The sudden/gradual, immanence/distinction tensions have gone on for a long long time....explored quite brilliantly by Sam Van Schaik (and others, I'm sure). May be less conflicting if one is able to take the pointers, not as a way to be free 'instantly', but as a way of training
-
-
The problem, seen over and over again, is that most students really, utterly fail at that. There are better ways to get from there to here, IMO, especially for people expressly conditioned to cling to everything. If you can integrate into the culture, say a Zen temple, OTOH...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The inability to recognize the cultural contingents of practice is a problem that repeats over, over and over again. The failure of yoga in the West is a good example. Buddhism, too.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Interesting point - please say more.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I am in the fortunate position of being two links of association away from many of those tasked with this stuff; too far to be entangled, close enough to understand broad strokes. You can't just bring the practice into a foreign culture. It won't "click". Too much baggage. E.g.:
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
- Metta, compassion and love-based yogic practice DO NOT WORK for majority of westerners. - Social structure inimical to gurus, ashram, sangha etc. Those that flourish often (really often) are cults. - Scientism vs. mysticism; porting language is hard, stuff lost in translation.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Triquetrea @SonOfEmerson
Well said. Your last bullet point is especially important, perhaps one of the biggest obstacles to Buddhism in the West. It certainly delayed my practice for a while as a skeptic without any understanding of the subtleties and nuances of dharma.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @SonOfEmerson
Mmh. I don't think cloaking it in scientific language is a clear-cut victory, either. A lot of these ideas *are* mystical or existential. Why lie?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Triquetrea @SonOfEmerson
Not necessarily scientific language - that often produces disastrous results that end up backfiring (see plethora of quantum woo on the market). Just more practical language that is in harmony with a scientific understanding (ala Wright or Harris).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @SonOfEmerson
That is how you end up making unfalsifiable claims on scientific grounds. These practices are all experiential, "has to be seen to be believed" stuff. Claiming it has much basis in science is flat-out wrong. We don't know enough. (Discounting the super-basic stuff, of course)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I'd make a distinction between having a basis in science and not being in direct conflict with science. In any case, certainly these practices are experiential. My point was just that reframing it in certain ways may lead more people to actually sit down and meditate.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.