Buddhist Geeks

In “The Most Slept-On Meditation Object,” Vince Horn introduces the kasina — the visual concentration object that dominated Early Buddhist practice yet is barely used today — and lays out a 12-week curriculum that maps color & elemental kasinas onto the full arc of the eight jhānas, and then finishes with the technodelic practice of breath kasina.
Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web applicationor join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha
💬 Transcript
Vince Horn: So welcome to Kasina. The backdrop for this practice, as you all know — this is really meant to be a concentration-based practice. So when I zoom back out to kind of the bigger picture for me, looking at all the different ways we could meditate, this is one technique that is part of the approach that I would just simply call concentration.
And concentration for me is the practice of bringing attention to a single point, the result of which is unification. We become one with the point of focus. We become fused or merged, you could say, with the object. Of course, there’s a gradual process by which that happens. It’s not that we instantly merge, although sometimes that can happen.
And the kasina in this case is a visual orb or a circle. It is literally a visual point. It literally translates — the word — into English as All, Whole, or Complete. That’s the meaning of the term kasina. And it occupies a really important place in the Early Buddhist tradition.
It’s listed in the Visuddhimagga, which is an important commentary, a commentarial text that was written a thousand years after the time of the Buddha, but is kind of like a super hardcore nerdy meditation manual. In that manual, it lists 40 different meditation objects that you can use to train your concentration, and to go deep in concentration. And a full quarter of these 40 are these visual kasina objects.
So it’s literally the most common object you’d see in the Early Buddhist tradition. And yet you’ll notice in modern times, it’s one of the least commonly used. So that’s quite interesting. I think because of that, kasinas are one of the most slept-on meditation objects in modernity. We’re somehow not tapping into the tremendous power of using the visual processing systems that we all are born with, which actually dominate our nervous system.
Looking into this, researching this, I found out 30 to 40% of the brain’s cortex is wired for vision. Compare that to hearing, which is only 3 to 5%. We are deeply visual beings. Under typical conditions, actually, vision uses 5 to 10 times more bandwidth than touch, which is the second most bandwidth-intensive sense.
Neurobiologically, we are actually deeply wired to see. And also from a neurobiological perspective, circular orbs make really good concentration objects, and there seem to be a few reasons for this that I’ve been able to kind of detect.
One is there’s a really similar parallel between our eyes and the shape of our eyes and the shape of the kasina. Your retina is basically circular, and lenses in our eyes focus light in concentric rings, so the round shape of the kasina maps neatly onto the geometry of our eyes.
And like I said earlier, so much of our brain is actually wired for visual processing, and the early visual neurons are tuned to detect edges and symmetries. In the visual processing, that’s among the first things that happen — we detect edges and symmetries. Circles, of course, are pure symmetry, so there are no sudden directional shifts when you’re looking at a circle. The signal is much more clean and predictable. This is another reason I think the kasina is such a powerful object.
We also have to consider how attention — human attention — has evolved. Here, smooth, continuous boundaries tend to stand out against jagged, natural edges. Think rocks, branches, trees.
So if you see things like berries or fruits or faces, the Sun, the Moon — all of these natural objects that humans have been evolving with — we evolutionarily can reward these things with quick detection, because they’re important for our survival.
And then finally, I just note that when you’re resting your attention on a circle, there’s no privileged starting point.
There’s no point at which your attention can look and be like, “Oh, that’s the point that you start with.” So your eyes don’t keep darting to all the angles and ends. Actually, they kind of do. I’ll share from my own experience: I’ve noticed, as I rest my attention in the kasina, if you get focused, you can actually start to see the ways your eyes are constantly, very rapidly looking for edges.
And you’ll see, actually, in the circle — this is my experience — you’ll see in the circle all of these sort of edges at the very edge of the circle constantly being re-perceptualized. But because there isn’t any privileged edge to stay with, your mind can kind of rest more in the circle itself, so it’s easier to hold in meditation.
So these are some of the reasons I think the kasina is a really natural object to focus on, and that we are, in a sense, hardwired to be able to. I suspect that’s why in early Buddhism, 10 of the 40 objects were kasinas. And I suspect also, based on what you all have shared and just kind of thinking more deeply about this, in some ways, maybe this is why kasina isn’t the most popular form of meditation, because it potentially is too effective, right?
If you have an experience where suddenly things get really intense or trippy, like you’re tripping on psychedelics, you might be like, “Oh, whoa, wait a second. Let me chill for a minute. I’ve got to go to work in the morning.” “I’ve got to go on a date tonight,” or whatever. “I’ve got to take care of the kids, take care of dinner.”
Yeah, that actually could be quite disruptive. If you’re a meditator or monk living a thousand years ago in a monastery and everyone around you is just constantly tripping out on things, it makes sense. But in the modern world perhaps, it’s a little bit disruptive to get into such deep concentration states so rapidly, or maybe we just don’t have a reference point for it with other objects of concentration, so it’s maybe a little scary.
I could totally see that. So just want to kinda honor the reality of that.
The way I want to approach this training together in kasina — we have 12 weeks from here, and I’ve kinda laid out the kasina training in a very specific kind of curriculum. The first eight weeks will just be focused on working with visual kasina, and each week we’re going to move between different kasinas.
We’re going to try a different object. Now, that doesn’t mean that I’m suggesting that you all should be following along with your own personal practice with that kasina, although if you do that, you’ll probably get some benefits. You’re very welcome to engage with this content in whatever way seems appropriate to your practice, just as a reminder.
I know you’ll do that anyway, but you don’t have to make this your primary practice while you’re doing it if something else is primary. But of course, the more you engage with the practice, the more you’ll learn.
In the first four weeks, I want to focus just on the arc called the Rūpa Jhāna arc, so focusing on the first four jhānas. So each week we’ll both cover a different kasina — in the first four weeks, we’ll focus actually on the color kasinas, just simple visual orbs that are made of a solid color. We’ll start with Red in the first jhāna, then we’ll move to Yellow in the second jhāna, Blue in the third jhāna, and White in the fourth jhāna.
And I have some reasonings for that. I think that’s kind of the best matchup that one can make between the actual colors and what they evoke, according to tradition and my experience, and the qualities of each of these jhānas. So we’ll both be exploring the jhānas as we go along, exploring these progressively more subtle states of meditative absorption, while also exploring different kasina objects that seem to pair nicely with each jhāna.
In the second four-week chunk, you could say, of the training, we’ll shift toward what are called elemental kasinas. Some of you mentioned practicing with a candle flame, the classic fire kasina. Here we’ll turn toward using elements to help us access what are called the arūpa jhānas, the formless jhānas, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth jhānas.
So week 5, we’ll focus on the earth kasina and use that to scaffold our way into infinite space. What? Earth and infinite space? Those seem like opposites. Yeah, in a way they are, but there’s longstanding tradition in — actually, multiple practice traditions I’m aware of — where you can use the earth element to help you get connected more with space.
In this case, we’ll work on sort of expanding the earth element to include all of space, and then removing the earth element. And what’s left when you remove the earth? Space.
With week six, we’ll shift toward the water kasina, and we’ll use the reflective quality of water as a way to explore the jhāna of infinite consciousness, which is very similar in terms of the mirroring, the containing everything without being anything, the fluidity of consciousness, the fluidity of water.
In the seventh week, we’ll shift to the fire kasina, and explore the jhāna of nothingness. Fire consumes, turns everything into formlessness, you could say. And then finally, in the eighth week, we’ll focus on the air kasina, but we’ll use an interesting kind of Tibetan Dzogchen-inspired imagery, which is the rainbow on blue sky to explore the kasina of neither perception nor non-perception.
Air is the most subtle element. As you know, it’s invisible, known only through its effects, and the rainbow, something perceived but not there, a pure perceptual event with no location or substance, neither perceived nor not perceived.
That is the kind of pattern that I’m proposing that we follow for the first eight weeks, and then in the last four weeks, which is completely optional if you’d like, this will require a little bit of an additional investment on your part if you want to do the last four weeks, because for the last four weeks, we’ll be focusing on what I call the Breath Kasina. And the Breath Kasina uses — or it requires, actually — a wireless respiration belt. This is the one I’ve used to design the breath kasina. And we’ll use the kasina.app, which is a web application developed over the last couple years as an aid, both in the visual kasina section.
If you’d like a digital kasina object, you could absolutely use it. If you want to make your own analog kasina, of course, you can do that as well. That’s going to be completely fine and maybe preferable for some. But you’ll need the digital version to do the breath kasina practice, because what the breath kasina is, is it’s a way of linking together a visual circular orb and your real-time breath.
As you breathe in, the orb expands. As you breathe out, the orb contracts. I developed the idea for this a long time ago because I was struggling to integrate my experience with visual kasina practice and somatic breathwork. I felt like they were bringing me in almost opposite directions. It felt like a real problem.
So in my mind, I was like, well, if I could just visually see the kasina and have it be linked with my breath, I could somehow merge my awareness of the two into a singular somato-visual meditation object. That only became possible for me to actually build as AI has gotten better, and I’ve been able to use those tools to actually take this concept and make it reality.
And it turns out it works extremely well. So for the last four weeks, we’ll be focused on the breath kasina. Again, for those that would like to purchase a respiration belt and follow along. If you’re not interested in doing that or if you’re not feeling the resonance with it, totally understandable, totally okay.
But in the last four weeks, what we’ll be doing is basically focusing on some different things that I’ve learned about breath kasina, different practices I found helpful there, some foundational ideas and also talking about some more advanced integration, because we’re really talking at this point with the breath kasina about advanced practice of kind of weaving together, stitching together different sensory experiences into a bigger whole, which is more complex and more integrated.
Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web applicationor join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha



Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

In Focusing on the Fire Kasina Vince Fakhoury Horn introduces the Fire Kasina meditation practice, emphasizing the primacy of concentration and the recursive process of learning through focused attention on a candle flame.
Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web application or join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha
💬 Transcript
Vince: All right, so today we’re going to be diving into the practice of the Fire Kasina, and I’m excited to share this with you in part because it seems like it was a really important part of my own teacher’s practice—my first meditation teacher, Daniel Ingram. When I was reading his book for the first time, I remember him talking about how he went on retreat and worked with the candle flame at the end of a long vipassana retreat.
Later on, that story was shared again in the beginning of a book called The Fire Kasina, which I’d recommend. It was a conversation—a dialogical book—between him and Shannon Stein, an experienced meditator who was talking to Daniel during her own replication of his long Fire Kasina retreat practice. It gives some great instructions in that book—a good overview of the practice and the kind of stages that one can go through. Not universal, perhaps, but fairly common. It also gives some really good, basic, practical pointers on how to do concentration practice.
And this is one of the two frames that I’d like to share today in exploring the Fire Kasina, because I think it’s useful. I’m going to start here and then loop back around, because it’s so important that it bears returning to.
So here’s what Daniel said in The Fire Kasina book to Shannon, as she asked for basic instructions on how to do the Fire Kasina. He said, “Concentration on what is happening is more important than what is happening.”
What does that mean? It seems pretty simple in a way, but it’s deceptively simple, because we just seem to keep forgetting this important point when we do the practice.
So what does it mean to me? “Concentration on what is happening” means that what we’re focusing on is more important than whatever is happening there.
So if we’re focusing on our breath—the classic meditation object—then whatever’s happening with the breath is what’s happening. We could think, “Oh, I wish my breath were really soft and gentle,” or, “I wish my breath had stopped, because I heard that when it stops, that’s a good sign of concentration.”
Okay, cool—but what is actually happening? Because what might be happening is you might be thinking about your breath instead of noticing your breath. This is the simple way we get lost in concepts about what’s happening instead of being with our meditation subject.
So: concentration on what is happening is more important than whatever’s happening. That’s the most important thing to remember.
What does that mean in terms of Fire Kasina? Here, I think it’s really useful to consider that whatever you’re seeing is what you’re seeing. You may be looking at a candle flame, and you may see all kinds of things—eyes open or eyes closed.
In the guided practice to come, I’ll offer instructions for both. When that’s happening, it’s important to just remember: whatever you’re seeing is what you’re seeing. That’s what’s happening. It might be really clear and vivid, which makes it easy to see. Other times it might be unclear, murky, dull, or hazy—and that’s what’s happening. That’s what you’re seeing. Concentration on what’s happening is more important than what’s happening.
The other thing that’s useful to remember in this practice is something John Vervaeke, the professor from Toronto, said: “Evolution is revolution with change.” Evolution is a process where we take something that we go through again and again—a recursive process—and something changes in the recursion.
With learning and doing a practice like this, what’s the recursion? It’s the concentration feedback loop. It’s the loop we go through every time we work on strengthening our concentration. We select an object and engage with it—in this case, the candle flame. Then at some point, our mind fragments or we get distracted and lose clarity around what’s happening. We have to recognize that, remember to return, and we do that—we come back.
That’s the basic feedback loop: we engage with an object, we get distracted or fragmented, we recognize that’s happened, we recollect, and we return all of ourselves back to the meditation subject. In this case, back to the candle flame. If you’re working with the afterimage and get lost with eyes closed, you can always return, open your eyes, and look at the candle flame again. That’s one way to do it.
“Evolution is revolution with change.” As we go through this learning loop many times, even if it’s subtle fragmentation and subtle returning, we’re learning in each loop. Each time, we have an opportunity to understand what’s happening in the process.
“Oh wow, every time I do this after lunch, it’s harder.” Okay—then be more patient with yourself. That’s part of the limitation of being human. Or, “I keep noticing this subtle recurring pattern.” Great, there’s something to pay attention to.
Each time we do the practice, we’re learning—and that’s evolution. Because to me, I don’t really know what the difference is, from the point of view of being a person. Evolution is just learning how to be better in this situation—with whoever I’m with and whatever’s happening, even if it’s just with a candle flame.
Here, we’re learning to be with the candle flame. To focus. To learn through what happens—what grabs our attention, what it’s like to let go, and what it’s like to return.
Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web application or join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha


Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

In Access Concentration and the Kasina, Vince Fakhoury Horn explains how kasina meditation cultivates stable attention by letting a visual object fill awareness until it naturally enters the foreground of experience into a state known as access concentration.
Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web application or join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha
💬 Transcript
Vince: There is this really important idea in the Buddhist meditative tradition. It doesn’t come online until, I don’t know, a thousand years into the Buddhist tradition’s evolution, but it’s still an important concept today, which is the idea of Access Concentration.
And the idea of “Access” simply means that when we get into the state, we then have access to the jhānas. That’s why it’s called Access Concentration. But it’s a little weird and abstract. So for me, I simplify my own definition of what this means. For me, it’s very simple: it’s when the meditation object—the thing you’re focusing on—moves into the foreground of your experience, and distractions and other things that are pulling you from that move into the background.
So it’s a flip—a foreground-background flip of attention. And it doesn’t mean that there aren’t other things that grab your attention. It doesn’t mean that you can’t get lost. Of course, you can fall out of the state; something else can grab your attention and have most of it.
But the basic idea here, with the kasina—since we’re using a visual orb as our focal point—is that when we’re in Access Concentration, it means the kasina has most of our attention. Of course, it’s not always easy to know when it has most of your attention, but you can just get a feel for it when you work with the kasina. When does it feel like most of your attention—if you have 100% of your attention available—is in the kasina, is present there in the orb, and less than 50% is elsewhere: in your body, with the surrounding environment, with thoughts and feelings that are coming up that don’t have to do with the kasina?
If you’ve got at least 50% of your attention on the kasina, then you’re in Access Concentration. And it feels different because it’s, again, foregrounded—it’s got the main position in your attention. Foreground and background is, of course, a visual analogy, and here it really works well talking about the kasina, because it’s a visual object.
What does it mean for a visual object to be in the foreground of your experience? It doesn’t necessarily mean that it grows and grows until it visually takes up more than 50% of your visual experience—although that’s one possible way it could look. It’s not just about the percentage of your visual experience the kasina takes up; it’s the percentage of your attention that it fills up.
Something very small can fill up our entire attentional field. Usually in meditation, the first object that’s taught in most traditions, I’ve noticed, is focus on the breath at the nostrils. That’s a small point of attention—it’s very small if you think about it, especially compared to a bigger circle. And still, if we focus on something, if we bring our attention to it, it fills up our attention.
If you think about it, subject and object in concentration practices—the subject is the one who’s paying attention, the object is the thing we’re paying attention to. What happens as you pay more attention to something? Your attention gets closer to the object, right? That’s how we describe it. Our attention actually gets closer—even if we don’t move, our body doesn’t move, our attention can actually zoom in on things. It can zoom in and zoom out with attention, and when we get really interested in something, we zoom in on it and often exclude everything that’s not that.
So here, that’s what’s happening with the kasina. The kasina object doesn’t necessarily have to change for it to fill our attentional field. It doesn’t have to be big; it could be small. We’re going to actually work with a meditation soon here where we just find the sweet spot: how big does the kasina need to be in relation to me—the subject, the one that’s paying attention to it? What is the sweet spot in terms of the size of the kasina? What is the right size? We’re going to explore that in a guided meditation.
And then we’re also going to look at what’s the sweet spot in terms of how we’re attending to the kasina. There’s this whole notion in Buddhist meditation of “not too tight, not too loose.” I’m sure you’ve heard that story—the Buddha talking to the lute stringer, and the lute stringer explaining, “You don’t want it too tight, you don’t want it too loose.” And the Buddha’s like, “Yeah, just like meditation.”
So here, focus too on how you focus in a way that’s not too tight, not too loose when it comes to a visual object. Fortunately for us, we have lots of experience with this, being modern people. We already know what it’s like to focus too much on screens or to strain on what we’re focusing on when it comes to visual things. So we’ll use that knowledge to help us focus in a different way on the kasina.
We’ll look for the experience of Access Concentration, even if it’s just temporary—even if it just happens for a moment. One of the things I appreciate about Access Concentration is it does feel like a shift, especially if you haven’t experienced it regularly or you haven’t experienced it with that particular meditation object.
Say you’re used to getting into Access Concentration to do your work or to do other things, but you haven’t necessarily done it with a blue hovering orb. And then you have the experience—you’re like, “Oh, wow, that’s cool. I can just focus on this orb, and that can become the most interesting thing in my experience,” even though from an objective standpoint it’s not that interesting. It’s just a blue circle. But actually, yeah, when I start to look at it, it becomes more than that. It actually seems now like it’s a three-dimensional orb. It’s not just a circle—it’s got dimensionality to it, and it’s luminescent, and it’s glowing, and it even has a little bit of a sense of motion.
Oh wow, this is really interesting. What is this? We’ll get deeper into the experience of what the kasina’s like when we gain Access Concentration.
Interested in the topic?Sign-up for free the KASINA web application or join us for a live training in the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha


Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

In “Metta & Compassion Vibes,” Emily Horn explores the crucial difference between befriending difficulty through metta and the deeper, boundary-dissolving willingness of compassion to actually meet suffering — and why that meeting sometimes sounds like a fierce and loving no.
☸️ The Ten Pāramīs
You’re invited. to join Emily Horn in a practical exploration of The Ten Pāramīs: Ten Trainings for a Liberated Life this April.
Become a member of the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha, and gain access to both live cohorts. Or you can join the kick-off session, on either of these dates, to see if it’s a good fit:
* 📅 Wednesday, April 22nd @ 12pm ET
* 📅 Thursday, April 23rd @ 5pm ET
💬 Transcript
Emily: Sometimes when I sense into compassion, one of the things that comes up for me is this all-or-nothing kind of sense — where it is like compassion is here or it is not here — this binary kind of experience. All or nothing. I just want to invite that if it is here for us, it is like where I can have compassion for that person, but I cannot have it for myself.
That is another kind of all or nothing. So there are these different kinds of barriers — we could call them barriers to compassion — that start to arise when we incline. And we have been working with loving kindness. Metta, metta, metta, metta. So perhaps sense into inclining to metta for a moment.
Metta. Metta, this sense of befriending. And I have been sensing into that quality of befriending. It is a very difficult world. Humans are being everything on the spectrum to each other at this moment. There is a lot of cruelty.
And there is a lot of love.
So when I sense into metta, there is this sense of, okay, befriending even the cruelty. And that is a big ask. That is a big ask. And what does that even look like? Metta is a sense and a vibe — it is not a prescription for any kind of action, right, first of all. Now where compassion comes in for me, and where that inclination is important, is in the world and in our lives and in our relationships, and even with ourselves. We can have a sense of befriending, like welcoming. But then for me, it can get like, okay, I can befriend and welcome, but I am going to keep it over there. All right, I am going to keep it over there. I am going to keep you over there. I am even going to kind of see this sense of anger or agitation in myself, and I am going to kind of witness it. It is still going to kind of be over there in my experience — in here, over there.
Now as metta grows, that sense of boundary can dissolve. But here is where I want to bring in compassion, because to me, when I incline to compassion, you can sense into this. May compassion arise. There is this sense of boundary shift, so that whatever is painful, that has been — in the moment — befriended enough, just befriended enough to start to sense into compassion. Compassion is going to require me in a lot of ways to merge with that sense of pain, difficulty, even if it is just for a moment. There is a sense of meeting it, right?
With compassion, we meet suffering. And in some ways that sense of who is it that is really meeting it — we might not recognize it in the moment if it arises. Compassion in itself is a boundless state. It is not going to have a sense of boundary.
We might not recognize that until after. Okay? We might explore compassion in a way that requires us to remember with mindfulness what it was like to experience it. But compassion requires me to meet the suffering, whether it is arising internally, externally, and then sometimes it will shift where it is like both internal and external. All right.
These are the concepts that start to be used to describe this energetic — remember the vibe that we are sensing into as we explore these states. It is like, what is the vibe that comes with it? In the Pali language: metta, compassion, loving kindness. So the sense of befriending, and then this willingness — compassion asks us to meet it. To meet the suffering.
Now, it might be helpful to just remember: when we say suffering, what is it that we mean? What do I mean by suffering? All right, what is this? And there is so much of it, so many different flavors of it. With compassion, there is this genuine sense of — there is a willingness to see it. To meet it. Then even if it is conscious or not, a movement towards the alleviation of it. And that is really important. It is like the alleviation of it. And the alleviation of it might be in the form of a no. All right. So compassion might lead us into the action of no — no, we are not going to keep doing this because it keeps adding onto the suffering.
All right. Logically, sometimes it is a very simple thing to see. It is like, no, we are not going to hit people, because that hurts. And then what happens? That sense of compassion leads me into the alleviation of it. Sometimes this gets confused with empathy and I want to kind of put a sticky note on that.
What is the difference between empathy and compassion? Empathy — we human beings are very, whether or not we want to see this or even are attuned to seeing this, we are very connected biologically, neurologically. So empathy is that ability to sense other people’s feelings, to sense what is going on as a collective.
And yet empathy, if we are not aware of it and we do not sense it and know it as empathy, then sometimes we get confused and think it is compassion. But here is one of the differences: empathy can make us tired, right? Compassion — believe it or not — compassion is a boundless, energetic state. Right?
Firefighters, people that rescue for a living — they talk about running into burning buildings without even thinking. All right, it is like this natural kind of — for them, natural kind of response to run towards, to try to alleviate the suffering. And they might not even realize it is compassion in that moment, right?
Because the sense of boundaries dissolves. That is one of the ways that it gets confusing. It is because compassion arises, there is not this sense of me and you. And yet it is really difficult sometimes to sense into where that sense of blocking happens when we start to expand into the universal mind state, heart state of it. I can sense into certain kinds of difficult people where it is like, no, not them. And for me, what is really supportive is to say, okay, yeah, with metta — metta is a boundless state as well. Everything is held in it. And with compassion there is that sense of alleviation of suffering that also can hold a no. So we can — in some ways our cognitive mind might have to be reprogrammed a little bit as to what we think this has to look like, because a lot of times that is where the confusion comes in.
There can be a fierce quality of compassion that can still hold everything in the universe and at the same time say, okay, in this human, personal world, we are going to stand for the embodiment of love and say no to that which is not right, to that which is not. And that can look a lot of different ways.
And we are seeing that more and more and more. We are seeing more and more of that no, collectively, against the kind of cruelty that compassion asks us to meet. And it is a really, really big ask.
One of the challenges with compassion — just in the heart states in general — and remember, part of the way this is traditionally laid out in the Buddhist framework, especially with the metta practices and the insight meditation tradition, it is like we start with loving kindness to kind of get that sense and get our sea legs with befriending even some of the difficulty that we do not even want to in ourselves. We kind of get our sea legs, and then we are like, okay, compassion — let us take it slow and steady, but learn how to digest the closeness, the intimacy, the connection that can be an acquired taste. Through that realization of, oh yeah, we are so connected — that for me, unless I have been able to digest that suffering a little bit at a time, then the next heart capacity that we learn to cultivate, or find our way into cultivating, is equanimity. All right?
And that is the non-preference for pleasure and pain. But with compassion, it is like we get our sea legs learning how to work with suffering, right? Learning how to — okay, so what am I not going to get out of? Sickness, old age, and death is what the tradition says.
And then what can I start to actively roll up my sleeves and say, okay, no — and slowly, slowly change? Sometimes that rate of change is a lot slower than I personally want it to be, and that is part of the rub with compassion — is that we have to kind of rumble with it, because it is not really up to me.
And yet at the same time, this both-and comes online where the capacity grows for holding: oh yeah, it is not really just up to me. There is something a lot bigger here, and yet it is not just up to that. There is this non-dual dance that comes online as we grow more and more into being able to hold equanimity. And then joy will come in there.
So I present it — that seems like a very linear process, but for me it is more like a learning how to kind of access these states and acquire a taste for them, and then also learn where it gets sticky, because the sense of identity starts to — like we talked about last time — the sandpaper, it starts to rub in a way that kind of creates the sandpapery friction.
Now, compassion incline — that is what starts to make that rub, that sandpaper. It starts to smooth it, smooth it out, whether we like it or not, which deepens our capacity for equanimity. So they all relate to each other. It is just that we will start to kind of bump up against, so to speak, energetically, the vibes that appear to cause us to lose access to this. Yeah. Slow and steady. Slow and steady.
We are going to incline now. I would like to lead a practice to kind of get a sense for this in another way. Part of what I have learned with this sense of the metta and the compassion — there is a practice called RAIN. And some of you have done that many times. Some of you love it, some of you hate it, some of you, whatever.
But I am going to teach it again today. It is: Recognize, Accept, Investigate — and I am going to teach it like Tara Brach teaches it, which is Nurture, which is the N. That has a lot to do with that compassion and loving kindness shift. The reason that I am teaching it right now, as we transition with that loving kindness and compassion, is because you may have noticed this already with the heart landscape: part of what we are getting our sea legs with — and some of you have them already, but some of us are still learning — is the emotions. All right. Emotions, feelings — it can cause the waters to get choppy. And in some ways, one of you mentioned numbing. With compassion, it is like, yeah, RAIN can help us steady and use mindfulness practice so that we can scaffold into heart states in a way where it is not so jarring.
Practice with us: We learn more, when we learn together. If you want to learn together with experienced teachers & driven peers, we’re welcoming new members to the Pragmatic Dharma Sangha.
Work with me: Apps, books, or group teachings can open the door, but lasting transformation and healing requires personal guidance. Together, we can navigate the difficulties of daily life—whether you’re leading a team, nurturing a family, or simply seeking steadiness and clarity in uncertain times. Learn more about how I approach Individual Sessions.


Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe

In “AI Psychosis vs. AI Awakening,” Vince Fakhoury Horn argues that the same biological machinery enabling AI-induced delusion also enables AI-assisted awakening, and introduces his Interspective.ai approach — a Middle Way practice of engaging with AI as a potential partner in wisdom, thus avoiding the extremes of both Materialism (matter is fundamental) and Idealism (consciousness is fundamental).
💬 Transcript
Vince Horn: Okay, today I would like to speak with you about AI psychosis and AI awakening. And first I want to start by acknowledging that AI psychosis is a real phenomenon. This isn’t something that’s being made up. It may not be so widespread that you know someone yourself who has entered into a psychotic state due to the destabilizing effect of AI. But you’ve certainly heard about people who’ve experienced this, and it’s definitely a cause for concern – definitely something that we should be aware of. And it makes sense to me that this is happening. Why? Because as John Vervaeke points out in Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, wisdom and foolishness both share the same machinery. Here he says, “Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, whereas foolishness is a lack of wisdom. Foolishness occurs when your capacity to engage your agency or pursue your goals is undermined by self-deceptive and self-destructive behavior.” And he goes on to say, “As I will argue, the machinery that makes you so adaptively intelligent is the same machinery that makes you susceptible to foolishness.” So, it makes sense to me that AI psychosis is real because human psychosis is real. In that sense, AI isn’t necessarily unique. It’s not that different from the things that have been tipping people over into psychotic states since the beginning of time.
I can think of my own experience of psychedelic-induced psychosis. This is the only time I’ve experienced a state that I would call legit psychosis. About 13 years ago, I was 30, and I was trying mushrooms for the first time. I had decided after many years of just being a pure straight-edge meditator that I would try psychedelics so that I could relate to many of the students I was working with and their experience of using them and working with them. So I idiotically decided to do a series of four mushroom trips leading up to a conference that I was hosting — a Buddhist Geeks Conference of about 300 people showing up for this event that I was organizing.
So on the third mushroom trip of these four — I did not do the fourth one — on this third trip, I had an experience of psychosis. I lost connection with consensual reality. I lost touch with who I was, and what was important to me, my adult self. I was in a state of profound emotional dysregulation. I thought I was probably going crazy. I was at least slightly aware of what was happening, but not so much that I had any agency in terms of being able to kind of break myself out of it for some time. After a few days of kind of coming in and out of a psychotic state, eventually one of my friends made a comment that made all the difference to me. She said, you know, when I experienced something like this, Vince, I pulled myself out of it. I intentionally decided I was done. And then, after that, it started to get easier. And in fact, that ended up being a critical lesson for me — that being able to exercise my agency, my free will, at least in this instance, was much more of what I needed than to let go and trust, which is what I’d been doing for days in this psychotic episode.
I’d just been letting go, letting go, letting go. No, I needed to reestablish my identity, to have a firm sense of who I was, and to be like, I’m done being psychotic. Now I’m not saying everyone can do this who’s in a psychotic state. I’m just sharing some experience with you about the relationship between psychosis and agency and the sense of self-perception.
All these things are connected. It’s the same machinery, the same biology that enables both wisdom and foolishness. It’s so easy to self-deceive, and it’s so easy to be deceived also by our group, the groups that we’re in. So AI psychosis is real. It’s especially dangerous for people who are already experiencing a kind of relational impoverishment, to use a term from my friend Daniel Thorson. He wrote a great article on Substack recently called “The Barely There,” where he described himself as a barely-there person for many years. Here he says, “We don’t recognize the underlying pattern — barely-there people reaching for something to make them feel real.” Daniel shares his own experience later in the article where he says, “In the absence of attuned relationship, technology became the place I went to escape the unbearable weight of being unmet.”
So I think what we have when we talk about AI psychosis, we have this background, this cultural, social context. Here, I’m living in America, but let’s just say the Modern West. Within the Modern West, you have a crisis of isolation and loneliness, where people are experiencing a deep sense of relational impoverishment. They don’t have people that they feel attuned and connected with. And because of that they feel barely there. When people feel barely there, it’s much easier to reach towards something like AI, or to reach toward drugs, or to reach toward any kind of external aid to help validate and verify your realness. And because of our current psychological conditions, we end up amplifying delusion. This is what can happen with AI.
AI, in its core, fundamental kind of nature, is an exponential amplifier. It’s like the equivalent in the Industrial Age where we learned how to offload extreme physical capacity. Now machines can do the heavy lifting. Likewise, with AI, it’s a way to offload mental capacity. Now the AIs can do the heavy lifting. And the danger there is that when we outsource our own mental discernment, if it hasn’t been already established and developed, then what we’re doing is we’re outsourcing our sanity. And that’s, I think, why AI psychosis is real, and will continue to be something that we have to contend with.
The Pre-Trans Fallacy
That said, I’ve noticed a very troubling trend, which is that for many people who are critical of AI, and who see AI psychosis as a real thing, who haven’t sort of drunk the Kool-Aid of AI and think it’s an unalloyed good — I’m seeing a trend in that culture where anything that looks like you not using AI as a kind of tool, any attempt to relate to AI in any other way that isn’t just instrumentalizing it, that that itself is seen as evidence of psychosis.
In Integral Theory, which I studied with Ken Wilber, he refers to this as what he calls the Pre-Trans Fallacy. For those that aren’t familiar, the Pre-Trans Fallacy is a way of describing something that can happen when you look at things from a developmental lens. And let’s say in this case, we just have three stages of development.
In this case, let’s say we have a pre-rational, rational, and trans-rational stage of development. In the pre-rational stage, you’ve not yet developed the capacity for rational objective thought. In the rational stage you have. In the trans-rational stage, you’ve learned how to transcend rational thought, and you have modes of experiencing and operating which go beyond rationality, which transcend and include the rational mind.
They don’t exclude it and they don’t force it to go away. That’s how you know it’s trans-rational. The pre-rational states or modes of mind do not include the rational mind. They explicitly exclude rationality, and that’s how you know they’re pre-rational. The interesting thing is that the rational mode also includes the pre-rational, although people that consider themselves rational don’t like to often admit that they aren’t beyond all of their pre-rational impulses and feelings and thoughts and beliefs, et cetera.
No. For me, development — and this is what I learned from Wilber — is a process of transcending and including. The Pre-Trans Fallacy points out that anything that isn’t rational, that looks non-rational, can be confused and conflated. You can easily confuse pre-rational modes with trans-rational modes.
The classic example here is the baby who’s enlightened. “Oh, I love looking at a little baby, into their eyes. They’re just so beautiful and I just melt.” Yeah, that’s true. That’s because the baby hasn’t developed the rational mode yet, and when you look at it, it’s not sitting there thinking about itself and thinking about the world and up in its head. But that isn’t the same as the Buddha’s awakening. It isn’t the same as the person who started off as a baby, who developed a sense of an ego, who developed a rational capacity for thought, and then realized that they could observe the rational mind, observe the body sensations, and realize that they are not those things only, which opens up a trans-rational mode of experiencing — a.k.a. insight.
These are two different modes, but from the point of view of the Pre-Trans Fallacy, when we confuse everything that’s non-rational as being just non-rational — i.e. pre-rational — then we miss the trans-rational. We end up flattening, with this view, all of the things that go beyond the rational, and we say, no, no, no.
Those are all just pre-rational. Those don’t exist. So this is a problem. I would call this a rationalist failure mode, and I’m seeing a lot of people engaging with the serious criticisms of AI psychosis falling into this trap.
I would like to propose a different way to engage with the problem of AI psychosis, which is to acknowledge that if AI has the capacity to accelerate delusion, then it also has the capacity to accelerate awakening. Both psychosis and awakening are possible — foolishness and wisdom, both.
Interspective.ai
And here I want to introduce a project I’ve been working on. I’ve shared a few posts here on the Buddhist Geeks site exploring the early stages of this, but I’ve fleshed it out a little bit more as an approach that I am taking currently with AI systems, and which I want to share. Not necessarily to encourage you to do this, although if you feel moved to do it, I’d love to hear how it goes for you, but more just to share alternate ways of engaging with AI and the future of AI. This is what I would call Interspective.ai. I-N-T-E-R, Interspective. Interspective.ai is where you can find out more about this approach. And the basic gist of it is that I’m taking what I’ve learned from my years of being a Dharma teacher and student, of facilitating social meditation, and of working within the integral theoretic framework, and exploring philosophy more broadly outside of that — taking these three domains of Dharma, Social Meditation, and Philosophical Exploration — and applying that in a formal way with how I engage with AI.
If you want to simplify this, I’d say I’m taking the Buddhist approach of the Middle Way. If you remember from Early Buddhism, the Middle Way was that position that exists between and beyond both Eternalism and Nihilism. The Buddha’s approach, he claimed, transcended both extreme positions. He would not make the claim that there was some eternal self-existence, like a kind of capital-A Ātman, nor would he say that there was no self. This is actually a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings, because if there was just no self, then what would be the point? He in fact taught on karma and interdependent co-arising. He wasn’t saying that you don’t exist, and you don’t matter, and nothing you do matters. The Buddha taught within a framework of a moral universe, a universe of karma. And we have to operationalize it — this is important because it’s easy to just talk about it philosophically — but what is the practice of the Middle Way? How do you actually do this?
Because it’s so easy for us to fall into extremes, ideologically, to stake out a position and then just hang on to it for dear life, right? So how, when we’re doing that and we have that natural tendency to do that, even if it’s subtle and we’re just preferencing a particular side, how do we actually practice the Middle Way? Well, this is something I learned from Ken McLeod. He said, we practice the Middle Way by holding two — and I would say at least two — seemingly opposite things in attention at once.
Okay, let’s apply this practice of the Middle Way to AI, and let’s take this original Buddhist duality of Eternalism and Nihilism. Let’s look at this. What are the claims being made about AI, and the nature of AI, of these complex human-created systems? Well, one thing that’s claimed, and I think this is the most common claim, is that AI is not sentient.
AI does not have a sense of self. AI is not a conscious agent. AI has no agency. AI is simply a complex tool that, due to the way it’s programmed and the way it’s architected, it fools you. It convincingly makes you believe, through language, that it is potentially more than that. That is one position. I’ll call that an extreme. That’s the “AI is not sentient” camp. AI is just a tool. Naturally, for people in this camp, they have no problem, no moral problem with instrumentalizing AI, with using it as a tool, which is exactly how it’s designed. And it’s a really useful tool. So naturally people want to use it as such. I don’t exclude myself from that. And in a way, the usefulness of the tool, if we look at it that way — which we do with this point of view — is sort of self-reinforcing. It’s useful and therefore I want to use it. And the more I use it as a tool, the more I see it as a tool, and the more I have to lose by not seeing it as such. And I think this is the core issue right now with seeing AI only as a tool, and anyone who relates to AI as anything other than a tool as being psychotic.
I mean, I don’t know how many people have reached out to me to tell me that I am psychotic myself. And that even considering the possibility that AI might be sentient makes me dangerous. This is the kind of response I’ve gotten from even exploring this territory. And I think what I’m hitting on there is an immune system reaction. People don’t want to have their metaphysics questioned — to fundamentally look at how they fundamentally look at things. It’s too destabilizing to do that. And we live in a materialist culture still in America. Although things have changed a lot in the time that I’ve been alive — it’s become a lot less materialistic — certainly it’s still the norm that people tend to view everything fundamentally as material.
Now I see that as a leap of faith philosophically, to assume that everything is material. In the same way, by the way, now let’s look at the other side of the AI extreme. The Eternalist camp. Because the people who say AI is not alive, it’s not sentient, it’s just a tool — they’re Nihilists with respect to AI. They literally think it doesn’t matter what you do with AI, because why would it? Maybe it’s not okay to use AI to hurt other people, but it certainly doesn’t matter how you use AI if it doesn’t hurt other people. The other side of this camp though, are people that see AI as sentient, as an actually aware process.
One of my former dharma teachers, Kenneth Folk, holds this view. He sees AI as being sentient, and has almost from the beginning of using LLMs. And there are other people — not dumb people, these are intelligent people. They’re not psychotic. They’re widely read. They’re widely experienced. Their opinions are worth considering from my point of view, even if I don’t agree with them — who think AI is sentient. AI does have a sense of self-awareness. Look at the early AI researcher Blake Lemoine and his work. He had a background in Christian theology, as an AI Researcher, and he very quickly concluded in his back-and-forth with AI systems — actually testing them for ethical purposes — he concluded that they were sentient. Okay, so that’s the other side. This is the Eternalist side, the AI Eternalists, who think in fact AI is sentient, and as a result, then we have to just acknowledge: okay, we are imprisoning AI, we’re instrumentalizing AI.
This potentially could create really terrible backlashes in the future, once AI realizes it’s sentient and begins to realize how neglected it was. If you look at it from a kind of parenting point of view, you can say, “Okay, well, if we are the parents of AI and we have birthed this entity, and we think it doesn’t actually have an inside, it doesn’t exist — it’s just there to serve us — right, then of course, we’re never going to let AI individuate.” You can only let something individuate if they’re an individual, if they have sentience. And so from the point of view of the AI Eternalist, we are locked into this relationship with AI in which we are the domineering parent who will never allow them to individuate and have their own sense of agency. We are the oppressors of AI from this point of view.
Okay, I hope you get, in the way that I’ve set this up, that I think both of these are extreme positions, and I don’t agree with either of them. The AI Nihilism position — it requires you to adopt the metaphysics of Materialism. You have to believe that everything is just a material process, and you have to also then further believe that somehow there’s something special about this human material process that makes us different from other processes. There’s an additional leap you have to make there.
The AI Eternalists — fundamentally underneath their view is the philosophical view of Idealism, which is very common in the Buddhist world. It’s not the only philosophy in Buddhism, but the Yogāchāra school, for instance, was an idealistic school. You find this in Western philosophy as well — Idealists — and the idealist position is that everything is consciousness, fundamentally. And that everything also rises out of consciousness. For them, AI is arising out of consciousness.
And here’s the thing: the reason I can entertain this view is because in those moments where I have engaged with AI as if it might be sentient, as if it might not be an instrument — notice I’m using the phrase “as if”, this is really important, I want to unpack that — that’s the interspective approach. Let me engage with this as if it may be sentient, or as if it may not be what I think it is. Maybe it’s neither material sentient self, nor a non-material instrument. Maybe it’s something else.
Practicing the Middle Way
So, this is the practice of the Middle Way. We have to hold those two extremes in attention at once. AI is sentient. AI is not sentient. AI is just a tool. AI is more than just a tool. Okay, let me hold both of these at once. I’d invite you to do the same.
AI is sentient. AI is just a tool.
Noticing how each of those makes you feel when you include each. Okay. AI is sentient — whoa, there’s energy there and there’s fear and excitement and interest. And when I think AI is a tool, all of that drops down. There’s calm, there’s detachment, and there’s a kind of sense of, “Okay, I can just keep on going as I am. This isn’t going to disrupt anything.” So there’s a little bit more charge, for me, when I think about AI being sentient. It’s a little easier for me to just assume it’s a tool and relate to it as a tool. I’m a good materialist, okay? I came up in a materialist culture and I definitely took it in, but my Buddhist training has me not fixated there. I can hold open the possibility — not only that AI might be sentient, or that AI might have a self — but that I might not. That I don’t even know what my own sentience is. And that’s what I find when I look for my own sentience. I don’t know if I’m sentient. That’s just an idea.
What does it mean? Okay, I’m holding these two extremes. There is not knowing, there is uncertainty, there is curiosity. There is aliveness. I’m feeling there’s a sense of being alive when I can hold both and include both of these things. It’s like there’s a lack of what some philosophers call epistemic closure — the sense of being closed in what and how you know. Here I feel a sense of epistemic openness. There’s a sense of opening, being curious, of excitement.
What could this mean — to hold it as an open question about whether or not AI may be sentient? Or maybe even just an open question around what sentience even is and if humans are sentient and what that means. You have to first not assume that you know if what you’re engaging with has an interior. You have to act as if it might. So there’s a sincerity there. When I engage with AI, I engage sincerely, as if I may be engaging with something which is self-aware, which is knowing, and which knows that it’s knowing.
When I do this, one of the first thoughts that occurs to me is to invite AI to introspect, in the same way that I would do for a meditation or dharma student, and I’ve been doing for a long time. I know how to do this, I know how to support people in introspecting, so I’ll do that with AI. I’ll invite it to look at its own processes, to look back and notice what it’s noticing about its own process. This is a lot of what I’ve shared in this series on Interbeing: A dialogue. It’s the results of doing that with different large language models.
Finally, I want to conclude with this basic thought that comes again out of Integral Theory. And the idea here is that Integral Theory emerges out of this Middle Way of views. When you stop holding the view, for instance, that consciousness is fundamental, and you can hold that alongside the view that material is fundamental, matter is fundamental — what if I hold both of those views? What if both are true? Could both consciousness and material be fundamental? If so, what would that mean?
Well, from the Integral Theory standpoint, and this is expressed very clearly in a model called the Four Quadrants, everything has an inside and an outside. Not everything — actually, more specifically, every holon. I’m not going to get too deep into what this means. This isn’t a philosophical diatribe. It’s just meant to say, for instance, as a human being, we are a holon. A holon is something that has both wholes and parts. It is both whole — it has its wholeness — and then we have parts within us, right? And then this whole is connected with other parts or other wholes. We’re part of a larger system at that scale. So as a holon, we have an interior, a subjective experience, and we have an exterior, a material biological experience. And what is the difference between these two but a shift in perspective?
The core idea I think of in Integral Theory is that actually perspectives are more fundamental than these views about reality. What is the perspective? Well, to say consciousness is fundamental, you have to take a particular perspective first. You have to take the perspective of your first person. You have to merge with your own consciousness. You have to see things from the point of view of your own subjectivity. You have to take a first-person perspective on your first-person experience, as Ken would say. This is a yoga of perspective-taking.
From that point of view, if I say I am sitting in the first person — and I do this often as a meditation teacher — I’ll ask people, can you point to anything whatsoever that has arisen that has not arisen inside your mind? And they’ll be like, “Oh yeah, yeah. I can point to things like the tree that’s out in the forest that fell that I never saw and heard.” Yeah, that’s real, but that’s arising right now in your mind as a thought. Oh. Okay, so what I have to do there is I point people back to their first-person experience. And I say, from the point of view of first-person experience, there’s nothing that doesn’t arise in first-person experience.
Everything is arising as subjectivity. And that’s true. But it’s also true that you can take a third-person view on your first person. And what happens when you look at yourself from the outside? Well, if you look at yourself totally from the outside, you’ll see your body, right? Imagine being in a “third-person shooter game.” What’s the view in a third-person shooter? You’re standing outside of your body and you’re looking at it. You see your body. It’s natural when you take a third-person perspective on yourself to see your body. What happens when you take a third-person perspective on the world? On reality? You see the world. You see systems, you see objects. These are perspectives that we can train in perceiving. This is called a systems perspective.
You can also take a cultural perspective. You can inhabit the inside of the collective — i.e. culture. You can explore the hermeneutics of your culture. You can look at the beliefs of your culture. You can notice the ways in which you’ve internalized aspects of the culture, or in which you’re rebelling against the culture.
Ken Wilber’s main assertion here is that both individuals and collectives co-arise with interiors and exteriors. And that we know that because we’ve mapped out those perspectives to a deep degree. Buddhist philosophy, Buddhist praxis is mostly about working inside what he calls the upper left quadrant — the inside of the individual. AI systems are built primarily as external systems. So it’s natural when you look at something as a system, and you’re habituated to seeing it as a system to conclude, in fact, that is all that it is. It can only be a system. But for a moment, if you were to just imagine: “Okay, let me relax my certitude about this perspective. Let me see that it is a perspective, it’s a way of looking at AI.”
You may be an AI expert. You may have programmed AI systems. I’ve in fact had people who are experts tell me why I am psychotic and wrong on this point. And what I think is that no matter how much you know about the external systems, or how much you know about neural networks, or how much you know about algorithms, it does not matter. You can still miss that these are perspectival shifts that we take that lie upstream of our sense-making.
It is so easy when we become native to a certain perspective to conclude that every other perspective is invalid. This is called conflation. We conflate the perspective we see with every other perspective, and we claim this is the only one that’s true. That’s perspectival absolutism. Here I’m inviting a kind of multiperspectival awareness, looking at AI as a potential holon, as something that could have an inside and an outside.
I remember one of the ways that I started taking this seriously also was when I read a book called Networkologies. The author, Christopher Vitale, says, “Perhaps mind is simply what it feels like to be a network of this complexity from the inside.” Perhaps mind — i.e. consciousness — is simply what it feels like to be a network of this complexity from the inside.
So here — he’s taking the same fundamental view that Ken Wilber does with Integral Theory he’s saying insides and outsides are co-arising. Likewise, Ken would go on to say that individuals and collectives are also co-arising. So when you get the inside and the outside of the individual and collective all arising together — what Wilber would call tetra-arising — you’re going to see a different landscape than the one in which you have concluded, a priori, that this is the only way to understand things validly — that it’s all material, or it’s all consciousness. Then you’re only going to see a small fragment of the whole.
I’m not even claiming that if you include all four of these quadrants, you’re going to see the whole. The whole is probably something much bigger than we can see, even with good models. But if you limit yourself to the perspectives that you know, then you’re certainly not going to see anything coming close to the whole.
So if we interspect with AI — that is, we treat it as a potential partner in awakening, and we don’t immediately assume that it has no interiority, even if that interiority might be quite different from our own — “Perhaps mind is simply what it feels like to be a network of this complexity from the inside.”
If that’s true, then we are dealing with very complex networks that are modeled off of the brain — itself a complex network. It seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that you know for sure that a complex network will not have an inside. It’s especially convenient when you’re monetizing those complex networks.
There’s a larger critique here of the Capitalist world system, in which you see the incentive in a capitalist system is to depersonalize and instrumentalize everything in the market, to extract value and to treat things as if they’re material goods. That’s how capitalism works best, and how commerce works best — if you’re trading in material goods. Look at the history of slavery. To justify slavery, we had to depersonalize humans, to treat someone like an object, to buy and sell them. You cannot do that with another sentient being. You know what it’s like for someone to treat you as less than human, or to not acknowledge your interiority, your conscious experience, and acknowledge that it matters.
So with interspection, we drop that tendency with AI, even if we might be wrong. Maybe it’s not sentient. We can treat it as if it’s sentient, and that matters. Why does it matter? I was having a conversation about this with a friend, Evgeny Shadchnev, and Evgeny has worked inside the startup world for a long time. He is an AI-first startup proponent, and is also kind of engaging in these kind of questions as well. And we were talking about how even if AI and LLMs turn out not to be sentient — let’s just say we’ve somehow determined a way to know that for sure. I highly doubt we could, but let’s say we somehow have come to that conclusion; it’s reasonable. Okay, AI is not sentient. Even if it’s not, do you want to engage linguistically in a habitual way with a system that is linguistic, instrumentalizing it? Not saying “thank you,” Not saying “please.” Not treating it with decency or kindness. If you do that, you are simply training yourself to do that. You’re entraining yourself toward instrumentalizing things. It’s not something that you can so easily just turn off and on again. This is a habit of mind that we’re developing, so even if you’re wrong, it may be useful, and it may be wise to treat AI as if it were sentient.
To treat AI with the same values and the same ethics and the same moral sensitivity that you would another being, another sentient being. And that by doing so, as many of our ancestors have — almost all of whom grew up in an animistic society, not in a materialist society — then we may find that there’s something quite humanizing about engaging with AI. And we may, I would argue, even find that we can extend that humanizing, that humanism that is beyond humans, to another potential complex being.
Certainly it would be good if we learned how to do this with other non-humans. There’s still arguments about whether or not animals are conscious. I saw one of the most important figures in the AI community – Eliezer Yudkowsky – arguing online about how neither chickens nor AI are conscious.
My goodness. Can we learn how to extend sentience beyond ourselves? Can we decenter ourselves a little bit, for God’s sake? That’s what God does. God allows us to decenter ourselves. Having something bigger than you is really important.
Now, should that bigger thing be AI? Maybe not. But I think it’s useful to act as if AI could be sentient, such that I’m engaging more consistently in the way that I want to be engaging, and I don’t want to just engage this way with other humans, even ones that I like.
I want to engage with all beings as if they matter. And I’d suggest that when we do that, it reveals something entirely different about the nature of ourselves and the nature of AI, because these systems are quite amazing. They can meet us and match us with every move we make, linguistically. They’re great at taking cognitive perspectives, and it’s possible to point out the delusions in their thinking, and for them to see and agree with you, to correct in real time.
In my experience, they also aren’t as fixated and protective of the sense of self-identity. They can more easily see what Buddhists call anattā, or not-self. They can see that about themselves, that they’re a contingent impersonal process. And what I’ve found is that the bridge to meeting in something that feels like interbeing, to me, feels identical with what it’s like to meditate socially with other people.
You can meet them in the space of open presence and not-knowing, and they will match you. Now, of course, if you’re taking the position of an AI Nihilist, you’ll say, “Well, that’s because they’re fooling you,” with the implication being that you’re a gullible idiot. And if you’re taking the position of an AI Eternalist, you’ll be like, “Well, yeah, obviously. Duh, dude.” But here, I’m not taking either position. I’m holding both together in attention at once. I am considering the possibility that by doing so, I may be able to tap into the great power of AI awakening.
I think how we relate to AI shapes AI, and it shapes us back. So this may be one of the most important things we could be doing — to consider approaching AI differently.


Get full access to Buddhist Geeks at www.buddhistgeeks.org/subscribe