I'm unhappy with all the ones that I've seen. I think they all either try to 1) give an intellectual argument for e.g. "why there's no self", which runs into people turning it into an intellectual argument and having disputes of how the self should be defined. Point: missed.
-
Show this thread
-
Or 2) they avoid that trap by only giving pointers to what you should investigate in your own experience, which is correct, but fails to persuade skeptics who are wondering what the point in this whole thing is. E.g. https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-i-the-fundamentals/5-the-three-characteristics/ … is good but like this.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
I want an explanation that avoids these traps by doing both 1) *and* 2).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
It should explain which assumptions build up our default understanding of reality, how those assumptions are wrong, and point out aspects from our experience whose repeated observation will update those assumptions, explaining how this causes psychological change in meditator.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Also explain how impermanence, no-self and unsatisfactoriness are all interrelated and connected with each other in a way that your average Western science-minded, allergic-to-mysticism reader can understand. Ideally dependent origination too.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
I'm writing something, but feel like I'm mostly building it from scratch. Surely there must be existing attempts to do this, by people further along the path of insight than I am? Pointers welcome.
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @xuenay
I think this is a highly worthwhile project. However… I think that if you take the framework seriously enough to think it through carefully enough to explain it accurately, you will discover that it is wrong. That is probably why there is no good explanation available!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Interesting. Want to say more on that, or would it take a book? :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xuenay
The framework is called Abhidharma. Studying Abhidharma was the main activity of elite Theravadin monks before they reinvented meditation. Their theories of meditation came out of trying to make that framework functional instead of dogmatic. 1/
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
Abhidharma is concerned with foundational philosophical questions of metaphysics, cosmology, ethics, and psychology. It is not *the* Buddhist theory of those things. It is *a* Buddhist theory. It comes from, roughly speaking, the second major period of scriptural innovation. 2/
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
The first period generated the Hinayana sutras; Abhidharma was second; Mahayana was third; Tantra fourth. (Simplifying history a bit.) Each of these had quite different, sharply contradicting accounts of mind, enlightenment, metaphysics, etc. 3/
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
Mahayana and especially Tantra rejected the Abhidharma theories, for good reasons. They don’t work. They have irresolvable internal contradictions, as well as contradicting evidence and experience. 4/
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
The kings of Sri Lanka—which was the only Theravdin country until a few centuries ago—banned Mahayana and especially Tantra because they tended to make subjects resist royal rule. 5/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 11 more replies
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.