The words don’t matter, of course. Instead, it’s significant what things you categorize together, or separately.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean and
Dzogchen treats more things as “methods” than would be common elsewhere; particularly, it treats worldviews and principles as relative methods to apply, rather than ultimate truths. Joe categorizes more things as “values” than is probably standard.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean and
If this distinction makes a difference, it is that Dzogchen does not take any method as ultimate or universal or anything other than a tool. Whereas values are presumably sometimes ultimate, universal, or much more than a tool.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean and
I think “method” in Dzogchen is intended somewhat differently than “tool/technique”, though that doesn’t necessarily affect the point you are making here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean and
Not sure I can articulate this well, but the difference has something to do both with potential scale and nebulosity. A tool is necessarily compact and precise. It may share principle and function with a method, but it’s unlikely to change form.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_awbery_ @Meaningness and
A method is adaptable not just in that it can be applied usefully in different circumstances, but in its potential to change appearance. It’s somewhat less pin-down-able than a tool, more Protean in nature.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @_awbery_ @Meaningness and
I’d be more inclined to refer to a yana as method, from Dzogchen perspective. It doesn’t feel quite right to call it a tool.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_awbery_ @Meaningness and
Also, I have the sense that, when I’m talking about a tool, there’s a more clear boundary between the me as the user and the tool as object.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_awbery_ @Meaningness and
Method is both the practitioner and the practice, they potentially become indistinguishable. So it’s referring to engagement in the activity itself, as well as the form of the activity. “Tool” doesn’t convey that impression so much.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Thanks! All this makes sense
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.