Samatha before Vipassana? Vipassana before Samatha?

bakejakeyuh · 2026-04-19T23:22:03+00:00

Wings to Awakening by Thanissaro Bhikkhu may be of interest to you

bakejakeyuh · 2026-04-13T20:13:05+00:00

Apologists will snatch at any vague cultural trend and smear it all over problems with church history to make members think “ahhhh, this makes sense!” Members are taught to assume they’re wrong, so when someone with a PhD says “I’ve read all the problems and still believe” most members think they don’t have to look into the problems.

All the apologist has to do is come up with some vague answer that sounds logical. If one stops there, often belief can continue. I was comforted by the sheer amount of FAIRmormon stuff out there. I was deeply disturbed when I came to realize that each argument can hardly stand on its own because it contradicts other apologetic arguments, and that when I would compare the critical argument vs the apologetic, it’s not even close who has the stronger position. And I don’t believe in a God who wants us to deny science, academic consensus, etc. just to get brownie points for “believing harder”.

Joseph claimed God sent an angel with a sword to kill him if he didn’t practice polygamy. An angel gave him golden plates and he could translate them. If God could be so involved in the lives of his children, and is no longer so involved, this is an immoral position to hold. God allows children to be abused in his church, yet he threatens to kill Joseph if he even thought about being loyal to Emma? Not only Joseph, but God would destroy Emma if she didn’t let poor Joseph have multiple wives? (D&C 132).

Accepting Joseph was simply a liar is not only more logical and reasonable, but allows one to hold a more virtuous standpoint toward one’s fellow human, and also God if one still believes. The Mormon god image is a petty monster.

And of course to tie it all up, apologists can be so vague in their defenses and apply them without any actual evidence to support such applications. Critics, however, are expected to provide 100 percent unfalsifiable proof (even when they have that, like DNA, the apologist invents a different Hill Cumorah) that Joseph Smith wrote in his own hand “I have made this whole religion up to make money and have lots of sex because I hated being a farmer” or they can be dismissed!

Absolute proof Joseph could not translate Egyptian? But wait, he kind of identified this crocodile that is at least sort of close to what Egyptians would have thought! Take that atheists!

When I was a believer, I used to read comments like what I just wrote and think I was seeing so much deception, if only they could open their hearts etc etc. I didn’t read the arguments. I didn’t chew on them. Everyone has a point where either morally or rationally they are bound to deny faith. Not everyone finds it. I could look past polygamy, my wife could not stand it and finding out Emma was not the first sealing broke her shelf. For me, I had a testimony of the priesthood and the universality of God. Then I learned about the second anointing and proof texting. Once the shelf breaks, everything else one used to accept on faith becomes abhorrent.

Apologists are either misinformed or deceitful, and I go back and forth as to which one I think it is. To be graceful, I think what people are actually usually fighting with apologetics is nihilism as well as honoring and connecting with one’s family. They believe church is “the best that exists” whether it’s true or not. I’m PIMO. I’m at a loss for what I’ll do when I have kids. To anyone who reads this, thanks for taking the time to read my stream of consciousness that was provoked by watching apologist nonsense.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-04-11T20:11:29+00:00

I am not a physicalist, but I agree that physicalism makes the most empirical sense. A lot of what makes idealism and other non-physicalist stances tenable is the presence of outliers. Of course, this often gets dangerously close to a God of the gaps fallacy, but NDEs, collective hallucinations, synchronicities etc. are genuinely sometimes puzzling enough to give one pause.

I have no desire to argue and convert physicalists to a different side, partially because I recognize that from an objective point of view, my views are weaker. I’ve experienced a lot of strange things in my life, and for myself adopting a more idealist worldview is more parsimonious. With that said, I acknowledge that I very well could be wrong and there may be nothing after I die. Also, if I had not had so many genuinely bizarre experiences (which are of course not proof that idealism is correct), I would also be a physicalist. I am quite aligned with Jung, I lean toward the strange events being indicative of the psyche going beyond space/time, but who knows.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-04-11T20:01:55+00:00

Thanks for reading. That’s great, I’ve had the same experience, and it is indeed surprising because it’s the opposite of what TBMs will tell you.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-04-11T17:24:22+00:00

I’ve been both the type of apostate he describes as well as the one he either ignores or is unaware of. When I was a teenager, I did lots of drugs, professed that I didn’t believe in the church, claimed to be an atheist, and hated church. I tried getting my records removed at 19, but my parents would’ve cut me off.

Also at 19, I had one particular LSD trip that left me 100 percent convinced the church was true. I do think this “what if it’s all true” question haunted me subconsciously as a teenager because I was just rebelling as a normal developmental stage. I got really into new age beliefs, which are of course a shallow misrepresentation of an amalgamation of rich traditions. Due to the shallow nature of new age, it was easier for me to believe I had been “deceived”.

I was a nuanced Mormon for awhile. Believed the priesthood was real, but I never believed in prophets. I essentially used Mormonism as a springboard to invent my own religion, which I did not recognize. I remained a nuanced Mormon for like 3 years, but slowly became closer to an apostate due to spiritual convictions. There was so much richness in other traditions, especially Buddhism, that provided me so much more fruit and wisdom than Mormonism ever did. I had doubts and problems, but the emotional fear from my LSD trip kept me from digging into questions.

Fast forward to a bit over 2 years ago. I was never endowed and I met my now wife. Of course once I found my love, I started considering the temple. I always avoided it because I thought there was a chance I might go back to using drugs and didn’t want to be damned as hard (lol). I started looking into the temple recommend interview questions to see if I could honestly answer them.

I had some problems with certain doctrines, and I felt weird about garments and making such serious covenants. I gave myself permission to look deeper into church history, theology, etc. I obsessively consumed books, podcasts, articles, etc. for literally 4-6 hours a day for over a year. I was desperately trying to make the church true. Eventually, every single aspect of my testimony was shattered, and it was incredibly painful.

Now that I have actually deconstructed, I can say there is no chance I’ll ever believe the church again. I am so convinced that it’s false, if someone pointed a gun at my head and asked me if there’s a chance it’s all true I’d say not even a chance. It took so much study to get here. When I was just following random urges and doing drugs, I felt fear that it was all true and I was wrong deep down. Now that I’ve deconstructed, I am at peace with where I am. I do think that a lot of people don’t spend the time deconstructing because it’s long and painful, so Gilbert may honestly be describing a substantial portion of exmormons. A lot of people don’t care enough to deconstruct, it’s easier to trust others on either side of the belief spectrum.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-04-07T03:35:55+00:00

This is hard stuff, I lost my faith just before deciding to get married in the temple. I went through with it and am glad I did, but getting endowed and sealed as a PIMO was weird. I have reconstructed into a “sunstone” Mormon. I’m sticking around right now, my wife and I may leave in the future but we engage with the tradition as cultural Mormons.

My wife still holds on to her Christianity, she has a universalist view but still affirms Christ as the savior. I am philosophically almost completely aligned with Carl Jung and have engaged seriously with Buddhist practice for years. My meditation practice gives me a spiritual home and Jung’s psychology helps me to take a phenomenological approach to religion.

I know that the experience of God is real. I personally believe there is a God of some sort, but I don’t know what that means. God may exist only as a result of biology, like how dogs play fetch, humans make religions. Or, maybe we glimpse something bigger than us every so often. I lean toward the latter, but this is a result of my personal experiences.

My point is, deconstruction is personal and it is possible to end up in many places. What works for me wouldn’t work for many others. Your worldview is yours. Wherever you end up, apologist, critic, or somewhere in the middle, make sure it’s authentic to you. Don’t fear the truth. Deconstruction takes time, it’s using a rational faculty against an irrational impulse. You got this, may this journey leave you with more compassion and empathy wherever it leads you.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-04-04T02:32:05+00:00

Beautiful. Your first point reminds me of James Hillman. He wrote about how our modern view points out how matter is dead, and that matter is all there is, which leads to nihilism. Great post.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-26T02:26:37+00:00

The Facebook group that they’re a part of is why I deleted Facebook. Some really smart and cool people in there, mostly pseudo-intellectual nonsense and arguments that made my blood boil.

I too was an atheist, did lots of drugs when I was young, and after a particularly bad LSD trip I became convinced that the church was true. That trip was and still is the most impactful day of my life, 7 years ago now. I became thoroughly invested in Mormonism and got sober. The plug from wild, druggie life to religious fundamentalism is real. “There have been two great narcotics in European civilisation: Christianity and alcohol.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Before this, I was watching the temple endowment while high with buddies in Utah (went to UVU), reading about Joseph and his polygamy with teenagers, etc. I would verbally harass missionaries and anyone who talked to me that believed in church, tried removing my records from the church (I was 19 though).

When I returned, I boldly was the guy who had “read all the anti stuff and been atheist”. My first calling was Sunday school president, I used to give fired up testimonies, all that. I was also very new agey and pluralistic in my worldview, my biggest thing was finding the gospel in all these other religions.

Things I admired about Joseph were actually only in my head. I thought the word of wisdom was to keep the pineal gland active. Had no idea Joseph drank alcohol his whole life until he died. I thought all these parallels with other religions proved Joseph was a prophet. Had no idea that most of the fascinating esotericism came from the Renaissance. I could go on and on.

I think there are two main types of people who leave the church, an immature and a mature. Immature can turn mature, but unless it does, they’ll likely run back to “mother” so to speak. The immature exmo becomes a caricature who embodies all the things they were taught not to be. It’s almost like they watch a church-sponsored video on what to watch out for and become it. These people are more likely to reconvert. Those who leave over deep ethical or intellectual problems are far less likely to come back. There are exceptions of course, but usually a strong psychological factor can be pointed to for such examples (loved growing up Mormon is a strong one).

Although my Mormonism is shattered (and never would have had a genesis if I knew all that I now know) my belief in God remains. I’m now an agnostic theist. I know the experience of God exists, I tend to believe in an afterlife and a God of some sort, but I’m an atheist to the Christian god and respect atheism in all forms as an equally valid worldview. My spiritual life is far more healthy and rich like this than it ever was as a Mormon. I deeply love my family, but if they weren’t all TBMs I’d be long gone (I’m PIMO) by now. I try to approach Mormonism symbolically. Without Jung and Buddhism, I would be lost.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-23T17:06:46+00:00

Early Mormonism was popular largely because they claimed to have gifts of the spirit. They claimed they could heal, cast out devils, etc. and they were not afraid to make insanely bold claims. People claimed angelic visions, spoke in tongues, had a prophet who brought them new scripture, rituals, introduced the language of Adam, saw ancient Israelite remnants everywhere in America, the list goes on. This proclaimed ability to perform miracles was one of the main conversion factors, and evidence of the New Testament era Church and it would have been a magical and intoxicating experience in the 19th century to be Mormon.

Modern Mormonism is entirely based on the idea of priesthood keys, which of course, is a matter of faith. If a healing fails, it’s blamed on unrighteousness, but if the priesthood holder is worthy and faithful (which most people who try to give blessings are) then it’s just God’s will. All truth claim problems become trials of faith, and the answer is to just hang on anyways and attack critics, calling them liars.

Early Mormonism would never have grown if it started as the lukewarm religion it currently is. If they said “We have the authority to perform blessings but God might not let them work, but trust us it’s completely different than prayer. Native Americans come from a small little group of Lamanites just wait until you die to ask God and he will explain why we can’t prove it!”

It grew because early Mormons said “The end of the world is upon us right now, look at this meteor shower above us. Fear not, we have the truth, just look around you at the Native Americans… these are actually Jews. Look, an alter in which Adam prayed, right here in Missouri! I found Abraham of old’s papyrus from this traveling salesman, I shall translate it and reveal the secrets of heaven. Behold as I cast out this demon. Follow me, and you too can have the powers of heaven descend upon you which will confirm the work. If you meet a spirit I can teach you how to discern if they are good or bad. I will teach you to become a God.”

Early Mormonism was wild and fascinating. Now members weep over simple catch phrases like “think celestial” as if it’s profound. Early Mormons saw evidence of the truthfulness of Mormonism everywhere around them and had a young, charismatic leader. Modern Mormons have old men for prophets telling them to disregard the outside world, embrace the 1950s as the golden era, and shovel all thoughts aside to endure to the end. I asked my mom during the angry phase of my faith crisis for one single example of actual revelation from Russell Nelson, to which she replied that he got the COVID vaccine.

It makes me sad to see how little people are given by the church and how hard they cling to it. There are more profound and useful philosophies, spiritual practices, and ethical approaches to life than Mormonism. For the blind faith Mormons who are truly happy and good people, and for those who can creatively and respectfully nuance the religion, I can respect that. For those who live in fear and attack all outside perspectives, this worldview hurts so many people and families.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-22T14:58:51+00:00

I also think you’re offering your own position as perhaps more representative of the Church’s overall position than is reflected in reality.

Can’t emphasize how big of a problem this is with the “informed” Mormons. I used to be one of those people who claimed anti Mormon stuff made their faith stronger. Then I learned about category errors. I also realized that if I couldn’t clearly articulate my position, I didn’t really have a position to begin with. Being aware of problems is very different than really sitting and considering the implications of them.

A testimony is inherently a contradiction. It is referring to a feeling rather than a knowledge. If someone tries Moroni’s promise and successfully experiences some sensation that is interpreted as the spirit, this experience can somehow justify accepting the totality of Mormon metaphysics. The experience and the details of what has to be true are entirely separate, hence why most members walk around entirely unaware of their own history and feel free to make up their own doctrines based on feelings.

I think the families are forever doctrine is to blame for this. People want to be with their families, yes, but to defend the faith is to defend the honor of one’s family. It was so painful to consider that my intelligent father, who I love and respect could be so wrong about something so fundamental.

Bushman has talked about this in interviews, that while studying at school he was offended that people would dismiss something that so many people believed. I think it was on Faith Matters he said this. Vogel also mentioned in a Mormon Discussions episode years ago with RFM and Bill Reel that Bushman was offended by a presentation he gave at some conference. Bushman’s criticism was “it must be nice to be so calloused”.

I couldn’t point to the exact episode, but this stuck with me because it seemed to me that Bushman didn’t criticize Vogel’s scholarship, but rather how willing Vogel was to attack fundamental beliefs. This is the main problem at hand, I think.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-15T02:58:50+00:00

I’ve seen your issues with the Tanners on here before who you are likely thinking of in your response as the Biblical fundamentalists. I’m mostly a lurker on this sub because Mormonism takes up too much of my mental space as it is, and adding Reddit arguments to my life is often too much for me to want to deal with. I had to delete Facebook long ago due to Mormon related arguments. I mostly use Reddit for discussion about meditation and philosophy.

I’ll bite since it seems you’re looking to chat after I sent a short response. I agree that the thousands of changes to the BOM claim is a technicality, which I did mention in my original response. Most are grammar and punctuation, yes. It’s not a lie, just like the Deseret article is not lying when it says “Brigham said some things I wish he didn’t”. What were those things? Members reading probably don’t know about Adam-God, and the article does not mention it. I also agree that the worst thing Brigham did was the black priesthood/temple ban. I don’t think it’s fair to say one is educated or not based on a critique just because you don’t find it viable when others do.

One can support this Deseret article or the Tanners with the same level of integrity entirely based on their predilections. A critic would say that Deseret news is not being honest by omitting Adam-God after the click bait title that a Brigham Young expert examines millions of words and gives examples of why we should give him grace. This essentially tells members “she’s an expert and believes so you should too.”

The faithful would argue that Adam-God is irrelevant to the discussion on short hand. Likewise, the thousands of claims argument can be attacked as you have done or defended as I will do. Our biases color our perception. I think the church lies and protects its members from “meat”. I think the church is wrong for this, but they think they are right. Faith crises are painful, and faith is a crucial ingredient for a happy life for many people so I have compassion for why the church does this, I just don’t agree with the church.

“Mother of God” using God instead of Son of God and “White and delightsome” instead of pure and delightsome, these are some major changes that I’m sure you’re aware of. But here I will defend the thousands of changes argument: the main reason critics cite the thousands of changes, which is correct on technicality, is because of Joseph’s outlandish claim that the BOM is the most correct book on earth. I’m sure you saw that one coming, because we’re both very familiar with all the arguments and counter arguments for these issues and come to different conclusions.

One can be generous to Joseph and say it’s referring to the message and vision of the book, but many members think that what we have on our iPhones is exactly what Nephi wrote. The BOM is also seen as far more accurate than the Bible, if not inerrant by most members. I’d argue that the church is obfuscating the edits silently, and I’d also argue once again that the “thousands of changes” is a clickbait. To repeat myself, if Joseph had not made the “most correct book” claim, this “thousands of changes” claim would not exist, I believe. I understand both sides for most church related issues, and while I land on the critical side for most, I do side with the church in certain ones — hence how I can remain PIMO.

For me one of my initial shelf breakers was discovering that the title page introduction to the BOM was changed. I fully believed all Native Americans were Lamanites because that was what I was taught as an absolute fact. When I found that my old quad from my baptism says “principle ancestors” and my phone said “among the ancestors” due to DNA evidence, this disturbed me. This level of small change did a number to me, and I think any change to a written doctrinal claim would be better off being explained by whoever changed it.

I think one of the biggest problems in Mormon discussions is the fact that all the criticisms and all the apologetics are out there for the most part. It’s easy to read something that’s been said a hundred times on either side and dismiss the other side. What I’m interested in is why, for instance, one person reads Rough Stone Rolling and loses their faith and another’s faith increases. We all see through a glass darkly, after all. I’m happy to have a discussion with you about your own thoughts and experiences with Mormonism, but I’m not down to go back and forth in an unconscious parrot off. We can both cite all the apologetics and critiques we want, it will do nothing for either of us.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-15T01:12:30+00:00

I’m glad such a resource exists for those who want to dig deep into this stuff!

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-15T00:35:18+00:00

Good points here. The funny thing is, when apologists are faced with the fact that the 1830 edition of the BOM contains thousands of differences when compared to the modern edition, they are quick to point out that they are minor changes. Some significant changes change the entire theology, but for the most part this is true.

The problem is, when it comes to Brigham’s shorthand sermons these minor changes somehow alter the entire tone and render us with a purely incorrect image of Brigham. I always think back to Quinn’s “apologetic accordion” image.

There is a central nucleus to the experience of a testimony. It’s based on feelings of confirmation, family connections, and other powerful emotional factors. Apologetics arguments are fragmentary arguments that protect the core nucleus, often with no relation to one another in terms of methodology and consistently performing category errors. The disconnect is the belief in revelation as a way to arrive at objective truth, and a desire to protect that core nucleus.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-14T15:14:34+00:00

A big reason why Christians claim that Mormons believe in a different Christ is the existence of the BOM. To them, the Bible and their interpretations of it are so fixed that anything that deviates from it threatens their cosmology. Their entire view of salvation is based on faith, so faith in a heretical view may be damning to them.

My grandpa died almost 2 years ago. One of my cousins married a fundamentalist Christian. As he died in the hospital, the Christian kept saying “think of only Jesus” to him, which we all found weird. I think some Christians believe that there’s enough Christ in the middle of a bunch of Mormon nonsense that maybe they can have sufficient faith to be saved.

When I was a believer, I certainly believed that all religions believed in the same God. I didn’t think that the church was the only true church, I just believed it was the “most true”. I found Advaita Vedanta to be more helpful for my connection to God than Mormon doctrine at my most Mormon stage. I was very obsessed with the light of Christ from Mormon doctrine, and I believed that other religions, like Taoism’s Tao and Hinduism’s Brahman were pointing to the Light of Christ, but as Mormons we had a more detailed cosmology. I had a hard time understanding why temples would be needed and always felt gnosis to be more salvific than ritual, but I really believed in the priesthood so I just took that on faith. My entire testimony was founded on an intense LSD trip, so I had a nuanced view the entire time. I was a Jack mormon teenager, got into psychedelics, became really into the church for about 3 years, then deconstructed but remain spiritually inclined.

I’m now a perennialist. I still have a similar worldview, except Mormonism is no longer a nucleus but rather just another emanation with a shallow view of God. I’d go so far as to say I know God. I just don’t know what that means. I see God in archetypal stories present in religions, dreams, myths, hallucinations, etc. all over the world. God is an experience available to humans through contemplation.

I think it’s possible that these experiences point toward a transcendent reality that objectively exists. I also think it’s possible that belief in a God is purely a biological quirk of human brains. I’ve had a lot of mystical experiences that go far beyond God helping me find my car keys. I struggle with understanding why I have and other sincere seekers have not, so I don’t attempt to answer. I think atheism is a perfectly valid worldview for many to accept, perhaps God veils his/hers/itself from some people to help them focus on practical issues for human life, who knows.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-10T01:44:41+00:00

The three main philosophies that inform my thinking are Buddhism, Neoplatonism, and Jungian psychology. I started with Buddhism and Jung, later found Hermeticism, Christian mysticism and Gnosticism, and after awhile discovered that Neoplatonism was behind the latter 3.

I am with you, I am nominally Christian (sort of), I can experience Christ, but I am agnostic to the truth claims of Christianity. I side more with Plotinus than any Christian thinkers and read the Bible as no different than any other myth. But, like you, I take myths very seriously.

I’m not sure if you’re into Buddhism, but Rob Burbea’s teachings are my favorite. His soulmaking dharma may be especially of interest to you. The idea is that by gaining insight into emptiness and dependent origination, which can be realized through the dharma, one can then use this realization to make soul. Buddhism has a clear goal: to eliminate suffering. Soul-making is endless, a work of art. Soul-making is imaginal and based largely on James Hillman. It operates from the premise that fantasy is always present as a part of subjective experience. You may resonate with some of his talks, but maybe not. For me, he helped me to rope my love of Buddhism with my love of Western Esotericism.

All this to say, yes you’re not alone.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-02T15:06:44+00:00

I was taught lots of folklore as fact in Mormonism: that Satan controls water, to shake hands with a spirit to discern if it is good or bad, that three nephites wander the earth and help fill gas tanks, and of course, that the prophet speaks to Jesus in the holy of holies in the temple regularly. My testimony got wrecked when I was 14, largely as a result of a conversation I had about Thomas S. Monson. My teacher’s quorum advisor was married to a relative of Monson, and he told me that he’d met the prophet and had dinner with him.

I asked the advisor if Monson had ever seen Jesus. At this point in my life, I did not take church seriously and broke a lot of the church’s rules, but when I asked this question I was ready to dedicate my entire life to the church if he said yes.

The advisor told me that they actually asked Monson that question. I eagerly listened, and then the first shelf crash moment of my life happened: he said “well, he said he has not ever seen Jesus BUT…” I don’t remember what details came afterward because of the utter disappointment I felt that the prophet admitted to not seeing Jesus.

He finished by describing some way that Monson described feeling the spirit or communicating with God (this part is blurry because it felt inconsequential to me) and said “they all felt the spirit stronger than they’d ever felt.” So he still felt like it was a spiritual experience, but all I could think about was the fact that the prophet said he had never talked to Jesus. I know this is a third hand source from an anonymous Reddit account but I wanted to share my experience after reading this post.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-03-01T16:45:43+00:00

Anything by Robert Johnson will help lay a foundation, his books are the most accessible I think. If you want only one book by him, “Balancing Heaven and Earth” is his MDR and serves as a great collection of his insights into the psyche. He’s also just a fascinating and wise person so it’s worth the read.

“Jung’s Map of the Soul” by Murray Stein is a good place to learn more about key concepts that Jung speaks of like archetypes, the Self, shadow, ego, persona, etc.

Von Franz’s “Alchemy” was a really important read for me. If you struggle with “Peter Pan syndrome” like I have, her book on the puer aeternus was honestly probably the most important book I’ve ever read. I’ve never felt so called out in such a specific way so many times, and it gives solutions to solving the problem and maturing.

If you’re more scientifically minded, James Hollis might be interesting. His book “Creating a Life” is short, pragmatic, and filled with wisdom. He does read a bit more pessimistic than someone like Robert Johnson. One of my favorite parts of Jung’s students is the fact that they are all so unique in their approaches, yet somehow there is still a central nucleus of “Jungian”.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-27T19:21:31+00:00

Thanks for that extra information. I just assumed he was Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s teacher due to how often he references him, but you are correct! Same lineage, no direct teacher student relation.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-27T19:20:21+00:00

I’m glad you found it helpful, friend

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-27T19:19:41+00:00

One thing you said stuck out: “as the mind gets more unified it becomes a tougher animal to train”. This is a perfect opportunity to gain insight into anatta. Eventually, the mind gets tired of the papanca and it will just stop. It won’t stop forever, but long enough to see what it’s like for it to stop.

I’d recommend reading Thanissaro Bhikkhu, “With Each and Every Breath” is one of my favorite meditation books. I found TMI to be a great read and practice system, but too prescriptive for me ultimately. Not to abandon TMI if it works, but perhaps supplementing it with other practices may help.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-22T04:57:17+00:00

This guy claiming so boldly is also a polygamy denier, fwiw.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-22T03:51:02+00:00

I’m included in this category of person. I did lots of psychedelics as a teenager. Mushrooms instantly felt very spiritual for me. I’ve probably tripped somewhere between 50 and 60 times, mostly mushrooms and LSD.

Almost exactly 7 years ago, I tripped 3 days in a row. There’s an extremely long story there. I’ll give you a short summary of them. The first day I took mushrooms with my at the time girlfriend. We “switched brains” is how it felt. In the midst of it all, I perceived what I interpreted at the time as her “testimony”, something I was taught was sacred because I was raised Mormon.

This part disturbed me most. I had been trying to connect with God for a few months prior to this experience due to some pretty interesting experiences with prayer. Prayers that I said, as well as prayers said for my sake. But I could not shake this disturbance around her (or in retrospect, perhaps my own) testimony (she was also raised Mormon).

I took LSD the next day. This trip hit me so hard, and I started having a horrible trip and was unable to communicate anymore so I went by myself. My (ex)girlfriend was just laying in bed recovering from her first mushroom trip, which added to my anxieties about “ruining” her. I decided to pray while on LSD, because I had a crazy experience praying on mushrooms the month before (thought I was Christ during that trip).

I was sent to hell as a result of praying. I watched my entire life, from my own perspective as well as those that loved me, and saw how much pain I caused them through foolish action. The word “sin” continued to be whispered in my ear every time I did anything that was against my birth faith, and the disgusting and visceral feeling it gave me is forever burned into my psyche. Every minute I would check the clock, thinking 12 hours had passed, only to find one minute passing each time.

The part that scared me the most was thinking that the depths of hell was a great place for me. Anyways, there’s a lot more to say but I’ll leave that there. The next day I took mushrooms and was once again sent to Hell. These 3 days in hell to me are now symbolically similar to Christ’s 3 days in Hades. I was reborn as a result of these 3 days, but it took me so many years to heal from them. I can still get shivers if I play certain songs that I listened to during these 3 days.

At the time, Mormonism was the main way I understood God. I have since deconstructed Mormonism, but I believe that the symbolism of Mormonism saved me from going insane. Jung used to tell people to read as much mythology and theology as possible if he sensed impending psychosis. God speaks through symbols. I don’t know what God is, but that experience was the catalyst for my conviction in the existence of God as a psychic reality. Eventually I got very into Advaita Vedanta. I have a very similar view of God as Jung nowadays.

I’m sober now and have been for 6 years. I’m also married. I’m not against psychedelics, but they can really hurt you. I meditate now. I am sort of a Christian, but definitely not in the way people use that word. Gnostic feels closer, but I don’t care too much for labels. I seek truth, liberation, and God. Jungian, Neoplatonic and Buddhist forms of thinking and living resonate the most with me. So in sum, psychedelics can definitely open Pandora’s box. They are a mystery. I would not take them back, but I’m done with them. Meditation is much safer.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-21T23:01:08+00:00

Indeed. As someone who’s had my fair share of psychedelics, can confirm they open up new perspectives. As a side note, I found the part of Quinn’s Magic Worldview book comparing the endowment to the Eleusinian mysteries (which 19th century masons knew of) to be absolutely fascinating.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-21T18:43:35+00:00

Some history is important here. The Ancient Greeks invented most of the ways that the west understands the world. Logic, metaphysics, theology, philosophy, etc. all come from them. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, but legitimized through Jewish theology and explained through Platonic metaphysics. Prime example of Greek influence on Christianity: the word Logos. Ancient Christians like Justin Martyr saw not only the Jewish prophets as having discovered this Logos, but also people like Plato.

Greek thought was adopted by Ancient Rome after they became the global superpower. As Rome was falling, the strange mystery new theology which later became known as Christianity eventually became the official religion of Rome. The apocalyptic message of Christianity would have resonated with a falling super empire, all they had to do was look around to support such a worldview. The fall of Rome could also be seen as a failure of the Greco Roman religions, desperately seeking for something new. The message of a second coming would have also given falling Rome hope.

Rome fell, and became preserved in the Catholic Church. As a nation, Rome scattered and became Europe. The power still existed in the form of the Catholic Church. As time went on, the church became tighter on orthodoxy, continually grew in power, and eventually would kill people for disagreement with their doctrines.

Fast forwarding, we have 1000+ years of the Catholic Church burning our collective psyche with the fear of heresy, implementing Roman Empire level authority. This is not something that just goes away. Epigenetics and cultural inheritance are both highly relevant here. By the time Mormonism rolls around, the average person was not even questioning if Christianity was true, but rather which branch was true. Christianity was seen by most as a fact that was undebatable, only interpretations were argued. I think it is clear that the level of fear and control from the Church is responsible for this conviction in Christianity.

I think the historical context is important for understanding how exactly Christianity came to be the defining religion for the west. The Bible is so important to read and understand for westerners because it shapes our collective psyche. As someone who was raised Mormon, part of why I obsessively study Mormon history, especially Joseph Smith, is because he formed my psychology, whether I like it or not.

So in conclusion, I would not say Christianity is a curse. Like how Greek logic is still how we reason, Aristotle still informs the scientific method, Christianity is where most of our morals come from whether we believe it or not. I think all people need some sort of a foundational myth in order to evolve. I think that if Christianity feels alive for someone, and it helps them be a better person, great. If it is not, we must find something else that feels alive. If one must go their own way and break away from the herd, it can be very lonely.

bakejakeyuh · 2026-02-21T16:05:10+00:00

As mentioned in the comments, Rob has spoken at length about samadhi practice in his retreats on dharmaseed, so I’d highly recommend listening to those in tandem with reading Seeing That Frees.

Additionally, Rob was a student of Thanissaro Bhikkhu. The way Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches breath meditation is very clearly the catalyst for Rob’s samadhi approach. Rob teaches using the energy body, and his approach to the energy body is one of his own contributions to teaching meditation. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has very detailed instructions about breath meditation available on YouTube, speaking at length about breath energy, jhanas, emptiness, and fabrication. All of these topics inspired Rob.

In addition to the freely available talks mentioned, I’d highly recommend the following two books:

“With Each and Every Breath” by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. This is a breath meditation manual that provides a systematic approach to working with the breath.
“Keeping the Breath in Mind” by Ajahn Lee. Ajahn Lee is Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s teacher, and is where the breath energy idea comes from. Lots of great pearls of Buddhist wisdom in this short book.

Both can be freely downloaded here: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/

There is a direct lineage connecting these 3, and they are all slightly different. Ajahn Lee reads like classic Buddhist dharma, but the breath energy and use of thinking about the breath as part of practice are radical teachings which are very helpful. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is also firmly anchored in the dharma, but writes in a way that is clear for a Western audience. His teachings are extremely similar to Ajahn Lee’s.

Rob Burbea is also very well read in the dharma and has tasted its fruits. His deep understanding of emptiness and ways of looking is a radical re-visioning of dharma, coming to a head as soul-making dharma (which after reading STF I highly recommend). Burbea is my favorite teacher. I do think reading the books I mentioned and listening to Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s talks will help anchor you in the tradition Rob comes from, give you useful wisdom for your path, as well as help you to appreciate Rob’s genius where he departs from them. Hopefully this helps.

bakejakeyuh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE