This thread is for careful reading, not quote-mining. Meridian language gives us vocabulary, while the experiential interpretations belong to their authors.
Not sure if that makes sense, but that is how it felt.
Members cite Meridian for language, not permission. The good threads here are about the boundary between source material and wishful reading.
Useful thread. I would keep the language descriptive: what happened, when it happened, what ordinary explanation might account for it, and what remains. That sequence protects the practice from becoming theatre.
I appreciate the restraint here. The more specific the notes are, the less I feel the need to inflate them.
This matches something from my own log, but not exactly. I am trying to resist the urge to merge the two experiences just because the language overlaps.
Small reminder: if this material makes practice feel urgent, step back. Urgency is usually not the field. It is usually the nervous system.
I would love to see people include dates, duration, whether they were alone or in circle, and what they expected beforehand. Expectation is data too.