POSTS:
Mike Slott
John Dewey, flourishing and Buddhism
Seth Zuihō Segall argues that the Buddhist notions of non-self, interdependence, impermanence, and dukkha need to be situated in the broader framework offered by John Dewey's pragmatic theory.
The path of the bodhisattva or ‘making the road’ through solidarity?
Mike Slott offers an alternative model to the path of the Bodhisattva, one based on the solidarity of practitioners 'co-creating' the transformative changes that we seek.
How Buddhist insights and values can help sustain political activism
Mike Slott explores the ways in which Buddhist insights and values can enable political activists to sustain their activity in various movements and to make a positive contribution to the organizations in which they participate.
The core life tasks and beliefs for a radically engaged Buddhist
Mike Slott, Katya de Kadt, and Karsten Struhl offer an account of the core tasks and beliefs for radically engaged Buddhists who seek not just individual transformation but the dismantling of social, economic, and political systems which cause harm and suffering to all beings.
A response to ‘The core life tasks and beliefs for a radically engaged Buddhist’
In response to the article by Slott, de Kadt, and Struhl on 'The core life tasks and beliefs for a radically engaged Buddhist,' Winton Higgins expresses his agreement with the authors' perspective, but points to a missing piece in the article: the lack of any discussion over a pathway or transition from our present morass to a socially just, future society.
Secular Buddhism as a ‘paradigm shift’
Jonathan Golden uses Kuhn's notion of a 'paradigm shift' to discuss the issue of 'truths' and 'tasks' in secular Buddhism. He argues that Kuhn's perspective is consistent with Mike Slott's view of truths and tasks; while there are no absolute truths, our beliefs (provisional truth claims) are a necessary precondition for our practice, and practitioners should not be required to make a binary choice between truths and tasks.
Reexamining ‘truths’ and ‘tasks’ in secular Buddhism: a dialogue
Mike Slott, Winton Higgins, Stephen Batchelor, and Jonathan Golden discuss the relationship of truths and tasks in a secular approach to the dharma.
Dharma in the shadow of Buddhism: a response to Mike Slott and Winton Higgins
Stephen Batchelor continues the dialogue on 'truths' and 'tasks' in secular Buddhism by framing the discussion from a broader, historical perspective. Stephen argues that the Buddha's radical move was to depart from the truth-based perspective of Brahmanic, Indian culture to teach a fully committed ethical life that is not underwritten by any ultimate truth.
Rejoinder to Winton Higgins on ‘Reexamining “truths” and “tasks” in secular Buddhism’
Responding to Winton Higgins' criticism of his view of the relationship of tasks and truths in secular Buddhism, Mike Slott argues that in rejecting metaphysical truths as the basis of Buddhism, we don’t need to reject entirely the notion of truth as correspondence. The beliefs of secular Buddhists are provisional and conditional truth claims about our lived experience and the universe in which we are inextricably embedded.
Response to Mike Slott’s ‘Reexamining “truths” and “tasks” in secular Buddhism’
In response to Mike Slott's article on truths and tasks in secular Buddhism Winton Higgins argues that Mike's critique of Stephen Batchelor's formulation is misconceived; the issue is not the epistemological status of truth but about how we should live and practise. Dharma practitioners do have to choose: they can’t wish-wash over the truths/tasks distinction.
EXPLORE BY SECTION
SEARCH THE SITE
RECENT POSTS
