New Age isn’t an umbrella term for “vaguely mystical by Western standards”, it describes a specific cluster of spiritual practices
Which people who are “vaguely mystical by Western standards” but don’t self label as part of New Age would you recommend?
I’m not opposed to going to a ‘real’ Buddhist temple and learning meditation at that place.
I think giving good general advice for finding a good mediation teacher is hard. I don’t think apparent coherence is a good standard to judge a meditation teacher. If everything the teacher says seems coherent to you, he probably doesn’t have much to teach to you.
It’s not easy to see the difference between someone who gives you an answer that takes you halve a year to digest and someone who gives you an answer that’s bullshit.
I personally found a teacher through an impressive experience with one person who then made a recommendation which I followed.
In the absence of someone who can give you a good recommendation I would look for experience. Did the teacher put in his 10,000 hours? Did the teacher expose themselves to multiple other teachers with reputation?
Which people who are “vaguely mystical by Western standards” but don’t self label as part of New Age would you recommend?
Well, I’m not sure it’s really my place to be giving recommendations here; I know the basics, but there are people on this site far more advanced than I. That said, I think it’d probably be a good bet to learn from an established school of Buddhist meditation—not necessarily a temple—but this carries the additional caveat that there are many different kinds of meditation taught within Buddhism, and not all of them are aimed at things we’d be interested in. It must also be said that Buddhism as it’s taught in the West varies greatly in texture; some strains are almost exclusively fluff. Several other religions also contain meditative practices, and there are some secular teachers of meditation outside the New Age scene, but I don’t know as much about them.
With regard to coherence, though, I think I’d distinguish between apparent coherence regarding specific practices, or esoteric points of doctrine, and in terms of an overall worldview. Meditation for example involves some pretty exotic mental states; attempts to explain it by analogy with everyday life are probably going to be vague or contradictory, and that’s fine, bearing in mind the inferential gap. Likewise you’re going to find a few clots of irreducible spirituality if you dig deep enough into almost any religion, and that sort of comes with the territory. But if there are contradictions at the press-release level, or you’re seeing features of two or more spiritual systems kludged together without much care, or someone’s trying to preach nothing but irreducible spirituality in a quivering aspic of feel-good memes… those are bad signs.
I know the basics, but there are people on this site far more advanced than I.
I think the basics are the hardest part. In some sense the fancy mental states are not the things that’s hardest to learn.
If you think you know the basics you won’t be in “beginners mind”. The hard thing is to see where you don’t get the basics.
When I lately asked for the basics of rationality of this website the first response I got was: “Could you please more clear, I don’t know what exactly you mean with basics.”
Then I did get a bunch of interesting stuff but most of it wasn’t atomic.
Part of the reason why we don’t have a good Anki deck for rationality made by someone on Lesswrong is that we don’t know the basics of rationality well enough to break rationality down into atomic units that could be learned via Anki.
The post I wrote asking about the basic of rationality was motivated by having an experience during something of a meditation session with discussion afterwards in which I learned something new about basics and I think the teacher as well. And I’m a person who has years of experience with meditation, spent significant effort last year in trying to learn grammar to get a better understanding of individual chunks of meaning and tried to atomize knowledge for Anki learning for years.
You might be right, that you are probably not in a good position to give recommendations on finding a good teacher.
Which people who are “vaguely mystical by Western standards” but don’t self label as part of New Age would you recommend?
I’m not opposed to going to a ‘real’ Buddhist temple and learning meditation at that place.
I think giving good general advice for finding a good mediation teacher is hard. I don’t think apparent coherence is a good standard to judge a meditation teacher. If everything the teacher says seems coherent to you, he probably doesn’t have much to teach to you.
It’s not easy to see the difference between someone who gives you an answer that takes you halve a year to digest and someone who gives you an answer that’s bullshit.
I personally found a teacher through an impressive experience with one person who then made a recommendation which I followed.
In the absence of someone who can give you a good recommendation I would look for experience. Did the teacher put in his 10,000 hours? Did the teacher expose themselves to multiple other teachers with reputation?
Well, I’m not sure it’s really my place to be giving recommendations here; I know the basics, but there are people on this site far more advanced than I. That said, I think it’d probably be a good bet to learn from an established school of Buddhist meditation—not necessarily a temple—but this carries the additional caveat that there are many different kinds of meditation taught within Buddhism, and not all of them are aimed at things we’d be interested in. It must also be said that Buddhism as it’s taught in the West varies greatly in texture; some strains are almost exclusively fluff. Several other religions also contain meditative practices, and there are some secular teachers of meditation outside the New Age scene, but I don’t know as much about them.
With regard to coherence, though, I think I’d distinguish between apparent coherence regarding specific practices, or esoteric points of doctrine, and in terms of an overall worldview. Meditation for example involves some pretty exotic mental states; attempts to explain it by analogy with everyday life are probably going to be vague or contradictory, and that’s fine, bearing in mind the inferential gap. Likewise you’re going to find a few clots of irreducible spirituality if you dig deep enough into almost any religion, and that sort of comes with the territory. But if there are contradictions at the press-release level, or you’re seeing features of two or more spiritual systems kludged together without much care, or someone’s trying to preach nothing but irreducible spirituality in a quivering aspic of feel-good memes… those are bad signs.
I think the basics are the hardest part. In some sense the fancy mental states are not the things that’s hardest to learn. If you think you know the basics you won’t be in “beginners mind”. The hard thing is to see where you don’t get the basics.
When I lately asked for the basics of rationality of this website the first response I got was: “Could you please more clear, I don’t know what exactly you mean with basics.” Then I did get a bunch of interesting stuff but most of it wasn’t atomic.
Part of the reason why we don’t have a good Anki deck for rationality made by someone on Lesswrong is that we don’t know the basics of rationality well enough to break rationality down into atomic units that could be learned via Anki.
The post I wrote asking about the basic of rationality was motivated by having an experience during something of a meditation session with discussion afterwards in which I learned something new about basics and I think the teacher as well. And I’m a person who has years of experience with meditation, spent significant effort last year in trying to learn grammar to get a better understanding of individual chunks of meaning and tried to atomize knowledge for Anki learning for years.
You might be right, that you are probably not in a good position to give recommendations on finding a good teacher.