Vajrayana in general, and Dzogchen in particular, have goals that are more compatible with what people want now than Sutrayana does. They are at least pointing in an attractive direction, and 20th C modernist Theravada isn't afaics.https://vividness.live/2013/10/24/sutra-tantra-and-the-modern-worldview/ …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @evantthompson and
But how do you see the resultant state(s) of mind tending to function, psychodynamically, in contrast to those evoked by vipassana?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SpeakingSubject @evantthompson and
Again my knowledge of vipassana is confined to reading so I don't want to make any strong claims. And psychodynamics isn't one of my main frames of reference (although I did do graduate course work in the field at Harvard a million years ago...). But >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
I did write a series of half a dozen essays exploring Vajrayana from a Jungian perspective starting here:https://buddhism-for-vampires.com/we-are-all-monsters …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
One point I make in the series is that "states of mind" is an individualist touchstone the interactivist framework rejects. I try to present Vajrayana in interactional/embodied/situated terms. (This may not be fully true to the tradition, but isn't a complete fabrication either.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
I suspect this seems like it is evading your question, but I'm not sure I understand what your question is. Re some of the points in your posts: - Vajrayana does not aim to nullify the self - Tantra aims to heighten meaning - Dzogchen aims to allow meanings to be as-they-are
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @evantthompson and
Let me see if I can clarify. How do you see the phenomenological experience that results from Dzogchen practice as interacting with meaning-making activity? Does that make sense?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SpeakingSubject @evantthompson and
This is difficult because I'm really not qualified to say anything about Dzogchen. Also any discussion of Dzogchen has to be highly personalized and I don't know you at all. Please discount accordingly. I'll try anyway >
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
"Meaning-making" sounds distressingly existentialist to me. Meaning lives in interaction. It's not an individual production. We can individually contribute to it a bit, but quantitatively we mainly experience it in flow, not make it deliberately.https://meaningness.com/metablog/meaningness-mountains …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Dzogchen leaves meaningness as-it-is, which tends to allow it to clarify. This passage (and what precedes and follows it) in one of the Jung-influenced essays tries to get at that: https://buddhism-for-vampires.com/hunting-the-shadow …pic.twitter.com/EucCBVSzz3
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
(Not coincidentally my voice piece today is largely a rant against representationalism, mentioned in this passage; discussing the Western intellectual lineage that I am part of, and that I take @evantthompson to be part of.)
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.