zavk wrote:If it is, well, then, perhaps I better pay more attention to myself.
If you accept the quote that Aloka provided above, then I envisage that would be beneficial.
zavk wrote:what is being implied by this phrase 'academic activism'? Perhaps the implication that it just 'mere thinking' or a whole lot of 'over-intellectualisation', 'theorising divorced from practice', etc?
Activism = "Or at least, recognise that conceptual grouping is necessary for certain strategic
purposes" (i.e. focus on manipulating the outer world of society in preference to manipulating the inner world of yourself)
Academic = Your opening post, laden with such conceptual groupings and classifications, disconnected from individual experience (i.e. loka) except for where you talked about your
personal relationship to certain narratives.
Whereas he, "who does not grieve for what is non-existent truly suffers no loss in the world". Your concepts only exist when you manifest them, and by trying to call out "marginalised" groups you're encouraging others accept them, to reify them, and do likewise - i.e encouraging people to "buy into" these unnecessary delineations between people.
zavk wrote:I have definitely encountered such sentiments in the thousands and thousands of pages of this very forum itself - where (and who can honestly deny this?) A LOT of time and effort, a lot of energy, is invested in a certain discursive practice that judges, evaluates, and even excludes, people on the basis of how they construct their arguments, whether they back up their claims with references to this or that text or not.
I dunno.... it all appears very 'academic' to me.
And indeed it is if it has no direct relevance to one's experience/life/practice, which is precisely why I have no interest in "debate".
zavk wrote:in the suggestion that because you disagree/cannot relate/are not prepared to see things from my perspective
I can see it - I just don't think it's efficacious in the context of the Dhamma for the reasons outlined previously.
zavk wrote:When does it become a habit, good or bad, of others and not oneself?
I cannot find it just now but there is a sutta in which the Buddha gives general/non-situational advice saying that whatever contemplations or objects of attention give rise to wisdom, non-aversion, non-greed are good... whereas those that give rise to ingorance, aversion and greed and not good. Hence the importance of mindfulness in knowing this for oneself, so one can act appropriately.
Finally, I agree with Nanavira Thera when he said... "Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha s Teaching. But human kind, it seems, cannot bear very much reality: men, for the most part, draw back in alarm and dismay from this vertiginous direct view of being and seek refuge in distractions." To me, academic conceptualizations of the type promoted earlier are distractions.... i.e. thinking disconnected from the goal.