Mindfulness / Flow

rachMiel

Hi everyone. :-)

What is the relationship between mindfulness and flow? Are they mutually exclusive opposites, or different sides of the same coin, or somewhere in-between?

Just so we're all talking about the same things, by mindfulness I mean a state of awareness in which "what is" is observed dispassionately, and by flow a state of deep immersion in an activity during which everything else (including self) fades away.

The ultimate "goal" of most mindfulness teachings (including, if I understand correctly, those of Buddha) is unbroken moment-to-moment awareness. If mindfulness and flow are mutually exclusive, that would mean that the mindfulness traditions discourage flow. Yet flow feels wonderful, and many argue that it is one the most pure and powerful states of being we humans can attain.

What is your take on mindfulness / flow ?

Thanks,

rachMiel

SherabDorje

Mindfulness could be said to mean the awareness of flow, or the attempt to appreciate the awareness of flow. This is because the best verbal approximation would be to say that nothing "is" in a static sense, but is always in a state of flow.

Jeffrey

mindfulness is not unbroken awareness. If you are forcing the focusing of awareness you will actually experience suffering because you are resisting the nature of the mind to sometimes diffuse out and take no object.

If mind were not able to diffuse out then something from the background would not be able to move into the foreground. Mind wouldn't be mind.

Mindfulness is returning to awareness when you are lost in thinking. As I understand it. Flow can be an experience within mindfulness. It can be an experience you are having and then you are mindful of that experience.

I think perhaps flow is an experience when the subject object assumption breaks up a bit and you are at one with your experience. But whether you have thinking (subject object) in your awareness or not.... you may still be mindful.

Just my thoughts

seeker242

Mindfulness is a state of deep immersion in the present moment, which appears to be nothing other than what you describe as flow. Looks like they are the same thing.

milkmoth

I like to think about mindfullness and flow as something that is already happening.

All we need to do is stop talking to ourselves, stop the internal dialogue, and what remains is essentially flow.

It's so quiet and beautiful. It seems almost too fragile to talk about. Shhh...

Paradox

I agree with seeker242, I think perhaps what you are decribing as 'flow' is the same as mindfulness.
There are two kinds of immersion - one that is mindless like watching a TV show where everything else fades away, but which is passive and the opposite of mindfulness. And the other kind of immersion that comes from conscious focus, such as when you are playing a sport or a musical instrument and you get to a place where everything else disappears and things just flow effortlessly (sometimes described as finding your groove) which is mindfulness, or the result of mindfulness.

Mountains

Oooh.. flashback. Flow is equal to area times velocity. Sorry, that's what was on my physiology exam this morning. Q = A x v

Seriously, I think I agree with paradox and seeker242. Flow and mindfulness seem to be different descriptions for the same concept.

rachMiel

first, to clarify, i'm talking about the definition of flow put forth by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

in a nutshell: "Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity."

now as i understand it, one of the key components of mindfulness is "the witness consciousness" in which a part of one's mind watches thoughts and perceptions as they arise and dissolve, dispassionately, without getting caught up in them.

it seems to me, both intellectually and experientially, that this watching lessens or disappears when one is in the flow of an intense activity. the witness stops witnessing and gets lost in the activity. i've heard it described like this: instead of watching the movie, you step into it.

that's what i mean by mutually exclusive: the more you stand back and watch, the less immersed you can be in an activity; and the more immersed you are in an activity, the less you can stand back and watch. (unless, of course, the activity is watching, though i doubt that mindfulness-type watching would be considered by Csíkszentmihályi to be a flow activity.)

so what i'm asking is are these two powerful states of mind compatible or at odds with each other?

Jeffrey

My teacher says the watcher persona is a hindrance. The thinking is right there. Right in the space of awareness. The notion that it is somewhere else or removed from a 'self' watcher is just thinking mind putting labels.

But there is just awareness. No watcher. No watched. Where there is eating just eating. Where there is thinking just thinking. Where there is walking just walking.

This is a very common problem.

xabir

rachMiel wrote: »

first, to clarify, i'm talking about the definition of flow put forth by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

in a nutshell: "Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity."

now as i understand it, one of the key components of mindfulness is "the witness consciousness" in which a part of one's mind watches thoughts and perceptions as they arise and dissolve, dispassionately, without getting caught up in them.

it seems to me, both intellectually and experientially, that this watching lessens or disappears when one is in the flow of an intense activity. the witness stops witnessing and gets lost in the activity. i've heard it described like this: instead of watching the movie, you step into it.

that's what i mean by mutually exclusive: the more you stand back and watch, the less immersed you can be in an activity; and the more immersed you are in an activity, the less you can stand back and watch. (unless, of course, the activity is watching, though i doubt that mindfulness-type watching would be considered by Csíkszentmihályi to be a flow activity.)

so what i'm asking is are these two powerful states of mind compatible or at odds with each other?

Both are states... one is a state of witnessing with the dualistic tendencies still strong, thus separating subject from object, dividing experience into inner and outer, and then clinging to a pure subject which is simply a particular sense/state of presence or knowing reified into a 'purest identity'. However if you relinquish that 'center', everything is equally experienced as Pure Presence. As for 'Entering the flow', it seems to be an experience of subject merging into object. Here, subject-object tendencies may temporarily go into abeyance, due to various reasons... perhaps due to intense concentration or attention on a particular activity or experience. Nevertheless no insight is gained.

And hence, neither experience tells you of the clear insight that 'in the seen, there's just the seen', 'in the heard there's just the heard' as in the case of Bahiya Sutta. It is the clear insight that there is no 'you' in terms of that, in here, out there, or in between. In hearing there is just pure hearing, sounds, without hearer. In seeing, there is just pure seeing, scenery, no seer. By contemplating and training yourself to perceive in this way, insight of non-dual and anatta can arise... And you'll see how there is no separate 'self' to begin with that can be separate or united with perceived objects. Why? Hearing sounds, seeing scenery, thinking thoughts, that alone is pure awareness without a knower. It is a self-luminous flow. Pure perceiving/The Flow (without perceiver and perceived) alone IS... it is only through clinging and self-referencing that leads to the sense of a knower or witness. In actuality, the observer IS the observed.

See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html

NamelessRiver

What is the relationship between mindfulness and flow? Are they mutually exclusive opposites, or different sides of the same coin, or somewhere in-between?

I don't think there is any relationship between mindfulness and flow. They are different concepts coming from different fields of 'human studies', so to speak, and are completely independent, as concepts, from each other. Even if in the dictionary they meant the same thing, mindfulness would still carry religious undertones, and flow would still have to find its place within the corpus of knowledge that composes psychology.

I am not a big fan of mixing flow and mindfulness, or craving with neurosis, or enlightenment with catharsis, or Mara with Id.

Although it is very tempting to find relationships between Buddhism and Psychology\Psychoanalysis, it ends up mystifying psychology concepts (for example, turning flow into some kind of supra mundane state) and misrepresenting Buddhist concepts.

rachMiel

Jeffrey wrote: »

My teacher says the watcher persona is a hindrance.

this makes sense to me.

others say that developing a watcher persona is a necessary step (to untrain the mind from its deep-seated habit of NOT watching) to realizing that there is in fact no separate watcher, only the WHAT IS being "watched." and this also makes sense to me.

But there is just awareness. No watcher. No watched. Where there is eating just eating. Where there is thinking just thinking. Where there is walking just walking.

this sounds zen. is it?

does your teacher advocate a "method" of realizing that there is just awareness? on the cushion and off the cushion?

rachMiel

xabir wrote: »

Both are states ...

the implication being that _________ (realization, Truth, etc.) is state-less, beyond any/all states?

It is the clear insight that there is no 'you' in terms of that, in here, out there, or in between. In hearing there is just pure hearing, sounds, without hearer. In seeing, there is just pure seeing, scenery, no seer. By contemplating and training yourself to perceive in this way, insight of non-dual and anatta can arise...

how does one train oneself to perceive in this way? and doesn't any form of "training" strengthen the illusion of a separate self ... at least temporarily?

rachMiel

NamelessRiver wrote: »

I don't think there is any relationship between mindfulness and flow. They are different concepts coming from different fields of 'human studies', so to speak, and are completely independent, as concepts, from each other.

fair enough.

what do you think buddhism would say about the flow state?

i'm not trying to conjure up a relationship between buddhism/psychology with this question. rather: acknowledging that humans all experience flow ... and that it is a very powerful state of consciousness, worth exploring.

TheJourney

There simply is. That's the best way I can describe my point of view. There is no object and subject, in fact no division whatsoever(be it physical, time, consciousness, anything), there is one truth and that one truth is everything. Be mindful within the truth and you will be caught up in the flow that is the truth.

rachMiel

nice, TheJourney. :-) when i see/feel the world this way, all my dukkha disappears.

xabir

rachMiel wrote: »

the implication being that _________ (realization, Truth, etc.) is state-less, beyond any/all states?

Truth IS in and regardless of all states. It is not beyond all states, it permeates all states, and yet it is not realized through/dependent upon entering a particular state, just like you do not need to enter a forest to realize you are breathing air all around you - you can notice/realize it wherever you are.

Whatever experience you are having right now is happening without an experiencer..

how does one train oneself to perceive in this way? and doesn't any form of "training" strengthen the illusion of a separate self ... at least temporarily?

By contemplating the nature of experience as being without any self/experiencer... Sound IS, scenery IS, thought IS, a feeler/thinker is not. Some effort is required, though I do not think it strengthens the illusion of a separate self, but it will eventually do serious damage to and remove the illusion itself...

rachMiel

xabir wrote:

rachMiel wrote:

how does one train oneself to perceive in this way?

By contemplating the nature of experience as being without any self/experiencer...

please define/describe contemplation in this context. my form of contemplating X might be very different from your form of contemplating X. are all forms of contemplation equal?

TheJourney

rachMiel wrote: »

nice, TheJourney. :-) when i see/feel the world this way, all my dukkha disappears.

Thanks and yea, how can you suffer when it simply is? There is no bad, there is no suffering, there simply is. To dwell on negativity is to feed into the illusion.

xabir

rachMiel wrote: »

please define/describe contemplation in this context. my form of contemplating X might be very different from your form of contemplating X. are all forms of contemplation equal?

By contemplating I do not mean just thinking it over (it will not work)... but to observe your direct experience. This requires a non-dual, non-conceptual, direct and immediate mode of perception (acronym: NDNCDIMOP) - like the bare attention/mindfulness taught in vipassana practice or other forms of direct direct and attentive bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they are.