Yanas are defined by principles and functions, whereas sects are defined by institutions.https://approachingaro.org/principles-and-functions …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean
Modern Buddhism combines Western principles and functions with some Buddhist elements. Since its core is largely 1800s German philosophy, it is does not fit into any of the traditional yanas. Several major Buddhist sects developed modern versions though.https://vividness.live/2011/06/16/the-making-of-buddhist-modernism/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean
Most of the currently-popular American Buddhist brands are derived from a mash-up of 1970s hippie ideals and '80s psychotherapy with Mahasi Sayadaw's mid-1900s mash-up of 1800s modernist Theravada Hinayana with then-current Western pop philosophy.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean
(I can send you links for my blog posts on each of the stages of that sequence of mixing Western ideas into Theravada if you are want to be bored by the historical details :)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean
It's not clear how much Buddhism is left in that, if any. However, there seems to be a significant remaining renunciate flavor (left over from the Hinayana roots), which is
@_awbery_ is preparing to suggest causes problems.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_awbery_
Principles thing is helpful! Things I'm still confused about: - do people who successfully follow renunciate paths end up renunciate forever? is this considered correct, or an accident? - how does that relate to the idea that one might switch back & forth between sutra & trantra?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
- is the previous confusion coming from the fact that lots of people do only renunciate, & lots of people do both? (are there people who do no renunciate stuff?) - I think I had a concept of one big path & one big goal, but it sounds like... are these paths... fractal?pic.twitter.com/HEOgYBupkm
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
(re previous tweet: to be clear, I mean: multiple big paths and multiple big goals, but each path roughly leads to one specific goal and you don't try to follow multiple paths or you'd get lost or end up somewhere else entirely)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh also: where does the concept of bodhisattva fit into all of this? does it have as much to do with mahayana as the chart from that wiki suggests?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh also: David's chart, which puts Sutra as renunciate and Tantra as exultant (https://vividness.live/2013/10/23/sutra-vs-tantra/ …) seems (to my very new understanding) to be in contradiction to the chart from Rigpa Wiki (https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nine_yanas …) with the "outer tantras" as ascetic. ascetic ≠ renunciate?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, since the sutra-vs-tantra distinction is difficult enough for beginners, I avoid talking about all the within-tantra distinctions. The purificatory yanas are another whole different thing, although emically counted as tantra. They don’t seem useful in (post)modernity.
-
-
I’m describing “tantra” more-or-less from the view of anuyoga (which appears on the rigpawiki chart). That corresponds roughly to “nondual tantra” in some other Tibetan systems. https://vividness.live/2012/04/28/the-power-of-an-attitude/ …pic.twitter.com/FcuSZfNVCt
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_awbery_
Huh, but on the chart anuyoga is shown as #8 whereas it seems atiyoga is #9 and is the same as dzogchen. And I thought your approach was based in dzogchen...pic.twitter.com/mThbmFrV0U
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 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.