tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post6274810265960251542..comments2024-03-27T02:13:58.088-07:00Comments on Integral Options Cafe: My Review - Alberto Villoldo: Illumination: The Shaman's Way of Healing (Hay House)william harrymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-29321075892665654842010-05-04T19:11:41.899-07:002010-05-04T19:11:41.899-07:00Sorry if my tone was a little condescending in my ...Sorry if my tone was a little condescending in my original reply. Its just that I read your blog every day and have on occasion disagreed with some of your comments on Tibetan Buddhism while still respecting your opinion. But this just seemed like a complete misinterpretation, even if it is one that some Tibetans make when explaining how the madhyamaka view is superior to cittamatra.<br /><br />I haven't read any B. Alan Wallace, but for a long time I've thought, as you say, that Fritjof Capra was "wrong from the physics perspective and wrong from the... Buddhist perspective as well"Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693815875658046844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-34738351041462207412010-05-04T18:27:09.273-07:002010-05-04T18:27:09.273-07:00Thanks for the clarification, John - I'm happy...Thanks for the clarification, John - I'm happy to be wrong.<br /><br />My understanding that Tibetan Buddhism holds a "mind only" view largely comes from B Alan Wallace and his efforts to combine Buddhism and physics (I'm more a Theravadan Buddhist, although most Buddhists object to me calling myself a Buddhist because I reject reincarnation). It always seemed wrong to me from the physics perspective, now I know it's wrong from the Tibetan Buddhist perspective as well.<br /><br />Thanks for sharing.<br /><br />Peace,<br />Billwilliam harrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-4475784838972521482010-05-04T18:07:37.632-07:002010-05-04T18:07:37.632-07:00The philosophical view that is nearly universally ...The philosophical view that is nearly universally considered supreme in Tibetan Buddhism is madhyamaka but the anthropic egotism you describe does not correspond in any way that I can see with either the prasangika or the svatantrilka interpretation. Neither do I see any way to reconcile zhentong or rangtong madhyamaka with the views of Chopra and Lanza described in the linked article.<br /><br />The only Buddhist philosophical school which could potentially be confused with the new age/ pseudo quantum philosophy is the yogacara aka cittamatra (called "mind only") and often called "idealist". But both of those labels are misunderstandings. The second is an artifact of the attempt to understand Buddhist philosophy using western categories. Here it basically consists of thinking that Tibetan Buddhists are making ontological statements, when what they are talking about is more similar to phenomenology (viz. H. V. Guenther) The first is simply an oversimplification, albeit one that Tibetans themselves make. Even if the oversimplified, distorted notion of cittamatra as idealist were true, no Tibetans any longer subscribe to the pure citttamatra view. A minority combine it with madhyamaka, an approach with which I have some sympathy, though I have some doubts about it's coherence. Once again I think it is unfair to reduce the combined view to "your mind creates reality." If you can find any quotations from Nagarjuna or his numerous commentators that sound like anthropic egotism I wish you would share them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693815875658046844noreply@blogger.com