I thought the podcast was interesting!
Certainly, however, Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, and the Dharma Overground could have all benefited from their own individual episodes. It would have been nice to have heard some specific discussion of the techniques Daniel and Kenneth use and promote. Also, do the podcasters have any history and experience with the techniques? What are their thoughts about the states and stages?
There is a lot of history here, and one day I'd like to read it. The Dharma Overground obviously at a certain points had a kind of major heyday, when some very serious practioners and theoriticians frequented the site. At certain points, however, there have been major falling outs, splinters, and disapearances. Then next generations of practioners and theoriticians arise and then pass away. There have been moments when the discussions on this site have been so profound, the discoveries made and explicated so fascinating, that it felt like the true center of a vibrant American mediation movement. Then we had the Absolute Freedom explosion, which to a certain extent, I feel, tore the site apart. I'd really like to hear a podcast about Absolute Freedom, the debates it caused on the site, and its fallout.
For me, the most revelatory part of the podcast was the discussion of Speculative Non-Buddhism. I hadn't been aware of these thinkers before listening to the podcast, and I've been reading the articles over at the site with some interest. Luckily, the "Speculative" part isn't really indicative of the heavy influence of "Speculative Realism," but more so the Continental philosophy of Marxism, Badiou, etc. As a Marxist myself and a Badiouian, I've been finding some of the provocations stimulating. As someone who himself once posted a Zizek article to this site, and asked some heartfelt questions about social activism/engagement, and received some very disappointing responses [for instance, I should stop worrying about politics and instead focus on my "big toe" will be one I'll NEVER forget], it is wonderful to read texts which related to some of the same concerns I had.
At the same time, there is some disconnect between a critique of 1) the philosophy of various Buddhist traditions, and 2) how Buddhism is being incorporated into the West, and the type of PRACTICE of meditation which, say, Daniel puts forward in his book. It is all well and good to seriously critique how the mindfullness movement is being used to support/bolster corporations and capitalism, but what does all this have to do with the very real states and stages [nanas and jhanas] which verifiably exist when one does the practices/techniques? There is a kernel of the Real here, which is that there if you strip away all the history and philosophies and appropriations, etc., there are still some real practices which if used produce real results.
In Marxist terms, I feel like there is a lot of discussion of the superstructure as opposed to the infrastructure. This is part of the contribution of Daniel, that he tried, as much as possible, to strip away all the bullshit and reveal a practice which has effects on the mind. Now I'm sure one can critique this itself as embeded in a type of ideology, but what would Tom Pepper say about a jhana, you know?
In the end, everything can be subsumed within capitalism. Every ideology will disappoint because all of them end up being complicit with the system. Even so called revolutionary ideologies can be critiques as complicit with the system, such as utopianism, ultra-leftism, etc. I realize that there is a necessary discussion to have regarding Buddhism's conservative, solipsistic, apolitical tendencies, but I would love to have read more from the Speculative Non-Buddhists about how to radicalize Buddhism. Are there liberatory threads/strands? I'm sure there are. When one looks at things dialectically, one sees that all things contain both liberatory AND reactionary seeds...
