@Meaningness separation, and non-separation, is part of dualist agenda.
-
-
Replying to @hokaisobol
@Meaningness and yet, what remains when both are negated, is real (not two, not one)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hokaisobol
@hokaisobol Sure. This is the argument I want to make, for the benefit of non-Buddhists. I’m finding it hard to locate it in Buddhism, tho.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness it's explicitly discussed in terms of three natures (re yogacara)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hokaisobol
@hokaisobol OK! Time for me to learn about Yogacara, then!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness it's weird that anyone would introduce buddhist tantra w/o yogacara.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hokaisobol
@hokaisobol Tibetans worship Madhyamaka, and reject Yogacara. I know there’s a strong historical connection with tantra, so ought to learn.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness there's zhentong, which at least takes yogacara seriously.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hokaisobol
@hokaisobol Yes… more tathagatagarbha theory than yogacara… and it falls into idealism, I think.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness not so, unless you read it as "philosophy"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@hokaisobol Yeah, I think zhentong works well if you read it as a description of the experience of tantra. But not to be taken seriously :-)
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.