Terminology is nebulous and contradictory.
I have not had every experience or attainment entailed in someone's practice, real or imaginary, obviously.
It's "a" no-self, but what would be "the" no-self?
Conversation
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Probably the wrong crowd, but I really don't rate Buddhism, nor anything else.
Everything a Buddhist can do, I can do too. Everything I can do, they can do too. Excepting, perhaps, a lot of window dressing.
1
1
The ontology of atman anatman is of as much concern to me as the ontology of free will:
No concern at all.
1
1
If you atomize awakenings or realizations or insights into little tidbits of wisdom
- which I have no opinion on whether you should or not -
the awakening or realization or insight that words are intrinsically worthless really changes things.
A lot.
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
The metamodern move is to acknowledge semiotics all the way down, but then decide to create meaning anyway in a pragmatic and inter-subjective sense.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Much ado about noting, this.
You've got to start somewhere. A philosophical paradox is not a paralytic, any more than an autonomous drone will break down if you shout "I AM LYING" loud enough for its microphone to hear it.
Ultimately, these philosophical exercises are only *really* interesting if they constitute the meat and potatoes of your practice.
But since you're not all hardcore Platonics, I fail to see why dialectic should be a preferred mode of reasoning.
1
1
I'm a big fan of integrating self-inquiry with mindfulness, and dialectics fits into the former.
1
Show replies
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Show replies