Evolving Dharma

[Balder]

 

I'm reading Jay Michaelson's Evolving Dharma right now.  The language is casual, playfully irreverent, and engaging, and he touches on a number of the topics we have explored here over the years -- such as emergent P2P and open source culture (and its impact on traditional spiritual cultures and modes of instruction), secular Buddhism and Stephen Batchelor's work, Wallis' speculative non-Buddhism, the Buddhist Geeks, the intersection of Buddhism with science and psychotherapy, David Loy's engaged Buddhism, Hokai Sobol's integral Buddhism (remember Hokai from Zaadz?), etc.

Here's an article by Michaelson, adapted from the book:

You Must Change Your Life: Capitalism and the Evolving Dharma

[e]

theurj said: And what about 'right view,' as discussed here? Right view is one of the Buddhist eightfold paths. So this path is defunct in an evolving dharma?

e said: Here is a short sutra on Right View.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

Kalupahana sees this as the basis for Nagarjuna's MMK as this is the only sutra mentioned in it.

In the 2nd paragraph there is an interesting take on the fundamental duality of existence (eternalism) and non-existence (anihilationism). Then Right View as the 4 Noble Truths in the 3rd paragraph. In the 4th and 5th paragraph Right view is Dependent Origination. Let the Mahayana in you smile... Right View is Dependent Origination is Emptiness.

If we look at Dependent Origination the pair we want to focus on is "From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play." So it does not matter if we look at birth as a literal womb birth or an ego birth...you, the IPS developmentalist, can stick in whatever developmental schema (8 to a 1000 levels with room for as many as your little heart wants and imagination can dream up) between birth and death and it won't change the import of the 4 Noble Truths or specifically the Truth of Dependent Origination one iota. 

 

btw Michaelson and Folk practice within the Burmese Visudhimagga interpretation of Theravada. There are less orthodox (non Visuddhimagga based) ways of practicing meditation within Theravada that don't rely so heavily on the 16 "insight" knowledges which were added 1000 years after the inception of Buddhism.

[Edward theurj Berge]

If you're accusing me of denying dependent origination then your mistaken view is being badly 'obstructed.' I've been a most vocal proponent of it from the very beginning of my online writings. And, I might add, a most vocal opponent of certain developmental models, or at least aspects of them. But you're a busy man making hard-earned money to keep up with these distinctions, so I can understand the lack of understanding.

[hologram holomovement]

@E

nobody has plans on paper to engineer anything. the entire economy as it is now could go on just as it is, but without owners and executive managers running the show and taking all the profits. it's called economic democracy, or socialism if you will. the workers can manage themselves and take the profits themselves too, just fine thank you.

this self-management of the work that workers already do, would be transitional towards an economy that is not just managed but also structured by workers themselves, in cooperation with other workers and between different businesses and industries, who would have the long term interests of the commons (environment and community) as the primary goal, rather than the current structure of 'profit for the individual few and fuck everyone else thank you very much'.

[e]

@HH

Nothing is stopping people from pooling their resources and forming employee owned companies now in the current system. Looking at the list of most notable employee owned companies , I believe only 1 (Publix) is a fortune 500 company and it doesn't even make anything, it distributes food. You would think that all the fortune 500 companies would be employee owned because people who espouse Green values are far superior than Orange aren't they...what's wrong? Why isn't this so? Why do a few people with determination, vision and a willingness to work hard almost always outperform the herd? Look at the dying Detroit car industry. You would think 100 successful employee owned car companies would have come out of the ashes. But Elon Musk, an outsider risking his own cash, created one hell of a ride. I drove a Tesla Model S over the holiday...it is a potential game changer!

In my experience everyone needs a manager...otherwise people either slack off or don't have a corrective feedback mechanism for mistakes. It is just about impossible to look objectively at your own performance.

Let's look at this profit making for a few business that many accept as a truism. If we look at any medium to large company, the amount of profit is small in comparison to the amount that is paid in materials, labor, overhead, etc...that is put back into the "system". If you look at any income statement, the money paid to the evil devils i.e. management, ownership or stock holders is a rather small amount comparatively. Ashton Kutcher was recently railing on Walmart for keeping 5% of their profit. If you risked your hard earned cash in an investment would a 5% return make you sing and dance? 

[e]

theurj said:

If you're accusing me of denying dependent origination then your mistaken view is being badly 'obstructed.' I've been a most vocal proponent of it from the very beginning of my online writings. And, I might add, a most vocal opponent of certain developmental models, or at least aspects of them. But you're a busy man making hard-earned money to keep up with these distinctions, so I can understand the lack of understanding.

e said: 

Edward  I was responding to your question in this thread. "So this path [Right View] is defunct in an evolving dharma?" I don't read all your posts and so am not privy to all your opinions. I was just trying to connect the dots for you on Right View and Dependent Origination as you did not understand the relation i.e. Right View is Dependent Origination. BTW the 8-fold path is considered 1-path not 8 separate paths. It's like an 8 cylinder engine...when all are firing you motor down the path. You're welcome. 

[Edward theurj Berge]

"I was just trying to connect the dots for you on Right View and Dependent Origination as you did not understand the relation i.e. Right View is Dependent Origination."

Seriously? Again you've misunderstood my question, which was asking if for Michaelson there was no right view, given his referenced statements. If you're going to make claims about what I mean then perhaps you should just read the few referenced posts to get the context.

[Edward theurj Berge]

As evidence in support of my meaning of the question in question, see this short post where I question Michaelson's notion of bare, interpretation-free experience. That led to my question in this post, just 2 posts later, wondering then how Michaelson handles right view given the foregoing. If one has spent just 2 minutes or less reading those two short posts then it seems unlikely to have led to the assumption that I didn't know what right view meant.

I'm thinking this is more a case of that uncle at family holidays, who not only doesn't keep up with the family but walks into the room during an ongoing conversation and takes one statement out of context. He then interrupts and pontificates on that statement with something entirely unrelated in an attempt to prove to himself and others how brilliant he is, while in effect just making as ass of himself.

[Balder]

An interesting (and, within the Tibetan community, controversial) confessional from the "new" Kalu Rinpoche, reflecting on his past struggles, the problems with institutional Buddhism, and possible ways forward for his lineage.

 

[Balder]

Finally putting two and two together: I was browsing the forum this morning and came across an old post, Polytheism and Nonduality, which never generated any discussion, but which I now recognize is authored by the author of Evolving Buddhism, Jay Michaelson.