Where "serves the mind-system's purposes" is defined as "the mind-system in general endorsing the emotion as useful for the situation".
-
-
2) a stance that's more focused on doing some particular thing and maintaining focus on it, noting that distractions feel bad and letting the mind-system drop them.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I think of this one as kinda sutric in that it tries to drop desires which produce bad feelings; but then that is also happening in service of some greater purpose rather than for its own sake, so I don't think of it as renunciate as such.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And the general principle uniting them is something like "suffering involves parts of the mind fighting for control; dis-identifying from the parts causes the mind to get more information so that there's no fighting/suffering, though there may still be negative emotions".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
With the two stances operating on different levels of the same principle; maybe something like the first one looking at the content of the internal conflicts and the second one at the structure, and resolving conflicts at that level.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
They support each other: internalizing no-self on a deep level makes it easier to deal with difficult content, and dealing with difficult content makes it easier to stay in a state of mind which is conducive for insight work. Eventually (I hope) they merge into a seamless whole.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
(here my model is similar to Romeo Stevens's: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZawRiFR8ytvpqfBPX/the-hard-work-of-translation-buddhism … )
1 reply 0 retweets 1 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 >2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
> 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. >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
>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! >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
> OTOH, if the only way to make the worldview accessible is to lay out the fiddly technical stuff first, and present the yana bottom-up (rather than top-down, from principles toward practices, as I've tried to do), maybe that's the right thing. >
-
-
> Maybe in fact that's what
@_awbery_ has in mind when they talk about presenting vajrayana in a STEM framework; I don't know!0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.