Though if I had to take a quick stab at it, I'd say the two main stances I alter between are something like:
[thinking out loud here, pretty uncertain about this] a strong point of presentations like Culadasa's and Shinzen's is lots of coherent technical detail. @_awbery_ is pointing out that this is against a (mostly but not completely) suppressed sutric conceptual background that >
-
-
> most tech people would reject if they knew about it. The tantric view is more compatible with the contemporary secular one, but not only are the practices inaccessible, so mostly are the technical details of its logic. >
-
>I have a draft post titled "The Logic of Tantra" which would lay out the framework within which those details fit. I've actually deliberately not finished/published it because I semi-believe giving rationalists technical details to chew on may encourage their worst tendencies! >
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, I’m reminded of a thread
@danlistensto wrote recently about how learning one concept creates invisible blind spots. We can’t always see our own framing as object… It’s true, one of my intentions is to keep pointing out hidden, influential Sutric architectures!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.