I think “method” in Dzogchen is intended somewhat differently than “tool/technique”, though that doesn’t necessarily affect the point you are making here.
-
-
-
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
Might be worth looking at Heidegger's distinction between tools being "ready to hand" vs. "present to hand". When things are going well, our tools are part of us. It's only when there's some sort of "breakdown" that makes us aware of the tool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology#Present-at-hand …pic.twitter.com/gS9gLH21bJ
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @marick @Meaningness and
Thanks. I haven’t read Heidegger, so I didn’t understand ‘tool’ as having that specific ambiguity, but it suggests
@meaningness and I were using it differently, as he is strongly influenced by H.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think it can be useful to use different languages and terms to differentiate Buddhist yanas:
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
insofar as it’s possible to find a language that differentiates between subject and object, that would fit Sutra well, whereas one that emphasizes inseparability would be more appropriate to Dzogchen perspective.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
“Ready-to-hand” (Zuhandenheit, to be pretentious) is all about not separating subject and object.
-
-
Thanks. 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.