Buddhism in Metatheory

This unique vision entails enacting state-phenomenology as a means to create top-down semiotics. It is neither Christian, nor Buddhist, rather it is quasi-archetypal. You can’t create meaning through chaos, unless you follow left-hand paths. I recommend creating meaning through chaos, and chaos through meaning. 

There are two main visions attacking a complacency in Integralism.

Old School. 1. Divide reality into the two truths theory and then realize the absolute truth and 2. admit epistemic uncertainty. And that is just strictly from an absolute perspective WITHIN Buddhist interiors.

Yet an Integral Buddhist absolute perspective would be absolutely nuanced.

  1. Primarily it would visualize epistemic certainty possible through vertical (stage transformation) and horizontal (state translation) dimensions, unlike previous visions of Buddhism, which invalidate horizontal translation.
  2. Integral Buddhism says there are three particles of absolute knowledge, Self unity, other unity, and all unity (Tao), unlike previous Buddhisms which could not translate the absolute at variance, much less prove its absolute truths.
  3. It promotes scale orientation within science, postmodernism, as well as translating into the archetypal uniqueness of Christian Monasticism.
  4. Finally, an Integral Buddhist vision, will have to be a universal meta-hierarchical theology.
  5. Last, but not least, this unity of self, other, and all creates a new moral outlook which is archetypally unique remarkably integral and yet gratifyingly Buddhist.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: