Maybe I missed it, but you referred a lot to how representationalism doesn't work, but not to *why* it doesn't work. A good summary somewhere?
-
-
I think it’s true (that critique is taken as personally offensive/insulting) by Buddhist practitioners/teachers. Most don’t have an academic background. Academia at its best does teach rigorous argument and clear thinking in a way that is difficult to pick up elsewhere. >
-
Without that training the default is to conflate nuanced critique with personal or whole-system criticism, or a desire to argue for argument’s sake.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well, yes… I mean, it would seem that what unites those of us in this conversation is the sense that Buddhism has *something* enormously valuable to offer, but is also so badly askew that it needs deep rethinking. TBF, Buddhism has done that throughout its history…
-
well, Culadasa may have the science wrong (I don't know) but I think for most practitioners the question is "does the practice he suggests produce the results he says it does?" It's long been a problem that we don't why some things work, which do work.
- 4 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.