Mi'sen

More rants.

I was going to say that Buddhist innovation has always started with a creative misreading of scripture. You need to understand what problem the author was trying to solve in their historical context, and find an analogy with the problem you have in your historical context.

(This requires understanding scripture as written by people struggling with historically-situated cultural problems, rather than Ultimate Truths From God. I think most Buddhist innovators, going back 2000+ years, have at least semi-understood this.)

So you deliberately misread the text as suggesting solutions to your different problem. If there’s a structural analogy that works, this is productive. Especially when you try to turn it into a new way of meditating.

Exhibit A is the invention of modern meditation by creatively misreading Pali Abhidhamma, which is speculative metaphysics, as if it were meditation instructions, which it isn’t.

In a close parallel, early tantra was invented in large part by misreading Mahayana Buddhological metaphysics as meditation instructions. (It’s interesting to speculate about why this worked, in both cases, but it would just be speculation…)

Do you have any ideas for how the visionary/terma type innovation fits in to this creative misreading? Pragmatic post-hoc justification?

I think it’s inseparable. As @OortCloudAtlas mentioned in the podcast, the people who invented modern Theravadan meditation were doing just like tertons, sitting in caves and having visions of dakinis who gave them the practices.