Soryu’s asking us if we should take on those “recommendations” from Shinzen were, by my understanding at least, largely rhetorical. With Soryu’s statements and tone within that talk it was clear he did not favor abiding by them at all.
If it was rhetorical (which I did not take it as), it was not treated that way within the community. The 3 recommendations were repeated many times, brought up and discussed in multiple group discussions, by multiple different people in leadership, discussed in all group meetings as well as leadership meetings, with, and without Soryu present.
Most of the changes I saw came around changing our admissions process to better filter people and doing a better job of explaining the rigour of the training.
Soryu had just had his close friend call him, screaming, and any attempt by him to talk or ask clarifying questions was met with him being screamed over. My sense of the situation was someone who had just dealt with that, nevertheless trying to take the feedback seriously.
It’s understandable that you disagree with Kyle’s assessment of MAPLE and of this meeting; that’s why you’re still there and he’s not. As an interested bystander, let me suggest reserving at least one of these comment threads for identifying and resolving factual disputes.
There’s a factual dispute here that could be resolved by making the full meeting recording available to a trusted third party. Would you respond to that suggestion?
If it was rhetorical (which I did not take it as), it was not treated that way within the community. The 3 recommendations were repeated many times, brought up and discussed in multiple group discussions, by multiple different people in leadership, discussed in all group meetings as well as leadership meetings, with, and without Soryu present.
Most of the changes I saw came around changing our admissions process to better filter people and doing a better job of explaining the rigour of the training.
Soryu had just had his close friend call him, screaming, and any attempt by him to talk or ask clarifying questions was met with him being screamed over. My sense of the situation was someone who had just dealt with that, nevertheless trying to take the feedback seriously.
Trinley,
It’s understandable that you disagree with Kyle’s assessment of MAPLE and of this meeting; that’s why you’re still there and he’s not. As an interested bystander, let me suggest reserving at least one of these comment threads for identifying and resolving factual disputes.
There’s a factual dispute here that could be resolved by making the full meeting recording available to a trusted third party. Would you respond to that suggestion?
Hey friend,
I don’t currently have the authority to make this happen unfortunately.
Thank you for responding to this; I appreciate it.
I’m pretty surprised by the disagree vote. Does someone think I DO have the authority to make this happen?