I’m confused by the review of this book, admittedly I haven’t read it and may be missing something. Does the book critique “modern Buddhism” -because modern Buddhism let’s go of rituals etc? But what about Zen, Zen seeks to have the essence of Buddhism & is that wrong?...
-
-
-
1/2 To get a sense of the book there's thishttp://blog.yalebooks.com/2020/01/10/beyond-buddhist-exceptionalism/ …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
He had me until "Buddhism 2.0" and "operating system". Not sure "Silicon Valleyizing" the dharma is what we need.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A great review I thought that increased my understanding of your book.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
More importantly, I'm not sure your description of self is incompatible with the Buddhist one as I understand it. My understanding is that there is no self that is solid/separate/continuous, which isn't the same as "there is no self".
-
Yes, I think your description of the “self” or no-self in the Pali Canon of Buddhism is accurate to what early Buddhism taught. It’s not simply that there’s no self at all, but rather that the “self” exists in relation to everything else, no self = an expansion of the “self.”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
...also I think a close reading of the Pali canon does lend itself towards seeing Buddhism as a close friend of science and contemporary psychology. And things like ACT, DBT, MBCT etc do suggest that Buddhism has a lot in common with psychology.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.