20th and 21st c. metaphysics and buddha-dharma. That said, I think Vince pushes things too far with this: "There is no unified metaphysics, just views that people project onto all of Buddhism."
-
Show this thread
-
I think there is an underlying metaphysical substrate, and it is closely tied to some of the metaphysical assumptions that Siddhartha Gotama adopted from wider Indic culture (assuming for sake of argument the historicity of Sidd G): samsara, karma, rebirth ("metempsychosis")
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
This is probably best expressed elsewhere than Twitter, but my position is that the Noble Silences often get used to elide *how much metaphysical content* there is running in the kernel/substrate of various Buddhisms
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
I don't think that the four noble truths would have been derived if those metaphysical assumptions weren't at work. That's a tough argument to make here on Twitter, so I'll just mic-drop this thesis without showing my work here. But pretty sure I can back it up.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Some of these questions will likely be addressed in the upcoming book from
@evantthompson This read will be of interest to many in the#metadharma space (@Meaningness@_awbery_@OortCloudAtlas@cognazor etc) https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300226553/why-i-am-not-buddhist …1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
I am locating Prof Thompson's book particularly as one in dialogue with
@wrighter Why Buddhism is True. I might be wrong in anticipating that, but that's my hunch. Of course Thompson is surveying a pretty big discourse and engaging with other kinds of conversations too.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
TL;DR - I'm a friend of the buddhadharma, pretty sure Thompson (who studied with Thurman and Varela) is too, and yet want to highlight that there are some pretty important metaphysical assumptions working in the deep core of Buddhism that are worth pointing out.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Yes, as Vince argues, they do morph and shapeshift dramatically, (and as I pointed out some have attempted to boot a Buddhism with as few of those assumptions as possible), but I think that they are still operative and traceable back to axial-age subcontinent.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Timber_22
A few things in response to you and
@VincentHorn: 1/I don't think the Buddha as presented in the Nikayas and Agamas is agnostic about the metaphysics of self; he makes pronouncements that entail there's no self (I discuss this in my new book)3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @Timber_22
Looking forward to seeing the new book
@evantthompson. Curious how you make sense of the regular refusal of the sutryana Buddha to discuss metaphysics. That, to me, points to a orthopraxic orientation to metaphysics, which is quite a bit different than monotheistic orthodoxy.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Thanks, Vince. 1/ In my view, he refuses to discuss certain questions in certain contexts, but he makes metaphysical pronouncements (e.g., about the "All"); it's just that his stance toward them is empiricist (not his word of course).
-
-
2/Reading the Buddha as somehow non-metaphysical strikes me as a distinctly modernist way of looking at him. It's modernist Buddhology (theology) but not historically and philosophically accurate (as I see it)
5 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @Timber_22
I actually started this thread pointing out that trying to identify a single unified Buddhist metaphysics is a modernist move, and isn't, as you say, "historically and philosophically accurate." Same with saying Buddhism is "non-metaphysical."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 31 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.