In this Buddhist Geeks episode, Vince Fakhoury Horn and Robert Wright explore the intersection of Buddhism, ethics, and geopolitics as they reflect on Palestine, Jewish-Buddhist responses, moral responsibility, and the role of mindfulness amid global violence.

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

Vince Fakhoury Horn: I was thinking about where to start with the 9th Jhāna, and I think the first thing to say is that the 9th Jhāna is not a state. So why in the world are we within a community of practice called The Jhāna Community, which is explicitly aimed at developing and cultivating certain states of mind, or states of consciousness, why would we be focusing on something which is not a state?

Let me let me share a little bit where this term came from. So I'm borrowing this term from a researcher who I spoke to some months ago. This is a researcher working on a project studying advanced meditation. They were asking me about my experience with jhāna's and then asked, “Do you have any experience with anything that would be considered like a 9th Jhāna, or anything beyond the eight traditional jhānas.” And I had to think about that because I'd never heard the term, “the 9th jhāna.” I'd heard other things, weird things, but I hadn't heard that one before, so I thought about it and I was like, “Well, I guess the only thing I would describe as the 9th jhāna is just sort of resting in awareness, or just being open and not doing anything, just being”, what I would normally in my own models call Awareness Meditation, and that is the spirit of this exploration today.

Want to explore the 9th jhāna with Vince Horn? Join him for another round of The 9th Jhāna in The Jhāna Community beginning September 30th, 2025.

The 9th Jhāna is an exploration of how to explore these states of consciousness that arise in meditation naturally and organically when the mind and body are settled, through the doorway of a very different kind of meditation object, which is not an object at all. We take awareness as our “object.”

Of course, awareness can't take itself as an object, right? If you could take awareness as an object, that wouldn't be awareness. It'd be some experience. With the 9th jhāna we're learning how to rest in awareness, to be aware of awareness. And there are lots of ways to do that, and there's lots of ways to think about that. So today I wanted to kind of just share a few different frames with you, uh, as an attempt to frame the unframeable. Awareness isn't something which we can frame properly because it's not an experience, or it's not a thing, or state. But we still have to talk about it. Because it's like the whole point of the Buddhist meditative tradition in a certain way. So how can we talk about something that doesn't fit into the normal categories of how we think about reality? One way I think we have to talk about this, and this is a longstanding conversation in the Buddhist contemplative tradition, is we have to talk about how we enter into this awareness of awareness. And there's a longstanding debate here between what in the Buddhist tradition they call the Sudden and Gradual schools. They're not actual real schools, okay. In fact, they're probably not really actual people who really believe either one of these extreme positions anymore.

But, over thousands of years, you could say a dialogue has been happening across these different lines of looking at how the path unfolds. And one of the so-called schools says that the path is a gradual process, it's something that you develop through time. In a book called One Dharma by a Teacher named Joseph Goldstein, he does his best to try to make sense of these different approaches and he describes this kind of approach where you're gradually developing stage by stage or step by step. He calls this the Building From Below orientation. But there's also, as he describes it, a way to Swoop From Above with Awareness. You don't necessarily have to spend 20 years and you know, five Goenka retreats, or whatever the amount of stuff that you did, before you realized the basic truth about awareness, which is: good luck trying to not be aware. Ken Wilber, one of my early mentors, he used to always point to awareness, he'd say, “Try to stop being aware of my voice.” And Ken talks a lot [laughs] and he'd just keep talking, talking, talking about how you can't not be aware. And it's true, it's hard to shut awareness off.

So here, how do we actually, suddenly realize that we're already aware? This is the Sudden School, which Joseph Goldstein described as Sweeping from Above. You could just realize it's already done. You're already aware, you're already awake. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, in a book called I Am That he said,

“To be aware is to be awake. Unaware means asleep. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious.”

I like this way of describing awareness practice, because in a way, he's integrating these two, the sudden and gradual approaches. He's not prioritizing one over the other. He's saying both are true. You're always conscious, right? So consciousness is always present, but you're not always aware that you're aware. You're not always conscious of your consciousness. And so there, that's the practice is being aware of being aware. That's it. That's what we're doing here. B. Alan Wallace in The Attention Revolution, another awesome Dharma book, that touches on awareness as a doorway into jhāna, he says,

“In awareness of awareness, there is no intentional directing of attention. You simply rest in that flow of knowing, and from time to time gently recognize that you are aware.”

I wish it were more complicated than that, sometimes I wish I could just lay it out like kind of like Daniel Ingram did in his book, Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, and just give you the full, 400 page diagram detail of how to get into awareness. And I'm sure that book exists, and that might be a useful exercise. But for me, the practice is quite simple. And unfortunately, the thinking mind will tend to make this more complex than it is, and that tends to be one of the biggest obstacles that I've noticed in using awareness as a tool for entering into jhāna. So this is one way to look at what we're doing here with the 9th Jhāna. How is it that we're coming into this awareness? Gradually or all of a sudden.

Another way of looking at awareness practice, I think that's very important is that if you are taking a gradual approach, if you feel like there's some kind of movement or development or progression through time, what I've noticed is that that progression often takes one of two forms, and this seems to largely depend on the person and the tradition that they're practicing in.

One of the ways, in the Christian contemplative tradition, they call this Via Negativa. In the Hindu tradition, they call this Advaita, which is you take all of the experiences that are rising and you recognize that you are not any of those, because they're objects, because they're arising, because you can know them. That means they arise in time that they're changing, and they will vanish. This is the basic truth of vipassana, right? Mindfulness. Yeah, so we can recognize that and we recognize anything that we can be aware of is not ultimately who we are. This is the process of, Neti Neti, as it’s said in Sanskrit, “Not this, Not this.”

With this approach you're backing away from the untruth. You're backing away from everything that is not you. You're letting go of all those objects and just resting in awareness that's devoid of any characteristics. Devoid. That's important. This is the path of the void. Not this. Via Negativa. Then on the other side though, you have the opposite path, Via Positiva. “This too, This too.” Nothing is excluded. Anything that arises that appears to be apart from you, you include it in awareness. You fold it back into awareness and see that thing that I thought was out there, over here, this too! Shunryū Suzuki Roshi in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, he says, “That everything is included within your mind is the essence of mind.” So, here we're recognizing that everything that arises in the mind is the essence of mind.

Another quote from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, in I Am That:

“The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it consciousness. That is your waking state–your consciousness shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: ‘my thought’. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the cognizance of consciousness as a whole.”

Awareness is the cognizance of consciousness as a whole. Again, we'll use this as our kind of broad definition for what it is that we're meditating on. And of course we don't meditate on awareness. We meditate as awareness. There's no way to take awareness as an object. You can only be that awareness.

So how do you be aware? Well, you're already aware. How do you not be aware? That might be a more interesting question. How do we not be aware? How do we avoid this moment?

So these are two approaches, “Not this, Not this” (via negativa) and “This too, This too.” (via positiva), are both are valid ways to realize Awareness. I remember the first time I really heard this spoken by someone I respected, it was a teacher at Naropa University. I was in this class called Contemplative Hinduism and learning about the different contemplative approaches in the Hindu tradition. My teacher was a woman named Sreedevi Bringi, and she grew up in India and her family, and her family was close friends with Jiddu Krishnamurti, so she grew up, hanging out with Krishnamurti in her family house. Okay, that should give you a little sense of her background.

She said in India there are two basic approaches, and she described it in pretty much the same way I just described them to you, except she said with the Neti, Neti approach, she said in India we call this Advaita Vedanta, radical non-duality. And the other approach “This too, This too”, we call that Tantra. Vedanta and Tantra. And she said both of these are valid approaches. At the time that I heard that, it was really useful, because I'd taken the Via Negativa approach and I thought, “Well, this must be the only way.”

I noticed in the beginning when everyone was sharing about your background, I should have probably asked when your first Goenka retreat was, because almost everyone here seems to have experienced that. And that very much is the Via Negativa approach, where you're just breaking down, deconstructing your experience, disidentifying, you could say dissociating from whatever arises. So this is also, I think, an important frame for understanding the 9th Jhāna, that there are different ways in, that are either about backing away from identification with anything, or moving toward identification with everything. Ultimately, I would suggest these lead to the same realizations.

And then finally, I want to throw this last frame out to you, which is the Several Ways to Meditate framework. This is a framework that my wife, Emily Horn and I developed over many years now to kind of describe the various approaches to meditation that we have practiced, and we teach, to provide a schema for understanding all the different possible ways there are to do this, and how they connect and relate to each other.

If you think for a moment of a hexagram, starting off with a very simple six-sided object. If you look at that hexagram, you can see that there's six points in the hexagram, and each of those points is a style of meditation or a way to meditate. You have Concentration Meditation, bringing attention to a single point. Mindfulness, where we're noticing sensations as they change. Heartfulness, inclining the mind toward opening the heart. Inquiry Meditation where we're using a question as a prompt for discovery, like "What is awareness?" or "Who is aware?" Then you have Imaginal Meditation where you're using internal imagery or other internal senses to kind of put yourself in a position, that you can only imagine, where you're more whole and integrated. And then finally we have Embodiment Meditation where you're working on inhabiting the body.

Now obviously there's a lot of overlaps between these styles. It's not that they're completely separate. In fact, they do connect. And if you imagine this hexagram, every point connecting up to a single point, like a pyramid, except this is a hexagramic pyramid. That single point at the top, the apex, is Awareness. Awareness is the only way of meditating that doesn't have a focus. It's the only style of meditation where there's nothing to do, and thus awareness doesn't contradict any of these other styles of practice. You might be missing that you're aware while you're furiously meditating on your breath or something, you might actually miss that, really it's true. But you can be aware and breathe at the same time. Awareness is compatible with everything, and it's the common denominator of all these styles. It's the point that transcends and includes all these different ways to meditate. So in that sense, it's a kind of special approach. And because of that you can use any of those other styles of meditation, in combination with the intention to be aware of awareness, and you can practice that as a doorway into the 9th jhāna.

So you can practice Mindful Awareness, you can use techniques that intentionally bring in mindfulness, and also point toward awareness. Or you could do a kind of inquiry into awareness. You could use inquiry meditation to, to hone in on the nature of awareness through asking questions. “What is aware of this experience right now?” Can you find that? You can just sit and be in your body. Embodied awareness. You can take awareness as your concentration object. Shamatha without a sign, which was mentioned earlier. You could move through the jhānas naturally and organically as you just rest in awareness, concentrated awareness.

So I mention this model because I'm going to be pulling from a lot of these different techniques over the course of the next 12 weeks. And my hope is that by exploring this from different angles, you can find the approaches to awareness that work for you, to let you in, that are access points for you that are reliable and which you can deepen through. And my experience is sometimes people will find that access point in one place, and it might not be a Goenka retreat, it might be somewhere else. So, here I want to provide as many access points as possible while also continuing to keep the focus centered on the 9th Jhāna.

Practice the 9th Jhāna in The Jhāna Community with Vince Fakhoury Horn. Next group starts on September 30th, 2025.

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 Transcript

Vince:

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.

So

Vince:

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 is

Tasshin:

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. And

I 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

What is Access Concentration?

This is the question I want to bring forward in this talk.

I recorded something on this topic many years ago—too many, honestly, to comfortably admit. At the time, I was working on a project that was essentially a secular meditation app. That’s basically been the through-line of my career: building and teaching through these kinds of projects. The app was called Meditate.io, and we had a course titled Concentration Meditation. In it, we aimed to explain the basics of how concentration really works. That course now lives on in The Jhāna Community under the name Concentration 101. It shares some really good foundational ideas, one of which is the concept of Access Concentration. I found this idea so useful in my own Buddhist meditative practice that I really wanted to bring it into a more secular context. There’s a YouTube clip that gives my best simple explanation of what Access Concentration is, and I won’t go too deep here since that recording already exists. That’s the beauty of recording something—you don’t have to keep repeating yourself.

But here’s the short version of how I understand it:

Access Concentration is when the object of your focus—whether it’s the breath, the body, a sound, a visual orb, a mantra, or anything else—moves into the center of your attention. It shifts into the foreground, and everything else fades into the background. That background doesn’t disappear entirely; distractions and thoughts may still be there, but now they’re peripheral. The object of your focus becomes primary.

This shift is important. It’s a turning point in practice when your attention starts to settle and stabilize. Of course, we can fall out of access. Some people think they’re only in access concentration if they maintain it the entire time they’re sitting—but that’s a much deeper, more stable version that usually takes time to develop. Unless you’re a natural at this—and few are—it takes consistent effort.

In any given moment, if your meditation object is the main thing in your attention, you’re in access. And sure, distractions will pull at you—that’s normal. You fall out of access, and then you come back. Return to the breath. Be with it.

At first, the breath might not hold your full attention. Maybe it gets 50%, then 30%, then 20%, then something else pulls at you. It’s a dynamic process. In my experience, concentration becomes more fluid and interactive the deeper you go. But at some point, your focus stabilizes: more than 50% of your attention is on the breath. It begins to draw you in—it has gravity. You want to give it more attention. There’s interest. There’s intimacy.

In the traditional Buddhist framework, this state is called Access Concentration because it’s the doorway into the jhānas. You can’t access the jhānas without first stabilizing in access—at least, according to later Buddhist sources. And here’s a side note for the Buddhist nerds out there: the term Access Concentration doesn’t show up in the earliest teachings. It came later—about a thousand years after the Buddha’s time.

Imagine a thousand years of mostly-male monastics meditating, likely trying to outdo each other, and eventually producing this giant meditation manual called the Visuddhimagga, or The Path of Purification. That’s where we find the term Access Concentration, described in the section on concentration—one of three main sections in the book.

According to that model, you reach Access Concentration just before entering jhāna. The Visuddhimagga describes 40 different objects that can lead to access, though I doubt that list is exhaustive. (Hopefully someone caught that Pokémon reference. I know Buddy did.)

So, what is Access Concentration again?

Another way to understand it is this: it’s one of the five jhāna masteries. To master meditation, you have to be able to access the states you want to enter. In other words, Access Concentration is the ability to get to the object—mentally and emotionally—so you can begin to absorb into it.

If we want to use a numerical analogy: Access is when more than 50% of your attention is with something. You’ve entered into relationship with it. And from there, you can deepen that relationship, becoming more absorbed.

In the KASINA meditation app I’ve been developing, there's a visual orb that users can move toward them on the screen. As it moves closer, it fills the screen—you merge with it. That’s what happens with the breath, or love, or the body, or even not-knowing. You become one with the object. That’s the beginning of jhāna.

And the sequence of jhānas, from one to eight, describes how that relationship deepens and evolves. First, the merger is blissful—like falling in love. It’s magical. But over time, that intensity cools, and you settle into a more steady connection—like the second jhāna and beyond.

So, to even enter into that evolving intimacy, we need access. The Visuddhimagga says there are 40 objects that work for this, which implies there are many things that don’t. But I actually disagree with that. I think you could potentially access and merge with anything. But the real question is: why would you want to merge with, say, terror?

Could you handle becoming one with being terrified? Some people love horror movies. I’ve never understood that—it feels like life is terrifying enough. But for those people, maybe horror is a doorway. Maybe terror is their access point.

Okay, so here’s a simple practice to support this:

May concentration arise.

That’s the practice. Just wish for concentration to arise.

Who are you wishing it for?

Start with yourself. That’s why you’re here. Get in touch with the sincerity of that wish—why it’s important to you. Maybe you want to be able to focus better on your relationships, your work, the way you show up in the world. Maybe you want to be healthy, to remember what matters. Concentration helps with that.

So: May concentration arise—for me.

And then extend it out: May concentration arise for the people I care about.

Because when the people around you are focused and well, it affects you too. It creates a feedback loop of clarity and joy.

Then go wider: May concentration arise for everyone.

Even knowing some will use it for harmful ends, trust the whole. Most won’t.

And then: May concentration arise for all beings on Earth.

For all beings to be focused on what’s most important to them.

Even broader: May concentration arise for all beings, everywhere, throughout all time and space.

May all of reality concentrate on what matters most to itself.

Wishing concentration for everyone.

The Jhāna Community

The Jhāna Community is a community of practice dedicated to the art of deep meditation. Check out our 6 new weekly jhāna groups beginning in June:

Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

By Vince Fakhoury Horn

Today, 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 Jhāna

In 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 Unconditioned

Early 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 States

I 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 Here

Here’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 Picture

That’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 Mystery

So 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 Collective

Ultimately, 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 Jhāna

If 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

Overview: In this episode, Vince Horn and Daniel Thorson explore the evolving landscape of Western Buddhism, unpacking the tensions between Consensus Buddhism and Pragmatic Dharma, while reflecting on ethics, teacherly authority, and the possibilities for a more integrated future.Vince Horn: I'm here with Daniel Thorson, hanging out in your office-slash-bedroom. You've been in the Asheville area for what—a year now?

Daniel Thorson: Almost two years, actually.

Vince: Whoa, really? That’s wild! And this is our first time recording together since you moved here. Doing it in person feels weird—so hyper-intimate.

Daniel: Yeah. It’s a whole 3D—or maybe even 4D—experience.

Vince: More D than that if you include yourself.Daniel: Totally.Vince: So, I suggested we record because, well, we were going to hang out anyway, and you’ve been writing a really interesting series on your Substack, The Intimate Mirror.

Daniel: Yeah, that’s the one. Initially, I was exploring AI as a kind of mirror—how to use and work with it. But I’ve taken a side journey into critiquing Western Buddhism. I’m planning to do some reconstructive work too, eventually.

Vince: Especially the American convert Buddhist scenes we’ve been part of, right? Like, the Buddhist Geeks orbit, Insight Meditation world, maybe even broader—Consensus Buddhism, as David Chapman calls it.

Daniel: Exactly. My focus is mostly on modern Western Buddhist culture. That includes Insight Meditation, but also Westernized Zen, and even American Vajrayana. It's like a meta-sangha of Buddhist Modernism.

Vince: Right. Like the teachers who went to hang out with the Dalai Lama in the 90s and asked, "How can we make Buddhism more friendly to the West?" And now there’s this whole ecosystem.

Daniel: Definitely. And I want to be clear: I'm not critiquing individual teachers. It's more about the communities and cultures that have grown around them—looking at their gifts and their shadows.

Vince: So you’ve got Consensus Buddhism on one hand and Pragmatic Dharma—what you call the Tech Bro Buddhist scene—on the other. I loved your piece on the "Upper Middle Path and the Tech Bros." You brought in critiques I’ve seen mostly in academic circles—people like David McMahan and Ann Gleig—but you made it much more accessible and relevant.

Daniel: Thanks. That was the goal: take these ideas out of esoteric academic circles and bring them into contemporary discourse. Especially around communities like ours that are immersed in Buddhist Geeks-type spaces.

Vince: It felt like a kind of moral responsibility to name the limitations and mistakes we've seen—or made—over the years. Like, I see a lot of younger folks in the liminal web, teapot Twitter, etc., getting into Buddhist modernism the way we were 15 years ago.

Daniel: Exactly. And I think it's important we help them avoid some of the pitfalls. Not because we’re better or more advanced, but just because we've had more time to metabolize these dynamics.

Vince: Right. I mean, early Buddhist Geeks was full-on modernist—tech, enlightenment, Daniel Ingram’s stage models. But it evolved. Ann Gleig even said she saw postmodern elements starting to emerge in that community. I think she was right.

Daniel: Totally. And part of my own evolution, especially through training at the Monastic Academy, has been this inquiry into ethics—specifically, how ethical responsiveness is missing in a lot of Buddhist spaces. That’s especially problematic in a time of planetary crisis.

Vince: It’s not just about meditating in caves or on retreat anymore. There's a demand for something deeper and more responsive. A lot of Buddhism as it’s been practiced here feels avoidant—especially to folks with avoidant attachment styles. It’s like a refuge from complexity, not a way of meeting it.

Daniel: Exactly. And even in the engaged Buddhist scenes, it can feel like there's a polarity—like the rest of Buddhism is disengaged by default.

Vince: There’s been some shifts, especially post-George Floyd. Consensus Buddhism became more pluralistic, more explicitly social justice-oriented. But even then, it can become polarized—like progressive vs. liberal politics.

Daniel: Right. And on the Pragmatic Dharma side, you see a resistance to that pluralism. It’s still very focused on individual attainment, hyper-rational, and map-model heavy. It’s like a cultural left/right divide.

Vince: I’ve started avoiding the masculine/feminine language because it triggers so many people. I use "self-focused" and "other-focused" instead. Pragmatic Dharma = self-focused; Consensus Buddhism = other-focused. There’s a polarity there.

Daniel: That feels accurate. And yet, both scenes are struggling with ethics. The Tech Bro Dharma scene risks erasing the generative function of suffering. There’s this idea that suffering is just a bug to be fixed.

Vince: Right. And people like Shinzen Young and Daniel Ingram do qualify that—it’s perceptual suffering, not all suffering. But the popularizers, like Nick Cammarata on X.com, often simplify it down to "eliminate suffering, be happy."

Daniel: Which is dangerous. Suffering is supposed to be understood, not eliminated. It teaches us about being in right relationship with reality. Removing it through tech could erase the ethical feedback loops we need.

Vince: And that’s not just theoretical. We've seen examples—teachers like Culadasa, who bypassed relational feedback in ways that created real harm.

Daniel: Or on the other side, in Consensus Buddhism, where the focus becomes eliminating social suffering through systems change—but sometimes it loses the locus of individual responsibility. It becomes ideologically confused.

Vince: Yeah. It’s like both sides are overcorrecting, and what we really need is a new synthesis. Something that honors both individual and collective transformation.

Daniel: The best example I’ve seen of that is John Churchill’s Planetary Dharma. I’m in his Level 1 training, and it weaves individual and relational ethics beautifully.

Vince: I’ve heard good things. Also, Tom Huston’s Kosmic Dharma project seems to be trying something similar, from a more Advaita direction.

Daniel: And Robert Burbea’s Soulmaking Dharma, which really helps people deconstruct secular materialism and reopen to a sacred worldview.

Vince: Yeah, I’ve seen that too. Even in the Pragmatic Dharma scene, many of the original rationalists are now post-rational, magical thinkers. Daniel Ingram literally has wands.

Daniel: That’s the resilience of the Dharma. Practice sincerely, and it eventually breaks out of those constraints.

Vince: That said, I think we’re in a phase of necessary deconstruction before meaningful reconstruction can happen.

Daniel: Totally. And we need to talk about ethics now, not wait for the practice to eventually bring people around.

Vince: Which raises a tricky question: How do you do this work—invite a new synthesis—without just creating a new brand of Buddhism that becomes subject to the same market dynamics?

Daniel: It's hard. But maybe it's less about building one big thing and more about encouraging mutations. Experiments. Some may become new institutions. Others might just be small, temporary communities. I’ve been part of a project called the Church of the Intimate Web that’s experimenting with that.

Vince: I love that. To me, anything that includes the three trainings—ethics, meditation, wisdom—is Buddhist, whether or not it uses the label.

Daniel: Same. And while I’m deeply grateful to the institutions that formed me, I’m not optimistic about their ability to adapt. This series is, in some ways, a goodbye letter to Buddhism for me.

Vince: That might be a key difference between us. I’m still invested in evolving Buddhism from within, even while exploring the edges. Buddhist Geeks is still about that.

Daniel: And thank God for that. Because you’re right: we also need bridges. Between elders and newcomers. Between experimental scenes and rooted lineages. Otherwise, we risk losing our moorings.

Vince: There’s so much anti-authoritarian energy in these new spaces, and yet the real problem isn’t gatekeepers—it’s often a lack of inner trust.

Daniel: Exactly. And until people find legitimate external authority they can trust, it’s hard to develop real inner authority.

Vince: We need both elders and experimentalists. And we need to keep honoring the lineage that made any of this even possible.

Daniel: Amen.

The Jhāna Community

Daniel Thorson will be joining Vince and the Jhāna Community next month for a 4-week teaching series exploring how secure attachment to reality can serve as the basis for jhāna practice. Yes, we plan on recording it!

Live teaching series w/ Daniel Thorson online: Thursday May 8, 15, 22, & 29 @ 4pm Eastern TimeIMPORTANT NOTE: The Jhāna Community will be open for new applicants in the month of May.

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

In this episode of Our Beloved Teachers, dharma teacher Leigh Brasington reflects on his transformative experiences studying with Ven. Ayya Khema, one of his most influential teachers. Leigh shares how Ayya Khema's clarity, discipline, and groundbreaking teachings on meditation, including the jhānas, shaped his practice and teaching path. The conversation also delves into Ayya Khema's extraordinary life story and her pivotal contribution toward reviving the Theravāda fully ordained nun’s Sangha.

Episode Links:

👤 Ayya Khema

📖 I Give You My Life by Ayya Khema

👤 Leigh Brasington

📖 Right Concentration by Leigh Brasington

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