4 ms·

(Late reply since the HN mods have decided that they hate me so I was getting messages like "you're submitting too fast".) The Pāli Canon, one of the oldest Bu

(Late reply since the HN mods have decided that they hate me so I was getting messages like "you're submitting too fast".) The Pāli Canon, one of the oldest Buddhist canons. You can dismiss that if you want to, but they're not wishy-washy concepts within the study of that canon. It's not like such a baseless accusation -- "oh, they use them as technical words, they're probably full of shit" -- deserves an answer. If you're really interested, do your own research next time. Not that you are.

orthoganol 11y ago
Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels.
- throwaway999888 11y ago
  > Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. It's simple to find out that the author of the book is a Buddhist monk. Of course your time is too precious for that so you'd rather blurt out the first thing that comes to mind and see if anyone takes the bait. > Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. The Buddha was hardly a philosopher. I don't know what you wish to get out of treatments on meditation, but I guess if you seek it for the mental masturbation aspect it might leave you unfulfilled. As long as such talk about the meditation practice itself in a technical -- words and terms that at least try to precisely describe such subjective experiences as meditation brings -- that's good enough for me. I don't require such an old tradition to first be scrutinised by 1,000 scientists before I try it myself. I think I can risk sitting on a cushion. > I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels. Yes, exactly. We're the uniform "HN" blob which have now revealed our hypocrisy by not condemning such "mystical" words like "mindful" and "concentration". And we're all supposed to hate people like Tolle and Chopra. Sorry bro, I guess I didn't get that memo. You've perfectly revealed our blind spot by pointing out how the author talks about words like "concentration" and "mindfulness" as if he... was at liberty to use such words in his own, precise way. That he uses "mindfulness" in a specific way, when he wrote a book called "Mindfulness in Plain English". The sheer nerve. Thankfully you aren't tricked by such mumbo jumbo. I'll inform the HN hivemind of this collective transgression immediately. I don't really know anything about Chopra. All I know about Eckhart Tolle is that he is very concerned with The Now.
- throwaway999889 11y ago
  > Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. It's simple to find out that the author of the book is a Buddhist monk. Of course your time is too precious for that so you'd rather blurt out the first thing that comes to mind and see if anyone takes the bait. > Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. The Buddha was hardly a philosopher. I don't know what you wish to get out of treatments on meditation, but I guess if you seek it for the mental masturbation aspect it might leave you unfulfilled. As long as such talk about the meditation practice itself in a technical -- words and terms that at least try to precisely describe such subjective experiences as meditation brings -- that's good enough for me. I don't require such an old tradition to first be scrutinised by 1,000 scientists before I try it myself. I think I can risk sitting on a cushion. > I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels. Yes, exactly. We're the uniform "HN" blob which have now revealed our hypocrisy by not condemning such "mystical" words like "mindful" and "concentration". And we're all supposed to hate people like Tolle and Chopra. Sorry bro, I guess I didn't get that memo. You've perfectly revealed our blind spot by pointing out how the author talks about words like "concentration" and "mindfulness" as if he... was at liberty to use such words in his own, precise way. That he uses "mindfulness" in a specific way, when he wrote a book called "Mindfulness in Plain English". The sheer nerve. Thankfully you aren't tricked by such mumbo jumbo. I'll inform the HN hivemind of this collective transgression immediately. I don't really know anything about Chopra. All I know about Eckhart Tolle is that he is very concerned with The Now.

orthoganol 11y ago

Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels.

throwaway999888 11y ago
> Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. It's simple to find out that the author of the book is a Buddhist monk. Of course your time is too precious for that so you'd rather blurt out the first thing that comes to mind and see if anyone takes the bait. > Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. The Buddha was hardly a philosopher. I don't know what you wish to get out of treatments on meditation, but I guess if you seek it for the mental masturbation aspect it might leave you unfulfilled. As long as such talk about the meditation practice itself in a technical -- words and terms that at least try to precisely describe such subjective experiences as meditation brings -- that's good enough for me. I don't require such an old tradition to first be scrutinised by 1,000 scientists before I try it myself. I think I can risk sitting on a cushion. > I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels. Yes, exactly. We're the uniform "HN" blob which have now revealed our hypocrisy by not condemning such "mystical" words like "mindful" and "concentration". And we're all supposed to hate people like Tolle and Chopra. Sorry bro, I guess I didn't get that memo. You've perfectly revealed our blind spot by pointing out how the author talks about words like "concentration" and "mindfulness" as if he... was at liberty to use such words in his own, precise way. That he uses "mindfulness" in a specific way, when he wrote a book called "Mindfulness in Plain English". The sheer nerve. Thankfully you aren't tricked by such mumbo jumbo. I'll inform the HN hivemind of this collective transgression immediately. I don't really know anything about Chopra. All I know about Eckhart Tolle is that he is very concerned with The Now.
throwaway999889 11y ago
> Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. It's simple to find out that the author of the book is a Buddhist monk. Of course your time is too precious for that so you'd rather blurt out the first thing that comes to mind and see if anyone takes the bait. > Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. The Buddha was hardly a philosopher. I don't know what you wish to get out of treatments on meditation, but I guess if you seek it for the mental masturbation aspect it might leave you unfulfilled. As long as such talk about the meditation practice itself in a technical -- words and terms that at least try to precisely describe such subjective experiences as meditation brings -- that's good enough for me. I don't require such an old tradition to first be scrutinised by 1,000 scientists before I try it myself. I think I can risk sitting on a cushion. > I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels. Yes, exactly. We're the uniform "HN" blob which have now revealed our hypocrisy by not condemning such "mystical" words like "mindful" and "concentration". And we're all supposed to hate people like Tolle and Chopra. Sorry bro, I guess I didn't get that memo. You've perfectly revealed our blind spot by pointing out how the author talks about words like "concentration" and "mindfulness" as if he... was at liberty to use such words in his own, precise way. That he uses "mindfulness" in a specific way, when he wrote a book called "Mindfulness in Plain English". The sheer nerve. Thankfully you aren't tricked by such mumbo jumbo. I'll inform the HN hivemind of this collective transgression immediately. I don't really know anything about Chopra. All I know about Eckhart Tolle is that he is very concerned with The Now.