Addressing your comment in full would take thousands of words, so here are just a few of the things you are asking for.
Cyberbuddhism draws much of its terminology from Therevada, so terms like “stream entry” are borrowed from Therevada. However, how these terms are defined in Therevada vs Cyberbuddhism can differ a litt or a lot. Therevada defines terms like “stream entry” using the Pali canon. Cyberbuddhism uses the Pali canon as place to start, but ultimately defines these terms from contemporary phenomenology. Where modern-day observations conflict with the Pali canon, Cyberbuddhism goes with the modern observations.
Zen can be extremely effective at generating insight. The trouble with using Zen as a foundation for Cyberbuddhism terminology is that Zen is allergic to maps. Most of my personal practice data comes from Zen, but is then presented through a Therevada frame. I feel this is good epistemic hygene, because if results are replicated through different traditions, then that’s a good signal they’re pointing to something real.
Vajrayana plays a smaller nonzero role in this. They excel at stuff like sleep bardo, which is interesting for the scientific study of consciousness, but not an essential checkpoint on the path of awakening.
Zen and Vajrayana are both “Mahayana”, but that’s just formal taxonomy. I prefer to look at Zen as a Mahayana coat of paint on top of a Buddhist + Daoist core. In this way, Daoism plays a role in Cyberbuddhism too, albeit a quiet one. Daoism, like Zen, can be allergic to maps.
“Prediction error” will eventually need to be included. “Prior beliefs”, however, I believe is an ontological mistake Rationality made early in its formation. (Explaining why is beyond the scope of this comment.) I believe that “affect” is a more precise than “emotion”.
Addressing your comment in full would take thousands of words, so here are just a few of the things you are asking for.
Cyberbuddhism draws much of its terminology from Therevada, so terms like “stream entry” are borrowed from Therevada. However, how these terms are defined in Therevada vs Cyberbuddhism can differ a litt or a lot. Therevada defines terms like “stream entry” using the Pali canon. Cyberbuddhism uses the Pali canon as place to start, but ultimately defines these terms from contemporary phenomenology. Where modern-day observations conflict with the Pali canon, Cyberbuddhism goes with the modern observations.
Zen can be extremely effective at generating insight. The trouble with using Zen as a foundation for Cyberbuddhism terminology is that Zen is allergic to maps. Most of my personal practice data comes from Zen, but is then presented through a Therevada frame. I feel this is good epistemic hygene, because if results are replicated through different traditions, then that’s a good signal they’re pointing to something real.
Vajrayana plays a smaller nonzero role in this. They excel at stuff like sleep bardo, which is interesting for the scientific study of consciousness, but not an essential checkpoint on the path of awakening.
Zen and Vajrayana are both “Mahayana”, but that’s just formal taxonomy. I prefer to look at Zen as a Mahayana coat of paint on top of a Buddhist + Daoist core. In this way, Daoism plays a role in Cyberbuddhism too, albeit a quiet one. Daoism, like Zen, can be allergic to maps.
“Prediction error” will eventually need to be included. “Prior beliefs”, however, I believe is an ontological mistake Rationality made early in its formation. (Explaining why is beyond the scope of this comment.) I believe that “affect” is a more precise than “emotion”.