20th century “Buddhism” was largely based on Theosophy—a 19th century European pop-spiritual movement.
A major muddler was Edward Conze, whose history @Jayarava reveals here. Important for anyone who thinks they understand Prajñaparamita—or should.
http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2018/09/edward-conze-study-in-contradiction.html …
-
-
Tibetan understandings of Prajñaparamita draw on late Indian commentaries; there’s a dozen strata of accumulated reinterpretations. None is any more “authentic” than any other; Conze is no worse than (say) Tsongkhapa. But you can’t understand the texts without the history.
Show this thread -
IMO, if we could recover the original meaning of Prajñaparamita, it would have no special status. Humans with limited understanding composed the texts, not supernatural Buddhas, as myth has it. Personally I find late tantric reinterpretations more valuable than earlier versions.
Show this thread -
Buddhism, like Troy, is a city of ruins: countless layers of rebuilding on top of doctrines and practices that served their time and place, became obsolete, and were mainly ground underfoot, but whose most durable remnants poke through later constructions.
Show this thread -
Reinterpreting “Buddhism” as something completely different is utterly authentic. Leaders have insisted that their brand-new religion is “the original Word Of The Buddha” for at least 2000 years. A genuinely modern Buddhism shouldn’t need to lie about this any longer, though.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.