“Benjamin makes the wonderful claim that boredom is the ‘dream bird that hatches the egg of experience.’”

And don’t forget Adam’s Sitting, Full of Shit

The question remains: Is there something about meditation beyond the polarity of infantile magic and stupid pathologization?

Thanks. But I am not interested.

In my opinion this stands out as the single most insightful and most relevant contribution to this thread, and perhaps anywhere on the site – brilliant !

…what makes the Laruellean heresy interesting is the way it provides a philosophically disinterested – which is to say non-normative – definition of the essence of philosophy. (Brassier)

with best wishes to you

You seem overly concerned with the persistence of misunderstanding, but you never say anything to demonstrate that the concepts themselves are inherently in “collusion with the capitalist status quo.”

Tom (# 98), what I am actually concerned with is your tacit persistence in upholding the very possibility of a separation between the context, in this case the transcendental Dharma, and “the concepts themselves” such as anatman or pratityasamutpada. I claim that this kind of decontextualization creates just a kind of mirage that conceals the virulent tendency of the protean Dharma to weave its own insights into the countless contemporary ideas and realities and replicate endlessly. This is the very root of the collusion that I’ve been trying to demonstrate, namely, the modern decontextualization of the x-buddhistic syntax occurring without acknowledgment of the fact that the sheer usage of those selected buddhemes is nothing else than the intermixing of the x-buddhistic potion of hope into the various contemporary discourses, of which Capital is the most powerful and eagerly willing to cash The Dharma 2.0 in.

I will stick around here for a few days longer – not only to provide Matthias with an easier target.

Thanks. But I am not interested.

Bye.

The idea that these “concepts/ budhemes” must never be used again because some idiots will insist on misunderstanding them in absurd ways is not convincing to me! They are, I believe, true and useful concepts, and I will continue to use them. I’ve explained elsewhere what I take emptiness to mean, and why I do not think it is merely a rhetorical gesture meant to “replicate the sufficiency of The Dharma endlessly.” You seem overly concerned with the persistence of misunderstanding, but you never say anything to demonstrate that the concepts themselves are inherently in “collusion with the capitalist status quo.”

So, no matter how creatively you employ the concepts/buddhemes such as anatman or pratityasamutpada they will always stay closely linked to the broad dharmic context and will continue to spontaneously recreate the fantasy of x-buddhistic transcendence. And in current era that will probably mean the passive collusion with the capitalist status quo.

I thought “I am reluctant to divulge anymore here” implied that there is something more to be divulged. Is there?

in truth some of the distinctions you want to make are so abstract and so wrong

Giving an example would allow a fruitful exchange. So far your criticisms amount to unsubstantiated claims of prejudice and bigotry and bad blog layout. What about a concrete example of what you think is so wrong here so that we can actually talk about something? I think the critical tools being developed here, as well as some of the first attempts at applying them are holding up pretty well so far.

One of the critical tools, for example, is called the Principle of Sufficient Buddhism. It is used to get at the fact that, contrary to its self-presentation as a form of knowledge-acquisition, x-buddhism relies on dogma, a dogma, moreover, grounded in a veiled yet all-encompassing transcendental operator–the Dharma. When I read on your website the following, I see something like this principle at work–let’s call it the Principle of Sufficient Yoga.

You might also have come across it in passing in academic study at higher education levels, as part of a subject such as complimentary medicine, psychology, philosophy or religious studies.

Others think yoga is a complimentary therapy, with professional standards whilst many Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and other contemplative traditions have an interest as an integral part of their cultural and religious heritage – and finally some folk even take part in Olympic-style competitions for postures!

However, the truth is that yoga contains all – but is not any one of these….

On this basis, there can be no ultimate, authoritative body in yoga at all: yoga is simply too vast and any attempt to regulate it will inevitably deform it.

Still less should any such body be afforded special treatment by any Higher Education, Health, Sport or Fitness authority – all of which are scarcely relevant to yoga. (Source)

That’s a perfect expression of sufficiency. Your website is pervaded by the forms and practices that this site is aiming to critique. Our time would be more fruitfully spent discussing the concrete details of your yogic/dharmic beliefs and practices in relation to our critique.