Even if Buddhism gets things right, though, I don't think that qualifies arbitrarily chosen Buddhists to tell others how to practice.
This is maybe a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but I've encountered it enough times that it seriously bothers me.
Conversation
Also: it's great if qualified people can defend their practices, but that doesn't mean a claim to authority is necessarily valid.
And when it comes to lineages that are millennia old, we can hardly claim to understand them anymore (yeah, that also applies to shamanism ofc.)
1
2
Replying to
there are specific accomplishments in the spiritual paths. And saying that they don't do something, or do do something without having them strikes me as dangerous. And, ofc, as you point out, since we've lost so much, who knows what the Buddha and his original Sangha could do?
2
i mean, take the various dhyana: the Buddhists now have 8 of them. But there were tons more of them, they are written of, and mostly we don't know what they were. Or when Chan Mahayanna guys wrote about Hinayana stuff they were very clear their enlightments were different.
2
Replying to
Look, I'm a Jhana essentialist. I have experienced states that, to me and to more accomplished practitioners, fits with the formal descriptions of the Jhanas.
I'm not saying the stuff doesn't work. I am making a critique of the philosophy and the approach, not the craft.
1
1
Replying to
perhaps, then I misunderstood, or chose to grind my own axe. I'm just not sure that suffering can't be gotten rid of, effectively, for example, so I'm not sure it's a ridiculous philosophy. (Dukkha, otoh, well, perhaps not. But if you don't care, that's very close.)
1
Replying to
Yeah, I came at that particular problem from my own cyclothymic baseline.
I have periods where suffering is an overwhelming constant and I wish only for its end, and periods where it feels hardly relevant at all.
Over time, that both damages and immunizes you.
2
1
Replying to
There may be stable states which avoid it. The core Mahayana criticism of Theravada is that Arhat nirvana is not a stable state. Eventually you will fall out of it. That is unacceptable to them. Arhat is not a stable state, whereas Buddha level is. (Again, no idea if true.)
1
Replying to
So, things I agree with:
- Only an accomplished practitioner can say what something is really like, experientially.
Things I disagree with:
- Accomplished practitioners are qualified to deal in absolutes.
How do they know what does or doesn't end? I don't see how they could.
1
2
Replying to
They can't know it eternally. They can know it for years, and if you believe in spiritual bodies (and if you don't most of cultivation Buddhism and Hinduism is bullshit to you), then you can speak for centuries and millenia at the least.
2
Replying to
I question that premise.
I certainly believe in elite-level athleticism, but most elite athletes are strongly deluded about their own skills. It's seemingly of benefit to their practice.
Replying to
In my youth I was a very very good runner. The difference between the actual elites and the very good is heartbreakingly large. I could multiple lap good non runners. The world level guy could lap me. Most people never get to a level where they can even understand the gap.
2
1
but spiritual practice is more like acrobatics. There are break points: at certain levels of acrobatic skills you can do discrete actions that lesser acrobats or ordinary people can't even do. You aren't just faster by X seconds, or stronger.
1
2
Show replies