11 ms·

Hmm. I want to like this. Something is making me uneasy, though. It seems like some of what is here is partial reinvention and tweaking of stuff that goes back

Hmm. I want to like this. Something is making me uneasy, though. It seems like some of what is here is partial reinvention and tweaking of stuff that goes back at least to the earliest days of Buddhism. It reminds me a lot of the method known to westerners as "Mahasi noting", so I was surprised not to see it mentioned. Each time I was inclined to be encouraged by something like "distractions are welcomed", I'd be worried again soon after at mentions of controlling things. It's OK to go against thousands of years of tradition if you want, but it seems worrisome if you do it without mentioning the prior art and explaining what's wrong with it.

Kheyas 5y ago
You can study the tradition separately. This is one of those tools that can become a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. If someone doesn't study the universe before getting into this he is most likely to use it the wrong way. It's important to appreciate the universe from outside the individual perspective. But you can't stop people from doing anything. Just like you couldn't stop people from building the atomic bomb. We need to experience and learn. Tradition, in my opinion, is people being one-sided towards the right side of the brain - focusing only on experience and not logic. To the point where mysticism is the only way to explain anything. Both sides need to be integrated.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  It is nice to see attempts at rationally integrating mystical experiences. That mystical experiences occur and have value is clear. The mystical and perennial philosophy (“all is one”) is not too far from rational thinking.
dvh1990 5y ago
You get uneasy because this is written in a very ego/control driven way. I get the feel from the text that the individual who wrote it is interested in dominion over himself and perhaps others. This is diametrically opposite to how Buddhist/Hindu texts sounds and feel. And I think the way those aforementioned religions approach the subject of personal practice is healthier for both the individual and the world
joeberon 5y ago
Honestly as a Buddhist, I find perennialism and the western approach to Buddhism to be offensive and degrading to the religion. Many such people even claim that traditional Buddhist lineages are "backwards" and "for stupid people". The pushing of secularists into Buddhist spaces is a huge issue and invalidating traditional Buddhist voices in the west. The worst part is that the Buddha even specifically spoke out against many of the points secularists rely on, for example he spoke out extensively against the idea that death is the end. People who believed that were called annihilationists. However people approaching Buddhism in a secular way choose to ignore this, because they think their secular worldview is basic, immutable, and "obvious". Not accepting that the whole Buddhist project contradicts that, they try and suppress Asian voices and spaces, and instead support spaces that already agree with their preconceptions. It is just another form of colonialism, and I really don't like it.
- itisit 5y ago
  Sorry, this comes across as surprisingly dogmatic and sanctimonious for someone who identifies as Buddhist. Religion can be used in any way people fancy. It goes without saying, but there is no right/pure/true way to practice a religion, especially considering their imaginative basis.
  - joeberon 5y ago
    Why would it be surprising? Buddhism is a pretty dogmatic religion. Literally the first of the Buddha's eight fold path is Right View, which means "you should believe in rebirth, believe in life after death, believe in karma, etc." He said that the first step is to have the correct dogmatic opinion. He actually said it is the forerunner to the path and by far the most important element. Once again, the idea that Buddhism would somehow be less dogmatic than other religions is a Western projection onto Buddhism. As far as religions go, Buddhism is pretty dogmatic and prescribes a very specific worldview. The difference is that it actually gives you the tools to verify those things if you wish, at least if you feel up for it.
    - itisit 5y ago

Kheyas 5y ago

You can study the tradition separately. This is one of those tools that can become a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. If someone doesn't study the universe before getting into this he is most likely to use it the wrong way. It's important to appreciate the universe from outside the individual perspective. But you can't stop people from doing anything. Just like you couldn't stop people from building the atomic bomb. We need to experience and learn. Tradition, in my opinion, is people being one-sided towards the right side of the brain - focusing only on experience and not logic. To the point where mysticism is the only way to explain anything. Both sides need to be integrated.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
It is nice to see attempts at rationally integrating mystical experiences. That mystical experiences occur and have value is clear. The mystical and perennial philosophy (“all is one”) is not too far from rational thinking.

dvh1990 5y ago

You get uneasy because this is written in a very ego/control driven way. I get the feel from the text that the individual who wrote it is interested in dominion over himself and perhaps others. This is diametrically opposite to how Buddhist/Hindu texts sounds and feel. And I think the way those aforementioned religions approach the subject of personal practice is healthier for both the individual and the world

joeberon 5y ago

Honestly as a Buddhist, I find perennialism and the western approach to Buddhism to be offensive and degrading to the religion. Many such people even claim that traditional Buddhist lineages are "backwards" and "for stupid people". The pushing of secularists into Buddhist spaces is a huge issue and invalidating traditional Buddhist voices in the west. The worst part is that the Buddha even specifically spoke out against many of the points secularists rely on, for example he spoke out extensively against the idea that death is the end. People who believed that were called annihilationists. However people approaching Buddhism in a secular way choose to ignore this, because they think their secular worldview is basic, immutable, and "obvious". Not accepting that the whole Buddhist project contradicts that, they try and suppress Asian voices and spaces, and instead support spaces that already agree with their preconceptions. It is just another form of colonialism, and I really don't like it.

itisit 5y ago
Sorry, this comes across as surprisingly dogmatic and sanctimonious for someone who identifies as Buddhist. Religion can be used in any way people fancy. It goes without saying, but there is no right/pure/true way to practice a religion, especially considering their imaginative basis.
- joeberon 5y ago
  Why would it be surprising? Buddhism is a pretty dogmatic religion. Literally the first of the Buddha's eight fold path is Right View, which means "you should believe in rebirth, believe in life after death, believe in karma, etc." He said that the first step is to have the correct dogmatic opinion. He actually said it is the forerunner to the path and by far the most important element. Once again, the idea that Buddhism would somehow be less dogmatic than other religions is a Western projection onto Buddhism. As far as religions go, Buddhism is pretty dogmatic and prescribes a very specific worldview. The difference is that it actually gives you the tools to verify those things if you wish, at least if you feel up for it.
  - itisit 5y ago