If you do stick mostly to one method or discipline, so that it comes to dominate your thinking around certain terms, I think you can do more talk.
For me, I've spent too much time dipping my feet in other people's lakes to do that. My brain is a brambled thicket of associations.
Conversation
If anything, I've now been retreating, drawing boundaries around my practice, hemming it in - so that I can talk about it more in the future.
But the sort of discussion we get into on Twitter, where people are coming from 5 different lineages and methods, is flawed.
2
1
I don't know, I found the conversation interesting and useful. But I am also established in my approach. If I was a seeker I might have found it confusing
1
1
I found parts of it interesting and useful, which is why I engaged. Mostly because seeing what other people say helps me clarify what I think.
The idea is not so much that you can't learn from it, as that the discussion itself will always be in some sense antagonistic.
1
Which is fine, if you want contrast, perspective and so on.
But at some point, for deepening your own practice, those perspectives become utterly worthless.
As does even the perspectives from *your own* training, since they are necessarily incomplete.
2
1
I don't really agree. The base of my practice is phenomenological, and relies on self-inquiry and perspective taking. Taking on different lenses and seeing how they feel experientially is important to me. Very much in line with Rob Burbea's approach
1
So you're describing one model of practice to me now, and in that model of practice this is a fruitful pursuit. Great!
What if I want to talk to spirits to do what I want to do? (Disregarding the ontological status of spirits, it's certainly a practice you can pursue.)
2
Nudge nudge wink wink
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Triquetrea @cognazor and 2 others
(FYI, I don't want to talk to spirits - I'm just pulling your leg to make a broader point.)
2
Yeah I got that. At the end of the day, each person has to craft their own personalized approach, born from experiential tinkering and intuition building (IMO).
1
1
That I agree with, almost or exactly 100%.
I think it's fine to defend your intuitions and methodology, too. I guess that's what we're all doing, here.
I don't know where I heard this joke first (Deconstructing Yourself, maybe?), but it was something like:
"Enlightened masters are completely open and accepting of everything - except changing their teachings!"
1
1
Makes sense. Changing your teaching to something that you are not experientially grounded in is folly. That's not to say that teachers shouldn't be constantly trying to expand there toolkit, but it takes time
2
1
Show replies