I learned nothing new from this piece. - Buddhist monks being celibate is well-known - Being comically (to a normal person) non-violent (the mutilation exampl

I learned nothing new from this piece. - Buddhist monks being celibate is well-known - Being comically (to a normal person) non-violent (the mutilation example) as an ideal is also known - Either you accept Dukkha as self-evident based on your own life experience because you realize that all good things are temporary, or you have to go deeper and have to consider the implications of eternal “rebirth” (a belief that you cannot use your experience to interrogate) - If merely “the doing of non-evil” is too simple and unpassionate to you you can merely take on the small task of being a Boddhisattva and save all beings from Samsara - “Meditation didn’t solve all my problems” (paraphrase)–you should have read the “chop wood carry water” fine print > If the conclusion you take from this story is that you should be Buddhist, you are absolutely missing the point. The point is that we should experiment with everything and pick what best fits our situation, reverence be damned. The author critiques Western Buddhism[1] and yet gives a firm “should” for individual ecclecticism, the ultimate Western spiritual-but-not-religious lifestyle. Might be nothing wrong with that, but it is for sure not a should. There are benefits to trying to stick to one or a few traditions. Maybe, for example, the tradition fits your personality and you trust the teachers. > There is a giant hole in the middle of Buddhist contemplative teachings. This is the disinclination to engage with mental content. […] > However, as a default meditative stance, it is an overcorrection. First of all, it can lead to, essentially, a scolding relationship with the mind, in which you dismiss all of your desires and fantasies as undesirable “ego mind.” See the slight of hand? “A giant hole” in the teaching becomes “can lead to”. The first part is what is taught, while the latter part is the interpretation of the student. Of course that often does happen, but having a “scolding relationship with the mind” is never recommended by any meditation teacher. It is a common trap that the student is taught to watch out for and avoid. > However. My friend Jake, reading this section, correctly pointed out that I am engaging in Salad Bar Criticism. People who like Buddhism point at some areas of the giant Buddhist meme cloud—the giant mass of traditions, observations, and modern derivations—and nod approvingly. I am pointing at other areas of the giant Buddhist meme cloud and making grunting noises. I can only hope that some of us are learning something along the way. How postmodernist to critique your own essay before we do. [1] But “Asian Buddhism” is also bad so… or maybe he gives it one point for authenticity and deducts one point for backwardsness, evening things out?