The Winter issue of Tricycle magazine has just been posted online and one of the keynote articles is a fascinating and provocative one on what the author calls “neo-Early Buddhism.” Obviously the article is copyrighted so I can’t share more than a brief quotation from it here but I trust that many who post here have access to the magazine. It would be wonderful to hear your thoughts.
The author note is: “Bernat Font-Clos is a junior meditation teacher from Barcelona and a postgraduate researcher at the University of Bristol. His dissertation explores feeling tone in early Buddhist literature.”
And here’s the concluding paragraph of the article:
“The recent trend in dharma circles that we may call “neo-early Buddhism” differs in fundamental respects from the early Buddhist texts it claims as basis, and it should be more open about that. Chiefly, it is life- or world-affirming, which early Buddhism is not. I have argued that the doctrine that “everything conditioned and impermanent is dukkha,” one element of the rationale for wanting to leave the world, is a renunciant doctrine. Since in affirming life neo- early Buddhism affirms the impermanent and conditioned rather than attempting to get away from it, it is senseless for it to maintain that everything conditioned and impermanent is dukkha. I have suggested that this inconsistency stems from two things: from not instinctively regarding life as cyclical and from an emotional difficulty in disagreeing with the Buddha. The latter facilitates relating to those teachings that create cognitive dissonance in a way that is dishonest and unhelpful, planting the seeds of future confusion, stuckness, or even crises of faith, and that does not help to harmonize our values, our goals, and our means to reach them. I hope I am exaggerating.”