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/
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
Meditation was also politically inconvenient, and monastic Buddhism was mostly reduced to memorizing the Abhidharma texts. When Theravadins tried to figure out how to meditate again, around 1900, Abhidharma was their only politically-acceptable source. 6/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
The currently-most-popular meditation theories in the West derive mainly from Mahasi Sayadaw’s ideas, which explicitly synthesized Abhidharma with modern (=Western) psychology & philosophy. 7/https://vividness.live/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
This half-baked mash-up is given as Transcendent Eternal Truth That Must Not Be Questioned by most Western Buddhist teachers. I think it’s pervasively mistaken and often harmful. 8/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
Students are encouraged to make their experiences conform to theories that were, in my opinion, thoroughly refuted 2000 years ago. 9/
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
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.com1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
FWIW, I think trying to explain your meditation experiences in secular terms is a great idea. I would suggest not taking any source’s theories as Timeless Ancient Wisdom, because ancient ideas are often wrong, and because current meditation dogma is only a century old anyway. 12/
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
I would suggest not taking current Western “neurophilosophy” too seriously either; I think it’s comprehensively wrong. You might come to a different conclusion about that, but assuming that those guys know what they are talking about because they are famous would be a mistake. 13
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Exposure to a diversity of theories about mind, metaphysics, and enlightenment broadens one’s resources for making sense of meditation experiences. Buddhism itself has several quite different theories; I think Dzogchen’s is most useful and accurate, but of course YMMV. 14/
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
This is threatening to turn into a book! Gotta go. 15/15
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
Thanks! Still not sure why exactly it's wrong, and "people twist their experiences to fit dogma" doesn't describe my own experience (was skeptical initially but then was convinced by experience)... But maybe you'll point out the flaws in my piece once it's done. :)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.