[Buddha-l] Re: Can an Air Force cadet have Buddha nature?

curt curt at cola.iges.org
Tue May 17 19:00:16 MDT 2005

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

>I can read well enough to see that the list of qualities is far from a
>neutral list of stereotyped metonymies. The subgroups are all "negative"
>images. In a discussion of how Buddhists can become more prominently engaged
>AS Buddhists in political causes, "quietists" would be deadweight. Recent
>posts make clear what you think of Christian fundamentalists. "Terrorists"
>speaks for itself. Nude starvationists strikes nonJains as abhorrent,
>whatever the karmic justification.
>So that just leaves "Zionists."
>Or turn it around. Should MORE Buddhists be quietists? More Muslims
>terrorists? More Jains starvationists?
>Apparently you are implying something negative would be the case if more
>Jews were Zionists, further implying that the non-objectionable type of Jew
>would be a non-Zionist.
OK - granted that the implication is that "Zionism" is a not so
great. As a matter of fact, it's not. Or at least that's my opinion,
and possibly that of Richard Hayes, but I wouldn't know.
But that leaves us with the question: so what? Is there something
wrong with criticizing Zionism? As far as I can tell, the book is
still open on how good of an idea it has turned out to be -
and that is being generous. Of course others may disagree.

>"Stereotypes?" You may be able to dazzle your undergrads with these sorts of
>rhetorical tricks; to the rest of us they are transparent. If you say it, at
>least own up to it... Right Speech and all that....
Own up to what? Oh, perhaps you are implying that 
Is that it? If that's the case, then perhaps you should do the owning 
up. If not,
then perhaps you could explain exactly what is so unforgivable about putting
Zionism into a very loose category of "dubious ideas associated with various
religious groups".

- Curt

More information about the buddha-l mailing list