Finally, a goddamned academic! Fist pump to Robert Sharf.https://twitter.com/Sciamanoinglese/status/1145704889131003904 …
-
-
Replying to @bchjam
I agree that it would be GREAT if contemporary Buddhists knew their history. To reiterate my point at
@Imperfectbuddha, for the non-buddhist analysis, that history only serves to provide evidence for both the general "syntax" of "Buddhism" and the varieties of x.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I disagree with your "only." The history also provides evidence and materials for thinking about the problems with what you designate as "non-Buddhism," which, despite your assertions to the contrary, is arguably enmeshed in Buddhist modernism.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
non-buddhism is most definitely not “enmeshed in buddhist modernism”!I’d be curious to hear about the basis for your disagreement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
1/7 A few thoughts in the following...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
2/7 The way you single out Buddhism as a special object (despite via negation) looks like a Buddhist modernist move to me (it's still caught up in Buddhist exceptionalism)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
3/7 A "cultural/philosophical critique of religion" seems more straightforward and accomodating than "non-Buddhism"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The Laruellean non-x critique works for religions and culture generally. I don't know what you mean by "straight-forward."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I mean why the special focus on Buddhism, particularly in a way that doesn't analyze it in terms of its dialectical encounters with other thoughts systems in other cultures throughout its history
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.