Our various responses to the talk seems a reflection on the gap between what one person says and and what other persons "hear" as salient (points of interest or importance) and therefor what they remember.
mikenz66 wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:09 am
Leeuwenhoek wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:35 am
... Or observe that concern about greed and illusion in this talk is mostly directly outward with little mind to creating a practice to uncover our own illusions.
Actually as I understand it, Bhikkhu Analayo's take is very much centred around internal practice. Examination of one's own greed, hatred, and delusion.
Also of the valuable role and practice of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement.
The talk is entitled "Internally and EXTERNALLY, holding it all
That title seems an accurate characterization of what was said in the talk. The title suggests that the talk was centred about internal and external things.
Not one but both. Also I have some personal experience with climate change science, scientific integrity, and environmental policy making. So my listening might be different from yours.
My description seems correct: The talk paid little to no mind to creating a practice to uncover our own illusions regarding our beliefs and characterizations of the external, physical world. (see more below)
It's possible that anything
said about external conditions, accusations about others, etc might
be said to be somehow "centred around internal practice". But that path seems like spreading a net of slippery eels.
So technically, you could argue, that for some meaning of "centred" and "internal practice" you description is somewhat reasonable. Somewhat reasonable as a partial description but incomplete. Incomplete -- that works as a summary of the talk. The talk assumes the rightness of the speakers views and preferences and assumes that differing views are the result of greed, clinging or illusion.
Where in the talk does the speaker do as you claim and have an " Examination of one's own greed, hatred, and delusion" regarding his advocacy and position on climate or environmental issues?
I say the talk privileges the speakers views and only selectively speaks of a practice that valorizes a critical examination of right views on the environment. I say I could put that case to a neutral panel of arbitrators and prevail.
Question for you: What point in the talk address a practice that critically examines one's own understanding and spin on the climate or other environmental issues? I don't know of one.
From comments early on that is this speakers usual "take" is centered around internal practiced. But I did not write about his usual take or other talks. I write about this talk. I enjoyed the moments when the talk focused on "internal dimensions" (min 43) -- but notice that that segment quickly move on to external dimensions and other persons.
The talk makes numerous references to
- other persons beliefs, teachings, and activities
measurable events (that is, external events
Other persons greed and delusion
How does one find a talk "centred around internal practice" alone in that?