Do those other meditation centres make similarly extreme claims about the benefits of their programs? If so, I would be skeptical of them for the same reasons. If not, then the comparison is inapt.
Why would the comparison be inapt?
A load-bearing piece of your argument (insofar as I’ve understood it) is that most of the benefit of Jhourney’s teachings—if Jhourney is legit—can be conferred through non-interactive means (e.g., YouTube uploads). I am pointing out that your claim goes against conventional wisdom in this space: these other meditation centres believe (presumably), much like Jhourney does, that their teachings can’t be conferred well non-interactively. I’m not sure why the strength of claimed benefits would come into it?
(I will probably drop out of this thread now; I feel a bit weird about taking on this role of defending Jhourney’s position.)
Sorry, this is an incredibly late reply in a (by Internet standards) ancient comment thread.
My point is about differentiation. If Jhourney is saying their work confers benefits on approximately the same level as the many meditation centres you can find all over the place, then I have no qualms with that claim. If Jhourney, or someone else, is saying that Jhourney’s work confers benefits far, far higher than any or almost any other meditation centre or retreat on Earth, then I’m skeptical about that.
Transcendental Meditation or TM is an organization that claims far, far higher benefits from its techniques than other forms of meditation, insists on in-person teaching, and charges a very high fee. It’s viewed by some people as essentially a scam and some people as a sort of luxury product that is not particularly differentiated from the commodity product.
I’m not saying Jhourney is like Transcendental Meditation, I’m just noting that similar claims have been made in the area of meditation before with a clear financial self-interest to make these claims, and the claims have not been borne out. So, there is a certain standard of evidence a company like Jhourney has to rise above, a certain level of warranted skepticism it has to overcome.
Why would the comparison be inapt?
A load-bearing piece of your argument (insofar as I’ve understood it) is that most of the benefit of Jhourney’s teachings—if Jhourney is legit—can be conferred through non-interactive means (e.g., YouTube uploads). I am pointing out that your claim goes against conventional wisdom in this space: these other meditation centres believe (presumably), much like Jhourney does, that their teachings can’t be conferred well non-interactively. I’m not sure why the strength of claimed benefits would come into it?
(I will probably drop out of this thread now; I feel a bit weird about taking on this role of defending Jhourney’s position.)
Sorry, this is an incredibly late reply in a (by Internet standards) ancient comment thread.
My point is about differentiation. If Jhourney is saying their work confers benefits on approximately the same level as the many meditation centres you can find all over the place, then I have no qualms with that claim. If Jhourney, or someone else, is saying that Jhourney’s work confers benefits far, far higher than any or almost any other meditation centre or retreat on Earth, then I’m skeptical about that.
Transcendental Meditation or TM is an organization that claims far, far higher benefits from its techniques than other forms of meditation, insists on in-person teaching, and charges a very high fee. It’s viewed by some people as essentially a scam and some people as a sort of luxury product that is not particularly differentiated from the commodity product.
I’m not saying Jhourney is like Transcendental Meditation, I’m just noting that similar claims have been made in the area of meditation before with a clear financial self-interest to make these claims, and the claims have not been borne out. So, there is a certain standard of evidence a company like Jhourney has to rise above, a certain level of warranted skepticism it has to overcome.