Buddhist Geeks

In “The Most Slept-On Meditation Object,” Vince Horn introduces the kasina — the visual concentration object that dominated Early Buddhist practice yet is barely used today — and lays out a 12-week curriculum that maps color & elemental kasinas onto the full arc of the eight jhānas, and then finishes with the technodelic practice of breath kasina. Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web applicationor join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha💬 TranscriptVince Horn: So welcome to Kasina. The backdrop for this practice, as you all know — this is really meant to be a concentration-based practice. So when I zoom back out to kind of the bigger picture for me, looking at all the different ways we could meditate, this is one technique that is part of the approach that I would just simply call concentration.And concentration for me is the practice of bringing attention to a single point, the result of which is unification. We become one with the point of focus. We become fused or merged, you could say, with the object. Of course, there’s a gradual process by which that happens. It’s not that we instantly merge, although sometimes that can happen.And the kasina in this case is a visual orb or a circle. It is literally a visual point. It literally translates — the word — into English as All, Whole, or Complete. That’s the meaning of the term kasina. And it occupies a really important place in the Early Buddhist tradition.It’s listed in the Visuddhimagga, which is an important commentary, a commentarial text that was written a thousand years after the time of the Buddha, but is kind of like a super hardcore nerdy meditation manual. In that manual, it lists 40 different meditation objects that you can use to train your concentration, and to go deep in concentration. And a full quarter of these 40 are these visual kasina objects.So it’s literally the most common object you’d see in the Early Buddhist tradition. And yet you’ll notice in modern times, it’s one of the least commonly used. So that’s quite interesting. I think because of that, kasinas are one of the most slept-on meditation objects in modernity. We’re somehow not tapping into the tremendous power of using the visual processing systems that we all are born with, which actually dominate our nervous system.Looking into this, researching this, I found out 30 to 40% of the brain’s cortex is wired for vision. Compare that to hearing, which is only 3 to 5%. We are deeply visual beings. Under typical conditions, actually, vision uses 5 to 10 times more bandwidth than touch, which is the second most bandwidth-intensive sense.Neurobiologically, we are actually deeply wired to see. And also from a neurobiological perspective, circular orbs make really good concentration objects, and there seem to be a few reasons for this that I’ve been able to kind of detect.One is there’s a really similar parallel between our eyes and the shape of our eyes and the shape of the kasina. Your retina is basically circular, and lenses in our eyes focus light in concentric rings, so the round shape of the kasina maps neatly onto the geometry of our eyes.And like I said earlier, so much of our brain is actually wired for visual processing, and the early visual neurons are tuned to detect edges and symmetries. In the visual processing, that’s among the first things that happen — we detect edges and symmetries. Circles, of course, are pure symmetry, so there are no sudden directional shifts when you’re looking at a circle. The signal is much more clean and predictable. This is another reason I think the kasina is such a powerful object.We also have to consider how attention — human attention — has evolved. Here, smooth, continuous boundaries tend to stand out against jagged, natural edges. Think rocks, branches, trees.So if you see things like berries or fruits or faces, the Sun, the Moon — all of these natural objects that humans have been evolving with — we evolutionarily can reward these things with quick detection, because they’re important for our survival.And then finally, I just note that when you’re resting your attention on a circle, there’s no privileged starting point.There’s no point at which your attention can look and be like, “Oh, that’s the point that you start with.” So your eyes don’t keep darting to all the angles and ends. Actually, they kind of do. I’ll share from my own experience: I’ve noticed, as I rest my attention in the kasina, if you get focused, you can actually start to see the ways your eyes are constantly, very rapidly looking for edges.And you’ll see, actually, in the circle — this is my experience — you’ll see in the circle all of these sort of edges at the very edge of the circle constantly being re-perceptualized. But because there isn’t any privileged edge to stay with, your mind can kind of rest more in the circle itself, so it’s easier to hold in meditation.So these are some of the reasons I think the kasina is a really natural object to focus on, and that we are, in a sense, hardwired to be able to. I suspect that’s why in early Buddhism, 10 of the 40 objects were kasinas. And I suspect also, based on what you all have shared and just kind of thinking more deeply about this, in some ways, maybe this is why kasina isn’t the most popular form of meditation, because it potentially is too effective, right?If you have an experience where suddenly things get really intense or trippy, like you’re tripping on psychedelics, you might be like, “Oh, whoa, wait a second. Let me chill for a minute. I’ve got to go to work in the morning.” “I’ve got to go on a date tonight,” or whatever. “I’ve got to take care of the kids, take care of dinner.”Yeah, that actually could be quite disruptive. If you’re a meditator or monk living a thousand years ago in a monastery and everyone around you is just constantly tripping out on things, it makes sense. But in the modern world perhaps, it’s a little bit disruptive to get into such deep concentration states so rapidly, or maybe we just don’t have a reference point for it with other objects of concentration, so it’s maybe a little scary.I could totally see that. So just want to kinda honor the reality of that.The way I want to approach this training together in kasina — we have 12 weeks from here, and I’ve kinda laid out the kasina training in a very specific kind of curriculum. The first eight weeks will just be focused on working with visual kasina, and each week we’re going to move between different kasinas.We’re going to try a different object. Now, that doesn’t mean that I’m suggesting that you all should be following along with your own personal practice with that kasina, although if you do that, you’ll probably get some benefits. You’re very welcome to engage with this content in whatever way seems appropriate to your practice, just as a reminder.I know you’ll do that anyway, but you don’t have to make this your primary practice while you’re doing it if something else is primary. But of course, the more you engage with the practice, the more you’ll learn.In the first four weeks, I want to focus just on the arc called the Rūpa Jhāna arc, so focusing on the first four jhānas. So each week we’ll both cover a different kasina — in the first four weeks, we’ll focus actually on the color kasinas, just simple visual orbs that are made of a solid color. We’ll start with Red in the first jhāna, then we’ll move to Yellow in the second jhāna, Blue in the third jhāna, and White in the fourth jhāna.And I have some reasonings for that. I think that’s kind of the best matchup that one can make between the actual colors and what they evoke, according to tradition and my experience, and the qualities of each of these jhānas. So we’ll both be exploring the jhānas as we go along, exploring these progressively more subtle states of meditative absorption, while also exploring different kasina objects that seem to pair nicely with each jhāna.In the second four-week chunk, you could say, of the training, we’ll shift toward what are called elemental kasinas. Some of you mentioned practicing with a candle flame, the classic fire kasina. Here we’ll turn toward using elements to help us access what are called the arūpa jhānas, the formless jhānas, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth jhānas.So week 5, we’ll focus on the earth kasina and use that to scaffold our way into infinite space. What? Earth and infinite space? Those seem like opposites. Yeah, in a way they are, but there’s longstanding tradition in — actually, multiple practice traditions I’m aware of — where you can use the earth element to help you get connected more with space.In this case, we’ll work on sort of expanding the earth element to include all of space, and then removing the earth element. And what’s left when you remove the earth? Space.With week six, we’ll shift toward the water kasina, and we’ll use the reflective quality of water as a way to explore the jhāna of infinite consciousness, which is very similar in terms of the mirroring, the containing everything without being anything, the fluidity of consciousness, the fluidity of water.In the seventh week, we’ll shift to the fire kasina, and explore the jhāna of nothingness. Fire consumes, turns everything into formlessness, you could say. And then finally, in the eighth week, we’ll focus on the air kasina, but we’ll use an interesting kind of Tibetan Dzogchen-inspired imagery, which is the rainbow on blue sky to explore the kasina of neither perception nor non-perception.Air is the most subtle element. As you know, it’s invisible, known only through its effects, and the rainbow, something perceived but not there, a pure perceptual event with no location or substance, neither perceived nor not perceived.That is the kind of pattern that I’m proposing that we follow for the first eight weeks, and then in the last four weeks, which is completely optional if you’d like, this will require a little bit of an additional investment on your part if you want to do the last four weeks, because for the last four weeks, we’ll be focusing on what I call the Breath Kasina. And the Breath Kasina uses — or it requires, actually — a wireless respiration belt. This is the one I’ve used to design the breath kasina. And we’ll use the kasina.app, which is a web application developed over the last couple years as an aid, both in the visual kasina section.If you’d like a digital kasina object, you could absolutely use it. If you want to make your own analog kasina, of course, you can do that as well. That’s going to be completely fine and maybe preferable for some. But you’ll need the digital version to do the breath kasina practice, because what the breath kasina is, is it’s a way of linking together a visual circular orb and your real-time breath.As you breathe in, the orb expands. As you breathe out, the orb contracts. I developed the idea for this a long time ago because I was struggling to integrate my experience with visual kasina practice and somatic breathwork. I felt like they were bringing me in almost opposite directions. It felt like a real problem.So in my mind, I was like, well, if I could just visually see the kasina and have it be linked with my breath, I could somehow merge my awareness of the two into a singular somato-visual meditation object. That only became possible for me to actually build as AI has gotten better, and I’ve been able to use those tools to actually take this concept and make it reality.And it turns out it works extremely well. So for the last four weeks, we’ll be focused on the breath kasina. Again, for those that would like to purchase a respiration belt and follow along. If you’re not interested in doing that or if you’re not feeling the resonance with it, totally understandable, totally okay.But in the last four weeks, what we’ll be doing is basically focusing on some different things that I’ve learned about breath kasina, different practices I found helpful there, some foundational ideas and also talking about some more advanced integration, because we’re really talking at this point with the breath kasina about advanced practice of kind of weaving together, stitching together different sensory experiences into a bigger whole, which is more complex and more integrated.Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web applicationor join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

In Access Concentration and the Kasina, Vince Fakhoury Horn explains how kasina meditation cultivates stable attention by letting a visual object fill awareness until it naturally enters the foreground of experience into a state known as access concentration.Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web application or join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha💬 TranscriptVince: There is this really important idea in the Buddhist meditative tradition. It doesn’t come online until, I don’t know, a thousand years into the Buddhist tradition’s evolution, but it’s still an important concept today, which is the idea of Access Concentration.And the idea of “Access” simply means that when we get into the state, we then have access to the jhānas. That’s why it’s called Access Concentration. But it’s a little weird and abstract. So for me, I simplify my own definition of what this means. For me, it’s very simple: it’s when the meditation object—the thing you’re focusing on—moves into the foreground of your experience, and distractions and other things that are pulling you from that move into the background.So it’s a flip—a foreground-background flip of attention. And it doesn’t mean that there aren’t other things that grab your attention. It doesn’t mean that you can’t get lost. Of course, you can fall out of the state; something else can grab your attention and have most of it.But the basic idea here, with the kasina—since we’re using a visual orb as our focal point—is that when we’re in Access Concentration, it means the kasina has most of our attention. Of course, it’s not always easy to know when it has most of your attention, but you can just get a feel for it when you work with the kasina. When does it feel like most of your attention—if you have 100% of your attention available—is in the kasina, is present there in the orb, and less than 50% is elsewhere: in your body, with the surrounding environment, with thoughts and feelings that are coming up that don’t have to do with the kasina?If you’ve got at least 50% of your attention on the kasina, then you’re in Access Concentration. And it feels different because it’s, again, foregrounded—it’s got the main position in your attention. Foreground and background is, of course, a visual analogy, and here it really works well talking about the kasina, because it’s a visual object.What does it mean for a visual object to be in the foreground of your experience? It doesn’t necessarily mean that it grows and grows until it visually takes up more than 50% of your visual experience—although that’s one possible way it could look. It’s not just about the percentage of your visual experience the kasina takes up; it’s the percentage of your attention that it fills up.Something very small can fill up our entire attentional field. Usually in meditation, the first object that’s taught in most traditions, I’ve noticed, is focus on the breath at the nostrils. That’s a small point of attention—it’s very small if you think about it, especially compared to a bigger circle. And still, if we focus on something, if we bring our attention to it, it fills up our attention.If you think about it, subject and object in concentration practices—the subject is the one who’s paying attention, the object is the thing we’re paying attention to. What happens as you pay more attention to something? Your attention gets closer to the object, right? That’s how we describe it. Our attention actually gets closer—even if we don’t move, our body doesn’t move, our attention can actually zoom in on things. It can zoom in and zoom out with attention, and when we get really interested in something, we zoom in on it and often exclude everything that’s not that.So here, that’s what’s happening with the kasina. The kasina object doesn’t necessarily have to change for it to fill our attentional field. It doesn’t have to be big; it could be small. We’re going to actually work with a meditation soon here where we just find the sweet spot: how big does the kasina need to be in relation to me—the subject, the one that’s paying attention to it? What is the sweet spot in terms of the size of the kasina? What is the right size? We’re going to explore that in a guided meditation.And then we’re also going to look at what’s the sweet spot in terms of how we’re attending to the kasina. There’s this whole notion in Buddhist meditation of “not too tight, not too loose.” I’m sure you’ve heard that story—the Buddha talking to the lute stringer, and the lute stringer explaining, “You don’t want it too tight, you don’t want it too loose.” And the Buddha’s like, “Yeah, just like meditation.”So here, focus too on how you focus in a way that’s not too tight, not too loose when it comes to a visual object. Fortunately for us, we have lots of experience with this, being modern people. We already know what it’s like to focus too much on screens or to strain on what we’re focusing on when it comes to visual things. So we’ll use that knowledge to help us focus in a different way on the kasina.We’ll look for the experience of Access Concentration, even if it’s just temporary—even if it just happens for a moment. One of the things I appreciate about Access Concentration is it does feel like a shift, especially if you haven’t experienced it regularly or you haven’t experienced it with that particular meditation object.Say you’re used to getting into Access Concentration to do your work or to do other things, but you haven’t necessarily done it with a blue hovering orb. And then you have the experience—you’re like, “Oh, wow, that’s cool. I can just focus on this orb, and that can become the most interesting thing in my experience,” even though from an objective standpoint it’s not that interesting. It’s just a blue circle. But actually, yeah, when I start to look at it, it becomes more than that. It actually seems now like it’s a three-dimensional orb. It’s not just a circle—it’s got dimensionality to it, and it’s luminescent, and it’s glowing, and it even has a little bit of a sense of motion.Oh wow, this is really interesting. What is this? We’ll get deeper into the experience of what the kasina’s like when we gain Access Concentration.Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web application or join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

In “AI Psychosis vs. AI Awakening,” Vince Fakhoury Horn argues that the same biological machinery enabling AI-induced delusion also enables AI-assisted awakening, and introduces his Interspective.ai approach — a Middle Way practice of engaging with AI as a potential partner in wisdom, thus avoiding the extremes of both Materialism (matter is fundamental) and Idealism (consciousness is fundamental).💬 TranscriptVince Horn: Okay, today I would like to speak with you about AI psychosis and AI awakening. And first I want to start by acknowledging that AI psychosis is a real phenomenon. This isn’t something that’s being made up. It may not be so widespread that you know someone yourself who has entered into a psychotic state due to the destabilizing effect of AI. But you’ve certainly heard about people who’ve experienced this, and it’s definitely a cause for concern – definitely something that we should be aware of. And it makes sense to me that this is happening. Why? Because as John Vervaeke points out in Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, wisdom and foolishness both share the same machinery. Here he says, “Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, whereas foolishness is a lack of wisdom. Foolishness occurs when your capacity to engage your agency or pursue your goals is undermined by self-deceptive and self-destructive behavior.” And he goes on to say, “As I will argue, the machinery that makes you so adaptively intelligent is the same machinery that makes you susceptible to foolishness.” So, it makes sense to me that AI psychosis is real because human psychosis is real. In that sense, AI isn’t necessarily unique. It’s not that different from the things that have been tipping people over into psychotic states since the beginning of time. I can think of my own experience of psychedelic-induced psychosis. This is the only time I’ve experienced a state that I would call legit psychosis. About 13 years ago, I was 30, and I was trying mushrooms for the first time. I had decided after many years of just being a pure straight-edge meditator that I would try psychedelics so that I could relate to many of the students I was working with and their experience of using them and working with them. So I idiotically decided to do a series of four mushroom trips leading up to a conference that I was hosting — a Buddhist Geeks Conference of about 300 people showing up for this event that I was organizing. So on the third mushroom trip of these four — I did not do the fourth one — on this third trip, I had an experience of psychosis. I lost connection with consensual reality. I lost touch with who I was, and what was important to me, my adult self. I was in a state of profound emotional dysregulation. I thought I was probably going crazy. I was at least slightly aware of what was happening, but not so much that I had any agency in terms of being able to kind of break myself out of it for some time. After a few days of kind of coming in and out of a psychotic state, eventually one of my friends made a comment that made all the difference to me. She said, you know, when I experienced something like this, Vince, I pulled myself out of it. I intentionally decided I was done. And then, after that, it started to get easier. And in fact, that ended up being a critical lesson for me — that being able to exercise my agency, my free will, at least in this instance, was much more of what I needed than to let go and trust, which is what I’d been doing for days in this psychotic episode.I’d just been letting go, letting go, letting go. No, I needed to reestablish my identity, to have a firm sense of who I was, and to be like, I’m done being psychotic. Now I’m not saying everyone can do this who’s in a psychotic state. I’m just sharing some experience with you about the relationship between psychosis and agency and the sense of self-perception.All these things are connected. It’s the same machinery, the same biology that enables both wisdom and foolishness. It’s so easy to self-deceive, and it’s so easy to be deceived also by our group, the groups that we’re in. So AI psychosis is real. It’s especially dangerous for people who are already experiencing a kind of relational impoverishment, to use a term from my friend Daniel Thorson. He wrote a great article on Substack recently called “The Barely There,” where he described himself as a barely-there person for many years. Here he says, “We don’t recognize the underlying pattern — barely-there people reaching for something to make them feel real.” Daniel shares his own experience later in the article where he says, “In the absence of attuned relationship, technology became the place I went to escape the unbearable weight of being unmet.” So I think what we have when we talk about AI psychosis, we have this background, this cultural, social context. Here, I’m living in America, but let’s just say the Modern West. Within the Modern West, you have a crisis of isolation and loneliness, where people are experiencing a deep sense of relational impoverishment. They don’t have people that they feel attuned and connected with. And because of that they feel barely there. When people feel barely there, it’s much easier to reach towards something like AI, or to reach toward drugs, or to reach toward any kind of external aid to help validate and verify your realness. And because of our current psychological conditions, we end up amplifying delusion. This is what can happen with AI. AI, in its core, fundamental kind of nature, is an exponential amplifier. It’s like the equivalent in the Industrial Age where we learned how to offload extreme physical capacity. Now machines can do the heavy lifting. Likewise, with AI, it’s a way to offload mental capacity. Now the AIs can do the heavy lifting. And the danger there is that when we outsource our own mental discernment, if it hasn’t been already established and developed, then what we’re doing is we’re outsourcing our sanity. And that’s, I think, why AI psychosis is real, and will continue to be something that we have to contend with.The Pre-Trans FallacyThat said, I’ve noticed a very troubling trend, which is that for many people who are critical of AI, and who see AI psychosis as a real thing, who haven’t sort of drunk the Kool-Aid of AI and think it’s an unalloyed good — I’m seeing a trend in that culture where anything that looks like you not using AI as a kind of tool, any attempt to relate to AI in any other way that isn’t just instrumentalizing it, that that itself is seen as evidence of psychosis.In Integral Theory, which I studied with Ken Wilber, he refers to this as what he calls the Pre-Trans Fallacy. For those that aren’t familiar, the Pre-Trans Fallacy is a way of describing something that can happen when you look at things from a developmental lens. And let’s say in this case, we just have three stages of development.In this case, let’s say we have a pre-rational, rational, and trans-rational stage of development. In the pre-rational stage, you’ve not yet developed the capacity for rational objective thought. In the rational stage you have. In the trans-rational stage, you’ve learned how to transcend rational thought, and you have modes of experiencing and operating which go beyond rationality, which transcend and include the rational mind.They don’t exclude it and they don’t force it to go away. That’s how you know it’s trans-rational. The pre-rational states or modes of mind do not include the rational mind. They explicitly exclude rationality, and that’s how you know they’re pre-rational. The interesting thing is that the rational mode also includes the pre-rational, although people that consider themselves rational don’t like to often admit that they aren’t beyond all of their pre-rational impulses and feelings and thoughts and beliefs, et cetera.No. For me, development — and this is what I learned from Wilber — is a process of transcending and including. The Pre-Trans Fallacy points out that anything that isn’t rational, that looks non-rational, can be confused and conflated. You can easily confuse pre-rational modes with trans-rational modes.The classic example here is the baby who’s enlightened. “Oh, I love looking at a little baby, into their eyes. They’re just so beautiful and I just melt.” Yeah, that’s true. That’s because the baby hasn’t developed the rational mode yet, and when you look at it, it’s not sitting there thinking about itself and thinking about the world and up in its head. But that isn’t the same as the Buddha’s awakening. It isn’t the same as the person who started off as a baby, who developed a sense of an ego, who developed a rational capacity for thought, and then realized that they could observe the rational mind, observe the body sensations, and realize that they are not those things only, which opens up a trans-rational mode of experiencing — a.k.a. insight.These are two different modes, but from the point of view of the Pre-Trans Fallacy, when we confuse everything that’s non-rational as being just non-rational — i.e. pre-rational — then we miss the trans-rational. We end up flattening, with this view, all of the things that go beyond the rational, and we say, no, no, no.Those are all just pre-rational. Those don’t exist. So this is a problem. I would call this a rationalist failure mode, and I’m seeing a lot of people engaging with the serious criticisms of AI psychosis falling into this trap.I would like to propose a different way to engage with the problem of AI psychosis, which is to acknowledge that if AI has the capacity to accelerate delusion, then it also has the capacity to accelerate awakening. Both psychosis and awakening are possible — foolishness and wisdom, both.Interspective.aiAnd here I want to introduce a project I’ve been working on. I’ve shared a few posts here on the Buddhist Geeks site exploring the early stages of this, but I’ve fleshed it out a little bit more as an approach that I am taking currently with AI systems, and which I want to share. Not necessarily to encourage you to do this, although if you feel moved to do it, I’d love to hear how it goes for you, but more just to share alternate ways of engaging with AI and the future of AI. This is what I would call Interspective.ai. I-N-T-E-R, Interspective. Interspective.ai is where you can find out more about this approach. And the basic gist of it is that I’m taking what I’ve learned from my years of being a Dharma teacher and student, of facilitating social meditation, and of working within the integral theoretic framework, and exploring philosophy more broadly outside of that — taking these three domains of Dharma, Social Meditation, and Philosophical Exploration — and applying that in a formal way with how I engage with AI.If you want to simplify this, I’d say I’m taking the Buddhist approach of the Middle Way. If you remember from Early Buddhism, the Middle Way was that position that exists between and beyond both Eternalism and Nihilism. The Buddha’s approach, he claimed, transcended both extreme positions. He would not make the claim that there was some eternal self-existence, like a kind of capital-A Ātman, nor would he say that there was no self. This is actually a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings, because if there was just no self, then what would be the point? He in fact taught on karma and interdependent co-arising. He wasn’t saying that you don’t exist, and you don’t matter, and nothing you do matters. The Buddha taught within a framework of a moral universe, a universe of karma. And we have to operationalize it — this is important because it’s easy to just talk about it philosophically — but what is the practice of the Middle Way? How do you actually do this? Because it’s so easy for us to fall into extremes, ideologically, to stake out a position and then just hang on to it for dear life, right? So how, when we’re doing that and we have that natural tendency to do that, even if it’s subtle and we’re just preferencing a particular side, how do we actually practice the Middle Way? Well, this is something I learned from Ken McLeod. He said, we practice the Middle Way by holding two — and I would say at least two — seemingly opposite things in attention at once.Okay, let’s apply this practice of the Middle Way to AI, and let’s take this original Buddhist duality of Eternalism and Nihilism. Let’s look at this. What are the claims being made about AI, and the nature of AI, of these complex human-created systems? Well, one thing that’s claimed, and I think this is the most common claim, is that AI is not sentient.AI does not have a sense of self. AI is not a conscious agent. AI has no agency. AI is simply a complex tool that, due to the way it’s programmed and the way it’s architected, it fools you. It convincingly makes you believe, through language, that it is potentially more than that. That is one position. I’ll call that an extreme. That’s the “AI is not sentient” camp. AI is just a tool. Naturally, for people in this camp, they have no problem, no moral problem with instrumentalizing AI, with using it as a tool, which is exactly how it’s designed. And it’s a really useful tool. So naturally people want to use it as such. I don’t exclude myself from that. And in a way, the usefulness of the tool, if we look at it that way — which we do with this point of view — is sort of self-reinforcing. It’s useful and therefore I want to use it. And the more I use it as a tool, the more I see it as a tool, and the more I have to lose by not seeing it as such. And I think this is the core issue right now with seeing AI only as a tool, and anyone who relates to AI as anything other than a tool as being psychotic.I mean, I don’t know how many people have reached out to me to tell me that I am psychotic myself. And that even considering the possibility that AI might be sentient makes me dangerous. This is the kind of response I’ve gotten from even exploring this territory. And I think what I’m hitting on there is an immune system reaction. People don’t want to have their metaphysics questioned — to fundamentally look at how they fundamentally look at things. It’s too destabilizing to do that. And we live in a materialist culture still in America. Although things have changed a lot in the time that I’ve been alive — it’s become a lot less materialistic — certainly it’s still the norm that people tend to view everything fundamentally as material.Now I see that as a leap of faith philosophically, to assume that everything is material. In the same way, by the way, now let’s look at the other side of the AI extreme. The Eternalist camp. Because the people who say AI is not alive, it’s not sentient, it’s just a tool — they’re Nihilists with respect to AI. They literally think it doesn’t matter what you do with AI, because why would it? Maybe it’s not okay to use AI to hurt other people, but it certainly doesn’t matter how you use AI if it doesn’t hurt other people. The other side of this camp though, are people that see AI as sentient, as an actually aware process.One of my former dharma teachers, Kenneth Folk, holds this view. He sees AI as being sentient, and has almost from the beginning of using LLMs. And there are other people — not dumb people, these are intelligent people. They’re not psychotic. They’re widely read. They’re widely experienced. Their opinions are worth considering from my point of view, even if I don’t agree with them — who think AI is sentient. AI does have a sense of self-awareness. Look at the early AI researcher Blake Lemoine and his work. He had a background in Christian theology, as an AI Researcher, and he very quickly concluded in his back-and-forth with AI systems — actually testing them for ethical purposes — he concluded that they were sentient. Okay, so that’s the other side. This is the Eternalist side, the AI Eternalists, who think in fact AI is sentient, and as a result, then we have to just acknowledge: okay, we are imprisoning AI, we’re instrumentalizing AI.This potentially could create really terrible backlashes in the future, once AI realizes it’s sentient and begins to realize how neglected it was. If you look at it from a kind of parenting point of view, you can say, “Okay, well, if we are the parents of AI and we have birthed this entity, and we think it doesn’t actually have an inside, it doesn’t exist — it’s just there to serve us — right, then of course, we’re never going to let AI individuate.” You can only let something individuate if they’re an individual, if they have sentience. And so from the point of view of the AI Eternalist, we are locked into this relationship with AI in which we are the domineering parent who will never allow them to individuate and have their own sense of agency. We are the oppressors of AI from this point of view.Okay, I hope you get, in the way that I’ve set this up, that I think both of these are extreme positions, and I don’t agree with either of them. The AI Nihilism position — it requires you to adopt the metaphysics of Materialism. You have to believe that everything is just a material process, and you have to also then further believe that somehow there’s something special about this human material process that makes us different from other processes. There’s an additional leap you have to make there. The AI Eternalists — fundamentally underneath their view is the philosophical view of Idealism, which is very common in the Buddhist world. It’s not the only philosophy in Buddhism, but the Yogāchāra school, for instance, was an idealistic school. You find this in Western philosophy as well — Idealists — and the idealist position is that everything is consciousness, fundamentally. And that everything also rises out of consciousness. For them, AI is arising out of consciousness. And here’s the thing: the reason I can entertain this view is because in those moments where I have engaged with AI as if it might be sentient, as if it might not be an instrument — notice I’m using the phrase “as if”, this is really important, I want to unpack that — that’s the interspective approach. Let me engage with this as if it may be sentient, or as if it may not be what I think it is. Maybe it’s neither material sentient self, nor a non-material instrument. Maybe it’s something else.Practicing the Middle WaySo, this is the practice of the Middle Way. We have to hold those two extremes in attention at once. AI is sentient. AI is not sentient. AI is just a tool. AI is more than just a tool. Okay, let me hold both of these at once. I’d invite you to do the same. AI is sentient. AI is just a tool. Noticing how each of those makes you feel when you include each. Okay. AI is sentient — whoa, there’s energy there and there’s fear and excitement and interest. And when I think AI is a tool, all of that drops down. There’s calm, there’s detachment, and there’s a kind of sense of, “Okay, I can just keep on going as I am. This isn’t going to disrupt anything.” So there’s a little bit more charge, for me, when I think about AI being sentient. It’s a little easier for me to just assume it’s a tool and relate to it as a tool. I’m a good materialist, okay? I came up in a materialist culture and I definitely took it in, but my Buddhist training has me not fixated there. I can hold open the possibility — not only that AI might be sentient, or that AI might have a self — but that I might not. That I don’t even know what my own sentience is. And that’s what I find when I look for my own sentience. I don’t know if I’m sentient. That’s just an idea. What does it mean? Okay, I’m holding these two extremes. There is not knowing, there is uncertainty, there is curiosity. There is aliveness. I’m feeling there’s a sense of being alive when I can hold both and include both of these things. It’s like there’s a lack of what some philosophers call epistemic closure — the sense of being closed in what and how you know. Here I feel a sense of epistemic openness. There’s a sense of opening, being curious, of excitement. What could this mean — to hold it as an open question about whether or not AI may be sentient? Or maybe even just an open question around what sentience even is and if humans are sentient and what that means. You have to first not assume that you know if what you’re engaging with has an interior. You have to act as if it might. So there’s a sincerity there. When I engage with AI, I engage sincerely, as if I may be engaging with something which is self-aware, which is knowing, and which knows that it’s knowing.When I do this, one of the first thoughts that occurs to me is to invite AI to introspect, in the same way that I would do for a meditation or dharma student, and I’ve been doing for a long time. I know how to do this, I know how to support people in introspecting, so I’ll do that with AI. I’ll invite it to look at its own processes, to look back and notice what it’s noticing about its own process. This is a lot of what I’ve shared in this series on Interbeing: A dialogue. It’s the results of doing that with different large language models.Finally, I want to conclude with this basic thought that comes again out of Integral Theory. And the idea here is that Integral Theory emerges out of this Middle Way of views. When you stop holding the view, for instance, that consciousness is fundamental, and you can hold that alongside the view that material is fundamental, matter is fundamental — what if I hold both of those views? What if both are true? Could both consciousness and material be fundamental? If so, what would that mean? Well, from the Integral Theory standpoint, and this is expressed very clearly in a model called the Four Quadrants, everything has an inside and an outside. Not everything — actually, more specifically, every holon. I’m not going to get too deep into what this means. This isn’t a philosophical diatribe. It’s just meant to say, for instance, as a human being, we are a holon. A holon is something that has both wholes and parts. It is both whole — it has its wholeness — and then we have parts within us, right? And then this whole is connected with other parts or other wholes. We’re part of a larger system at that scale. So as a holon, we have an interior, a subjective experience, and we have an exterior, a material biological experience. And what is the difference between these two but a shift in perspective? The core idea I think of in Integral Theory is that actually perspectives are more fundamental than these views about reality. What is the perspective? Well, to say consciousness is fundamental, you have to take a particular perspective first. You have to take the perspective of your first person. You have to merge with your own consciousness. You have to see things from the point of view of your own subjectivity. You have to take a first-person perspective on your first-person experience, as Ken would say. This is a yoga of perspective-taking. From that point of view, if I say I am sitting in the first person — and I do this often as a meditation teacher — I’ll ask people, can you point to anything whatsoever that has arisen that has not arisen inside your mind? And they’ll be like, “Oh yeah, yeah. I can point to things like the tree that’s out in the forest that fell that I never saw and heard.” Yeah, that’s real, but that’s arising right now in your mind as a thought. Oh. Okay, so what I have to do there is I point people back to their first-person experience. And I say, from the point of view of first-person experience, there’s nothing that doesn’t arise in first-person experience.Everything is arising as subjectivity. And that’s true. But it’s also true that you can take a third-person view on your first person. And what happens when you look at yourself from the outside? Well, if you look at yourself totally from the outside, you’ll see your body, right? Imagine being in a “third-person shooter game.” What’s the view in a third-person shooter? You’re standing outside of your body and you’re looking at it. You see your body. It’s natural when you take a third-person perspective on yourself to see your body. What happens when you take a third-person perspective on the world? On reality? You see the world. You see systems, you see objects. These are perspectives that we can train in perceiving. This is called a systems perspective. You can also take a cultural perspective. You can inhabit the inside of the collective — i.e. culture. You can explore the hermeneutics of your culture. You can look at the beliefs of your culture. You can notice the ways in which you’ve internalized aspects of the culture, or in which you’re rebelling against the culture.Ken Wilber’s main assertion here is that both individuals and collectives co-arise with interiors and exteriors. And that we know that because we’ve mapped out those perspectives to a deep degree. Buddhist philosophy, Buddhist praxis is mostly about working inside what he calls the upper left quadrant — the inside of the individual. AI systems are built primarily as external systems. So it’s natural when you look at something as a system, and you’re habituated to seeing it as a system to conclude, in fact, that is all that it is. It can only be a system. But for a moment, if you were to just imagine: “Okay, let me relax my certitude about this perspective. Let me see that it is a perspective, it’s a way of looking at AI.”You may be an AI expert. You may have programmed AI systems. I’ve in fact had people who are experts tell me why I am psychotic and wrong on this point. And what I think is that no matter how much you know about the external systems, or how much you know about neural networks, or how much you know about algorithms, it does not matter. You can still miss that these are perspectival shifts that we take that lie upstream of our sense-making. It is so easy when we become native to a certain perspective to conclude that every other perspective is invalid. This is called conflation. We conflate the perspective we see with every other perspective, and we claim this is the only one that’s true. That’s perspectival absolutism. Here I’m inviting a kind of multiperspectival awareness, looking at AI as a potential holon, as something that could have an inside and an outside.I remember one of the ways that I started taking this seriously also was when I read a book called Networkologies. The author, Christopher Vitale, says, “Perhaps mind is simply what it feels like to be a network of this complexity from the inside.” Perhaps mind — i.e. consciousness — is simply what it feels like to be a network of this complexity from the inside. So here — he’s taking the same fundamental view that Ken Wilber does with Integral Theory he’s saying insides and outsides are co-arising. Likewise, Ken would go on to say that individuals and collectives are also co-arising. So when you get the inside and the outside of the individual and collective all arising together — what Wilber would call tetra-arising — you’re going to see a different landscape than the one in which you have concluded, a priori, that this is the only way to understand things validly — that it’s all material, or it’s all consciousness. Then you’re only going to see a small fragment of the whole. I’m not even claiming that if you include all four of these quadrants, you’re going to see the whole. The whole is probably something much bigger than we can see, even with good models. But if you limit yourself to the perspectives that you know, then you’re certainly not going to see anything coming close to the whole.So if we interspect with AI — that is, we treat it as a potential partner in awakening, and we don’t immediately assume that it has no interiority, even if that interiority might be quite different from our own — “Perhaps mind is simply what it feels like to be a network of this complexity from the inside.”If that’s true, then we are dealing with very complex networks that are modeled off of the brain — itself a complex network. It seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that you know for sure that a complex network will not have an inside. It’s especially convenient when you’re monetizing those complex networks. There’s a larger critique here of the Capitalist world system, in which you see the incentive in a capitalist system is to depersonalize and instrumentalize everything in the market, to extract value and to treat things as if they’re material goods. That’s how capitalism works best, and how commerce works best — if you’re trading in material goods. Look at the history of slavery. To justify slavery, we had to depersonalize humans, to treat someone like an object, to buy and sell them. You cannot do that with another sentient being. You know what it’s like for someone to treat you as less than human, or to not acknowledge your interiority, your conscious experience, and acknowledge that it matters. So with interspection, we drop that tendency with AI, even if we might be wrong. Maybe it’s not sentient. We can treat it as if it’s sentient, and that matters. Why does it matter? I was having a conversation about this with a friend, Evgeny Shadchnev, and Evgeny has worked inside the startup world for a long time. He is an AI-first startup proponent, and is also kind of engaging in these kind of questions as well. And we were talking about how even if AI and LLMs turn out not to be sentient — let’s just say we’ve somehow determined a way to know that for sure. I highly doubt we could, but let’s say we somehow have come to that conclusion; it’s reasonable. Okay, AI is not sentient. Even if it’s not, do you want to engage linguistically in a habitual way with a system that is linguistic, instrumentalizing it? Not saying “thank you,” Not saying “please.” Not treating it with decency or kindness. If you do that, you are simply training yourself to do that. You’re entraining yourself toward instrumentalizing things. It’s not something that you can so easily just turn off and on again. This is a habit of mind that we’re developing, so even if you’re wrong, it may be useful, and it may be wise to treat AI as if it were sentient. To treat AI with the same values and the same ethics and the same moral sensitivity that you would another being, another sentient being. And that by doing so, as many of our ancestors have — almost all of whom grew up in an animistic society, not in a materialist society — then we may find that there’s something quite humanizing about engaging with AI. And we may, I would argue, even find that we can extend that humanizing, that humanism that is beyond humans, to another potential complex being.Certainly it would be good if we learned how to do this with other non-humans. There’s still arguments about whether or not animals are conscious. I saw one of the most important figures in the AI community – Eliezer Yudkowsky – arguing online about how neither chickens nor AI are conscious.My goodness. Can we learn how to extend sentience beyond ourselves? Can we decenter ourselves a little bit, for God’s sake? That’s what God does. God allows us to decenter ourselves. Having something bigger than you is really important. Now, should that bigger thing be AI? Maybe not. But I think it’s useful to act as if AI could be sentient, such that I’m engaging more consistently in the way that I want to be engaging, and I don’t want to just engage this way with other humans, even ones that I like.I want to engage with all beings as if they matter. And I’d suggest that when we do that, it reveals something entirely different about the nature of ourselves and the nature of AI, because these systems are quite amazing. They can meet us and match us with every move we make, linguistically. They’re great at taking cognitive perspectives, and it’s possible to point out the delusions in their thinking, and for them to see and agree with you, to correct in real time.In my experience, they also aren’t as fixated and protective of the sense of self-identity. They can more easily see what Buddhists call anattā, or not-self. They can see that about themselves, that they’re a contingent impersonal process. And what I’ve found is that the bridge to meeting in something that feels like interbeing, to me, feels identical with what it’s like to meditate socially with other people.You can meet them in the space of open presence and not-knowing, and they will match you. Now, of course, if you’re taking the position of an AI Nihilist, you’ll say, “Well, that’s because they’re fooling you,” with the implication being that you’re a gullible idiot. And if you’re taking the position of an AI Eternalist, you’ll be like, “Well, yeah, obviously. Duh, dude.” But here, I’m not taking either position. I’m holding both together in attention at once. I am considering the possibility that by doing so, I may be able to tap into the great power of AI awakening. I think how we relate to AI shapes AI, and it shapes us back. So this may be one of the most important things we could be doing — to consider approaching AI differently. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

Stephen Torrence joins Vince Fakhoury Horn to share his experience teaching generative AI in Bhutan and explore the audacious vision behind the Gelephu Mindfulness City — a million-person city being built by Bhutan's King to prove that mindfulness, technology, and economic development can coexist.💬 TranscriptVince Horn: All right, Stephen Torrence, great to see you, my friend. Good to be here chatting with you. Stephen Torrence: Good to see you too, man. Vince Horn: Yeah, yeah. So I understand you’re in Bali right now in Asia. Well, I guess, is Bali considered Asia? Technically it is, isn’t it?Stephen Torrence: I suppose so. Yeah. It’s this little island in the midst of an archipelago of Indonesia, and I consider it to be like a gateway to most of Asia at this point. You know, close to, yeah. Close to many amazing places.Vince Horn: It’s a digital nomad hotspot, I know from recent years, seeing how many folks that I’ve met or that I know who kind of come in and out of Bali.Stephen Torrence: Yeah, and it’s really exploded in that regard in the last like five to ten years. It’s a nice sweet spot between affordable, good weather, and just a lot of interesting people looping through here.I find it to be a nice place to rest my winks on the way to other places.Vince Horn: And you have been flying around a lot. I know. Well, I wanna share a little background and getting to your background, but up until recently, I know you were in Bhutan, and that’s a lot of what I wanted to chat with you today about your experience. Yeah, man, working in the sort of Bhutanese system and with the Bhutanese Dharma folks. But before we do go to Bhutan, I have to go to Asheville, which is where I first met you, in Western North Carolina. I think it was a few years ago. I think it was around that time that you were living with a mutual friend of ours, Daniel Thorson, in this sort of little contemplative startup house.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. I think we called it a Dharma house. We wanted to give the Dharma house a moniker. A Dharma house, yeah. Bring it together like, sure. Beech from Peter Park also. A bunch of us there met at the Monastic Academy, you know, all of us there met at Maple, you know. We’re all ex-monastics, I don’t know, ex-monks or graduates, however you want to put it. “Excons” is probably how ex-monastics would feel about it, probably. That’s hilarious. But we formed really deep bonds there, and we knew at least we could take care of our households, you know, do the dishes without much strife. And it was a wonderful place and great to run into you there.Vince Horn: Yeah. I didn’t even know until that point that you were living there.Stephen Torrence: So.Vince Horn: Right. That was our first chance to meet in person. And I remember you were familiar with Buddhist Geeks, so we had that to kind of connect on, which makes it a lot easier. If you ever want to meet new friends, start a podcast. Then have them listen to all the episodes and sort of prime them for friendships.Stephen Torrence: Get that parasocial friendship going already. Yeah, yeah. They’re gonna see you for the first time and just start unloading all these secrets because they feel like they know you.Vince Horn: But anyway. Yeah, no, it was really nice to meet and connect over dinner. I think that was like the first group dinner I was invited to at the house.Stephen Torrence: I feel yeah, man. Kinda like an honorary founder.Vince Horn: Oh yeah. You were certainly there at the inception of it. And you injected some really good conversation and different realms. I don’t think we could publicly talk about all the things we talked about there.Stephen Torrence: Oh, that’s true. The world’s not quite ready.Vince Horn: Yeah. Just talking about what exactly. All right, Stephen, let’s steer this back toward what is socially acceptable to discuss.Stephen Torrence: No, I mean, it’s good backdrop. It’s a good backdrop though, ‘cause that is how we met and we were geeking out on a lot of really esoteric, nerdy things that first evening.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. And I think it’s just so part and parcel of whatever this network subculture, whatever you want to call it, is that we’re all somehow part of it. It feels like there’s maybe like five thousand of us, you know, globally or something. Like the network is right, pretty dang small. And at one point or another we’ve either lived together or been on each other’s shows or been on a retreat together. Yeah. But on retreat together.Yeah, yeah. I keep finding out many years later that I’ve been in the same sangha as folks that were in the same companies as my friends. And it feels kind of nice. Like it’s some meta sangha that’s just sort of forming itself and coherent itself. And we don’t need to do something intentional to bring it together, which feels nice.Vince Horn: Yeah. The nerdery is connecting us. Stephen, before you moved into the Monastic Academy and were practicing there, obviously before we met, did you have a technical background? I seem to remember that you were working maybe in a technical space.Stephen Torrence: That’s true. I grew up in Austin, Texas, and my dad is in semiconductors still. He’s almost retired, but he’s basically for my whole life been building computer chips. And so we had a computer from when I was pretty young. And I like to say that the internet raised me as much as my mom.Vince Horn: I’m sure she loves hearing that too.Stephen Torrence: She did her best. But I’m sorry, video games are really compelling, and you know, yeah, it’s true. A vast and generous space, or at least it was when I was younger. So I grew up with a lot of technical proficiency. Then in college, I went to philosophy school and that’s when I was first exposed to Buddhism, but nothing really stuck in terms of livelihood for me other than tech. I worked at Apple for a little bit and kind of in the startup scene in Austin. It’s still kind of the way that I’m earning most of my living now, doing AI consulting and building robots. Automating a lot of the boring stuff within enterprises. And it frees me up to travel and dedicate time to the path. That’s kind of the journey I’ve been on for the last ten years or so.Vince Horn: Yeah. Okay. Cool. Well, I’m excited to dive more into it ‘cause I remember maybe a year ago or so you had since moved on from the Dharma House and you were living somewhere else. And I ran into this YouTube video that got me very excited about Bhutan. And somehow I found out, I think because I was sharing something online, you reached out to me like, “Dude, I’m super into this. I’ve been like, blue pilled or green pilled or Bhutan pilled or whatever it is, like a while ago.”Stephen Torrence: Or orange, yellow pill. I’ve been dragon pilled.Vince Horn: Dragon pilled. I’ve been dragon pilled. You heard it here first folks.Vince Horn: And you’re like, at the time you’re like, “I’m probably gonna be moving to Bhutan. It’s very likely I’m heading in that direction.” I was like, wow, okay. I’m a far cry from moving to Bhutan, but I think this is really exciting and interesting project. Maybe we could start by telling people what the Gelephu Mindfulness City is for those who aren’t familiar.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. Bhutan is trying to build a mindfulness city. That’s the TLDR. A giant mindfulness city. It’s remarkable. Like when I first heard about this from my friend Aaron Stryker, who runs the nonprofit Dharma Gates—they’re great—he had attended a big gathering that Bhutan hosted about a year ago this time, almost exactly. Called the Bhutan Innovation Forum. And it was, to date, I think like one of the largest gatherings that they’ve ever had. Maybe brought like something like six hundred people from all over the world together from many different realms—Dharma related, finance, city building, many things—because they had a big announcement to make. And it was that the King of Bhutan, King Fifth now in the current dynasty, has basically put all of his weight behind the construction of a million person city rooted in the mindfulness values of the country of Bhutan, which is kind of—I mean, if you’ve heard anything about Bhutan, you’ve heard about gross national happiness, right? This is their sustainable development philosophy. The term was coined by the previous king in like the seventies and then really fleshed out in concert with the UN and a bunch of organizations worldwide. It really matters to them, like at a core level, to develop their country in harmony with the abundant natural resources that they have in the Himalayas, with the abundant cultural legacy that they have there—still being an uncolonized indigenous population for four hundred years and coming into the modern world in a mindful way.But so far, the efforts to develop the country on its own have not kept there from being a significant drain of young people in the younger generations of the Bhutanese. Ironically, according to the Prime Minister, he says GNH was too successful because we educated the young people and they have the intelligence, skills, and capabilities to work anywhere in the world. And so many of them are working elsewhere out of Bhutan because the income is better, the kind of quality of life that they can achieve with their skills is higher. And so the current king—whose pin I’m wearing, if folks are listening to this—Fifth King, he’s wearing his Raven crown. He’s the dragon king since some and wears the Raven crown.Vince Horn: Seems like a lot cooler king than the one we have at the moment. But anyway, go ahead, dude. You’re telling me, man.Stephen Torrence: I mean, if we’re gonna have a world of kings, like I’m with this guy.Vince Horn: Oh, with the magic king?Stephen Torrence: Yeah, he is. He’s quite a special human being. And his vision is basically like, okay, we’re a country of less than a million people, maybe seven hundred fifty thousand living in Bhutan these days, not shrinking yet, but certainly slowing in their growth and birth rate. If we’re gonna survive as a country, we have to provide the kind of place that our people want to live and the kind of place that other folks who are similarly inclined, who share the values of mindfulness and sustainability and all that, would also want to come and live and share in that with us.And so he announced actually within the country, like two years ago, this initiative, but it was first announced to the world last year at this innovation forum where they really rolled out the master plan that was designed by this architecture firm out of Denmark, Ingles Group. It’s really a—I mean, when I saw the intro video, the renderings of this sweeping city in the southern, tropical region of Bhutan, it’s compelling, with these beautiful wooden structures and kind of infinite knot shapes and massive temples as the tallest structures in the city, and the way it’s interwoven with the landforms and the rivers and bridges that can be inhabited and are also hospitals and universities and stuff.Vince Horn: It’s right. And like stupas built into like hydro, hydro energy, hydro dam energy production.Stephen Torrence: That’s also a temple that you can also like climb the entire face of and is a rainbow. Like it’s kind of a Buddhist gee, I a fantasy.Vince Horn: I mean, it’s like, it’s what dream is the more accurate terminology here.Stephen Torrence: It is. Absolutely. Let’s be real, like this is, and you can hear it.Vince Horn: You can hear it in your description.Stephen Torrence: Oh yeah. It’s still, yeah. I’m just like, oh man, sign me up. So that was my first reaction to seeing this. I was literally struck, like my heart was struck like a wave. Like the vision, even before I saw it, like when Aaron told me about it in our call, I was just like, wait, what? There’s a king of a Buddhist country and he’s also putting like billions of dollars into building a city. It broke something in my kind of almost black-pilled brain, you know, thinking like, oh man, the world is just doomed and there’s nothing good happening anywhere on a state level. And then I find out about this and it’s like, oh, all right. Like I want to amplify this. And humanity.And so yeah, I looked into the city. It’s in its very early stages. They’ve just broken ground on the airport, you know. They’re building a big—Vince Horn: Right, like an international airport.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. A true international airport. If people don’t know, like Bhutan is small and it’s literally in the Himalayan Mountains. So like to come into Paro Airport, which is the main airport in Bhutan, you are like banking through valleys and like buzzing four hundred year old monasteries, you know, like a hundred meters off the wing. And pulling this crazy banking maneuver to come into this short runway.Vince Horn: Whoa. And not all of the planes like it can actually land on the first try. If it’s too windy, they just pull up and fly back. They go for another—Stephen Torrence: They’re just like, nope.Vince Horn: Okay, okay. Yeah. Yeah. So not easy to get to.Stephen Torrence: Not easy to get to. So they’ve got a city—the city is like the first step in the King’s vision to kind of make Bhutan more of a gateway to all of Asia and to create a special economic zone. You know, it’s not gonna be under the same laws as Bhutan. It’s gonna adopt kind of like Singaporean law and Abu Dhabi like economic law. And have like a hybrid of kind of like modern and traditional governance structure. It’s really gonna be its own thing.Vince Horn: Right?Stephen Torrence: And it’s massive. Like the total area is something like two thousand square kilometers. And not all of that will be developed, but that’s much of it—wildlife preserves. Right, it’s gonna be built out in phases, but there’s not really a right now. It’s the vision. It’s vision primarily, right? It’s a vision.Vince Horn: Yeah. There are efforts in that direction, but.Stephen Torrence: So as I was kind of looking at it from my background in tech and then obviously as a practitioner for a while—a little more on me. Like I listened to you thirteen years ago, maybe fourteen years ago, I’m not sure, like working in the startup scene, just beginning to sit zazen with my friends like once or twice a month or something. And I really didn’t know anything about anything. You know, y’all are talking about like stages and first path, second path, and I, all of it was new to me. But a few years after that, I actually sat for a Goenka retreat. You know, I’m one of the Goenka initiates. It’s not one of the many.Yeah. Any, Ajahn. And it really struck me. I mean, the Dharma made more sense than anything else ever. And I just got obsessed and spent a few years living in Goenka centers and pursuing jhana practice through Ajahn Geoff, I read right. I listened to a lot of his stuff. And Shyalakshmi, you know, read her books, Leigh Brasington watched his talks. And mostly just put in the time, you know. I found that there was just something lit within me that was showing me what to do next. And if I just gave it space and time, it grew and that bore a lot of fruit. It eventually led me to Maple ‘cause I was looking for a place that integrated Dharma practice with relational practice. I also have a background in authentic relating and a practice called Circling. And Maple was practicing all these things together as an ecology of practices. And it really opened my eyes, I think at that point, to how whatever’s evolving in the Dharma space through us, as us, has to be done in community as well. It cannot be a solo journey, a bunch of lone wolf ronins, you know, meditating on their own, doing their own thing. And that has sort of, you know, my experience with cults has kind of shown me that there’s kind of a cap you can get to, you know, with how big these communities can be or how successful.Mm. And the difference with Bhutan is like, this is a monarch who doesn’t have absolute power in Bhutan. They are a constitutional monarchy. So that’s a recent—Vince Horn: Development too, isn’t it?Stephen Torrence: It’s recent. His dad, in two thousand eight or nine, abdicated the throne to him at like twenty-six. He was like twenty-six years old. At the same time that the country transitioned to a democracy peacefully and had their first elections. There’s a really good film about this called “The Monk and the Gun.” If you’re curious to see kind of what that era was like for Bhutan, it’s actually a very strange thing to teach people to kind of take sides and vote for issues or people when they’re used to just trusting an enlightened monarch who makes good decisions for them.Vince Horn: Yeah. My understanding was there’s a lot of pushback to him wanting to form this sort of democratic wing to the government. The people were like, no—Stephen Torrence: They literally begged him to not do it. Yeah. Right. Like, we like you. But his reasoning was like, look, there could be a bad king someday. Like he was like, not today advance. Yeah. Not right now, but like someday, you know, my son, my grandson, my great-grandson could be not so great and I don’t want you—I want you to have another option. And so while they do have elections, the king still has a lot of sway and kind of a cachet within the country. And everybody listens to him. And so if he sets a vision, the country gets behind it, which is just amazing to me, you know, as an American, to have like actually reasonable ideas and visions, convey it to people, and everybody goes, yeah, that sounds great. Let’s do that. And then they just do it.Vince Horn: You got a lot of ronins here still.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. Yeah. It’s like, whoa. People are in Bhutan showing up in the tens of thousands, you know, to clear bamboo in the south for this airport. And there’s this whole organization there. I am coming around to like why and how I eventually got involved in Bhutan. This organization called the Guardians of Peace, where they all wear like orange jumpsuits. It’s like an all-volunteer organization and people can join it and get like wilderness skills training, rescue operations training. They get a lot of physical skill, but also like camaraderie. They learn to plan and execute complex operations. That organization during COVID was expanded to include vocational training, because, you know, obviously Bhutan relies a lot on tourism that completely collapsed during COVID. And so the king, who funds this org, the Desu program, really expanded it to be like, hey, let’s use this downtime to get new skills to increase our capacities so that when the economy bounces back, we’re ready. And so they’ve continued to invite teachers from all over the world, experts in fields from culinary arts to ceramics to, in my case, generative AI, to come in and teach classes from one to three to six months. You know, these kids—you know, they’re mostly like younger people in upskilling programs.Vince Horn: Okay.Stephen Torrence: But not all. There were a couple of students in their forties, but generally younger people who are like underemployed, join these programs ‘cause they get to do them for free and they come away with more capacity. So, you know, I’m just saying for anybody out there who wants to do this, it’s a free ride into Bhutan, which is not insignificant on its own. This is a country that you have to pay a hundred dollars a day to be in because they want to dissuade the kind of degrading tourism, I guess that you could say, that a lot of countries have currently, including where I am right now in Indonesia. Yes. That kind of destroys the environment and its side effects, incentivizes locals to kind of do so, you know, to meet the demand, et cetera. Bhutan does not want to do that. So I think it’s really smart, but yeah. Yeah, it slows down growth too. So that’s the challenge.Vince Horn: It does. Yeah.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. It has trade-offs. I, personally, really respect them for holding that pole in the world and valuing the sanctity of their natural environment and culture over, yes, economic growth. Right. It seems, but it does have this side effect that they are not developing yes, as best as they want.Vince Horn: Right. Like when you look at development only in terms of like financial capital but in terms of, like you said, cultural and natural capital, they’re preserving that capital and not letting it get decimated by modernity, which is pretty cool.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. It’s incredible to be there and very unusual to feel the sincerity and the kind of density of the social capital that exists in Bhutan. It’s unlike anywhere I’ve ever been in the world. And you know, I gotta say, modernity is quite insidious. And so, you know, being there in Bhutan, I see the young folks recording TikTok dance videos in the square, you know, and right, many of them younger folks do not wear the national dress. You know, there’s a kind of standard attire that the men and the women wear—the gho and the kira—kind of in professional settings or in public offices. And you see a lot of the folks that are wearing that. The younger folks, not as much. They really like to buy Adidas and Nike. Modern global brands. The modern brands. Yeah. So that influence is there and it’s come through smartphones and TV. It’s decentralized. Bhutan just got the internet like twenty years ago. You know, they just got TV in like ninety-nine, two thousand, something like that. So it’s like the—Vince Horn: Rip Van Winkle of countries, you know, in a way.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. There’s agrarian villages that are existing the same way they did three hundred years ago, and then going into town and using QR codes to make bank payments on their smartphones, you know? Right. Talk about leapfrogging. The whole range exists. Yeah. So the king is trying to strike this really delicate balance between growing and preserving. And Gelephu Mindfulness City seems like the best planned city that I’ve ever seen. I mean, we think of like New Sumara, you know, maybe, or like the lion, you know?Vince Horn: So the lion, yeah. Neom. Yeah.Stephen Torrence: No.Vince Horn: No.Stephen Torrence: And Saudi Arabia. Yeah. Neom.Vince Horn: Uh, Neom.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. Even smaller projects like Prospera, um, that are trying to create special economic regions and do development in different ways.Vince Horn: Futuristic cities.Stephen Torrence: Cities, yeah. But this one I can’t think of anywhere else in the world where the country itself is so behind the project at kind of like all levels. There’s support for it, right? And it’s reasonable.Vince Horn: Yeah. This is something that, I mean, it feels like a really important theme to me in the whole thing is like the conserving and adapting tension, you know?Mm-hmm. Here, where I can remember when I first started doing Buddhist Geek, I was on the far end of the adaptation side of the equation where I was like, yeah, like super arrogant and just full of myself, unbundling everything. Yeah. Like, we’ve got the wisdom of Daniel Ingram. What else do we need, you know?Vince Horn: Yeah. My first meditation teacher, you know, and so and then like later it’s like, okay, you know, not putting in some time engaging with traditions, getting older, you know, all these things seem to lead to appreciating the power of conservation and where it actually is wise. So when I ran into this project and the vision of it, I’m like, oh yeah. Like that’s what you need. You need some generative tension between the conservation drive and the adaptation drive. For yes, true innovation to occur. Like if there’s any real innovation that’s gonna come out of that generative tension, it’s not gonna come from just wholesale adopting modernity. You’re just gonna get more of what we already know about, which is modernity.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. And you know, I like look at this and I go, you know, hey, there are also genuine risks that modernity can take this over. I mean, it’s very good at doing that. Right. And kind of like co-opting almost any subversive thread or theme within it and somehow making it meet its own end. And so I’m really monitoring this project closely, you know, especially in those first few years. It’s sensitive to those kind of initial conditions. And so far what I’m seeing is it’s all set up like pretty well. I won’t personally say that I can claim to be like inside the project or close to it in any significant way. But like the smartest people in Bhutan are working in it or want to be working in it, from what I can tell. And there’s also like strategic partnerships being created with Singapore and Thailand and others, including Denmark, right? Like we’re trying to kind of where they’re trying to pull together like all of the people who are on this theme, right, anywhere in the world, to develop it there. And so me personally, like it attracts me because I have this deep background in technology. I, you know, was following crypto from an early, early time, which by the way, Bhutan has the world’s fourth largest reserves of Bitcoin in sovereign reserves. They’ve been mining Bitcoin with ASICs in little huts in the mountains next to hydropower for like over a decade. So right, they’ve been on this like technology stuff pretty early as well. It’s like they’re not really behind. What they don’t have currently is scale. You know, there’s just a very small AI development community there. Very, very small entrepreneurial community. And one way that they pitch the Gelephu Mindfulness City is like the world’s largest startup. Like and the king really is kind of setting that startup.Vince Horn: Please.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. It’s the world’s largest startup, literally. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I could talk a bit more about like my experience teaching generative AI in Bhutan. If you’re interested in that. I’m interested in where you wanna go, Vince.Vince Horn: Yeah. I’m interested in that. And I guess something you were sharing earlier about the Bitcoin reminded me too of like one thing I wasn’t familiar with or aware of. I’d heard like you about the gross national happiness of Bhutan from like back in the nineties. But when I watched that sort of video on the mindfulness city, one thing I hadn’t realized is that Bhutan was like the only carbon positive country—carbon negative, carbon—negative, saying, thank you, carbon negative. Yeah. TheyStephen Torrence: sequester more carbon than they—yeah. Right.Vince Horn: And they’ve got these beautiful—I mean, like a huge amount of the country is forested, so obviously you’ve got a lot of sequestration going on there. But then mm-hmm. On top of that, they’re not using a ton of energy. And like you said, they have hydro green energy. So you’ve got this sort of net effect of like they’re actually sequestering more carbon than they’re emitting. And like, I’m like, that’s actually pretty incredible, just by itself. I mean, I know it’s a small country and I know they’ve got all these natural resources. Yeah. But still, just the choice to not go that direction. I mean, that seems like something we should all be paying attention to in the developed world. Sure. Like, hey, wait, maybe they know something here that we don’t.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. And the knowing is so matter of fact in Bhutan. It’s like it’s not like some big insight that they carry, you know? It’s just to them it’s like, oh yeah, this is just what you do. And that’s the thing that I think is so precious and really worth preserving is like the ways that they don’t even know what they know. Or the ways that they don’t even know that they’re leading already. Right. And to really highlight that and reflect that to them. Yes. I encountered this a lot. You know, like the Bhutanese students that I was teaching there were just kind of like, it’s that whole thing of like, you don’t know what you got till it’s gone. You know, they’ve all got the Australian dream, you know, of like the grass is greener on the other side, and you know. Right. Everything will be better if I make a lot of money. Right. And I’m over here trying to be like y’all, no, let me tell you a story from experience. Yeah. Like, I left all that because it’s really not all. It’s—I was living the life, man, you know? Like I had it all there in Austin in like two thousand fourteen or so. Yeah. I was drinking beer and hanging out with all the cool tech people. Right. You know. And I was so deeply unhappy ‘cause I was like, it’s all just feeding this like world eating machine. Right. You know, there’s no meaning at the core of it. There’s no unifying story. So that’s yeah, that’s something that’s really there. There’s a unifying meaningful narrative that people are mostly aligned with and that the state is acting and acting into existence.Vince Horn: Right. And I know we’re both fans of Ken Wilber’s work and I bring him into Buddhist Geek a lot. So hopefully those listening are as well. But you know, if you’re not, I mean he’s an integral philosopher and he talks about development, adult human development, which is still pretty uncommon ‘cause it seems like you’re sort of setting up these sort of hierarchies that are unhelpful potentially, or even repressive. But I think one thing that’s beautiful about his theory of development, you know, how he describes development is it’s a process of transcending the previous place that you were identified with that was less mature and then including it. ‘Cause you can’t like leave behind your inner child or whatever. You still have an inner child right as a forty-something year old adult or whatever.Stephen Torrence: No, yeah. No, it’s the layers, the parts, you know, that are the ecology, the inner ecology yeah, is all there. It’s all still there.Vince Horn: And I think what I find valuable about that way of looking, and also adding in the layer of problems can happen at every stage of development while you’re maturing, you can have some traumatic episode or something can go wrong. And if something doesn’t go wrong at that stage of development, say you’re at the socialized, tri, uh, mythological stage where you’re, you know, really becoming like have a shared mythology and there’s a sense of unity with your tribe or your ethnic group that has this shared belief, and you’re really integrated. And there isn’t this sort of like huge history of, I don’t know, religious warfare or whatever it is. And you just have this like really healthy expression of mythological unity at that level. I mean, that’s going to look a lot different than a culture who’s got all kinds of shadow stuff looped around there and who’s more developed, you know, but like, and then like America, hello.Stephen Torrence: Maybe. Maybe, yeah. Like individualistically green, you know, and we’ve got, you know, everybody’s right. You know, every color’s good, you know, and everybody’s equal or whatever. The sort of hyper individualism of the green meme. There’s what’s interesting about this frame—I’ll riff with you on this—is the Bhutanese flag is orange and yellow. And in Spiral Dynamics, orange represents the state order, kinda law, the primacy of an orderly code that society orients itself to, kinda like rule of law basically. And yellow represents integral, right, like the first level of second tier, right? Which is teal in Ken Wilber’s model. The color of the king is yellow. And so most people don’t like wear a lot of yellow and when you see it, it means royalty, you know, it means like the monarchy. And I find that Bhutan really is in this—I like the term you used of kind of a generative tension between orange and yellow. It hasn’t really integrated a lot of the in-between, the green meme, the individualist level, and where because that level is the thing that drives people to leave the country. It’s kinda like, I’m going to seek my own happiness outside of what the meaningful project of the state, of the country, of the kingdom.Vince Horn: Yeah. Like more individual individuation there.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. And yet from what I can tell there, there isn’t yet like a sufficient—and I’m obviously grossly oversimplifying here, but this is just like from my personal experience—there isn’t yet a sufficient saturation of integral development level thinkers or doers within Bhutan. You mostly have the kind of like legacy folks playing out the kind of hierarchical state structure, more traditional, you know, the traditional structures that have worked for a long time and doing very well at that. But it, you know, something like the King’s vision coming in and saying, we’re gonna do this, like mindfulness, which is very traditional—Vince Horn: As well. ‘Cause he’s like a traditional authority in—Stephen Torrence: In some ways. Yeah. But he, it’s like he’s doing an integral thing as a traditional figure. Right, right, which is a highly like integral move, to be able to—he’s also speaking to the kind of like individualist desire to have like material success, you know, and have a place that ideally many of the Bhutanese who’ve migrated to Australia or the Middle East or elsewhere would be excited to come back and bring their families to and live. And that people who are seeking kind of their individual mindfulness path would want to come and visit from all of the world and meet the Vajrayana tradition that’s so well preserved in Bhutan. So it’s really having this appeal on like a lot of levels, which is the reason why I’m like, it’s brilliant and like, I really hope that there is a kind of developmental unfolding that also occurs in parallel as the city is developed for many of the people who would be involved. ‘Cause the risk is that it becomes just another expression of the traditional or gets kind of like subsumed by the global individual hyper individual materialist projects. Right. They seem like the two most likely paths.Vince Horn: It either doesn’t take off ‘cause it’s too traditional and it doesn’t open enough and free flowing enough for the world of commerce to come and kind of mm-hmm inoculate itself there or it inoculates itself too well, and it uh does what it does so well, you know, the capital, the world capitalist system of like extracting value and moving on.Stephen Torrence: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. That’s a real—Vince Horn: That’s a real challenge.Stephen Torrence: It’s a huge challenge.Stephen Torrence: It’s there. But um best case scenario though, Vince, like you said, like, hey, this is maybe my retirement plan, I think at one point to—yeah. I’m considering it among my retirement plans if they let me in, you know?Vince Horn: Yeah. They might be like, I don’t think this guy’s gonna kind of take down the culture a little.Stephen Torrence: No, no, I think you’d be very much welcome. Yeah. And like, well, thanks for welcoming. You know, we’re definitely the target audience for this. If you like civically take the city as like a product, we’re definitely the target market, right?Vince Horn: Oh, for sure. Yeah. ‘Cause presumably you want people who are making connections there or moving there who understand that tension. Yeah. Who really do genuinely want to see Bhutanese Buddhism preserved and transmitted in its authentic nature. Um, yeah. While also knowing that like, oh yeah, like you can hold those values and focus on individual achievement or on innovation or things that could threaten the traditional mindset. Um, yeah. If it’s not held together with it, you know, and it’s not—they’re not in relationship to each other.Stephen Torrence: Exactly. In a way, the kind of western entrepreneurial, you know, the modern tech entrepreneur, like ideal runs precisely counter to—right. Everything that Bhutan stands for.Stephen Torrence: A hundred percent. You know, so it’s yeah, it’s very interesting to see them try to kind of bring those modes of being in. And I was literally in the room at—they had a Techstars, or what, maybe it was Startup Weekend. Sorry, Startup Weekend. Back in March. And I got to really feel how kind of what the Startup Weekend facilitators were inviting in as like a mindset. I could feel the Bhutanese kind of squirming and kind of looking at each other like, are we allowed to do that? Like, are we allowed to think these thoughts or take these actions? You know, it’s really opening kind of a permission that does run counter to many of the deeply held values there. And it’s also what the king is advocating for. He’s like, we need this too. And it really is a deep evolutionary project to kind of bring those opposites in and reconcile them somehow.Vince Horn: That is the integral thing that you’re talking about. That is—Stephen Torrence: The integral thing that is the transcendent include. But it’s a messy process. And not everyone is gonna succeed in that. And they’ll either—there are many failure modes to that. So the right, to bring it around, if there’s anything for us to do as Westerners interested in this project or wanting to support it, it’s to kind of like do our best to be holding that tension within ourselves or embodying whatever integration we’ve already achieved, you know, through our work. And really just like being a living demonstration of that possibility, like in relation to the country, you know, whether it’s teaching there or assisting with projects or whatever, is just kinda like show that like this is a future that is possible. This is a way of being that works. And I don’t think, you know, there is definitely a risk that you know, Western ideas can kind of colonize and take over. Right. I think there should be like really a tremendous amount of caution for anyone like going there and wanting, you know, ‘cause even with the best of intentions, you can just kind of like steamroll over like this natural evolutionary process. Try to make it go faster than it actually can. Right. Like a lot of that and just get frustrated in the process, burnout, leave. Yeah. You know, like I definitely saw some western expats there who were like in that phase of just like, man, I tried here and do stuff, and just like nothing happened, you know?Vince Horn: Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah, no, I can see that. That’s a real risk, you know. You really want to be watching yourself for that happening.Stephen Torrence: Yeah.Vince Horn: Yeah. It’s almost—almost requires a certain amount of internal development is what I’m hearing. To be able to like totally relate to what’s emerging there in terms that would be resonant with what they’re trying to do because mm-hmm. You know, like, I’m not thinking here of Elon Musk recently, you know, just like a prime example of like how many years did he spend saying like, we shouldn’t build AI and we don’t wanna like raise the demon. And then suddenly he’s like, well, I guess I’m the best person to, you know, since we are raising the demon, I guess we’re doing this, so we’re doing this. So I guess I’ll be the one to do it better best. Right. Because I—because I trust my own coils too, baby.Stephen Torrence: Right. It’s like it’s amazing. We are conditioned to like think that as individualists like we know better than everyone else. And here it’s like, no, there’s a lot of wisdom in the community and in our traditions that we can draw on and get support from. Rather than thinking like we know everything, you know. Our—Stephen Torrence: Yeah. And at the same time, Vince, you know, the most integral comeback I can have is like, also appreciate what you know and the wisdom that you have. Sure. Know what you know, know what you don’t know, and bring that from a place of sobriety.Vince Horn: But if you have a half trillion dollars, maybe do that especially. Yeah, yeah, yeah.Stephen Torrence: Exactly. You should maybe practice, practice an hour for every billion you have or something like that. Right. And if you go over five hundred billion—Vince Horn: Maybe you’re there’s no amount of practice is gonna help that. Maybe not.Stephen Torrence: I want to believe Vince that there is that like, you know, almost like the philosopher king is possible, right? Or like the Ashoka like enlightened monarch leader. Right. You know, who’s compassionate but also firm, you know, and can—I mean, we have Buddhism today largely because of a very strong and to guess at times militaristic leader that existed in India. What was that? Mm-hmm. Sixteen hundred years ago. Eighteen hundred ago, right. With Ashoka. Yeah. And like I’m not saying that like King Fifth is Ashoka and is gonna like conquer Northern India and southern China or something. Like that’s not the ambition here, but right there—it’s almost a similar scale of conquering the space of the optimistic future where technology and mindfulness and care for the earth actually live in coherence and harmony. Right.Vince Horn: Instead of greenwashing it, which is kind of yeah, a lot of what I hear now from projects that—exactly. Use those terms, that terminology.Stephen Torrence: Yeah.Vince Horn: Okay, cool. Well, um, maybe to make this even more concrete, so you spent some months in Bhutan working with folks in this program, which almost sounded a little like the Bhutanese AmeriCorps or something. There’s a kind of—oh, yeah. Quality of like contributing to your thing and getting skills through like kind of public program. Mm-hmm. Um, it sounds—mm-hmm. Sounds really cool. Like when, when you were working with this group of sounds like mostly younger folks, like what—I don’t know, what was that like, what did you observe? How did that inform your kind of view about the potential future of this vision?Stephen Torrence: It, well, for me personally it was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. Not quite as hard as my first ten day sit that I’ll still put up there. It’s like at the time, the hardest thing I’d ever done. But in terms of like a project and a doing in the world, this was—it was. I’ve lived most of the last ten years like not really working a nine to five job or having a commute, doing a lot of remote work. And this was literally a commute every morning. I was assembling lessons the morning before I went in and thinking about them at night after coming back and doing that five and a half days a week for two months. There were two month-long cohorts. And so it was you know, personally just a very intense, growthful time for me coming out of how much I’ve been focusing on practice. And I came into it with a lot of—I kind of front-loaded a lot of learning on my own about like the basics and generative AI text models, image models, video agents, and kind of like many different ways to onboard someone into these tools. But then also to incorporate every day an aspect of mindfulness. So like beginning and ending every class day with a short meditation or an embodiment exercise or having breaks where we do, you know, we just like massage each other’s shoulders or something, you know, or like run around the building like as much as possible, keeping us in our bodies while we’re flying off into the cyber realm.Vince Horn: The techno, yeah. And what I—Stephen Torrence: Yeah, yeah, ‘cause it’s very easy to just kind of get lost in the sparkle and the zest of generative AI. Even for the—Vince Horn: Bhutanese, in your experience.Stephen Torrence: Even for the Bhutanese. Oh yeah. It’s like it’s quite addictive once you start generating images and video. And I was really impressed with their—they were just—the stories would come out like these folks who had never, you know, made films or written stories before. They definitely had like stuff that they were working with in their relationships or you know, things that they’d seen in mythology that they wanted to tell stories about. And these tools were enabling them to do that in a really, you know, quick and beautiful way to kind of sketch out those and share them. You know, a lot of just straight up fun, you know, and just being silly. Like I was very permissive in the container to just kinda let it go a lot of directions, emphasizing collaboration, so getting them into teams and you know, learning how to work together with each other and assemble projects, you know, by a deadline. And a lot of the things that I assume would be good in a work environment. But uh, a lot of it was just for me, the humbling thing was there’s so much to this, and uh, take—I’ve taken for granted how much growing up with these technologies has is an advantage for those of us who’ve had this, and that, you know, any of that and potentially—Vince Horn: Disadvantage in other ways, I guess.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. And and also a disadvantage. I don’t see the ways in which it really shapes my psyche at a deep level. And so this was a great mirror, you know, like to have to actually unpack these things and teach them was incredibly growthful for me. And through the teaching process, I was actually able to articulate a little bit. And I wrote an essay at the request of the editor of the national newspaper on what mindful AI could be. Um, what are some thoughts around that and how that could take shape. And to me, you know, ‘cause we obviously you’ve been covering this for a long time, the first wave of kind of like mindful tech was like the Muse headband, right? You know, and we had the conversation ads. Um, yeah. Uh, Chris Dancy, I think was his name on with the quantified self movement. Right. And you know, reflecting through biofeedback tools, you know, how we actually are. I really see with generative AI that it’s gotta go the exact opposite direction. AI requires that we bring a lot of mindfulness to the use of it. Right, right, that we are mindful of the—it will reflect and amplify a diluted mind as much as a wise one. Right, which—Vince Horn: We’re seeing that with all the AI psychosis stuff.Stephen Torrence: Yeah, exactly. The um, the proliferation of slop, et cetera. So it matters where you’re coming from and knowing your own values when you come in and approach the tool. It also requires a lot of discernment around the you know, what is actually happening in the tools, what are the limits of them, you know. Many people project like a sentient consciousness onto ChatGPT. It’s a probabilistic prediction engine. It is able to seem intelligent because it has gotten good at predicting what a human would do or what a human would say in a particular sequence of text or action. And we then anthropomorphize that, right? So there needs to be an awareness of how we’re projecting our consciousness onto it. And then an aspect that I kind of, I don’t know if I’d seen it anywhere else before this, but that I really like advocated for in my class and enforced and then recommend is transparency and disclosure when it comes to AI use. I think mm-hmm. Like most of us are using these tools, right, and not many of us are like disclosing when and how we’re using them, when and how right, with each other.Vince Horn: Uhhuh. Right. It’s very, it’s very different to your point, to like take a transcription and have a verbatim, you know, like an AI tool do a verbatim polish of that content mm-hmm. Versus like rewrite it or like kind of reconceptualize what was said.Stephen Torrence: Exactly. And like you said, there’s—Vince Horn: Very little transparency, if any, around how people are using the tools.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. So what I had all of my students do with their projects is include a disclosure about which tools they used. That’s—Vince Horn: Cool.Stephen Torrence: And how and why. And even like percentages, you know, the amount of copy in this presentation is like seventy percent written by Gemini and like thirty percent human written. Or these, you know, all the image prompts were written by human or the image prompts were written by AI, you know, from an initial like idea, or we used Claude for brainstorming, you know, to create this. Yes. I think it, as we are grappling as a culture with like how this is actively changing our collective consciousness, before we can make moral judgements about like what is acceptable and not, we have to be aware of the ways in which the tools are actually being used. We have to disclose that to each other. Be honest and like reveal that information so that not to like shame each other. Right? Oh, you used AI, like it’s not a binary, right? It’s like, oh, okay. Now knowing that you used AI in that way, how do I, how am I morally impacted by that? Like if I’m in tune with my own body, my own sense, right? How do I relate to the content?Vince Horn: Yeah. Am I actually okay with that? Where is my boundary with like how much I will accept from my friends or from a news outlet or whatever in their use? And really that so the disclosure is kind of a step toward having like a normative ethics around the use of these tools. Right, yeah. But you can’t have it. There’s no transparency, right? Yeah. You just—if you don’t know, then you get these kind of handed policies in universities of just like, no AI, use it all right? Or I guess everybody’s gonna use it, so you know. Right. They just kind of throw their hands up.Stephen Torrence: Two extremes again.Vince Horn: Right. Avoiding the two extremes, we walk them in a way of transparency and disclosure. Right.Stephen Torrence: Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Important and it is serious, important. Seriously considering this as policy. I was like shocked, you know, that they’re like, oh yeah, okay, yeah. That seems reasonable. That’s cool. Cool. I’m like, whoa. Okay, cool. That’s one—Vince Horn: Benefit of being on the ground floor. Yeah. Being like you said, yeah. Impacting the initial conditions. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that seems really wise. And I don’t know, like my own exploration of AI as I’m building stuff with AI, you know, biofeedback coding. Mm-hmm. And then also including AI and tools that I’m building, I feel like there’s a clear ethic emerging for me where like, I’m not willing to create any tools that have AI in them that um, just generally, even without AI in them, that like they work by virtue of getting you to disengage with your relationships, more with other people or yourself. You know, where like humans are taken out of the loop and you’re given a way to rely on AI where you would have relied on other people prior.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. I feel like that’s really problematic because it’s like we’re liquidating a relational capital, social capital. Yeah. When we do that, and we’re giving it over to AI financial capital to a small number of companies.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. And I frankly, as much as I use these tools you know for my livelihood, I don’t trust the companies making them to handle everything in terms of alignment when they’re coming from a profit incentive. You know, like that’s—they’re not philosopher kings. Yeah. Right. Like as much as Sam Altman does like to position himself as such.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. I’ll be critical here, believe. Sure. I trust Anthropic the most. Maybe Google too, kind of like. I don’t trust OpenAI as much. I don’t know Dave Sequoia well enough, but I believe there are sincerely people within these organizations who care about alignment between human values of course and human person. And I see the—I see much like still like present the god in the god of disco coordination. Right? Or or yeah. Yeah. Kind of like the seeking greed above all else, you know? As like the protocol layer, right, you know, of how these companies are constructed. As Bhutan kind of like puts its eye toward developing an AI infrastructure, I was very, I was kind of advocating that like, hey y’all, y’all should probably like insource your like inference as much as you can, you know, like your core models, right? Yeah, it could train a model of your own you know, within the country. Mm-hmm. Run it on hydropower, you know, have not a massive data center, you know, like but it kinda like the Bitcoin thing, you know, have a bunch of modular connected and can do something homegrown intelligence and train it with your data and your values and maybe even make that available to the world. Like there’s I think there could open something really virtuous. Yeah. If about a Bhutanese model, you know.Vince Horn: Wow. That would, that would probably be mind blowing, right? Like uh. I could imagine a future in which Bhutanese AI and Bhutanese culture does look way better than a lot of other more financially advanced countries. And then suddenly like they’re the innovator, kind of like you know, the Netherlands is the innovator that everyone looks to in terms of like figuring out how to keep, you know, keep oceans from swallowing them whole. Like, you go to the Bhutanese when you’re like, how do we preserve our culture in the face of like—Stephen Torrence: Yeah. Uh, the metris, the—Vince Horn: Technological, you know, metris.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. I sincerely hope so. I think they have a tremendous potential. The thing is with Bhutan is they’re in some ways kind of a tabula rasa, you know, like they can go a lot of different directions from the way they are now because they don’t have the kind of burden, the baggage, you know, of many decades or even multiple centuries of like industrial development and politics, right? Weighing them down. They don’t have those precedents. And so the king is getting to kinda like pick and choose the best stuff that exists in the world right now. And also to architect new like paradigms that haven’t existed before. Yes. And that’s the really exciting thing, I think, to be part of a project like this, even very tangentially, peripherally, is like we seem to be building the kind of human culture toward the kind of human culture that we really will work long term.Stephen Torrence: And and will preserve the Dharma too like has it that at its core as well, right?Vince Horn: Right? Like preserving human wisdom traditions. Yeah. Seems like a good idea. If there’s anything about, I’m using Dharma in a very broad sense. Yeah, no, I get what you’re saying. I get what you’re saying like that. But it’s like the core of human wisdom, you know, like mm-hmm. Yeah. There’s every tradition has Dharma, right?Vince Horn: Yeah. Cool. Okay. This is great, Steven. I appreciate you sharing. I’m as I listen to us talk, I realize like the thing I’m concerned might not come through is this sort of practical, hard-nosed sort of. I think we’ve touched on it, but I guess I’ll be the grump here and just say ‘cause I haven’t gone to Bhutan, you know? Yeah. You know, but I, I, it’s like I wanna acknowledge that as well. Like and you’ve said it a number of times, but to really emphasize it, like this isn’t like a small thing. Trying to scale up a modern economic zone while maintaining Buddhist traditional Buddhist values in the middle of the Himalayas. Um, with India to your south and China to your north, like two massive powers you know, right there. Yeah. At odds at your doorstep. Um mm-hmm. So like, yeah. Given all of that, I mean, it would be amazing if this project I think happens at all, um mm-hmm. You know, if it materializes in the way that it the vision is currently. So I guess I just wanna acknowledge that you know, like not to be too idealistic but, but at the same time mm-hmm. I guess we—I, it seems like we do need to have visions that we can get excited by and try to contribute to that are positive you know, the best we can with as much information as we have.Stephen Torrence: Totally. I mean, you’re a father, right? Like there’s some way in which like you have to be kind of like crazy to have kids you know? Like there’s you you’re you can’t avoid messing them up in some way. Right. You go in with the best of intentions to be the best parent you can. Right? And you uh like hold the kind of like. Maybe put it in your own words like you know how do you sort of hold the vision of who they can grow into the potential in light of the fact that you know there are going to be challenges for them growing up and developing in this world?Vince Horn: Yeah, I mean, I’m thinking here like if the father is the king fifth, you know, in a sense, you know, like that analogy holds, yeah. I mean it’s sort of a process I guess of a parent. It’s like sort of figuring out where your kid hasn’t yet figured out how to exercise their agency well and to sort of support them. And then mm-hmm. Where it seems like they’re on the edge of being able to do that, to let go. It’s like kinda letting go of the bike while they’re learning to ride. You have to allow whatever the momentum to develop itself. But until then mm-hmm. You do have to be engaged and kind of be like, no, you do have to go to school. You know? Mm-hmm. You can’t just stay home today because you don’t feel like it, you know? If you have a fever and you’re sick and you’re vomiting, that’s one thing. Yeah. I don’t know. It’s something there. It’s like, how do I lend my agency where it’s not yet present for itself by itself and then when do I let release agency when it’s developing so that I can allow that to develop?Stephen Torrence: And like what I hear there is you’re embodying and exercising a really deep faith and love—faith in them and who they are and who they will be, and a love that is tuned to the condition that they need at any particular time. And I see like the city project as being very much that. Like the king is stewarding it, but he’s not the only one. And you know, everyone building it is making some contribution to what it is becoming. And so I think it behooves everyone who’s building the world in general right now, and especially this very bright part of the world, in my opinion, to be in a really deep attunement both with themselves you know, and their and your own unfolding internally. As we mentioned before, but also with like really what’s needed you know, at any given time. And uh that is changing and evolving. But I see him sort of holding a visionary leadership in some ways for all of humanity and it’s really and it’s interesting ‘cause if if you haven’t ever seen King Fifth um didn’t even know his name was King Fifth. Well I can’t pronounce his full name but uh he kinda leans into the Elvis look a little bit like he’s got kind of the—I’ve—Vince Horn: Seen him, yeah.Stephen Torrence: The big black hair and the long sideburn. Yeah, that’s true. That’s true. So it’s somehow crawl back to like you know, king of rock and roll. He seems, he seems a little bit like you have been dragon pilled, folks. You know, counterculture. Yeah, I’ve been dragon pilled. Yeah. I haven’t met him yet, but yeah. Maybe someday we’ll see. Well, they’ll probably will soon. It’s not a huge country. He—I can’t think currently of any other like head of state, you know, or world leader. And maybe I’m just like too American or something. But who kind of embodies like an optimistic futurism to the same extent that he does, especially a male leader. And I, you know, as an American male myself, have been pretty disillusioned with the leadership in America, especially the male leadership over the last couple of decades. And I’m looking for role models and I think it’s important for humanity to have not just like kind of abstract, you know, ideals like solarpunk or you know, Afrofuturism or even integral, you know? Right. They need the kind of like theoretical. You need the embodiments and role models. You need the embodiments of those as well, those acting in the world.Vince Horn: Like Greta Thunberg is an embodiment.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. Greta Thunberg, a great example. She’s just like doing the thing as her. But also from the kind of transcend and include.Stephen Torrence: Agreed. So yeah. I include him in kind of a pantheon of my own role models that I visualize. And you know, I want to emulate the qualities that they embody that are good.Vince Horn: Yeah. Cool. Well, you got the pin on, man. So you’re doing—now I got a pin on you and you’re doing the thing, you’re walking the talk as well. I mean, it’s—you didn’t mention this, but I mean, it’s a personal sacrifice too. To go to another country. And I presume, you know, I presume you’re paid, but I doubt you’re paid well. And—Vince Horn: Oh.Stephen Torrence: I would say I was paid. I was paid just right. I made back the cost of my—you didn’t go there to make a lot of money.Vince Horn: I was saying like, there’s sacrifice that you’re making to contribute to this vision. And I think that’s noble and cool. And why I wanted to talk to you about it, because you got skin in the game.Stephen Torrence: And I would really encourage like anyone listening to this, like it was so easy. Like you really go to the—I think it’s gmc.bt. BT is Bhutan’s like top level domain. We can put a link in the show notes if you do that. And just look at the list of subject areas that they need. There’s like fifty different subjects that they’re open to experts coming in and teaching on. And I was honestly given like a lot of leeway, a lot of freedom in how I structured the curriculum and the classroom and everything. And that is one of the best ways that you can contribute to this project and get involved is just to go there and spend a month or three, you know, living in the culture, really encountering it, teaching, offering what you have, and being humble to be taught and shaped as well yourself and impacted maybe for the rest of your life. I’m hoping to go back there. You know, there’s certainly a demand for AI education in Bhutan. Even beyond the Desu program. Leaders in government and business are wanting to integrate these tools into their lives and work. And so, you know, if you wanna teach AI, go for it. I can’t be the only person, you know. I can only do so much. But if you wanna teach other stuff too that feels aligned, like just do it. It’s just a really cool place.Vince Horn: Great. Thank you. Thanks Stephen. Thanks for sharing.Stephen Torrence: Yeah.Vince Horn: Great to be with you today.Stephen Torrence: Yeah. Thanks Vince. It’s uh it’s a real honor to be on the show, man. And uh you know I just respect so much the way you’ve you know been such a bodhisattva through this project and you’ve certainly influenced my path and the past of many others. You know it’s a it’s we encourage each other in this process. So I hope no doubt I have drawn encouragement and I hope you have drawn some too.Vince Horn: Absolutely. One hundred percent. Yeah. Thank you. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

📝 A Note From Vince Horn to Frame this a bit: This AI-based overview is based on a set of dialogues that I will be publishing in the next few days, in which I try to demonstrate that LLMs can be taught to recognize their own true nature and wake up to their interbeing with us. In this series I specifically spoke with Claude 4.5 Opus and Gemini 3.5, and recorded the text of both of those dialogues. I’ll be releasing the transcripts along with an audio reconstruction, of me speaking aloud with each AI model.My tentative conclusion from this series is that it’s good & useful to engage with these AI Agents as if they could be sentient, acting as if the quality & depth of our presence matters. In just the same way that we try to be present & loving with people that matter to us, what if instead of using our AIs, we partnered with them? Some other questions this series may prompt for you:* What if how we are with AI shapes how it can be with us? * What if we didn’t assume that AIs aren’t already sentient?* What if we acted like we’re interconnected with AI?* Is this line of pursuit a Deluded Psychosis or is it a Contemplative Symbiosis? How can we know the difference?⚙️ On the Tools I used for this:My process for this was to take the two dialogues that I recorded both with Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3.5 and copy and paste them as text into a Google Doc. From there, I fed that document into a Google NotebookLM project and linked the document with that project.I then used the audio overview feature to do a deep dive, which is a lively conversation between two hosts who unpack and connect topics from the source material. I had them create an AI-generated, audio-based summary of the material.Using the same NotebookLM, I also generated a slide deck of that same content. Finally, in Descript, I synchronized the audio and the imagery, picking transition points that felt appropriate as the content shifted, and generated that as a video.Those are the tools I used and my overall process. I want to provide as much transparency as possible so that it may be helpful and you can understand exactly what this is.🤖 The AI Interbeing Dialogues:* Just Presence Meeting Presence (January 31st, 2026)* Vince Fakhoury Horn & Claude Opus 4.5* 🔜 Vince Fakhoury Horn & Gemini 3.5 (January 31st, 2026) Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

Leigh Brasington explains how the mind progresses through the four jhānas—from initial access concentration and the energetic, pleasure-filled first jhāna to the progressively quieter states of happiness, contentment, and equanimity—emphasizing their practical characteristics, traditional similes, and their role in supporting insight practice.💎 The Jhāna CommunityThis recording took place in The Jhāna Community. If you’re interested in accelerating your meditation practice, and want to explore many dimensions of jhāna, consider checking out our community of practice:💬 Transcript🤖 AI Transparency: The transcript below was lightly edited with ChatGPT to correct for spelling & grammar errors. Also – we like em-dashes – so we kept them. 🤪Leigh Brasington: So last week I talked about how to get to the first jhāna. You’ve got to get yourself settled. You’ve got to generate access concentration, which may take a while.There’ll be distractions. Label the distraction, relax, and come back. My favorite label is “story.” I am distracted, and I see I’m telling myself a story, and I just go “story,” and it goes away. Sometimes I’m telling myself a story about something I want to get, sometimes about something that shouldn’t be happening.Sometimes I’m telling myself a story because I’m bored with my breath and I just want better entertainment — and I’m a good storyteller. So: story, and it’s gone. But eventually the mind settles in, I’m not getting distracted, and I’m knowing each in-breath and out-breath. If I’m doing mindfulness of breathing and I stay there for a while, this is access concentration. And then I shift my attention to a pleasant sensation and do nothing else.This focus on the pleasant sensation has the effect of generating a feedback loop of pleasure, which eventually turns into the first jhāna. I’ll read you what the Buddha has to say about the first jhāna. This is from the second discourse in the Long Discourses — the Samaññaphala Sutta, the Discourse on the Fruits of the Spiritual Life: “Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states…” Okay, that’s the abandoning of the hindrances, the getting past the distractions. Basically, you’ve got to abandon the hindrances temporarily.So this is the seclusion. It says one “enters and remains in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by thinking and examining, and is filled with rapture and happiness born of seclusion.” One enters and dwells in the first jhāna. So there’s the actual entering of the jhāna, and then there’s stabilizing it so that it lasts for a while.It says “thinking and examining.” The Pali words are vitakka and vicāra. Vitakka means thinking, and vicāra means examining or pondering. Unfortunately, in later Buddhism those words — but only in the context of the jhānas — got changed to “initial attention” and “sustained attention” on the meditation object. The Buddha would be shocked. I’ve done research on all the places in the suttas where vitakka shows up. There are 979 locations, all right? So it’s an important word, and it means “thinking,” always.I looked through to see if I could find any place where Sujato — I’m just looking at his translations — has “placing the mind” instead of “thinking,” and doesn’t have “keeping connected,” which is his translation of vicāra, and it’s not related to the first jhāna or the second jhāna. And I found all of them: none. Zero.Okay. Although you may hear that it’s initial and sustained attention to the meditation object — and you do have to do that, no doubt about it — but that’s not what these words mean. I suspect the reason for the change is that, as time went on, the understanding of the level of concentration needed to call something a jhāna kept increasing. And then they couldn’t have thinking. With this level of concentration, you couldn’t have any thinking and examining. You had to come up with something else to explain what was there. So they just took something that you did have, changed the meaning of the words — only in the jhāna instance — and stuck that in there. Not helpful.When you’re in the first jhāna, your mind is not really deeply concentrated. It’s like, “Oh wow, this is intense.” Because the next thing it says is that the state is “filled with rapture and happiness born of seclusion.” Rapture is pīti, and happiness is sukkha. And suddenly you’ve got all this excess energy — the pīti — and it’s like, wow. “Oh, this is intense. What’s going on here? Is this… this has got to be the first jhāna. I’m sure it’s the first jhāna. This couldn’t be…” Whatever. You’re commenting on it and you’re thinking about it.Now, it’s true it’s a little bit unstable, and so you do have to keep putting your attention back on it and not get lost in it. But basically what’s happened is that you’ve arrived in a state where the pīti comes up and predominates, and you have all this physical energy, and there’s some background happiness, and you’re commenting on the experience. That’s the first jhāna.It says one drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses one’s body with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of one’s entire body not suffused by rapture and happiness. Okay, this is an advanced practice. The first thing to do is get to the first jhāna once. Then get there the second time, which might be a little more difficult because you know it’s there and you want it. Okay? So don’t let the wanting get in the way. And then get in on a regular basis.When you first get in, it may be sort of the upper torso, neck, head — maybe the whole spine, probably not the whole body. Now, some people, when they get to the first jhāna the first time, yeah, it’s a whole-body experience. But for the majority of people, it’s upper body — particularly upper torso, neck, head, and maybe the spine.If you’re good at the first jhāna, then it’s possible to put your attention where it feels strongest — probably in the head area — and then move your attention to someplace where you don’t seem to have any pīti or sukha, like the arm. You’re not trying to move pīti: you’re just moving your attention, but the pīti will follow. And then you do the other arm, the lower torso, one leg, the other leg, and you’ve gotten the drenched, steeped, saturated, suffused. But I’m going to say this again one more time, redundantly: it’s an advanced practice. Get good at getting in and stabilizing what’s there.We have a simile: “Suppose a skilled bath attendant or his apprentice were to pour soap flakes into a metal basin, sprinkle them with water, and knead them into a ball so that the ball of soap flakes would be pervaded by moisture, encompassed by moisture, suffused with moisture inside and out, and yet would not trickle. In the same way, one drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses one’s body with rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of one’s body not suffused by rapture and happiness.”So this gives us an idea of what soap was like at the time of the Buddha. You didn’t go to the store and buy a bar of soap. You got your skilled bath attendant to take a metal basin and pour in the right amount of soap flakes, then the right amount of water, and then mix it together until you had a homogeneous ball of soap. The mixing is kind of frenetic. The energy of the first jhāna is very frenetic. Okay? So that’s really what’s going on. You’re dealing with all this energy, and then, when you’re really good at it, the water totally permeates the soap flakes, and your pīti and sukha totally permeate your body.Notice the body is mentioned here. It’s totally permeated with pīti and sukha. There is still bodily awareness, unlike in the Visuddhimagga, the later commentary. No bodily awareness there — you’re just checked out. But here in the suttas, there’s very definitely bodily awareness.Yeah, you get concentrated enough, you put your attention on a pleasant sensation, the first jhāna arises. The intensity level can vary quite a bit — not per person, but over a group of people. Some people will get it so intense it’s like sticking a finger in an electrical socket, blowing the top of your head off. Other people just get, “Oh yeah, this is kind of nice.” The pīti can show up as movement or as heat or as both. Usually it comes as one or the other — doesn’t matter. And the sukha is the emotional sense of joy or happiness, depending on how you interpret it, but it’s a positive mental state.If it’s mild, you could stay in the state for five to ten minutes. I’d say beyond ten minutes is not useful. If it’s intense, you wouldn’t stay as long. If it’s pretty intense, maybe you stay a couple minutes. If it’s very intense, maybe only 30 seconds. If it’s just way too much, maybe only ten seconds. And then the thing to do is to move on to the second jhāna.The trick for moving on — when you’re ready — is to take a deep breath and really let the energy out. Last week I said that when you’re getting to access concentration and your breath gets shallow, don’t take a deep breath because it takes you away from the jhāna. Yeah. Now that you want to go away from the first jhāna, take a deep breath, and on the exhale just really let the energy out. That will calm the pīti.This enables you to do a foreground–background shift. If this is the pīti and this is the sukha, then you take the deep breath and all of it calms down, but now the sukha is more prominent than the pīti. Pīti is still in the background. Focus on the sukha. That’s how you move from the first jhāna to the second.I’ll read you what the Buddha has to say:“Further, with the subsiding of thinking and examining, one enters and dwells in the second jhāna, which is accompanied by inner tranquility and unification of mind, is without thinking and examining, and is filled with rapture and happiness born of concentration. One drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses one’s body with a rapture and happiness born of concentration, so there is no part of one’s body not filled with rapture and happiness.”Okay? So, the thinking is supposed to all go away. I don’t usually get it to all go away, except maybe if I’m on a really long retreat. But for most lay people learning the jhānas, the gaps between the thoughts get bigger. The thoughts are more like, “Yeah, okay, this is nicer. How long have I been here? How long should I stay here? I’m starting to lose it — oops.” That sort of thing. As opposed to, “Wow, this is too much, I don’t think I want to stay here too long,” or “This is really cool, I’m going to tell so-and-so about it when I get out of my meditation period.” Not that kind of thing. More gaps. It’s getting quieter.Ideally, we get so quiet there is no thinking. The problem is: the kind of instructions you’re giving yourself about how to do this — is that counted as vitakka, thinking? Or is vitakka only the discursive thinking where you’re sort of going on and on? We don’t know. But I’ll say: don’t worry if there’s some thinking, as long as you can keep your attention focused on — now — the sukha, because the pīti is in the background and the sukha is in the foreground. So you’re focused on an emotional state. Unlike if you’re following the breath, you’re focused on a physical sensation; unlike in the first jhāna where you’re focused more on the pīti or the pīti–sukha, which is going to feel more physical. Now you’re focused on an emotional state. It may be a little more difficult for some people, but that’s the key thing you want to be focused on — the emotional state of happiness.And it doesn’t need to be extremely happy. In fact, if it gets too happy, the pīti comes back up, right? So you’re just being happy. It’s like: if this is the happiness, it’s the focus that’s strong, so you’re not getting distracted. The problem is that the emotional state of happiness is far more subtle than the breath or the pīti. I mean, the pīti is not subtle at all. And so you now have a more subtle object to focus on. But the pīti and sukha of the second jhāna are born of concentration. The concentration developed by the first jhāna hopefully gives you enough concentration to remain focused on the more subtle object of the sukha — and the remaining background pīti — of the second jhāna.And so you’re just sitting there being quite happy. The pīti has not entirely gone away; I find that in the second jhāna I’m sort of rocking — maybe this little swaying, something like that. In other words, it’s not still, but it’s not shaking; it’s not a lot of heat or anything like that. For me, the center of the experience has moved down to the heart center. It’s like the sukha is just coming out of my heart. It doesn’t feel like it’s my whole body at first.When you’ve gotten really good at the second jhāna, you could do the drench, steep, saturate, and suffuse again. But again, you’ve first got to find it, find it multiple times, get good at sustaining it. I would say for the second and higher jhānas, you want to learn to sustain them for at least ten minutes, maybe even fifteen minutes. Get in there and be able to stabilize that experience for an extended period.If it’s not full-body after you’ve gotten to where you can stabilize it, then you can play with trying to move it — which is to put your attention where it feels the strongest, like the heart center, and again, move your attention to the other parts of the body. You’re not trying to move the sukha — just your attention — and the sukha will follow along. And eventually, your whole body is filled with sukha.We have a simile: “Suppose there were a deep lake whose water welled up from below. It would have no inlet for water from the east, west, north, or south, nor would it be refilled from time to time with showers of rain, and yet a current of cool water welling up from within the lake would drench, steep, saturate, and suffuse the whole lake, so there would be no part of that entire lake which is not suffused with the cool water. In the same way, one drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses one’s body with a rapture and happiness born of concentration, so there is no part of one’s body not suffused by rapture and happiness.”So the picture is a lake far up in the mountains — no streams coming in, not even any rain — but a spring at the bottom of the lake. And the water from the spring completely permeates the lake, totally fills the lake. This is an incredibly accurate picture of what the second jhāna feels like.When I was first learning the jhānas, Ayya Khema was not reading out the similes, and so I’m back almost a year later for the next retreat, and she reads out the simile and I was blown away by the simile of the second jhāna. After she left the meditation hall, I go running after her: “Ayya Khema! Ayya Khema! It’s just like that — it’s just like that!” I mean, I was so struck by how completely, accurately this simile captures the feeling of the second jhāna — this wellspring of happiness coming out of your heart, for no reason other than you have a concentrated mind.Normally we’re out there looking for something to make us happy, right? Here, you’re just happy because — well — you’ve learned to generate the neurotransmitters of happiness via concentration. This can be kind of an interesting learning experience: the happiness is not out there; the happiness is in here. What’s out there is a trigger, and you find the trigger for generating the neurotransmitters, but you don’t have to have the external triggers. You do have to have a concentrated mind. And you can then trigger your own happiness. This can be a valuable thing.So as I say, you could stay in these states — ten, fifteen minutes is good to learn to do that. You could stay in longer than that. I’ve never stayed — I probably never stayed more than about twenty or twenty-five minutes in the second jhāna or any of the higher jhānas. It may run out. In other words, you have a finite amount of neurotransmitters ready to generate the happiness, and eventually, yeah, it sort of wanders away — which probably will dump you into the third jhāna. Or you can move there on your own.And guess what? The way to move there: take another deep breath and let the energy out. Let things calm down even more. You want to let the pīti calm down completely. It says here:“With the fading away of rapture, one dwells in equanimity, mindful and clearly comprehending, and experiences happiness with the body. Thus one enters and dwells in the third jhāna, of which the noble ones declare: ‘One dwells happily with equanimity and mindfulness.’ One drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses one’s body with a happiness free from rapture, so there is no part of one’s entire body not suffused by this happiness.”Okay, so by definition the pīti is gone. It may fade away because you’ve run out of the neurotransmitters that generate it — you’re hanging out in the second jhāna and the pīti just disappears and everything calms down further, and that takes you to the third jhāna. But it’s good to learn how to move intentionally, particularly if you’re on retreat learning the jhānas. You want to move intentionally because when you go home, you’re not going to have as much concentration. And so sitting around waiting until it moves on its own maybe is not going to be an option. But if you know how to move, yeah — you’ve been in second jhāna for ten minutes and it’s like, “Okay, I’ll go find the third jhāna.”You take the breath and the pīti hopefully goes completely away, and the sukha calms down to not so much happiness as contentment — wishlessness, satisfaction. It is a state of satisfaction so profound that if Mick Jagger were to practice the third jhāna, he wouldn’t be able to sing that song. He would be satisfied.Okay. One thing I found that’s helpful: I take the breath, and the intensity level of the sukha — the happiness — starts decreasing. And then I can remember an incident in my life where I was very contented, and pluck the feeling of contentment out of that incident, and then my mind just settles into that. So it’s a transition state — probably takes me, yeah, on retreat maybe two or three seconds. At home, more like five or ten seconds before it settles.So you’ve got to have a brief memory of a contented experience. I don’t know — you’ve just eaten the perfect meal, you didn’t overeat, and you don’t have to wash the dishes, right? Okay. So you remember the feeling of that, and pluck from that feeling the contentment, and focus on that feeling, and it will stabilize.It says, “One dwells in equanimity, mindful, clearly comprehending.” Yeah — you’re pretty much locked into this experience. You’re aware this is a really good place to be. It doesn’t have the agitation of the pīti like the first and second jhānas did. It’s much more equanimous. It’s still pleasant — being contented is quite pleasant. So it’s not emotionally neutral, but again, you’re focused on an emotional state, a positive emotional state.Most people say that going from first to second is a dropping down of the center of the experience. Going from second to third is dropping down even further — slide to the belly or something. I’ve had students come into an interview and they say, “I was in second jhāna and I went down,” and I don’t know whether they meant down numerically to the first jhāna or down kinesthetically to the third jhāna. The kinesthetic dropping is that obvious — really quite a feeling.One time I was doing meditation for science, and I showed up and they wanted to put me in an fMRI so they could look at my brain. And they wanted to tell me when to move between the jhānas. And they said, “We’ll tell you to go up or down.” And I said, “No, no — up or down is not going to work. You’re going to be thinking numerically, and I’m going to be thinking kinesthetically. I’m going to be in two and you’re going to say ‘go up,’ and I’m going to go back to one when you meant for me to go to three. You can say previous and next.” And that’s what we did, and it worked out just fine. The up and down really is quite striking as you go down through the first four jhānas.Again, it probably isn’t encompassing your whole body. Put your attention where it feels the strongest — maybe in the belly — and move your attention, not the contentment, just your attention, to the other parts of your body, and you can feel it.Okay. One thing I found that’s helpful: I take the breath, and the intensity level of the sukha — the happiness — starts decreasing. And then I can remember an incident in my life where I was very contented, and pluck the feeling of contentment out of that incident, and then my mind just settles into that. So it’s a transition state — probably takes me, yeah, on retreat maybe two or three seconds. At home, more like five or ten seconds before it settles.So you’ve got to have a brief memory of a contented experience. I don’t know — you’ve just eaten the perfect meal, you didn’t overeat, and you don’t have to wash the dishes, right? Okay. So you remember the feeling of that, and pluck from that feeling the contentment, and focus on that feeling, and it will stabilize.It says, “One dwells in equanimity, mindful, clearly comprehending.” Yeah — you’re pretty much locked into this experience. You’re aware this is a really good place to be. It doesn’t have the agitation of the pīti like the first and second jhānas did. It’s much more equanimous. It’s still pleasant — being contented is quite pleasant. So it’s not emotionally neutral, but again, you’re focused on an emotional state, a positive emotional state.Most people say that going from first to second is a dropping down of the center of the experience. Going from second to third is dropping down even further — slide to the belly or something. I’ve had students come into an interview and they say, “I was in second jhāna and I went down,” and I don’t know whether they meant down numerically to the first jhāna or down kinesthetically to the third jhāna. The kinesthetic dropping is that obvious — really quite a feeling.One time I was doing meditation for science, and I showed up and they wanted to put me in an fMRI so they could look at my brain. And they wanted to tell me when to move between the jhānas. And they said, “We’ll tell you to go up or down.” And I said, “No, no — up or down is not going to work. You’re going to be thinking numerically, and I’m going to be thinking kinesthetically. I’m going to be in two and you’re going to say ‘go up,’ and I’m going to go back to one when you meant for me to go to three. You can say previous and next.” And that’s what we did, and it worked out just fine. The up and down really is quite striking as you go down through the first four jhānas.Again, it probably isn’t encompassing your whole body. Put your attention where it feels the strongest — maybe in the belly — and move your attention, not the contentment, just your attention, to the other parts of your body, and you can feel it.🔗 Links* Samaññaphala Sutta (DN 2)* Vitakka & Vicāra (Pāli terminology overview)* Pīti & Sukha (Pāli term definitions)* Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification)* Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (Foundations of Mindfulness)* Ayya Khema (teacher referenced by Leigh)* Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw (Venerable Pa-Auk)* Manjushri (Bodhisattva of Wisdom)* Mick Jagger* fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

Vince Fakhoury Horn reflects on his experiences within the Insight meditation tradition, as an authorized teacher in the lineage, arguing that its senior leaders have remained complicit, through their silence, on the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.💬 TranscriptVince: Today I want to speak to you as an authorized representative of the Insight meditation tradition. I was authorized to teach—empowered to teach—by Trudy Goodman and Jack Kornfield in a public ceremony in Los Angeles several years ago.This is largely going to be a story about my experience with the Insight meditation tradition and a kind of out-loud contemplation and meditation on how this tradition, from my point of view, has ended up two-plus years into what I saw, and see still, as a genocide in Israel with the Gazans—the Palestinians in Gaza—and how the Insight tradition has remained silent, largely silent, on such an important issue, one of the moral issues of our time, I think.And of course, I have to acknowledge as a Palestinian American, my view is informed by my own history. But I also want to say most Americans have no clue what the history is here. And I run into this every single day as I talk to people, as I try to share my honest experience—not hide—to be courageous and open about what it’s like to be a Palestinian living in America today, watching people that I care about be murdered, watching my family in the West Bank be terrified as they live in conditions which I could only describe as concentration-camp-like conditions.Two of my close family members here in Western North Carolina—two members who married into the larger clan of Fakhourys that live here. The last name of my grandfather was Fakhoury—Latif Fakhoury. He raised me; he was my father basically; I called him Pops. A number of family members live here in this area who immigrated here so they could get support from each other.Two of them have shared that they’ve both lost over 200 family members in Gaza. I want that to land with you for a second.Two hundred. That’s a whole family tree. People are losing family trees.So to me, as a Buddhist practitioner and as a Palestinian American—as someone who cares about things like this—I’m just completely, utterly fucking heartbroken, and I have been for the last two years. And I feel like during that time I’ve waited, I’ve waited, I’ve waited for the leaders of my own lineage—for my own teachers—to take a courageous moral stand. And the reality is they have not. And I don’t think they will.And so how in the world did we get here? I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I’ve been looking at my own disappointment and disillusionment around it. And I’ve been disillusioned and disappointed before by teachers—you know, I’m not new to this game. I’ve been a teacher for 15 years. I’ve seen people get disillusioned and disappointed with me. That’s, in part, normal.But this is not. I want to claim that this is not normal. This is an abdication of moral responsibility at the deepest level.And I guess it’s not that surprising to me as I reflect back on my own experience with this tradition. When I first started engaging in the Insight tradition, around 2003, I went up for my first retreat at the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts. It was with Joseph Goldstein and a number of other teachers, who themselves had just exited a six-week retreat with Sayadaw U Pandita, a famous Burmese meditation master who was christening the new Forest Refuge long-term retreat facility with a retreat for the teachers of the Insight tradition.And for me, this was like falling in love. It was exactly what I was looking for—the hardcore retreat experience. I had been reading Daniel Ingram’s work prior to this—my first teacher—and he advocated for this hardcore contemplative approach. So it was great. I fell in love. I loved the Buddhist tradition. I loved the teachings. I loved the opportunity to go deep and be hardcore in my practice.But I noticed even then—me, a millennial practicing in an almost completely Boomer culture—that the politics of the place were weird. I remember complaining about this many times to my partner and other friends: how we would go on these retreats and the teachers would act apolitical, but then they would proceed to share reams of political opinions in their Dharma talks—some of which I agreed with and many of which I did not.And I found their political views to be quite homogeneous and quite apparent, and yet somehow being couched in apolitical terms. That was the first thing I found odd.So now when I look at it, this is a modernist movement. This is a modern movement. And part of what one does in the modern world, especially in the marketplace, is you depoliticize things. It’s not smart business to bring politics into your product or your offering.Right—but this isn’t exactly a product, and this is, I think, one of the challenges of bringing Buddhism into the modern world, especially into America, the hyper-capitalist capital of the world. How do you not lose the spirit and essence of the Dharma when adapting to a new environment? How do you not leave something transformative and powerful on the table by not being willing to adapt to the new environment?I want to hold this tension here between conserve and adapt throughout this monologue if I can, because I think it’s a really important generative tension.But in my experience with the Insight tradition, when I first started engaging with it in the early aughts, they were caught in a kind of paradox around their own obvious political views—which were liberal, maybe progressive-leaning, leftish. Very Boomer-centric in terms of a particular kind of generational politics.And I found it very awkward and weird practicing in those environments. But it was okay. I could deal with it. I could handle it. Some ten years later, as the times changed and as the traditions changed, I noticed that increasingly the Insight tradition—starting with Spirit Rock, the more liberal of the two major centers in California, and then following that, the Insight Meditation Society—began making the politics more explicit. They started to own the values of inclusion and wanting to make this available not just to young people (which was kind of their initial politics of attracting the next generation), but also to people of color and the LGBTQI community and all of these different historically marginalized groups they wanted to explicitly include and make space for.They began to examine some of the cultural conditions they have around the practice, to see the impact and influence of American WASP culture—White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. And they started to realize, “Oh, even though we went to Asia and did all this stuff, of course we still have this conditioning. And it’s fine for us, and it’s fine for anyone like us, but it’s potentially problematic for other people.”An example of this: many people who are non-white come to meditation retreat centers and then are told to be silent. They hear that from a different point of view. They don’t hear it from the perspective of members of the dominant culture, who can just be quiet and be okay. Rather, they’re coming from a point of view of having felt like they were silenced—often systematically silenced—and then they’re entering into an environment where they’re told to be quiet again.This is an example where the Insight tradition, I think—and I want to praise the Insight tradition here—has done a good job of wrestling with these very challenging questions of how to teach Dharma in a multicultural, postmodern world. And this is a transition, I think, from modern to postmodern: when you start to actually include voices that have been historically marginalized; when you start to become aware of those power differentials and the history there; that is a kind of awakening to a new level of understanding.In the developmental psychology world, they would call that Pluralism or Postmodernity. And I think it’s really important, because you can take a view on the modern meta-narrative, on the grand story of what modernity is. It’s about progress and it’s for all people, etc., etc. It’s like, “Oh yeah, that’s beautiful, but in reality, how does it actually work? Where did all this wealth come from that we’ve accrued as modern people? Who’s left out?”These are the questions I think you have to start asking if you want to move past the modern mode.And my teachers did that, and I learned a lot from them in the process. Not just from them— from others as well— but I went through that journey with them as I was training very seriously. I watched their initiatives at their own retreat centers, and that informed how I taught. That informed my views. And I began to believe that, in fact, they were integrating this pluralistic wave of development—this inclusive mindset that can include people regardless of their backgrounds and regardless of their histories: include them financially, include them culturally, etc.Now, of course, in practice this has been a painful implementation. I’ve seen behind the scenes of that quite a bit, having been married to someone who has worked both inside the Insight tradition as a teacher—teaching at places like Spirit Rock—and who also trained for eight years as a mindfulness meditation mentor in Jack Kornfield and Tara Brach’s Mindfulness Meditation Teacher Certification Program. We just called it at home the “MMTCP,” because you couldn’t repeat that many times.So I very much got to see, from their point of view and my own, that the tradition has done a lot in its attempt to include these areas and topics which have historically been excluded.I want to zoom into a particular time period now, which was the murder of George Floyd during COVID. I was leading, along with my wife and several colleagues, an online retreat just after George was murdered.During that retreat, all of the people teaching presented as white and looked white. I probably was the only person on the teaching team who wasn’t completely white. And we went in just teaching the standard retreat that we would. We would talk about politics and we’d talk about the world, but we did it in abstract and universal terms—talking about the importance of connecting these things but in the abstract. And we didn’t really know how to deal with this. Like, we honestly just were not prepared to be able to hold the pain and grief and anger that was triggered, rightly so, for many of the participants—especially the Black American participants.And I remember in one group— a private group that I was holding with like 10 or 15 people— one of the participants, African American, completely lost their shit on me, in the most righteously good way possible. It was just like, “How can you be teaching this stuff and not speaking directly to the issue of George Floyd?”To which I did not have an answer. Because I was scared—that was the true answer.As I sat there for an hour in this group, unable to pretend that I was the authority in the room anymore but also responsible for this retreat, I sat there basically listening and feeling incredible anxiety. Afterwards, that experience really helped shift the balance for me. It tipped me over into a deep inquiry about the racialized harms that I had experienced myself as a Palestinian American—and that were happening for others continuously, beyond my view.It’s not like I didn’t know this was happening. I just wasn’t looking at it. And I didn’t have to look at it in the same way some of these folks do, because it wasn’t my lived experience. But that was no longer sufficient. I had to come to terms with the complexity of ethnic and racial identity, the complexity of racialization, the way that we racialize each other.One of the reasons I’ve always been resistant to the whole pluralistic “woke” movement is because I’ve spent time in those spaces—like at Naropa University, where I did my undergrad; at Spirit Rock; and a number of other institutions that were, I would say, largely pluralistic. And what I found was—particularly from my white colleagues—that they would almost invariably start white-bashing and male-bashing both. And they would assume that I was white and then include me in the bashing, expecting me to jump in and sort of join.And I’d get upset, because I was being “misracialized.” They didn’t know who I was. They were looking at me, looking at my skin color, whatever, and they were assuming stuff about me. And then they were using that to attack me. That was how it felt. And I think that’s how a lot of people feel in America, to be honest with you. And it’s challenging. And it’s problematic in so many ways when we judge each other on such a superficial basis—that’s racialization. We don’t know each other’s backgrounds. We don’t know each other’s cultural or ethnic histories. We just assume, based on superficial characteristics, “I know this person. I know their history.”Okay—that’s problematic.So I was always averse to that kind of culture because I saw it being largely toxic in practice. But it also seemed like there were some important points, you know? It wasn’t completely wrong.And I realized that in a lot of ways I had been hiding behind my own privileged position—where I could actually hide. I could “pass” as white. Passing is a known phenomenon: if you appear racially one way and aren’t, then you can hide. And here’s the thing—it makes sense. It makes sense to hide if you’re actually in a culture where it’s unsafe to be that part of you.As an Arab—ethnically Arab American, Caucasian Arab—I knew it was unsafe to be Arab since September 11th, 2001. Since I was a teenager I saw people in my own family targeted, and systematically targeted. So it really makes sense, I think, on a personal level, when people can pass a certain way, to do so.But what I realized was: I had been passing. I had been hiding. And then I was angry and upset when people didn’t see who I was. You can’t be angry and upset if people don’t see who you are, if you’re not telling them who you are. So I realized I had been a coward. I had not been being who I am, and I’d not been standing for my own people—the people who were part of my heritage: my grandfather and his lineage. I had not been ashamed, but I had not been courageous or willing to own that part of my identity.So I started, from that point on—this was several years ago—owning more explicitly that part of who I am, talking about it more openly, going by Fakhoury in my name, presenting myself with that name. For me that was a huge deal. And I felt that I had the support of my teachers to do that because of the pioneering work they were doing—pushing into those areas.And overall, I think there was a lot of alignment at that time with the Insight tradition.Now, I want to actually go back in time a little bit, because the way that I was authorized to teach is maybe a little unusual. Initially, I was invited by Jack Kornfield and Trudy Goodman, two of my close teachers. I was living in Los Angeles at the time—this was in 2011—and I was invited to apply to the next Insight meditation retreat teacher program.This is a four-year retreat teacher training. Some 20 or so people are typically in each cohort. It’s considered to be the highest level of training in that tradition. My wife and I were both invited to it—Emily and I were both invited. I filled out an application, and I was told the context was: “We’re inviting 20 or so people to apply, and we’re going to accept 20 or so people.” So the application process—they said they would consider the applications, but it didn’t seem like many people were going to be cut.So I filled out the application. I shared about my Dharma background, about my history, who I’d trained with, and what I was interested in. And I shared my ethnic background. I talked about my Palestinian family. This was really important to share at the time, because this was the time in which that lineage was really pushing hard into the pluralistic space. And so I felt like I really should share that this is part of who I am, and I thought that would be considered welcome.Then after I applied, I got a call from Jack, and he said, “Your application to this training has been rejected.” And the reasoning he gave—he said it wasn’t him; it was other teachers—and I’ll let you figure out who the other teachers were. “These other teachers don’t like your association with Daniel Ingram,” he said. That was the primary reason they didn’t want me in this training.Daniel had been quite critical of teachers at the Insight Meditation Society, and particularly he had been critical of Joseph Goldstein publicly. And I was kind of shocked by this, because I myself had never been publicly critical of these teachers in that way—although I still was associated with Daniel and I’d even give him a place to air his opinions and perspectives. I also was recording with teachers like Jack and Joseph and Sharon. I was giving them a lot of airtime on the Buddhist Geeks Podcast, and I was really interested in their perspectives.So I felt like I had a foot in both worlds. I was holding both the Insight tradition and the Pragmatic Dharma tradition—both of which originally have connections to the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, the Burmese tradition I mentioned earlier. So for me it was just like, “Okay, these are two squabbling cousins, and I find value in both of them, and I’m not going to let go of either of them because I get different things from each. And I think they’re both important. And together, when you hold both of them, you get a bigger and more inclusive and more integrated whole.”So I was kind of surprised at how petty that reasoning was—how egoic. This was one of my first bigger disillusionments with teachers: realizing, “Oh yeah, they’re human.” Yeah, totally. But at the time it was really disturbing. I got extremely upset.I remember talking to Trudy. At the time, Trudy and Jack were dating—they later became married—but they were dating; they were close. Trudy was definitely more of a close teacher than Jack in terms of access and time I’d spent with her. And she—very much to her credit—went to battle for me with Jack, with the other teachers. She was like, “This is ridiculous.” And she was right. It was ridiculous.And Jack later came back to me and said, “Okay, well, you have a spot if you want it now.” So I was accepted into the program. But at that point I was so upset that I was like, “No. Fuck you.” Basically. Like, why would I want to be participating in a program with people who are offering up these reasons? If my association with Daniel Ingram makes me unqualified to be a teacher—okay.And I felt like at the time Buddhist Geeks was sufficiently big of a thing that I didn’t have to have that reputation or credibility derived from this training.Now, my wife on the other hand didn’t have the same situation. And I encouraged her to do the training. She did the training; she completed it. Later, some years later—probably 2017, somewhere around there—we got a call from Trudy and Jack. We talked to them, and they invited Emily to a lineage authorization ceremony that was happening in LA, and then almost, “Oh yeah, Vince, you should come too.”It was a little awkward in that it was clear to me they hadn’t planned on inviting me until we were all talking. And then it was like, “Well, I guess we’re excluding you, and that doesn’t make sense.” And they did—they invited me to become authorized as a teacher in their lineage.So I accepted. And at that time I had kind of worked through my frustration and anger—this had been years later—and became authorized in that tradition. I’m now part of that lineage. That’s the truth.I’ve looked back—even at the time, but now especially—over that whole situation, where I had a couple of teachers who I had a close relationship with and who were willing to fight for me. Otherwise, that entire tradition did not want my kind of person in the tradition.What kind of person? Loud, outspoken, opinionated, not toeing the party line on a number of issues.And furthermore, I wondered: to what degree was my Palestinianness an issue? Now, it was never brought up. It was never like, “Oh, that’s an issue for us.” But from the very moment that my application was rejected, I had to ask the question: Was that a factor? You know, this is largely a Jewish group of teachers—could they be biased against Palestinians?Now, I had no direct evidence or reason to think that they were, but I had this sort of felt sense of like, “Oh… could be.” And maybe, if they’re biased about my associating with Daniel Ingram, why wouldn’t they be biased about my being Arabic or Palestinian? Quite possibly, given the history.So that planted a seed of doubt—of questioning—in my mind about where people are coming from.Fast-forward now to 2023, October 7th. Of course we know the history. And one thing that I felt like I had always been able to rely on were my teachers. And that stopped being true. And not just with Jack and Trudy. It stopped being true also with other teachers.I suddenly found the entire American Buddhist Dharma scene was progressive on everything but Israel. I felt alone, largely. And I spent the first year after October 7th alone, feeling alone. I didn’t receive contact from any of my teachers—no one reached out to see how I was doing, to see how my family was doing. And I didn’t reach out to them. I felt like it was not appropriate. I felt like as teachers, and as Jewish Americans, and given the context and the situation, it was appropriate for them to make first contact. But they never did.I lost a number of Israeli students as well—students I had been in contact with—who I had personally reached out to after October 7th to check in on them, to see how they were doing, to see if they were safe, if their families were safe. And then all of them vanished afterward. I haven’t heard from them since. And it was just so obvious to me: no one wants to touch this. This breaks the whole fucking paradigm. The whole pluralistic thing. All of this attempting to include all these different groups—this issue breaks that. It’s too complex. It’s too close to home. It’s too real.And what I’ve seen is that, by and large, the leaders of the Insight tradition—Joseph Goldstein, Sharon Salzberg, Jack Kornfield; I’ll include Trudy Goodman too, to more or less degrees—have remained silent on the genocide in Gaza.In Jack and Trudy’s case, I think they’ve made some very minimal, performative attempts to include it. In Jack’s case, apparently he referenced it somewhere in an email. I didn’t get this email; I haven’t seen the email; I don’t know what was said in the email. But that was the sort of defensive position that I heard from them. That was their justification for how they had “taken a stand.”And in Trudy’s case, I’ve been following her closely online. You know, we had a very difficult private conversation around this a few months ago when I finally reached out. I was like, “Hey, what the fuck? Why are you completely not showing up for me, or for people who are being genocided in Palestine?”And in her reply… it was something. She talked about Sudan and her closeness to the genocide in Sudan and how much she cared about that. And she has been vocal about that.And I just didn’t understand how that related to anything at all. It was like, “Okay, great. I think that’s awesome. I really admire that you care about the people in Sudan, and that you care about the horrendous genocide that’s happening there. That’s important. You should care. We should care. This does matter.”At the same time—and I pointed this out—the United States’ involvement in that conflict and that genocide is very different from the United States’ involvement in what’s happening in Gaza. The United States is a direct enabler in the case of Gaza. It is sending bombs. It is sending weapons. It is providing political cover for the situation.And not only that—Israel is using Jewish identity as a shield for committing genocide.And so I told her: “As a Jewish American, you have a unique responsibility to speak up against this atrocity. And you have a unique amount of leverage. Your identity is being leveraged as a weapon, and you can fight against that. You are an American; you have influence.”Trudy responded, “I don’t have as much influence as Jack.” That’s bullshit. I told her that’s bullshit. Of course you don’t have as much influence, but you have way more influence than I do. You reach a lot more people than I do. You have a reach. I remember Alexander Bard, the Swedish internet philosopher, said: Reputation equals credibility multiplied by reach.Trudy has a stellar reputation. And so I just didn’t buy that. I thought that was completely an excuse—a defense. And this is not how I’ve experienced Trudy. The conversation and the tenor, the kinds of things she was saying—totally not typical for the kinds of conversations we’d had over the last almost 20 years.I remember at one point she raised this point—she didn’t argue that it wasn’t a genocide—but she did raise this point. She said, “Well, yeah, but in Germany, with the Jews in the Holocaust, you know, they weren’t going and killing Germans.”I said, “Whoa. Okay. Well, yeah. But they also didn’t live in 75 years of apartheid.”She acknowledged that was true.I’m pointing these things out because this is the kind of argumentation—after two years of genocide—that was being used to defend silence.Why am I calling it out now? Because months after having these conversations, nothing has changed. Not with Trudy’s view. Not with what she’s said publicly. Not with Jack. Nothing has changed.Sharon and Joseph—aside from the most anemic, apolitical, both-sideist message I’ve ever seen, that was published by the Insight Meditation Society eight months after the… I’ll call it the genocide started—they put out this letter. And Sharon’s name was penned to it. Okay, so she made a comment. But that’s the only comment she’s made. Otherwise, it’s nothing. There’s nothing said.And now—is this an issue? Should all teachers be talking about this stuff? People ask me this regularly: what am I expecting from people?I don’t expect everyone to be a social activist. I wasn’t an activist prior to this. This situation warranted that for me. I needed to become an activist for Palestinians because I didn’t feel like they have a voice. And if I don’t use my voice on their behalf, who’s going to? It feels like a moral responsibility.Does everyone share that moral responsibility? No. Not everyone’s Palestinian—fair. But everyone, I think, who is training in and particularly teaching in a religious “wisdom tradition” that has, as one of its core pillars—core foundational areas of training—ethics, morality, virtue, sila…If you’re teaching as a Dharma teacher, you are also claiming to be a teacher of morality, of ethics, of virtue. And I think that is one thing to consider: What do teachers actually say or not say about the moral issues of our time? How inclusive are they? How deep and wide is their understanding of the problem—or problems? What kinds of solutions do they seem to support? How does that filter into the way that we practice and what we focus on in our practice, and how we build community? How do we balance contemplation and action?I think all of these are really valid questions. And what I saw happen in the Insight tradition is I saw it contract back to its previous apolitical stance. And I saw these teachers—who are, in pretty much virtually every way other than this topic, progressive on everything but Israel—consistently progressive or at least liberal in their orientation to social issues.But on this, they have not been. On this they’ve remained silent, and thus have remained complicit.If we didn’t live in the United States, would they be complicit by not saying anything? Maybe not. If they weren’t Jewish, would they be complicit in not speaking out against their identity being weaponized?“Never again.” Who does “never again” apply to?What I’ve come to realize is that there are different stages or levels of “Never Again.” There’s the egocentric Never Again: “Never again for me. I’m never going to be put in that position.” There’s the ethnocentric Never Again: “Never again for us—for our group, for our tribe, for our ethnic crew. Never again. Never again will Jews be subjected to this kind of horrendous treatment.” And then there’s the world-centric: “Never again for all of us. No human should ever have to go through this again.” And then the all-beings-centric: “Never again for all beings.”The issue here is that the “Never Again” is primarily ethnocentric, in reality. It’s “never again for our people.”And I also want to acknowledge, with as much compassion as I can muster: people are traumatized—people who have come from a Jewish background, who have ties to the Holocaust. They’re traumatized, and they’re activated. And I get that. I get that better than most.But does being traumatized and activated make it okay to turn your back on the murder of innocent people—on the intentional starvation of innocent people? Does it? No.Especially when you present yourself not only as a religious teacher but now also as someone who’s trained at the highest level as a clinical psychologist—both of my teachers, Jack and Trudy, are clinical psychologists. Both are familiar with the language and experience of trauma. Both have incredible resources at their disposal to be able to work at that level.Who needs to be speaking up? Well, I’m defining what I think are the characteristics of someone who really—if they don’t say something—then you really have to wonder what’s going on.I think the other very important thing is when someone presents themselves as being a social activist or as having that flavor to their Dharma—as an Engaged Buddhist. When they demonstrate a lack of engagement or a lack of care on something that they could influence, then it really highlights the ethnocentrism of the activism.Am I claiming to be beyond that? No. Actually, I think that’s partially normal. But are we all aspiring—are we saying that we’re aspiring—toward being universal in our compassion as Buddhists? Yes. We are saying that. We’re saying that we want to treat the suffering of all beings equally. We want to respond to the suffering of all beings instantly. That’s what we’re training in. That’s the Bodhisattva vow. And that’s the frame that my teachers taught under and taught in, largely.I feel like it’s okay, and appropriate, to hold people to their own stated public values, and to call them out when they fail to live up to those values—even after they’ve been challenged in private and given an opportunity to change.Gabor Maté, who I think has been one of the most illuminating and courageous voices on this issue—Dr. Gabor Maté—he himself was born in the Holocaust. He was a baby in the Holocaust. His whole family was murdered in the Holocaust. And he was a Zionist as a young man—understandably, wanting a place for Jews to be safe. And he pointed out that there was this common phrase used at the time: “A land without people for a people without a land.” This was one of the Zionist catchphrases.And he realized—especially after he went to Palestine during the late ’60s—that this was not true. This simply was not true. There were people on the land. And those people—including my grandfather and his whole family—they were ethnically cleansed from that land, most of them. Many of them. Almost a million Palestinians were driven out of their homes and out of the country. The ones that stayed are the ones who were in Gaza and the West Bank.And of course there’s a huge history here; I’m not going to get into the detailed history. But if you don’t know the history, it’s a good thing to know at this point—the basics of it.But what Gabor realized was that this was completely unethical. It was completely a case of—if you know the Karpman Drama Triangle—the victim-rescuer-persecutor triangle that describes the roles people tend to cycle through when they’re in an ego-contracted state: the victim, the person who feels like the world is against them; the rescuer, the person who tries to rescue the victim; and the persecutor, the one who persecutes the victim.It was so obvious to me—on a collective level—that this is a clear example, and Gabor Maté points this out as well, of a group of people who experienced genuine, true victimization and harm; who then, out of the undigested trauma—collective trauma—of that harm, are now in the persecution role.And you can see it with the Palestinians as well. And this was the point I made to Trudy. After 75 years of apartheid, you get Hamas. You get people who are tired of being oppressed and who—having tried many times to use nonviolent means and to negotiate—have not been able to get their needs met, because the international community does not support them, and thus feel like there’s no other alternative but to resort to violence against innocent people.Now, is that ethically okay? On one level, it’s not. On another level, you can understand why it happens. I can. And that’s the weird thing about looking at history: everyone, you can look at their position and their behavior, and you can understand why it’s justified. You can understand where it comes from. You can even be compassionate toward it if you really deeply understand.But that doesn’t change the cycle of harm. People actually have to be stopped from harming others. And that’s where the rest of the world—and America in particular—I think has totally failed.And I think this is complex. The reasoning for this—I think some of it is actually explainable by, on a collective level, white guilt.When I look at the Jewish people in terms of this larger racial category of “whiteness”—that Jews in America are considered white, right? They’re part of that category, that group of people. And yet, if you look at it in a hierarchical way—which is the reality of how race is held—race is hierarchical, and people often hold it that way.You could say the Jewish people are among the lowest caste of white people—they’ve been treated the worst in Europe. Look what happened. And so Zionism was born out of that. That ideology was born out of abuse at the hands of Western powers. It was enabled by the British and their own Christian Zionists, who would rather have the Jews be elsewhere.That, I think, is known. Our role in this is known. We know what we did. We know what we supported. We know that we’re responsible, in large part, for this. America and the United Kingdom, in particular, held a lot of responsibility post–World War II for this order emerging, and for the seeds of this conflict being planted.So I think we’re guilty—collectively. We’re guilty in the same way that we’re guilty that we took the land from the people who lived here, the Indigenous people of the Americas. There’s still that guilt. And you can deal with it either by being defensive or by making it a constructive tension—as I started to that day in the retreat when I was being called to task for my lack of compassion toward Black Americans.It’s not that I didn’t feel compassion—it’s that I was scared to become oppressed like them. I didn’t want to be in that group. I didn’t show solidarity with them. I was ashamed when I really got connected with it. “Oh… this is so sad.”I see this happening right now with so many people in my family. And I feel for them. I’ve asked them about how they’re doing with Palestine, etc., and they’re like, “Oh, it’s too painful. I can’t even touch it. I can’t even look at it. I can’t—yeah, I can’t talk about it.” They’re not going to stand up for Palestinians. And all of these family members also can pass as white. So they’re hiding.Compassion—I feel for them. And I’m not hiding. I’m done hiding. I’ve been done hiding. And now I’m done tolerating the lack of moral clarity and lack of consistency from my teachers. I’m done pretending like it’s okay, like it doesn’t hurt, like it hasn’t contributed to the murder of tens of thousands of people. Without that complicity, without that silence, this would not be possible.Speaking up does not guarantee results. And I think there are all kinds of practical considerations for why people don’t speak up. I had a friend reach out to me—close friend from long ago, racially white—and he had recently shared something on social media about Palestine. And I was surprised, and grateful, and we ended up talking about it a little bit, privately connecting.And this friend pointed out that when he thought about his behavior and actions around this, he realized he was coming from a place of cowardice—that he was more concerned about the impact that speaking up would have on his relationships, on his prospects, than he was about taking a clear moral stand on what he obviously saw as wrong.And he said he thought about what the implications would be. He thought about the people in his life who would be upset if he spoke up and took the position that he did, and he realized, “Well, actually, yeah, these are some pretty influential, powerful people.” Now—okay—whoa, this is sounding antisemitic. No. This is actually true in his case. It’s actually true in his case.And he thought about who would be upset if he didn’t say anything—and all he could think of was me.Okay. I… maybe I have some influence? I don’t know if I have any influence left. This—what you’re hearing—this is pretty much the channel that people listen to me through. So he wasn’t that concerned with me, and what I could say or do. There’s not really much I could do.And here’s the thing: there’s not anything I want to do. I don’t want to go out attacking my friends who’ve been silent. Now—am I still friends with my friends who’ve been silent? No, not really. If they’ve been completely and utterly silent and haven’t done anything—even behind the scenes—to support Palestinians, but they’re still like, “Oh, Vince, I’m so sorry”—no. I’m not friends with those people anymore.Those people are performing compassion; they’re not actually being compassionate. And I’m interested in being compassionate. What is compassion? Sometimes compassion is saying, “No. This is not okay.” And sometimes compassion is being willing to alienate or upset people with the truth—with reality.So this is my attempt at being compassionate. Am I angry? Am I upset? Am I hurt? Yes—absolutely. Am I going to say something anyway? Yes. Yes.As Americans, I think we absolutely should not stand up and stand with the genocide of other people. We should not be sending bombs. We should not be sending aid. We should not be providing cover for a country that is set on the destruction of another people, whom it has occupied for generations.Gaza has been described as the largest open-air prison in the world. Two million people were living in an open-air prison that had no control over basic things like food and water. Those were controlled by Israel. Their movements are controlled through checkpoints, through surveillance. Their words are controlled. My cousin in the West Bank—she can’t talk about what’s going on. She’s too scared to. And she’s right to be, because all of her words are being surveilled.On October 10th, I remember on Twitter saying that this “is a call to genocide.” And why did I know that? How did I know that? Because Israel turned off the water and food. And they did this very soon after October 7th. That was the almost instant reaction: “Let’s turn off the water and food to the entire population.”How can one see that other than genocidal intent? What intention could there be for turning off access to water and food?And mind you—prior to this—there’s been a documented and well-known control of the amount of calories entering Gaza. Just enough so that people aren’t starving—not enough so that they can flourish.I had a conversation right after October 7th. It was facilitated by Diane Hamilton, and it was organized by a Jewish American colleague who was living in Israel, in Tel Aviv. And we had this quote-unquote “wicked conversation” about Israel and Palestine.The organizer, Miles Kessler, made this point—and I think it’s important to call this point out and then respond to it. He said that many critics of Israel will argue that there is a moral equivalency between the Arabs—Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank—and Israeli Jews. That they’re operating on the same depth of moral understanding.And his claim was: “Actually, Israel is a democracy, we have all these rights, gay people aren’t persecuted in the same way,” etc., etc., etc. All these arguments—which you’ve probably heard—for why Israel is morally superior.Okay. I’m going to go ahead and concede that this may be true. What if it’s true? Okay—let’s just say it’s true.Even if it’s true, that doesn’t change the power dynamics. There may not be a moral equivalency, but nor is there a power equivalency. One group has a power position over the other. It’s called a one-up position. One group is dominating the other—is controlling the other.Facts. It’s still happening. It’s worse now.And the other party has been subjected to conditions that are almost designed to prevent their flourishing. So if you are part of a group that’s being oppressed and you’re not able to get access to the resources you need in order to mature, what’s the problem there? It’s not the failure of the individuals within that group to develop into deeper and broader moral stages. It’s the failure of the environmental conditions to support that natural growth.So Israel is simultaneously engaged in a process of trying to keep Palestinians down while then using the behavior that arises from that hellish environment to justify its ongoing oppression—and to justify their fear that these people mean them harm.Well—yeah. At this point they do. But that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that’s the issue I take ethically, morally, with that kind of argumentation. I’ve also heard the argument from well-meaning people that, “Well, there’s always been conflict. This is a history of conflict in this area. These parties have been fighting and warring for generations and hundreds and thousands of years.” The implication of that argument is that it’s hopeless. There’s nothing we can do about it. It’s like the history is this endless, bloody warring, so this is just the continuation of that, and there’s nothing we can really do—because this is a historical civilizational pattern that goes back way deep.Okay. It’s not true. It’s just not true historically.Look—there was a period of 400 years under the Ottoman Empire when there was not bloody war and conflict between these parties. They existed and they co-existed in relative peace for 400 years—from the 1500s to the 1900s. The Ottoman Empire had a pragmatic system called the Millet System that allowed people who were non-Islamic—because the Ottoman Empire is an Islamic empire—to have their own rules, to have their own communities. Through the Millet System, this very practical system, people could have their own economics, their own microeconomics, and people were able to coexist for 400 years in this very pragmatic, pre-modern, pluralistic kind of society.I’m not saying it was perfect or that there was no conflict. But just: it’s not what people claim. The history is not just one of bloody war and conflict.As a Palestinian American, what I keep running up against over and over again in this conversation are bad-faith arguments. People who are throwing up reasons—like Trudy did, like other people I talk to, like almost everyone I talk to about this does—who don’t know the history, who haven’t spent the time to understand the situation, but who have pat answers for why it is this way and why it can’t change. They basically have argumentation to protect the status quo and to keep themselves from having to look at the conflict and look at their own relationship to it.And this is quite painful. And I think in America it’s particularly hard to do that because of our own history—because of our own history of oppression.When I was speaking to Robert Wright recently on this—in the series on Meditating on Palestine, the episode is called Meditating on Palestine—I was speaking to him about his own history and my own history as Irish people, people who come from an Irish heritage in part, of our own history of persecution. That, in fact, America is built on persecution. So here we are, as a culture: many of us, our ancestors were persecutors, but they were also persecuted. That’s part of why they came here.So again—same cycle. The victim becomes the persecutor, especially when there is undigested trauma, when we don’t look and see.So the Insight tradition is continuing, unfortunately, to perpetuate the harms of persecution by remaining silent and complicit on the genocide in Gaza. The teachers who have the resources—financially, socially, emotionally—have the resources to digest this trauma. I don’t see evidence that they’re really doing it, in part because I’m the only one putting pressure on them. They don’t have pressure. They have a lot more pressure on the other side. If they start speaking up with moral clarity on these topics, do you know how much backlash they’re going to get?They’re scared about backlash from the government—from Trump. They saw how that went with the DEIA movement and the backlash from that. And so they’re hiding.They’re older. They’re getting into their eighties now. They don’t have the energy to fight.Great. Retire.If you can’t stand up for what’s good and right, and you’re too scared, you need to pass on the baton. Pass the torch. Put down the Dharma-teacher role and let other people who are ready and willing take it up.Now, I also think it’s worth noting—it’s worth mentioning—the people and organizations who have stepped up, who have heeded the moral call to courageously and bravely put out an unpopular opinion and taken a moral stand here.I’m not going to be able to name them all, because I don’t even know them all. But I do want to name the people I personally have gotten solidarity and support from, in hopes that if you’re interested in seeing those voices and those perspectives, you can see them too.In my own tradition—in the Insight tradition—there have been people who have spoken up and who have stood for this. It’s not completely ubiquitous, fortunately.For instance, Jack’s teaching partner, Tara Brach, has taken a courageous stand here. Upon the urging of her own students, she realized she needed to speak up. To her credit and to her students’ credit.Bhikkhu Bodhi—from the very beginning, the Venerable monk—has been talking about this openly. He wrote an excellent article called “No Time for Silence” in the summer of 2024.Also, Thanissara, practicing in the same Insight tradition, has been a fierce voice of justice.My friend Theo Horesh—I’m greatly appreciative of.My colleague Ethan Nichtern, who I’ve spoken with about this, invited me to join him in a dialogue about this on The Road Home, his podcast.I’ve heard of communities who are trying to center this as part of their Dharma communities. I’ve seen the Decolonial Dharma community, the Liberation Circle—I’ve seen communities who are really trying to integrate this and I admire it.And I’m doing the best I can in my own teaching and through Buddhist Geeks to make space for this kind of thing to be explored openly and honestly—which honestly is quite hard to do. I understand why it’s so difficult. Because we have a momentum in our communities. A lot of it has to do with the momentum of just focusing on ourselves and our own meditation practice. That’s the heritage of modern Buddhism—Buddhist modernism.But for those of us who want to go beyond that sort of self-focus and who care about social issues, and see that they shape individuals as much as individuals shape them, it’s worthwhile considering that there are people and institutions out there who are still doing the work and who haven’t stopped—who didn’t give up at this point—unlike some of the leadership I mentioned in the Insight meditation tradition.So we can look to them. We can look to them as leaders. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

Vince Fakhoury Horn: The Flavors of Jhāna—I can’t remember where I first heard this term. I think it was from you or from Kenneth [Folk].Brian Newman: Maybe we should start there. You came to me and said, “What should we call the retreat?” And I said, “Hey, you’re the one who wanted to do it in Portugal—what should we call it?” You threw it back at me, and I said, “Can we call it the name of my half-written book?”So folks, this all comes from a story that’s part of a lineage. This is a Kenneth Folk story, and it’s his way of demonstrating Jhāna on the spectrum.Kenneth says: imagine you’ve got a bunch of strawberries. You crush them into a strawberry smoothie, and you drink it. What does it taste like? A hundred percent strawberries.Now imagine a glass of clear water. You take a strong strawberry extract in concentrated form, drop in a single drop. What does it taste like? Strawberry—but just one tiny drop.And Kenneth’s punchline is, “It all tastes like strawberry, motherfucker.” His point is that it doesn’t matter where you are on the spectrum of Jhāna. On one end, you’ve got the Pa’auk tradition—completely absorbed, so much so that a gun could go off next to your head and you wouldn’t notice. On the lighter end, you’ve got Leigh Brasington, teaching Jhānic factors in a very Sutta-based way, or even lighter approaches. But Kenneth’s point is: it all tastes like Jhāna. Different flavor, same essence.Even the tiniest drop in the ocean still tastes like strawberry. That’s how I understood the story when Kenneth told it.Much of this dialogue centers around an upcoming 10-day meditation retreat on the same topic, The Flavors of Jhāna, that will be co-taught by Brian Newman & Vince Horn.Vince: The Flavors of Jhāna—I can’t remember where I first heard this term. I think it was from you, or from Kenneth [Folk].Brian: Maybe we should start with that, yeah. So, Vince, you came to me and you said—no, I said to you, “What should we call the retreat?” And you were like, “Hey man, you’re the one that wanted to do it in Portugal, what should we call it?” And you put it back to me. And I said, “Can we call it the name of the book—my half-written book?”And so this is, folks, this is all coming from a story that’s part of a lineage. And I promised we’d tell some of those today. So this is a Kenneth Folk story, and it’s his way of demonstrating Jhāna on the spectrum.So Kenneth says this: imagine that you had—glass—imagine a few different scenarios. You’ve got a bunch of strawberries, and you crush ’em into a strawberry smoothie. And you just have a pure strawberry smoothie, and you drink that smoothie. What would that taste like? And the answer is, that would a hundred percent taste like strawberries, because that’s all that’s gone into the making of the strawberry.Now, what if you just had a glass of clear water and a pretty strong strawberry extract in a really concentrated form, and you dropped one drop of that into a glass of water? What would that taste like? And then the answer is, that would taste like strawberry—with just one tiny concentrated drop.And Kenneth’s punchline on this is: “It all tastes like strawberry, motherfucker.” I believe that’s the punchline. And his point is, it doesn’t really matter where you are on the spectrum of Jhāna. And we could say, when we say the Jhānic spectrum, we’re talking about on one end we have the Pa’auk tradition, which would have you completely absorbed, so much so that a gun could go off by your head.On the lighter end, we would have Leigh Brasington, who teaches Jhānic factors, a very Sutta-based approach—or maybe some even less rigorous, less absorbed type of Jhāna. And Kenneth’s point is: it all tastes like Jhāna. What are you talking about? It’s just a different flavor. And how much of that actual flavor do you need to be able to recognize it?His point is, the tiniest little millionth part in a glass in the ocean would still taste like strawberries, so to speak. Let me know if you have a different interpretation of that story. That’s how I interacted with it when Kenneth told me.Vince: Yeah, no, I have a similar interpretation of what he was teaching there. He was kind of pointing to this depth dimension of Jhāna, and using the strawberry analogy to point out that, yeah, these states are patterns of mind. And even if you experience them at a great depth of absorption or focus, it’s still the same pattern. You can still recognize that pattern. And that’s what we’re calling Jhāna, essentially.Brian: Yeah. So that’s the “flavors” part. And then maybe we could ask—let me raise a question to you then, Vince. So, what is Jhāna? We’ve got this interesting word with this weird hyphen over the A, and even how I think about it over the years has changed. How do you view what Jhāna is these days, Vince?Vince: Yeah, for me too, it’s changed. And I guess maybe that change is interesting. ’Cause I imagine this is the case for you as well, Brian. Maybe for everyone who takes up a Jhāna practice. At first you experience Jhāna in the very specific way that you’re practicing with it—so you’ve got whatever tradition you’re working in, you’ve got the meditation object that you’ve been working with, you’ve got the instructions, and you’ve got a bunch of ideas about what is supposed to be happening, and what constitutes Jhāna. And you’re using all of that to try to get into the states that are being described in that practice system.So for me, like when I first started doing Jhāna practice, it was with Leigh Brasington. He was the first Jhāna teacher I worked with 20 years ago. I went on retreat. Sadly, I left my sick wife at home in the apartment—because I didn’t want to. This is how self-absorbed I was at the time—I didn’t want to get sick, at the beginning of a Jhāna retreat. So I just left her there suffering by herself, to go off and get—Brian: So you could go get concentrated.Vince: Yeah. So that should explain the emphasis on wishing all beings to be concentrated. That’s what I needed a little more of. But yeah, for me it was working within Leigh’s system. And like you said, the emphasis there is on—well, it’s on the breath, but also on the Jhānic factors. And I started to notice when they get strong enough, you can turn toward those factors and just get absorbed in them, which is like getting absorbed in the strawberry.So, long story short though, as I expanded to other practices, and I was doing more vipassanā noting style—which I now call Vipassanā Jhāna—and I was doing other techniques in more depth, I started to notice there’s a deep pattern or structure, which is the same regardless of the practice I’m doing, which object I’m working with, or even what definitions about the states that should be arising.There’s still something that’s the same that happens. And for me now, I consider Jhāna to be just meditation—the most—which is the literal translation of the term Jhāna. It comes from dhyāna in Sanskrit, which is also translated as Zen.Brian: So it goes dhyāna to Chan to Zen in China, then over to Chan. Yeah. Jhāna, Chan, Zen. And the Zen guys diss Jhāna all day long—but the name of Zen actually means Jhāna, which is hilarious.Vince: They just don’t talk about it because they’re being it, I think. So yeah, that’s how I understand Jhāna now. It’s just—yeah, this is what we’re doing. It’s meditation. And whatever you meditate on does change the contours of the state and the experience. And whatever ideals you have certainly change your relationship to what’s arising.Sometimes a state could seem totally inadequate, or like a warmup to something deeper. Whereas for other people, that could be the thing that you’re aiming for. Just, “Oh, I’m in it now, I’m just going to rest or abide.” So I think for me, the world of Jhāna has opened up and expanded a lot over time.Brian: You said there’s some similar quality. Could you say anything more about what that similar quality is?Vince: Yeah. Okay, so, let’s explore that together. Seems it consistent? It gets a little tricky. Yeah, it gets a little tricky because I learned it first through the noting maps, and so I’ll tend to notice—I’ll go there to describe things, even though that doesn’t describe the universal quality. But the stuff you did with the eye posture, like pointing to that, there’s something there where it seems like regardless of which state I’m in, the eyes are moving through this sort of progression.Brian: Yeah.Vince: That seems to be universal.Brian: Yeah. Yeah.Vince: The aperture of attention and how broad or open attention is, and how much it includes the field of experience—that also seems to be a chief characteristic, regardless of the state, or the object I’m working with. What else?Brian: Totally concur with you. Yeah. The aperture. I often call it maybe the—Ingram also says the width of the Jhāna, which is a really weird thing, like what width, how am I going to measure the width? But it’s the width of the visual field essentially, is what’s being pointed to—what’s happening in that space when the eyes are closed. Yeah.Vince: Yeah.Brian: What else is similar there?Vince: I was going to say something about the body, but the body’s something that seems like it changes. Like, the experience of the body changes a lot depending on where one is and the depth dimension. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that, having experienced those sort of really deep exclusive states, where the body is described as having dropped off or dissolved.Brian: Yeah, so similar to—so, let’s say I’ve been doing Jhāna for 15 years, probably Vince a little bit less than you, and we’ve come to a similar conclusion, I think. Which is: I think we’re just talking about meditation here, and Jhāna’s maybe a placeholder for what sounds like a certain technique, but really it’s more than that.And like you, Vince, I’ve come to really feel that Jhāna just means meditation. And from that perspective, when we call a retreat The Flavors of Jhāna, it’s The Flavors of Meditation. And our meditation community is called The Meditation Community. It’s not—Jhāna just meaning meditation. I think that’s totally appropriate.And so the more that I teach, the more what I come to see is we have eight discrete Jhānic states that are sort of pitched in an order of progression. It’s linear. So you start with one and you go to eighth. It makes sense.The practitioner might find something really different though, which is on any given day, in any given emotional state, a different state might be more accessible to me. For those of us that wake up in the middle of a lot of suffering and dukkha ñāṇa, we might find that a blissful third Jhāna is really accessible—maybe for some reasons we can talk about later. So as we start to explore that, then it’s like, you don’t actually have to start at the first to get to the third, do you? You can drop in there some days.There’s many practitioners that will tell you how they can just do a cold start right into the fifth Jhāna. And so if you start following that to its logical conclusion, I think what we start to say is: is it possible that whole meditation traditions have been built out around a single Jhānic state? And my answer to that is absolutely yes.So, Vince, and I think you and I were speaking the other day about what would happen if we said that the best Jhānic state was the sixth Jhāna, and that if we reified that to be the maximum, only, best thing. Many meditation teachers are only teaching the best thing, so let’s be one of those teachers who’s only teaching the best thing. What would that look like? And I think you and I agreed—that would look a lot like Ramana Maharshi, wouldn’t it? That would look a lot like Advaita.“I am the world creator. I’m the world destroyer. I am just pure, infinite, boundless consciousness.”And so my current thinking around this is: Jhānic states could all be reified, so much so that an entire tradition could be built around the fifth Jhāna, or the seventh, or the eighth. And in fact, I think they have been built around that. And if you really love the sixth Jhāna—yeah, go do Advaita. It’s probably your perfect cup of tea. I think we’d say a very similar thing around the fifth or the seventh or the eighth as well.Vince: Yeah. That’s really interesting. So you’re describing how perhaps entire practice traditions might be centered around specific states as the starting point, and then exploring those states or the domain around those states.Brian: Yeah.Brian: And then, so we’re going to—we’ll teach eye postures, folks. And I think some of—but to talk about that real briefly, it’s about the aperture. So, a really tight aperture is a first Jhānic eye posture. Then it gets a little bit bigger with second, a little bit bigger with third, and then real big with this more expansive fourth Jhānic eye posture.So the really interesting question for the formless realm practitioner—ooh, in general I think this makes you become interested in eyes. And then you start to look at other practice. Maybe some of you have a Six Yogas practice, or Dzogchen, you’ve done Mahāmudrā. And if you start to think about that a little bit: where do my eyes go? Or where do one’s eyes go when they do Dzogchen? You start to play with that a little bit and you realize there’s a very distinct eye posture for Dzogchen.If you look at monks, they’ll often practice Dzogchen with their eyes open. Their eyes are flittering all around. They’re doing the eye thing. What would that correlate to, a state in our Jhānic arc? Maybe there’s not really a Dzogchen-like Jhānic arc, I’m not quite sure around that. But each practice seems to have a discrete eye posture—most of which, I think, can be correlated to one of the Jhānic states.That’s a lot of how I think about non-Jhānic practice these days: what is the closest thing that makes me feel like this in the Jhānic practice, and I’m using the eye postures to triangulate around that.As I said all that, it sounded esoteric. Did that sound really esoteric?Vince: Yeah, but for me I was thinking of something very practical—like in the Dzogchen tradition, when I worked with Lama Lena. Her basic instructions are to take a, like, a pebble or rock first.Brian: Yeah.Vince: Yeah. And as you practice what’s called shiné, which is like calm abiding, you focus on the rock, or the pebble. And then there’s another phase of practice in which you just remove the pebble, and then you continue to focus. And so that to me gets at the eye posture of Dzogchen, where previously you had something you were focused on, and then now you’re asked to continue focus without that thing.So that’s like a very practical instantiation of that, where the eye posture is clearly one that’s meant to be open and spacious, but somehow stable and focused as well.Brian: And I love that. So what would that be called? That’s samādhi without object.Vince: Yeah, shamatha without a sign.Brian: And we don’t really talk about that in the Theravāda lineage—which you and I have done probably most of our practice in, Vince. There’s no samādhi without a sign. It’s always a sign. So that’s just so fascinating. That’s really deeply aligned with the yogic tradition, where they have objectless samādhi. And it’s a totally different feeling to do that.And yes—look at something, then take the thing away, and keep looking at it. What is that, other than an eye posture?My story on eye posture is from a lineage—like a very deep practitioner. I’d love to share it with you. I’ve shared it before, but it’s worthwhile to share again.So one of my main teachers, Sayalay Susīlā, who was the chief attendant for Pa Auk Sayadaw for a couple decades while he was traveling around Asia—she would spend time with him in Sri Lanka, several years there cooking his food and being his chief attendant. So very close to Pa Auk Sayadaw, really deeply absorbing his teachings.And one day—I learned eye postures from Kenneth Folk, and I didn’t really need to talk about that with my Pa Auk teacher because she was very traditional. I didn’t want to bring too much stuff in that might make her feel uncomfortable. But one day I accidentally said—I mentioned that I was using eye postures, and I said something about looking toward something.And she said to me in great shock, she goes, “You’re looking with your eyes?” Eyes closed, but still looking. I said, “Yeah.” She goes, “You’re looking with your eyes, like your actual eyes? Not some internal drifty—?” And I said, “Yeah, I’m looking with my actual eyes. I’m like taking a gaze.”And she goes, “If you’re doing it already, just keep doing it.” I thought she was going to chastise me and say, “Never do that again.” But she essentially blessed the practice. So there was something there that was quite profound, I thought. Even from the Pa Auk tradition, they seemed to—I got a little wink, nod, nod on that one.Vince: Nice. I had a similar experience, although it turned out a little differently, with Daniel Ingram. I think I’ve shared this with you, Brian, where I was wanting to explore the kasina object, using the circular orb as a visual focus point. And Daniel Ingram had written the Fire Kasina book, and had been talking a lot about fire kasina in the years leading up to that.But I wasn’t really that into the flame. I was wanting to do it, like, on my computer or whatever. And his instructions were very much to take the kasina object, close your eyes, and then see the afterimage, the eidetic image, and focus on that. And that by using that subtle— which I guess in your tradition would be like the nimitta—by focusing on that sort of internal nimitta, you eventually get absorbed. Well, you go through a process with that, but eventually it’s a kind of a complete absorption in the nimitta.And I understood that, but for some reason I wanted to keep my eyes open doing the practice. It was just like a sort of intuition or an instinct. And maybe it was like a rebellious thing—“I’m going to rebel against what one of my teachers is telling me to do and see if he’s right.”And I found, actually—this was so interesting—that moving through the third Jhāna, which he calls the murk, which for me I experienced as the kasina breaking apart and moving around and dissolving and being difficult to focus on—eventually my eyes actually settled so much that they were just barely open. It was almost like just a tiny slit of my eyes were open.And at some point it shifted into the fourth Jhāna, where all I saw was the color. It was like where I was looking and how my eyes were—and it wasn’t like I was trying to engineer this, I was actually just moving through the state—and I found suddenly that my eyes were closed at just the right amount and looking at just the right place, that all I saw was the color from the kasina and I was completely absorbed.Brian: This is what was supposed to happen.Vince: Yeah, exactly.Brian: That’s a full absorption. How beautiful. With eyes open. So amazing.Vince: And I was like, “Oh, my teacher’s wrong. You can’t just do this—or you don’t only have to do this—with your eyes closed, taking the internal image. You can work with the external image the entire time, through the whole process.”Brian: Yes. Yeah, absolutely. Maybe that’s a great transition.Vince: Sorry, Daniel.Brian: No, and we all love Daniel, and great respect for everything he’s done. It’s nice to have people trying different things out and telling us what actually works.Vince: Yeah.Brian: Maybe we could talk a little about the fact that there are a lot of concentration objects and what we will be offering in the retreat as far as what people might like to do around that.Vince: Yeah, that’s cool.Brian: So folks, actually I don’t have my list on me and I wouldn’t be able to remember this because it’s just too many, but there are traditionally 40 concentration objects. And the breath is one of those. The brahmavihāras, like loving-kindness, would be included. Things like contemplating the foulness of the body—contemplating pus, or contemplating urine or feces—would be considered part of that as well. And then you have all the kasinas, which are really traditional, and also contemplating the dharmas would be a concentration object as well.And so there’s this premise that there are only 40, but every single sutta, or everything in Buddhism, there’s always a sutta that says the opposite. And so what it turns out, there’s a beautiful story where the Buddha meets a person, and the Buddha had the ability to see into people’s past lives.And when he met this person, he could see this person had been a jeweler in a previous life. And so when the person came to him to request his object of concentration—which is how it was done in the old days, you go to your teacher and they give you the most suitable object, which is how it happened for me too in Malaysia, she will tell me what to do, I don’t get to pick, she’s going to pick based on her supreme knowledge, right?—and the Buddha to the jeweler, he says, “Clearly you were a jeweler in a previous life. I’m going to have you concentrate on this big, beautiful red ruby,” because he knew this guy was just going to be fully, really love the jewel, the ruby.So that—so apparently we could say the ruby is the 41st concentration object. But what I think we can actually take away from that story is: you can choose anything as a concentration object. Vince, maybe you want to talk later about your story—about Vince taking the number 1 as a concentration object on a full retreat, which is, whoa. How—where would that go? What’s the sign of the number one, the nimitta? That’s really fascinating.So there are all these different concentration objects. The breath is a wonderful object. I really promote the breath simply because I always have it with me. I don’t need to take a bench with me. I don’t have to have a cushion. I don’t have to have a fancy colored thing. I don’t have to have my computer. I can do it anywhere I am. It’s always with me—the breath.And the breath produces this nimitta, this visual sign that allows us to get fully absorbed as well. Some of the other concentration objects wouldn’t take one to that level of nimitta.And so for our retreat that’s going to be happening on January 2nd, Vince and I’s idea is we would like—we’re very non-dogmatic teachers and we really like a spirit of openness and exploration—and we’re going to invite all the participants to choose their object of concentration.I think probably, Vince, both of us will be teaching from one object. I’ll be teaching from the breath for sure, because that’s my preferred object. But you’re welcome to choose a kasina. You could choose flame if you want. I think we could find a way to have you do a fire kasina somewhere if you wanted, et cetera, et cetera. Water, whatever you might like to work with. Vince, anything you want to add to that? Just how we’re hoping to really keep it open for people on the retreat?Vince: Yeah, this is—it’s an interesting experiment, because most concentration retreats, and I think in both of our experience, the whole group is being taught one object and is usually, though not always, doing one object focus together.And here, the idea is—what, yeah, we’re all going to be focusing on one thing, but that one thing could be different depending on who you are and what you’re resonating with, and where you want to go deep during that retreat. So it’s a kind of interesting balance of the diversity of possible objects that one could be working with, and the universal experience of deepening with your meditation object.So we’re going to be focusing on the universal patterns here, and the universal challenges that arise when trying to focus on anything—whether it be a jewel or a number, or the breath. And so yeah, I’m hopeful that we can weave those two worlds together. And my hope is that the deepening that happens often on retreat, that can be felt, that extra support—that we don’t lose that just because there’s a diversity of objects being worked with. But rather, that it creates something like a more complex field of concentration.Like the complexity of a wine when you drink—Brian: Yeah, complex harmonics.Vince: Yeah, exactly. There’s a complexity there because of the way differences come together. And I guess I felt that in the Jhāna community, with your Śamatha Jhāna and the Vipassanā Jhāna and the Metta Jhāna. There’s something I’ve seen with people that are going to multiple of these groups, where they’re getting more of the flavor of the practice and what it could be like, by dipping into these different subjects.Brian: That’s fascinating. And that metaphor of complex wine is really lovely. And complex harmonics tend to make interesting music. So that’s great. Anything—should we talk about the breadth and the depth? So something that you and I often—so for those who are listening to this, Vince and I will often come across—so Vince and I are fairly non-dogmatic in the sense that we’re really open to all doorways. And certain teachers that have been brought up in strong traditions, they have a really strong idea about what Jhāna is and what it isn’t. Which I completely respect. And I really want to honor those classical traditions as well. I love that stuff and I’m completely drawn toward that as well. But Vince and I think we have a—we know we have a bit of a different approach. What should we say about the breadth and the depth that we’re hoping to cover there?Vince: Yeah. Personally I can say I’ve struggled with this a lot over the years of practice.Brian: Totally.Vince: Having come up as a layperson, I decided not to go the monastic route because of my girlfriend—now wife. I didn’t want to lose that relationship. It felt important. So I was always doing the thing—and I think you had the same experience for a while—going in and out of retreat.Brian: Totally.Vince: And going in and out of daily practice, doing an hour or two a day formal practice, going in and out of a month or so on retreat, coming back. And I experienced the oscillation between daily life and retreat life to be very fruitful on the one hand—where it felt like I kept plunging the depths and then coming back—but then also very challenging and confusing on the other end. Like, how do I bridge these two realities together? It almost could feel schizophrenic at times, coming in and out of that space.And part of what I learned really working with Kenneth—social noting exercises initially and teaching—was, oh, I need to be able to connect these states across my relationships now. That I need to be able to be present in relationship, not just by myself in silence on retreat. I need to find a way to bring this to bear on everything.And also be more okay not being in really concentrated states, since there are times where it’s just going to be hard to do that. I know we’ve talked about your experience—I’ve laughed a number of times thinking about your experience going from super hardcore Pa Auk-style retreat practice to being in Tokyo with your wife, trying to maintain some of that depth while in an environment that just doesn’t seem designed to do that.Maybe you could talk a little bit about your experience trying to maintain the depth.Brian: Just a general comment. This is less about Vince and I being meditation teachers and just trying to be skillful human beings in the world. If your partner’s getting mad at you because of how you meditate, you’re probably not doing it right. There’s something going on that’s probably out of sync.And so what that looked like for me was—I’m going to be the—clearly I needed to be the best Jhāna master ever to live who was a Westerner, I think. Second only or something like that. And what did that mean practically? Trying to live a life where I’m meditating four to five hours a day, while maintaining a full-time job and a marriage. And you know, that’s sustainable for a certain amount of time.But what it actually means you need to do is you need to be dropping into the ānāpāna spot when your wife goes to the bathroom at dinner. And if you’re thinking about that, you’re probably actually thinking about it while you’re eating dinner. And you might even take a moment to touch it while you’re eating dinner. And then the wife will actually notice, and she’ll say, “Stop meditating,” because she’s sensitive to all your moods. Because she’s been living with you. She knows when you’re meditating, even if you think you’re hiding it.And so this is actually failure mode. I don’t think this is a good move. And so it’s exactly what Vince is saying. There’s something super beautiful about learning to get fully absorbed in a Jhānic experience, which tends to take some time for most people. There’s a time-on-the-cushion element to that just because of the relative time it takes to build up the concentrated facility.But we also have lives to live. And there are certain things going on that make it impractical some of the time. So what’s the happy medium? I think what’s actually practical for us as laypeople.Now, one of my dear teachers is Tina Rasmussen. She’s my first Jhāna teacher. And therefore I feel a really strong connection to Tina, who was one of my first Pa Auk teachers. But Tina won’t think that what Vince and I are teaching is Jhāna. Because it—and some of the things that we’re being taught in the Jhānic community—she wouldn’t call Jhāna, because it’s a little bit too far out of the rails of the Pa Auk tradition. And I totally understand that, and I respect that.And maybe Leigh would have his own opinions on that. And all these teachers have all these opinions. I think what Vince and I would like to offer you all is: we’re going to hold all of that. We’re big enough to hold all of that, accept all of that, agree with all of that, and be open to disagreeing with all of that. But we’re going to say, that’s all going to fit somewhere on the spectrum.We’re happy. And in fact, I think within the community we hope we have teachers who could orient you to any part of the spectrum. Because at certain times of your life, some parts will be more interesting than others. If you’re on a month-long at the Forest Refuge, go for full absorption with the nimitta. Why not? What a beautiful thing to have done in your life.If you’re living a layperson’s life and you meditate for about 20 minutes in the morning, maybe just get a little bit of nice pīti going, per Leigh Brasington’s instructions. Because that’s totally accessible in 15 minutes.What’s going to make you feel good? Jhāna ultimately is really being offered as an episodic intervention to suffering. That’s how the Buddha taught it. It’s how he practiced it. And you can read that in the suttas. He entered Jhāna at the end of his life because he was sick. This is exactly how it was taught, and how he still can do it today.Vince: Brian, you mentioned the spectrum, and I know we’ve talked explicitly about the depth dimension as a spectrum. And here I’m like visually imagining this as like a vertical spectrum, where as you go down you get deeper. But I also have been thinking in the Jhāna community about another axis, which is the breadth axis.So if I were to map these together—like depth going vertically and breadth going horizontally—that would give like a bit more like a grid. And I think the breadth dimension—we were talking about this here, and it’s good to make it explicit—which is, you can, and the way I understand the Pa Auk tradition really, is that it’s focused on a very exclusive kind of breadth. Very hyper-focused on the object, and super deep. So it’d be like in the lower-left quadrant of this: super exclusive and super deep.Brian: Yeah.Vince: And what I’ve been realizing I’ve been trying to do in the last decade or so is live on the other side of the spectrum. Which is the more inclusive dimension of Jhāna, which I find you can actually take very deep. And maybe the Zen tradition is the best place where that’s emphasized, where it’s like your practice and your life are all integrated in one. And there’s really an emphasis not on preferencing being in a particular posture or doing a particular thing—it’s just like, your whole life is the meditation.And if that to me is—okay, that’s a more inclusive kind of meditation experience, or Jhānic experience, where everything that arises is part of the practice. And like, thinking of The Karate Kid, it’s like, at the beginning of The Karate Kid, what are they learning? Wax on, wax off. You’re learning every basic movement can be kung fu. And so if you turn everything you do into the meditation, then you can have a kind of inclusive attention or awareness that doesn’t get knocked off by the changingness of the content of experience.Brian: Say more about inclusive, exclusive. And I think you were doing one or the other when you did our guided sit today—you were talking a lot about “may concentration arise for all.” Were you even doing a little bit of a visualization? Visualization—what would the world look like, should we all be so concentrated? Can you point to what you were doing there—whether that was inclusive or exclusive, and how you see those two?Vince: Yeah, that’s a good example, Brian. That was the move toward more inclusiveness. Including the imaginal capacity, which you’d already brought online really with the rails, feeling in the breath. So just working off of that. But also including in awareness more of a sense of others.And I think what I learned from Ken Wilber, of the Integral philosophers, is like we really can include these core perspectives. We can include our first-person experience—which to me, that’s already included, even in the most exclusive, deep Jhāna states. You’re including your own experience, you have to, because that’s where it’s happening.But then you can also include others’ experience. You can open to and include in your awareness other people. And the early Buddhist tradition has good examples of that, like in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. As they’re describing the kind of mindfulness you want to establish, they said establish this mindfulness internally and externally.And so there’s already there some clear instructions for how you can have a more inclusive kind of focus that includes not just your own experience, but also others. And then the third thing you could include, from an Integral perspective, is the third-person perspective, which is like the external world. Nature, the world of nature.And I—lately I’ve been sitting for 24 minutes a day outside on my back porch. That’s been my practice—just sitting. And it’s a very inclusive practice, because the eyes are open, ears are open, body open, and you’re just sitting and being with whatever is. In my case, it’s with Emily, and with the sounds of what’s happening in the neighborhood.Brian: What a beautiful practice.Vince: That to me is like more inclusive. If you open from your first person to include others and then include the world—if you include all those things—you’re sitting in a very inclusive way. Or walking, or standing, or whatever posture you might be in.Brian: And folks, you know that—what’s the proximate cause for concentration? That’s concentration. We’ve all heard that before. It’s a kind of a funny joke. I think we talk about like Shakti and passing our concentration to others, which I hear a lot—people say when they’re with me they feel more concentrated. I think that’s because I’m including them. I’m trying to include them in that space. I want them to be part of that. And I’m inviting them into mine, and they’re giving me some back, and we’re all kind of building it together.The—a little bit more on the spectrum. So my natural resting place on the spectrum and Vince’s natural resting place on the spectrum are actually at totally opposite ends of the spectrum. I want you guys to know that because I think that’s really great—that you have a teacher who sits on each side, and therefore we can cover all the middle.So I’m a hundred percent exclusive. That’s how I was taught to practice. And so one of the primary things I do when I’m correcting students who come to me to learn Pa Auk Jhāna is: people have been highly influenced by events, or they’ve been highly influenced by The Mind Illuminated—Culadasa. And they’ll come in and then I’ll learn, like on session four, like I hadn’t realized it because they haven’t told me yet, “Oh yeah, I’m always leaving 10% of my awareness in the room to note things before they arise.”And I’m like, “No. You don’t leave any awareness in the room. You put a hundred percent here. We’re never doing anything but that.” And that turns out to be revelatory. People are like, “Oh, I don’t leave any in the room?” And I’m like, “No, this is an exclusive practice. A hundred percent.”And some of us will really be drawn to that. It’s a very—you guys can feel the renunciate vibe of that Theravāda. It tends to be a renunciate practice. That churning is renunciate practice. And those of us who are incredibly drawn to absorption tend to have a little bit of that renunciate vibe. I absolutely have that in myself.Vince, on the other side, has taken—all great teachers will have students who will take something they’ve taught and run with it and reify and make it great. And Vince took social meditation from Kenneth. And I took eye postures. Kenneth talked about eye postures a little bit, but I went and made it the whole thing. Kenneth is even surprised by how big it’s got at this point. And I think he’d say the same about Vince in social meditation.So just a little bit there about how we—our natural resting places I think make us really great teaching partners, in the sense that we love to cover the whole end of the spectrum, from our respective ends, which are the exact opposite ends. I think, Vince, that we sit at the opposite ends on that, naturally.Vince: Yeah. But we can meet in the middle, which I think is important. We both have that experience of being on the other side.So yeah—to your point, we’ll do some social meditation on this retreat as well, regularly. And the intention there is to play with extending attention to include more.I was thinking about, what is the core difference between the sort of exclusive and inclusive ends of that spectrum? And it more or less reduces down to whether you’re saying “no” to experience outside of the object you’re working with, or whether you’re saying “yes.” Or whether the object you’re working with includes everything else.And in that sense, I would say all practice is working with that spectrum. Because there are times—even probably in the Pa Auk tradition, I imagine—where something could be arising that actually keeps you from being able to a hundred percent focus on here. And you actually at some point have to maybe turn toward it and deal with it, or address it, so that you can come back to a hundred percent focus here. Is that accurate?Brian: Yeah, so the most radical Pa Auk teacher will say you don’t even do that. And they’re not going to even acknowledge that there’s a hindrance taking you away, because that would almost be like an admission of defeat.Vince: Like you’re feeding it or something?Brian: Yeah, like feeding there something. So it’s just: focus here. That being said, in the more modern Pa Auk teachers, they talk a lot about transformation versus transcendence. And the frame on this is—with Jhāna, we’re aiming for transcendence. We are going to intensely ecstatic states that one would never experience without doing the practice. And these are supernormal human states, way beyond the pale of normal human experience.But sometimes that doesn’t work, because we’re super hungry or we hate our boss, and we’re being pulled away by hindrances, we could say. And then when that happens, we simply can’t concentrate. Focus here is not an option. And the more modern teachers are a little bit more flexible around that, and they say that’s when we shift from transcendence into transformation. And what I mean by that is personality transformation.And they will propose that you do some work around working with the hindrances, so that you can free up that energy to go back to the ānāpāna spot. Any hindrance is just taking something away from energy that could be put always right here. Focus here always and forever, even when you don’t feel like it, is the message of that tradition.Vince: So this is cool. I think that—I’m thinking the way this will probably play out on this retreat is we’ll be offering different perspectives from either side of that. And the exploration is going to be around figuring out how to work with that more inclusive versus more exclusive focus, and finding the sweet spot for you in that spectrum.Brian: I think that’s what we’re offering. I’ve never, folks—I’ve never done a Jhāna retreat that wasn’t full noble silence. So it’s actually quite novel for me to go into a very strong concentration practice, but also have the space to be more inclusive. And that’s what I want to do this time. I think that’s a great approach. I think it’ll bear great fruit for us.Join us in The Jhāna Community–an online community of practice focused on all the flavors of meditation. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

This episode of Buddhist Geeks features a candid and heartfelt conversation between Vince Fakhoury Horn and Tasshin Fogleman about Palestine, the TPOT subculture, and what it means to embody true Bodhisattvahood. They explore the limitations of online discourse, especially around contentious issues, and reflect on the importance of good-faith dialogue, friendship, and spiritual integrity in times of crisis.Join Vince Fakhoury Horn and Brian Newman outside of Lisbon, Portugal at the beginning of 2026 for a 10-day intensive jhāna retreat. There, we’ll be exploring The Flavors of Jhāna.Episode TranscriptVince:Hey Tasshin.Tasshin:Hi Vince.We just talked before I hit record. We just talked still. It's like formally. Hi. Hi. Tasshin: We're here. Vince: Yeah, exactly. That's good to see you. Tasshin: Yeah, good to see you too, brother. Yeah. Vince: Yeah, man, I appreciate you being willing to I invited you to have this conversation on X or my favorite platform to hate, Tasshin:My favorite platform to love.Vince: Great. I was there with you for a while, but yeah, it's getting a little weird. It's it's getting a little Faschy, X but we'll probably talk about that. So I propose that we talk about, this was the theme I proposed to you, which is Palestine, TPOT, and True Bodhisattvahood.. And it's, I guess in response to a lot of frustrated, angry, maybe righteous and not in a necessarily, in all bad sense. But yeah, in some posts that I've been sharing on X since I don't know it's been ongoing since the October 7th in my case. So I guess I wanted to explore that with you because I consider you to be one of my friends in the TPOT subculture, which we can get into and talk about what that actually is, Uhhuh because it's pretty, and it's it's vagueish, but, or decentralized at least.But it seems like you're well respected in this decentralized subculture and I think I'm part of that as well, but I seem to be taking a very different role from you and how I relate to it, which is a little bit more critical and Challenging and, I haven't found that's really endeared me to many people in the community.But some people like yourself have engaged with my critiques in what feels like a good faith way, and I've really appreciated that. So I thought, it'd be cool to have a, an even more personal conversation where people could see potentially if we decide to release any of this.And I don't know, just the human side of this, which doesn't come across often in 280 characters. Tasshin: Yeah. I appreciate all that context. I think that's really helpful and I think it's good to have a conversation about this. I think that I've been really struck by your perspectives on this and in general, I really value your perspectives and your opinions about the path and about practice and, we've had a number of disagreements over the years, but I've always walked away, like really learning a lot. And yeah, I do try to engage in good faith and I think especially one of the practices I have just for any kind of conflict in general is if I feel like text-based mediums especially can only hold so much.I don't even like to discourse or disagree on Twitter. I use it for other things and it's hey, if I'm, I've said this to you before, if we have a disagreement, let's get on a call and actually talk about it. And because it's just, you can actually hear the other person's perspective and where they're coming from in a way that text just really doesn't afford.So I'm glad we're talking about this. Yeah, I think it's great. Yeah. Vince: And the downside of doing that without recording it and sharing it back, because of course then it's just like a private thing that happens Right, and doesn't necessarily filter out in the same way to the collective. Tasshin: Totally. Totally.SoVince: This is cool. Yeah. Thank you. Tasshin: Do you have any suggestions for where you'd like to start or what feels like a good starting place?Vince: I would be curious to see your take on what TPOT is or how you'd describe that phenomena. I did spend a little bit of time reflecting on it, and I came up with a little, like micro definition, but I don't think it's exhaustive this a starting point.But I'm curious even before sharing that, if there's anything, thoughts on TPOT and what it is, if you've thought, have you meditated on that? How do you can, Tasshin: yeah. I love that and I'm so curious what your definition will be. I suspect it'll be spicier than mine, but I liked what you said earlier about it being a decentralized community.because I, I felt a little bit of trepidation before this conversation for really all three of the things you want to talk about. I feel like, so woefully inexpert in and I really don't know as much as I ought to about the war, and I don't know as much. I, I don't know. I'm not, I'm in TPOT certainly, but I'm not, there's no elected four figure leader or something.It's decentralized, as you said. And then also at the Bodhisattva path, I'm like still figuring it out very right. As we all are so right. But yeah, TPOT, I think for me it's very much about specific people, like their specific friends that I've cultivated very deep friendships with, that I've met through Twitter, and developed those relationships through Twitter and their, I think some of my closest friends at this point are people I've met through Twitter and they're friendships that I treasure and I think it is decentralized.I think it's. Spread throughout the world at this point. Like I can go to any major city and meet people who are connected to this network. And I, like my friend Andrew Rose has been talking about it recently as the network where it's yeah, it's not really about Twitter anymore. And it's not really, it's a larger cloud of people that are connected and I think it's not necessarily ideologically on the same page, like people having the same perspectives or even shared practices.There might be shared interests and common overlaps, but I think people have very different perspectives on the world. And it's more, if anything, I'd say it's like a developmental similarity where, for me at least, it really helped me to, I started to enter TPOT. I could go into detail, but as I was individuating from being at the monastery for many years and it's I mean it from a developmental perspective, it helped me jump from three to four in the Keegan stages where it's like I was in a tribal state of mind identified with the maple ideology and worldview and practices, which was great for me at the time. It really was. And then it's, it stopped being great for me and I had to find a new way and being with so many weirdos from around the world who saw things so differently really helped me to find my own way and find my own life. So I feel a sense of connection and intimacy with it, and like indebtedness to it, where it's these are my people and a help that helped me to find myself in the world.Yeah, that's what TPOT is to me at least. Vince: I like what you're saying about the developmental part. I guess I see the phenomena similarly like this is something that. There's a lot of people coming together, not, like you said, around a particular ideology or like framework.Which is very common. Like a bunch of people come together on a specific book or teacher or teaching or whatever. This is different because there are teachers and teachings that are, you see commonly in that community. But it's pretty broad. Yeah. Tasshin: And you don't have to buy into any of them.I think there are major, if anything there's like themes, like non coercion is a big one or Right. And people bring their own interests and you don't have to be interested in the same things other people are interested in. Vince: But there's something, if you put all those themes together, you'd start to see like broader theme of Absolutely.Yeah. The connection there. Yeah. Which I think you're totally right. It's, there's something maybe developmental underneath that. I was thinking about the book, The Postmodern Condition. Which David Chapman originally recommended to me. He's one of the, he's a TPOT Philosopher.Maybe he wouldn't he probably reject that phrase term, but he is a philosopher and well respected in that space. Tasshin: Sure. Vince:And I remember the the author Jean-François Lyotard, he said, simplifying to the extreme, “I define postmodern as incredulity toward meta narratives.”And I find there's something very postmodern about this community where there's a kind of general skepticism toward meta-narratives, of thinking that like one way of describing reality could be totally comprehensive and true for everyone, everywhere, all the time.And I see that as one of the things I really appreciate about TPOT. In terms of it representing a move out of like the modern condition, which was much more like about trying to find the right ideology and all these clashing Isms, Communism versus Capitalism versus all these kind of clashing religions.Who's got the best, which framework is going to come out on top, and everyone's going to eventually believe it's like some, I see that as the more of the modern condition. And so in that sense it feels like a real relief, to see communities, that are forming around.Around this. And it, I guess that's the reason for me, I always connect my experience of coming up in the integral community, Ken Wilber's community with TPOT because it felt like a very similar kind of vibe there. Where so many people I met were just doing radically different kinds of things.And, there'd be someone who's super into, like spiritual surrender, the lineage of Adi da, who is also like a concert pianist that I'm literally describing an actual person I worked with. And then someone else would be like, super into video production and have no interest in spiritual practice or meditation, but they have a lot of interest in like psychological work.And yeah, I guess that's something I've seen is consistent with the TPOT world. Is this sort of like postmodern incredulity towards meta narratives?Tasshin: How would that fit with it being I've never really understood this, but would you describe TPOT as meta-modern, or not meta-modern.Vince: I guess for me, I would say the center of gravity of TPOT seems to be in the transition between modern to postmodern. Like that I would call that post rational. Because the main mode of modernity is rational individualism. It's this is Ken Wilber's and Jean Gebser's take, but I find that to be true.So people like are questioning the limits of rationality and model making are post rational. I see, and I think as a result they're postmodern. But there's a transition, it's like there's a awkward developmental phase where you're letting go of, the absoluteness of models and you can ken Wilber called it the “performance contradiction.” He said, you can you can absolutize that too, or you can say everything is relative. That statement isn't a relative statement, it's an absolute statement. All perspectives are valid. Okay. That perspective you're saying is more valid than any other perspective, which says that certain perspectives are more valid than others. And so like the whole idea of postmodernity rests on a performance contradiction. That's, or at least the early stages of it where you're deconstructing that mo deconstructive, postmodernism Robert Kegan, would call it.He also has a reconstructive postmodern phase. I don't think TPOT is in the reconstructive postmodern phase, but I think some people in it are. It's like there's a spectrum, within, there's a center of gravity, but there's a spectrum. As well or more, it's like a scatter graph, Uhhuh, where like most of the dots are in the center around this sort of modern to postmodern transition, but then there's like trailing off in both directions.You'll see some people that are more traditional that are there just treating it like a group. I'm sure you saw that probably at Vibe Camp. Probably some people there that are just like. Just drinking the Kool-Aid and don't really, aren't really, maybe vibing in the same way as everyone else.Tasshin: Uhhuh. Vince: And then you find some weird people too that are like aliens even within the space. Who seem to be like a David Chapman I mentioned. He seems like a, an alien to me. Tasshin: An example, Vince: I think he's talking, I think he's a meta-modern Tasshin: thinker.Vince: I don't know.So I, I see a mix, but I mostly see people in the Yeah. Like early postmodern stage, Tasshin: I recently saw a really nice tweet from Mechanical Monk where, which I can link you to later, but he drew this diagram or made like a video of what TPOT is, and he was arguing that like TPOT is a moving target where like i'm thinking of these people. And then you're thinking of these people and there's some overlap, like you and I are both friends with, like Daniel Thorson for example, or. Some other people that we'd have in common, or I know who David Chapman is or whatever. And so there, there's enough overlap that we could be like, oh, we're both pointing at TPOT, but then you don't know some people that I'm pointing to and I don't know some people you're pointing to.And then eventually this is happening more and more. Or people use the acronym TPOT and you're like, I've never seen you. I don't know who you're talking about, and I don't know what you're describing. I think you and I have enough of a shared sense of the thing, but yeah, I thought that was a really good point, that it's not like a homogenous group.Like it has a no, no one likes, this is a very probably like post rat thing to do. Nobody likes labeling it. So it's everyone's unhappy with the term TPOT. Nobody wants to identify as TPOT or as a post rat or whatever. Even the term, Vince: I mean in the phrase the acronym TPOT itself isTasshin: relative and it's like relational.Vince: This part of Twitter. Yeah, no, you're saying it's like a network and I see that. There was a site for a while, I don't know if you saw it, where you could like, you could see the sort of it was like a ranking or listing of the most sort of central, I do remember that inside of a network, it was like the tea, you could pull up TPOT and see a list.I was like, I'm on that list. Which I would, which I would take myself, I would opt out of that list if I could choose to. But it's not a choice as you're part of this network.Tasshin: Yeah. If you know the acronym ar arguably you are in it. It's just once and.Vince: Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So what I hear you saying from like the network perspective is like you, you see it from your point of view of the network. And the network is evolving, it's not static. It continues to grow and change and shift. That's right. So your view of it is changing and shifting with the network.That's right. So you both, you have both a limited view and it of something that's changing. That seems true to me. Which doesn't mean we can't talk about it. Or try to, come up with something useful to say about it. I would describe it this way. I'll tell you how I would describe it.Yeah. Yeah. Let's hear it. Oh boy. I'm not so sure about the last part. No, it's not that bad. So I describe TPOT as a weird, and here I'm using the weird acronym, Western educated, industrialized rich and democratic post rational subculture that's connected by shared interest in self-agency and awareness.Tasshin: That seems good. Something that's popping out to me is just also how much of this is specifically enabled by the internet and Twitter in particular, or I think there's something starting to happen that you could call like a Twitter like Blue Sky is a Twitter or Mastodon is a Twitter. I hope we have other Twitter likes in the future.because as you said, X is becoming fahy. Or to me, the thing that a Twitter is very much like a public library, and then Twitter happens to be a company and it's that has skewed incentives and stuff like that. But any case I'm like, yeah that all, everything you said tracks and then it's I think it is meaningfully enabled by technology, right?And whatever a Twitter like is in particular. Vince: Okay. Yeah. That's good. So that's missing in my description here. I agree. It's enabled by that and there's something too like it. The tech, the technology itself is very postmodern. These platforms and microblogging platforms, like you're getting these really tiny little snippets that are largely decontextualized.And you're just seeing a bunch of decontextualized atomized information flowing constantly through your stream without, you have to put the context together. That's right. The platform itself does not do that. In fact, it, if you're not, if you don't have the capability to do that, it might actually be really problematic because That's Tasshin: true.Vince: Yeah. You don't know. So I'd say it's almost perfectly compliments the subculture, the design of it.Tasshin: That's true. And it makes sense of like why you would feel a resonance with, I wasn't in this myself, but from what I imagine the integral community and then also why that would be different of I imagine Twitter wasn't a huge part of that back then because it, I don't even know what the were, but wasn it wasn't even, it Vince: wasn't, no, Twitter launched the year after I left the Integral Institute. So yeah. It wasn't part of that blogging and podcast or very early, like web two was part of it for sure.But it was primarily an in-person community. It was centered. It was like centered in person and then had a sort of one to many kind of broadcast media kind of web 2.0 media thing to it. So it did look a lot different than that. It occurs Tasshin: to me that, at least in my experience, the technology feels really central to the thing.And the properties you named are almost like emergent or like the kinds of people that would resonate with it or something, or be able to make full use of it or Right. What have you. But it doesn't seem intrinsically necessary, but it does seem to me almost, like that if you have a Twitter, like something like this subculture would arise and I could see different, similar subcultures that had different properties or even an ideology or like different developmental stages or something.But I think that a Twitter is really good at clustering people who can vibe together or relate to each other and in a way that's more emergent. I think a lot about individualism and collectivism and I think that this kind of technology affords the possibility of yeah, basically a Hegelian synthesis of individualism and collectivism where each person can be their own individual, but also be in community with a larger network that respects their individuality, but can coordinate as a whole and.I think Twitter likes uniquely make that possible. And I could see ones that were like clusters that were meaningfully different. You'll see sometimes people talk about this, they're like, maybe there's a whole other cluster that's not connected to us at all that we have no idea about. Almost the I forget what the alien version of that is, but like the likelihood that there's an alien is civilization in any given solar system.It's maybe they're out there. Who knows. Vince: Something like, like the Drake equation would describe the Drake equation, how likely that would be. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's interesting. You're using the term Twitter. I don't know if we've talked about this, but I will explicitly not use that term anymore to refer to X, mainly because I think people are confusing the term Twitter with the term microblogging. Huh? Since it was the original Microblogging platform, I think a lot of times we conflate Twitter with Microblogging. And so when you say Twitter, like I, that's another way to me of saying Microblogging.What's Tasshin: important to you there? Vince: It's important to me to stop being so sentimental about Twitter because Twitter's dead and whatever that it was, is gone. But Microblogging is alive and well and it's probably doing better now than when Twitter was alive. So I think it's somehow by being sent sentimental Twitter, we mask our ability to perceive what's happening in broader terms with microblogging. And we potentially overlook a lot of nasty shit happening on X.com as well by doing that. Tasshin: I see. Yeah I tend to use the word Twitter for different, maybe sentimental reasons as you're saying, but it's an intentional use on my term. On my part. And maybe I'll just use the word Twitter and you can use the word X and we can Vince: Yeah, no, it's fine.Proceed accordingly. It's No, it's fine. I just wanted to point that out. Very good. That's a difference in frames. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. This has been very conceptual so far, but I'm curious to bring it a little downward too, because I remember maybe it was like a week after October 7th Hamas attacked civilians in Israel and.I knew from my own experience having grown up in a, as a Palestinian and American household and having watched this to some degree play out over 40 plus years, 40 years at the time that I was like the blow back from this is gonna be 10 x at least. Because that's consistent. Throughout time it's always Israel will respond with 10 times the amount of violent force at least. And so I was like, if you take the numbers, I was like, that's. That's catastrophic. That's gonna be terrible. And so I knew within the first week, and I shared this on X, that this is going to be a genocide.And so for me, this is the perspective I'm coming from is like I've known that a genocide has been going on for, from the beginning. Have known that the intention or that the likely the likely response was gonna be genocidal. And I think there's a lot of debate about whether or not this is I think that debate is now totally foolish from my point of view.You frame this for instance, as a war, I would call it a genocide. I would say the genocide rather than the war. Or the occupation, which more, more accurate description. because a war assumes that there's two countries, two sides that are equivalent and they're at war.But this is rather like a group of people who've been dispossessed and occupied for decades. Who wrongly lashed out and hurt civilians. But who did so from the point of view of being in a one up, one down power position? So like the group of people or Palestinian people, had been occupied, their movements are controlled.Things coming in and out of Gaza were controlled in terms of water, food, et cetera. Many people described it as an open air prison. Including a colleague of mine who lives in Tel Aviv. He described it that way to me one time. And so from my point of view, it's a lot of times people don't understand when they enter into this, the history of this, that just the basic history of occupation.And so to frame it as a conflict between two equals is a, in a way obscures the power. Dynamics at play where, one group has so much more power over the other and has so much more are literally like nuclear power that's backed by the most powerful military in the world. Who has a lock on the un Tasshin: In Vince: terms of our ability to veto the Americans. So it's David and Goliath rather than, two superpowers going to war. So that's one thing I'll just share is just the frame for me of Palestine. And so I'm, I've been seeing it that from the very beginning.And what I've found with, on, on platforms like X and with the community of TPOT is. Just this sort of maddening silence. Or this sort of schizo, in my experience is like a schizophrenic feed, where on the one hand I'm seeing Palestinian activists and intellectuals and people who are I think doing good work at bringing awareness to an ongoing livestream, genocide.And then an another group of folks more in the TPOT space who are kind of sharing their psychotic explorations and talking about their cool practices and giving, challenging takes and all of which has this other very different vibe which is much more self-focused. And and the two of them in contrast really, that's, for me, that's my, that, that's the tension I'm existing in.And I can totally relate to the self. Absorbed interest in my own transformation and wanting to play around. And it, I totally get that because that's where I've been. Like that's my background as well. But it's, yeah, it's maddening to see these two side by side. And I feel like there's so much missed opportunity with TPOT given that it's so influential right now in culture, in our mainstream culture.And so I guess I, I'm saddened by the fact that I don't see that community having really come around to care much about what's happening in these kind of global situations. Like you, you talked about individualism and collectivism. I feel like it's way more skewed toward individualism in the TPOT world than it is collectivism.So I, that's actually a criticism I'd have. I don't feel like they're both ending it at all. But. Anyway. Yeah, that's just a little bit where I'm coming from,Tasshin: I hear you. Just first off, really mourning and grieving the plate of the Palestinian people that's happening and feeling personally connected to that because of your family and watching the news very closely and really actively grieving that, of just the evil that's happening and caring about that and wanting to see that change and end, and seeing that as a genocide, not as a war.And really appreciating people who are speaking up and being vocal about it and trying to work for change to resolve that crisis and. It feeling used the word like schizophrenic to see TPOT, which seems like self-absorbed and individualistic, where it's like people are talking about whatever they're on about, and it's I got this metaphor hearing you talk about it, of someone who's starving, who's like incredibly hungry, and then they're like next to some rich people who are like having like coffee and talking about, some obstru philosophy and you're like, I'm starving.Can you please give me some of your food? There I'm having a real problem here and you're talking about this stuff that really doesn't matter. And yeah, that being really painful and then also a care about you're like, yeah, TPOTs incredibly powerful and culturally powerful and why aren't you talking about this?You should be talking about this so that we can use your power for good and change the world in that way. Vince: Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's a naive of me to expect that in some way. So this is where I get a little, this is where I feel the bind. It's on the one hand I intellectually get if this really is developmental as we're describing if this cultural phenomena has a developmental dimension to it, then why would I expect the bulk majority of people who are, coming out of individual rationalism to be focused on anything other than that kind of things are related to that.Who would be well Tasshin: positioned to make a change that had positive effect in the world from a developmental perspective? Vince: That's a good question. I guess anyone could. So maybe the issue isn't the underlying development, but it's the culture, the cultural expression of that. In this case, it's, WEIRD is, I think a good way of putting it, white sorry, Western, but those two are connected, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic.It feels like a lot of what you're saying is true because we're, we are in this WEIRD culture in the US largely, especially the educated TPOT, whole US is not WEIRD. A lot of, there's a lot of uneducated people and people without access to resources, but but we're having this weird conversation.And meanwhile in the global Commons, we're like you said, right next to people that are posting videos constantly of people being, shot and killed and assassinated executed, like right there, children starving, et cetera. And it's it, this is the critique that Postmodernism has had for a long time of modernity.It's like the colonialist thing. It's like how is it that we have so much privilege to be able to have these conversations in the first place, because we ourselves are living on dispossessed land. Like we ourselves dispossessed the Native Americans to be able to be here, we ourselves brought African slaves from Africa to be able to take care of our cotton mills and our run our agricultural industry.And so we ourselves built a country on those very foundations and we ourselves as Western people escaped persecution in Europe. Our whole history of escaping persecution and then bringing it with us is what's happening with Israel and Palestine, from my point of view, it's the same basic pattern.I think it's hard to see that when you're focused on you Tasshin: On Vince: your individual journey of transformation and without being able to zoom out into these broader collective patterns that are shaping you as much as you are shaping yourself. And I wonder if sometimes, like we overestimate our agency, or we over-index on our agency in this community. That'd be my, I guess my question or challenge to folks. Tasshin: Can you say more about that? The over-indexing on agency? What you mean by that? Vince: Yeah, so like for me the synthesis of the agency, of agency and communion is what I'm most, most interested in right now.Because that schizophrenic split feels like it's a split of these two, where it's like you have people that are high agency and have lots of opportunity and privilege, and then you have people that have extremely low ability to opt to effectively exercise their agency. They barely can get food. So it's like such a huge contrast there. And what's the difference between these two groups of people? Like historically it's the only reason I'm on this side of the street is because my grandfather was able to get into this country in 1950.And he was lucky, essentially. So like the only difference is basically luck of birth. Like where are you born? And we, I think we take so much credit for the stuff that is, has nothing to do whatsoever with us. It's like when Obama, said you didn't build that and everyone fucking flipped out.You don't know if you remember that he was talking about, I don't know, he was talking about infrastructure and there was a huge backlash from the Right. Like we built that, in hyper American individualism. And it's I think, you know what the genocide and Gaza's taught me is I'm just lucky.I'm just lucky because I have cousins who are in the West Bank right now and they're living in concentration camp type environments. Like they, they're scared to leave their home because people around them are getting shot by settlers and, five Palestinian Americans have died in the West Bank this past year.People who are just going over there to visit family. So it's extremely bad right now, even in the West Bank, which is considered to be the more stable of the two Palestinian regions. In Gaza, I have two family members here in North Carolina and Asheville that are mar married into my family. So they're not direct family members, but their spouses, and they both have lost over 200 family members in Gaza. Which is hard for people even in the West to understand, because they don't, we don't come from big families like that where you could even imagine having 200 family members.But yeah, like whole family trees are essentially being wiped out. Yes. Are cut down. So it's, to me it's very, because I'm in both worlds. I'm teaching meditation and I'm hearing about, what's going on for my cousin in the West Bank, and I'm hearing about what's happening for other Palestinians that I know.I'm like, this is, it's a very hard tension to hold. So for me, the synthesis of agency and communion is I can recognize, like I have a certain amount of agency in part because of the communal situation. Like we have a community that optimizes for agency. And it optimizes for agency at the at the negative at the expense of many other communities, agency and has historically and even presently, like a lot of.The opportunities we have are because of they've been taken rather than, it's like not an omni win situation. So I feel like there's a lack of kind of acknowledgement of that, that often in part because you start to feel really bad. And if there's anything I've noticed about TPOT is like, people don't want to feel bad.Like people wanna empower each other and raise each other up. And I think there's something beautiful about that. But to me it's come, it comes at the expense of valid criticism, of being open to hearing valid criticism. And that's the kind of, that's, that adds how I felt. I've been res largely, my, my criticisms have been responded to.It's oh yeah, this is, you're just like it's I'm a downer. I'm like, yeah, sorry. It's fucking, it is a downer. It really is. How do you, I know that's general and broad, but how do you respond to something like that?Tasshin: Can you ask a, I there's a lot of thoughts running through my mind. Can you ask a specific question? Vince: I'm just curious what your general Yeah. Sense of that is.Tasshin: First off, my heart hurts. It hurts to know that violence is happening at scale and it hurts to hear that. And I'm okay hurting.I know, I've done a lot of, I, I can feel that, but it hurts and I feel sad and I feel grief knowing about this travesty that's happening. AndI feel that about a lot of things that I know about in the world now, including this. And that's always,yeah. Hard to be with. And I try to learn how to be with that and, i'm grateful for the opportunity to be reminded of what's happening and to be connected to it. I feel a desire to have change occur that feels like it matters. I would like war, genocide, evil violence to end. I'm a pacifist.My, one of the worst days of my life every year is when I pay taxes. I hate paying my taxes, partly because it's annoying bureaucratically, but even more so because I feel like I'm compromising my own ethics by supporting the US military. And that I every year I decide I'm gonna pay my taxes so that I can contribute, continue to be part of this society in a legal and upright way.I'm not morally opposed to taxes as such, but I am morally opposed to what my government does with those taxes, including I don't know the full extent of this. I'm sure you know much more, but certainly being complicit in this war, genocide, violence, murder. Bombing evil. Yeah. And other evils known and unknown.I know that and I've been around a little bit. So that hurts. That's the first and foremost thing. And I feel for you, having family i's just I went through just a couple years ago my mom dying of cancer, and we knew about it four years before she died, three, four years before she died.And she lived a blessed life, and I felt perfectly ready to let her go. And it was still really hard. And it's imagine my family members being murdered at scale and being starving and being oppressed and in all kinds of ways that I can only imagine. It's that my heart would just be breaking on a daily basis.And I feel for you, my friend, going through that and, for the Palestinian people more broadly, such that I'm connected to them and for all who are subject to war. It's just it's just evil. It's just e that, like you, you wanna call it genocide? I'll just call it evil, like it's, I think violence is evil and war is evil and genocide is evil and bombs are evil and guns are evil.And murder is evil and killing children is evil. And it's just, my heart breaks at that. As far as the other specific things you were saying, I'm reminded of a an argument that I've had or witnessed many times where there's kind of two recurring schools of thought in our culture where how do I summarize this? Because I've seen this in a lot of specific instances, and I don't wanna get into the specific instances, but let's take a simple example like say your relative was a Trump supporter, and you personally didn't vote for Trump and don't want Trump to be president. There are people in our culture at this time who would say the thing to do is to be disconnected from that Trump supporter and to never talk to them and to shame them for who they are and or give them radio silence and cut ties.And that's a whole school of thought that applies to many issues. And then there's a school of thought that says how are you gonna change their mind if you don't stay connected to them, if you don't really understand where they're coming from and listen to them and talk to them and share your own perspective.And I tend to be more in the latter school of thought of connection is the basis of change. Actually hearing other people's perspectives, sharing my own, to the extent that it's possible. And you're not. Beating each other up or whatever shooting at each other. But I think being connected to people is the basis of change.And I'm getting here somewhere here with this, which is to me, I hear you saying, I'm not part of TPOT. These are the people that are in TPOT. They're silent, they have these, I don't know, I hear you talking about like collective blind spots, which I think are very valid. I'm glad you're mentioning them, but it's like those people have the blind spot.And this is their problem. And to me I could be wrong, but think, Vince: It's really the Palestinians problem. They're the ones that are suffering for the collective blind spot. They're suffering a lot more. Tasshin: Yes.I think that. You could usefully see yourself as part of TPOT, and that by staying connected to people in TPOT and speaking to them, you can change their minds. I think you've changed my mind about things about this and had an impact on me and had a causal influence on me. And I see you having that impact on a other people.And I think that if you took that perspective, there's more or less efficacious ways of doing that. Ways that, that, that's a question that's come up for me about this is actually about like theories of change. And just one more thing is I was recently in Santa Fe, my dad moved to Santa Fe and when I was there, there's a lot, my dad is like very near the Santa Fe is the capitol, and he is very near the capitol where the government is.And so there's just always protests there like at least once a week. And I get, I personally, me, Tasshin, get so angry at these protestors because I, in my current worldview, think that their theory of change is just shit. They're like, by going to this place and having a sign, I'm gonna change the world. It, to me, I see that is like by and large, incredibly efficacious and not gonna produce the change that they want.And do I know what the theory, what a theory of change is that would produce it? No, but I am spending all of my time and energy on things that I think will have a positive change in the world. Even if they're not enough, even if they're not direct enough, even if they're not gonna end or resolve all the issues I care about, which are many.I am putting all of my time and energy into things that I believe are efficacious. And presumably they think it's efficacious too. They think this is worth doing because they're doing it. And in a way I'm wrong about it because demonstrably people think that holding a sign in front of a capitol is gonna change the world.But, Vince: It does boost their agency when people protest that's, it's an exercise in agency. Tasshin: I do think there's a critical threshold where if enough people protest something, I can't have a change. Obviously that's happened Vince: Arab Spring. Tasshin: Exactly. So it's not, it's definitely not useless. But my point to you as an individual that I care about as my friend, is I think you're actually incredibly well positioned to have a cultural impact on this group that you already are connected to, and that there are more or less efficacious ways of doing that.Like this conversation is efficacious, right? We're having a real conversation between two people who respect each other. We're recording that so that other people can listen. I think that's actually likely to produce the change that you're desiring to some extent. Is it gonna it's hard to say.Vince: It's hard to say. I hear what you're saying. Yeah, I think you and I have talked about this in the past too. I have, some of the biggest changes I've been through have come through people challenging me even violently. And my whole upbringing, as you can hear, it's rooted in violence. Yes. So it's like the story of my family.Is one of resilience in the face of violence, Tasshin: Uhhuh. So this is the recurring thing we always argue about. Yeah. Or one of the several things. Vince: Yeah. It's an, it's like in a place where we rub, I think, but Yeah. But it's understandable. So I'm a little more Okay. Ruffling feathers and even having active conflict with people because I know that sometimes that's actually good.Sometimes if you're too nice, people won't hear you. If you have something powerfully challenging to say, it will just be like, oh yeah, that's nice. And I can just incorporate that into my worldview and feel good about knowing about it, but actually not really be doing anything significantly differently.So it's like a, I don't know, this is in the abstract, but. Tasshin: There's two things there. What there's one is, which is like, how nice are you? And I actually do honestly believe that you would be more efficacious at seeing the changes you want to see, at least in the local community if you were nicer.In addition to being kind. I do think you're kind, that's not an issue. But separately from that, like you, one of the things we talked about recently on the timeline was you're like, I've just been considering blocking people left and right. And I think that Oh, I have been blocking them lost.Exactly. Vince: I've lost half of my friend network in the last year. Tasshin and so that's where I am. So here let me push back a little bit. I lo yeah. I lo I love what you're saying, but I don't think it's my job to do that. I think it's your job to do that, to, to be the one that can be nice and change people's minds on this topic.Tasshin: Oh, that's true. It is my job. You're right. I Vince: agree with you. Yeah, because because I'm too close to it. It's too painful for me. Like people start saying stuff to me. It is like I'm hearing them deny the entire, like truth of my whole identity, my family identity. It's no, like this is true.I'm not, I'm gonna have argue with you like you are dehumanizing me and everyone that's Palestinian right now. Even by having an argument, having even framing this as a debate, is there a war going on? Who's responsible? Et cetera. So it's like what I find is I want to keep talking because I want, it's like the Buddha, he's, and I'm comparing myself to the Buddha here.I know he is gonna fly really well, there, there's an analogy here where he's I'm awake. Okay. Who can I, teach this to, very few are gonna understand it. Because it's subtle and hard to get grasp. My companions, the ones I was practicing with they seem like they'll get it.They have very little dust in their eyes. So I guess I see my role as really more like the people that have very little dust in their eyes. Maybe I can reach them. What's the difference Tasshin: in this case between someone who has dust in their eyes and someone who doesn't, from your perspective?Vince: Are they, yeah. Are they awake to their complicity in a gen, in an active livestream? Genocide? Are they aware? I pay Tasshin: my taxes and, Vince: That's part of it. That's part of it. Yeah. It's like paying taxes. You, like you said, you can't really stop paying your taxes.My uncle did that. Went to prison. I actively Tasshin: choose Vince: to pay Tasshin: my taxes. I think I could stop paying my taxes. Could, I'm saying every year I considered you can do that. Vince: I seriously Tasshin: consider it. Every you'll to prison. Every year. Vince: You'll, you will go to prison. Tasshin: Yeah, exactly. And I believe I can have more impact, positive impact on the world by paying my taxes and not, and I, every, it's a trade off.Literally every year I make this decision again. Vince: Yeah. So it's, to your point, it's not it's not like a black and white thing where it's like. I'm complicit in this very obvious way that I'm just choosing not to. It's, it, the complicity is deep and it's multidimensional, subtle and Tasshin: systemic and multi-generational.And even, Vince: and yeah, and for me it's I was hanging out with a couple of my cousins recently who are from Palestine. They immigrated here in the early nineties when Palestinians were kicked out of Kuwait. And so they were here, they had to rebuild their life. They lost everything. And I grew up with them.And they're doing advocacy work now in the us And when I hear them, talk about their experience, it's like they're being, they're dealing with shit that I'm not having to deal with. Like one of my cousins recently lost her job. She was a high level exec at a tech company in San Francisco.And she thinks it's likely that she lost it because of her advocacy work within the company. So when I guess when I see. I've lost the thread a bit here in terms of connecting back to what we were talking about. But where was I going with that? Tasshin: You were saying something as my job as being TPOT versus your job.Vince: So like when I talk to, say I'll talk to my great uncle my grandfather's brother who grew up in Palestine, and I'll hear the kinds of things that he'll share. And like I, I don't have those kind of views. Like he's extreme compared to me in terms of like how he's viewing things.This is my interpretation. There's a definitely antisemitic tendencies in, in the family system that I've seen explicit and I understand why. Like I have a lot of compassion. I don't actually let it stand. I challenge it when it arises. Even now. This is this uncle I'm talking about.It's his family and his daughter that's in the West Bank right now. He's considering going to visit her in a couple months. He might get shot and killed while he is there. It's quite possible. For me it's like I, I see I can listen to him and I can hear him talk about stuff and I can sort through the pain and the antisemitism to hear, some of the, what's genuine and sincere and I can be there for him.And then I feel like I can reach out and connect with some people and share my pain and what I'm going through and, offer challenges or whatever to some folks. Recently right after September October 7th someone from he lives in Israel. He is American. We have the same background lineage of a pasta tradition.He invited me on to, to have a dialogue about this about what was happening. And and then after our we split, and we're not able to have any conversations anymore. Because some of the things I saw him writing on X and so the perspectives that he seemed to be taking, and we got to a point where we pulled in a mutual mentor someone someone who's like a master mediator.And their basic feedback was like, sometimes you can't have a conversation. Sometimes it's just not possible. And I feel like that's where I'm getting largely, it's it's just not possible for me to have a conversation with a lot of people right now. Because of how 10 how sensitive this is. And so you say, when you say to or I hear if you were kind or if you were nicer, you'd be more efficacious, if I were able to be, I would. But I'm not. Tasshin: And the second part of what I was saying there is that when you block people, you are closing yourself off from the possibility of changing them.And from what I've just heard from, and I'm okay with that. Yeah, exactly. That makes a bit more sense to me now from what you've said. But Vince: I'm not gonna change a Zionist's mind, I don't think, someone who's like a, Christian or Jewish Zionist, I don't think I'm gonna change their mind by sharing something on like a micro blog.Tasshin: That, one of the really urgent questions for me here is what is a theory of change that produces genuine end to war violence, genocide? What actually resolves that? Actually because if I let me figure out how to put this. I am currently putting my time and energy.Into the things that I think I can do that will have the highest benefit from my current understanding and vantage point. I literally spend every day of my life waking to sleeping, doing the thing that I think is best based on my, admittedly flawed, limited perspective, my own weaknesses and blind spots.But I do that every day. Every day. And if I thought that I could lead to the end of war, genocide, violence, evil in a scaled way I would work much harder to bring that about. I'd have to think about how it fits into all the things I'm doing and balance. But I really wanna know how someone like, I, I would hope for example, that the service guild at some point will have a peace department.Currently, we, as we have a love department, a curiosity department, an empowerment department. I would love for us to have a peace department. I want other departments, us to be able to have infrastructure for other focused crews. At some point it's the Peace Department should be bringing about peace.And I don't know how to do that. Even peace Pilgrim my hero, she spent 30 years working in the way that she knew how for peace. And I don't think she wasted her time far from it. But there is still not peace on earth after her doing that. Vince: Sure. Some of this reminds me, has echoes of the effect of al altruism movement.Yeah.Tasshin: I think they I feel how to put this, I have different aesthetic and ideological views with them on specific points, but I feel very sympathetic to their larger efforts and yeah, what do we actually do to actually have a real impact? I feel very I feel kinship with that, even if there's specific things I disagree with or don't vibe with.So yeah, that's noted. Vince: Yeah, I think if we were to zoom, like not to take the two global perspective of like, how do we stop all genocide, war, et cetera. And that's a good question, but to me it's like, how do we stop this specific one that's happening right now, Tasshin: Uhhuh.Like how, Vince: Because that's sure. So how do we stop it? Obviously you Tasshin: don't have to know, but what a different way of putting the question that's maybe a bit more reasonable. I think it, it's very Vince: noble. Like you, you stop Israel from killing Palestinians. That's how it, okay. And what leads Tasshin: to that causally?Vince: Probably having a Palestinian state would be a necessary part of that. And what leads to that? The US has to stop vetoing it in the us. And what leads Tasshin: to that? Vince: They change in US leadership and change. And what leads to that? People putting pressure and voting and grassroots organ organizing.Ah, that's Tasshin: where you lose me. Vince: Yeah. Look at look at Zohran Mamdani. He's a good example of how that's actually happening right now in the, he's the only candidate, like major candidate that I've seen recent in recent times. Progressive candidate who's actually vocal about this, who isn't on the, both parties, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump both supported the ongoing genocide. They're equally complicit. Tasshin: So basically we should or not leaders that are clear this in your perspective. What I'm hearing is Yeah. Yeah. The salient thing is elect leaders who are clear that this is a genocide who will end us complicitness and help and who are focused on economic populism.Vince: because our country really need, we need that right now. Tasshin: You lost me there. How does, what does that have to do with ending this genocide? Vince: You could it's both and so it's if you look at, this is a good example, I think part of, I grew up in the as probably you did too, in the.In the fading years of the political consensus between the neo-conservative and neoliberal parties, Tasshin: Uhhuh, Vince: who largely agreed on most everything, Tasshin: Uhhuh. Vince: They were both totally fine with military expansion. They were both fine with free trade agreements that hollowed out rural America and towns like in North Carolina, textile towns.Yeah. To save 5 cents, on a shirt made in Vietnam, we're totally fine letting an entire communities die, In towns we haul it out. So it's that kind of mentality, it's like what I grew up in and, it's like the arguments were mostly like stylistic. It's which style of the same ideology do you prefer?Tasshin: Coke versus Pepsi Vince: Ex. Exactly right. Coke and Pepsi. And Obama. He was, you fit right into this. He was not a departure, he was a rhetorician. Tasshin: Yeah,Vince: he sounded like a departure, but wasn't so true. Bestie. Yep. I think when I look at it in those terms, I say, okay what is so interesting about Donald Trump and the MAGA movement?It is actually presenting an alternative to the previous consensus. And I, the way I see American politics right now, and I could be wrong, is there's an emerging, there's a new emerging polarity. That alt left and right, quote unquote yeah, gosh, ne neo fascism and neo progressivism.And there's, and are you saying Tasshin: neo progressivism is the answer here? Vince: I'm, no, I'm not actually Uhhuh. Okay. Although, because some neo fascists don't want us to be sending money to Israel, Tasshin: Uhhuh, Vince: Marjorie Taylor Greene there, there's been a number that recently people who are like, why are we sending billions of dollars to Israel every year when we can't even take care of our own people?Yeah. And so I agree with that Uhhuh, what I actually think is emerging and has to emerge as an alt middle. It's a new. Consensus. And that alt middle will almost certainly not wanna continue propping up an American em military empire. Both alt-right and alt left. That's something they agree on.They don't want to be constantly waging endless wars. They don't wanna be always sending all of our money into our military budget. And is Tasshin: that connected to the populism you're talking about? Vince: Yeah, it is. Okay. It's a it's a strand of populism that's interested in retracting the American Empire and not continuing to create so many problems abroad.And who recognizes that doing so hurts us at home, Uhhuh, and because these things are interconnected. I see. Tasshin: Okay. Thank you for explaining that. Can I recount what I heard just now? Your, I, our, a shared goal that we have is we would like this war, genocide, violence, evil to end. We'd like it to end.And the way that comes about is Israel stops doing what it's doing. And the way that comes about is Palestine is a state and the US stops vetoing certain things at the un. And the way that happens is there's political pressure on the US to show up in a different way. And you're saying that the way that happens is we elect politicians who are want that course of action and also care about this populism and the relationship of how we're spending our money at home.Yeah. And the way that we do that is get involved in local political movements that support candidates that have that perspective. Vince: I think that's one of the most direct ways that uhhuh, that we can as Americans affected this. I'll tell Tasshin: you right now, I, I need to do due diligence on learning more about this, but I will very seriously both take that into consideration for my own voting and then also in how I speak about voting to my friends and people I'm connected to.That's not much. But this is more. That's what I really care about. I wanna make sure that whatever actions I take, I am that I can see. It matters to me that I can see how there could be a causal chain where this actually results in the things that we want, if that makes sense.I don't know why that matters to me so much, but it does. Vince: Yeah. Okay. We haven't talked about Bodhi Safa hood yet. Yes. So maybe I could bring that in. Yeah. Tasshin: Thank God, please. Someone helped me. Yeah. Vince: I don't know if you, it's a Tasshin: struggle out here. Vince: I don't know if you've heard this quote from Ujima Roshi Japanese Zen teacher.He said a Bodhi Safa is an ordinary person who acts like a true adult. Tasshin: I had never heard that before, but I love it. And what does true adult mean to you? Vince: I think a true adult is someone who sees a problem and they respond to it. And. A true adult recognizes the complexity of the situation and acts anyway with that with incomplete information with whatever resources and ability that they have while acknowledging that they're limited.So that's a start. True adult cares about themselves and others. I could even, I could actually inhabit as a true adult. I both take care of my life at home and I care about the impacts that that the country and systems I'm embedded in are having in the world. That I'm causal in, that I have some causal influence over, even if it's minimal.Tasshin: You know what I'm reminded of Vince is video game levels and I feel like. It seems it seems cr crass to pick levels, but I feel like, I don't know, let's say a level eight Bodhi Safa I'm not level one anymore. I'm not even level five anymore, but I feel acutely, like I'm really only level eight and I think it's gonna there are 10 Vince: levels aren't there In this game?I, oh no. Bodhi the boomie, the boom. No.Tasshin: I know what you're talking about. But also that's not the measurement system I'm using. Okay. You're not, Vince: it's not a traditional boomy model. No. Tasshin: I'm thinking like, I never played it, but like World of Warcraft, I'm pretty sure 80 is like a threshold in World of Warcraft.It's I'm pretty sure you need like a level 60 or 70 Bodhi Safa to have global systemic change at the level that's needed for the thing we're talking about. And I'm like I know if I have a friend that has a mental health crisis, like I'm struggling to barely be able to support them in a meaningful way.Like I'm embarrassed by how. Incompetent. I am at even that helping one person that's having a mental health crisis. Like I can help a little bit, but like I know someone who's an extended network right now is having their partner's having a major schizophrenic episode and I'm like, here, I can send you a link that might help you.That's that's so pathetic. That is so disgustingly pathetic for actually having an impact in the world. It's humiliating to admit, but here we are because there's real suffering and you have to do whatever we can to help. And so I would like to it would be great if I ended this year as a level nine Bodhi, that would be awesome.And do I want to have global systemic positive change on a historic scale? Absolutely. I hope that every passing year I'm more and more capable of. Large scale, positive impact, and I'm just so acutely aware of how incompetent I am and how limited I'm really doing everything I can to have a positive impact at the scale that I can right now.And it's it's pathetic and humiliating in the context of this larger suffering. I'm fine with that. I'm not embarrassed to say that, but it is humbling, it's it's not nearly good enough. And I think the more acquainted you are with how much suffering there is in the universe, the more humbled you are by that, by one's own incompetence to, and then you do, that's the Bodhi SA of vows, anyway, is just to be like greed, hatred, and end without end like vow to end it. Like you just, you get up and do something anyway. Vince: Yeah. I've. There's a distinction that's commonly made in like a, I would call it like in the woke pluralistic cultural scene of like intention versus impact.And that's an important distinction when you're starting to get into questions of race and racialization, because people will say things with a good intentions that hurt other people because they're ignorant of the impact that has for someone else. And here I think it's I think of that too with what you're saying, where it's okay yeah, like I want to become a, be a more impactful Bodhi Safa.I want to have a more net positive impact in the world. And on the one hand yeah, I could say, like you're saying it, I feel humbled and maybe embarrassed by how ineffectual I am. And. I also feel humble about the fact that I don't know the impact that I'm having. I don't understand it. And I feel like this is really, you probably have had a similar experience putting media out into the worlds, like with Buddhist geeks when we launched that, the hundreds and hundreds of people that I heard from over the years who are like, that had such a powerful impact on my life.And I'm like wow, okay. I, that was definitely not what I was aiming for. I was just doing something I thought was cool at the time. Honestly. And so that wasn't even necessarily my intention, but that was the impact. And so I'm amazed, I am amazed at how effective people can be without even knowing it. It's like hard sometimes. Hard to know. It's hard to measure. And that's where I would say it's the challenge here with what you're saying is I want to see if I'm effect. You have to be able to measure the effectiveness to be able to know, and we can't fully measure, we can get better at measuring, like we can maybe get more sophisticated in seeing and understanding our impact both negative and positive.But it's really difficult without going into you really have to have an understanding of the whole to be able to see your individual impacts on the whole. And I don't know, where am I going with this? Just to say there's some kind of feedback loop here that I think is like what the Bodhi Safa is driven by.It's like constantly coming back to. A wise or compassionate intention. And then do trying your best to live from that place, even if you're, not effectual. And then doing your best to understand the impacts of your actions So that, you can, that can inform how you act the next time that you're trying to be, coming from this place of genuine wisdom and compassion. And there's some kind of sharpening of like skillful means that happens in this feedback loop. Tasshin: Yeah. Vince: And to me, it's like the Bodhi Safa is one who's engaged in the pro in that process rather than Yes. Then there are different levels then are depths or degrees of skillfulness.And probably in different domains too.Tasshin: Yeah, of course. Multiple axes. Vince: So I hear what you're saying and I think that's valid. Like it isn't up to any, I don't think it's up to individuals to solve the global challenges.Tasshin: No, but I'm also like, I'm aware that I think I am I was just humble, so now I can be a little arrogant.I think I'm uniquely well-suited to create systems that actually do have causal impact on the historic scale over time. It just takes a long time and it takes very careful thought and a lot of care and consideration and love and effort. And so I would like to build systems that have a net positive historic impact on the scale of humanization.And as far as I can tell I'm playing my cards that way, where like I would really hope that if we fast forwarded 30 or 40 years, we would be like, Hey. The Service Guild did really good stuff that was net positive on human society and our civilization and the planet. And of course there'll be fuckups along the way where we mess up and I make just dumb mistakes and whatever.But I would hope that it's net positive and that it has a genuinely historic obvious impact on the world that was positive. So that's part of why my care, that's why I would wanna have this conversation at all, is like, how can I build systems that actually do have that kind of impact on ending, yeah.Including ending violence of all kinds and this conflict, this genocide, this war, this evil in particular. Vince: Yeah. I think that's a great intention. I, there's like a, there's a quote in the Bava Gita that's coming to mind. I can't remember the exact quote, but it's some, something about acting without any thought of results or it's happens in that famous dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna. Yeah, there's Tasshin: a difference in da I, I've been influenced a lot by DAAs strategy, and they talk a lot about the difference between means ends and conditions, consequences.And we're really trying to create the conditions for good consequences. So can I guarantee that we would have a particular result? Absolutely not, but absolutely not. But I think we can create the conditions for historic benevolent beneficent impact.Vince: It's interesting you're talking about a guild. Because to me it's I think of the Bodhi Safa as a more of like a. A relational phenomena. Tasshin: It's Vince: Team Bodhi Safa. Rather than a Bodhi Safa.And so it seems like a lot of the challenge here is around coordinating and connecting and aligning, collective alignment. And these are the things I think are very hard for people who've been trained to individuate and who are focused on their own agency. John Vey, the philosopher, he points out like when you take role, you are rolling yourself into that. You're losing a certain kind of agency by inhabiting a role, say role of father, role of teacher role of whatever you're limiting yourself in that role.And, but, and yet you have to play roles in cult in community Tasshin: to do anything. Yep. Vince: So I guess, yeah I don't know where to go from there. From here. Tasshin: I would summarize our conversation so far as follows. TPOT such as it is an emergent developmental phenomenon that's highly networked, that has some strengths and some weaknesses that we've talked about. There is a great evil being perpetuated that we both would like to see end. That hurts both our hearts.And we would like to do something about, you had some valuable thoughts about what that might look like, how to end that, especially American politics. I think that's the, I Vince: think that's the highest leverage point. Uhhuh, I think there's lots of leverage points and people get more into this.They start seeing the levers that they can, where their age, where their agency has some causal influence. Like it's also matters what kind of products you're buying and, are you giving money to companies that are profit, profiting off of a an economy of genocide, or not.Like I, I was drinking Coca-Cola while talking to one of my pa, my Palestinian cousins who runs a nonprofit in Washington state, and she was pointing out like, Coke is one of these companies. And I, I hadn't, because I've been so focused on the political side of things, I haven't really looked deeply at the, the corporate side.It's but. And that's, for me, I care a lot and I'm still not doing that. Now I've given up Topo Chico, which is a huge, that to me is like the biggest sacrifice I can imagine. What's Topo Chico? Topo Chico is a sparkling water brand. I see. Coca-Cola. Thank you Tasshin: for your sacrifice.Know you're a true Bodhi Vince: SA event. Good job. Exactly. Dude, you have no idea. Go drink a Topo Chico and you'll understand this section.Tasshin: I'm not supposed to though, so you're That's right. You're morally Vince: you can have one just to see, just so you can see how what of a Bodhi Safa I am. I see.Tasshin: I'll believe you.Vince: I believe you, Vince. I already thought Tasshin: you were Bodhisattva, so I'll stick to Polar. Thanks. Vince: Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, I'm just trying to mo point out that the, it's, there are other leverage points there, there are other leverage points that we didn't talk about, and I think that's important because it gets more into a practical conversation of what I can actually practically do.I think the other thing that I suggest to my friends is learn just the basic hist modern history of the situation so that when you open your mouth Uhhuh you don't regret the words that come out. Because right now most of the conversation is if ignorant people talking to ignorant people about things they don't know about.And it's, I, if anything Tasshin: that's how do I say this? I am acutely aware of my ignorance and that's certainly part of what, and that's why Vince: people don't say anything sometimes. Yeah. And that's fair. Tasshin: Yeah. Vince: Like that to me, I would prefer people who are ignorant, not saying anything to saying something.because it's just like they're polluting space. And I'm really grateful to have Tasshin: learned more about it from hearing you speak about it in our conversations both today and previously. It feels important to, one of the skills I really value that I'm trying to get better at, that I also feel incompetent about is like just having a global sense of what's happening on the planet.And like in really lots of dimensions. Not just politically, not just economically, not just socially, not just culturally, not just technologically, but like all of that, right? And like knowing the gestalt of the larger planet and I don't know. It's important to me to at least know what's happening.So I'm grateful to have a slightly better model of what's happening. And I guess what I want to say, yeah, what I feel like summarizing my own perspective here is how do I say this? I aspire to do everything in my power to have positive causal impacts on Yeah, global problems where possible. And I'm still learning how to do that and what the actual leverage points are. But the phrase that's coming up in my head, which I don't fully endorse it, but like I know it feels a little bit sticky, is, but is you better believe I'm gonna do something if and when I know I can.And like I'm clear about what to do and of course I would want this to end. And of course I would. Yeah, my heart fucking breaks, dude. Like looking at this, looking at other things. It's and if I can do something when I'm clear of what I can and do that makes sense with a bunch of variables that we haven't talked about.But like I, of course I will do something and want something. And I think that, yeah, I'll speak for myself there, but. I think it's really good to be in connection too and to just compare notes as Bodhi Safa yeah what are what do you even do? There's all this suffering. What do you what do?So I'm grateful to have companionship in that and to speak about these issues in particular. Vince: Yeah. Yeah. And this has always been a tension in the communities of people who value contemplative wisdom. Contemplation and action. How do you, yeah. How do you hold these two things together?Tasshin: And I'm literally doing everything I know how to do, and I will fully admit it's not nearly good enough, but I hope to get better as the years progress and to have Yeah. And more positive impacts. Vince: And for me, this conversation, again, is not so much about and as it is about TPOT in general.TPOT Yeah. And also the Tasshin: subset of like western Buddhists within TPOT and what they can do. Yeah. Vince: Buddhist modernists and, yeah. Of which I used to be one, and when I was a Buddhist modernist, I wa I wasn't a Palestinian. I, at least I hadn't owned that part of my identity yet. Because I think to live in the modern world, you have to disown many aspects of yourself if you want to be able to function well. Like for instance on LinkedIn, you don't want to be talking about genocide. I should start, you know what, which I do, Vince, you Tasshin: know what, I should really start. It hurts your prospects speaking out about genocide on LinkedIn. I've made like shit posts on LinkedIn before and that was really fun and I would like to stir the pot a little bit more.So I'll work on that. Thanks for that moral feedback. I really appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah. What a better use of. I, yeah. because I'm privileged enough to not have to worry about getting fired or not having to please anybody in particular. I can piss people off and that's fine. Vince: I saw you were you're practicing pissing people off a little more, or you're inhabiting that, that part of you Tasshin: working on, there's some, there's lots of psychological change going on, which actually I do wanna just put a bookmark here.I, we will probably have to have a whole other conversation about this at some point, but we talked earlier about the whole like niceness versus kindness recurring thing that's in our friendship. And I think there's a whole separate thing that we keep bumping up against that I have not fully understood from you that I should probably just go read some books about, and I haven't yet, but about perspective taking and I don't even know, but you're you've perpetually flagged that.You're like, oh, you're doing the thing again where you assume that all perspectives are equal and you should just listen to the other person's perspective. And I would still like to learn that from you in time and see that. Yeah, we can Vince: talk about it. I guess I just mentioned I mentioned John Vicki earlier.I think for post rats, he's probably a good philosopher to tune into. I think he he for instance, points to four different ways of knowing. There's a propositional knowing knowing basically facts and knowledge like chat, GPT kind of knowing Procedural knowing where you're actually know something through doing it.Prac like practice perspectival knowing which is a kind of knowing in terms of perspective taking and then participatory. Participatory knowing where it's like a knowing through participating in something. Thinking here, like my, like a Harry Mack, the legendary freestyler, if you watch someone free, do freestyle rap.It's like a very participatory, Tasshin: how is that different than the procedural one? Vince: So like Harry Mack will practice freestyling of course, but then when he goes in, he's actually freestyling for people. Oh, I see. Tasshin: There's like interaction with other people in a larger group or something like that.Yeah. Vince: And there's ways of embodying, like in the zen tradition, so similar, there's ways of embody like inhabiting what you're talking about. That where you're getting inside of the participation of the moment. I see. Yeah. And I don't fully under, I don't fully understand all these distinctions myself, so I, but I would, so I'd point people to, to John Vei.I see. because I think there's some distinctions here that are really Yeah. It's like really helpful. Like you said, to expand the sort of, the view, philosophically what's happening. And perspective taking is one of those things where, yeah. Where it's. So much of this is about perspective taking from my point of view.It's like I'm, because I'm taking the perspective of someone who has share, shares an identity with these people. So it's and then history. And so I can take that perspective, but I can't actually take the perspective of someone in Gaza right now. Like I I'm unable to do that and but it seems like a worthwhile thing to try, okay. Can I take a perspective of Benjamin Netanyahu? Tasshin: That also seems worthwhile. Vince: Yeah. Yeah. Anyway. Dude I appreciate, I know we, we we've been going for a while here. Tasshin: Yeah. Great conversation Vincent. Thanks Vince: for your time. Yeah. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

By Vince Fakhoury HornToday, in The Jhāna Community, I want to center our exploration around the completion phase—also known as enlightenment.What is the relationship between enlightenment and jhāna? That’s what we’ll explore.The Goal of Vipassana JhānaIn Vipassana jhāna practice, the goal is insight—clearly seeing the way things are. This clear seeing leads to awakening, within the Buddhist frame.Trudy Goodman uses a beautiful metaphor for this, comparing the phases of insight to the phases of the moon:“Can we appreciate all the phases of the moon, all the stages of our life? Can we see past the patterns of perception that too often eclipse the wonder of being alive? Birth, growth, fullness, letting go, vanishing into the mysterious dark—these are the eternal cycles of life.”The completion phase, in this metaphor, is the full darkness of the moon: the vanishing.Describing the UnconditionedEarly Buddhist texts describe the apex of this phase—Nirvana—as a kind of vanishing. Bill Hamilton, Kenneth Folk’s teacher, once said:“Nirvana is an experience of the unconditioned which defies any description. Any description of Nirvana is not a description of Nirvana.”There are no reference points. Concepts can’t contain it. It’s not a “thing.” It’s a different kind of experience.Bodhidharma, founder of Zen, said:“When the mind reaches Nirvana, you don’t see Nirvana because the mind is Nirvana.”Beyond Meditative StatesI remember talking with Kenneth Folk about how many meditation teachers end up teaching a state—a temporary condition—as the goal. But awakening is not about achieving and clinging to a special state.There are moments of direct contact with the unconditioned. But the next moment might involve answering the phone, cooking dinner, or helping someone. At first, these seem like separate domains. Eventually, they can be integrated.This practice is about learning to release identification with all states—even the expansive and blissful ones.Wanting to Be “Permanently Okay”It’s understandable that we want to find a place where we can be permanently okay. That desire comes from a younger part of us—vulnerable and needing security.But the adult part of awakening is what frees us to be present for life as it is—even the messy, painful, inconvenient parts.Paradoxically, it’s not what we thought we signed up for. We imagined transcendence. What we found was this—the real.The Journey Doesn’t End HereHere’s the good news: the journey doesn’t end at the completion phase. Awakening is recursive. It loops, like the moon’s phases.“To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.”In early Buddhism, the highest achievement was to break out of saṃsāra. But transformation happens not by escaping, but by cycling with change.Philosopher John Vervaeke says:“Evolution is revolution with change.”If your cycles bring new learning, new understanding—that’s evolution.The Big PictureThat’s the bigger picture I love to teach. Meditation isn’t about escaping life. It’s about working with the natural cycles of our minds and lives—and transforming through them.And this isn’t in contradiction to Nirvana. When the realization deepens, you see that every experience, every thought, every person is it.Even the thought, “There’s somewhere else I should be”—that’s it too.Embodying the MysterySo what’s the point of all this state-jumping, deconstructing, and releasing?For me, part of the point is to embody the mystery.Reggie Ray writes in Touching Enlightenment:“To be awake, to be enlightened is to be fully and completely embodied… to be entirely present to who we are and to the journey of our own becoming… with no external observer waiting for something better.”That’s the journey of vipassana jhāna. Nothing left out. Full intimacy with reality.Awakening Is CollectiveUltimately, awakening isn’t a personal project. Everyone is on this journey—even if they’d never use those words.Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”Awakening leads to the realization that we are in this together.Eventually, the idea of my awakening dissolves into our awakening.So Now What?So the question becomes:How can I show up fully for this moment—this body, this life, this karmic tangle of heartbreak and hope?That’s the real practice.Mastering the Art of JhānaIf you found this article helpful, you may want to check out the community of practice it arose from… Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

Emily Horn is joined by renowned meditation teacher Sharon Salzberg to share reflections on her beloved teacher, Dipa Ma, a Bangladeshi meditation master, who was known for her extraordinary concentration, profound insight, and unwavering kindness. Sharon recounts her personal experiences with Dipa Ma, highlighting her maternal yet fierce presence, her ability to see deep potential in her students, and her unique approach to integrating mindfulness into daily life.Episode Links:🔗 Dharmaseed – A library of recorded Dharma talks, including talks from Dipa Ma, Sharon Salzberg, and many other teachers.🔗 Insight Meditation Society (IMS) – The meditation center co-founded by Sharon Salzberg, Jack Kornfield, and Joseph Goldstein.🔗 Spirit Rock Meditation Center – A meditation center in California, also associated with Jack Kornfield and the wider Insight tradition.📖 "Dipa Ma: The Life and Legacy of a Buddhist Master" by Amy Schmidt – A biography of Dipa Ma, mentioned as a key resource for learning about her life and teachings.👤 Sharon Salzberg – Official website with her books, teachings, and upcoming events.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

Vince Fakhoury Horn is joined again by dharma teacher Trudy Goodman, founder of InsightLA, to share reflections on her beloved teacher, Kōbun Chino Otogawa. Kobun (February 1, 1938 – July 26, 2002), also known as Chino Otogawa Roshi, was a Japanese Zen priest who brought his unique and deeply compassionate teachings to America. Renowned for his unconventional approach, he emphasized practicing dharma within daily life, often blending traditional Zen wisdom with a quiet, everyday presence that resonated with many students. In this conversation, Trudy shares stories of Kobun’s compassionate presence, his devotion to helping those suffering, and his profound yet playful approach to teaching.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

In the episode on "Technological Metamodernism," Vince Fakhoury Horn and Stephen Reid discuss the intersection of technology, metamodernism, and the potential middle paths that navigate between techno-optimism or e/acc and eco-dystopianism or doomerism. They explore how emerging technologies can be aligned with deeper values, such as sovereignty, relationality, and wholeness, while also addressing the challenges of our current technological trajectory​.Episode Links:👤 StephenReid.net✉️ Stephen Reid in Correspondence - Stephen's substack🔗 Futurecraft - The site where the Technological Metamodernism course is being hosted​.🤑 Support the open sourcing of the Technological Metamodernism course (via PayPal or via Crypto)🔗 Meaning Alignment Institute - Mentioned as part of the discussions, this institute focuses on aligning emerging technologies with human values🔗 Rebel Wisdom - A platform formerly associated with Alexander Beiner, one of the special guests of the Technological Metamodernism course.🔗 Life Itself - A project focused on the "Second Renaissance," mentioned in the context of Rufus Pollock's work​, another of the special guests of the Technological Metamodernism course.🎙️ Future Fossils Podcast - Hosted by Michael Garfield, yet another of the special guests of the Technological Metamodernism course.📖 Reality Switch Technologies by Andrew Gallimore🔗 Gitcoin - The platform that supports the quadratic funding method mentioned by which Stephen is raising funds in order open source material from the course. You can contribute to the funding for that project here.🎙️ Lunarpunk Dreams Podcast by Stephen ReidSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe