Ep213: Mind the Hype - Dr Nicholas Van Dam & Chelsey Fasano

[@PuggiTheGreat]

As a life long Buddhist I'd say the Wellness Industry has barstadised mindfulness and ignores problems that may arise during it's practise. Wilful ignorance for profit....Oh, an honest conversation well overdue. Thanks to all concerned.

[@NasserSharaf]

Frankly this felt more like a lecture rather than a discussion. Dr. Van Dam barely took a breath between sentences and it would have been more enjoyable and interesting to hear more from Chelsey Fasano. Maybe better moderation next time.

[@marioalejandrosandovalcarr4499]

Could not agree more.

[@SeanPalmerLOFI]

If anybody could use some mindfulness it’s that guy. Sages warn of having plenty of knowledge about the experience and little practice or devotion to it. Words are symbols for meaning. Data is a symbol of experience. Less talking more walking I’d say.

[@amaryllisequistra]

While I agree with the substance of the paper being discussed, I was confused about Chelsea’s presence, because she didn’t get much of a chance to say anything. Also, the harms of meditation (which I am academically very familiar with) were mentioned several times, but there was no discussion about what they were. A newer mediator would likely find this information very helpful.

[@AngelRPuente]

This interview deserves careful listening to. It addresses the pitfalls of scientific research as well as the state of meditation practice in the traditions. Fasano's " cake" analogy is interesting. Given that the main source of " mindfulness" is Buddhism, shouldn't we go back to the original recipe as found in the Suttas and avoid the multiple Sara Lee versions we find today? Given that one of the main goals of science is the "explanation or understanding based on evidence." As a meditator what I would hope science would do, in regard to meditation, is to: 1) establish what the original "cake recipe" is by going back to early Buddhist Suttas. 2) based on the original recipe reach a consensus on definitions of key concepts and methodology. 3) measure the effects of following the methodology. Please follow up on this Steve, thank you.

[@nogaei1]

This was a very long monologue. its main interest was in pointing on the limitations of science in studying consciousness and the gap between empirical science and fenomenology . The rest of it was like a debate club competition under The title: is mindfulness good for you

[@johnjones8850]

When he talked about people wanting quick fixes and commercial firms filling a gap in religion and science, he described a specific type of data asymmetry: a standard market failure.

[@VeritableVagabond]

It’s kind of amusing hearing scientists talk about mindfulness with hardly any depth in practice. There are many numerous examples of people who have experienced a massive reduction in dissatisfaction.

[@nogaei1]

Someone mentioned hubris?😢

[@jgarciajr82]

Chelsey Fasano is beautiful ❤️

[@BillOBrienArt]

Wonderful discussion with much to contemplate.

[@Dipovinnana]

Right intention is ashimsa, avyapada, and nekkhama. Kindness, gentleness, and renunciation (peacefulness)

[@VeritableVagabond]

Exactly

[@Dipovinnana]

The throttle is on the gradual process of generosity, ethics, sense restraint, mindfulness and then samadhi.

[@pavelvedernikov8502]

I suffer because of the high pitched voice of the lady speaker lol

[@marioalejandrosandovalcarr4499]

Mindfulness seems to be fantastic entry point for contemplative practices... Maybe too much saturated in the U.S?

[@wiwidity]

this is on the opposite side of the "traditional religious context" extreme. But its all good. Buddhism revolves around the idea that definition of any kind is just convenient bla bla, because of things not being actually real - Buddhism doesn't acknowledge any ground to this reality and scientists do, soooo, hope you get it. Steve neglected this beautiful lady for the first 20min., that happens when scientists are involved. That was not mindful.

[@Dipovinnana]

Sati is for the means of samma samadhi, so when we sit on the cushion we can more easily achieve samadhi states. Then we can come “back” and see phenomena with a clearer view

[@janhrabec2695]

This guy, really? What do you think Chelsea?

[@justahumanbeing.709]

LOL! she couldn't get a word in edge ways, he could do with a bit more mindfulness!!

[@matthewrousseau2982]

Mindfullness can cause depersonalization

[@TheTarutau]

Personalities are constructs. Depersonalization is the point. As well as de realization. Which is that world views also are constructs. From here one begins anew. One must learn what is and what is not all over again. Before people told you and you learned from culture but now there is no need for masks.

[@TheWizard10008]

This was a very disappointing episode. He’s mistaken on so many levels, and is plagued by numerous presuppositions of his academic background and the presumptions of a business model paradigm. Trying to understand something as subtle and nuanced as meditation and mindfulness through the materialist lens of the scientific method and then criticizing the outcomes is like milking a cow and asking yourself why doesn’t this taste like orange juice? Hey this whole meditation thing is being misrepresented to the consumer!

[@Dipovinnana]

Kindness is the other ingredient 🙂. The only doing we should do

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

Lol I don’t think that’s gonna sell very easily. Not going to save the world😂

[@Dipovinnana]

@@baizhanghuaihai2298 yes, but mindfulness is of our own minds. not the mind of others

[@baizhanghuaihai2298]

@@Dipovinnana How selfish.

[@Dipovinnana]

@@baizhanghuaihai2298 how can we know the experience of another without understanding ourselves first?

[@marioalejandrosandovalcarr4499]

I get your point, loving kindness awareness development seems key for human flourishing

[@TheTarutau]

56m they avoid because they are human. Like the fella mentioned what happens when what I learn flies in the face of what I believe. More importantly it flies in the face of the belief of others. I found being honest with myself far easier then being honest with others. They don't take kindly to having their beliefs dismissed. And it does not feel good to do so. It's why socrates likened himself to a gadfly. He was there to agitate society to bring about change. And let's face it in a scientific society if you take a psychedelic or meditate and then state you understand the underlying nature of reality then you will be seen as delusional not enlightened. But here we are. If you want to understand the underlying nature of reality study physics meditation ain't going to teach you algebra either so pick up some math on the way there. So I look for a few distinct features. Like can I ask a hard question and if they don't know can they admit to not knowing. Like with socrates and the 3 accusers. Do you know what you know and what you don't know. The i check if they know how to get to know and what is ultimately a dead end. Also if they know why they can get to know and why there are dead ends. Then I check to see if they can explain who they are as a sensory system. So what I'm doing is checking how grounded in reality they actually are. And how well they can articulate how they became grounded. Many fail that test. Usually at the i sat and learned anything that did not strictly deal with my subjective experience. I.e. I am God or reality is mind or we are all one or I've lived multiple lives or whatever happens that confuses them on the path. That's where most fail. Deals with fear on the path. Ad for why it occurs on the path this deals with nature and nurture. I.e. context. The worldview distorts the view of the practitioner. So it's an individually dependent phenomena and effects will differ based on culture upbringing education interests fears etc. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZmUpqKNgNSlmtUsi=dXnamNnEc5ijPZWO

[@Dipovinnana]

rediscovering an ancient city is the way the Buddha puts it. Creation view is misleading.