Buddhist Geeks

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

🤖 AI Transparency: The transcript below was lightly edited, for both spelling & grammar errors, using ChatGPT. In this talk jhāna teacher Leigh Brasington draws on teachings from his teacher Ayya Khema, offering a clear, practice-based guide to entering the first jhāna, a meditative state of joyful concentration described in early Buddhist texts.A Jhāna RetreatIf this sounds like your jam, consider joining Vince Fakhoury Horn & Brian Newman for The Flavors of Jhāna retreat, this coming January in Portugal.💬 TranscriptLeigh Brasington: Very nice to be here, I appreciate the invitation. I always like talking about the jhānas—very interesting topic. So what I’m going to do today is share the basic instructions for how to enter the jhānas as I teach them. I learned them from Ayya Khema. Actually, I stumbled into the first one when I was on retreat with Ajahn Buddhadasa in Southern Thailand. I didn’t know it was a jhāna. They told me I was experiencing pīti. I knew I liked it. It changed my practice from something I knew I should do to something I wanted to do. Just the pleasure of it—yeah, I’m a greed type—okay, here’s a nice source of pleasure.The jhānas are eight altered states of consciousness. Actually, in the suttas there are four jhānas and four immaterial states, and it’s not until much later that they’re referred to as the eight jhānas. That’s convenient if you want to talk about the four immaterial states and the four jhānas at the same time, but they’re definitely different in the suttas. We do find many suttas where there are the first four jhānas and then three or four of the immaterial states, so it’s a pattern that makes a lot of sense.Most of the Buddhist teachings are in three categories: sīla, samādhi, paññā—ethics, concentration, wisdom. Sīla is morality, keeping the precepts. Samādhi is usually translated as concentration, but I actually prefer “indistractibility.” Concentration’s got that furrowed-brow thing—people try too hard and it doesn’t work. That’s one problem with teaching jhānas.I give students two warnings at the beginning of a retreat. First: if you have expectations, you’re in trouble. Expectation is wanting—the first hindrance. Over and over again the Buddha talks about the abandoning of the hindrances as a prerequisite for entering the jhānas. The other warning is that if you start fooling with concentration and you have any unresolved issues, they might come up. Hopefully none of you have unresolved psychological issues—but yeah, seems to be a problem for humans.Then paññā is wisdom. Basically what the Buddha is saying is: clean up your act, learn to concentrate your mind, and use your concentrated, indistractible mind to investigate reality and understand what’s actually happening.The jhānas in the suttas are frequently preceded by the abandoning of the hindrances. You might notice when you’re meditating and get distracted, you could label most distractions with one of the five hindrances: wanting, not wanting, sluggishness, restlessness, remorse, or doubt. What’s really necessary to enter the jhānas is a mind that’s relatively quiet.In later Pali literature it talks about “access concentration.” I’ve adopted that phrase to describe what you have to generate before entering the jhānas—not the deep concentration described in the Visuddhimagga, but good enough to have a chance at the jhāna as described in the suttas.So, basic instructions. Sit in a comfortable, upright posture—comfortable enough that it doesn’t generate aversion, but not so comfortable you fall asleep. Once you’re settled, put your attention on your meditation object. The Visuddhimagga mentions about thirty possible objects for developing access concentration. Most people work with mindfulness of breathing—the most common. Others use mettā meditation, or any of the brahmavihāras. A body scan works too—just slowly noticing sensations through the surface of the body without trying to change anything.Some teachers, like Ajahn Sumedho, teach using the nāda sound—the subtle ringing you can hear when it’s quiet. That can work too, though I don’t recommend it unless you want to hear that sound forever. A fifth option is a mantra. If you do a mantra until the mantra starts “doing you,” that’s a sign of good concentration.If you’re using the breath, you might notice some signs as you get concentrated. A diffuse white light may appear. That’s called a nimitta—just a sign that concentration is strong. Don’t do anything with it; it’s like a road sign telling you where you are. Later Buddhist texts describe a bright circular light, but the suttas don’t mention that. Still, if you see it, good—you’re concentrated.As concentration deepens, the breath may become shallow or even seem to disappear. Don’t worry—you’re not going to die. Your body knows how to breathe. What’s happening is that your body doesn’t need as much oxygen because you’re still and calm. If you notice the breath slowing down, resist the temptation to take a deep breath. That resets the chemistry that helps bring on the first jhāna.So: you sit, settle, put attention on your object. When you get distracted, label the distraction, relax, and come back. Labeling helps disidentify from it and shows where the mind tends to wander—wanting, aversion, past, future. Notice how seldom the distraction is in the present.Relaxation is key because most distractions create tension. Just relax and return to the breath—or whatever object you’re using—letting it flow naturally. Access concentration is being fully with the object, with only wispy background thoughts like, “Is this what he meant?” instead of full-blown planning.Once you realize you’re in access concentration, stay there for five to fifteen minutes. Time will feel distorted, so just hang out. If you’ve been there long enough—or your breath is so subtle it’s not usable as an object—there’s a trick: drop attention on the original object and shift to a pleasant sensation.If you look at statues of the Buddha, he’s always smiling—that’s a teaching. Try smiling slightly and notice the pleasantness of it. Focus on that pleasantness. For some people it’s the hands—a warm, tingling glow. For mettā, the heart center. It could be anywhere: third eye, top of the head, shoulders, feet—whatever’s pleasant.Once you’ve found a pleasant sensation, here comes the hard part: do nothing. Just enjoy it. Anything you do will mess it up. Remain focused on the pleasantness itself. If you stay steady, the pleasantness will intensify gradually, building until it erupts into pīti-sukha—physical rapture and emotional joy.The instructions, in short: sit, settle, focus on your object; label distractions, relax, return; stay non-distracted; find a pleasant sensation; focus on it; do nothing else. The jhāna will find you. You don’t do jhāna—you set up the conditions for it to arise.The most common problem is jumping too soon—grabbing at pleasant sensations before concentration is stable. Wait until you’re really steady. Another problem is trying to make something happen or getting excited when it does—both break concentration. You can’t enter jhāna and stay in control. You have to let go into the experience.Ayya Khema said, “Letting go is the whole of the spiritual path.” That applies here. The first time the jhāna comes, it might feel mild or like it’s blowing the top of your head off—either is fine.The length of time to stay in the first jhāna is inversely proportional to the intensity. If it’s strong, 20–30 seconds is plenty; if mild, up to 10 minutes. When you’ve had enough, take a deep breath to release the energy, then focus on the sukha—the emotional pleasure. The first jhāna is pīti with background sukha; the second is sukha with background pīti.The purpose of the first jhāna is to get you to the second. If you’re concentrated enough, you can enter any jhāna directly, though that usually takes years of practice.You could think of the mind like a still pond. Normally it’s wavy; concentration calms it. Then you drop in a pebble of pleasure, and the ripples bounce and reinforce until they rise as a geyser—that’s the first jhāna.I suspect pīti involves dopamine breaking down into norepinephrine, and sukha involves opioids like serotonin. I’m a retired computer programmer, not a neuroscientist, but Jud Brewer thought that made sense. Focusing on the pleasant sensation is rewarding—it releases dopamine, which stimulates the nucleus accumbens, generating opioids. The norepinephrine explains the heat or vibration some people feel.So essentially, you’re setting up a feedback loop of pleasure. Everything we experience is neurotransmitters; this is just a skillful way of using them to shift consciousness. The first jhāna alone won’t give deep enough concentration for strong insight—that develops more in the higher jhānas, especially the third and fourth.So, by the time you get to the third and fourth jhānas, your concentration is deeply enhanced. The first jhāna is mostly about learning how to make the mind happy. It’s a wholesome form of pleasure, because the hindrances have been set aside. It’s blameless pleasure. The Buddha said it’s a pleasant abiding here and now. It’s not sensual pleasure—it’s mental pleasure.You can’t be lustful or hateful and be in the jhānas at the same time. The hindrances have to be abandoned first. So, the first jhāna is a good antidote for desire, aversion, restlessness, doubt—all of that.If you look in the suttas, you’ll see that the Buddha talks about entering and abiding in the first jhāna, then emerging and reflecting on it. He often says, “He enters and abides in the first jhāna, then emerges mindful and clearly comprehending.” The reflection part is where insight comes in.You can look back and notice what was present and what was absent. “Okay, in that state, there was one-pointedness, there was rapture, there was happiness. There wasn’t anger, there wasn’t craving, there wasn’t restlessness.” You begin to see the conditionality of mind states—how some qualities lead to happiness and peace, and others to agitation and suffering.That’s insight. Seeing cause and effect directly. And the more concentrated the mind, the more subtle the distinctions you can notice.Now, I should emphasize: the jhānas are not necessary for awakening. There are people who wake up without ever entering them. But they are very helpful. The Buddha himself discovered the jhānas as a young man, then later realized they were a useful foundation for insight. He used them as part of his own path to awakening.The first jhāna trains you to gather and steady the mind, and to be at ease with pleasure that doesn’t depend on external conditions. You can use that stability and joy to look into impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self.It’s like building a campfire. You need enough kindling to get it going, but once the fire is burning steadily, you can cook something useful. Concentration is the kindling; insight is the cooking.People sometimes get attached to the jhānas. It’s understandable—they’re very pleasant. But they’re not the goal. They’re a tool. They show you that the mind can be trained, and that happiness doesn’t have to come from the world—it can arise from the mind itself.And, importantly, they show that pleasure isn’t the enemy. The Buddha didn’t advocate self-torture; he advocated wisdom. Pleasure used skillfully can support wisdom. The pleasure of the jhānas is wholesome because it’s not mixed with craving or clinging.When the Buddha first described the Middle Way, he said it avoids the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. The jhānas are the perfect expression of that. They’re pleasure that’s blameless, balanced, and leads onward.If you keep practicing, moving through the first, second, third, and fourth jhānas, what happens is that pīti—that energetic, bubbly joy—drops away. The mind becomes more serene, more equanimous. By the fourth jhāna, it’s just pure awareness, neutral feeling, total balance.That’s the foundation for deep insight practice. In that stillness, you can start seeing impermanence very clearly. The slightest movement in the mind stands out. You can watch sensations arise and pass with precision.So, to sum up: the first jhāna is pleasure and joy born of seclusion. You get there by letting go of the hindrances and focusing on a pleasant sensation until it amplifies. The second jhāna is pleasure and joy born of concentration itself—more stable, less effort. The third is equanimous pleasure—contentment without excitement. The fourth is pure equanimity and mindfulness.The jhānas are not something you force; they’re something you allow. You set up the right conditions, and the mind naturally inclines toward stillness and happiness.And then, when you emerge, you use that clarity to investigate. That’s where the liberating insight arises—not in the absorption itself, but in seeing how it all functions.The Buddha described this process as samādhi-paññā, concentration leading to wisdom. The jhānas are simply one way, one very skillful way, to cultivate that. Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

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

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

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

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 CommunityDaniel 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