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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Malcolm_Ocean @_awbery_
> I think I had a concept of one big path & one big goal This idea mostly comes from Western Perennialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy …pic.twitter.com/FMnMlz86mB
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
However, political conflicts between Buddhisms were also often smoothed over by declaring that they were different paths to the same goal. This is plainly false; different Buddhisms have radically different goals, and concepts of “enlightenment.”https://vividness.live/2012/09/13/epistemology-and-enlightenment/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_awbery_
Reading this article, it occurs to me that you'd be interested in this attempt to translate the Buddha's teaching into totally modern language. And, of course, I'd be curious to hear your take on it. https://www.facebook.com/romeostevens/posts/10215386227941544 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Malcolm_Ocean @_awbery_
I’ve met Romeo and really liked him and was impressed with him. And I think there’s value in this piece he wrote (I saw it before on LW, but thanks for the pointer!). The opening para is right-on, e.g. I have some problems with other parts though…pic.twitter.com/wJQby3Celw
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
First of all, we don’t know what the Buddha said, if he even existed. “So, I am now going to tell you what the Buddha REALLY said” is the standard way new versions of Buddhism have always been introduced, but it’s nonsense. https://vividness.live/2015/11/25/what-the-buddha-really-said/ …pic.twitter.com/5WT8VPKaMv
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Every new form of Buddhism, for 2000+ plus years, has been some previous form mashed up with some non-Buddhist stuff, so it’s fine to do that, but it’s silly at this point to pretend it’s not what you are doing. And this, for example, is just not at all in any previous version.pic.twitter.com/bxtGYqmbGh
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The version of Buddhism he seems to be drawing on is roughly the Daniel Ingram version, which is a severalth-order derivative of the Mahasi version, which is a severalth-order derivative of 1800s Theravada.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
This doesn’t make it not-Buddhism, but it does make it not at all The One Correct Buddhism. It’s a quite extreme outlier among Buddhisms.
-
-
It’s also one that I, personally, don’t care for. It seems to work for many people, up to a point at least. But it’s important to recognize that it is only one approach among many, and that other versions are very different, and may work better for at least some people.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
It would be nice to have a collection of different versions steelmanned in similar colloquial language
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 8 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.