Meditation and Mindfulness Techniques

What’s your take on this? I hear some meditation teachers saying you should observe your thoughts, while others swear by the exact opposite.
For instance, Osho claims in one of his books that watching everything from a distance—basically living in a state of Tantra—is the ultimate peak of enlightenment. On the other hand, I read on Adrian Kezel's page that focusing too much on observing your thoughts can actually lead to schizophrenia.
What do you guys think?

Everyone’s got their own opinion on what works, right? Everyone sees things through their own lens, and there isn't really one "right" way to do this. It feels more like a topic for alternative spirituality anyway, and we actually already have a thread dedicated to meditation over 😛 😁

It might make sense to assume that focus-based practices have a lower chance of digging up all that subconscious junk we'd rather leave alone—the stuff that occasionally pops up during trance states. But honestly, I'm not sure if that actually holds up in practice (though anything can happen in any group, I suppose). This logic would only apply if you were using a symbol with heavy, positive weight—like certain figures, prayers, or mantras used in devotional religious groups. The downside there is that it can easily lead to tribalism or fanaticism. With neutral mantras, where the deity being invoked isn't even explained to the practitioner—which seems to be the case in TM and likely with Kezele (and Ravi Shankar) too—I'd guess they don't serve that purpose because there isn't enough deep-seated meaning planted in the practitioner's consciousness.
As for Kezele, he spends way too much time selling smoke and mirrors to be taken seriously. 😉

It’s impossible to say what works best for everyone. Even when you account for all those individual quirks.
Take the Ayurvedic perspective, for example. If someone is a pure Kapha type—meaning they tend toward inertia and emotional heaviness—devotional practices might come naturally. They might lean toward focusing on a deity, prayers, or mantras with clear meanings (sort of like how some Americans approach Christian worship). But then you have people who recommend the exact opposite to create balance. For them, a technical yogic approach might be better to spark movement and break through that natural lethargy, or perhaps self-observation practices like Vipassana to help manage those heavy emotions.

On the flip side, you have Vata types—people prone to constant change and a quick intellect that jumps from interest to interest. On one hand, they might gravitate toward an intellectualized approach, but because of that, a devotional practice could actually serve as a great stabilizer. Physically, though, yoga might be most beneficial for them, specifically the physical aspects, to counter a "dry" constitution that can lead to joint issues.

Of course, in the real world, people aren't just one single type, and that’s just one way of looking at things anyway. There are plenty of other factors at play.

It’s a bit like arguing over which sport is the best. There isn't one right answer. 🤷
It really depends on your goals first, and then your temperament, abilities, and predispositions. Even then, there are many different paths you could choose.

Personally, I'm not a fan of treating meditation as a standalone "cure" stripped away from the philosophical or religious foundations it grew from. Once you settle on a certain spiritual inclination, the practice should naturally align with your own interests and choices.
If someone is seeking a practice purely for pragmatic reasons, I think relaxation exercises, Autogenic Training, or even hypnosis are more logical than pulling random techniques or mantras out of their original context and throwing them at someone... especially when we don't even know why we're doing them. 🤷

For instance, the day before yesterday, I was helping a lady with her yoga routine, and she mentioned she wanted to meditate. Okay, but what? Why? How? She didn't know; she just felt like it. 🤷
What are you supposed to recommend when the person doesn't even know what they want? They heard something exists, it sounds cool, so they want to give it a shot... that kind of logic. 😁 It's like walking into a restaurant and saying you want to eat. You don't know what to order, and you aren't even particularly hungry, but you heard that's what people do in restaurants. 😁
Fine, you can put something together, but I'm not a fan of that guesswork approach, nor am I a fan of dumping all the responsibility for the choice onto someone else.

bluemason3 said:It’s impossible to say what works best for everyone. Even when you account for all those individual quirks.
Take the Ayurvedic perspective, for example. If someone is a pure Kapha type—meaning they tend toward inertia and emotional heaviness—devotional practices might come naturally. They might lean toward focusing on a deity, prayers, or mantras with clear meanings (sort of like how some Americans approach Christian worship). But then you have people who recommend the exact opposite to create balance. For them, a technical yogic approach might be better to spark movement and break through that natural lethargy, or perhaps self-observation practices like Vipassana to help manage those heavy emotions.

On the flip side, you have Vata types—people prone to constant change and a quick intellect that jumps from interest to interest. On one hand, they might gravitate toward an intellectualized approach, but because of that, a devotional practice could actually serve as a great stabilizer. Physically, though, yoga might be most beneficial for them, specifically the physical aspects, to counter a "dry" constitution that can lead to joint issues.

Of course, in the real world, people aren't just one single type, and that’s just one way of looking at things anyway. There are plenty of other factors at play.

It’s a bit like arguing over which sport is the best. There isn't one right answer. 🤷
It really depends on your goals first, and then your temperament, abilities, and predispositions. Even then, there are many different paths you could choose.

Personally, I'm not a fan of treating meditation as a standalone "cure" stripped away from the philosophical or religious foundations it grew from. Once you settle on a certain spiritual inclination, the practice should naturally align with your own interests and choices.
If someone is seeking a practice purely for pragmatic reasons, I think relaxation exercises, Autogenic Training, or even hypnosis are more logical than pulling random techniques or mantras out of their original context and throwing them at someone... especially when we don't even know why we're doing them. 🤷

For instance, the day before yesterday, I was helping a lady with her yoga routine, and she mentioned she wanted to meditate. Okay, but what? Why? How? She didn't know; she just felt like it. 🤷
What are you supposed to recommend when the person doesn't even know what they want? They heard something exists, it sounds cool, so they want to give it a shot... that kind of logic. 😁 It's like walking into a restaurant and saying you want to eat. You don't know what to order, and you aren't even particularly hungry, but you heard that's what people do in restaurants. 😁
Fine, you can put something together, but I'm not a fan of that guesswork approach, nor am I a fan of dumping all the responsibility for the choice onto someone else.

What does schizophrenia have to do with observing thoughts?
When I meditate, I just try to observe my thoughts, and after a while, they pass.
Now I'm worried about whether that's good or bad, or if I could develop something like schizophrenia or whatever else Adrian mentions.

Ask Adrian 🤣
Maybe he could recommend some neo-platonism that actually fits the utopian vibe of our local culture here 😂 😂 😂

Honestly, forget about Kezele. He’s just interested in peddling his own little stories, and he doesn't mind being blatantly dishonest to get them sold.

There are certain issues that can pop up during meditation, but schizophrenia isn't exactly a common side effect. For someone already predisposed, it might act as a trigger, but it’s not that one-dimensional, nor does it depend solely on the technique used. Plus, people dealing with existing issues often look for refuge in religion or spirituality, which leads them to misattribute cause and effect. I mean, would you argue that religious fervor causes bipolar disorder? People can get pretty intense during a manic phase, but that's not how it works.

Anyway, ignore the chatter, especially from the crowd making a living selling New Age smoke and mirrors. First, you have to look at actual research on these practices, including potential risks. Beyond that, it comes down to the instructor's experience and your own. You can't just claim a practice automatically triggers schizophrenia—especially when that narrative is pushed by someone whose livelihood depends on selling "spirituality." It's in their best interest to frame their specific method as the safest or most effective option. If that were true, every Buddhist monk or any random person practicing basic mindfulness would be schizophrenic. That's clearly not the case. On the flip side, there's no magic wand or mystical fairy tale method that achieves enlightenment with zero effort. It's all a bit more grounded than that; it doesn't just spark massive psychological crises out of nowhere. When issues do arise, they're usually milder, like depersonalization or derealization, though serious exceptions exist—but they don't always boil down to schizophrenia. Interestingly, we see some of the more documented issues specifically with TM practice, so I don't see how this is Kezele's solution if he presents it as something fundamentally different, unless he's moved on to something else 😁 Also, you aren't going to become whatever it is they're selling—enlightenment, ascending to higher dimensions, or solving all the world's conflicts—just by meditating for half an hour a day. That’s just charlatan advertising. It's a mental exercise that develops certain faculties, and like any form of training, it has specificities and potential risks to consider. Real, serious meditative practice within traditional frameworks requires much more—often a full-time commitment under very specific circumstances, and certainly not just whenever you feel like it.

But like I said, there's already a thread about this in the psychology section, so there's no point in repeating myself.

rowdygardener80 said:What’s your take on this? I hear some meditation teachers saying you should observe your thoughts, while others swear by the exact opposite.
For instance, Osho claims in one of his books that watching everything from a distance—basically living in a state of Tantra—is the ultimate peak of enlightenment. On the other hand, I read on Adrian Kezel's page that focusing too much on observing your thoughts can actually lead to schizophrenia.
What do you guys think?

But how exactly are you supposed to "observe" a thought? 😕

Personally, I think it’s total bullshit

After spending quite a long time diving deep into yoga and meditation, I’ve finally realized that it just doesn't sit right with me
Don't get me wrong—the physical exercises are fantastic—but once we hit that meditation phase? I'm completely checked out

I started overthinking everything—analyzing every little statement, my own thoughts, myself
Some people really thrive on that kind of depth, but for me, it’s just not working at all

If I kept dedicating myself to analyzing every single "why" and "how" behind every little thing, I'd probably end up in a psychiatric ward

Sometimes, honestly, it’s better to just stay on the surface😁

redcrane22 said:Personally, I think it’s total bullshit

After spending quite a long time diving deep into yoga and meditation, I’ve finally realized that it just doesn't sit right with me
Don't get me wrong—the physical exercises are fantastic—but once we hit that meditation phase? I'm completely checked out

I started overthinking everything—analyzing every little statement, my own thoughts, myself
Some people really thrive on that kind of depth, but for me, it’s just not working at all

If I kept dedicating myself to analyzing every single "why" and "how" behind every little thing, I'd probably end up in a psychiatric ward

Sometimes, honestly, it’s better to just stay on the surface😁

I'm in the same boat. I won't be doing it anymore unless you have a truly elite teacher, and unfortunately, we don't really have those here in the States.

The idea is to observe thoughts as they pass without getting caught up in them.

I'm actually interested in Transcendental Meditation specifically because of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmLkhAybbdY

Can anyone walk me through her full process? Has anyone actually practiced this and found it helpful?

It seems pretty pointless to meditate if it just makes you lose your mind.🙂

Initial initiation involves receiving a seed mantra. It’s originally tied to specific religious principles, though they tend to steer clear of that. For instance, the Aing mantra is linked to goddesses like Saraswati.

In later stages of initiation, the mantra expands—it might become something like Om Aing Namaha, though I can't be certain since my memory is a bit fuzzy on the details.
It follows the standard Hindu mantra structure: "Om" serves as the most universal opening, while "namaha" is an expression of respect or, more accurately, a gesture of bowing to a deity.

Over the years, mantras can actually change.

The selection is based on your birth date.

Alongside this foundational mantra, there's a "siddhi program" based on... well, let's call it the "original" application of Patanjali's yoga sutras and some flying techniques.

The organization itself has certain cult-like qualities. They try to present everything through a scientific lens—which often involves some rigged studies—while downplaying the religious elements that clearly carry significant weight beneath the surface. At its core, it's definitely a religious group.

For example, meditation is initiated through a traditional mantra-diksha ritual. Teachers usually give some vague explanation, claiming it's just a private matter between them and their guru, but in reality, it functions much like a baptism for the person receiving the mantra.

So, in a nutshell, that's TM.🙂

The basic technique itself consists of a relaxed, effortless repetition of the mantra. The goal isn't concentration, but rather relaxation and reaching a state of free-flowing thought—a state that feels a little too inflated, if you ask me. The siddhi program then uses specific terms from the yoga sutras to describe certain powers, likely in the original language (I'd need to double-check that part). Personally, I find the explanation centered on suggestibility much more plausible, similar to this: http://www.suggestibility.org/

bluemason3 said:Initial initiation involves receiving a seed mantra. It’s originally tied to specific religious principles, though they tend to steer clear of that. For instance, the Aing mantra is linked to goddesses like Saraswati.

In later stages of initiation, the mantra expands—it might become something like Om Aing Namaha, though I can't be certain since my memory is a bit fuzzy on the details.
It follows the standard Hindu mantra structure: "Om" serves as the most universal opening, while "namaha" is an expression of respect or, more accurately, a gesture of bowing to a deity.

Over the years, mantras can actually change.

The selection is based on your birth date.

Alongside this foundational mantra, there's a "siddhi program" based on... well, let's call it the "original" application of Patanjali's yoga sutras and some flying techniques.

The organization itself has certain cult-like qualities. They try to present everything through a scientific lens—which often involves some rigged studies—while downplaying the religious elements that clearly carry significant weight beneath the surface. At its core, it's definitely a religious group.

For example, meditation is initiated through a traditional mantra-diksha ritual. Teachers usually give some vague explanation, claiming it's just a private matter between them and their guru, but in reality, it functions much like a baptism for the person receiving the mantra.

So, in a nutshell, that's TM.🙂

The basic technique itself consists of a relaxed, effortless repetition of the mantra. The goal isn't concentration, but rather relaxation and reaching a state of free-flowing thought—a state that feels a little too inflated, if you ask me. The siddhi program then uses specific terms from the yoga sutras to describe certain powers, likely in the original language (I'd need to double-check that part). Personally, I find the explanation centered on suggestibility much more plausible, similar to this: http://www.suggestibility.org/

Thanks for the posts and the breakdown. Honestly, my take is that it's best to just do nothing.
We don't have the right environment here like they do in the East, and that's that.
I suspect anyone who starts meditating will just end up losing their grip on reality or something similar.😍

Best, ☕

Of course it’s not that simple. "Conditions" are entirely relative. The average American certainly enjoys better practical advantages—more free time, more resources, and perhaps a different psychological baseline. But there's this constant urge to generalize everything. The reality is much more individual. Nothing is ever truly universal, and nothing is objectively "better" or "worse" without context.

rowdygardener80 said:Thanks for the posts and the breakdown. Honestly, my take is that it's best to just do nothing.
We don't have the right environment here like they do in the East, and that's that.
I suspect anyone who starts meditating will just end up losing their grip on reality or something similar.😍

Best, ☕

What kind of environment? What "East"?

Look, just take fifteen minutes, sit facing a wall, pick a spot on that wall, stare at it, breathe deeply and steadily, and let your thoughts drift by without grabbing onto them or overanalyzing—there, you’re meditating.

It isn't quantum physics; you don't need some mystical Eastern landscape or special conditions... all you really need is ten to fifteen minutes of relative peace and quiet.

Of course, any DIY methods might be a bit flawed—there are always a hundred little tricks someone needs to explain to you, plus a mountain of techniques promising one effect or another. People have been doing this since the dawn of time, so they likely know a thing or two about it... but at its core, meditation boils down to focus, awareness, and quieting the intellect. You're essentially putting your brain in neutral and calmly observing the results.

In that state, strange things can happen—which is interesting, because frankly, nobody truly understands what's actually occurring in those moments. But most likely, absolutely nothing will happen, even after a long time... it takes a while to see any effect worth mentioning, which is usually just reduced stress and generally calmer nerves. And that's plenty—I mean, what exactly are you expecting? A divine revelation?

And you can observe your thoughts without meditating. You can observe your emotions, or you can observe your digestive system if that's your idea of fun...

If you're afraid that becoming aware of your own internal moments will suddenly make you lose your mind, then you have much bigger problems than meditation.

placidwolf27 said:What kind of environment? What "East"?

Look, just take fifteen minutes, sit facing a wall, pick a spot on that wall, stare at it, breathe deeply and steadily, and let your thoughts drift by without grabbing onto them or overanalyzing—there, you’re meditating.

It isn't quantum physics; you don't need some mystical Eastern landscape or special conditions... all you really need is ten to fifteen minutes of relative peace and quiet.

Of course, any DIY methods might be a bit flawed—there are always a hundred little tricks someone needs to explain to you, plus a mountain of techniques promising one effect or another. People have been doing this since the dawn of time, so they likely know a thing or two about it... but at its core, meditation boils down to focus, awareness, and quieting the intellect. You're essentially putting your brain in neutral and calmly observing the results.

In that state, strange things can happen—which is interesting, because frankly, nobody truly understands what's actually occurring in those moments. But most likely, absolutely nothing will happen, even after a long time... it takes a while to see any effect worth mentioning, which is usually just reduced stress and generally calmer nerves. And that's plenty—I mean, what exactly are you expecting? A divine revelation?

And you can observe your thoughts without meditating. You can observe your emotions, or you can observe your digestive system if that's your idea of fun...

If you're afraid that becoming aware of your own internal moments will suddenly make you lose your mind, then you have much bigger problems than meditation.

To me, that sounds like concentration, not meditation.
I'm worried about falling into a trance😲 and tapping into some other hemisphere of the brain or whatever.
It's all well and good discovering your inner self, but most of the time, you just end up a bit of a loner.
I just want to have some fun; my past attempts at meditation didn't really yield much. 🙂
I just wanted to learn Transcendental Meditation so I could feel sharper and study better. 🤷
I'm asking about conditions because I don't have an experienced teacher to guide me, and I'm interested in chakra work alongside meditation. 😁

I just don't want to end up doing anything weird.