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!
-
-
There’s no single-source secular debunking of modernized Abhidharma.
@Jayarava has done great work addressing many particular points. Glenn Wallis has attacked the whole dogmatic framework (with less specificity). There are others, including me… 10/https://www.glennwallis.com -
My approach has been mainly to point toward a better alternative (a meta-systematic reconstruction of Buddhist Tantra) instead of critiquing ones I reject (e.g. “Consensus Buddhism,” which is primarily the American rehash of Mahasi). 11/
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
How were the theories refuted 2000 yrs ago- do you give more details somewhere? I’m with you about neurophilosophy. Seems the same ideas recycling in different jargon.
-
I haven’t written about this. I’m not sure by “how” if you mean in what modality, or the substance of the explanations?
- 1 more reply
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.