Almost everyone in this program has had the same problem. They've had to fight to keep their focus on the topic they want to do. What one person has told me:
She tends to push (sometimes strongly) her ideas for where we should take our research, and I, at least, find it rather hard to resist. Her "contribution" to mine was the youth aspect, and the idea of youth fashion as part of shaping identity. My strategy for keeping the project my own was keeping the focus overall on biracial identity in Japan. I tried to remain firm on that, which was my main goal in doing this project.
Hmm. My main goal, to sum it up in plain language, was to fight the way tantra has been vilified, abused, and misunderstood.
The best way to do that, because of the lack of new historical evidence I can bring to the table, is to point out--hey, the thing that's being vilified (in this case, sexual tantric practices) isn't that important to the whole of tantra. What's the point defining a tradition by something that nobody does? Here's the real present day world of tantra, here's what is important (tantric initiation) and this is what it is. Have a look. Golly. That's not so bad after all.
I hit a snag because of the secrecy concerning tantric initiation. I thought could give some things out that I can't. Also, I've identified that the problem partially lies with the tantric Buddhists themselves. They're the ones keeping secrets, which means it's irresistible to make things up about it. And you can't refute the crazy stuff because you can't talk about it.
My professor jumped on that. She likes secrets. She immediately started saying, "Well, why is it secret? What sort of people are attracted to secrets, what does that create...?" which is... no, no. I don't think that's going to end up where I want to go. That's going to end with "Hello! Look at these freaks!"
Then the research on secrecy (so far) is all about the subversiveness of this group (CIA, anyone?) or the elitism of that one (Freemasons, anyone?). It totally ignores that the nature of the secret and the purpose of the secrecy will shape it. The Buddhists? They're secrecy is because words change experience. They talk about "purity" as being the reason for this secrecy.
So I sat down and wrote my own theory, using a grab bag of language theory of meaning creation (semiotics), and research on intense totally non-linguistic indescribable experiences (medical studies of pain), to describe why there are some things you can't talk about without degrading the meaning like a bad Xerox. You end up using metaphors and analogies and those are only partially successful. Buddhism says that enlightenment is indescribable.
And (this part I haven't found a theory to support me yet) you actually change and lose the original experience as you yap about it. I need to find something about memory formation, but my experience says that memories get reshaped, reformatted in the telling. Sort of like an internal game of telephone.
Anyhow, that's as far as I got when I realized that it was all about defending secrecy, when I wanted to study tantric initiation.
no subject
Hmm. My main goal, to sum it up in plain language, was to fight the way tantra has been vilified, abused, and misunderstood.
The best way to do that, because of the lack of new historical evidence I can bring to the table, is to point out--hey, the thing that's being vilified (in this case, sexual tantric practices) isn't that important to the whole of tantra. What's the point defining a tradition by something that nobody does? Here's the real present day world of tantra, here's what is important (tantric initiation) and this is what it is. Have a look. Golly. That's not so bad after all.
I hit a snag because of the secrecy concerning tantric initiation. I thought could give some things out that I can't. Also, I've identified that the problem partially lies with the tantric Buddhists themselves. They're the ones keeping secrets, which means it's irresistible to make things up about it. And you can't refute the crazy stuff because you can't talk about it.
My professor jumped on that. She likes secrets. She immediately started saying, "Well, why is it secret? What sort of people are attracted to secrets, what does that create...?" which is... no, no. I don't think that's going to end up where I want to go. That's going to end with "Hello! Look at these freaks!"
Then the research on secrecy (so far) is all about the subversiveness of this group (CIA, anyone?) or the elitism of that one (Freemasons, anyone?). It totally ignores that the nature of the secret and the purpose of the secrecy will shape it. The Buddhists? They're secrecy is because words change experience. They talk about "purity" as being the reason for this secrecy.
So I sat down and wrote my own theory, using a grab bag of language theory of meaning creation (semiotics), and research on intense totally non-linguistic indescribable experiences (medical studies of pain), to describe why there are some things you can't talk about without degrading the meaning like a bad Xerox. You end up using metaphors and analogies and those are only partially successful. Buddhism says that enlightenment is indescribable.
And (this part I haven't found a theory to support me yet) you actually change and lose the original experience as you yap about it. I need to find something about memory formation, but my experience says that memories get reshaped, reformatted in the telling. Sort of like an internal game of telephone.
Anyhow, that's as far as I got when I realized that it was all about defending secrecy, when I wanted to study tantric initiation.