Sean recently shared with me an essay titled, "How Nonsectarian is 'Nonsectarian'?: Jorge Ferrer's Pluralist Alternative to Tibetan Buddhist Inclusivism." 

Here is the abstract, and the essay is attached below.

"This paper queries the logic of the structure of hierarchical philosophical
systems. Following the Indian tradition of siddhānta, Tibetan Buddhist
traditions articulate a hierarchy of philosophical views. The ‘Middle Way’
philosophy or Madhyamaka—the view that holds that the ultimate truth is
emptiness—is, in general, held to be the highest view in the systematic
depictions of philosophies in Tibet, and is contrasted with realist schools of
thought, Buddhist and non-Buddhist. But why should an antirealist or nominalist
position be said to be ‘better’ than a realist position? What is the criterion
for this claim and is it, or can it, be more than a criterion that is traditionspecific
for only Tibetan Buddhists? In this paper, I will look at the criteria to
evaluate Buddhist philosophical traditions, particularly as articulated in what
came to be referred as the ‘nonsectarian’ (ris med) tradition. I draw from the
recent work of Jorge Ferrer to query the assumptions of the hierarchical
structures of ‘nonsectarian’ traditions and attempt to articulate an evaluative
criteria for a nonsectarian stance that are not based solely on metaphysical or
tradition-specific claims."

Views: 965

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

hahaha

master of the community of the adequate hahahaha

you make me laugh. good for you. i also have 3 of such confirmations in 3 different strands....

doesn´t mean much as far as i am concerned in regards to these teachings who are not

a belief but a system of methods : that means experiments !

in any case with you evidently the parable of the horse applies :

well if you do not like to drink.....

fine with me : )

enjoy

cheers

mm

I'll drink from the well of verifiable scientific evidence, not some poisoned magical-mythical watering hole. I'm reminded of our discussion of Trivendi, and this post pointing to a discussion in which Julian participated.  From his second comment July 23, 2010 at 2:45 am:

"As for the transcendent spirit discussion – thanks, yea i am familiar with the various sources and was ( as a long term meditator and yogi) quite impressed with the idea for some time – it no longer holds water for me and seems only slightly less inspired by wishful thinking and an overextending of subjective experience into objective reality than say, belief in the book of genesis. wilber fell time and again into a kind of intelligent design in indian drag trap – and most of his readers take this as a great argument for some kind of disembodied transcendent spirit/god/ghosty/sky-daddy by any other name."

And Julian's comments in this post:

"The important distinction here is that we can influence one-another's biochemistry - and people who have worked on becoming more and more adept at this (like myself) can do this very effectively and in ways that may look almost magical to the untutored eye. but it is not magical - it is real, repeatable, innate and anyone can learn how to do it. Around these kinds of experiences [...] people have usually added a magical/mythic interpretation or story line based in our pre-wired brain fart tendency to explain various compelling subjective experiences via some kind of supernatural agency. this has always been a mistake.

"Regardless of the legitimate existence of various 'energetic' experiences between people, one should not buy into the contemporary version of supernatural explanation mixed in with pseudoscience claims of being able to affect molecular structure, DNA, change the past, use the power of intention to manifest physical realities etc... this is hokum and hogwash and is not in any way linked to the reality of feeling your 'prana' coursing through the nervous system in a yoga class, or seeing someone go through potent unwinding and altered states. No-one can affect molecular structure with their mind, water does not respond to the 'energy of thoughts.'"

Back then andrew followed with this statement:

"Exactly! and by that correct standard we can easily dismiss the supposed scientific claims as rubbish at the moment! not to mention the always present implication with these vedic sages that true reality was always nailed precisely by hinduism. [...] i personally really wouldn't have a problem with this sort of claim if the claim was faith based, but applying the scientific paradigm to these claims in the way it's been done with 'what the bleep', and all is intellectually dishonest, imo."

Water does appear to respond to the energy of thoughts, though -- every time I lift my hand to drink my cup of coffee, my 98% watery limb is responding to my thought: l want another sip.

(Speaking of which, I'm just about to direct my water body all the way to the coffee shop for my morning cuppa.  Happy Easter, all!)

And can your thoughts turn your body water into wine? The blood of Christ? I'm talking literally, not figuratively. That is the issue here.

This is probably just my morning meditation speaking but it is hard to see why anyone would have strong feelings on this topic. Obviously things that are impossible are impossible. Obviously things that are unproven and extraordinary may be possible but require impressive proofs if they are to have external validation. Obviously thoughts have some manner of exchange with bodily energy fields which are themselves of various kinds and have various forms of exchange with other material systems which have a "proximity" permitting interaction with their information flows. Obviously the enthusiasts in any population prefer flowing feeling-excitement to accuracy. Obviously there is a place for both in our conversations. Obviously people who see the experiential and logical "slot" for certain phenomenon are often a little too eager to affirm its apparent validation in the external world. Obviously other people are a little too eager to take questionable elements as strong disconfirmation. Obviously the transformation of water into wine is not physically impossible. Obviously the spiritual transformation of water into wine as a literal event is extremely improbable... especially when placed in the context of symbolic events which themselves lack any significant historicity. Obviously flakery and cynicism are two of the most common moods which hold back the trans-rational Dionysian Cultural Revolution.

Is that all obvious? Maybe it's just me.

Happy Chocolate Resurrection

& Pastel Sex Bunnies

Floral Spring Passion Holy Weekend!

A truly and divinely human ritual...

Hey, i've had two strange rainbow events in the past 14 years connected to Wilber meet-ups. Very specific and auspiciously timed but definitely concede these events as being random  coincidence. 

I agree, in general, with Layman. The historicity of ALL religions is dubious, at best. My own view is that no tradition was handed down pure and untouched. My own view, is that if god exists and can somehow interact with humans, god is capable of finding any human he/she/it chooses to interact with. In saying this, i am questioning the absolute certainty of the master/disciple paradigm. Once again, science has nothing to say about god because if there is a god it could never be calibrated by our instruments. If angels exist, we are probably 500 years away from being able to have an instrument that could calibrate their level of existence. My own view is that when humans die they are dead; that is pragmatically all we are certain of. That any view of life after death is a spiritual hypothesis based in faith and i believe there are two kinds of faith: good faith and bad faith. People who claim science /spirituality claims are bogus whether Chopra/Wilber/Trivedi/The Secret/ oh, the list is endless; we can especially judge their bogusness to the extent that they align with mammon. The primacy of consciousness and panpsychism are spiritual hypothesis and should be treated as such; as matters of faith. Scientists are free to conclude that from all the evidence they have gathered that they don't need god to explain the working of things. This does not necessarily mean that god doesn't exist. This should be obvious!

It should also be obvious that not everything Wilber/ Chopra/Trivedi says is bogus; but specifically, claims that conflate science to spirituality. 

mm tends to view this possible phenomenon as a bottom up process and i tend to view it as top down phenomenon. In my mind, this contradiction is okay, if we could learn to hold these ideas with a great deal of uncertainty. 

from your comments i see that you do not understand what i am talking about,  theurj, comparing apples to pears .we are not talking the same fruits here at all.

it doesnt matter to me. since you are caught up inside the western reality mind frame (which in your case will only lift at death it seems ) there is no ground for any further discussion.

in any case if you have been "confirmed " then that means you will loose since you entered and arrived or in other terms : you are just inside some terms against other terms : this is it but this is not it  : )))

taking you serious gets more difficult by the minute. i thought you are a madhyamika expert ?

there is no confirmation for the self evident.

mm

especially i cant see what trivedi/chopra/wilber has to do with any of my rbb posts here.

i tell you what they have to do with my posts : absolutly fricking nothing at all.

so much for capacity of discrimination. when i said :get your head out of your books long enough to see

i meant just this. for me it is no problem IF you choose to drag me into some dubious stupid corner

it YOU who loose not me , for ignoring ........

simple as that.

stay inside your limits, if you prefer .....fine with me , really : ))

happy easter

mm

no theurj THAT is precisely NOT the issue here , its what you want to see ,given,

BUT it is not what the issue is in my post. nope.

. thats why say :take a closer look , you are on your own little trip here.

you seem to not understand the difference between "belief" and "applied method".

as i said : no faith in absolutly nothing is required.

so why you try so hard to drag me into some theistic belief frame ?? why indeed.

you seem to have some very big chip on your shoulder thats bugging you ,

some kind of old shadow issue ,hmm? in any case this "belief" is not over here : ))

sorry to say ,maybe its a good idea to go an get a mirror.

but this is quite an interesting discussion development , its going everywhere just not where the issue actually is. by the way ken disses rbb and the methods in his IS i forgot the page exactly maybe 147

so you and ken are on the same page for once : )))))

mm



theurj said:

And can your thoughts turn your body water into wine? The blood of Christ? I'm talking literally, not figuratively. That is the issue here.

"I'll drink from the well of verifiable scientific evidence"

skoll : )

"wilber fell time and again into a kind of intelligent design in indian drag trap – and most of his readers take this as a great argument for some kind of disembodied transcendent spirit/god/ghosty/sky-daddy by any other name."what has this to do with .......what i highlighted ?

mennagde trekchö/tögal teachings ....and some big daddy in the sky ????

i am not a 7th day adventist , neither has dzog chen something to do with

"some kind of disembodied transcendent spirit/god/ghosty/sky-daddy by any other name."

strange that you.. balder ...are so silent on this issue......

i admit i misjudged the closed mindedness of this site considerably but....

and  my nice easter bunny gift,....

seriously misfired ....but then..

well i thought we are open minded people and therefore look at all things...

sort of unbiased : )))).....not so i learned , hm,..

but as an experiment it certainly was worth it ,

so even though it did not bring the  expected results but still.....

it was very revealing .and very clarifying as well.

would i do it again? no, not worth the trouble .....

it has always been one of my shortcomings....too generous . far too generous for my own good

yep , this discrimination business , when to speak and when to remain silent ....i´ll never learn.

oh well done  is done and easter is ...over

mm

mm

theurj said:

I'll drink from the well of verifiable scientific evidence, not some poisoned magical-mythical watering hole. I'm reminded of our discussion of Trivendi, and this post pointing to a discussion in which Julian participated.  From his second comment July 23, 2010 at 2:45 am:

"As for the transcendent spirit discussion – thanks, yea i am familiar with the various sources and was ( as a long term meditator and yogi) quite impressed with the idea for some time – it no longer holds water for me and seems only slightly less inspired by wishful thinking and an overextending of subjective experience into objective reality than say, belief in the book of genesis. wilber fell time and again into a kind of intelligent design in indian drag trap – and most of his readers take this as a great argument for some kind of disembodied transcendent spirit/god/ghosty/sky-daddy by any other name."

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2020   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service