shift us down into Gear 1, for example, so that we lose focus and begin daydreaming. Here, the solution involves increasing mental load. “Perhaps by doing something in parallel, a form of multitasking,” says Storoni. Listening to music is one option, but sometimes you may need something that requires more concentration, such as an audiobook. With intense work, we face the opposite problem: the brain can only spend so much time in Gear 2 before it starts feeling fatigue. That’s why we should arrange regular breaks.

...But simply knowing about your brain’s gears can make a difference. The key is self awareness: noting when your brain is under- or overstimulated and adapting your behaviour appropriately. It may have taken more than two centuries, but it is time we all learned to respect our little blue dot.

Doty's book, Mind Magic, made sense to me. With one glaring exception.

Well, today I finished reading James Doty's book, Mind Magic: The Neuroscience of Manifestation and How It Changes Everything. I started off liking the book more than how I ended up liking it. 

The general thrust of Mind Magic is hard to argue with. The human mind is like an iceberg: the conscious tip, which we're aware of, is much smaller than the subconscious bulk, which we aren't aware of.

Yet thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and such mostly bubble up from the subconscious rather than our conscious awareness. We all are familiar with thoughts that appear unbidden and depart without a conscious goodbye. Emotions, even more so.

Still, the conscious aspect of us is important, obviously. Leaving aside the question of whether we have free will (Doty says it doesn't really matter if we do), every experience, whether it be conscious or subconscious, has an impact on us.

This means that we can influence how the subconscious operates through our conscious thoughts, visualizations, intentions, and goals. In this way our mind can become attuned to facilitating what we want to have happen. 

In my first post about the book, I shared a passage from the introduction that summarized the Mind Magic approach.

There is much confusion about manifestation in popular culture, so before I go any further, here is what I mean by the term: manifesting is defining an intention such that it gets embedded into our subconscious, which functions below the level of consciousness. By doing so, we activate brain networks associated with goal orientation that make an intention important, salient, or noteworthy.

In practice, this means that regardless of whether or not that intention is present on a conscious level, brain mechanisms that remain focused on the goal are activated around the clock. Our inner intention now guides our life. By using our inner power to tap the vast resources of our own brain, we gradually decrease the impact of our external environment and begin living from our deepest intentions.

In fact, the first step in successfully manifesting is to separate yourself from the belief that there is an external source for solving your problems and that this external source is what is manifesting in your life. If you want to live a rich, meaningful, and prosperous life, you do not have to appease any power beyond yourself.

I really liked what Doty said here, including how he began his book.

THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU.

It may not sound like it, but this is good news. The universe doesn't give a fuck about you, not because you are not worthy or are out of alignment with the cosmos or have been put under a curse for ten generations. No, the universe doesn't give a fuck about you because it has no fucks to give.

Many of us are taught to spend our lives hoping for something outside of ourselves to fix our problems and make us whole: a winning lottery ticket, a wise guide who knows all the answers, a guru, a guardian angel, or some magical being, force, energy, or genie sitting out there in the universe who will make everything work out for us. For years I longed to believe this, too.

I thought there was a stern cosmic parent tracking all our actions and deciding if we were worthy to receive our dream house or to meet our soulmate or to be cured of cancer. As a neuroscientist and physician, I know today that we have no proof of such a force or being but we have a great deal of scientific evidence of the power of our own minds to produce changes in our lives that may at first appear impossible. This is the practice of manifestation. 

However, I got the feeling after reading the final chapters that either Doty decided to alter the message of the universe not giving a fuck about us, or an editor of his publisher advised he do this, since manifesting is a trendy topic and likely most of those interested in this subject believe that, as in The Secret, the universe actually does bring us what we desire if we approach the "I do give a fuck about you" universe in the correct way.

The best example of this in Mind Magic is in the final chapter before the conclusion, "Step Six: Release Expectations and Open to Magic."

Doty describes the tale of Lynne Twist, an executive for the Hunger Project, who took a trip to Guatemala and  "had an extraordinary experience, led by a shaman in the mountains" that led her to feel she should "devote her energies to the project of protecting the Sacred Headwaters and its Indigenous people."

Soon after, Doty says, Twist received a gift.

"It sounds terrible," she says, "but the gift I received from the universe was malaria." In fact, there were two strains of it at once, one from India and the other from Ethiopia.

For many months she couldn't do her Hunger Project job. When she got better, she realized that she didn't need to go back to that job.

As Lynne describes it, the mystical power of the rainforest and the power of the Indigenous people's voices drew her toward them, and the seduction of the natural world became almost an obsession... "I believe the circumstances of my illness arranged themselves to ensure this huge life pivot or reallocation of who I am and what I was about."

Doty says:

This is indeed a subtle practice, because part of the power of the manifesting techniques is to ground our intention in highly specific and emotionally coded visualizations. However, we have to remember that the high level of detail in our visualizations is for classifying our intention as important within the subconscious, not for actually exerting influence on our external world.

In other words, holding a powerfully imagined and emotionally resonant vision of our intention in our minds allows our subconscious to guide our activity, but the results of that activity come from the world around us and what it needs... The reality is that we rarely need to know exactly how our intention will be realized or how we will reach our destination. We only need to look for the next right step.

Now, I readily admit that these passages are much less objectionable than the craziness of The Secret, which did indeed claim that thoughts alone can change the objective circumstances of one's life. All I'm pointing out is that Doty is skating on the edge of the universe responding to our intentions, though he doesn't quite go that far.

I did end up with quite a few question marks penned in the margin of that final chapter. Also, in the Conclusion, where Doty writes:

In my life, I have experienced the power of manifesting in ways that I cannot explain. When I first began the practice, I devoted all my energy and attention and heart to making sure my family's rent was paid so that we would not be evicted from our apartment. Out of the blue, a man who owed my father for a job showed up at our door and handed me an envelope full of money -- enough to pay our rent with plenty left over for food.

I remember the excitement and joy I felt as I rushed as fast as I could on my bike, with tears in my eyes, to share the news with Ruth. That was my first taste of the true power of the practice. From a neuroscience point of view, I cannot say how I influenced the situation, but the wonder I felt laid the foundation for my belief in manifesting.

Since then, I have had countless similar experiences that may defy scientific logic but nonetheless speak to the inner power of setting an intention in the heart and mind.

To me it isn't a good sign when an author uses the phrase "that may deny scientific logic" in a book whose subtitle says "the neuroscience of manifestation." But I liked the final paragraph of the book, though it seems to be somewhat at odds with what Doty said above.

Lying back and taking in the beauty, abundance, and connection in my life, I remember the good news: it is the realization that the universe isn't separate from you but that you are the universe, and it is only you who can give a fuck. It is only you that can harness the power within yourself. And that is the real magic.

Learning new skills is key to improving both mind and body

Like most people, I'm a big believer in improving my skills. This is such an obvious thing to do, it hardly bears mentioning. But I feel like I need to stress the obvious, because some visitors to this blog seem to view spirituality as a "one and done" sort of thing. 

Meaning, you find a religion, meditation technique, mystical path, or whatever that suits you, and you stick with that approach with no modifications for the rest of your life. Yeah, I realize this sounds ridiculous, and it is. Yet I've encountered people who actually seem to believe it's the way to go.

Which goes against how we deal with just about every other activity of mind or body. 

I started playing tennis at a young age, twelve or so. I played competitively into my 30s. I never stopped trying to improve my game: taking lessons, trying new racquets, stringing racquets at various tensions, hitting balls against a backboard.

I began learning Tai Chi in 2005. Nineteen years later, I'm way past being a beginner. My Tai Chi instructor, even more so. Yet my instructor is continually teaching new techniques. Naturally they become subtler since almost everyone in our classes is well versed in the basics of Tai Chi. There's always something more to learn about Tai Chi, though.

When it comes to meditation, I've meditated daily for about 55 years. Just as with tennis and Tai Chi, I'm always open to fresh ideas about how to make my meditation more pleasant and fulfilling. That's why I like to read new books about meditation and mindfulness, along with re-reading old books -- since I've found that as I change over the years, how I look upon a meditation/mindfulness book will change also.

Teachers are helpful in improving skills, whether they be an actual person or a virtual person (book, video, web site, etc.). I've never agreed 100% with any teacher I've had. All I look for in a teacher is the ability to help me learn something new. They always will look upon some things differently than I do, so I pick and choose what I accept from a teacher and what I reject.

For example, I'm enjoying James Doty's book, Mind Magic: The Neuroscience of Manifestation and How It Changes Everything. However, some of what he says doesn't resonate with me, either because Doty is wrong, or he's right and I don't understand what he's getting at.

Doty speaks about synchronicity being a way for us to manifest what we desire through unexpected connections that arise in our life.

Okay, we've all experienced amazing coincidences that can seem as if the universe is sending a message to us. That's possible, though unlikely. Given how many happenings there are every day in everybody's life, coincidences and synchronicity are going to occur once in a while just by chance, like rolling a pair of dice and getting two sixes five times in a row.

Yesterday I stopped by our bank to deposit a check. I wanted to get that errand done as quickly as possible, since I needed to go grocery shopping afterwards and then walk our dog before it got dark, which happens pretty early this time of the year in Oregon.

I had to wait a while before a teller was free. I got a woman who I'd noticed had spent quite a bit of time with a previous customer. That transaction required the assistance of a supervisor. When I was called to her station, I was mildly irked at having to wait so long. I handed her a deposit slip and a check, but she asked, "What do you need to do?"

"A deposit," I said, "I just gave it to you." "Anything else?" "No." She then fiddled with her terminal before asking me for my I.D. I dug out my drivers license, gave it to her, and said, "Why do you need I.D.? I've been banking here for a long time." "Because I'm new and don't know you."

That changed everything. Now I knew why she was taking so long to help customers. She needed assistance from a supervisor to do my transaction, but that didn't bother me after I realized she was learning on the job. 

After going grocery shopping at a couple of stores, I decided to get a grande decaf nonfat vanilla latte at the Starbucks within the south Salem Fred Meyer store. The barista, an older man, needed me to repeat my order several times before he got it right on the terminal. Eventually he had to call another barista over to show him where "vanilla" was on the screen.

This was fine with me, as I'd noticed that he had to use a "cheat sheet" of how to make Starbucks drinks with the customer ahead of me. Meaning, he also was learning his job. This is rare for me, encountering someone who is new at their job. Yet it happened twice in the space of an hour or so.

Doty might say that was synchronicity, that I needed to learn something about patience and compassion for slow employees. However, I just see it as a coincidence. Regardless, I learned something about myself. Next time I won't be so quick to get irritated at an employee who takes extra time to do something for me.

That's all we can hope for from life. Learning. Becoming more skilled. Having more compassion and love. As my fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Marshall, was fond of saying, "Do your best. Angels can do no better." 

Mindfulness is focused attention plus peripheral awareness

In December 2018, six years ago, I wrote what seems to be my first (and only) post about a book I'd just started reading, The Mind Illuminated: A Complete Meditation Guide Integrating Buddhist Wisdom and Brain Science for Greater Mindfulness.

A few days ago something spurred me to pluck the book from a bookshelf where it had been languishing after I'd read about half of the 415 pages, then put it aside.

I decided to re-read it, since the book methodically describes ten stages of Buddhist meditation and I wanted to start at the beginning rather than jump right into Stage Six, where is where I left off. 

I liked the book before, and I'm liking it now. The author, John Yates, who also goes by Culadasa, is deeply versed in what meditation is all about, and has a knack for describing meditation in a manner that is clear, creative, and compelling. 

In my 2018 post, I noted how the book's discussion of attention and awareness makes a lot of sense. Both are necessary in both everyday life and meditation. (RSSB refers to the India-based religious organization I was a member of for 35 years, Radha Soami Satsang Beas.)

In my reading this morning I was struck by the wisdom of clearly distinguishing attention from awareness. A Glossary in the back of the book defines these terms.

Attention: The cognitive ability to select and analyze specific information and ignore other information arising from a vast field of internal and external stimuli. Attention is one of two forms of conscious awareness. Peripheral awareness is the second: we pay attention to some things, while simultaneously being aware of, but not attending to, others. 

Awareness: As used in this book, awareness always has the same meaning as peripheral awareness. It never means attention, nor does it refer to covert or non-conscious awareness. 

Any meditation approach that doesn't combine the benefits of attention and awareness is like a bird trying to fly with one wing. Both are needed. When we drive a car, we can't focus all of our attention on staying in our lane and keeping a safe distance from the car ahead of us. 

We've got to have peripheral awareness also. What if a car unexpectedly runs a stop light at an intersection? What if a child chasing a ball runs into the road? There are so many things we need to be aware of, other than what our primary focus is.

This is why mantra meditation, where a word or words is repeated (usually soundlessly) as a focus of attention, is very limited. Repeating a mantra was emphasized by the RSSB teachings that I followed for so many years. And not only during the time of meditation, but as much as possible throughout the rest of the day.

I eventually realized that this had some major drawbacks.

I found that when I put too much attention on the mantra, I distanced myself from the reality of what was around me. Like, the person I was talking with, or nature, if I was out on a walk. I also observed that many RSSB devotees acted a lot like robots, lacking spontaneity, naturalness, social awareness. 

They were so focused on keeping their attention from scattering out into the world, they were clueless about what was happening in the world -- the exact opposite of mindfulness, which requires a wise balancing of attention and awareness. There's a time to be focused on one thing, and there's a time to be aware of the entirety of what surrounds us.

Since recently I've been reading and writing about a couple of books aimed at making the reader better able to manifest their goals, with each book emphasizing the importance of positivity in our affirmations, visualizations, and such, I was struck by how The Mind Illuminated echoes that advice in a chapter I re-read today. 

Here Yates is discussing the process of (1) forgetting the meditation goal of focusing attention on the breath at the nose, (2) engaging in some mind-wandering, and (3) waking up again to the goal of focusing attention on the breath at the nose.

Awakening to the present is an important opportunity to understand and appreciate how your mind works. You've just had a minor epiphany, an "aha!" moment of realizing there's a disconnect between what you're doing (thinking about something else) and what you intended to do (watch the breath).

But this wasn't something you did. Nor can you voluntarily make it happen. The process that discovered this disconnect isn't under your conscious control. It happens unconsciously, but when the "findings" become conscious, you have an "aha!" moment of introspective awareness.

The way to overcome mind-wandering is by training this unconscious process to make the discovery and bring it into consciousness sooner and more often. Yet, how do you train something that happens unconsciously?

Simply take a moment to enjoy and appreciate "waking up" from mind-wandering. Savor the sense of being more fully conscious and present. Cherish your epiphany and encourage yourself to have more of them. 

Conscious intention and affirmation powerfully influence our unconscious processes. By valuing this moment, you're training the mind through positive reinforcement to wake you up more quickly in the future.

Also, avoid becoming annoyed or self-critical about mind-wandering. It doesn't matter that your mind wandered. What's important is that you realized it. To become annoyed or self-critical in the "aha!" moment will slow down your progress.

You can't scold the mind into changing, especially when dealing with entrenched mental patterns like forgetting and mind-wandering. It's like telling your unconscious you don't want to have the mind-wandering interrupted. If negative emotions do arise, simply notice them and let them come, let them be, and let them go. 

It's like training a pet. Consistent, immediate positive reinforcement of behaviors we want will be far more effective than punishing behaviors we don't.