Amod Lele's first in a series of posts continuing the conversation that began with his review of Why I Am Not a Buddhist and my response. I look forward to seeing them all.https://twitter.com/loveofallwisdom/status/1262126019491790848 …
Trungpa psychologizes large amounts of Buddhism, e.g., he reinterprets the lokas as psychological states. That's a typical Buddhist modernist move. I see Naropa and his Shambhala training as smack dab in the heart of Buddhist modernism.
-
-
Re the lokas, while he used "psychology" as an entry point I believe he was pointing at something deeper. I don't believe he rejected the notion of realms or rebirth into them.
-
That may be, but his books, talks, etc., adopt a psychologistic framework, even if he may have thought of it as skillful means
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
How does Shambhala fall into the specific modernist traps you identify? It also doesn't actually claim to be "Buddhism".
-
[1] It claims to go beyond Buddhism, but that's part of its rhetoric. (Some versions of Zen say that too.) I see it as an offshoot of romanticist-transcendentalist lines of Buddhist modernism. The trap/rhetoric there is the idea of enlightenment as inherently nonconceptual
- 2 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.