mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:33 amI, too, sometimes think his criticisms can sound confused. I think that the problem is that sometimes he critiques
misapplication of ideas and techniques and doesn't make clear the difference between the misapplication and the orginal. It's good to have this passage, which makes that very clear.
For the most part, Thanissaro Bhikkhu isn't writing reviews of particular works, this is why he rarely cites them.
He often criticizes particular ideas, but again, not as they are presented/understood by this or that particular author or school, but much more generally. That's why he doesn't (have to) cite particular texts directly.
aflatun wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:38 amAnd in his defense, many contemporary teachers
do mangle some of these doctrines (Buddha nature, rigpa, etc) via unfortunate cross pollination with various eternalist ideas (neo advaita), thereby violating the meaning of the source texts. So it is a problem.
And the general criticism strategy that he uses avoids all that.
The point is that there's a potentially problematic idea out there, such as "Buddha nature", for example.
If one thinks there are problem with "Buddha nature", one could address that by citing a specific author and a specific work. But that criticism would be applicable only to that specific author or work, no further.
Or, one could proceed more generally, and in general terms, point out what one thinks is the problem with "Buddha nature", whereby one's criticism applies to the premises one has pointed out as problematic. This approach is more widely applicable.
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:33 amI, too, sometimes think his criticisms can sound confused. I think that the problem is that sometimes he critiques
misapplication of ideas and techniques and doesn't make clear the difference between the misapplication and the orginal. It's good to have this passage, which makes that very clear.
This line of thinking can make one take for granted that "the original idea was a good one, but got corrupted over time". Such corruption is difficult or at least time-consuming to prove. It's much more cost- and time-effective to point out some general premises and address those. So, for example, it doesn't matter whether it's some Mahayana scholar or a Vajrayana scholar who has the most correct idea of "Buddha nature"; the real issue is that any assuming of a "true nature" is problematic.
And if there's one thing one can learn from Thanissaro Bhikkhu, it's time- and cost-effectiveness.