Oh, man.

Well, there was one night, you guys all went to bed.

I'm out there just trying to get stuff set up for the next day.

And she had her head just down, kind of crouched low, like she was sneaking in.

And all I had was my headlamp.

And I just look and I see eyes.

And it was down at that level.

Including the kitchen sink.

coming? I sure hope so.

I sure hope so.

So, I met Caleb, this would have been last year, at Bear Camp.

I guess I didn't drive him nuts in that little bit of time that we had there.

So he invited me out again.

And then I met you, Ken.

It would have been a few years ago.

Yeah.

I do think there's a qualitative difference there.

Yeah.

Yeah, definitely.

Yeah.

And I think, yeah, and I think, and again, you know, the, the whole notion of vedana, the sensations also, as you said earlier, fits into this notion of, of another key piece, which is, you know, sankhara and this purification model, right? Which, you know, I, I, um, I, I ne- I, I, I haven't seen the, any reference for that inside U Ba Khin's, uh, models.

Um, and, you know, and, you know, just, just, just to say, like another part of what I sort of discovered in reading the, the canon was, uh, just how the Buddha kind of refuted a purification model, um, straight out.

Um, you know, and, and, um, you know, in, I think it's in the, um, Majjhima Nikaya, like I think it, I think it's 101.

And now that you've stepped outside of it and done this deeper dive into the canon, uh, how do you hold that contrast between what works and what's doctriny- doctrinally sound? And do you think it matters if the framework is mythologically wrong, we can say, but pragmatically useful, or does the wrong framework eventually limit the practitioner?