Meditation methods come with worldviews.
If you don't know their view, it's difficult to see if they lead in the directions you desire.
If you're blindly practicing methods with different views, it's hard to see if they're complimentary or contradictory.
@sarabollman 😔 so sorry to hear things have been so rough lately. Sounds like a natural response to me! While I'm at the point now where I can find some gratitude, it doesn't exclude the resentment. Maybe the best result is that it drives me to teach in very different ways... 🤷♂️
@sarabollman If only more people in the space took informed consent seriously!
I've felt similarly in phases of my path, and I'm still pretty salty about many of the methods and traditions I practiced without proper warning labels.
Hard to imagine a more timely theme than yearning for a mythical father's homecoming. Such a catharsis should be in the aesthetic language contemporary young men already know and understand.
The Odyssey is a timeless heroic fantasy. It's fine that Nolan makes it look like one.
I do not like the pejorative in the Three Poisons (Attachment, Aversion, Ignoring).
Instead: the valence neutral Three Involvements: Emphasizing, De-emphasizing, and Setting Aside.
They become poisons only when they arise as compulsory, and not when liberated from compulsion.
@hokaisobol And yet, renunciative methods built from the view of transformation/liberation are quite different in flavor and effect. TLDR: extinguishing vs. setting aside
Most of our relational problems aren't about events or beliefs, they're about deeply held stuckness in patterns of interaction.
Time for my Kaleidoscope of Interactions course again :-)
Big changes since its initial run in 2023. Evolving Ground has iterated over it and we've turned it into a three part series. We're running Part I as a managable 4 week introduction, starting this Wednesday, February 18th. More 👇
I maintain that it's an interesting question––perhaps the most interesting question––despite fully acknowledging it's not a requirement for highly undesirable outcomes.
The idea that it's a silly question rests on the proposition that questions of machine consciousness are only important for reasons related to x-risk, which is false.
The question is interesting / important because it will help us to better comprehend our own nature, and perhaps ground our sense of meaning amidst an already disorienting future.