Speaking for myself, I found the assessment about labeling all experiences as good, bad, or neutral (and then ignoring the neutral bin 99% of the time) to be right on the money.
I also find the rollercoaster metaphor to be pretty on the money as well. Yes, there are nice experiences, but they do not last forever and in the end are empirically unsatisfying; as a result, their shadow side is that we compulsively try to attain them, thus causing suffering.
Not sure where you are getting the postmodern vibes from, this is basic buddhism dogma for the last 2500 years. It seems the very thing the author is pointing out is what is ticking you off: this is a shared experience of all humans. But I don't think that just because its a lowest common denominator is a reason to dismiss it out of hand as a manipulation.
They're all sensible abstractions of the way we think, but to judge the problems developed by this framework as the root of all dissatisfaction is to take it too seriously. To pass off this conviction as truth is then dishonest. By this model, we're clearly dishonest all the time, but the author does a disservice to the reader through the holier than thou rhetoric.
Postmodern angst isn't the introduction of new ideas on the global scale, just a particular rehashing of them that has resonated with consumerist America for the last 50 years. Perhaps it's safest to say there are many outlooks on human suffering, but any and all ways of saying them are insufficiently precise to have claims of solutions be anything more than delusion.
So now, I'll apologize beforehand should I misspeak, but I believe the heart of the study of meditation is wrapped up in just doing meditation because talking about it only occludes one's understanding of the practice. With that in hand, I find the article even more disingenuous. Whatever happened to good old koans? Just because they're tricky doesn't mean they were an accident.
Shut up and meditate. Or exercise. Or backpack. Or go dancing.
Yeah, but "Buddhism" in the US means Soto and (especially) Rinzai Zen, since the Beats (esp. at the San Francisco Zen Center) did so much to popularize it. Otherwise, Buddhism has mostly stayed in local ethnic enclaves.
Insight meditation, a.k.a. "vipassana", has made big strides, thanks to Insight Meditation Society in Massachusetts and Spirit Rock in California, as well as S.N. Goenka's centers around the country.
Regarding Zen, koans are a feature of Rinzai, whereas Soto centers on just sitting.
I also find the rollercoaster metaphor to be pretty on the money as well. Yes, there are nice experiences, but they do not last forever and in the end are empirically unsatisfying; as a result, their shadow side is that we compulsively try to attain them, thus causing suffering.
Not sure where you are getting the postmodern vibes from, this is basic buddhism dogma for the last 2500 years. It seems the very thing the author is pointing out is what is ticking you off: this is a shared experience of all humans. But I don't think that just because its a lowest common denominator is a reason to dismiss it out of hand as a manipulation.