Comments on “Diversity, generalization, and authenticity”

‘It may be useful sometimes to mentally replace the word “tantra” with “Chapman’s confused ideas.”’

I laughed for about 20 seconds. Thanks.

:-)

Tantra is alot like Gnosis

Thank you; you say so well what I have been thinking about my own explorations; I need to figure out how to crib from your style sheet.

Authenticity is certainly a slippery slope best left to professional Buddhists and fundamentalist adepts. This is why in part I liked your definition of Tantra as an attitude of ‘Spacious Passion’ so much. It reminds us that social, religious and political structures are simply humans playing out their ideas. The experience is not found in the external structure, but directly and nakedly through a direct encounter. To experience the attitude as you have defined it means to have a human experience accessible to anyone without the need for a hierarchical structure to confirm or affirm its validity. The idea and ideal of Buddhism is so often lost in the outer form of Buddhism and its human patriots and their all too human limitations. A new Tantric Buddhism would need to provide space for individuals to lose the labels and swim in unknowing.
I’d also throw in the recommendation to encourage the right form of Beer drinking :)

Wow, that was a whole post devoted to one large caveat. I can hear the tribulations of prior comments on prior posts behind your words. I can hear the wisdom of years of building dialogue skills. Nicely stated.

I can also substitute the phrase “authentic Christianity” [or authentic anything] for “authentic Buddhism” and this essay still makes sense. For as progressive Christians try to offer a reforming voice in their community, the objections and vitriol are similar. Your message does not speak to Buddhists only, it speaks to one of the many deep aspects of mind shared by us all: how to dialogue about suggestions, change and challenges.