Agreed. Yet there are paths and commonalities. A lot of people seem to follow something fairly recognizably the Buddhist 4 stage path, for example.
-
-
There's a reason Buddhist systems have been so successful. It's not that Buddhism has the one true answer, but rather that Buddhists have been unusually effective at articulating and navigating this territory.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @iwelsh and
That said, there's no reason to think awakening must always follow the 4 stage model, despite the declaration of Theravada fundamentalists. It is just a model after all, albeit a particularly useful one.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @iwelsh and
decent model, but an awful lot of historical baggage and unhelpful metaphysical assumptions. also a bit of an obsessive focus on attainments, levels, "experience points", etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @iwelsh and
True. I do think it has much less metaphysical baggage than, say, the Tibetan schools, and it's also easier to polish off. But we certainly need newer models that are more appropriate for the modern world.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @iwelsh and
problem on my mind lately: what should we think of reincarnation metaphysics viewed from a modern perspective? the hard skeptic stance (there is no reincarnation) seems like a cop-out. also runs counter to some lived experiences (psychedelic and meditative glimpses).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
maybe I should do a tweetstorm about it and solicit some input from the twitter sangha
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.