E.g., if you think Buddhism is a rational-empirical religion (or not really a religion); that science shows there is no self, so Buddhists are right; or that awakening is a nonconceptual state, then you may want to read the book to find out why, in my view, those ideas are wrong
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ShibumiKiDo @chagmed
Ah, well, I do criticize that way of thinking, too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ShibumiKiDo @chagmed
Well, there are the words you use to talk about it. If you speak, you can't help but enter into the critical arena.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ShibumiKiDo @chagmed
I argue in the book that any experience identified as an "awakening experience" is concept-dependent and so can't be a preconceptual state of being. So, yes, you need the experience (taste) but apart from concepts that give it meaning it's empty and meaningless
3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Nope, I'm not reducing samadhi to language games: I don't say that samadhi is just a way of using words. As for Laruelle, I don't find any illumination there.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
One more thing: I don't say there can't be non-linguistic modes of experience, but whether they count as awakening is a conceptual matter and isn't inherent/intrinsic to them
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.