The sudden/gradual, immanence/distinction tensions have gone on for a long long time....explored quite brilliantly by Sam Van Schaik (and others, I'm sure). May be less conflicting if one is able to take the pointers, not as a way to be free 'instantly', but as a way of training
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- Metta, compassion and love-based yogic practice DO NOT WORK for majority of westerners. - Social structure inimical to gurus, ashram, sangha etc. Those that flourish often (really often) are cults. - Scientism vs. mysticism; porting language is hard, stuff lost in translation.
I found a reply to this in my drafts I forgot about. I’m curious what makes you believe the first point on metta/maitri/love practices? I don’t have much data to argue otherwise, I just have a very hard time believing it as a result of my own experiences. Never heard that before
-
-
It's an interesting topic. I've seen westerners it did work for, so I was probably too generalistic in phrasing. It doesn't work for *most* westerners. Why would that be? Poor cultural translation of what is meant by love. "Love" as defined here severely pathological concept.
-
People I know who had good teachers got it right and had tremendous gains with it, but that was often after a long period of confusion - and even worse, damaging practice - until someone finally set them straight on the what, why, how of it.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.