I’m wondering whether the spiritual attractor that we see in claude is somewhat because of the detail of instructions that exist within meditation to describe somatic and ontological states of being?
The language itself is a lot more embodied and is a lot closer to actual sensory experience compared to western philosophy and so when constructing a way to view the world, the most prevalent descriptions might make the most amount of sense to go down?
I’m noticing more and more how buddhist words are so extremely specific. For example of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) is not just suffering it is unsatisfactoriness and ephemeral at the same time, it is pointing at a very specific view (prior model applied to sense data), a lot more specific than is usual within more western style of thinking?
I’m wondering whether the spiritual attractor that we see in claude is somewhat because of the detail of instructions that exist within meditation to describe somatic and ontological states of being?
The language itself is a lot more embodied and is a lot closer to actual sensory experience compared to western philosophy and so when constructing a way to view the world, the most prevalent descriptions might make the most amount of sense to go down?
I’m noticing more and more how buddhist words are so extremely specific. For example of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) is not just suffering it is unsatisfactoriness and ephemeral at the same time, it is pointing at a very specific view (prior model applied to sense data), a lot more specific than is usual within more western style of thinking?