There are a lot of different ways to build a raft that floats. If you want to study rafts it’s useful to be able to speak about how different rafts are constructed and how the differ from each other.
The article speaks about providing a “praxis-based, post-metaphysical vision of the dharma”. That points in the direction of what the OP called mindlessness teacher.
Trying to be post-metaphysical is often about not thinking much about metaphysis and thus in this case staying with the metaphysics of concentration, equanimity, tranquility, mindfulness and suffering without thinking about whether those are the best concepts to use.
Trying to be post-metaphysical is often about not thinking much about metaphysis and thus in this case staying with the metaphysics of concentration, equanimity, tranquility, mindfulness and suffering without thinking about whether those are the best concepts to use.
Huh? The article’s very much saying that we should think about whether the traditional concepts are useful, and then it has an extended case study where it dismantles and reconstructs the four noble truths into a form that’s rather different from the common one but which it argues to support practice better. Whether its proposed new version is actually better is a question I don’t have a strong opinion on, but it’s certainly at least trying; the “mindlessness trainer” criticism seems off.
There are a lot of different ways to build a raft that floats. If you want to study rafts it’s useful to be able to speak about how different rafts are constructed and how the differ from each other.
The article speaks about providing a “praxis-based, post-metaphysical vision of the dharma”. That points in the direction of what the OP called mindlessness teacher.
Trying to be post-metaphysical is often about not thinking much about metaphysis and thus in this case staying with the metaphysics of concentration, equanimity, tranquility, mindfulness and suffering without thinking about whether those are the best concepts to use.
Huh? The article’s very much saying that we should think about whether the traditional concepts are useful, and then it has an extended case study where it dismantles and reconstructs the four noble truths into a form that’s rather different from the common one but which it argues to support practice better. Whether its proposed new version is actually better is a question I don’t have a strong opinion on, but it’s certainly at least trying; the “mindlessness trainer” criticism seems off.
I read the first few pages, if he gets more into actual concept development later on my charge might be too strong.