I'm not a great fan of introducing concepts of non-dualism and dualism in general, because these are merely polemical devices that do not really help

Non-dualism and dualism could in fact easily be explained as one and the same

And then also not - the fundamental problem of philosophy

it's true they don't

But short of hitting each other with sticks what do you wanna do

Nothing really, but Brett is fond of pulling impossible claims, and he just produced another one, namely, that Zen is not transcendentalism

Take this for example "Cultivating non dual experience" this is an instruction which is purely philosophical, it demands elaboration, which leads down the rabbit hole

No argument there dude

"Cultivating concentration (of the mind)" this one is more intuitive

If someone asks "what is concentration of the mind" then you can apply the stick if you prefer

But the point is always in getting to work

Or shout

Stick is simply more Zen

still an action either way

But yeah

You're right

So is zen your deal?

It strikes me that Brett accepts so very few Nietzschean concepts and precepts, because he defines himself as Nietzschean (And I do not mean to belittle, I just speak what appears to me)

Interesting thing is that Nietzsche comprehends Buddhism as Phenomenalism which is kind of an interesting take, (and certainly more concise and measured than otherwise), but not entirely acceptable

It kinda works as an overgeneralized description of its methodology.

What grinds my gears is that categorical "imperatives" are still provided as explanations for things which well - demand explanation

People still explain reasoning with itself

Neoplatonism is often used as a backdoor, to use Brett's term, to the "same old" , for example, Catholicism

People still talk of "goodness" in the old way, where it is entirely subject to idiosyncrasies

I saw some spergy academic peer reviewed crap that missed the point in talking about Nagarjuna in concluding that he needed to defend nominalism and I'm like... did you even fucking read his shit?

Academic writing are good because they lead to you references which afterwards you read for yourself

Academic writings on most topics, and in particular Eastern Philosophy, is like a short description of a book on Amazon, you will read it to find what it is about, but then you will dismiss it and read the book for the most part

Wait who talks about categorical imperatives in regards to Buddhism?

You're right they are only good for the bibliography

No, that was a difression on what I said about Brett and NIetzsche

oh ok

Like, Nietzsche's and Brett's concepts of "goodness" are opposed

Brett's is Platonic, whereas NIetzsche almost hated Plato with passion

To be fair Brett has his own take regardless of influence

Another digression: the necessity to "reinvent" things without any real need to do so

Example, Catholicism (Or Orthodoxy for that matter)

Yes, I understand that Catholicism did come up with thinkers who embraced fully the transcendentalist viewpoint, beyond dogma, simple morality, et cetera

But in order to do that, they, and any susbequent thinker has to *reinvent* Catholicism

and then to insist that Catholicism is just that

For example, to embrace Qaballah from the same viewpoint, you do not really need to reinvent it at all

And then, if they are devout Catholics, which is always a handicap, they will insist that embarking on the path of reinventing Catholicism is the only proper, moral and right path